The Breakaway of East Pakistan - Assignment Example

The Breakaway of East Pakistan 1. Discuss (explain and give examples) as fully as you are able the following statement by "Husain Haqqani on page 87". “The breakaway of East Pakistan to become Bangladesh was the most traumatic event in Pakistan’s short life as an independent nation.” Haqqani's previous statement is an understatement. The civil war between West and East Pakistan pit neighbor against neighbor. It had not been a long time since Pakistan had split from India. When the civil war began, it was not only between the Punjab and Bengals. The West and East also had involvement. The United States did not want Bangladesh to be influenced by communist Russia. Communist Russia did not want the United States to have influence in the region. It was not only traumatic for Pakistan, but Pakistan's neighbors, like India, and the other countries invested in the region. Due to the background of the abandonment of secular thinking in Pakistan after the defeat at the hands of India in 1971, the Bengals rebelled, resulting in the birth of Bangladesh (Haqqani 88). The Bengals wanted to have a government more secular, while the Punjab wanted an Islamic government. Pakistan did not want to be divided, so fought against the Bengal effort to create Bangladesh. Haggani gave examples of the notorious Al Shams and Al Badr Islamic groups that assisted the Pakistani Military in 1971 in then East Pakistan, and how the army created these strategic forces within committed Islamists to form what he called “The Mosque-Military Alliance” (88). Despite the efforts of the Islamists in what was then East Pakistan, the Bengals split with Pakistan with help from India and communist Russia. The other traumatic factor in the formation of Bangladesh is the encouragement of fundamental Islam in Bangladesh. Many terrorists find a haven in Bangladesh for terroristic groups to plot and conspire. This all goes back to the root of Pakistan creating fervor in the Mosques of Bangladesh (Haqqani 89). This has been currently causing problems not only for Bangladesh, but Pakistan and India as well. 2. What impact has Pervez Musharraf’s state of emergency on present-day political life of Pakistan? Is the public response to the emergency a factor in Musharraf’s decision to resign as Army Chief of Staff ? The state of emergency in Pakistan definitely impacted the political life in Pakistan. When Musharraf declared the state of emergency, he in effect shut down his political rivals, lawyers, judges, and critics by imprisoning them, guaranteeing his reelection. The state of emergency was declared a few days before the Pakistani Supreme Court was to decide the validity of Musharraf's reelection. The election was a farce with any real competition being exiled or resigning out of fear. The Supreme Court probably would have overturned the election, but was never given the chance. The state of emergency also shut down television stations and other media outlets. The state of emergency has given control of the entire political life in Pakistan into Musharraf's hands. The public has denounced Musharraf. The public disapproval was probably the reason Musharraf's decision to call for a state of emergency. Part of the public disapproval revolves around the state of emergency, but also around the total military control of Pakistani politics. The Pakistani people disapproved of the election that was not a real election, but an affirmation of Musharraf. The public disapproval led to Musharraf resigning as Army Chief of Staff. However, he remains the president of Pakistan for the next five years. Although Musharaff resigned, he appointed a supported to the position. In an ideal world, Musharaff's power would be limited as president alone, but since he appointed a supporter, Musharaff's power is still the same. His resignation did not change anything, save for appease the Western countries that support his regime. 3. Do you agree with the following statement by Haqqani. Explain and provide examples to support your argument. “In an effort to become an ideological state guided by a praetorian military, Pakistan has found itself accentuating its dysfunction, especially during the past two decades. The commitment or lack of commitment of the ordinary Pakistani citizen to Islam has hardly been a major in Pakistan’s evolution.” I agree with this statement. Pakistani leaders are part of the military, or now appoint the military leaders. These leaders have ruled through the military. The military gave these leaders power, not Islam. The Pakistani people are more likely to obey the Pakistani government, than Islamic beliefs. If the Pakistani people had more fear or respect of Islam, than of the government, more citizens would be helping the Taliban in the region. The Pakistani people would protest more about the Westernization that US troops bring to bases in Pakistan. An example would be Saudi Arabia. Even though America used bases in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf war, the citizens did not approve. The Saudi government is based on Islam. Pakistani use military force, instead of speeches or justification of their actions through Islam. Musharaff's state of emergency was a military tactic, not an Islamic tactic. Instead of calling for a jihad against his opposition, Musharaff called a state of emergency. The reason Pakistan uses military force instead of Islamic power is Pakistanis believe in Islam. Musharaff could not attack his opponents by saying they are Westernized, Christian, or Jewish. His opponents disagree over his policy, not his religion. When split from India, Islam was an important issue. However today the issue is military and totalitarian power in Pakistan. 4. How as the Babri masjid Ramjanma Bhumi crisis affected Hindu and Muslim relations in India and Pakistan? The Babri masjid Ramjanma Bhumi crisis has negatively effected Hindu and Muslim relations in India And Pakistan. In India the conflict has caused racial tensions between the two religions. The Hindu Nationalist movement has been pressing for reclaiming of Muslim buildings that were supposedly built on Hindu holy sites. This is not agreeable to the minority Muslim community, who argue that Muslim leaders of the past have nothing to do with the present. They also argue that even if Muslim influence destroyed temples, that the Muslims enriched and influenced Indian life positively. Secular individuals are opposed to Hindus reclaiming these sites for several reasons. The first is the almost impossibility of proving which sites were Hindu, before they were Muslim. Most of these Muslim mosques were built centuries ago. There is little or no proof of what was there before. When there is proof of a previous Hindu temple, the secularists argue that it can never be restored fully. The debate is similar to the one in Jerusalem. The Jews and Muslims believe that the city is Holy. Instead of working to preserve what is supposed to be Holy, both sides seem determined to destroy the sites to hurt the other group for historical slights and wars. Instead of respecting the other religion, the Hindus chose to tear down Mosques like the one at Ayodhya. In turn, the Muslims chose to deny the proof of former Hindu temples. The lack of respect hurt both sides, keeping the tension between the Hindus and Muslims at a boiling point all the time. Reference Bose, S. and A. Jalal. Modern South Asia History, Culture, Political Economy. 2nd Edition. New York, 1997. Haqqani, Husain. Between Mosque and Military. USA: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2005. Read More