Narendra Modi reminds to the Bangladeshi people that it was India who orchestrated the Break up of P

[doorstar]

Because it's an old news..every PM has talked same shit since last 20 years

you mean they all said "India used between 13 lakh and 15 lakh soldier in E.Pakistan and Pakistanis killed 65k or 75k or 90k Indian soldiers"

he is saying that "13,00000" Indians took part and lost 65000 then says 75000?
then
he is saying that more than "15,00000" Indians took part and lost 90000?

then those 15lakhs brave soldiers captured 90K Pakistanis

hum ne unke nubay hajar sainik baapus kar deay pur wo hum ko hur bakat puraysan kartay hain or unsc ka permanunt mimber be nahin banay datay

hum ko seecority ka mimber ban-nay ke liay tarsna purr raha hai

 

[AyanRay]

he is saying that "13,00000" Indians took part and lost 65000 then says 75000?
then
he is saying that more than "15,00000" Indians took part and lost 90000?

so a total of 90,000 Pakistani soldiers and volunteers(razakar) did all that as well as manage to rape and kill 3 million bongos too? I wish I'd seen that

is he making it up as goes along or what?

just say whatever comes to his head

He is talking about the 1st and 2nd world war.

you mean they all said "India used between 13 lakh and 15 lakh soldier in E.Pakistan and Pakistanis killed 65k or 75k or 90k Indian soldiers"

he is saying that "13,00000" Indians took part and lost 65000 then says 75000?
then
he is saying that more than "15,00000" Indians took part and lost 90000?

then those 15lakhs brave soldiers captured 90K Pakistanis

hum ne unke nubay hajar sainik baapus kar deay pur wo hum ko hur bakat puraysan kartay hain or unsc ka permanunt mimber be nahin banay datay

hum ko seecority ka mimber ban-nay ke liay tarsna purr raha hai

He was referring to Indian soldiers participation in 1st and 2nd world wars

 

[doorstar]

He is talking about the 1st and 2nd world war.



He was referring to Indian soldiers participation in 1st and 2nd world wars

thanks for clarification, some of his words were very difficult for me to understand, so i was only able to get a gist of it

first posters just went on tangents instead of talking about and explaining the video so I took it upon myself to try and understand it

BTW were there no Kashmiri Punjabi and Bloch soldiers from present day Pakistan areas in those wars? only hindus and banglas?

 

[Kuru]

Bangladesh cannot be called P A K (I) S TAN, perhaps Bengalistan....?
Punjab
Afghania (Another name for KPK)
Kashmir
Sindh
Balochistan

There is and was no Bangla in P A K (I) S TAN.

This anagram has been developed by losers really. There was no anagram when Pakistan was coined or created.

Bengal was always going to be the part of Pakistan and everybody knew it (except the losers of course).

But Bengal couldn't remain Pakistan because the theory of "Muslims will live peacefully with Muslims only - and not with the Hindus" was so flawed that it couldn't last for more than 26 years.

Bengalis mutined, we just provided the support as the civil war in what is now Bangladesh was going out of control. Too many refugees in india. And you provided us a wonderful opportunity when you attacked Agra. We were waiting for it, and we ended it swiftly. That's what Modi is talking about.

There is no mention of single state drill 1946 Delhi conventi6muslim league wanted two countries...its only 1946 when Bengal first governor asked for single country given growing animosity with india...

Please read this article published in your newspaper:

In a signed preface to India 's Problem of Her Future Constitution, as early as October 7, 1940, the Quaid-i-Azam said, "That the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority, as in the North-Western and Eastern zones of India, should be grouped to constitute an 'independent State', in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign."

https://nation.com.pk/22-Oct-2008/state-or-states

If you read the article you will find out that that 'the concept of Pakistan' included Assam too!

But anyway, I just wanted you to know that Bangal was indeed the part of "Pakistan Idea" as early as October 1940.

I'm sorry that the two nation theory couldn't last for more than 2 dacades though. The war is always unfortunate. So don't take Modi seriously because he will ofcourse praise India's role during the 1971 and would want to score points in Bangladesh. I'm sure you would've done the same if the result was reversed.

 

[AyanRay]

thanks for clarification, some of his words were very difficult for me to understand, so i was only able to get a gist of it

first posters just went on tangents instead of talking about and explaining the video so I took it upon myself to try and understand it

BTW were there no Kashmiri Punjabi and Bloch soldiers from present day Pakistan areas in those wars? only hindus and banglas?

The words like pratham and dwitiya vishwayudh can be confusing for a non sanskrit/hindi speaker.
He never mentioned Hindus, he said Bhartiya or Indians. Second he was addressing the Indian community in Bangladesh, so he made that statement.
Anyways his analogy is wrong, it was the Britishers who recruited the people of undivided India to fight there war. There was no independent India at that time to send her forces to fight. In fact there was a situation in northeast where these very troops were fighting against the Azad hind Fauz, the army which was fighting for the independence of India with Japanese help.

 

[doorstar]

The words like pratham and dwitiya vishwayudh can be confusing for a non sanskrit/hindi speaker.
He never mentioned Hindus, he said Bhartiya or Indians. Second he was addressing the Indian community in Bangladesh, so he made that statement.
Anyways his analogy is wrong, it was the Britishers who recruited the people of undivided India to fight there war. There was no independent India at that time to send her forces to fight. In fact there was a situation in northeast where these very troops were fighting against the Azad hind Fauz, the army which was fighting for the independence of India with Japanese help.

now this makes sense, thanks!

P.S.

Anyways his analogy is wrong, it was the Britishers who recruited the people of undivided India to fight there war.

If I remember my history correctly, prior the arrival of the British, your Mughal empire was breathing its last and there was no United India, it was the British who brought all the warring states of the Sub-continent together to form India
Thanks again!

 

[ziaulislam]

you mean they all said "India used between 13 lakh and 15 lakh soldier in E.Pakistan and Pakistanis killed 65k or 75k or 90k Indian soldiers"

he is saying that "13,00000" Indians took part and lost 65000 then says 75000?
then
he is saying that more than "15,00000" Indians took part and lost 90000?

then those 15lakhs brave soldiers captured 90K Pakistanis

hum ne unke nubay hajar sainik baapus kar deay pur wo hum ko hur bakat puraysan kartay hain or unsc ka permanunt mimber be nahin banay datay

hum ko seecority ka mimber ban-nay ke liay tarsna purr raha hai

There is no confusion India used a million troops along with Bengal rifles against 60,000 troops and 30,000 civilians

World used was states not state
Cabinet mission included three groups which included Bengal assam and full Punjab

Had this would have happened we would have little migration and much more tolerant society given a large minority

 

[TMA]

This anagram has been developed by losers really. There was no anagram when Pakistan was coined or created.

Bengal was always going to be the part of Pakistan and everybody knew it (except the losers of course).

But Bengal couldn't remain Pakistan because the theory of "Muslims will live peacefully with Muslims only - and not with the Hindus" was so flawed that it couldn't last for more than 26 years.

Bengalis mutined, we just provided the support as the civil war in what is now Bangladesh was going out of control. Too many refugees in india. And you provided us a wonderful opportunity when you attacked Agra. We were waiting for it, and we ended it swiftly. That's what Modi is talking about.



Please read this article published in your newspaper:

In a signed preface to India 's Problem of Her Future Constitution, as early as October 7, 1940, the Quaid-i-Azam said, "That the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority, as in the North-Western and Eastern zones of India, should be grouped to constitute an 'independent State', in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign."

https://nation.com.pk/22-Oct-2008/state-or-states

If you read the article you will find out that that 'the concept of Pakistan' included Assam too!

But anyway, I just wanted you to know that Bangal was indeed the part of "Pakistan Idea" as early as October 1940.

I'm sorry that the two nation theory couldn't last for more than 2 dacades though. The war is always unfortunate. So don't take Modi seriously because he will ofcourse praise India's role during the 1971 and would want to score points in Bangladesh. I'm sure you would've done the same if the result was reversed.

Yes Losers(!). First it is an acronym. Not anagram.

It was first coined by Choudary Rehmat Ali in 1933. He published this acronym in his pamphlet: Now or Never!

"At this solemn hour in the history of India, when British and Indian statesmen are laying the foundations of a Federal Constitution for that land, we address this appeal to you, in the name of our common heritage, on behalf of our thirty million Muslim brethren who live in PAKSTAN—by which we mean the five Northern units of India, Viz: Punjab, North-West Frontier Province (Afghan Province), Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Declaration

Please read cabinet mission 1946, Pakistan resolution 1940
There is no mention of single state drill 1946 Delhi conventi6muslim league wanted two countries...its only 1946 when Bengal first governor asked for single country given growing animosity with india...

After wards the inflexible attitude of mujeeb led to Bangladesh

Summary which is never taught to Indians but can be easily verified by some Google search
1. 1940 resolution was after India repeatedly ignored ores 1/3 seats in center for muslims to avoid constitutional changes unilaterally
2. Pakistan accepted 1946 cabinet mission calling for United India, it was Congress who rejected it calling it too loose federation
3. Original plan was two countries east and west only in 1946 Bengal leaders asked for single entity
4. India played a vital role in breaking Pakistan through unilateral military aggression though it mention refugees as a ploy but do you see Pakistan axing Afghanistan due to refugees?
Pakistan learned a lesson.
And thus this ended any hope for peace fully settlement for next 100 years ..sindh water agreement proves that Pakistan can make unilateral concessions but now we will see two nuclear states as Pakistan knew had it had nuclear weapons in 1971 India would not have attacked us
5. India frequently mentions baluchistan movement when India has nothing to do with it in anyway. You never see Pakistan talking about nagaland or manipur
Kashmir is disputed territory and both sides talk about each occupied areas which is okay but why baluchistan??? Clearly shows India obsession
6. Terroism has effected both countries Pakistani died in Samjohta Express and Indians in Bombay but still India forgets about its side


Because it's an old news..every PM has talked same shit since last 20 years

Yes. The Rohinga Muslims of Burma even asked Quaid E Azaam for them to be included in his movement.
I think that he realised that it was impractical. Even with Bengal, it was still impractical but given the support by the Bengali Muslims and the fact that the Oppressor would not allow another Muslim state,Bengal became part of Pakistan...

 

[El Sidd]

India has used state sponsored terrorism as an extension of its foreign policy ever since its inception.

It is a mob masquerading as a Nation and uses hypocrisy as tools of mass coercion and indoctrination.

 

[indianfighter1999]

India has used state sponsored terrorism as an extension of its foreign policy ever since its inception.

It is a mob masquerading as a Nation and uses hypocrisy as tools of mass coercion and indoctrination.

fits best on pakistan

 

[Kuru]

It was first coined by Choudary Rehmat Ali in 1933. He published this acronym in his pamphlet: Now or Never!

Okay. My bad. Thank you.

 

[Dash]

The bonhomie shown between Pakistanis and Bangladeshis here is good in many ways.

The problem is after liberation of Bangladesh, she moved ahead in all human indexes while Pakistan struggled to keep pace.

You guys need to collaborate more and more with each other and Bangladesh can show Pakistan a thing or two on development.

India will be okey with that.

 

[El Sidd]

fits best on pakistan

Ok just dont start protesting.

 

[TMA]

Okay. My bad. Thank you.

You are welcome.

 

[Dash]

India has used state sponsored terrorism as an extension of its foreign policy ever since its inception.

It is a mob masquerading as a Nation and uses hypocrisy as tools of mass coercion and indoctrination.

El sid you have been quite high on something these days. I for all know you as a person of facts. But offlate you seem to have been inflated or your mind at least by politics?

Something went wrong recently?