On March 24 1971 - Pakistan Army arrested Sheikh Mujeeb & humiliated him

[my2cents]

You seem to be doing a lot of explaining why Pakistan has the problems it has. That deserves a full academic career. My question was a simple one: As an Indian, are you happy or unhappy that India you have is India of today and not what would have been if it had not been partitioned? To give an example, we had a huge civil war in the middle of 19th century. It was very tragic. But the union prevailed. I can unhesitatingly say preserving the union was good. If we had become USA and CSA, we would be a much weaker and less successful pair of nations. Can you make a statement like that?

I am conflicted in answering a hypothetical question. Is India better off today without the burden of Muslim dominated regions of Pakistan? No, we would be more powerful if we were united. We already have a bigger Muslim population than Pakistan and we are able to carry them along in our progress. No conflicts means less resources are spent on our military. We would have created land reforms in your 4 provinces and would have created peace.

 

[epebble]

I am conflicted in answering a hypothetical question. Is India better off today without the burden of Muslim dominated regions of Pakistan? No, we would be more powerful if we were united. We already have a bigger Muslim population than Pakistan and we are able to carry them along in our progress. No conflicts means less resources are spent on our military. We would have created land reforms in your 4 provinces and would have created peace.

I am of the opinion that an undivided India of 1947 would have suffered the fate of USSR (Break up 1988-1991) or Yugoslavia (Broke up in 1991/1992). Much less pleasant than break up of Czechoslovakia (1992). The differences between two approximately equal but vastly different cultures would have created a perfectly unstable system wholly unsuited for any form of polity besides harsh authoritarianism. USA today has infinitely fewer cultural contradictions (Compared to India, Pakistan et. al.), and we are barely able to maintain a modicum of democratic polity.

 

[my2cents]

I am of the opinion that an undivided India of 1947 would have suffered the fate of USSR (Break up 1988-1991) or Yugoslavia (Broke up in 1991/1992). Much less pleasant than break up of Czechoslovakia (1992). The differences between two approximately equal but vastly different cultures would have created a perfectly unstable system wholly unsuited for any form of polity besides harsh authoritarianism. USA today has infinitely fewer cultural contradictions (Compared to India, Pakistan et. al.), and we are barely able to maintain a modicum of democratic polity.

You don't think good leaders would have made a difference in your analysis? You would have world class education along with madrassa education. Educated awaam would have made a informed choice. Breaking up was always been a easier decision but thse leaders always lacked vision in uniting people

 

[epebble]

You don't think good leaders would have made a difference in your analysis? You would have world class education along with madrassa education. Educated awaam would have made a informed choice. Breaking up was always been a easier decision but thse leaders always lacked vision in uniting people

Leaders only last so long. If peaceful transfer of power does not enter the DNA of the polity, sooner or later there will be an imperfect leader and the train will derail. Tito was a great leader of Yugoslavia. But the Balkans broke up violently after him. Gorbachev was a great man but couldn't hold back the forces of destruction of USSR. Vaclav Havel was also a great leader but saw the union was irreconcilable and managed a miraculous divorce.

 

[my2cents]

Leaders only last so long. If peaceful transfer of power does not enter the DNA of the polity, sooner or later there will be an imperfect leader and the train will derail. Tito was a great leader of Yugoslavia. But the Balkans broke up violently after him. Gorbachev was a great man but couldn't hold back the forces of destruction of USSR. Vaclav Havel was also a great leader but saw the union was irreconcilable and managed a miraculous divorce.

If British could hold our nation together for 250 years, we would have managed it for at least 100 years. Maybe we would have more power divested in provincial government than a central authority. We have separate Muslim personal law which we are working to abolish because of inherently different laws in one country doesn't make sense. It took this long to bring people along to bring this change about.

 

[epebble]

If British could hold our nation together for 250 years, we would have managed it for at least 100 years. Maybe we would have more power divested in provincial government than a central authority. We have separate Muslim personal law which we are working to abolish because of inherently different laws in one country doesn't make sense. It took this long to bring people along to bring this change about.

"British holding the nation together" has some qualifiers. India was a conglomerate of various sovereigns (to various degrees). British rule never even made a pretense of 'democracy', however imperfectly. Hence, they could rule through fiat. If authoritarianism is the model of polity, states last long. PRC has been around 75 years and is doing quite O.K. USSR did nicely for 75 years. It is the challenge of fusing disparate cultures under the banner of "All men are created equal" that is difficult.

 

[Cash GK]

Because his two nation theory was a fraudulent theory and is the bed rock of your country foundation. If it is disproved then your lies will be exposed.

And you idiot. You have no understanding about islam and how it works. When you dont have knowledge. Then don't jump in conversation... idiot

 

[my2cents]

And you idiot. You have no understanding about islam and how it works. When you dont have knowledge. Then don't jump in conversation... idiot

There are many theories about Jinnah. But two nation theory he proposed is sacred. Good luck writing about it.

 

[imadul]

Army is bonafied traitor.
And they have no regard of
the country
The constitution
Law
It's people
Their oath.

They are cheaters and loathsome dregs of earth.
Pakistan is just a cash cow for them which serves to give them housing societies, lush green golf courses, free rations, medical, utilities, while 40% lives below poverty line and except military and some elites rest can hardly live a decent life.

Curse of Allah on them.
Syed Munawwar Hasan was right when he said how their dead are Shaheed?
These soldier are dying for their control over Pakistan, not for the motherland.

Never understood why Mujib was allowed to contest elections when he was knee deep in collusion with Indian intelligence.

Army hasn't barged into your home
Dragged women out
Thrown your vote out.
Ask baluchis.
They are giving army a run for their money.

 

[imadul]

Its interesting to study Fatima Jinnah, who was not just the sister of Muhammad Ali Jinnah but she was his close advisor. After Muhammad Ali Jinnah passed away, she was banned from appearing on media to address the nation, she wrote a book about her brother "My Brother" but it was not allowed to be published until 30+ years later, Her family asked for an enquiry to investigate her death but Pakistan leadership denied them the right.

Anyone care to explain why?

Add.this
Army paid pension to the wife of assassin of Liaquat Ali khan.
After British colonials, Army took the role to serve white masters.

See where India, and what hole.this Army has ditched in.

Given chance half of pakistan will come to India , the dream is over . But we will not allow single pakistani to come to India , except hindus and brides who want Indian husbands . Jammu and Kashmir which includes gilgit baltistan is an exception , they are welcome with their whole state because we gave them plegde to give citizenship with treaty of Hari Singh kingh of Kashmir .

Keep dreaming, you a--hole.

 

[Dr.Nick Riviera]

There is something in the soil of Bengal that makes it fertile for growth of treachery and rebellion.

It was neither Mujib nor Bhutto nor the military. The east Pakistani autocracy had finalized the project for Bangladesh as early as 1968.

I'm guessing you've never heard of the larkhana conspiracy hatched by Mr. Bhutto and Gen. Yahya.

The vast majority of EP folk were poor and were never part of any unified, grassroot rebellion against Pak.

In addition, Bangladesh is a heterogeneous nation. It is NOT a nation of the bengalees.

 

[Neelo]

Bumping this to remind Faujeets they are hated across Pakistan now

 

[El Sidd]

I'm guessing you've never heard of the larkhana conspiracy hatched by Mr. Bhutto and Gen. Yahya.

The vast majority of EP folk were poor and were never part of any unified, grassroot rebellion against Pak.

In addition, Bangladesh is a heterogeneous nation. It is NOT a nation of the bengalees.

On what doctrine this heterogeneous country is formed? Was it the language movement? Or supremacy of ethnic Bengalis? Indian war on Pakistan? Or one traitors sheer luck?

I am assuming you don't want to discuss mass sterilization of Rohingyas, absolute genocide of Biharis, tract tribals and others.