Nation-states is a new concept. Borders have never been heterogenous and have always been fluid with the migration of tribes and ethnic groups throughout history. No more nation-state can change that. Nations will continue to rise and fall along with the change of their borders.
Right now India has a high degree of influence in Bangladesh due to its alliance with the family of Hasina. Eventually one day Bd would be independent enough to pursue its own national interest. With its rise in population compared to current landmass, along with the acceleration of climate change BD would have no other option but the eventual takeover of the chicken neck and bengal. Its within its core interest
Most of the neighboring states in India ie assam and west bengal already have a large migration population.
EDIT: Just realized you come from a Pakistani background. That makes much more sense now.
Taking over West Bengal is a core interest of Bangladesh? I can see I am arguing with a young person/child. This will be my last post to you. Take some time to talk with people who work in the business of national strategy and think tanks. You would be surprised.
Borders have been stabilizing for a while now. I can't help you see how things are working now. I don't think you understand relations with neighbours work. India does have a high degree of influence in Bangladesh, not only with Sheikh Hasina but all political parties. Likewise, Govt. of Bangladesh too has a high degree of influence with India across parties. Govt. of India does
many things which are not officially recognized on both official and unofficial requests of Bangladesh.
In any case resources for population are now provided by industrial infrastructure and developmental growth, not land.
Bangladesh's population growth is not that high and it is about to stabilize. It's going to top at ~190 million and then start declining from 2050. That's barely 30 years from now and not much higher than the current population in relative terms. That's not much higher than what Dhaka has. You speak as though the population was about to double.
You fail to consider the Indian population is also growing, more than Bangladesh's. Though that is an unfortunate fact. However, if it comes to that growing territory size, India's population, economic growth and military growth, (not to mention nuclear weapons) is far above Bangladesh's. You can imagine the outcome of policies that lead to a collision of wills between Bangladesh and India.
India and Bangladesh are already enemies playing a charade of friendship.
You hate us.You kill our people in the borders.Your politicians want to annex integral parts of Bangladeshi territory.You have passed laws to declare millions of your own citizens as Illegal Bangladeshis.Your leader call us termites.India's hedgemonic ambitions in the region are there for everyone to see.You have annexed any defenseless independent states you could from Hyderabad to Junagadh to Kashmir to Sikkim.
India preaches friendship.But actions speak louder than words.And India's actions have proven that it can't be even trusted as responsible nation, let alone a friendly country.
All your assertions are categorically wrong and simplistic in your thinking.
Borders will be enforced. Because people crossing the border are killed does not mean that India hates Bangladesh. I feel that as a smaller nation, people of Bangladesh have a greater sensitivity towards these issues than Indians do.
Sri Lanka shot and killed many Indian fishermen that intruded in their maritime boundary. There are people who dislike Sri Lanka for that but most people recognize that it is within Sri Lanka's right to do that. It does not mean Sri Lankans hate Indians. US border guard shoots people on the Mexican border, does not mean that people of US hate people of Mexico. You are simplistic in your thinking. Most rational people recognize that good fences make for good neighbours. Illegal immigration is not acceptable and will be discouraged though bullets, fences or any other means possible.
The same philosophy applies for Indians trying to illegally immigrate to US, etc.
What hegemonic ambitions? Giving the example of Junagadh, Kashmir or Sikkim does not lead to any 'points' for you. Those states were taken at the time of independence in a very specific context as all nations do during the early years of independence - from Pakistan (which annexed the part of Kashmir it has through military, not treaty) to US, to China. As countries age, the context of their independence reduces in relevance and territory expansion ceases making way for trade and cooperation.
No mainstream politician talks about annexing any territory of Bangladesh. Why would India sign a border treaty with Bangladesh (with bi-partisan support) in which
India gave away 10,000 acres of land and thousands of acres of the sea if India wanted to annex territory from Bangladesh?
Annexing any part of Bangladesh is not in the consciousness or discourse of Indians. It's something you have come up with to justify your world view in which India is a perceived enemy. I can recognize that you may have been socialized from a young age in this world view. No amount of rational talk will change that and you will likely perform mental gymnastics than challenging your own belief which is, ironically, the point of interacting on this forum. This is my last post on the topic.
