The Rational Warrior

Romair #9

`` The reasons occupations take place is that the leaders of the occupying country are able to convince their own populations that they are actually doing, ``good`` in the occupied area. And that the occupiers are terrorists and troublemakers. This the standard formula used by every occupying govt. And the people of the occupying country buy it hook line and sinker, every time, because they are looking for any kind of, ``moral`` excuse, however weak it maybe, to support their own govt. ``

Pakistan never occupied Bangladesh. Neither did Sudan occupy Darfur. Most states in this world are artifical entities at some level.

`` There is always some terrorism in the ranks of the occupied fighters. But it is always a fraction of the terrorism of the occupiers, since the occupiers always has much bigger guns. Mukti Bahani committed terrorism, in a lot of cases. In today`s world, East Pakistan would have not become independent. Pakistan would have not allowed India to interfere, due to nuclear deterence. After that, in the post Sept 11 world, it could have portrayed Mukti Bahani etc. as terrorists by highlighting their terrorism, while hiding Pakistan`s own actions in the press. And then it could have mostly crushed or at least kept the Bangladeshi fighters in check. Much like India is doing in Kashmir, America is doing in Iraq etc. East Pakistan would have been very violent but not independent. ``

Pakistani nukes won`t deter Indian interference as much as Indian nukes have deterred Pakistani meddling in Kashmir. If India supplies the Mukti bahini with artillery, anti-tank weapons and anti-aircraft weapons they would defeat the Pakistani army in Bangladesh. How many Pakistani troops do you need to control Bangladesh ? Pakistani army deployment in Bangladesh would cost billions due to logistical resons. It is not like Pakistan is a rich country. The LTTE once trained by India has fought the larger Sri lankan army to a standstill. Sinhalese outnumber Tamils three to one. Bangladeshis have one to one numerical parity with Pakistanis. Figure out your odds.

`` I suppose every occupied people once they become the occupier develop such double standards. Indians wanted independence from England but did not want to acknowledge Kashmir`s (or Pakistan`s) indepdence. Pakistanis acknowledge their own and Kashmiris independence, but did not acknowledge Bangladesh`s (in 1971; now they do). And many expat South Asians acknowldge their own countrys` indepdences but are gung ho supporters of any occupation the USA carries out. ``

Indians are not happy about Iraq war. If the few Indians on Chowk gave you the wrong impression sorry about it. Indians are better than Musharraf especially if he promised to send Pakistani troops to Iraq in exchange for lenient treatment over the nuke exports. To be blunt USA choices in Iraq were stark. Either overthrow Saddam now or face nuclear armed Saddam down the road. This is coming from a harsh critic of the Bush Administration. As effective as they were sanctions cannot be maintained permanently on Iraq.

www.jang.com.pk/thenews

The News, Karachi, Pakistan
Wednesday December 11, 2002-- Shawwal 06, 1423 A.H.

Why Jinnah`s Pakistan ended
by M B Naqvi
mbnaqvi@cyber.net.pk

..... One emphasises a narrower reason for the earliest power struggle between the Punjab and Bengal Groups in the first Constituent Assembly in 1948-49. East Bengalis had opened their account with the expropriation of all intermediary landed interests between the state and the cultivator. This without compensation reform frightened the social elites in West Pakistan, almost all of whom landlords. Bengalis acquiring the central power seemed to them like encouraging the new Bolsheviks to repeat that enormity here also. So they were determined to deny the Bengalis their due share of power and entered into an open conspiracy: they sought help from the bureaucracy and got it. With West Pakistan`s landowning MPs help, they cornered all power.....

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Romair #9:
``What I find interesting are the individuals who support so many occupations wholeheartedly and are on the forefront of justifying them under various excuses. For example, they justify India`s actions in Kashmir and USA`s actions in Iraq, even though, the populations of both areas, overwhelmingly consider these actions to be occupationary. Yet these same people argue that Bangladesh was an occupation and a freedom struggle, becasue Bengalis considered it so.
``Quite the double standard..........Either they are all occupations (as I consider them), since the local populations consider them occupations. Or none of them are.``

Romair - actually neither Kashmir (expect for Pak Occupied Kashmir) nor East Pakistan were occupations. East Pakistan, like J&K in India, was an integral part of Pakistan. Unfortunately, West Pakistanis thought that that gave them the right to treat the Bengalis as a colony. No wonder the Bengalis broke away (though they formed the majority in united Pakistan) and formed their own nation. It is a warning for the Hindi belt in India not to do the same to South, North East or other non-Hindi parts of India. Similarly, it is a warning to the Pakistan of today, in its treatment of Balochis, Sindhis and Pashtoons.

US of course is the occupier in Iraq - because they are in someone else`s country. The Americans themselves acknowledge it and they just want to go home as soon as there is some stability.

Amazing how Pakis never mention the horrible atrocities perpetrated by the Paki Army on Bangladeshis in `71, yet cry rivers for the Kashmiris. Talk of hypocrisy!

re:#21 by Ralph
Thanks for your post.
Actually, i have high hopes on Bangladesh, which has defied all predictions and has been a succesful democrazy so far.
I am worried at the recent turn of events though. A recent attempt on Sheikh Hasina`s life stalled a visit by Tata who was to finalize a $ 2 billion investment in that country. I am worried about the anti-India feelings that are rampant in that country today. It is unfortunate we do not have anybody from Bangladesh commenting on this article.
Sridhar

Would a North South partition of India (if at all) have made more sense than an East West partition?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

``Tragedy of Pakistan has been that it could not (or shall i say did not care to) hold on to something that was legitimately their`s (Bangladesh) but covet something that does not legitimately belong to them (Kashmir).``

---

One of the most profound things that has been ever said on Chowk.


However, Sridhar, I hope your #17 does not upset sigalph235. He is a Bangladeshi patriot, a brilliant person, and, naturally, NOT an Islamic fundamentalist. We need people like him to help all of us face such developments.

Since I know Islam to be an unadulterated curse upon mankind, once more I find confirmatory patterns reappear. But Bengalis and Bangladeshis have bravely kept real Islam at bay for centuries. So any criticism of Islam must not be taken as criticism of Bangladesh.

re:#9 by Romair
``For example, they justify India`s actions in Kashmir and USA`s actions in Iraq, even though, the populations of both areas, overwhelmingly consider these actions to be occupationary. Yet these same people argue that Bangladesh was an occupation and a freedom struggle, becasue Bengalis considered it so.``
Tragedy of Pakistan has been that it could not (or shall i say did not care to) hold on to something that was legitimately their`s (Bangladesh) but covet something that does not legitimately belong to them (Kashmir).
Romoron,
I think u should worry about Army action in Baluchistan annd NWFP where Army is alieniating the local population.
I would, if i were u, be worried about the impact of long years of military rule in Pak on civic institutions. If i were a sensible Paki, Kashmir would be last on my mind.
Sridhar

re:#6 by stuka
You forget that Bengalis also live in India and are more in number than Punjabees. So, your term ``fellow Punjabees`` is, to say the least, amusing.
One cannot make a deal with the devil. Military rule, under Yahya Khan, massacred millions of Bangladeshis. Thousands poured into India as refugees making it an economic nightmare for India to manage. Clearly, Indira Gandhi`s popularity was at its peak when she sided with East Pakistan and help in the liberation of Bangladesh. I think she received ``Bharat Ratna`` for that but that is besides the point.
Sridhar

re: muslim majority and fundamentalism
What is it that makes some sections of muslims turn to fundamentalism and unleash hatred against minorities.
Bangladesh saw carnage perpetrated against its people in 1971. Now, it is doing the same to its minority hindus.
First about the fundamentalism in Bangladesh. It was highlighted well by B.RAman of the SAAG group:
Url: http://www.saag.org/papers9/paper887.html
The rise of fundamentalism in Bangladesh has been noted by West. In an article under the title ``Is religious extremism on the rise in Bangladesh?`` published by the ``Jane`s Intelligence Review`` of May 2002 (http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/publication/faultlines/volume14/Article1.htm)
Bertil Lintner, the well-known columnist on South-East Asia, had drawn attention to the worrying developments in Bangladesh. He referred to the activities of organisations such as HUJI, the so-called Jihad movement, the Jamaat-e-Islami (JEI), the Islami Chhatra Shibir (ICS), the JEI`s students` wing, the Islami Olkyo Jote (IOJ), which like the JEI, is a member of the present ruling coalition, and two organisations of Rohingya Muslim refugees from the Arakan area of Myanmar called the Arakan Rohingya National Organisation (ARNO) and the Rohingya Solidarity Organisation and to the proliferation of madrasas in Bangladesh and said:, inter alia:.``Extremist influence is growing, especially in the countryside.

http://www.hrtribune.com/JMJB/banglabhai_nowagaon-05-0704.html

(JMJB or “Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh” is one of the many hidden Islamic militant groups in Bangladesh who just recently sway into actions in various north western districts of Bangladesh. It is alleged that the group is being patronized by leaders of political parties who are allegedly linked to ruling party and hold offices in the government. The activities of this ill-known Islamic Militant group have been widely unearthed and publicized in all progressive news dailies of Bangladesh. Despite the effort of Bangladesh newspapers to publicize the activities of JMJB or its notorious leader namely ``Bangla Bhai``, no definitive action is taken by government to apprehend the criminals who are running training camps in various northwestern districts of Bangladesh.)
Bangladesh is clearly witnessing a battle between progressive and regressive forces. Its outcome will decide the fate of that nation. By training terrorist camps and colluding with ISI, Bangladesh under the present PM has shown it is not favorably disposed to India. This is Bangladesh`s loss. It is losing out on an immense opportunity to trade with India and prosper.
Sridhar

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Someday, from amongst the future generations of Bangladeshis and Pakistanis

the truth will come out on what exactly happened during the 1969 and 1975 period

in Eastern Bengal. And during this time the following will be explained:


1) The truth on how many died during 1971

2) The truth as to why it happened

3) The truth as to why 250,000 ``Biharis`` still rot in camps

4) The truth on why Sk. Mujib and most of his family was eliminated

5) The truth as to who murdered the intellectuals in Dhaka just moments before surrender


Till then let us hope for a healing process and start with a formal apology from Pakistan.

Ras


PS: And why CHOWK decided to erase ``Bangladesh Memories`` from the archives

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re Air Marshal`s

``For example, they justify India`s actions in Kashmir and USA`s actions in Iraq, even though, the populations of both areas, overwhelmingly consider these actions to be occupationary.``

And the Gallup poll was conducted by?

``Yet these same people argue that Bangladesh was an occupation and a freedom struggle, becasue Bengalis considered it so.``

On the other hand the wishes of the people of Bangladesh were expressed decisively in the general elections of 1970 when they returned a 98 % verdict for Independence. Your attempt to compare the three situations is rather desperate.