“I find the whole concept of Martial races offensive it’s a left over of the Imperial Rulers. The Mughal’s had the same concept about Rajputs and Pashtuns as the British. The sad fact is both people have left themselves in a state of total ruin. Economically the most deprived people.
The Tamils were also considered non martial races, They served Tip Sultan most loyally and inflicted many a defeat on the British.”
Sir, it was not my intention to offend. I am not talking about “who” has considered “whom” a martial race. I based my arguments on history (If you reread my message you will see that). Your statement about Tamils is true, and I will even go ahead to include the Ksashmiris fighting for independence to further solidify your point. However the reality (as per History) is that niether Kashmiris nor Tamils have a history of intermittent warfare or a large scale military participation. The Pakhtuns have historically been warlike people and I don’t need to remind you of that tradition continuing to this day (Afghanistan & Pakhtun tribals of Pakistan). As for the Rajputs, they fought their was into S. Asia and even to this day constitute a very large portion of Pakistan’s military and fought against attacks from Afghanistan in India. So compare that to your Tamils whose LTTE movement is a mere abherration in the timeline of world’s history: The Pakhtuns and Rajputs ARE Martial Races.
“The Americans and the britsh had a similair concept about the Japanese( and Chinese), who according to them were short by stature and hence could not achieve Western Concepts of Height for Army recruitment,
Something similair happened in Pakistan, something which Air Marshal Asghar Khan, alluded to when he was Air Force Chief and lowered the height requirement. A similair argument is used against Baluchis and Sindhi’s as well as Mohajirs for that matter( non martial) .”
I didn’t know stature has ANYTHING at all with being a martial race. That may be a stereotype in your mind, however where did I mention that you have to be TALL to be warlike? I don’t understand why you want every race to martial anyway? it is not exactly a matter of pride because Bengalis and Sindhis being non-martial, allowed their cultures and languages to develop, which is definately more beneficial than being in constant conflict. ANY one can fight when provoked, but what I’m referring to has more to do with the cultural ethos.
“The non martial Japanese inflicted the most spectacular defeat against Russia in the beginning of the 20th Century. The non martial Vietnamese did the same to the Americans, and The Chinese nearly routed the Americans in Korea (despite the Chinese being short of logistics weapons etc)”
Do you know about Japan? I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be rude but you should definately read up on Japanese history (very facinating)their history is FULL of Samurai and Shoganate traditions. In NO way are the Japanese non-martial! Compared to the Chinese, their Kingdoms have always been aggresively warlike and WW II is the manifestation of that tradition. The Vietnamese were fighting a purely defensive war on their own territory and I don’t even want to bring up the political aspects of the war with the Viet Cong having the sympathies of the people, and the domestic turmoil in the US. Finally, when did CHINESE soldiers fight against the US in Korea? All the Chinese did was to provide material and logistics support.
“As for Bengalis, please check up on your history, the Muslim League was formed in Dhaka..the pakistan Resolution was tabled by a Bengali, the only place Jinnah managed to attract large rallies was in Bengal in the beginning of his tehrik…”
Yes sir I do know my history and the facts about ML and the Pakistan are true indeed. My question to you is that: With the facts that you mentioned, does that somehow make them “immune” from criticism, as in taking part in the Pakistan movement? With deference, I ask you, why would you help build a house only to dismantle half of it? Jinnah’s main support was NOT the Bengalies though. The Pakistan Movement was fervently and most unequivocally supported by the Muslims who came from what is present day India. From the majority of the the leadership, to the rallies, to the migration it is Muslims who migrated from India that deserve MUCH of the credit and that is why Urdu (the language of the migrants and the Indentity of Muslims of S. Asia) became the integral part of Pakistan. To be balanced, I am not denying the significant support from the Bengalies and other Pakistanis.
“I don’t question the Mukhti bahini was involved in atrocties. But do tell me when you hear of 250,000 deaths in Bosnia..or Checnya, what would your response be?..That they deserved it?”
Of course not! I don’t think any deaths are justifiable whether those being killed are Muslim or not. Like I said before, no one can condone the actions of the military but do not forget also forget these prsent day realities of an independent Bangladesh:
- Pakistan & India are nuclear powers, where is Bangladesh? Not that I am condoning Nuclear weapons, but both people of India/Pakistan can atleast be proud of their progress and abilities.
- What is Bangladesh’s status in the world arena? Less than Pakistan/India?
- Are food shortages, weather related calamities a regular (anticipated) occurrance in India/Pakistan? Nope only in bangladesh due to the geographic location.
I have more points but I reserve them in the interests of time and space. Please don’t get me wrong, I am not bashing Bangladeshes existance, however I bring up the instances where they lost out in leaving Pakistan. By all means if “Amar Sonar Bangla” and “Joi Bangla” are any indications, then I wish every Bangladeshi the best of luck in building their country.
Now that I have answered all your questions. You answer mine:
The raison d’eitre for Bangladesh is Bengali nationalism, correct?
Then when are they planning to annex West Bengal and it’s jewel Kolkata?
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/biggrin.gif
The man for whom law exists - the man of forms, the conservative -is a tame man.
- Thoreau