BSF played key role in formation of Bangladesh, says new book

[qsaark]

The Lahore resolution does not govern Pakistan, the constitution of Pakistan governs Pakistan and is the compact under which all Pakistanis have to live.

This is for the first time I am hearing that 1940 Lahore resolution and 1946 Delhi resolution had nothing to do with the constitution of Pakistan. Kamaruddin Ahmad was a die-hard Bengali worker of Pakistan movement. He was present in the meetings of Lahore and Delhi. He wrote that Jinnah explained to Mr. Abul Hashim (Secretary General of Bengal Muslim League) that “Delhi resolution was not meant to change the Lahore Resolution but to have one constituent assembly for the Muslim India for drafting the constitution or constitutions of Pakistan on the basis of Lahore Resolution”. Reference: ‘The Social History of East Pakistan’ by Kamaruddin Ahmad.

Lets see what the resolution says:

March 23, 1940 – Lahore

While approving and endorsing the action taken by the Council and the Working Committee of the All India Muslim League, as indicated in their resolutions dated the 27th of August, 17th & 18th of September and 22nd of October, 1939, and the 3rd of February, 1940 on the constitutional issue, this session of the All India Muslim League emphatically reiterates that the scheme of federation embodied in the Government of India Act 1935 is totally unsuited to, and unworkable in the peculiar conditions of this country and is altogether unacceptable to Muslim India.

It further records its emphatic view that while the declaration dated the 18th of October, 1939 made by the Viceroy on behalf of His Majesty’s Government is reassuring in so far as it declares that the policy and plan on which the Government of India Act, 1935, is based will be reconsidered in consultation with various parties, interests and communities in India, Muslims in India will not be satisfied unless the whole constitutional plan is reconsidered de novo and that no revised plan would be acceptable to Muslims unless it is framed with their approval and consent.

Resolved that it is the considered view of this Session of the All India Muslim League that no constitutional plan would be workable in this country or acceptable to the Muslims unless it is designed on the following basic principles, viz., that geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be constituted, with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the North Western and Eastern Zones of (British) India should be grouped to constitute ‘independent states’ in which the constituent units should be autonomous and sovereign.

That adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards should be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities in these units and in the regions for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultation with them and in other parts of India where the Muslims are in a minority adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards shall be specifically provided in the constitution for them and other minorities for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultation with them.

The Session further authorizes the Working Committee to frame a scheme of constitution in accordance with these basic principles, providing for the assumption finally by the respective regions of all powers such as defense, external affairs, communications, customs, and such other matters as may be necessary.”

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

This is for the first time I am hearing that 1940 Lahore resolution and 1946 Delhi resolution had nothing to do with the constitution of Pakistan.

I did not say the Lahore and Delhi resolutions had nothing to do with the constitution - I said that they are not the constitution. They may have provided some basic guidelines or a framework to follow, but they are not the constitution.

As for the argument that the constitution has shifted to represent something it was not initially meant to (lack of provincial autonomy) that remains something that can be, and should be, addressed through political means only.

As I pointed out in my earlier post, successive military coups have meant little to no continuity in our political and democratic systems, and without that continuity it will be hard to move on major issues such as restoring the constitution to its original form.
Political parties will always have issues with one thing or another, and only sustained dialog and engagement between elected representatives offers hope for movement on contentious issues. To impose arbitrary deadlines or 'take up arms' because such issues have not been resolved, especially given the lack of continuity in the democratic system, is unfair and criminal, to the system and the people of Pakistan.

That is why I pointed out the fact that in 1971 the people of both East and West Pakistan were dispossessed of their political rights under a military dictatorship. The AL leadership should have continued their struggle first and foremost for political rights for all Pakistanis, and then for the rights of East Pakistan.

 

[TopCat]

It was not appropriate for YK and ZB to deny political rights won by the AL in elections, but it was also not appropriate by any means for fellow Pakistanis to go on a rampage murdering and rioting against the government, forcing it to crack down, and it was not appropriate for the neighboring country to take advantage of the internal political chaos and exacerbate and further fan the flames of violence.

East Pakistanis were not enslaved, segregated or mistreated like the African and Native Americans in the US, or elsewhere in Latin America. East Pakistanis were not, before the chaos of 1971, abducted, tortured and murdered in the tens of thousands as the Indians did in Indian Punjab and Kashmir. East Pakistani issues were manageable in that they were issues of political representation and political rights, and the struggle to obtain those rights should have continued to have been a political one.

Instead, arms were taken up against the state, and the assistance of a hostile neighbor gladly accepted in wreaking havoc against the state and non-Bengali civilians that pushed the situation to a point of no return.

To keep it simple let me tell you, we here do those kind of caos everyday in Bangladesh. Not only in 1971 we continued do that till now. 1990, 1996, 2009 etc when political situation came to a level that government had to fall. In 1971 similar thing could have happend if any Bengali were ruling Pakistan that time. They would had handed over power to somebody else, and in that case Mujib was the rightly candidate.

The people were on the street to eshtablish their democratic rights and the government of Pakistan started a war against its own people. In fact they considered that their enemy land.

 

[eastwatch]

March 23, 1940 – Lahore


Resolved that it is the considered view of this Session of the All India Muslim League that no constitutional plan would be workable in this country or acceptable to the Muslims unless it is designed on the following basic principles, viz., that geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be constituted, with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the North Western and Eastern Zones of (British) India should be grouped to constitute ‘INDEPENDENT STATES' in which the constituent units should be autonomous and sovereign.

I would like to say a few words about the 'INDEPENDENT STATES' of Lahore Resolution. Even a day before Pakistan was formed, very few Muslims thought seriously that PAKISTAN would be a reality. I am not very sure of the west Pakistani people's thinking in those days, but Bangalis of east Pakistan were not ready to accept any thing more or less than ONE Pakistan.

No Bangali leader, no farmer and no common people could think in those days to depart from their brethren in the west. Any attempt would have been crushed with bloodsheddings. People of today, without knowing the real feelings of people when the 1952 language movement was staged, say many unreal things. Now people want to believe the movement was against an united Pakistan.

But, in reality, it was not. Nobody wanted a separation at that time. In that movement, the slogans were NARAE TAKBIR-ALLAHU AKBER, PAKISTAN ZINDABAD, RASHTRA BHASHA BANGLA CHAI, URDU-BANGLA BHAI BHAI etc.

Even Sk. Mujib ended his public speech on March 7, 1971 with two slogans. These are Joi Bangla (was regarded as AL's Party slogan) and Pakistan Zindabad (was regarded as his devotion to Pakistan). AL has erased the 'Pakistan Zindabad' part from his speech, you caanot hear it now-a-days when it is played on national days. But, this is history.

It means, he himself was not ready to break Pakistan even in March. All his street agitations were political manuevering to gain political mileage. Yahya Khan should have convened the national assembly without fail in DHAKA. The very first session in Dhaka would have strengthen Mujib's hands against those who were in favour of demanding a strict adherence to the 6-point programme of AL.

6 points were certainly negotiable. I am a small man to be near Mr. Moudud, a BNP political leader. But, I heard him commenting on the 7th March speech. Sk. Mujib stated this, 'Janab Yahya Khan Sahab, YOU ARE THE PRESIDENT of Pakistan, come visit east Pakistan to see what your army is doing ---------.'

Politicians have a different language than a common man like me. Mr. Moudud explained that the highlighted part above was for Yahya Khan to hear. It was a way of communicating with Yahya and was an assurance by Mujib that he wanted him to REMAIN the President of Pakistan when he formed the next govt.

However, Yahya chose a military solution of a political crisis that resulted in separate two INDEPENDENT STATES as has been stipulated in the Lahore Resolution.

 

[Spring Onion]

@ M_SAINT
just for a second forget about what india is doing even though all this is alleged by some newspapers with questionable credibility .... are you sad with what india did for your country in 71 and what happy/indifferent with what pakistan did.... and you are and others in bangladesh share your views then i would have to say we did a mistake in 71..... i rest my case your honour....

71 was our internal matter and India did terrorism by providing arms for killings of innocents.

If the Indians claim it was legal and lawful help by Indians then we do reserve the right to arm and help two dozens insurgencies in India.

 

[Spring Onion]

I would like to say a few words about the 'INDEPENDENT STATES' of Lahore Resolution. Even a day before Pakistan was formed, very few Muslim thought seriously that a PAKISTAN would be a reality. I am not very sure of the west Pakistani people's thinking in those days, but Bangalis of east Pakistan were not ready to accept any thing more or less than ONE Pakistan.

No Bangali leader, no farmer and no common people could think in those days to depart from their brethren in the west. Any attempt would have been crushed with bloodsheddings. People of today, without knowing the real feelings of people when the 1952 language movement was staged, say many unreal things. Now people want to believe the movement was against an united Pakistan.

But, in reality, it was not. Nobody wanted a separation at that time. In that movement, the slogans were NARAE TAKBIR-ALLAHU AKBER, PAKISTAN ZINDABAD, RASHTRA BHASHA BANGLA CHAI, URDU-BANGLA BHAI BHAI etc.

Even Sk. Mujib ended his public speech on March 7, 1971 with two slogans. These are Joi Bangla (was regarded as AL's Party slogan) and Pakistan Zindabad (was fregarded as his devotion to Pakistan). AL has erased the 'Pakistan Zindabad' part from his speech, you caanot hear it now-a-days when it is played on national days. But, this is history.

It means, he himself was not ready to break Pakistan even in March. All his street agitations were political manuevering to gain political mileage. Yahya Khan should have convened the national assembly without fail in DHAKA. The very first session in Dhaka would have strengthen Mujib's hands against those who were in favour of demanding a strict adherence to the 6-point programme of AL.

6 points were certainly negotiable. I am a small man to be near Mr. Moudud, a BNP political leader. But, I heard him commenting on 7th March speech. Sk. Mujib stated this, 'Janab Yahya Khan Sahab, YOU ARE THE PRESIDENT of Pakistan, come visit east Pakistan to see what your army is doing ---------.'

Politicians have a different language than a common man like me. Mr. Moudud said that the highlighted part above was meant for Yahya Khan with a s. Mujib was assuring Yahya Khan thast he wanted him to REMAIN the President of Pakistan.

However, Yahya chose a military solution of a political crisis that resulted in separate two INDEPENDENT STATES as has been stipulated in the Lahore Resolution.

The mistakes of our politicians have given way to Indian terrorism for separating brothers.

But lets move on and accept that Bangladesh is a reality and we have another Muslim nation on the world map

 

[Goodperson]

71 was our internal matter and India did terrorism by providing arms for killings of innocents.

If the Indians claim it was legal and lawful help by Indians then we do reserve the right to arm and help two dozens insurgencies in India.

Oh! Internal matter what about refugees in India? Did pakisan pay for them?

From BD source Liberation War Museum, Bangladesh

1971 witnessed worst human influx from Bangladesh to neighboring India. Indian government reports that 989 9305 migrants took shelter in 829 refugee camps. To escape mass killing, rape and destruction, men, women and children defied many odds that took toll of untold sufferings and death. Then youth from all over the country crossed border to take arms training and join resistance as Mukti Bahini (Freedom Fighters).

Such a colossal influx had naturally been a huge burden on Indian economy and took India few months to give refugees logistic support in make shift refugee camps. In Eastern province of Tripura, refugees outnumbered local inhabitants. In initial period, some refugees had to take shelter in subhuman conditions in abandoned drainage pipes at Salt Lake, Calcutta.
Over crowded improvised living conditions in refugee camps lead to sickness and death. Beside government support, local people and some aid agencies helped to mitigate this sufferings.

Thanks for admitting Pakistan involvement in Internal insurgencies.

 

[toxic_pus]

The Indian argument (excuse) is that the crackdown by the PA caused a flood of refugees that forced India to intervene in East Pakistan - this argument is a crock of shite.

1. Operation Searchlight was initiated on March 26, and the article points out that orders to intervene in EP (by the BSF) were issued on March 29 - this debunks the argument of 'millions of refugees' since Op. Searchlight first envisioned controlling the cities and then cracking down on the revolt - 3 days is not enough for that and this 'millions of refugees caused us to intervene' lie stands exposed once more.

The actual intervention never happened till the last week of April. Yahaya had more than enough time to stop his rampage by that time. On 27th March, just one day into the crackdown, the Consul General to Dhaka, Kent Blood (of the 'Blood telegram' fame) wrote to the State department:

1. Here in Decca we are mute and horrified witnesses to a reign of terror by the Pak[istani] Military. Evidence continues to mount that the MLA authorities have list of AWAMI League supporters whom they are systematically eliminating by seeking them out in their homes and shooting them down.

2. Among those marked for extinction in addition to the A.L. hierarchy are student leaders and university faculty. In this second category we have reports that Fazlur Rahman head of the philosophy department and a Hindu, M. Abedin, head of the department of history, have been killed. Razzak of the political science department is rumored dead. Also on the list are the bulk of MNA's elect and number of MPA's.

3. Moreover, with the support of the Pak[istani] Military. non-Bengali Muslims are systematically attacking poor people's quarters and murdering Bengalis and Hindus.

The 'Blood telegram', which marked the revolt of 29 consulate employees against Nixon's inaction against Pakistan, itself was written on 6th April, just about 11 days into the crack down.

It wouldn't have taken a wiz kid to figure out on 27th March, 1971, what would happen if this brutal crackdown had continued. And continue, it did.

Forget 3 days, just 24 hrs was enough to see what was coming.

Pakistan did not attack India in either 1948 or 1965 - in both cases our efforts were focused on the internationally recognized disputed territory of Kashmir.

In 1948 it didn't, in 1965 it did. If anything, Pakistan blatantly violated the UNSC resolutions that required maintaining peace at the Cease Fire Line.

Those are the same UNSC resolutions that many Pakistanis swear by.

 

[TopCat]

The mistakes of our politicians have given way to Indian terrorism for separating brothers.But lets move on and accept that Bangladesh is a reality and we have another Muslim nation on the world map

After 25th of March, Bangladesh was just a matter of time, regardless of Indian involvement. It was a no win war for PK army.

 

[qsaark]

After 25th of March, Bangladesh was just a matter of time, regardless of Indian involvement. It was a no win war for PK army.

Even though I totally disapprove the Indian intervention, I must say that Indian intervention did help in kind of shortening the crisis, saving both the Bengalis and the non-Bengalis from the effects of a long and gruesome war, and acted as a catalyst for the formation of Bangladesh (which I also regret though not disapprove). If India had not actively intervened, the war or counter-insurgency if you will could have lasted for months, possible years and resulted in much more sufferings and devastating humanitarian, social, economical as well as political consequences for both the East and the West Pakistan.

 

[qsaark]

If the Indians claim it was legal and lawful help by Indians then we do reserve the right to arm and help two dozens insurgencies in India.

Only in the case if those insurgencies are affecting Pakistan in any way such as flooding of refugees (as it happened during 1971). But is that the case with those two dozen or so insurgencies? In which way they are affecting Pakistan?

 

[Iggy]

71 was our internal matter and India did terrorism by providing arms for killings of innocents.

If the Indians claim it was legal and lawful help by Indians then we do reserve the right to arm and help two dozens insurgencies in India.

These kind of attitude of your people is the main reason for your countries current problems..When you stop distinguishing between good terrorism and bad terrorism and treat whole terrorism as bad ,most of your country's problem will solve ..till then even if you cut the tree the route will be still there ..

 

[Hulk]

71 was our internal matter and India did terrorism by providing arms for killings of innocents.

If the Indians claim it was legal and lawful help by Indians then we do reserve the right to arm and help two dozens insurgencies in India.

thx for clarifying, with the same logic you should be accepting the reverse.

Also you invaded India more then 10 times (as per your claim on other thread that, we ruled India for 1000 years), so you should not complain about 1971 as India did only once.

 

[Al-zakir]

They would had handed over power to somebody else, and in that case Mujib was the rightly candidate.

you kidding me, right?

I humbly disagree with you about Mujib. He has proved himself an unworthy leader in Bangladeshi context so I doubt his credibility. Perhaps, Pakistani establishment knew something about him whereas east pakistani were unaware at that time. He could have united the war torn nation irrespective of all political ideology but he failed miserably. As a result he is dead and we still divided from pre historic root. Either he failed to understand people sentiment or kept wrong people around him. If he could have rise above political identity, controlled personal greed and embarrassed an Islamic ideology as guiding force of new found nation than without a doubt, history would have been written differently in modern Bangladesh.

You must remember one fact. There could be many reasons why we separated from Pakistan but east Pakistani didn’t fight against Islam or Islamic values but Awami wants us to believe that separation was for the establishment of secularism. What a vulgar lie!!!

 

[TopCat]

you kidding me, right?

I humbly disagree with you about Mujib. He has proved himself an unworthy leader in Bangladeshi context so I doubt his credibility. Perhaps, Pakistani establishment knew something about him whereas east pakistani were unaware at that time. He could have united the war torn nation irrespective of all political ideology but he failed miserably. As a result he is dead and we still divided from pre historic root. Either he failed to understand people sentiment or kept wrong people around him. If he could have rise above political identity, controlled personal greed and embarrassed an Islamic ideology as guiding force of new found nation than without a doubt, history would have been written differently in modern Bangladesh.

You must remember one fact. There could be many reasons why we separated from Pakistan but east Pakistani didn’t fight against Islam or Islamic values but Awami wants us to believe that separation was for the establishment of secularism. What a vulgar lie!!!

Well your theory proved wrong, which costed pakistan its east wings. A country can not be run and function by fanatics mind like yours. See the Pakistans as of today. Forget Mujib, they did not even let Sohrawardy to rule Pakistan. Heard of Sohrawardy??? Can you find a parallel figure like him in Pakistan till this day?