What's new

Pakistan First ! The case for Pakistani Nationalism.

Apprentice

FULL MEMBER
Feb 4, 2016
656
4
806
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
:yahoo: Wasted my sarcasm on you;
being keyboard happy you didn't even click on the link.
(Make a historical and political argument not a religious one.
Forum rules prohibit religious discussions. :mad:)

You conveniently skipped why we lost the Civil War in 1971.. (But dyslexia is a common affliction...)

In case you noticed the Kashmiris are basing their struggle on Nationalism not Islam and they shout " Azaadi " not the takbeer. Which is why I don't support a military solution to Kashmir. It should be left to fester. If there had been real support from
Kashmiris in the valley we would have taken the territory in 1947-1948 and again in 1965. There is a Kashmiri nationalism headed by the Abdullahs and Mufti Sayeeds that have worked against Pakistan for decades and in both wars their collaboration with India resulted in the capture and killing of hundreds of Pakistani soldiers. The Pahadi speaking Kashmiris from Muzaffarabad and Mirpur, are distinct from the Kashmiri and Dogri speaking population of Srinagar and Jammu. They are only using us as the East Bengalis used us in 1947 to establish a foothold on their territory for a future independent Kashmir state.

If ever a Marxist government comes to power in India they will hand the Kashmir Valley over a platter, and watch the fun , as these very "Mujahids" turn their guns on us just as half the Afghan's are willing to slaughter us for their Pashtun Nationalism.

India never invaded East Pakistan in 1965 despite favorable logistics, They bided their time knowing that Bengali nationalism will trump "Islamic Unity" shortly just as Arab Nationalism had ripped apart a 600 year Ottoman Empire just five decades earlier. Their calculations proved correct.

Turkey would have been cut to a hundred pieces and enslaved if
Arab Nationalist collusion with Western Imperialism had been successfully, and had its way. Turkish Nationalism saved the nation.
It was secular Turkish nationalism under Mustafa Kamal that saved Turkey as we know it today.

The only " surrender " we have seen was on 16th December 1971, thanks to our innocence that Bengali Nationalism is a myth and we are all devout Muslims. Our armed forces had the foresight not to fight to the "last bullet and last man" for a land that didn't want us.
East Pakistan should have been kicked off in 1947. It was indefensible with a restive hostile population and was not worth the life of a single Pakistani soldier.

Your beating the Ummah solidarity drum has no basis in history and shows a remarkable ignorance of the latter.
The fitna wars (656–661 CE), so soon after the advent of Islam and later the Qamaratian sack of Mecca in 930 C.E. shows how fragile the Ummah is ...
We won't even go to present events why Qatar and Saudi Arabia nearly went to war with each other..,
Or the fact the original name for the cradle of Islam was Hejaz which has now been corrupted to a "Saudi Arabia "; the personal property of the chieftain of one Bedouin tribe and his family.

Know your history... kid :crazy:
I agree with your historical analysis. However, we should still base our nationalism on a religious basis in the sense that it be for Pakistani Muslims and not inclusive of non-Muslims. To include Pakistani non-Muslims in our nationalism would be against our raison d'etre as Pakistan was established in the interests of the Muslim residents.

In case we are forgetting, the birth of Pakistan was accompanied with the expulsion of most Pakistani Hindus and Sikhs who were exchanged for Indian Muslims ethnically cleansed from East Punjab, Delhi, a few Rajputana states (Alwar & Bharatpur) and eastern districts of Jammu. So we'd end up having to apologise for the forced population transfers and killing of Pakistani Hindus and Sikhs in 1947 if we were to adopt a Pakistani nationalism which is inclusive of religious minorities. They can be our protected citizens, but should they engage in treachery to the state they should be eligible for the collective treatment meted out to the treacherous East Pakistani Hindus and treacherous Jews of Banu Qurayza.

We also need to retain the two-nation theory as our national narrative in case any foreign Muslims (this is increasingly likely in Modi's India) change their mind about Pakistan.
 

Itachi

BANNED
Aug 27, 2013
3,055
0
3,173
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
:yahoo: Wasted my sarcasm on you;
being keyboard happy you didn't even click on the link.
(Make a historical and political argument not a religious one.
Forum rules prohibit religious discussions. :mad:)

You conveniently skipped why we lost the Civil War in 1971.. (But dyslexia is a common affliction...)

In case you noticed the Kashmiris are basing their struggle on Nationalism not Islam and they shout " Azaadi " not the takbeer. Which is why I don't support a military solution to Kashmir. It should be left to fester. If there had been real support from
Kashmiris in the valley we would have taken the territory in 1947-1948 and again in 1965. There is a Kashmiri nationalism headed by the Abdullahs and Mufti Sayeeds that have worked against Pakistan for decades and in both wars their collaboration with India resulted in the capture and killing of hundreds of Pakistani soldiers. The Pahadi speaking Kashmiris from Muzaffarabad and Mirpur, are distinct from the Kashmiri and Dogri speaking population of Srinagar and Jammu. They are only using us as the East Bengalis used us in 1947 to establish a foothold on their territory for a future independent Kashmir state.

If ever a Marxist government comes to power in India they will hand the Kashmir Valley over a platter, and watch the fun , as these very "Mujahids" turn their guns on us just as half the Afghan's are willing to slaughter us for their Pashtun Nationalism.

India never invaded East Pakistan in 1965 despite favorable logistics, They bided their time knowing that Bengali nationalism will trump "Islamic Unity" shortly just as Arab Nationalism had ripped apart a 600 year Ottoman Empire just five decades earlier. Their calculations proved correct.

Turkey would have been cut to a hundred pieces and enslaved if
Arab Nationalist collusion with Western Imperialism had been successfully, and had its way. Turkish Nationalism saved the nation.
It was secular Turkish nationalism under Mustafa Kamal that saved Turkey as we know it today.

The only " surrender " we have seen was on 16th December 1971, thanks to our innocence that Bengali Nationalism is a myth and we are all devout Muslims. Our armed forces had the foresight not to fight to the "last bullet and last man" for a land that didn't want us.
East Pakistan should have been kicked off in 1947. It was indefensible with a restive hostile population and was not worth the life of a single Pakistani soldier.

Your beating the Ummah solidarity drum has no basis in history and shows a remarkable ignorance of the latter.
The fitna wars (656–661 CE), so soon after the advent of Islam and later the Qamaratian sack of Mecca in 930 C.E. shows how fragile the Ummah is ...
We won't even go to present events why Qatar and Saudi Arabia nearly went to war with each other..,
Or the fact the original name for the cradle of Islam was Hejaz which has now been corrupted to a "Saudi Arabia "; the personal property of the chieftain of one Bedouin tribe and his family.

Know your history... kid :crazy:
Don't tell me forum rules kid. I was in this forum before you even knew it existed.

As for your "history" lesson, it's a very bad one. Kemal usurped power from the Usmani Khalifa and then got the shit beat out of him by Europeans. Who he then started worshipping.

Turkey of today is very different from his Turkey. Good thing too.....he's currently rolling in his grave. Like all the other nationalists. :lol:

The future of Pakistan is with Islam. Anyone who says otherwise will have to eat dust.
 

Baibars_1260

FULL MEMBER
Sep 12, 2020
1,570
0
1,384
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
I agree with your historical analysis. However, we should still base our nationalism on a religious basis in the sense that it be for Pakistani Muslims and not inclusive of non-Muslims. To include Pakistani non-Muslims in our nationalism would be against our raison d'etre as Pakistan was established in the interests of the Muslim residents.
The resolution to establish Pakistan in 1940 terms it as a "Homeland for the Muslims of India " . The resolution did not call for the expulsion and slaughter of non-Muslims. Pakistan was to be a parallel to the original state of Yathrib ( Medina) which offered refuge to Muslims fleeing persecution but also guaranteed the rights of non-Muslims ( Jews and Christians) living within the city state. This was the very first Constitution in the world guaranteeing human rights.

In case we are forgetting, the birth of Pakistan was accompanied with the expulsion of most Pakistani Hindus and Sikhs who were exchanged for Indian Muslims ethnically cleansed from East Punjab, Delhi, a few Rajputana states (Alwar & Bharatpur) and eastern districts of Jammu.
No we don't forget...
In his speech on 11th August 1947, the Founder of Our Nation Qaid e Azam had spelled out the vision for Pakistan, and the status of non-Muslim minorities here. They were to live as equal citizens.
What happened to the Sikh and particularly Hindu minorities in Pakistan during Partition was condemnable and shameful. The Sikhs and particularly the Hindus in what is Pakistan today had no role in the massacres and ethnic cleansing of Muslims in North western India.
The massacres of Muslims in East Punjab, Delhi and Haryana were carried out almost exclusively by Sikhs. Retaliation against the Hindu population in Pakistan was the most heinous act by self-styled Muslims violating the basic tenet of Islam which condemns killing of innocent people.
Also, the Sikhs in Pakistan were not responsible for what Sikhs in India were doing. Killing Sikhs and Hindus in Pakistan did not stop the massacres of Muslims in Punjab.,
Instead of Kashmir Pakistan should have concentrated on sending troops into east Punjab on punitive missions, evacuating Muslims, and delivering reprisals on the killers there. Communal rioters are cowardly regardless of which religion they belong. In his book General Fazal Muqeem Khan wrote how a killer mob in Patiala mistakenly stopped a Pakistani troop train heading into Pakistan from eastern India thinking it was a refugee train, were to put it mildly "unpleasantly surprised ".

So we'd end up having to apologise for the forced population transfers and killing of Pakistani Hindus and Sikhs in 1947 if we were to adopt a Pakistani nationalism which is inclusive of religious minorities.
No, we don't apologize...
The time for apologies, from either India or Pakistan is over. We signed a pact ( Liaquat Nehru Pact on April 08, 1950) which guaranteed protection to our respective minorities. That generation that suffered or inflicted atrocities is gone on both sides of the border. Moving forward our actions will speak louder than words. Not harassing minorities on Blasphemy, implementing the Constitution article of "Equal protection under Law" is sufficient to build both the confidence of our minorities and their equal participation in building and defending our nation.

They can be our protected citizens,
Not "can be" ...They ARE our protected citizens; by the Law of our Constitution,

but should they engage in treachery to the state they should be eligible for the collective treatment meted out to the treacherous East Pakistani Hindus and treacherous Jews of Banu Qurayza.
There is no "collective punishment"
in Pakistan's Criminal Penal Code where only individuals can be charged with sedition or treason. Groups promoting treason, sedition, violence or collusion with a hostile foreign power can be disrupted and banned. There is no "collective punishment " option in our laws, If the BLA carries out terror attacks we disrupt and eliminate BLA terror cells and deal out individual punishment to their members. We don't deal out collective punishment on the Baluchi people, Likewise with the TTP , we don't carry out collective punishment on Pashtuns, Afridis, Mohmandis and Maiwandis.

So far there is no evidence that non-Muslim minorities ( the tiny residual population still left with us ) has ever indulged in mass revolt, sedition, treason, collusion with the enemy etc. If they did the law of the land would apply as equally for them as it applies to Muslim citizens who indulge in these activities.

We also need to retain the two-nation theory as our national narrative in case any foreign Muslims (this is increasingly likely in Modi's India) change their mind about Pakistan.
The two nation theory has served its purpose to establish two Muslim majority nations out of old India, thus effectively separating the Muslim majority regions from Hindu dominated Indian rule. The Muslim population that is living as a majority in two independent nations, would have been a minority in a united India.

The two nation theory never addressed the question of Muslims living in India as minorities. Though these Muslims supported Pakistan and fought for its creation they did so knowing that they would pay a fearsome price in reprisals. The minority Indian Muslims hold no geographical territory where they are in a majority. They are thus doomed in the reprisals they are facing from an angered majority community that views the region as a greater India. Why did the Indian Muslims choose this path? It was because they knew that the population of the regions where Muslims were in a majority had a degree of comfort that had blinded them to danger of Hindu Nationalist fundamentalism that was to erupt in the future. Pakistan would never be formed with their complacency. Once Muslims who were minorities in the territory now called India, began making the population of what is now Pakistan aware of what was to come the situation changed. But for them today we would have been a minority population in India in far worse condition than Kashmir or the Indian North Eastern Christian provinces.
Having said that, there is nothing Pakistan can do to help the Indian Muslims and their path to oblivion is assured. Indian Muslims can't come to Pakistan because even if they could miraculously jump over the border they know that Pakistan will never be able to survive the influx. They love Pakistan , want Pakistan to live, and prefer to fight their last ditch survival battle alone.
They have a fatalistic attitude of some must die for the rest to survive.
Like the Muslims of Spain they will soon be History. But there are many Muslim populations around the world that are threatened by extinction. ( Example: Central African Republic, Ivory coast, Myanmar, Ethiopia etc. )

So Pakistan shouldn't worry about Indian Muslims any more than worrying about the Afars in Ethiopia. It doesn't matter what Modi does... Let's save ourselves first.
 
Last edited:

Apprentice

FULL MEMBER
Feb 4, 2016
656
4
806
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
In his speech on 11th August 1947, the Founder of Our Nation Qaid e Azam had spelled out the vision for Pakistan, and the status of non-Muslim minorities here. They were to live as equal citizens.
What happened to the Sikh and particularly Hindu minorities in Pakistan during Partition was condemnable and shameful. The Sikhs and particularly the Hindus in
what is Pakistan today had no role in the massacres and ethnic cleansing of Muslims in North western India. The massacres of Muslims in East Punjab, Delhi and Haryana were carried out almost exclusively by Sikhs. Retaliation against the Hindu population in Pakistan was the mostly heinous act by self-styled Muslims violating the basic tenet of Islam which condemns killing of innocent people. The Sikhs in Pakistan were not responsible for what Sikhs in India were doing. Killing Sikhs and Hindus in Pakistan did not stop the massacres of Muslims in Punjab.,
Instead of Kashmir Pakistan should have concentrated on sending troops into east Punjab on punitive missions evacuating Muslims delivering reprisals on the killers there. Communal rioters are cowardly regardless of which religion they belong. In his book General Fazal Muqeem Khan wrote how a killer mob in Patiala mistakenly stopped a Pakistani troop train heading into Pakistan from eastern India thinking it was a refugee train, were to put it mildly "unpleasantly surprised ".
Its not so simple. On 25 August 1947 in an interview with James Weldon of Collier's Weekly, Jinnah called the minorities in both countries "hostages." The hostage theory was the background of Jinnah's promises of protecting non-Muslim citizens and giving them equal rights. This theory was applied in reality when a Muslim caravan in East Punjab was under danger so Sir Francis Mudie informed Jinnah that he would hold up a Pakistani Sikh caravan as hostages for the safe passage of those Indian Muslims. Jinnah never objected to him doing this act, which endangered the lives of Pakistani Sikhs for Indian Muslims.

Not "can be" ...They ARE our protected citizens; by the Law of our Constitution,
There is no "collective punishment"
in Pakistan's Criminal Penal Code where only individuals can be charged with sedition or treason. Groups promoting treason, sedition, violence or collusion with a hostile foreign power can be disrupted and banned. There is no "collective punishment " option in our laws, If the BLA carries out terror attacks we disrupt and eliminate BLA terror cells and deal out individual punishment to their members. We don't deal out collective punishment on the Baluchi people, Likewise with the TTP , we don't carry out collective punishment on Pashtuns, Afridis, Mohmandis and Maiwandis.

So far there is no evidence that non-Muslim minorities ( the tiny residual population still left with us ) has ever indulged in mass revolt, sedition, treason, collusion with the enemy etc. If they did the law of the land would apply as equally for them as it applies to Muslim citizens who indulge in these activities.
I agree, but in 1971 Pakistan was under martial law. And the Pakistan Army Eastern High Command (which was the state in East Pakistan then) had decided to expel the Hindu population of East Pakistan for their years of subversive activities. That was collective punishment by the martial law authorities on the Hindu population of East Pakistan. Our Army also had a general practice of killing adult Hindu males (while sparing Hindu women and children). Not just Anthony Mascarenhas, US Consulate in Dacca and various Bengali sources but even Sarmila Bose says so.

If we refer back to the examples of what was done with Banu Qurayza for their treachery the latter practice can be justified. Similarly, the mass expulsion can also be justified by reference to the fates of Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir - these were Jewish tribes who were expelled for their treason to the Muslims in Medina, Collective punishment can't be imposed on Muslim communities as far as I am aware, but can be on treacherous Muslim individuals. However, collective punishments were imposed on non-Muslim communities in the time of the Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wassalam) as shown in the examples provided.

The remaining West Pakistani religious minorities are subdued communities and are peaceful, even patriotic. If anything they live in fear and do not create trouble for the state. But where they had numbers and influence like in East Pakistan they fostered anti-state feelings and ethno-nationalism in the minds of Muslim students.
 

Baibars_1260

FULL MEMBER
Sep 12, 2020
1,570
0
1,384
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
As for your "history" lesson, it's a very bad one. Kemal usurped power from the Usmani Khalifa and then got the shit beat out of him by Europeans. Who he then started worshipping.
LoL..the doddering old Usmani Khalifa who wouldn't even give a fatwa for Jihad as the Royal Navy was shelling Galipolli ?

From :
The Turkish Cultural foundation History site:


WORLD WAR I 1914 –1918: The weakening of the Empire continued until World War I. The Ottoman Empire entered the First World War in 1914 on the side of the allied powers and emerged defeated from the war in 1918, compelled to sign the Mondros Armistice on October 30, 1918. Under the terms of this Armistice, the territories of the Ottoman Empire were occupied by Britain, France, Russia, and Greece. This was the actual end of the Ottoman Empire.

A national resistance and liberation movement emerged as a reaction to this occupation under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal, an Ottoman military commander who mobilized Anatolia in a quest for Turkish self-determination and national independence. He united sporadic and disorganized resistance groups in Anatolia and organized them into a structured army. Under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal—later given the last name Ataturk or "Father of Turks"—the resistance became cohesive, and the Turks were capable of fighting the war for national liberation.

The Turkish National Liberation War was an effort to create a new state from the ruins of an Empire, which had completed its life. It lasted four years (1919-1922) wherein a small army of volunteers fought and won a war against the leading powers of this time. Ataturk's victory was not only military, but it was also diplomatic. The Turkish military victory was sealed with a diplomatic success with the signing of the Lausanne Peace Treaty on July 24, 1923. Signed with Great Britain, France, Greece, Italy and others, the Treaty recognized the creation and international borders of a Turkish State and guaranteed its complete independence.

Turkey of today is very different from his Turkey. Good thing too.....he's currently rolling in his grave. Like all the other nationalists.
When were you in Turkey last?
On May 19 the nation commemorates the memory of
Attaturk landing in Samaun and it is the Annual Sports and Youth day.

If Kemal Attaturk is rolling in his grave then so is Mohammed Ali Jinnah who was an admirer of Kemal ( as you correctly describe as "other nationalists") ,, Can you hear any rolling sounds coming out of the Jamshed Quarter?


The future of Pakistan is with Islam. Anyone who says otherwise will have to eat dust.
😊😊😊Those who won the Civil War against us, chose their future, without Pakistan, or Islam, even though by personal faith they are Muslims. They are certainly not eating dust, but rather progressing.

Why can't we do the same?

In fact we are doing so with help from are secular ally China and will continue to do so. We will survive, we will prosper till the end of time.
 

Itachi

BANNED
Aug 27, 2013
3,055
0
3,173
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
LoL..the doddering old Usmani Khalifa who wouldn't even give a fatwa for Jihad as the Royal Navy was shelling Galipolli ?

From :
The Turkish Cultural foundation History site:

WORLD WAR I 1914 –1918: The weakening of the Empire continued until World War I. The Ottoman Empire entered the First World War in 1914 on the side of the allied powers and emerged defeated from the war in 1918, compelled to sign the Mondros Armistice on October 30, 1918. Under the terms of this Armistice, the territories of the Ottoman Empire were occupied by Britain, France, Russia, and Greece. This was the actual end of the Ottoman Empire.

A national resistance and liberation movement emerged as a reaction to this occupation under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal, an Ottoman military commander who mobilized Anatolia in a quest for Turkish self-determination and national independence. He united sporadic and disorganized resistance groups in Anatolia and organized them into a structured army. Under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal—later given the last name Ataturk or "Father of Turks"—the resistance became cohesive, and the Turks were capable of fighting the war for national liberation.

The Turkish National Liberation War was an effort to create a new state from the ruins of an Empire, which had completed its life. It lasted four years (1919-1922) wherein a small army of volunteers fought and won a war against the leading powers of this time. Ataturk's victory was not only military, but it was also diplomatic. The Turkish military victory was sealed with a diplomatic success with the signing of the Lausanne Peace Treaty on July 24, 1923. Signed with Great Britain, France, Greece, Italy and others, the Treaty recognized the creation and international borders of a Turkish State and guaranteed its complete independence.
The same Khalifate that took Constantinople & pushed into Europe whereas cuck nationalists lost the Empire. :lol:

Who do you think the Young Turks were?? They got their asses beaten by the guys who got their asses beaten by the Ottomans centuries ago.

When were you in Turkey last?
On May 19 the nation commemorates the memory of
Attaturk landing in Samaun and it is the Annual Sports and Youth day.

If Kemal Attaturk is rolling in his grave then so is Mohammed Ali Jinnah who was an admirer of Kemal ( as you correctly describe as "other nationalists") ,, Can you hear any rolling sounds coming out of the Jamshed Quarter?
Don't care. I don't worship either like a god. :D

😊😊😊Those who won the Civil War against us, chose their future, without Pakistan, or Islam, even though by personal faith they are Muslims. They are certainly not eating dust, but rather progressing.

Why can't we do the same?

In fact we are doing so with help from are secular ally China and will continue to do so. We will survive, we will prosper till the end of time.
Your and China's future ain't bright. But Islam will overcome.....over the dead bodies of nationalists who'll die for us. :devil:
 

Baibars_1260

FULL MEMBER
Sep 12, 2020
1,570
0
1,384
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Its not so simple. On 25 August 1947 in an interview with James Weldon of Collier's Weekly, Jinnah called the minorities in both countries "hostages." The hostage theory was the background of Jinnah's promises of protecting non-Muslim citizens and giving them equal rights. This theory was applied in reality when a Muslim caravan in East Punjab was under danger so Sir Francis Mudie informed Jinnah that he would hold up a Pakistani Sikh caravan as hostages for the safe passage of those Indian Muslims. Jinnah never objected to him doing this act, which endangered the lives of Pakistani Sikhs for Indian Muslims
Jinnah was right about the minorities being "hostages" and our " friendly next door neighbor" treated Indian Muslims as just that ; "hostages ". That doesn't mean Jinnah or other political leaders of the era approved of the hostage standoff. The decision of one tinpot British colonial officer on the Punjab Boundary Force which the two week old Government of Pakistan didn't control anyway did not determine our policy towards minorities, which is why the Liaquat-Nehru Pact was signed.

Should we go with our Constitution as defined by our elected representatives or by a tinpot colonial British officers decision decades back when our nation had not even been formed properly?

I agree, but in 1971 Pakistan was under martial law. And the Pakistan Army Eastern High Command (which was the state in East Pakistan then) had decided to expel the Hindu population of East Pakistan for their years of subversive activities. That was collective punishment by the martial law authorities on the Hindu population of East Pakistan. Our Army also had a general practice of killing adult Hindu males (while sparing Hindu women and children). Not just Anthony Mascarenhas, US Consulate in Dacca and various Bengali sources but even Sarmila Bose says so.
I don't know how to fact check your anecdotal evidence you are presenting here, and I won't bother to ask you for links to the references you are quoting because these are enemy propaganda. I will simply take your argument to its own absurd logic.

Ok, so assuming our Armed forces killed adult Hindu males and expelled the Hindu population...
What did that achieve?
Apart from being the most savage and barbaric acts of war crimes it was the most stupid policy.
The minority population of East Pakistan played a negligible part in the Civil War. Have you been to the Bangladesh War Museum?
Off the several army officers that mutinied from the Pakistan Army ( EBR) only one was a Hindu. He was Major A. Dutta who later spent his post-war career in the wilderness, sidelined by his Muslim colleagues, and retired to found the Bangladesh Hindu League to protect minorities in Bangladesh.

The secession and Civil War was a 99% Bengali Muslim effort planned right from 1947 through a series of events. The leaders were all Bengali Muslims with Stalwarts such as Sheikh Mujib, Maulana Bhashani, Tajuddin. The secession and Civil war was planned with the Agartala Conspiracy case when Mujibur Rahman indicted for collusion with the enemy was acquitted by a partisan judge. It was not just the judge who was partisan but 99% of the population which was 78% Muslim.
In our blind adherence to a skewed understanding of "Islamic Unity" we failed to identify the real enemy who were the Bengali Muslims of East Pakistan. Slaughter of Hindus ( even if true) got us nothing.
Which is why we lost the Civil War f

If we refer back to the examples of what was done with Banu Qurayza for their treachery the latter practice can be justified. Similarly, the mass expulsion can also be justified by reference to the fates of Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir - these were Jewish tribes who were expelled for their treason to the Muslims in Medina, Collective punishment can't be imposed on Muslim communities as far as I am aware, but can be on treacherous Muslim individuals. However, collective punishments were imposed on non-Muslim communities in the time of the Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wassalam) as shown in the examples provided.
I am not getting into a theological argument with you and there are historical reasons for the events you are quoting.
Here is my logic and questions:

1. If collective punishment for the minorities of Pakistan for "treachery" is justified, then is collective punishment dealt out to Rohingyas by Myanmar, Bosnian Muslims by Serbs, Kashmiri Muslims by India also justified? The Myanmarese accuse the Rohingyas of violence and treachery as do the Serbs on Bosnians and Indians on Kashmiris.
The RSS can find a lot of examples in their scriptures where collective punishments have been dealt out to restive populations . The whole of Sri Lanka was put to the sword and burnt to the ground because the king of Sri Lanka had kidnapped an Indian queen.
So every nation should impose collective punishment on those they don't like for example the Armenians slaughtering Azeri
civilians.


The remaining West Pakistani religious minorities are subdued communities and are peaceful, even patriotic. If anything they live in fear and do not create trouble for the state. But where they had numbers and influence like in East Pakistan they fostered anti-state feelings and ethno-nationalism in the minds of Muslim students.
Questions:
Why should any minority live subdued and in fear?
Should Indian Muslims live subdued and in fear?

Should Flt. Lt Cecil Chaudhuri S.J.
live in fear?

Should we abide by our laws and our Constitution which guarantees equality and protection to minorities? Or should we abandon these laws with a different system?

We can stop here, and resume our conversation when the laws change to deliver collective punishment and execution of adult minority males.
 

Apprentice

FULL MEMBER
Feb 4, 2016
656
4
806
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
I don't know how to fact check your anecdotal evidence you are presenting here, and I won't bother to ask you for links to the references you are quoting because these are enemy propaganda. I will simply take your argument to its own absurd logic.

Ok, so assuming our Armed forces killed adult Hindu males and expelled the Hindu population...
What did that achieve?
Apart from being the most savage and barbaric acts of war crimes it was the most stupid policy.
The minority population of East Pakistan played a negligible part in the Civil War. Have you been to the Bangladesh War Museum?
Off the several army officers that mutinied from the Pakistan Army ( EBR) only one was a Hindu. He was Major A. Dutta who later spent his post-war career in the wilderness, sidelined by his Muslim colleagues, and retired to found the Bangladesh Hindu League to protect minorities in Bangladesh.

The secession and Civil War was a 99% Bengali Muslim effort planned right from 1947 through a series of events. The leaders were all Bengali Muslims with Stalwarts such as Sheikh Mujib, Maulana Bhashani, Tajuddin. The secession and Civil war was planned with the Agartala Conspiracy case when Mujibur Rahman indicted for collusion with the enemy was acquitted by a partisan judge. It was not just the judge who was partisan but 99% of the population which was 78% Muslim.
In our blind adherence to a skewed understanding of "Islamic Unity" we failed to identify the real enemy who were the Bengali Muslims of East Pakistan. Slaughter of Hindus ( even if true) got us nothing.
Which is why we lost the Civil War
Sarmila Bose is not enemy propaganda but by far the most neutral academic source on the events of 1971. Similar is mentioned by Colonel Nadir Ali and Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report. The later two are Pakistani sources.

I am aware that Bengali Muslims played the leading role in the civil war. But you are forgetting some facts. The educational institutions of East Pakistan were dominated by Hindu teachers who fostered Bengali nationalism and hatred for West Pakistan in the minds of Bengali Muslim students in the first place. To the extent that in places even Islamic Studies was taught by Hindu professors. What kind of propaganda they put against West Pakistan in the minds of Bengali Muslim students is not even denied by Bengalis either. It was the effect of these Hindu teachers that Bengali (Muslim) students were the leading secessionists in East Pakistan and even when Mujib was dilly dallying in March 1971 between going for secession or staying in Pakistan as its PM it were the Bengali students who were pressuring him to declare independence of Bangladesh.

And the Mukti Bahini was made up of Bengali Muslim ex-servicemen of the Pakistani Army in addition to the Bengali refugees in India who were mostly Hindu. Moreover, the Hindus were solidly in favour of the Awami League whereas Bengali Muslim opinion was more mixed (many right-wing/conservative Bengali Muslims supported Pakistan even in 1971). The Hindus had been supporting Awami League ever since it had dropped "Muslim" from its name in 1955. It was a Hindu leader of Awami League under whose supervision the Pakistani flag was burnt in March 1971. It were Bengali Hindus who had encouraged the language movement among Bengali Muslims and it was a Bengali Hindu who had objected to Liaquat Ali Khan in the Constituent Assembly saying that Urdu will be our state language. Gholam Wahed Chowdhary, who was a Bengali Muslim diplomat, himself writes that the demand for autonomy in East Pakistan was led by Hindus and Communists.
 
Last edited:
Jul 10, 2018
1,998
-38
1,106
Country
Nepal
Location
Nepal
Its not so simple. On 25 August 1947 in an interview with James Weldon of Collier's Weekly, Jinnah called the minorities in both countries "hostages." The hostage theory was the background of Jinnah's promises of protecting non-Muslim citizens and giving them equal rights. This theory was applied in reality when a Muslim caravan in East Punjab was under danger so Sir Francis Mudie informed Jinnah that he would hold up a Pakistani Sikh caravan as hostages for the safe passage of those Indian Muslims. Jinnah never objected to him doing this act, which endangered the lives of Pakistani Sikhs for Indian Muslims.



I agree, but in 1971 Pakistan was under martial law. And the Pakistan Army Eastern High Command (which was the state in East Pakistan then) had decided to expel the Hindu population of East Pakistan for their years of subversive activities. That was collective punishment by the martial law authorities on the Hindu population of East Pakistan. Our Army also had a general practice of killing adult Hindu males (while sparing Hindu women and children). Not just Anthony Mascarenhas, US Consulate in Dacca and various Bengali sources but even Sarmila Bose says so.

If we refer back to the examples of what was done with Banu Qurayza for their treachery the latter practice can be justified. Similarly, the mass expulsion can also be justified by reference to the fates of Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir - these were Jewish tribes who were expelled for their treason to the Muslims in Medina, Collective punishment can't be imposed on Muslim communities as far as I am aware, but can be on treacherous Muslim individuals. However, collective punishments were imposed on non-Muslim communities in the time of the Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wassalam) as shown in the examples provided.

The remaining West Pakistani religious minorities are subdued communities and are peaceful, even patriotic. If anything they live in fear and do not create trouble for the state. But where they had numbers and influence like in East Pakistan they fostered anti-state feelings and ethno-nationalism in the minds of Muslim students.
Man you need to consult a doctor. Are you seriously justifying murder and rape of Hindus during the 1971 war?
 

Itachi

BANNED
Aug 27, 2013
3,055
0
3,173
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Man you need to consult a doctor. Are you seriously justifying murder and rape of Hindus during the 1971 war?
When did that ever happen LOL??

You're again talking about stuff which has nothing to do with reality. We know you're a big Islamophobe.
 
Jul 10, 2018
1,998
-38
1,106
Country
Nepal
Location
Nepal
When did that ever happen LOL??

You're again talking about stuff which has nothing to do with reality. We know you're a big Islamophobe.
You are saying rape and murder did not happen? Fyi thousands of dead bodies from multiple mass graves were recovered after 1971 war. Skulls of those martyred Bengalis are still in the museum go check it out. About the rape part, immediately after the war, many women gave birth to war babies and many rehabilitation clinics were set up which are not false.

For the second part yeah I am Islamophobe, what will you do about it? LOL hahaha
 

Itachi

BANNED
Aug 27, 2013
3,055
0
3,173
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
You are saying rape and murder did not happen? Fyi thousands of dead bodies from multiple mass graves were recovered after 1971 war. Skulls of those martyred Bengalis are still in the museum go check it out. About the rape part, immediately after the war, many women gave birth to war babies and many rehabilitation clinics were set up which are not false.

For the second part yeah I am Islamophobe, what will you do about it? LOL hahaha
I'm not denying rape and murder. I need to see a source on the rape and murder of Bengali Hindus...

Which you claimed in post #161. Also, I need a source on your above "claims/opinions". I know for a fact that Indians did a lot of rapes and murders too in the name of PA to stir hysteria.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom