Bengali Hindus in Muslim-majority Bangladesh

[dray]

Maybe they don't want to encourage your cr@p

Crap? No, facts.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

You made the options such that it remains difficult to chose anything but the first one.

 

[Zibago]

You made the options such that it remains difficult to chose anything but the first one.

Add a they could live as dhimmis after paying full jizya

 

[dray]

You made the options such that it remains difficult to chose anything but the first one.

Should have given softer options, like the Bangladeshi Hindus would be happier in Hindu majority India, it is better for them, they have more things common with Indian Bengalis, etc.

Many Bangladeshis are feeling too shy to vote for the 2nd option, and they don't want to vote for the 1st option either. Hence, they are not voting at all.

 

[Saiful Islam]

It doesn't take much to work out that Bangladesh was created to maintain and uphold the Bengali Muslim identity however Hindus and Buddhists are both allowed to co exist peacefully.

 

[cloud_9]

Isn't WB merging into Bangladesh?

 

[mb444]

Should have given softer options, like the Bangladeshi Hindus would be happier in Hindu majority India, it is better for them, they have more things common with Indian Bengalis, etc.

Many Bangladeshis are feeling too shy to vote for the 2nd option, and they don't want to vote for the 1st option either. Hence, they are not voting at all.

There are not many "adult" and educated Bangladeshis in this forum. Go visit BD and ask bangladeshies and you will find overwhelming majority of those you would term as jamaities would strongly voice support for the first option.

Bangladesh is a Muslim majority state but the state has no religion. Every Bangladeshi is a Bangladeshi, religion is immeterial. Bangladesh was a necessity to protect and preserve its Muslim heritage but all its people and all religions that it's people adhere to are equal in every respect. That is as it has always been and should always be.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Every country has such problems. Majoratanism is a trait of any country. Even USA, where majoratanism is enforced in non lethal ways.
If you ask me, Bangladesh is lot better than many Muslim countries such as Saudi, Gulf, Iran , heck even Malaysia in taking care of its minority citizens. South Asia has always been an discriminated land. Will take a few more decades to become discrimination free

 

[Tiger Genie]

No, BD should treat all its citizens equally. If there are atrocities committed against Hindus or any other groups, India cna strongly protest and take other measures.

 

[LaBong]

Protecting life and property of minority communities is the responsibility of any nation state. When they fail in that responsibility, the blame goes to the ruling elite as well as the majority community. Having said that South Asian nations being poor and underdeveloped has been terrible with safeguarding basic and fundamental right of citizens of minority communities, hopefully things will improve as economic conditions improve in all South Asian countries.

Personally I have had Hindu friends and colleagues, both Bengali and non-Bengali South Asian. I had a Hindu Bangladeshi as my room mate during college years in the US. As for Bangladeshi Hindu's, as far as I know, most Bangladeshi Muslims do not look towards or deal with them as alien. They are in fact the original sons of the soil and have relatively minor practical cultural difference except for the religion, as Bangladeshi Muslims have originated mostly from Bengali Hindu's, Buddhists and animists.

But history had not been kind to the relations between the two communities. The 190 year long British period is known for Hindu Zamindar's collaboration with the British and economic oppression of the Muslims in Bengal. This has been the main reason why Bengal Muslims opted for Pakistan to escape that domination and oppression. West Pakistani's again took the role of oppressors during the 24 years of Pakistan period, so Bangladesh was born to achieve freedom from that oppression.

Most of the Hindu Zamindars and money lender families have left for India since 1947. The Hindu's that remain in Bangladesh I believe are mostly from economically backward classes and not the elite British collaborator families. Because they are from the minority community, they are targeted by powerful local people from the majority Muslim community, regardless of party affiliation. A Hindu family's property, mainly land, is a lucrative target as they can be bought at a fraction of the market price if the family is threatened and, as a result, have to leave for India for better security of life and property (Jaan and Mal, as the article in OP mentioned). This indeed is the main economic driver for the migration. Land is scarce commodity in this densely populated country, even rural land has high value. So no party in power can fully solve this problem, unless the economic condition improves, the country develops at a higher pace and law and order situation improves where life and property is secure for all people including those of minorities.

kalu, never thought I'd say this, but that's a pretty nice post!! Now please bring back your normal self and discuss about the need of selective breeding of Bangladeshish! :p

 

[dray]

There are not many "adult" and educated Bangladeshis in this forum. Go visit BD and ask bangladeshies and you will find overwhelming majority of those you would term as jamaities would strongly voice support for the first option.

Bangladesh is a Muslim majority state but the state has no religion. Every Bangladeshi is a Bangladeshi, religion is immeterial. Bangladesh was a necessity to protect and preserve its Muslim heritage but all its people and all religions that it's people adhere to are equal in every respect. That is as it has always been and should always be.

For the highlighted part above, I think Bangladesh does have a state religion, it was not there initially, but later Islam was adopted as a state religion. Besides, Bangladesh has a blasphemy law with provision for capital punishment (I think).
Do you think that these two things are misfits and undesirable in a truly secular state?

 

[Stannis Baratheon]

Crap? No, facts.

What fact! Do you know what fact is! You asked for opinions and opinions can't be facts.

 

[mb444]

For the highlighted part above, I think Bangladesh does have a state religion, it was not there initially, but later Islam was adopted as a state religion. Besides, Bangladesh has a blasphemy law with provision for capital punishment (I think).
Do you think that these two things are misfits and undesirable in a truly secular state?

You misunderstood me. I am not a supporter of virulent secularism in any shape or form. I see no issues with Islam being recognised as the primary state religion as it is borne out by the fact that majority of bangladeshis are Muslim and it being the raison detre for the birth of Bangladesh.

What I would have a problem with would be if that resulted in issues for the minority communities ability to practice their religion or if it effected their life chances.

BD recognises and celebrates as public holidays the celebrations of Hindus, Christians and Buddists equally with Muslims... Not sure if that is the case in India but it certainly is not the case in the west.

There are no laws that relegates minorities as second class citizens.

GOB does not rule claiming any divine authority nor via the authority of jurists such as in Iran. There are no law that specifically protects Islam from critical review such as those that exists in the west that protects Christianity although they claim to be secular.

there are laws that protect all religion from abhorrent views for the maintenance of communal harmony. These laws are loosely defined and have not been applied. It is because of ill-defined parameters of free speech and protection of religion that lead to these blogger murders.

To sum up... I do not wish for Bangladesh to be secular in the truest sense of the word. Bangladesh should become democratic ( currently it is an dictatorship of the unelected ) where all its citizen are treated equally. The state should continue to recognise the role of Islam as central to its existence whilst continuing to value and recognise all other religion and minority groups as equal part of the fabric of the nation.

 

[livingdead]

You misunderstood me. I am not a supporter of virulent secularism in any shape or form. I see no issues with Islam being recognised as the primary state religion as it is borne out by the fact that majority of bangladeshis are Muslim and it being the raison detre for the birth of Bangladesh.

What I would have a problem with would be if that resulted in issues for the minority communities ability to practice their religion or if it effected their life chances.

BD recognises and celebrates as public holidays the celebrations of Hindus, Christians and Buddists equally with Muslims... Not sure if that is the case in India but it certainly is not the case in the west.

There are no laws that relegates minorities as second class citizens.

GOB does not rule claiming any divine authority nor via the authority of jurists such as in Iran. There are no law that specifically protects Islam from critical review such as those that exists in the west that protects Christianity although they claim to be secular.

there are laws that protect all religion from abhorrent views for the maintenance of communal harmony. These laws are loosely defined and have not been applied. It is because of ill-defined parameters of free speech and protection of religion that lead to these blogger murders.

To sum up... I do not wish for Bangladesh to be secular in the truest sense of the word. Bangladesh should become democratic ( currently it is an dictatorship of the unelected ) where all its citizen are treated equally. The state should continue to recognise the role of Islam as central to its existence whilst continuing to value and recognise all other religion and minority groups as equal part of the fabric of the nation.

what is the practical difference between a secular nation and the one that abides by bold bit.. give some examples because you seem to support equality among citizen yet want a primary state religion.

 

[mb444]

what is the practical difference between a secular nation and the one that abides by bold bit.. give some examples because you seem to support equality among citizen yet want a primary state religion.

Practical difference none.

However history of Bangladesh necessitates the need to highlight the role of Islam as the base upon which the national identity rests.