What's new

Mujib was most responsible for 1971 - Bengali scholar

No. I have made peace with it. I sometimes wonder what it would have been like if we were united and been the 3rd largest country of the world and the largest Muslim country. But that's it.

I'm saying this because that pre 1971 thinking still pervades. We are more concerned about Kashmir than the regions we actually have. People probably know more about what's going on Srinagar than FATA, GB and Balochistan.

That is not true, that's probably just your mindset. Look at development of KP over last 5-10 years the difference is night and day, Balochistan is at the beginning of a similar kind of growth stage with CPEC, Sindh is a complicated case and PPP is making things harder. Pakistan CANNOT give up on Kashmir at any cost though because it is like cutting off the end of their lifeline. Your kind of divisive talk only harms the situation, Kashmir is as much Pakistan as any province.
 
.
That's because Bengalis' reason for wanting independence was never ideological. Islam was never in danger there. Their reason was purely economical and political, they wanted freedom from the upper caste Bengali Hindu bhadralok ruling over them.

And after partition that bourgeoisie position, previously occupied by Hindus, was filled by West Pakistanis hence the Bengalis' frustration.

I partially agree with the first part of your comment. There was always an ideological element and this element was mostly loyal to Pakistan in 1971.

And its not entirely correct to say that the bourgeoisie position was entirely filled up by West Pakistanis (and Biharis). There was an expansion of the Bengali Muslim middle and entrepreunial classes. They were doing much better than at any other time so far in their history.

The Awami League showed them a myth of "Golden Bengal" - which it could not deliver after independence until recently (and God knows if this progress will last) - and dishonestly painted the progress under Pakistan as retrogression.
 
.
Among the real reasons for the fall of East Pakistan is the terrorist role of the Indian- baby Mukti Bahini. All the other traitors were involved in this conspiracy
 
.
That is not true, that's probably just your mindset. Look at development of KP over last 5-10 years the difference is night and day, Balochistan is at the beginning of a similar kind of growth stage with CPEC, Sindh is a complicated case and PPP is making things harder. Pakistan CANNOT give up on Kashmir at any cost though because it is like cutting off the end of their lifeline. Your kind of divisive talk only harms the situation, Kashmir is as much Pakistan as any province.
How do you suggest dealing with Gilgit Baltistan and the threat to CPEC then?

And not just threat to CPEC, how do we address their frustration and calls to be included in Pakistan? Keep giving them lollipops?
I partially agree with the first part of your comment. There was always an ideological element and this element was mostly loyal to Pakistan in 1971.

And its not entirely correct to say that the bourgeoisie position was entirely filled up by West Pakistanis (and Biharis). There was an expansion of the Bengali Muslim middle and entrepreunial classes. They were doing much better than at any other time so far in their history.

The Awami League showed them a myth of "Golden Bengal" - which it could not deliver after independence until recently (and God knows if this progress will last) - and dishonestly painted the progress under Pakistan as retrogression.
Don't we have that again in the form of PTM? What is the establishment doing?

Nothing. Hoping Taliban will fix the problem for us.
 
.
How do you suggest dealing with Gilgit Baltistan and the threat to CPEC then?

And not just threat to CPEC, how do we address their frustration and calls to be included in Pakistan? Keep giving them lollipops?

Don't we have that again in the form of PTM? What is the establishment doing?

Nothing. Hoping Taliban will fix the problem for us.
I agree. We have still not learnt the lesson of stamping out traitors when they are seedlings.
 
.
I agree establishment had a role in it but we can't neglect the bad faith of the other side. Pakistan was ultimately broken because of (in Professor Syed Sajjad Hossain's words): "betrayal, treachery, foolishness, myopia, deception on one side (Bengali) and lack of forethought, unconcern, ignorance, want of sympathy, arrogance on the other (Pakistani)"

Some passages from Hossain's "Wastes of Time" which are pertinent here. They illuminate how the Pakistani establishment failed to take timely action against the Awami League, leftists and those who were opposed to the ideology of Pakistan.















For all this you need to consider the history of the Muslim League's politics against the United Front and its background in the language movement in the 1950s. The Bengalis were being turned against the two nation theory in the 1950s and ethnic nationalism was being promoted. The Awami League was opposed to the ideology of Pakistan and even our Prime Minister Suhrawardy was suggesting territorial nationalism instead of religious nationalism which is the basis of Pakistan. And one more thing. It was later under the military ruler Ayub Khan that the central government contributed to the Awami League's strength in East Pakistan.






How do you suggest dealing with Gilgit Baltistan and the threat to CPEC then?

And not just threat to CPEC, how do we address their frustration and calls to be included in Pakistan? Keep giving them lollipops?

Don't we have that again in the form of PTM? What is the establishment doing?

Nothing. Hoping Taliban will fix the problem for us.






Why is an indian false flagger so interested in Pakistan?.......... :disagree:
 
Last edited:
.
How do you suggest dealing with Gilgit Baltistan and the threat to CPEC then?

And not just threat to CPEC, how do we address their frustration and calls to be included in Pakistan? Keep giving them lollipops?

Don't worry they will get more than lollipop soon, there is a lot of talk of provincial status and where there is smoke, there is fire. Just need the right time. It is inevitable, but Pakistan needs to play the cards in the right order. Do not forget that Indus river runs through Ladakh and therefore the situation of Kashmir is nothing like Bangladesh, it is a matter of survival of the country.

In a similar manner Pakistan's social issues like the ones you are concerned about will be fixed in the correct order. Everything cannot be solved at once, societies are built up and take decades to get rid of bad attributes.
 
.
Bhutto's faults are known. When will we recognise that Mujib was a traitor? He was a Bengali nationalist first and last with no true loyalty to Pakistan. Why else did he tell his Awami League cabinet during the 1970 elections that his aim was to establish Bangladesh and tear up the LFO after the elections? Intelligence agencies showed these tape recordings to Yahya Khan in 1970 but unfortunately he took no action.


Here is a viewpoint from Professor Syed Sajjad Hossain who was a pro-Pakistan Bengali in his book Wastes of Time:

"Finally, if Mr Zaheer has perceived nothing anomalous in the yoking of the Bengali Hindus of West Bengal with Punjabi Sikhs and Hindus, where was the illogically of the Muslims of East and West Pakistan forming a single state?"

"What, on the contrary, the Awami Leaguers, assisted by the left-wing journalists, fanned all the time was the cult of Bengali nationalism. Here again their dishonesty was transparently plain. They didn’t contend that the entire subcontinent needed reorganizing on linguistic lines, or that each major language group in Pakistan and India called for recognition as a separate nationality with a right to self-determination. The theory was applied to the Bengalis of Pakistan only. The Bengalis in West Bengal in India could stay where they were; the Marathis, the Tamils, the Andhras---all belonged to the Indian nation and nothing illogical could be seen in their union into a single State of the disparate language groups which inhabited India. The Nagas ethnically, linguistically and culturally differed from the rest of India but they received no support, although they had been struggling for secession since 1947; their leader Dr Phizo lived in exile in London, while Indian tanks, armoured cars, heavy artillery and bombs helped ‘pacify’ Naga villages. The disputed area of Kashmir was also left severely alone. No, India had a right to be one, and anyone who pleaded for pluralism either politically or culturally was a reactionary. But Pakistan with precisely the same demographic composition as India had to be viewed differently. Never in political history before has the jaundiced eye been so powerfully at work as in India and Pakistan, weighing the same problems in the two countries in different scales and insisting on different conclusion.

However insincere the motive of the Awami Leaguers, the cult of Bengali nationalism grew from strength to strength, owing to a combination of fortuitous circumstances. The first of these was the geographical distance between the two wings. The second was the failure of the Central Government to comprehend the nature of the nationalism and predict its course. The third was the habit politicians in the West Wing developed of administering pin-pricks to East Pakistanis which served to irritate and annoy. The fourth was the government’s unwillingness to refute the lies about the economic situation sedulously spread by the enemy. The fifth was an attitude of guilty- mindedness among West-Wing politicians and administrators towards the end. The sixth, and most dangerous of all, was the complacent belief that nothing could really shake Pakistan’s foundations. The seventh and last was utter ignorance in the upper echelons of the administration of the forces gathering against Pakistan on the international front."

We need to learn from this history. Otherwise, we are destined to repeat it,
He was in jail at that time.
Also It was his right to make constitution as he got majority in elections.
Secondly our keadership was weak and our military leader a selfish dictator who ignored Agra conspiracy.
 
.
He was in jail at that time.
Also It was his right to make constitution as he got majority in elections.
Secondly our keadership was weak and our military leader a selfish dictator who ignored Agra conspiracy.
Agartala*

Firstly do you realise what you are saying? You have just contradicted yourself by implication. You said Mujib should have been allowed to make a constitution then you implicitly admit he was a traitor who was connected to the Agartala Conspiracy Case. How do you stand on both positions at once?

Secondly, before going to jail Mujib usurped the government's authority and ran a parallel government - which was an act of rebellion and treason in itself.

And thirdly, majority in elections doesn't give him the right to make any constitution he wants because the election he got his mandate from derived its legitimacy from the Legal Framework Order (1970). And his Six Points breached the terms in the Legal Framework Order 1970.

Without LFO the elections were invalid and Mujib's mandate meant nothing. And again, his "majority" in elections was gained through militant intimidation of political opponents in East Pakistan.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom