Bangla Babble

[Free Soul]

Bangla Babble​

There wasn’t just one reason behind the separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan. People do and may by all means indulge in incoherent babbling and taunts; there is no stopping people from doing that. Whereas asking searching questions of one’s self takes courage.
Here i will try to put forth some historical perspective along with current and recent trends that make Bangladesh a unique entity in the history of the Subcontinent.

First and foremost the reason behind Bangladesh separating from Pakistan is that Bengali people wanted it. The same reason they did not want to join India after separation from Pakistan, the same reason they fought against the British Raj for independence.

In one of my most recent topic – I touched a little on the idea of Nation.

Nations - Referring to communities/tribes of people having a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history? Or people who share a common territory a common government – people of different decent and ethnic make-up?. In any case – whatever describes us the best, it is an idea or ideals that bind people together for a period of time in history and at present.

If just the idea of being a Bengali speaking nation was enough then East and West Bengal would have united after the dust of Independence, Partition and Secession settled ?

Let’s briefly have a look at the history and path towards present day Bangladesh.

The Saga

The battle of RajMahal between the Pakhtuns and the Mughals in 1576 – Mughals from Delhi govern Bengal. Bengal always remained remote and thus a difficult place to govern, especially from a central governance perspective.
The geographical, linguistic, ethnic and socio-cultural realities fed the appetite of being independent - at least to a degree.
As Mughals found it ever difficult to govern Bengal to their liking – the death of the Emperor Aurangzeb perhaps proved a watershed moment. The era of Bangali Nawabs starts with Ala ud-Daulah – Quli Khan 1717 declared Bengal’s independence from the Mughal empire.

Any independence that Nawabs held ceased with the downfall of Siraj ud-Daulah, the last independent Nawab in Bengal - after which the East India Company got a stronger foothold in Indian Subcontinent. Robert Clive led company forces against Siraj Ud Daulah, the last independent Nawab of Bengal, Bihar, and Midnapore district in Orissa to victory at the Battle of Plassey in 1757, resulting in the conquest of Bengal .

Nawab Siraj ud-Daulah was betrayed by a conspiracy primarily plotted by Mir Jafar, Jagat Seth, Krishna Chandra.

(Robert Clive, 1st Baron Clive, meeting with Mir Jafar after Plassey)

A thing to note here is that the fall of Siraj ud-Daulah coincides with the European tug-of-war for trade monopoly.
Well already from mid to late 18th century the East India Company and thus the Imperial Britain was in control of Indian Subcontinent, the defeat of Moghals and 1857’s war of independence British became the all out rulers of Indian subcontinent.
The British East India Company gained official control of Bengal following the Battle of Plassey in 1757. This was the first conquest, in a series of engagements that ultimately lead to the expulsion of other European competitors. The defeat of the Mughals and the consolidation of the subcontinent under the rule of a corporation was a unique event in imperialistic history. Calcutta became a major trading port. In 1858, authority in India was transferred from the Company to the crown.

From Pakistan Zindabad (Long Live Pakistan) To Pakistan Murdabad (Death to Pakistan)

All India Muslim League was founded in the All India Muhammadan Educational Conference at Dhaka in 1906, that has later lead b y Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

All India Muhammadan Educational Conference at Dhaka, which laid the foundation of Muslim League in 1906 under Nawab Wiqar-ul-Mulk

The Muslim League played a major role in the national movement. Molvi Fazal ul Haq presented the 'Pakistan Resolution' in the historic Lahore Session of the Muslim League in 1940.
Pakistan won its independence in 1947 with a number of prominent Bengali leaders were part of Muslim League

The geographical, linguistic, ethnic and socio-cultural space between the two parts of the country was not enough the two geographically separated parts of Pakistan East and West had a hostile country between them.

Bhasha Andolon
Linguistic, ethnic tensions started showing up all within couple of years since the creation of Pakistan, The students of the University of Dhaka and other political activists defied the law and organised a protest on 21 February 1952. The movement reached its climax when police killed student demonstrators on that day.
After years of conflict, the central government relented and granted official status to the Bengali language in 1956.

The cause that was Nature
The Awami league cashed on the November 7th-13th 1970 Bhola cyclone. The devastating tropical cyclone that struck East Pakistan and India's West Bengal on November 12, 1970. It was the deadliest tropical cyclone ever recorded, and one of the deadliest natural disasters in modern times.

Post Independence from Pakistan: luckily Pakistan could not be blamed for the unfortunate loss of life in excess of tens of thousands from the following cyclones.

6–9 December 1973: The coastal areas near the Sundarbans were hit by a cyclone
13–15 August 1974: A cyclonic storm hit Khulna. Maximum wind speed reached 80.5 km/h. Casualty:600 people.
24–28 November 1974: A cyclone struck the coastal areas near Cox's Bazar and Chittagong. Casualty: 200 people, 1000 cattle. Damages: 2,300 houses destroyed.
9–12 May 1975: A strong cyclone pummeled Bhola.
9–12 May 1977: Khulna, Noakhali, Patuakhali, Barisal, Chittagong and offshore islands effected.
14–15 October 1983: A strong cyclone hit the coastal islands and chars near Chittagong and Noakhali.
5–9 November 1983: A cyclone hit Chittagong, Cox's Bazar coast near Kutubdia, St Martin's Island, Teknaf, Ukhia, Moipong, Sonadia, Barisal, Patuakhali and Noakhali.
24–25 May 1985: A severe cyclone hit Chittagong, Cox's Bazar, Noakhali and coastal islands (Sandwip, Hatiya, and Urirchar). Maximum wind speed at Chittagong was 154 km/h, at Sandwip was 140 km/h, at Cox's Bazar was 100 km/h. The storm surge reached a height of 3.0-4.6 m. Casualty:11,069 people, 135,033 cattle. Damages: 94,379 houses and 74 km of road, and embankments destroyed.
8–9 November 1986: A severe cyclonic storm hit the coastal island and chars near Chittagong, Barisal, Patuakhali and Noakhali.
24–30 November 1988: Casualty: 5,708 people. Total damage to crops reached Taka 9.41 billion.
29–30 April 1991: The 1991 Bangladesh cyclone hit Bangladesh late 29 April night. The storm originated in the Indian Ocean and reached the Bay of Bengal coast after 20 days. The diameter of the storm was close to 600 km. The maximum wind speed (observed at Sandwip) reached 225 km/h. At other places, the maximum wind speed was reported as follows: Chittagong 160 km/h, Khepupara (Kalapara) 180 km/h, Kutubdia 180 km/h, Cox's Bazar 185 km/h, and Bhola 178 km/h. (The NOAA-11 satellite estimated the maximum wind speed to be about 240 km/h at 1.38 pm on 29 April). The storm made landfall near the coast north of Chittagong port during the night of the 29th April. The maximum storm surge height reached about 5 to 8 m. Casualty: 150,000 people, 70,000 cattle. Damages: loss of property was estimated at about Tk 60 billion.
31 May-2 June 1991: A cyclone hit the coastal islands and chars near Patuakhali, Barisal, Noakhali and Chittagong.
29 April-3 May 1994: Casualty: 400 people.
21–25 November 1995: Casualty: 650 people.
16–19 May 1997: A severe cyclonic storm hit the coastal islands and chars near Chittagong, Cox's Bazar, Noakhali and Bhola districts. The maximum wind speed was 225 km/hour, and the storm surge reached 3.05 metres. Casualty: 126 people.
25–27 September 1997:
16–20 May 1998.
19–22 November 1998:
November 15, 2007: Cyclone Sidr makes landfall on southern Bangladesh, causing over 2,000 deaths and severe damage


The Independence
In December 1971 – India became the liberator of Bangladesh, Pakistan Military met a crushing defeat at the hands of Indian Army, the Mukti Bahini and the people of Bangladesh in the then Eastern Pakistan.

Sheikh Mujeeb was arrested and taken to Pakistan. Leader of the Bangladeshies Sheikh Mujeeb was moved to West Pakistan and kept under heavy guard in a jail near Lyallpur. Many other League and Mukti Bahini politicians avoided arrest by fleeing to India and other countries

Pakistan had lost Bangladesh.

After the disgrace that befell on Pakistan, Yahya Khan resigned. Upon assuming the presidency Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had no other option but to respond to international pressure and release Sheikh Mujeeb on January 8, 1972.
Mujeeb was then flown to London where he met with British Prime Minister Edward Heath and addressed the international media
The Liberated Bangladesh rejoiced - Mujeeb then flew directly to New Delhi from Britain on a Royal Air Force plane given by the British government. In New Delhi, he was eagerly awaited by the President Varahagiri Venkata Giri and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The Indian President, prime minister the cabinet and chiefs of armed forces received Sheikh Mujeeb. Delhi was given a festive look as Mujeeb and Indira addressed a huge crowd where he publicly expressed his gratitude to Indira Gandhi and "the best friends of my people, the people of India. From New Delhi, Sheikh Mujeeb flew back to Dhaka on the RAF jet where he was received by a massive and emotional sea of people at Tejgaon Airport.

Bangladesh The Dream Realized
Post Liberation Reforms – Awami League style
Following the independence of Bangladesh in December 1971, Mujeeb becomes the Prime Minister and then the President of Bangladesh.
The blame West Pakistan sales strategy couldn’t sell any more, Sheikh Mujeeb came to office with immense personal popularity but lacked the ability to transforming this popular support into the political strength needed to function as head of government
The preacher of tolerating dissent succeeded in hypocrisy personified.
Mujeeb soon established one party rule
Bans independent and free media. All news papers were banned – only government publications were approved.
Declares himself the lifelong ruler of Bangladesh.

Long Lived The King
It only took 3 years and some 8 odd months for the Bengali nation to sack The Bangabandhu
The founder and liberator of Bangladesh was executed in August 15, 1975.

Hardly any nation in the world matches the records set by Bangladesh in Betrayals Coups and Revolts.
The year in which The Bangabandhu had his - ruler for life - term cut short had some 3 revolts – counter revolts and what not.
1975 saw the coups of 15th August, 3rd Nov and 7th Nov.
Between 1977 to 1980 Bangladesh saw at least 21 coups. Even the worst of the third world countries can’t match that number.
1981 saw another major coup and yet another in 1982
2009 Bangladesh Rifles revolt, killing 57 army officers.

It is the Will of the People
As said before hardly any country in the world matches the records set by Bangladesh in terms of revolts, coups and betrayals.
Bengali them self Betrayed Nawab Siraj ud-Daulah.
Allowed the East India Company and then the crown of Imperial Britain to establish strong foothold in Indian Subcontinent.
Joined in on the Revolt against the British.
Major Players in creation of Pakistan.
Revolted against Pakistan
Revolted against their own liberator Mujeeb The Bangabandhu
Had the record breaking revolts/coups after gaining independence.

 

[Roybot]

This article needs a conclusion? What exactly are you trying to imply?

Had Mujib been allowed to become the leader of Pakistan and Awami league allowed to form the government, 1971 would have never happened!

 

[Roybot]

They never did. Dont go by what bangladeshi rickshawpullers tell here. Most of them are angry on their govt and on India because of BSF shooting.
Also we are not their saviors.

Guy is a flase flag troll, don't entertain him.

 

[Free Soul]

This article needs a conclusion? What exactly are you trying to imply?
Had Mujib been allowed to become the leader of Pakistan and Awami league allowed to form the government, 1971 would have never happened!

In my opinion – no matter which course Pakistan took it would have made no difference. One time or the other Bangladesh would have separated from Pakistan. Awami League and Mujeeb would have found another reason for it.

What I implying is as below.
Mujeeb just played a role of politician – Playing on hate for West Pakistan card on Linguistic – ethnic lines more than anything else.
Post independence he failed to address any of the issues previously blamed on West Pakistan and the central govt.
If not Mujeeb it could have been someone else - who towed this line.
And more controversially – i am of the opinion that of all the nations of the Subcontinent, Bangladesh historically has had the greatest propensity for – how to most mildly put it - treason and betrayal.

But I do strongly believe that Bangladesh had every right to become an independent nation.

 

[kalu_miah]

You may want to look at this thread:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/bangla...cy-confession-what-does-mean-our-history.html

 

[LaBong]

And more controversially – i am of the opinion that of all the nations of the Subcontinent, Bangladesh historically has had the greatest propensity for – how to most mildly put it - treason and betrayal.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/bangladesh-defence/197453-bangla-babble.html#ixzz21Q5Gcex7

Would you please stretch on this point as to how you came to this conclusion?

Since you mentioned Plassey war against the British, let me remind you neither the Nawabs, nor the English, nor Mir Jafar and Jagat Seth were ethnic Bengali. Not that I deny that ethnic Bengalis were also involved in the events but only trying to say that they should be judged as individuals but not according to their ethnicity.

Loyalty and betrayal are pretty subjective as well as relative, one mans loyal servant is another mans traitor.

 

[fallstuff]

Bengal has been in a constant state of change, probably still looking for a change the people can believe in.

 

[LaBong]

There is actually no black and white, but shades of dark. Let me post a chronology of events that led to Mirjafars betrayal.

And oh, by the way, Nawabs of Bengal were Turks. not Pashtun.

Jagat seth is a family title enjoyed by two brothers. I did read some research papers on this period and now I would request you to remove some misconceptions that we inherited from our school text books that portayed Siraj as great independant Nawab.

[1] There was seven Hindu Kings/Zamindar under Nawab of Bengal: King of Nadia Krishna Chandra ( who was main conspirator), King of Burdwan, Kingdom of Natore, Kingdom of Ban Bishnupur, etc....

Nawab never ruled Bengal directly. These local kings were ruling more or less independantly paying taxes to Nawab. Nawab's army was also highly dependant on the supplies from these seven kingdoms.

In the first war against British (1748), King of Burwan supplied all the logistics to 40,000 army of Siraj.

[2] During the time of Nawab Alibardi ( grand father of Siraj), relationship between Hindu Kings and Nawab was very cordial. Attack by the Maratha invadors (Bargi) was common ground to be united. While fighting against one of such invasion against Bargi, Alibardi was running away after losing a battle in Bihar. He was abondoned by all of his Generals. However, one small group leader (Mansabdar) didn't leave him. This man was Mirjafar. Strange as it sounds, upon return to Murshidabad, Alibardi elevated Mirjaffor to be one of his main General, as a reward to his loyality and faithfulness. Mirjaffor was a devoted Muslim. He was very loyal and honest to Alibardi. Later on, he was married to Alibardi's family.

[3] Nature of Siraj's communalism needs to be adjudged against [1] & [2]. Several times Siraj expressed dissatisfaction that he had to depend on Hindues for any kind of financing and he predicted that these Kafirs would betray him one day ( he was right indeed). Besides, his force abduction of any woman was a matter of great concern among the Hindu Kings as he even didn't spare their families.

He abducted daughter-in-law (not daughter) of older Jagat Seth brother ( Manik Chand probably). However, he was vehemently opposed by Mirjaffor who was a man of moral character (!) and finally he had to abondon the abduction. Maharani of Natore had a beutiful widow daughter. When she was visiting her palace in Murshidabad, Siraj got a glimpse of her daughter's beauty. He immediately sent his army to capture her. However, the news was leaked and Maharani's widow daughter was evacuated in the disguise of a dead woman.

The fact that Alibardi was a man of honor and Siraj was communal is revealed through several documents:

[A] Communication between Krishna Chandra and Jagat Seth brothers. From their letters, you would learn that Jagar Seth never wanted to help British against Siraj. Reason is simple: Jagat Seth's main business was financing and banking. They knew once East India company would get their grip, they will be knocked out from the business. ( Their business was indeed ruined by East India company). They knew that their business is always safe under Nawab.

However after the abduction of their daughter-in-law, they had no choice but to agree to King of Nadia,Krishna Chandra, who was indeed the first and core conspirator against Siraj.

B. Communication between Lord Clive and East India company senate: Clive mentioned in his communication that Hindu kings are extremely hostile against Siraj and they would help in any attempt to depose him. Clive mentioned that Hindu kings are greatly worried about to protect their religion under Nawab's rule.

C. Communication between Maharani of Natore and Maharaja Krishna Chandra

D. Communication between King of Burdwan and Krishna Chandra:

In C and D, you will find explicit language used by Krishna Chandra to term Siraj as communal. His letter indeed started as an appeal to protect Sanatan Hindu religion against Siraj.

One has to remember, Krishna Chandra and Alibardi were great friend. Krishna Chandra was very loyal to Muslim Nawab Alibardi. So we can not term him to be born communal.

[5] Siraj had nearly 50,000 soldiers against 3000 British soldiers! So he had nothing to be afraid of the British! Hmm..But he was afraid. He was afraid of being betrayed. He knew that Hindu kings were no more on his side. Lord Clive indeed rested in the palace of Krishna Chandra on his way to Palassey. Krishna Chandra provided local logistics to Clive.

Siraj insulted Mirjaffor times and again in the Royal court. Madanlal and Mohanlal, these two Kashmiri hindu generals were his favorite,as myth revealed. He knew Mirjaffor might betray. But still he never trusted Mirmodan or Mohanlal to be in charge of Royal army. They were in charge of a small troup of 1500.​

Siraj-ud-Doula: Clarification from history* Biplab Pal

 

[third eye]

A sketchy summary .

A lot more could have been analysed.

If it is intended to say that the Bangladeshis brought it upon them selves and are to blame for their state - the same would apply to any other nation.

What was the aim of this post ( no 1 ) ?

 

[jayron]

In my opinion – no matter which course Pakistan took it would have made no difference. One time or the other Bangladesh would have separated from Pakistan. Awami League and Mujeeb would have found another reason for it.

What I implying is as below.
Mujeeb just played a role of politician – Playing on hate for West Pakistan card on Linguistic – ethnic lines more than anything else.
Post independence he failed to address any of the issues previously blamed on West Pakistan and the central govt.
If not Mujeeb it could have been someone else - who towed this line.
And more controversially – i am of the opinion that of all the nations of the Subcontinent, Bangladesh historically has had the greatest propensity for – how to most mildly put it - treason and betrayal.

But I do strongly believe that Bangladesh had every right to become an independent nation.

Though I believe Pakistan and Bangladesh were destined to be separate nations, the reasons are much more complicated than the betraying nature of Bengalis as you have stated.

 

[kobiraaz]

LOL HINDUS AND THEIR HISTORY

BANGLADESHI MEMBERS KINDLY READ THIS

CLICK VIEW IMAGE AND THEN ZOOM

 

[jayron]

In my opinion – no matter which course Pakistan took it would have made no difference. One time or the other Bangladesh would have separated from Pakistan. Awami League and Mujeeb would have found another reason for it.

What I implying is as below.
Mujeeb just played a role of politician – Playing on hate for West Pakistan card on Linguistic – ethnic lines more than anything else.
Post independence he failed to address any of the issues previously blamed on West Pakistan and the central govt.
If not Mujeeb it could have been someone else - who towed this line.
And more controversially – i am of the opinion that of all the nations of the Subcontinent, Bangladesh historically has had the greatest propensity for – how to most mildly put it - treason and betrayal.

But I do strongly believe that Bangladesh had every right to become an independent nation.

Though I believe Pakistan and Bangladesh were destined to be separate nations, the reasons are much more complicated than the betraying nature of Bengalis as you have stated.

Though I have to agree that Bangladeshis, in spite of being a homogeneous society, have always been in a state of agitation.

 

[LaBong]

LOL HINDUS AND THEIR HISTORY

Don't be rude.

What part of my post made you to think that was written based on a "Hindu" view. You can't make people believe you just by a blanket statement, which makes you look more ignorant if anything.

Post something constructive, refute my points with facts and logic, you'd earn my respect.

 

[kobiraaz]

Don't be rude.

What part of my post made you to think that was written based on a "Hindu" view. You can't make people believe you just by a blanket statement, which makes you look more ignorant if anything.

Post something constructive, refute my points with facts and logic, you'd earn my respect.

I have come to this realization that history of sub continent is different to Hindus and Muslims! i mean viewpoints are different! You guys consider Bokhtiar khilji aggressor and i have to cross Khilji road and Aurangzeb road here everyday ( no sign of shashangk anywhere )! they are loved by us! Same way you have accepted the history where Siraj-ud-daula is portrayed as communal...!

i have posted the p.alo report where they have said all these were baseless propaganda against Nawab... They have highlighted real reasons................... Source are given at the end of the article

 

[Joe Shearer]

I am unable to see a link between the facts you presented and your extremely racist conclusion that Bangladesh stood for treason and betrayal. Such a narration would fit any other region in India just as well: Oudh, Malwa, Gujarat, the Deccan, the Punjab, the frontier, Sind, any where.

You seem to have forgotten the independence of Bengal for centuries, and its very light bindings with powers that ruled in Delhi, or Thanesar, or Ujjain, or Pataliputra, or any other centre of power in India. You might as well argue that the Scots were treacherous and inclined to betrayal due to their long history of resistance to English rule. What special significance did Mughal rule have in this analysis? Why not the Sultans earlier? Why not the Rajputs who preceded them? Or the Maukharis? Or the Guptas? Bengalis fought free of all of them, so what makes you think that this reflects treacherous or disloyal behaviour?

How difficult is it to understand that we simply were not interested in what rulers in Delhi wanted, we always sought autonomy, if not independence? And how difficult is it to understand that we have never got a fair deal from central powers, and have no incentive to run after them?

it is only in the case of independent India that we feel that our voice will be heard - no doubt with the help of a little loud noise-making, which we practise from time to time.

Your key argument, that Bangladesh would have fallen away whatever West Pakistan did, is not very sound. You have yourself pointed out that the Muslim League started in Dhaka, and was the inspiration of the Nawab of Dhaka. You might have added that Muslim disillusionment with the greater movement against British rule started with the Muslims of Bengal, when they realized that the first partition of Bengal carried considerable benefit for them, and that the agitation against that event was not their agitation. Without this realization, Muslim opinion would have coalesced decades later, if at all.

Try to remember that it was not the Muslims of the Punjab, Sind, or Baluchistan that sought and won Pakistan, it was the Muslims of north India, of Bombay and of Bengal. That might explain to you some of the frustration and resentment in present-day Bangladesh against Johnny-come-latelies suddenly explaining to them what Pakistan was about, and taking a condescending attitude to the people who had been led by Fazlul Haque.