India's NRC is creating a refugee crisis for Bangladesh

[Tom M]

All land belongs to Muslims, it is only a matter of time. India is meant to be ruled by Muslims. It is our birthright and you know that. So no need to argue because you are a weakling Hindu.

There is nothing wrong in daydreaming with both eyes wide open. It neither need any resources nor have an associated cost for that. LOL

 

[Ritual]

Arrey bhai, even after what you got you guys still not able to build dams in those areas. Can you share the status of mangla dam and other dams btw? Show me your current industrial development progress etc? In fact if you look at even divided India history during early Pakistan era, you were more open and accepted society. It is during mid 70s-80s during Zia's rule you started going backward by focusing more of non-development activities thus leaving the path development all together. There are many posts by learned posters in this forum too. You can do the search.
There are always hundreds of reasons to blame others for failure but only one reason to be successful that is hard work. I am pretty sure even if there was division of India as per your likings you would stiill be crying.

You didn’t even read the post previous so why should I bother. This is not about Zia or economy. I was talking with one poster that partition should have included a planned population transfer so that minorities would have been exchanged and modern India could have gone down the Hindu state route without affectings its now hundreds of millions of minority hostage to your religious extremes. But Pakistan’s mainly mountainous and inhabitable land could not accomodate millions of more people. Congress deceived Britain by pretending that India would remain secular forever.

You appear to be highly mistaken. India and Pakistan didn't come into being, on the principle of transfer of population. Period.

Now, if this ridiculous model is imposed, as some Sanghis and Bhakts are suggesting; it would essentially lead to a civil war, at the subcontinent level, whose results and consequences would be disastrous.

If you actually read my post I didn’t say Pakistan & India came into being on the principle of population transfer. I said it should have been done that way, but Pakistan needed far more land in that situation to accomodate a population transfer.

But in reality Indians and especially the duplicitous Congress convinced Britain that India would remain a flowery secular country, but as we see now hundreds of millions of minorities are hostage to Hindutva.

 

[Smarana Mitra]

You didn’t even read the post previous so why should I bother. This is not about Zia or economy. I was talking with one poster that partition should have included a planned population transfer so that minorities would have been exchanged and modern India could have gone down the Hindu state route without affectings its now hundreds of millions of minority hostage to your religious extremes. But Pakistan’s mainly mountainous and inhabitable land could not accomodate millions of more people. Congress deceived Britain by pretending that India would remain secular forever.



If you actually read my post I didn’t say Pakistan & India came into being on the principle of population transfer. I said it should have been done that way, but Pakistan needed far more land in that situation to accomodate a population transfer.

But in reality Indians and especially the duplicitous Congress convinced Britain that India would remain a flowery secular country, but as we see now hundreds of millions of minorities are hostage to Hindutva.

Pakistan including Bangladesh had the higehst share of fertile land in India. India has many areas in North East, Himalayas in North, Desrrt and marshland of west and semi-arid areas of Deccan which is unfit for cultivation. India only had plains in North and some rainfed coastal areas in south as fertile plains. Pakistan had Punjab, Bengal plains which are extremely fertile. It also had Sindh which gets water from Indus and hence fertile. Only minor regions in Kashmir and Balochistan had mountains and desert. So, by all means, Indian fertile land as a percentage of its population was lesser than Pakistan.

Pakistan was given land with muslim majority and India with Hindu majority except for some regions where geography did not permit. There is no reason to have given Pakistan any more land. In fact, Pakistan had more land than its share of people compared to India and that was unfair to India. There was no reason to not expel muslims from India to Pakistan.

British had no power to dictate which land goes where as local population would not agree with whatever British had to say. The muslim majority land went to Pakistan and Hindu majority went to India. Which other land could be given to Pakistan by British?

 

[Ritual]

Pakistan including Bangladesh had the higehst share of fertile land in India. India has many areas in North East, Himalayas in North, Desrrt and marshland of west and semi-arid areas of Deccan which is unfit for cultivation. India only had plains in North and some rainfed coastal areas in south as fertile plains. Pakistan had Punjab, Bengal plains which are extremely fertile. It also had Sindh which gets water from Indus and hence fertile. Only minor regions in Kashmir and Balochistan had mountains and desert. So, by all means, Indian fertile land as a percentage of its population was lesser than Pakistan.

Pakistan was given land with muslim majority and India with Hindu majority except for some regions where geography did not permit. There is no reason to have given Pakistan any more land. In fact, Pakistan had more land than its share of people compared to India and that was unfair to India. There was no reason to not expel muslims from India to Pakistan.

British had no power to dictate which land goes where as local population would not agree with whatever British had to say. The muslim majority land went to Pakistan and Hindu majority went to India. Which other land could be given to Pakistan by British?

Baloch plateau is around 40% of Pakistan, and not suitable for large scale migrations. You simply could not have had a population transfer of 30m people without taking into account that inhospitable terrain.

And you ask what other region could have been transferred? Well going by partition of Muslim majority areas, it was common sense that Kashmir was included in Pakistan. In that case absorbing more people would have been possible.

Remember that Pakistan took a net 1m extra refugees from central Punjab than went the other way.

 

[Buddhistforlife]

So this has finally started .

Few months back I was discussing how the India's NRC is going to create a another refugee problem for Bangladesh.

Last week BGB arrested more than 150 Bengali speaking Indian citizens trying to infiltrate Bangladesh. In previous week the arrested some 40 people.

Border sources says there are hundreds & hundreds more people gathering near BD border in hope to cross it.
View attachment 590109

আহো ভাতিজা আহো

 

[Kabira]

Kashmir is a small land. It can't house 30 million people. Moreover, India also gave away Sindh kingdoms of hindus which had hindu majority like Umerkot. It is compensated for Kashmir.

Secondly, Indian terrain has mountain, desert, forest etc too. So, one can't simply say that Pakistan should only get plain land. If India can keep its population in different terrain, so can Pakistan

India didnt gave away anything, British made Sindh province. Though if whole population exchange had to take place then map would look very different now. Congress fooled sikhs, muslims, christians in the name of secularism.

 

[Abu Shaleh Rumi]

There is nothing wrong in daydreaming with both eyes wide open. It neither need any resources nor have an associated cost for that. LOL

We dream with wide open eyes than make it possible bruh!

Almost 2 billions of Muslims, 50+ Muslim countries didn’t just dropped from the heaven. We made it possible.

BTW, Your ancestors also laughed like you but, india was ruled by Muslims for hundreds of years...

 

[Smarana Mitra]

Baloch plateau is around 40% of Pakistan, and not suitable for large scale migrations. You simply could not have had a population transfer of 30m people without taking into account that inhospitable terrain.

And you ask what other region could have been transferred? Well going by partition of Muslim majority areas, it was common sense that Kashmir was included in Pakistan. In that case absorbing more people would have been possible.

Remember that Pakistan took a net 1m extra refugees from central Punjab than went the other way.

Pakistan had Punjab, Sindh and Bangladesh which totally accounted for 50% of landmass. All of it is highly fertile land. Why are you excluding Bangladesh here? Even Bangladesh was part of Pakistan in 1947. India also has areas in Himalayans belt in North, desert, mountainous western & eastern ghats, arid deccan and dense forest in central India. If India can have people in these regions, so could Pakistan accomodate muslims as part of population exchange. Why is it that Indians can live in areas like deccan, forests of central India or other harsh climate but Paistan only want to live in plains? Balochistan is comparable to deccan plateau and can definitely accommodate people.

Kashmir was part of independent princely state and it was not given to India. Kashmir acceded to India when Pakistan waged war against Raja Hari Singh.

India didnt gave away anything, British made Sindh province. Though if whole population exchange had to take place then map would look very different now. Congress fooled sikhs, muslims, christians in the name of secularism.

Everyone except muslims voted for united India. There was no fooling of anyone. If whole population was exchanged, the map would still be the same.

 

[SIPRA]

India didnt gave away anything, British made Sindh province. Though if whole population exchange had to take place then map would look very different now. Congress fooled sikhs, muslims, christians in the name of secularism.

The fact is that complete, or even substantial, transfer of population, on religious lines, among Pakistan and India was never discussed, or even considered, at all, at any official and/or political forum, by any stakeholder, according to the credible historical record of those times. I fail to understand that why this ridiculous idea is being discussed now, on PDF, after a period of 72 years, with every poster giving his analysis and suggestion, on an utterly imaginary scenario.

 

[Ritual]

Pakistan had Punjab, Sindh and Bangladesh which totally accounted for 50% of landmass. All of it is highly fertile land. Why are you excluding Bangladesh here? Even Bangladesh was part of Pakistan in 1947. India also has areas in Himalayans belt in North, desert, mountainous western & eastern ghats, arid deccan and dense forest in central India. If India can have people in these regions, so could Pakistan accomodate muslims as part of population exchange. Why is it that Indians can live in areas like deccan, forests of central India or other harsh climate but Paistan only want to live in plains? Balochistan is comparable to deccan plateau and can definitely accommodate people.

Kashmir was part of independent princely state and it was not given to India. Kashmir acceded to India when Pakistan waged war against Raja Hari Singh.


Everyone except muslims voted for united India. There was no fooling of anyone. If whole population was exchanged, the map would still be the same.

If Kashmir acceded to India then Junagadh & Hyderabad is still legally Pakistan, remember that before you expose your double standards and doublespeak.

India didnt gave away anything, British made Sindh province. Though if whole population exchange had to take place then map would look very different now. Congress fooled sikhs, muslims, christians in the name of secularism.

Exactly, that is the reality. Congress was clever & shrewd you must give them that. Nehru and the others convinced the British that India would remain a flowery secular paradise and minorities had nothing to fear from a possible Hindu state. How they were fooled.

Even the Sikhs were promised autonomy but got 1984 as their answer.

 

[M.Bison]

There is nothing wrong in daydreaming with both eyes wide open. It neither need any resources nor have an associated cost for that. LOL

Dreams are an important part of life. How do you accomplish your goals if you dream with eyes closed? You need to live your dreams so that one day they can become a reality.. A sewer rat like you wouldn't understand that.

 

[Kabira]

If Kashmir acceded to India then Junagadh & Hyderabad is still legally Pakistan, remember that before you expose your double standards and doublespeak.



Exactly, that is the reality. Congress was clever & shrewd you must give them that. Nehru and the others convinced the British that India would remain a flowery secular paradise and minorities had nothing to fear from a possible Hindu state. How they were fooled.

Even the Sikhs were promised autonomy but got 1984 as their answer.

Lets be clear here. Sikhs didnt demand autonomous state from India before 1947. They demanded moon and sun from Jinnah but were happy with just being part of secular India.

 

[Sine Nomine]

Like I said before, NRC is just the above ground "official" cover. How it goes, is not all that relevant, its purpose for something else entirely.

The real stuff of note will get done below it...its all about making life intolerable for the Muslim BD illegals (i.e ensure unemployment among them and ensure no govt taxdollars to help them...and a few pogroms or two might inevitably be threatened too if they still sticking around on their "savings")...till life back where they came from seems the better choice. They will simply slink away back the route they came from. Assam is just far ahead of everyone else on it, given they have historically polarized around it and agitated quite a long time now given the geography and history of their area.

This news is just what BGB token "intercepted" for a small soundbite...far far more getting through and back to shonar land.

The hypocritical comments from the operation searchlight folks in here is pretty hillarious though. Stronk stronking but still not pressing for full release of hammodur commision so they can fully put their own military cabal to account first for mass carnage of both muslim and hindu civilians.

From distance we are giggling.

 

[Smarana Mitra]

If Kashmir acceded to India then Junagadh & Hyderabad is still legally Pakistan, remember that before you expose your double standards and doublespeak.

Essentially, India kept Kashmir and gave Sindh areas like Umerkot which was hindu majority but Pakistan did not want the indus river to be cut off by India via Sindh. It was a fair trade. Keeping additional muslims was extra burden on India. It would have been better if India gave away Kashmir and took back part of Sindh and done a full population exchange. Kashmir is too small a land to justify keeping such large muslim population.

The fact is that complete, or even substantial, transfer of population, on religious lines, among Pakistan and India was never discussed, or even considered, at all, at any official and/or political forum, by any stakeholder, according to the credible historical record of those times. I fail to understand that why this ridiculous idea is being discussed now, on PDF, after a period of 72 years, with every poster giving his analysis and suggestion, on an utterly imaginary scenario.

Population exchange was the obvious outcome of Partition. Till 1946, there was no consensus on partition at all. Partition was solely a one-sided affair of muslims. There was no discussion about it with others. So, what discussion you want for population exchange?

 

[SIPRA]

Population exchange was the obvious outcome of Partition. Till 1946, there was no consensus on partition at all. Partition was solely a one-sided affair of muslims. There was no discussion about it with others. So, what discussion you want for population exchange?

The post, you are quoting, was in response to a Pakistani poster. I would respond to him or any other Pakistani poster, if any clarification or discussion is required. I generally refrain from entering into futile and useless arguments and cross arguments with Indian posters.