SwamyG wrote:brihaspati wrote:Nah, I keep it general - while some, like you, jump to make it personal!
Personal is better. You take my point and extrapolate/generalize to include "Indians". With verbal gymnastics, you make it appear that you are above personality, you are not Your whatever-reason led you to hastily generalize; if you had seen the first 3 lines of Rahul's post he talks about how he plans to write about not just BD but Nepal and Srilanka too. So why conclude that I was talking about just BD? Did it not occur to you that I might have interests in the other two country too?
So you are saying that we should not even try to rise above making things "personal" even if such trying is not entirely successful in the eye of the beholder? Okay! But are you also saying that you were excluding BD from your "talk" - which makes talking about BD in counter or extension - a "crime"?
You sayWhy is it that Indians always fall for the propaganda, that because Pak and proto-BD went to war with each other on certain issues, or that they have differences in language or some aspects of culture - means that they differ from each other in all other aspects too?
You highlight differences in language which is specific and then add the words "some aspects". 'Some' is not quanitified; then you complicate or should I say make it vague by using the word 'all' in the next sentence. You deliberately are not specific because it suits your line of argument. Oh wait a minute you already used the words "certain issues". So what are these "certain", "some" and "all" saying to us?
Oh - for lack of being "specific" - apologies! But is the above not an example of "verbal gymnastics"?
For the previous few pages of this thread, the "specifics" have been discussed with or without banter. This discussion on this thread goes back even further - with "specifics" of "Rabindrasangeet-Rabindrasahitya/details of language use/dress/identity overlap" discussed threadbare. Islam/Islamism/language politics/land politics/Islam inspired genocide/electoral evidence of Islamist strength/ of BD all have been repeatedly brought up in details by me, independently as well as in response to another poster. I was under the impression that people read up on a topic in the thread before "jumping" to accuse a poster of not being specific.
In any case, some examples of specifics a few pages back, just in case it becomes too tiring to look up previous detailed posts: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?p=1125899#p1125899
Again selective reference to "empirical" propaganda - that apparently support the hopeful projections of the appeasers. In this forum references were also given to counter-opinion - from researchers acknowledged to be "academic" by a BD poster - who claimed based on his "empirical research" that BD may actually lose out on certain sectors. But of course those other aspects have to be ignored.
India created an independent BD, or helped to create one, but the torture, rape and genocide of hindus in BD continued. Within 3 short years, the Islamists could reassert themselves overwhelmingly. India was used by one faction of Islamists [the founding father was a disciple of Suhrawardy - who was instrumental in pushing for the ML agenda as well as the planned 1946 assault on Hindus]. The islamists networks and infrastructure has only gained strength as time has gone by. BD society is equally divided between die-hard anti-Hindu anti-India Islamists, and opportunist Islamists - who would pretend to be sympathetic towards "secularism" if it helps them in their intra-Islamic factional fights, or gain concessions from India. I have already quoted one policy paper - which urges "to build an image of secularists" even though "the majority is devout Muslim". The implication of this Freudian slip was pointed out by me - but those blinded by a need to uphold the Nehruvian anti-Bengali-Hindu anti-Punjabi-Sikh doctrine of the Delhi based Congress coterie - do find it impossible to grasp.
We are always being told by Nehruvian bootlickers, that in time, with more concessions and "tolerance", the genocide of BD Hindus or Buddhists will stop. In a way, BD uses the "Hindu" population as a kind of ransom or hostage - so that mere reduction in the rate of increase of atrocities is a bargaining chip - or the Nehruvian bootlickers use that as an excuse to concede or gift the BD Islamists.
The reality of this transit game should be understood. BD has upped the ante so much so that India is basically on the backfoot - and having to clarify and endorse the restrictions on which India will operate. So it will onlee be about some goods flow, but if BD cannot make a huge profit out of it - forget it. Moreover the issue will be revisited once the BD regime changes.
People here deliberately ignore the significance of the fact that the recent Constitutional amendment retained the Islamist salutation in the Constitution, in spite of apparently majority of "civil society" consultants advised a return to the 72 version which did not have the salutation. Now the addition of guaranteeing equal religious rights to non-Muslims has been the onlee change from the previous Constitution - and since the islamists and BNP groups still finds this modification objectionable - it implies that the Islamists do not want "such equal rights".
Do not ignore the strength of the hardline islamists - they get roughly equal votes compared to the opportunist Islamists, when the different blocks are combined together. This was the reason, the civil war was a virtual tie, with Pak's defeat in the eastern front tipping the balance. As soon as the IA retreated, the Islamists reasserted themselves. The picture has never really changed from that. I quoted a Frontline report from 10 years before which uncannily describes all of the features still taking place at the moment.
Business or no-business, land or no-land, concessions or no-concession, keeping silent on Islamista trocities on Hindus in BD or not, investments or not - Islamists will pool together as and when they feel stronger - both the opportunist and the hardliners, against India and their ubiquitous focus of hatred the "Hindu".
There were many Bengali Hindu elite - especially from the forward castes who joined the islamists and tortured Hindus with a vengeance -and tried to prove themselves more Mussalman than the converters themselves - like Kalapahar or the many "Muslim" Zamindars and rajahs who converted from Hinduism. We are seeing modern versions of the same mentality. Anyone who talks of giving up territory to BD, or supporting infrastructure and inputs that will ultimately go into Islamic strengthening - are traitors, plain and simple, to India. They can have overt legitimacy from the Nehruvian continuity of stranglehold on the rashtra as transferred by the Brits, but that still does not detract from the fact of their being traitors - in the model of people like Kalapahar.
When the time of reckoning comes, we should have these people investigated and tried.
Irrespective of Islam or not, India needs to pocket BD. It is in India's interest to always keep its neighbors friendly. Is it fair? Not. But that is reality.
Now what is the bolded part saying to us? India's interest is in "always" keeping its neighbors "friendly" even if it is not "fair'. If that keeping friendly demands concessions in territorial terms - then by your claim, that demand must be met even if it is not "fair". So you do not have to say anything "specific" about concessions on land say- and you can deliberately keep it vague - because you include all possible "concessions" in your "always keep its neighbors friendly" stipulation?