Creation of Bangladesh: Shining Moment or Strategic Blunder

[Tameem]

Tameem, that was a good read. But there is a bigger task for India exists which has to be done before creating any Union like Europe; that is bringing Indian Muslims to mainstream of Indian society. Good thing is that we don't have much Arab influence in India. Subcontinental Muslims, like Persians/Turks and East Asians should strive for an identity of their own.

Abir, I am astonished to read this post because i couldn't imagine that a country which was created on a sheer ethnicity and a common language negating religion, after 40 years its inhabitants are so depress in thier society that they openly debating for a reverse gear they didn't know will work out or not. I just couldn't figure out what went wrong in Bangladesh.

 

[Skies]

Re:bold, I was under the impression that it was the other way round, that resources flowed from East to the West, and that sowed the seed of dissent.

Many West Pakistani businessmen and entrepreneurs of jute industry and others used to business in East Pakistan, so usually they used to send money to their banks or families in West Pakistan. As like Bangladeshis who live in foreign countries send money to BD. Make sure the money you are talking about which flowed from East to the West illegally were not included those money that were sent by those West Pakistani businessmen, because this was their right and was normal that they sent money to where from they came .

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

first of all -- while I commend Bangladesh and her economic progress, Pakistan is still far far ahead in terms of infrastructure, living standards and other indicators across the board (except some social ones such as female aggregated literacy levels)

Pakistan is not a ''failing'' state, even though with current leadership it is doomed to head in that direction if there isnt major change. Media likes to portray Pakistan in its entirety as a warzone and a country on verge of collapse, which is total bullshyt. On the ground, things are reasonably normal though it depends where you are.

Secondly, I am surprised to see someone who displays Pakistan flag to be talking about partition being a mistake. It doesnt MATTER how large the Muslim minority was, or would have been. The fact of the matter is, the Muslims wanted to have a seperate homeland, it was bound to happen sooner or later; for cultural, for spiritual, existential and economic reasons the Muslims demanded a seperate homeland.


they attained it, thanks to our leaders, founding fathers and the people themselves


objective should be to show gratitude and remember those Muslim heroes.....and to do so, we must make ourselves stronger and independent and more assertive --economically and militarily.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Anyway, what its good to see is that some Pakistanis are coming around to realise that there is more to human aspiration than an empty desire to be in a make belief brotherhood, just because they all pray facing the same direction, and claim such artificial construct, a single 'nation'.

even as somebody who follows a more nationalist mentality and approach, I fundamentally disagree with you for the sole reason that you as an indian and non-Muslim wouldnt understand the notion of brotherhood which transcends borders.

I wouldnt expect you to.

However, it is true that culture, language and other ''artifacts'' cannot be denied or buried. Today, we have warm relations with Bengali brothers --and it works better this way that we are sovereign countries with friendly ties (economic, militarily, and so forth)

 

[LaBong]

Abir, I am astonished to read this post because i couldn't imagine that a country which was created on a sheer ethnicity and a common language negating religion, after 40 years its inhabitants are so depress in thier society that they openly debating for a reverse gear they didn't know will work out or not. I just couldn't figure out what went wrong in Bangladesh.

I'm not sure if I should speak on behalf of Bangladesh, but the way see it, it's the dilemma of choosing between their secular past and post-1947 present. A partisan society which is a direct consequence of the vacuum left by large Hindu middle class who migrated.

As a nation they are doing pretty good.

 

[eastwatch]

even as somebody who follows a more nationalist mentality and approach, I fundamentally disagree with you for the sole reason that you as an indian and non-Muslim wouldnt understand the notion of brotherhood which transcends borders. I wouldnt expect you to.

However, it is true that culture, language and other ''artifacts'' cannot be denied or buried. Today, we have warm relations with Bengali brothers --and it works better this way that we are sovereign countries with friendly ties (economic, militarily, and so forth)

But, what is the source of Indian oneness? Is it not the glue of Hinduism itself that people, who do not even intermarry with each other, have come under one flag? Of course, it is also a British legacy, but no one can deny that Hinduism has also glued the otherwise different people. But, then Indians will come out with their arguement of secular crap.

Look at all the modern nations of western hemisphere. They are also bonded together because of religion, like Christian Catholics and Protestants. Is this not the reason that Norh Ireland desires to remain a part of UK, and is not willing to unite with their same race and same language Catholics in the independent Irish Republic?

Why to deny the fact that both religion and language as well as history create a sense of nationhood or oneness, although, there is no unversal rule which will precede which one. Bangladesh was not created out of frustration because Pakistan was a MUSLIM country. In reality, Bangali Muslims had created Pakistan or initiated the process of creating it. Bangladesh was created because of a conflict of interest, economic and political, between the two wings of the country separaterd by another big country. A physical proximity would have resulted in the continuous unity.

The present identity crisis stems from the AL's continuous effort to change the character of our identity as a Muslim liberal nation and to make us a secular nation. To us AL policy means no Islam and no religion. This is what we are not willing to accept. However, our identity as a nation state where every religion people are free to pursue their faith remains as it was during Pakistan time.

Pakistan's original goal was similar to this and was set forward by its founding father Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Only, the next generation Pakistanis changed this concept and accepted a radical Islam. However, BD will remain a liberal Muslim country. BD has no conflict with Islamic identity, but it is also not necessary for BD to become a part again of a Muslim country that is 1500 km away, only to prove ourselves as Muslims.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

no i don't think Pakistan adopted what you can call radical Islam ---nor did the people. I think 2008 elections would support this notion, as would past elections --where even non-radical Islamist parties could barely secure a few votes in provincial govts or N.A.

as we are a nation of 170-180 million people, there of course would be many differing views on how exactly the nation should be ruled; however a very small minority is what you can call ''radical'' in my opinion. I'm sure you have the same realities in Bangla Desh.

Pakistanis by and large are God-fearing, but reasonably moderate in their outlook on life; don't be fooled by western or of course hindustany media which likes to portray Pakistanis as radicals fundamentalists, or whatever other nonsense they spew from time to time

 

[Al-zakir]

Abir, I am astonished to read this post because i couldn't imagine that a country which was created on a sheer ethnicity and a common language negating religion, after 40 years its inhabitants are so depress in thier society that they openly debating for a reverse gear they didn't know will work out or not. I just couldn't figure out what went wrong in Bangladesh.

40 years yet we couldn't come up with one ideology. We are so divided between Muslim or Bengali nationalism is that it is almost like two nation living in one tiny geographic location. This is a single issue that is holding us back in time. Sad but true.

 

[Al-zakir]

I'm not sure if I should speak on behalf of Bangladesh, but the way see it, it's the dilemma of choosing between their secular past and post-1947 present. A partisan society which is a direct consequence of the vacuum left by large Hindu middle class who migrated.

As a nation they are doing pretty good.

And many elite Muslims also settled in west Pakistan after the partition like family of Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy.

 

[SMC]

Re:bold, I was under the impression that it was the other way round, that resources flowed from East to the West, and that sowed the seed of dissent.

Anyway, what its good to see is that some Pakistanis are coming around to realise that there is more to human aspiration than an empty desire to be in a make belief brotherhood, just because they all pray facing the same direction, and claim such artificial construct, a single 'nation'.

Not sure why you'd think that. Bangladesh has a much higher poverty rate than Pakistan, and I can't see them having a lower poverty rate 40 years ago.

 

[LaBong]

And many elite Muslims also settled in west Pakistan after the partition like family of Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy.

Suhrawardy was from Midnapur, now West Bengal. Anyways, I was not talking about Hindu/Muslim Jamindars/Feudal class who offers little to society except for their gaudy display of wealth.

It's the middle class who remains the driving force of any society. And their sudden absence leads to a vacuum which usually gets filled up by people alien to native culture.

The Muslims in East Bengals should have chosen a destiny of and for their own. They should never have let themselves be lured by those folks from Aligarh.

 

[Tameem]

But, what is the source of Indian oneness? Is it not the glue of Hinduism itself that people, who do not intermarry with other have come under one flag? Of course, it is also a British legacy, but no one can deny the bond has also glued the otherwise different people. But, then Indians will come out with their arguement of secular crap.

Dear Forgive me!! But India never been a country throughout its history. It was a geography and to this day remains so as is; The Muslims of India carve out states from this geography for themselves by their sheer will, other groups are striving to this end and some major are simply spineless.

I'm not sure if I should speak on behalf of Bangladesh, but the way see it, it's the dilemma of choosing between their secular past and post-1947 present. A partisan society which is a direct consequence of the vacuum left by large Hindu middle class who migrated.

As a nation they are doing pretty good.

As far as I know, Historically Bangladeshis can be divided in three basic groups as follows;

Bengali Nationalists i.e., AL & Co
Bangladeshi Nationalists i.e., BNP & Co.
Islamic Nationalists i.e., Jamat & Co.

But slowly and steadily a fourth group have been emerging which are fed up of all these above groups policies and governing tactics for the past two decades in Bangladesh but at the same time are highly skeptical of a true way forward. These are the people who are in question for me at this moment.

 

[nForce]

The present identity crisis stems from the AL way of changing the character of our identity as a Muslim liberal nation and to make us a secular nation. To us it means no Islam and no religion, which we are not willing to accept. However, our identity as a nation state where every religion people are free to pursue their faith remains as it was during Pakistan time.

I disagree with you on this respect.What you are saying can be somewhat close to the Communist ideology,which is not to let the government affected by religion,but also in the same time,not to interfere with anybody practicing any religion.Well,even communist ideology doesnt say a "No" to religion.

Secularism stands for exactly opposite to what you said.It is more like acceptance towards all religion....

 

[Tameem]

The Muslims in East Bengals should have chosen a destiny of and for their own. They should never have let themselves be lured by those folks from Aligarh.

For me, This is a very smart move from them.
Remember, the 1906 division and reunification afterward taught them a lesson that "Alone" they could never achieve anything from Bengali Hindu Elite which are the darling of british empir right from the begining and are centered in Calcutta, the Muslims are scattered in rural areas mostly and their voices are unheard most of the time.

 

[LaBong]

For me, This is a very smart move from them.
Remember, the 1906 division and reunification afterward taught them a lesson that "Alone" they could never achieve anything from Bengali Hindu Elite which are the darling of british empir right from the begining and are centered in Calcutta, the Muslims are scattered in rural areas mostly and their voices are unheard most of the time.

You're wrong about Bengali Hindu Elite being the darling of British. Yes, they were first to be introduced to western education and were responsible for Bengal's renaissance. But they opposed British tooth and nail both politically and by other more violent means.

Actually, 1906 division was an attempt to weaken the Bengali political force, divide and rule them.

Muslims were majority in Bengal not scattered through few places, see Bengali Hindu didn't oppose the partition in 47 rather voted for it because, there was fear under Muslim majority they won't be able to sustain the political clout. Mistrust was high after Direct Action Day and Suharwardi's failure as a chief minister to control it.

When I said Muslims in Bengal should have chosen a destiny of their own, I meant a destiny exclusively of Bengali Muslims without the unnecessary baggage of West Pakistan. They both had separate reasons for partition and were mutually exclusive entities.