I don't know how long this lady can keep milking 1971 and use Pakistan as the boogeyman to purge(in various ways) any meaningful opposition...only to further her hold on power...
Much of what you said is true, and Pakistanis, including this one, feel ashamed of how we treated our brothers in the East (particularly in terms of lack of economic justice) till the eve of the 1971 elections, which provided fertile grounds for resentment to grow in. Hindus are still persecuted in present-day Bangladesh (this was not unique to West Pakistani behavior). Mujib fought and won the 71 elections on the 6 point agenda, ending Pakistan as a federation. He was compromised way before (in the 60s) by the Indian intelligence. West Pakistani leaders like Bhutto (a power-hungry opportunist) and Yahya (an incompetent coward and a moron of the highest order) ensured that the unity of Pakistan was not preserved even in a diluted form. It is also true that the Muslims of Bengal spearheaded the freedom struggle, but a minority did not accommodate the majority for much of our shared history. Poor Pakistan has been hosting over 3 million Afghans, but we never invaded that country to mitigate the effect of civil strife there on ourselves. India became the aggressor out of its own volition. Manekshaw was asked by Indira to prepare for war 9 months in advance of the December 1971 open hostilities. Kabul regime pleaded with India for assistance recently against the Taliban (air support); it did not comply despite the request of the "legitimate" government of Afghanistan. India is not taking away your money as we did, but it is killing your border guards, citizens and occupying your territory forcefully.
No, it may not have been the end of Pakistan as a federation. I ask you, with only a simple majority in the Parliament was the Awami League able to change the Constitution or the Legal Framework of Pakistan? It won 160 seats which was a simple majority in a house of 300 seats.
How can India absorb Bangladesh? Do you think Hindu people are that thick-headed? It was even ready to immediately vacate by accepting the UN Resolution in December 1971 and who undid it?
Not endorsing the hyperbole surrounding genocide. Economic and political justice was not ensured, and that must be recognized and lessons learned from our history. Lack of socioeconomic and political justice turned the majority in East Pakistan against the idea of Pakistan. We blame India for jumping into a dispute between brothers to ameliorate the threat perception for itself after it had to eat a humble pie in 1965 (on a tangent, the performance of the East Bengal Regiment in 65 was exemplary, it was involved in defense of Lahore). Not for our own mistakes. Denying our own mistakes is even more problematic and should be avoided at all costs.
It was a blunder and an injustice of not transferring power to him. Lahore resolution called for 2 separate Muslim states in the subcontinent. Ideally, there should have been two states from the beginning, but once there was a single one, the onus on everyone was to ensure its continued survival. We in West Pakistan were not up to the task. There has been a lot of hyperbole vis-a-vis events of 71 on the BD side, but the West Pakistani elite had taken steps to ensure the total alienation of East Pakistanis even before that. I, for one, would not be a party to denying our historical wrongs. What has passed has passed. BD is an emerging Asian economy today. It should move on from the dark chapter of our history. With Haseena at the helm, it is not possible. Maybe sometime in the future, when alternative leadership emerges in BD, the relation between our two states could see improvement as our forefathers would have envisaged in the Lahore declaration.
I think he meant that if two states were conceived, as envisaged in the Lahore resolution, rather than a single one. I do agree with what you are saying about Bhutto again. There are voices now in Pakistan as well who speak about this particular action of Bhutto and try to connect it with a larger personality sketch of this character.
You live in a fantasy world created by yourself. Are you somehow related by blood to all those thick-headed Punjabi and Pathan generals?
Read again what I wrote. India in 71 was not interested in absorbing Bangladesh in fact it wanted a semi independent Bangladesh to prove that 2 nation theory was not good and to keep it under its influence forever. I was talking more about 47 when originally Bangladesh was suppose to become independent along with Pakistan and India. But Bangladeshi leaders were smart and knew India will absorb it in the blink of an eye so they choose to merge with pakistan.
That economic looting and political injustice is utter nonsense as well. To be bluntly truth, no offense, but it's naive Pakistanis like you who awami nationalist Bangladeshis and Indians take advantage of. Entire pakistan after 47 was economically impoverished, there were more industries from pre partition times in western pakistan compared to Eastern that's one of the reasons why massive amount of Bangladeshis came into western pakistan. If Bangladesh had jute crop, West pakistan Sindh and Punjab had rice and cotton, kpk had stones and Balochistan had gas.
This I agree with
Because most factories were in British era western part. It was not like pakistan bringing jute and establishing new factories. It was a impoverished country trying to stand on its feet.
