Was creation of bangladesh a blunder?

Discussion in 'Subcontinent & Central Asia' started by screwterrorists, Mar 9, 2009.

  1. screwterrorists

    screwterrorists Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    So one of the topics for the debate was:

    Creation Of Bangladesh was a Blunder on Indias Part

    Someone care to explain why???
    East Pakistan would have been much more detrimental and Bangladesh saves so much hassle !

    please explain.
     
  2.  
  3. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,550
    Likes Received:
    6,554
    I think it is intended to mean that Bangladesh should have been absorbed into the Indian subcontinent rather than kept an independent country after liberation?
     
  4. screwterrorists

    screwterrorists Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    oh I see.

    even so...anyone care to explain why?
    with the population problems. with the independence seekers. is it smart to try to unite them and perhaps create another problem?
    are the natural resources in bangladesh worth it? does it have some special strategic location that is irreplaceable?

    =D
     
  5. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    If BD would not have been created then today india would have been surrounded by nuke weapons from west east and north.
     
  6. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,284
    Location:
    BANGalore
    The question to ask is why within no time the Bangladeshis turned from being grateful to India turned inimical? why it provides sanctuary to terror organizations bent on carrying terror activities against India that too in cohorts with the very masters they fought hard to get independence.
     
    prakashbioc and parijataka like this.
  7. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    simple answer is radicalization and the military takeover.Story of bangladesh is same as pakistan ie military take over which supported the islamic parties and even after the death of general/president zia-ur-rehman her wife from BNP party rampantly supported J-e-I and other islamic parties under her prime ministership.Other main thing was after military takeover indira gandhi neglected BD and relations went cold for almost 10 yrs.
     
  8. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,284
    Location:
    BANGalore
    But why target the very country that gave you independence?
     
  9. Singh

    Singh Phat Cat Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    20,305
    Likes Received:
    8,270
    Location:
    011
    Fits in with the narrative. India is blamed for every and any ill and it makes sense because it can be so easily explained.
    Tough for Bangladeshis (read intellectual bongs) to realize that they have screwed up and are no better independent than they would've have been under Punjabi rule.

    PS: Not saying we are not responsible for some of the ills. We sure are but to blame India for everything is not fair.
     
    parijataka likes this.
  10. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    What BD realize is that if they would 've been with pakistan atleast they would be nuke power and india would have been scared of it.:happy_2:
     
  11. tarunraju

    tarunraju Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    5,317
    Likes Received:
    3,891
    Location:
    Hyderabad
    How different is that from today? Well, BD doesn't have nukes, but it does manage to needle India now and then.

    India had a very nice opportunity to absorb East Bengal in 1971, and the world would have forgiven/forgotten India for that annexation by now, as "nation-building".

    The United States pieced itself together into what it is today over a period of 80 years (territory was added 80 years after its independence). So addition of territory to India some 24 years after independence would not have been seen as something abnormal at the time.

    [​IMG]

    East Pakistan had to be neutralized, but absorbed as East Bengal, not Bangladesh. That was a blunder.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2010
  12. SHAILENDRA

    SHAILENDRA New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    no, it was not. firstly, it had to be separated sooner or later. then, a country's value at world panorama is determined by its geo-poli-fin position. a pak supported fin and mil by china with a huge military, nuke presence could be more dangerous then now. and think of north east states. Now, atleast we are in position of talking or taming BD..An east pak could be fatal for our ambitions in bay of bengal.
     
  13. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,284
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Taking forward from what Tarun said, it would be interesting to find out if the Govt of that time ever considered assimilating east pakistan into India or not?
    If we had a Sardar in 71 would he not have kept the instrument of accession on the table in return for Indian help to east pakistanis?
     
  14. tarunraju

    tarunraju Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    5,317
    Likes Received:
    3,891
    Location:
    Hyderabad
    Yes, Sardar would have gone to Decca with the Instrument, had it signed by Mujeeb, gotten it ratified by USSR, but before US or Chinese intervention.

    I think the threat of foreign military intervention could have been the biggest factor that made Indian leaders decide against annexation of East Bengal, if they did consider annexation in the first place. Indira Gandhi may have just had the small window for neutralizing East Pakistan by creating a separate Bangladesh, and not annexation (giving Pakistan enough time to push the international community for intervention).
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2010
  15. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,284
    Location:
    BANGalore
    The least india could have done was try to eke out a good chunk of Bangladesh to connect with our northeast.
     
  16. tarunraju

    tarunraju Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    5,317
    Likes Received:
    3,891
    Location:
    Hyderabad
    We would have had to pass right through. Connectivity wasn't the main concern, at the time Siliguri (the chicken-neck) was a real weak spot. Four years later, with the accession of Sikkim, that risk factor went down.
     
  17. Oracle

    Oracle New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    8,120
    Likes Received:
    1,541
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    Creation of Bangladesh was an excellent strategic move by India. Pakistan is still bleeding from the cut it had.
    Not annexing Bangladesh was another good move by then PM Indira Gandhi. We have Naxals, PDP, Hurriyat, NE militancy and a lot of other headaches to take care of, now think of BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami, had India annexed Bangladesh.

    All in all a good move.
     
    parijataka likes this.
  18. Singh

    Singh Phat Cat Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    20,305
    Likes Received:
    8,270
    Location:
    011
    What you wanted to absorb 15 crore piss poor people off a piss poor state who followed Islam and belive that Hindus are the bane of all their ills into an equally piss poor state experiencing famine, insurgencies, and riddled with Hindu-Muslim divide ?
     
    parijataka likes this.
  19. Oracle

    Oracle New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    8,120
    Likes Received:
    1,541
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    /\/\/\ Also, let's say for arguments sake, we did annex East Pakistan(now Bangladesh) as East Bengal. People then would have flooded the entire NE and demanded independence again from India, the area now being (East Pakistan + NE = Greater Bangladesh) Greater Bangladesh.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2010
    parijataka likes this.
  20. anoop_mig25

    anoop_mig25 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,195
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    my question is are smaller nations i mean to say in size are more prone to militarily takeovers to then those bigger , there are lots of state in south america/post-pre world war 1 European nations, Indian sub-continent

    if yes then there is thread where is is argued that splitted Pakistan is better for india
    i would like to ask won`t the nations carved out of Pakistan would be prone to militrarat take overs (i am sorry i am deviatating form bangladesh here).
    if yes is n`t their faith would be same as bangladesh or may be worse ?

    on Bangladesh India argued and supported independence of Bangladesh because it`s leader was not allowed to rule pre -1971 pakistan.
    Indra Gandhi sized opportunity and splitted pakistan .

    if india had tried to absorb Bangladesh into India then this would have mate US/CHINA/PAKISTAN stronger in their argument plus leader of mukti bani would had never supported indians

    i think if we had absorb Bangladesh into india we might have been facing a problem similar to kashmir
     
  21. Phenom

    Phenom Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2010
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    401
    The economic cost would have been too big for India to absorb, Bangladesh was a war ravaged country and had little to offer in terms of economic benefit. Also there is a big possibility that some elements in BD would have resented Indian annexation and would have started a guerrilla war.

    As others mentioned, whatever happened in 71 was a very good move by the Indian political class, especially the PM.
     
    parijataka likes this.

Share This Page