A portion of the Bengal is known as current Bangladesh. Before 1971 it was under a bigger federation and didn't lack anything of independence by 'UN's jurisdiction'. Prior to 1946, the entire Bengal was under BRITS run Indian Sub-continent. Majority of its population were Muslims. So, why wasn't the entire Bengal transfer to PAK federation like all Hindu majority states were transfer to IND? Why did it have to be broken like Punjab? Now listen to this, you guys cried and created hodge-podge during Bangha-Vangha in 1905-06 and annulled it in 1911 but why did you reverse it again on 1946 to go with IND? Didn't you guys already erode Bengals independence then? Bangladesh as a whole province was more independent under Nabab Shiraj and with the division of INDO-PAK it already lost its originality but both went under parental control (INDO-PAK). Although clever dadas understood the significance of staying under federation with their Hindu jats but our fish-brained intellectual and traitor Mujib didn't. Current Bangladesh is like an independent-orphan beyond parental control but Indian Bengal under bigger federation is a far more independent and stronger than it. I know my compatriots would call me RAZAKAR after such statement but I'm no prisoner of conscience for telling the truth. We have been made foulest out of fools in 71 and whoever boasts our foreign reserve, exasperates numbers and count high rises to say we are better off, I tell him humbly to look at IRAQ. Under Saddam it happened to be the most prosperous Arab nation but was it broken because of being contained and isolated or not? So, our prosperity is also 'Kochu Patar Pani' and what would happen to 165 Mill people when a big chunk of it goes under water? If INDO-PAK were one country then we had autonomy to move anywhere we liked. If we were at least with PAK then GOP would bound to relocate us in another province. But can we ask for it because of our so-called independency?
