16th December 1971: From East Pakistan to Bangladesh

[Destranator]

 

[DalalErMaNodi]

FFS!


Another thread over this, just what we needed.

The moronic comments that these threads spawn makes my BP shoot into the sky, I will make a mental note to keep away from this thread.

Think before you type!


Joi Bangla! Just for good measure.

 

[cloud4000]

The short answer is yes, it was avoidable. If Mujiber Rehman was allowed to become the next PM and formed the next government, the map of South Asia would look different indeed.

 

[bhola record]

It was bound to happen because of problem in our contries we hate each other based on our ethnicities.We still see lahore lahore aye,karachi ka muqabla nai ,ye to maila hai, wo dekho burger.etc plus politicians and their egos that is real problem dude what would happen if bhutto stepped down or mujeeb nothing laikin nai we are assholes . Who knew what would have happened if we stayed together great things but one influence of devill is more deadly than thousands whispers of angels

 

[American Pakistani]

No it was not. Sooner or later it was bound to happen. Pakistan and Bangladesh were like a forced amalgamation. 1947 should've been the Ch Rahmat Ali's and Iqbals vision.

Though I wish it had ended in a better way instead of so much bloodshed.

 

[BHarwana]

Was The 1971 Break-Up Of Pakistan Avoidable?

Today I will discuss this topic with my Bengali friends hope you will not go too harsh on me.

First my Bengali friends tell me was it avoidable or not & then I will take my shot at the topic.

 

[N.Siddiqui]

Demographically West and East Pakistan was separate countries...in linguistics and ethnicity too.

And the idea for separate regions for Muslims to be carved out of India where there are Muslims in majority is what matters the most.

In 1947 there could be two countries as well for Muslims, at the western and the eastern sides.

So you call it Pakistan or Bangladesh, it doesn't matter much...the idea of separate regions(countries) are achieved.

So the Two Nation Theory is still relevant and valid.

 

[xyx007]

Every nation has its mood, but what we have seen from history is that Bengali swings their mood every 50 years. Bangladesh and Pakistan have natural synergy because of the same religion, the same national heroes, and even our street names on our same national heroes. So, there is a lot of miscommunication created by India. Hope will be resolved between and start exchange people's connections soon.IK should consider removing visa restrictions to allow people contacts easily between the two countries. then will see how it goes.
we need to surface the Hamoodur Rehman Commission report in public and if we are guilty then accept our mistakes publicly and move on to economical progress between countries.

 

[Fawad alam]

Pakistan was not in suitable geographic position this is correct but still we could have avoid that split,
What i know is that split was planned long before 71 as per unclassified US documents (This what i read somewhere in last year) and as per interview of a Bengali person the situation was deliberately created so after split the new government will not be pro Islamic (because Bengali people are very good Muslims and the Muslims scholars are very respectable in Bengal) but based on ethnicity.

 

[Species]

Was The 1971 Break-Up Of Pakistan Avoidable?

Today I will discuss this topic with my Bengali friends hope you will not go too harsh on me.

First my Bengali friends tell me was it avoidable or not & then I will take my shot at the topic.

Yes, could have been avoided. All Pakistan needed was an effective power-sharing mechanism defined by the constitution. Few proposals were extended in the early years, the Bogra plan for example, but were not implemented.

I believe if the civilian governments were allowed to function properly, an agreement would have been reached ultimately to define this mechanism far before 1971, avoiding the whole debacle.

 

[BHarwana]

Yes, could have been avoided. All Pakistan needed was an effective power-sharing mechanism defined by the constitution. Few proposals were extended in the early years, the Bogra plan for example, but were not implemented.

I believe if the civilian governments were allowed to function properly, an agreement would have been reached ultimately to define this mechanism far before 1971, avoiding the whole debacle.

How was power sharing not happening? will you please elaborate on that as well? Just to inform you I will counter argument you on this in next few post so that we can have both point of views.

 

[Species]

How was power sharing not happening? will you please elaborate on that as well? Just to inform you I will counter argument you on this in next few post so that we can have both point of views.

Power was held by the military which was dominated by Pathans and Punjabis; I'm precisely talking about 1958 onward. Both the political and military epicenters of Pakistan were located in the western wing.

It's true that Bengalis already had a low military participation since the British period, but this deficit could have been compensated by either allowing the civilian governments to function properly to create a power-sharing mechanism themselves or by having an unofficial civilian-military agreement where the power is shared between Bengali-dominated civilian government and Pathan/Punjabi-dominated military.

 

[BHarwana]

Power was held by the military which was dominated by Pathans and Punjabis; I'm precisely talking about 1958 onward. Both the political and military epicenters of Pakistan were located in the western wing.

It's true that Bengalis already had a low military participation since the British period, but this deficit could have been compensated by either allowing the civilian governments to function properly to create a power-sharing mechanism themselves or by having an unofficial civilian-military agreement where the power is shared between Bengali-dominated civilian government and Pathan/Punjabi-dominated military.

If i prove you wrong here then what will be your point of view? I will do it with simple facts & discussion. Please don't get angry with me cause it is a discussion & if at some point I unintentionally hurt your feelings please forgive me cause I just want to discuss and it is a sensitive topic.
So in defence I would like to state these things. Pakistan came into being in 1947 both east & west Pakistan. With in 4 years of Pakistan getting established the unrest in Bangladesh started with the establishment right after the assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan in 1951 & on 21 February 1952 a day which is called in Bangladesh as Ekushey February the language movement reached it's climax. So how were Bengali's able to decide just in 4 years as they were being deprived of power & language just in 4 years after becoming a new country? My question is a valid question & I am trying to imply that your view which says that west Pakistan was at mistake is wrong & right from the very start the intentions with in Bangladesh were wrong & they wanted to have a separation no matter what, even if we did every thing correct. Please don't get flamed over this, just think logically what I am saying.

 

[Species]

If i prove you wrong here then what will be your point of view? I will do it with simple facts & discussion. Please don't get angry with me cause it is a discussion & if at some point I unintentionally hurt your feelings please forgive me cause I just want to discuss and it is a sensitive topic.
So in defence I would like to state these things. Pakistan came into being in 1947 both east & west Pakistan. With in 4 years of Pakistan getting established the unrest in Bangladesh started with the establishment right after the assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan in 1951 & on 21 February 1952 a day which is called in Bangladesh as Ekushey February the language movement reached it's climax. So how were Bengali's able to decide just in 4 years as they were being deprived of power & language just in 4 years after becoming a new country? My question is a valid question & I am trying to imply that your view which says that west Pakistan was at mistake is wrong & right from the very start the intentions with in Bangladesh were wrong & they wanted to have a separation no matter what, even if we did every thing correct. Please don't get flamed over this, just think logically what I am saying.

Language Movement is not even an issue, many of the top student leaders of that movement were staunch supporters of united Pakistan, Ghulam Azam for example. Such civil disturbances are normal for a new country, there were also riots in Punjab around that time on the Ahmadiyya issue, so the disturbances were not limited to East Pakistan only.

Bengali Muslims were the forerunners of Pakistan movement, there is no way a person would want to break something that he has just created.

I've never said West Pakistan was wrong or East Pakistan was right or vice-versa, it's not the point. Politicians from both sides were looking for their own interests. My argument was whether there was a possibility to create a political atmosphere where interests of both sides could be preserved.

I still think this is irrelevant to the discussion. I mentioned about the political history from 1958 onward because that's when the cracks started to develop. I think it's better to focus on this part to analyze the issue: "Was the break-up of Pakistan avoidable?"

 

[BHarwana]

Language Movement is not even an issue, many of the top student leaders of that movement were staunch supporters of united Pakistan, Ghulam Azam for example. Such civil disturbances are normal for a new country, there were also riots in Punjab around that time on the Ahmadiyya issue, so the disturbances were not limited to East Pakistan only.

Bengali Muslims were the forerunners of Pakistan movement, there is no way a person would want to break something that he has just created.

I've never said West Pakistan was wrong or East Pakistan was right or vice-versa, it's not the point. Politicians from both sides were looking for their own interests. My argument was whether there was a possibility to create a political atmosphere where interests of both sides could be preserved.

I still think this is irrelevant to the discussion. I mentioned about the political history from 1958 onward because that's when the cracks started to develop. I think it's better to focus on this part to analyze the issue: "Was the break-up of Pakistan avoidable?"

You are a bit wrong my friend the language was one of the maim reason for this partition we can't deny that fact it was used. Urdu was never a language of certain ethnic majority in Pakistan cause Pakistan in different areas had a different language. People had Sindhi Punjabi Pashtoon Kashmiri Baloch Bengali all spoke different languages.
Regarding your power sharing politics do you realize that Pakistan of that time was a democracy. Development done in the east Pakistan was higher than west so the reasons of power sharing being a cause are not valid.
Secondly if you make power sharing a cause then it also imply that this all was done to feed the ambitions of one person as power only goes to one person & democracy gives power to people.