Jump to content

Talk:East Pakistan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Merger Issue

Why should this be merged with History of Bangladesh? Southern Ireland, Irish Free State, Éire are not merged into History of the Republic of Ireland. --Henrygb 01:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree Secondly this can also be a part of History of Pakistan. Third in future if get gets further addition like population, geography, capital, goverment 'history of bangladash' article will get too length and then we will be in need of creating this article again.
Zain 20:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Suggestions

I'll suggest, if we keep in mind, expected future expansion of both articles 'history of bangladash' and 'East Pakistan' (expansion is must if we see the pace at which wikipedia is growing), we should give 'East Pakistan' Heading in 'History of Bangladash' and refer this article as main article for viewing more detail. Additional benifit will be if some body is looking for the term 'East Pakistan' in wikipedia he will quickly see the result.

Zain 20:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The following content was added on 14 September 2008 by 92.21.46.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in seven edits from 02:13 to 2:43 ; one of these edits (at 02:27) included reversion of an immediately preceding bot placement of an {{unsignedip2}} sig.

My humble suggestion is may be include it in both, or simply keep it separate; although it has fundamentally more to do with Bangladesh's history. On a similar note, articles like 'Southern Ireland', 'Irish Free State', 'Éire' should be merged into 'History of the Republic of Ireland' as well as merged into the equivalent article for UK's History; although these articles are more to do with the Rep of Ireland and Irish history. (From IQBAL50000)

Merger with East Bengal (province)

The section on history between 1905-12 can and should be removed from here, as the region had nothing to do with Pakistan at that time. I disagree with the proposal that this article needs to be merged with content from East Bengal (province), as the status quo is correctly reflecting history now. Thanks. --Ragib 21:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rather than having two discussions at the two Talk pages, could it all take place at Talk:East Bengal (province)? It just makes things a bit easier. I've copied the above comment over. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV-section

I've put a {{POV-section}} marker on the "After independence from British Rule" section. Specific points which I feel need addressing:

  • frequent exploitation of the majority Bengalis - please provide some examples
  • infuriated sensible people - not a neutral phrase; it is not for an encyclopedia to judge whether or not people are sensible
  • one of the bloodiest genocides of recent times - needs numbers (even if only estimates) and checkable sources; "it's common knowledge" isn't good enough for an encyclopedia.
  • innocent Bengali civilians - again, not a neutral phrase, unless their innocence is shown by checkable sources.

Important: please note that I'm not disputing the facts of the matter, merely the way in which they are presented. Loganberry (Talk) 01:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing these things out, I've added the references, and edited comments to remove POV in the areas you mentioned. Having done that, I've removed the POV tag. Thanks. --Ragib 02:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay, that seems to have addressed all my concerns, and I have no argument with the removal of the POV tag. Thanks for responding so quickly. Loganberry (Talk) 11:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Merger

I would keep this as a separate article, but remove sections which pre/post-date East Pakistan. I think it was "East Pakistan" for a significant time, and deserves its own article, as with the various divisions of Ireland (see above), or the Soviet Union having a separate article to the Russian Empire. --MacRusgail 15:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Refrences for: East Pakistan's export earnings had been 70% of national total, while it only received 25% of the earnings.

Do you people have some actual refrences or articles to back the statement below? "East Pakistan's export earnings had been 70% of national total, while it only received 25% of the earnings."

What made east pak so special that it generated 70% of the national total ? considering the cituation today this seems totally absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalsurgeon (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 09:25, 18 March 2006


Jute --Ragib 15:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


According to the CIA factbook (first thing that pops up when you google 'bangladesh exports', Bangladesh has exports of US$7.5B, compared to US$15B for Pakistan, so that would make 33% of the combined total. That doesn't fit the figure given in the article, but it's not impossible that (west) Pakistan's exports have grown faster since 1971. So not substantiated, but not absurd either. 67.180.32.251 05:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in the article unless it can be verified. john k 16:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


See
  • Pakistan, Planning Commission, An Outline of the Fourth Five Year Plan, 1970-75, p. 26
  • Anthony Hyman, Pakistan: Towards a Modern Muslim State?, Research Institute for the Study of Conflict and Terrorism, 1990, p. 4.
The first source shows that the development expenditure between 1960-65 were (69% in West Pakistan vs 31% in East Pakistan). Between 1965-70, the expediture was split 64%/36%. Other sources state that the data between 1947-1960 is skewed toward West Pakistan further. As for The question placed by anon 67.180.*, you can't compare the GDP's of last year to extrapolate the GDP's between 1947-1970. And as I have replied to Digitalsurgeon earlier, in the 1950s, the price of Jute skyrocketed, especially during the Korean War. That accounts for why the Eastern wing earned so much more than the western wing. Thanks. --Ragib 16:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


Problem with section

Read the section "Independence of Bangladesh", the first paragraph seems to say the same as the first few lines of the second paragraph.... 86.130.233.183 11:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


I'm interested in how the two parts of Pakistan (East and West) were governed when their enemy India was in between them. Were there air links etc? Could someone write a section on this if they know anything about it? Thanks.--Wikipediatastic 13:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

(1000-year dream)

Clearly the contributor misunderstood the effect (or lack thereof) of using ENTERs that are not followed by <BR />; hopefully i have not mistakenly changed the meaning of anything by any of my break-insertions, or hopefully someone will fix the damage. Jerzy•t 20:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

1000 - years . A Dream of Dhakka Born Pakistani in 2011 -
REINCARNATION
2013 - TO 2063
FOR FIFTY YEARS THE PRIME MINSTER OF PAKISTAN WILL BE ELECTED AND POSTED FROM PRESENT BANGLADESH HOLDING THE SEAT OF PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN.
THE HEAD QUARTER OF PAKISTAN ARMED FORCES WILL BE IN ISLAMABAD -
THE PRESIDENCY WILL BE IN DHAKKA - REGIONAL HEAD QUARTER OF PAKISTAN NAVY WILL BE IN CHITTAGONG - .
PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN WILL BE FROM WEST PAKISTAN -FOR 50 YEARS -
TO OVERCOME THE HARD FEELINGS OF 1971 - THE FREEDOM FIGHTERS OF BOTH COUNTRY WILL BE THE HEROES OF UNITED PAKISTAN -
ECONOMIC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE HEAD QUARTER WILL BE IN DHAKKA.
the rebelions and martyrs of both countrys will be the heroes and tied themselves in the bonding of brotherhood.
in all key posts bengalis will be preffered the ministry of defense and project will be in the hold of east pakistan -or now called bangladesh .All our F-16s will be your's All our Atomic Achievements will be shared with your's history.all our newly developed supersonic all weather jet fighter JF -17 with the joint initiatives of Pepoles Republic Of China .capability wise equal to F - 16 will be your's
Reunification of east pakistan(now called bangladesh)with present atomic pakistan.
mode of understanding -through the 3 - houses of pakistan assembly senate - national assembly provincial assembly -legal endorsement through the supreme court of pakistan with refrence to the result of 1971 general elections of united pakistan to be restored - signed in Dhakka interms of the following agreement endorsed by the both countrys palimeantarians and joint signatures of the chief justices of supreme courts with the endorsement of the present highest office representatives of the both countries:
this reunification of 2 wings of pakistan on the basis of reincarnation t o the people of present pakistan (west pakistan) and the east pakistan now called as bangladesh:
this reunification is pivotlly based on the true principles of islam
Faith on Almighty Allah - One Book One Prophet - One Flag - One Coin One Army - and the democratic headquarter of the Pakistan Assembly will be in Dhakka - East Pakistan - (Bangladesh) and therough this activity we will amuse the departed soul of the Quid e Azam and to return this myth that WE WANT THE PAKISTAN OF QUID E AZAM MOHUMMAD ALI JINNAH .
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohummad omar masood qudsi (talk • contribs) 22:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

    While it is not an explicit corollary of our guideline on shouting, it is very much in the spirit of that to recall that
Shouting does not automatically meant that the shouter is anything worse than excited, and sometimes even actual idiots will shout out rational arguments.
On the other hand, shouting is always annoying, and is also likely to interfere with reasoned appreciation of any valuable thoughts the shouter is expressing. IMO each of those factors means that the shouting guideline can be a reason to downcase shouted content, with the goal of promoting the atmosphere of the talk page in question, and/or that of aiding the shouter's goal of having their thoughts adequately considered by their colleagues. It seems to me i have occasionally de-shouted others' talk contribs with those goals in mind, especially in more active discussions, with a note at least in the edit history indicated i had done so.
     In this case, i am the first to comment after over 5 weeks' hiatus, so perhaps the best procedure is as follows:
  1. I invite the colleague to de-shout their own contrib (and to consider also striking it thru thus, to be supplemented with a restatement of any relevant ideas that will amount to an argument for improving the accompanying article, rather than defying our WP:SOAPBOX policy.
  2. Accelerated archiving of the contrib if a decent interval passes without its conversion into something appropriate to this talk page.
--Jerzy•t 22:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Anthem and other issues

When I served as a US Peace Corps RPW Volunteer in "East Pakistan" in 1964-65, we learned and spoke Bengali (no Urdu). We also sang a Bengali Anthem. I came here looking for the words, finding instead the Pakistan Anthem -- and all the conflict that even then characterized the divided country -- leading to the horrible war and separation.

"Purbo Bangla, shamoli-mie. Pancha nodir tieri ouh-runi nie. ...." -- or something like that -- a beautiful anthem that needs proper reference.

East and West Pakistan WERE unique, and as such the subject requires unique solutions to otherwise difficult, non-typical issues. I believe "East Pakistan" deserves a Wikipedia section, one that should be limited to the time of E. Pak's existence -- with links to and from other relevant past, future or related topic-areas. Sobeit. HalFonts (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

added quality and neutrality tags

I added the quality and neutrality tags. There are grammatical errors in the introduction (missing articles, "negotiations were failed", "far more greater", etc.), and lots of strong claims without citations ("the elections were heavily rigged", "brutally defeated" (twice), "is often regarded as [negative judgements]", etc.). The quality and neutrality of the introduction is far below usual Wikipedia standards; I haven't read through the entire article but other sections (e.g. "Dissolution of East Pakistan") seem to have similar issues. Joriki (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

There are no tags, but the quality issues are certainly still present in the form of grammatical errors. This article needs the attention of editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.69.224 (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Horrible inaccuracy

This article seems to be written by a Pakistani right-wing extremist. I'm amazed at how the pan-Bengali United Front alliance is reduced to being communist, when all its leaders were liberals and social democrats. The whole article is full of falsehood.--ChaudhryAzan (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The Communist party was never in power in East Pakistan, it was not even considered a credible party. And it was Bengali liberal democrats like Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy who were the architects of Pakistan's relationship with America. The soviets were completely irrelevant in east pakistan since most socialist and leftist parties, led by Maulana Bhashani, were allied with China and Maoism. --ChaudhryAzan (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Well we move here with sources, reliable ones. If you have reliable sources in support of your opinion, feel free to fix those errors. I am glad you have already performed most of the fixes. Thanks. Faizan 10:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The entire article is disgustingly one sided. Every section needs to be rewritten. I highly doubt whether the citations actually support the content, which is a very distorted POV. The tags must be kept, it needs attention from an expert.--ChaudhryAzan (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Faizan, don't remove the tags unless a consensus is reached here, you are doing the same thing in Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh.--Zayeem (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Your comment is quite hilarious, you just made a revert and posted a comment Edit warring over tags is not the solution here.--Zayeem (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
It was -ChaudhryAzan who was edit warning. Mar4d just tried to solve the conflict. Faizan 13:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
An edit war includes two or more participants, surely you and, after that revert, Marad can also be accused of edit warring. Anyway, my point was that it seemed quite hilarious that he first got himself involved in the edit war and posted a comment Edit warring over tags is not the solution here.--Zayeem (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I clearly explained my reasons on the talk page. Despite that, you began and kept on with edit warring. --ChaudhryAzan (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Keep the tags. It's obvious that this is a poor quality article, and with an absolute right-wing Pakistani bias. It's basic POV is that communists ruled in East Pakistan and that all Bengali movements were driven by communism. Which is absurd considering none of the main political parties in East Pakistan subscribed to communism. It's full of false information, that Communists won elections (they hardly existed) and that East Pakistan had "hostile diplomatic relations" with America and China.
The article needs input from Bangladeshi experts, not a bunch of disgusting Pakistani rightists. Moreover, shouldn't it focus more on the general provincial status of East Pakistan (ie governance and economy) rather than all history? So the tags on neutrality, factual accuracy and appeals for Bangladeshi expertise must be kept.--ChaudhryAzan (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Not a voting competition. A discussion is being turned into a ballot box here. Tags can be kept my identifying the real issues only. It is not a voting competition. Abusing "Pakistanis" of bias can be taken to ANI as a personal attack. Faizan 13:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I know you love gaming the system User:Faizan. As usual, you attempt to divert from the substance. "Pakistanis" have not been accused of anything here. The article if full of despicably false information and has a horridly biased POV leaning towards the views of a hawkish establishment in Pakistan.--ChaudhryAzan (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Since an editor has put forth some concerns, there is no harm in keeping the tags until the dispute is resolved.--Zayeem (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Move more specifically. Just saying that there are issues is not enough. How those issues are? They have not been elaborated, you people love to play with Twinkle. Faizan 14:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The issues are stated above, the article emphasizes on the roles o Communist Party while according to Azan, it was not a major party in East Pakistan, there are also some concerns over socialism in East Pakistan.--Zayeem (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The issue is that the United Front alliance and the National Awami Party, which dominated East Pakistani politics, are for some ridiculous reason termed as Communists and Marxists instead of their actual names and party roles. For example, it says the Communist Party of Pakistan won elections in 1954 and governed East Pakistan, whereas in reality it was the United Front not the communists. It's a humongous distortion of facts.--ChaudhryAzan (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Azan, I suggest just be bold and perform your edits keeping in mind the policies, make sure you are familiar with WP:W2W and add references from reliable sources to support your claim. Then wait for others' concerns regarding your edits and address them. Meanwhile there shouldn't be any reverts by Faizan and co, instead of reverting, express your concerns here and wait for the editor to address them.--Zayeem (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Zayeem, WikiProject Bangladesh should recruit an expert for developing atleast a reasonable coverage of Bangladeshi history in Wikipedia. At present, it's limited just to the liberation war and the language movement, nothing about the history of politics in bengal, east pakistan and post-independence bangladesh. As for this article, it's too messed up and anyone with the slightest knowledge of this era will laugh it off. I'm sorry but I consider myself too opinionated to restructure the whole article. But I had to challenge the distortion of the most basic facts.--ChaudhryAzan (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources

On what is an historical article I am stunned to see the sources used here, I am removing the obvious junk ones, others will be tagged as RS so they can be discussed. 14:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was also concerned about the reliability of the sources.--Zayeem (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
@Zayeem Great contributor. I respect these great concerns. Faizan 14:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I just counted 11 sections which have no sources and am going to remove them. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Will tags work? I have added those related to sources. Give it sometime, I will try my best. Otherwise I can move the text to sandbox, and reinstate it after getting sources. But it would be better to give it a few days. Faizan 14:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Some I know for a fact can be reliably sourced, a lot I know for a fact cannot. The entire article needs to be rewritten, it is totally screwed. I suppose I will have to do it in userspace over the next few weeks/months. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Sure, I have restored the section. It is mainly about migration/partition, and I am pretty sure we can easily find reliable sources concerning that. Faizan 15:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
DS, instead of removing I guess adding {{citation needed}} would be better so that we can verify those later. Also, I'm primarily concerned about the section title Socialist-Communist rule, as an editor pointed above, the communists were present in East Pakistan, but were not as influential as this article states. The title should be changed in my opinion.--Zayeem (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Already removed communist, pure POV driven guilt by association. I am tagging this article as factually inaccurate, as in so obviously is. Any editor removing that tag had better be prepared to explain themselves. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
No, I am not going to remove it. Hope that the article catches upon the standard. Faizan 15:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Like I said, I will rewrite it in userspace then overwrite the junk here with that, am still working on fixing this however so it will be a week at least. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Zayeem, its not just socialist-communists but the whole article is a monumental piece of crap. It's fundamental point of view and structure is wrong. Most of the sections are pure rubbish (the "civil disobedience" section is hilarious). This article would better serve a text book in Pakistani military school rather than Wikipedia.--ChaudhryAzan (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

What on earth

This is the most disgusting article in Wikipedia. I know Pakistanis can be delusional, but this is fucking shit.--31.205.56.85 (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

This is monstrous, can someone delete this please? This deserves to be deleted, or at least blanked out. It is the most hideous piece of history writing on the internet --31.205.56.85 (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC).

Can you please be more specific. -- SMS Talk 05:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Do I really have to be specific? I don't know where to start, the blatant inaccuracy or the rampant anti-Bengali prejudice? All I can see is that Bengali cultural nationalism is labelled as communist, which is rather amusing, considering the Communist Party hardly existed in mainstream East Pakistan politics. And how could East Pakistan have diplomatic relations when it was not even a country?! --31.205.56.85 (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Provincial symbols

East pakistan never ever had any flag , seal and Co! Most of those edition are baseless, fantasy work. If anyone can provide a single source i will restore all of those edition. Citation tags are there almost 2 years!-78.34.62.253 (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Exaggeration

There may have been a lot of support, but to claim that the "East's population unanimously voted for Fatima Jinnah during the 1965 presidential elections against Ayub Khan" is impossible.Royalcourtier (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Submitting proposal to delete part of a sentence. This is a major edit.

In the introduction, there is a sentence:

″As response to this operation, the Awami League announced the declaration of independence of East Pakistan on 26 March 1971 and began an armed struggle against Pakistan, with India staunchly supporting Awami League by the means of providing arm ammunition to its guerrilla forces.″

The reference given for this statement (#17) is an invalid link.

I propose that the above sentence be changed to:

″As response to this operation, the Awami League announced the declaration of independence of East Pakistan on 26 March 1971 and began an armed struggle against Pakistan.″

Since there is no reference provided regarding India's involvement in the "struggle", I hereby request that the latter part of the sentence be deleted.


Furthermore, I submit that the 2nd sentence on the wiki on INDO-PAKISTANI WAR OF 1971 states that ″Indian, Bangladeshi and international sources consider the beginning of the war to have been Operation Chengiz Khan, when Pakistan launched pre-emptive air strikes on 11 Indian airbases on 3 December 1971, leading to India's entry into the war of independence in East Pakistan on the side of Bangladeshi nationalist forces, and the commencement of hostilities with West Pakistan.″ THIS sentence has two valid reference links which may be verified.

Amitbalani (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

This sentence, "East Pakistan was located near, without a border, to the Kingdom of Nepal, the People's Republic of China, the Kingdom of Sikkim and the Kingdom of Bhutan" is peculiar. Is it meant to mean East Pakistan was located near, but without sharing a border with, the Kingdom of Nepal etc.? I'm not going to change it as I'm not certain what is meant. However, the sentence as it stands is confusing. freshacconci (✉) 18:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Your guess at the meaning is probably correct. Although it's true, I can't imagine any other encyclopedia describing an area that way. It doesn't summarize anything in the body of the article either. I've removed it. Doubtless it isn't the only part of the article that needs an overhaul. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on East Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Status in infobox

There has been recent disagreement over whether the status field of the infobox should display:

  1. "Eastern provincial wing of Pakistan" or
  2. "Former eastern wing of Pakistan".

This article uses {{Infobox former country}}. The dates of establishment and disestablishment make clear that all territories that use this infobox are "former". There is no advantage to labeling aspects of the territory "former" - former flag, former capital, former government, former area, ad nauseum. According to Template:Infobox former country/doc, status describes the relationship between the political entity and other entities at the time (as opposed to in earlier times, later times, or the present, which are covered respectively by fields "Preceded by", "Succeeded by", and "Today part of"). At the time East Pakistan existed, it was the eastern provincial wing of Pakistan. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Worldbruce This is exactly what I tried to convince the user but the user refused to engage. I believe the user is a LTA and has edited similarly on other pages before. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Coat of arms of East Pakistan

East Pakistan seems to have its own coat of arms, according to : http://hubert-herald.nl/INHOUD.htm. In the Bangladesh page. Rayan54 (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, remove West Pakistan (Pakistan) coat of arms until a .svg East Pakistan coat of arms will be upload Rayan54 (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Rayan54: I did some further digging and you are correct that indeed East Pakistan had a different emblem and what was present on that page was West Pakistan's (and now Pakistan's) coat of arms. It should be removed. In the future, please initiate a discussion on the talk page to justify your removal of content. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: Yes a coat of arms similar to the coat of arms of dominion of Pakistan, thank you for the advise. Rayan54 (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Why did east pakistan separate from west pakistan

why did east pakistan separate from west pakistan 123.253.92.49 (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_Pakistan/Archive_1&oldid=1160036849"