The Original Pakistan Could've Been Saved

[azmax007]

1. Democratically the capital of Pakistan should have been Dhaka instead of Karachi since 55% of the Pakistani population were East Pakistani Bengalis and the remaining 45% were West Pakistanis. I have no idea why the Quad-E-Azam Muhmmad Ali Jinnah chose Karachi as the capital, it was not even a choice based on popular sovereignty.

2. English should have been the official language. In the Pakistani Union not everyone spoke Bengali and not everyone spoke Urdu. Therefore, a neutral language such as English could've been the best choice for the national language.

3. Single currency with two Federal Banks should have been created, one in Dhaka and one in Karachi.

4. West Pakistan should have invested on East Pakistan's infrastructure more to control the floods and defend against Indian invasion and propaganda.

If East Pakistan got equal representation and money from the Pakistan Union government then the Quad-E-Azam's Pakistan would still exist today and I would be proud to wave the Pakistani flag today.

 

[Proud to be Pakistani]

It was to be the way it is now...

SO MANY WORDS CAN BE SAID BUT IN THE END ITS BANGLADESH NOW AND WILL BE LIKE THAT!

 

[azmax007]

It was to be the way it is now...

SO MANY WORDS CAN BE SAID BUT IN THE END ITS BANGLADESH NOW AND WILL BE LIKE THAT!

We are the new generation and yet we always look back on what a great united nation we would've been if it wasn't for our leaders.

 

[Proud to be Pakistani]

I AM NOT FROM THOSE WHO WEEP AT LOOKING AT THE PAST AND NOT THINK OF THE FUTURE!

MAKE BEST USE OF THE PRESENT, TRY TO LEARN FROM YOUR PAST AND MOVE ON!

 

[acidwolf]

west pakistan consist of 4 provinces punjab where only punjabi is spoken..sindh whr till 1971 95% ppl were speaking sindhi in balochistan balochi is spoken and in NWFP pushto is spoken.....urdu was not a language of any province thats why we chose urdu as the national language because its not a regional language of any province of pakistan...if we had made bengali as a national language than punjab could have said make punjabi the national language...as simple as that....

 

[mujahideen]

1. Democratically the capital of Pakistan should have been Dhaka instead of Karachi since 55% of the Pakistani population were East Pakistani Bengalis and the remaining 45% were West Pakistanis. I have no idea why the Quad-E-Azam Muhmmad Ali Jinnah chose Karachi as the capital, it was not even a choice based on popular sovereignty.

2. English should have been the official language. In the Pakistani Union not everyone spoke Bengali and not everyone spoke Urdu. Therefore, a neutral language such as English could've been the best choice for the national language.

3. Single currency with two Federal Banks should have been created, one in Dhaka and one in Karachi.

4. West Pakistan should have invested on East Pakistan's infrastructure more to control the floods and defend against Indian invasion and propaganda.

If East Pakistan got equal representation and money from the Pakistan Union government then the Quad-E-Azam's Pakistan would still exist today and I would be proud to wave the Pakistani flag today.

1. Well Karachi was chosen as the Capital because this is where most of the refugees who came from India settled and these refugees speaking Urdu. Karachi would soon be speaking Urdu. The Quaid-I-Azam believed that the capital should be near the sea, it is also interesting to note the Quaid-I-Azam himself wanted to switch the Capital at a later time to a more secure place. Now in the 1962 Constitution Dhaka was the Parliamentary capital while Rawalpindi was the Executive and Judicial capital.
2. You are saying Urdu should not of been the official language because most people didn't speak Urdu, and you also say English should of been the official language. May be you are not aware of the fact that even less people spoke English then Urdu. I think Urdu should of been the official language because it was the language of the Pakistan Movement. Now in the 1962 Constitution Bengali was also declared the official language of Pakistan along with Urdu.
3. Now I agree with you when you say single currency with two federal banks. I think it is a joke when one country has two currencies.
4. Now when you say Pakistan should of invested in East Pakistan may be you are not aware of how much Pakistan really invested in East Pakistan. I have read Pakistan spent more on East Pakistan then on the West. I often hear this argument and it is wrong a a lot was invested in East Pakistan. The only reason people say more was invested in West Pakistan is because it was the administrative capital of Pakistan.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

azmax007

Must understand when you are not wanted!
]
Lord Byron, when he was expelled from England said. "If I am not good enough for England, then England is not enough for me!"

 

[Flintlock]

We are the new generation and yet we always look back on what a great united nation we would've been if it wasn't for our leaders.

Jeez, I just don't get it.

Bangladesh gets neglected, treated like a colony, and looked down upon by west Pakistan. Its people are massacred in huge numbers.

Yet, Bangladeshis run back to Pakistan like she is some sort of abusive parent.

India rescued you guys from the horror you faced at the hands of these people. Don't you have at least some gratitude?

Atleast have some feelings of kinship with your fellow Bengalis across the border?

Or is religion so much more important than any other thing that two people might share in common?

I guess this is why all Islamic countries are treated like colonies by the Saudis.
The Saudis have such misplaced feelings of superiority to all other muslims, and yet all Islamic countries keep insisting on treating the them like their masters.

Its a shame, really, that Bangladesh wants to play the same game with Pakistan.

 

[UnitedPak]

Jeez, I just don't get it.

Bangladesh gets neglected, treated like a colony, and looked down upon by west Pakistan. Its people are massacred in huge numbers.

Yet, Bangladeshis run back to Pakistan like she is some sort of abusive parent.

India rescued you guys from the horror you faced at the hands of these people. Don't you have at least some gratitude?

Atleast have some feelings of kinship with your fellow Bengalis across the border?

Or is religion so much more important than any other thing that two people might share in common?

I guess this is why all Islamic countries are treated like colonies by the Saudis.
The Saudis have such misplaced feelings of superiority to all other muslims, and yet all Islamic countries keep insisting on treating the them like their masters.

Its a shame, really, that Bangladesh wants to play the same game with Pakistan.

Until the "superior" north Indians start treating South Indians like equals, you are not really a person to talk.
No wonder they once wanted a separate Dravidistan for themselves.

 

[azmax007]

Jeez, I just don't get it.

Bangladesh gets neglected, treated like a colony, and looked down upon by west Pakistan. Its people are massacred in huge numbers.

Yet, Bangladeshis run back to Pakistan like she is some sort of abusive parent.

India rescued you guys from the horror you faced at the hands of these people. Don't you have at least some gratitude?

Atleast have some feelings of kinship with your fellow Bengalis across the border?

Or is religion so much more important than any other thing that two people might share in common?

I guess this is why all Islamic countries are treated like colonies by the Saudis.
The Saudis have such misplaced feelings of superiority to all other muslims, and yet all Islamic countries keep insisting on treating the them like their masters.

Its a shame, really, that Bangladesh wants to play the same game with Pakistan.

You're right about everything except "Bangladeshis run back to Pakistan like she is some sort of abusive parent." That's not true, it just that over the years after 1971 India has done so much damage to Bangladesh's economy. Once example is the linking of the rivers, which will make Bangladesh a desert and damage it's economy. The BSF kills innocent Bengalis every single month. Pakistan is a Muslim country and so is Bangladesh and over the years the relationship between Pakistan and Bangladesh have gotten stronger; the DGFI and the ISI work in a a lot of operations together. India, who was once Bangladesh's ally, has tried to annex Bangladesh until Mujibur Rahman was killed. Bangladesh, after 1971 till this day, is a satellite state of India. Bangladesh is the the second largest importer of Indian goods after USA.

When the next war breaks out in South Asia, Bangladesh will most likely be involved since the separatists are increasing in the easter region of India.

 

[bobloblaw]

1. Democratically the capital of Pakistan should have been Dhaka instead of Karachi since 55% of the Pakistani population were East Pakistani Bengalis and the remaining 45% were West Pakistanis. I have no idea why the Quad-E-Azam Muhmmad Ali Jinnah chose Karachi as the capital, it was not even a choice based on popular sovereignty.

2. English should have been the official language. In the Pakistani Union not everyone spoke Bengali and not everyone spoke Urdu. Therefore, a neutral language such as English could've been the best choice for the national language.

3. Single currency with two Federal Banks should have been created, one in Dhaka and one in Karachi.

4. West Pakistan should have invested on East Pakistan's infrastructure more to control the floods and defend against Indian invasion and propaganda.

If East Pakistan got equal representation and money from the Pakistan Union government then the Quad-E-Azam's Pakistan would still exist today and I would be proud to wave the Pakistani flag today.

I completely agree with the other arguments, except #1
I think that there should have been some sort of division in govt, so Judicial should be in Dhaka, and the rest in West Pakistan, or soemthing like that.
And also, the government and West Pakistani companies did invest in East Pakistan, but not in the flood reduction field, per say. So you are right in that more could have been done. The defence of East Pakistan was one of the prime factors in Bangladesh seperating since Pakistan was unable to defend its Eastern wing against an Indian invasion from all sides. If there had been a better defence system placed in Bangladesh, perhaps it could have still been under Pakistani control. Alas, the stupidity of some leaders, especially Niazi, was too great to be overcome for national security.

All I know is that even though the union didnt work out, Pakistan could have still granted freedom to Bangladesh and there could have been very little bitterness among the Bengali people against Pakistan. All we can gain from this is that both countries should think in terms of their future and remain as allies against the Goliath that is India and help each other progress in the future. Let the two-nation theory live!

 

[salman nedian]

Its time to make progress it is great that 2 Nation theory still exists and it will exist forever. What we need t do is to forget past and move forward as Union or allies.

I believe it’s never too late.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

All I know is that even though the union didnt work out, Pakistan could have still granted freedom to Bangladesh and there could have been very little bitterness among the Bengali people against Pakistan. All we can gain from this is that both countries should think in terms of their future and remain as allies against the Goliath that is India and help each other progress in the future. Let the two-nation theory live!

The thought that Pakistan should have given Bangladesh freedom is flawed. Pakistan came into being as one Nation and giving freedom would have given the impression that the concept of Pakistan has failed. No self respecting Pakistani would accept this since it would go against the dreams and aspirations of Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan.

Further, if Bangladesh was given freedom, it would only fuel the others to subnationalism and demand their Freedom. In short, it would mean the disintegration of Pakistan as a country.

Pakistan would never accept such a fate!!

It is simplistic to suggest such solutions to be amicable on the forum and coalesce religious regrets, but then governance and Nationhood is not a simplistic entity.

Why blame Niazi?

The defence of Pakistan is the prerogative of the Govt based on the military and intelligence Threat Perception and the state of economy to sustain the defence vis a vis other social and economic demands. The defence of East Pakistan should have been thought of, right from the inception of the country of Pakistan, and progressively beefed up as the economic situation improved.

But it was not done. Why was it not done? Was there an underlining subconscious imperative as is suggested by some posts and threads that indicate that the West Pakistanis considered themselves to be of a separate racial strain than the East Pakistanis and that the West Pakistani were purer Moslems, purer race etc than the East Pakistanis? And hence, East Pakistan was best left to their own ways and means? Was there a divide in the mind of West Pakistanis that concretised the separation of the two wings?

Please note that this is not my contention, but it is what I have gleaned from the various thread that indicate that the West Pakistanis are different in culture and racial strain, which it is claimed, is far superior to that of the East Pakistanis (Bengalees) and the Mohajirs. Such is the sentiment on this very forum itself!

As far as some Bengalees of East Pakistan being loyal to Pakistan, Raja Tridib Roy is the best example and he had to flee Bangaldesh inspite of being a Raja!

 

[mujahideen]

The thought that Pakistan should have given Bangladesh freedom is flawed. Pakistan came into being as one Nation and giving freedom would have given the impression that the concept of Pakistan has failed. No self respecting Pakistani would accept this since it would go against the dreams and aspirations of Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan.

Further, if Bangladesh was given freedom, it would only fuel the others to subnationalism and demand their Freedom. In short, it would mean the disintegration of Pakistan as a country.

Pakistan would never accept such a fate!!

It is simplistic to suggest such solutions to be amicable on the forum and coalesce religious regrets, but then governance and Nationhood is not a simplistic entity.

Why blame Niazi?

The defence of Pakistan is the prerogative of the Govt based on the military and intelligence Threat Perception and the state of economy to sustain the defence vis a vis other social and economic demands. The defence of East Pakistan should have been thought of, right from the inception of the country of Pakistan, and progressively beefed up as the economic situation improved.

But it was not done. Why was it not done? Was there an underlining subconscious imperative as is suggested by some posts and threads that indicate that the West Pakistanis considered themselves to be of a separate racial strain than the East Pakistanis and that the West Pakistani were purer Moslems, purer race etc than the East Pakistanis? And hence, East Pakistan was best left to their own ways and means? Was there a divide in the mind of West Pakistanis that concretised the separation of the two wings?

Please note that this is not my contention, but it is what I have gleaned from the various thread that indicate that the West Pakistanis are different in culture and racial strain, which it is claimed, is far superior to that of the East Pakistanis (Bengalees) and the Mohajirs. Such is the sentiment on this very forum itself!

As far as some Bengalees of East Pakistan being loyal to Pakistan, Raja Tridib Roy is the best example and he had to flee Bangaldesh inspite of being a Raja!

Well what you have stated above, I can tell that you have no knowledge what so ever of the history of Pakistan. When we say the "Two Nation Theory" lives we mean it. The original meaning of the Two Nation Theory, was thought up by a Hindu, I dont rember his name but it was first used by him right after the Mutiny, in the late 1950s. His version was that Hindus and Muslims are two seperate and different people and should have two differents nations one for Muslims and the other for Hindus. The next person to advertise this idea was a Brithish minister, and I am sorry again I forgot his name, but he was the first British official to advertise this in Britain. Now the person who really took this idea and in my opinion gave it a Muslim meaning is Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. But we mustn't forget his ideas were not his, he was the one who actually got the people to listen to this idea and it is a false statment that Sir Syed was the founder of the Two Nation Theory.
The original Two Nation Theory was never really put into played but instead was mutated in March of 1940 when the famous Lahore Resolution was passed. The Lahore Resolution or the Pakistan Resolution as we call it today, if anyone ever read it know that no where in the entire text of this Resolution is the word Pakistan mentioned. It call for provincial autonomy not a sepretate state. This idea that today we have of the Lahore Resolution being called the Pakistan Resolution was first used by anti Muslim League newspapers a day after this Resolution was passed. The newspapers were trying to assert that this Resolution calls for Pakistan, which they are wrong and I doubt that they ever even read the Resolution.
The point I am making is that when talking about the Two Nation Theory we also have to talk about the Lahore Resolution. The Lahore Resolution was very open. Now above I said it didn't call for a saperate state for Muslims but provincial autonomy. Now their are some clauses of this Resolution that infact do in some ways call for a Muslim homeland, but if we read it carefully it doesn't say one homeland, thus meaning that the room for two Muslim nations or maybe even more is in this Resolution. In fact many said that two nations should of been called for in the Resolution.
Now what I am trying to say is not easy to understand when ones reads what I have written above. What I am saying is that the original concept of the Two Nation Theory was never really accomplished, but mutated. The Lahore Resolution being that mutated version is very loose, one can at times say the Muslims wanted provincial autonomy, then read it again and think it is a demand for Pakistan and read it again and say the Muslims called for two Muslim nations. The main point is that the Two Nation Theory still lives today because we indeed have the two nations(Hindus and Muslims) living in seperate homeland. They might be two in the case of the Muslims, but none the less the Muslims do have a Muslim country, which was the main point of the Two Nation Theory.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Mujahideen,

Who is talking about the Two nation theory in the context that you are seeing?

The issue that I addressed was that under no circumstances could Pakistan allow Bangladesh to have freedom.

Re-read my post.

Could Pakistan have given freedom and then not have subnationalism raise its ugly head in other parts of Pakistan?

See what the rise of subnationalism is doing to Pakistan right now!