A Tale Of Two Bengals Where Never The Twain Shall Meet

[khair_ctg]

That might be so. Our origins are heterogenous but are now homogenous. All us mainstream Bangladeshis are the same ethnicity. All foreign blood, etc has been absorbed.

so you consider all Bangladeshis as the same ethnicity.. at present?

 

[dray]

to 1. mass murder and rape figures were significantly distorted and overinflated to discredit United Pakistan. this has been discussed at lengths on the forum. india already had separatist elements on its payroll for a long time in EP, particularly in leftist parties and among extreme Pak Awami Leaguers, and had been planning to invade any Pakistani territory possible (as we already saw in 1947 and 1965 wars). they used the political instability in East Pakistan in 1970-71 to pull that off.

First, read this: Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report

Second, India didn't attack East Pakistan during 1947 or 1965 war, though India could have invaded East Pakistan easily, whom you are trying to fool?

in fact E. Pakistan/E. Bengal/Bangladesh was doomed from the start – its geography seriously handicapped it and hardly inherited any defence from British era. even if it was an East Pakistan fully separated from West Pak right from the start in '47, India could have still invaded EP and made it into Indian territory or installed a puppet political system essentially to significantly undo the two nation theory.

Good that you know the reality, so, it is clear that we were not planning to invade and occupy EP / BD, if we were, then BD wouldn't exist as a separate nation today.

to 2. Inflated figures and crisis itself was orchestrated by india

How? Don't make pathetic attempts to distort history. I know certain hardliners and Jamatis in Bangladesh are trying to "Sell" a new history where Operation Searchlight didn't happen, and 1971 war was Indian aggression against Bangladesh, but you guys will be able to fool only a limited crowd over there, and that too for a limited period.

to 3. The cause of the 1971 war is rooted in India’s opposition to the existence of its Muslim neighbours as a self-governing country or countries. India was determined to ‘get involved’ in the affairs of its Muslim neighbours. Op Cengiz Khan came looong after India's transgression into United Pakistan

As I said above, don't try to fool anyone here.

Btw are you a victim of Jamati false propaganda or a master of it?

 

[Zahur Ahmed Chowdhury]

so you consider all Bangladeshis as the same ethnicity.. at present?

Yes. I would say us mainstream Bangladeshis are the same ethnicity. A person from Dhaka is not different ethnicity to someone who is from Sylhet or other cities. Most of the people in Bangladesh have the same racial background i.e. mix of the same different groups that have inhabited the country at various stages throughout history. You get variation in phenotype within cities and regions (between/within families) but not variation across regions. You can't say people from one city look different to people from another.

But despite any variation people are not necessarily different ethnicity. Someone in Bangladesh who is lighter and has phenotype that makes them look more Pakistani does not make him a different race to someone who is more, let's say, South Indian looking. People can look different because of natural variation, accounting the fact that even though we are homogenous, our origins are heterogenous. But we have now essentially blended into the same race.

Khair, I would be interested to your opinion on this. How do you suppose people in Bangladesh vary in ethnicity?

 

[Bombaywalla]

The problem with some of these twit-like BDeshis is that they have no concept of a multi-ethnic society. They just don't know what it means, therefore have this delusion that their measly little sinking nation is a bastion of Bengaliness. These people first need to understand that their country was formed of a religious identity rather than an ethnic one, and that is why their notion of 'Bengali pride' is misplaced... to say the least.

These people don't understand that one can be as Bengali as they choose to be, while still being a part of a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and varied society such as India's, and that you don't have to be surrounded by a million lungis to feel (what you think is) Bengali.

 

[Skallagrim]

Yes. I would say us mainstream Bangladeshis are the same ethnicity. A person from Dhaka is not different ethnicity to someone who is from Sylhet or other cities. Most of the people in Bangladesh have the same racial background i.e. mix of the same different groups that have inhabited the country at various stages throughout history. You get variation in phenotype within cities and regions (between/within families) but not variation across regions. You can't say people from one city look different to people from another.

But despite any variation people are not necessarily different ethnicity. Someone in Bangladesh who is lighter and has phenotype that makes them look more Pakistani does not make him a different race to someone who is more, let's say, South Indian looking. People can look different because of natural variation, accounting the fact that even though we are homogenous, our origins are heterogenous. But we have now essentially blended into the same race.

Khair, I would be interested to your opinion on this. How do you suppose people in Bangladesh vary in ethnicity?

What about ethnic minorities? The view that we can ignore ethnic minorities is no less obnoxious than holding the view that we can ignore religious minorities.

The problem with some of these twit-like BDeshis is that they have no concept of a multi-ethnic society. They just don't know what it means, therefore have this delusion that their measly little sinking nation is a bastion of Bengaliness. These people first need to understand that their country was formed of a religious identity rather than an ethnic one, and that is why their notion of 'Bengali pride' is misplaced... to say the least.

These people don't understand that one can be as Bengali as they choose to be, while still being a part of a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and varied society such as India's, and that you don't have to be surrounded by a million lungis to feel (what you think is) Bengali.

Ironically this view is necessary to validate the historical decision we took back in 1971 and ironically you are contradicting the same lesson you otherwise like to instill so enthusiastically in the mindset of Bangladeshis.

 

[Bombaywalla]

^^ I'm talking about the view some present day Bangaldeshis hold about their nation standing for everything that is Bengali, and "upholding Bengali culture". That country was formed on the basis of religion, not ethnicity.

 

[Ajatashatru]

to 1. mass murder and rape figures were significantly distorted and overinflated to discredit United Pakistan. this has been discussed at lengths on the forum. india already had separatist elements on its payroll for a long time in EP, particularly in leftist parties and among extreme Pak Awami Leaguers, and had been planning to invade any Pakistani territory possible (as we already saw in 1947 and 1965 wars). they used the political instability in East Pakistan in 1970-71 to pull that off.

in fact E. Pakistan/E. Bengal/Bangladesh was doomed from the start – its geography seriously handicapped it and hardly inherited any defence from British era. even if it was an East Pakistan fully separated from West Pak right from the start in '47, India could have still invaded EP and made it into Indian territory or installed a puppet political system essentially to significantly undo the two nation theory.

to 2. Inflated figures and crisis itself was orchestrated by india

to 3. The cause of the 1971 war is rooted in India’s opposition to the existence of its Muslim neighbours as a self-governing country or countries. India was determined to ‘get involved’ in the affairs of its Muslim neighbours. Op Cengiz Khan came looong after India's transgression into United Pakistan

Figures of murders and rapes were given by Bangladesh govt themselves.

In both 1947 and 65 wars, Pak intruded first.

Refugee figures in India were independently verified by US govt in a report by Senator Edward Kennedy to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in 1971 and also the private magazine TIME.

I am waiting for you to provide neutral sources (non-Indian, non-Pakistani, non-Bangladeshi) to back your claims.

 

[Zahur Ahmed Chowdhury]

so you consider all Bangladeshis as the same ethnicity.. at present?

What are your views on this? Also please explain.

 

[the just]

^^ I'm talking about the view some present day Bangaldeshis hold about their nation standing for everything that is Bengali, and "upholding Bengali culture". That country was formed on the basis of religion, not ethnicity.

Hummm,I think your understanding the ethnicity matter about BD is somewhat cloudy to say the least.The reason for independent nation was not based on religion, culture or bangali ethnicity. It was based on mistreatment, dominant attitude, poor management, racial discrimination based on color,language etc.
We are Bangladeshi first.there are bangali,chakma,arakan,mog ,kooki,shaowtal to name a few ethnic groups in BD.
And the people you are referring are very few in groups, who wants to glorify the bangali chetona.which is a relatively new trend in BD.[/quote]

 

[godofwar]

What have you West Bengalis against Bangladesh? Most of the crimes against Hindus were done a long time ago by invaders, and then after 1947 until 1971, by Pakistanis. Most Bangladeshis have not mistreated Hindus outside a few isolated incidents, usually carried out by remnants of the pre-1971 regime. I think you West Bengal folk should turn against India and take to the streets, and seek an independent West Bengal. Anything can happen. Just witness the Arab Spring. When people are determined enough, changes can be effected. And when the conditions are right we can then reunite as a bigger, more powerful Bengal nation. We will be one of the world's richest in total GDP. Bangladesh is a fast growing economy and has been included in Goldman Sach's Next11 report they've compiled and also in the Global Growth Generators countries, a separate Citigroup study.

Yes WB should revolt to leave Indian Union and join the glorious water-hole that is Bangladesh.

Instead of thinking about merging with West Bengal, you should worry about your upcoming merger with Bay of Bengal.

 

[Zahur Ahmed Chowdhury]

Yes Pakistan was created on the basis of religion in 1947 (with the East wing becoming Bangladesh in 1971). Bangladesh is not diverse ethnically. It's around 97% Bengali and the rest 3% is made up of tribals, who mostly live in isolation. This is our strength. We do not have the ethnic infighting that goes on in India. People of West Bengal are our ethnic brethren, and we shall see to it that we again become one, though not as part of India but as Greater Bengal.

 

[dray]

Yes Pakistan was created on the basis of religion in 1947 (with the East wing becoming Bangladesh in 1971). Bangladesh is not diverse ethnically. It's around 97% Bengali and the rest 3% is made up of tribals, who mostly live in isolation. This is our strength. We do not have the ethnic infighting that goes on in India. People of West Bengal are our ethnic brethren, and we shall see to it that we again become one, though not as part of India but as Greater Bengal.

You are one confused soul, first decide whether you want reunification or not, you are going back & forth on this.

However, there will never be any Greater Bengal (unless you rename your country as Greater Bengal), even any proposal for reunification with India will most likely be rejected, we have sound memory and good knowledge of our history, we don't want a repetition of it.

And why suddenly so much love for ethnicity? Where was this love for ethnicity in 1946-1947? Why Bengali Hindus are leaving Bangladesh constantly? Instead of dreaming about more, try to keep those Bengalis that you already have, their religion maybe different, but they are also Bengalis.

 

[Bombaywalla]

Hummm,I think your understanding the ethnicity matter about BD is somewhat cloudy to say the least.The reason for independent nation was not based on religion, culture or bangali ethnicity. It was based on mistreatment, dominant attitude, poor management, racial discrimination based on color,language etc.
We are Bangladeshi first.there are bangali,chakma,arakan,mog ,kooki,shaowtal to name a few ethnic groups in BD.
And the people you are referring are very few in groups, who wants to glorify the bangali chetona.which is a relatively new trend in BD.

Mate, how do you explain the fact that Bangladesh is a Muslim majority nation then? Neither did that happen overnight, nor is it a freak coincidence you know. The reasons you mentioned must've been part of it, but the main reason was politics stemming from religion, and the fear that the religion and way of life of the majority Islam areas would be compromised after the Brits scampered off to jolly good England.

Re: ethnicity - the fact remains that an overwhelming majority of Bangladeshis belong to a single ethnicity.

 

[Zahur Ahmed Chowdhury]

You are one confused soul, first decide whether you want reunification or not, you are going back & forth on this.

However, there will never be any Greater Bengal (unless you rename your country as Greater Bengal), even any proposal for reunification with India will most likely be rejected, we have sound memory and good knowledge of our history, we don't want a repetition of it.

And why suddenly so much love for ethnicity? Where was this love for ethnicity in 1946-1947? Why Bengali Hindus are leaving Bangladesh constantly? Instead of dreaming about more, try to keep those Bengalis that you already have, their religion maybe different, but they are also Bengalis.

We don't mind renaming our combined country Bengal. You think Bangladesh is a name derived from, or inspired by, Islam don't you? It's not. In fact, the name 'Bangladesh' can be found in Bengali literature in 19th Century Bengal, perhaps even earlier. It simply means land of Bengal. I am sure Hindus of West Bengal won't mind keeping the name Bangladesh. Either will do. We have gotten over our religious differences. These days people are not that religious anyway, so a reunification based on a secular state, where people can openly follow Islam, Hinduism, or have no religious affiliation, is fine.

 

[Al-zakir]

People of West Bengal are our ethnic brethren, and we shall see to it that we again become one, though not as part of India but as Greater Bengal.

Please check with a psychiatrist. There is a serous problem with your brain cell.

1000 year passed by yet still this non-sense.