Bharat Rakshak

Sure! Hopefully it will not be too transparent! Hittites supposedly maintained an empire for so long by concealing iron technology while using it.

Advait ji

I think you are misunderstanding Akalamji's perspective. He (based on his posts) is from BD and is a muslim by faith. But he is not here to propagate his faith or threaten Indian interests on that basis. So, it is not fair to blame or question him on that basis. In fact, IMHO, he is like any of us - a nationalist; thus deserves our respect. He is laying out the interests of BD society. It is up to both players to decide where they want to meet. If we grow strong, united and Dharmic; I am sure BD society will be more than happy to merge with us unconditionally.

Any modernism you are looking for must be implemented in Islam; not Muslims. They are just followers of their faith. When Islam becomes Dharmic, by being the staunch followers of that faith, they will be more Dharmic than most of [sic] seculars.

Arjunji

SD did not make any allowances to any of the previous monotheistic faiths and it wont do for Islam. Islam must and will have to accept the SD path for its own survival not the other way round.

RamaY wrote: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...

This is exactly what I had in mind (with a different architecture) when I started the MIC thread.

Arjun wrote:

RajeshA wrote: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.

This is the post by Atri garu, which I was referring to!

RajeshA wrote: 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!

BD was born out of undivided India. But over the years it has achieved a distinct identity, which is commendable inspite of facing a genocide which tried to destroy its cultural heritage and educated elite.
BD and India relationship is just like Sikhism and Hinduism. Just like Sikhism, although born out of hinduism, has now a distinct identity.
There is no need for Indo-BD merger and each is better off without the other. For e.g BD can get better trade rights from China if not part of India. India does not need another country that does not have same ethno religious culture that it has.

The land of BD is fertile enough to provide rice for rest of the world if proper farming techniques are employed, it has Bangla language and culture that is among most advanced Indic cultures and as BD grows in economy, it will get more dharmic.

Any country that progresses in economy by design has to become more dharmic, since economic activity can only prosper in a rule based equal opportunity, with harmony, compassion and order.
Today Dubai and Bahrain are way more dharmic in its true sense than TSP or BD, but slowly BD can catch up. That does not mean BD will become Hindu, it can still be a Muslim country but that follows dharmic laws of Righteousness and Duty which are Universal laws.

^^

The Indo-BD merger was supposed to be used as a tool to break up Pakistan. Staying separate countries does not resolve India's Pakistan problem!

Karna_A wrote: BD was born out of undivided India. But over the years it has achieved a distinct identity, which is commendable inspite of facing a genocide which tried to destroy its cultural heritage and educated elite.

Well, actually the genocide tried to destroy a specific component of its culture - that which was seen to be "Hindu" and "Indian", but not all aspects of its culture.

BD and India relationship is just like Sikhism and Hinduism. Just like Sikhism, although born out of hinduism, has now a distinct identity.

BD in fact was not born out of Republican India - but pre-Partition India. Sikhism never shies of acknowledging its "Hindu" roots, among other theological thinking, whereas BD officially tries to show its "independence" right from the very beginning and tries to suppress its connection to the rest of ancient India. So it explicitly states that "Bengali" "national" history is just 1000 years old, which would coincide roughly with the declining Pala empire, but the bulk of it would be "Islamic". "Bengal" was always "independent" of "Delhi", etc.

There is no need for Indo-BD merger and each is better off without the other. For e.g BD can get better trade rights from China if not part of India. India does not need another country that does not have same ethno religious culture that it has.

I thought India was "secular", and "ethno-religious" profiles had no relevance for a "secular" rashtra, isn't it? Why should a "secular" rashtra that prides itself on "diversity" and "tolerance" of diversity be mortally scared of letting "in" another country which has supposedly different "ethno-religious" profile! We have had volumes written here as to how much BD overlaps with India in all the crucial aspects - language, culture, "celebration" - etc., etc.! Moreover, ethno-religiously they are much in common with India - WB Bengalis are ethnically not much distinct from BD Bengalis anyway [non-elite anyway and the so-called genetic divide lies much further to the east within BD than at the western borders], and most importantly they share a "religion" with India that is seen as liberal, moderate, progressive and peaceful - and having contributed to Indian culture more than any other "faith"!

The land of BD is fertile enough to provide rice for rest of the world if proper farming techniques are employed, it has Bangla language and culture that is among most advanced Indic cultures and as BD grows in economy, it will get more dharmic.

Is it not self-contradictory that BD culture/language is among the most advanced among Indic cultures yet India feels it cannot be let in? Are we all so backward culturally and language wise within India that we cannot accept such advanced examples of our nation?

Any country that progresses in economy by design has to become more dharmic, since economic activity can only prosper in a rule based equal opportunity, with harmony, compassion and order.
Today Dubai and Bahrain are way more dharmic in its true sense than TSP or BD, but slowly BD can catch up. That does not mean BD will become Hindu, it can still be a Muslim country but that follows dharmic laws of Righteousness and Duty which are Universal laws.

I hope you won't say that USA progressed in economy [it still is the largest economy] by accident and not by design [in that case it will turn out that all countries progress by accident if US experience is made the criteria]. You think it has become more "dharmic"? Dubai and Bahrain more "dharmic" in its "true sense"? Can you please explain on what criteria? It could of course be a matter of definition of dharma. Probably, prostitution in Dubai, and the recent kindnesses shown by Bahraini regime on "missing" protesters constitute dharma when applied to Dubai and Bahrain. The same is of course not applicable to India.

RajeshA garu,

It would be the sadest situation if Bharat attracts all those regions for being a successful Muslim nation. Please do not this again. We already have enough people claiming its glorious civilizational contributions in muzzik, quisine, architecture, art, science and yaa invention of zirro!

Look around - the mighty and pious KSA has no issues doing business with and yaa even inviting a kufr french commandus to save their holy places...

How? Because west stood for what it stands for, however adharmic it might be. Imagine what wonders a dharmic, strong, and confident Bharat can do!!!

RamaYa is right.
After fighting Asuras all along for many Yuga, Devas contemplating to become Asuras in Kalyug ? Asur-priviti longs for material power onlee and not civilizational, spiritual deapth. Dev-gyan OTOH, ask for both . Rule of Dharma in this world as well other Lokas. Yada yada hi Ass-ura ,bhaarri diikhaat Bharata: Abhythanaam Asurhannans , Vinasshy-ach Mlechha : Dusht daman ,kutil haran, Kirpan dharan,Annu-bannam, Astra Dhaaran yuge yuge.

RamaY wrote:Advait ji

I think you are misunderstanding Akalamji's perspective. He (based on his posts) is from BD and is a muslim by faith. But he is not here to propagate his faith or threaten Indian interests on that basis. So, it is not fair to blame or question him on that basis. In fact, IMHO, he is like any of us - a nationalist; thus deserves our respect. He is laying out the interests of BD society.

ACtually, AKalam here is articulatign a view that currently has no constituency in BD, at least visibly...there is really no political constituency that asks for political reunification with India...In fact unlike Pak, there isnt even a constituency that talks of partition being a "mistake"...BD struggles between Islam and Bangla/bengali in terms of defining an identity, but reunification has never been one...And I am really curious how a country that will get polarised with a cooperative structures with India can suddenly welcome political reunification with open arms - I guess we'll have to wait for RajeshA's book to come out for that!

Separately, even if one were to take the political question as a given, it would be interesting to study whether India can economically "afford" a reunification...Post WWII, we have had only one case of a major political unification of nations - East and West Germany (well, there have been a few cases in Africa of various types of M&A, but given the xperience there, not eally apt)...The cost of the German reunification has been variously estimated to be upwards of a trillion dollars, at legacy cost levels (not current costs)...With an estimated recurring bill of >120-130 billion annually still..And this was for a country of 30-40 million...Cost of reuniting NoKo with SoKo has also been variously estiamted to be well above a trillion dollars, and this is a country of 15 million people...What would be the cost of reuniting a country of 160 million? In a capital scarce country like India, where is the money for such an "adventure"?

The social factors of course are bigger - the impact of 160 million muslim citizens on NE and WB and generally on the rest of the country..It was, and remains a struggle to socially reintegrate the two Germanys, BD with India with all our baggages will be a few thousand times tougher...

To me, this is a fancy castle in the air, without concrete constituencies identified, policies laid down and the costs thought through....Words like SD, rashtra etc are all fine, but policies, econiomics and politics are played out in the realm of practical ground realities....

RamaY wrote:RajeshA garu,

It would be the sadest situation if Bharat attracts all those regions for being a successful Muslim nation. Please do not this again. We already have enough people claiming its glorious civilizational contributions in muzzik, quisine, architecture, art, science and yaa invention of zirro!

RamaY garu,

Often when I try to make this point, the intention of the message goes on a tangent and it gets understood in a completely different way. I tried to use the word prism. When one uses a prism one sees one aspect, one facet of something. I'll give it another shot!

I'm not a votary of India projecting a single image of herself. We are a pluralist society, and we have many many aspects to us. An example: In Europe, people are accustomed to going to Indian restaurants and expecting a certain menu. Basically this is the North-Indian-Punjabi-Mughlai food. This is what they consider to be Indian food. Often the Europeans are not aware of any other cuisines in India. So the Europeans take a subset of India, pronounce it Indian and enjoy it. I am sure they would enjoy other cuisines from India as well but that is not the point.

It is best to project an image to others, which softens the reaction of others towards oneself, and if possible makes it benign and positive. Public Relations and Diplomacy are just two children of such a desire. Often Hollywood and American music help mitigate the negative image of America abroad.

So as long as we keep our core intact, our roots deep, our value-systems impeccable, and the social harmony within our country manageable, we should not shy away from projecting an image of ourselves, which leads to the unraveling of one of our civilization's major nemesis - Pakistan.

Now I am sure that after an Indo-BD merger, when India "swallows" Bangladesh, for a long time, Bangladesh would not sit pretty in India's stomach and it may give us belly aches. We may need to take many measures to ensure that those belly-aches remain under control, and do not rip us apart. Here on the forum, and in the ebook, I've spoken at some length how to keep these belly-aches under control until they subside with time.

But whatever the belly-aches, one thing I can be sure of is that having "swallowed" Bangladesh, it would give India, borrowing some fantasy terminology, such a thick hide and fire-spewing ability, that we would blow apart Pakistan in no time.

Every image of India which acts as a weapon in the armory of India's soft power, which gives India an edge, which changes the world positively for India, is an image of India we should accept!

If in Pakistan an image of India as the world's most powerful and largest Muslim country, causes the Sindhis, the Baluchis, the Gilgitians, the Baltistanis, the Mohajirs to kick Pakistan in the groin and tell Pakjabis that they are leaving Pakistan, for a new dream as either parts of India or as independent states under the protection of India, then an image as the biggest and most powerful Muslim country in the world is an image of India to which we should not object.

It should also be pointed out, that this is how we bring our past regions under "rashtriya" control as advocated by brihaspati garu, with the exception that the process he envisions may be a long drawn out process under this model, but this model too would allow social engineering and open up closed communities to a different message for the future and modernity.

RamaY wrote:Look around - the mighty and pious KSA has no issues doing business with and yaa even inviting a kufr french commandus to save their holy places...

KSA got the French to do something, because it was in the strategic interests of the power elite in KSA. Are we expecting the strategic interests of our sworn enemies in Pindi to change in India's favor any time soon? For that would be a baseless hope!

RamaY wrote:How? Because west stood for what it stands for, however adharmic it might be. Imagine what wonders a dharmic, strong, and confident Bharat can do!!!

By expanding India to include our neighbors like Bangladesh, the Dharmik constituency would have a much bigger audience of Indians to hear that message! Perhaps the message may sink in at a much slower rate than we might like, but if we keep the social harmony, we have all the time in the world. Secondly if it is true, that the Dharmiks want to get their old flock back, why hesitate from the arduous task of getting it back.

So to that, I'll just add the following words:

Haule haule se hawa lagti hai
Haule Haule se dawa lagti hai
Haule Haule se dua lagti hai
Naaa….
Haiii… Haule Haule se chanda badtha hai
Haule Haule ghoonghat utha hai
Haule Haule se nasha chadtha hai
Naaa…
Tu sabra to kar mere yaar
Zara saans to le dildaar
Chal phikr nu goli maar yaar
Hai din zindadi de char
Haule Haule ho jayega pyar chaleya
Haule haule ho jayaga pyar
Haule Haule ho jayega pyar chaleya
Haule haule ho jayaga pyar

RamaY wrote:RajeshA garu,

It would be the sadest situation if Bharat attracts all those regions for being a successful Muslim nation.

I agree with this. In the pursuit of taking care of Pakistan we may do bigger damage

Acharya wrote:

RamaY wrote:RajeshA garu,

It would be the sadest situation if Bharat attracts all those regions for being a successful Muslim nation.

I agree with this. In the pursuit of taking care of Pakistan we may do bigger damage

Question is, is the damage in makeup or is it a damage at our core? "The successful Muslim nation" would be no more than a label, just like some American rice calls itself Basmati! Just by calling something as something does not change the something, but one can sell it better, and break into somebody else's (Pakjabi's) market!

RajeshA wrote:
Question is, is the damage in makeup or is it a damage at our core? "The successful Muslim nation" would be no more than a label, just like some American rice calls itself Basmati! Just by calling something as something does not change the something, but one can sell it better!

This needs a sophesticated global media industry owned by Indians.

somnath wrote:Actually, AKalam here is articulating a view that currently has no constituency in BD, at least visibly...there is really no political constituency that asks for political reunification with India...In fact unlike Pak, there isnt even a constituency that talks of partition being a "mistake"...BD struggles between Islam and Bangla/bengali in terms of defining an identity, but reunification has never been one...And I am really curious how a country that will get polarised with a cooperative structures with India can suddenly welcome political reunification with open arms

Let's make an assumption here, a bit over the top, but let's do it nevertheless - that not all Bangladeshi's have the level of insight into economics as yourself.

There are enough political constituencies in Bangladesh willing to make use of that insufficient insight and use the issue of "cooperative structures" as constituting Indian exploitation of Bangladesh.

In a political union, the Bangladeshis would be sending their representatives to the Indian Parliament, a functioning democratic institution. It would be difficult for the same representatives to argue on similar lines, because it would be their job to ensure that there is no "exploitation" and should they claim otherwise, it would mean they are not doing their jobs well.

Being a separate country, such negative anti-Indian rhetoric and attitudes as well as the associated policies which they can adopt sovereignly, Bangladesh can cause more damage to the strategic interests of India, read China here.

somnath wrote:Separately, even if one were to take the political question as a given, it would be interesting to study whether India can economically "afford" a reunification...Post WWII, we have had only one case of a major political unification of nations - East and West Germany (well, there have been a few cases in Africa of various types of M&A, but given the xperience there, not eally apt)...The cost of the German reunification has been variously estimated to be upwards of a trillion dollars, at legacy cost levels (not current costs)...With an estimated recurring bill of >120-130 billion annually still..And this was for a country of 30-40 million...Cost of reuniting NoKo with SoKo has also been variously estiamted to be well above a trillion dollars, and this is a country of 15 million people...What would be the cost of reuniting a country of 160 million? In a capital scarce country like India, where is the money for such an "adventure"?

This is a big topic. So just a few pointers.

a) The issue is to maximize the benefit to both Bangladesh divisions and Rest of India through trade and investment opportunities. This would boost the GDP growth of both sides.
b) The issue is to allow free travel of all Bangladeshis having a degree and their dependents across the border with India and to have controlled travel of others across.
c) The issue is to create dams and dykes and desedimentizing the rivers to decrease the flooding and to reclaim land from the sea as much as possible and to not let the rising sea levels due to global warming to intrude over Bangladeshi land. This would give the Bangladeshis higher productivity of food as well as stabilize the region.
d) The political merger would give any cooperation with Bangladeshi divisions a much higher level of confidence and integration for the above goals.

Perhaps one should also study the merger of Hong Kong with PRC and how controlled travel and migration has provided the right background for economic growth on both sides of the border.

somnath wrote:The social factors of course are bigger - the impact of 160 million muslim citizens on NE and WB and generally on the rest of the country..It was, and remains a struggle to socially reintegrate the two Germanys, BD with India with all our baggages will be a few thousand times tougher...

Actually a merger with the right agreements could also solve the problem of illegal immigrants in India. Our biggest problem is Bangladeshi immigrants in India making a political impact in the constituencies where they have settled. Through demarcation of two separate Electoral Zones, one for Rest of India and one for Bangladeshi divisions and allowing the illegal immigrants to only vote in Bangladeshi elections and not on this side of the border, would mitigate much of the negative effects of Bangladeshi immigrants in India.

I did write a piece on this some time back.

somnath wrote:To me, this is a fancy castle in the air, without concrete constituencies identified, policies laid down and the costs thought through....Words like SD, rashtra etc are all fine, but policies, econiomics and politics are played out in the realm of practical ground realities....

"The practical ground realities" you speak of may just be another name for "limited vision"!

RajeshA wrote:

Arjun wrote: 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.

This is the post by Atri garu, which I was referring to!

From what I can make of the post, he is saying the same as what I have stated...Indics can certainly accept Muslims - but only if they are non-exclusivist in their faith and accept 'kaafir' Gods as being equal to Allah as a path to Moksha.

Lets not put the cart before the horse....If you are talking about a plan for integration of BD you would FIRST need to come up with a plan for converting the population that comes with the merger into a non-exclusivist version of Islam. By pussyfooting around what the value systems of our civilization are - and not being upfront about what is required of Bangladeshis as opposed to what benefits they will derive - it seems to me you are neither doing a service to Bangladeshis nor to Indians.

Arjun wrote:Lets not put the cart before the horse....If you are talking about a plan for integration of BD you would FIRST need to come up with a plan for converting the population that comes with the merger into a non-exclusivist version of Islam. By pussyfooting around what the value systems of our civilization are - and not being upfront about what is required of Bangladeshis as opposed to what benefits they will derive - it seems to me you are neither doing a service to Bangladeshis nor to Indians.

Arjun ji,

there is no pussyfooting!

I don't have a magic wand, I don't claim to have one! I also don't believe anybody would buy the story even if I were to pretend to have one!

I am hardly qualified to go out and teach Dharma to others, for I myself am still a primary class student in it. So basically it is up to those who consider themselves experts in the field to take up this challenge.

Even the most nationalistic of Indians and the most steadfast of Hindus would hardly deny that the lands occupied by Bangladesh and Pakistan were once lands where Dharma ruled, and the vast majority of the people living in those lands belong to an ancestry which followed Dharma.

Would you wish to relinquish your claim on those lands? And then let's not forget that there are those who do not wish to relinquish their claim on ideological orientation of the people living there either! And I commend all those who think like that!

All that my proposal does is, it brings Bangladesh within the political scope of India and tries to establish a level playing field for the faiths and ideologies! As a self-claimed Dharmik, you are free then to preach Dharma to all and sundry in Bangladeshi areas within India! If Bangladesh remains an independent country with a big Muslim majority, as it is right now the case, the chances of your message of Dharma reaching the shores of Bangladesh are I would presume somewhat less bright! But you are the better judge of that!

So if you raise claims onto those lands, then it is up to you, the Dharmiks, to deliver the people of those lands to India. So I ask you, why haven't you done your job till date? Why is Bangladesh still Muslim?

The Indo-Bangladesh merger proposal makes your job a bit easier for you, just in case your excuse is that you're facing difficulties in a Muslim-controlled environment!

So how can you say that the cart is being put before the horse, if your horse is not making any headway at all, but in fact running backwards, considering that the percentage of Hindus in Bangladesh has come down!

So for India it is important to consolidate her neighborhood, in order to emerge as a real power in her right! It is important that Bangladesh be part of that consolidation! That is the imperative!

Those are the strategic requirements. I would be happy to have a Dharmik Bangladesh join India. Can YOU deliver that? If not, then the proposal that delivers a Bangladesh that can-be-made-Dharmik is better than a Bangladesh that would-always-stay-Islamic-and-you-don't-have-a-ghost-of-a-chance-of-making-it-Dharmik! Wouldn't you agree?

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

No, but you could be banned for being a pain in the admin musharraf. Just relax.

RajeshA wrote:In a political union, the Bangladeshis would be sending their representatives to the Indian Parliament, a functioning democratic institution. It would be difficult for the same representatives to argue on similar lines, because it would be their job to ensure that there is no "exploitation" and should they claim otherwise, it would mean they are not doing their jobs well

Sorry RajeshA-ji, that logic was tried and lost in 1947...And frankly, even within India, we have only had "divisions" since independence - linguistic states, now people talking of Telengana, Harit Pradesh - greater federalism at a lower and lower level is what is the demand of the day...People all over the world are increasingly recalcitrant in giving up sovereignties to a "central" setup...Too much water has flown down the ganga for the logic of electoral representaion in an Indian Parliament being the sop that convinces all sections (hardline, pragmatic, moderate) of BD public opinion...Of course, this is just a POV, so we can keep arguing till the cows come home (or go to BD illegaly )...But I dont see the logical intercourse..But thats only me..

RajeshA wrote:Perhaps one should also study the merger of Hong Kong with PRC and how controlled travel and migration has provided the right background for economic growth on both sides of the

Well, now the issue of economic ramifications is a bit more quantitatively evaluatable, if I may use that term..

First, China-HK is not the right example of "reunification", simply because there was no reunification...there was only a transfer of suzerainty, from UK to China...the political systems are different, the economic architecture is VERY different, heck they dont even have a common currency...There is still no "free" movement of people across the borders...And there is a natural barrier of seas between the two countries..
Second, HK wa far richer than China when the transfer of power happend, they still are..So China did not need to spend any money in the exercise..In fact it was HK that had more opportunities to invest in China...

Now to BD...The costs for India in a BD reunification will be higher, in fact proportionately much higher than even Germany...Just some very basic, ballpark numbers...BD's per-capita investment is about 130 dollars (they invest ~ 22% of GDP, PCI is ~ 570 dollars)...India's is about 550 dollars (we invest ~ 37-38% of GDP, PCI of 1400 dollars)..Just to bring the per-capita investment rate upto to India's levels, an incremental 60-70 billiion dollars would be needed annually..When we are tryign to up our own investment rate, where are we going to get that sort of money from? And this is just the start of the calculations...

these investments will be needed upfront, immediately, while the economic gains from unification will kick in much much later, that too with a big "if"...

So how do you fund this enterprise, without bankrupting India?

RajeshA wrote:The practical ground realities" you speak of may just be another name for "limited vision

Maybe, but as Lord Keynes said, "in the long run we are all dead"! I dont quite understand a lot fo th jargon around "dharma, dharmic, dhimmi, sanatan" etc which a number of people here are quite comfortabl with...What I do know is that no grand plan is worth much without a viable policy framework on the ground...

somnath wrote:

RajeshA wrote:In a political union, the Bangladeshis would be sending their representatives to the Indian Parliament, a functioning democratic institution. It would be difficult for the same representatives to argue on similar lines, because it would be their job to ensure that there is no "exploitation" and should they claim otherwise, it would mean they are not doing their jobs well

Sorry RajeshA-ji, that logic was tried and lost in 1947...And frankly, even within India, we have only had "divisions" since independence - linguistic states, now people talking of Telengana, Harit Pradesh - greater federalism at a lower and lower level is what is the demand of the day...People all over the world are increasingly recalcitrant in giving up sovereignties to a "central" setup...Too much water has flown down the ganga for the logic of electoral representaion in an Indian Parliament being the sop that convinces all sections (hardline, pragmatic, moderate) of BD public opinion...Of course, this is just a POV, so we can keep arguing till the cows come home (or go to BD illegaly )...But I dont see the logical intercourse..But thats only me..

The demand of the day is to jump on to a train, which brings one forward. In EU, various countries have given up sovereignty to Brussels, partly because various governments don't like themselves to be held accountable for any mismanagement, and untoward crisis, so it pays to politically shift the blame to a more central authority.

There are fields where a government would want to keep control, and then there are areas where a people would not mind giving up control if it allows a better coordination of some issue across borders. That is also why countries are willing to accept Kyoto limits, etc. Often the need of the people is of a better system, a better managed system and not micro-control over every facet of their lives. Otherwise federations would simply collapse.

On the table is not just

• participation in the Indian political stability and democracy, but also
• a decisive voice in the water management of the rivers in the region, as well as
• a major effort and financial commitment to ensure that the sea does not swallow half of Bangladesh, and
• freedom of travel, right of residence, purchase of property, right to education for Bangladeshis in any part of India (which does not translate into right to vote in the area), a level of freedom and opportunity undreamed of, and
• access to a vast market and investment capital giving a big boost to their economy, and last but not least
• being part of an emerging superpower and a success story!
• For the Bangladeshi nationalists and defense constituency they get to influence and wield one of the biggest military machines in the Indian Ocean Region, while
• the Islamists in Bangladesh feel the ranks of the Muslims of their country more than doubled, and by becoming the biggest Muslim country in the world, they get to have a decisive voice in the Islamic affairs and politics of the world, whereas today, Bangladeshis matter little in Muslim affairs!

So I don't think there is any need to belittle what the Bangladeshis would be getting. Most of this they would be getting by making few concessions to India, though they would have to come to an agreement about the rules of engagement!

somnath wrote:

RajeshA wrote:Perhaps one should also study the merger of Hong Kong with PRC and how controlled travel and migration has provided the right background for economic growth on both sides of the

Well, now the issue of economic ramifications is a bit more quantitatively evaluatable, if I may use that term..

First, China-HK is not the right example of "reunification", simply because there was no reunification...there was only a transfer of suzerainty, from UK to China...the political systems are different, the economic architecture is VERY different, heck they dont even have a common currency...There is still no "free" movement of people across the borders...And there is a natural barrier of seas between the two countries..
Second, HK wa far richer than China when the transfer of power happend, they still are..So China did not need to spend any money in the exercise..In fact it was HK that had more opportunities to invest in China...

Exactly because the integration between PRC and HK has some limitations, is the reason that it makes the case interesting. Some limitations in our integration model would be:

• Below the middle class (one can isolate them on the basis of college degrees, self-owned businesses, employment, etc), the people would be allowed across the border fence into Rest of India based on quota and promise of return. Something similar to the controls on Chinese into entering Hong Kong!
• The border fence would remain, similar to the natural barrier between PRC and Hong Kong.
• The political systems would retain a certain distance, as Rest of India and Bangladeshi Divisions would be two separate Electoral Zones. All recognized Bangladeshis would be voting only in constituencies in Bangladeshi Divisions and not in India.
• There would not be much of a plan of Central economic support to Bangladesh over and above what is known to take place between Center and Indian states, just as there was little in terms of money that flowed from PRC to HK or from HK to PRC.

somnath wrote:Now to BD...The costs for India in a BD reunification will be higher, in fact proportionately much higher than even Germany...Just some very basic, ballpark numbers...BD's per-capita investment is about 130 dollars (they invest ~ 22% of GDP, PCI is ~ 570 dollars)...India's is about 550 dollars (we invest ~ 37-38% of GDP, PCI of 1400 dollars)..Just to bring the per-capita investment rate upto to India's levels, an incremental 60-70 billiion dollars would be needed annually..When we are tryign to up our own investment rate, where are we going to get that sort of money from? And this is just the start of the calculations...

these investments will be needed upfront, immediately, while the economic gains from unification will kick in much much later, that too with a big "if"...

So how do you fund this enterprise, without bankrupting India?

There is no plan for some huge financial support to Bangladesh to bring it up to "Indian standards". There are many states in India which are poor, and they too survive! There would be other benefits accruing to the Bangladeshis as has been noted earlier.

somnath wrote:

RajeshA wrote:The practical ground realities" you speak of may just be another name for "limited vision

Maybe, but as Lord Keynes said, "in the long run we are all dead"! I dont quite understand a lot fo th jargon around "dharma, dharmic, dhimmi, sanatan" etc which a number of people here are quite comfortabl with...What I do know is that no grand plan is worth much without a viable policy framework on the ground...

The Indo-Bangladesh merger has nothing to do with that "jargon". It is necessitated and based on strategic considerations and only those considerations primarily.

The policy framework follows the "grand plan" and not the other way round.

RajeshA wrote:There is no plan for some huge financial support to Bangladesh to bring it up to "Indian standards". There are many states in India which are poor, and they too survive! There would be other benefits accruing to the Bangladeshis as has been noted earlier

If you dont do that, then the new BD province will pull India down! In the China-HK equation, as I said there was little money required for HK as it was much richer already..And in terms of size, its a rounding off error to China's size...So either way didnt matter...For India and BD, 160 million people @ BD levels of investment will pull India down...

RajesA ji,
Do you have any estimate for the costs that accrue to India simply by the existence of separate sovereign nations like Pak and BD? There would of course be direct costs like maintenance of the borders, defence infrastructure and forces to be maintained to tackle potential aggressive actions from these nations, etc.

The first type of indirect costs would be the costs from transborder smuggling, international criminal networks, and illegal immigration - all of which can be less efficiently controlled across borders of sovereign nations compared to in-country scenario.

The second type of indirect costs are the most difficult to estimate, or are perhaps most uncomfortable to quantify - that of the costs that accrue because of state sponsorship and protection of hostile political interests which in their turn not only concretely contribute towards active acts of subversion like terrorism, but also by providing rashtryia support to third parties in international sphere or interactions where it hurts our interests.

There are some attempts at estimating such things. But they are usually not searched for because they do not serve the "costs" argument needed to push for a particular political agenda.

Two types of political and ideological affiliations vehemently "oppose" reintegration of BD and Pak with India. The first one openly states its reasons as stemming from their opposition to the cultural/ideological framework of Pak and BD which they see as completely alien, hostile and destructive to what they view India as. They may see one or both of Islam and muslims as they exist in Pak and BD as the problem and have no hesitation in honestly speaking it out.

The second type is deceptive and the more insidious. They are always characterized by an overt praise and whitewashed reconstruction of Islam, Muslims and their claimed contributions to "India that is Bharat", an intense openly abusive attitude and hatred towards what they see as deviation from the totally submissive, politically non-assertive, tolerant of all possible abuses on itself - version of JLN-Congress modelled "Hinduism", BUT a persistent opposition to "integration" and bringing in more of the people and the ideology that is supposed to be so peaceful, constructive and so contributing towards Indian civilization!

This is the attitude that hated to "compromise" or "share power" with the "Muslims" before Independence, but a complete turnaround and open attempts at whitewashing the ideology after achieving the political objectives of Partition on the Congress/big-biz/Brit side - perhaps with a deep seated hatred of the "Muslim" but an admiration for "Islam" and everything "Islamic" for apparent political ruthlessness. Now with the inherent sliminess of the "Canis pseudo-saecularis" this section also pretends overt excessive love and fondness for the culture/language/festivities of these entities which supposedly overlap so much with that of India and in some sense also represent the more advanced "Indic" - but the "straw in the clay of the idol" comes out in the absolute "no-no" to future reabsorption.

somnath wrote: To me, this is a fancy castle in the air, without concrete constituencies identified, policies laid down and the costs thought through....Words like SD, rashtra etc are all fine, but policies, econiomics and politics are played out in the realm of practical ground realities....

Somnathji,

Please check my initial response here: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 51#p971351

AFAIK, it is a misconception to think economic prosperity will automatically result in social well being. I will give you few examples

Firstly how many of the so-called 'developed' nations are Dharmic in nature? All the economic development these societies have achieved is used to further their materialistic indulgences often at great cost to global environment and other 'undeveloped' societies. Even the most prosper citizenry of these societies are more attracted towards ritualistic yoga and castist brahminism than their respective spiritual observations. Take a look at the top 20 nations in the developed country list - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country

Secondly look at the islamic nations that are in the high HDIs. What values are they standing for? what alliances they are making? Yes, they are doing all these strategic moves in pragmatism; but is it Dharmic? Does any of these strategic alliances benefit Indian interests?

Unless the core interests and values are deeply rooted in Dharmic world view (non-exploitation of the weak, pluralism in all aspects of life, Non human-centric world view), any amount of progress in all other fields will not be useful. I will close my argument with my tree analogy - What use is of having a huge tree with millions of fruits if they are poisonous to the social consumption?

RajeshA wrote: Now I am sure that after an Indo-BD merger, when India "swallows" Bangladesh, for a long time, Bangladesh would not sit pretty in India's stomach and it may give us belly aches. We may need to take many measures to ensure that those belly-aches remain under control, and do not rip us apart. Here on the forum, and in the ebook, I've spoken at some length how to keep these belly-aches under control until they subside with time.

But whatever the belly-aches, one thing I can be sure of is that having "swallowed" Bangladesh, it would give India, borrowing some fantasy terminology, such a thick hide and fire-spewing ability, that we would blow apart Pakistan in no time.

RajeshA garu

It is interesting that your brought the food and digestion analogy.

Indic thought process says that 1/6th of the food gets converted in to 'manas' and who is the adhistan for manas? "Chandrama manaso jatah:" (Chandra is the centre of controlling mind). To understand this better one needs to learn the spiritual meaning of 'Tara Sasankam' (Tara=bharya=follower is consolidation of bodily needs that is supposed to follow buddhi=Brihaspati=intellect; its husband=bearer. Chandra=manas steals Tara from Brihaspati=Buddhi=Intellect)

The oil-sagara mathana must continue until Amrita comes out. Chandra and all other ratna's born in the process are small things in the overall process. It is not wise to consume 'halahala' prematurely.

For that 'halahala' to be consumed, Bharat must become Sivam (=mangalam= auspicious) first. Even then the halahalam must not be allowed to reach its stomach as it would destroy the very lokas/values that Bharat is protecting. Everyone has their rightful place. When held in the throat, halahala makes Bharat Neelakantha.

The asuric forces Bharatamata destroyed before too showed similar materialistic or violent tendencies, even when done out of pure devotion (extreme practices in tantra and human/animal sacrifices). They are given a just place in Vedic dharma. Chandra kala too will get its rightful place; only after controlled and contained in Siva's throat.

somnath wrote:

RajeshA wrote:There is no plan for some huge financial support to Bangladesh to bring it up to "Indian standards". There are many states in India which are poor, and they too survive! There would be other benefits accruing to the Bangladeshis as has been noted earlier

If you dont do that, then the new BD province will pull India down! In the China-HK equation, as I said there was little money required for HK as it was much richer already..And in terms of size, its a rounding off error to China's size...So either way didnt matter...For India and BD, 160 million people @ BD levels of investment will pull India down...

somnath ji,

the per capita income of Bihar is half that of Bangladesh! There are in absolute terms many times more poor than in Bangladesh! So basically I cannot imagine a similar program by India to uplift Bangladeshis as was the case with West Germany supporting East Germany after unification. India is not in a position to do so, nor I believe it is an expectation that India provides that kind of support!

The benefits to Bangladesh would accrue from other features of the merger!

Just like the various poor states of India are making their own efforts to progress with some support from the Center, similarly Bangladeshi divisions too would be left to their own devices for economic progress!

brihaspati garu,

thanks a lot for pointing out the costs of maintaining separation of states! I too had mentioned somewhere that India would be benefiting from savings on border security and we would not need to have army presence on the border!

Those are going to be major savings!

But as you say, many savings are going to be from intangibles and things difficult to quantify!

I also think, that the pseudo-secular constituency is actually afraid that due to addition of Bangladesh their electoral calculations could go haywire. They would have to share power with a new constituency - the Bangladeshi parties! There could also be different pulls on the vote banks.

RamaY wrote:

RajeshA wrote: Now I am sure that after an Indo-BD merger, when India "swallows" Bangladesh, for a long time, Bangladesh would not sit pretty in India's stomach and it may give us belly aches. We may need to take many measures to ensure that those belly-aches remain under control, and do not rip us apart. Here on the forum, and in the ebook, I've spoken at some length how to keep these belly-aches under control until they subside with time.

But whatever the belly-aches, one thing I can be sure of is that having "swallowed" Bangladesh, it would give India, borrowing some fantasy terminology, such a thick hide and fire-spewing ability, that we would blow apart Pakistan in no time.

RajeshA garu

It is interesting that your brought the food and digestion analogy.

Indic thought process says that 1/6th of the food gets converted in to 'manas' and who is the adhistan for manas? "Chandrama manaso jatah:" (Chandra is the centre of controlling mind). To understand this better one needs to learn the spiritual meaning of 'Tara Sasankam' (Tara=bharya=follower is consolidation of bodily needs that is supposed to follow buddhi=Brihaspati=intellect; its husband=bearer. Chandra=manas steals Tara from Brihaspati=Buddhi=Intellect)

The oil-sagara mathana must continue until Amrita comes out. Chandra and all other ratna's born in the process are small things in the overall process. It is not wise to consume 'halahala' prematurely.

For that 'halahala' to be consumed, Bharat must become Sivam (=mangalam= auspicious) first. Even then the halahalam must not be allowed to reach its stomach as it would destroy the very lokas/values that Bharat is protecting. Everyone has their rightful place. When held in the throat, halahala makes Bharat Neelakantha.

The asuric forces Bharatamata destroyed before too showed similar materialistic or violent tendencies, even when done out of pure devotion (extreme practices in tantra and human/animal sacrifices). They are given a just place in Vedic dharma. Chandra kala too will get its rightful place; only after controlled and contained in Siva's throat.

RamaY garu,

I cannot match your deep knowledge of our philosophy. I make only two points.

1) Please consider the prospect that may be the Electoral Zone Concept, the Aggressive Meme Suppression Agreement, Legislation & Administrative Infrastructure, the West Asian Involvement (outward distraction), etc. etc. are all measures meant to keep Bangladesh in Siva's throat itself! should someone consider the Indo-Bangladesh merger as the Halahal, even though I doubt it is the Halahal, for the bigger Halahal is yet to appear from our West.

2) The devas were advised to conduct Sagar-Manthan and derive Amrita from it. This the devas conducted with the help of the asuras. They did not do it alone. In fact the Devas were deprived so much of their strength, they could not have done it alone. They needed the strength of the Asuras. Also there were many Ratnas that came out of this Sagar-Manthan which the devas and asuras divide amongst themselves. So we should be sharing our growth and opportunities with Bangladeshis in this journey together.

Consider the Amrita that would ensue after the end of Sagar-Manthan as the break-up of Pakistan, or may be even its detoxification or even its Dharmification.

Once Pakistan breaks up there would be a period of Halahal, and we would have to control that too. But the break up of Pakistan is also Amrita, and as I said, we would not be able to achieve that on our own. The devas and asuras (for the sake of analogy) need to make a pact, come together and do it together.

Perhaps the impotency one notices in GoI to deal with Pakistan is akin to the weakness of the devas prior to Sagar-Manthan! The Sagar-Manthan can only take place with the help of Bangladesh!

Just my amateurish effort at analogy!

RajeshA wrote:Those are the strategic requirements. I would be happy to have a Dharmik Bangladesh join India. Can YOU deliver that? If not, then the proposal that delivers a Bangladesh that can-be-made-Dharmik is better than a Bangladesh that would-always-stay-Islamic-and-you-don't-have-a-ghost-of-a-chance-of-making-it-Dharmik! Wouldn't you agree?

RajeshA ji,

I don't think in terms of Dharma, or SD or other such terms - and hardly consider myself to be any kind of Dharmic expert. My personal 'religion' can be defined completely by 5 - 6 'value statements' only one of which is really concerned with traditional faith or God. As a matter of fact, in matters of faith - there is ONLY one aspect that is critical in my judgement, which is also aligned with the key theme of the Indic civilization - and that is a pluralistic outlook towards means of salvation and an active stance against exclusivist dogma. This is central to the Indic ethos and something I personally believe in championing.

There are exclusivists in India today - but the overall ethos of pluralism is maintained because these exclusivists happen to be in a minority. Any large addition or change to the Indian population and demographics therefore needs to be given extensive consideration from a POV of the effect on this ethos.

I am not opposing the ambition of a reintegration of BD into India - but rather I am saying that it needs to occur under the over-arching consideration of ability to maintain the Indic ethos. I am also saying that the details of how this ethos is to be maintained is NOT something to be left to the domain of supposed Hinduvavadis or ' Dharmiks' but as a basic liberal human value and a key element of Indian soft power - this is something you (& this forum) need to think about how to achieve.

There is one solution to resolve the issue - the solution is to force the hands of the exclusivists by having GOI and Indian media being explicit and upfront about the notion of pluralism at the individual level as central to the Indic ethos. The BD population will be forced to take a stance before any actual integration happens - either show that they are exclusivists by negating and disowning the concept - or go along with the concept. If it is the latter - reintegration can be allowed to happen (assuming that the two contries' populations are convinced about the move)...if it is the former it would be better if integration were to be postponed to some future stage when the BD population evolves to be more in synch with the Indic ethos.

Arjun wrote:As a matter of fact, in matters of faith - there is ONLY one aspect that is critical in my judgement, which is also aligned with the key theme of the Indic civilization - and that is a pluralistic outlook towards means of salvation and an active stance against exclusivist dogma. This is central to the Indic ethos and something I personally believe in championing.

There are exclusivists in India today - but the overall ethos of pluralism is maintained because these exclusivists happen to be in a minority. Any large addition or change to the Indian population and demographics needs therefore needs to be given extensive consideration from a POV of the effect on this ethos.

Islam has a certain PoV regarding what constitutes Shirk, what is a sin, who is Kufr, and often how to deal with Kufr, though with the latter there is some difference in opinion.

Islam is also often portrayed as something that cannot be changed per se!

Actually I don't have that many expectations from Islamic dogma, that it would make an allowance for Hindus in the dogma itself! All interoperability, tolerance, understanding, peace, acceptance and friendship has to take place at a social level, at a legal level, at an administrative level.

One cannot change the Book, but one can ensure that the mind that reads the book is willing to ignore some things. Those who cannot ignore, are marginalized by the mainstream. Those who cannot be marginalized, are quarantined through administrative measures.

May be someday, there will be a Renaissance followed by Secularization followed by Nominal Identification followed by Liberation, but all that cannot be predicted. We just have the given situation!

So how to tackle it? Almost two years ago, when my sights were not on Subcontinental Consolidation, there was a train of though that I was following. I had proposed a codification of an Indian Ethos Charter in our Constitution and an administrative machinery to back it up! Some of my posts on the topic are 1, 2 and 3. You may like to follow the discussion that took place at that time.

Arjun wrote:I am not opposing the ambition of a reintegration of BD into India - but rather I am saying that it needs to occur under the over-arching consideration that this reintegration will not challenge the ability to maintain the Indic ethos. I am also saying is that the details of how this ethos is to be maintained is NOT something to be left to the domain of supposed Hinduvavadis or ' Dharmiks' but as a basic liberal human value and a key element of Indian soft power - this is something you (& this forum) needs to think about how to achieve.

There is one solution to resolve the issue - the solution is to force the hands of the exclusivists by having GOI and Indian media being explicit and upfront about the notion of pluralism at the individual level as central to the Indic ethos. The BD population will be forced to take a stance before any actual integration happens - either show that they are exclusivists by negating and disowning the concept - or go along with the concept. If it is the latter - reintegration can be allowed to happen (assuming that the two contries' populations are convinced about the move)...if it is the former it would be better if integration were to be postponed to some future stage when the BD population becomes more in synch with the Indic ethos.

Arjun ji,

On the issue of coding certain values more on secular lines, I tried my hand at it earlier.

As I said, it is difficult to ban exclusivism in Islamic dogma, or for that matter in all Abrahamic religions, as a salvation path, but what one can do is to curtail all expressions of that exclusivism through certain social, legal and administrative measures as far as other faiths are affected by that exclusivism.

RajeshA ji,

I think we are on the same side, except that I believe the sagarmanthan is effective if done in oil-sagar with the help of West-Asian asuras than doing it in hindu mahasamudra along with BD. They are too small a player in this.

The halahal comes from pakis. At the right time Unkil needs to be propped to do siva where as Bharat remains under the water as kurmavatar. Pakis are the Vasuki (the great snake on which sri kurmavatar will sleep) in the West Asia manthan.

The Amrita that we seek is civilizational immortality of SD.

Acharya wrote:

RamaY wrote:RajeshA garu,

It would be the sadest situation if Bharat attracts all those regions for being a successful Muslim nation.

I agree with this. In the pursuit of taking care of Pakistan we may do bigger damage

Agree with Acharya.
Pakistan is a problem that no one can solve. It can only be finished. No need to try something which can backfire.

The whole concept that by becoming the largest Muslim nation, somehow TSP can be shamed or its ethnicities will get some divine realization to join India is just wishful thinking. TSP mentality is such that such shame only increases its fanatism.
TSP has become a problem for its own citizens as well as a world headache and sooner it will do a gross mistake that would make world powers take care of it. Its also possible that its own citizens cure it, as is happening in some Arab countries. It's road to self destruction is well paved, and as a country its on the well chosen path to oblivion.

India just needs to keep on solving its own problems within its borders while helping the ex-Pak Indian subcontinent also solve their problems while pursuing a strategy of making TSP a world problem instead of just Indian subcontinental problem, and constantly throwing it ropes like Mohali on how to come out of the deep shithole it has dug itself into. There is realization among many individual TSPians to take that rope for survival, but as a collective they are still digging the shithole deeper.

^^^
been watching the thread for a while. the proposal for merging BD into India is a sword full of poisonous spikes. we can wield that sword to kill off others, but at the same time the injection of the poison from the spikes will alter the composition of our own body. integration and granting of BD into India will basically legalize large scale migration of BD Sunnis into the North-East. considering that BD fertility remains and will continue to remain high and Islamism is on the rise in BD, we can expect the entire NE, up to Bihar/Jharkhand to become heavily Islamized.

we cannot be entirely sure what future awaits us if BD population colonizes NE. for one thing, BD population is estimated to be around 23 crores by 2050. NE population will have leveled off long before at around 4-5 crores (at max).

AKalam has already said that BD has "rights" wrt Myanmar. how long before BD has "rights" to NE?
we began the last millennium by making the blunder of not understanding Islamic invaders' psyche and gladly invited them into our area. let's not begin this millennium by creating another blunder.

RajeshA wrote: Now I am sure that after an Indo-BD merger, when India "swallows" Bangladesh, for a long time, Bangladesh would not sit pretty in India's stomach and it may give us belly aches. We may need to take many measures to ensure that those belly-aches remain under control, and do not rip us apart. Here on the forum, and in the ebook, I've spoken at some length how to keep these belly-aches under control until they subside with time.

But whatever the belly-aches, one thing I can be sure of is that having "swallowed" Bangladesh, it would give India, borrowing some fantasy terminology, such a thick hide and fire-spewing ability, that we would blow apart Pakistan in no time.

Rajesh A-ji,

I admire your capacity to come up with imaginative out-of-the-box ideas for enhancing India's geostrategic position, and your perceptive manner of thinking them through; more of us should be following your example, because it is the only way out of the solipsistic rut in which our foreign policy has been mired for decades!

So while I hate to be a nay-sayer, I think this particular idea will be problematic.

As I understand it, the merger of BD with India is meant to destroy the narrative of the Two-Nation Theory and further undermine Pakistan's claim to represent a homeland for subcontinental Islam. I have my doubts whether this will have any effect on Pakistan. The very creation of BD should have dealt a fatal blow to the TNT, given what it represented.

However, we cannot underestimate the twisted gift of the Pakistanis for subverting a narrative in the eyes and ears of their aam janta. To them, BD left Pakistan not because the TNT was flawed, but because the Banglas were insufficiently Islamic SDREs, unlike the martial Pakhtuns and Pakjabis who remain the true champions of Islamic supremacy in the subcontinent. The Banglas were a weak link in the TNT and their departure only strengthens the claim of Pakistan to represent the one true subcontinental Muslim homeland, by purifying it!

Any merger between India and BD will only serve to reinforce this subverted narrative in the Paki mind. Never underestimate the capacity of Paki self-delusion, self-aggrandizement, cognitive dissonance and sheer capacity to blot out demonstrated fact in favour of the official line. They will simply say that BD-India merger was inevitable given the "Hindoo-influenced impure Islam" of the Banglas which led to the 71 split in the first place. They will insist that such a merger only shows the cunning of the Yindoos to subvert "insufficiently Islamic" populations, as well as the evil intent of the Yindoos to dominate Muslims across the subcontinent. If a more liberal interpretation of Islam is allowed in TSP, then it will ultimately suffer the same fate of being swallowed up by the Yindoos!

If Mirpur, POK or Sindh... some bit of W. Pak closer to the Pakjabi heartland merged with India, that might have the effect of "destabilizing the TNT narrative" which you envision. The Banglas have been written off as insufficiently Islamic by the TFTA Pakis for 40 years now. I don't think their induction into India will affect the Paki TNT narrative, or indeed the "international" narrative of the world media which piously maintains an equal-equal between TNT and Indian inclusivism despite the evidence of 1971.

Meanwhile, the belly-aches we will have from attempting to ingest Bangladesh at this stage, could prove quite existentially dangerous for us, GIVEN that India itself does not have a defined, evolved sense of national identity beyond the utterances of Standard & Poor and the glib platitudes of the Sonia Gandhi-Swami Agnivesh-Prannoy Roy "Civil Society." We haven't yet determined that our identity is based on Sanatan Dharm... we haven't taken any policy measures, or even notional measures to reinforce that identity... so what will happen if we ingest a 160 million people of whom many have a very good idea what their nationhood represents, i.e. Islam?

I would expect, for example, that every conflict, big or small, arising from the process of assimilating BD would provide yet more fodder for the TSP commentators' narrative in one way or another: either showing that Yindoos are dominating the poor (though insufficiently Islamic) Banglas, or demonstrating the universal inability of Muslims to coexist with Kafirs, or illustrating the fundamental untrustworthiness of Yindoos, or some such thing. When a conflict happens the TSP narrative will happily accept erstwhile-BD citizens as "Muslims" and paint them as the victims of Yindoos... when no conflict happens the TSP narrative will disavow the erstwhile-BD citizens as insufficiently Islamic and hence willing to make suicidal compromises with the kaffirs.

Either way I can't see how it would break up Pakistan to ingest BD.

The traps we could fall into, meanwhile, are diverse and dangerous. I wondered for a while why A Kalam Dada's Islamist friend is opposed to anything less than a merger, but is quite happy with a merger! The answer is that, like most Islamists, he fully recognizes that India has a special vulnerability to Islamism working from within... given the inchoate and apologetic nature of the Indian polity's own identity moorings in SD. As equal citizens of secular India, BD Islamists will get a huge free hand to pursue their agenda in the subcontinent, which they could never have got while BD was independent!

All said and done, I fear it will be like a man marrying some girl just to prove a point to his ex-wife... only to find out that the girl constantly threatens to file for divorce, wrecks the man's home-life and peace of mind, and ultimately sues him for everything he owns! Meanwhile the ex-wife just watches the fun.

The traps we could fall into, meanwhile, are diverse and dangerous. I wondered for a while why A Kalam Dada's Islamist friend is opposed to anything less than a merger, but is quite happy with a merger! The answer is that, like most Islamists, he fully recognizes that India has a special vulnerability to Islamism working from within... given the inchoate and apologetic nature of the Indian polity's own identity moorings in SD. As equal citizens of secular India, BD Islamists will get a huge free hand to pursue their agenda in the subcontinent, which they could never have got while BD was independent!

Rudradev ji,

+++1.

very well said. it aptly summarizes the psyche of BD Islamists. open invitation is what they're waiting for. let's not delude ourselves into thinking that they share some grand Indian-ness based on their roots in SD. there is no such thing. i get the feeling we might have permanently become neutered by not understanding Islam in the first place.

Karna_A wrote:The whole concept that by becoming the largest Muslim nation, somehow TSP can be shamed or its ethnicities will get some divine realization to join India is just wishful thinking. TSP mentality is such that such shame only increases its fanatism.

In the Indian Subcontinent there is room for only one Prime Muslim Power and the others Muslims have to bow to it and accede primacy to it!

How can Pakistanis have created a Pakistan meant to be for the Muslims of the Indian Subcontinent, when two-thirds of the Muslims of Indian Subcontinent have voted in favor of India? How can Pakistanis invest so much hate for India, when it is the largest Muslim country in the world? What is the reason for the non-Pakjabi ethnicities to live together with Pakjabis in one country, and that too as second class citizens with no security? How can the Pakistanis paint India as a Hindu country, when India's public face as far as Pakistan is concerned is a Bangladeshi, a member of the biggest Muslim ethnicity in the Indian Subcontinent? How can Pakistan go against India, when all other Muslim countries of the world treat India as one of them and give her due respect as the most powerful and largest Muslim country in the world?

Can the Pakjabi Army really restrain the non-Pakjabi Pakistanis when they rise up together and reject Pakistan, Pakjabi domination and embrace freedom? How many can Pakjabi Army really kill?

All the reasons for which the Pakjabi Army takes the subservience and loyalty of non-Pakjabi Pakistani citizens for granted, would lose their validity and no subservience or loyalty would be forthcoming any more!

Pakistan would lose its raison d'être at a most fundamental level!

Karna_A wrote:TSP has become a problem for its own citizens as well as a world headache and sooner it will do a gross mistake that would make world powers take care of it. Its also possible that its own citizens cure it, as is happening in some Arab countries. It's road to self destruction is well paved, and as a country its on the well chosen path to oblivion.

India just needs to keep on solving its own problems within its borders while helping the ex-Pak Indian subcontinent also solve their problems while pursuing a strategy of making TSP a world problem instead of just Indian subcontinental problem, and constantly throwing it ropes like Mohali on how to come out of the deep shithole it has dug itself into. There is realization among many individual TSPians to take that rope for survival, but as a collective they are still digging the shithole deeper.

And why is this not wishful thinking?

devesh wrote:been watching the thread for a while. the proposal for merging BD into India is a sword full of poisonous spikes. we can wield that sword to kill off others, but at the same time the injection of the poison from the spikes will alter the composition of our own body. integration and granting of BD into India will basically legalize large scale migration of BD Sunnis into the North-East. considering that BD fertility remains and will continue to remain high and Islamism is on the rise in BD, we can expect the entire NE, up to Bihar/Jharkhand to become heavily Islamized.

we cannot be entirely sure what future awaits us if BD population colonizes NE. for one thing, BD population is estimated to be around 23 crores by 2050. NE population will have leveled off long before at around 4-5 crores (at max).

Actually the proposal is meant to stop this demographic invasion in one sense, and not just to stop it but reverse it!

An Indo-BD merger would have an Agreement as its basis, and the most crucial condition that Bangladesh would be requested to fulfill is to acknowledge all Bengali Muslims, who reside in India and whose ancestors did not stay back in India in '47, as citizens of Bangladesh!

What does that mean?

It means that when the merger is complete, there would be two Electoral Zones - Bangladesh's 7 Administrative Divisions which would form 7 new Indian States would be in Bangladesh Electoral Zone, whereas the current Indian States would be in the Central Electoral Zone. Each Electoral Zone means that it's electoral citizen

1. can only stand as candidate only for some constituency in that Electoral Zone, and
2. may vote only from some constituency in that Electoral Zone.

As such, officially all Bangladeshis recognized as such, resident in India, can only vote for constituencies in Bangladesh and not in Rest of India.

So for Rest of India, all non-Indian Bengali Muslims would be disenfranchised. They would stop having any influence in any elections in Rest of India, in Indian state elections, in Indian local elections. That means in West Bengal and the Northeast States again only the locals there would have the right to vote and the elections will not be skewed.

Of course Bangladeshis {not all} would be free to live in those states, buy property there, study and work there, but they would not have any political say in those areas. And they would probably only be a minority in the police services in any state. Amongst those Bangladeshis who would be allowed to stay here are those who are already resident in India and those who could be considered middle class (based on education level, business ownership, employment, etc.) and would have the freedom to cross the border any time. Government of India would guarantee such rights to Bangladeshis and those would not be dependent on state governments! That is the deal!

So there could be a limited demographic invasion, mostly by the well-off Bangladeshis, but there would not be any political empowerment of Bangladeshis in current Indian states. There they lose all political power.

Moreover there would be meticulous recording of all Bangladeshi electoral citizens in Rest of India.

devesh wrote:AKalam has already said that BD has "rights" wrt Myanmar. how long before BD has "rights" to NE?
we began the last millennium by making the blunder of not understanding Islamic invaders' psyche and gladly invited them into our area. let's not begin this millennium by creating another blunder.

AKalam ji has said that in absence of such a merger, Bangladesh would be looking after its own strategic interests independent of the ensuing costs to India's national interests. This is what he meant by a transit route to China through Myanmar.

With the Indo-BD merger we would in fact be solving the problem of illegal immigration, because otherwise it would be very difficult getting control over the problem, especially in view of partial sinking of Bangladesh due to global warming unless some other measures are not taken!

Rudradev wrote:I don't think their induction into India will affect the Paki TNT narrative, or indeed the "international" narrative of the world media which piously maintains an equal-equal between TNT and Indian inclusivism despite the evidence of 1971.

Rudradev wrote:When a conflict happens the TSP narrative will happily accept erstwhile-BD citizens as "Muslims" and paint them as the victims of Yindoos... when no conflict happens the TSP narrative will disavow the erstwhile-BD citizens as insufficiently Islamic and hence willing to make suicidal compromises with the kaffirs.

Rudradev ji,

Thank you for being the first one to show the real chinks in my proposal, and you make excellent arguments!

In the ebook I wrote, I further mentioned that one very important component for such a strategy to work, we will have to get involved much more hands-on in the Gulf. In fact my proposal was to completely replace Pakistan and to partially replace America as the guarantor of peace and security in the Gulf as security partners of the Oil Sheikhs, so to speak, to become the bodyguard of the devil!

By becoming the "largest and most powerful Muslim state" with "centuries of relations" with the Arabs, it would allow us to deploy our troops to the Gulf without arousing the ire of the Muslims of the world. Bangladeshis under the Flag of the Indian Army and Navy could be deployed in the Gulf for security reasons, without any reproach, unlike the Americans who are considered as Crusaders in the holy lands or as Indians today, who too would be considered Kufr and unfit to be stationed in the holy lands.

What such security guarantees does is, it switches the label of the most powerful nuclear-armed Muslim country from Pakistan to India, but more importantly it also switches the TFTA label from Pakistan to India. Why? Because the Muslim Master Races, or at least the Arabs would have themselves recognized us as such and sought our protection! Next we know Bangladeshi troops under Indian flag would be providing security on the streets of Mecca and Medina!

Of course, there would be other benefits of such a security pact, e.g. financing of the modernization of our armed forces, more investment in India, more contracts to Indian companies, etc. etc. but the effect it would have on the Indo-Pak equation would be the most interesting!

I agree the Pakis would try to portray India-BD disputes the way you have portrayed, but I am relatively certain that an India with increased economic muscle can bend the international narrative on India as an important Muslim country. So were it solely the case of an India-BD merger, I would agree with your scenario, but there can be additional factors going India's way which would strengthen India's contention of being the more TFTA of the Muslim countries, among them our increased economic might and our role in the Gulf!

Second it is one thing for the TSP establishment to use the narrative you mentioned, but it is quite another for the "captive" ethnicities to buy that. For them, it could be a sufficient condition for India to be less Islamist than Pakistan as long as India is considered Dar al-Islam, Homeland of the Muslims in the Indian Subcontinent and has the label of the "largest and most powerful Muslim country in the world"! So where TSP establishment would be pushing the label of the most ideal Islamic country in the world, for the non-Pakjabi ethnicities the minimum conditions of Islam in India would suffice to jump a sinking ship!

Whereas India right now can only approach the Pakistani ethnicities on the basis of a Secular Pluralistic Nation, in case India wanted to do so, in order to entice the non-Pakjabi ethnicities to leave Pakistan and join India, after the India-Bangladesh merger, India would get the Muslim Nation label as well to do PR to the non-Pakjabi ethnicities. With this label, we can go head to head with Pakjabis and vie for the loyalty and sympathy of the non-Pakjabi ethnicities. We can openly say, "Sindh, come and join us"! or "Baluchis, come and join us!". We would be totally changing our tune, our own propaganda! We can go on the offensive! So it is not that Pakjabi Establishment tells some narrative and post-merger Indians just passively sit and listen and then go back home dejected. No! We go on the offensive and try to rip open Pakistan by appealing directly to the non-Pakjabi ethnicities and urging them to rise up and join the "true" Muslim Homeland in the Indian Subcontinent - India!

Thirdly the question of which country - India or Pakistan is more Muslim TFTA can really be answered on the battleground. Any little war with Pakistan after the merger, where Pakistan is considered the loser would clinch the question of who is more TFTA Muslim, and whom should the Sindhis, Baluchis, Gilgitians, Baltistanis, Mohajirs be joining!

Again, which areas we ultimately take in and in what relationship would depend on India alone!

The point is that after the merger, there would be fundamental difference in our posture, and we cannot compare that posture with our current posture viz-a-viz Pakistan.

But I do agree completely that we need to define ourselves much better and consolidate the Dharmik fold in India before opening up to Bangladesh! But it is not the Congress's narrative only. The Dharmik forces too need to get their act together!

As far as Bangladeshi Islamists go, of course they are there, but let's not forget we are here too! Of course they would scheme and plan against us, but we would too be doing the same! How long will they survive without Oil, without Military Superiority, without Control of Trade Routes, with the State overlooking their every word, every deed, every bullet, every name and every penny!

Rudradev ji,
I again want to thank you for your very incisive critique!

I think we should separate out two issues here :

(1) the advantages and need for reabsorption of the territories currently called Pak and BD into Indian sovereignty [this has been debated well and long here]. For myself, I have never proposed any romantic notion of "cultural affinity" as the basis for such reabsorption. On the contrary, I have clearly outlined sovereignty as a means of filtering and reprocessing of the "culture" over multiple generations and specifically targeting imperialist ideologies and their theologians and institutional networks. The advantages are obvious in strategic terms - and first and foremost being prevention of external forces from being able to manipulate regimes and people in these regions against India.

(2) the method of achieving this reabsorption. This debate should be separated from (1).

In the methods section, we are heavily dependent on our scenarios that we project for the regions.

As I have hinted at before, that I foresee that the best scenario will be if we can make it so that our western neighbour actually attacks us, and one or more Islamist networks both within as well as outside our country get involved - directly or indirectly, in their favour. I would also encourage, if necessary by encouraging such networks to "encourage" as much of the Paki male population to take up arms in defence of their faith and artifically constructed rootless national framework. The historical Islamists Pakis take most pride in identifying with - proved meticulous in their urge to try and wipe out the name and trace of all previous cultures they overran. They dug up temples even to their foundation bedrock and then filled it over or built their own [in Kashmir, for example]. We should learn from them and be even more meticulous. There should be no trace of something called Pakistan, not in words, not in archaeology, not in records. It never existed. There should similarly be no trace of the ideological institutions that generated Pakistan, and no trace at all of their words, deeds, or remnants. And the best possible thing for that to happen is that they take up arms as a population against us, without any apparent provocation.

I would humbly differ from RajeshA ji's thoughts in that I think that the key to the East is through the gates to the West, and not the other way round as he is suggesting. The East will actually be much more difficult to "absorb" - more so because they have separated from the "west" and now at least have an overt pretense of being Islamist-neutral and preserve the institutional basis of Isalmist power under the burqa of "liberal democracy" for a long time to come. More so when the "west" falls, Islamists from there may find refuge in the "east".

brihaspati wrote:The historical Islamists Pakis take most pride in identifying with - proved meticulous in their urge to try and wipe out the name and trace of all previous cultures they overran. They dug up temples even to their foundation bedrock and then filled it over or built their own [in Kashmir, for example]. We should learn from them and be even more meticulous. There should be no trace of something called Pakistan, not in words, not in archaeology, not in records. It never existed. There should similarly be no trace of the ideological institutions that generated Pakistan, and no trace at all of their words, deeds, or remnants. And the best possible thing for that to happen is that they take up arms as a population against us, without any apparent provocation.

brihaspati garu,

just an anecdote: In Berlin there used to be Palast der Republik, a DDR relic known for being the hub of entertainment of the political elite, and even though many ex-DDR citizens were happy that Germany was united, they were extremely annoyed that the place was torn down to make way for a Stadtschloss (or a city palace). The later was dropped because of paucity of funds, but the former was really deleted off the face of Berlin. East Berliners were incensed that all the symbols of their culture were being removed on one or the other pretext! If one goes there today, one would see how meticulous the Germans were.

I think a real break up of Pakistan would offer opportunities to really wipe off the name of Pakistan from the place. It would suffice if after the break up, the provinces or areas would be dependent for some time on Indian largess to survive! In return India can demand they get rid of all symbols of Pakistan, and no organization or institution should carry that name! Some private orgs may carry it still in protest, but with loss of popularity and the urge of the populations to move on, even those orgs would be forgotten.

brihaspati wrote:I would humbly differ from RajeshA ji's thoughts in that I think that the key to the East is through the gates to the West, and not the other way round as he is suggesting. The East will actually be much more difficult to "absorb" - more so because they have separated from the "west" and now at least have an overt pretense of being Islamist-neutral and preserve the institutional basis of Isalmist power under the burqa of "liberal democracy" for a long time to come. More so when the "west" falls, Islamists from there may find refuge in the "east".

Once India does reach a certain level of prosperity and India becomes hip, I think there is an opportunity of consumerizing and Macaulayizing the East into Indics with time. The Islamic core would indeed survive in the East but many many layers of periphery around the Islamic core can indeed be peeled off in due time. It depends on how much of Indic we are able to project into them and how quickly. For that however it is necessary that they take off their body armor, their wariness.

I very much agree that Islamist networks need to be wiped away, but I think that the best way is to do it is to handcuff the core and to scrape off the layers from the outside inwards. I think, if one attacks the core, one would martyr it, and the whole periphery could radicalize, transform and become core!

RajeshA wrote: How can Pakistanis have created a Pakistan meant to be for the Muslims of the Indian Subcontinent, when two-thirds of the Muslims of Indian Subcontinent have voted in favor of India? How can Pakistanis invest so much hate for India, when it is the largest Muslim country in the world? What is the reason for the non-Pakjabi ethnicities to live together with Pakjabis in one country, and that too as second class citizens with no security? How can the Pakistanis paint India as a Hindu country, when India's public face as far as Pakistan is concerned is a Bangladeshi, a member of the biggest Muslim ethnicity in the Indian Subcontinent? How can Pakistan go against India, when all other Muslim countries of the world treat India as one of them and give her due respect as the most powerful and largest Muslim country in the world?

Can the Pakjabi Army really restrain the non-Pakjabi Pakistanis when they rise up together and reject Pakistan, Pakjabi domination and embrace freedom? How many can Pakjabi Army really kill?

All the reasons for which the Pakjabi Army takes the subservience and loyalty of non-Pakjabi Pakistani citizens for granted, would lose their validity and no subservience or loyalty would be forthcoming any more!

Pakistan would lose its raison d'être at a most fundamental level!

Your arguments are rational and well thought of, but do not apply to irrational player like TSP.

You are trying to put nice round pegs in badly twisted holes. Your arguments are correct, but assume that TSP junta has thinking ability and can rationalize things. Below is example of what you are dealing with.
http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/20 ... -on-japan/

What Rudradev are others are showing you is the shape of the holes. Your answer to those questions is just telling how well rounded your pegs are, which surely are. But you are not giving answers as how you'll fit your nicely precision machined pegs into twisted holes.
So Mr. RajeshA, if it doesn't fit, you must quit.

Bottomline is Pakistan lost its raison d'être(which is like virginity) long back when it stopped allowing free migration of Indian muslims into TSP in 1960s. After that time, it never got it back so losing it nth time does not make any sense anymore so why should India even try it, when it's not even there!