I think that there is a difference between the partition of the subcontinent in 1947 and the partition of Pakistan in 1971. In 1947 there was little in the way of a 'national identity' or a 'nation', so I would argue that it was far easier for most people to adjust to the idea of two separate nations.
I completely disagree with the above view.....
Partition was such a traumatic gesture for people on both sides because the land belonged to our forefathers for centuries if not more who lived side by side irrespective of religion.....to give up ones house, land, friends and move purely for the sake of a political movement is not as palatable as you make it out to be......
Probably why it resulted in so much bloodshed.....In fact the immigrants on either side shared a cultural and traditional bond that superceeded religion prior to partition.....
I obviously cannot speak for the Pakistanis but in my view, the Quit India movement was to drive the british out of what was
historically India......so a sense of national identity existed whether you agree or not.....politics post partition is another matter....
In 1971 nationhood had been established and a sense of identity as a Pakistani, even if eventually trumped by ethnic nationalism, existed. There was in addition also the sense of nationhood through ties of faith, and to add to my previous post, I believe that ties of brotherhood and nationhood through faith may also play a part in that sentiment.
Im of the view that a nation seperated by thousands of miles of hostile territory can never fully achieve a sense of common national identity.....
Pak and BD were seperated not just by land, but culture, traditions, language.....and a host of other issues that eventually lead to the divide....the only similarity that bound the two sides was religion.....
Hence I do feel a bit surprised at Al-Zakir's statements as the two nations were seperate seeds of the same fruit, that were bound to find their own destinies.....
In a sense the underlying sentiment may be similar to that of some Islamic schools of thought that would like to see a unified Muslim world. Such a school of thought would find it easier to subscribe to the sentiment expressed by Al-Zakir because Bangladesh used to be part of a larger Islamic nation and therefore has an existing template of a 'unified nationhood in Islam'.
I can subscribe to the above sentiment....In fact my feeling is that Al-Zakir was probably speaking of the religious bond rather than national....
But then again, a 160 million in my nation follow the same religion as Pak and BD....yet, you never hear of a apologist or a "optimist" that would want India-Pak-BD to become one again or join either of those countries.....
The question is.....in today's BD what drives the masses,....is it the religion or nationalism.....?
From Al-Zakirs reply, it seems religion....which is odd for us Indians because day in day out, we are taught to put country before religion.....
