What's new

Bhutto, India and the 1971 Surrender in Bangladesh

If we must interpret history as per our ideological bend, then let me say even british did not unify india because they left behind 600 princely states with the option of full indepence. It was Patel who unified india. But that unification was easy BECAUSE that unification was for a nation state - a MODERN concept. But nation of India already existed, and that credit goes to our civilisation, language, music, culture, religions and traditions. The only exception to that unification was economy politics in the name of a foreign religion.
 
. .
No disrespect to them, I did not mention them because they were before arrival of Central Asian Muslims in South Asia on a large scale. And India has already fragmented after unified states like Mauryans, Guptas and Palas were created centuries ago. Cholas and Marathas were regional states at best, so I do not believe they count. Only Turkic Delhi Sultanate and Turko-Mongol Mughals unified almost all of South Asia, AFAIK.

Mughals were nowhere even close enough to unite all of south Asia they were throughout their history constantly at war with Ahom kingdom in Northeast, Sikhs and Rajputs in North, Afghans in North West, Marathas in Central India(who finally defeated them)and didn't even reached south india and Chola Empire included regions which today encompasses much of of south India, sir Lanka, Andaman and Nicobar islands, Bangladesh, Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia infact apart of maurayans they were only other south asian empire who managed to capture areas outside subcontinent calling them regional power make no sense at all similarly for Marathas calling them regional powers is absurd
 
.
No disrespect to them, I did not mention them because they were before arrival of Central Asian Muslims in South Asia on a large scale. And India has already fragmented after unified states like Mauryans, Guptas and Palas were created centuries ago. Cholas and Marathas were regional states at best, so I do not believe they count. Only Turkic Delhi Sultanate and Turko-Mongol Mughals unified almost all of South Asia, AFAIK.

None of the Muslim empires ever ruled the whole of India. South India never really fell to any empire.

The closest anyone came close to ruling the whole were the Mauryans, and even they never held the extreme south.
 
.
Indian IB (or newly made RAW) was not capable enough to have conceived and executed all the subversion activities in East Pakistan that brought small amount of Pakistani Army to it's heels. There was a concerted effort from USSR which provided India all the planning to execute and foment unrest and militancy in East Pakistan.

When USA was stopping all the Military Aid, during every conflict, to Pakistan (for which it was the main supplier) and India (which had multiple suppliers) , USSR was selling arms to India at 'Cut-Price' to build a strategic allaince against USA and China. In both 1965 & 1971 wars Pakistan, at the end, was almost without ammunition to fight any further. That is why, most of the Pakistani arms industry - including the nuclear deterrence - has developed after 1971. This was the first positive lesson of the war - Never Again.

During 1965 war, Ayub Khan secretly visited China and met Chinese Premier Chou En-Lei who offered Pakistan unconditional support but also warned Pakistan to be prepared for a long war and be ready to lose even some major cities like Lahore. Ayub Khan was not ready for a prolonged war, so, he returned empty handed. Chinese could and must have offered their help to Pakistan during the 1971 crisis, but, the political leadership in Pakistan was more interested in saving their control of western half of the country; for which they were more than willing to lose East Pakistan (Udher tum, Idher Hum).

Same can be said about Military High Command too. After the humiliation of 1971 war, recruiting to commissioned posts from nobility decreased and a new breed of army officer appeared on the scence, belongining to middle classes and having close physical and emontional links with the rest of the population. That is why that same Dr. Mehboob-ul-Haq who had said during Ayub Khan's tenure that the welfare of the masses could get a rest while the capitalists make money was a totally changed man on his second term. During the next army regime - that of Zia-ul-Haq, as minister of planning Dr. Mehboob-ul-Haq brought a positive change to the status of middle classes. Infact, there was an entirely new class of Noveau Riche. We can argue that he got some influence from Military leadership which was more entrenched to the soild. That was the second positive lesson of the War - The welfare of the masses and a change in the mindset of the military leadership.

During 1962 war with China, when India's defences were shattered and Calcutta lay 300 undefended miles to take over, in a desperate attempt, Nehru pleaded to US to send Airforce for help - with Tactical Nukes if possible. Lucklily, China declared a unilateral cease-fire. It is also said that during 1971 war, US threatened to China that if it tried direct involvement in war, then, America will put all of it's weight in India's basket. Considering that Chinese financed Vietnam war was a big humiliation for US, America was restless to get even. If true, this confirms that USA wanted Pakistan to lose it's eastern arm. The mouth piece of US foreign policy - US media - was blatantly anti-Pakistani during the whole crisis. US also wanted Pakistan to change it's focus of attention from eastwards (Indiacentric) to westwards (West Asia centric), where it could be used as a vital ally against the onslaught of communism.

Indira Gandhi had stated that 'We have sunk the Two Nation Theory' in Indian Ocean; but it successfully floated in the creation of a sovereign 'Muslim Bengal'. Just becasuse they had a shared language, history, customs and culture, East Pakistan did not fuse with 'Hindu Bengal' and become a part of India. It remained as an Independant Muslim state; this was a vindication of Two Nation Theory for the second time. This is the third and final lesson learned from the war of 1971 - The Muslims of sub-continent are a separate nation and no force, no ideology and no (Wannabe) Superpower in the world can change that fact!
 
. .
I stand by my statement. I did say partition cannot be undone. So please do not make infantile statements. It is better for all nations to understand where they went wrong in history. You don't cut out a small state out of a bigger one, it reduces your geopolitical reach. Turkics and Turko Mongol rulers created a united India, but we Muslims gifted most of it to Hindu's because of our stupidity. Any good impartial historian will say the same thing. And please spare us your hero worship of Jinnah. No historical figures should be above criticism.

Just look at history more minutely. The 1935 election in India and Hindu upper caste's prejudice towards Muslims created Pakistan. The way British India was, Muslim would always have been a minority in a Hindu ruled India.

Tell me please how can a large minority will in anyway be better than a majority Muslim country, even if that country's population is less than half of that large minority?

If you cant achieve what you could have as a majority then you could have done nothing as a large minority!
 
.
Just look at history more minutely. The 1935 election in India and Hindu upper caste's prejudice towards Muslims created Pakistan. The way British India was, Muslim would always have been a minority in a Hindu ruled India.

Tell me please how can a large minority will in anyway be better than a majority Muslim country, even if that country's population is less than half of that large minority?

If you cant achieve what you could have as a majority then you could have done nothing as a large minority!

Lol you mean 1937 provincial elections ..the ones in which Indian National Congress defeated Muslim league in every province(even the one's with Muslim majority), rejected Muslims league claim of being the 'sole representative' of Indian Muslims.

Was the real reason for formation of Pakistan ...Muslim league could not stomach the rejection from Indian population(both Hindus and Muslims), had to divide the country on communal lines just so that it could come in to power??

Please do elaborate on this "Hindu upper caste's prejudice towards Muslims".
 
.
you mean mauryans, guptas, cholas etc or later on marathas were Turkic, Mongols???

Maratha's @ their peak ruled an area in size 1,081,086 sq mi which is close to 158,914 sq mi less then of even todays divided India (present day republic of India) which is 1,240,000 sq mi, Mughal empire @ its peak under aurangzeb ruled an area in size 1,737,460 sq mi ! thats almost the whole of subcontinent plus not forget that the Maratha's were there along with others for example ,Durrani empire, the Sikhs, Awadh ( whom along with Abdali, defeated the Maratha's in panipat), then there was Nizam of Hyderabad, & then how can one forget East India company ruled Bengal ( gen.hasting of the east India company not only defeated the Maratha's but also eliminated it !)

Maratha Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Asia_1758_AD.jpg/500px-South_Asia_1758_AD.jpg

Mughal Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:Mughal Empire (orthographic projection).svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
.
During 1965 war, Ayub Khan secretly visited China and met Chinese Premier Chou En-Lei who offered Pakistan unconditional support but also warned Pakistan to be prepared for a long war and be ready to lose even some major cities like Lahore. Ayub Khan

Ayub khan was the biggest duffer & traitor in Pakistan's history, he got a golden opportunity when the Chinese leadership offered Pakistan a joint Sino-Pak attack on India, & @ that time India was routed in both the western (aksai chin) & the eastern frontier (arunachal), ( close to east Pakistan,Assam etc) ,but instead of taking it being grateful, that ungrateful leech not only rejected it ! , but also offered a "joint defense pact" to India ! which ultimately turned Bhutto against Ayub trust me as a Pakistan i curse ayub khan, may he rot in hell , ayub khan i spit in your grave !
 
.
Lol you mean 1937 provincial elections ..the ones in which Indian National Congress defeated Muslim league in every province(even the one's with Muslim majority), rejected Muslims league claim of being the 'sole representative' of Indian Muslims.

Was the real reason for formation of Pakistan ...Muslim league could not stomach the rejection from Indian population(both Hindus and Muslims), had to divide the country on communal lines just so that it could come in to power??

Please do elaborate on this "Hindu upper caste's prejudice towards Muslims".

your history is weak its not the 1937 election but the 1946 elections which Muslim league won

Punjab Muslim League - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
.
I stand by my statement. I did say partition cannot be undone. So please do not make infantile statements. It is better for all nations to understand where they went wrong in history. You don't cut out a small state out of a bigger one, it reduces your geopolitical reach. Turkics and Turko Mongol rulers created a united India, but we Muslims gifted most of it to Hindu's because of our stupidity. Any good impartial historian will say the same thing. And please spare us your hero worship of Jinnah. No historical figures should be above criticism.
the very fact you make a statement that 'we muslims gifted away...." shows that you dont have peaceful intentions.
before turko mongol, the hindu empires also ran successful kingdoms. so you cant talk as if what is rightfully yours is now not . A successful democracy is being run in india. mughal empire did not bring in any good technology or better systems into india. they were basically only an army based regime which was feudal in nature without any intrest in trade. the trade was still carried out by hindu merchants and bankers.
the best system for the subcontinent is democratic secular regimes. if not its bound to fail like pakistan. at least BD is making some amends to its erroneous ways.
 
.
your history is weak its not the 1937 election but the 1946 elections which Muslim league won

Punjab Muslim League - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neither is my history weak and unlike you, nor is my context..My above quote was in response to airmarshals post, in which he correctly states, the humiliating defeat suffered by Muslim league in 1936-1937(not 1935 and not 1946) provincial elections was one of the root causes for creation of Pakistan.

Indian Provincial Elections, 1937 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


It was after these election Muslim league realized in a post independent united India..there is good chance that not even Muslims will vote for the Muslim league and congress might end up with all the power.

Or don't you wonder, why was there a demand for separate electorates for Muslims?
 
.
the very fact you make a statement that 'we muslims gifted away...." shows that you dont have peaceful intentions.
before turko mongol, the hindu empires also ran successful kingdoms. so you cant talk as if what is rightfully yours is now not . A successful democracy is being run in india. mughal empire did not bring in any good technology or better systems into india. they were basically only an army based regime which was feudal in nature without any intrest in trade. the trade was still carried out by hindu merchants and bankers.
the best system for the subcontinent is democratic secular regimes. if not its bound to fail like pakistan. at least BD is making some amends to its erroneous ways.

the number one thing your country is known for, besides poverty, is the Taj mahal. Something the Mughals made.
You are just blinded by hatred for anything Muslim to realize that the Mughals did a lot for India. They introduced many foods (in fact a lot of "north Indian"/Pakistani food was created by the Mughals. They also brought in the iconic architecture of India, the one people think about when they Think of India. And they had a great local system of government where power was given to the local people to run their affairs and landlords only owned land until they died, and it was not passed on to his children.
That is just a few things the Mughals did. I doubt you have the emotional maturity to accept facts, but hopefully other people will be educated by it.
 
.
the number one thing your country is known for, besides poverty, is the Taj mahal. Something the Mughals made.
You are just blinded by hatred for anything Muslim to realize that the Mughals did a lot for India. They introduced many foods (in fact a lot of "north Indian"/Pakistani food was created by the Mughals. They also brought in the iconic architecture of India, the one people think about when they Think of India. And they had a great local system of government where power was given to the local people to run their affairs and landlords only owned land until they died, and it was not passed on to his children.
That is just a few things the Mughals did. I doubt you have the emotional maturity to accept facts, but hopefully other people will be educated by it.

kya mughal ke pehle hamne imaarte khadi na ki?? n india mein jitne bhi mosquen hain, woh hindu architecture ke oopar hi bane hain. aap south indian temples ye puri jagannath ko dekhiyen, in terms of scale and size its as impressive as the Taj.
kya mughalon ke aane ke pehle indians khana nehain khate the? that you are saying mughals introduced food to india? what we have has been supplanted by destroying something local and something beautiful like the nalanda and taxila universities and with the the knowledge.
like i said the golden of india is said to be the maurya and the gupta periods and their governments. before islam was even born.
second thing is that read discovery of india.. you will see that the northern part of india was ruined much beofer advent of mughals by guys like khilji, ghori and timur. this caused mass migration of people to varous parts. this is ruin that was brought on india by the west.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom