In 1947 two muslim countries should have been created!

[globall]

I think it was a mistake in 1947 to create one muslim country, Pakistan with its two wings West Pakistan and East Pakistan so far apart from each other in terms of distance plus that in the middle lied our sworn enemy India with the power to block our land, sea and air access any time between our two wings. It should have been better if just as we got independence we had released East Pakistan as a seperate country with a common founder i.e. Quaid-e-Azam and mutual defence and securtiy agreement. This way we could have avoided the Bangladesh decable in 1971 and the bitterness it created. If there had been created two muslim countries with the same ideology just at the beginning, there would have been very close relationship between these two countries and there would have been love and confidence between the two countries. Also this would have made the two nations theory stronger and there would never have been a Bangladesh created on the basis of nationalism. Instead there would have been another muslim country most probably known as "Bangastan" and it would have been another Pakistan. Ties between the two countries Pakistan and Bangastan would have been so close that it would have looked like a single country. Do you agree with me? Share your views please. Thanks

 

[amna]

why stop at two?

just kidding just kidding. =]

 

[BanglaBhoot]

The issues raised here are extensively discussed in my book The India Doctrine. There was in fact serious consideration of creating 2 Muslim countries on the lines suggested but this was thwarted by Nehru and Jinnah did express some interest in the idea but the idea dissolved after East Pakistan was given far less that it deserved in terms of territory dur to the trickery of Congress politicians and their special understanding with the British. You will have to read the rest in my book of which a second edition will become available in September.

 

[ejaz007]

The matter has already come under discussion on the forum. Unfortunately past can not be changed therefore every one should live in the reality and not fiction.

However having said that if one has some knowledge or proof that presents different view than the one often accepted as correct than the same should be brought forward to present history correctly.

 

[Vinod2070]

East Pakistan was given far less that it deserved in terms of territory dur to the trickery of Congress politicians and their special understanding with the British.

Which other areas were Muslim majority that should have gone to East Pakistan?

I thought the Chittagong hill tracts going to East Pakistan was a major mistake by the British! It destroyed the culture of that place forever.

 

[cactuslily58]

I think it was a mistake in 1947 to create one muslim country, Pakistan with its two wings West Pakistan and East Pakistan so far apart from each other in terms of distance plus that in the middle lied our sworn enemy India with the power to block our land, sea and air access any time between our two wings. It should have been better if just as we got independence we had released East Pakistan as a seperate country with a common founder i.e. Quaid-e-Azam and mutual defence and securtiy agreement. This way we could have avoided the Bangladesh decable in 1971 and the bitterness it created. If there had been created two muslim countries with the same ideology just at the beginning, there would have been very close relationship between these two countries and there would have been love and confidence between the two countries. Also this would have made the two nations theory stronger and there would never have been a Bangladesh created on the basis of nationalism. Instead there would have been another muslim country most probably known as "Bangastan" and it would have been another Pakistan. Ties between the two countries Pakistan and Bangastan would have been so close that it would have looked like a single country. Do you agree with me? Share your views please. Thanks

With the benefit of hindsight it is easy to suggest how things ought not to have been done.

If the logic for this post is to bring out the fact that BD was created simply due to the distance that separated the two wings of erstwhile Pakistan then I think you have got it wrong. More than the physical separation what created BD was the mental separation between the two wings worsened by the disparity which led to the chasm getting wider.

It simply was a mishandled case.

How would have a mutual Defence & security arrangement worked ? Both countries would have had diff perceptions, foreign policy which would have decided their Def outlays. As for the " love & confidence" the two countries would have enjoyed, how much of this exists between the the present Muslim neighbors of Pakistan ?

Remember , leaders in '47 were crying & craving for more & were not prepared to give up what they were getting as you have suggested they should have done.

Why would Jinnah have given up the idea because E Pak was allegedly getting less real estate ? If BD is viable now why would it have not been viable then ? (Post by Munshi refers )

from the Indian point of view, it wouldn't make a diff. If it did not come to India whether it was E Pak or an Indep state state as it now is wouldn't matter. But these views are entirely my own.

60 years is a very long period to go back into time. We are all wiser but sadder men now. It would be prudent to focus on what lies ahead instead of reminiscing of the past.

 

[salman nedian]

If we had demanded 2 Pakistans, there would be lot of problems in getting independence. That’s the reason why there was a collective effort.

Nevertheless past cannot be rolled back but we can correct our mistakes by learning from our errors and both the countries should have close ties now.

 

[globall]

With the benefit of hindsight it is easy to suggest how things ought not to have been done.

If the logic for this post is to bring out the fact that BD was created simply due to the distance that separated the two wings of erstwhile Pakistan then I think you have got it wrong. More than the physical separation what created BD was the mental separation between the two wings worsened by the disparity which led to the chasm getting wider.

It simply was a mishandled case.

How would have a mutual Defence & security arrangement worked ? Both countries would have had diff perceptions, foreign policy which would have decided their Def outlays. As for the " love & confidence" the two countries would have enjoyed, how much of this exists between the the present Muslim neighbors of Pakistan ?

Remember , leaders in '47 were crying & craving for more & were not prepared to give up what they were getting as you have suggested they should have done.

Why would Jinnah have given up the idea because E Pak was allegedly getting less real estate ? If BD is viable now why would it have not been viable then ? (Post by Munshi refers )

from the Indian point of view, it wouldn't make a diff. If it did not come to India whether it was E Pak or an Indep state state as it now is wouldn't matter. But these views are entirely my own.

60 years is a very long period to go back into time. We are all wiser but sadder men now. It would be prudent to focus on what lies ahead instead of reminiscing of the past.

Since communism has collapsed, religion has reemerged as a very strong force on the world stage. I hope you would agree with me. Just look inside India and see for yourself how powerful religion has become. It was only after communism's collapse that a Hindu nationalist party came to power i.e. BJP. And just have a look at the Sikhs who still want a seperate Khalistan on the name of religion but are still suppressed by India. Pakistan was made on the name of religion and that means it is religion which makes a nation while according to the Indian viewpoint its culture which makes a nation. But now that religion has reemerged stronger the wind in blowing in the opposite direction of the Indian viewpoint. It is supporting the two nations theory. BD was created through consipiracies as well as some mishandling of the former East Pakistan affairs by us. Distance was the major deciding factor in all that because it made East Pakistan vulnerable as it was not joined with the rest of Pakistan by land. There was little mental seperation between the two wings since both were muslim majority areas and had a single faith. If the two wings would have been created in the form of two countries there would have been love and confidence instead of bitterness caused by the events of 1971 which were created by India and some other countries so the mutual defence and security pact would surely have worked since there were many areas with muslim majority denied to East Pakistan too. As for oue relations with the present Muslim neighbors of Pakistan, we have normal relations with Iran; they are in no way against us and nor are we. As for Afghanistan, the situation there is a mess and add to that the considerable Indian presence there. This clarifies the causes of our abnormal relations with them. Fortunately the two nations theory did not sink in the Bay of Bengal but has emerged throughout the globe now. Even in Bangladesh religion has become a dominant force now.

If we had demanded 2 Pakistans, there would be lot of problems in getting independence. That’s the reason why there was a collective effort.

Nevertheless past cannot be rolled back but we can correct our mistakes by learning from our errors and both the countries should have close ties now.

I am not talking about demanding two muslim countries from the British. I am talking about releasing East Pakistan as a seperate country immediately after getting independence with mutual defence and security pact.

 

[Spring Onion]

I am not talking about demanding two muslim countries from the British. I am talking about releasing East Pakistan as a seperate country immediately after getting independence with mutual defence and security pact.

hmmm this is fresh idea which would have thwarted any bulying by India if was adopted at that time.
But its realy nice to see Bangladesh as an Islamic country on the map of the world with forth largest population of Muslims in the world (if im not wrong).

and this mutual defence and security pact. still could be reached.

what do u say ?

 

[globall]

hmmm this is fresh idea which would have thwarted any bulying by India if was adopted at that time.
But its realy nice to see Bangladesh as an Islamic country on the map of the world with forth largest population of Muslims in the world (if im not wrong).

and this mutual defence and security pact. still could be reached.

what do u say ?

I agree with to to some extent. But there is a huge difference between having a mutual defence and security pact at that time and now. At the time of independence people full of emotions and there was a strong sense of brotherhood among all as they had just got their independence and were very vigourously looking forward to a bright future of their country. They were willing to do everything for the survival of their country. And since both the wings were one country i.e. Pakistan, releasing East Pakistan as "Bangastan" with a common founder Quaid-e-Azam and having a mutual defence and security pact with them was no big deal. They would have accepted it with open arms. Also since the founder to these two countries would have been one, even "Bangastan's" currency notes would also have had carried the image of the Quaid-e-Azam. But now the situation is different. For example there is much difference between an unbroken glass and broken one which has been again joined together with some adhesive. The crack caused by the breakage would always show and it would never be as strong as it was before. Similarly the damage caused by the 1971 debacle would always remain. The bitterness it created would not go away easily as there had been a lot of bloodshed at that time. Also since we did not voluntarily released them but they got independence on an anti-Pakistan viewpoint and were aided by India which is our arch enemy and other countries, many countries have been invloved with them now. So it would be very difficult to have a mutual defence and security pact with them now because the international community is involved with them now and they have many other pacts with many other countries. Also the superpowers and specially India would create many hurdles between this.

 

[ejaz007]

So far the topic has been centered around two Pakistans namely Pakistan and Bangladesh. What abvout the areas that should have become part of Pakistan or gained independence. For example Hyderabad, Junagarh, Ferdospur, Gurdaspur or some other parts. Any information on that.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

A mutual defense and security pact would be a good idea but Bangladesh would probably only agree if it was also guaranteed by another major power or security alliance (e.g. China and the SCO). If it was merely a bilateral security arrangement both the US and India would try to overturn it and put immense pressure on Bangladesh to invalidate it.

 

[cactuslily58]

So far the topic has been centered around two Pakistans namely Pakistan and Bangladesh. What abvout the areas that should have become part of Pakistan or gained independence. For example Hyderabad, Junagarh, Ferdospur, Gurdaspur or some other parts. Any information on that.

Its quite simple.

Considering how E Pak was bungled by islamabad, these hypothetical parts of Pak would have also separated as BD did.

 

[cactuslily58]

A mutual defense and security pact would be a good idea but Bangladesh would probably only agree if it was also guaranteed by another major power or security alliance (e.g. China and the SCO). If it was merely a bilateral security arrangement both the US and India would try to overturn it and put immense pressure on Bangladesh to invalidate it.

Why would anyone enter into a mutual pact with a country that is perpetually unstabilised and " on the cross roads" ?
Where is the assurance that in the hour of need Pak is in internal turmoil ?
What can Pak offer to BD which it cannot get elsewhere ?
Why should BD forget what Pak did to it from '47 to '71, remember they were Muslims then too ?
Would BD risk going to war due to actions of Pak on its E borders ?
Why would India allow such " pacts " in its periphery ?

Today the credibility of Pak is very low instead of such pipe dreams it would be better to focus on consolidating what it has.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

The problem in South Asia is a lack of an adequate security arrangement focused on India. The destabilizing element in the region is India.