What could have Pakistan done to keep Bangladesh within the federation?

I think BD's reluctance to adopt Urdu was reason behind separation. Bengali is much older language and 3 times more people speak it globally, and is a local language to Bangladeshi's.

Bengali along with Urdu was an official language of Pakistan in 1956 constitution. Its similar to India where the govt tried to make Hindi official, and then their were protests the same thing happened in Pakistan.

How many newspapers in Pakistan are printed in Shahmukhi script Punjabi in Pakistani Punjab? Compared to Urdu publications? Why Punjabi is considered a paindoo language in Pakistan and Urdu is considered sophisticated? In India you can be urban sophisticated Punjabi or Paindoo Punjabi. Even Hindu's in Punjab take pride in Punjabi language. Same is true for other states of India. South Indians are very vocal about their stance against imposition of Hindi.

Punjabis in Pakistan are the majority, like Hindi Speakers in India. As the majority they dont need to assert their ethnicity like the minority ethnic groups. However people who speak Punjabi dialects like Seraiki, Mirpuri, Hindko do.

I have noted the same among Hindi Speakers. My ethnicity is Urdu Speaking (that is people who came from UP, Bihar, Deccan, Delhi, etc, whose mother tongue was Urdu). We view ourselves as an ethnic group. Hindi Speakers from what I have seen dont identify their language as an ethnicity. They would identify themselves from the region, or their caste, or their dialect, etc. This is because they are the majority in India. Had they been a minority they would have been more assertive in identifying themselves with their language.

Even Hindu's in Punjab take pride in Punjabi language. Same is true for other states of India. South Indians are very vocal about their stance against imposition of Hindi.

Also almost everyone in Punjab speaks Punjabi. Lahore and Islamabad are multi cultural cities and some families might have switched to Urdu there, however even their the majority would still speak Punjabi.

Alot of my family went to Punjab during partition, and they can all speak Punjabi now.
 
Far from being inevitable, the secession of Bangladesh was a culmination of the consistent marginalisation of East Pakistani interests. There are five important milestones which led to 16 December 1971.

First, the language riots in Dhaka in 1952. The death of four students in confrontations with the police provided the first martyrs for Bengali separatism. 21st of February in East Bengal would, henceforth, be an annual day of mourning in remembrance of those that died.

The second milestone was the dismissal of the United Front provincial government in East Bengal in 1954. The United Front had gathered 65.6 per cent of the vote (winning 223 of the 309 seats) and had campaigned on the basis of regional autonomy in a 21 point manifesto. Its dismissal by the Governor-General (Ghulam Muhammad) three months after the elections, only served to further alienate and radicalise those seeking greater provincial sovereignty.

Third, the military coup in 1958, effectively confirmed the disenfranchisement of East Pakistanis. During the Ayub years power resided with the army and bureaucracy, the two institutions where Bengalis were severely underrepresented. This not only contributed to alienation in East Pakistan, but meant the West Pakistani elite were distanced from Bengali interests, becoming dangerously out of touch with the ground reality. Economically, interregional disparity between West and East Pakistan increased under military rule.

Fourth, there was the inability of the Awami League and the Pakistan People’s Party to arrive at a power sharing arrangement following the 1970-71 elections. Where the blame ultimately lies is subject to a contentious historical argument, with some accusing the military of divide and rule, and others pointing to Bhutto’s lust for power.

Finally, and most fatefully, the decision to initiate military action on 25 March - a decision in which Yahya Khan must accept ultimate responsibility for - was catastrophic. The military had given up on political negotiation and bargaining and instead had opted for the iron fist of might. The consequences were devastating. “The golden hues of eastern Bengal's lush green landscape” wrote Ayesha Jalal, “had been turned red with the steely might of oppression.”
 
Far from being inevitable, the secession of Bangladesh was a culmination of the consistent marginalisation of East Pakistani interests. There are five important milestones which led to 16 December 1971.

First, the language riots in Dhaka in 1952. The death of four students in confrontations with the police provided the first martyrs for Bengali separatism. 21st of February in East Bengal would, henceforth, be an annual day of mourning in remembrance of those that died.

The second milestone was the dismissal of the United Front provincial government in East Bengal in 1954. The United Front had gathered 65.6 per cent of the vote (winning 223 of the 309 seats) and had campaigned on the basis of regional autonomy in a 21 point manifesto. Its dismissal by the Governor-General (Ghulam Muhammad) three months after the elections, only served to further alienate and radicalise those seeking greater provincial sovereignty.

Third, the military coup in 1958, effectively confirmed the disenfranchisement of East Pakistanis. During the Ayub years power resided with the army and bureaucracy, the two institutions where Bengalis were severely underrepresented. This not only contributed to alienation in East Pakistan, but meant the West Pakistani elite were distanced from Bengali interests, becoming dangerously out of touch with the ground reality. Economically, interregional disparity between West and East Pakistan increased under military rule.

Fourth, there was the inability of the Awami League and the Pakistan People’s Party to arrive at a power sharing arrangement following the 1970-71 elections. Where the blame ultimately lies is subject to a contentious historical argument, with some accusing the military of divide and rule, and others pointing to Bhutto’s lust for power.

Finally, and most fatefully, the decision to initiate military action on 25 March - a decision in which Yahya Khan must accept ultimate responsibility for - was catastrophic. The military had given up on political negotiation and bargaining and instead had opted for the iron fist of might. The consequences were devastating. “The golden hues of eastern Bengal's lush green landscape” wrote Ayesha Jalal, “had been turned red with the steely might of oppression.”

I know you're a respected poster and your comments are usually really interesting but these are the same overly simplified and overplayed theories that have probably been going around since the fall of East Pakistan.
 
Punjabis in Pakistan are the majority, like Hindi Speakers in India. As the majority they dont need to assert their ethnicity like the minority ethnic groups. However people who speak Punjabi dialects like Seraiki, Mirpuri, Hindko do.

The point is well made.

I would also add some additional factors. Under British rule, Urdu had become the language of education in the Punjab. But more than this, following the shock of the rebellion in 1857, the centre of gravity for the output of Urdu literature moved westwards to Lahore. Key intellectuals such as Azad and Hali spent time in the city. Azad reached Lahore in 1861 after the trauma of 1857 and remained there until death. He helped organise a modern style of mushairas and authored Urdu textbooks that helped spread the language in the city. Hali’s stay was temporary but seminal in his intellectual development. His famous and powerful Musaddas (The Flow and Ebb of Islam) was published in the city in 1879. Urdu literature continued to flourish in the Punjab into the twentieth century in the hands of Iqbal and Faiz.

It might also be argued that Punjabi, in grammar and vocabulary, is closer to Urdu when compared to other regional languages in Pakistan.
 
Most Pakistanis really don't care about this subject, most of the comments theorizing about what happened and "what could've been" are from our neighbors. People keep regurgitating the same old oversimplified narratives and I could waste my time and energy correcting them but I'm not cause guess what? Most Pakistanis don't give two hoots about it. It's been 50 years, time for y'all to move on.

Yeah its amazing that for such a jazbati nation that nobody really gets nostalgic over Bangladesh. Despite the way that Pakistan treated them they are also quite friendly and there is a strong feeling of love and brotherhood between the citizens of each country.
 
The point is well made.

I would also add some additional factors. Under British rule, Urdu had become the language of education in the Punjab. But more than this, following the shock of the rebellion in 1857, the centre of gravity for the output of Urdu literature moved westwards to Lahore. Key intellectuals such as Azad and Hali spent time in the city. Azad reached Lahore in 1861 after the trauma of 1857 and remained there until death. He helped organise a modern style of mushairas and authored Urdu textbooks that helped spread the language in the city. Hali’s stay was temporary but seminal in his intellectual development. His famous and powerful Musaddas (The Flow and Ebb of Islam) was published in the city in 1879. Urdu literature continued to flourish in the Punjab into the twentieth century in the hands of Iqbal and Faiz.

It might also be argued that Punjabi, in grammar and vocabulary, is closer to Urdu when compared to other regional languages in Pakistan.

This is true. Also Punjabi was never an official language of Punjab as far I can tell. The official language was Persian from the time of Ghaznavids to the Sikh Empire. And then the British made it Urdu.


The point is well made.

Urdu literature continued to flourish in the Punjab into the twentieth century in the hands of Iqbal and Faiz.

It might also be argued that Punjabi, in grammar and vocabulary, is closer to Urdu when compared to other regional languages in Pakistan.

The best Urdu literature in the 20th century was definitely from Punjab. I would also add Manto to that list, as I consider him on the same "tier" as Iqbal & Faiz.
 
It should have never been a part of Pakistan, I support the 3 state solution proposed by Jinnah and Bengali nationalists - create an independent United Bengal, they would've been an ally to Pakistan and would be much better off than being part of Pakistan or what is now Bangladesh, they would even have a much better cricket team.

We Bengali Hindus had no interest in a separate Muslim majority “United Bengal”. We were quite happy being Indians and wanted to remain Indians. I would say that Hindu Punjabis had similar feelings.
 
I disagree.

Bangladesh is still far behind PAK even after 50 years.
Their performance in sports and total military dependance on India is shameful.

What military dependence? Bangladesh not picking a fight with with its larger neighbor doesn’t make them dependent, it makes them smart.

A Bangladeshi would reply that remaining stuck in poverty and needing to be bailed out 22 times by the imf is what is really shameful.
 
Why would the majority have an autonomous republic? Those are done to protect the minority. Had their been fair election Bengali's would have dominated Pakistani politics, and they would be the ones fighting to keep the country intact.

I was not talking about the autonomous republic part. I was saying Pakistan and Bangladesh could have existed separated by a hostile neighbour in the same way Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan exists, connected by a road passing through Armenia. It does not necessarily have to be an autonomous republic.

I think Jinnah conceptualised a similar plan, having East and West Pakistan connected through a road passing through northern India.
 
We Bengali Hindus had no interest in a separate Muslim majority “United Bengal”. We were quite happy being Indians and wanted to remain Indians. I would say that Hindu Punjabis had similar feelings.

Yeah I'm aware they prefer religion and casteism over their ethnic brothers that's why I never bought India's secular facade.
 
Yeah I'm aware they prefer religion and casteism over their ethnic brothers that's why I never bought India's secular facade.

You got it backwards. The breaking up of India was based on religion. And why would Hindus want to join an Islamic Republic as Pakistan's first constitution declared it to be?
 
Last edited:
You got it backwards. The breaking up of India was based on religion. And why would Hindus want to join an Islamic Republic as Pakistan's first constitution declared it to be?

I don't know if you have short term memory loss, we were discussing Bengali Hindus not wanting to join a secular United Bengal state, this has nothing to do with Pakistan lmaoo.
 
I don't know if you have short term memory loss, we were discussing Bengali Hindus not wanting to join a secular United Bengal state, this has nothing to do with Pakistan lmaoo.

That's a strange idea. Why would people who do not discriminate on the basis of religion or ethnicity want to leave India?

Muslims may want to leave India for a Muslim majority "United Bengal" due to religious reasons, but why would others who do not discriminate want to leave?
 
Last edited:
That's a strange idea. Why would people who do not discriminate on the basis of religion or ethnicity want to leave India?

Muslims may want to leave India for a Muslim majority "United Bengal" due to religious reasons, but why would others who do not discriminate want to leave?

Because they would want to form a nation state with their ethnic kin? Why would Bengali Hindus want to be part of what was then a dysfunctional federation where their language and culture is under threat when they could've been Kings of their own land.
 
Because they would want to form a nation state with their ethnic kin?

No, breaking away from India to form another nation state with their ethnic kin is discriminating on the basis of ethnicity. Communalism is not recommended. What after that? There are many dialects of Bengali. Anyone familiar with Bengalis can easily make out the difference between "Ghotis" from the West and "Bangals" from the East. By your logic these two should also separate.

Why would Bengali Hindus want to be part of what was then a dysfunctional federation where their language and culture is under threat when they could've been Kings of their own land.

I have no clue why you think Bengali language and culture is threatened by India. Bengalis get along quite well with other Indians.

Worldwide cultures are threatened by powerful cultural forces like Hollywood, Bollywood etc.

Your reasoning is pretty weak. No more replies from me.
 
Last edited:
Because they would want to form a nation state with their ethnic kin? Why would Bengali Hindus want to be part of what was then a dysfunctional federation where their language and culture is under threat when they could've been Kings of their own land.

You probably don't realize that Bengali is one of the dominant mainstream cultures in India. A section of Bengali Hindus were the most violent segment in the freedom fight against British for an united polity in the subcontinent. And Bengalis are still the most secular ethnic group where multiple religions and castes coexist in relative harmony notwithstanding the odd conflict. Infact caste system is least observed within Bengalis across all ethnicities in the subcontinent.
 
Punjabis in Pakistan are the majority, like Hindi Speakers in India.

...

Hindi Speakers from what I have seen dont identify their language as an ethnicity. They would identify themselves from the region, or their caste, or their dialect, etc. This is because they are the majority in India.

Hindi speakers are not a majority in India.

"Although Widely Spoken, Around 56% of Indians Don't Identify Hindi as Their Mother Tongue"

https://www.news18.com/news/india/a...ue-of-almost-6-out-of-10-indians-2308927.html
 
Last edited:
For six months only after that Mayawati and Laloo Prasad Yadav will leave the coalition as BJP will promise to make them PMs. For details, read up about Janata Party government in the late 1970s.

Why will congress not form the government and allow Mamata?
 
It should have never been a part of Pakistan, I support the 3 state solution proposed by Jinnah and Bengali nationalists - create an independent United Bengal, they would've been an ally to Pakistan and would be much better off than being part of Pakistan or what is now Bangladesh, they would even have a much better cricket team.

Bengali hindus had no interest in becoming a part of a muslim majority country. The Bengali hindus launched a movement to have the hindu majority west bengal separated from East Bengal.

Muslim Bengalis then realised that they are going to lose a lot of resources if west bengal separated and tried to dangle the carrot of a united bengal, but the hindus had seen through their treachery and continued the Bengali Hindu Homeland movement, and succeded in separating from muslim majority east bengal.

So no, Bengali nationalist didn't propose any united bengal, some muslim bengalis did.
 
Hindi speakers are not a majority in India.

"Although Widely Spoken, Around 56% of Indians Don't Identify Hindi as Their Mother Tongue"

https://www.news18.com/news/india/a...ue-of-almost-6-out-of-10-indians-2308927.html

Ok, if you want to be technical the "plurality" of the population. But their is no other group larger than Hindi speakers in India right? So the rest of point stands, that Hindi Speakers in India like Punjabis in Pakistan, as the largest group dont need to assert ethnicity as much as the minority ethnic groups.
 
Yeah I'm aware they prefer religion and casteism over their ethnic brothers that's why I never bought India's secular facade.

Make no mistake about it, had India been Muslim majority in 1947 every single Hindu majority region would have wanted to be either independent or join together and create one state. Their would be no "happiness" in about being Indian then, or wanting to remain Indian.
 
Bengali hindus had no interest in becoming a part of a muslim majority country. The Bengali hindus launched a movement to have the hindu majority west bengal separated from East Bengal.

Muslim Bengalis then realised that they are going to lose a lot of resources if west bengal separated and tried to dangle the carrot of a united bengal, but the hindus had seen through their treachery and continued the Bengali Hindu Homeland movement, and succeded in separating from muslim majority east bengal.

So no, Bengali nationalist didn't propose any united bengal, some muslim bengalis did.

Majority of Muslims in every part of India felt the same way, as in not wanting to be part of a Hindu majority country.
 
Majority of Muslims in every part of India felt the same way, as in not wanting to be part of a Hindu majority country.

So they got a separate country. But i see these same people living in a separate country talking about things in India that doesn't concern them. Wonder why?
 
So they got a separate country. But i see these same people living in a separate country talking about things in India that doesn't concern them. Wonder why?

Very simple, because with the exception of the liberals, majority of Pakistanis would care more about a issue effecting an Indian Muslim than a Pakistani non Muslim. Just the reality.

With that said at the govt level Pakistan should not talk about issues effecting Indian Muslims, or Muslims anywhere with the exception of Kashmir.
 
It might also be reasonable to ask: What could have been done to prevent the partition and break-up of the great Indian sub-Continent?

The consequences have been catastrophic; permanent enmity between India and Pakistan - leading to wars and a never-ending arms-race -hatred between Hindus and Muslims. Muslims fractured and divided along nationalistic lines. Eternal conflict over Kashmir.

The European model of divide and rule, requiring constant Western military interventions (one if its design purposes) continues on unabated: Yugoslavia - divided along ethnic, religious lines - Iraq, and so on.

Strength lies in unity, weakness in division. Pakistanis and Bengalis should set aside historical grievances and differences, work together to create a more unified Muslim Community in the sub-Continent and try to include India in all its considerations, decision-making.
 
Bengali hindus had no interest in becoming a part of a muslim majority country. The Bengali hindus launched a movement to have the hindu majority west bengal separated from East Bengal.

Yeah. Feeling is mutual.

Most Bangladeshis that I know of don't want to be united with West Bengal. I also don't want Bangladesh to be united with West Bengal because it can cause conflicts.
 
Strength lies in unity, weakness in division. Pakistanis and Bengalis should set aside historical grievances and differences, work together to create a more unified Muslim Community in the sub-Continent and try to include India in all its considerations, decision-making.

I agree with this.

I feel like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Brunei, Maldives, Afghanistan etc. should work together. It can be like an Asian mini-EU.

Unlikely to happen anytime soon though.
 
It might also be reasonable to ask: What could have been done to prevent the partition and break-up of the great Indian sub-Continent?

The consequences have been catastrophic; permanent enmity between India and Pakistan - leading to wars and a never-ending arms-race -hatred between Hindus and Muslims. Muslims fractured and divided along nationalistic lines. Eternal conflict over Kashmir.

The European model of divide and rule, requiring constant Western military interventions (one if its design purposes) continues on unabated: Yugoslavia - divided along ethnic, religious lines - Iraq, and so on.

Strength lies in unity, weakness in division. Pakistanis and Bengalis should set aside historical grievances and differences, work together to create a more unified Muslim Community in the sub-Continent and try to include India in all its considerations, decision-making.

Why not convince the neighbouring afgans first about a unified muslim community :)) :))
 
I agree with this.

I feel like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Brunei, Maldives, Afghanistan etc. should work together. It can be like an Asian mini-EU.

Unlikely to happen anytime soon though.
What if Christian nations work together exclusively and boycott all muslim nations?
 
A united Bengal under Sheikh Hasina would've been one of the strongest Asian countries.

Can't you see Bengali Hindus don't want to be with Bangladesh? Have some self-respect. United Bengal is illogical and is a recipe for disaster.

Also, Hasina will not live forever. It will be interesting to see how things pan out once she dies. I have a feeling we may see a new regime.
 
Why not convince the neighbouring afgans first about a unified muslim community :)) :))

I can't believe you are laughing at the concept of "unified Muslim community".

What kind of Muslim would laugh at something like this?

Then again, you are an Awami League supporter and this is to be expected.

What if Christian nations work together exclusively and boycott all muslim nations?

That's not the topic of this thread.

Also, western countries are going toward atheism. There's no real Christian country in west currently.

Only real Christian countries are the Eastern European ones. Those countries are small and irrelevant (countries like Poland, Hungary etc.).
 
[MENTION=132715]Varun[/MENTION] is the one who thinks Mamata will be PM, so he should reply :)

Because the Congress doesn't care about coming to power, just keeping the loot of the Gandhis safe. Mamata will be as pliable as the 7-years in power BJP in this regard.
 
Can't you see Bengali Hindus don't want to be with Bangladesh? Have some self-respect. United Bengal is illogical and is a recipe for disaster.

Also, Hasina will not live forever. It will be interesting to see how things pan out once she dies. I have a feeling we may see a new regime.

It’s not that we don’t want to be with the Bangladeshis. It’s that we don’t want to leave other Indians behind, we rather like them.
 
It might also be reasonable to ask: What could have been done to prevent the partition and break-up of the great Indian sub-Continent?

The consequences have been catastrophic; permanent enmity between India and Pakistan - leading to wars and a never-ending arms-race -hatred between Hindus and Muslims. Muslims fractured and divided along nationalistic lines. Eternal conflict over Kashmir.

The European model of divide and rule, requiring constant Western military interventions (one if its design purposes) continues on unabated: Yugoslavia - divided along ethnic, religious lines - Iraq, and so on.

Strength lies in unity, weakness in division. Pakistanis and Bengalis should set aside historical grievances and differences, work together to create a more unified Muslim Community in the sub-Continent and try to include India in all its considerations, decision-making.

It is near impossible for hindus and muslims to live together as equals in the same country due to the massive ideological differences between their belief systems. The partition could have been prevented if it were two Abrahamic religions in majority like Islam and Christianity or two Indic religions in majority like Hinduism and Sikhism/Jainism/Buddhism. But Islam and Hinduism are poles apart as belief systems that one has to tolerate the other for any sort of coexistence to happen. Believing in the basic tenets of Hinduism (polytheism, idol worship, etc.) is the greatest sin you could do as a muslim (or even as a Christian for that matter, but Christians are not as dogmatic about religion as muslims, so you don't see as much friction) and this infuriates the hindus who become paranoid and insecure that muslims are out to eradicate their faith because they hate their way of life.

Similarly, some of the normal food and religious habits of muslims like eating beef, cow slaughter during Eid, etc., is seen as offensive by hindus when it really should not be. So for hindus and muslims to coexist as equals in the same country was pretty much impossible given the massive ideological points of friction between the two communities, and could have happened only under two scenarios:

1. One community converted to the other, which is practically impossible.

2. Both communities became less serious about religion like Europeans or South east asians, which also has very little chance of happening.

Therefore partition was always the only right answer. An unpartitioned India would have been worse than hell with hindus and muslims ghettoising in different regions and armed hindu and muslim outfits bombing each other. Ultimately such a big country would've become unstable and split into several countries based on ethnic lines.

In the present scenario, the best situation for peace would be when the majority becomes tolerant of the faith of the minority and there is peaceful coexistence of the majority and minority. This already happens in many south indian states, but they're from a different culture that didn't see the largescale hindu muslim conflicts that Pakistan, North India and Bangladesh did. You can be tolerant of the other community's faith only when you limit religion within the four walls of your home, using it to dictate your own life, rather than using religion as a political tool to dictate the third person's life. That can happen only when you separate religion from the state but Pakistanis, North Indians and Bangladeshis are punch drunk on the religion kool aid and therefore you'll always hear hindu muslim conflicts and persecution of minorities happening in these regions.
 
It is near impossible for hindus and muslims to live together as equals in the same country due to the massive ideological differences between their belief systems. The partition could have been prevented if it were two Abrahamic religions in majority like Islam and Christianity or two Indic religions in majority like Hinduism and Sikhism/Jainism/Buddhism. But Islam and Hinduism are poles apart as belief systems that one has to tolerate the other for any sort of coexistence to happen.

Judaism and Christianity dont have that much in common with Islam. Which is why most westerners use the term Judeo-Christian. Most people I see using the term Abrahmaic religions are Hindus.

Judaisim is a religion basically for people of Israel. Their religion is tied to their land, thats where it originated, thats where all their prophets are from, all their holy sites, their language, culture, etc.

In a way Judaisim is similar to the Hindutva version of Hinduism. Those Hindus believe the same thing, your religion and your language and your culture must originate in your country. And that country for them is Akhand Bharat, which includes Afghanistan. Yet the same Muslim Kings from Afghanistan are viewed as foreign invaders, and the subsequent ones who were born and raised in the subcontineent who had intermarried with locals are also foreigners. Because they did not have the same religion, culture, language as them.

This is similar to how Zioinst view the Palestinians. That even though they were living their because they spoke Arabic, and practiced Islam they were not native in Israel/Palestine. And they as Jews are the ones whose ancestors must have lived their 2,000 years ago as they had the same religion that originated on the land.

Christianity is basically Judaism but with the addition of Jesus as being the son of God, and that its a global religion and not restricted to Jews only.

Islam is like Christiainty in the sense thats its a global religion, however the Muslim belief is that their were prophets sent to all corner of the world (124,000), however that Prophet Mohammed was the last one. This is why you have people like Iqbal saying this

Hai Ram ke vajūd pe hindostāñ ko naaz

ahl-e-nazar samajhte haiñ is ko imām-e-hind

(India is proud of the existence of Ram

Spiritual people consider him prelate of India)

Allama Iqbal

https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/theatre/the-enduring-tale-of-imam-e-hind/article29640764.ece

It is near impossible for hindus and muslims to live together as equals in the same country

Maybe like westerns made up the term Judeo-Christian to describe European culture, people in subconitnent can call the culture their Hindu-Muslim.

Islam in subcontinent is different than practiced in other places in the world. So the same way how you can see differences you can also see similarities in Hinduism (non Hindutva version) and Islam.

Its a question of emphasizing the similarities or the differences.

Believing in the basic tenets of Hinduism (polytheism, idol worship, etc.) is the greatest sin you could do as a muslim (or even as a Christian for that matter, but Christians are not as dogmatic about religion as muslims, so you don't see as much friction) and this infuriates the hindus who become paranoid and insecure that muslims are out to eradicate their faith because they hate their way of life. .

This is also a great sin in Islam.

The Trinity
Christians believe in one God but they believe he exists in three parts or ‘persons’. These are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, known collectively as the Trinity.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zrpqmsg/revision/2
 
Nothing. India's plan was always to split Pakistan and avoid being in the middle of two hostile territories, and it succeeded in that plan. Nothing Pakistan could have done.
 
Luxembourg has a higher GDP/Capita than Bangladesh and India. Save the economic mantra.

Pakistan did the right thing, severe ties with Bangladesh.
 
Judaism and Christianity dont have that much in common with Islam. Which is why most westerners use the term Judeo-Christian. Most people I see using the term Abrahmaic religions are Hindus.

Judaisim is a religion basically for people of Israel. Their religion is tied to their land, thats where it originated, thats where all their prophets are from, all their holy sites, their language, culture, etc.

In a way Judaisim is similar to the Hindutva version of Hinduism. Those Hindus believe the same thing, your religion and your language and your culture must originate in your country. And that country for them is Akhand Bharat, which includes Afghanistan. Yet the same Muslim Kings from Afghanistan are viewed as foreign invaders, and the subsequent ones who were born and raised in the subcontineent who had intermarried with locals are also foreigners. Because they did not have the same religion, culture, language as them.

This is similar to how Zioinst view the Palestinians. That even though they were living their because they spoke Arabic, and practiced Islam they were not native in Israel/Palestine. And they as Jews are the ones whose ancestors must have lived their 2,000 years ago as they had the same religion that originated on the land.

Christianity is basically Judaism but with the addition of Jesus as being the son of God, and that its a global religion and not restricted to Jews only.

Islam is like Christiainty in the sense thats its a global religion, however the Muslim belief is that their were prophets sent to all corner of the world (124,000), however that Prophet Mohammed was the last one. This is why you have people like Iqbal saying this





Maybe like westerns made up the term Judeo-Christian to describe European culture, people in subconitnent can call the culture their Hindu-Muslim.

Islam in subcontinent is different than practiced in other places in the world. So the same way how you can see differences you can also see similarities in Hinduism (non Hindutva version) and Islam.

Its a question of emphasizing the similarities or the differences.



This is also a great sin in Islam.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zrpqmsg/revision/2

Judaism and Christianity have so much in common with Islam. There are a few differences, but on the whole all 3 monotheistic faiths are near identical.

I suggest you read the Qur’an, Torah, and Bible in English.
 
Last edited:
For those who care, the term Judeo-Christianity stems from Abraham’s sons. Isaac, where as Islam stems from Ishmael.
 
Judaism and Christianity dont have that much in common with Islam. Which is why most westerners use the term Judeo-Christian. Most people I see using the term Abrahmaic religions are Hindus.

Judaisim is a religion basically for people of Israel. Their religion is tied to their land, thats where it originated, thats where all their prophets are from, all their holy sites, their language, culture, etc.

In a way Judaisim is similar to the Hindutva version of Hinduism. Those Hindus believe the same thing, your religion and your language and your culture must originate in your country. And that country for them is Akhand Bharat, which includes Afghanistan. Yet the same Muslim Kings from Afghanistan are viewed as foreign invaders, and the subsequent ones who were born and raised in the subcontineent who had intermarried with locals are also foreigners. Because they did not have the same religion, culture, language as them.

This is similar to how Zioinst view the Palestinians. That even though they were living their because they spoke Arabic, and practiced Islam they were not native in Israel/Palestine. And they as Jews are the ones whose ancestors must have lived their 2,000 years ago as they had the same religion that originated on the land.

Christianity is basically Judaism but with the addition of Jesus as being the son of God, and that its a global religion and not restricted to Jews only.

Islam is like Christiainty in the sense thats its a global religion, however the Muslim belief is that their were prophets sent to all corner of the world (124,000), however that Prophet Mohammed was the last one. This is why you have people like Iqbal saying this





Maybe like westerns made up the term Judeo-Christian to describe European culture, people in subconitnent can call the culture their Hindu-Muslim.

Islam in subcontinent is different than practiced in other places in the world. So the same way how you can see differences you can also see similarities in Hinduism (non Hindutva version) and Islam.

Its a question of emphasizing the similarities or the differences.



This is also a great sin in Islam.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zrpqmsg/revision/2




Judaism, Christianity and Islam are, in their fundamentals, the same - as belief is centred upon the oneness and unity of God, notwithstanding subsequent developments that witnessed Zionists effectively nationalizing Judaism and transforming it into an ethnic religious/political system, and Christians transforming Jesus into the 'son' of God - though, worth bearing in mind some Christian denominations reject the Trinity and others reject the sonship.

They are Abrahamic faiths, because Abraham is the progenitor of all the Prophets - Hebrews, ending with Jesus (a direct line descendant of David) and Arabs, ending with Muhammad (through his eldest son, Ismael).

Judaism is not tied to any land or ethnicity, just as Islam cannot be confined to Mecca and Medina or to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) - both are world religions and anyone, anywhere at any time can 'convert'. So, the contention that Judaism is similar to Hinduism is false.

And do not conflate Zionists with Jews, or Zionism with Judaism, they are distinct from one another - one is a political ideology rooted in European colonialism, racism and supremacism, the other is the religion of the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ismael.
 
Why not convince the neighbouring afgans first about a unified muslim community :)) :))


Brother, I am saddened to witness you mock the notion of unity between Muslims - if you find it funny I do not. The greatest catastrophe before Muslims, the reason for the destruction of nations, slaughter of millions and theft of precious resources is Muslim disunity.

In any case, to return to your question: the subject of this thread has nothing to do with Afghanistan, it is about Pakistan and its fragmentation into two separate, nationalistic entities resulting in the formation of Bangladesh.

Please show respect towards the subjects under discussion and the people you are engaging in communication with. There is enough rage, hate, enmity and lack of knowledge in the Muslim world, we do not need to contribute more.
 
Nothing. India's plan was always to split Pakistan and avoid being in the middle of two hostile territories, and it succeeded in that plan. Nothing Pakistan could have done.

India also tried the same with Bangladesh. They tried to break Bangladesh.

India was arming Chittagong Hill Tract separatists (Shanti Bahini) in Bangladesh in the 90's. But, it didn't succeed. Bangladesh defeated the insurgents.
 
nothing could have been done.
the only way to prevent Bangladesh from separating is a land border between the two.
which means Pakistan needs to absolutely bulldoze Gangaland and annex enough of northern India.
 
Judaism and Christianity have so much in common with Islam. There are a few differences, but on the whole all 3 monotheistic faiths are near identical.

I suggest you read the Qur’an, Torah, and Bible in English.

The trinity and original sin is not a minor difference.

This is the Trinity. This is not similar to Islam at all.

Unpacking the doctrine

The idea that there is One God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit means:

There is exactly one God
The Father is God
The Son is God
The Holy Spirit is God
The Father is not the Son
The Son is not the Holy Spirit
The Father is not the Holy Spirit

An alternate way of explaining it is:

There is exactly one God
There are three really distinct Persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
Each of the Persons is God

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/trinity_1.shtml

Have you read about the Original Sin? The idea that all human beings are born sinful, and the only way to enter the Kingdom of Heaven is to believe that Jesus Christ is your lord and savior who died for your sins. As long as you believe that you are good.

This is very different from Islam where you will be judged based on your actions in this world.
 
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are, in their fundamentals, the same - as belief is centred upon the oneness and unity of God, notwithstanding subsequent developments that witnessed Zionists effectively nationalizing Judaism and transforming it into an ethnic religious/political system, and Christians transforming Jesus into the 'son' of God - though, worth bearing in mind some Christian denominations reject the Trinity and others reject the sonship.

They are Abrahamic faiths, because Abraham is the progenitor of all the Prophets - Hebrews, ending with Jesus (a direct line descendant of David) and Arabs, ending with Muhammad (through his eldest son, Ismael).

That is Christianity. Its not transformation, that's what its always been. Maybe some denominations reject it but majority dont.


Judaism is not tied to any land or ethnicity, just as Islam cannot be confined to Mecca and Medina or to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) - both are world religions and anyone, anywhere at any time can 'convert'. So, the contention that Judaism is similar to Hinduism is false.

And do not conflate Zionists with Jews, or Zionism with Judaism, they are distinct from one another - one is a political ideology rooted in European colonialism, racism and supremacism, the other is the religion of the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ismael.

To Jews it is, not only a religion it is an ethnicity. They believe that all Jews are part of one ethnic group, it does not matter if they are Black Ethiopians or Blonde hair blue eyed Europeans. They are all supposedly the same.

Also Majority of Jews are Zionist. Just the reality.
 
nothing could have been done.
the only way to prevent Bangladesh from separating is a land border between the two.
which means Pakistan needs to absolutely bulldoze Gangaland and annex ioenough of northern India.

Those are just dreams which will not been achieved.
If you believe you have the firepower, come and try to get it done. We are ready on our side.
India has already achieved its objectives with Bangladesh creation, aided by Bhutto's lust for power.
 
India also tried the same with Bangladesh. They tried to break Bangladesh.

India was arming Chittagong Hill Tract separatists (Shanti Bahini) in Bangladesh in the 90's. But, it didn't succeed. Bangladesh defeated the insurgents.

Ah yes..Blame India for the presence of an insurgency in a minority dominant region in your country, but also blame India for insurgency in a minority dominant region in its own country (Kashmir). The hypocrisy is pretty obvious here.
 
Ah yes..Blame India for the presence of an insurgency in a minority dominant region in your country, but also blame India for insurgency in a minority dominant region in its own country (Kashmir). The hypocrisy is pretty obvious here.

So you're admitting that India shouldn't be blaming Pakistan for the separatist movement in the "minority dominant region" of India?
 
Ah yes..Blame India for the presence of an insurgency in a minority dominant region in your country, but also blame India for insurgency in a minority dominant region in its own country (Kashmir). The hypocrisy is pretty obvious here.

This is a fact. You can check on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanti_Bahini.

I have also interacted with an ex-army guy (from BD) who fought against Shanti Bahini. He confirmed me that India was involved.
 
Ah yes..Blame India for the presence of an insurgency in a minority dominant region in your country, but also blame India for insurgency in a minority dominant region in its own country (Kashmir). The hypocrisy is pretty obvious here.

Here's from Wikipedia:

The spokesman for the Shanti Bahini, Bimal Chakma alleged Indian involvement by stating that after the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the removal of Bangladesh Awami League from power in 1975,[25] India provided support and shelter to the members of Shanti Bahini.[26][27][28] Members of Shanti Bahini were trained in Chakrata, India.

I guess India didn't like it when Mujeeb got assassinated. So, they started to arm the insurgents in Bangladesh.

Anyway. The conflict has died down. Insurgents lost. They wanted to get their own country by snatching away Chittagong.
 
Here's from Wikipedia:



I guess India didn't like it when Mujeeb got assassinated. So, they started to arm the insurgents in Bangladesh.

Anyway. The conflict has died down. Insurgents lost. They wanted to get their own country by snatching away Chittagong.

And ULFA militants who fight for an independent Assam take refuge in Bangladesh. It goes both ways.
 
If Abraham Lincoln had existed in place of Yahyah Khan

After the 1970 Bhola Cyclone and the aftermath in the way West Pakistan dealt with it, there was not way East Pakistan was gonna stay a part of Pakistan, that was the icing on the cake and was time to just move away from West.

But before going into 1970, we need to understand the mistakes that had taken place before that.

First the issue was the ideology of Pakistan. People still think that the ideology of our country is on the basis of Islam, when its not true. Yes, we did ask for a separate country but on the basis of identifying ourselves as a separate Muslim community not religion. This is why Jinnah never joined Muslim League before 1913 because Muslim league was identified as operating on the basis on communal politics and asking separate electorates on the basis of religion.

Jinnah would join Muslim league after the communal aspect was discussed.

While we would eventually get East Pakistan eventually, but up until this point, many politicians had fooled themselves into believing that as West are muslims and East are muslims, there would never be a problem. But there were greater issues on the basis of different ethinicities. Pakistan doesnt have ethnic problems now but back than there were alot of issues like Punjabi Vs Sindhi Vs Urdu Speaking Vs Pakhtun Vs Bengalis.

When independence happened we overlooked the ethinic and culture aspect, because Muslim league was a movement not a proper political party. Meanwhile Nehru was part of Congress which was a proper political party and knew that as they had to deal with multiple ethnic groups thus every language would be co-official.
While on the other hand in hingsight we made the mistake of making Urdu as the official language, not knowing that the script of Urdu and Bengali is different. People blame this on Jinnah, but you have understand we judge Jinnah on the basis of the aftermath. At that time no one knew whether Nehru was right with his language policy or Jinnah. Maybe by having a common language it was Jinnah's way to unite the people.

There were also other issues. West pakistanis looked down upon the Bengalis as they were darker in skin tone, shorter and had a different culture.

After which we were economically exploiting East Pakistan. The ports of East Pakistan used to fund the economy, their jute industry is on which West Pakistan was striving. But what did West Pakistan give in return? Nothing. Just like what we had done in Balochistan.

Mujib ur Rehman was not anti Pakistan, he was a supporter of Fatima Jinnah, but Ayub Khan had maneuvered the elections against her and did a smear campaign on her character.

By 1966 Mujib had came out with his 6 points, and those 6 points were controversial. No Pakistani politician would had accepted those, if anyone did it would had been political suicide. Those points demanded for a separate army and currency which meant a separate state. But Mujeeb was not wrong either because we had been exploiting them for a long time and this was bound to happen.

After this event, Ayub Khan decided to jail Mujeeb ur Rehman and by 1969 there is an uprising in Dhaka which force Ayub Khan to release Mujeeb ur Rehman back. They were trying to charge him in some conspiracy and get rid of him.

Than in 1970 2 important events took place.

November- Bhola Cyclone
December- Elections

Elections were scheduled and both the PPP under Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was doing his campaign in West Pakistan, while Awami league under Mujeeb Ur Rehman did its campaign in East Pakistan. Awami league's manifesto were the 6 controversial points of Mujeeb Ur Rehman.

The Military govt under Yahyah Khan had other plans. They wanted a weak center so that they could hold more control.

Anyways, by November the Bhola Cyclone hits. India didn't bother to give proper warnings so that proper precautions could had been used, and we had 500,000 people dead.

The central govt failed to respond and provide aid to East. There were two helicopters there but Yahyah used only one to drop supplies as he believed using two served no point. Red cross Pakistan had to work independently as the central govt was creating problems for them. It was winter and no tents nothing was being provided.

Elections were not delayed. Yahyah had said they would schedule them for Dec. And to everyones surprise Awami league got an overall majority by winning every seat in East, while PPP won in West but had less seats than Awami league.

Now here is the confusion people have in Pakistan today and start blaming Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Bhutto was not the President. The President was Yahyah Khan. It was Yahyah's duty to transfer the power to Mujeeb, not Bhuttos.

As i said before the millitary had other plans as they wanted a weak center so that they could form their own govt. Mujeeb and ZAB were aware of this that they had started to do their own dealings in pvt. ZAB had to be against Mujeeb as accepting those 6 points would had been political suicide. Anyways, talks between Mujeeb took place with the Yahyah govt and they vetoed him

It had became evident power was not going to be traferred to Mujeeb. Mujeeb called a strike in East Pakistan, and meanwhile some 300 Biharis get killed during the protest by the Bengalis. Yahyah takes this opportunity to send in the millitary.

The Mukti Bahani that existed in East Pakistan showed that East Pakistan had been involved with India much before and had taken everyone by surprise as these gurreilas were quite effective against us.

Compare all this to what Abraham lincoln had done. USA was almost about the break apart at one point when the confederates wanted to separate and the civil war started. But Lincoln made sure that the country stayed as a one unit.

Yahyah failed to do that and was interested in the militaria getting to keep its power over the state when a weak form of coalition was to form.

Thus, after what had happened uptil Dec of 1970, the only thing Yahyah should had done was transferred the powers. Bhutto couldn't be stopped from its opposition as someone was needed to critisize the 6 points.
 
It's basically the age old brain vs brawn debate. Pakistan I feel is more inspired from the past might of the powerful Islamic empires and the zenith of their power in the subcontinent, therefore more motivated towards power projection; whereas while Bengalis are also inspired by islamic empires, the Bengali culture of intellectualism plays a strong role in their concerted efforts towards producing a high quality of human capital. I suppose both are necessary for a successful state, although we can argue the proportions.

A lot can be said and has been said on this topic. But I think this bolded sentence captures our mindset quiet accurately. We have always tried (and failed occasionally) to identify both as Muslim and Bengali. That is why you will see many devout Muslims who are also very connected with our language and literature.
 
A lot can be said and has been said on this topic. But I think this bolded sentence captures our mindset quiet accurately. We have always tried (and failed occasionally) to identify both as Muslim and Bengali. That is why you will see many devout Muslims who are also very connected with our language and literature.

I believe a few aspects of Bengali culture are probably not compatible with Islam. I generally avoid those aspects. I am okay with a cultural practice as long as it doesn't go against my faith.

But, yeah. You are right. Most Bangladeshis try to be both Bengalis and Muslims. That's natural and understandable.
 
Judaism and Christianity dont have that much in common with Islam. Which is why most westerners use the term Judeo-Christian. Most people I see using the term Abrahmaic religions are Hindus.

Abrahamic religions was not a term invented by non muslims. In fact, I first came across this terminology only in this forum and I had no idea what it meant because I didn't know who Abraham was. It's wrong to say Judaism and Christianity don't have much in common with Islam, heck I think most muslims would not agree with your opinion. Of course they have their own differences, but Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have a similar strain of thought - monotheism, abhorring idolatry, belief in prophets, etc. There's much more similarity between Islam and Judaism/Christianity than Islam and Hinduism. It's why Jews, Christians and Muslims are referred to as people of the book.

Judaisim is a religion basically for people of Israel. Their religion is tied to their land, thats where it originated, thats where all their prophets are from, all their holy sites, their language, culture, etc.

In a way Judaisim is similar to the Hindutva version of Hinduism.

Hinduism is an unorganised religion. It is basically paganism, and includes the vast set of belief systems people who dwelled in the Indian subcontinent developed over the years since the bronze age. Because it developed in a time when religion was not that important as a concept, it doesn't have the same inbuilt safety valves that organised religions like Christianity and Islam have to prevent its followers from leaving its fold or gaining followers to its fold. Hinduism has a "sab chalta hai" vibe about it because of the era it developed when religion was barely understood as a concept. However Islam and Christianity developed in a time when there were many competing belief systems and so it's natural that those religions have innate laws and characteristics to avoid losing followers and gain more followers from the other fold.

Hindutva is basically Hinduism's attempt to become an organised religion like Islam or Christianity, at a political level (not theological level) as a lot of Hindu nationalists felt Hindus were weak because their religion didn't put the same strong checks on its adherents that a religion like Islam did. It is very easy for a Hindu to convert to another religion because there is neither a great theological check to prevent that as the case in say Islam or Christianity (you aren't condemned to eternal Hell fire and even if there's one, because most Hindus don't read their scriptures, they wouldn't know about it), nor a political check to prevent that in a hindu society whereas it would be very difficult for a muslim to officially convert from Islam to another religion in a muslim society. Because of the sab chalta hai nature of Hinduism, there are no beliefs preventing a Hindu from marrying a person of another religion as well, including its women. Hindu nationalists felt that because of this, it was very easy for Hinduism to lose followers unlike Islam and Christianity, that made it vulnerable as a religion and so Hindutva is basically an attempt to style Hinduism along the lines of Islam or Christianity.

It's why you see Hindutvadis preventing a Hindu from marrying a muslim using love jihad laws or Hindus from converting to another religion using the anti conversion laws. These are pretty much inspired from Islam that similarly prevents its adherents from marrying a hindu unless he/she converts to Islam, and the view on apostasy is also inspired by Islam and Christianity. It's why I've always said Hindutva is basically an Abrahamic version of Hinduism.

Those Hindus believe the same thing, your religion and your language and your culture must originate in your country. And that country for them is Akhand Bharat, which includes Afghanistan. Yet the same Muslim Kings from Afghanistan are viewed as foreign invaders, and the subsequent ones who were born and raised in the subcontineent who had intermarried with locals are also foreigners. Because they did not have the same religion, culture, language as them.

How is this any different to the Two nation theory? TNT said that even if Hindus and muslims belonged to the same town or village, their respective cultural and religious inspirations are from vastly different, contrasting and often conflicting sources and therefore they formed "two nations" of people. Jinnah said as much in his presidential address for the Muslim League at Lahore in 1940:

It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time.

The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, litterateurs. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history.

They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state.

Hindutvadis feel the same way about muslims that they're a different nation of people, i.e., foreigners, because they are a people of a different culture. Ambedkar noted in his book that despite having vastly differing ambitions on the fate of their nation, Jinnah and Savarkar essentially had the same view point in that both considered Hindus and Muslims as different nations unlike the composite nationalism of Congress that encompassed people of all castes, creed and religions. Ambedkar wrote:

"Strange as it may appear, Mr. Savarkar and Mr. Jinnah, instead of being opposed to each other on the one nation versus two nations issue, are in complete agreement about it. Both agree, not only agree but insist, that there are two nations in India —one the Muslim nation and the other the Hindu nation. They differ only as regards the terms and conditions on which the two nations should live. Mr. Jinnah says India should be cut up into two, Pakistan and Hindustan, the Muslim nation to occupy Pakistan and the Hindu nation to occupy Hindustan. Mr. Savarkar, on the other hand, insists that, although there are two nations in India, India shall not be divided into two parts, one for Muslims and the other for the Hindus; that the two nations shall dwell in one country and shall live under the mantle of one single constitution; that the constitution shall be such that the Hindu nation will be enabled to occupy a predominant position that is due to it and the Muslim nation made to live in the position of subordinate co-operation with the Hindu nation."

It's why I've always said that Hindutva or Savarkar's version of Hindu nationalism was basically the mirror image of Jinnah's version of Muslim nationalism. You can see the same from the fact that many of the Hindutva policies such as the love jihad laws or anti conversion laws are heavily inspired from the kind of laws that prevent the same from happening in Pakistan.


Christianity is basically Judaism but with the addition of Jesus as being the son of God, and that its a global religion and not restricted to Jews only.

Islam is like Christiainty in the sense thats its a global religion, however the Muslim belief is that their were prophets sent to all corner of the world (124,000), however that Prophet Mohammed was the last one. This is why you have people like Iqbal saying this

Maybe like westerns made up the term Judeo-Christian to describe European culture, people in subconitnent can call the culture their Hindu-Muslim.

Islam in subcontinent is different than practiced in other places in the world. So the same way how you can see differences you can also see similarities in Hinduism (non Hindutva version) and Islam.

Its a question of emphasizing the similarities or the differences.

This is also a great sin in Islam.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zrpqmsg/revision/2

It is true that Hinduism had an influence on Islam in the same way that Islam had on Hinduism. This can be seen by the fact that Kabir and Sai Baba, both of whom are believed to have been born as muslims, are among the most worshipped by Hindus today in India. Similarly you see Hindu influences in Sufism and the kind of saint worship that it entails. But the point to be noted is that just because TLP followers engage in saint/grave worship or staunch hindus worship muslim saints like Sai Baba or Kabir doesn't mean they'll be tolerant towards the other faith.

Hindus and Muslims could have existed together in a single country only in a secular state, but if you conducted a poll among Indians today asking them whether they support secularism, probably more than 60-70% would say they don't, and the number would be higher than 95% in Pakistan (I'm being optimistic with that number). There in lies the obstacle. The differences become accentuated (and they're frankly more stark compared to Christianity) when they come in close proximity. If Christianity had the same level of difference with Islam that Hinduism has, Muslim men wouldn't be allowed to marry Christian women according to the Quran, as it's the case with Hindus.
 
Currently in the USA as per govt records - there are 8600 college students from Bangladesh and 7475 from Pakistan

So yes Bangladeshis have surpassed Pakistan here as well

This is simply because of stricter visa rules for Pakistan.

Pakistan like all stans is subjected to rigid rules.

The fact remains whether it's law, NYPD, Doctors in the US/UK you name it PAK is far ahead.

Denial wont get you anywhere.
 
When a brother commits genocide it is time to say bye bye.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide



Let me ask you a similar question. How many CEOs of the biggest US firms do you see from Pakistan?

By your logic, Pakistan should have remained with India.



There is delusion and then there is this. No, the number of Pakistani graduates in the US is not 1/2 of Indian graduates, it is more like 7,475/167,582 ~ 1/22

Let alone Bangladesh (8,598), among South Asian countries even Nepal (11,172) has more students in the US compared to Pakistan.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/233880/international-students-in-the-us-by-country-of-origin/

The brother conducted an operation because the thungs of Mukti Bahini committed mass genocide of our bihari citizens. My relatives were killed as well.

No doubt blood is shed in war and it shoulve been avoided.

Coming to your question of students. My deear friend PAK like all stans is subjected to rigid rules in visa. Hemce the lower students post 911

You travel anywhere in USA, the lawyers, doctors, even politicians and Hollywood actors are more from PAK than BD.

Stay in denial.
 
This is the mindset why Bangladesh was born. You asked the question and the answer was in your post itself.

A west Pakistani shouldn't have the same mindset as you in order to keep east Pakistan together.

My Mindset is clear. PAK is the only one to blame for this tragedy.

However BAN as a nation needs to come out of delusion and grow. They still lag behind. End of story.
 
It should have never been a part of Pakistan, I support the 3 state solution proposed by Jinnah and Bengali nationalists - create an independent United Bengal, they would've been an ally to Pakistan and would be much better off than being part of Pakistan or what is now Bangladesh, they would even have a much better cricket team.

Finally someone sane spoke.
 
A lot can be said and has been said on this topic. But I think this bolded sentence captures our mindset quiet accurately. We have always tried (and failed occasionally) to identify both as Muslim and Bengali. That is why you will see many devout Muslims who are also very connected with our language and literature.

I believe a few aspects of Bengali culture are probably not compatible with Islam. I generally avoid those aspects. I am okay with a cultural practice as long as it doesn't go against my faith.

But, yeah. You are right. Most Bangladeshis try to be both Bengalis and Muslims. That's natural and understandable.

The brother conducted an operation because the thungs of Mukti Bahini committed mass genocide of our bihari citizens. My relatives were killed as well.

The killings began with the Pakistani Army's Operation Searchlight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Searchlight

Coming to your question of students. My deear friend PAK like all stans is subjected to rigid rules in visa. Hemce the lower students post 911

That may or may not be true, but what is certainly false is something you wrote earlier "Out of 100% south asian graduates in USA, 60 are Indian ,30 PAK and 10 from other south asian states. BD still lags far behind."

You travel anywhere in USA, the lawyers, doctors, even politicians and Hollywood actors are more from PAK than BD.

Stay in denial.

Get over your delusional ethnic arrogance. This attitude is what led to the 1971 disaster "West Pakistan looked down upon their eastern neighbors, calling the area “a low-lying land of low-lying people” who “polluted” the area with non-Muslim values".

https://sites.uab.edu/humanrights/2017/04/21/bangladesh-forgotten-genocide/

There have been many Bangladeshi geniuses who have contributed a lot to the US, more than any lawyer or Hollywood actor, like Fazlur Rahman Khan (father of the modern skyscraper) or Sal Khan (Khan Academy).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fazlur_Rahman_Khan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sal_Khan
 
Last edited:
Regarding the death of millions propaganda I found this:-

The fact that so many allegations were being thrown at Pakistan for so long, and none of the government agencies, including the ISPR, the Ministry of Information, or anybody else had attempted to respond to these in any serious manner.

A simplest example that comes to mind was a continuous allegation on Pakistan and propaganda against Pakistan by India and Bangladesh that 93,000 soldiers surrendered. That hit me first. How can a Lieutenant General who has only 45,000 men under him; Out of which 11,000 are supporting troops, how could he have 93,000 soldiers, the maximum combatant soldiers would be 34,000.

Who are the rest? They were members of the civil armed forces, police, civilian officers, their wives, and children, who were all handed over to India so that the Mukti Bahini would not kill them. I started from there. This is one of the biggest propaganda against Pakistan. This really would bother me tremendously.

And when I found out that this is a propaganda and nobody is responding to this, I then started to see, well, somebody has to do this. And I’ve never waited in my life for anybody else to do anything. And that’s how this whole thing began to happen.

It was very simple, very easy to debunk the myth of the 3 million Bengalis having been killed by Pakistan Army and 200,000 women having been raped. If I take 3 million Bengalis killed and over a period of time, which was which started basically from the start of the Operation Searchlight, which started on March the 26th, and ended on December 16 1971 with the surrender documents, these are 262 days, 3 million divided by 262 gives you a figure of 11,480 that means you have to get hold of 11,500 plus Bengalis, bring them together, kill them, bury them, and do this again and keep doing it day after day for 262 days.

And you are only 34,000 people to do this. And these 34,000 combatant soldiers were all on the borders, which is about 1500 kilometer long border facing 15 division Indian army. Now, these 34,000, mind you, were three divisions. So three divisions Pakistan Army is facing 15 divisions Indian army outside on the borders plus 150,000 plus Mukti Bahini inside including 50,000 Indian soldiers.

So, how could this be possible? And of course, then in the end, at night, had to rape women as well – 200,000 women. It is arithmetically impossible; it is just not possible. Having done and debugged this then I went and did research on how the myth started.

I found Yes, the myth of 3 million had been started, and it had been propagated a great deal and that the myth of the 200,000 women [being raped] also was wrong, which I was able to prove using documents and a Commission which had been established by Sheikh Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman himself on January 26th 1972. I can go into much more great detail on this, but this is how this whole thing then unfolded to me.

https://www.globalvillagespace.com/debunking-myths-around-bangladeshs-creation/
 
And i would say the same among any of the ethnic groups among the Indo-Aryan languages. A Hindu/Muslim would get along with people of their own religion more than they would of someone of the other religion of the same ethnic group. This is the "bitter truth".

Yes, that is unfortunately true.

It is also the reason why the Indo-European heritage is often ignored.
 
Yes, that is unfortunately true.

It is also the reason why the Indo-European heritage is often ignored.

No this is not true across the board. Depends on social circle that one has been brought in.
 
Language was a non issue by the time 1970-71 rolled around. Real reason was lack of representation.

The simple fact is that West Pakistani establishment didn’t even care for East Pakistan remaining part of Pakistan if it was as equal partners. There’s a famous anecdote of Ayub Khan asking a Bengali leader as to why don’t they just go their own way and the Bengali leader replied that wr Bengalis led Pakistan movement, why should we go our way.

What people don’t take into account is that Ayub Khan despite being a dictator did some good things for west Pakistan so post 1965, the people in west Pakistan were still somewhat ok with him. But what wr don’t hear is how he treated east Pakistan as a colony like the british did. And then in 1965 election only East Pakistan and Karachi voted for Fatima Jinnah despite the rigging.

In 1970 after more than decade of being treated like a colony, east Pakistanis finally saw light at end of tunnel and voted en masse for Mujib who was a great Pakistani. But our dear establishment declared hun traitor and carried a kjlling spree in Bengal.
 
Language was a non issue by the time 1970-71 rolled around. Real reason was lack of representation.

The simple fact is that West Pakistani establishment didn’t even care for East Pakistan remaining part of Pakistan if it was as equal partners. There’s a famous anecdote of Ayub Khan asking a Bengali leader as to why don’t they just go their own way and the Bengali leader replied that wr Bengalis led Pakistan movement, why should we go our way.

What people don’t take into account is that Ayub Khan despite being a dictator did some good things for west Pakistan so post 1965, the people in west Pakistan were still somewhat ok with him. But what wr don’t hear is how he treated east Pakistan as a colony like the british did. And then in 1965 election only East Pakistan and Karachi voted for Fatima Jinnah despite the rigging.

In 1970 after more than decade of being treated like a colony, east Pakistanis finally saw light at end of tunnel and voted en masse for Mujib who was a great Pakistani. But our dear establishment declared hun traitor and carried a kjlling spree in Bengal.

Good interesting points here.

Hypothetical question - If East Pakistan were treated better and Mujib was made the PM etc, would West+East Pakistan still have survived to this day given the impractical geography (~1000 KM of separation by a hostile enemy)?
 
Good interesting points here.

Hypothetical question - If East Pakistan were treated better and Mujib was made the PM etc, would West+East Pakistan still have survived to this day given the impractical geography (~1000 KM of separation by a hostile enemy)?

I don't think East Pakistanis would have had any problems being with Pakistan if they were given equal rights and not treated as second class citizens right from the start.
 
I don't think East Pakistanis would have had any problems being with Pakistan if they were given equal rights and not treated as second class citizens right from the start.

Let me rephrase this more directly - would India have let Pakistan remain intact even if West and East Pakistanis got along well?
 
Let me rephrase this more directly - would India have let Pakistan remain intact even if West and East Pakistanis got along well?

What could have India done if East Pakistanis themselves didn't want to form a separate country for themselves?
 
Let me rephrase this more directly - would India have let Pakistan remain intact even if West and East Pakistanis got along well?

Yes. What could india have done if the east Pakistanis wanted to stay part of the country?

India took full advantage and was opportunist but it certainly was not the main reason. Also any other country would have also taken an action to some degree when you 10 million plus refugees going through your borders trying to escape an operation.
 
1970 election. I guess that was the breaking point. Power wasn't handed over despite an election win.

I think there were faults on both sides. No side was free from blame.

Anyway, what's done is done.
 
Back
Top