bangladesh getting su-30mkk around 2016? wiki

[dray]

Rather you should be grateful to us that we departed from Pakistan and removed a big threat from you. Imagine a united Pakistan with 350 million people,Half a trillion dollar economy,15 billion dollar defence budget and nuclear weapon on both east and west side of India threatening major cities.No 1971 means a more confident and aggressive Pakistan directly attacking Kashmir like 1965 war.At least Pakistan didn't dare to attack you directly since 1971.So feel the difference.

Rather, East Pakistan could have drilled some senses in West Pakistan.

No country would feel comfortable when divided in two parts with a large enemy country in between, the idea of Pakistan and Bangladesh as a single country was unrealistic from the very beginning, that today would have only added to the insecurities of both sides with negative results, in that case probably more developed West Pakistan would have left the far less developed East Pakistan in the hands of fate and India, just like what they did in 1965 war.

 

[Homo Sapiens]

Rather, East Pakistan could have drilled some senses in West Pakistan.

No country would feel comfortable when divided in two parts with a large enemy country in between, the idea of Pakistan and Bangladesh as a single country was unrealistic from the very beginning, that today would have only added to the insecurities of both sides with negative results, in that case probably more developed West Pakistan would have left the far less developed East Pakistan in the hands of fate and India, just like what they did in 1965 war.

Even if we accept your logic,isn't it still disadvantageous to India? Yes West pakistani would have negleced East Pakistan and continued to transfer resource to west Pakistan and neglect east pakistan both economically and militarily,but it also implies double strong west pakistan army as it would have pull resource from both west and east pakistan.In 1950s and 60s east pakistan provided 2/3 of foreign exchange earning for Pakistan.

A more strong and aggressive west pakistan army would have thought 'we do care less about east pakistan whether India attack it or not,but grab Kashmir at any cost.' So it would continue to have a huge security challenge for India if it remained intact.Independence of Bangladesh means no more funding for Pakistan army from east pakistan.Which helped India a lot.

 

[bongbang]

India existed long before British became civilized!!

So is Bangladesh. That means we dont owe to Indians for anything.

 

[dray]

Even if we accept your logic,isn't it still disadvantageous to India? Yes West pakistani would have negleced East Pakistan and continued to transfer resource to west Pakistan and neglect east pakistan both economically and militarily,but it also implies double strong west pakistan army as it would have pull resource from both west and east pakistan.In 1950s and 60s east pakistan provided 2/3 of foreign exchange earning for Pakistan.

A more strong and aggressive west pakistan army would have thought 'we do care less about east pakistan whether India attack it or not,but grab Kashmir at any cost.' So it would continue to have a huge security challenge for India if it remained intact.Independence of Bangladesh means no more funding for Pakistan army from east pakistan.Which helped India a lot.

It is difficult to predict exactly how things would have worked out, but Pakistan would have remained much smaller in everything compared to India even with the addition of BD, about 1/4th or so....thus, it would still be very much manageable.

But, it could have been even worse for Pakistan (both east & west) with the west part of their country in a constant political clash with the eastern part, maybe a constant civil war like situation, with more of radical Islamism even in the eastern part, maybe terror groups also, more instability resulting in lesser trade and investments, and all these with far greater insecurity among the population and the leadership about the precarious position they are in with a very large enemy country sitting in between the two parts of their country, forcing them to spend more on arms.....there is a reason why no country with a map like east & west Pakistan exist in the world, 1971 was good for today's Pakistan and Bangladesh also.

So is Bangladesh. That means we dont owe to Indians for anything.

Indians soldiers sacrificed their lives for Bangladesh in 1971, Indian civilians took the economic and social pain of accommodating millions of refugees from Bangladesh, India was the one who pushed for UN recognition of Bangladesh, and according to you Russians did more for Bangladesh.

That breaks the highest limits of ungratefulness!

 

[bongbang]

Indians soldiers sacrificed their lives for Bangladesh in 1971, Indian civilians took the economic and social pain of accommodating millions of refugees from Bangladesh, India was the one who pushed for UN recognition of Bangladesh, and according to you Russians did more for Bangladesh.

That breaks the highest limits of ungratefulness!

No we have expressed the gratefulness many times. But Indians didnt ever express any kinds of gratefulness to us Bangladeshis for creating a country for themselves. First we died in Palassy, invited British to order the British India and suffered in British empire for 200 years. Then again died in Direct action day. All to create a country for you. Moreover we disassociated the notorious martial race from you. If they were inside your country, you would always have a jelly state like them and under their foot. So I have come to this conclusion if Indians dont respect and remember whatever we did for them last 200 years, we shouldnt also.

 

[extra terrestrial]

Indians soldiers sacrificed their lives for Bangladesh in 1971

That's cute...

 

[monitor]

wiki is not a reliable source but as our defence Relation is increasing with russia but if we get the su we should focus the next version that is su-35 . may be expensive but serve us long time.

 

[Homo Sapiens]

It is difficult to predict exactly how things would have worked out, but Pakistan would have remained much smaller in everything compared to India even with the addition of BD, about 1/4th or so....thus, it would still be very much manageable.

But, it could have been even worse for Pakistan (both east & west) with the west part of their country in a constant political clash with the eastern part, maybe a constant civil war like situation, with more of radical Islamism even in the eastern part, maybe terror groups also, more instability resulting in lesser trade and investments, and all these with far greater insecurity among the population and the leadership about the precarious position they are in with a very large enemy country sitting in between the two parts of their country, forcing them to spend more on arms.....there is a reason why no country with a map like east & west Pakistan exist in the world, 1971 was good for today's Pakistan and Bangladesh also.

Current Pakistan is 1/7 of India and it is giving your security establishment a sleepless night, now imagine what could have been if it were 1/4.

Contrary to your view,political solution in 1971 was not entirely impossible.Two autonomous province east and west Pak with common defence,foreign policy,flag,national anthem was possible.Common religion and threat perception of India would have maintained its integrity.Also most of Bengali people didn't want independence up untill last moment when Pakistani started massacre.In 1970 they voted Awami league to govern Pakistan not to dismember it.Only when Pakistani military stated genocide then entire population went against them.But Pakistani leaders were hot headed,they put faith on 'Danda' above anything else.

I think autonomous east pakistan could have been a stabilizing factor in Pakistan's affair rather than distabilizing one.West Pakistan would not have turn to religious extremism to do proxy war against India if there was no 1971, plus east Pakistani population would have been resistant to join the Afghanistan fiasco.So perpetual instability scenario is highly unlikely.

Geographic discontinuity is also no hindrance for a successful country.There are many countries which is geographially fragmented yet successful.Malaysia,Indonesia,USA,France are few.

 

[dray]

No we have expressed the gratefulness many times. But Indians didnt ever express any kinds of gratefulness to us Bangladeshis for creating a country for themselves. First we died in Palassy, invited British to order the British India and suffered in British empire for 200 years. Then again died in Direct action day. All to create a country for you. Moreover we disassociated the notorious martial race from you. If they were inside your country, you would always have a jelly state like them and under their foot. So I have come to this conclusion if Indians dont respect and remember whatever we did for them last 200 years, we shouldnt also.

he he he, you didn't do any of these, all these happened to you.

By the time the British came, Mughal dynasty was on a decline and Marathas were about to take over, we would have seen a brutal rout of all those radical loonies to ME, and after that we would have gone through the process of forming political parties and eventually forming a nation state just like the rest of the world, as per the demand of the changing time.

That's cute...

That's sad.

Current Pakistan is 1/7 of India and it is giving your security establishment a sleepless night, now imagine what could have been if it were 1/4.

They are nothing more than a nuisance, it's just a matter of time now before they burn out, it always was.

 

[ravindra1455]

Don't get too excited, wiki isn't that reliable when it comes to defence procurement. We aren't getting the Su-30 MKK, Russia will not try to anger or discomfort India by giving Bangladesh such an advanced weapon.

we regard bangladesh a freindly nation wo we have not any problem if u have su30 ,

 

[dray]

Contrary to your view,political solution in 1971 was not entirely impossible.Two autonomous province east and west Pak with common defence,foreign policy,flag,national anthem was possible.Common religion and threat perception of India would have maintained its integrity.Also most of Bengali people didn't want independence up untill last moment when Pakistani started massacre.In 1970 they voted Awami league to govern Pakistan not to dismember it.Only when Pakistani military stated genocide then entire population went against them.But Pakistani leader were hot headed,they put faith on 'Danda' above anything else.

I think autonomous east pakistan could have been a stabilizing factor in Pakistan's affair rather than distabilizing one.West Pakistan would not have turn to religious extremism to do proxy war against India if there was no 1971 plus east Pakistani population would have been resistant to join the Afghanistan fiasco.So perpetual instability scenario is highly unlikely.

Geographic discontinuity is also no hindrance for a successful country.There are many countries which is geographially fragmented yet successful.Malaysia,Indonesia,USA,France are few.

You couldn't live with them for one generation, and talking about remaining one country? West Pakistan never saw East Pakistan as equals, they wouldn't share equal power and resources with east, the racism is still visible even today.

Besides, the radicals in your country backed by the West Pakistan would have taken full control of your country, the Bengali nationalism thing wouldn't even exist today, and you probably wouldn't have heard about Tagore.

And btw, none of the fragmented countries have a much bigger enemy state sitting right between the fragments, Pakistan in it's earlier form was untenable.

However, you are free to give it a 2nd chance.

 

[Homo Sapiens]

You couldn't live with them for one generation, and talking about remaining one country? West Pakistan never saw East Pakistan as equals, they wouldn't share equal power and resources with east, the racism is still visible even today.

Besides, the radicals in your country backed by the West Pakistan would have taken full control of your country, the Bengali nationalism thing wouldn't even exist today, and you probably wouldn't have heard about Tagore.

And btw, none of the fragmented countries have a much bigger enemy state sitting right between the fragments, Pakistan in it's earlier form was untenable.

However, you are free to give it a 2nd chance.

Autonomous entity don't share power or resource rather they join their power and resoure.Autonomous east and west pakistan would have been fully in control of their respective resouces and power and would have joined their defence and foreign policy to counter external threat.

Regarding racism,what can racism do if they can't interfere in autonomous east pakistan's internal policy?Common West Pakistani or east Pakistani didn't hate each other,it was only military and political leadership which aggravated the situation.West Pakistan itself is amalgamation of different race.Do you think Pashtun,Sindhi,Siraiki are the same? Or what about 2-3 million Bengali living in Pakistan without any difficulty?

Regarding radicalism,you are only judging Pakistan by its current situation,But I tell you Pakistan wouldn't found itself in current situation if it remained intact.There were not much radicalism in 1950,1960 when Pakistan was united.

Regarding India's position in between,United Pakistan survived 24 years without being threatened its territorial integrity,and it could survived another 240 years if it were not for the short sighted politician of that time.India only managed to dismember Pakistan because East Pakistani wanted it,If East Pakistani were committed to united Pakistan nobody could have dismembered it.India got it's legitimacy because overwhelming percentage of east pakistani wanted cessation.

 

[dray]

To begin with, you are free to reunite with Pakistan, I am not trying to discourage you from doing that.

Autonomous entity don't share power or resource rather they join their power and resoure.Autonomous east and west pakistan would have been fully in control of their respective resouces and power and would have joined their defence and foreign policy to counter external threat.

First, did they give you that Autonomous entity?

Second, autonomous entities are autonomous in a very limited sense, Pakistan's war would have been your war, their 'strategic assets' aka terrorists would have been yours too, and their no-trade policy with India would have been your policy too, not very bright situation for you. Even today they would have been too proud to listen to you.

Regarding racism,what can racism do if they can't interfere in autonomous east pakistan's internal policy?Common West Pakistani or east Pakistani didn't hate each other,it was only military and political leadership which aggravated the situation.West Pakistan itself is amalgamation of different race.Do you think Pashtun,Sindhi,Siraiki are the same? Or what about 2-3 million Bengali living in Pakistan without any difficulty?

Most of the high ranks in government and military was with Pakistanis during your union with them, it would remain so even today, you were nothing better than a Pakistani colony.

Regarding radicalism,you are only judging Pakistan by its current situation,But I tell you Pakistan wouldn't found itself in current situation if it remained intact.There were not much radicalism in 1950,1960 when Pakistan was united.

Why not? Pakistan turned radical because of Zia Ul Haq's policy, that's the natural progression of countries created on the basis of religion, Bangladesh would have gone the same way.

The recent Bengali nationalism and Rabindrik culture that you are seeing in Bangladesh was promoted as a bulwark by one political power against another political power backed by the Islamic radicals and Pakistani loyalists in Bangladesh.

Regarding India's position in between,United Pakistan survived 24 years without being threatened its territorial integrity,and it could survived another 240 years if it were not for the short sighted politician of that time.India only managed to dismember Pakistan because East Pakistani wanted it,If East Pakistani were committed to united Pakistan nobody could have dismembered it.India got it's legitimacy because overwhelming percentage of east pakistani wanted cessation.

Some say the rising sentiment for the break up was a creation of a third country sitting in between, but that must not be true. However, the break up was waiting to happen from the very first day of its forming, it had to happen in one way or another by now. How am I so certain? Oh well, it already happened.

 

[Nilgiri]

There are many countries which is geographially fragmented yet successful.Malaysia,Indonesia,USA,France are few.

Tell me which of these have a population/economy split 50/50 between two constituent parts....and separated by a hostile entity?

This very factor is what prompted Pak Punjabi Army to have knee-jerk reaction to Bengali rightful aspiration and stake in Pakistan....and the rest is history.

 

[Saiful Islam]

To begin with, you are free to reunite with Pakistan, I am not trying to discourage you from doing that.



First, did they give you that Autonomous entity?

Second, autonomous entities are autonomous in a very limited sense, Pakistan's war would have been your war, their 'strategic assets' aka terrorists would have been yours too, and their no-trade policy with India would have been your policy too, not very bright situation for you. Even today they would have been too proud to listen to you.



Most of the high ranks in government and military was with Pakistanis during your union with them, it would remain so even today, you were nothing better than a Pakistani colony.



Why not? Pakistan turned radical because of Zia Ul Haq's policy, that's the natural progression of countries created on the basis of religion, Bangladesh would have gone the same way.

The recent Bengali nationalism and Rabindrik culture that you are seeing in Bangladesh was promoted as a bulwark by one political power against another political power backed by the Islamic radicals and Pakistani loyalists in Bangladesh.



Some say the rising sentiment for the break up was a creation of a third country sitting in between, but that must not be true. However, the break up was waiting to happen from the very first day of its forming, it had to happen in one way or another by now. How am I so certain? Oh well, it already happened.

Pashtun, Sindhi, Uzbek, Hazara, Punjabi, Kashmiri, Bengali, Bihari, Burmese, Tamil, Mohajir, Iranians, these ethnic groups all live in relative harmony and the fact that 3 million Bengalis in Machar Colony, Chittagong Colony, Bhashani Colony is proof. The break up of United Pak was political jealousy and power trip largely due to the Punjabi centric government at the time (Yahya Khan a drunkard thinking he knows everything) and the flawed demand from Bengali politicians.

Radicalism,as you say was inevitable with a big country like India next door. If you break a home do not think there will be no reaction.