BNP will write 'true history' of 1971: Khaleda

[Srinivas]

One flag is from where I came from and the other is where I am now.

What do you think about the current historic narrative about the 1971 freedom war??

Do you think BNP's history is unbiased??

 

[illusion8]

your "jamaatis" are also the people who directly witnessed the 1971 crisis or come from families that did. and narratives different from Indian govt/BAL ones may look "revisionist" to you but as a person who is familiar with a lot of firsthand accounts from people who lived in 1971 and as someone who grew up on Indian/BAL versions, i come across Bose and similar works as the fairest narratives of the 1971 events.

Jamaati's were on the other side - so it's a given that their narrative will be against the realities.

Again quit with the lessons .... Bangladesh is my country.



No if that person can provide credible evidence then he/she deserves to be taken seriously ...

So where is the credible evidence in this case of revisionist history?

 

[Armstrong]

@DarkPrince - Bhai ko koi reply hi nahin ?

 

[khair_ctg]

Personally I think having an East Pakistan was a very....very bad idea - We had nothing in common....nothing at all whereas we had centuries of co-existence, a shared history, a shared culture & shared lives with the Provinces that formed West Pakistan !

East Pakistan was a mistake that got rectified in '71 !

P.S If any smart-arse wants to give me a lecture on the invalidity of the Two Nation Theory - Save it & Spare me that BS.....you're not the first & you certainly won't be the last one having that brain-fart !

how can you say eliciting of East Pakistan in 1947 was a bad idea, and because of mere slight cultural differences between Muslim Punjab and Muslim Bengal? Muslims all over the subcontinent had co-existed and shared history. Punjabi vs. Bengali Muslim vs Kashmiri Muslim vs. Hindustani Muslim is a rather recent concept. if you say East Bengal should not have come into existence in 1947 as a Muslim state separated from secular-Hindu India, then you should mean East Bengal/East Pak should have always remained part of India

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Jamaati's were on the other side - so it's a given that their narrative will be against the realities.

So where is the credible evidence in this case of revisionist history?

See the references at the end of the book ...

What do you think about the current historic narrative about the 1971 freedom war??

Do you think BNP's history is unbiased??

I think the present narrative of the war and many other historical events is utter nonsense and extremely partial and not based on objective research. The BNP doesn't have any history and doesn't write any. It is an empty party devoid of any intellect.

 

[illusion8]

See the references at the end of the book ...



The BNP doesn't have any history and doesn't write any. It is an empty party devoid of any intellect.

I agree.

 

[khair_ctg]

Jamaati's were on the other side - so it's a given that their narrative will be against the realities.



So where is the credible evidence in this case of revisionist history?

on the other side of what? JeI were neither hand in hand with the military establishment nor were they supporting any separation on India's terms. most former East Pakistanis (whether they were PAL supporters or JeI or something else) couldn't have supported separation between the two wings in that manner. so most East Pakistanis except firebrand pro-Indian PALers were "on the other side"

 

[Armstrong]

how can you say eliciting of East Pakistan in 1947 was a bad idea, and because of mere slight cultural differences between Muslim Punjab and Muslim Bengal? Muslims all over the subcontinent had co-existed and shared history. Punjabi vs. Bengali Muslim vs Kashmiri Muslim vs. Hindustani Muslim is a rather recent concept. if you say East Bengal should not have come into existence in 1947 as a Muslim state separated from secular-Hindu India, then you should mean East Bengal/East Pak should have always remained part of India

Because leaving aside what we did, what you did & what the Indians did, East-Pakistan always had the seeds of Bangladesh in it & it would've broken away anyhow if not 25 than 35 years after the country's creation !

The cultural & linguistic gap was far too wide & whereas here in the West....those who were opposed to the Creation of Pakistan became irrelevant in time....in the East - they did not !

In '47 we should've had Pakistan & Bangladesh - Period !

 

[illusion8]

on the other side of what? JeI were neither hand in hand with the military establishment nor were they supporting any separation on India's terms. most former East Pakistanis (whether they were PAL supporters or JeI or something else) couldn't have supported separation between the two wings in that manner. so most East Pakistanis except firebrand pro-Indian PALers were "on the other side"

Jamaati's opposed creation of Pakistan in 47', they opposed creation of Bangladesh in 71' - they were against both - so their account or any reference to history on both is invalid, because both are a reality today.

 

[Al-zakir]

Personally I think having an East Pakistan was a very....very bad idea - We had nothing in common....nothing at all whereas we had centuries of co-existence, a shared history, a shared culture & shared lives with the Provinces that formed West Pakistan !

Our forefathers decided to work together to achieved Pakistan because unified vote was needed. Separate struggle would not get us Pakistan. Take a look at Indian control Kashmir and forgotten Hyderabad.

I won't say anything about past however Bangladesh now a days deviated from it's Islamic roots. It's now neither Hindu nor Muslim. It's a joke state of affair.

East Pakistan was a mistake that got rectified in '71 !

You are much better without Awami Bongali. Be sure to thank Allah for that.

 

[illusion8]

Because leaving aside what we did, what you did & what the Indians did, East-Pakistan always had the seeds of Bangladesh in it & it would've broken away anyhow if not 25 than 35 years after the country's creation !

The cultural & linguistic gap was far too wide & whereas here in the West....those who were opposed to the Creation of Pakistan became irrelevant in time....in the East - they did not !

In '47 we should've had Pakistan & Bangladesh - Period !

Failure to accommodate linguistic or any other form of minorities is quite apparent in the case of Pakistan - a common religion is not strong enough to guarantee an existence of a state - though that is a failure of the two nation theory that proscribes that Muslims cannot exist with any other religion - I have no intention to pursue that argument further because i know for a fact that Muslims cannot co - exist with any other religious group if they are a sizable population.

 

[Armstrong]

Failure to accommodate linguistic or any other form of minorities is quite apparent in the case of Pakistan - a common religion is not strong enough to guarantee an existence of a state - though that is a failure of the two nation theory that proscribes that Muslims cannot exist with any other religion - I have no intention to pursue that argument further because i know for a fact that Muslims cannot co - exist with any other religious group if they are a sizable population.

Then why quote me ?

Don't waste my time !

 

[khair_ctg]

Because leaving aside what we did, what you did & what the Indians did, East-Pakistan always had the seeds of Bangladesh in it & it would've broken away anyhow if not 25 than 35 years after the country's creation !

The cultural & linguistic gap was far too wide & whereas here in the West....those who were opposed to the Creation of Pakistan became irrelevant in time....in the East - they did not !

In '47 we should've had Pakistan & Bangladesh - Period !

the creation of Pakistan in 1947 could have made East and West into two self-governing regions, not because of so-called cultural and linguistic gap, but just because of geography. simply a region could not be efficiently governed from more than a thousand km of hostile territory away: whether we are talking about West Pakistanis governing in East or East Pakistanis governing in West.

the two-nation-theory or the 1947 partition was supposed to result in multi-cultural/-ethnic entities and the events were themselves working of multi-ethnic efforts. and United Pakistan was perfectly inclusive of these differences, sometimes even unfairly imo like by making Bengali national language in 1956. in erstwhile East Pakistan era, if any political movement openly promoted any hint of opposition to creation of East Pakistan, they couldn't have survived the Bengali Muslim constituency itself

 

[Armstrong]

the creation of Pakistan in 1947 could have made East and West into two self-governing regions, not because of so-called cultural and linguistic gap, but just because of geography. simply a region could not be efficiently governed from more than a thousand km of hostile territory away: whether we are talking about West Pakistanis governing in East or East Pakistanis governing in West.

Self-Governing is as good as having two sovereign Countries who are allies of each other !

I don't see the point of having an East & a West Pakistan - I never did !

the two-nation-theory or the 1947 partition was supposed to result in multi-cultural/-ethnic entities and the events were themselves working of multi-ethnic efforts. and United Pakistan was perfectly inclusive of these differences, sometimes even unfairly imo like by making Bengali national language in 1956. in erstwhile East Pakistan era, if any political movement openly promoted any hint of opposition to creation of East Pakistan, they couldn't have survived the Bengali Muslim constituency itself

So far as I understand Pakistan was supposed to be a pluralistic democracy in an ethnic, linguistic & religious sense where Islamic Paradigms would be developed & institutionalized should the people decide it as such !

Now be that as it may, my contention isn't what reasonable or unreasonable measures could be taken to keep a United Pakistan but simply that I wouldn't want a United Pakistan comprising of the East & the West separated by a 1000 miles of hostile territory & always have the issue of mis-communication & inter-provincial animosity threatening to divide the Nation as it did in the years leading up to '71 !

 

[illusion8]

Then why quote me ?

Don't waste my time !

I totally accept that Muslims cannot co- exist with any other religious groups too.