BD should attach importance to Asian Highway development

[sarthak]

Bangladesh holds a strategic advantage over India. India's eastern most provinces are only accessible through a narrow route which is only 25km wide between Bangladesh and Bhutan.

Any stupidity by the Indians, Bangladesh should launch an offensive and sever the land route between the Eastern Provinces and rest of India.

So India needs to be careful when dealing with Bangladesh.

And what about the 1000+ missiles that would be raining down on dhaka? or the 2 million plus indian land forces , or nukes for that matter. You seriously have no idea what you are talking about do you? It's likle asking a cockroach to stand up to a tiger. It won't be remembered as bravery , but as stupidity.

 

[miss]

Son,

Thats not the way to address a senior member.

apologies, but its very narrow minded to say that if someone has majored in a subject, he cannot speak about any other.
i am just a hotel mgmt grad but I do project management in an it company and have delivered complex projects and rollouts and spearheaded organizational changes in my IT company. I would not ahve been able to it, if the indian IT industry had the same attitude as that gent.
and oh yes.. all these IT rollouts are for the finance and banking industry.

 

[kalu_miah]

I expect From India into bangladesh exiting to Myanmar. Anybody says other wise anti-social and gaddar of bangladesh

Well said, Bangladesh should have no interest to invest in a Highway that goes from India to India. We obviously cannot have our vital trade route to ASEAN going through India. Every 2 year old Bangladeshi knows this except for RAWamy idiots. If India wants to build it, then they are welcome to pay for it and we will build it for them and then collect transit fee when its done. We also need to collect some fair transit fee for the current free river route to NE states.

Our interest is in building the road network with ASEAN directly through Bangladesh border with Myanmar.

 

[miss]

Well said, Bangladesh should have no interest to invest in a Highway that goes from India to India. We obviously cannot have our vital trade route to ASEAN going through India. Every 2 year old Bangladeshi knows this except for RAWamy idiots. If India wants to build it, then they are welcome to pay for it and we will build it for them and then collect transit fee when its done. We also need to collect some fair transit fee for the current free river route to NE states.

Our interest is in building the road network with ASEAN directly through Bangladesh border with Myanmar.

first you fight with burma and you expect them to do what you say? further, from BD, going to SE Asia via NE india is better and faster. you have a small border with Burma, and that lengthens route to make any significant gain.

 

[idune]

first you fight with burma and you expect them to do what you say? further, from BD, going to SE Asia via NE india is better and faster. you have a small border with Burma, and that lengthens route to make any significant gain.

What Myanmar would say its bilateral matter between Bangladesh and Myanmar. India and indians should get out of habit speak for someone else. Myanmar govt can speak for itself. And for Bangladesh we can see and decide what route is better for us economically, staratgically and otherwise. We dont need indian interference, period.

 

[kalu_miah]

What Myanmar would say its bilateral matter between Bangladesh and Myanmar. India and indians should get out of habit speak for someone else. Myanmar govt can speak for itself. And for Bangladesh we can see and decide what route is better for us economically, staratgically and otherwise. We dont need indian interference, period.

See these Indians getting worked up about something that does not concern them. Like I said before this website is no place to have a meaningful discussion. Some random Indian will always poke their nose where it does not belong and then get into meaningless derailing of thread to waste everyone's time.

 

[ifesvr]

Well said, Bangladesh should have no interest to invest in a Highway that goes from India to India. We obviously cannot have our vital trade route to ASEAN going through India. Every 2 year old Bangladeshi knows this except for RAWamy idiots. If India wants to build it, then they are welcome to pay for it and we will build it for them and then collect transit fee when its done. We also need to collect some fair transit fee for the current free river route to NE states.

Our interest is in building the road network with ASEAN directly through Bangladesh border with Myanmar.

India is anyways going to connect to this corridor with Myanmar. Why should it be thru Bangladesh when we can do it directly.

On the contrary the East West corridor extends to only Mawlamyine and Kengtung in Myanmar near the Thai border. Myanmar is not going to extend it to their capital and Bangladesh for your sake. You will have to fund this on your own (connecting Mawlamyine or Mandalay and Chittagong). This is huge for Bangladesh as we are talking about more than 2000kms. But a connection between Dhaka and Aizawl will be less than 500kms. That's probably the point your govt. is concerned with.

 

[miss]

What Myanmar would say its bilateral matter between Bangladesh and Myanmar. India and indians should get out of habit speak for someone else. Myanmar govt can speak for itself. And for Bangladesh we can see and decide what route is better for us economically, staratgically and otherwise. We dont need indian interference, period.

we also share a large border with both countries so eligible to talk...
you can see which route is better, but unfortunatel se asian coutnries wont care for your country unless its linked to india. a wire is usefull only if it can connect a powersource and a device.. otherwise its just a piece of rope. hope you understand

See these Indians getting worked up about something that does not concern them. Like I said before this website is no place to have a meaningful discussion. Some random Indian will always poke their nose where it does not belong and then get into meaningless derailing of thread to waste everyone's time.

you are as random as i am .. and being your most significant neighbor and the giver of your freedom we have a right to speak

 

[Joe Shearer]

We are not tallking here about Niazi or Tikka Khan. We are discussing about Sher Shah.

No, you were not, but I did. I talked about them because if a Pathan spends a few months in Bengal and becomes a Bengali, they too qualify. In no way are they different from Sher Shah Suri: they all three came as conquerors, with no concern about the people inhabiting the place, they spent weeks, barely stretching into months, their preoccupation was military conquest and subjugating a province out of control, they all spent their lives except for these weeks-turned-to-months outside Bengal, in other parts of south Asia.

In what way was my comparison wrong?

So, do not change the context to suit your weird view.

Why not, if only to show that the original point of view was weird? Reductio ad absurdum; if that is logic, that logic taken to its extreme, absurd state should not offend.

Here, we are talking of people like Sultan Bahlul Lodi whose forefathers were Pathans, but he became the Emperor of India in 1456 (?). Cannot he be called a Hindustani only because he was of Pathan ancestory?

This is special pleading, with a vengeance. Are you even aware of Bahlul Lodi's background? If you are, how can you compare his reign over India with Sher Shah's connection with Bengal?

Bahlul's grandfather was already in Multan by the time that the Tughlaqs were on the throne, that is, from before 1388, not in Afghanistan. His father-in-law, who was also his eldest chacha, was appointed governor of Sirhind, the place from which the geographical origin of Hindustan is counted (Sirhind = Head of Hind = start of Hindustan). Bahlul succeeded his father-in-law, and was appointed governor by the Sayyid emperor then ruling. He himself came to the throne in 1451.

How is he in relation to Hindustan, with a domicile of three generations starting from before 1388, comparable to Sher Shah in the latter's relation to Bengal, with no residence within the province until he actually conquered it, and with no tenure of significance before Humayun took it back from him?

All the Rajputs, by your narrow standards should be called HUN, and not Hindustanis. Mughals were Uzbek and not Hidustani. This thinking is weird and is of no use in practical discussion of history. Chieftain Khwaja Osman of Bengal was ONLY a Pathan, but was not a Bangali Muslim when he fought against the Mughals in the eastern Bengal.

Really? Do they really seem to be birds of passage like Sher Shah was in Bengal? The Rajputs had spent many generations in Hindustan; the Mughals were born in Hindustan from Akbar onwards, and in any case, just to set you right, were Chaghatai Turks, the implacable enemy of the Uzbeks, and not Uzbeks themselves. Are you sure that you want to discuss these topics?

By your formula no muslim man from outside of Hindustan who settled himself here cannot be a HINDUSTANI muslim. Yet, all of the settler Muslims have during the course of time become Hindustani. Some are now regarded as Delhiwala, some are Bangali and some are UP wala.

Not at all. You yourself have defined the problem, and you yourself have resolved the problem. An identity is acquired "during the course of time". I am quite happy to leave it to you to decide if the duration of the course of time can be measured in weeks. If that is so, please drop your hypocrisy and accept Niazi and Tikka Khan as good Bengali Muslims.

There are many ingredients of foreign bloods in Bangali muslims of today. Sher Shah's grandfather lived in Punjab, but he is not called a Punjabi. He lost that identity when he moves to another part of India by the course of time. But, by your standard, everybody is static. He cannot be another except what his grandfather was. By your standard, President Obama is a Kenyan and President Bush is an Englishman, not withstanding that they have become the Presidents of the USA.

By my standards, Sher Shah, spending his early life in Punjab and in Jaunpur, and a third-generation resident of south Asia at that, is perfectly qualified to be a Hindustani Muslim of Afghan descent. He does not qualify as a Bengali given the brief period of his residence or of his connection with Bengal.

Sher Shah's forebearers were like many of the millions of Muslims who came to Hindustan for seeking fortune. He came to Bihar. But, he took over the reign of Bengal from Ghiyasuddin Mahmud Shah. Mahmud Shah's young son was killed by Jalal Khan, the son of Sher Shah. This caused Mahmud Shah to collapse and die. Sher Shah took over the Sultanate of Bengal.

Again, a most self-serving account. Sher Shah did not come to Bengal before 1537. Your account slubbers over the sequence of events, when Ghiasuddin Mahmud Shah intervened in the affairs of Bihar, and in the domination of the minor Sultan, Jalal Khan, by Sher Shah, his supposed vassal. It was in 1534 that Ghiasuddin was defeated in battle, and retreated from Bihar, and from this time onward, Sher Shah was firmly in power in Bihar. But it was not until 1537 that he advanced against Ghiasuddin Mahmud Shah, defeated him, and took over Bengal.

This made Humayun nerveous and he rushed to Gaud. Sher Shah vacated Gaud and took the northern route to Bihar. Humayun stayed in Bengal for about six months and spent this period to establish a Mughal administration in Gaud (Bengal). Before the onset of next flood season, Humayun ventured out of Gaud to go back to Delhi/Agra.

His tenure before Humayun descended on him was of a few months.

it was probably the Ghagra (?) river where the local troops of Sher Shah stopped Humayun's troops to cross. Humayun was forced to recognize Sher Shah as the Sultan of Bengal. But, in an ensuing battle, Humayun's troops were defeated. His troops jumped to the river to save their lives. Humayun was rescued from the flowing river by a visti (water man) Nizam.

Humayun fled to Delhi and after about one year he came back with full force. After his defeat at Chausa Humayun fled to Iran, and Sher Shah, the Sultan of Bengal captured Delhi. His descendents ruled over Hindustan until Adil Shah was defeated by Humayun at the 2nd Battle of Panipath in 1556.

With the earlier few weeks stretching to months, Sher Shah has now spent about a year and a quarter in Bengal (Gaud). Enough, I take it, to equate with approximately 500 years of Rajput domicile in south Asia, and equivalent to Lodi domicile in India, or even Humayun's domicile in south Asia. Is that what you have in mind?

All the Pathans and Bangali muslims in the northern India fled to Bengal. These people regrouped, kept Bengal free of Mughal domination until about 1605 when Jahangir was the Emperor. Note that almost all the Muslim warrior Chieftains (combinedly known as Baro Bhumiya) of then Bengal were of Pathan ancestory. So, the Mughal-Pathan war that started in 1526 in the 1st battle of Panipath ended with the defeat of Khwaja Osman Khan in Mymensingh/Sylhet in 1605.

Refer to an article written by Dr. Bhattasali titled, 'The Last Pathan Hero of Bengal' and learn more about this last battle. Read also 'Baharistani Ghaebi' by Mirza Ispahani, a Mughal General. But, by your thinking they were just Pthans even after they had been living in Hindustan/Bengal for six or more generations.

No.

By my thinking, Sher Shah was not a Bengali Muslim, not having lived in Bengal for any significant duration before he became Sultan of Delhi. If he has to be associated with a provincial identity at all, it is with Bihar, where his career developed, and where he first became Sultan, before he became Sultan of Bengal.

You cannot identfy any Indian muslim only by his ancestory. Foreign Muslims had already become part of India and Bengal at the time of history that we are discussing here. Who domiciled in Bengal have become known as Bangali Muslims. You must, perhaps, be aware that all the Sultans, except Raja Ganesh, of Bengal during Muslim period were of foreign ancestory.

This is deliberate distortion.

My precise words were

Sher Shah and his forebears were Pathans.

And my precise conclusion was

He was in Bengal for a few months, briefly, when campaigning against Ghiasuddin. That is all. His father and grandfather NEVER came to the east.

You will understand my disdain for the shallow learning that positions Sher Shah as a Bengali ruler, when he was not able to take over the reins from Ghiasuddin Mahmud Shah due to the simultaneous attack of Humayun. He had nothing, at best very little, an incidental parenthetical possibility of rule at best, before he shifted his attention to Delhi.

There is as much justification in considering General A. A. Khan Niazi, or Tikka Khan, as Bengali generals - they spent as much time as Sher Shah - as there is of considering Sher Shah a Bengali general and ruler.

Please pay attention:

I have nowhere claimed that Sher Shah was not a Hindustani Muslim ruler; the mention of his antecedents was for the historical record, not to say that he was a foreigner.

I do not believe that he had what you have set as a qualification for Bengali Muslims, domicile in Bengal. By your criterion, he is not a Bengali, but he is a Hindustani.

Even the loved Sirajuddowlah was of Iranian/Delhiwala ancestory. Same was with Sher Shah. He was a Pathan by ancestory, but he was the Sultan of Bengal before he became the Emperor of Hindustan.

And he was Sultan of Bihar long before he was Sultan of Bengal, four years before. He served in Bihar for decades before he came to Bengal, and was in Bengal for a bare handful of months.

If we must define him in provincial terms, I repeat, he was a Bihari Muslim of Pathan descent.

Note also that during those days Muslims were not regarded as Bangali. They were just Muslims or Jabans. Only recently we impose this Bangali suffix to the Muslims of Bengal. So, how do you define their positions vis-a-vis Bengal. Reality is they were Bengali Muslims because their forefathers had domiciled in Bengal. It is same with all the American Presidents and most of the American people. It is also same with all the Muslim emperors and many of the Muslim population of Hindustan/Delhi.

I am quite content to take you at face value.

Neither Sher Shah nor his forefathers were domiciled in Bengal.

By your definition, they had nothing to do with Bengal.

 

[kalu_miah]

If Indians want to talk about India-Myanmar road route, please open a thread in Indian defense section or some other section. This is Bangladesh defense section, here we talk about Bangladesh and its related matters with other nations.

 

[Joe Shearer]

ever heard of niall ferguson.. your just a nut case.

Please do not lose your temper. It is so unnecessary. On a forum like this, it is best to confine oneself to the facts, and to address the facts put up by others. Nothing else matters. I mentioned my credentials in history because there was a point of history, and somebody made a sarcastic remark about my own sarcastic remarks. That brought on another set of sarcastic remarks, which was best put at rest by informing them about my other credentials.

The silly remark that was made about history majors being challenged in certain parts of the faculty degrades the person who makes it, but does not affect anybody else. Neither you nor anyone else, certainly not I, needs to react to it.

It is just that since the person concerned was touchy about his own experience and standing, he might have thought of experience and standing earlier, and might have reminded himself about my own seniority over him in this forum by some seven months, my 61 years of age and my 40 years of work and study. It did not strike his attention when he was being rude and uncivil, it only came to mind when he heard something that displeased him. Does that need any further attention, or would you agree that reacting is a waste of time?

Stick to the facts; let the insecure handle their own insecurity.

 

[miss]

If Indians want to talk about India-Myanmar road route, please open a thread in Indian defense section or some other section. This is Bangladesh defense section, here we talk about Bangladesh and its related matters with other nations.

and BD is defended well because of its 99% landborder with peaceful india.

 

[Joe Shearer]

My family name is Shordar, which is as pathan as they come. By joe's logic i am a pathan. But it doesn't get more Bangladeshi than me.

By my logic, and if you want, I can cite passages for your ready reference, if you had entered Bangladesh a year or so ago, you would not qualify as Bangladeshi. I had not commented about people's names, wherever those originated.

 

[TopCat]

I am always a big patronizer of this India-Myanmar route. India should directly access to Myanmar and Myanmar port leaving BD aside. The route through BD will be highly expensive for Indian goods as we are most likely to impose high transit fees. Let BD settle its connectivity with ASEAN through Myanmar. We also have big daddy called China who has big leverage on Myanmar.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I am always a big patronizer of this India-Myanmar route. India should directly access to Myanmar and Myanmar port leaving BD aside. The route through BD will be highly expensive for Indian goods as we are most likely to impose high transit fees. Let BD settle its connectivity with ASEAN through Myanmar. We also have big daddy called China who has big leverage on Myanmar.

Your point is well taken, though it is couched in very civil, very polite language. There is much work to be done before we can think of friendly relations: your comments on the barriers to trade were an eye-opener.