‘Bangladesh has no plan to cut ties with Pakistan’

[Nilgiri]

I agree with you on this 100%. Guess why they did that, I suspect they saved their fellow North Indian a**. Niazi surrendered to a Sikh, Indira a Kashmiri Pandit saved the lives of the surrendered 90,000, many of them I am sure committed war crimes. This was a big injustice to Bangladesh and this would not have happened if India did not intervene so early and let the war take its due course and allow the Mukti Bahini to slowly and surely choke the Pak army to death and do whatever we needed to do with them. Instead India intervened and saved them. For this Pakistan should be eternally grateful to India, but see what they are doing now out of gratitude.

Hindsight is 20/20. There was much call from Mukti Bahini for direct intervention at earliest opportunity. Also if India waited too long, then China/US friendship would have progressed that much longer and increased the chance of their intervention/extra pressure at some level....not to mention how many more victims and intellectuals would have been massacred by Pakistan (leaving Bangladesh even worse off economically when actual full liberation came).

Anyways it was a foolish, distasteful, arrogant thing done by India. We got that much result and leverage and squandered it all away just to feel better as gracious victors or whatever (Urdu/Hindi bonhomie)....rather than going for the cold hard justice. India - Bangladesh relations could have been much different if things did not start that way.

But now its time to accept the mistakes and move on.

What should be done by Bangladesh is rather than demand this from Pakistan, you should demand recognition of the genocide that happened. Still today I only hear holocaust, cambodia, rwanda etc...and even darfur being mentioned as official "genocides" in the major media circles. Bangladesh should seek to have that changed....maybe make 1 or 2 movies or a really good international quality mini-series or something like that about the events leading up to 1971 and 1971 itself....just so at least the world does not forget it.

Apart from the Kashmiris, most Pakistanis from big cities (especially Lahore) are very secular in nature and the trend is the same everywhere else. Because of the terror attacks people get this idea that Pakistan is a Islamic hub, but that doesn't particularly mean everyone there is religious minded.

Is this really an indication of such high secular principles?:

Muslim Beliefs About Sharia | Pew Research Center

Or you are saying islamic law is secular?

 

[PoKeMon]

Bangladesh and Pakistan are branches of same tree....................... they may set apart by fast winds but cannot be separated.............

Tree = India.

We both were once part of same country......

Country = India

 

[kalu_miah]

Hindsight is 20/20. There was much call from Mukti Bahini for direct intervention at earliest opportunity. Also if India waited too long, then China/US friendship would have progressed that much longer and increased the chance of their intervention/extra pressure at some level....not to mention how many more victims and intellectuals would have been massacred by Pakistan (leaving Bangladesh even worse off economically when actual full liberation came).

Anyways it was a foolish, distasteful, arrogant thing done by India. We got that much result and leverage and squandered it all away just to feel better as gracious victors or whatever (Urdu/Hindi bonhomie)....rather than going for the cold hard justice. India - Bangladesh relations could have been much different if things did not start that way.

But now its time to accept the mistakes and move on.

What should be done by Bangladesh is rather than demand this from Pakistan, you should demand recognition of the genocide that happened. Still today I only hear holocaust, cambodia, rwanda etc...and even darfur being mentioned as official "genocides" in the major media circles. Bangladesh should seek to have that changed....maybe make 1 or 2 movies or a really good international quality mini-series or something like that about the events leading up to 1971 and 1971 itself....just so at least the world does not forget it.

Actually Mukti Bahini top generals were opposed to direct intervention from India at that point, as far as I have read the history, for example figures such as Osmani, Zia, Taher, Ziauddin etc. India pretty much unilaterally decided to move in. To take credit for the victory? to save fellow North Indians? we do not know the answers to these questions yet or for what reason they decided as they did. Indira and RN Kao were both Kashmiri Pandits.

I agree it is time to move on from those past Indian mistakes.

As for Pakistan's role in 1947-1971, we need to find the correct narrative based on facts, figures and evidence. And this needs probably UN role for a proper investigation, before we can move on from that. This is our unfinished business with Pakistan.

 

[Nilgiri]

Actually Mukti Bahini top generals were opposed to direct intervention from India at that point, as far as I have read the history, for example figures such as Osmani, Zia, Taher, Ziauddin etc. India pretty much unilaterally decided to move in to take credit for the victory? to save fellow North Indians? we do not know the answers to these questions. Indira and RN Kao were both Kashmiri Pandits.

Well you have your side accounts, I have my side accounts....and both have been altered over time most likely with hindsight/politics as well. Indians take themselves too seriously so I can see that there will be some counter-arguments from Bangladesh to deal with this lopsidedness. I am content in believing its something in the middle....and we will never know for sure who wanted what exactly. The main thing is at least Bangladesh got liberation relatively quickly compared to most 20th century genocides/mass scale atrocities.

Things could have gone a lot better sure....but they could have also gone a lot worse. Thats why I dont delve into hypotheticals too seriously.

As for Pakistan's role in 1947-1971, we need to find the correct narrative based on facts, figures and evidence. And this needs probably UN role for a proper investigation, before we can move on from that. This is our unfinished business with Pakistan.

Well good luck on that. Problem with that is where is the limit to that? Can we all take British to court for the huge margin amounts they extracted under Raj (and also for the lost opportunity cost?)....when they kick up this much fuss over just a diamond?

UN has trouble dealing with even simple straightforward litigation regarding trade disputes/ownership/division/sharing of assets in current timeframe....back claiming stuff will just be filed away and never looked at seriously (I think). It does not help that Bangladesh did not file anything right away with UN after 1971 (or did it?).

 

[kalu_miah]

Well you have your side accounts, I have my side accounts....and both have been altered over time most likely with hindsight/politics as well. Indians take themselves too seriously so I can see that there will be some counter-arguments from Bangladesh to deal with this lopsidedness. I am content in believing its something in the middle....and we will never know for sure who wanted what exactly. The main thing is at least Bangladesh got liberation relatively quickly compared to most 20th century genocides/mass scale atrocities.

Things could have gone a lot better sure....but they could have also gone a lot worse. Thats why I dont delve into hypotheticals too seriously.



Well good luck on that. Problem with that is where is the limit to that? Can we all take British to court for the huge margin amounts they extracted under Raj (and also for the lost opportunity cost?)....when they kick up this much fuss over just a diamond?

UN has trouble dealing with even simple straightforward litigation regarding trade disputes/ownership/division/sharing of assets in current timeframe....back claiming stuff will just be filed away and never looked at seriously (I think). It does not help that Bangladesh did not file anything right away with UN after 1971 (or did it?).

Yes, hypothetical's are not important.

But the UN investigation is needed for the Pakistan matter because there is too much politically motivated exaggeration which is actually undermining our legitimate right to ask for reparation. It was theft and murder and this just happened 4-6 decades back, many of the perpetrators and victims are still alive.

Even if we cannot get back anything from them, it is needed for us to set history straight and answer the bs propaganda that is floating around from all sides.

 

[Tipu7]

DId Muslims ever recovered from Internal wars occurred right after third righteous caliph death and the death of grandson of Prophet PBUH ?. Your optimism will die in vain

We will see about that.......
Optimism is a way to manipulate public opinion about an event, nothing more. So working for real job and covering it will shell of optimism often give good results...... Particularly in geopolitics......

 

[Bilal9]

many of the perpetrators and victims are still alive

Not for very long. Even if a person then was in their twenties, they are now in their sixties.

it is needed for us to set history straight and answer the bs propaganda that is floating around from all sides

IMHO the best thing is for us to remember the facts of 1971 and 'never forget'. Setting history straight is a never-ending game as people will always try to manipulate and re-write history to suit their own agenda. But we should not forget three things.

1. The very forum we are sitting in now belongs to Pakistani professionals, whose generosity we are using in bad-mouthing their country. Where is our Bengali 'Vadrota' and 'Tehzeeb'? How are we the better people that we claim we are - when we do this?

2. The country Pakistan (and its present day citizens of a new generation in that country) are not to blame for what their forefathers did. Pakistan is not to blame for the butchery of a few of its citizens, although in 1971 they tolerated their Junta leaders. Just like you cannot blame today's Germans for the Nazis in 1940's.

3. We cannot expect Pakistan to be like Germany. They have officially banned racism and prejudice in Germany. They routinely teach school-kids In Germany how evil Nazism was. Germans produced and directed countless anti-Nazi films post WWII. Heck, the Japanese can't even do this, even today (look at Shinzo Abe). Pakistanis are a long way off to come to Bangladesh' level where racial and cultural harmony exists and tolerance of all cultures is high, although Pakistan boasts a superb collection of intelligentsia. We have to keep these 'moderating' facts in mind in dealing with Pakistan. Even today in some North Indian and Pakistani circles - Hitler is a revered figure (Mein Kampf sells like hot cake in train stations). Dilli Door Ast.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Tree = India.



Country = India

Would you like to be under Mughals or Pashtuns than-- again...for the next 1000 years..

 

[Rahil khan]

Tree = India.



Country = India

When was India a country before 1947 ?

 

[Mentee]

I am a Bangladeshi and my ideology of shariah endorsed by 80% Bangladeshis. Refer to pew research.. Be gone Indian shoooo shoooo

i thought majority of bengalis are sunnis

 

[kobiraaz]

i thought majority of bengalis are sunnis

Yes so?

 

[Riyad]

When was India a country before 1947 ?

It was called India / Bharat / Hindustan. It was a country under British empire. Present day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh were parts of ancient India / Bharat / Hindustan.

 

[Mentee]

Yes so?

you seems to me some tableeghi-deobandi

 

[Nilgiri]

you seems to me some tableeghi-deobandi

He is actually quite civil guy.

Being shariah supportive is not the same as fanatic extremist. Look how high even Indonesia muslims scored and they are quite tolerant progressive folk.

Now shariah is not secular, thats another matter that will have to be addressed.

Nothing to do with sunni/shia.

 

[Mentee]

He is actually quite civil guy.

Being shariah supportive is not the same as fanatic extremist. Look how high even Indonesia muslims scored and they are quite tolerant progressive folk.

Now shariah is not secular, thats another matter that will have to be addressed.

Nothing to do with sunni/shia.

i thought he being a tableghi/deobandi is just trying to hide behind the sunni veil, my apologies----