What's new

Battles of 1971

Status
Not open for further replies.
Although i can give each and all of yous a befitting reply with proper logic, but have been advised to let yous be frivolous for time being, however tomorrow is another day. Anyways, isn't it ironic that at the end of the day, you people still need a Pakistan platform to rant and gloat on. !!!
Talk about deprivation and desperation. :smokin::rofl::wave:
 
Last edited:
.
Anyways, isn't it ironic that at the end of the day, you people still need a Pakistan platform to rant and gloat on. !!!
Talk about deprivation and desperation. :smokin::rofl::wave:

I am not sure who all are being targeted in by your post however when i joined this forum i was told that this is an international forum where matters are discussed rationally without being biased on one's nationality...that's why you see so many members from various nationalities discussing so many issues that do not even link with Pakistan.....So i am not sure if webmaster/mods will like you calling it a Pakistani platform....

Please note that any defence forum will loose its value if people from other sides do not represent their POV...that is what a discussion is all about...We all make mistakes(read countries) and we should be open about admitting it rather than boasting about Pakistani Platform etc etc...Lastly as far as i know i enjoy the same powers as you and thus this forum is as much mine as yours...
 
.
I am not sure who all are being targeted in by your post however when i joined this forum i was told that this is an international forum where matters are discussed rationally without being biased on one's nationality...that's why you see so many members from various nationalities discussing so many issues that do not even link with Pakistan.....So i am not sure if webmaster/mods will like you calling it a Pakistani platform....

Please note that any defence forum will loose its value if people from other sides do not represent their POV...that is what a discussion is all about...We all make mistakes(read countries) and we should be open about admitting it rather than boasting about Pakistani Platform etc etc...Lastly as far as i know i enjoy the same powers as you and thus this forum is as much mine as yours...
A healthy discussion is always beneficial, one should benefit and move on but it's people who run in circles adamant to inflict and force their versions and beliefs, they are the real losers, hence i was addressing them. Mutual respect is unwarranted.
 
.
A healthy discussion is always beneficial, one should benefit and move on but it's people who run in circles adamant to inflict and force their versions and beliefs, they are the real losers, hence i was addressing them. Mutual respect is unwarranted.

Windjammer yaar there was a healthy discussion going on here ..you shared your POV and others who don't agree with you also shared their opinion..its not fair to think that every body has to agree with your POV...In the end we all are learning here..What you learned from your country is totally different from what we learned from our country..If you still belive in what you said is true counter their arguments with credible sources to back it up...
 
.
Windjammer yaar there was a healthy discussion going on here ..you shared your POV and others who don't agree with you also shared their opinion..its not fair to think that every body has to agree with your POV...In the end we all are learning here..What you learned from your country is totally different from what we learned from our country..If you still belive in what you said is true counter their arguments with credible sources to back it up...
Oh Bahi, most of these guys are oblivious to their history, like one was arguing, "What's wrong with shifting capital from Islamabad to Dacca"?
I mean how would you feel if Manmohan Singh announced he was shifting his office to Amritsar or Jalundhar. ? Hence it's a case of, much about nothing.
 
.
Oh Bahi, most of these guys are oblivious to their history, like one was arguing, "What's wrong with shifting capital from Islamabad to Dacca"?
I mean how would you feel if Manmohan Singh announced he was shifting his office to Amritsar or Jalundhar. ? Hence it's a case of, much about nothing.

With no intention of sounding like a professor if someone asks what's wrong in moving capital from Islamabad to Dhaka then please confront them...You know their POV is west pakistan did not treat east pakistan as equal...I can easily understand where he/she is coming from...Anyways you are the best judge of your reactions...My only request is not to brag about they being non-pakistani blogging on a Pakistani Defence forum....
 
.
DAWN.COM | Pakistan | The darkest December

In his landmark poem, The Wasteland, T. S. Eliot calls April the cruellest month. But to most people, December is the cruellest month, with its short days and long nights. To Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, the darkest December is the one that came in 1971. What happened then is well known. Why it happened is less well known.

Ambassador Arshad Sami Khan provided his take on the events in his memoir, Three Presidents and an aide. A fighter pilot who earned the Sitara-i-Jurat during the 1965 war, Sami was ADC to presidents Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Historians have pinned the blame for the secession of East Pakistan on Gen Yahya. Without absolving Yahya of his weaknesses, Sami says that a good part of the crisis predated the general’s arrival on the political scene.

At partition, Pakistan was split into two wings that were 1,000 miles apart. Many, including Lord Mountbatten, had questioned whether the glue of religion would be strong enough to hold them together. Since the two wings did not share a common language, it made no sense to impose a single language on them. Imposing Urdu, a minority language spoken in the west, made even less sense. But that was precisely what was done in 1952. Deadly language riots ensued in the east.

In the years to come, the west continued to rule the east. The Bengalis felt like they had traded one colonial master for another. The general elections of Dec 7, 1970 provided an opportunity to redress the grievances of East Pakistan and promote national integration. But the divided demographics delivered a politically explosive result.

The Awami League (AL) emerged with an absolute majority but all its seats were located in the east, where 55 per cent of Pakistanis resided. Sheikh Mujib, its leader, was called the future prime minister by Gen Yahya. Sami says this was just a façade. Yahya had never intended to hand over power to the civilians, least of all to the Bengalis. He had hoped that a fractured coalition would emerge, allowing him to continue as the all-powerful president.

He began to pressure Mujib into accepting a strong presidency with several ministries under the direct control of the president. When that failed, he tried to hatch a power-sharing arrangement between the AL and the PPP headed by Bhutto. That also failed. By now, the AL had sensed a trap and began a campaign of public agitation. Yahya accused the party of wanting to secede and playing into India’s hands. Sensing an opportunity, says Sami, Bhutto gave Yahya a strong hint that he would support a military solution. Yahya’s commander in the east, Lt-Gen Sahibzada Yaqub Ali Khan, opposed military action. His counsel was ignored and he was replaced by a man who would be reviled in history as the ‘Butcher of Bengal’.

Gen Tikka Khan launched a ruthless operation to crush the AL on March 25, dashing all hopes of making a democratic transition. Ironically, on that day the National Assembly was to have been convened in Dhaka. By June, the regime claimed that the insurgency was over. In reality, it had simply gone underground. Millions of refugees fled to Indian Bengal to escape the violence.

As autumn approached, Yahya realised that India was not going to sit idle. Bhutto was sent as the head of a military mission to Beijing with Lt-Gen Gul Hasan and Air Marshal Rahim. According to Sami, when these people returned home, they lied to Yahya and told him that if hostilities with India broke out, crack Chinese troops would cross the Himalayas to relieve pressure on the Pakistani garrison in the East.

Sami’s insightful recounting of history is pregnant with lessons. First, even with its two far-flung wings, Pakistan was not destined to break apart. No one had forced East Bengalis to join Pakistan. To preserve the union, the leaders in the west should have shared power with those in the east.

Second, during the 1965 war, East Pakistan felt abandoned with little military presence. West Pakistan proceeded to rub salt into the wounded psyche of the east by imposing upon it the humiliation of the Agartala conspiracy trials. These diverted attention from the post-war problems in the west and were designed to project the image of India as a perpetual enemy. The mass movement that unseated Ayub Khan later was conveniently blamed on India.

Third, even at this point, Pakistan’s unity could have been preserved. Mujib was willing to compromise on several of the Six Points. Instead, the regime blundered by not honouring the electoral outcome. A campaign to malign the winning party was launched. The AL’s unprecedented victory was blamed on the Indian intelligence agencies as if they could have duped the entire populace of East Pakistan into voting against their will.

Fourth, when the AL leadership refused to buckle, another blunder was committed by resorting to armed force on the presumption that the rebellion was confined to a few ‘miscreants’. The regime seriously over-estimated its ability to subdue a province of 75 million with a military force of 45,000.

Fifth, when war with India appeared imminent, Yahya knew the game was over. He could have sought ways to avoid war with India and let the east secede peacefully. The suffering of millions could have been avoided.

Instead, the regime conjured up dreams of Chinese and American intervention. The Indo-Soviet Treaty had neutralised China’s ability to mount any military operation against India. And the Vietnam War had sapped the ability of the US to get involved in a second Asian war. The salience of both developments was lost on Yahya and his advisers. They had naively expected their allies to bail them out.

And sixth, for three decades all governments that came after Yahya suppressed the Hamoodur Rehman Commission report into the war. It only saw the light of day when an India publisher posted it on the web.

Unless the bitter lessons of what befell Pakistan 38 years ago are shared widely with the people, the nation will continue to wallow in conspiracy theories. It is much easier to blame others than to blame oneself. But, as the Greek historian Polybius put it, ‘There are only two sources from which benefit can be derived: our misfortunes and those that befell other men.’
 
.
To deckingraj,

Sorry I can not answer u wholly. It will be a favour if any BD member, who agrees with my post#101 of this thread and think as like that post by me, will answer u.

But there was propaganda also to induce war situation.

I do not think that BD is only great. India is also great, the have many things to pride.
Hello,

I am not a BD member, but yes, I am a humble student of Pakistan’s history. As far as 1971 episode is concerned, that is true that both, the West and East Pakistan’s politicians were responsible and I would put the blame equally on the two parties. West Pakistan is more responsible because it was not only the politicians but the military and civil bureaucracy was also responsible and much more than the politicians.

You may choose to disagree with me, but allow me to say that East Pakistan’s demand of Bengali as the second national language was not correct (at least at that time). Lots of politics was played on this unnecessary issue. There is no doubt that Bengali was the single most spoken language in the united Pakistan (owing to the largest population of the East Pakistani Bengalis), but Bengali was not widely spoken or understood in the West Pakistan. Contrary to which, Urdu was spoken and understood in both, East as well as West Pakistan. Additionally, Urdu was a neutral language, as it was not the language of any ethnic population of the United Pakistan except for those who migrated from the Muslim majority areas of British India. To this day, I am failed to understand why East Pakistanis took the language issue so seriously. There is no doubt that Bengalis (both on the East and the West Bengal) love their culture and admire Bangla Bhasha more than any language.

Contrary to this, in West Pakistan, the Urdu was readily accepted in particularly by the Punjabis. No province played more important a role in the development of Urdu language in West Pakistan than Punjab. Most notable literary work was undoubtedly done by the people from Punjab albeit of the fact that Urdu was not their mother tongue. I heard from many older folks that in Karachi (where Urdu speaking mohajirs are in majority), a barbershop would have a signboard in English such as “Hair cutting salon”, while in Punjab (where fewer Urdu speaking mohajirs lived), it would have a signboard in true Urdu language “Zulf Tarash”.

Anyway, all I am trying to say is, the language issue unnecessarily stirred up the pot, and caused lots of misunderstanding between the East and the West Pakistan. The issue of language and so early in the life of Pakistan did lots of damage. It was from that point onwards, an antipathy developed against the East Pakistanis in the West Pakistan.

Than of course there were legitimate issues such as the underrepresentation of the East Pakistanis in virtually every department especially in the civil services and the armed forces; uneven distribution of resources (the financial problems got worse time to time due to the floods, and cyclones which frequented Bay of Bengal) etc. These problems could have been resolved if there was some continuity of the democratic process, but alas, first Iskander Mirza hijacked Quid e Azam’s Pakistan, and after him, Ayub and Yahya. In reality, during Iskander’s and Ayub’s time, there existed virtually no political process, and all was literally a one-man show.

The 1965 war unveiled the vulnerability of the East Pakistan against any possible attack from India. There is no doubt that the ‘realization’ of this vulnerability eventually emboldened India and the separatist elements (who existed long before 1971 because of the language plus other issues) who knew that if East Pakistan was ever attacked internally or externally or combined, the West Pakistan would never be able to defend it due to the geographical separation of the two wings.

Bhutto is the most misunderstood (at least in my opinion) person; he was blamed for the separation of the East Pakistan not only in the East Pakistan, but as much or perhaps more in the West Pakistan. First of all, Bhutto became a true leader and a politician only after the 1971 debacle. He started his career in the time of a dictator, Iskander Mirza; eventually reached to the post of the foreign Minister in the time of another Dictator, Ayub Khan. During all this time, he was not a politician but a very shrewd bureaucrat who could feel the pulse of the time. Bhutto was so close to Ayub Khan that he used to call him ‘Daddy’. It was only after the 1965 war, when Ayub realized that Bhutto was not that intelligent and foresighted as he used to present himself. After the war, Ayub’s fall was already started, and no one knew that more precisely than Bhutto, his foreign minister. Bhutto was approached by the Americans who were also through with weak and useless Ayub, and proposed him to establish his own political party. Bhutto left Ayub, came into public and lured them telling about the half baked stories of Tashkent agreement. The iron was red hot, people were fed-up of failed policies of Ayub and ever increasing inflation in Pakistan, and embraced Bhutto as their new hope. Pakistanis never realized that Bhutto was not one of them, he could never be; he had a feudal background, was literally raised and groomed by the Military Dictators, and who had started his party (PPP) with the advice and support of the American CIA.

The 1970 national elections…Awami league took the majority seats in the national assembly, followed by Pakistan People’s Party which arose as the majority party in the West Pakistan. All Yahya had to do was to invite the leader of the majority winning party to form the Government. He did not fulfill his duty, instead his refusal paved way for the demonstrations in the East Pakistan. He may have been under pressure by Bhutto, but could Bhutto force him not to invite Mr. Mujib to form the government? I do not think so. Yahya was not a weak president; he was the Army Chief, who had full support of the Army. If he had invited Mr. Mujib to form the Government, what Bhutto could have done? Gone on the streets? On which issue? That a majority winning part was invited to form the Government? I do not think that it was possible for him to bring the people on the streets following an illegitimate demand. So the blame does not fall as much on Bhutto as much it falls on Yahya Khan. Again, it was not Bhutto who unleashed the military might on the East Pakistanis, it was Yahya, under whose direct orders Pakistan Army went on conquering its own country. Things would have never turned that ugly if the military operation was not conducted in the first place which simply resulted in a domino effect. Things were no longer in control of Mr. Mujib and his senior party members as ordinary Bengalis wanted to defend themselves against the indiscriminate military operation. Undoubtedly, atrocities were committed from both the sides largely as a desire to take revenge of the personal losses. It is not that only Bengalis were massacred by the Pakistan Army/Security forces, non-Bengalis were also killed by the activists of the Mukti Bahini, proportionately less because they were already in minority.

But as I said above, all this could have been avoided if Mr. Mujib’s six points were considered favorably (none of which were non-negotiable), and if wisdom had prevailed over arrogance and racial superiority complex of the West Pakistan’s ruling elite class.
 
.
Hello,

I am not a BD member, but yes, I am a humble student of Pakistan’s history. As far as 1971 episode is concerned, that is true that both, the West and East Pakistan’s politicians were responsible and I would put the blame equally on the two parties. West Pakistan is more responsible because it was not only the politicians but the military and civil bureaucracy was also responsible and much more than the politicians.

You may choose to disagree with me, but allow me to say that East Pakistan’s demand of Bengali as the second national language was not correct (at least at that time). Lots of politics was played on this unnecessary issue. There is no doubt that Bengali was the single most spoken language in the united Pakistan (owing to the largest population of the East Pakistani Bengalis), but Bengali was not widely spoken or understood in the West Pakistan. Contrary to which, Urdu was spoken and understood in both, East as well as West Pakistan. Additionally, Urdu was a neutral language, as it was not the language of any ethnic population of the United Pakistan except for those who migrated from the Muslim majority areas of British India. To this day, I am failed to understand why East Pakistanis took the language issue so seriously. There is no doubt that Bengalis (both on the East and the West Bengal) love their culture and admire Bangla Bhasha more than any language.

Contrary to this, in West Pakistan, the Urdu was readily accepted in particularly by the Punjabis. No province played more important a role in the development of Urdu language in West Pakistan than Punjab. Most notable literary work was undoubtedly done by the people from Punjab albeit of the fact that Urdu was not their mother tongue. I heard from many older folks that in Karachi (where Urdu speaking mohajirs are in majority), a barbershop would have a signboard in English such as “Hair cutting salon”, while in Punjab (where fewer Urdu speaking mohajirs lived), it would have a signboard in true Urdu language “Zulf Tarash”.

Anyway, all I am trying to say is, the language issue unnecessarily stirred up the pot, and caused lots of misunderstanding between the East and the West Pakistan. The issue of language and so early in the life of Pakistan did lots of damage. It was from that point onwards, an antipathy developed against the East Pakistanis in the West Pakistan.

Than of course there were legitimate issues such as the underrepresentation of the East Pakistanis in virtually every department especially in the civil services and the armed forces; uneven distribution of resources (the financial problems got worse time to time due to the floods, and cyclones which frequented Bay of Bengal) etc. These problems could have been resolved if there was some continuity of the democratic process, but alas, first Iskander Mirza hijacked Quid e Azam’s Pakistan, and after him, Ayub and Yahya. In reality, during Iskander’s and Ayub’s time, there existed virtually no political process, and all was literally a one-man show.

The 1965 war unveiled the vulnerability of the East Pakistan against any possible attack from India. There is no doubt that the ‘realization’ of this vulnerability eventually emboldened India and the separatist elements (who existed long before 1971 because of the language plus other issues) who knew that if East Pakistan was ever attacked internally or externally or combined, the West Pakistan would never be able to defend it due to the geographical separation of the two wings.

Bhutto is the most misunderstood (at least in my opinion) person; he was blamed for the separation of the East Pakistan not only in the East Pakistan, but as much or perhaps more in the West Pakistan. First of all, Bhutto became a true leader and a politician only after the 1971 debacle. He started his career in the time of a dictator, Iskander Mirza; eventually reached to the post of the foreign Minister in the time of another Dictator, Ayub Khan. During all this time, he was not a politician but a very shrewd bureaucrat who could feel the pulse of the time. Bhutto was so close to Ayub Khan that he used to call him ‘Daddy’.

It was only after the 1965 war, when Ayub realized that Bhutto was not that intelligent and foresighted as he used to present himself. After the war, Ayub’s fall was already started, and no one knew that more precisely than Bhutto, his foreign minister. Bhutto was approached by the Americans who were also through with weak and useless Ayub, and proposed him to establish his own political party. Bhutto left Ayub, came into public and lured them telling about the half baked stories of Tashkent agreement.

The iron was red hot, people were fed-up of failed policies of Ayub and ever increasing inflation in Pakistan, and embraced Bhutto as their new hope. Pakistanis never realized that Bhutto was not one of them, he could never be; he had a feudal background, was literally raised and groomed by the Military Dictators, and who had started his party (PPP) with the advice and support of the American CIA.

The 1970 national elections…Awami league took the majority seats in the national assembly, followed by Pakistan People’s Party which arose as the majority party in the West Pakistan. All Yahya had to do was to invite the leader of the majority winning party to form the Government. He did not fulfill his duty, instead his refusal paved way for the demonstrations in the East Pakistan.

He may have been under pressure by Bhutto, but could Bhutto force him not to invite Mr. Mujib to form the government? I do not think so. Yahya was not a weak president; he was the Army Chief, who had full support of the Army. If he had invited Mr. Mujib to form the Government, what Bhutto could have done? Gone on the streets? On which issue? That a majority winning part was invited to form the Government? I do not think that it was possible for him to bring the people on the streets following an illegitimate demand.

So the blame does not fall as much on Bhutto as much it falls on Yahya Khan. Again, it was not Bhutto who unleashed the military might on the East Pakistanis, it was Yahya, under whose direct orders Pakistan Army went on conquering its own country. Things would have never turned that ugly if the military operation was not conducted in the first place which simply resulted in a domino effect. Things were no longer in control of Mr. Mujib and his senior party members as ordinary Bengalis wanted to defend themselves against the indiscriminate military operation.

Undoubtedly, atrocities were committed from both the sides largely as a desire to take revenge of the personal losses. It is not that only Bengalis were massacred by the Pakistan Army/Security forces, non-Bengalis were also killed by the activists of the Mukti Bahini, proportionately less because they were already in minority.

But as I said above, all this could have been avoided if Mr. Mujib’s six points were considered favorably (none of which were non-negotiable), and if wisdom had prevailed over arrogance and racial superiority complex of the West Pakistan’s ruling elite class.

Thanks for writing a post from a neutral ground. Your observations are mostly correct, but I will tell my observations here. About Bangla as one of the two State languages, you have to understand that after losing the political power in Bengal after Plassey and Buxar, the Muslims here avoided to attend schools where the medium of instruction was in English as well as Bangla. Muslims, used to learn Persian, Arabic and theology.

The once dominating muslims remained without a proper education until the beginning of 20th century. In the next 50 years, they advanced by learning both these languages and started to compete with the local Hindus in govt, non-govt jobs, trades as well as literature. Bangali muslims created quite a volume of literature in this small period.

Persian was the court language in Bengal until 1832. It was at this time that the British introduced English. Hindus had started to learn this lnguage after the Fort William College was established in Calcutta in 1805. So, when the language was switched from Persian to English, there was not a single Muslim who could remain in the govt job, where they were dominating the administration until then. Suddenly, they were regarded as uneducated.

It was a big blow for the Bangali muslims. Similarly, it was going to be another blow when the Muslim League govt of united Pakistan initiated a drive to oust Bangla and unilaterally impose Urdu on us. We can speak or understand Urdu, but since our education was in Bangla we were not in a position to compete with other Pakistanis such as Muhajirs and Punjabis had we accepted Urdu as the only national language of Pakistan.

So, from our viewpoint the language movement was correct. Today's people say many emotional words about the language movement. But, Pakistan was not divided because of language issue. It was divided on economic issues, jute and political witchcrafting by our leaders that you have observed. I have said in some other post that the martial law imposed by Ayub Khan was the initial point of disintegration of Pakistan.

Pakistani politicans and leadership should have followed the recommendations given by Prime Minister Muhammed Ali Bogra of Bengal. He propsed a balanced share of power between the two wings at the central govt. I do not remember all, but one of his proposals said that if the PM is from the east, then the President must be from west regardless of which Party wins the election.

Anyway, your other observation are also nearly correct. I will not venture into those. I wish other posters to make comments on those. Thanks.
 
.
Oh Bahi, most of these guys are oblivious to their history, like one was arguing, "What's wrong with shifting capital from Islamabad to Dacca"?
I mean how would you feel if Manmohan Singh announced he was shifting his office to Amritsar or Jalundhar. ? Hence it's a case of, much about nothing.
What was the point then the Capital was first built in Karachi, then to Rawalpindi and then to Islamabad. Why not Dhaka, then?
 
.
Oh Bahi, most of these guys are oblivious to their history, like one was arguing, "What's wrong with shifting capital from Islamabad to Dacca"?I mean how would you feel if Manmohan Singh announced he was shifting his office to Amritsar or Jalundhar. ? Hence it's a case of, much about nothing.

Yes "What is wrong??" Please tell and enlighten me.
 
.
What was the point then the Capital was first built in Karachi, then to Rawalpindi and then to Islamabad. Why not Dhaka, then?
Firstly, there was no Islamabad when Pakistan gained independence, hence Karachi was given the capital status, however when Islamabad was purposely built in early 60s, it became the overall capital for both East and West wings, Rawalpindi never had this designation.
In 1970 Awami League wins with majority and Sheikh Mujib is invited to take office, but he wants to shift the country's capital, the army HQ, the State bank and all others to Dacca. Now I ask the question, if East Pakistan was my country, how did say Sheikh Mujib considered West Pakistan, ? Wasn't that his country. !!! Secondly say Sheikh Mujib's conditions are met and all gets shifted to Dacca, what about the next election, say a political party in West Pakistan wins alas wants to drag back all to Islamabad once again, hence we end up playing musical chairs with the country's set up.
The tragedy is a great number of young Bangladeshi are oblivious to the silly political games that were being played in the 70s.
 
.
Hello,


You may choose to disagree with me, but allow me to say that East Pakistan’s demand of Bengali as the second national language was not correct (at least at that time). Lots of politics was played on this unnecessary issue. There is no doubt that Bengali was the single most spoken language in the united Pakistan (owing to the largest population of the East Pakistani Bengalis), but Bengali was not widely spoken or understood in the West Pakistan. Contrary to which, Urdu was spoken and understood in both, East as well as West Pakistan. Additionally, Urdu was a neutral language, as it was not the language of any ethnic population of the United Pakistan except for those who migrated from the Muslim majority areas of British India. To this day, I am failed to understand why East Pakistanis took the language issue so seriously. There is no doubt that Bengalis (both on the East and the West Bengal) love their culture and admire Bangla Bhasha more than any language.

Contrary to this, in West Pakistan, the Urdu was readily accepted in particularly by the Punjabis. No province played more important a role in the development of Urdu language in West Pakistan than Punjab. Most notable literary work was undoubtedly done by the people from Punjab albeit of the fact that Urdu was not their mother tongue. I heard from many older folks that in Karachi (where Urdu speaking mohajirs are in majority), a barbershop would have a signboard in English such as “Hair cutting salon”, while in Punjab (where fewer Urdu speaking mohajirs lived), it would have a signboard in true Urdu language “Zulf Tarash”.

Well Urdu - Bangla conflict was not the born child of Pakistan. The conflict even in smaller scale did exist in British era. There were conflict in Aligrah University as well in Bengali Muslim civil society in Calcutta. Bengali muslim never accepted Urdu even long before Pakistan was created.
Your blame towards politician for inciting Language movement is grossly misquoted. Sohrawardy, Fazlul Haque, Vashani were the leader of Bengal that time and they remained neutral. Infact Sohrawardy was not a Bengali, he was an Arab.
Punjab's acceptance of Urdu and Bengals rejection to it just make sense. Urdu is a cousin language of Hindi/Pujabi etc not Bengali. Also Bengali's status in literature and the number of people spoken to it made it unaccpetable to Eastern wing to accpet Urdu as their national language.

A lot of Pakistani poster were asking, why bengalis did not get rid of this and that, my question to them, "What w. pakistanis were ready to get rid to keep Pakistan united"? Why was it so wrong "If Dhaka were made capital of United Pakistan"?
 
.
Firstly, there was no Islamabad when Pakistan gained independence, hence Karachi was given the capital status, however when Islamabad was purposely built in early 60s, it became the overall capital for both East and West wings, Rawalpindi never had this designation.
In 1970 Awami League wins with majority and Sheikh Mujib is invited to take office, but he wants to shift the country's capital, the army HQ, the State bank and all others to Dacca. Now I ask the question, if East Pakistan was my country, how did say Sheikh Mujib considered West Pakistan, ? Wasn't that his country. !!! Secondly say Sheikh Mujib's conditions are met and all gets shifted to Dacca, what about the next election, say a political party in West Pakistan wins alas wants to drag back all to Islamabad once again, hence we end up playing musical chairs with the country's set up.
The tragedy is a great number of young Bangladeshi are oblivious to the silly political games that were being played in the 70s.

The point is, you can not keep everything in W. Pakistan when majority of poplulation living in E. Pakistan. In six point demand, it was Navy head quarter which needed to be shifted in Eastern Wing not the army head quarter.
 
.
Could the Gangaridai mentioned here be the Mauryan empire?? Wasnt the Mauryan kingdom the largest entity in India at that point?

Chandragupta Maurya founded the Maurya empire some time after Alexander left India and possibly after Alexander had died on his way back. Maurya Empire was the largest in the history of the subcontinent ranging from afghanistan to Bangladesh. Chandragupta started by conquering Bihar (Nanda at time of Alexander), then Vanga(which was Gangaridai at time of Alexander and presently West Bengal, Assam, Tripura). SO, yes eventually Gangaridai was in Mauryan empire but not at the time of Alexander.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom