How India betrayed Pakistan

[eastwatch]

Crapy article just to satisfy himself that yeah, its not pakistan who betrayed.
He complains about why pakistan got independence 1 year early
Greatest assumption is that 2 months time wasnt enough for pakistani provinces to organize, but more than enough for large india.

He remember of millions farmers of East pakistan dependent on Kolkatta, but doesnt give account to millions more dependent on indian side..

It also showed how much deeply britishers were committed for indian partition,they knew in there long term plan they would earn bread from two foes, unfortunately at that time some people dont understand.

1) All the points in the article are correct to the point. Partition should have been realized after completion of the preparatory works. At the time of partition, India was having one of the best civilian bureaucrats trained by the British, and Pakistan had none.

It takes many thousands of civil servants and many months/yrs to organize a new country. While India was bestowed with everything including an unitary/intact land mass, Pakistan was devoid of everything, and was divided into two by a vast Indian territory.

2) Calcutta was built on the sweat of the people of east Bengal. It should have joined east Pakistan. Or, at least, it should have been bifurcated into two, just like Berlin.

3) Britishers were not committed towards partition. Had they committed to the Pakistan cause, then east Pakistan would have comprised also of west Bengal and the seven states in your NE. West Pakistan would also have been joined by east Punjab and entire Jammu Kashmir & Junagadh. Moreover, Hydrabad would have also joined Pakistan. So, there would have been 3 regions of Pakistan: east, west and south.

 

[navida]

Al jazeera documentary on BD war babies and **** victims

 

[Devianz]

Many Pakistanis are eager to establish strong friendly relations with India; however, the more cautious ones remind us not to be totally oblivious of its past attitude towards Pakistan.

Well, the first sentence says it all. This war monger wants India and Pakistan to be in a state of conflict for eternity. He pulls stuffs from the past in order to create mistrust in the minds of few people who wants to be friends with India. You know, anyone in Europe can pull up things that happened in WW-I or WW-II and say we should not trust them so and so and entire EU would be in conflict now.

 

[Jade]

First, I don’t think either country is eager to have any friendly relationships with the other …If not for Kashmir, both would have lost interest in each other long time ago. Pakistan would have concentrated on its relationship with Arab countries, while India would have on west and far east.

Second, all the examples that the author has given are not based on fact but on pre conceived and biased theories

 

[InPhilTraitor]

Moreover, Hydrabad would have also joined Pakistan. So, there would have been 3 regions of Pakistan: east, west and south.

This proves your level of sanity. The state of Hyderabad had 85% Hindus and appx. 14% muslims. Hyderabad would never become part of Pakistan.

Read about Telangana Rebellion, Nizam was trying hard to get law and order under control, even before 1947, he would be toast if he want to become part of Pakistan.

Nizam himself tried to remain Independent, the whole joining Pakistan was a drama for bargaining with India.

Learn your history fools. If you do not know about Hyderabad do not pretend as if you know it.

This is from a Hyderabad Native... and all the uber-intellectual Bangladeshis and Pakistanis.. Just Get over it.... Hyderabad never and never would have been part of Pakistan.

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

1) All the points in the article are correct to the point. Partition should have been realized after completion of the preparatory works. At the time of partition, India was having one of the best civilian bureaucrats trained by the British, and Pakistan had none.
.

Sir, at the time of partition as far as civil bureaucracy is concerned there was equal division of assets ....and yes in certain areas like intelligence and british officers in the armed forces ....Pakistan had a much greater advantage ....ISI was the brainchild of a Britisher.....also need I remind you of the pre and most partition massacre ( simply no time for a lengthy negotiation of asset distribution) and the fact that it was Jinnah himself who insisted on an immediate partition.....and btw why would it matter how many assets pakistan had ? the majority of assets , administration and working bureaucracy was in operation out of the western half....Bengal was grossly neglected.....

It takes many thousands of civil servants and many months/yrs to organize a new country. While India was bestowed with everything including an unitary/intact land mass, Pakistan was devoid of everything, and was divided into two by a vast Indian territory.

regarding the division part that is merely due to geographical reasons.....as I recall east decided to join the new pakistani state....with a majority of assets in west Pakistan ( it had sufficient resources to organize itself) ....Karachi , Lahore like cities were important commercial centres and markets even then .....in addition to that pakistan chose to align itself with the U.S at the onset( it received sufficient military aid to counter India).....the Indian economy due to its size was vastly difficult to handle ...far more difficult that Pakistan's ......our struggles were equally hard if not harder......

2) Calcutta was built on the sweat of the people of east Bengal. It should have joined east Pakistan. Or, at least, it should have been bifurcated into two, just like Berlin.

sir, this is at best an openly jingoistic statement.....millions of hardworking bengalis from west bengal have equally contributed to Kolkata's development .....after the abortive first partition of bengal between 1905 and 1911....Dhaka slowly emerged as an effective economic centre with the majority of east bengalis concentrating their efforts towards it..... as regards separation of assets in bengal it was almost perfectly equal......

3) Britishers were not committed towards partition. Had they committed to the Pakistan cause, then east Pakistan would have comprised also of west Bengal and the seven states in your NE. West Pakistan would also have been joined by east Punjab and entire Jammu Kashmir & Junagadh. Moreover, Hydrabad would have also joined Pakistan. So, there would have been 3 regions of Pakistan: east, west and south

This theory has exactly one rebuttle....." every argument that could have been used for Pakistan as an exclusive homeland for muslims could also be used to exclude the predominantly non muslim areas ....."

places like east punjab , west bengal , assam , northeast are the homes of the local people there.....in this case the hindus, sikhs ,christians etc.....no religious group can be forced to give up their homes to free up more territory for muslims .......

regards.......

 

[Joe Shearer]

I'm assuming this is referring to the IA's training of irregulars in Bengal? I would love some more information on this guerilla conflict if anyone can help.

I never use smileys and such junk in my posts, but you brought me to use one for the first time, I think.

Only those who don't have a clue, mainly Pakistanis, will supply you with copious, totally false information; it is false because Pakistan had no clue at the time, and much of what is being written is due to reading inaccurate and romanticised Indian accounts and building on it.

Those who know the details of what actually happened are either dead or sworn to secrecy. Fortunately or unfortunately, they won't talk.

Let me suggest to you - this is a suggestion with no claim to historical accuracy or to first-hand knowledge - that the truth lies between the sensational, screaming-red-headlines used by the Pakistanis, and the wide-eyed innocence of the Indians.

The original post is such a tendentious piece of rubbish with no historical merit that it doesn't deserve a reply. Contemptuous indifference is all that it is worth.

After consideration of some subsequent posts, I find it necessary to say that Eastwatch's really horrible misreading of history needs to be added to the junk file.

 

[KS]

1. Hindu coloring of freedom movement by Nehru and Gandhi

Hmm...then why wasnt Hinduism adopted as the state religion of India and India became a secular republic inspite of 85% Hindu majority.?

2. India annexed the Pakistani share of treasury and ammunitions

Pakistan has still some outstanding loans to India that it took during partition.So decide who has who's money.

3. India annexed the legally acceded state of Junagarh to enforce a plesbestite.

4. But it has enforced policy of duplicity when it comes to Kashmir. In a nutsell whatever floats the boat in India favour is accecptable.

This can also be written as :

Pakistan complains about Indian invasion of Junagadh and how India violated a legally-valid accesion document.

But it enforced a policy of duplicity in case of Kashmir when the Maharaja legally acceded to India.

5. India interfered in east-Pakistan by terrorist infiltration.

Sorry India interfered to syop a genocide going on there by the West-Pakistanis on the East Pakistanis and also because refugees were pouring in the lakhs into India.

6. Indias nuclear blast were primarily show of muscle to Pakistan.

It was done in response to the Chinese blast in 1964.It is not you (Pakistan) always.

7. India has always done its best to taint Pakistan on international fronts / forums.

Thats what a country that was affected by terrorism emanating from a second country does usually.

 

[somebozo]

Lets make is 1 + 1 = 2

1. Friendly ties with India only on equality basis not based on indian hegemonic designs
2. East-Pakistan was our own political failure on every front. There is no denial in that fact much to indian dismay. The indians only came in like a classic bania oppurtunist.

 

[KS]

Anyone who wants to understand classic indian shrewed, ethicless and self-centered mentality should spend a month with a native south indian bania.

Dude if you want to bash India you are more than welcome - but base it on facts not on mythical assumptions.

There are no such groups /categorised as "Bania" in South India.

And Bania itself is a North-Indian (Hindi probably) word.

Im from South India and I do have some knowledge here.

 

[navida]

There are no such groups /categorised as "Bania" in South India.

ummm... I can understand he's trying to insult South Indians. But I don't really understand what the insult is.

 

[Illusive]

In 1947, British India was partitioned into India and Pakistan. The division was made according to religious majorities, India being mainly Hindu and Pakistan being mainly Muslim. The eastern Indian state of Bengal was split into East and West Bengal with East Bengal being part of the new Pakistan .

In 1955, Pakistan became West Pakistan and East Bengal became East Pakistan. The populations were roughly equal but a thousand miles apart. The majority language was Bengali but the official language until 1964 was the Urdu as spoken in West Pakistan. Although East Pakistan produced 70% of the nation's exports, it received only 25% of the income. The capital was based in West Pakistan and the military and Civil Service were dominated by West Pakistanis.

Resentment of the West Pakistan domination increased and in December 1970, the political party called the Awami League won the majority of Pakistan's National Assembly seats but they won none in West Pakistan. In West Pakistan, the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) won the majority of seats but its leader refused to accept an Awami League government and proposed two Prime Ministers.

The President postponed the first session of the new Assembly under pressure from the PPP and calls for independence in East Pakistan grew. The Army, dominated by West Pakistanis, launched an operation on 25th March 1971 against Nationalists with estimates of up to 3,000,000 casualties.

Independence for the new Bangladesh (meaning country or land of Bengal)was declared the following day and the violence continued. India supported the new country and when its forces began to mount on the borders, Pakistan launched an attack against them on 3rd December. India responded with much greater success and Pakistan surrendered in Bangladesh on 16th December.

 

[InPhilTraitor]

Lets make is 1 + 1 = 2

1. Friendly ties with India only on equality basis not based on indian hegemonic designs
2. East-Pakistan was our own political failure on every front. There is no denial in that fact much to indian dismay. The indians only came in like a classic bania oppurtunist.

you are a sick bigot nothing more nothing less.

 

[Illusive]

Pakistan wanting to achieve parity in military terms have where they gone wrong, they didn't focus on their economy and few military dictators just ruined the future of Pakistan which is struggling today for survival as an economy, ironically military is strong. Aid would prolong life for pakistan but not sustain, rather looking back, look forward thats what India did. But it seems Pakistan is hell bent and taken a oath to destroy India.

 

[Anonymous_Clown]

2. East-Pakistan was our own political failure on every front. There is no denial in that fact much to indian dismay. The indians only came in like a classic bania oppurtunist.

The Pakistanis committed genocide and mass slaughter of Bengalis, just like a typical Wahhabi-Pakistani pseudo-Arab mass murderer.