Breaking! Startling details of how ISI planned coup in crisis-hit Bangladesh

[Bengal_Tiger]

I am not an expert on bangldesh's internal politics but how can people forget the genocide, rapes and humiliation these pakis did to you people? How can any self respecting society do that. You say officers need to be educated about 1971. 1971 till 2017 is a very short period from historical prospective. How can people forget that. This amazes me.

I totally understand what you are saying and don't disagree at all.

Not everyone in Bangladesh is like this and the majority have bitter memories of 1971, but then again the Vietnamese do business with the Americans now, the Algerians with the French, the Japanese are allies with the Americans too, so people can forget rapidly.

 

[Mikesingh]

I totally understand what you are saying and don't disagree at all.

Not everyone in Bangladesh is like this and the majority have bitter memories of 1971, but then again the Vietnamese do business with the Americans now, the Algerians with the French, the Japanese are allies with the Americans too, people can forget rapidly.

That is because of non interference in each other's affairs, unlike Pak which is using terrorism as state policy to destabilize its neighbors.

 

[Bengal_Tiger]

That is because of non interference in each other's affairs, unlike Pak which is using terrorism as state policy to destabilize its neighbors.

You are right. Bangladeshi society seems to be like this.

1. One section view 71 like the Jews view the holocaust and the Armenians view their ethnic cleansing. A horrific monolithic defining event which can never be forgotten.

This is more the elite members of society including those less prone to rhetoric of "Muslim brotherhood".

2. Another section (minority) who are deluded, some who have racial self-hatred and want to be "more Muslim", which in their eyes (either overtly or covertly) means looking more wheat-skinned like people in south-west Asia which Pakistan is a peripheral part of or adjacent to in other words Jamaatis / razakaars (defence pk types).

3. Groups that in varying degrees fall somewhere within that spectrum.

Politically:

The Awami League hates Pakistan but doesn't push it too far partly because Pakistan is very clever at manipulating pan-Muslim sentiment amongst other states such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey against Bangladesh. However with Bangladesh's increasing economic growth and thus importance that sort of pressure is decreasing.

Despite the exaggerated nonsense from Pakistan-walas, the Hasina government has been relatively restrained against Pakistan especially considering the fact that Pakistan is actively trying to murder her and has tried to instigate army coups.

The key bi-lateral issues between Bangladesh and Pakistan are:

- Apology for 1971.
- Giving Bangladesh assets it was owed as part of the eastern wing of pre-71 Pakistan.
- Reparations.



The BNP and Jamaat: Jamaat are obviously nothing but Pakistanis or a tool of Pakistan, a non-military division of the Pakistan army operating in Bangladesh. The BNP are their allies and believe they can never gain power without their support. In other words the BNP is a de facto pro-Pakistan organisation working with outright Pakistani nationalists (the Jamaat, who though obviously not overtly Pakistani nationalists are nothing but that in reality).

The truth is Bangladesh is the scene of a turf war between Rawalpindi and New Delhi.

Rawalpindi basically wants a vassal state, whereas New Delhi (despite the propaganda on disinformation sites like defence pk) wants a non-hostile Bangladesh which is co-operative with it. New Delhi I would say has more of a genuine interest in the economic progress of Bangladesh and the Indian north-east, whereas Rawalpindi just wants to use Bangladesh to damage India and also secondarily soothe its ego over a "lost" territory/former half but with no genuine concern over the lives of Bangladeshis and their acute struggle to uplift themselves from poverty.


Indo-BD co-operation.

The truth is India helped Bangladesh to win its freedom in 1971 and also helped Bangladesh in the late 2000s and 2010s remove itself of Pakistani influence including ISI networks in 2009 and get some justice against war criminals.

India has to its credit in a mature and civilized fashion resolved certain bi-lateral issues with Bangladesh such as maritime territorial disputes, enclave disputes, reduction of killings on the border etc.

India can be reasoned with rationally, Pakistan cannot.

India is a civilized parliamentary democracy where the army is professional and has never carried out a coup and is a multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic federation where issues can be resolved through legal means e.g. creation of new states etc.

Pakistan is a military-run state replete with incidents of army coups, extremist Mullahs on the lose.

Hopefully with increased economic growth there will be more maturity intellectually amongst Bangladeshis and the Bangladeshi youth and they will decide whether they wish to be co-operating more with a pluralistic civilian democracy or a brutal genocidal military state infested with religious, ethnic and political infighting.

 

[Bengal_Tiger]

By the way out of Pakistan's 3 Muslim "neighbours" (Bangladesh is nowhere near Pakistan but we were federated with that country), all 3 prefer India to Pakistan.

1. Afghanistan prefers India to Pakistan whom it accuses of sponsoring terrorism and destabilizing the country.

2. Iran prefers India to Pakistan whom it doesn't have much of a relationship with including failed and stalled attempts at a gas pipeline.

3. Bangladesh prefers India to Pakistan, with Bangladesh-India relations progressing e.g. resolution of territorial disputes, border shootings by local border guards. Bangladeshis travel to India in big numbers benefitting the Indian economy e.g. health tourism and Bangladeshis are the biggest foreign visitors to India.

http://www.business-standard.com/ar...eshi-tourists-to-top-spot-115112800770_1.html


Pakistan however is accused of sponsoring terrorism in Afghanistan, attempting to instigate coups and trying to kill the prime minister in Bangladesh and accused of allowing Sunni Baloch militants to destabilize Iran.

 

[ProudIndian36]

Bangladesh developing and uplifting from poverty is good for the entire northeast India region. We also will need to kick out Mamta begum from Bengal and eradicate TMC goons to change Bengal and bring industry.

India should work to covertly assassinate / capture and torture Jamaatis in Bangladesh and overtly kill those Jamaati scums that are in our Bengal.

 

[Suryavanshi]

India should work to covertly assassinate / capture and torture Jamaatis in Bangladesh and overtly kill those Jamaati scums that are in our Bengal.

Bruh that is too hardcore

 

[Kshithij]

Bangladesh developing and uplifting from poverty is good for the entire northeast India region. We also will need to kick out Mamta begum from Bengal and eradicate TMC goons to change Bengal and bring industry.

India should work to covertly assassinate / capture and torture Jamaatis in Bangladesh and overtly kill those Jamaati scums that are in our Bengal.

These mullahs have massive support locally. The biggest mistake was not doing partition properly. There is simply no excuse

 

[Bengal_Tiger]

Bangladesh developing and uplifting from poverty is good for the entire northeast India region. We also will need to kick out Mamta begum from Bengal and eradicate TMC goons to change Bengal and bring industry.

India should work to covertly assassinate / capture and torture Jamaatis in Bangladesh and overtly kill those Jamaati scums that are in our Bengal.

1. The BNP-Jamaat alliance are bad news for Bangladesh for many reasons.

a: They are slaves of Pakistan and we would geo-politically be a colony of Pakistan ordered to be hostile to India, thus damaging our relations with a giant consumer market of 1 billion customers and rapidly developing economic giant.

Whilst generals in Rawalpindi masturbate at Khaleda following their orders, Bangladeshis would starve.


b: Khaleda neglected military spending and in particular the airforce. It's said her late husband, president Zia who was an army officer had some rivalry with the air force as a competing wing of the military and this petty and personal jealousy apparently led to Khaleda neglecting our airforce, to the point that Myanmar is far superior to us airforce wise.

c: Khaleda is known to be uneducated and dumb and her son Tariq is known to be super-corrupt. An example of Khaleda's stupidity is when she needlessly alienated China by having some sort of Tawainese office, which really annoyed our main defence partner.

d: The Jamaatis who know the vast majority of Bangladesh despises them instead have long-term game plan to raise cadres of Jamaatis over decades, they would only be strengthened during that period. They are anti-Hindu, India-haters and cannot be reasoned with.


2. To summarize, Bangladesh or at least Bangladeshi foreign policy would be sold to Pakistan as the price for Pakistan's sponsorship of Khaleda Zia and Tariq.

This would mean that Bangladesh is ordered to replicate the same sort of anti-India/Hindu hatred we see in Pakistan and have virtually 0 relations with India.

This is not natural, as we have no major issues with India, and would retard our economic growth significantly. It is in Bangladesh's interests to have healthy relations with India. Even a basic deal as e.g. India setting up a factory for cow manure in Bangladesh would be a sign of "evil Hindu/India domination" in the minds of Pakistan-walas, as for them Bangladeshis are obliged to replicate the Pakistani psychopathic hatred of all things Hindu/India.

 

[Mikesingh]

3. Bangladesh prefers India to Pakistan, with Bangladesh-India relations progressing e.g. resolution of territorial disputes, border shootings by local border guards.

And the Teesta Accord within sniffing distance. It's just a matter of time. This will be the biggest confidence building measure between India and and the people of BD.

 

[mayfair]

But then again the Vietnamese do business with the Americans now, the Algerians with the French, the Japanese are allies with the Americans too, so people can forget rapidly.

There's a big difference between each of the countries and Pakistan-Bangladesh
1. Japan lost the WWII, were occupied by US and allies and a new constitution imposed upon them, shunning war. They massively benefited form the Marshal plan and focussed on reconstruction and redevelopment. Japan apologised for its wartime aggression and atrocities and renounced war. They took back all Japanese settlers from colonised countries and re-settled them in Japan. Japanese officials were also tried for war crimes (even if the trial was quite a sham) and many sentenced to death.

2. Algerians and French have a different history as well. Not all French were against Algerian independence, only the hardliners in OAS. That organisation was swiftly dealt with.

3. Americans and Vietnam- once again the relations did not improve over a day. The relations were normalised only in 1995!! Nearly 20 years after American pullout from Vietnam. Then came a slew of trade and aid agreements.

All these are completely different from Napaki-Bangladeshi relations in many ways

1. Unlike the Japanese, Napakis never acknowledged their atrocities in Bangladesh, offered no apology or compensation and instead deny any wrongdoing and blame it on India and Mukkti joddha. To this day, many of them view your lot as short dark skinned ungrateful cretins who deserved what they got and dream of re-capturing "East Pakistan". The abandoned the Biharis and refused to accept them back as their citizens, despite the Biharis fighting, killing and raping in the name of (Un)Islami (ghair)jamhooria Napakistan and then facing the brunt of the reprisals for their crimes. They remain unwanted and stateless and also a huge source of terrorists into India. Un

2. Unlike the French, violent suppression of Bangladeshis had pan-Pakistan support- millitary and civilian. Not once was there any attempt to give concessions to the hapless East Pakistanis. Any such talk was blasphemous and Bengalis suffered relentless discrimination in every walk of life till the day they separated.

3. Unlike US-Vietnam, Napakis have continued to interfere in Bangladesh for regime change and for stoking trouble in North East India. They have not offered any trade agreements or economic support to rebuild your war ravaged country

 

[Bengal_Tiger]

There's a big difference between each of the countries and Pakistan-Bangladesh
1. Japan lost the WWII, were occupied by US and allies and a new constitution imposed upon them, shunning war. They massively benefited form the Marshal plan and focussed on reconstruction and redevelopment. Japan apologised for its wartime aggression and atrocities and renounced war. They took back all Japanese settlers from colonised countries and re-settled them in Japan. Japanese officials were also tried for war crimes (even if the trial was quite a sham) and many sentenced to death.

2. Algerians and French have a different history as well. Not all French were against Algerian independence, only the hardliners in OAS. That organisation was swiftly dealt with.

3. Americans and Vietnam- once again the relations did not improve over a day. The relations were normalised only in 1995!! Nearly 20 years after American pullout from Vietnam. Then came a slew of trade and aid agreements.

All these are completely different from Napaki-Bangladeshi relations in many ways

1. Unlike the Japanese, Napakis never acknowledged their atrocities in Bangladesh, offered no apology or compensation and instead deny any wrongdoing and blame it on India and Mukkti joddha. To this day, many of them view your lot as short dark skinned ungrateful cretins who deserved what they got and dream of re-capturing "East Pakistan". The abandoned the Biharis and refused to accept them back as their citizens, despite the Biharis fighting, killing and raping in the name of (Un)Islami (ghair)jamhooria Napakistan and then facing the brunt of the reprisals for their crimes. They remain unwanted and stateless and also a huge source of terrorists into India. Un

2. Unlike the French, violent suppression of Bangladeshis had pan-Pakistan support- millitary and civilian. Not once was there any attempt to give concessions to the hapless East Pakistanis. Any such talk was blasphemous and Bengalis suffered relentless discrimination in every walk of life till the day they separated.

3. Unlike US-Vietnam, Napakis have continued to interfere in Bangladesh for regime change and for stoking trouble in North East India. They have not offered any trade agreements or economic support to rebuild your war ravaged country

Good post.

You're totally right in everything you say.

1. Many Bangladeshis have a degree of racial inferiority, self-hate, whatever you want to call it. Not all, especially many of the Dhaka literati and elite who detest Pakistan.

I've personally met one Jamaati here in London who said he wishes Pakistan takes Bangladesh back, when I raised the issue of Pakistani racism, he didn't deny it but said "oh that's just Pakistanis" i.e. that's the way they are, one of those unfortunate facts of life but still he had loyalty to Pakistan.

2. Other Bangladeshis are urged to brush this under the carpet as "it happened a long time ago", the "current generation of Pakistanis are not responsible".

3. With many of the Islamist/Jamaati types there is also a desire for glory/pride that can be found within many forms of nationalism, since Bangladesh is a small, poverty-stricken country and they feel Bengalis are "ugly" or not "Muslim" enough, they want to be seen as Pakistanis or a de facto "east Pakistan".

Other Jamaatis are just religiously brainwashed fanatics, and as we know with many religious zealots they can be programmed to say the sky is green and the grass is blue, hence they will support the Pakistani genocide of 1971.

4. Bangladeshis are also quite emotional and soft-hearted, a bit naive. A trip by some Bengalis to Pakistan for shared military training and the "love" and "brotherhood" from Pakistanis makes them forget about 1971. There are a few instances of ex-Mukti Bahini who have become Jamaati supporters.

Are these things shameful?

Totally.

I can't defend them, nor will I. In fact even some of the anti-Pakistani Bangladeshis have a weird relationship with Pakistan e.g. they would support Pakistan over another Muslim country like Afghanistan.

The truth is by nature I am not a nationalist, or a jingoistic person. I am essentially a humanist (though religious) seeing the fact that there are good and bad in all races and we are all humans. However the real world taught me that Pakistanis are indeed racist (I am quite surprised at how well you know how they view us e.g. short, dark, inferior and with contempt, who deserved to be butchered) and not just them, but other ethnic groups. I am more of a defensive nationalist who has become a "nationalist", to ensure his race/country aren't attacked.

Also everyone in the world whether I like it or not will view me as a 'Bangladeshi' (though I have a UK passport, which as we know is only a legal thing and socially, culturally I am a foreigner) and the perception of Bangladesh in the world will affect me directly, so I can't disown myself from Bangladesh, though to be honest I'd never want to live there. I might move to a foreign country one day (most likely a Muslim one) but never Bangladesh or the gulf. There are things about Bangladeshi society which put me off.

In sum Bangladeshis definitely do have issues, and there can be no defence. The only mitigating factor is there is a huge section of the population which is anti-Pakistani and has not forgot about 1971. Are they the majority? Very possible.

 

[Bengal_Tiger]

Just to add.

1. India helped Bangladesh to achieve independence.

2. We had another mini "second independence" struggle in the 2010s with the war crimes trials which caused huge controversy. The US-UK even seemed to be more inclined to supporting the Jamaatis. India stood by our side.

I met one UK journalist a few years back when the war crimes controversy was raging, the guy was obviously British intelligence and asked me "don't you think it's better for social harmony to move on and ignore the war crimes trial?", in other words the typical, indirect middle-class British way of speaking and he was essentially supporting the Jamaati position.

Anyway we tried most of the war criminals and have weathered the storm and it's more or less a closed chapter. The only one of those guys still around is Delwar Hussain Sayeedi, but that's because he's a charismatic speaker and has a huge following and the Jamaatis can whip tonnes of people in to unrest over him. So he's still in prison.

3. Pakistan wants to damage Bangladesh. They've even sent ISI agents to try and destroy our garments industry. India has been very helpful in dealing with them, and with the amount of natural right-wing/Islamist support in our armed forces, India's help has been crucial.

Even if the ISI got what they wanted, a vassal regime in Bangladesh, the country wouldn't progress as it's only normal for economic growth to have normal trading ties with adjacent neighbours e.g. India, something Rawalpindi would then veto.

 

[Bengal_Tiger]

And the Teesta Accord within sniffing distance. It's just a matter of time. This will be the biggest confidence building measure between India and and the people of BD.

I don't know about Teesta.

Mamata Banerjee is pro-Jamaat and pro-Mullah in West Bengal. In Calcutta, the Muslim voice is dominated by Urdu-wala Muslims or the sort of Mullahs that are pro-Jamaat. They want to sabotage Bangladesh's success so have lobbied her for preventing an agreement on Teesta.

Jamaatis are evil people, and they want to harm Bangladesh (their "own" country, and their "own" people) and for example want to sabotage Bangladesh's relations with the Muslim world, even if the country as a whole suffers e.g. blocking of Bangladeshi workers to the gulf labour market.

 

[nongaddarliberal]

Just to add.

1. India helped Bangladesh to achieve independence.

2. We had another mini "second independence" struggle in the 2010s with the war crimes trials which caused huge controversy. The US-UK even seemed to be more inclined to supporting the Jamaatis. India stood by our side.

I met one UK journalist a few years back when the war crimes controversy was raging, the guy was obviously British intelligence and asked me "don't you think it's better for social harmony to move on and ignore the war crimes trial?", in other words the typical, indirect middle-class British way of speaking and he was essentially supporting the Jamaati position.

Anyway we tried most of the war criminals and have weathered the storm and it's more or less a closed chapter. The only one of those guys still around is Delwar Hussain Sayeedi, but that's because he's a charismatic speaker and has a huge following and the Jamaatis can whip tonnes of people in to unrest over him. So he's still in prison.

3. Pakistan wants to damage Bangladesh. They've even sent ISI agents to try and destroy our garments industry. India has been very helpful in dealing with them, and with the amount of natural right-wing/Islamist support in our armed forces, India's help has been crucial.

Even if the ISI got what they wanted, a vassal regime in Bangladesh, the country wouldn't progress as it's only normal for economic growth to have normal trading ties with adjacent neighbours e.g. India, something Rawalpindi would then veto.

In your opinion, if pakistan continues to put up a false facade of pan muslim brotherhood, and continues to fund Jamaati types in Bangladesh, all the while continuing its anti Hindu propaganda, is there a possibility that Bangladeshis might turn anti India in the future? Or is there enough anti fundamentalist sentiment in Bangladesh to counteract it and maintain good relations with India? Are Bangladeshis becoming more secular, or less? What is the opinion of India by the common man in Bangladesh, and it is getting better or worse?

 

[Bengal_Tiger]

In your opinion, if pakistan continues to put up a false facade of pan muslim brotherhood, and continues to fund Jamaati types in Bangladesh, all the while continuing its anti Hindu propaganda, is there a possibility that Bangladeshis might turn anti India in the future? Or is there enough anti fundamentalist sentiment in Bangladesh to counteract it and maintain good relations with India? Are Bangladeshis becoming more secular, or less? What is the opinion of India by the common man in Bangladesh, and it is getting better or worse?

1. The Pakistani hatred towards India has a racial aspect to it and is not just based on hatred of Hindus. Pakistanis (Punjabis/Pashtuns) dislike Indic Mohajirs and view them as darker and inferior despite them being Muslim, we all know their genocidal hatred for "fellow Muslims", Bengalis so what chance do Indians stand?

Bengalis (Bangladeshis) are quite different to militaristic Pakistanis, less violent. No tribes in our culture, no blood feuds and even our religious scholars of different schools of thought are disgusted at the violent and abusive language that Pakistani religious scholars (Barelwi, Deobandi, Wahabi etc) hurl at each other.

Pakistanis like fighting and violence and thus they constantly brag about their status as a nuclear power and fantasize about fighting India, I stress "fantasize", because when push comes to shove, they chicken out e.g. 1971.

All sorts of pseudo-Islamic rhetoric was used to de-Islamize Bengalis and present them as Hindus and to portray the rapist Pakistan army as "Islamic", this brave, tough, "Islamic" army that rather than fighting to the last man, to the death, on "their" soil, meekly surrendered quite quickly in December 1971.

There is a reason why Punjabi Muslims have never had their own state besides the one bequeathed to them by the British.

Bengalis are a more peaceful, less aggressive people, even in our interpretation of Islam, besides some Jamaati fools nobody would want to fight India for the sake of it or hate Hindus for the sake of it, in fact a Hindu-hater in Bangladesh would be considered as an aggressive, abusive people.

Even Bengali Muslims and Urdu-wala (Bihari) Muslims in west Bengal are quite different.

2. Sorry for rambling on but I'm partly venting because I see so much ignorance online and have to stay quiet so I am releasing some pent up frustration and unexpressed thoughts, anyway to answer your questions more systematically.

"In your opinion, if pakistan continues to put up a false facade of pan muslim brotherhood, and continues to fund Jamaati types in Bangladesh, all the while continuing its anti Hindu propaganda, is there a possibility that Bangladeshis might turn anti India in the future? "

Yes.

The BNP-Jamaat are basically agents of Pakistan. The military like any military anywhere in the world are right-wing and nationalist which in the Bangladeshi context means being proud of the national religion, Islam, which often leads to an affinity, fondness for Islam.

So the opposition and many in the army are quite pro-Pakistan.

There are Hindus in the BNP and Bangladeshis in general abhor communalism and it's seen as retrogressive (maybe there are some issues but we are very different from Pakistan), so internally I do not foresee a major problem for Hindu citizens of Bangladesh, but I could imagine the BNP-Jamaat nexus trying to reactive their anti-India policies of the 2000s including supporting north-east separatists as ordered by their masters in Rawalpindi.

"Or is there enough anti fundamentalist sentiment in Bangladesh to counteract it and maintain good relations with India?"

Not every religious conservative in Bangladesh is an India-hater. Most of them are inclined to "Live and let live" i.e. if mainly Muslim Bangladesh and mainly Hindu India do their own thing they are happy. The biggest religious group in Bangladesh are the Deobandis. They are closer to the sentiments of the average Bangladesh regarding 1971 which includes the national distaste for Jamaatis. A dislike for them (on the part of the Deobandis) intensified since the Jamaati betrayal of Hefazat i Islam in a demonstration in Dhaka which led to a lot of deaths, in 2012.

One of the biggest scholars (a Deobandi) in Bangladesh, Boruna saab is known for protecting Hindus in 1971.

The Indian-wing of the Deobandis include pro-Congressites and "pro-Indian patriots".

The secular literati and elite include many undercover agnostics and atheists and are indifferent to any talk of "religious brotherhood", most of them support the Awami League. Though numerically small they are disproportionately powerful just like any elite in any society.

Are Bangladeshis becoming more secular, or less?

As a society I think Islam is getting stronger, this is what I hear. This belies all the Jamaati propaganda of the Awami League being "enemies of Islam".

What is the opinion of India by the common man in Bangladesh, and it is getting better or worse?

Bangladeshis in general do not talk much about India. Unlike Pakistan they do not define themselves as being opposed to India/Hindus and believe they have a messianic neo-Mughal destiny of defeating evil Hindu India in an epic final (Muslim v Hindu) showdown. Bangladeshis are just more normal people. Think of how Sri Lankans (Buddhists) view India (Hindus) and you'll probably get the picture.

We would think of India in the way that many countries have neighbouring states with which they may have some disagreements with, but we do not fundamentally seek the destruction of or vanquishing of India.

- Baltic states v Russia.
- Afghanistan v Pakistan
- Japan v China

all of these states have more hatred with each other than Bangladeshis do for India.

One of the problems is the arrogance of Pakistanis and their feeling that they "own" Bangladesh means that Bangladeshis are merely expected to be basically like Pakistanis and have the same psychopathic hatred of India as they do and the same belief that they are in a historical war which will culminate in the neo-Mughal destruction/defeat of India.

Pakistanis cannot compute that Bangladeshis are not Pakistanis and do not think like this, they feel that any "deviation" from the "norm" (as they percieve it) of anti-India/Hindu hatred is "treachery".

Virtually every Muslim country in the world has good relations with India and many/most have better relations with India than they do with Pakistan, the only key exceptions being Turkey and Saudi Arabia. However Erdogan's Turkey and Wahabi Saudi Arabia are hardly responsible moderate states.

Is the opinion of India getting better or worse?

As I said there isn't much focus on India despite Pakistan's obsessive desire to superimpose their hatred of India on to us. Is it getting better or worse? I can't say either way. However if I have to go for one I'd probably have to say "better", because issues like border killings are being resolved thus less ammunition for Jamaatis to fuel anti-India hatred.


What will happen? / Conclusion

Bangladesh will continue like Sri Lanka, an Indic south Asian state with no great hatred for India but somewhat separated due to religion (Islam/Buddhism) and an ethnic identity (Bengali/Sinhalese), but just as India could work with Sri Lanka on certain issues the same could happen with Bangladesh.

If the BNP-Jamaat nexus come in to power, their masters in Pakistan will be demanding that Bangladesh be made once again in to a giant ISI base, but the problem however even for the BNP is that aside from the Pakistanis there are influential sectors of the elite in Bangladesh who will lobby for some sort of relationship with India.

Even Hasina hasn't shut down the Pakistani embassy or stopped Pakistani businessmen making money in Dhaka.

Like wise, even Khaleda will probably have to curb some of her anti-India hatred due to practicality.

The key thing that will prevent anti-India hatred in Bangladesh is if enough of the Dhaka elite e.g. industrialists are made to appreciate India and Bangla-India relations and benefit from it e.g. lucrative economic interaction, economic trade that transcend party politics and so financially beneficial that will render it impossible for Khaleda to totally distance Bangladesh from India.

I believe Bangladeshis are reasonable people and if the Indian military make it clear to the Bangladeshi military command their legitimate concerns (Jamaati-Pak attempts to take over the army and promote hatred and destabilization of India) and that the Bangladeshi military should have a strategic doctrine of not unnecessarily provoking India the Bangladeshi military would agree to that. Look at the relatively passive reaction to the Myanmar expulsion of the Rohingyas and the insistence on a political-diplomatic solution.

Another option India has in terms of the Bangladesh sphere is to speak to Saudi Arabia and the GCC about her legitimate security concerns on her eastern borders and Pakistani destabilizing and to use GCC leverage against Pakistan and especially Khaleda not to try and cause problems for India.

However I do not ever foresee an India-Bangladesh war, the army wouldn't allow it. The army are not too keen on Khaleda and especially Tariq ZIa whom they beat up and are responsible people and do not want to engage in adventurism for the sake of Pakistan.

 

[Otmshank7]

Bengal tiger I appreciate your candor and insight into this topic. Please post more on other topics too...it's the kind of honesty that will build the quality of life in south asia which the emotional and religious sentiment has destroyed in the last 500 years.

One question.. feel free not to answer; how does the nationialist/Hindu ideology that's popular nowadays in India affect the Bangladeshi perspective and political culture vs the islamic/ummah belief you've spoken of?

Basically where does India fall short in being accepted as a trusted friend or ally of the Bangladeshi people?

 

[Bengal_Tiger]

1. To be quite frank India is a different country and nation so will always be regarded as different.

Even if countries have the same religion but different ethnically they can view each other as an "other", just with the commonality of a shared religion. Pakistan and Iran have the same religion but have competing interests and not much of a relationship.

Even if countries have the same religion and ethno-linguistic identity they can be enemies e.g. Qatar v Saudi Arabia, or other Arab countries. Even the Spanish-Catholic countries of Latin America.

Even if India was Muslim there would be problems with India as we saw between Muslim Pakistan and Bangladesh (east Pakistan) prior to 1971, or Bengalis and Urdu-speaking (Indian origin) Biharis in Bangladesh.

2. The mere fact that it's a separate state e.g. the Qatar v Saudi rivalry (the Qatari ruling family are in fact from a tribe most of whose members are in Saudi) obviously creates a gap and then there is the added issue of religion. I think it's better to think of Bangladesh - India relations as akin to Sri Lanka and India relations. We'd never have the same implacable, self-defining hatred of India/Hindus which characterizes Pakistan.

We are just a totallly different race/people.

Having different religions means we'd still view India as more of an "other" than if we had the same religion.


3. India-Bangladesh relations can flourish on a political level if there is co-operation. Some of the issues that non-sectarian Bangladeshis have with New Delhi governments are:

- Alleged restriction of Bangladeshi imports to India via heavy tariffs but not vice versa i.e. they claim we are a captive market for Indian companies.

- Historically they cite apparent support from South block for Mongoloid separatists in our southern regions and claim Bangladeshi support for N.E. Indian separatists was a reprisal for that.

However there is no mass hatred for India in Bangladesh. There is none of the social hatred for India that pre-AKP, Turks had for Arabs, an Indian in Dhaka if he had a good job would be fine and treated well by locals. I really think it could be analogous to the Sri Lanka - India example. Two different nations but with a south Asian Indic identity but with the smaller state fiercely proud of its sovereignty and distinct identity.


4. To put things in to context, there will naturally be India-Bangladesh differences, arguments.

Tamil Nadu and Kerala have disputes.

Marathi nationalists have differences with others including those from the BIMARU states.

This is all whilst being Indian and Hindu, so it's only going to be natural there will be issues with Bangladesh and India but for now the main real ones I can think of are the ones related to export of Bangladeshi goods to India, some water sharing issues etc.

However these are relatively standard problems (e.g. look at the Tamil Nadu - Karnataka dispute over Kaveri River) but nothing that would cause war. We do not have the same psychopathic hatred for Hindus that the Pakistanis or Bihari Muslims have and do not see ourselves as sons of glorious neo-Mughal conquerors whose destiny it is to vanquish Hindus, rather our identity is not defined by an imagined glorious past and attempts to revive it but more by an acute awareness of our problematic present but our potentiallly very promising future, economically.

The main thing I think for India is to render India-Bangladesh ties so strong that regardless of which party is in power the two states cannot disentangle these links. For example even the Awami League will not goad Pakistani businessmen (textiles) out of Bangladesh, nor will the Awami League jeopardize relations with Saudi Arabia and the GCC due to our huge labour force there, nor will it weaken relations with China.

Military ties with China, economic links with the GCC are so vital that they withstand any change in administration.

So Bangladeshi-Indian economic ties need to be so fruitful that there would be too much of an outrage amongst the Dhaka elite (e.g. industrialists) if the BNP-Jamaat regime tried to undermine them (ordered to by their masters in Rawalpindi.

Context

To put it in context, here are the Muslim countries that prefer India to Pakistan.

Iran
Afghanistan
Iraq
Syria

Here are the intra-Hindu disputes within the Indian union.

Tamil Nadu v Karnataka (river dispute)
Tamil Nadu v Kerala (dam dispute)
Andhra Pradesh v Karnatak dispute.
Marathi nationalists v southies
Marathi nationalists v BIMARU


Just because we have a different religion as the Sri Lankans do doesn't preclude the possibility of good economic ties in the same way you have with Muslim Iran or Afghanistan. However like Sri Lanka we'll always try to preserve our distinct ethno-religious identity. Like Sri Lanka we have no great intrinsic hatred of Hindus (besides Jamaatis and other Pakistani chamchas) unlike a "certain" country to the west of the region.

 

[mayfair]

@Bengal_Tiger

What is the prevailing view on Bangladeshi immigrants to India? How important are they to the local economy with remittances and all?

 

[Bengal_Tiger]

@Bengal_Tiger

What is the prevailing view on Bangladeshi immigrants to India? How important are they to the local economy with remittances and all?

1. I honestly have never heard of Bangladeshi immigration to India. Definitely not from my region, Sylhet in the north-east. Half of Sylhet is in the UK and Sylhetis back home go to either the UK, GCC and some even Italy, but India...never heard of anyone.

Are there people from other parts of Bangladesh e.g. the western regions going to India, I've never heard so.

2. On the other hand for years I have seen Indians on online fora complaining about alleged Bangladeshi immigration in to India.

What I can say is I don't really know much about this topic, but if there is mass illegal immigration it shouldn't be happening as it's "illegal" i.e. breaking a country's laws.

 

[Screambowl]

Mamata Banerjee is pro-Jamaat and pro-Mullah in West Bengal. In Calcutta, the Muslim voice is dominated by Urdu-wala Muslims or the sort of Mullahs that are pro-Jamaat. They want to sabotage Bangladesh's success so have lobbied her for preventing an agreement on Teesta.

Because they blackmail her of not supporting her party. And without that she cannot win against the CPI.