Creation of Bangladesh: Pakistani and Bangladeshi perspective

[zombie]

Considering that Pakistan itself was created by the british for strategic reasons, whatever happened after that is academic.

 

[salman nedian]

Sir Ruby, I was not being pacifistic, I was showing my feelings, I used to feel proud India Liberated Bangladesh, But after seeing the way BD members treat India as an enemy and latch up Conspiracy theories, I feel maybe what india did was wrong! We should have let them be as they were and turned the other way, And should have send away all the Refugees who came into India for fearing the troubles there! Sorry if I hurt you, But Its the way I feel.

Indians were not in love with East Pakistanis. You can feel proud of what India did but clear this in your mind that your intervention in East Pakistan provided us every justification to intervene in Kashmir.

 

[ahmeddsid]

Indians were not in love with East Pakistanis. You can feel proud of what India did but clear this in your mind that your intervention in East Pakistan provided us every justification to intervene in Kashmir.

But you didnt try to intervene in Kashmir directly after 71! only covert missions were tasked! I know India Didnt do it completely for the Love of BD people, but Did it so that It becomes stable in BD and the Refugees flowing into India Stop!!!! Whats stopping you from trying to wrest control Of Kashmir like we did In BD???

 

[rubyjackass]

@ahmedsid
What is in there for me to get hurt? I am not sentimental about Indian effort for Bangladesh. It was just an observation.

Still did you look at info I pointed in my previous post? I thought you did not understand the seriousness of situation then, whether it is political turmoil in the then Pakistan or effect on economy due to refugees in India.
A more specific pointer read about 'Blood Telegram'. And that is from a diplomat whose national policy is hell-bent on supporting the other side.

Always interested in a discussion...

 

[TopCat]

Well this is a Pakistan Defence Forum... When I first visited this forum, I caught on surprise seeing some of our BD brothers are talking complete nonsense here... I thought I should hang out little more and got hooked up as I found some of the posting by others are really constructive and enlighting...
Regarding 1971.. its not that controvertial as you people think.. We had 30% votes against AL in 1970 election even thought AL secured all the seats in East Pakistan. But after 25th of March 1971, that support must have went down to 1% and people had no choice but to resist. Even the whole PK army was in a disarray when BD soldiers started defecting. India had no other choice but to support BD as the psycho at that time in India after 1965, was nothing but to screw Pakistan. Also BD participation in war was so overwhelming that it was almost risk less. Also another sentiment worked as the minority Hindus were the number one target of PK army. They used to spare older muslim guys, but no way a hindu.
In the mid 1971 India/USA tried to mediate between BD and PK but BD refused straight away, saying if required they will fight in two front both India and Pakistan.. so that effort did not fly.
Then again things were just unfolding as BD gathered momentum by recruiting half a million guerilla and a strong regular army (the army was in indian payroll for the last few months). BD army wanted to finish that off by October or Nov without Indian army's involvement, but Indian army were over estimating PK at that moment and did not let it go. But BD army participated in two regular experimental land operation and came close to Dhaka defeating PK defence but retreat immediately.
Anyways my conclusion is, It would have been impossible for PK to rule Bengal after 25th of March, whether India help us or not. You can not rule a country with so much bitterness. India had no other choice but to go along with the development. BD had no choice but to get rid of Pakistan.
Now, what BD should do regarding the relationship with India and Pakistan. Dont forget that BD also had bitterness for India for 1947. That was as painfull as 1971. So we basially faught both the parties in two different time of history. We took PK as brother in 1947 but did not work out and enemy's enemy became our friend. So the love and hate relationship works for both the parties. We cant love either of them, neither we could hate.... both has the bengals blood in their hand...

 

[ahmeddsid]

Well this is a Pakistan Defence Forum... When I first visited this forum, I caught on surprise seeing some of our BD brothers are talking complete nonsense here... I thought I should hang out little more and got hooked up as I found some of the posting by others are really constructive and enlighting...
Regarding 1971.. its not that controvertial as you people think.. We had 30% votes against AL in 1970 election even thought AL secured all the seats in East Pakistan. But after 25th of March 1971, that support must have went down to 1% and people had no choice but to resist. Even the whole PK army was in a disarray when BD soldiers started defecting. India had no other choice but to support BD as the psycho at that time in India after 1965, was nothing but to screw Pakistan. Also BD participation in war was so overwhelming that it was almost risk less. Also another sentiment worked as the minority Hindus were the number one target of PK army. They used to spare older muslim guys, but no way a hindu.
In the mid 1971 India/USA tried to mediate between BD and PK but BD refused straight away, saying if required they will fight in two front both India and Pakistan.. so that effort did not fly.
Then again things were just unfolding as BD gathered momentum by recruiting half a million guerilla and a strong regular army (the army was in indian payroll for the last few months). BD army wanted to finish that off by October or Nov without Indian army's involvement, but Indian army were over estimating PK at that moment and did not let it go. But BD army participated in two regular experimental land operation and came close to Dhaka defeating PK defence but retreat immediately.
Anyways my conclusion is, It would have been impossible for PK to rule Bengal after 25th of March, whether India help us or not. You can not rule a country with so much bitterness. India had no other choice but to go along with the development. BD had no choice but to get rid of Pakistan.
Now, what BD should do regarding the relationship with India and Pakistan. Dont forget that BD also had bitterness for India for 1947. That was as painfull as 1971. So we basially faught both the parties in two different time of history. We took PK as brother in 1947 but did not work out and enemy's enemy became our friend. So the love and hate relationship works for both the parties. We cant love either of them, neither we could hate.... both has the bengals blood in their hand...

fair post, maybe some of our more learned members can scrutinize it more! but i feel u r right sort of.

 

[dabong1]

Considering that Pakistan itself was created by the british for strategic reasons, whatever happened after that is academic.

The same can be said about india......"created by the british for strategic reasons"

 

[rajk20002002]

The same can be said about india......"created by the british for strategic reasons"

Correct. May be same for Blochistan and Sindh Desh in very near future.

RK

 

[rubyjackass]

The same can be said about india......"created by the british for strategic reasons"

No India was created because their *** was on fire after WWII

 

[rubyjackass]

Well this is a Pakistan Defence Forum... When I first visited this forum, I caught on surprise seeing some of our BD brothers are talking complete nonsense here... I thought I should hang out little more and got hooked up as I found some of the posting by others are really constructive and enlighting...
Regarding 1971.. its not that controvertial as you people think.. We had 30% votes against AL in 1970 election even thought AL secured all the seats in East Pakistan. But after 25th of March 1971, that support must have went down to 1% and people had no choice but to resist. Even the whole PK army was in a disarray when BD soldiers started defecting. India had no other choice but to support BD as the psycho at that time in India after 1965, was nothing but to screw Pakistan. Also BD participation in war was so overwhelming that it was almost risk less. Also another sentiment worked as the minority Hindus were the number one target of PK army. They used to spare older muslim guys, but no way a hindu.
In the mid 1971 India/USA tried to mediate between BD and PK but BD refused straight away, saying if required they will fight in two front both India and Pakistan.. so that effort did not fly.
Then again things were just unfolding as BD gathered momentum by recruiting half a million guerilla and a strong regular army (the army was in indian payroll for the last few months). BD army wanted to finish that off by October or Nov without Indian army's involvement, but Indian army were over estimating PK at that moment and did not let it go. But BD army participated in two regular experimental land operation and came close to Dhaka defeating PK defence but retreat immediately.
Anyways my conclusion is, It would have been impossible for PK to rule Bengal after 25th of March, whether India help us or not. You can not rule a country with so much bitterness. India had no other choice but to go along with the development. BD had no choice but to get rid of Pakistan.
Now, what BD should do regarding the relationship with India and Pakistan. Dont forget that BD also had bitterness for India for 1947. That was as painfull as 1971. So we basially faught both the parties in two different time of history. We took PK as brother in 1947 but did not work out and enemy's enemy became our friend. So the love and hate relationship works for both the parties. We cant love either of them, neither we could hate.... both has the bengals blood in their hand...

I did not have this much knowledge of the anti-India part of it.
Thanks for the writing...

That is what I try to convey. A country should always strive for its own interests as a nation. Not to align with some nation just on the basis of some ideology.

 

[blain2]

I did not have this much knowledge of the anti-India part of it.
Thanks for the writing...

That is what I try to convey. A country should always strive for its own interests as a nation. Not to align with some nation just on the basis of some ideology.

That is because you do not understand the underlying ideology. Secondly, what is nationhood but an ideology? Why is the ideology of being an "Indian" all fine but one that bonds via religious ties not worthy of striving for?

 

[ahmeddsid]

That is because you do not understand the underlying ideology. Secondly, what is nationhood but an ideology? Why is the ideology of being an "Indian" all fine but one that bonds via religious ties not worthy of striving for?

yes bonds of religions too are perfectly okay to strive for. Pakistan is an example of it, u guys have come this far and can go on perfectly.

India on the other hand is so damn different from anything. I mean, its a perfect spot for balkanisation or something of that happening. I mean diff languages, diff religions, different everything. India is a miracle

 

[rubyjackass]

That is because you do not understand the underlying ideology. Secondly, what is nationhood but an ideology? Why is the ideology of being an "Indian" all fine but one that bonds via religious ties not worthy of striving for?

Whatever you call it.
But I find it more meaningful and worth preserving. It preserves peoples identity without need of displacing them physically.

Philosophical per se...

I consider nationhood better for a variety of reasons including scientific ones like multi-cultural society is better selected over a monotonous one because entire set of the multi cultural society will always have better chances than any subset of the types in it.
Consider this ...

People of different physical identities(race, language, religion whatever that can be attributed to their actions) at some point of time existed in a piece of continent. Now what do think is a good way of living for these people to form societies and live?

When asked this question you are given two choices...

Should they test all people for their religion(or whatever type or identity) and gather the same religion people to some place to form a nation?
Or is it reasonable that they form meaningful localized groups as nation with an understanding that everyone gets equal opportunity?

Consider people have developed their notions about these options over a period of time say all people believe in the first or all people believe in the second.(In other words evryone have believed or accepted in one idea of nationhood. For example all people in India believe in second form of nationhood. May be now it is not the case. But that is where time is leading the situation.)

Which one is better for people to subscribe to?

The second avoids physical displacement of people. The first means that people always find other nations suspicious.
Also by second there will not be alienation of a person near you which is a psychological issue. People will have to live under under constant suspicion.


I am only half way through... gtg
I will finish this later...

 

[dabong1]

Correct. May be same for Blochistan and Sindh Desh in very near future.

RK

:rofl.......do i have to list the amount of nations that want to be free of indian oppression......kashmir...khalistan...assam ect

 

[BanglaBhoot]

I caught on surprise seeing some of our BD brothers are talking complete nonsense here...

That I think is a matter of opinion. Why should your view have more credibility than others? It is somewhat arrogant for you to think so.

India had no other choice but to go along with the development.

India actively sought the disintegration of Pakistan from 1953 and sent two agents (Chittarnajan Sutar and Kalidas Biadya) to foment trouble in East Pakistan. India was not an innocent bystander.