Bharat Rakshak

The proposed pan-Asian highway linking India via BD to our NE, burma, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam will change things for the better too.

The arrogant Naga ejs bit off a lot by their ill-advised Manipur blockade. No more blockades can be effective after the asian highway takes off. Also access to our NE from chittagong becomes feasible then on.

Akalam bhai,
you can probably understand what I am saying in the following lines, as expressing the mismatch in attitudes between the two components in India and WB - who could have most successfully made the transition you are speaking of :

"e gaan jekhane satyo/
ananto godhuli lagne sheikhaane bahi chole dholeshwari/
teere tamaaler ghano chaya/
anginai je aache opekkha kori/
taar parane Dhakai sharee/
kopale shi(n)dur/"

In so many ways those lines summarize how the Bengali Hindu section looks at BD - in stark metaphorical terms, where BD is the never met bride-to-be, who

"ghorete elona she to/
mone taar nitya asha jaoa/"

This is the "border" from which the Hindu groom fled, because he did not feel up to the task of "husbandry" of the land and its culture. But neither is he able to forget the bride. Problem is the "sh(n)dur" which cannot be set aside in the thinking. This is where the dichotomy, and the difficulty of adjustment comes. The nature of reluctance comes from two different sources from the two sides, but also probably the hidden potential not being utilized.

For those not familiar with the quoted lines : here is an attempt at translation.
"where this song is true/
the river Dhaleswari flows there in an eternal dusk/
on the banks the deep dark shadow of tamaala/tejpat trees/
in the frontyard waits she/
wearing a Dhakai saree/[woven style from Dhaka]
on her forehead, the sindur/"

"she never came into my room, to my home/
but she comes into my thoughts - every day, - comes and leaves - every day/"

Its a poem about a groom who grew cold feet when faced with the sudden prospect of being married off to a girl selected by his relative when he was visiting the relative. He escaped.

Karazai's desperate cry for "foreigners" to leave by 2014, can be the front for two entirely different motivations:

(a) He is being made to do so to provide the urgency and justification for the USA and NATO to leave. This gives a huge face-saving boost.

(b) He is doing it independent of US prompting. However, this is then an uncanny parallel to what happened around the Shah of Iran. Even though starting out as a protege of the west, he began showing signs of really believing in his regal posturings, and the USA panicked. There are indications that the USA could have played a crucial role in keeping the then Iranian army neutral and allow the Khomeini gang to mount an Islamist coup. They let the radical Marxists loose first so that they could wipe up after them and "them". However, the communists are a severely depleted force in Kabul now. So, some of the Islamist radical outfits can play the role of the Iranian Marxists.

But I do not think that this time around the USA can pull it off. Karazai may go, or be liquidated as is typical of Pashtun politics now. But US control will not exist, just as in Iran. Both India and PRC may find themselves ironically drawn in to prop up Karazai. This can be immensely expensive and fatal. But do these two have any other option, given their other international posturings and commitments in trying for "peace" and avoidance of "military conflict" in the neighbourhood?

brihaspati wrote:There are indications that the USA could have played a crucial role in keeping the then Iranian army neutral and allow the Khomeini gang to mount an Islamist coup.

Interested in reading this, what are some references for this angle?

AKalam wrote
[quote="AKalam"]Narenji, I am not denying that there are reasons or "causes" behind Hindu-Muslim conflict which resulted in the "effect" of partition in 1947, it definitely did not happen out of vacuum.

You have mentioned social-psychological causes, I believe you are referring to perceived different world view and way-of-life that are different for different religious cultures, that originated and evolved in different places. As religions travelled far they also got adapted at different time and place.

These causes did not go away in the last 63 years, the dynamics may be a little different but the basic issues are still there, but we humans have learned to analyze human situations a bit more accurately than in the past I believe, as we discover more about social sciences, anthropology etc. from some excellent research in recent decades.

Akakam ji Any causes that relates to religion from Arabia have not gone away for centuries and the humans that you talk about are not the humans that most of us would like to see.Any follower of the religion of Arabia is taught to go against the very natural evolution of humans ie critical thinking, self doubt, open debate and spirituality.These people are humans but would like to reverse this and go back to the conditions mentioned in their book. The more scientific discoveries are made the more Afghanistan like countries are bound to come up as resistance to these ideas.They use science only for power over others.So IMHO these basic issues of religion are here to stay unless
1) We become zombie followers like they are.
2) We exteminate all humans following this ideology.
3) "Ali Sina" type piskology is applied and we get rid of this cult.


An EU type integration does not mean that suddenly partition will be negated. Integration will happen at a pace that the population is comfortable with and most decisions will be decided on by member country referendums as is the norm in EU. So there will be ample time to debate such issues and to come to agreement to acceptable accomodations for each country. Depending on the level of disagreement, socio economic progress and resulting increase in rational thought and discourse, the time for full political integration might be 3 to 7 decades away or even more. EU idea was floated in 1923 and in the past 87 years it has come this far. SAARC idea was floated in mid 1980's, so its been only about 25 years or so.Most regional groups start out, as did EU, with customs union, free trade area operating and harmonizing the economic matters of the member states, so this way the region can deal with the rest of the world on economics, trade, commerce etc. as one unit.


All apologists for religion of Arabia on the net are suddenly talking about E.U as the role model for South Asia.IMO this is just another way of Ghazwa-e -hind in disguise.Let any of the three conditions that I have spelt out be completed first then we can think about it.Forget 87 years even a century is not enough for this type of discussion unless followers of religion of Arabia discover spiritualism.

Pratyush,

I hear what you are saying, although as an individual I may have some positive ideas, it may not match with the realities of domestic politics in BD. BD has made some progress lately, but I understand your concern that it may not be permanent, so far the history of BD has been a see-saw of power between the two Begum's, so you never know.

But my personal conviction comes from a different source. I have been studying global history for some time, trying to understand the main under currents in larger time scales and from this study and analysis, I became reasonably confident that the 14/13 regional blocks I discuss will come into being sooner or later. In fact, I plan to open a website dedicated to these regional integrations, kind of as a hobby and pastime, so like minded individuals from these regions can come and discuss and share their experiences.

The only place that I know of where regional integration is formally studied is here:

http://www.cris.unu.edu/

The case of SAARC in South Asia is special for me, as it is my home region and I know about it more than others. Many of the experiences here, I have been able to generalize and apply to other regions.

About the concern for Mad Mullah's in BD and Pakistan and about the whole Islamic problem in general, I think Islam is going through a transition phase. It was used as imperial tools in various empires since its advent, some of those empires have broken up in recent past and from these broken up pieces, many deviant and negative forms have emerged to take the place of historical Islam, which itself does not have a very glorious history, as very often it was used to unite war-like nomadic barbarian tribes in Arabia and then in Asian steppes, who went out to establish their empires in different places, sometimes destroying local civilizations and in case of the subcontinent, almost damaging it to a point beyond repair.

This relates to my own peculiar theory about civilizations as large systems and how foreign invasions and/or occupation, and the resulting disruption on the internal social super-structure of a large system has negative effect on the adaptability or competitive edge of a civilization. But that is probably OT in this thread, if there is any appropriate thread and if there is an interest I can go into more details.

Instead of remaining locked in current status quo till India resolved the Pakistan problem, which may or may not take decades, my suggestion would be to kick out Pakistan from SAARC, citing its role in 26/11 and proceed without Pakistan for integration. When Pakistan, if it survives as a state and if it takes corrective actions, to the satisfaction of member countries, then it can be allowed to become a member again. Why should others wait and suffer, because of these dolts, instead lets give them the appropriate message that they are no longer welcome because of their actions. If BD political leadership makes similar mistakes, let BD be kicked out as well, but lets get on with the business of SAARC integration. When people want something good for their future, they will come begging to be included in the process.

Hari Seldon wrote:The proposed pan-Asian highway linking India via BD to our NE, burma, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam will change things for the better too.

The arrogant Naga ejs bit off a lot by their ill-advised Manipur blockade. No more blockades can be effective after the asian highway takes off. Also access to our NE from chittagong becomes feasible then on.

Yes, pan-Asian highway all the way to Vietnam will be excellent for increasing ties with the subcontinent and balancing PRC's influence there. Hopefully Chittagong port will play a key role for development of Indian NE.

AKalam wrote: You have mentioned social-psychological causes, I believe you are referring to perceived different world view and way-of-life that are different for different religious cultures, that originated and evolved in different places. As religions travelled far they also got adapted at different time and place.

These causes did not go away in the last 63 years, the dynamics may be a little different but the basic issues are still there, but we humans have learned to analyze human situations a bit more accurately than in the past I believe, as we discover more about social sciences, anthropology etc. from some excellent research in recent decades.

An EU type integration does not mean that suddenly partition will be negated. Integration will happen at a pace that the population is comfortable with and most decisions will be decided on by member country referendums as is the norm in EU.
{Well some propose to re-create 16th century India using violence. This is the alternate strategy of using demographic aggression couched in democratic ideals citing the EU as example to achieve the same! The end effect is still the same only the former is easier to see and prevent. Presumably that's why 'educated' TSPians and BDeshis are brushing up on Sun Tzu as the code book from the desert is a little bit too violent to the sensibilities of the 21st century?}

The point I am trying to make is that the integration process allows for disagreements and delays among all or certain members and as a result some member countries may adopt some integration measures earlier or later than others.{Care to spell out which countries will have to do these 'integration measures' first? Presumably BD and TSP will be the last and the rest have to 'harmonize' according to the standards set by these two?}


My personal view is that we have similar cultures (not considering the imported religions), similar ethnicity, similar linguistics (except for some South Indian languages), shared history and a sense of being a distinct people of this region of the world, which is sufficient to create an Union and strive for greater integration, as it translates into some real tangible benefits, economic, strategic etc. for the population of the member countries.{Ooops! The mask slips again. Classic strategy of ROP agents to create division within India by citing North - South differences. Care to explain what is this similar linguistics theory about? Cared to study any 'South Indian' languages their evolution, literature and history or its just a convenient factoid to justify a NWFP to BD Mughlistan? What shared history are you referring to? Shared history of one group going on a violent rampage destroying, pillaging, murdering people and property belonging to the other group, and inviting 'fellow brothers' from outside if the orgy of violence wasn't effective enough? If there was such commonality and 'sharing' why did 0.5 - 1 million people have to die in 1947 not to mention many millions in the 6 centuries before and thousands per year since?}

As the post above correctly noted EU style federation seems to be the byword for the 'non-violent', 'liberal', and 'educated' subcontinental ROPers to achieve what their less intellectually endowed brothers want to achieve using cruder tactics.

brihaspatiji,

Is that from Tagore? Nice poem. Thanks.

By the way, the current ill behavior that I see in BD body politic, specially among the political class, including the two ruling families, has to do with the departure of the Hindu jaminder class, that left en mass for Calcutta, I do not blame them, what alternative did they have? That was the effect of partition on BD, that BD society still have not been able to recover from, by being able to replace that intellectual leadership, which I call a disruption on the social super structure, that reduces its adaptability and competitive edge. And of course being broken off from greater India to which it was organically joined, despite being an important and distinct region within India, was of course another disruption.

Manishw wrote:AKalam wrote

AKalam wrote:Narenji, I am not denying that there are reasons or "causes" behind Hindu-Muslim conflict which resulted in the "effect" of partition in 1947, it definitely did not happen out of vacuum.

You have mentioned social-psychological causes, I believe you are referring to perceived different world view and way-of-life that are different for different religious cultures, that originated and evolved in different places. As religions travelled far they also got adapted at different time and place.

These causes did not go away in the last 63 years, the dynamics may be a little different but the basic issues are still there, but we humans have learned to analyze human situations a bit more accurately than in the past I believe, as we discover more about social sciences, anthropology etc. from some excellent research in recent decades.

Akakam ji Any causes that relates to religion from Arabia have not gone away for centuries and the humans that you talk about are not the humans that most of us would like to see.Any follower of the religion of Arabia is taught to go against the very natural evolution of humans ie critical thinking, self doubt, open debate and spirituality.These people are humans but would like to reverse this and go back to the conditions mentioned in their book. The more scientific discoveries are made the more Afghanistan like countries are bound to come up as resistance to these ideas.They use science only for power over others.So IMHO these basic issues of religion are here to stay unless
1) We become zombie followers like they are.
2) We exteminate all humans following this ideology.
3) "Ali Sina" type piskology is applied and we get rid of this cult.


An EU type integration does not mean that suddenly partition will be negated. Integration will happen at a pace that the population is comfortable with and most decisions will be decided on by member country referendums as is the norm in EU. So there will be ample time to debate such issues and to come to agreement to acceptable accomodations for each country. Depending on the level of disagreement, socio economic progress and resulting increase in rational thought and discourse, the time for full political integration might be 3 to 7 decades away or even more. EU idea was floated in 1923 and in the past 87 years it has come this far. SAARC idea was floated in mid 1980's, so its been only about 25 years or so.Most regional groups start out, as did EU, with customs union, free trade area operating and harmonizing the economic matters of the member states, so this way the region can deal with the rest of the world on economics, trade, commerce etc. as one unit.


All apologists for religion of Arabia on the net are suddenly talking about E.U as the role model for South Asia.IMO this is just another way of Ghazwa-e -hind in disguise.Let any of the three conditions that I have spelt out be completed first then we can think about it.Forget 87 years even a century is not enough for this type of discussion unless followers of religion of Arabia discover spiritualism.

You are entitled to your esteemed opinion of course, but please check out:

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

Islam and Muslims are not going away any time soon, so it might be more productive to develop a more balanced and nuanced view of them based on real information, granted that being a Muslim is nothing to be proud of now-a-days, from all that great deeds a small number are perpetrating on world stage.

AKalam Wrote

AKalam wrote:Pratyush,


I hear what you are saying, although as an individual I may have some positive ideas, it may not match with the realities of domestic politics in BD. BD has made some progress lately, but I understand your concern that it may not be permanent, so far the history of BD has been a see-saw of power between the two Begum's, so you never know.


AKalam Ji thank you for pointing out what we all know that countries like Bangladesh can change on a dime .This is no different from Taqqiya practiced by Arabia loving souls.


But my personal conviction comes from a different source. I have been studying global history for some time, trying to understand the main under currents in larger time scales and from this study and analysis, I became reasonably confident that the 14/13 regional blocks I discuss will come into being sooner or later. In fact, I plan to open a website dedicated to these regional integrations, kind of as a hobby and pastime, so like minded individuals from these regions can come and discuss and share their experiences.


Good to see your personnel convictions being perused by you based on your studies of global history.I wish u all the best in your endeavors.


The only place that I know of where regional integration is formally studied is here:
http://www.cris.unu.edu/


Sir I know of innumerable sources where the Arabistan cult has been responsible for regional disintigration that it would not be possible to list it here but a good point to start would be here on Bharat Rakshak itself.

The case of SAARC in South Asia is special for me, as it is my home region and I know about it more than others. Many of the experiences here, I have been able to generalize and apply to other regions.


It is also special for me too sir though I do not apply my experiences anywhere else


About the concern for Mad Mullah's in BD and Pakistan and about the whole Islamic problem in general, I think Islam is going through a transition phase. It was used as imperial tools in various empires since its advent, some of those empires have broken up in recent past and from these broken up pieces, many deviant and negative forms have emerged to take the place of historical Islam, which itself does not have a very glorious history, as very often it was used to unite war-like nomadic barbarian tribes in Arabia and then in Asian steppes, who went out to establish their empires in different places, sometimes destroying local civilizations and in case of the subcontinent, almost damaging it to a point beyond repair.


Sir good to see you talking of transition in cult of Arabistan and havoc it has wreaked

This relates to my own peculiar theory about civilizations as large systems and how foreign invasions and/or occupation, and the resulting disruption on the internal social super-structure of a large system has negative effect on the adaptability or competitive edge of a civilization. But that is probably OT in this thread, if there is any appropriate thread and if there is an interest I can go into more details.


Yes it will be OT, no point in discussing this since all concerned have agreed about havoc that has been caused.Only degrees of Havoc can be left out


Instead of remaining locked in current status quo till India resolved the Pakistan problem, which may or may not take decades, my suggestion would be to kick out Pakistan from SAARC, citing its role in 26/11 and proceed without Pakistan for integration. When Pakistan, if it survives as a state and if it takes corrective actions, to the satisfaction of member countries, then it can be allowed to become a member again. Why should others wait and suffer, because of these dolts, instead lets give them the appropriate message that they are no longer welcome because of their actions. If BD political leadership makes similar mistakes, let BD be kicked out as well, but lets get on with the business of SAARC integration. When people want something good for their future, they will come begging to be included in the process.

AHA now we come to the crux of the matter since People from Pakistan cant get an suitable entry so Bangladesh can be used as an backdoor to get in more people of Arabistan cult into India.Sir we already have a huge problem of BD refugees (read demographics) why the hell would we like more headaches to enter our country under fancy"integration" schemes when we all know that once they are inside u cant push them out whereas the Govt of Bangladesh is always in the habit of seesawing (aka taqqiya) from its position.We would be the stupid bag holders. AS far as waiting and suffering it goes for many Indians and are already doing that from ages and will continue to do for a couple of decades till we come into our own. Why the rush to have "integration" schemes with people of other countries? why not help our own first? If it is fear from china we will tackle on our own and if our neighbours get frustrated that india is not so called integrating and want to play the china card the best course is to sanitize our neighbourhood by any means rather than these hair brained "integration" $hit

JMT and all other standard disclaimers

Masaru wrote:

AKalam wrote: You have mentioned social-psychological causes, I believe you are referring to perceived different world view and way-of-life that are different for different religious cultures, that originated and evolved in different places. As religions travelled far they also got adapted at different time and place.

These causes did not go away in the last 63 years, the dynamics may be a little different but the basic issues are still there, but we humans have learned to analyze human situations a bit more accurately than in the past I believe, as we discover more about social sciences, anthropology etc. from some excellent research in recent decades.

An EU type integration does not mean that suddenly partition will be negated. Integration will happen at a pace that the population is comfortable with and most decisions will be decided on by member country referendums as is the norm in EU.
{Well some propose to re-create 16th century India using violence. This is the alternate strategy of using demographic aggression couched in democratic ideals citing the EU as example to achieve the same! The end effect is still the same only the former is easier to see and prevent. Presumably that's why 'educated' TSPians and BDeshis are brushing up on Sun Tzu as the code book from the desert is a little bit too violent to the sensibilities of the 21st century?}

The point I am trying to make is that the integration process allows for disagreements and delays among all or certain members and as a result some member countries may adopt some integration measures earlier or later than others.{Care to spell out which countries will have to do these 'integration measures' first? Presumably BD and TSP will be the last and the rest have to 'harmonize' according to the standards set by these two?}


My personal view is that we have similar cultures (not considering the imported religions), similar ethnicity, similar linguistics (except for some South Indian languages), shared history and a sense of being a distinct people of this region of the world, which is sufficient to create an Union and strive for greater integration, as it translates into some real tangible benefits, economic, strategic etc. for the population of the member countries.{Ooops! The mask slips again. Classic strategy of ROP agents to create division within India by citing North - South differences. Care to explain what is this similar linguistics theory about? Cared to study any 'South Indian' languages their evolution, literature and history or its just a convenient factoid to justify a NWFP to BD Mughlistan? What shared history are you referring to? Shared history of one group going on a violent rampage destroying, pillaging, murdering people and property belonging to the other group, and inviting 'fellow brothers' from outside if the orgy of violence wasn't effective enough? If there was such commonality and 'sharing' why did 0.5 - 1 million people have to die in 1947 not to mention many millions in the 6 centuries before and thousands per year since?}

As the post above correctly noted EU style federation seems to be the byword for the 'non-violent', 'liberal', and 'educated' subcontinental ROPers to achieve what their less intellectually endowed brothers want to achieve using cruder tactics.

First of all, what or who is an ROPer?

Now would you go against the wishes of Gandhi, whose dream it was to keep the subcontinent together and how about Godse, an RSS activist, who was so upset that Gandhi agreed to partition (he promised earlier that Partition will happen only over his dead body), that he kindly forced Gandhi to literally keep his promise?

SAARC integration, if it happens, it will happen because people in member countries, including India, votes for them, in national referendums. So there will be dissenting opinions in all member countries. Only when there is a majority that wants to go for a certain step in a country, then such a step will be materialized.

I see that you have seized on a point that I mentioned (just to be correct in my statement) about South Indian languages and are accusing be of dividing India between North and South, I am amused. I can assure you that I had no such intention, I mentioned that point only because I know that some South Indian languages technically do not fall into Indo-European or Indo-Iranian language family. But languages are not always representative of the genetic or ethnic origin of people, for example Spanish is spoken by South Americans and Turkic language is spoken by population of Turkey who are genetically closer to Europeans such as Greeks, East European Slavs etc. As for Bengal and Bengali's, our main stock is more Dravidian and similar to South India, although the language spoken is Indo-European, derived from Sanskrit. Speaking of Sanskrit, I thought that most South Indian languages also have significant influence from Sanskrit.

Manishw wrote:AKalam Wrote

AKalam wrote:Pratyush,


I hear what you are saying, although as an individual I may have some positive ideas, it may not match with the realities of domestic politics in BD. BD has made some progress lately, but I understand your concern that it may not be permanent, so far the history of BD has been a see-saw of power between the two Begum's, so you never know.


AKalam Ji thank you for pointing out what we all know that countries like Bangladesh can change on a dime .This is no different from Taqqiya practiced by Arabia loving souls.


But my personal conviction comes from a different source. I have been studying global history for some time, trying to understand the main under currents in larger time scales and from this study and analysis, I became reasonably confident that the 14/13 regional blocks I discuss will come into being sooner or later. In fact, I plan to open a website dedicated to these regional integrations, kind of as a hobby and pastime, so like minded individuals from these regions can come and discuss and share their experiences.


Good to see your personnel convictions being perused by you based on your studies of global history.I wish u all the best in your endeavors.


The only place that I know of where regional integration is formally studied is here:
http://www.cris.unu.edu/


Sir I know of innumerable sources where the Arabistan cult has been responsible for regional disintigration that it would not be possible to list it here but a good point to start would be here on Bharat Rakshak itself.

The case of SAARC in South Asia is special for me, as it is my home region and I know about it more than others. Many of the experiences here, I have been able to generalize and apply to other regions.


It is also special for me too sir though I do not apply my experiences anywhere else


About the concern for Mad Mullah's in BD and Pakistan and about the whole Islamic problem in general, I think Islam is going through a transition phase. It was used as imperial tools in various empires since its advent, some of those empires have broken up in recent past and from these broken up pieces, many deviant and negative forms have emerged to take the place of historical Islam, which itself does not have a very glorious history, as very often it was used to unite war-like nomadic barbarian tribes in Arabia and then in Asian steppes, who went out to establish their empires in different places, sometimes destroying local civilizations and in case of the subcontinent, almost damaging it to a point beyond repair.


Sir good to see you talking of transition in cult of Arabistan and havoc it has wreaked

This relates to my own peculiar theory about civilizations as large systems and how foreign invasions and/or occupation, and the resulting disruption on the internal social super-structure of a large system has negative effect on the adaptability or competitive edge of a civilization. But that is probably OT in this thread, if there is any appropriate thread and if there is an interest I can go into more details.


Yes it will be OT, no point in discussing this since all concerned have agreed about havoc that has been caused.Only degrees of Havoc can be left out


Instead of remaining locked in current status quo till India resolved the Pakistan problem, which may or may not take decades, my suggestion would be to kick out Pakistan from SAARC, citing its role in 26/11 and proceed without Pakistan for integration. When Pakistan, if it survives as a state and if it takes corrective actions, to the satisfaction of member countries, then it can be allowed to become a member again. Why should others wait and suffer, because of these dolts, instead lets give them the appropriate message that they are no longer welcome because of their actions. If BD political leadership makes similar mistakes, let BD be kicked out as well, but lets get on with the business of SAARC integration. When people want something good for their future, they will come begging to be included in the process.

AHA now we come to the crux of the matter since People from Pakistan cant get an suitable entry so Bangladesh can be used as an backdoor to get in more people of Arabistan cult into India.Sir we already have a huge problem of BD refugees (read demographics) why the hell would we like more headaches to enter our country under fancy"integration" schemes when we all know that once they are inside u cant push them out whereas the Govt of Bangladesh is always in the habit seesawing (aka taqqiya) from its position.We would be the stupid bag holders. AS far as waiting and suffering it goes for many Indians and are already doing that from ages and will continue to do for a couple of decades till we come into our own. Why the rush to have "integration" schemes with people of other countries? why not help our own first? If it is fear from china we will tackle on our own and if our neighbours get frustrated that india is not so called integrating and want to play the china card the best course is to sanitize our neighbourhood by any means rather than these hair brained "integration" $hit

JMT and all other standard disclaimers

I can see that you are not very excited about such an integration, fair enough dear Sir, but no reason to get so worked up about it. Chill sir, we are just exchanging and sharing ideas.

And how do you propose to sanitize your neighborhood, if I may ask? Would you care to elaborate?

AKalam wrote:You have mentioned social-psychological causes, I believe you are referring to perceived different world view and way-of-life that are different for different religious cultures, that originated and evolved in different places. As religions travelled far they also got adapted at different time and place.

I dont want to go too much into the "causes" I referred to, it doesnt fall within the scope of this thread. But it is something you may wanna work out on your own.

These causes did not go away in the last 63 years, the dynamics may be a little different but the basic issues are still there, but we humans have learned to analyze human situations a bit more accurately than in the past I believe, as we discover more about social sciences, anthropology etc. from some excellent research in recent decades.

social sciences, anthropology, excellent research... bravo How many of the potential 500M who would come under this SAARC union would sign up for the "social sciences", "anthropology", "excellent research"... ? Last time I checked, "secularism" was blasphemy.

An EU type integration does not mean that suddenly partition will be negated. Integration will happen at a pace that the population is comfortable with and most decisions will be decided on by member country referendums as is the norm in EU. So there will be ample time to debate such issues and to come to agreement to acceptable accomodations for each country. Depending on the level of disagreement, socio economic progress and resulting increase in rational thought and discourse, the time for full political integration might be 3 to 7 decades away or even more. EU idea was floated in 1923 and in the past 87 years it has come this far. SAARC idea was floated in mid 1980's, so its been only about 25 years or so.

Again, this line of thought only addresses the political aspect. Not the religious-social aspect. => tactics without strategy. Political union aint gonna achieve sheet without the necessary union of the two major religious groups.

Mughal Empire:


Maratha Empire:


British Raj:


Its not like we are the first one who are going to unite large territories. People have done that before. And failed.

My personal view is that we have similar cultures (not considering the imported religions), similar ethnicity, similar linguistics (except for some South Indian languages), shared history and a sense of being a distinct people of this region of the world, which is sufficient to create an Union and strive for greater integration, as it translates into some real tangible benefits, economic, strategic etc. for the population of the member countries.

Hmmm.... all these above existed for the past thousands years too. You count how many people have lost their lives in religion motivated violence and tell me.

India does have a problem with appeasementism, for which I didnt see your rebuttal. Adding more population of the particular religion will only create more problems.

As for BD (per capita PPP = $1500) uniting with India (pc PPP = $2941), how is it going to work ? They would want to migrate freely to India. Hindu groups would oppose, secularists would welcome. During the stalemate, a group of migrants (say 100) would push forward. BSF would gun them down. Then all hell will break loose. It will lead to unconditional opening up. Then demographic alteration. More jiziya needed to be doled out for "minority" religious group to go pilgrimage. As for the so called "majority" religious group, Mt. Kailash would be an unconditional part of "one China". Out of bounds

Now would you go against the wishes of Gandhi, whose dream it was to keep the subcontinent together and how about Godse, an RSS activist, who was so upset that Gandhi agreed to partition (he promised earlier that Partition will happen only over his dead body), that he kindly forced Gandhi to literally keep his promise?

Peace Be Upon our beloved Mahatma (seriously, no sarcasm) for letting the partition happen. Else, imagine the nightmare of 500M bious vs 800M casteist/regional/linguistic hindus.

SAARC integration, if it happens, it will happen because people in member countries, including India, votes for them, in national referendums. So there will be dissenting opinions in all member countries. Only when there is a majority that wants to go for a certain step in a country, then such a step will be materialized.

Which I assume secularists would have no trouble pulling off. Then comes the x-religion League 2.0, who would replace our current secularists.

Ignore the psy ops. Objectively look at this video about the problem of BD migrants crossing into India. I personally would not want our soldiers to kill any innocents. But what is the solution ? I seriously dont know. Before we dream into all this "Akhand Bharat" (or Mughal 2.0) madness, we need to analyze these things.

The Longest Fence - India

Narenji,

You have valid concerns. That is why I have mentioned that political union may not be an ultimate goal, if it is not desired by the majority of any member country, as defined by the law of the land. And free flow of people can also be restricted for as long as there is significant disparity in income.

One of the ideas behind regional integration is to bring smaller economies into larger ones, so that economic disparity's reduce and the resulting larger regional economy achieves even more economies of scale, which is a win-win situation for all member countries.

So your concern of having to deal with 500m Muslims within India or greater India, does not arise. You will be having 500m or so Muslims within the economic bloc, but not within your country, unless of course a decisive majority in your country wishes that this is what they want, at some future point.

About appeasementism, I am not very familiar with India's internal policies regarding Muslims, and as an outsider it is probably not proper for me to comment on it, even if I was familiar about such policies. Such comments may be considered as an interference on internal matters of your country.

AKalam wrote:
First of all, what or who is an ROPer?

ROP :Religion of Peace

AKalam wrote: Now would you go against the wishes of Gandhi, whose dream it was to keep the subcontinent together and how about Godse, an RSS activist, who was so upset that Gandhi agreed to partition (he promised earlier that Partition will happen only over his dead body), that he kindly forced Gandhi to literally keep his promise?

At the risk of offending any personal sensibilities, this argument follows the SOP of accusing any one not giving into the concessions as anti-Gandhi and lo and behold pro-RSS and pro-Godse! Why are Jinnah and Shurawardy (and his cohorts) missing in this rhetorical barb?

India through the antiquities has produced many great thinkers and leaders, quite a few who have seen much greater success not just nationally but at global stage than MKG. MKG was no doubt a great mass leader but that doesn't mean 'all' his thoughts and words will have to be followed in letter and spirit till eternity. The culture and thought process that forms the basis of ancient Bharat and its modern day successor doesn't believe in neat 'good' vs 'evil' and 'God' vs. 'Devil' categorizations. This culture allows for the so called Gods and their manifestations to be flawed and the so called evil forces to have qualities worth emulating. Hence this oft used 'Gandhi vs. Godse' is a framework that is contrived, incongruous, and is representative of the ideology imported from desert lands.

AKalam wrote: I see that you have seized on a point that I mentioned (just to be correct in my statement) about South Indian languages and are accusing be of dividing India between North and South, I am amused. I can assure you that I had no such intention, I mentioned that point only because I know that some South Indian languages technically do not fall into Indo-European or Indo-Iranian language family. But languages are not always representative of the genetic or ethnic origin of people, for example Spanish is spoken by South Americans and Turkic language is spoken by population of Turkey who are genetically closer to Europeans such as Greeks, East European Slavs etc. As for Bengal and Bengali's, our main stock is more Dravidian and similar to South India, although the language spoken is Indo-European, derived from Sanskrit. Speaking of Sanskrit, I thought that most South Indian languages also have significant influence from Sanskrit.

Reg. the language issue no body is 'seizing' on to any point except for pointing out how non-Indians of the sub continental origin typically latch on to the imagined divisions in India to justify their separate existence and deny the validity of an Indian nation since antiquity (as opposed to newly coined 'South Asia'). One understands the existential need for such rhetoric but nevertheless it needs to be pointed out when noticed.

Again at the risk of offending any personal sensibilities the continued quotation and harping on 'American', 'Turkic', 'European' etc. etc. frame works while completely overlooking the ground realities is symptomatic of the forced homogenization experiments that have been running in the sub continent for close to 1000 years.

Now coming to the language classifications: what exactly is this 'Indo European' , 'Indo - Iranian' category? Are the European and Indian languages mutually intelligible, do they follow the same grammar framework, are they derived from the same proto language, do they share any literature? All of the above questions are true for the so called 'South Indian' languages unless one defines North Indian languages as some unmentionable mix of Turkish/Arabic/Persian and Prakrit.

AKalam wrote:I am not very familiar with India's internal policies regarding Muslims, and as an outsider it is probably not proper for me to comment on it, even if I was familiar about such policies. Such comments may be considered as an interference on internal matters of your country.

AKalam ji,
I can understand if you do not wish to do so, but would you mind sharing your country of origin. It may better explain you PoV. Thank you

Migration from BD to India, may naturally happen, as it is impossible for border forces to fully control even if there is a fence. They cannot do it in the richest and most powerful country in the world, illegal Mexican migration is a huge headache for the US.

The most realistic way to control or remove the incentive for migration is to create local jobs, so people do not need to go somewhere else for survival or greener pasture. This is what I address in the conceptual motivations of regional integration, where vulnerable and non-competitive economies can be made more competitive using regional integration, so:

- India can solve the BD migration problem using SAARC
- US can solve the Mexican migration problem using UNASUR+Mexico
- Europe can solve the African migration problem using a Maghreb Union and a Sub-Saharan African Union
- Russia can solve the Central Asian migration problem using a Central Asian Union

RajeshA wrote:

AKalam wrote:I am not very familiar with India's internal policies regarding Muslims, and as an outsider it is probably not proper for me to comment on it, even if I was familiar about such policies. Such comments may be considered as an interference on internal matters of your country.

AKalam ji,
I can understand if you do not wish to do so, but would you mind sharing your country of origin. It may better explain you PoV. Thank you

RajeshA ji,

My country of origin is Bangladesh. Most welcome.

AKalam wrote:My country of origin is Bangladesh

AKalam ji,
most welcome on BRF. Hopefully we will get to hear more of your and Bangladeshi views in months and years to come!

Masaru wrote:

AKalam wrote:
First of all, what or who is an ROPer?

ROP :Religion of Peace

AKalam wrote: Now would you go against the wishes of Gandhi, whose dream it was to keep the subcontinent together and how about Godse, an RSS activist, who was so upset that Gandhi agreed to partition (he promised earlier that Partition will happen only over his dead body), that he kindly forced Gandhi to literally keep his promise?

At the risk of offending any personal sensibilities, this argument follows the SOP of accusing any one not giving into the concessions as anti-Gandhi and lo and behold pro-RSS and pro-Godse! Why are Jinnah and Shurawardy (and his cohorts) missing in this rhetorical barb?

India through the antiquities has produced many great thinkers and leaders, quite a few who have seen much greater success not just nationally but at global stage than MKG. MKG was no doubt a great mass leader but that doesn't mean 'all' his thoughts and words will have to be followed in letter and spirit till eternity. The culture and thought process that forms the basis of ancient Bharat and its modern day successor doesn't believe in neat 'good' vs 'evil' and 'God' vs. 'Devil' categorizations. This culture allows for the so called Gods and their manifestations to be flawed and the so called evil forces to have qualities worth emulating. Hence this oft used 'Gandhi vs. Godse' is a framework that is contrived, incongruous, and is representative of the ideology imported from desert lands.

AKalam wrote: I see that you have seized on a point that I mentioned (just to be correct in my statement) about South Indian languages and are accusing be of dividing India between North and South, I am amused. I can assure you that I had no such intention, I mentioned that point only because I know that some South Indian languages technically do not fall into Indo-European or Indo-Iranian language family. But languages are not always representative of the genetic or ethnic origin of people, for example Spanish is spoken by South Americans and Turkic language is spoken by population of Turkey who are genetically closer to Europeans such as Greeks, East European Slavs etc. As for Bengal and Bengali's, our main stock is more Dravidian and similar to South India, although the language spoken is Indo-European, derived from Sanskrit. Speaking of Sanskrit, I thought that most South Indian languages also have significant influence from Sanskrit.

Reg. the language issue no body is 'seizing' on to any point except for pointing out how non-Indians of the sub continental origin typically latch on to the imagined divisions in India to justify their separate existence and deny the validity of an Indian nation since antiquity (as opposed to newly coined 'South Asia'). One understands the existential need for such rhetoric but nevertheless it needs to be pointed out when noticed.

Again at the risk of offending any personal sensibilities the continued quotation and harping on 'American', 'Turkic', 'European' etc. etc. frame works while completely overlooking the ground realities is symptomatic of the forced homogenization experiments that have been running in the sub continent for close to 1000 years.

Now coming to the language classifications: what exactly is this 'Indo European' , 'Indo - Iranian' category? Are the European and Indian languages mutually intelligible, do they follow the same grammar framework, are they derived from the same proto language, do they share any literature? All of the above questions are true for the so called 'South Indian' languages unless one defines North Indian languages as some unmentionable mix of Turkish/Arabic/Persian and Prakrit.

I see shades of Ad hominem in this post, as well as discussions that are probably OT, so with respect, I choose not to respond.

AKalam wrote

Migration from BD to India, may naturally happen, as it is impossible for border forces to fully control even if there is a fence. They cannot do it in the richest and most powerful country in the world, illegal Mexican migration is a huge headache for the US.

The most realistic way to control or remove the incentive for migration is to create local jobs, so people do not need to go somewhere else for survival or greener pasture. This is what I address in the conceptual motivations of regional integration, where vulnerable and non-competitive economies can be made more competitive using regional integration, so:

- India can solve the BD migration problem using SAARC
- US can solve the Mexican migration problem using UNASUR+Mexico
- Europe can solve the African migration problem using a Maghreb Union and a Sub-Saharan African Union
- Russia can solve the Central Asian migration problem using a Central Asian Union

Akalam Ji there is nothing natural in this migration.It is ignored by politicos in America and India for whatever reasons.The best course is to seal the border and let anybody trying to cross illegally meet his 72. Indic civilization has to be firm since it is we who have suffered for one thousand years under cult of Arabistan. Anybody having problems should be should be given middle finger salute.
Less erudite have jihard
Ropers have this logic to intimidate
E.U> natural illegal immigration> china card.
Sorry no jazziya for ropers/jihadis now enough misery for one thousand years.

AKalam wrote: Migration from BD to India, may naturally happen, as it is impossible for border forces to fully control even if there is a fence. They cannot do it in the richest and most powerful country in the world, illegal Mexican migration is a huge headache for the US.

Again wrong framework and consequently wrong conclusions. Just because US is the richest and most powerful country doesn't mean US has the right and 'upper hand' in solving all the vexed problems. In the US - Mexican situation there is some economic benefit for the US in letting in cheap laborers who are scarce to find at a particular price point. Beyond economic/education and language differences there is no natural animosity between the migrants and the home country, much less a violent 1000 year old history of ethnic cleansing and recent bloody history of partition.

If the migrants were creating law and order issues, supporting and indulging in terror the US will step up and you will see automatic sensor fused boundaries with enough dissuasive weaponry that no living creature much less a human being will venture near the boundary. Quite simply it is not a high priority for the US and the situation has some inherent economic rationale.

All the above conditions are different for the India - BD situation. India has enough low end labour force for any foreseeable future and definitely doesn't need to import any from BD. India can put enough eye balls and feet on the border to monitor and prevent large scale migration and much less said about the un-desirable effect of the incoming BD population on the social balance at the border districts its better. What BD needs/desires is a lebensraum for its uncontrolled demographic expansion. There is no benefit at all in India letting this happen, it definitely has the capacity to prevent it whether it has the will to do so is a different matter. That is probably closer to the situation on ground than the situation at US-Mexico border.

AKalam wrote: The most realistic way to control or remove the incentive for migration is to create local jobs, so people do not need to go somewhere else for survival or greener pasture. This is what I address in the conceptual motivations of regional integration, where vulnerable and non-competitive economies can be made more competitive using regional integration

Economic linkages via SAARC is something that is quite do-able. If BD becomes prosperous well and good - but migration of people will not be desirable for quite some time - due to both economic reasons as well as potential security issues.

Akalam, if one is to discuss a political & economic integration of the sub-continent. Then to me it will only be viable if the nations that currently exist in the Indian subcontinent accept that they are members of the Indian historical and economic sphere. Moreover, any intergeneration will have to accept the sovereignty of the Indian constitution as it stands today. (Which leads to an interesting question why, was the partition of India needed in the first place if, all the ethnic and linguistic groups could co exist in harmony. )

If the same is acceptable to current political elites of the Indian subcontinent only then will Integration take place. I don't say this as an Indian nationalist but as some one who wants to see humanity come together and move forward towards the future in a unified way. If that goal is to be accomplished then it can only be done under the sanction of the Indian constitution.

Intriguing idea regarding kicking out Pakistan from SAARC. I feel that the various nations of SAARC are using Pakistan to hide behind and not take a decision about the future pending the solution of Indo-Pak fight.

The other alternative I have mentioned would be to have bilateral negotiation between different SAARC members in order to move forward in the absence of cooperation from Pakistan. But am not very confident of progress in this direction. Unless the regional power elite are more confident of them selves. That they don't need to become nationalist at the expense of India. I would classify the SAARC nations in terms of domestic politics WRT India in two categories, viz.

Confident leaders
Sri lanka
Bhutan
Maldives

Non- confident leaders
Pakistan
Bangladesh
Nepal

Unless the non confident nations become confident of themselves WRT India the regional strife will continue. The ideal of Econoomic & Political integration will remain just that.

Masaru wrote:

AKalam wrote: Migration from BD to India, may naturally happen, as it is impossible for border forces to fully control even if there is a fence. They cannot do it in the richest and most powerful country in the world, illegal Mexican migration is a huge headache for the US.

Again wrong framework and consequently wrong conclusions. Just because US is the richest and most powerful country doesn't mean US has the right and 'upper hand' in solving all the vexed problems. In the US - Mexican situation there is some economic benefit for the US in letting in cheap laborers who are scarce to find at a particular price point. Beyond economic/education and language differences there is no natural animosity between the migrants and the home country, much less a violent 1000 year old history of ethnic cleansing and recent bloody history of partition.

If the migrants were creating law and order issues, supporting and indulging in terror the US will step up and you will see automatic sensor fused boundaries with enough dissuasive weaponry that no living creature much less a human being will venture near the boundary. Quite simply it is not a high priority for the US and the situation has some inherent economic rationale.

All the above conditions are different for the India - BD situation. India has enough low end labour force for any foreseeable future and definitely doesn't need to import any from BD. India can put enough eye balls and feet on the border to monitor and prevent large scale migration and much less said about the un-desirable effect of the incoming BD population on the social balance at the border districts its better. What BD needs/desires is a lebensraum for its uncontrolled demographic expansion. There is no benefit at all in India letting this happen, it definitely has the capacity to prevent it whether it has the will to do so is a different matter. That is probably closer to the situation on ground than the situation at US-Mexico border.

Actually I mostly agree with your above assessment. Fyi BD has migration to almost every other places on the planet, you will find them in many far flung places, it is the more privileged that migrate by airplane, the less privileged used to walk over to India and then even go to Pakistan from there. If India can stop the migration with enough manpower and technology, kudos to them.

The US is getting quite tough on illegal migration now, as the economy is not doing well and there are too many unemployed. Some illegal immigrants are even going back to their home countries.

On the topice of ROP it needs reforms to tale place so that soem of its more questionabe practices & beliefes are toned down for non ROPers to be comfortable with it.

Rest is OT.

Pranav wrote:

AKalam wrote: The most realistic way to control or remove the incentive for migration is to create local jobs, so people do not need to go somewhere else for survival or greener pasture. This is what I address in the conceptual motivations of regional integration, where vulnerable and non-competitive economies can be made more competitive using regional integration

Economic linkages via SAARC is something that is quite do-able. If BD becomes prosperous well and good - but migration of people will not be desirable for quite some time - due to both economic reasons as well as potential security issues.

I think that will be a very good start, in fact it will be more desirable for both sides.

Pratyush wrote:Akalam, if one is to discuss a political & economic integration of the sub-continent. Then to me it will only be viable if the nations that currently exist in the Indian subcontinent accept that they are members of the Indian historical and economic sphere. Moreover, any intergeneration will have to accept the sovereignty of the Indian constitution as it stands today. (Which leads to an interesting question why, was the partition of India needed in the first place if, all the ethnic and linguistic groups could co exist in harmony. )

If the same is acceptable to current political elites of the Indian subcontinent only then will Integration take place. I don't say this as an Indian nationalist but as some one who wants to see humanity come together and move forward towards the future in a unified way. If that goal is to be accomplished then it can only be done under the sanction of the Indian constitution.

Intriguing idea regarding kicking out Pakistan from SAARC. I feel that the various nations of SAARC are using Pakistan to hide behind and not take a decision about the future pending the solution of Indo-Pak fight.

The other alternative I have mentioned would be to have bilateral negotiation between different SAARC members in order to move forward in the absence of cooperation from Pakistan. But am not very confident of progress in this direction. Unless the regional power elite are more confident of them selves. That they don't need to become nationalist at the expense of India. I would classify the SAARC nations in terms of domestic politics WRT India in two categories, viz.

Confident leaders
Sri lanka
Bhutan
Maldives

Non- confident leaders
Pakistan
Bangladesh
Nepal

Unless the non confident nations become confident of themselves WRT India the regional strife will continue. The ideal of Econoomic & Political integration will remain just that.

Very good assessment, the problem of elite in these countries is that they really do not represent the people, at least for BD and Pak, I don't know enough about Nepal to pass a comment. The mode they operate in is to make money while you can, even if it means selling the country to the highest bidder and leave the country when it gets too hot. So the people are essentially orphans without really someone responsible to take care of them. When it brings them political benefit, they will, as they have done in the past, use India as a punching bag, I guess this is the nature of democracy in a poor and relatively smaller country. I think with India, the situation is different, of course religion itself is probably a big factor, but India's size and expanse also I think makes it much more stable. Also India inherited an educated elite, that continued unbroken since British times, that remains relatively more active and interested in actually caring about the interest of the country and its people. I could not say the same for BD and Pak.

Bilateral agreements are already in place I think, but SAFTA is probably a simpler and more comprehensive approach, if it can be made effective with sincere efforts.

AKalam wrote:

Pratyush wrote:Akalam, if one is to discuss a political & economic integration of the sub-continent. Then to me it will only be viable if the nations that currently exist in the Indian subcontinent accept that they are members of the Indian historical and economic sphere. Moreover, any intergeneration will have to accept the sovereignty of the Indian constitution as it stands today. (Which leads to an interesting question why, was the partition of India needed in the first place if, all the ethnic and linguistic groups could co exist in harmony. )

If the same is acceptable to current political elites of the Indian subcontinent only then will Integration take place. I don't say this as an Indian nationalist but as some one who wants to see humanity come together and move forward towards the future in a unified way. If that goal is to be accomplished then it can only be done under the sanction of the Indian constitution.

Intriguing idea regarding kicking out Pakistan from SAARC. I feel that the various nations of SAARC are using Pakistan to hide behind and not take a decision about the future pending the solution of Indo-Pak fight.

The other alternative I have mentioned would be to have bilateral negotiation between different SAARC members in order to move forward in the absence of cooperation from Pakistan. But am not very confident of progress in this direction. Unless the regional power elite are more confident of them selves. That they don't need to become nationalist at the expense of India. I would classify the SAARC nations in terms of domestic politics WRT India in two categories, viz.

Confident leaders
Sri lanka
Bhutan
Maldives

Non- confident leaders
Pakistan
Bangladesh
Nepal

Unless the non confident nations become confident of themselves WRT India the regional strife will continue. The ideal of Econoomic & Political integration will remain just that.

Very good assessment, the problem of elite in these countries is that they really do not represent the people, at least for BD and Pak, I don't know enough about Nepal to pass a comment. The mode they operate in is to make money while you can, even if it means selling the country to the highest bidder and leave the country when it gets too hot. So the people are essentially orphans without really someone responsible to take care of them. When it brings them political benefit, they will, as they have done in the past, use India as a punching bag, I guess this is the nature of democracy in a poor and relatively smaller country. I think with India, the situation is different, of course religion itself is probably a big factor, but India's size and expanse also I think makes it much more stable. Also India inherited an educated elite, that continued unbroken since British times, that remains relatively more active and interested in actually caring about the interest of the country and its people. I could not say the same for BD and Pak.

Bilateral agreements are already in place I think, but SAFTA is probably a simpler and more comprehensive approach, if it can be made effective with sincere efforts.

Sorry to disagree, since the past thousand years an ideology says "My God is better than yours and if you don't believe in him I will kill , rape, maim etc, etc you and people under its influence did so.If this is not eradicated then all mental and moral gymnastics are irrelevant and harmful for the indic civilization so whether its called SAARC, SAFTA, PAPTA or whatever is irrelevant.Either we have Ghazwa-e hind or Indic civilization.That will be the ending of this gory chapter that began 1000 years ago and nothing else.

After ethnically cleansing all Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan and then Bangladesh , now these people want JAZZIYA in the form of SAARC etc.
Fine let us start by rehabilitating all Muslims illegally in India back to BD and all Hindus back to BD with iron clad security Guarantees , then we might talk.
The sense of entitlement on other people's labor is nauseating.They have ten thousand excuses of not doing any good to themselves and being harmful to minorities but still they want more from us.Utterly despicable and shameful.

Bangladesh has probably the most on its plate, in terms of challenges.

• huge and growing population
• land loss because of rising sea levels due to global warming
• decrease in river waters as the Brahmaputra is diverted by China, and fallout on agricultural and industrial produce
• poverty
• tough global competition w.r.t. Bangladeshi exports

The only way out for Bangladesh is to concentrate all its resources and attention on going for bold solutions, which involves

• Putting up a solid firewall against Islamic extremism. Islamic extremism, and even too much of religious discourse in the public is counterproductive for the social upliftment.
• Building relations with India
• Mass Education
• High Technology
• Population Control
• High Standard of Governance

In fact, the only salvation for Bangladesh is technology. Be it putting up dikes to keep back the sea, or desalination or urban centers of the future or transport, whatever it is, it is a huge challenge.

Before the Bangladeshis start with anything, all Bangladeshis need to be told, where they are supposed to be heading. Without the vision, nobody is going to strive for it. This vision would also not be there, if there is no confidence generated unless the State chalks out a road map and explains to the people why they think it is possible.

India would be the third largest economy in the world in the next 15 years. In the next 40 years India would have overtaken USA. In fact, India proposes to have the same place in Technology that USA occupies today.

It would help the Bangladeshis if they can hold on to India's coat tails and be pulled out of the current predicament.

RajeshA wrote:Bangladesh has probably the most on its plate, in terms of challenges.

• huge and growing population
• land loss because of rising sea levels due to global warming
• decrease in river waters as the Brahmaputra is diverted by China, and fallout on agricultural and industrial produce
• poverty
• tough global competition w.r.t. Bangladeshi exports

The only way out for Bangladesh is to concentrate all its resources and attention on going for bold solutions, which involves

• Putting up a solid firewall against Islamic extremism. Islamic extremism, and even too much of religious discourse in the public is counterproductive for the social upliftment.
• Building relations with India
• Mass Education
• High Technology
• Population Control
• High Standard of Governance

In fact, the only salvation for Bangladesh is technology. Be it putting up dikes to keep back the sea, or desalination or urban centers of the future or transport, whatever it is, it is a huge challenge.

Before the Bangladeshis start with anything, all Bangladeshis need to be told, where they are supposed to be heading. Without the vision, nobody is going to strive for it. This vision would also not be there, if there is no confidence generated unless the State chalks out a road map and explains to the people why they think it is possible.

India would be the third largest economy in the world in the next 15 years. In the next 40 years India would have overtaken USA. In fact, India proposes to have the same place in Technology that USA occupies today.

It would help the Bangladeshis if they can hold on to India's coat tails and be pulled out of the current predicament.

While all this is being done why not have Bangladesh as an Indic nation or we are supposed to help them also since they hold a gun to their head as Pukes do.

Manishw wrote:While all this is being done why not have Bangladesh as an Indic nation or we are supposed to help them also since they hold a gun to their head as Pukes do.

Well Bangladeshi people are actually of the Indian stock. Even though the Pakis boast of being the ******** of Turks and Arabs, the Bangladeshi people have no such illusions. In fact, the Bangladeshis have been the victim of this ethnic superiority tamasha for 24 years. So if the Bangladeshis are in fact of Indian stock, there is in fact some motivation to help them.

Secondly Bangladesh cannot become an Indic nation, i.e. accept either a Dharmic religion - Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, etc. or develop some form of Dharmic Islam, by swinging the magic wand in the blink of an eye. That would take time.

As long as they are not Dharmic, a policy of not helping Bangladesh cope with its problems would simply mean that more and more Bangladeshis would try to enter India by hook or by crook, and then we will be getting a lot more Bangladeshis in India willing to subvert and pervert the electoral balance in India. I hardly think India wants that. So the better solution is for India to support a Bangladesh Renaissance.

@Manishw ji,

This thread is basically for scenario building and checking various possible geopolitical and socio0economic combinations that may evolve in Indian subcontinent in mid-term and long-term (no longer than 100 years). If you think too much in long term, then there is no point as our own "Chaarvaka" said,"भस्मीभूतस्य देहस्य पुनरागमनम कुतः?" (Once body is burnt, there is no coming back). IN long run, we are all dead.

Whatever interactions that Indics have had with Islam (positive, negative, neutral) were very slow processes occurring over past 1300 years. It is a legacy (or debt) which is accumulated over the period of millennia. Very few cultures have the "experience (of all sorts)" of Islam as much as Hindus (and to certain extent Jews). So, I would request you to look at this thread as "simulator" which uses the concept of "emergence" to check for possible outcomes of polity in Indian subcontinent based on this accumulated legacy (or debt ). There is no point in displaying the anguish on this thread, simply because Islam isn't going to disappear from India at least in coming 50-60 years. After that what will happen, only Varahamihira knows and not this thread (at least as of now). Please visit "deracination dhaga" and "harmonization dhaga" of the GDF. Thank you.

@AKalam ji,

PPP percapita and related economic jargon is something I am not good at. What I understand is that, the ratio of people to arable land in BD is too high (I guess 18-20 people per acre of land). Industrialized countries have this as 2-4 people per acre. India has this figure as about 10-12. In other words, BD needs to move 15 people from every acre of farm to industry. India needs to move 7 people. Now, in case of economic bloc which is espoused by you, this issue of "Lack of land" OR "Lebensraum " is direly needed to be addressed.

Dealing with humans is not always mathematical. There are emotional issues which connect one with one's land (farm, that is). These issues many times compel humans to make seemingly illogical decisions. Removing 15 people from their "secure (in their eyes)" habitat to an unknown condition, is a task which neither BD nor India is capable of doing. Paki army is capable of that, and so is PLA. PLA can do it to their own people, Paki-army can do it to non-Pakjabi people (BD has experienced it).

As long as this population bulge is not addressed and reduced at least to 10 people per acre, I see very dismal future of BD and Indo-BD relationship. At some-point, India might have to take a decision of "breaking away" from its neighbours (which is what is meant when members here say shooting those who attempt to cross borders both on east and west of ROI). If that decision is taken by GOI, then the goose of the "neighbours" will be truly cooked. It will be a huge mess all over, including ROI). For doing that, BD needs reforms in syllabus, education and industry. Only then a huge population becomes an asset. Currently, it is a liability.

BD needs to come down from 18 people to 9-10 people per acre in coming 40-50 years. BD has no other choice but to implement the dire measures like China (brith control and industrialization, both). Without that, there can't be peace. The "Deracination" of this entrenched population is necessary.

RajeshA, even though BD faces the greatest challenges in terms of problems listed by you. I feel it is also best placed to take advantage of India to improve its situation on the ground if its leadership is consistent in its desire to work with India and is able to do so over a long period of time say 20 -30 years. Without relapsing into bash India compulsions.

Manishw, integration is a two way street. If the other guy gets a benefit from me then I also get a benefit from him. If he is more exposed to me then he will learn about me first hand instead of some one else telling him about me. Also in the world of future any integration will be through the movement of ideas.

I specifically mentioned ideas as every ideology has to exist in the market of ideas. .Currently Islam is the only show in town as far as BD is concerned. Let Islam compete with liberal humanity and secular education in the market of ideas.

Also, if Bangladesh was to be integrated in the economic sphere, it will also need to reform its education system to produce employable professionals. Which is another idea in the market of ideas for Islam to compete against.

I am paying attention to BD as I feel that it does not see India through the prism of pathological fear & hatred and consequently can be brought around with appropriate inducements. If timed right.

There is always the underlying problem between India and Bangladesh of trust and sympathy.

There needs to be a massive change between how Bangladesh and India view each other before Bangladesh can hope for a full Indian commitment to its improvement. Bangladesh would have to show that Bangladesh is in fact a part of the Indian family even if another country. Some things that could help would be:

• Bangladesh has to show that it is not another Pakistan. Pakistan's core problems arise from their need for gluing several provinces and ethnicities together using Islam. Bangladesh does not need such a glue. As such Bangladesh can take steps to push Islam out of the political sphere into the privacy of Bangladeshi homes. The Bangladesh State can take an active interest in ensuring that Bangladeshi Islam develops in its own way secluded from the extremist tendencies of West Asia.
• Bangladesh should ensure that even as it has an Abrahamic religion as the majority religion, Islam, its remains wedded to Indic cultural traditions and heritage. Bangladesh should actively fight against Arabic cultural practices.
• Bangladesh should develop a proper narrative for its Independence Movement against Pakistan. All the atrocities committed by Pakistan need to be constantly told and retold to the next generations of Bangladeshis. This will help Bangladeshi Nationalists fight off those people who look for transnational bonding based on Islam, the Ummahites! If it can be shown to the people that Islam cannot be the glue, and being Muslims is no guarantee for brotherhood and peace, then it would be a great step forwards. It would allow Bangladesh some self-determination and some Islam from far away would not try to subvert Bangladesh.
• Bangladesh should also try to put as much distance it can between itself and Pakistan. There are almost no points of commonality and convergence between the two countries now. The more distance it puts, the easier it would be to stop those elements from Pakistan and West Asia to enter Bangladesh, who would either like to radicalize Bangladesh or use Bangladesh space to cause disturbance in India. Bangladeshi authorities should keep a keen lookout for all these elements. India needs to have confidence that Bangladesh is not allowing itself to become an arm of Pakistan.
• Bangladeshi immigration to India bothers India no end. If Bangladesh cooperates in keeping it down, it would do a lot to improve the atmospherics and trust between the two countries. India can then cooperate with Bangladesh to increase the job opportunities in Bangladesh itself.
• Of course, the Politicians and Media in Bangladesh should try not to exploit all cases of disagreement between India and Bangladesh. The mango Abdul in Bangladesh should truly feel that India is a friend, is family and not always carry grudges and mistrust with him. In fact this is the basis of any durable partnership between India and Bangladesh.

I can see the problem lies in a confusion over three things all together : ideology, strategy and tactics.

It is clear for most of us that the imperialism inherent in Islam (without going into the debate about whether it is an attributed or original feature of Islam) is not going to go away any time soon, and this remains the greatest obstacle in the path of any normalization of interactions between non-Muslims and Muslims at the national/structural level. Fine : but this is the ideological realization part.

Strategy is about deciding what our national, and long-term objectives are about dealing with this, and the broad directions that this achievement should take. Long term objectives for some like me, and a minority at this stage, is about subjecting all religions and faith systems to certain common value systems of openness towards questioning and re-evaluating towards greater knowledge and understanding. In this the Indic-origin faiths or philosophies are obviously better adapted to continuous quest and fits in naturally with modern science. Islamism or old-style Christianity have both been in confrontation with science, and Christianity has already begun to retreat. Islamism has survived only in regional concentrations by forcefully keeping society in a medieval mode and locking out the Indic/scientific quest.

Strategic objective is not about what exactly to do with Islamic populations, or with the territories occupied by Islamic dominance. It is about establishing a society that is free of the influences that imperialist ideologies of organized Christianity and Jihadi Islam have established on the subcontinent as a first step, protect such liberation, and then think of expanding this liberated zone further afield of the subcontinent.

Tactical considerations will take in the various possible paths towards achieving this objective. If that requires a modern adaptation of the founding father of Islam's tactics towards the Jews of Yathrib, or other Bedouin tribes, bypassing the Geneva conventions' restrictions through appropriate legal and justifiable means then we will consider it. If that requires softer approaches of economic and cultural integration, then we will consider it. Tactics requires an acute sense of time and place and an ability to change methods flexibly in such a way that it does not jeopardize the strategic objectives.

The question of what we do in BD or what we do in Pak is a question of tactics. We have to realize that the two regions are similar only in the Islamism of dominant sections of population. However, cultural and economic overlaps are far stronger in the case of BD than with most of Pak. Therefore this has to be much more nuanced. We should realize that there are far greater number of BD "muslims" who would be only too happy to have not necessarily Indian, but WB face of "Indian presence" as this helps them in neutralizing the Islamization or Pakification tendencies in sections of the BD state setup. In hating Islamism should we reject also this sentiment or desire?

BD society is an almost equal in strength conflict between Islamists of the Pak variety and those who are reluctant to give up their pre-Islamic roots entirely. It is also a question of land-ownership, and the eternal struggle between landed and no-land sharers of the same geo-political space. Becoming muslim was for the elite Hindu/Buddhists a question of preserving their property rights when the Sultanate and the Mughals began encroaching. In modern BD reconstructions, Shah Jalal of Sylhet/Srihatta is portrayed as a "peaceful Sufi" who "won hearts" simply by his "dawa". Even when his "battles" are acknowledged they are represented typically as a "defensive" measure. What is suppressed is the fact, that he simply accompanied an expeditionary force sent out by the sultanate at Gaur and which in all likelihood was undertaken with careful pre-planning in provoking the local non-Muslim ruler by deliberately desecrating temples [the story is given a twist as a crow is made guilty of dropping a beef piece on he temple - which the crow had originally taken from a Muslim nearby who had slaughtered a cow]. He also took a wife from the non-Muslims in the uncannily similar fashion to an equally famous sufi from Ajmer - its always somehow that the princess/daughter of a defeated non-Muslim ruler always falls madly in love with the victor Sufi/Jihadi - and who gets immediately converted, renamed in a Muslim name, and married on the spot.

But apart from such "easy/peaceful" takeovers, most non-Muslim landed aristocracy simply took the path of least resistance, and converted in "token" format and allied themselves with the regional Muslim power to gain protection from upper Indian Muslim reach. The peasantry conversion is a still unclear process in spite of attempts by modern BD historians to paint it as "voluntary conversion" by tribals claimed to have been oppressed by the previous non-Muslim elite. This version could only be partially true, with known cases of enforced and violent conversions, conversion by example of the elite, and perhaps genocide and ethnic cleansing combined with climatic disasters. Much of the lower delta shows evidence of catastrophic destruction of settlements, either from climatic disruption which I think likely in the severe drought conditions of late medieval period - between 1300-1500 [the medieval global dry period] or/and genocidic cleansing by expanding Islamic groups from the northern flatlands backed up by sultanate or Mughal military strength. These climatically or Jihad cleared lands were repopulated by the Islamics. in spite of this, the process was incomplete and pockets of non-Islam remained which were only cleared more or less in the Partition planned genocide.

Thus the Islamism of BD came to be dominated by a low-cultural/educational level under-class with an opportunist feudal over-class. But Islam was only a tactical tool for both, not an end in itself. This is why, BD has proved more eager to experiment with science, culture, language away from Arabization compared to Pakis. I am not saying we should forget about the opportunistic adoption of Islamism as a tool and its continued and potential radicalization but seek to use that streak of opportunism.

This does not mean we must apply same tactics with Pak.

I hope we give Akalam ji sufficient appreciation for his exploration of methods of eventual integration, and not really corner him to take the guilt of all of BD Islamists. He has not shown any sympathy for any of the Paki type Islamists that have been the root cause of BD mishaps from the time of the Dhaka Nawabs, and from which legacy some of the most hallowed names seen as founders of BD - are not entirely free.

Carl_T wrote:

brihaspati wrote:There are indications that the USA could have played a crucial role in keeping the then Iranian army neutral and allow the Khomeini gang to mount an Islamist coup.

Interested in reading this, what are some references for this angle?

Shah's stated dream of an empire, his military spending all apparently irked the US. One of the supposedly captured documents during the embassy siege stated that the Iranian military buildup would have serious consequences on the future cooperation between Iran and Saudi Arabia, an U.S. ally. [1] This relationship was strategically important in securing the Gulf region. In addition, the Iranian arms buildup might have forced Iraq to move closer to the Soviet Union for protection and armaments, which consequently could have increased the rise in armaments in the region, jeopardizing U.S. relationship with Iraq. [1]

Shah visited the USSR. In an interview with U.S. News & World Report, Shah said that if the U.S. would take an unfriendly attitude towards Iran, then Iran "can hurt you (U.S.) as badly, if not more so, than you can hurt us (Iran). Not just through oil, we can create trouble for you in the region. If you force us to change our friendly attitude, the repercussions will be immeasurable."[2]

In an interview with Muhammed Hasanayn Heikal, the Egyptian Journalist, Shah said, "Some people accuse me of being an American puppet, but give me one reason why I should accept such a role You have no idea the number of clashes I have had with the Americans. The last of these was over OPEC. The Americans wanted to break it up from the inside and tried to do so. The Saudis were terrified. It was I who had to bear the brunt of the confrontation. I can exercise power on my own. Why should I want to exercise power on behalf of somebody else?"[3]

Shah said in an interview with Dean Brellis and Parvis Raeim from Time Magazine that the CIA began making contact within dissident ranks fifteen years ago so that the U.S. would have influence with anyone who might manage to overthrow him.[4] Also, he said that "if he left the throne, thousands would die in the ensuing fight," and if that happened, he feels that "Communist forces would take control of what would then be a bankrupt and fragmented country.[5] Shah accused the CIA of being behind the plot to get rid of him and of having strong relations with his opposition with Khomeini as the leader.

By the late 1978, many in the Embassy and in the State Department were convinced that the Shah could not last and were in contact with secular and religious figures that might enter a governmental position [6]. Shah warned the Iraqi government accusing the CIA behind events in Iran, and that the U.S. was trying to change the political systems in the region by using religion and that Baghdad would be next in line. The Shah asked Iraq to watch Khomeini more closely because he had connections with the CIA. The Palace accused the former Information Minister, Dayrysh Homayun, of publishing an article in Ettala'at violently attacking Khomeini and of having a connection with the CIA, which ordered the distribution of this article and initiated the riots against the Shah as a result.[7]

On January 21, 1979, the former Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, arrived in Paris from Tehran. He held some talks with the opposition leader Khomeini and told him Carter's opinions of the recent events. As the news agencies reported, when Clark left Khomeini, he said, "I have a great hope that this revolution will bring social justice to Iranian people." [8]
In an interview with the Sudanese leader, Sadeq Al-Mehdi, in Al-Mostaqbal magazine, the latter stated that his visit to Kohomeini as a mediator in the hostage crisis "was not the first time he mediated between the American administration and Khomeini". [9]

Former Iranian Foreign Minister, Ibrahim Yazdi, said in a conversation with the Iranian newspaper, Iyianadjan, [Reuter broadcast on August 7, 1979, that Carter warned Khomeini to be careful, if Bakhtiar did not support the Revolution. This warning was in a letter which two French presidential envoys carried to Khomeini in exile on Neauphle Le Chateau in France.
NBC news reported that Sheikh Al-Islam Reza Al-Shirazy, one of the religious figures in Iran, had secret medical treatment for four months in Minnesota. The network reported that Al-Shirazy was wounded in an assassination attempt in July 1979. A speaker of the State Department said that there is no relation between Al-Shirazy and the Revolutionary Council in Iran, but he is a friend of Khomeini. However, the network did not report whether Shirazy left the U.S. at that time.[10]

Bruce Laingen, the American Charge D' Affairs in Tehran, held three meetings with Khomeini in Qom in mid-August, 1979. He also held a fourth meeting with him in Tehran while Khomeini was making a short visit there. Right after the meeting, the riots took place in Ahwas that reduced the oil supply, and the result was a shortage in the gasoline supply. The Kurdish uprising occurred, and Tehran imported the spare parts and equipment from the U.S. to operate their fighter planes and troop carriers. Al-Watan Al-Arabia magazine from Paris stated that the first meeting between Laingen and Khomeini took place in Qom, accompanied by revolutionary guards, and that Laingen was carrying a file about the Kurdish revolt and the financial support of the Kurds by Russia. The magazine added that the Iranian cargo planes used Madrid as a refueling station on the trip between the U.S. and Iran to carry the spare parts, after an eight-month cut in the supply. [11]

Furthermore, Yazdi confirmed in an interview with the Associated Press, that there were talks with the American government about sending spare parts for at least part of the military equipment, as he stated, which Iran had, and these parts did arrive in Iran. [12] On August 11, 1979, The Daily Telegraph said that there was a termination of the U.S. arms deals except those for spare parts.

[1] "Above the Doubt Documents -- Part II," Ministry of Islamic directive -- Iran. P. 195, document dated 1976.
[2] A False Sense of Security will Destroy you, US News & World Report, March 22, 1976, p. 57-58.
[3] Muhammad H. Heikal, Iran: The Untold Story (New York Pantheon Books, 1982), p. 108-109.
[4] The Shah is Not Giving Up, Time, November 27, 1978, p. 35.
[5] Ayatollah Khomeini, The Islamic Government, p.128. 24 Ayatollah Khomeini, Walgaht Al-Faqih, pp. 142-143.
[6] Miles Copeland, The Game of Nations (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1969), pp. 133-134.
[7] Christian Science Monitor, December 6, 1978, p. 2.
[8] Al-Hawadess, No. 1156, London, December 29, 1978, p.13.
[9] Al-Hawadess, No. 1161, London, Feb. 3, 1979, p. 26.
[10] Al-Mostaqbal - NBC News, January 19, 1980.
[11] Al-Watan Al-Arabi, No. 139, October 11-17, 1979, p.32.
[12] Al-Hawadess, No. 1183, London, July 10, 1979, p.47.