Well if start considering about the IF & ELSE then a lot of thing and stuff would not have happened. But the way thing are, i thing it was lets say fortunate for pakistant that Bangladesh was created. our current leaders cann`t controll one region how in the hell would they have controlled Banglsdesh which is in the middle of India. For better or worse i belive stuff happens for a reason
Creation of Bangladesh
- Thread starter EagleEyes
- Start date
I think East Pakistan could work!
Only if the racial mentality was overcome, and the proper rights were given and a revision of government structure could be done to some extent. Only then we could get this worked. I still think current government structure is unstable... it is revived from the days of British emperialism, and it must change.
Only if the racial mentality was overcome, and the proper rights were given and a revision of government structure could be done to some extent. Only then we could get this worked. I still think current government structure is unstable... it is revived from the days of British emperialism, and it must change.
BanglaBhoot
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2007
- Messages
- 8,839
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
I thank the WebMaster for raising this issue which deserves some thought and consideration. What would Jinnah have thought about Bangladesh? I recently read in a review of Stanley Wolpert's latest biography on Jinnah that he initially approved of Muslim Bengal being a separate entity to Pakistan as it would eventually be an ally having to naturally contend with a hostile India. This if true would have been a very far-sighted proposition and saved both Pakistan and Bangladesh decades of turmoil and mistrust if it was indeed accomplished. However, it is unlikely that an independent and sovereign Bangladesh if created in 1947 would have survived under Indian pressure. According to Wolpert, it was because of Nehruâs special relationship with the British that Calcutta was given to India and which ultimately prevented a Bangladesh emerging in 1947 as it was presumed that it could not have been a viable entity without the port city. It was probably also necessary that Pakistan and Bangladesh go through the painful fracture of 1971 to understand each other better and improve their security situation vis-a-vis India.
I believe that there is a serious misunderstanding in some quarters about the economic situation of Bangladesh today. Bangladesh is not poverty stricken but has a thriving economy and has an estimated 40 million middle class that is growing by leaps and bounds. The image of Bangladesh as a desperately poor country is basically Indian propaganda as India does not wish to see its neighbour obtain economic prosperity which could destabilize the Seven Sister States who would probably want independence seeing no benefit in remaining in the Indian Union. Such a situation would aggravate other separatist tendencies in India and eventually see its dissolution. In other words, do not believe all the stories about Bangladesh most of them are untrue and are propagated by the Indian propaganda machine.
As for reunion between Pakistan and Bangladesh it would be an unlikely prospect because so much water has gone under the bridge since 1971 and to memories of that period are still fresh. A reunion would also have to face the same problems of a hostile India that would again play a divisive role. There is however ample room for increased cooperation in the economic and military fields with social and cultural exchanges as a beginning to a rapprochement. This process has already begun with a Pakistani professional and academic team visiting Bangladesh of which I was a discussant at the seminar. The regional conference was held at the Radisson Winter Garden Hotel in Dhaka on the subject of 'Regional Stability and Cooperation: The Role of Bangladesh and Pakistan' on April 18-19, 2007. I was asked to be a discussant on a paper presented by Mr. Fahimuddin, a lecturer at the University of Karachi.
I would like to share the comments I made at the seminar with this forum and hopefully elicit some views on the issues I have raised â
Bismillaher-Rahmaner-Rahim
Distinguished Guests, Discussants, Ladies and Gentlemen
Assalamu Alaikum,
I would like to thank Mr. Fahim Uddin on his presentation of a thoroughly thought-provoking keynote paper on the strategic and military security situation of Bangladesh and Pakistan. I must also express my appreciation to the editor of PROBE magazine, Mr. Irtiza Nasim Ali, for according me this opportunity to speak on this occasion as discussant. It will be difficult for me to do justice to the insightful paper of Mr. Fahim Uddin especially as this is my first chance to view the paper and my remarks will, therefore, be somewhat generalized, tentative and extempore in nature.
Issues involving strategic and military security tend to be highly controversial and contentious and this is more so when the names of Pakistan and Bangladesh are included together. This is particularly the case in Bangladesh and is an unfortunate consequence of certain quarters continually raising the spectre of 1971 to thwart a cooperative approach between our two countries on the vital strategic questions facing South Asia today. The events of 1971 are undoubtedly tragic with the loss of human life and suffering caused by the war but after 36 years why on earth this should impede the progress of 140 million Bangladeshis and 160 million Pakistanis completely escapes me. Being of the post 1971 generation with no memory or personal knowledge of that period I would hope that the policy makers in Bangladesh would now look at the present strategic interests of the country in a new and enlightened perspective without their views being coloured by the episode of 1971 which is now largely irrelevant to the strategic equations being considered in South Asia.
While the differences between Bangladesh and Pakistan had been highlighted during and after the war the similarities were consistently overlooked. One similarity that is relevant to our discussion today is in respect of our security needs and threat perceptions which are almost identical, with variations based primarily on geographical location and this commonality is a point which is being slowly recognized in this country. There is no doubt in my mind that a closer understanding between Pakistan and Bangladesh on these important matters would be to the advantage of both countries and should be pursued with utmost vigor by our political leaders and their military advisers.
However, this is not intended to overemphasize the military aspect of the cooperation as security threats can take on many dimensions and forms and the military solution is not always the most appropriate or necessary. In both countries poverty, illiteracy and other social deprivations are constant worries and have the potential to translate into security concerns when exploited by the unscrupulous. So as an alternative to military cooperation between Bangladesh and Pakistan there should be social, cultural and economic ones as well. This in fact should be the priority and military considerations will come at a later stage when better understanding is achieved between the two nations through social and cultural exchanges and economic advancement through increased trade and the opening up of markets.
With these words, I appreciate Mr. Fahim Uddin for his excellently well argued and thematically introspective analysis of the notion of security. I hope this introduction to conceptual paradigm of security has clearly set the ground for subsequent discussions of cooperation in all other fields.
I believe that there is a serious misunderstanding in some quarters about the economic situation of Bangladesh today. Bangladesh is not poverty stricken but has a thriving economy and has an estimated 40 million middle class that is growing by leaps and bounds. The image of Bangladesh as a desperately poor country is basically Indian propaganda as India does not wish to see its neighbour obtain economic prosperity which could destabilize the Seven Sister States who would probably want independence seeing no benefit in remaining in the Indian Union. Such a situation would aggravate other separatist tendencies in India and eventually see its dissolution. In other words, do not believe all the stories about Bangladesh most of them are untrue and are propagated by the Indian propaganda machine.
As for reunion between Pakistan and Bangladesh it would be an unlikely prospect because so much water has gone under the bridge since 1971 and to memories of that period are still fresh. A reunion would also have to face the same problems of a hostile India that would again play a divisive role. There is however ample room for increased cooperation in the economic and military fields with social and cultural exchanges as a beginning to a rapprochement. This process has already begun with a Pakistani professional and academic team visiting Bangladesh of which I was a discussant at the seminar. The regional conference was held at the Radisson Winter Garden Hotel in Dhaka on the subject of 'Regional Stability and Cooperation: The Role of Bangladesh and Pakistan' on April 18-19, 2007. I was asked to be a discussant on a paper presented by Mr. Fahimuddin, a lecturer at the University of Karachi.
I would like to share the comments I made at the seminar with this forum and hopefully elicit some views on the issues I have raised â
Bismillaher-Rahmaner-Rahim
Distinguished Guests, Discussants, Ladies and Gentlemen
Assalamu Alaikum,
I would like to thank Mr. Fahim Uddin on his presentation of a thoroughly thought-provoking keynote paper on the strategic and military security situation of Bangladesh and Pakistan. I must also express my appreciation to the editor of PROBE magazine, Mr. Irtiza Nasim Ali, for according me this opportunity to speak on this occasion as discussant. It will be difficult for me to do justice to the insightful paper of Mr. Fahim Uddin especially as this is my first chance to view the paper and my remarks will, therefore, be somewhat generalized, tentative and extempore in nature.
Issues involving strategic and military security tend to be highly controversial and contentious and this is more so when the names of Pakistan and Bangladesh are included together. This is particularly the case in Bangladesh and is an unfortunate consequence of certain quarters continually raising the spectre of 1971 to thwart a cooperative approach between our two countries on the vital strategic questions facing South Asia today. The events of 1971 are undoubtedly tragic with the loss of human life and suffering caused by the war but after 36 years why on earth this should impede the progress of 140 million Bangladeshis and 160 million Pakistanis completely escapes me. Being of the post 1971 generation with no memory or personal knowledge of that period I would hope that the policy makers in Bangladesh would now look at the present strategic interests of the country in a new and enlightened perspective without their views being coloured by the episode of 1971 which is now largely irrelevant to the strategic equations being considered in South Asia.
While the differences between Bangladesh and Pakistan had been highlighted during and after the war the similarities were consistently overlooked. One similarity that is relevant to our discussion today is in respect of our security needs and threat perceptions which are almost identical, with variations based primarily on geographical location and this commonality is a point which is being slowly recognized in this country. There is no doubt in my mind that a closer understanding between Pakistan and Bangladesh on these important matters would be to the advantage of both countries and should be pursued with utmost vigor by our political leaders and their military advisers.
However, this is not intended to overemphasize the military aspect of the cooperation as security threats can take on many dimensions and forms and the military solution is not always the most appropriate or necessary. In both countries poverty, illiteracy and other social deprivations are constant worries and have the potential to translate into security concerns when exploited by the unscrupulous. So as an alternative to military cooperation between Bangladesh and Pakistan there should be social, cultural and economic ones as well. This in fact should be the priority and military considerations will come at a later stage when better understanding is achieved between the two nations through social and cultural exchanges and economic advancement through increased trade and the opening up of markets.
With these words, I appreciate Mr. Fahim Uddin for his excellently well argued and thematically introspective analysis of the notion of security. I hope this introduction to conceptual paradigm of security has clearly set the ground for subsequent discussions of cooperation in all other fields.
Interceptor
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 2,005
- Reaction score
- 0
If Pakistan was Pakistan, that means if Bangladesh was with Pakistan, WAUW what a day it would be Pakistan would have resolved the Kashmir issue YEAH. Pakistan would be one of the deadliest powers in asia as its satelite state would have the same capability as Pakistan i.e. it would have Nuke system missile system an Air force and man power etc.
Pakistan would have a very powerfull economy and a huge pool of tellent in the field of technology, it would be well reconized around the world because it would have more neighbors.
India would be one scared country.
What the father of the nation think about this I dont know what a dead mans perspective could be, be but I heard his speaches where he said UNITY. Well thats what I know Pakistan has lost that.
Fall of Dhaka - an Indian Confession
Friday May 04, 2007
Abdullah Muntazir
Abdullah.muntazir@gmail.com
A member of the Indian Parliament, Rahul Gandhi, who also happens to be the son of ruling Congress Party of India President, Sonia Gandhi, boasted during an election rally in the Indian city of Bareli, that the dismemberment of Pakistan had been a triumphant accomplishment of the Gandhi family. Tasneem Aslam, the spokesperson for Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, responded by saying, that Rahul Gandhi's claim proves, without any doubt, that India has always been meddling in Pakistan's internal affairs. She also said that the Pakistan of today is not the same, as the one in '71, and Indian leaders must remember that Pakistan's defenses are infinitely stronger now.
Thanks to Rahul Gandhi for reminding the newer generations of Pakistani youth about who their real, historical, and permanent enemy is, otherwise intentional efforts through confidence building measures to bury their burning, smoldering past would never have let them know who had been hacking away at their country's foundations. Our very own Minister of Education, who thinks there are forty Paras (sections) of the Qur'an, instead of thirty, is also attempting to cover up, or entirely remove from the curriculum, any references to the Hindu Brahman's sinister role in the dismemberment of Pakistan and his continuous scheming and subversive activities against this country.
When looked at through a different perspective, with Rahul Gandhi's admission in view, one can clearly discern the reality of such slogans as; 'we are one', 'we are all children of the same mother', and 'walls of hatred must be brought down', etc., etc., by various Hindu leaders who come to Pakistan wearing fake cloaks of peace. Rahul Gandhi made his declaration with the utmost pride, which clearly shows that regardless of all the songs of peace that Indian leaders parrot, their vote-bank is basically dependent upon their level of enmity with Pakistan. They have, in fact, inherited this enmity from their previous generations. We are amazed as to why our government expects any good from a people who hold such narrow minded and antagonistic views towards Pakistan. If Islamabad thinks it can resolve the Kashmir issue with India through negotiations, or at least keep India from displaying an attitude of open hostility towards Pakistan, then it should re-read Emma Nicholson's report about the Kashmir issue, which is soon to be presented for approval to the European Union parliament. The report is completely biased in favor of India, and highly critical of Pakistan.
Pakistani authorities had signed the joint 'Islamabad Declaration' with India in 2004 in the hope that the international community might put pressure on India to resolve the Kashmir issue. Yet India, throughout this period, worked behind the scenes to portray Pakistan as the biggest supporter of terrorism, with the subsequent result that Pakistan which was supposed to be the staunchest advocate for resolving the Kashmir issue, is now itself under fire. Pakistan, in fact, even stopped mentioning Kashmir at international forums to please India, in the hope that this might facilitate negotiations with it, but India, on the other hand, while keeping up a façade of continuing negotiations with Pakistan, does not let any opportunity go by to blame Pakistan for cross-border infiltration. So much so, that the very next day after Rahul Gandhi's incriminatory admission, India's Defense Minister, A. K. Anthony again blamed Pakistan for supporting Kashmiri freedom fighters. If the Pakistani government, under these circumstances, is blamed for a failed Kashmir policy and a failed foreign policy in general, it instantly become enraged and begins blaming its critics of extremism. In fact, it has now become standard practice that the US, the EU, India, and Afghanistan, blame Pakistan for supporting terrorism and extremism, and the Pakistani government, instead of countering these allegations, conveniently transfers the blame onto the people, admitting, in fact, that the allegations are true.
The spokesperson for Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has claimed that this is not the Pakistan of '71, and that it now has a very strong defense. The first part of her statement is entirely correct that it is not the same Pakistan as that of 1971, as at that time, East Pakistan was still a part of Pakistan, Pakistan had a larger land mass at that time, and a larger population too. But, we disagree with the second part of her statement, on the basis of valid arguments, that Pakistan's defense is stronger than in those times. National unity is the prime element for a state's defense, and military hardware, although vital, plays a secondary role in this regard. External threats to a state cannot be countered with military equipment alone. Pakistan, nowadays, is going through its worst phase of internal unrest, chaos, sectarianism, as well as, language, tribal, and land ownership based feuds. There is active turmoil in two of the four provinces. Our own forces are in a state of war within Pakistan's borders. Political opportunists, who thrive during internal strife, have begun criticizing the country's armed forces openly, and even the freedom of the press and media is being exploited to malign them. In fact, it would not be wrong to say that the current propaganda campaign is quite similar to the one used by India to incite Bengalis against the Pakistani Army back in 1971. How can a country's defense be strong if there is a state of mutual distrust between a country's armed forces and its populace?
Pakistan's dismemberment took place in '71 because the common ideological bond that had been the basis of Pakistan's foundation and independence, and the common unifying factor of the whole nation, had been casually neglected and abandoned. It was that common ideological bond that was the single most important factor which had bound East and West Pakistan as a single entity otherwise Bangladesh would never have been a part of Pakistan. If all the various ethnic peoples with all their different languages and traditions are beads of a common string, which is Pakistan, it is because of that same common ideological factor that keeps them bonded together, otherwise, why would Balochistan want to stick with Punjab and Sindh, or why would the Pathans want to live alongside Sindhis and Balochis? Pakistan was founded on the basis of La'ila'ha'il'lal'lah (There is no deity except Allah), and the strength of our defense is directly linked to the strength of our commitment to this common declaration of faith. When our commitment to this common declaration became weak in '71, the demons of ethnicity and nationalism quickly raised their ugly heads, whereas, in a different example, the commitment of the Kashmiris remained strong throughout this period, and that is why India has been unable to subjugate them, or to break their psychological and ideological bond with Pakistan.
It is therefore imperative that our rulers should work to strengthen the ideological bonds of the nation instead of boasting about Pakistan's defense capabilities. They should not only strengthen the nations bond with our common declaration of faith, but their own commitment to it as well. They must stop state sponsorship and support of licentiousness and immorality, because Rahul Gandhi's mother once said that 'there is no need to fight Pakistan militarily anymore as we have already conquered them through our cultural invasion'. Therefore, instead of promoting Indian culture with state finances, the world, instead, should be made aware of this inhuman and barbaric culture and religion. The world should be told that even in these modern times, a Brahmin and a Shuder cannot eat at the same table.
Rahul Gandhi has boasted that his party had been instrumental in the dismemberment of Pakistan, but he should know that there are people, in fact, many, many people, who are waiting to avenge the Dacca debacle; and that too, with interest. Hindus should not forget that during the past one thousand years, they have been able to rule India for only the last sixty years; as apart from the hundred and fifty odd years of British rule, it was Muslims who have always ruled India. In fact, it was Muslims who had unified India into one large state, and it was Muslims who divided it in 1947. If one ponders upon the details of the event that Indians are currently boasting about, one finds that they have not really succeeded in that either. India had wanted Bangladesh to become a client state like Sikkim, or Bhutan, but the valiant Bengalis who had given innumerable sacrifices for the independence of Pakistan, refused to bow down in front of the Gandhi family, or any other Indian ruler for that matter, and now Bangladesh, just like Pakistan, is blamed by India for cross-border infiltration.
Bangladeshis too, should take note of Rahul Gandhi's claim, so that they can better appreciate and understand India's colonialist and imperialistic intentions. The three million Biharis Pakistanis stranded in Bangladesh should be given their due status as members of Bangladeshi society, and the wall of enmity which had been raised by India between Muslims should be brought down, and we should again become one as in the past, united on the basis of a common ideology. Pakistan and Bangladesh should form a confederation and chart an agreement for a common defense. Pakistan must act like the elder brother in this regard and extend all its cooperation for Bangladesh's defense. Pakistan needs an innovative and aggressive defense and foreign policy under a rapidly evolving global scenario.
http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?177140
Friday May 04, 2007
Abdullah Muntazir
Abdullah.muntazir@gmail.com
A member of the Indian Parliament, Rahul Gandhi, who also happens to be the son of ruling Congress Party of India President, Sonia Gandhi, boasted during an election rally in the Indian city of Bareli, that the dismemberment of Pakistan had been a triumphant accomplishment of the Gandhi family. Tasneem Aslam, the spokesperson for Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, responded by saying, that Rahul Gandhi's claim proves, without any doubt, that India has always been meddling in Pakistan's internal affairs. She also said that the Pakistan of today is not the same, as the one in '71, and Indian leaders must remember that Pakistan's defenses are infinitely stronger now.
Thanks to Rahul Gandhi for reminding the newer generations of Pakistani youth about who their real, historical, and permanent enemy is, otherwise intentional efforts through confidence building measures to bury their burning, smoldering past would never have let them know who had been hacking away at their country's foundations. Our very own Minister of Education, who thinks there are forty Paras (sections) of the Qur'an, instead of thirty, is also attempting to cover up, or entirely remove from the curriculum, any references to the Hindu Brahman's sinister role in the dismemberment of Pakistan and his continuous scheming and subversive activities against this country.
When looked at through a different perspective, with Rahul Gandhi's admission in view, one can clearly discern the reality of such slogans as; 'we are one', 'we are all children of the same mother', and 'walls of hatred must be brought down', etc., etc., by various Hindu leaders who come to Pakistan wearing fake cloaks of peace. Rahul Gandhi made his declaration with the utmost pride, which clearly shows that regardless of all the songs of peace that Indian leaders parrot, their vote-bank is basically dependent upon their level of enmity with Pakistan. They have, in fact, inherited this enmity from their previous generations. We are amazed as to why our government expects any good from a people who hold such narrow minded and antagonistic views towards Pakistan. If Islamabad thinks it can resolve the Kashmir issue with India through negotiations, or at least keep India from displaying an attitude of open hostility towards Pakistan, then it should re-read Emma Nicholson's report about the Kashmir issue, which is soon to be presented for approval to the European Union parliament. The report is completely biased in favor of India, and highly critical of Pakistan.
Pakistani authorities had signed the joint 'Islamabad Declaration' with India in 2004 in the hope that the international community might put pressure on India to resolve the Kashmir issue. Yet India, throughout this period, worked behind the scenes to portray Pakistan as the biggest supporter of terrorism, with the subsequent result that Pakistan which was supposed to be the staunchest advocate for resolving the Kashmir issue, is now itself under fire. Pakistan, in fact, even stopped mentioning Kashmir at international forums to please India, in the hope that this might facilitate negotiations with it, but India, on the other hand, while keeping up a façade of continuing negotiations with Pakistan, does not let any opportunity go by to blame Pakistan for cross-border infiltration. So much so, that the very next day after Rahul Gandhi's incriminatory admission, India's Defense Minister, A. K. Anthony again blamed Pakistan for supporting Kashmiri freedom fighters. If the Pakistani government, under these circumstances, is blamed for a failed Kashmir policy and a failed foreign policy in general, it instantly become enraged and begins blaming its critics of extremism. In fact, it has now become standard practice that the US, the EU, India, and Afghanistan, blame Pakistan for supporting terrorism and extremism, and the Pakistani government, instead of countering these allegations, conveniently transfers the blame onto the people, admitting, in fact, that the allegations are true.
The spokesperson for Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has claimed that this is not the Pakistan of '71, and that it now has a very strong defense. The first part of her statement is entirely correct that it is not the same Pakistan as that of 1971, as at that time, East Pakistan was still a part of Pakistan, Pakistan had a larger land mass at that time, and a larger population too. But, we disagree with the second part of her statement, on the basis of valid arguments, that Pakistan's defense is stronger than in those times. National unity is the prime element for a state's defense, and military hardware, although vital, plays a secondary role in this regard. External threats to a state cannot be countered with military equipment alone. Pakistan, nowadays, is going through its worst phase of internal unrest, chaos, sectarianism, as well as, language, tribal, and land ownership based feuds. There is active turmoil in two of the four provinces. Our own forces are in a state of war within Pakistan's borders. Political opportunists, who thrive during internal strife, have begun criticizing the country's armed forces openly, and even the freedom of the press and media is being exploited to malign them. In fact, it would not be wrong to say that the current propaganda campaign is quite similar to the one used by India to incite Bengalis against the Pakistani Army back in 1971. How can a country's defense be strong if there is a state of mutual distrust between a country's armed forces and its populace?
Pakistan's dismemberment took place in '71 because the common ideological bond that had been the basis of Pakistan's foundation and independence, and the common unifying factor of the whole nation, had been casually neglected and abandoned. It was that common ideological bond that was the single most important factor which had bound East and West Pakistan as a single entity otherwise Bangladesh would never have been a part of Pakistan. If all the various ethnic peoples with all their different languages and traditions are beads of a common string, which is Pakistan, it is because of that same common ideological factor that keeps them bonded together, otherwise, why would Balochistan want to stick with Punjab and Sindh, or why would the Pathans want to live alongside Sindhis and Balochis? Pakistan was founded on the basis of La'ila'ha'il'lal'lah (There is no deity except Allah), and the strength of our defense is directly linked to the strength of our commitment to this common declaration of faith. When our commitment to this common declaration became weak in '71, the demons of ethnicity and nationalism quickly raised their ugly heads, whereas, in a different example, the commitment of the Kashmiris remained strong throughout this period, and that is why India has been unable to subjugate them, or to break their psychological and ideological bond with Pakistan.
It is therefore imperative that our rulers should work to strengthen the ideological bonds of the nation instead of boasting about Pakistan's defense capabilities. They should not only strengthen the nations bond with our common declaration of faith, but their own commitment to it as well. They must stop state sponsorship and support of licentiousness and immorality, because Rahul Gandhi's mother once said that 'there is no need to fight Pakistan militarily anymore as we have already conquered them through our cultural invasion'. Therefore, instead of promoting Indian culture with state finances, the world, instead, should be made aware of this inhuman and barbaric culture and religion. The world should be told that even in these modern times, a Brahmin and a Shuder cannot eat at the same table.
Rahul Gandhi has boasted that his party had been instrumental in the dismemberment of Pakistan, but he should know that there are people, in fact, many, many people, who are waiting to avenge the Dacca debacle; and that too, with interest. Hindus should not forget that during the past one thousand years, they have been able to rule India for only the last sixty years; as apart from the hundred and fifty odd years of British rule, it was Muslims who have always ruled India. In fact, it was Muslims who had unified India into one large state, and it was Muslims who divided it in 1947. If one ponders upon the details of the event that Indians are currently boasting about, one finds that they have not really succeeded in that either. India had wanted Bangladesh to become a client state like Sikkim, or Bhutan, but the valiant Bengalis who had given innumerable sacrifices for the independence of Pakistan, refused to bow down in front of the Gandhi family, or any other Indian ruler for that matter, and now Bangladesh, just like Pakistan, is blamed by India for cross-border infiltration.
Bangladeshis too, should take note of Rahul Gandhi's claim, so that they can better appreciate and understand India's colonialist and imperialistic intentions. The three million Biharis Pakistanis stranded in Bangladesh should be given their due status as members of Bangladeshi society, and the wall of enmity which had been raised by India between Muslims should be brought down, and we should again become one as in the past, united on the basis of a common ideology. Pakistan and Bangladesh should form a confederation and chart an agreement for a common defense. Pakistan must act like the elder brother in this regard and extend all its cooperation for Bangladesh's defense. Pakistan needs an innovative and aggressive defense and foreign policy under a rapidly evolving global scenario.
http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?177140
Are you sure? The all bangladesh are in poverty?
If so, how come BD having over 6 percent growth? How come I see lots of skyscrapers in Dhaka and other cities of BD? How come I see a Bangladeshi getting Nobel Peace Prize? And how come I am attending this forum via internet? Please, start dissolving your anger towards BD cause of 71. East Bengal was one of the province which strongly supported creation of separate muslim state in subcontinent. We didn't want breaking up of Pakistan, your "Brainless Generals" bound us to get divorce with Pakistan.
India is strong. Economically and Military. BD and Pak should have common agenda of tackling India economically and militarily. Indian government really don't want its neighbors to be economically prosperous. Both Pak and BD can have economic tie via investments, joint ventures etc. Cultural and Academic exchanges can happen regularly btw two countries, this will help to eliminate misconceptions and grow stronger ties. Industrial joint venture is important now cause of Indian giants like TATA, BIRLA, BAJAJ etc will soon set our consumer to eat their cheap goods in the name of FREE TRADE.
If so, how come BD having over 6 percent growth? How come I see lots of skyscrapers in Dhaka and other cities of BD? How come I see a Bangladeshi getting Nobel Peace Prize? And how come I am attending this forum via internet? Please, start dissolving your anger towards BD cause of 71. East Bengal was one of the province which strongly supported creation of separate muslim state in subcontinent. We didn't want breaking up of Pakistan, your "Brainless Generals" bound us to get divorce with Pakistan.
India is strong. Economically and Military. BD and Pak should have common agenda of tackling India economically and militarily. Indian government really don't want its neighbors to be economically prosperous. Both Pak and BD can have economic tie via investments, joint ventures etc. Cultural and Academic exchanges can happen regularly btw two countries, this will help to eliminate misconceptions and grow stronger ties. Industrial joint venture is important now cause of Indian giants like TATA, BIRLA, BAJAJ etc will soon set our consumer to eat their cheap goods in the name of FREE TRADE.
dabong1
<b>PDF VETERAN</b>
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,417
- Reaction score
- 1
I agree with Z Bhai a lot off what is shown on tv and the media is propaganda and as pakistan we should find this easy to understand as our own country is shown in a negative manner by the press.
The bangladesh economy is growing well and if i am correct b/desh has a higher literacy then pakistan.
The bangladesh economy is growing well and if i am correct b/desh has a higher literacy then pakistan.
yeah Z bhai eat cheap goods of tata birla, and what about the 3 billion dollar investment? the Jobs it will create? Why dont you ask your govt to dump our goods and opt for "Costlier" European goods since our ones are cheap ones?
MBI Munshi, if not for Nehru facilitated Calcutta udner bangladesh? you mean calcutta under bangladesh? good joke of the century.
Calcutta and Chattogram were the two thinkcentres of partition, one alieneated another from the other, there is no question of one occupying other. The only thing I miss here is Hilsa from River Padya.
To me, Bangladesh has much to gain from India other than Pakistan, who helped her getting independence, provided she puts into perspective certain Indias interests as well, She can choose to do the otherwise, shes a sovereign and free nation.
MBI Munshi, if not for Nehru facilitated Calcutta udner bangladesh? you mean calcutta under bangladesh? good joke of the century.
Calcutta and Chattogram were the two thinkcentres of partition, one alieneated another from the other, there is no question of one occupying other. The only thing I miss here is Hilsa from River Padya.
To me, Bangladesh has much to gain from India other than Pakistan, who helped her getting independence, provided she puts into perspective certain Indias interests as well, She can choose to do the otherwise, shes a sovereign and free nation.
Those 3 billion investment are hanging and it is not final yet.
TATA has been proposing to buy our gas way below market price, so that in the name of GLOBALIZATION they can produce more cheap fertilizer than our local producer, and they can KICK OFF our producer from the Market.
AND there are other issues ALSO
TATA has been proposing to buy our gas way below market price, so that in the name of GLOBALIZATION they can produce more cheap fertilizer than our local producer, and they can KICK OFF our producer from the Market.
AND there are other issues ALSO
kidwaibhai
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,494
- Reaction score
- 0
i think that the creation of Bangladesh was natural progression of things. they were always a separate nation. I think that the creation of Bangladesh was the best mistake we ever made.
niaz
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 5,164
- Reaction score
- 211
- Country
- Location
Muslim League was founded in 1906 in Dhaka by Nawab Mohsinul Mulk and
Bengalis were also in the forefront of the liberation movement. Agha Khan -III was its first president and its headquarters were in Lukhnow. Sir Zafarullah Khan ( a Qadiani) in his first presidentail address in 1931 advocated the cause of the Muslims.
Whereas Punjab had the Unionist government under Khizar Hayat Tiwana; Chief Minister of Punjab from 1942 to 1947 and NWFP under Red Shirts never wanted Pakistan anyway. It is ironic that all the people and parties who were anti partition are now the stalwarts of Pakistan.
We lost our way after the assassination of Liaqat Ali Khan in 1951. I remember reading somewhere that Valib Bhai Patel had said in 1947 that Pakistan will collapse under its own weight. It took 25 years and a multitude of political errors which caused the creation of Bangal Desh. IMO creation of Bangla Desh was the biggest calamity that could befall to Pakistan. By acceptiing that Bengalis were a seperate nation we question the very basis of creation of Pakistan in the first place.
But we havent learned from it. We have members in this forum who think less of the Mohajirs. May be MQM leader Altaf Husein is right when he questions the two nation theory.
How can we talk of Muslim Ummah as being one when we diffrentiate between people within Pakistan on the basis of their mother tongue??. Allama Iqbal must be turning is his grave because it was he who proposed the idea of two nations in 1930.
Perhaps education will eventually provide the solution but we we are still spending far too little on education. Sorry to disagree with the Hon Kidwaibahi but there is no such thing as the "Best mistake".
Contrarian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 11,571
- Reaction score
- 4
What was good about the creation of Bangladesh, could you tell me from a Pakistani POV ?
kidwaibhai
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,494
- Reaction score
- 0
i would be glad to.
Bangladesh at that point in time had the larger section of the population but its part in the GDP was smaller. The area was prone to natural disasters. Thus in some sense a drain on the economy.
From a military POV it was very strangly placed and could not be defended. india could have easily cut it off as it did.
Bangladesh at that point in time had the larger section of the population but its part in the GDP was smaller. The area was prone to natural disasters. Thus in some sense a drain on the economy.
From a military POV it was very strangly placed and could not be defended. india could have easily cut it off as it did.
Contrarian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 11,571
- Reaction score
- 4
So basically, the only good to Pakistan was that it was cut off, the GDP of that section could have grown easily mate, that is not a problem. And natural disasters there occur as much as they would anywhere else. Thats not a proper reason, its location was such that had Pakistan prepared properly, it could have opened up 2 very large fronts with India in case of war. It had a vital location.
Could people here actually analyse seriously what good it was for Bangladesh to break away from Pakistan?
Could people here actually analyse seriously what good it was for Bangladesh to break away from Pakistan?
Similar threads
