What's new

Featured Several killed as Modi's Bangladesh visit sparks violent protests

They are religious nuts...do madarsa educated moulvis and mullas represent ur country?
RelIgious nuts? Of course they are. Anyone who opposes the partly free autocracy that you come from must be a religious nut.

Your follow up question is better directed elsewhere btw. You forget that Modi was once sanctioned by USA and EU for his past record of religious nutocracy.
 
RelIgious nuts? Of course they are. Anyone who opposes the partly free autocracy that you come from must be a religious nut.

Your follow up question is better directed elsewhere btw. You forget that Modi was once sanctioned by USA and EU for his past record of religious nutocracy.
@SoulSpokesman @colonel rajesh @KedarT @VkdIndian @lightoftruth @Sharma Ji @masterchief_mirza @jamahir

Why can't religious nuts represent a country? India is proudly represented by religious nuts globally.
Below is a list of organizations representing India globally :
See also: List of Hindu nationalist political parties
 
How about these rioters ? Are they savages too ? ( Link )
Bajrang-Dal-getty-e1528968363129.jpg
Look like dharma warriors to me, no problem as long as they're at home in India.

I'd expect you Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Afghans etc to mow them down mercilessly if they showed up in your Islamic countries.
 
Look like dharma warriors to me, no problem as long as they're at home in India.

I'd expect you Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Afghans etc to mow them down mercilessly if they showed up in your Islamic countries.

Peaceful "dharma warriors" .
Err .,, will they go to Bangladesh and. Pakistan to defend the "dharma" there ? How about defending Kashmiri Pundits in Kashmir?
Or is their valor only directed at the sub-human wretches in the slums of Seelampur?
 
lol he's no foot soldier of the sangh, the sanghis here think he's an Islamist. :lol:

I have an ideological problem with him because he's a mufat-khor commie and wants me and everyone else to buy him biriyani and pay his house rent. Unacceptable demands.

Sanghis also abuse Nehru even though it is because of Nehru that India managed to capture so much land which otherwise might have ended with Pakistan

Sanghis are dumb. Abuse their own people too

@jamahir is just like Nehru. Who did so much for sanghis but still sanghis bash him

Thank you.



And that "right thing" turns out to be a selfish agitation and not something for all IBM-India employees. Muslims should be all-round players and not stuck with doing stereotypical work.

As @Goenitz said about this in another thread, these particular Muslims should have prioritized for an employee union to be formed before such things as prayer allowance.



Not all of those thousands of IBM-India employees would have been Islamophobes.



Sure, there was at least one member of the central government who had spoken for banning of TJ but now that is forgotten. OTOH Umar Khalid is still in jail I think, on charges of "sedition". What does that tell you ?



About the dead I did say "Unfortunate".

But what seems to have angered you is my pointing out someone who possibly is as much a fanatic as you.

you are such a dedicated sanghi footsoldier that you brought some irrelevant IBM related sh!t to bash TJ when you couldn't found anything else

This is the thing. You hate muslims and their culture just like sanghis. Only difference sanghis are better since they are open enemies unlike who is just a foot soldier for sanghis
Thank you.

By the way this colonel rajesh is a sanghi too that you are thanking

Typical foot soldier thanking his masters :)
 
Last edited:
Peaceful "dharma warriors" .
Err .,, will they go to Bangladesh and. Pakistan to defend the "dharma" there ? How about defending Kashmiri Pundits in Kashmir?
Or is their valor only directed at the sub-human wretches in the slums of Seelampur?
no idea.

I think there was a thread here just post scrapping 370 about some 40 - 50 k RSS dharma yodhas being given fake police uniforms, weapons (including swords) and about them being given carte blanche to go hog wild in Kashmir.. direct Modi Ji's orders/blessings, apparently.
Sanghis also abuse Nehru even though it is because of Nehru that India managed to capture so much land which otherwise might have ended with Pakistan

Sanghis are dumb. Abuse their own people too

@jamahir is just like Nehru. Who did so much for sanghis but still sanghis bash him
who cares, man.

what's done is done, we must manage and keep our own houses in order, not try to manage the other.

apart from being a bhikari who wants everyone else to pay for his commie azz, he's ok, not sanghi or islamist, just another loser leftist.
 
@SoulSpokesman @colonel rajesh @KedarT @VkdIndian @lightoftruth @Sharma Ji @masterchief_mirza @jamahir

Why can't religious nuts represent a country? India is proudly represented by religious nuts globally.
Below is a list of organizations representing India globally :
See also: List of Hindu nationalist political parties

abdul googlia :D :D :D
 
1617188208880.png

Why Narendra Modi's visit to Bangladesh led to 12 deaths
Anbarasan Ethirajan - BBC News
Wed, March 31, 2021, 5:08 AM

Mr Modi is a polarising figure both at home and abroad. His government, led by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has often been accused of pursuing policies that target Muslim minorities, and not doing enough to curb violence against them. The BJP denies the charges.
03d7eb28696177a57c3c49f12e7f62fc

His contentious image appears to have sparked the protests in the capital Dhaka - and the violence that followed no doubt was an embarrassment to both countries. It also casts a shadow on what has always been an amicable relationship between India and Bangladesh.

What happened in Bangladesh?
Mr Modi arrived in Dhaka for a two-day visit on 26 March, Bangladesh's independence day. It also coincided with the birth centenary of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the country's founder and father of the current prime minister, Sheikh Hasina.

Leaders of the Maldives, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Nepal were all guests of honour at the event. But Mr Modi's visit, which was meant to cap off the 10-day long celebrations, set off protests.
A group of Muslim worshippers held a protest on 26 March after Friday prayers at a mosque in the city. Soon, clashes erupted and police used tear gas and batons to disperse the crowd.
Protests then spread to other parts of the country and a hardline Islamist group, Hefazat-e-Islam, called for a nationwide shut down on 28 March to protest the attacks on those who held rallies against Mr Modi's visit.
Police fired tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse the crowd, which threw rocks and stones at security forces.
Dhaka and the eastern district of Brahmanbaria witnessed some of the worst violence. Buses, a train, a Hindu temple and several properties were damaged. A number of people with gunshot wounds were admitted to hospitals.
"Madrassa students holding processions were attacked by security forces and supporters of the [governing] Awami League. That led to the conflict. But there was no need to open fire on unarmed people," Dr Ahmed Abdul Qader, vice chairman of the Hefazat, told the BBC.
Officials say 12 protesters have died so far but the Islamist group say there were many more casualties.
"Bangladesh is a democracy and everybody has a right to say what they have to say. But they [the protesters] cannot take law and order in their hands," Anisul Haq, Bangladesh's law minister, told the BBC.
"They [the protesters] exceeded the limit. To protect the citizens of the country, and to protect law and order, the law enforcing agencies intervened," Mr Haq said.
Why were they protesting?
The protests were led by Islamists, students of madrassas (religious schools) and left-wing groups opposed to Mr Modi's visit to Bangladesh. They accused him of pursuing anti-Muslim policies.
Those who organised the rallies and even supporters of the ruling Awami League have accused security forces of brutally attacking protesters.
The incident prompted a group of eminent citizens and activists to issue an open statement demanding justice for the attacks on protesters.

The incident prompted a group of eminent citizens and activists to issue an open statement demanding justice for the attacks on protesters.

29c3ac9ebcc164ee5ac2737f1b36c560


Despite good bilateral relations, there has always been an undercurrent of anti-India sentiment among a section of Bangladeshis.

After the BJP came to power in India in 2014, "the anti-India sentiments turned into more of an anti-Modi feeling in Bangladesh", Shireen Huq, a women's rights activist, told the BBC.

"The protesters were not against India or the people of India. They were angry at the invitation to Mr Modi, who's extremely controversial and who's known for his anti-Muslim stance," she added.

"Bangladesh could have invited the president of India. That would have been acceptable to everyone."

But the government has justified its decision to invite Mr Modi.

"The government and the people of Bangladesh want to invite somebody from a country which steadfastly helped in our nine-month long independence war," Mr Haq said.

Does the violence affect bi-lateral relations?
India and Bangladesh have historically enjoyed a good relationship.

Bangladesh was formerly East Pakistan. It became a part of Pakistan when the Britain divided the subcontinent into a Hindu-majority India and a Muslim-majority Pakistan in 1947.

But in 1971, Bangladesh fought for its independence from Pakistan and with the help of Indian military intervention, it became a separate country.

But the BJP's rise to power has complicated matters.

1617188019256.jpeg


In recent election campaigns in the border states of West Bengal and Assam, Mr Modi and other senior BJP leaders have often raised the issue of alleged unauthorised immigration from Bangladesh. Bangladeshi officials have denied the accusation.

In a 2019 election rally, Home Minister Amit Shah described illegal immigrants as "termites", adding that the BJP government would "pick up infiltrators one by one and throw them into the Bay of Bengal".

Mr Shah's comments drew sharp criticism from rights groups and triggered anger in Bangladesh too.

But the repeated references to unauthorised Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh, especially during polarising election campaigns, have caused resentment in Dhaka. Ms Hasina's government, which is seen as pro-India by the opposition, is facing domestic pressure.

In 2019, Mr Modi's government passed a contentious citizenship law that would give asylum to religious minorities fleeing persecution from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh. By definition, that does not include Muslims.

The Citizenship Amendment Act was seen as anti-Muslim and it drew widespread criticism from India's opposition parties and rights groups.

The controversial law took Dhaka by surprise as well.

Ms Hasina went on the defensive and denied that minorities were fleeing Bangladesh due to religious persecution. Hindus constitute around 8% of Bangladesh's population of more than 160 million.

At one point Bangladesh even cancelled a few high-profile ministerial visits to India following domestic criticism of the citizenship law and a proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC).

The final NRC in Assam has left out nearly two million, including Hindus and Muslims, who ostensibly lacked sufficient documentation to prove that they were not unauthorised immigrants from Bangladesh. Hindu hardliners want the Muslims who have not made it to the list to be deported to Bangladesh.

Another thorn in the bilateral relationship is the killing of Bangladeshi civilians along the border by Indian security forces. Rights groups allege that more than 300 people have been killed since 2011 and the shootings have triggered widespread anger in Bangladesh.

Indian officials say most of those killed are smugglers from criminal gangs. But Bangladesh maintains that many of the victims were civilians. Activists point out that despite repeated assurances from Delhi, the killings have not stopped.

"India-Bangladesh relations has been one-way traffic. Bangladesh has given lots of concessions to India without getting much in return. Still, we have many unresolved issues like the sharing of river water," Ms Huq said.

The two countries share 54 rivers and except for one, they all flow from upstream India to Bangladesh before reaching the Bay of Bengal. So India has the ability to regulate the water flow. But except for the Ganges, the two countries have not yet signed an agreement on any other river, much to the displeasure of Bangladeshis.

Maintaining a good relationship with Bangladesh is key to India's security in its north-eastern region where several indigenous separatist groups operate. Many of them have been subdued over the years with Dhaka's help.

India often boasts of its "excellent" relationship with Bangladesh. It's seen as a silver lining in its diplomacy in its backyard given Delhi's troubled ties with other neighbours such as Pakistan and China.

The anger over Mr Modi's visit is therefore a clear warning to Delhi - if the sensitivities of its neighbour are not addressed, India may end up being friends only with the government in Dhaka and not with the people of Bangladesh.
(Read More)
 
India is proudly represented by religious nuts globally.

I don't know about representation but they certainly have become prominent in the past 1.5 to 2 decades.

BTW I didn't receive notification for your tagging me.

You are buying puris, and halwas for your mahabhoj for your pandas at the akhand yagya and kirtans .
The pandas are ni-shulk ahaari .

Good point.

you are such a dedicated sanghi footsoldier that you brought some irrelevant IBM related sh!t to bash TJ when you couldn't found anything else

How is it irrelevant ? I am speaking of the limited and non-humane thinking of the TJ. You admire these misguided people, is it not ?

I am sure some of these TJ types from India went to Syria to become the "moderate rebels" there. Maybe you should join them.

This is the thing. You hate muslims and their culture just like sanghis. Only difference sanghis are better since they are open enemies unlike who is just a foot soldier for sanghis

So those Kashmiri Muslims who named a Sringar chowk as the Lal Chowk; Nasser; Gaddafi; the Assads; Faiz Ahmed Faiz and his comrades; Mashal Khan; Arooj Aurangzeb; the Laal music band; Nadeem Paracha; MY Tarigami; Shehla Rashid, Umar Khalid etc are / were all foot soldiers of the Sanghis ? That is what you seem to have deduced.
 
I don't know about representation but they certainly have become prominent in the past 1.5 to 2 decades.

Indira Gandhi was no religious nut.
Logically I should be disliking Indira Gandhi for what she did to my country. But de-classified documents 50 years later show a completely different picture. War was distasteful to Indira Gandhi . Even though Indian military and strategic planners, had long planned a separation of Pakistan's eastern wing Indira Gandhi had restrained them. The spillover from the Civil War was the prime reason for India's intervention. Perhaps it was a deliberate quick capitulation on Pakistan's part ( to concentrate on defending the West) , which even India didn't plan for ; but the events in Bangladesh were quickly overshadowed by developments in the West. Indira briefly flirted with the idea of a military enforced reunion of West Pakistan or at least a recovery of Kashmir. But the realities of India's military limitations hit home over the next five days of fighting. A "demoralized " Pakistan should have logically surrendered in the West also.
Instead the bitter resistance to the Indian offensive in the West, bogged down into a bloody stalemate resulting in heavy Indian casualties. The Indian military brass were surprised at the resilience of the Pakistani defence. Any rabidly fanatical leadership would have continued a war of attrition. Instead Indira looked to the future, swallowing the humiliation of a military stalemate on the Western border against a far inferior supposedly "defeated" enemy.
Bangladesh was now far less relevant so far as India's future foreign and strategic vision was concerned.
The blunt fact then was that India is Northern centric and the majority of India's population had a rough linguistic and cultural affinity with Pakistan. If India was to be truly a big power, it could not afford a hostile neighbor on its sensitive and strategic border. Ideally that enemy neighboring country should have been militarily defeated, overrun and occupied with large chunks torn off and assimilated back, and a rump demilitarized territory left to fend for itself. The USA did exactly that with Mexico, But like the USA's border conflict with Canada, India had no military capabilities to do to Pakistan what the USA had done to Mexico. Pakistan was not Mexico.
Just as the USA resolved its border dispute with Canada and made the two neighbors "borderless" India under Indira Gandhi attempted to do this in 1972 just seven months after the war on the Western front ended. The grim possibility of a perpetual and growing enmity with Pakistan was very real.
It is significant that after the Tripartite agreement of 1974 NO OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION from India to Pakistan has ever mentioned Bangladesh or any reference to that nation. Even the Simla Summit agreement doesn't mention Bangladesh. Not even Modi has been able to undo Indira Gandhi's legacy.
So far as communications between India and Pakistan is concerned Bangladesh is irrelevant and never mentioned.
 
Sorry, didn't understand.
On 16th-17th December 1971 the Indian Federal cabinet held a meeting authorizing their Ministry of Defence and military Chief's of Staff ( Army. Navy, Air Force ) to continue operations on the Western front capturing Islamabad which is only 80 km from India's border.
India's Chief of Army Staff Manekshaw could not guarantee a victory. "Victory " was defined as a complete re-merger of Pakistan back into India, similar to the way the Southern States of the USA who had seceded prior to the start of the US Civil War were reintegrated into the USA after their defeat in 1865.
Indira Gandhi considered West Pakistan as "Indian" territory and refused to acknowledge the Two Nation theory. She didn't recognize the Two Nation theory, not on communal religious grounds that "all Muslims were Hindus once " or "Muslims are enemies " but on the premise that an Indian Federation acknowledging the subcontinent's Muslims as equal citizens is the only viable course for the future.

That was not the era of religious nuts.
 
Last edited:
Indira Gandhi considered West Pakistan as "Indian" territory and refused to acknowledge the Two Nation theory. She didn't recognize the Two Nation theory, not on communal religious grounds that "all Muslims were Hindus once " or "Muslims are enemies " but on the premise that an Indian Federation acknowledging the subcontinent's Muslims as equal citizens is the only viable course for the future.

Just as well because the Two Nation Theory was an invention of the Hindutvadis. Below is Shashi Tharoor - the Congress leader - describing how the Hindutvadis were the first proponents of the Two Nation Theory :
Speaking at the session 'Shashi on Shashi' with Micheal Dwyer on Day 2 of the Jaipur Literature Festival (JLF), Mr Tharoor claimed that the Hindutva movement started by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar categorically rejected the Constitution.

He said that for Savarkar, a Hindu was one for whom India was his fatherland and holy land. Muslims and Christians were not considered in this.

"Savarkar, Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar and Deen Dyal Upadhay rejected the constitution and in fact agreed with the Muslims that religion should determine nationhood. In the historical sense, the first advocate of the two-nation theory was actually Savarkar, who as the head of the Hindu Mahasabha called upon India to recognise Hindus and Muslims as part of two separate nations three years before the Pakistan Muslim League passed the Pakistan Resolution in Lahore in 1940," he said.

Mr Tharoor further said that according to them, the Constitution was full of imported ideas written in the wrong language - English.

"Another flaw they pointed out was that it assumes that the nation of India is a territory and it's (constitution) written for all the people on the territory. Nation is not a territory but its people and the people of India are only Hindus," he said.
 
Just as well because the Two Nation Theory was an invention of the Hindutvadis. Below is Shashi Tharoor - the Congress leader - describing how the Hindutvadis were the first proponents of the Two Nation Theory :
That window has passed.
The best shot was the Simla Agreement when a borderless Canada USA Federation was possible. Kashmir wouldn't have mattered because it would have been borderless too. Pakistan and India would still be sovereign independent autonomous countries with no territorial claims.

Bangladesh on account of its extreme linguistic identity and because West Bengal was reluctant for a merger with India would be an outlier. Pakistan after 1971 was, and is, far more important to India from the security and strategic point of view.
India can't annex Pakistan or even Pakistan administered Kashmir, After Indira Gandhi's death Indian hostility towards Pakistan has only resulted in an extreme nuclear threat compounded by the threat already posed by China .
Once again, India is realistic that optics and rhetoric aside there is nothing even the friendliest and most pro-Indian government in Bangladesh can do to help India fight Pakistan, Militarily Bangladesh makes a poor ally. With religious affinity fast transcending nationalism, any government in Bangladesh colluding with India against Pakistan is unlikely to survive. India realizes this fully well. Post-1971 Pakistan's pivot to China has brought it dividends far beyond anything imagined in the last week of December 1971.
 
Back
Top Bottom