"Did we do the right thing?"

[Rubayed]

""""Did we do the right thing?
Thirty-five years after India helped liberate Bangladesh, relations between the two nations are strained. Relations between Dhaka and Islamabad, on the other hand, continue to improve, particularly after Pakistan's President General Pervez Musharraf made an indirect apology for the atrocities of 1971. Many politicians now in power in Dhaka had opposed independence, and some even plaintively note that had they not declared independence, they would have been a nuclear weapons State now.
Many Indian observers have slammed then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi for not having negotiated a settlement on Kashmir in return for the 93,000 Pakistani POWs captured after the war.
Indian concerns now include illegal migration, support for rebels in the northeast, increasing Bangladeshi links with Pakistan's ISI and terrorist acts in India, regular border skirmishes, and the general anti-India mood in Bangladesh.

In retrospect, was India right in helping create Bangladesh? Tell us"""""""


Guys, that's the headline of the debate that rediff have started in their site, just read some of the comments, it will make u feel insulted,a lot of the people r totally criticizing our country and even calling us the most ungrateful country, i would like us all bangladeshis to go their and post thier views if possible.cheers

Link : ************************/news/2006/dec/05msg.htm

[Rubu]

I can't blame anyone for insulting us for putting the rajakars in power (actually still keeping them alive is a sin)

[Banglatiger84]

Originally Posted by Rubu
I can't blame anyone for insulting us for putting the rajakars in power (actually still keeping them alive is a sin)

Those indians who hate bangladesh dont do so because of Nizami and Co.

They hate us because we protest against Farakka,and because we refuse to accede to any demand they make.

[Miraz]

Originally Posted by Rubu
I can't blame anyone for insulting us for putting the rajakars in power (actually still keeping them alive is a sin)

Rubu, the same old debate. It was a very first mistake by Bangabandhu to forgive them under 'Shadharon Khoma'. They should have tried just after independence and Bangabandhu had that support.

Now, once you forgive them for their sins you cannot blame them again.

They are going to power with the mandate of people. Its a shame but that's democracy. Now, its not wise to divide the nation again after 35 years. Its time to look forward and build the nation together.

[view360]

First of all there should not be any debate at all on the Independence of Bangladesh. In thousands of years of history eventually we are proud to rule our own country by none but ourselves. It is the best thing we have ever achieved to gain an independent Bangladesh with Red and Greeen flag.
Secondly, the India and Pakistan factors are the creation of our politicians for their respective motives. There is no high degree of hostility among the ordinary people of these three countries. Off the official record, there is no virtual boundary among these countries either apart from some line in the map.
But yet there are people who try to ignite hostilities to feed their ulterior motives and many general public play in their hands. We must not play in their hands.

[Kabir]

Indians are welcome to think whatever they think about Bangladesh and the Bangladeshis living in India. And we should be welcome to speak whatever we think happened between us and India after the '71 war.

India thought that they will use this as a "divide and conquer" strategy. They wanted Pakistan separated from the chapter, and in the long run strategically get easy access to Assam through our land. Any sane government will protest against this, and that's what our governments did so far. I thank them for stopping this so far.

My understanding about the Farakkah dam was that, India wanted to threaten Bangladesh with that dam that if Bangladesh doesn't give them access over to Assam, they will suffer. Well guess what, we did suffer. And we still are suffering.

Does that mean we should give them the access? Absolutely not. India has tried to do that using other strategies too. For example, the whole idea about the Asian Highway was about all that...access to Assam province. And their latest strategy...providing Bangladeshi terrorists every possible help to destabilize the government, or have an effect in the government's activities, and what not.

One of the best things that I believe Bangladesh government ever did is refuse to supply natural gas to India. It's praised by not only Bangladeshis, but non-resident Indians and Pakistanis here in Toronto. Illiterate people (like the ones in rediff) are welcome to think whatever they think...they can't go much further with their golabaji.

And finally, some of the hostilities that they are talking about in the border region, it's true that there's an exchange of gun fires b/w BDR and indian army every so often. And let me tell you this...tali khali ek hathe baje na...dui haath use korte hoy. The hostilities are not because of Bangladeshis only, but also due to Indians too.

What I simply can't understand is, Indians have the feeling of an affluence in their nationstate. They really don't have so much to brag about, except for a few big corporations that can literally swallow the 200 biggest corporations in Bangladesh easily. In terms of quality of life, I guess you can pretty much see when you hear jokes like "dada aj kichu khelen na...next time kintu oboshoi ek cup cha kheye jaben". BTW, this was a real story.

And cut the long story short (which must have bored the hell out of a lot of you), Bangladesh is right in not giving India the open access for their trade with Assam. We are an independent state, which was formed partly with help by Indian government. But as you can tell about any government, we have to safe our a$$ too...and giving them access is not the only way to show our thankfulness for their help in '71.

[imran78]

well said kabir. agree completely.

and rediff has always been anti-bangladesh and anti-muslims. I also wouldn't take any of their articles seriously. I have seen them make up a lot of ridiculous stuff before.

[Pundit]

I personally think that India had a hand in not allowing us to persecute the rajakars...this way they can always re-surface this issue at times of need to forment instability in Bangladesh.

And some of our Bangladeshi brothers still have heart attacks over the Ayubi style pakistani leaders of this age and before. To those people I say, why don't you grow some b_lls.

Can someone really guess here how many people in Bangladesh want to merge with India vs. Pakistan. If I could, I would kick all of your butts all the way to purgatory (my previous family generation did so in '71 with notorious acclaim). If I cannot, I will atleast want to shove it up the larger of the two groups. And we certainly know which group is larger.

Time that some of you deshis puckered up and gave the raw deal to the cross border hindustani facists.

[Special 1]

India helped Bangladesh in 1971, due to three reasons.
1) Self interest
2) it had to exercise its power in the region.
3) Humanatiran.

were they right in helping Bangladesh then, i would say yes.
As bangladeshis we owe a lot to india because of their help during our independence. if India would not help us during the war, I doubt we would gain independence by 75 if not all at all and it is fair that our loyalty to India is being questioned.

However, the anti -india feelings do arise because of India's attitude towards its neighbors. They think of themselves as superiors to their neighbors and act extremely arrogant. Is that the right thing to do, is the question the article should be asking.

Kabir bhai, about the farrakha dam. I understand that there are political reasons for doing so, but there are dams within india which does the exact same thing. like the naramada river which flos thru maharashatra gujrat and madhya pradesh. So there is probably more to it thatn international politics.

[Kabir]

Originally Posted by BBgun
Kabir bhai, about the farrakha dam. I understand that there are political reasons for doing so, but there are dams within india which does the exact same thing. like the naramada river which flos thru maharashatra gujrat and madhya pradesh. So there is probably more to it thatn international politics.

I'm sure they wouldn't build a dam next to the border without international interest, and international interest only. Of course there was local interest - to do something with power-supply, etc.

[RazabQ]

uff - again with the rajakar bok bok. 35 years after independence we are still dwelling on a few lakhs of collaborators. Never mind the many more Muktijoddhas who were mistreated from day 1, or the corrupt governments that followed. If the bigots at Rediff want to get on their high horse and debate BD independence, that's their prerogative. It will accomplish nothing but a bunch of hot air, and is not worth the time of a self-respecting BD citizen

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by BBgun
India helped Bangladesh in 1971, due to three reasons.
1) Self interest
2) it had to exercise its power in the region.
3) Humanatiran.

were they right in helping Bangladesh then, i would say yes.
As bangladeshis we owe a lot to india because of their help during our independence. if India would not help us during the war, I doubt we would gain independence by 75 if not all at all and it is fair that our loyalty to India is being questioned.

However, the anti -india feelings do arise because of India's attitude towards its neighbors. They think of themselves as superiors to their neighbors and act extremely arrogant. Is that the right thing to do, is the question the article should be asking.

Kabir bhai, about the farrakha dam. I understand that there are political reasons for doing so, but there are dams within india which does the exact same thing. like the naramada river which flos thru maharashatra gujrat and madhya pradesh. So there is probably more to it thatn international politics.

india broke into 2 pieces their arch enemy...it just so happened that in doing so, we got our independence. we should be thankful that happenstance chose to be on our side...we don't owe the indians anything, their help was not for us, it was for themselves. it wasn't genuine...the general indian attitude towards us will tell you that much. they can't even liberate kashmiris within their own border. liberated bangladesh, my azz.

[Arnab]

Originally Posted by RazabQ
uff - again with the rajakar bok bok. 35 years after independence we are still dwelling on a few lakhs of collaborators. Never mind the many more Muktijoddhas who were mistreated from day 1, or the corrupt governments that followed. If the bigots at Rediff want to get on their high horse and debate BD independence, that's their prerogative. It will accomplish nothing but a bunch of hot air, and is not worth the time of a self-respecting BD citizen

I don't think it's mere bokbok. Imagine Lee Harvey Oswald escaping law (and Jack Ruby) and being elected president of the United States in the 2000 election at the ripe age of 51, a mere 37 years after. It's THAT ludicrous.

[Special 1]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
india broke into 2 pieces their arch enemy...it just so happened that in doing so, we got our independence. we should be thankful that happenstance chose to be on our side...we don't owe the indians anything, their help was not for us, it was for themselves. it wasn't genuine...the general indian attitude towards us will tell you that much. they can't even liberate kashmiris within their own border. liberated bangladesh, my azz.

It is wrong to say that their attitude towards our independence was not genuine. They did have self interests and they did have humanitarian reasons for helping Bangladesh get independence. The problem is that all these reasons are so fudged up taht it is difficult to ascertain whether they were genuine at all. i believe there was some level of gunuineness, and some level of self interest. And i agree to the fact about indian attitude towards us. However i disagree that we do not owe anything to India. they did allow people to move to India duringt he war and provide atleast sth for them.

On another note, isn't the article asking whether India did the right thing?

[Alien]

I highly doubt their attitude was genuine. Why didn't they help at the beginning of the war rather than helping in the end?

Back then, India always saw us as threat. If war broke out which it eventually did, India would have to fight 2 fronts rather than deal with 1. It was in India's interest that BD broke out of Pakistan.

India, US they are all the same. They will only join up if there is something in it for them.

Obviously, India thought that by helping BD, we would be forever their "puppet" state, just like Australia is to US after saving their a$$ from Japan in WW2. Well they were wrong, which is why they are having these debates. Whats the point of helping us if we become more closer to Pakistan in the end than our actual aide?

To sum it up, India had 2 reason to helping us out:
1) To avoid war on 2 front.
2) By helping us, they would have a cooperative "sattelite" state under their sphere of influence.

While they achieved objective (1), they didnt achieve (2). Humanitarian feelings was definitely not the reason.

[Pundit]

Originally Posted by Arnab
I don't think it's mere bokbok. Imagine Lee Harvey Oswald escaping law (and Jack Ruby) and being elected president of the United States in the 2000 election at the ripe age of 51, a mere 37 years after. It's THAT ludicrous.

And that's exactly why Oswald was "taken care of," early in the drama. If the jamaatis were put away, we would not have been beating our heads bloody, here today.

Personally, I enjoy this balance. The religious facists whipping the India loving commies and vice-versa. Freedom Party takes care of our India sympathisers, who in turn take care of our extreme right wing.

Why don't you normal people try for a change acting normal, sorry, I meant neutral.

[Arnab]

Originally Posted by Pundit
And that's exactly why Oswald was "taken care of," early in the drama. If the jamaatis were put away, we would not have been beating our heads bloody, here today.

Personally, I enjoy this balance. The religious facists whipping the India loving commies and vice-versa. Freedom Party takes care of our India sympathisers, who in turn take care of our extreme right wing.

Why don't you normal people try for a change acting normal, sorry, I meant neutral.

Well, from a drama-watching POV, it's quite a dark drama. A Bangladeshi MIchael Moore could potentially tap into this theme, except that in BD, people are either poor, cheap or too jaded, so no blue chips for him.

[RazabQ]

Originally Posted by Arnab
I don't think it's mere bokbok. Imagine Lee Harvey Oswald escaping law (and Jack Ruby) and being elected president of the United States in the 2000 election at the ripe age of 51, a mere 37 years after. It's THAT ludicrous.

In a democracy, you take the good with the bad. If the masses want to elect a George W, or a Jack Ruby prez, or the prevalent government (you could argue the AL admin post '71 had the largest mandate of any BD goverment ever) chose to let Lee H W go, then so be it. Belly aching about it now accomplishes nothing. Let's move on, and make like the mid-term elections over here.

[Arnab]

Originally Posted by RazabQ
In a democracy, you take the good with the bad. If the masses want to elect a George W, or a Jack Ruby prez, or the prevalent government (you could argue the AL admin post '71 had the largest mandate of any BD goverment ever) chose to let Lee H W go, then so be it.

Democracy can go wrong, sometimes horribly. It's not a knock on the concept of democracy, but on those who are supposed to understand it and protect it.

[Sauron]

Anything that I might have wanted to say has already been said in this thread. So, here is some fodder for the anti-indian crowd. If I find some for anti-Paki crowd, I'll post that as well.

Btw, I am part of Pro-Bangladeshi crowd, neither anti-India nor anti-Paki. Also, when you read the story, please consciously think of yourself as a Bangladeshi, not an indian, otherwise you may get depressed

Here goes -
=============================
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - Condoms designed to meet international size specifications are too big for many Indian men as their penises fall short of what manufacturers had anticipated, an Indian study has found.

The Indian Council of Medical Research, a leading state-run centre, said its initial findings from a two-year study showed 60 percent of men in the financial capital Mumbai had penises about 2.4 cm (one inch) shorter than those condoms catered for.
For a further 30 percent, the difference was at least 5 cm (two inches). A poor fit meant the prophylactics often didn't do the job they were bought for, and led to some tearing or slipping off during use.
"One of the reasons for a failure of up to 20 percent (of condoms) is the association of the size of the condom to the erect penis," the council's Dr. Chander Puri told Reuters, adding another reason was couples often put them on in a hurry.
Puri said many men in India, which has the world's highest

HIV positive caseload, were too shy to ask for condoms.
"We need more vending machines for condoms of different sizes so people can pick a condom with confidence that is suited to their needs," he said.
The Times of India reported the ICMR survey had studied 1,400 men between 18-50 years of age in cities like Mumbai and New Delhi as well as in rural areas in a report. It entitled its story "Indian men don't measure up".

Source - Yahoo news
Link - http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061208/...condoms_size_1

[mhferdaus]

Originally Posted by Rubayed
""""Did we do the right thing?
Thirty-five years after India helped liberate Bangladesh, relations between the two nations are strained. Relations between Dhaka and Islamabad, on the other hand, continue to improve, particularly after Pakistan's President General Pervez Musharraf made an indirect apology for the atrocities of 1971. Many politicians now in power in Dhaka had opposed independence, and some even plaintively note that had they not declared independence, they would have been a nuclear weapons State now.
Many Indian observers have slammed then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi for not having negotiated a settlement on Kashmir in return for the 93,000 Pakistani POWs captured after the war.
Indian concerns now include illegal migration, support for rebels in the northeast, increasing Bangladeshi links with Pakistan's ISI and terrorist acts in India, regular border skirmishes, and the general anti-India mood in Bangladesh.

In retrospect, was India right in helping create Bangladesh? Tell us"""""""


Guys, that's the headline of the debate that rediff have started in their site, just read some of the comments, it will make u feel insulted,a lot of the people r totally criticizing our country and even calling us the most ungrateful country, i would like us all bangladeshis to go their and post thier views if possible.cheers

Link : ************************/news/2006/dec/05msg.htm

hypothesis huh - what if Pakistan did not break and Sheikh Mujib became Pakistan's Prime Minister? that would be India's right thing would not it be ? and also terrorist harboring is the work of bhodadeb ( murkho montri of west bengal ), not ours, and luckily bjp is not currently the head of India otherwise they would have supported a lot more terrorists, it is proven that the jan and mal of the terrorists came from India, though they might not be state sponsored, they must be tackled and bhodadeb must be kicked out of chair ( it is of course west bengal people's decision ) otherwise there would be growing tension between the countries, they should have handed in terrorists and god fathers of all party as a sign of good will, but no they won't and they are going to waste time on hypothesis .....

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by BBgun
It is wrong to say that their attitude towards our independence was not genuine. They did have self interests and they did have humanitarian reasons for helping Bangladesh get independence. The problem is that all these reasons are so fudged up taht it is difficult to ascertain whether they were genuine at all. i believe there was some level of gunuineness, and some level of self interest. And i agree to the fact about indian attitude towards us. However i disagree that we do not owe anything to India. they did allow people to move to India duringt he war and provide atleast sth for them.

On another note, isn't the article asking whether India did the right thing?

some level of genuineness, eh?

why the hell would they care so much about MUSLIM EAST PAKISTANIS, yet the same ppl come up with excuses out the wazoo when 2000 muslim GUJRATIS (INDIAN CITIZENS FOR CRYIN OUT LOUD, THEIR OWN COUNTRYMEN) got massacred.

if that is what you call genuine altruisim you can take that and stick in the dust bin.

[bharat]

If this is the reaction ...of the BD people in general ..then my answer to the question hand ...

Did we do the right thing? (the question addressed to an Indian ..)

I guess not !

[Kabir]

Originally Posted by bharat
If this is the reaction ...of the BD people in general ..then my answer to the question hand ...

Did we do the right thing? (the question addressed to an Indian ..)

I guess not !

Which reaction are you talking about? There seem to be at least 3 different types here:

1. based on our schools of thoughts
2. based on domestic politics
3. based on international politics

Based on what? Schools of thoughts? I guess not. Domestic politics after 35 years? I'm sure you don't wanna get there. International politics b/w the two countries for free trade and OPEN access to Assam? We've seen enough without open access, who knows what granting the access will bring.

[Arnab]

India obviously did the right thing in 1971. Bengalis in East Pakistan were being massacred in a calculated manner and helping them gain their independence was absolutely the right thing India could do.