- Joined
- Jun 18, 2009
- Messages
- 309
- Likes
- 9
Well it would be helpful if you look back at the history of east Pakistan's politics.Bangladesh/East Pakistan was always democratic in nature,and it was one of the prime reason why we wanted to separate from West Pakistan.Which was Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib denied his rightful role as Prime minister,a democratically elected one.Advaita :
And thanks to the Sheikhs orders, the Army got him killed.
In a third world country which is until recently a part of Pakistan and has seen no democracy but have seen the money minting machine of Pakistan (the Pakistani Army). You consistently question the wisdom of avoiding Army……Why may I ask. Why are you blind to the fact that Army in such a weak society is the perfect source of uncertainity for the general populace…… Did that not eventually happen after Sheikh’s killing.
So saying Bangladesh had no experience in democracy shows your naiveness in this regard.
I am reminding you again,that Sheikh Mujib himself went against Bangladesh's constitution and formed Dictatorship through BAKSHAL.
Yes I agree Army in smaller countries like us tends to become power hungry.But Sheikh Mujib's killing was done mainly by mid-ranking soldiers.And the whole army did not support it either,thus we found coups after coups in next 2 years.
The reason I say army should not have been overlooked,because it brought his downfall.Had he not given Rakkhi bahini more importance than army,then probably he would not been assassinated.He created the platform and then perhaps 3rd,4th and 5th hands took the opportunity.
Let me ask you a question.If the Indian Prime minister forms a para-military force and starts giving more importance to it than army,how would Indian army react?
They would feel indignitiesed .That's natural.
What do you mean I support "Pakistani obscurantism, that you so readily support in the other forum."?Advaita :
You guys have no idea the risks India was running under the leadership of Indira Gandhi, to get rid of Pakistan from the East. WW-3 was already on the cards had India not returned the 90000 killers. Both India and BD populace were the biggest beneficiary of this (just look at the conditions in Pakistan today). This is called vision and risk taking ability. That BD populace has consistently shunned by simply behaving like herd of sheep vaccilating between the three power centres.
It was only save the subcontinent from hindu-muslim competition that Indiraji wanted to keep Sheikh in power and through him to let the BD populace have a chance to reject the Pakistani obscurantism, that you so readily support in the other forum.
Care to elaborate?or are you out of words that you started making personal remarks?
The approach Indira Gandhi took,was wrong.How did she expect that these people,who fought against India in 1965,will suddenly have love for India?
In 1971,India was our mutual friend.We needed to help,India provided it.India needed weaker Pakistan,we provided it.That does not mean we were in love with India.People's mentality does not change overnight.
She tried to take control of our country,in the form of a puppet Govt.Which is against our sovereignty and Bangladeshi people does not take this lightly.One has to understand the mentality of Bangladeshi people before dealing with Bangladesh.
What if USA tries to take control of Indian govt. to secure a secular govt. from Hindu political parties.How would you feel?
Now here you are comparing Bangladesh and India.Bangladesh,Pakistan...these are small countries.It is a lot easier to stage a coup in these countries.But India is HUGE.Its not that easy to stage a coup there.Forget the Russians.they have different story altogether.Advaita :
Aah but the same professional army officers were ok with serving the Dictator of 1965, Ayub Khan. Indiraji knew this and that is why Rakkhi Bahini. Also the failure to protect Sheikh Mujib was due not to the inability of Indians to forsee that Mujib’s killing this was a real possibility but due to the fact that those who wanted to kill him were the people who wanted to keep India on the boil. It was simple case of enemy being stronger or were they supplied by much stronger people (Pakistan+China+US had the best of relations during this period).
Those who had been part of the Pakistan Army had been highly trained professional even though they had been part of the set up that overthrew there own civil society, but the IA which came from exactly the same set up and never did anything against the civil society of India is a bunch of looters. Good direction you are taking in life…… whatever is left of it.
Yes,since you are so fond of rakkhi Bahini,I hope you should have been under their custody.tell me what role Rakkhi Bahin was assigned to and what they actually performed?They were violators of human rights.The kind of role RAB is playing now.But at least RAB does not interfere in politics.
It is easy to become a fan without knowing much.
I gave the names previously.Though none matches the popularity of Bangabandhu.Advaita :
Ok you name some other person suitable to lead BD at that time.
Sir, Indians only help beat the PA not the rot that was already there. Is it not be your job.
M A G Osmani,the commander of all Bangladeshi forces during liberation war.Was assigned with the charges of ministries of Post, Telegraph and Telephone, Communication, Shipping, Inland Water Transport and Aviation.But he resigned in 1974 in protest of Sheikh Mujib's introduction of BAKSHAL,which made Sheikh Mujib "President for life".And crushed democracy in Bangladesh.
Other names may be Maulana Bhashani,Tajuddin Ahmed and may be Zia ur Rahman.But the best choice was Sheikh Mujib,but he did not perform what was expected of him.
A word of caution:Advaita :
Now I think I am wasting my time even replying to you.
However, just so that Indians can somehow protect themselves from a Bangladeshi gone crazy, who will blame him for his own weaknesses, I think I will continue.
Ok granted the stupid logic that India could have killed him, what would India have gained by doing so when you yourself say that he did a lot to cooperate with Indians. Which gentleman would we have found to replace him…. Sir this logic fails for the simple reason that those who risked so much and carried such vision as to break up the Chipak combine in the eastern sector could never have acted so stupidly.
Sir the reality is we failed to protect the Sheikh precisely because someone else (or some such combines) much better at the job of covert killings of Country heads got to him first.
Pls don’t inject a conspiracy theory where the facts are just so clear.
Infact believe me we Indians see only Mujibda as someone in BD worth something good. This is well taught in our school systems that are dominated by the very same leftists against whom you posit the honourable Seikh was.
To us you guys are just a cesspool of corruption and shortsightness. And we only hope against hope that god may give you some good sense.
Do not distort my words to fulfill your purpose.
What did I say?
I hope you know the term conspiracy theorists.These and some other facts leads some conspiracy theorists to the belief that India might have ordered the killing of Sheikh Mujib,as he was getting out of control.
Now where does I say that India killed Sheikh Mujib?
I request you sir to have clear understanding of the writing before jumping up and down and terming me "crazy".Which BTW a personal attack.
Again you are blabbering making assumption.You are saying I reached conclusion that India killed Sheikh Mujib.What are you smoking sir?Advaita :
Kindly note the vaccilations in your own thesis. Sometime you are speculating some time you are cocksure, but all the same you finally reach the conclusion that Indians killed Mujibda. Sometime you posit that Mujibda was the best at times you say he was a criminal. Pls make up your mind what would it be this week.
Such incompetent conspiracy theories. Looks like you guys came out of Pakistan but Pakistan never went out of you.
Akhand Bharat theory, another one of your week ideas. See we in India (clear majority) are happy that you guys went out of India, that saved us from civil wars.
Didn't the India have a strategic gain in dividing Pakistan in two?How come this make me come to the conclusion that India killed Sheikh Mujib?
Look back at what you quoted and what you wrote.
Now I feel I could have used my time better instead of replying to you.