16th December, 1971 : Lieutenant-General A. A. K. Niazi signs the instrument of surrender in Dhaka

[Pakpak]

Nope. Around 300,000 or less

Don't you know around 40,000 armed forces killed not only millions of Bangladeshis but also battled the Mukhtis and the Indians at the same time?

How dare you question it!

/sarcastic

It took Germans, with factories designed for killing, to kill 6 million Jews over five years. Yet our men numbering a few tens of thousands killed half that number in a single year while fighting Indians and a full blown rebellion. Its accepted by a few good Indian authors as well that the number meant was 300,000. Not 3 million.

 

[English August]

That's because they aren't of Indian heritage. Duh. Obviously my observations hit home because our Indian members have thankfully restrained themselves from treating the 1971 accord as some sort of victory so pat yourselves on the back for that.

Where are you living by the way, with a name like English August I'm assuming Britain?

I live in NYC but that shouldn't matter. You'll never hear me say "we Americans did this and that". When I'm posting in a South Asian forum, my identity is India irrespective of what color my passport is or where I live.

Every person of South Asian heritage posting here is essentially posting as a South Asian, not as a Brit, American, Australian or Canadian, even through they might be living there for 1-2 generations. Pretending otherwise is delusional.

 

[cricketjoshila]

1970s elections are considered most fare election in Pakistan history, ironically they were most divisive election not just in Pakistan's history but probably in history of democracy. PPP won overwhelming numbers of seat in West Pakistan, not a single seat in East Pakistan, they hardly had any candidate in East, same was true for Mujib's Party. Mujib ran election campaign on very nationalist (aka that 6 point agenda) and Bhutto ran the opposite.

You are right people did spoke, unfortunately two very different voices. 1970 election results showed a very divided Pakistan, you just cannot blame Bhutto and put everything else under the rug. Bhutto largely did what he promised in campaign so was the case with Mujib, they both stood to their view point on which they won election by land slide... Seed of power reside in West Pakistan for 25 years(before 1971), that's why Bhutto was in position to take a stand, I don't know that exact number but entire top leadership of Army was from West too if not majority of soldiers, where as East had bigger population. Army stood with their own one(aka West Pakistani), for a reason. If I am not mistaken Mujib was more interested in being CM of East Pakistan than PM of Pakistan, which you can see from his campaign and 6 point agenda... This division would have happened anyway if those 6 points would have implemented.

The seed of divide was planted long ago. Bangalis did not wanted to live with Pakistan, that was very clear in 1970s election. Lot of that has to do with how Pakistan was run in those 25 years, Ayub 10 years rule, made it clear to Bangalis they will have hard time. They were not welcome into the most prestigious institution of Country aka Army, not just welcomed, they were discriminated, since they were not broad and tall enough. This is just one example, they wanted to keep their language and culture intact and wanted fair share of power and economy...

Reality is East and West Pakistan was one of the most unnatural country, they had nothing in common, it was hard to keep them together. They were not physically connect, had no common culture, language, even currency, top that with the fact that your main enemy is between the two parts of the country. Which other country was/is built like that??

All these are excuses.Mujib won a majority in the Pakistani parliament and hence he should have been made PM.The people who voted for him were Pakistanis, no matter east or west.

Bhutto won 81 seats to Mujibs 160.There is no way Bhutto should have had a say in who will become PM.

West Pakistanis wanted to treat East as a colony.That was the problem.

 

[Major]

All these are excuses.Mujib won a majority in the Pakistani parliament and hence he should have been made PM.The people who voted for him were Pakistanis, no matter east or west.

Bhutto won 81 seats to Mujibs 160.There is no way Bhutto should have had a say in who will become PM.

West Pakistanis wanted to treat East as a colony.That was the problem.

before partition, Jinnah pitched the full autonomy idea for Muslim and Hindu state, did you agree on that?

 

[cricketjoshila]

before partition, Jinnah pitched the full autonomy idea for Muslim and Hindu state, did you agree on that?

I do not know what idea you are talking about, but before partition and independence there was no democracy in British India.To compare it with a free and fair democratic election is stupidity.

Also i didnot vote for Mujib.Pakistanis did and gave him 160 seats in NA which was a simple majority.And as per democratic rules he should have been PM.Unless ofcourse the west pakistanis considered east to be beneath them and hence their voice didnot count.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I'm always amused by British-Pakistanis when they assume either the British or Pakistani identity depending on where the thread is going. You brought up the BD topic, I only told you that BD is not as bad as you're making it out to be (at least in relation to Pak). So now you're the aloof Brit! Nice.

There is another guy on this thread going around talking about how "we British" manipulated you all South Asians. LOL.

Guys, accept it -- this thread is about South Asians talking about 1971 event; your current passport (be it India, Pak, BD, UK, US, Canada, ...) doesn't matter!! Original Brits don't spend their time talking about 1971 India-Pak war!!!

Too funny!

lol. The topic is related to Bangladesh.

You make it sound as if BD economy has reached the heights of Germany but its still a third world country , the same as India and Pakistan.

I'm merely interested in history and how this event impacted Pakistan's future. Im happy to have such a background and feel Pakistan is better off imo.

 

[Snak3eye5]

The majority here Pakistanis and Bangladeshis alike seems to conclude that eventually it was good that Bangladesh became its own entity even though they had to spill blood over it.

I always wonder the opposite, what if somehow east and west Pakistan would have worked together, leaving all hindrances, biases aside and actually made it work. Heck if India made it work with 29 states and 22 languages one would think that it wasn't an impossible task for east and west Pakistan to get along regardless of religion, geography, language. It almost looks like both sides didnt care and wanted nothing to do with the other.

East and west together could have been a real strong economy, one that could challenge India at all fronts, if the right leaders from east and west understood this strategic advantage. You never know.

 

[English August]

lol. The topic is related to Bangladesh.

You make it sound as if BD economy has reached the heights of Germany but its still a third world country , the same as India and Pakistan.

I'm merely interested in history and how this event impacted Pakistan's future. Im happy to have such a background and feel Pakistan is better off imo.

This reads like post-game rationalization after losing the game!

It's like losing in the semi-final of WC and saying that -- "Chalo theek hua. Now we don't have to play the final and tire ourselves. We prefer to relax by the pool!"

If Pak is so happy about losing BD (as you claim), why did Pak fight the war in the first place and go through the humiliating surrender? Wouldn't it have been easier to give freedom to BD on your own and avoid the bloodshed for everyone?

Accept it: you wanted to keep BD desperately. You fought the war for it. You were defeated fair and square. You lost. There is nothing wrong in admitting failure.

 

[yasir]

All these are excuses.Mujib won a majority in the Pakistani parliament and hence he should have been made PM.The people who voted for him were Pakistanis, no matter east or west.

Bhutto won 81 seats to Mujibs 160.There is no way Bhutto should have had a say in who will become PM.

West Pakistanis wanted to treat East as a colony.That was the problem.

before partition, Jinnah pitched the full autonomy idea for Muslim and Hindu state, did you agree on that?

I think [MENTION=135038]Major[/MENTION] point is Pakistan came to the same cross road as India was back in 1947. Nationalist ideas does not fit well with the people who believe in strong federation, you cannot have both, either strong federation or strong states, you cannot have both...

Even though history of India for thousands of years was strong state and weak federation. In India states were very independent (before English and Mugal rule), they had their Army, currency, trade, everything. They only get to gather and build(more like NATO) Army when they had to fight a bigger enemy, like Alexander, Muslim Arab Invaders etc. That is part of the reason India has so many languages and difference in cultures from East to West and North to South(everybody lived independent of each other)... Despite all that history, Congress was not willing to give states more power and build a weak federation as India always have been...Its hard to think Pakistan would have done the opposite, even 25 years later, building a country where state has true power...

Again my point is first off Bhutto was not acting alone, he had back of West behind him, including Army, who was running the show before him. Secondly, he did what he think is right thing to do, obviously power was always in leaders mind, but his main driver was national vs federation issue, third, if he has done other way, people would have blamed him lot more and considered him as a weak leader. Fourth, Bhutto was popular leader in Pakistan for a very long period of time, almost second most popular after Jinnah, his name really died because of Zaradari in last 10 years(even Army could not kill him for 20+ years after his death), people does not seems to have serious problem with his stand back in 1970...As I said, frankly Pakistan and BD were not living like one country in those 25 years, it was an unnatural country, with nothing in common, West hogging all the power did not helped either.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I live in NYC but that shouldn't matter. You'll never hear me say "we Americans did this and that". When I'm posting in a South Asian forum, my identity is India irrespective of what color my passport is or where I live.

Every person of South Asian heritage posting here is essentially posting as a South Asian, not as a Brit, American, Australian or Canadian, even through they might be living there for 1-2 generations. Pretending otherwise is delusional.

To be fair, if you are an immigrant then your identity probably is Indian, and certainly you come across as an immigrant so fair enough. Immigrants don't think in the same way as those born in that country, so when you are talking about British Pakistanis, you are actually very wrong in trying to push a south asian identity on us. Truthfully we are British and only our ethnicity is Asian. To describe it as an identity is totally false.

An identity would be if I took on a persona or name such as Anglo September. That would make me sound English even though I may well be an Indian immigrant living in NYC.

 

[Gabbar Singh]

Bangladesh has come a long way since 1971. Here’s to their economic and social progress continuing.

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

Greatest ever achievement of Bengalis! I feel proud of my ancestors, For their sacrifices and for their courage to stand up to a huge army and defeat them without an organized army. This was One of the greatest feat of heroism in human history.

 

[Lonewarrior]

Greatest ever achievement of Bengalis! I feel proud of my ancestors, For their sacrifices and for their courage to stand up to a huge army and defeat them without an organized army. This was One of the greatest feat of heroism in human history.

India gve the victory to you on platter ..... LOL @ human history

 

[Mamoon]

No matter how many times we bring up Abhinandan and how many lame chai jokes we make, it doesn’t remotely compensate for the unprecedented humiliated that Pakistan faced in December 16, 1971.

It was the day Pakistan forever lost whatever bragging rights it had.

The fact that in spite of this sheer embarrassment, our army still does chest-thumping and pretends to be the savior of the nation shows how strong their propaganda is.

As far as East Pakistan is concerned, getting rid of the West Pakistan’s baggage was the greatest thing that has ever happened to them.

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

India gve the victory to you on platter ..... LOL @ human history

Most of the occupied land in Bangladesh was liberated before the entry of Indian forces in Bangladesh. Indian forces hardly faced any obstacle in entering the capital city. Bengali guerrillas won many epic battles throughout the country in the month of october and november and liberated many districts and cities throughout the country. By December, Pakistani Army only had control over few cities. Victory of Bangladesh was inevitable, arrival of India just made it quicker and saved the face of your mighty Army. Despite having the support of mighty USA, China and all Arab countries, your Army was resoundingly defeated by guerrillas and paramilitary of Bangladesh.

 

[Braveheart]

East Pakistan as a Geographical concept was doomed to fail on all fronts.
I'm just surprised it took 24 years to gain independence
I visited Bangladesh in 2015 and was very impressed with the 'Hard Work' Culture and 'thirst' for Education, especially amongst females of all classes. It is becoming very similar to Indonesia.
Maybe Pakistan can learn something from our Bangladeshi Brothers and Sisters?

 

[Local.Dada]

Shows how ethnicity and language trumps religion. 2 of the biggest military conflicts in South Asia in the modern era have been based on linguistic lines. LTTE and Bangladesh conflict.

Amazing how India with all the languages, cultures,religion and even the various differences within religions be it caste etc has moved forward without civil wars. I am sure there are going to be pics of Shaheen baag or farmers protests thrown around as equivalence, if that is an idea of civil war, then we have been living in a closely guarded bubble with first world problems.

 

[sweep_shot]

I personally wish the war didn't happen as both sides lost people. But, it is what it is.

I wish both Bangladesh and Pakistan all the best moving forward.

 

[Giannis]

Shows how ethnicity and language trumps religion. 2 of the biggest military conflicts in South Asia in the modern era have been based on linguistic lines. LTTE and Bangladesh conflict.

Amazing how India with all the languages, cultures,religion and even the various differences within religions be it caste etc has moved forward without civil wars. I am sure there are going to be pics of Shaheen baag or farmers protests thrown around as equivalence, if that is an idea of civil war, then we have been living in a closely guarded bubble with first world problems.

This is far from true, I don't if you're aware but there's a region called Kashmir that is fighting for independence from India. It's one of the bloodiest and longest running conflicts in the world and then you got the whole Sikh separatist thing which is pretty active.

 

[El Generico]

This is far from true, I don't if you're aware but there's a region called Kashmir that is fighting for independence from India. It's one of the bloodiest and longest running conflicts in the world and then you got the whole Sikh separatist thing which is pretty active.

I think [MENTION=151383]Local.Dada[/MENTION] just admitted that he does not consider Kashmir to be a part of India. Good to see, hopefully more Indians realize this as well.

 

[El Generico]

Shows how ethnicity and language trumps religion. 2 of the biggest military conflicts in South Asia in the modern era have been based on linguistic lines. LTTE and Bangladesh conflict.

Amazing how India with all the languages, cultures,religion and even the various differences within religions be it caste etc has moved forward without civil wars. I am sure there are going to be pics of Shaheen baag or farmers protests thrown around as equivalence, if that is an idea of civil war, then we have been living in a closely guarded bubble with first world problems.

Does this fit your idea of a civil war?

Sukma Naxal attack: CRPF personnel killed, 10 commandos injured in IED blast in Chhattisgarh


https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/in...alerao-killed-jawans-injured-ied-blast-668050

And I don't think this was a one-off, Naxal attacks are pretty common in some parts of India.

 

[Local.Dada]

Does this fit your idea of a civil war?

Sukma Naxal attack: CRPF personnel killed, 10 commandos injured in IED blast in Chhattisgarh


https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/in...alerao-killed-jawans-injured-ied-blast-668050

And I don't think this was a one-off, Naxal attacks are pretty common in some parts of India.

Good we can use Google. However let’s also use a dictionary to find out what civil war means.

 

[El Generico]

Good we can use Google. However let’s also use a dictionary to find out what civil war means.

Civil war: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country

So either you don’t consider the frequent attacks by Naxals to be an act of war or you don’t consider them to be a part of India.

Anyways forget this, what would you call the conflict in Kashmir?

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

I personally wish the war didn't happen as both sides lost people. But, it is what it is.

I wish both Bangladesh and Pakistan all the best moving forward.

Pakistan would've never conceded East wing diplomatically. The establishment was plain racist towards Bengalis.War was inevitable.

 

[Giannis]

Pakistan would've never conceded East wing diplomatically. The establishment was plain racist towards Bengalis.War was inevitable.

Bro you need to get out of your victim complex. History isn't black and white, there were many racists in the Pakistani establishment but I wouldn't say it was as pervasive as the Bangladeshi state tries to make out to be. I do think Hinduphobia rather than anti-Bengali racism was main driving force behind the atrocities.

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

Bro you need to get out of your victim complex. History isn't black and white, there were many racists in the Pakistani establishment but I wouldn't say it was as pervasive as the Bangladeshi state tries to make out to be. I do think Hinduphobia rather than anti-Bengali racism was main driving force behind the atrocities.

It was pervasive Sir. Bengalis were systematically rejected and ignored in every possible sectors of the country. Bangla language was deemed as UnIslamic, the culture was seen as too hindu influenced. Pakistan not only mocked our skin tone, but also hated our language, literature and life style. Go through the books of Pakistani authors to know about the perception of Pakistan about Bengalis. You would find out.

 

[saeedhk]

The break up of East Pakistan was solely the result of systemic and institutionalised discrimination of Bengalis by West Pakistan’s government and establishment.

It is good that Bengalis have their own state. They are better off now. Bangladesh is better than Pakistan in all metrics; be it health, education, economy or women rights.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Indian posters and cheerleaders back to 1971 I see. Something must be burning in the kitchen I think.....

 

[Mamoon]

Indian posters and cheerleaders back to 1971 I see. Something must be burning in the kitchen I think.....

If Pakistan can milk Abhinandan episode for two years and counting, don’t you think it is fair for India to milk the events of 1971 for around 100 years?

 

[sweep_shot]

It was pervasive Sir. Bengalis were systematically rejected and ignored in every possible sectors of the country. Bangla language was deemed as UnIslamic, the culture was seen as too hindu influenced. Pakistan not only mocked our skin tone, but also hated our language, literature and life style. Go through the books of Pakistani authors to know about the perception of Pakistan about Bengalis. You would find out.

Well, I believe Bengali culture is Hindu-influenced and I am a Bengali myself. I never celebrate Pohela Boishakh, for example.

Furthermore, 1971 happened over 50 years ago. A lot have changed since then. Not sure why you are so keen to be stuck in the past.

Most Bangladeshis (in my experience) have moved on. You should too.

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

Well, I believe Bengali culture is Hindu-influenced and I am a Bengali myself. I never celebrate Pohela Boishakh, for example.

Furthermore, 1971 happened over 50 years ago. A lot have changed since then. Not sure why you are so keen to be stuck in the past.

Most Bangladeshis (in my experience) have moved on. You should too.

Bengalis will never move on from 71. Spirit of 71 still lives through the constitution of Bangladesh. 16th december is still the greatest ever day for any bengalis. A day of joy, and Happiness. Sad that you cant feel those emotions due to caliphate pipedream of yours.

BTW Almost every culture is influenced by pagan religions. It dosent necessarily make those cultures bad. Even the Arab culture cant be said to be free from its pagan past. To specifically target bengali culture was a dumb idea of pakistanis that backfired.

Bangla calender was introduced by Akbar the King for agricultural purposes but after all these years you guys have deemed it as a part of hindu culture.

Thanks to Allah again that the country isn't run by the mullahs like Pakistan.

 

[srh]

Bangladesh will be complete once Indian Bangal leave India and join Bangladesh

 

[El Generico]

If Pakistan can milk Abhinandan episode for two years and counting, don’t you think it is fair for India to milk the events of 1971 for around 100 years?

TBH from a Pakistani point of view, it is good that India keeps dwelling on 1971 while completely ignoring the unrest brewing in their country. Let them celebrate what happened more than 5 decades ago for as long as they want

@ Topic,: Pakistanis should not be embarrassed by the surrender as the army was outnumbered 50 to 1 and were completely cut off from their home base. No army in the world can win from a position like that . However we should be embarrassed by how the Bengali population was treated in Pakistan, we should be embarrassed that Pakistan treated it's citizens in such a manner that they felt alienated. Hopefully the same mistakes are not repeated again.

 

[El Generico]

[MENTION=141306]sweep_shot[/MENTION]
A bit off topic but I have a question, Why is it that despite the unsavory past, Pakistani cricket teams always got more support in Bangladesh then India? IIRC whenever we played India in BD, it would be a home like atmosphere for Pakistan. Is this limited to cricket or does an average Bangladeshi support Pakistan over India?

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

Bangladesh will be complete once Indian Bangal leave India and join Bangladesh

1. United Bangla
2. Bharat(UP, MP, Bihar and likes of it. name because of religious roots)
3. United Punjab
4. Kashmir
Instead of Two nation, Indian Subcontinent should've been divided based on ethinic identity. Existence of multiple countries and a system like EU would've been ideal.

 

[sweep_shot]

[MENTION=141306]sweep_shot[/MENTION]
A bit off topic but I have a question, Why is it that despite the unsavory past, Pakistani cricket teams always got more support in Bangladesh then India? IIRC whenever we played India in BD, it would be a home like atmosphere for Pakistan. Is this limited to cricket or does an average Bangladeshi support Pakistan over India?

Based on my own experience, most Bangladeshis don't care about Pakistan or India when it comes to politics. However, when it comes to cricket, I believe Pakistan have more support than India.

There is also a recent anti-Indian sentiment among Bangladeshi population. You can see it if you go to social media platforms. There are different reasons for that (border killing, Indian treatment of Muslims, Kashmir etc.).

On a personal level, I love all Muslim-majority states and that includes Pakistan. I hope we all can work together on many different levels.

 

[El Generico]

Based on my own experience, most Bangladeshis don't care about Pakistan or India when it comes to politics. However, when it comes to cricket, I believe Pakistan have more support than India.

There is also a recent anti-Indian sentiment among Bangladeshi population. You can see it if you go to social media platforms.

On a personal level, I love all Muslim-majority states and that includes Pakistan. I hope we all can work together on many different levels.

Yeah I have noticed that India social media users tend to be very abusive towards both Bangladesh and Pakistan. I think some of them just have a problem with Muslims in general cause Indian trolls were also running campaigns against Turkey and Azerbaijan lol. Poor guys start fuming every time they deem something to be even remotely Muslim.

 

[Kroll]

Indian posters and cheerleaders back to 1971 I see. Something must be burning in the kitchen I think.....

One reason could be that we all had front row seats for the Feb 19 scuffle. All could have a bit of banter back and forth on these forums as we watched the Abhinandan events unfold before our very eyes.

The Indians got a bloody nose in that battle but only a few of us on these boards would have been alive or even old enough to remember the Bangladeshi war let alone view minute by minute details on social media like we can now.

 

[Giannis]

1. United Bangla
2. Bharat(UP, MP, Bihar and likes of it. name because of religious roots)
3. United Punjab
4. Kashmir
Instead of Two nation, Indian Subcontinent should've been divided based on ethinic identity. Existence of multiple countries and a system like EU would've been ideal.

Those us from Kashmir and Punjab are happy with the Pakistani federation. I do think United Bengal should've been separate country and that was floated by Jinnah before partition. EU sucks and I'm glad south asia isn't copying them.

 

[Romali_rotti]

This is far from true, I don't if you're aware but there's a region called Kashmir that is fighting for independence from India. It's one of the bloodiest and longest running conflicts in the world and then you got the whole Sikh separatist thing which is pretty active.

Yeah the Sikh separatist are pretty active in lands like UK and Canada which is 1000s of miles away from India.

Bro we need to stick together on this against the Sikhs because they are asking for Indian Punjab and Pakistani Punjab to form Khalistan....

Anyway, the good thing is Sikh separatist are not as big as the Balooch insurgents

 

[Hitman]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="hi" dir="ltr">“Mujhe Sab Hai Yaad Zara Zara, Tumheñ Yaad Ho Ki Na Yaad Ho!” <br><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/PakSurrenderDay?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#PakSurrenderDay</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/REALITYCHECK?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#REALITYCHECK</a> <br><br> <a href="https://t.co/CAYnAri0aO">pic.twitter.com/CAYnAri0aO</a></p>— Adnan Sami (@AdnanSamiLive) <a href="https://twitter.com/AdnanSamiLive/status/1339172318514393094?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 16, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[CricketCartoons]

Those us from Kashmir and Punjab are happy with the Pakistani federation. I do think United Bengal should've been separate country and that was floated by Jinnah before partition. EU sucks and I'm glad south asia isn't copying them.

This idea was floated by Suhrawardy, not by Q-e-A.

 

[srh]

This idea was floated by Suhrawardy, not by Q-e-A.

Very initially the idea was to have 2 different muslim majority countries in east and west. All-India Muslim League was on board with it but they find out British will never accept this idea and they may not allow even 1 muslim majority country if muslims insist on 2, so Muslim League went with demand of 1 muslim majority country. But even then British strike a major blow by dividing Bengal and Punjab instead of giving all of them to Pakistan. Thats why I says that current Bangladesh is incomplete and will complete only when Indian Bengal leave India and join Bangladesh as it was envisioned.

 

[Giannis]

Very initially the idea was to have 2 different muslim majority countries in east and west. All-India Muslim League was on board with it but they find out British will never accept this idea and they may not allow even 1 muslim majority country if muslims insist on 2, so Muslim League went with demand of 1 muslim majority country. But even then British strike a major blow by dividing Bengal and Punjab instead of giving all of them to Pakistan. Thats why I says that current Bangladesh is incomplete and will complete only when Indian Bengal leave India and join Bangladesh as it was envisioned.

Actually United Bengal was proposed to be a secular Bengali country including West Bengal, the Muslim proposal for a Muslim Bangistan was a different idea but the United Bengal idea was a more popular and seriously considered shortly before partition. I think it should have happened.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Very initially the idea was to have 2 different muslim majority countries in east and west. All-India Muslim League was on board with it but they find out British will never accept this idea and they may not allow even 1 muslim majority country if muslims insist on 2, so Muslim League went with demand of 1 muslim majority country. But even then British strike a major blow by dividing Bengal and Punjab instead of giving all of them to Pakistan. Thats why I says that current Bangladesh is incomplete and will complete only when Indian Bengal leave India and join Bangladesh as it was envisioned.

bengalis and punjabis proved that brotherhood of religion is far superior to the kinship of ethnicity, language and culture. They proved TNT right. Don't let anyone say otherwise.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Actually United Bengal was proposed to be a secular Bengali country including West Bengal, the Muslim proposal for a Muslim Bangistan was a different idea but the United Bengal idea was a more popular and seriously considered shortly before partition. I think it should have happened.

The ideas which were floated by people living in ivory towers failed to the idea which resonated with people on the ground. The proof is in the pudding.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

If Pakistan can milk Abhinandan episode for two years and counting, don’t you think it is fair for India to milk the events of 1971 for around 100 years?

I think they probably will be milking it for a further 100 years, and it will be an indicator that they still won't have achieved anything else worth crowing about.

 

[Mamoon]

I think they probably will be milking it for a further 100 years, and it will be an indicator that they still won't have achieved anything else worth crowing about.

When you help break your enemy in two pieces, destroy the ideology that was the reason for their establishment (Two Nation Theory), force their general to surrender and take thousands of POWs, you don’t need to achieve anything else ever again.

India will forever have bragging rights over Pakistan as well a feeling of superiority unless Pakistan can get back at them for the 1971 humiliation by helping J&K achieve freedom, which is not going to happen.

Moreover, Pakistan can also gain superiority over India even without liberating Kashmir and that is by becoming an economic powerhouse and surpassing India on most metrics. That however, is also not going to happen.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

When you help break your enemy in two pieces, destroy the ideology that was the reason for their establishment (Two Nation Theory), force their general to surrender and take thousands of POWs, you don’t need to achieve anything else ever again.

India will forever have bragging rights over Pakistan as well a feeling of superiority unless Pakistan can get back at them for the 1971 humiliation by helping J&K achieve freedom, which is not going to happen.

Moreover, Pakistan can also gain superiority over India even without liberating Kashmir and that is by becoming an economic powerhouse and surpassing India on most metrics. That however, is also not going to happen.

This is what I mean. As long as India is still measuring it's success by comparing itself to a failed state, then they can carry on crowing for 1000 years, it won't count for much other than to remind Indians who are looking for genuine progress just where they stand. Most of them realise it it seems, that is why they are not commenting themselves and leaving it to desperate cheerleaders to jump to their defence.

 

[Mamoon]

This is what I mean. As long as India is still measuring it's success by comparing itself to a failed state, then they can carry on crowing for 1000 years, it won't count for much other than to remind Indians who are looking for genuine progress just where they stand. Most of them realise it it seems, that is why they are not commenting themselves and leaving it to desperate cheerleaders to jump to their defence.

India clearly doesn’t measure itself by a country like Pakistan that is surviving on IMF handouts.

However, when it comes to the bad blood between India and Pakistan which will always be there no matter the gap between the two countries, India will always have the bragging rights because of 1971 unless Pakistan manages to hurt India on the same magnitude.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

India clearly doesn’t measure itself by a country like Pakistan that is surviving on IMF handouts.

However, when it comes to the bad blood between India and Pakistan which will always be there no matter the gap between the two countries, India will always have the bragging rights because of 1971 unless Pakistan manages to hurt India on the same magnitude.

Pakistan could hurt India by nuking them if military strikes is how you measure bragging rights, I am more hopeful that Pakistan will look to make economic and industrial progress through the trade partnerships with China and other countries who will be part of the Belt Road initiative.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

When you help break your enemy in two pieces, destroy the ideology that was the reason for their establishment (Two Nation Theory), force their general to surrender and take thousands of POWs, you don’t need to achieve anything else ever again.

India will forever have bragging rights over Pakistan as well a feeling of superiority unless Pakistan can get back at them for the 1971 humiliation by helping J&K achieve freedom, which is not going to happen.

Moreover, Pakistan can also gain superiority over India even without liberating Kashmir and that is by becoming an economic powerhouse and surpassing India on most metrics. That however, is also not going to happen.

The idea that 1971 brought an end to the two-nation theory is a fallacy. The Two Nation Theory was based on the idea that Muslims and Hindus constitute as two different 'nations', not two different states. Had India absorbed East Pakistan then that would have been the death kneel of the Two Nation Theory. But Bangladesh today is a predominantly Muslim nation that enshrines Islam as its state religion.

If anything, the Two Nation Theory is reaffirmed by the rising communal violence in India. As well as the emergence of the BJP who are slowly turning India into a constitutional theocracy.

 

[Mamoon]

The idea that 1971 brought an end to the two-nation theory is a fallacy. The Two Nation Theory was based on the idea that Muslims and Hindus constitute as two different 'nations', not two different states. Had India absorbed East Pakistan then that would have been the death kneel of the Two Nation Theory. But Bangladesh today is a predominantly Muslim nation that enshrines Islam as its state religion.

If anything, the Two Nation Theory is reaffirmed by the rising communal violence in India. As well as the emergence of the BJP who are slowly turning India into a constitutional theocracy.

The Two Nation theory was disproved after 1971 because it was based on the false and idealistic assumption that religion is a strong binding force to unite a nation.

The proponents of the theory never accepted the fact that when there are sociocultural differences, religion will fail to unite a nation.

West Pakistan discriminated against the East because they were viewed as inferior people because they were short, dark and spoke a language that was not spoken in west Pakistan.

This is something the proponents of the theory didn’t envision because they assumed that Muslims would end up treating each other as equals and would only view each other with the lens of Islam.

The only saving grace is that the two flag-bearers of the theory (M. Jinnah and Iqbal) didn’t live long enough to witness the systematic racism of west Pakistan.

 

[srh]

When you help break your enemy in two pieces, destroy the ideology that was the reason for their establishment (Two Nation Theory), force their general to surrender and take thousands of POWs, you don’t need to achieve anything else ever again.

India will forever have bragging rights over Pakistan as well a feeling of superiority unless Pakistan can get back at them for the 1971 humiliation by helping J&K achieve freedom, which is not going to happen.

Moreover, Pakistan can also gain superiority over India even without liberating Kashmir and that is by becoming an economic powerhouse and surpassing India on most metrics. That however, is also not going to happen.

This is the fault in your argument. Creation of Bangladesh does not go against the 2 nation theory. If Bangladesh was not created as a separate country and instead the West Pakistan was merged into India then you could have said that 2 nation theory was destroyed. But that did not happen and Bangalis of West Pakistan choose to create Bangladesh which in fact validate the 2 nation theory again i.e. the 2 nations hindus and muslims. Also look at how much Indian muslims are suffering and you will realize that 2 nation theory was so on target.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The idea that 1971 brought an end to the two-nation theory is a fallacy. The Two Nation Theory was based on the idea that Muslims and Hindus constitute as two different 'nations', not two different states. Had India absorbed East Pakistan then that would have been the death kneel of the Two Nation Theory. But Bangladesh today is a predominantly Muslim nation that enshrines Islam as its state religion.

If anything, the Two Nation Theory is reaffirmed by the rising communal violence in India. As well as the emergence of the BJP who are slowly turning India into a constitutional theocracy.

Boom! I notice Mamoon totally ignored that part of your post and with good reason. Blows his argument clean out of the water.

 

[srh]

The idea that 1971 brought an end to the two-nation theory is a fallacy. The Two Nation Theory was based on the idea that Muslims and Hindus constitute as two different 'nations', not two different states. Had India absorbed East Pakistan then that would have been the death kneel of the Two Nation Theory. But Bangladesh today is a predominantly Muslim nation that enshrines Islam as its state religion.

If anything, the Two Nation Theory is reaffirmed by the rising communal violence in India. As well as the emergence of the BJP who are slowly turning India into a constitutional theocracy.

Thanks. Your arguments totally makes sense. If someone still does not understand then leave it to Allah to show them guidance and the right path. Ameen.

 

[Mamoon]

This is the fault in your argument. Creation of Bangladesh does not go against the 2 nation theory. If Bangladesh was not created as a separate country and instead the West Pakistan was merged into India then you could have said that 2 nation theory was destroyed. But that did not happen and Bangalis of West Pakistan choose to create Bangladesh which in fact validate the 2 nation theory again i.e. the 2 nations hindus and muslims. Also look at how much Indian muslims are suffering and you will realize that 2 nation theory was so on target.

As I said, the Two Nation Theory was destroyed because it failed to realize that Muslims are not one nation because religion is not a strong enough binding force to overcome sociocultural differences.

The theory was very idealistic. It helped create Pakistan but it couldn’t keep it together.

Bangladesh creating their own country does not prove the theory right; it only proved that the subcontinent was composed of multiple nationalities and these nationalities cannot be defined by religion.

Proponents of Pakistan always divided the people based on religion and ignored ethnic differences. That was their weakness and that is what cost Pakistan its eastern half.

 

[Mamoon]

Boom! I notice Mamoon totally ignored that part of your post and with good reason. Blows his argument clean out of the water.

Bangladesh’s independence didn’t prove the TNT right because TNT failed to take into account that even Muslims aren’t one nation as long as there are sociocultural differences.

However, Bangladesh’s independence showed that the subcontinent is composed of multiple nationalities that cannot all be defined by religion only.

 

[Mamoon]

Thanks. Your arguments totally makes sense. If someone still does not understand then leave it to Allah to show them guidance and the right path. Ameen.

It doesn’t make sense because the TNT showed that if there are sociocultural differences, muslim will fail to remain united.

There is no such thing as a Muslim nation.

 

[Mamoon]

Boom! I notice Mamoon totally ignored that part of your post and with good reason. Blows his argument clean out of the water.

I addressed that part in response to srh. Look around.

 

[srh]

As I said, the Two Nation Theory was destroyed because it failed to realize that Muslims are not one nation because religion is not a strong enough binding force to overcome sociocultural differences.

The theory was very idealistic. It helped create Pakistan but it couldn’t keep it together.

Bangladesh creating their own country does not prove the theory right; it only proved that the subcontinent was composed of multiple nationalities and these nationalities cannot be defined by religion.

Proponents of Pakistan always divided the people based on religion and ignored ethnic differences. That was their weakness and that is what cost Pakistan its eastern half.

Problem is your thinking that Nation (religion) equals Country which is incorrect. You can be same Nation (religion) but multiple countries. Look around the world and you will see lot of countries with same Nation (religion). So it is a norm and Indian subcontinent is no exception.

 

[Mamoon]

If it is any consolation, the TNT theory was only partially correct. The proponents of the theory were correct about their assessment that Muslims and Hindus cannot coexist, but it was extremely wrong about the assessment that Muslims can coexist.

They cannot as long as there are sociocultural differences.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

It doesn’t make sense because the TNT showed that if there are sociocultural differences, muslim will fail to remain united.

There is no such thing as a Muslim nation.

So why didn't Bangladesh reunite with India?

 

[Mamoon]

Problem is your thinking that Nation (religion) equals Country which is incorrect. You can be same Nation (religion) but multiple countries. Look around the world and you will see lot of countries with same Nation (religion). So it is a norm and Indian subcontinent is no exception.

That was the thinking of the founding fathers of Pakistan who believed in the Hindu-Muslim divide, not mine.

 

[Mamoon]

So why didn't Bangladesh reunite with India?

Because Muslims and Hindus aren’t one nation either.

 

[Technics 1210]

When you help break your enemy in two pieces, destroy the ideology that was the reason for their establishment (Two Nation Theory), force their general to surrender and take thousands of POWs, you don’t need to achieve anything else ever again.

India will forever have bragging rights over Pakistan as well a feeling of superiority unless Pakistan can get back at them for the 1971 humiliation by helping J&K achieve freedom, which is not going to happen.

Moreover, Pakistan can also gain superiority over India even without liberating Kashmir and that is by becoming an economic powerhouse and surpassing India on most metrics. That however, is also not going to happen.

Yes Pakistan carved it's enemy into 3 pieces, and kept one piece for itself.

Forget 71, India can't get over 47.

 

[Mamoon]

Yes Pakistan carved it's enemy into 3 pieces, and kept one piece for itself.

Forget 71, India can't get over 47.

Republic of India doesn’t identify itself with British India. The only area of India that Pakistan carved out was the AJK territory, which is was actually won by FATA tribals because the military of Pakistan didn’t have the courage to follow M. Jinnah’s orders.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Republic of India doesn’t identify itself with British India. The only area of India that Pakistan carved out was the AJK territory, which is was actually won by FATA tribals because the military of Pakistan didn’t have the courage to follow M. Jinnah’s orders.

What does republic of india actually identify itself with? I am curious considering they are drifting towards hindu identity and you as a Pakistani seem to be the chief spokesman for the cause on this thread.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

The Two Nation theory was disproved after 1971 because it was based on the false and idealistic assumption that religion is a strong binding force to unite a nation.

The proponents of the theory never accepted the fact that when there are sociocultural differences, religion will fail to unite a nation.

West Pakistan discriminated against the East because they were viewed as inferior people because they were short, dark and spoke a language that was not spoken in west Pakistan.

This is something the proponents of the theory didn’t envision because they assumed that Muslims would end up treating each other as equals and would only view each other with the lens of Islam.

The only saving grace is that the two flag-bearers of the theory (M. Jinnah and Iqbal) didn’t live long enough to witness the systematic racism of west Pakistan.

I think you, like many others misunderstand how Jinnah viewed Islamic identity. It was not the same as Iqbal's vision which was tilted more towards pan-Islamism. Jinnah was focused less on the religious aspects, and more on the cultural aspects. And how culturally, Muslims and Hindus were not just distinct, but also had their own respective histories and were regularly at odds with each other. This conflict manifested consistently throughout India's history. It continues to manifest to this day. Here again, historians display collective amnesia when they say Hindus and Muslims always lived peacefully with each other. Jinnah rightly worried that Muslim culture, which was rich and distinct in its own way, would be obliterated by Hindu majoritarianism. And when you look at the killing of Muslims by cow vigilantes in India today, the demolition of the Babri Masjid, the openly anti-Muslim laws and countless other incidents, its hard to ignore where he was coming from.

As for 1971, while there was racism and neglect directed towards the people of East Pakistan there were also historical forces at play. I am not disagreeing with that the West Pakistani ruling elite often looked down on the East Pakistanis and didn't do enough for its people, but that doesn't change the fact that Bengal as a region had been a place of crippling poverty dating back to the days of the British Raj. During those days it was an isolated, heavily populated region with an agrarian based economy and little to no industrialization. On top of that, cyclones, disease and famines, as well as the contempt that British seemingly had for the region and its people compounded the poverty and sense of destitution. When Pakistan achieved independence many of these issues were still there.

Rather than embracing Federalism, the ruling elite doubled down with a unitary form of government. This is where the problems began. Pakistan should have embraced federalism and its diverse ethnicities from the outset. And this is where it is pertinent to understand the difference. While Sindhis, Pashtuns, Punjabis, Baloch and Bengalis were always ethnically distinct people, they were (and are) bound together by many of the same values, attitudes, ideas and norms which were always implicit and to that end didn't need to be forced. When they were forced down by the ruling elite it created resentment and gave rise to ethnic nationalism.

The break-up of Pakistan had more to do with the failure of the Pakistani state to embrace its true character--most of the problems emanated from that--aswell as the geographical issue (which was a strategic quagmire for Pakistan), rather than any "false and idealistic" assumption of the Two-Nation Theory. Because if what you assert were true we would have seen the Balkanization of Pakistan into multiple different states long ago, as Nehru and so many others had been predicting since Pakistan's independence.

 

[KB]

The argument around the efficacy of the two nation theory in a way misses the point. There is nothing natural or pre-ordained about any nation. They are all artificial.

Nations all require a degree of ongoing commitment by a critical mass of its citizens. Feelings to the nation, feelings to other citizens, of course matter. Emotions generated by shared symbols, myths, memories, values and traditions can be powerful. But feelings are not constant and can change over time or be influenced by other events; symbols too can be rediscovered or reinterpreted. People also have multiple identities and depending on context a certain identity can at times take precedence of other identities.

However once created it is not merely emotional commitment that matters. There is also a more prosaic or ‘banal’ aspect to it. By merely repeatedly “encountering” the state, a certain public recognition of the nation-state develops. We get used to the nation-state simply because of its ubiquity and to get on with life one needs to deal with the state.

Finally, once a nation-state come into existence it is also not easy to undo it (indeed the successful secession of Bangladesh is one of the few exceptions). The state’s recourse to coercive instruments can often be called upon to suppress any popular movements aimed at autonomy or secession.

 

[maverick85]

Republic of India doesn’t identify itself with British India. The only area of India that Pakistan carved out was the AJK territory, which is was actually won by FATA tribals because the military of Pakistan didn’t have the courage to follow M. Jinnah’s orders.

This FATA tribal nonsense you're peddling is incorrect. Refer to Christopher Sneddens 'Untold story of the people of Azad Kashmir'.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Shows how ethnicity and language trumps religion. 2 of the biggest military conflicts in South Asia in the modern era have been based on linguistic lines. LTTE and Bangladesh conflict.

Amazing how India with all the languages, cultures,religion and even the various differences within religions be it caste etc has moved forward without civil wars. I am sure there are going to be pics of Shaheen baag or farmers protests thrown around as equivalence, if that is an idea of civil war, then we have been living in a closely guarded bubble with first world problems.

You ignore 1947 when millions died and lost their homes because of religion.

1947 showed religion was important.
1971 showed ethnicity was also important.

Ideally an ethnic group has one dominant religion. When they dont you see civil war. Their really is no parallel in the world of an ethnic group having multiple religions with significant population, and there not being tension.

There is zero chance that Hindus Majority West Bengal would ever want to unite with Muslim majority Bangladesh. And vice versa.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

It was pervasive Sir. Bengalis were systematically rejected and ignored in every possible sectors of the country. Bangla language was deemed as UnIslamic, the culture was seen as too hindu influenced. Pakistan not only mocked our skin tone, but also hated our language, literature and life style. Go through the books of Pakistani authors to know about the perception of Pakistan about Bengalis. You would find out.

Bengali was an official language of Pakistan.

And Yes their is prejudice regarding skin tone in Pakistan. However there are plenty of Pakistanis with dark skin. And on the other hand there are also light skin Bangladeshis.

And this prejudice is all over the subcontinent.

I googled "Bangladeshi models", and every single one of those girls was light skin. So Bangladeshi also discriminate in regards to skin tone. Unless you think its a coincidence that all those models were light skin.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

1. United Bangla
2. Bharat(UP, MP, Bihar and likes of it. name because of religious roots)
3. United Punjab
4. Kashmir
Instead of Two nation, Indian Subcontinent should've been divided based on ethinic identity. Existence of multiple countries and a system like EU would've been ideal.

This could have worked had all those ethnicity had the same religion. What you are suggesting would have lead to civil war in Bengal and Punjab as the Muslim and Hindu population was almost equal. Or a Lebanon style system.

In all those other states the majority would have been fine with that status. As in Kashmir, or Gujarat. The minority would have to accept the rule of the majority.

It was the Muslim minority areas of British India that wanted Pakistan the most, as a way to protect their culture.

For example in UP, MP, Bihar, the Muslims and Hindus speak the same language, but they cant even agree on the same name for it. For Muslims its Urdu, for Hindus its Hindi. They cant agree on the script. However as the Hindus were the majority, it was they who decided.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Bengali was an official language of Pakistan.

And Yes their is prejudice regarding skin tone in Pakistan. However there are plenty of Pakistanis with dark skin. And on the other hand there are also light skin Bangladeshis.

And this prejudice is all over the subcontinent.

I googled "Bangladeshi models", and every single one of those girls was light skin. So Bangladeshi also discriminate in regards to skin tone. Unless you think its a coincidence that all those models were light skin.

So it was a two skin tone theory which led to separation of bangladesh?

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

So it was a two skin tone theory which led to separation of bangladesh?

No. It was refusal to hand over power to the democratically elected government.

But my point was that skin color prejudice is not exclusive to Pakistanis. Bangladeshis also have it.

 

[CricketCartoons]

No. It was refusal to hand over power to the democratically elected government.

But my point was that skin color prejudice is not exclusive to Pakistanis. Bangladeshis also have it.

What is the relevance of this point though? If a muslim is killed by hindus, should I say that religious bigotry is not exclusive to hindus, muslims also have it?

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

What is the relevance of this point though? If a muslim is killed by hindus, should I say that religious bigotry is not exclusive to hindus, muslims also have it?

The point was that the language, and skin color was not the reason for separation, as being implied by the poster who i responded to.

It was a military dictatorship that refused to hand over power to the democratically government. The same dictatorship which called the sister of the founder of the state a traitor and Indian agent.

 

[CricketCartoons]

The point was that the language, and skin color was not the reason for separation, as being implied by the poster who i responded to.

It was a military dictatorship that refused to hand over power to the democratically government. The same dictatorship which called the sister of the founder of the state a traitor and Indian agent.

Here hasan nisar is saying something else, that it was the attitude of the west pakistani elite from the beginning. Just one answer out of different answers, we don't know which is the right one.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/J-7j6O_whYA" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Here hasan nisar is saying something else, that it was the attitude of the west pakistani elite from the beginning. Just one answer out of different answers, we don't know which is the right one.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/J-7j6O_whYA" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Did you watch the video? He admits he is one of the those who discriminated against Bengali's in his youth at university, which he justified by saying he was a "Bacha".