Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II

[RamaY]

ShyamSP garu,

I am trying to probe if there is any single sphere that can be addressed without bringing the so-called civilizational-ethos issue.

- Economy: No No based on Tata experiences
- FTA: No No
- Social: Definitely no
- Military: What is the purpose of BD Army? Can BD fight India with a $1B/Yr budget? Then why not accept India's security umbrella and merge their police and military wings and achieve better social value?
- Cultural: ?
- Education: Will BD accept Bengali/Indic influence?

***

The interesting thing is it all boils down to, at least to my mind, India cleaning up its act within India; be it in
- Education - correct all text books and revamp education system
- Economy - make it work towards indian interests instead of multi-national interests and running behind financial indicators
- Military - Make IA accept Indian products before looking to export them
- Civic infra - Make it minority/politics agnostic. Rule of Law is same for everyone
- Industrial infra - Develop it to the extent that it would automatically connects other neighbors. It is a joke to ask transit agreements without building the related infra on both sides of BD in India. What is stopping India?
- Define India's core interests: this will clear the air for many fence sitters. Others will follow suit
- Define what your core values are and how you intend to protect/propagate: polarizes the target audience without getting involved...

and so on...

[somnath]

What is the possibility of India coming up with an Indian Ocean Treaty that (at high level) forms a security arrangement between all 'willing' IOR nations under Indian nuke-umbrella (Indian nukes are legitimized thru nuke bill)?
What should be the overall structure of such a treaty and what are the challenges and consequences?

RamaY-ji, we tried the IOR-ARC, an economic architecture rather than a security one...We still pay a bit of lip service to it, but practicaly it really doesnt count for much...There can be many reasons for it, but even India (as an original sponsor) seems to have lost interest in that, and is looking for more discrete arrangements - with Africa for instance, and IBSA..
About a "nuke umbrella" - we would actually have a problem is everyone from the Far East to Africa to South America took us up on the offer...We hardly have enough for "credible deterrence" for India (according to some, not even that!), how do we extend an umbrella for this wide a swathe? Of course, the bigger issue is that no one's likely to take us up on the offer in the first place!

- Economy: No No based on Tata experiences
- FTA: No No
- Social: Definitely no
- Military: What is the purpose of BD Army? Can BD fight India with a $1B/Yr budget? Then why not accept India's security umbrella and merge their police and military wings and achieve better social value?
- Cultural: ?
- Education: Will BD accept Bengali/Indic influence?

Maybe you can lay down specific policiesthat would further the objectives you lay down, in light of the assumptions you have (above)..Slightly specific, I mean "make Indian economy work for Indian interests rather than MNC" is a motherhood statement - which exact policies, even in a broad sweep need change and to what?...

From where I see, in the last 20 years, India's efforts towards SA (ex Pak) has been always in fits and starts..Not a sustained, comprehensive effort towards the region in order to consolidate influence...Lies in stark contrast to our efforts towards ASEAN - we wooed them for nearly 2 decades before we really got a foothold, and even now we are not really full members of the bloc...Its something that people like C Raja Mohan, G Parthasarthy and JN Dixit have repeatedly artiulated -the lack of enough capital investment in an ex-Pak SA policy...

We have sometimes just been lazy (SL's Hambantota port - construction was first offered to India, we dithered, SL went to China), sometimes prisoner of domestic issues (arms support to SL against LTTE, they went to China/Pak) or simply unwilling to spend political capital (resolution of the border enclaves issue with BD)...Obviosuly, the "taali" has to be there from the other side as well, but given that we have far more to benefit out of closer architectures, we need to pursue the objective with greater vigour..

For BD, the broad contours of the deal can be (summarising points already made at various places):
1. Resolution of the enclaves - give a little more if required and rehabilitate the Indian citizens..
2. A Work Pass system for BD workers - legalise immigration, and thereby "control" it...The standard format used by all countries faced with an illegal imigration issue..
3. Offer a comprehensive transit facility to BD - both "from" and "to"...So while we get full transit across BD, BD gets transit rights of Nepal through Indian territory through to Chittagong (its been another of those long-pending issues)...

All three, coupled with trade and investments (already in motion in some ways) will create mutual dependencies, which finally will only mean greater Indian influence...

I am re-referencing some of the background material for the above thesis (posted at various places earlier)..

Rationale for SAFTA - benefits accruing to India
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOUT ... pter16.pdf

Work permit system to tackle illegal immigration
http://www.idsa.in/system/files/IB_Bang ... oAssam.pdf
http://acorn.nationalinterest.in/2010/1 ... -migrants/ (I hadnt posted this before - view from Sanjoy Hazarika)

Indian (hawkish foreign policy!) view..
http://www.expressindia.com/news/column ... t_id=19665
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/on-a- ... t/752915/0
http://www.indiandiplomacy.in/Download/ ... ile183.pdf

Bangladeshi economic view..
http://www.thefinancialexpress-bd.com/m ... s_id=90618

What is currently happening..
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/india ... t/777642/0
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... 477b982.41

Now, if there is an alternate framework, more than hapy to learn and critique that...It helps if the basis is a bit more rigorous than pop-psephology coming out of perfunctory headline numbers from a couple of elections - and thereby concluding that 50% of BD are "die hard islamists" while 50% are "non die hard"...

When I talk about subsuming them, I am talking about a mutual political agreement to make Bangladesh as part of India proper. It is not a coercive offer!

RajesA-ji, I am confused...If islamists (and others) in BD are not amenable to even cooperative structures with India, why should they give a "merger" proposal any time of the day?

[devesh]

RajesA-ji, I am confused...If islamists (and others) in BD are not amenable to even cooperative structures with India, why should they give a "merger" proposal any time of the day?

it is not an overnight issue. will take sustained effort to cleanse BD of Islamism import mentality. a long term effort can undermine Islamism. that is the idea. we won't just go to them and say you should "merge" with us? why do you insist on being or attributing such naivety to BRFites?

[RajeshA]

When I talk about subsuming them, I am talking about a mutual political agreement to make Bangladesh as part of India proper. It is not a coercive offer!

RajesA-ji, I am confused...If islamists (and others) in BD are not amenable to even cooperative structures with India, why should they give a "merger" proposal any time of the day?

somnath ji,

The answer to that you will find in Gulf politics and Indian equation with them!

[Samudragupta]

For BD, the broad contours of the deal can be (summarising points already made at various places):
1. Resolution of the enclaves - give a little more if required and rehabilitate the Indian citizens..
2. A Work Pass system for BD workers - legalise immigration, and thereby "control" it...The standard format used by all countries faced with an illegal imigration issue..3. Offer a comprehensive transit facility to BD - both "from" and "to"...So while we get full transit across BD, BD gets transit rights of Nepal through Indian territory through to Chittagong (its been another of those long-pending issues)...

All three, coupled with trade and investments (already in motion in some ways) will create mutual dependencies, which finally will only mean greater Indian influence...

I hope u have taken into consideration to the domestic sociuo-political calculation of the bolded point.

Just want to quote KS here, the road to subcontinent consolidation lies in the perfect balance of Indian relationship with China and US....

[somnath]

The answer to that you will find in Gulf politics and Indian equation with them

And I am even more confused...So the secret code to BD's afection for a merger with India lies in Saudi-Iran relations, and our even-handedness w.r.t the same!

I hope u have taken into consideration to the domestic sociuo-political calculation of the bolded point.

Just want to quote KS here, the road to subcontinent consolidation lies in the perfect balance of Indian relationship with China and US

Well, yes, absolutely..Immigration is a reality, globally..Even for nations "protected" by oceans on all sides...and when you have a large, fast growing country sorrounded by poorer countries, it is inevitable..The issue has come to a pass in India because of one simple fact - denial...BD denies that immigration happens at all, and Indian (naionalists!) deny the fact that it is a socio-economic inevitability and pretend its all an islamist conspiracy...In between, unscrupulous types - from traffickers to politicians, make hay by rent-seeking..

The way to break through the impase of denial is to legitimise the activity...Once you do that, one, both govts have a stake in the scheme...Two, there is less incentive for potential immigrants to take the riskier illegal route..And three, India can control the numbers and track the immigrants more effectively...Four, avoid the clustering of immigrants in one state - the issue is that most BD immigrants today land up in Assam, creating all sorts of social tensions...Once the process is governed under a code, we control how many work permits we issue in Assam, and how many (say) in WB and so on...This way, we have a better handle on the demographic mix in a specific geography/area...

The biggest benefit from India's side will be that BD govt will be on board to ensure that the regulatory model works....

dont know context KS said that, but seems to be a fair statement to make, as all major powers (esp China in recent times) have been trying to make inroads into our backyard...

[Samudragupta]

dont know context KS said that, but seems to be a fair statement to make, as all major powers (esp China in recent times) have been trying to make inroads into our backyard...

http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/s ... 110420.htm

Regarding the fact that migration is inevitable i would be very interested to know the comparable situation in case of China-NK border, or China-stans border....is illegal immigration the order of the day in this regions also? Why shud we always look through the prism of EU(Italy-North Africa) or USA(Mexico)?
If illegal immigration can be checked in the former case won't it raise a question about the postulate that immigration is inevitable?

[RajeshA]

The answer to that you will find in Gulf politics and Indian equation with them

And I am even more confused...So the secret code to BD's afection for a merger with India lies in Saudi-Iran relations, and our even-handedness w.r.t the same!

somnath ji,

Sorry to have caused you confusion! Sometimes speaking with other BRFites, one develops a certain language of winks and pointers, and one can end up overdoing it!

Some time back, I wrote an "ebook" on a roadmap to India's strategic consolidation, in which Bangladesh sort of plays the central role! Some BRFites are aware of some of my suggestions through my posts and that "ebook"! So some winks I make, I make in the context of some of those suggestions. But then there may be many who may be unfamiliar with those suggestions.

You spoke of Islamists in Bangladesh opposing a merger between India and Bangladesh. Any such merger would have enormous consequences for the world - because it would de facto mean the emergence of a nation, with over 300 million Muslims in a single nation, making India the biggest Muslim nation in the world, and that too overwhelmingly a Sunni Muslim nation. Don't you think that Bangladeshi administrative divisions, post-merger as full Indian states, with substantial populations would be having considerable sway over the parliament's makeup, and thereby over the government's makeup? Don't you think that the Sunni Muslim Bangladeshi now citizens of India, a major power in the IOR, would be playing the key role in the destiny of the Gulf? Wouldn't there be constituencies in Saudi Arabia who may welcome such a role for India, considering their other champion Pakistan is tottering on the brink of collapse? Wouldn't they want to expedite such a transformation?

When one changes a certain variable in a scenario, one would need to change a whole host of other assumptions which one has held on to as constants!

There were a whole host of various preconditions which would need to be met for this scenario, something that was covered in the "ebook". The framework in which such a merger may come about was also the subject of the "ebook"!

The "even-handedness" you speak of in your post is status-quo thinking. In the new scenario, that "even-handedness" either may not be there, and if there, would have many more qualifiers!

Same is the case with your suggestions about "illegal-immigration"! In the new scenario, one could come up with proposals where it could be dealt with much differently, something that goes beyond "legalization" but still favors the interests of current Indians.

[AKalam]

The two nation theory was a fiction before 1947, but 1947 Partition created two nations, and I would venture to say 1971 breakup created three nations.

The merger proposal by RajeshA ji is quite relevant, because it proves two things, that India is confident enough to take in a large number of Muslims despite an apprehension that giving voting rights to such a large number will fundamentally change the demographic scenario within India (noting that Turkey is being rebuffed by EU for similar reasons). Secondly it will also prove that Bangladesh is confident enough to merge with an India and does not fear its majority Hindu rule, which was the main reason that prompted some subcontinental Muslims to support the formation of Pakistan.

I have been talking with a friend of mine who has connection with Islamist political circles in BD. He was quite precise in his response when I sounded out the merger proposal with him. What he said was that of course we would like to get voting rights back if we could get back within Indian Union, because he understands and agrees with my argument that 1947 was a mistake for subcontinental Muslims, even if we just consider the fact that we need voting rights within the greater Indian polity to secure the water sources that provide sustenance to our geographic areas. But he said that he is confident that we will never be taken in again, once we have made this mistake and opted ourselves out from the greater subcontinental polity. Instead what will happen is we will be given a lot of hope for such union, but in effect, we will be drawn in closer, so we come under increasing economic and political influence and an eventual stranglehold, the sole aim and goal being to keep us weak and divided enough to even raise our voice for our rights or to engage in efforts to secure our future.

So to summarize, yes there is recognition of the fact that it will be advantageous for Bangladesh to be invited back into a full merger with India, but anything short of that goal will be treated with a suspicion to keep us weak and a design to make us a dependent satellite state.

But this is from a man (my friend) who has a lot of foresight and some rudimentary understanding of strategic thinking. Mere mortals and Abduls will choke to hear even such “outlandish” ideas. Here I want to go into it a bit why it is so, specially at a time while there is ongoing shifting of geopolitical tectonic plates in WANA.

Islam is a dynamic force like other similar social forces. Specially in this age of globalization, it seems that it has gained some velocity. What happens in the very far future for older surviving religious memes, such as Sanatan Dharma or relatively newer ones that are still relevant on the world stage, such as Buddhism, Christianity and Islam, are debatable. But one thing is certain that they will remain influential in the next few decades, if not centuries. Ideas such as Marxist communism may not have survived in its original form, but they left behind their legacy probably in having a positive socialist egalitarian influence in the debate for a more successful form of governance. Similarly, important social forces will continue to leave behind their legacies in some form or shape, such as secular humanism, that arose in the Christian domain.

One of the core ideas of Islam is that the Islamic community must have some kind of unity, regardless of the geographic spread or the locations of various Islamic communities of different ethnicities. Some simple indications are:

- all Muslims pray towards Mecca
- all Muslims are obligated to perform Haj at least once in a lifetime if they can afford it
- all Muslims believe in the same one God, the same last prophet and the same Holy book
- there is no marriage bar between Muslims of different regions of the world (I myself have looked for a wife among the Kyrgyz, but eventually married a Korean, while another Bangladeshi friend is trying with a Russian Tatar Muslim, just to give some examples ), so Islam is a force against racism and pragmatic tool for ethnic integration among diverse world populations. If racism and ethnocentrism is an evil then Islam is an antidote even in some limited form

The above is true regardless of the major divisions such as Shia and Sunni and other minor divisions among them and of course the ethnic and nationality difference among them.

What eventually will happen with this unity is up for debate. The last 100 years saw the disintegration of some major Islamic polities such as Ottoman and the British India and saw the rise of some forces such as Brotherhood, Salafi etc., the various mixtures of which have influenced quite a few events and incidents on the world stage. These real events together with campaigns by some quarters such as the Zionists and their followers on world stage, have pretty much put the entire Islamic community on the defensive and pushed them to a corner which gave rise to a realization that they are a vilified lot beyond redemption in the eyes of the world and they thus stand alone. This shared loneliness increased the sense of unity rather than making it less IMHO.

If Muslims can overcome some of their divisions and come closer together, then it is possible that they will seek allies among their neighbors. The gora West (including the Orthodox), as the traditional enemy and the status quo power that has worked to destroy and divide the Islamic polities, will never be trusted. This leaves then the Sinic and Hindu civilizations, which may become the other two major global powers on world stage.

Sometime in the future, it is possible that a cross road will appear for world history where either a Sino-Islamic axis or an Indo-Islamic axis will take place. Sinic civilization does not hold as much historical baggage as the Hindu civilization w.r.t Islam, but Sinic is also not as much of an intimate part of Islamic civilization, as the subcontinent is, which is shared by both Hindus and Muslims. Of course this cross road scenario may or may not take place, but there is some probability that it will, specially if Muslims become more evolved socially and understand their place in the world stage. The ongoing drama in WANA is an indication that the world of Islam is in some flux and its hard to tell where eventually it will end up.

East Bengal Muslims’ bitter experience with their fellow subcontinental Muslims from Punjab will not be easily forgotten, as India’s help will always be gratefully remembered in our times of difficulty. But a strategic direction for the subcontinent and relationships between states such as Bangladesh and India, will be affected by dynamics outside the subcontinent IMHO. What is up for debate is the degree of this outside influence, which will become clear in the coming decades I believe.

In the meantime, increasing CBM’s such as trade, investment, transit etc. should be viewed as similar pragmatic measures taken with much more hostile neighbors, such as PRC, just so there is no disappointment from unrealistic expectations.

Hasina led AL may be gone in the next election, because in BD, whenever a party comes to power, they have to satisfy the need of their cadre at different layers, which diminishes standard of governance, which inevitably angers the public. So its the usual see-saw as we have seen since 1991, where AL and BNP alternates in winning the election. So the current friendly policies with India may not continue if BNP wins the next election.

To reiterate, I think the internal dynamics within Bangladesh is not as important, as India’s relation with Islamic community in general, contingent on the possibility that the Islamic community will get more united in their approach and relationship with their local neighbors and choose to ally with emerging global powers such as PRC or India. There might be a question that why choose between PRC or India, why not have equal relationship or a more nuanced relationship with both, I think its certainly possible, as it is possible that there will not be much unity among Muslims, as is the case today, I guess we will find out in the coming years and decades. My feeling is that PRC may try to engineer this scenario, in its drive for supremacy, which is another possibility. For Islamic countries, it is possible that only one trusted and reliable center of knowledge and manufacturing will be sufficient for their needs, while others can be ignored.

About the problems that is inherent with the nature of the blind faith that is Islam, or more exactly the virulent exclusivity of this meme, IMHO, it can only be changed from within the Islamic community from their own effort, perhaps some unified effort at a global level, with further social evolutions of Islamic societies and their understanding of the urgency and the need for such changes. There are plenty of mechanisms for such changes which can be reactivated upon global consensus, Ijtihad is one such mechanism as B ji mentioned. It is not just limited with Shia, which was a very minor group before large scale conversion in the Iranian domain. But any efforts to influence events within Islamic communities from any power, will be looked at as unwelcome and hostile.

[RajeshA]

AKalam ji,

there are many pieces of wisdom and understanding of Indo-Bangladesh situation and the wider geopolitics of the region in your post. For the sake of our friend somnath ji, I'd like to emphasize the following!

So to summarize, yes there is recognition of the fact that it will be advantageous for Bangladesh to be invited back into a full merger with India, but anything short of that goal will be treated with a suspicion to keep us weak and a design to make us a dependent satellite state.

Mere building of economic bridges into Bangladesh and transit tunnels through Bangladesh would not necessarily improve the situation, and it would probably cause further polarization of Bangladesh's domestic politics, which could encourage parties like BNP to concede major security cooperation to PRC at India's costs!

Ideological, political and strategic rifts cannot simply be healed by application of economic balm, and could in fact lead to a more vicious rash!

I too think that with Bangladesh what would help is either to go the full hog or to be very cautious in our approach and embrace!

[Pranav]

The merger proposal by RajeshA ji is quite relevant, because it proves two things, that India is confident enough to take in a large number of Muslims despite an apprehension that giving voting rights to such a large number will fundamentally change the demographic scenario within India (noting that Turkey is being rebuffed by EU for similar reasons).

AKalam ji, a merger can happen after Islamism loses its grip. It could be said that Islam is a fragile ideology, which cannot survive without intimidation, blasphemy laws, putting to death of apostates etc. It may take a generation or two, but modern social and technological trends are not very conducive to the survival of blind ideologies.

[somnath]

RajeshA-ji,

I guess one needs to read your ebook then before one can understand the rationale of why BD would prefer a "merger" to an "economic union" - in fact not prefer, but give a digital 0/1 response! Post a link if you can!

Separately, if your argument is that a larger muslim population in united India+BD will elicit that reaction (at least thats what I take away from your post), then well, that point was made and rejected..Once in 1947 (for the larger Pak movement) and in 1971 (for BD specifically)...In fact Mountbatten used the same argument in his last ditch attempt to prevent partition with Jinnah (Source: Patrick French: Liberty or Death)...

the point really is whether there is a constituency in BD asking for such an arrangement? One can argue that going by that logic, one should actually start with Pak - there is a fairly strong pole there that has publicly articulated the fact that "partition was a mistake" (Altaf Hussain and the Jiye Sindh guys - politics makes strange bedfellows! )...

With BD, on either side of the divide, one does not see any such articulation...

More importantly, giving up sovereignty has been a tricky issue glonbally in the post WWII era...Even in post modern Europe, with all their liberalist thoughts, which culminated in the Eurozone - giving up even modest amount of sovereignty to a central authrity has been a challenge..And even the limited abdication of sovereignty (in economic policy making) is coming under increasing strain now...

Last point, about trade and peace - well it is a reasonable correlation established with enough empirical evidence...International studies has articulated some of the axioms in subjective terms for some time..But later, there was enough econometric modelling done on the subject to get some empirical basis...People who have done advanced courses in econ are likely to have encountered references or full electives on the topic...Solomon Polachek is well known for this..
Here is his analysis..
http://www.webasa.org/Pubblicazioni/Polachek_2005_3.pdf

Now, it does not, and will not nbe a mathematical certainty, but there is enough data to draw reasonable conclusions about peace and trade...Dare say, a lot more than any empirical basis of possible mergers between nations without either nation having a constituency advocating the same!

BTW the "ecenhandedness" I referred to was beweetn Iran and SA! Not BD...

[somnath]

Regarding the fact that migration is inevitable i would be very interested to know the comparable situation in case of China-NK border, or China-stans border....is illegal immigration the order of the day in this regions also? Why shud we always look through the prism of EU(Italy-North Africa) or USA(Mexico)?
If illegal immigration can be checked in the former case won't it raise a question about the postulate that immigration is inevitable?

Samudragupta-ji, NoKo-china situation is different..
1. NoKo is a sparsely populated country, adn the border in most parts is quite hostile..
2. NoKo actively discourages immigration, and consequences for the families of all immigrants is lethal..

But even given the above, there is quite a bit of immigration from NoKo to china, mostly as transit towards SoKo...There are lots of good documentaries on this...

But, in most other "normal" cases, immigration is inevitable..From M'sia to Singapore, from Indon to M'sia/Singapore, Mexico to US and so on...Even from Fiji to Australia...the way most countries deal with it is by regularising it - and I have explianed the key postulates earlier..

[RajeshA]

RajeshA-ji,

I guess one needs to read your ebook then before one can understand the rationale of why BD would prefer a "merger" to an "economic union" - in fact not prefer, but give a digital 0/1 response! Post a link if you can!

It was distributed through email to those interested. It is somewhat outdated, and was working on a 2nd edition. Would email you the new one once it is ready!

Separately, if your argument is that a larger muslim population in united India+BD will elicit that reaction (at least thats what I take away from your post), then well, that point was made and rejected..Once in 1947 (for the larger Pak movement) and in 1971 (for BD specifically)...In fact Mountbatten used the same argument in his last ditch attempt to prevent partition with Jinnah (Source: Patrick French: Liberty or Death)...

the point really is whether there is a constituency in BD asking for such an arrangement? One can argue that going by that logic, one should actually start with Pak - there is a fairly strong pole there that has publicly articulated the fact that "partition was a mistake" (Altaf Hussain and the Jiye Sindh guys - politics makes strange bedfellows! )...

With BD, on either side of the divide, one does not see any such articulation...

Dare say, a lot more than any empirical basis of possible mergers between nations without either nation having a constituency advocating the same!

Perhaps at some point in life you too have been hesitant in proposing to a girl, unsure of how she may respond, especially if she had said no once (1947), and may be she too feels somewhat hesitant after having rejected you once, assuming that you may have moved on already!

For Bangladeshis to be making a queue for merger with India, the prospect may be considered by them as a real loss of echandee, a sign that such a constituency is not loyal. Considering the fact that it is a poorer and smaller nation than India, that is understandable!

The offer has to be on the table beforehand. Only after that a debate can start. The Bangladeshis would need to know, that we Indians are serious about this, and they will need to know why we consider it in our national interest!

More importantly, giving up sovereignty has been a tricky issue glonbally in the post WWII era...Even in post modern Europe, with all their liberalist thoughts, which culminated in the Eurozone - giving up even modest amount of sovereignty to a central authrity has been a challenge..And even the limited abdication of sovereignty (in economic policy making) is coming under increasing strain now...

Last point, about trade and peace - well it is a reasonable correlation established with enough empirical evidence...International studies has articulated some of the axioms in subjective terms for some time..But later, there was enough econometric modelling done on the subject to get some empirical basis...People who have done advanced courses in econ are likely to have encountered references or full electives on the topic...Solomon Polachek is well known for this..
Here is his analysis..
http://www.webasa.org/Pubblicazioni/Polachek_2005_3.pdf

Now, it does not, and will not nbe a mathematical certainty, but there is enough data to draw reasonable conclusions about peace and trade...

Giving up sovereignty can only happen if countries do it in a larger group and not on a bilateral basis! So SAARC (sans Pak) is the vehicle!

Let me know of any economic modeling across civilizational conflicts like say Israel and the Arabs!

[RajeshA]

The fact that Bangladesh exists both proves and disproves two nation theory..

As of now, it disproves the Two Nation Theory by asserting a Three Nation Theory, and not by proving the validity of the One Nation Theory!

A merger of Bangladesh with India, even as it leaves only two countries in its aftermath - India and Pakistan, would in fact disprove the Two Nation Theory by asserting the One Nation Theory!

[svinayak]

So to summarize, yes there is recognition of the fact that it will be advantageous for Bangladesh to be invited back into a full merger with India, but anything short of that goal will be treated with a suspicion to keep us weak and a design to make us a dependent satellite state.

This is good that there is awareness. The real fact will be when Indian economy will become so big that other nations such as PRC or US will be never be able to dominate the world or play one nation against the other - then India will find it the right time for merger. The social engineering which is being done covertly and overtly inside BD to go against India will have to stop.

[brihaspati]

Most intriguing that Polachek's name has sprung up. Was that accidental (turned up on a web search or the entry-level econometrics?) or deliberate? Because there are at least two other models that go against Polachek exactly on the causality claims by Polachek!

Well Polachek is the one pushing for "trade reduces conflict direction" but his models have been challenged, and the current status of the field is rather "undecided" and much more nuanced than a straightforward trade>>conflict reduction causality. So maybe only his name turned up to support a particular desired position on how increasing trade must bring down conflict etc.

Given prior experience with vague statements, will wait for more profound revelations that are concrete enough to take up for discussion!

Actually Polachek in his 1980 paper states that the exact relationship between trade and conflict could not be inferred from his study.

"The coefficients presented in Tables 1 and 2 do not indicate the direction of causality[italics authors and not mine]. Thus from these tables [tables showing impact of trade on conflict/cooperation], it cannot be ascertained whether trade diminishes conflict, or whether in fact the reverse is true, and it is really conflict that reduces trade." "Conflict and trade", Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24, 55-78. Polachek admits the difficulty in estimating causality with lagged model because of the small sample size [p 65]. What he goes on to do is a confounding model that can show elasticity but not causality (but based on which he makes statements that will easily interpreted by non-econometricians as causality). Polachek is however careful in covering the implication in his estimation [severely criticized later by other modelers] by asserting that "trade reduces conflict" would be "naive" - an advice not taken seriously apparently!

Actually there has been plenty of "empirical" work subsequently, that actually find that the simple Polachek model is just one possible causality model and other directions also have empirical support. Now people look for much more, in country characteristics, and the nature of the conflict - systemic, ideological, etc. because those things have been found to be possibly affecting which direction the causality will go.

The jury is still out on this and we have selective pushing of "empirical" work in support of a political line. Let us wait for earth-shattering declarations that no other counter models to Polachek's implied causality in one direction exists, no empirical support for any contradiction to Polachek's supposed "causality" claims, and that alternative concepts and terms/terminology are never used in the "field" or even if used are by a finite number of researchers in the field and hence are non-standard!

[RajeshA]

The merger proposal by RajeshA ji is quite relevant, because it proves two things, that India is confident enough to take in a large number of Muslims despite an apprehension that giving voting rights to such a large number will fundamentally change the demographic scenario within India (noting that Turkey is being rebuffed by EU for similar reasons). Secondly it will also prove that Bangladesh is confident enough to merge with an India and does not fear its majority Hindu rule, which was the main reason that prompted some subcontinental Muslims to support the formation of Pakistan.

I have been talking with a friend of mine who has connection with Islamist political circles in BD. He was quite precise in his response when I sounded out the merger proposal with him. What he said was that of course we would like to get voting rights back if we could get back within Indian Union, because he understands and agrees with my argument that 1947 was a mistake for subcontinental Muslims, even if we just consider the fact that we need voting rights within the greater Indian polity to secure the water sources that provide sustenance to our geographic areas. But he said that he is confident that we will never be taken in again, once we have made this mistake and opted ourselves out from the greater subcontinental polity. Instead what will happen is we will be given a lot of hope for such union, but in effect, we will be drawn in closer, so we come under increasing economic and political influence and an eventual stranglehold, the sole aim and goal being to keep us weak and divided enough to even raise our voice for our rights or to engage in efforts to secure our future.

AKalam ji,

In 1947, the situation was such that if the Dominion of India had stayed together, it would have been extremely difficult to build today's India - a pluralist democratic secular federal independent nation of laws! The obstructionist ways of Muslim League and its leaders would simply not have allowed the emergence of such an India. In fact, I doubt India would even have been able to write a Constitution till today!

Secondly the Hindu Continuum needed time to heal after several centuries of onslaughts, occupation and instability. In many ways the Pseudo-Secular Anglophone Indian Elite has somewhat delayed the healing and blooming of the Hindu Renaissance, which one should not consider to be directed against some other religion, simply a universal awareness amongst the Hindus of their past and of their beliefs. I myself consider myself to be a part of pseudo-secular anglophone Indians who are still more or less unaware of the Dharmik roots, and I am sure I too would need a lifetime of education in this regard. So I cannot really claim that the Indics are really ready for prime time and they are confident. However I do suspect, that there is more self-confidence and self-awareness. Had Partition not taken place, perhaps the Indics would have become involved in a constant struggle with the Muslims, and we would not have had time to consolidate our own sense of self!

So 1947's Partition, I regard was good for India and good for the Hindus!

Any merger of Bangladesh with today's India, would have a very different dynamic than would have been the case today, say if there never had been a Partition. Similarly Bangladesh too has had some time to develop its own national compass.

Summarizing, so your friend should be aware that those Islamists in undivided India who were against Partition, held their views based on a totally different set of circumstances as what exist today!

Secondly, I would request you to further inquire of your friend, how he would feel about India and Hindus, were Bangladesh merged with India? Would he as an Islamist be able to accept and respect Hindu's right to their faith and be able to feel patriotic about India? Or would the dissing continue? Just curious!

To reiterate, I think the internal dynamics within Bangladesh is not as important, as India’s relation with Islamic community in general, contingent on the possibility that the Islamic community will get more united in their approach and relationship with their local neighbors and choose to ally with emerging global powers such as PRC or India. There might be a question that why choose between PRC or India, why not have equal relationship or a more nuanced relationship with both, I think its certainly possible, as it is possible that there will not be much unity among Muslims, as is the case today, I guess we will find out in the coming years and decades. My feeling is that PRC may try to engineer this scenario, in its drive for supremacy, which is another possibility. For Islamic countries, it is possible that only one trusted and reliable center of knowledge and manufacturing will be sufficient for their needs, while others can be ignored.

About the problems that is inherent with the nature of the blind faith that is Islam, or more exactly the virulent exclusivity of this meme, IMHO, it can only be changed from within the Islamic community from their own effort, perhaps some unified effort at a global level, with further social evolutions of Islamic societies and their understanding of the urgency and the need for such changes. There are plenty of mechanisms for such changes which can be reactivated upon global consensus, Ijtihad is one such mechanism as B ji mentioned. It is not just limited with Shia, which was a very minor group before large scale conversion in the Iranian domain. But any efforts to influence events within Islamic communities from any power, will be looked at as unwelcome and hostile.

AKalam ji,

There is much what only the future would unveil! As far as India's relations with the Islamic community, I can say that it would be determined by the following:

• Pakistan's behavior towards India
• Illegal immigration from Bangladesh
• Manifestation of Islam's aggressive memes amongst Indian Muslims directed at other citizens
• Indian Muslim Vote-bank and Pseudo-Secular politics in India
• Entry of Indian Muslims into the economic, cultural, social and political Indian mainstream

In the "ebook", I made suggestions on not only how to get it all under control, but almost solve these issues completely.

Bangladeshis can help and support Indians in resolving these issues, without necessarily hurting Bangladeshi interests! That would go a long way in cementing a positive or at least working attitude amongst the Indians towards the Islamic world.

Moreover, I think most Indics are willing to make an "allowance" in their world view and accept Islam as simply a different path to "Moksha"! Atri ji has written some interesting thoughts on this. So dogma may not necessarily create a rift between Indics and Muslims.

What Indics however desire is to have a smooth and trustworthy interface between them and the Muslims on one hand and between the State and Muslims on the other. It is on these interfaces one would need to work, and personally I am confident one can find the right arrangements.

[brihaspati]

Akalam bhai,
can it be more clearly stated, as to what exact form the "merger" is interpreted to be from the sources you refer to?
What do they mean by "full voting rights"? Voting rights are automatically extended to the citizens? I guess its a different voting right being implied - voting as a subnational unit? If you merge why should you be treated separately so as to keep you "weak" ?

[RamaY]

Well Polachek is the one pushing for "trade reduces conflict direction" but his models have been challenged, and the current status of the field is rather "undecided" and much more nuanced than a straightforward trade>>conflict reduction causality. So maybe only his name turned up to support a particular desired position on how increasing trade must bring down conflict etc.

One should read this blogpost to understand how trade can invite conflict.

[AKalam]

brihaspati ji,

By "full merger", I have referred to the idea described in RajeshA ji's ebook, where all current SAARC countries excluding Af-Pak become a part of Subcontinental Union, in stages. At the final stage, all inhabitants will gain equal "voting rights" within this Union.

Please note that I have not used the term "full voting rights" in my above post, only "voting rights" and I agree that it will come automatically to every citizen, after a full political union of the states, a situation similar to the vision of an EU end state, if and when it takes place, of a United States of Europe.

The question of treating separately to keep weak only arises when only trade, transit, commerce are the final goal, but not full political union or merger of the states involved.

As Rama Y ji points out, trade and commerce had been used as tools of mercantile imperialism in the past and is being used today as neo-colonial imperial tools according to some, but then these may sound controversial to some as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism

It is however not a one way thing for India-BD relations, as described above. There are many manufacturing sectors in BD that are world class, mainly due to cheaper labor than most competing countries and an aggressive entrepreneurial class, RMG (Ready Made Garments), backward linkage textiles and others being the main sector among these. AFAIK, India is one of the main cotton sources for BD.

Transit is also a two way thing, as we provide transit for India to the NE states, we need to expand our trade with Bhutan, Nepal and even Pakistan, which will eventually open up overland trade routes to Central Asia, Iran and beyond towards, EU and Russia. So when that route opens through Pak, BD would very much like to take advantage of it along with India. We also need understanding from India that our route via Myanmar to PRC and ASEAN will not be viewed as a threat, as this route can also be shared by NE states, either directly from there to Myanmar or via BD.

So there is definitely opportunities in these and many other areas, such as regional water resource management, being another vital one for India-BD, where eventually we may need an India-BD-PRC joint arrangement or agreement regarding Jamuna/Brahmaputra/Yarlung Tsangpo. Another area is resolution of border and enclaves (as Somnath ji mentioned) and maritime boundary. These areas can and should be explored for mutual benefits, regardless of which political parties are in power in the countries involved.

[brihaspati]

Akalam bhai,
is it "Samunnay"(?) which publishes a compendium annual economic outlook? Sometime ago they referred to partial equilibrium based studies that even with a bilateral FTA, BD was unlikely to gain significantly from the RMG sector. My doubts are given the existing political machinery to represent India as "hindu" and "enemy" (even existential enemy) if projected gains from increased "pure trade/economic" opening up do not turn up as reality, what will be the political backlash? Is BD on track to develop mechanism that can handle such political backlash?

We don't want PRC increasing its presence either in the nighbourhood. Given that India will not have much control on the Kunming link through Myanmar into BD, this is something that is entirely different from bilateral "transit" through BD.

[AKalam]

RajeshA ji,

Hypothetical situations are difficult to comment on, but my prediction for this no partition situation would have been that no major migration and blood letting would have happened, except for occasional small scale riots in places like Gujarat or Babri Masjid affair, sparing the inhabitants of the subcontinent this very recent and deep scar that is continuously affecting the relations of the countries and their population in the subcontinent. IMHO, the partition has brought up the older grudges and memories that were in the more remote past, and would not be as relevant today.

In an undivided subcontinent, there would be sufficient space for Hindu revival, as well as the development of a moderate Islam, much less room for Saudi oil money to spread the intolerant Salafism and of course Russia would not dare to put its hand in Afghan land. PLA would still occupy Tibet and Xinjiang, but it might have been possible to start and sustain insurgencies and thus make it difficult for the Han demographic invasions in both of these areas, since both have direct borders with the subcontinent. There would obviously be no Kashmir issue.

PRC would have no opportunity to increase its influence in the subcontinent as it has done today and an undivided India could spread its wings both in post Soviet Central Asia, increase trade with Iran and move more forcefully towards ASEAN.

Last but not the least, the question that arises today where we can think of a Sino-Islam axis, leaving the large Muslim population of India in a no mans land, would not even arise.

But I agree that we should not lament over the could-have-been, we should accept what has taken place, embrace the positives from our current reality, as you have mentioned in your post and move on towards a better future for all of us.

The Hindu/Muslim misunderstanding and bad blood, I believe have been there for centuries. Partition exacerbated and reopened the old wound. As Muslims of the world show some progress in their social evolution, have some successful democratic societies like Turkey, Malaysia and BD to a much smaller extent, and finally with this Arab spring, I am hoping that the stigma associated with Islam and Muslims will reduce and this will open up opportunities for India to reevaluate its relationship with global Islamic community. When there is a general and evolving understanding among the populace that India and Muslims are allied and mutually dependent, then automatically the anti-India attitudes will reduce IMHO.

As for the suggestions you have made in the ebook, yes, I believe many of these will be relevant and BD can and will help, out of its own interest.

If Indic's can make "allowance" for Islamic world view, I am sure Islam will be able to do the same as well, for after all, dogma's and ideologies were created and deployed to unify and club together large diverse populations in an empire, and for some tangible economic advantage that was attained from creating large cohesive systems - so when there is economic and security interest at stake, flexibility will be found within existing structures of Islam, to make sure that Sanatan Dharma can be accepted as well. This again is my personal opinion and I could be wrong about this.

[RajeshA]

brihaspati ji,

By "full merger", I have referred to the idea described in RajeshA ji's ebook, where all current SAARC countries excluding Af-Pak become a part of Subcontinental Union, in stages. At the final stage, all inhabitants will gain equal "voting rights" within this Union.

AKalam ji,
As far as I remember in my Google Group post from the Thread "a comprehensive big picture road-map" {entry 15} dated Dec 12 2010, 9:44 pm, we talked of stages, in fact of waves. Various countries/regions were supposed to join the Subcontinental Union in various waves. Bangladesh was supposed to be in the first wave. I don't remember of any talk of stages in a different context but of this issue.

Then there was talk of keeping the boundary fence for around 40-70 years, but giving all Bangladeshis with an undergraduate degree and their dependents to travel and work in the Rest of India right at merger, while unskilled labor be allowed into India under more limited provisions.

Secondly, I was of the view that once an agreement is reached and a merger is effected, all Bangladeshis would have voting rights for Indian Parliament, but as voters registered with the Bangladeshi Electoral Zone.

[AKalam]

brihaspati ji,

Not familiar with Samunnay, but I would doubt integrity of any studies unless I saw who did those. I will take a look if you post some links.

About the anti India bloc in BD and even in Pak, I think I have outlined a good plan how to take care of that, the answer lies in India's improving of relations with global Islamic community and the subcontinental Muslims will meekly follow the "Master races" using RajeshA ji's word. In the far future, we can make our subcontinental race into an Uber super race, but that IMHO will take decades of improvement in Human Development Index of our population in the subcontinent.

[RajeshA]

AKalam ji,

To be frank, the Partition I don't think was really a Hindu-Muslim issue, but rather the insecurity of the Muslim Elite, possibly enhanced by the egalitarian thinking in the Congress.

I wrote a few posts on that. Two of them are 1 and 2!

[AKalam]

RajeshA ji,

Sorry I forgot the details, my apologies.

The plan for first wave and subsequent waves, limited migrations and voting rights seems reasonable to me, as mentioned in your post and the ebook, but of course such plans will be finalized upon negotiations between stake holders, when and if such negotiations take place. We are just working on some broad road map to sow the seed of a future vision in people's mind, which will someday come to reality, hopefully.

Insecurity of Muslim Elite, yes, to which I will add, their short sightedness. I agree that it was not a mass Hindu Muslim issue in 1947, that is why I called two nation theory a fiction in 1947, but once Partition happened, the population in Pakistan was subjected to a mass propaganda that still goes on, to justify the existence of this state based on a false theory.

I have seen posts 1 and 2, I would more or less agree with you and also admit that I do not know well the internal structure of current Pakistan's society. In case of Bangladesh, the migrations effect was more diffuse and the migrants eventually diluted and have become a part of a broader land owner class, which owns smaller land holding than Pakistani feudals. So in case of Bangladesh it is very much a part and parcel of a larger Muslim Bhadrolok class, lets say 5-10% of the population in comparison with few hundred thousand feudals in Pakistan.

[brihaspati]

Akalambhai,
look for Selim Raihan's piece on http://www.shamunnaybd.org, vol 2, January, 2009. He qualifies his comments by saying that "static" analysis need not be predictive for "dynamic" future projections. But we do not have much work on transitional (from static to dynamic) analytical methods either. With BD there are so many variables, that even comparative models with other situations may not be applicable. Let me know of your opinion on Raihan's work.

[AKalam]

brihaspati ji,
Dr. Selim Raihan is an Associate Professor, Department of Economics, University of Dhaka, so he definitely is a credible source. I could not download Bangladesh Economic Outlook issue 2, but I am looking at other more recent issues, I will comment on them once I had a chance to study his work. Thanks for the link.

[somnath]

Giving up sovereignty can only happen if countries do it in a larger group and not on a bilateral basis! So SAARC (sans Pak) is the vehicle

Well, Europe embarked on a similar path, though with FAR less ambitions than a merged political entity...And the path traversed was pretty standard - free trade area - coordinated monetary standards - common market - common currency - selective coordinated political architectures...SAARC to me can travel a similar path, with India playing a role similar to Germany (+France) in our context...Issue on the political side is, and I said that before, even post modern Europe is struggling with limited sovereignty being surrendered, and "Brussels" is a dirty four-letter word for politicians all over...

Your analogy on the cupid is quite interesting (I will use that elsewhere, and you can be sure I will not say who I got it from )...But till the time we see a political constituency in both India and BD for even closer interactions, to think of political mergers is a bit far fetched IMO - and we see no constituency currently..

the answer lies in India's improving of relations with global Islamic community and the subcontinental Muslims will meekly follow the "Master races" using RajeshA ji's word.

AKalam-ji, unfortunately thats a very generalised view of how politics, even of the Islamic variety would work...India's relations with the wider muslim world has been almost uniformly impeccable throughout the last 65 years...In fact even earlier, which other colony, even a muslim one, launched a movement asking for, of all thing, a restoration of the Khilafat? We all know the strangest bedfellows the khilafat movement made on either side of the divide...post independence, India has been right up there with all muslim causes - Palestine, Suez - you name it...That has not in any way diminished the virulence of hardline opinion in Pak (and somewhat in BD as well) about India...It is less to do with global Islamism, more to do with the politics of the subcontinent...Islam is used as a convenient mobiliser of the lumpen in the effort...

[RajeshA]

X-Posted from TIRP Thread

Dawn’s version of US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Admiral Michael Mullen’s comment
“The ISI has a rich history of how they operated in this part of the world, to protect their own country; I understand that some of the aspects of that we strongly disagree with and that is something that we continue to address.” …………………

I hope BRfites clearly understand 'which aspects of TSP's terro policy that the US agrees with'. I am simply amazed at how some Indians believe that the US will solve India's problems. Some people like Ms. C. Fair say openly why the US will *NOT* solve India's problems while Adm. Mullen et al cloak it but still deliver the message to us Indians. Yet, we repose faith in US intervention.

The Indians are in prarthna modus, and one is in prarthna modus, when one sees oneself as impotent to change the situation. We are praying that the Americans would solve our problems, and that is not going to happen. We fall prey to praying, because our strategic community simply has not put forth any plan, any course of action, any road map which ensures an end to Pakistani terrorism under the umbrella of nuclear threat! We are taking the geopolitical environment around India as a given, immune to our manipulation, immune to resolution! Why?

Today we live under the threat of several tens of nuclear bombs going off in our cities, set off by mad dogs who in their collapse have nothing to lose and all satisfaction to gain from seeing India going down with them. With every year, the difference between India and Pakistan would grow, and so too would the jalan, the envy from Indian progress. The threat of some nuclear strike on India only increases with time!

Does the Indian establishment have no ideas how to resolve this, other than with prarthna and pappi-jhaphi!

There have always been huge events in world history which have wiped away established political structures, so why is such a tide not being considered!

If the powers that be in Delhi, are willing to share power, than Pakistan can be unraveled within 3 years. I had proposed an India-Bangladesh merger in the context of "Peaceful Consolidation of the Indian Subcontinent". How long can Pakjabis hold on to the various other provinces in the backdrop of something like that?

One can unravel and disarm Pakistan without firing even a single bullet, without any bloodshed! But one requires some very bold decisions from the top!

[RajeshA]

X-Posted from TIRP Thread

RajeshA: Your idea of India-BD merger would somehow trigger giant tsunami of Pakis trying to divestiture the country known as Pakistan somehow doesn't inspire confidence in me. We are trying to hit a six and cricket and hoping for a Gold in hockey. Still you have some original idea. At least you can't be called a arm chair critic.

As far as I see it,

• Pakjabis with a sprinkling of Pushtun and Mohajirs thrown in, are the ones flying the Pakistani flag.
• Non-Pakjabi ethnicities are kept in by showing them Hindu India as bogey man and for saving Islam.
• And then there is a vast population, who are simply fed up of a non-performing Pakistani State, including in Pakjab.

An India-BD merger would negate the raison d'être of Pakistan, its birth, its foundation and its ideology so comprehensively, that Pakjabis would be left with no more excuses.

Pakistan is being kept together by having forced the other ethnicities to swear on Islam itself. It is not necessarily any loyalty to Pakistan that keeps the other provinces tied to Pakjab, but rather their loyalty to Islam, and Pakjabis have successfully equated Pakistan with Islam. You be disloyal to one, you are disloyal to the other.

With Indo-BD merger, the whole Hindu bogey-man and "Islam in danger" falls flat on its face. Pakistanis would see that 1947 is not written in stone. They are free to rethink the Two-Nation Theory. They are free to rethink Partition, and this time with the benefit of hindsight.

There is a knot which has frozen Pakistani attitude towards India in time. Indo-BD merger would open that knot, and let the thoughts of non-Pakjabis in Pakistan flow freely again.

The giant tsunami would come from the Sindhis, the Mohajirs, the Baluchis, the Gilgitians, the Baltistanis, and Pakjabis would not be able to keep this urge back. We need not take in any. We just need to get them out of Pakistan first. We can do the cherry picking later if we wish.

To be frank, Indians have not been able to solve Pakistan, because of complicated thinking amongst the Indian leadership and their calculations regarding Muslim sentiments in India and rest of the world. In this regard, Bangladeshis at the helm of MEA's Pakistan Desk can do better! No more Muslim sentiments to think weigh in!

IMHO, it is difficult for Indians to comprehend the enormous change we will go through in looking at ourselves and at India's opportunities in the that post-merger New World! We will be much much more than the sum of our parts!

Looking through a prism, one would see two "MUSLIM" nations in the Indian Subcontinent, one almost twice as big as the other, both nuclear powers, but one successful, prosperous with a double-digit GDP growth, the other going down the drain! To which "Muslim" nation in the Indian Subcontinent, would the Sindhis, the Baluch, the Gilgitians, the Baltistanis want to belong to! Can the Pakjabis really deny the others that right? Aren't Muslims supposed to join the bigger Ummah (as India could be considered through that prism)?

Let's not forget what we have here at stake! The Indo-BD merger is definitely preferable to a nuclear war! At the moment, all GoI has done is to put wool on our eyes and pretend that there is no nuclear threat from Pakistan! More than that, there is no preparedness drive for the population on the part of GoI either!

[Advait]

This Kalam guy is a being a typical Islamist(I will probably get censored for this). What he is doing is basically making vague and empty promises on behalf of his countrymen in return for us giving up Indian interests (by which I mean Hindu interests. There I said it).

Kalam you still have not answered my question: why is Pak still more popular in BD than India. Don't tell me its only a few elite, mistaken intellectuals etc. If a non-Muslim country had done what they had done, nobody in BD during the last 40 years would have dared to speak up on its behalf. And don't tell me that the people are poor and misguided. That is no excuse.

also I have not seen you write about BD Hindus. In 47, they were 30% and now 9% and decreasing. Are we supposed to forget that.
Infact since you claim to be such a liberal nice guy why don't ask your fellow Muslims if Hindus should have the right to insult Islam the way Muslims have the right to insult and do insult Hinduism.

[RajeshA]

I guess "this Kalam guy" has all the answers!

AKalam ji provides BRF with a different perspective, a Bangladeshi perspective, not the Bangladeshi perspective, for there is no such thing, just as there is no Indian perspective. A forum like BRF needs honest input from people with as many perspectives as possible so that one can get a better picture of the world. It is clear that there are Bangladeshis in Bangladesh who think differently than AKalam ji!

A singular perspective may enhance our confidence, but it would fail to make us wiser, and we need to become both!

[Advait]

He is not just giving a different perspective, he is making it seem like if we only bend a little more, be good little dhimmis "all will be well". Notice how many times he has talked about Islamic goals etc. Then why shouldn't I talk about Hindu interests and goals. Why shouldn't I bring up BD Hindus and their dwindling numbers and political, social and economic space for them.

For me all this talk about taking on US, EU, China and building alliances with BRICS etc is useless if I as a Hindu have to live under Muslim rule as a dhimmi or a dhimmi government.

I WILL NEVER BE A GOOD LITTLE DHIMMI

But I guess I will get banned for hurting the sentiments of the minority community.

[RajeshA]

So I guess everybody else on BRF is a dhimmi for letting AKalam ji express his views here without calling him an Islamist!

[Advait]

Let this Kalam answer a simple question. Should people who insult Islam be killed? Yes or No.

Anything other than a clear unconditional "No" means he is a typical Muslim who only pretends to be moderate. If he tries to turn the question around, then also it means the same.

And btw, I don't believe people who insult Hinduism should be killed. There I answered that before he was able to turn it around.

[Arjun]

Moreover, I think most Indics are willing to make an "allowance" in their world view and accept Islam as simply a different path to "Moksha"! Atri ji has written some interesting thoughts on this. So dogma may not necessarily create a rift between Indics and Muslims.

Not correct. It is not in the interest of any pluralistic religion to make an "allowance" for accepting Islam (or any exclusivist religion for that matter) as a different path to "Moksha" unless the same sentiment is reciprocated by Islam.

Pluralistic religions can afford to accept exclusivist religions in small numbers such that the overall value system is not disturbed - but there is no question of acceptance of a large population of exclusivists, since that would fundamentally alter the region's ethos.

There is absolutely no way of circumventing this. Exclusivist dogmas are 100% at odds with the Indic value system.

[brihaspati]

Advait ji,
before it gets too late, Akalam bhai addresses us with our customary "ji". It is a concession in manners and etiquette [not going into the lingusitics of it] to our sensibilities. It is perhaps better not to be defeated in that art of politeness - even if his words are taken as part of a disinformation campaign.

He has his pov, which is not an outright rejection of "Indic" or even "Hindu" even though he firmly speaks from his BD origin/background and is not prepared to reject Islam outright. But he is willing to consider "reform" and "itjehad". Is it not tactically and strategically wise to encourage such an approach on a public forum?

I am not a supporter of proselytizing branches of the Abrahamic. But I still recognize them for what they really are - just ideologies. Ideologies can be driven in into human mind, but can also be driven out. We should not make the error of equating the man with his belief. In most common examples it will be true in most situations, yet - people do "change" - out of genuine change of heart or out of fear or a compromise and halfway between these two. Few communities choose to get annihilated entirely because of their faith. They may get annihilated if no such choice is given and they are subjected to genocide, but if the choice is given - a significant portion do "convert" - even if they do not really mean "conversion". So ideology could not be the supreme determinant of individual human identity.

[Klaus]

This for me was the indication of what lay behind Hazare-ji's movement catching media attention. The body of the nation is needed to be female, by pseudo-secularists, who are essentially seeking "masculinity" to own and use that body. At the same time that body needs to be "Hindu" because in a strange androgynous way, the female part of its own identity needs to be submissive, defeated, owned - and by making the body of the nation female and Hindu - it is the "Hindu" which can be feminized and repressed. For the "pseudo-secularists" therefore it is shameful to be associated with such a submitted "female".

I have repeatedly warned that Ramdevji's movement will be targeted and he should not attempt political "acts". It is better that he consolidates the "religious" into a single "centre" - where he will be much more effective and useful. The two aspects should remain separate, otherwise the political-biz networks will be used to malign both.

IMO there is a not-very evident chink in this formation which the "true dark" forces could use to devise a movement to go for the kill with respect to p-secs. It involves using certain ploys of Com-Feminism and neo-Buddhist urges as a fifth column. Also links up with what certain posters have been going on about in the deracination dhaaga. Am willing to expound there if necessary!