India killing Bangladeshi's randomly in border like as Kashmir. What's the difference?

[Hamza913]

We have no reason to start anything and we have been vocal about it. Last major skirmish was in 1999 in Kargil. Even though we suffered some casualties we gave a befitting reply to your aggression.

We know how well you handled the Bangladeshi refugee crisis in 71.[/QUOTE]
That was long time ago and I don't want to stir up the pot.



[/QUOTE]What's this nonsense, now a kafir will tell us about Muslim's.[/QUOTE]
It is better if you take care of your own before you start worrying about what is in best interest of our people.[/QUOTE]

Well Pakistan cannot start all skirmishes, probability wise that's impossible.

When it comes to 'your own people', most Muslim's value religion over country. For example, in the Syrian civil war, you see Muslim's coming all the way from Chechnya to fight. This is a Muslim thing, you lot wouldn't understand.

 

[Joe Shearer]

We start some, and you start some, it go's both ways. Only difference is we suffer less casualties.



We know how well you handled the Bangladeshi refugee crisis in 71.



What's this nonsense, now a kafir will tell us about Muslim's.

You know nothing, in that case. India handled the refugee problem with grace and with efficiency. And after the war was over, the vast majority returned home, euphoric about living in a new state for Bengalis alone. The few who stayed back were absorbed into India without a murmur.

Your cheap remark is one of the most disgraceful I have read recently. I deeply resent it and will leave no effort untried to show you the errors of your ways if you make it once again.

That might be the case. An example of us loosing 03 personnel in BAT action on 02 Aug 2011 and we taking 22 in retaliation for same in same sector on 28 Aug 2011. You can check the figures at your end. Have given you specific dates.


If that is your suffering less casualties then comfort yourself in that knowledge.

I seriously doubt that you are remotely in military services as your statement here proves your ignorance of situation on ground.

Pray please do give casualty figures for incidents

Another bumptious student aping his militarist seniors. His remark about our handling of the refugee problem is totally unforgivable. I was there, I know what happened, I know what we did, I remember the awful prospect that 10 million refugees would be ravaged by cholera and typhoid, and, in their starving and completely vulnerable condition, would die without resistance. And I saw, first hand, with my own eyes, how we stemmed their vulnerability to disease and epidemic, their need for food, their need for shelter and clothing. The camps were squalid and dismal, but the refugees got all that we had in a poor country, without hesitation and without resentment.

And @dsr478 has the temerity to talk in mockery of what we did.

We have no reason to start anything and we have been vocal about it. Last major skirmish was in 1999 in Kargil. Even though we suffered some casualties we gave a befitting reply to your aggression.

We know how well you handled the Bangladeshi refugee crisis in 71.

That was long time ago and I don't want to stir up the pot.

What's this nonsense, now a kafir will tell us about Muslim's.

It is better if you take care of your own before you start worrying about what is in best interest of our people.

Why don't you want to 'stir up the pot'? Did we not distinguish ourselves in the way that we handled the refugees? Have you any doubt about what we did? If you do not have the facts available, kindly educate yourself.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/india/2015-09-22/when-refugees-were-welcome

This weak and spineless reply that you gave a poltroon shames all that we did in those days, actions that Bangladesh should remember as long as it exists far more than any military help we gave subsequently.

This act of sheltering refugees and of taking on their tormentors and thrashing them in open battle were among the most sublime and glorious moments in our country's brief history, and all the more so because they were based on the highest moral principles. So the next time there are sly insinuations about R&W getting involved in the troubles, point out to the person making that remark that we did that to correct a ghastly genocide. We did that to defend 10 million human beings and survivors of that genocide who were already taking shelter with us.

 

[SQ8]

Do I need to truly interfere in this thread or will people return to on topic nicely?

 

[Metanoia]

What's this thread doing in the Mid-East/Africa section?

 

[Hamza913]

You know nothing, in that case. India handled the refugee problem with grace and with efficiency. And after the war was over, the vast majority returned home, euphoric about living in a new state for Bengalis alone. The few who stayed back were absorbed into India without a murmur.

Your cheap remark is one of the most disgraceful I have read recently. I deeply resent it and will leave no effort untried to show you the errors of your ways if you make it once again.



Another bumptious student aping his militarist seniors. His remark about our handling of the refugee problem is totally unforgivable. I was there, I know what happened, I know what we did, I remember the awful prospect that 10 million refugees would be ravaged by cholera and typhoid, and, in their starving and completely vulnerable condition, would die without resistance. And I saw, first hand, with my own eyes, how we stemmed their vulnerability to disease and epidemic, their need for food, their need for shelter and clothing. The camps were squalid and dismal, but the refugees got all that we had in a poor country, without hesitation and without resentment.

And @dsr478 has the temerity to talk in mockery of what we did.



Why don't you want to 'stir up the pot'? Did we not distinguish ourselves in the way that we handled the refugees? Have you any doubt about what we did? If you do not have the facts available, kindly educate yourself.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/india/2015-09-22/when-refugees-were-welcome

This weak and spineless reply that you gave a poltroon shames all that we did in those days, actions that Bangladesh should remember as long as it exists far more than any military help we gave subsequently.

This act of sheltering refugees and of taking on their tormentors and thrashing them in open battle were among the most sublime and glorious moments in our country's brief history, and all the more so because they were based on the highest moral principles. So the next time there are sly insinuations about R&W getting involved in the troubles, point out to the person making that remark that we did that to correct a ghastly genocide. We did that to defend 10 million human beings and survivors of that genocide who were already taking shelter with us.

Cry a river for me will ya.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Cry a river for me will ya.

We did. In 1947. And never again. There are elements within Pakistan that deserve no pity, no sympathy.

 

[Hamza913]

We did. In 1947. And never again. There are elements within Pakistan that deserve no pity, no sympathy.

Could say the same for India.

 

[Kraitcorp]

I think they should make it a SOP where 3 warning fire-shots before going for the kill ( only at Bangladesh border, rest north-eastern and western front shoot to kill). I am sure MEA/MHA and Indian Army/BSF must have an SOP rather than randomly shooting pole-vaulters.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Could say the same for India.

I gave up that line of argument, the same to you, twice, in class III or IV. Now I know the quality of mind that I am addressing.

 

[Hamza913]

I gave up that line of argument, the same to you, twice, in class III or IV. Now I know the quality of mind that I am addressing.

I knew what kind of mind I was addressing when I saw those flags under your name.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I knew what kind of mind I was addressing when I saw those flags under your name.

That's what I meant: me too, at every stage, not a single original thought, just an aping of your elders and betters.

 

[Hamza913]

That's what I meant: me too, at every stage, not a single original thought, just an aping of your elders and betters.

Keep thinking that.

 

[Asian.Century]

Reasons behind strong anti India sentiment in Bangladesh

Bangladesh (East Pakistan) was carved out of India on religious pillars in 1947. So its not true that religion has nothing to do with Indophobia or India hatred among Bangladeshis. Religion is a strong identity of Bangladeshis. Suppose India was Muslim dominated country then Bangladeshis would have no reason to be a different country because culture, language everything is almost same. I say 'almost', not 'exactly'.

Indophobia, India fear developed among Bangladeshis because of many reasons.

1 Hasina Wajid , & Awami League closeness with India only.

2. Religion is the number one of all reasons. Muslim-Hindu can fake to be friendly but in reality both are sworn enemies of each other in religious ideological point of view.

2. India shares longest border with Bangladesh. This border is not naturally formed since the creation of erst while East Pakistan was purely religious. So India has deployed a huge number of BSF jawans to check Indo-Bangladesh border. Many Bangladeshis try to cross the border on daily basis. To control border movements India adopted very strict and controversial 'shoot on sight' policy in India-Bangladesh border. Border killing were rampant in just few years ago. Now the condition has improved significantly but still many incidents are happening such as not letting cow trading / smuggling. For Bangladeshis, its cow trading, for Indians, its cow smuggling.

3. Due to geography Bangladesh depends on India for river water sharing and land port trading with Nepal and Bhutan. This is another source of disputes between India and Bangladesh.

4. Bangladesh like to say 1971 war was completely a matter between Pakistan and Bangladesh where India played a passive role but Indian version of story is different from Bangladesh's. India says it was India-Pakistan war where Mukti bahini guerrillas were helping Indian army and Razakars were helping Pakistani army. This Indian version offends many Bangladeshis because since childhood Bangladeshis are taught that 1971 war was between Bangladesh and Pakistan, not India and Pakistan. It steams hatred for India.

 

[Asian.Century]

This is the total worth of Sheikh Hasina govt, Hasina should be hanged for killing Bengalis.

India's shoot-to-kill policy on the Bangladesh border

Security officials openly admit that unarmed civilians trying to enter India illegally are being killed. Will the government act?

Do good fences make good neighbours? Not along the India-Bangladesh border. Here, India has almost finished building a 2,000km fence. Where once people on both sides were part of a greater Bengal, now India has put up a "keep out" sign to stop illegal immigration, smuggling and infiltration by anti-government militants.

This might seem unexceptional in a world increasingly hostile to migration. But to police the border, India's Border Security Force (BSF), has carried out a shoot-to-kill policy – even on unarmed local villagers. The toll has been huge. Over the past 10 years Indian security forces have killed almost 1,000 people, mostly Bangladeshis, turning the border area into a south Asian killing fields. No one has been prosecuted for any of these killings, in spite of evidence in many cases that makes it clear the killings were in cold blood against unarmed and defenceless local residents.

Shockingly, some Indian officials endorse shooting people who attempt to cross the border illegally, even if they are unarmed. Almost as shocking is the lack of interest in these killings by foreign governments who claim to be concerned with human rights. A single killing by US law enforcement along the Mexican border makes headlines. The killing of large numbers of villagers by Indian forces has been almost entirely ignored.

The violence is routine and arbitrary. Alauddin Biswas described to Human Rights Watch the killing of his 24-year-old nephew, who was suspected of cattle rustling, by Indian border guards in March 2010. "The BSF had shot him while he was lying on his back. They shot him in the forehead. If he was running away, he would have been shot in the back. They just killed him." The BSF claimed self-defence, but no weapons were recovered.

Nazrul Islam, a Bangladeshi, was luckier. "At around 3am we decided to cross the Indian border," he said. He was headed to India to smuggle cows back to Bangladesh. "As soon as the BSF saw us, they started firing without warning." Islam was shot in his arm, but survived.

Some of the victims have been children. One father recounted how his sons were beaten by BSF officers. "The BSF personnel surrounded the boys and without giving any reason started beating them with rifle butts, kicking and slapping them. There were nine soldiers, and they beat my sons mercilessly. Even as the boys fell down, the BSF men continued to kick them ruthlessly on their chest and other sensitive organs."

Advertisement

The border has long been crossed routinely by local people for trade and commerce. It is also crossed by relatives and friends separated by a line arbitrarily drawn by the British during partition in 1947. As with the Mexican border in the United States, the border has become an emotive issue in Indian politics, as millions of Bangladeshis now live in India illegally. Many are exploited as cheap labour.

India has the right to impose border controls. But India does not have the right to use lethal force except where strictly necessary to protect life. Yet some Indian officials openly admit that unarmed civilians are being killed. The head of the BSF, Raman Srivastava, says that people should not feel sorry for the victims, claiming that since these individuals were illegally entering Indian territory, often at night, they were "not innocent" and therefore were a legitimate target.

Though India is a state with functional courts, he apparently believes the BSF can act as judge, jury and executioner. This approach also ignores the many victims, such as a 13-year-old named Abdur Rakib, who broke no law and was killed simply because he was near the fence. Sadly, Bangladeshi border officials have also suggested that such killings are acceptable if the victim was engaged in smuggling.

As the recent WikiLeaks report about endemic torture in Kashmir underscores, Indian soldiers and police routinely commit human rights violations without any consequences. Permission has to be granted by a senior Indian official for the police to even begin an investigation into a crime committed by a member of the security forces, such as the BSF. This rarely happens.

The response of various government officials to allegations of a shoot-to-kill policy has been confusing: we do shoot illegal border crossers since they are lawbreakers; we don't shoot border crossers; we only shoot in self-defence; we never shoot to kill.

Advertisement

But there is some reason for hope. Under pressure, senior Indian officials have expressed revulsion at the behaviour of the BSF and have promised to send new orders to end the shoot-to-kill policy. They have committed to use nonviolent means to apprehend illegal border crossers or smugglers where they pose no risk to life. The question is whether this will be translated into action on the ground. Similar promises of "zero tolerance" for abuses have been made in Kashmir and elsewhere but have not been fulfilled.

As India's economy has grown and foreign investors have flocked in, its human rights record has largely flown under the radar in recent years. But India is a growing world power with increasing influence. It should understand that its behaviour will come under increasing scrutiny. Routinely shooting poor, unarmed villagers is not how the world's largest democracy should behave.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment.../india-bangladesh-border-shoot-to-kill-policy

 

[Major d1]

Bangladesh govt. should declare a war against India. Those who were killed, They are our people. Remembering roumari war .