Pakistan's Tejaram in 1971

[kobiraaz]

Source?

The book " Neta o Pita " written by Sharmin Ahmed , Tajuddin's daughter. The book is controversial in Bangladesh as it does not shy away from criticising Sheikh Mujib and also mentioned kidnapping and murdering of Non Bengalis after 16th December.I feel the source is trustworthy.

 

[Apprentice]

Perhaps the opposite emerge. If W Pak was loyal to Pakistan, its laws, and was concerned that the nation should continue to survive, then they should have faithfully accepted the verdict of the elections. By not doing so, W Pak political-military establishment clearly caused the break-up. Only an idiotic general and a silly political leader could have imagined that by waging war on the majority they could ensure unity of the nation. Nope, W Pak military and political leaders of the time must be totally blamed for what happened. No wonder, Gen Zia had Bhutto hanged - not for the murder of Kasuri Sr but for dissecting the nation.

If Mujib had been allowed to become PM, what would his foreign policy and Kashmir policy have been in your opinion?

Perhaps the opposite emerge. If W Pak was loyal to Pakistan, its laws, and was concerned that the nation should continue to survive, then they should have faithfully accepted the verdict of the elections. By not doing so, W Pak political-military establishment clearly caused the break-up. Only an idiotic general and a silly political leader could have imagined that by waging war on the majority they could ensure unity of the nation. Nope, W Pak military and political leaders of the time must be totally blamed for what happened. No wonder, Gen Zia had Bhutto hanged - not for the murder of Kasuri Sr but for dissecting the nation.

General Zia Ul Haq was the only sincere leader we've had in a while (although the liberals who dominate this forum disproportionally will scream at this statement of mine). I have a feeling that a man like Zia ul Haq could have kept Pakistan together.

But one thing that I want to make sense of are the pro-Pakistan Bengalis. Notably those from the Islamic parties.

The Jamaat e Islami was initially in favour of giving power to Mujib and Awami League.

But as soon as the revolt started, the Jamaat e Islami supported the Army operation to save the unity of Pakistan. And this included Jamaaat e Islami and all the other Islamic parties from both West Pakistan and East Pakistan.

All the ethnic problems, economic imbalances etc were not important in the eyes of the Islamic parties. For them, what was paramount was the unity of Muslims.

I do feel that if the Islamist Bengalis could generally remain loyal to Pakistan, despite all the grievances, why couldn't the rest of the Bengali population stay loyal?

 

[Jaat Rock]

Yet more evidence to suggest that East Pakistan was never loyal to the Union. East Pakistan always created trouble in constitutional matters. The 1956 Constitution is a good example to suggest how the East Pakistani political establishment simply bullshited their way out of it. While Bangladesh now has 8 divisions, back then East Pakistani politicians were busy plotting to dominate the West Pakistan by using Bangal as a single unit while opposing West Pakistan's single unit policy. It is utterly misleading to think that the 71 crisis was entirely of the making of the West Pakistan establishment, as the East Pakistan politicians were never really loyal to the Union. Mujib was a Marxist who was very close to the KGB, it was always his intention to create such a crisis. Heavy handed tactics of West Pakistani dictators didn't help either. The split in 71 was going to happen sooner or later. Bangladesh will remain a ghost in the shadow of India, it will never emerge as a true sovereign state.

Okay, So East Pakistanis were not loyal to West Pakistan and you guys gave them reason to fight for a separate state in 1970. That was pure stupidity of your West Pakistani leader and Army. It means you guys are still reason why East Pakistan become Bangladesh.

 

[asad71]

If Mujib had been allowed to become PM, what would his foreign policy and Kashmir policy have been in your opinion?



General Zia Ul Haq was the only sincere leader we've had in a while (although the liberals who dominate this forum disproportionally will scream at this statement of mine). I have a feeling that a man like Zia ul Haq could have kept Pakistan together.

But one thing that I want to make sense of are the pro-Pakistan Bengalis. Notably those from the Islamic parties.

The Jamaat e Islami was initially in favour of giving power to Mujib and Awami League.

But as soon as the revolt started, the Jamaat e Islami supported the Army operation to save the unity of Pakistan. And this included Jamaaat e Islami and all the other Islamic parties from both West Pakistan and East Pakistan.

All the ethnic problems, economic imbalances etc were not important in the eyes of the Islamic parties. For them, what was paramount was the unity of Muslims.

I do feel that if the Islamist Bengalis could generally remain loyal to Pakistan, despite all the grievances, why couldn't the rest of the Bengali population stay loyal?

1.My point is W Pakistanis, who had largely opposed the creation of Pakistan and who were the minority part of Pakistan, they out of greed to usurp all power and benefit of the state, had eventually destroyed United Pakistan.
2. Mujib spent jail sentences for his part in Pakistan movement as a youth leader of ML. And Bhutto was then debauching in Mumbai and only felt the need to obtain Pak citizenship in 1958 for becoming a cabinet member. Mujib was a responsible public figure. He never always went along with the pulse of the public. He would probably open more doors for resolving Kashmir issue. Never in any statement has he ever accepted Kashmir's occupation by India - before or after '71.
3. On the other hand he would have politically created a buffer zone for E Pak in W Bengal. And definitely he would have made serious moves in Arakan. While W Pak remained glued on Kashmir Tripura, Assam and Arakan were lost because the political leaders and senior bureaucrats of the time were not keen that the Eastern wing become more powerful. That's wht Gen Akbar Khan, Rangrut, the senior most PA officer used to feel.

 

[Apprentice]

1.My point is W Pakistanis, who had largely opposed the creation of Pakistan and who were the minority part of Pakistan, they out of greed to usurp all power and benefit of the state, had eventually destroyed United Pakistan.
2. Mujib spent jail sentences for his part in Pakistan movement as a youth leader of ML. And Bhutto was then debauching in Mumbai and only felt the need to obtain Pak citizenship in 1958 for becoming a cabinet member. Mujib was a responsible public figure. He never always went along with the pulse of the public. He would probably open more doors for resolving Kashmir issue. Never in any statement has he ever accepted Kashmir's occupation by India - before or after '71.
3. On the other hand he would have politically created a buffer zone for E Pak in W Bengal. And definitely he would have made serious moves in Arakan. While W Pak remained glued on Kashmir Tripura, Assam and Arakan were lost because the political leaders and senior bureaucrats of the time were not keen that the Eastern wing become more powerful. That's wht Gen Akbar Khan, Rangrut, the senior most PA officer used to feel.

Thats what I am curious abt to. Because I have heard a talk abt Arakan's Muslims wanting to join East Pakistan. But the central government was more interested in Kashmir at the time.

Did Mujib express any public view on Kashmir issue after 1971?

 

[asad71]

Thats what I am curious abt to. Because I have heard a talk abt Arakan's Muslims wanting to join East Pakistan. But the central government was more interested in Kashmir at the time.

Did Mujib express any public view on Kashmir issue after 1971?

1.Not only Arakan, whose Muslim leaders had even sent a delegation to convince Jinnah at LHR during the LHR Resolution conference,the Maharaja of Tripura stayed in Dhaka for two weeks for an offer of opting for Pakistan. In return he had demanded a sum of Rs 12 Lacs. The Urdu speaking bureaucrats at Dhaka even refused to see him. He went over to Calcutta where he was welcome. The Nagas, who used to have a Cease Fire arrangement with the British, also wanted an opportunity to opt for Pak, an option they thought was more sensible. Assamese Muslims of whom Maulana Bhashani was one of the leaders, also sought to join Pak. Sahrowardy had all along fancied his own city Calcutta to be joining Pakistan. But Pak leaders exchanged Calcutta for the Sikh city of LHR. Actually Urdu speaking political leaders and bureaucrats who ruled Pakistan those days, were totally apathetic to E Pak.
2. To my knowledge Mujib never spoke about Kashmir either way after '71. A nationalist, a patriot and one believing in Muslim brotherhood, he obviously would be supportive of Kashmiris' struggle. But could he come out openly with that post-71 when BD was totally under the boot of India? For instance, during a meeting with Yasser Arafat, he had offered to send Mukti Bahini fighters to fight for Palestine.

 

[Apprentice]

/QUOTE]

Btw sir plz check your profile. I have left message there. Thx.

 

[kobiraaz]

Thats what I am curious abt to. Because I have heard a talk abt Arakan's Muslims wanting to join East Pakistan. But the central government was more interested in Kashmir at the time.

Did Mujib express any public view on Kashmir issue after 1971?

There is an interesting story. He felt betrayed by Pakistani leadership. According to him they didn't do enough to keep more regions of Bengal and Intentionally let the regions go. Key points were -

1. When Congress agreed to the division of India, According to Mujib -- Bengali leaders of Muslim League started working at the root level to keep Entire Bengal barring Bardhman and Entire Assam in Pakistan little to their knowledge that Pakistan central leadership had already agreed to divide Bengal into half and give entire Assam to India except Sylhet.

2. According to him this was done to curb East Pakistan's population. A larger population of East Pakistan would have made Bengali leaders like Suhrawardi Invincible in the newly formed Pakistan. This is why West Pakistan leaders were more than happy to let Kolkata and Assam go.

3.Khaja Nazimuddin ( based in Dhaka) was a direct competitor of Suhrawardi ( based in Kolkata) . It was his conspiracy to declare Dhaka the capital of East Pakistan in order to make himself the unchallenged leader from East Pakistan. Without his vote bank in Kolkata Suhrawardi was weak. And being the second most popular leader after Jinnah, Suhrawardi was a headache for Khaja Nazimuddin as well as Central Muslim league leaders . According to Mujib, by declaring dhaka as capital Pakistan's grasp on Kolkata was loosened....

4. According to Mujib , Mountbatten was unsure with Kolkata as he considered it a place for which Bengali Muslims and hindus would fight to death. It was written in his book " Mission with Mountbatten" . But Muslim league let the prosperous city go for their personal gain.. Mujib says in his memoirs -- Sensing no refusal from Pakistan, Mountbatten gave Darjeeling ( which he mentioned a part of East Pakistan before in his book), Bongaon of Khulna, Krisnanagar and Ranaghat of Nadiya which was muslim majority, Entire Murshidabad, Malda, Dinajpur, Balurghat, Jolpaiguri Karimganj of Assam to India. According to Mujib These were inseparable part of Pakistan.

 

[Riyad]

Please describe true sovereign state.



Bangladesh is surrounded by India that doesnt mean Bangladesh will be under shadow Republic of India. Republic of India or Islamic republic Pakistan didnt exist before 70 years or 200 years. Who can guarantee their existence after abolishing modern state ideas. Bangla was, still is and always will be. Geographical proximity, trade, language, culture, history made us similar people. Bangladesh is a separate Indian subcontinent country. Similar to all of Indian ocean doesnt belong to Republic of India, Indian subcontinent also not exclusively to them.

Reality is different.



Kamrujjaman, Bangladesh is my country
11.3k Views • Kamrujjaman has 30+ answers in Bangladesh

Religion of both countries is Islam. But Bangladesh is very liberal & everything is influenced by Indian culture. On the other hand, Pakistan is showing hostile attitude to India from the very beginning. Pakistani politicians, Media all are trying to create sentiments against India.

According to the online source Pakistan and Bangladesh "The differences between Pakistan and Bangladesh outweigh their common features. There are differences of physical environment-Pakistan is a country of arid lowlands and high mountains whereas Bangladesh is well watered and low-lying, apart from the small hilly eastern region inland of Chittagong.


In Pakistan, the management of scarce water resources is a major problem, while in Bangladesh, the annual problem of flooding is more significant. The main differences are in the people and in the political evolution of the two countries since their 1971 separation.

Bangladesh is becoming one of the world’s emerging, digital & liberal country while Pakistan is still now a conservative & hostile country for India & western world.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-Pakistani-people-and-Bangladeshi-people

 

[barbarosa]

There are three great frauds in the world.
1: Democracy.
2: Culture.
3:Judicial.

 

[halupridol]

There are three great frauds in the world.
1: Democracy.
2: Culture.
3:Judicial.

they might be great,,,but u still missed the greatest of frauds

 

[Khan_21]

Reality is different.



Kamrujjaman, Bangladesh is my country
11.3k Views • Kamrujjaman has 30+ answers in Bangladesh

Religion of both countries is Islam. But Bangladesh is very liberal & everything is influenced by Indian culture. On the other hand, Pakistan is showing hostile attitude to India from the very beginning. Pakistani politicians, Media all are trying to create sentiments against India.

According to the online source Pakistan and Bangladesh "The differences between Pakistan and Bangladesh outweigh their common features. There are differences of physical environment-Pakistan is a country of arid lowlands and high mountains whereas Bangladesh is well watered and low-lying, apart from the small hilly eastern region inland of Chittagong.


In Pakistan, the management of scarce water resources is a major problem, while in Bangladesh, the annual problem of flooding is more significant. The main differences are in the people and in the political evolution of the two countries since their 1971 separation.

Bangladesh is becoming one of the world’s emerging, digital & liberal country while Pakistan is still now a conservative & hostile country for India & western world.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-Pakistani-people-and-Bangladeshi-people

Liberal? I guess you miss the daily hacking to death of hindu's and Christians in Bangladesh . If you mean by mentality than Pakistani's are one of the least racist people in the world according to a survey . If just talking in terms of outlook Islamabad , Lahore , Karachi look more liberal than Dhaka or Chittagong .

Pakistan is considered a hostile country by the west because its a regional power .

1. Pakistan Army , Airforce , ISI all are regarded as one of the best in their respective fields. Top that off with the fastest growing nuclear programme in the world and you think the West will like us? They are fond of weak Muslim countries whom they can toy with . Pakistan should never care what the west or world thinks of us .

 

[bongbang]

Reality is different.



Kamrujjaman, Bangladesh is my country
11.3k Views • Kamrujjaman has 30+ answers in Bangladesh

Religion of both countries is Islam. But Bangladesh is very liberal & everything is influenced by Indian culture. On the other hand, Pakistan is showing hostile attitude to India from the very beginning. Pakistani politicians, Media all are trying to create sentiments against India.

According to the online source Pakistan and Bangladesh "The differences between Pakistan and Bangladesh outweigh their common features. There are differences of physical environment-Pakistan is a country of arid lowlands and high mountains whereas Bangladesh is well watered and low-lying, apart from the small hilly eastern region inland of Chittagong.


In Pakistan, the management of scarce water resources is a major problem, while in Bangladesh, the annual problem of flooding is more significant. The main differences are in the people and in the political evolution of the two countries since their 1971 separation.

Bangladesh is becoming one of the world’s emerging, digital & liberal country while Pakistan is still now a conservative & hostile country for India & western world.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-Pakistani-people-and-Bangladeshi-people

Didnt get your point. I clearly said Bangladesh is a separate Indian subcontinent country. So those are not exclusive to Indian but BD's as well. Some cultures are overlapping and some are indigenous. No point showing quora posts.