Majority of the victims during the partition were Muslims as they were a minority living in increasingly Hinduized India. Partition was brought about to end the massacres of Muslims, in particular, and reprisals by Muslims against Hindus and Sikhs in response. Violence was on both side, but the major victims were defenseless Muslims, particular those who were traveling to Pakistan for security from massacres.
Actually the violence referred to, is the violence by the Pakistanis Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP8.HTM
The situation of Muslims in India during the time of partition is analogous to the Albanians, Bosnians, and Kosovars during the dissolution of Yugoslavia. It is the exact same thing.
So the murder of more than 1 million Muslims by Hindu and Sikh extremists don't make the list, why? Also, there is no documented proof that more than 1 million people were killed in 1971 war. I don't see any citations in your list.
IIRC, the total number of deaths during the partition of India was estimated at one million, not just the Muslims. And that was not by any army or government. Did you know Sam Bahadur died recently?
"The historian branch of the State Department held a two-day conference on June 28 and 29 on US policy in South Asia between 1961 and 1972, inviting scholars from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh to express their views on the declassified documents. During the seminar, Bangladeshi scholars acknowledged that their official figure of more than 3 million killed during and after the military action was not authentic. They said that the original figure was close to 300,000, which was wrongly translated from Bengali into English as three million. Shamsher M. Chowdhury, the Bangladesh ambassador in Washington who was commissioned in the Pakistan Army in 1969 but had joined his country�s war of liberation in 1971, acknowledged that Bangladesh alone cannot correct this mistake. Instead, he suggested that Pakistan and Bangladesh form a joint commission to investigate the 1971 disaster and prepare a report. Almost all scholars agreed that the real figure was somewhere between 26,000, as reported by the Hamoodur Rahman Commission, and not three million, the official figure put forward by Bangladesh and India. Prof Sarmila Bose, an Indian academic, told the seminar that allegations of Pakistani army personnel raping Bengali women were grossly exaggerated. Based on her extensive interviews with eyewitnesses, the study also determines the pattern of conflict as three-layered: West Pakistan versus East Pakistan, East Pakistanis (pro-Independence) versus East Pakistanis (pro-Union) and the fateful war between India and Pakistan. Prof Bose noted that no neutral study of the conflict has been done and reports that are passed on as part of history are narratives that strengthen one point of view by rubbishing the other. The Bangladeshi narratives, for instance, focus on the rape issue and use that not only to demonize the Pakistan army but also exploit it as a symbol of why it was important to break away from (West) Pakistan. Prof Bose, a Bengali herself and belonging to the family of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, emphasized the need for conducting independent studies of the 1971 conflict to bring out the facts. She also spoke about the violence generated by all sides. �The civil war of 1971 was fought between those who believed they were fighting for a united Pakistan and those who believed their chance for justice and progress lay in an independent Bangladesh. Both were legitimate political positions. All parties in this conflict embraced violence as a means to the end, all committed acts of brutality outside accepted norms of warfare, and all had their share of humanity. These attributes make the 1971 conflict particularly suitable for efforts towards reconciliation, rather than recrimination,� says Prof Bose." http://www.dawn.com/2005/07/07/nat3.htm
You better inform that website then, apparently they are using American sources: Blood, Arthur K. "Conflict in East Pakistan: background and prospects." In BANGLADESH GENOCIDE AND WORLD PRESS, edited by Fazlul Quader Quaderi. Dacca, Bangladesh: Begum Dilafroz Quaderi, 1972, pp. 24-33 [this is a leaked top secret report prepared by the American Consul General in Dacca]. among others: The International Commission of Jurists (Geneva). "Part II: Legal Study of the Events in East Pakistan, 1971," in BANGLADESH ESTABLISHMENT ILLEGAL. Lahore, Pakistan: Fazalsons Publishers, 1972, pp. 1-98. TERROR IN EAST PAKISTAN: FOREIGN PRESS REPORTS ON ATROCITIES COMMITTED BY AWAMI LEAGUE AND ITS COLLABORATORS. East Pakistan Documentation Series, Karachi: Pakistan Publications, n.d. WHITE PAPER ON THE CRISES IN EAST PAKISTAN. Islamabad, Pakistan: Ministry of Information and National Affairs, 1971.
It is important to note that in Bangladesh, nearly 50% of the population is still Pro-Pakistan. Almost all the religious parties in Bangladesh, Jamaat e Islami being most prominent opposed Bangladeshi independence in favor of union with Pakistan. Almost all Muslim minorities in Bangladesh such as the Bihar and people from Assam are Pro-Pakistan, and Bengali nationalism has read to deterioration of rights and massacres of Non-Bengalis. Sheikh Mujib himself, today, is one of the most hated leaders in Bangladesh by common people and religious, and also most loved of nationalists and secularist elite.
Umm, do you know any Bangalis? I worked with plenty of them in Saudi Arabia and believe me, they are NOT pro-Pakistan. On the other hand, I will say that we no longer have any anti-Pakistan movies in India, as was common before.
Bells, It was closer to being "atheist" than it was "theist", and I can argue my point convincingly. The Armenian genocide was administered by the Three Pashas (Ismail Enver Pasha, Mehmed Talat Pasha, and Ahmed Djemal Pasha) of the Ottoman Empire, who ruled from the 1913 coup all the way to the Ottoman Empire's dissolution following World War One. The Three Pashas were of the self-described "Young Turks" movement, which was the embodiment of various groups favoring drastic reform in the Ottoman Empire. The Young Turks movement was comprised mainly of rabidly secular, irreligious military officials and students who wanted to remove Islam from the law, favoring a "secular" constitution free of religious involvement. Many people don't know this, but the Young Turks movement's most prominent figures included many Pagan-Jews and crypto-Jews, who were under the command of various European figures itching for the Ottoman Empire's involvement in the first World War, and for its ultimate destruction. Well, under the Three Pashas, both of those wishes came true: the Ottoman Empire joined the World War, and the Ottoman Empire was destroyed by the end of the war. What does all of this have to do with the Armenian genocide? Well, the Armenian genocide was carried out by the Three Pashas, who were the members of the Young Turks movement (which, I have shown, consisted mainly of Paganistic-"Jews" and secular, irreligious military members fighting for a secular constitution). The Three Pashas and nearly all of the Young Turks were atheists. I don't believe that's true. Most sources indicate that Hitler was a fierce atheist who just so happened to have relations with the Church (for political reasons, one can imagine). Yes, he used the word "God" in his speeches, but that was simply to appeal to the German masses. The Nazi genocide of the Jews wasn't completely in the hands of Hitler, considering many prominent Nazi officials offered the idea and insisted on its execution. Nazism is an ideology created by atheists and practiced by atheists. The only theists of Nazi Germany were quite possibly the soldiers/civilians themselves, due to their upbringing. The "top guns" calling the shots at the top were atheist Nazis. Nazism has no affiliation whatsoever with Christianity; it's a byproduct of atheism, which is apparent enough when we see the creators of the ideology were all atheists. Kadark the Creator
The point is that not all people, especially Pakistanis, religious Bengalis, and Indian Muslims, believe Indian and Bengali nationalist version of history. By furthering one point of view as absolute, with definite exaggeration of historical fact, this is used to promote hated and bigoted view of Pakistan in India and Bangladesh. Incidentally, do you know India is building dams on Bangladesh rivers and erecting a wall around Bangladesh? India, South Asia's Israel.
They might as well, considering how many Bangladeshis keep pouring in as refugees. I don't know why they don't just combine into one country. As for teh numbers I think the sources look pretty good.
Yes, I have many Bengali friends. Many love Pakistan and Indian Muslims, we are all one people. India wants to divide Muslims against each other. In your case, they have succeeded.
You have a way with words. It's called sophistry, Your original argument was that he killed people because they were theists. What is a non-religious reason ? You are now talking rubbish.
No, my original and constant argument has been that the record for mass murders in the twentieth century is held by atheists. So atheists foaming about religious violence is rather like the US foaming about Iran's nuclear program.
No, most Muslims have nothing against Hindus, except those who support BJP and RSS and Narendra Modi who killed 3,000 innocent Muslims in Gujurat in 2001. Muslims, especially in India, are generally closer friends to Christians than Hindus because both are oppressed by Hindu society.
