What's new

Creation of Bangladesh: Shining Moment or Strategic Blunder

Actually, 1906 division was an attempt to weaken the Bengali political force, divide and rule them.

Again you are deadly wrong; the division is beneficial for Muslims and hearting Hindus interests a lot, by abolishing it Bengali Muslims lost faith in united Bengal.


When I said Muslims in Bengal should have chosen a destiny for their own, I meant a destiny exclusively of Bengali Muslims without the unnecessary baggage of West Pakistan. They both had separate reasons for partition and were mutually exclusive entities.

Abir Weather you like it or not but this remains a fact that they both (East & West) needs each other for their cause in British India. British even waited till the last election of 46 and by then its been confirmed by the land slide victory of ML throughout India that Partition is the only way forward, even than they are waiting some slightest chance to appear but the DAD seals the last nail in the coffin of United India.
 
Dear Forgive me!! But India never been a country throughout its history. It was a geography and to this day remains so as is; The Muslims of India carve out states from this geography for themselves by their sheer will, other groups are striving to this end and some major are simply spineless.

You mean there was no centralized force that ruled the whole India, but that doesn't invalidate India's claim as a country, well you may call it a continent if you wish! ;)

Indian, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are of almost same genetic stock except for the tribes of north west part of present day Pakistan(Here I'm making no claim of being similar to tall, fair and handsome Pakistanis, so dear Pakistanis don't jump at me!). India have been a country throughout her history, yeah never been ruled wholly by any power.

Mouryas, Palas, Guptas, Mughals went pretty close though.

As far as I know, Historically Bangladeshis can be divided in three basic groups as follows;

Bengali Nationalists i.e., AL & Co
Bangladeshi Nationalists i.e., BNP & Co.
Islamic Nationalists i.e., Jamat & Co.

But slowly and steadily a fourth group have been emerging which are fed up of all these above groups policies and governing tactics for the past two decades in Bangladesh but at the same time are highly skeptical of a true way forward. These are the people who are in question for me at this moment.

I never quite understood what the eff is the difference between Bengali Nationalism and Bangladeshi nationalism. It's nothing but a politically correct term to make happy the tiny non-bengali (Chakma etc.) diaspora of Bangladesh. Any nationalist movement in Bangladesh which is made of almost 100% Bengalis, has to be Bengali. Yeah their culture and idea of 'Bengali' might be different than that of ours in West Bengal.

The problem I have with Jamatis isn't their Islamic ideology, but their subservient attitude and sucking up to old masters which makes me sick.
 
Zakir & Abir with all other associates as well read below a glimpse of what some portion of today's generation of Bangladesh feels about their country and India as a whole. Yesterday i was visiting BDmilitrary forum and come across this masterpiesce in which fellow bangladeshis are allure to join the union of India or India leaded Saacr Union and leave aside Bangladesh as an entity, which in turn make other saarc members to join in later on.

I think this is very much related to this thread so i brought his whole article here the guy username is Saarc1.


As for Bangladesh and its population, I have been searching for a direction and destiny. Whither Bangladesh, which way should we go, [/B]what is at the end of the road for us. The more I thought about this, the more convinced I became that we can never become part of PRC, as it is dominated by one ethnic group, the Han Chinese. There will never be a PRC led Union, like EU, that we can be part of with the ultimate goal of political union. It is not just true for Bangladesh, it is also true for any neighboring PRC country, in ASEAN (such as Myanmar) or in East Asia, such as Japan or Korean peninsula. But we already were part of greater subcontinent for most of past history. So I started looking at possibilities for integration of the subcontinent or in effect, to undo the partition. So instead of staying in a confused state, like we are today, not knowing which way to lean, towards India or towards PRC, I wanted a logical and definite direction and I found the answer to be India. Staying neutral is not an option, as we are too small to not get influenced by bigger neighbors (in fact the two biggest countries in the world in terms of population).

So then we need to look at what are the challenges if we are to lean towards India. This re-orientation cannot be based on a blind India friendly obsequious attitude like Hasina led AL, but it must be a popular mandate of the people of Bangladesh, who will see this as beneficial for their future progeny. Our Muslim identity and our position in a Hindu majority India is a major concern and Hindu's have not shown themselves to be sensitive to Muslim concerns in the past.

As Indian strategists are opening their eyes to the wider global scenario as well as the Asian land mass, they can see that in the great Eurasian land mass, the Western part is of course dominated by Europeans, now being consolidated under European Union. US strategists like Zbigniew Brzezinski even wants to bring in Russia, eventually under this European Union project, of course led by the US as the patron for consolidation of European population of the Eurasian landmass. PRC is slowly spreading its wings to become the new Asian hegemon with ambitions to become a global hegemon. Islam, although is making a lot of disturbances and turbulence globally and in the subcontinent, they are no more than insignificant nuisance (except of course the Pakistan Nuclear threat, but this also is supported by PRC efforts to pin down and box-in India), compared to the greater and powerful entities, rapidly consolidating West under US leadership, Han Chinese dominated PRC and last but not the least an economically resurgent India. Today no Islamic Ottoman or Mughal exists to become a threat for any of the existing or aspiring great powers, all are broken down, although some small or medium success stories exist like Turkey or Malaysia.

Despite the occasional threat of extremists, mainly from "non-state" actors of Pakistan, my job was to convey to Indian strategists, that Muslims need allies, and no one is in a better position to provide that support and alliance (not US led West or PRC) than India, as India itself has 170 million Muslims and the greater subcontinent also happen to have another 330 million Muslims. Why should Indians go for an alliance with the Muslim world, because if they don't, Muslims will continue to be exploited by US led West and PRC, as pawns to be used for resources and other geo-strategic benefits. PRC in particular will score in the open field (khali mathe goal) and will continue in its effort to befriend and use Muslim countries (such as Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan) and Muslim populations (such as Kashmir valley) against an anti-Muslim India. Of course Pakistan is locked in a struggle with India for Kashmir, so Bangladesh remains a viable option for India, to be integrated along with other SAARC nations, in stages.

For Bangladesh, we will no longer have to depend on Indian mercy for water flowing down from Padma, Surma and other common rivers, we will be able to take the fight to Indian parliament and supreme-court eventually or at least to a SAARC level joint task-force, for the time being. We will also be able to hope and plan for a future in a large and peaceful polity, instead of this current unstable situation based on idiotic leadership that the two Begum's and their families gave us so far. We will also be ready to fight for our fair share of water from Brahmaputra, when PRC gets ready to divert much needed dry-season water from upstream Yarlung Tsangpo river in Tibet.

At some stage, if we do well in the SAARC integration process and benefit from it, population of Pakistan may also see the light and instead of being used as a pawn for PRC, may eventually decide to join the club.

Of course this may seem like a pipe dream, SAARC is a reality today, we will simply take the existing structure, put Pakistan and Afghanistan in shelve for now and proceed full speed with the rest 6 countries for a fast track integration. Yes, we will be serving India's and subcontinental interest, but it will be our joint project, of Bangladeshi and Indian Muslims, Sri Lankan Buddhists/Muslims/Tamils and others, not just exclusively a project for the interest of Hindu India alone.

Thanks to Taneem for re-posting this article in this forum.

• Partition of Indian-Subcontinent on the basis of two nation theory was a necessity for practical reason. We (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) had been together after the election of 1938 and 1946 during the British times. But once Congress formed the Central Govt and the Provincial Govt. in various provinces than the real faces of Congress was unveiled. In the true sense Muslim League always wanted a united India considering the Muslims of all India who are stationed throughout the whole India but the situation forced the Muslims to think differently so Pakistan was inevitable. The Hindu-Muslim riots of Calcutta, Noakhali (East Bengal), Bihar and Punjab forced the Muslims to demand a separate Muslim state within India. This was a reality.

• The partition of Pakistan or the creation of Bangladesh was the outcome of mistakes of both the politicians of East and West and the instigation of our neighbor. And also America had a hand in it though apparently America helped Pakistan. In 1962, once China invaded India USA at once came forward to help India in order to contain Communism in South Asia although USA had a Defense Pact with Pakistan. Pakistan was also the member of CENTO and SEATO where USA was also the member. Pakistan vehemently opposed it with the plea that same weapon could be used against Pakistan in case of war. Soon in 1965 war broke out between Pakistan and India but USA did not helped Pakistan as per the Pact rather they impose restriction on the import of arms on both Pakistan and India. This restriction rather helped India because they had already received a huge armament to deal with China. Now, under this critical situation Ayub Khan turned towards China this again irritated USA. Now, America was in thick soup how to check China, at the same time America was very busy in Vietnam as well in Indo-China war. To support these she was in a need of a base somewhere in South Asia. President Johnson requested for the lease of St Martin Island (East Pakistan) but Ayub did not agreed. So, America tilted towards Awami Leaque and there was a secret meeting between members of AL, India sponsored by America. Soon AL declared six point program me (February 1966). It is said that these six points were prepared at some American universities. In the mean time once Chinese Premier Chu En Li visited East Pakistan, it was detected by the Chinese intelligence that an assassination plan was made to kill the Chinese Premier as well Ayub Khan. Once they were returning to West Pakistan from East Pakistan at Dhaka airport the Trident plane was delayed for two hours because a suspected message came that the plane had a time bomb. So, the Agartala Conspiracy Case started against Sk Mujib. After the assassination of Johnson situated changed and now Nixon came to power with a changed foreign policy having a very cordial relation with Pakistan. That was the reason the American administration played a duel role throughout the liberation war (for Pakistanis 71 war).

• The man who has written this article has a good historical knowledge, his arguments are praiseworthy but you know Taneem in political term it is called “Utopian ideas”. Like Aristotle said that warrior class should not involve in marriage system, they should be provided from the state for necessary sexual amusement.

• The writer has tried to compare the SARAC Union or South Asian Union with the EU but practically here there are three religious groups Hindus , Muslims and the Buddish where as in Europe there is only one group, i.e., the Christians. The impact of religious group on human being is always there. You see in Indonesia, East Timor was created only for religious ground, soon you will see in 2011 South Sudan would be separated from main Sudan. You see, during the Second World War there was also a religious grouping. Basically, Hitler was a Roman Catholic so he tried to unite all the Catholics under his banner. The Roman Catholics of Croatia were the main vanguards of Hitler outside Germany, Muslims of Bosnia, Albania and Kosovo also supported Hitler’s occupation. Orthodox Christians of Yugoslavia became the main victim of Hitler along with the Jews. I am sure General Vichy (Vichy France) was also Roman Catholic. USA, UK and Australia were Protestarian dominated Govt. The Irish Roman Catholic remained neutral throughout the war due to this religion influence. Even during the British rule in India no Roman Catholics were recruited in the Royal Colonial Army. Even today in the British Constitution (though not written) no Catholics can be a Prime Minister.
• About the inclusion of Nepal and Sri Lanka in the proposed Union, absurd. Sri Lankan hates the Indian. The question of union of Pakistan is unthinkable. However, I can foresee the union of China in this South Asia. China is already have a good relation with Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Burma. Our whole army is being renovated by China. Nepal is also secretly trying, if Bangladesh can make a road link with China via Myanmar nothing like it. Recent election Myanmar shows that political backed by military has won the election so Chinese influence will be long lasting in Myanmar. So there is a great possibility of Chinese lead Union in South Asia instead of Indian lead Union. You see none of Indian’s neighbor likes the Indian influence. Their very dealing and attitude is big brother attitude. They can be at best compared to a political “Mastan” soon awaiting to be killed or evicted by another rival group. So my dear friend Taneem don’t be worried, people are with you.
:victory::victory::victory:
 
Again you are deadly wrong; the division is beneficial for Muslims and hearting Hindus interests a lot, by abolishing it Bengali Muslims lost faith in united Bengal.

Off course it was hurting Hindus interest as Bengali Hindus were the main political force who were opposing British. So Brits wanted to curb their influence by dividing Bengal. They failed miserably and shifted Capital to Delhi to get their revenge.

Bengali Muslims wanted a separate country for lot of reasons, none similar to North Indian or Pakistani Muslims causes, except for the want of more political clout.



Abir Weather you like it or not but this remains a fact that they both (East & West) needs each other for their cause in British India. British even waited till the last election of 46 and by then its been confirmed by the land slide victory of ML throughout India that Partition is the only way forward, even than they are waiting some slightest chance to appear but the DAD seals the last nail in the coffin of United India.

They might needed each other to achieve their goals. But West and East were never single nation by any stretch as touted by folks from Aligarh.
 
India have been a country throughout her history, yeah never been ruled wholly by any power.

Mouryas, Palas, Guptas, Mughals went pretty close though.

Your reply is the proof of a claim that its never been a country with a recognized borders all along at any point of time including British.

I never quite understood what the eff is the difference between Bengali Nationalism and Bangladeshi nationalism.

The same which is between "Jio Bangla" and "Bangladesh Zindabad"
Cheers!!
 
Tameem said:
Your reply is the proof of a claim that its never been a country with a recognized borders all along at any point of time including British.

Sorry to butt in, this is getting ridiculous. Did people in the Maurya/Mughal/Gupta/Pala era have an organization like the United Nations which demarcated international borders ?

The Mauryan empire

Mauryan_Empire_Map.gif


The Pala Empire

pala_empire_(dharmapala).gif


The Mughal Empire

800px-Mughal1700.png



Compare than to the changing borders of the Chinese kingdom(s) (only for the purpose of reference)

J6Gjn.gif
 
The President Johnson requested for the lease of St Martin Island (East Pakistan) but Ayub did not agreed. So, America tilted towards Awami Leaque and there was a secret meeting between members of AL, India sponsored by America. Soon AL declared six point program me (February 1966). It is said that these six points were prepared at some American universities.


I also think Mujib/Bangalies were not as claver to point out six points. It was a part of conspiracy.

By the way, I think BD needs individual very good relations with China, Burma, Pakistan and Sri Lanka or Chinese-lead union. No time for when India's neighbors will agree with India.

We need Burma for the route to China and for food production by leasing their lands, we need china for everything and our economy, we need Pakistan for strategy, to maximize economic benefits and as our well-wisher.
 
Last edited:
The problem I have with Jamatis isn't their Islamic ideology, but their subservient attitude and sucking up to old masters which makes me sick.

That. Besides, most muslims should have a problem with their ideologies because Moududism is another absurd cult like the Ahmediyas. As long as they try to coexist peacefully with other muslims, they have the right to exist. If they refuse to coexist peacefully, we Bangalis have the right to exterminate them (and any other weird religious sect for that matter).:D I love the way the GoB is doing a crackdown on Hizb ut-Tahrir in BD due to their Muslim Ummah ideas being "Anti State". Anyways, sorry for getting off-topic.
 
Last edited:
Your reply is the proof of a claim that its never been a country with a recognized borders all along at any point of time including British.

Borders are temporary, what defines a country is the people and culture. justanobserver's post is a good reference.


The same which is between "Jio Bangla" and "Bangladesh Zindabad"
Cheers!!

You mean the difference is as rhetorical as the two slogans are! I personally myself like the Zindabad slogan better though.
 
Back
Top Bottom