Is India our friend?

[the just]

No I do not know the meaning of red in the green background. I know current flag was designed by some Hindu person. So may be it mean Sun God as Hindu worship Sun. I do not see any other reason behind the Red ***.

The design of Bangladesh flag was done by - Qumrul Hasaan.A Muslim it seems.

 

[the just]

LoL,what joke,gratitude my ***.country's who call other countries friend don't plan and execute master plan of destruction towards their friend.And sad but true we would have come victorious eventually without India's help in long run.May be it would have killed half the population and took 2/3 years.Yes ,no more than that .Look at history, Mighty/rich USA could not win Vietnam war or Korean War.Distance between two part ,dwindling reserve of cash, hostile territory, rainy season, malaria, zero food supply on and on and on .Don't forget Srilanka.with India for support and supply of illegal arms Tamil tigers raised hell for 26 years.without India's help united people of Srilanka won hands down albeit after millions of death.
You guys can rant till kingdom come,there is a new BANGLA for you-AEI SHOB AAR GHASH KHAENA.
Bottom line is - with friends like you who needs an enemy???

 

[mb444]

Ring! Ring!! Do U remember that there isn't anything called secular in 6 points AKA "Soy Dofa" but it has currently become the core of "Muktijuddher Chetona" to the "Muktijuddher Feriwalas"? So, wait for the ripe time for "Circle of blood" to become bold but "Red headed God" to the green of Bangladesh, thanks.

Six point demand were made to federalise Pakistan..... It is unclear why you bounce from that to the secularist trend amongst BAL scums.

Given you did not know what the meaning of the flag is I will take your waffle about red headed god as utter nonsense.

Be a Bangladeshi nationalist, do not harp on about Pakistan. We stand on our own as we have done for centuries. We are the first Muslim entity in the subcontinent and we have come out of the British colonial period more or less intact. None of this had much to with the west. Have confidence in your own people.

 

[MilSpec]

The Two Nation Theory basically means that the Muslims are nation separate from the Hindus. We have not abandoned the Two Nation Theory. That's why we are a Muslim nation. This is our core identity which the enemy is constantly attacking.

Unfortunately, your perception of two nation theory is skewed, the two nation theory refers to M.A Jinnah's/AIML's fear that Muslim minority under in a majority hindu nation will not recieve political/civil rights, unless there is a reserved electorate for muslim voters. Also according to jinnahs theory without such provisions muslims will not recieve adequate rights, hence the need for two separate nations a muslim representation nation and the rest.

In India, there was no reserved electorate, but there was reservations for Mulims, Chrisatians, SC's, ST's, VJ's, NT etc, essentially making providing adequate political representation to all ethinic and religious groups in India, thus defeating the validity two nation theory. In essence India and the political discourse of India is a stark antithesis to 2 nation theory.

Another additional factor is the fate of Pakistan, "the partitioned utopia for muslim political representation". Forget muslim representation, even the common man irrespective of the religion did not have any political representation due to decades of military rule. Such was the fate, when the mis-treated bengalis voiced thier opinion on the ballot box, the armed forces unleashed the wrath of guns on innocent civilians. Does that seem like what AIML or M.A. Jinnah had envisioned? Bangladesh even after it's liberation was constantly held at the helm of military rule. So the entire concept of Two nation theory is invalidated by success of the political process and representation in India, and mismanagement of Jinnah's pakistan and it's two successor states.

 

[mb444]

Unfortunately, your perception of two nation theory is skewed, the two nation theory refers to M.A Jinnah's/AIML's fear that Muslim minority under in a majority hindu nation will not recieve political/civil rights, unless there is a reserved electorate for muslim voters. Also according to jinnahs theory without such provisions muslims will not recieve adequate rights, hence the need for two separate nations a muslim representation nation and the rest.

In India, there was no reserved electorate, but there was reservations for Mulims, Chrisatians, SC's, ST's, VJ's, NT etc, essentially making providing adequate political representation to all ethinic and religious groups in India, thus defeating the validity two nation theory. In essence India and the political discourse of India is a stark antithesis to 2 nation theory.

Another additional factor is the fate of Pakistan, "the partitioned utopia for muslim political representation". Forget muslim representation, even the common man irrespective of the religion did not have any political representation due to decades of military rule. Such was the fate, when the mis-treated bengalis voiced thier opinion on the ballot box, the armed forces unleashed the wrath of guns on innocent civilians. Does that seem like what AIML or M.A. Jinnah had envisioned? Bangladesh even after it's liberation was constantly held at the helm of military rule. So the entire concept of Two nation theory is invalidated by success of the political process and representation in India, and mismanagement of Jinnah's pakistan and it's two successor states.

Eloquently spun propaganda, but the success of the Indian democracy also leads to marginal representation of Muslims in all sectors of your public and administrative sectors. The success of your democracy leads to the destruction of Babri mosque. Please don't bring out the success of the khans of Bollywood or Muslims presidents.... They are mere tokens.... The plight of the Muslims in India has transformed the two nation theory into fact. BD is a Muslim country as is Pakistan ..... 1971 did not abrogate the two nation theory, that can only be if BD ceased to be a sovereign entity. As to democracy in BD or Pakistan, you seem to forget that the economic, social, psychological impact of 47 was a heck of a lot greater for the two wings of Pakistan. India in comparison was gifted a stable civil service and military infrastructure by the British. The shock of separation and the continuous war footing meant that strong men came to rule Pakistan and BD. in the case of BD I believe in me democracy will be permanently embedded like India.

 

[Sliver]

Eloquently spun propaganda, but the success of the Indian democracy also leads to marginal representation of Muslims in all sectors of your public and administrative sectors. The success of your democracy leads to the destruction of Babri mosque. Please don't bring out the success of the khans of Bollywood or Muslims presidents.... They are mere tokens.... The plight of the Muslims in India has transformed the two nation theory into fact. BD is a Muslim country as is Pakistan ..... 1971 did not abrogate the two nation theory, that can only be if BD ceased to be a sovereign entity. As to democracy in BD or Pakistan, you seem to forget that the economic, social, psychological impact of 47 was a heck of a lot greater for the two wings of Pakistan. India in comparison was gifted a stable civil service and military infrastructure by the British. The shock of separation and the continuous war footing meant that strong men came to rule Pakistan and BD. in the case of BD I believe in me democracy will be permanently embedded like India.

What according to you is the success of democracy? you have actually pointed out the success of a democracy that does not look at religion and then said its a failure. A muslim was a president of India. And I believe a lot of them are part of the current government. I can see people of various decent, religions, languages, dressing, culture make up the elected representatives in leading the country of India.

The success of a democracy lies in the fact that there are thousands of mosques and millions of muslims. and despite almost a billion Hindus, there was no destruction of temples as when it happened in the rule of the Mughals.

The success of democracy lies in the fact that, despite people from minority sections being a part of the ruling government, the majority "accepts" it and gives them full authority (unlike 1971 elections in pakistan)

The success of democracy lies in the fact that for so many years, the % of minorities has not decreased and there is ample opportunities for people from minorities to make a big impact and make a name for themselves. Can you please elaborate if the % of minority "celebrities" in BD/Pakistan is as proliferate as in case of India?

I am all for countering arguments and I am all for critiquing failures. but you gave the actual "success" rule of a democracy , coupled it with a "failure" and then falsified its conclusion. if the demolition of a mosque has put fear in the hearts of all muslims in India, then election of a muslim president should put a lot of faith in the hearts of muslims in India. (of course there are a lot more elected representatives that are from minorities - am just giving you an example).

 

[wolfpack]

LoL,what joke,gratitude my ***.country's who call other countries friend don't plan and execute master plan of destruction towards their friend.And sad but true we would have come victorious eventually without India's help in long run.May be it would have killed half the population and took 2/3 years.Yes ,no more than that .Look at history, Mighty/rich USA could not win Vietnam war or Korean War.Distance between two part ,dwindling reserve of cash, hostile territory, rainy season, malaria, zero food supply on and on and on .Don't forget Srilanka.with India for support and supply of illegal arms Tamil tigers raised hell for 26 years.without India's help united people of Srilanka won hands down albeit after millions of death.
You guys can rant till kingdom come,there is a new BANGLA for you-AEI SHOB AAR GHASH KHAENA.
Bottom line is - with friends like you who needs an enemy???

well my friend,are you trying to educate me on economics or POV of yours?
so you agree to the killing of 1 million bangladeshsis and rape of your bangla sisters?
Just say the word all those were hindu men and women killed,we should have known before, we would have let our army rescue our sisters and brothers and let ya rot and "OVERCOME IN TIME".

Some people deserve no respect, i Respect BSF for "Shoot first and ask later" How does that sound?That serves well on eastern border with ungrateful shites.
Oh lemme guess yer Arabs right!

 

[wolfpack]

You cant answer my questions i asked but you spew venom think about your brethren who come to india illegally in search of bread... SHOULD WE TALK and ACT AS THE SAME AS YOU DO? Well we start thinking as you friend it wont be good for your countrymen,,,
Yeah go to them as brothers ask them to help against us

 

[my2cents]

@ Donnot talk ? Your grandfather forced me to sing " Bande Materm " in 1938 - 40 while I was in the school.

@ Muslim student were not allowed to sit in the front seats. I used to sit always at the back.

@ Once I remember we some muslim friend went to visit the Maldah town. We all went to one Hindu hotel to have some "Rosho Kadom" (sweets). After taking the sweets they did not gave us any water as we were muslims. They dropped from up and with our hands we drunked it.

@ In Barisal we were not even allowed to slaughter a cow. No beef was available near by Barisal. It was forbidden. An unwritten Law was made by the local Zaminder. And so on ------------

Still more muslims decided to stay back and improve their conditions and fight for their rights. Hindus were equally discriminated by British and our condition was not any better. But saying muslims and hindus are two different people and cannot live in one country is a cope out and not based on facts. Hindus and Muslims lived here since mogul time and are still living peacefully in independent India.

 

[Md Akmal]

Still more muslims decided to stay back and improve their conditions and fight for their rights. Hindus were equally discriminated by British and our condition was not any better. But saying muslims and hindus are two different people and cannot live in one country is a cope out and not based on facts. Hindus and Muslims lived here since mogul time and are still living peacefully in independent India.

@ Can you tell me how many people died in Hindu Muslim riot since 1947 ???????

@ In those days in India where the Muslims were little bit in a good position they remain inside India, many tried to come , many were killed, many were traped and finally the majority Muslims in India are not happy and satisfied and it is fact.

 

[Lone]

In international relationship there is no such thing as ' True Friend '. India and pretty much any other country will always mean their own good. If one take mutual relationship of BD and IN in consideration then by the disparity of mutual cooperation will tell that india is not a true friend, rather a big neighbour with bully nature.

 

[MilSpec]

Eloquently spun propaganda, but the success of the Indian democracy also leads to marginal representation of Muslims in all sectors of your public and administrative sectors. The success of your democracy leads to the destruction of Babri mosque. Please don't bring out the success of the khans of Bollywood or Muslims presidents.... They are mere tokens.... The plight of the Muslims in India has transformed the two nation theory into fact. BD is a Muslim country as is Pakistan ..... 1971 did not abrogate the two nation theory, that can only be if BD ceased to be a sovereign entity. As to democracy in BD or Pakistan, you seem to forget that the economic, social, psychological impact of 47 was a heck of a lot greater for the two wings of Pakistan. India in comparison was gifted a stable civil service and military infrastructure by the British. The shock of separation and the continuous war footing meant that strong men came to rule Pakistan and BD. in the case of BD I believe in me democracy will be permanently embedded like India.

It is unfair that, riots and public outrage backlash violence activities are seen as subjugation of political rights of minority, BUT utter collapse of political system in AIML's/Jinnahs pakistan and it's sucessor states (Pakistan and Bangladesh ) is ignored from your retort. May I ask why. Sure there have been violent activities in India, there has been babri, there has been godhra, etc, but has once the constitution on India been amended to impinge on the political rights of minorities? Has the political process ever been constitutionally non-secular? Has military ever deviated from oit's duties of protection and impinged on the democratic rights of the nations political process in India?

India was gifted nothing, we inherited the same chaos as pakistan, the only difference was the political leadership, whe had INC and you had AIML. INC had proven string of first rung leaders, Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Azad, and the bunch on second string leaders, whereas AIML had nawabs, without Jinnah your political system became a headless chicken. We had elections after elections to consolidate the political process, whereas your process was weak enough for dicatators to call the shots, Was this the "muslim utopia" that M.A. Jinnah envisioned.

What would have Jinnah/AIML done if there was political dissent in east pakistan 1947 instead of 1970's? would genocide be the answer, if not where did the deviation occur, was it the lack of political process that led to gross injustice in East Pak, Or was the two nation theory only for protecting the rights of muslims of west pakistan's, because when it came to protecting the rights of Bengali Muslim from "envisioned islamic utopia" itself, it failed miserably.

The fact remains that despite India being a pluristic society composed of one of the largest variation in religious, and linguistic makeup, India has never constitutionally undermined the rights of any groups. There has never been any genocide carried out by the military against any group. There have been occasional breakdowns in law and orders and riots which are popular examples to cite on the forum, but the success of pluralistic political process of India is invalidation of Two nation theory, compounded by the utter failure of political process of Jinnah's Pakistan and it's subsequent successor states.

 

[the just]

well my friend,are you trying to educate me on economics or POV of yours?
so you agree to the killing of 1 million bangladeshsis and rape of your bangla sisters?
Just say the word all those were hindu men and women killed,we should have known before, we would have let our army rescue our sisters and brothers and let ya rot and "OVERCOME IN TIME".

Some people deserve no respect, i Respect BSF for "Shoot first and ask later" How does that sound?That serves well on eastern border with ungrateful shites.
Oh lemme guess yer Arabs right!

First,i am not ARAB I am a Bangladeshi.second, no I am not your friend,and never will be. I described war strategy not economics. Third,people in our country started the war against autocratic gov.knowing fully aware they are going to their deaths.fourth,why didn't you save only the Hindus and leave the Muslims to their fate?if you don't know the answer, let me tell you its politics, India saw an opportunity which they seized greedily. If the role of Indo/BD were reverse we would have done the same thing.
And yes,I agree,you guys do not deserve our respect.that's why we do not show any.at least BSF have the guts to show what they really are.illegal killer boarder guards ,who kill viciously innocent village people in the name of protection.they are better compare to the rest of you,who claims to be our friends, then keep stabbing us from behind.
And with your vulgar post you just confirmed my earlier statement. So beat it.

 

[mb444]

It is unfair that, riots and public outrage backlash violence activities are seen as subjugation of political rights of minority, BUT utter collapse of political system in AIML's/Jinnahs pakistan and it's sucessor states (Pakistan and Bangladesh ) is ignored from your retort. May I ask why. Sure there have been violent activities in India, there has been babri, there has been godhra, etc, but has once the constitution on India been amended to impinge on the political rights of minorities? Has the political process ever been constitutionally non-secular? Has military ever deviated from oit's duties of protection and impinged on the democratic rights of the nations political process in India?

India was gifted nothing, we inherited the same chaos as pakistan, the only difference was the political leadership, whe had INC and you had AIML. INC had proven string of first rung leaders, Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Azad, and the bunch on second string leaders, whereas AIML had nawabs, without Jinnah your political system became a headless chicken. We had elections after elections to consolidate the political process, whereas your process was weak enough for dicatators to call the shots, Was this the "muslim utopia" that M.A. Jinnah envisioned.

What would have Jinnah/AIML done if there was political dissent in east pakistan 1947 instead of 1970's? would genocide be the answer, if not where did the deviation occur, was it the lack of political process that led to gross injustice in East Pak, Or was the two nation theory only for protecting the rights of muslims of west pakistan's, because when it came to protecting the rights of Bengali Muslim from "envisioned islamic utopia" itself, it failed miserably.

The fact remains that despite India being a pluristic society composed of one of the largest variation in religious, and linguistic makeup, India has never constitutionally undermined the rights of any groups. There has never been any genocide carried out by the military against any group. There have been occasional breakdowns in law and orders and riots which are popular examples to cite on the forum, but the success of pluralistic political process of India is invalidation of Two nation theory, compounded by the utter failure of political process of Jinnah's Pakistan and it's subsequent successor states.

Your argument is predicated on the secular constitutional niceties of the Indian constitution. However in it of itself does not and has not guaranteed the rights of the muslims in actuality.

Similar to the US constitution in such proclamation of separate but equal clause Indian constitution provides no actual protection for Muslims.

Jurisprudence is not a panacea for equality... What is the Muslim participation in relation to population in civil, military, law enforcement etc within India?

The political mismanagement of united Pakistan does not invalidate the two nation theory but the plight and discrimination of Muslims in every sphere of Indian society does.

 

[MilSpec]

Your argument is predicated on the secular constitutional niceties of the Indian constitution. However in it of itself does not and has not guaranteed the rights of the muslims in actuality.

Similar to the US constitution in such proclamation of separate but equal clause Indian constitution provides no actual protection for Muslims.

Jurisprudence is not a panacea for equality... What is the Muslim participation in relation to population in civil, military, law enforcement etc within India?

The political mismanagement of united Pakistan does not invalidate the two nation theory but the plight and discrimination of Muslims in every sphere of Indian society does.

There are no niceties in the constitution, especially a constitution that was written by a leader of the minority community, It's plain hard legislature to define the legal sphere of government and the rights of the people.

In the constitution of India, there is protection for not just muslim but all other backward and minority communities of India.

equality in essence is championed by a fair and balanced constitution which does recognise each and every individual irrespective of cast creed or sex as equal, case and point , India has had all important posts in country held by individuals from all caste, creed and religions not based on religion but based on pure merit.... Kalam, M.A.Singh, Arora, Jacob, Manekshaw, all held thier position because of thier merit and talent irrespective of their religion.

Offcourse muslim participation in less in civil, military, law enforcement, but is that an indicator of sucess of two nation theory, because following are the participation of bengalis in "united pakistan"

Muslim participation in India
10% muslim composotion in India,Muslims in India have a very poor educational outreach despite generous reservations provided by the central government. Also alternative islamic education and lack of foresight has led to overall viscous cycle in underperformance in education's outreach.

Some of this also has to do with partition as wealthy and educated muslims choose to settle in Pak, thus leaving a vacuum in the muslim society for good leadership and good governance. Trade skill specialized by most muslim communities have handed down through generations and hence the muslims in general have been reluctant to evolve in thier community leading to Low numbers of muslim membership in civil services, IT, Military and law enforcement.

Whereas if you look at trade skills like goldsmith, fishermen, fisheries, mining, foundry and welding, Entrepreneurial machine shops, Precision tooling, Textile and craftsmanship, You will find exemplary contribution by the muslim community.

Finally if the failure of political system in AIML's Pakistan which incidentally was created for political representation of Muslims not an indicator of failure of two nation theory then I dont know what is.

the question remains,

why is babri a validation of two nation theory and Bangla genocide not an invalidation.

Why is political isolation of bengali muslims not an invalidation of 2NT, but lower muslim participation in certain areas become a reason for hue and cry for 2NT?

Why do marginal events in India's social fabric raise eyebrows but blatant blobs of failure in AIML's pakistan and it's successor states ignored with impunity?