How Far Behind Modernization of Bangladesh Armed Forces

[Desert Fox]

BD people (tri-river delta area) have worst case of confused identity complex (well before Muhammad was even born)...deep down always, whether they be pious or atheist....honourable or wretched.....rich or poor. This is a long deep subject by itself.

This is a problem a lot of people in our part of the world face. Bd's have their own way of expressing this problem which shows itself how you accurately described.

Ummah on the other hand (and concepts like this in non-abrahamic systems too) assumes there is one core, strong, unidirection identity in otherwise very different people to harness, build upon and strengthen. It has good intent (and succeeded to some note when political/military environments were achieved), but the pragmatic reality today shows the dissonance clearly in practice (esp considering Kitab al-Fitan Sunnah you referenced earlier in another thread).

Ummah is a concept that in today's world only exists in the occasional interactions between the common Muslim and that too limited to the basics of everyday conversations like the usual Salaams and goodbye's, etc... Very rarely does it exceed that.

As soon as this concept begins to encroach on the individual and collective interests of particular groups while benefiting another then this concept easily falls apart and the true human nature shows itself. As we saw in the tensions that finally led to 1971 split. Why could not the Bangladeshis accept a common unified Islamic language of the Muslims of the Subcontinent (Urdu)? Which mind you is a neutral language. It's not like the "evil Punjabis" were imposing Punjabi on Bangladeshis.

Why did they percieve Punjabis to be dominant and unfair towards Bangladeshis?

And this is also the problem of democracy. When a group that percieves itself to be in the majority and yet also unfairly treated in elections then it will agitate for secession because every electoral loss will be a validation that it is being neglected.

This is why you cannot have democracy in a multicultural society because each group is fighting to get a bigger piece of the pie at the expense of the rest of the society.

The only "multicultural" societies that have "functioned" (I say that loosely) are ones where one group, from the outset, has made its dominance clear to its subject groups. Take for example Communist China or Imperial Russia, Soviet Russia and now the current Russian federation.

The Chinese are in the process of "Hanizing" the Uighurs in order to integrate them into mainstream Chinese culture which is basically Han culture and they are using very harsh measures at times towards this goal.

Just like in Czarist Russia and later Soviet Union the dominant Slavs "Slavicized" their Muslim subjects of the Caucasus and Central Asia, this today you see surnames like Umarov, Kadirov, etc..

Because the Russian and the Han have made it clear from the outset to their subjects: "we won these lands fair and square, therefore we are the dominant authority over these lands. You are our subjects. What we say goes." The Russians and the Han are ruling by the age-old principle of Might Makes Right.

Whereas in democratic societies where the mantra of "equality" is preached, when one group surpasses the other the latter feels that it was cheated.

Only in the West the recent nonsense of "multiculturalism" is worshipped like an idol.

And this is also why the Ummah concept, if it means a single state of multiple cultures, races, and ethnicities of Muslims living under one roof, can never work because the Ummah concept presupposes "equality" between all, but when the rubber hits the road and one group surpasses the others either due to natural talent/innate qualities or historical advantage, then the cries of "hey that's not fair" start ringing out.

It is imperative that Muslim societies strengthen themselves first as independent, pragmatic entities than rely entirely on the notions of Ummah idealism....the ocean has been corrupted, most men are weak....you must dam the good water to survive and prosper as good souls now.

You are spot on.

People like to affiliate themselves with the powerful. The same holds true for nations as well. Nobody wants to be tied down to someone who's weak and incapable of defending their own honor purely for the sake of "brotherhood" and "equality."

 

[Shahzaz ud din]

No BD person ever claimed we have surpassed Pakistan in military field.
BD is ahead of Pakistan economy for sure and the gap will widen by 2030.
Once BD military is modernised by 2030, it will be as powerful as Pakistan conventionally.

 

[Shahzaz ud din]

Did you do your math yet on these before you ask others to do the same?:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/whatever.46703/page-4828#post-10263120

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/gdp-...september-quarter.531069/page-4#post-10056012

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/baf-ordered-8-su-30me-variant.545869/page-5#post-10286625



I have gone through it in somewhat cursory way:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-...er-than-pakistans.536089/page-7#post-10137373

With 60/40 spending split (and about 50/50 population split), it comes to around 1% of GDP extraction (at most) each year for 2 - 3 spending plans (maybe around a decade to 15 years etc) from East Pakistan to West Pakistan.

This is not even a pure 0-return extraction given East Pakistan got things in return institutionally (often the returns on such are long term) that strangely many BD ppl here (that hate on Pakistan and blame Pakistan 100% for whatever convenient feelz reason) will trumpet in other threads/forums in some nostalgia for the 2-wing Pakistan days (I remember bilal, who is now crying about nukes and dreaming for indo-pak denuclearisation by the "west" in some crazy sour grapes feelz,..... for example did it for PAEC and also BD shipbuilding to name just two).

These people are largely logically decrepit and have no consistency, they will meander and indulge in the sweet hypocrisy (its sweet to them only of course, it looks and smells putrid sewage to all others)....they will attack me for pointing out the numbers simply because they have visceral reaction to being confronted with facts to the feelz they have been brainwashed with as the very core reason for their current political incarnation.

I am still waiting for just one of them to logically dispute the 1% GDP transfer number + added qualifier. There is actually a pretty sound argument they can make on it (if they think things through, but accept its not some wild extraction % like they have been fed this long), but unfortunately looks like none of them know how, or simply are too latched onto the GRAND THEFT AUTO: SWAMP EDITION feelz just like the genocide feelz and rape feelz from the war itself...... and I am not going to help them on the matter....they are quite treacherous with the leeway and buffer I gave them before.

@Desert Fox @django @DESERT FIGHTER

 

[Psychic]

The founding fathers intended to make "Pakistan", not East and West bullsh*t. They offered a realistic plan of partition, not one in which two parts of a country are 1800 miles away with no common culture. Bengalis were to have their seperate state, they weren't supposed to be a part of Pakistan.

As such, Ali's writings, in addition to those of Muhammad Iqbal and others were major catalysts for the formation of Pakistan. He offered the name "Bangistan" for a Muslim homeland in the Bengal region, and "Osmanistan" for a Muslim homeland in the Deccan. He also suggested Dinia as a name for a South Asia of various religions.[5]

On 28 January 1933, Ali voiced the idea in a pamphlet titled "Now or Never; Are We to Live or Perish Forever?".[7] The word 'Pakstan' referred to "the five Northern units of India, viz. : Punjab, North-West Frontier Province (Afghan Province), Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan"".[8][9] By the end of 1933, 'Pakistan' had become common vocabulary, and an i was added to ease pronunciation (as in Afghan-i-stan). There's no Bengal there.

Allahabad address by Iqbal;
India is a continent of human groups belonging to different races, speaking different languages, and professing different religions [...] Personally, I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sindh and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India.

Was it a cultural divide? Distance? I know that it could have been one or more of these factors.

Integration requires some form of commonality. Except for religion, there was none. Language, cuisine, dress, culture, race everything was earth and sky different.
National integration was successful in West Pakistan and no separatist movement could succeed here in the past, and none exists today except for some fringe elements because the regions which form today's Pakistan are geographically contagious.
There are other incentives as well...Pakhtoons know that their future is with Pakistan and not Afghanistan which is a mess. Baluchs have realized that they are better off in Pakistan than a so-called independent Balochistan which will become a colony of others, besides more of them live happily in Punjab than in Balochistan.

As soon as this concept begins to encroach on the individual and collective interests of particular groups while benefiting another then this concept easily falls apart and the true human nature shows itself. As we saw in the tensions that finally led to 1971 split. Why could not the Bangladeshis accept a common unified Islamic language of the Muslims of the Subcontinent (Urdu)? Which mind you is a neutral language. It's not like the "evil Punjabis" were imposing Punjabi on Bangladeshis.

Exactly.

Why did they percieve Punjabis to be dominant and unfair towards Bangladeshis?

WP was acting dominant though but that was nowhere near to apartheid or nowadays reverse-apartheid. The attitude of Bengalis themselves was also unfair.

And this is also the problem of democracy. When a group that percieves itself to be in the majority and yet also unfairly treated in elections then it will agitate for secession because every electoral loss will be a validation that it is being neglected.

This is why you cannot have democracy in a multicultural society because each group is fighting to get a bigger piece of the pie at the expense of the rest of the society.

That piece of trash Mujib should have been hanged, for he had committed treason before the 70 elections.. When you allow traitors to take part in elections, then sh*t happens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agartala_Conspiracy_Case

'Agartala conspiracy case was not false'


Published: 2011-02-23 17:18:04.0 BdST Updated: 2011-02-23 17:18:04.0 BdST

• An accused in the Agartala Conspiracy Case, deputy speaker Shawkat Ali, has told parliament that the charges brought against the accused were not false.

Dhaka, Feb 23 (bdnews24.com)—An accused in the Agartala Conspiracy Case, deputy speaker Shawkat Ali, has told parliament that the charges brought against the accused were not false.

Ali, at the end of a point of order in Wednesday's session, said, "The charges against us read out on the first day of hearing in the case were absolutely right."

"We formed a Sangram Parishad led by Bangabandhu to free East Pakistan through armed protest," he said.

During the point of order session, senior Awami League leader Tofail Ahmed recounted the days before and after the withdrawal of the case on Feb 22, 1969.

He said that the country would not be independent if the case was not filed. "It was not a fake case."

Addressing the deputy speaker, he said, "You planned to liberate the country."

Earlier in a discussion organised at Dhaka University's Senate Bhaban marking the Agartala Case Withdrawal Day, Tofail said the accused in the Agartala case had actually laid the foundation of the country's independence.

Agartala Conspiracy Case was a sedition case filed by the Pakistan government against Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, leader of the then East Pakistan Awami League, and 34 others.

Unfortunately, we haven't learnt at all and traitors and their progeny are still contesting and sitting in our assemblies. The likes of Achakzai, Mengal and ANP.

The Chinese are in the process of "Hanizing" the Uighurs in order to integrate them into mainstream Chinese culture which is basically Han culture and they are using very harsh measures at times towards this goal.

Just like in Czarist Russia and later Soviet Union the dominant Slavs "Slavicized" their Muslim subjects of the Caucasus and Central Asia, this today you see surnames like Umarov, Kadirov, etc..

Because the Russian and the Han have made it clear from the outset to their subjects: "we won these lands fair and square, therefore we are the dominant authority over these lands. You are our subjects. What we say goes." The Russians and the Han are ruling by the age-old principle of Might Makes Right.

Whereas in democratic societies where the mantra of "equality" is preached, when one group surpasses the other the latter feels that it was cheated.

Our problem was that they were the majority of the population. India had banned all sorts of air-traffic between the two wings and a force of 28000 men was not enough to discipline them. Force was latter raised to 35000 but they had to gaurd the borders had to manage a lot of other things to manage as well besides fighting the 80,000 strong Mukti Bahni which knew the land like the back of their hands.

I do not agree with forcing one group's will over the other though, not in a country like Pakistan at least. We managed to get a grip of Balochistan not by forcing Punjabi domination but through other incentives. By showing them that we were not as bad as they were thinking or were being told through propaganda. Waziristan is being developed despite the fact that the common people there were responsible for making a lot of money through war economy (renting homes and rooms to foreign terrorists, running suicide jacket shops like candy shops etc). The result is that they themselves begin to integerate and there is no need to force-integrate them.
https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/20...ed-baloch-separatists-surrender-in-two-years/
https://www.dawn.com/news/1328362
https://nation.com.pk/10-Dec-2017/300-ferraris-17-commanders-surrender-in-quetta
I agree though that it wouldn't work in case of Benglas.

Besides the wars of Chechnya were a result of this "forced-conversion". Now Putin has become smart, Ramzan has been allowed by Putin to enforce Sharia and put gays in concentration camps.

 

[Desert Fox]

Integration requires some form of commonality. Except for religion, there was none. Language, cuisine, dress, culture, race everything was earth and sky different.
National integration was successful in West Pakistan and no separatist movement could succeed here in the past, and none exists today except for some fringe elements because the regions which form today's Pakistan are geographically contagious.
There are other incentives as well...Pakhtoons know that their future is with Pakistan and not Afghanistan which is a mess. Baluchs have realized that they are better off in Pakistan than a so-called independent Balochistan which will become a colony of others, besides more of them live happily in Punjab than in Balochistan.

True. And this is why i believe that religion alone does not suffice. There has to be cultural and even racial commonalities. Unfortunately there are some people who still think that religion is somehow magical and will change completely different nations of people into one big homogenous mass united towards a single goal. That's not true.

Pakistan's current ethnic groups have coexisted alongside each other for centuries and thus have adapted to one another culturally for the most part. The similarities now outweigh the differences. Whereas Bangladeshis are an entirely different people from us, they're language, dress, customs, traditions are very different from ours. Geography, history, culture and race are major contributing factors to a people's identity.

That piece of trash Mujib should have been hanged, for he had committed treason before the 70 elections.. When you allow traitors to take part in elections, then sh*t happens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agartala_Conspiracy_Case

'Agartala conspiracy case was not false'


Published: 2011-02-23 17:18:04.0 BdST Updated: 2011-02-23 17:18:04.0 BdST

• An accused in the Agartala Conspiracy Case, deputy speaker Shawkat Ali, has told parliament that the charges brought against the accused were not false.

Dhaka, Feb 23 (bdnews24.com)—An accused in the Agartala Conspiracy Case, deputy speaker Shawkat Ali, has told parliament that the charges brought against the accused were not false.

Ali, at the end of a point of order in Wednesday's session, said, "The charges against us read out on the first day of hearing in the case were absolutely right."

"We formed a Sangram Parishad led by Bangabandhu to free East Pakistan through armed protest," he said.

During the point of order session, senior Awami League leader Tofail Ahmed recounted the days before and after the withdrawal of the case on Feb 22, 1969.

He said that the country would not be independent if the case was not filed. "It was not a fake case."

Addressing the deputy speaker, he said, "You planned to liberate the country."

Earlier in a discussion organised at Dhaka University's Senate Bhaban marking the Agartala Case Withdrawal Day, Tofail said the accused in the Agartala case had actually laid the foundation of the country's independence.

Agartala Conspiracy Case was a sedition case filed by the Pakistan government against Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, leader of the then East Pakistan Awami League, and 34 others.

Unfortunately, we haven't learnt at all and traitors and their progeny are still contesting and sitting in our assemblies. The likes of Achakzai, Mengal and ANP.

In hindsight its good we didn't hang him for his treason otherwise to this day he'd be a martyr to his people. His own ended up killing him which was divine justice.

Our problem was that they were the majority of the population. India had banned all sorts of air-traffic between the two wings and a force of 28000 men was not enough to discipline them. Force was latter raised to 35000 but they had to gaurd the borders had to manage a lot of other things to manage as well besides fighting the 80,000 strong Mukti Bahni which knew the land like the back of their hands.

True. Making that area a part of Pakistan was the biggest mistake, but one that was worth it in the end because at least the Ummah delusion can be refuted with such a historical example that religion alone does not suffice to unite completely different peoples into a single homogenous nation.

I do not agree with forcing one group's will over the other though, not in a country like Pakistan at least. We managed to get a grip of Balochistan not by forcing Punjabi domination but through other incentives. By showing them that we were not as bad as they were thinking or were being told through propaganda. Waziristan is being developed despite the fact that the common people there were responsible for making a lot of money through war economy (renting homes and rooms to foreign terrorists, running suicide jacket shops like candy shops etc). The result is that they themselves begin to integerate and there is no need to force-integrate them.
https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/20...ed-baloch-separatists-surrender-in-two-years/
https://www.dawn.com/news/1328362
https://nation.com.pk/10-Dec-2017/300-ferraris-17-commanders-surrender-in-quetta
I agree though that it wouldn't work in case of Benglas.

Neither do i. I was proving a historical point that in any "successful" multicultural state, there cannot be a relationship of equality, but rather only of a dominant group leading the others. This does not mean being unjust to the subject groups. It just means they have a subservient role to the dominant group. Historically this has always been the norm in all civilizations of the past, whether Islamic (with regard to the non-Muslim minorities), Christian, Roman, etc... Only recently this secualr humanism (another form of Marxism) of complete universal equality where a Hindu, Muslim, Homosexual, Feminst all coexist together under one roof happily ever after.

It's not possible. Not even in America or Europe or any other Western country. Only the writ of the massive police state in these countries is holding their multicultural societies together. 99.9% of the Muslim immigrants in the West are there for economic reasons, not because they want to share the same neighborhood with homosexuals or feminists or embrace "individualism" and "freedom of speech".

But in a country like Pakistan where political will does not exist and where society is divided on various fault lines, force is not the best approach. Force is not needed either because centuries of coexistence and Islam has done the work for the most part.

Besides the wars of Chechnya were a result of this "forced-conversion". Now Putin has become smart, Ramzan has been allowed by Putin to enforce Sharia and put gays in concentration camps.

They were, and usually this is what happens when the central force keeping the multicultural structure together itself starts to weaken, then you have the various groups breaking away.

Putin is a smart guy. The collapse of Communism has given him the excuse to remove state-enforced atheism from all of Russia which was the main excuse many Saudi-funded groups used to wage war against the "Godless" Russian rule over Muslim lands. Now Putin took that away from them. The Russians today are using the carrot & stick approach where they have allowed a significant autonomy to the Muslims of Caucasus in running their own internal affairs while at the same time keeping a tab on that region to remind them that in the end they are still a part of the Russian Federation.

But that isn't to say that the Chechens would never attempt to secede should they get the opportunity again. I'm sure they would. They're like our Pashtuns from the Tribal areas, only ten times the intensity and they're very proud of their Chechen identity. They're not fond of even other Muslims marrying Chechens which is why it is rare if it has ever happened.