INDIA’S MARITIME CLAIMS Bangladesh files protests at UN

[DalalErMaNodi]

What do you mean by religiously ambiguous. Having equal number of Hindus and Muslims in an independent nation of united Bengal would essentially make it secular, right?
Jinnah was okay with this Bengal secular nation being not part of Pakistan?

So you continue with the 'soul eating' language out of respect for Jinnah?
But you do not follow his other direction of keeping religion and state separate? You do know that Jinnah did not want Pakistan to turn into an Islamic state.

Yes, secular state is what I meant..


Yes, he was.. besides he wasn't as influencial in Bengal anyway, we don't trust outsiders to decide our fate.




And Bangladesh itself is secular.. no Hindu ever got lynched here for their religious beliefs since I don't know what atleast not in the past 15 years, If ever.


The most practical form of secularism is practiced in Bangladesh.. and don't expect it to be like western secularism, we as a society in this region aren't there yet.

 

[magra]

As far as I know British wanted both wings to be one country, Jinnah didn't due to geographical reasons
But when they said it's only one-way street, 2 wings Idea was accepted

Multiple things were happening at the same time, probably this independent Bengal was his way of strengthening the case for seperate countries
Who knows, confusing times

So if the British opposed Jinnah's move, why are you blaming things on Congress or WB people?

Well in all practical terms Pakistan follows no Shariah, you can do whatever the hell you want short of public indecency

It's an Islamic republic in name to appease religious people, somewhere along the line someone may have done added couple of laws but they get repealed except for the politically contentious ones like Muslim PM and blasphemy laws
They will too in due time, wait and watch...
Pakistan is inherently a somewhat liberal society (except for some areas), Saudi waves cannot completely change the people
Things go back to thier natural ways

You are watering down a lot of contentious stuff. Blasphemy laws, for example, are a big issue and not something lightly brushed off.
Pakistan's support to extremist groups such as Taliban (your PM was openly elated at Taliban's victory) does not point towards a liberal society.

 

[Michael Corleone]

That was one incident 20 years ago during Khaleda Zia's hostile anti-Indian govt.

Nope. Hasina government was in charge at the time

 

[magra]

Yes, secular state is what I meant..

Yes, he was.. besides he wasn't as influencial in Bengal anyway, we don't trust outsiders to decide our fate.

And Bangladesh itself is secular.. no Hindu ever got lynched here for their religious beliefs since I don't know what atleast not in the past 15 years, If ever.

The most practical form of secularism is practiced in Bangladesh.. and don't expect it to be like western secularism, we as a society in this region aren't there yet.

As per what @Sainthood 101 is answering, British shot down this '3 nation' formula. They were only okay with 2 nations. So even with a Pakistan comprising of West Pak + united Bengal, Hindus would have been a minority in such a nation.
Why would then Hindus of WB willing choose to be a minority?

Nope. Hasina government was in charge at the time

okay.. however it was one time incident 20 years ago. We cannot let it affect our ties with our ally.

 

[Maula Jatt]

So if the British opposed Jinnah's move, why are you blaming things on Congress or WB people?

I would blame the brits for A-not accepting this, B- probably Hindu mashasaba also didn't accept it
Both can happen, but what I am sure of is British rejected the idea of independent Bengal despite what Bengali leaders, Jinnah wanted
It had to be under the name of Pakistan dominion

Maybe this "independent" Bengal (if it was suggested after British saying "no") was supposed to serve as an autonomous republic like Hong Kong or even something like Australia is to UK?

(alright I'll try to research to get some sort of evidence when I get the time hopefully in 1-2 days- Jinnah wanted independent Bangal that's for sure- evidence is needed if British rejected it (or its part of villainizing the colonizer) or WB rejected it or if both did it who did it first?)
This is the contention

 

[Michael Corleone]

okay.. however it was one time incident 20 years ago. We cannot let it affect our ties with our ally.

You’re avoiding the fact that Bangladeshis will not bend over backwards to please india. If india messes with us they’ll pay dearly.

 

[El Sidd]

okay.. however it was one time incident 20 years ago. We cannot let it affect our ties with our ally.

This is a region where history is measured in thousands of years not hundreds.

Pakistan is legally tangled in this too.

 

[DalalErMaNodi]

As per what @Sainthood 101 is answering, British shot down this '3 nation' formula. They were only okay with 2 nations. So even with a Pakistan comprising of West Pak + united Bengal, Hindus would have been a minority in such a nation.
Why would then Hindus of WB willing choose to be a minority?

They agreed to it, why are you listening to him ? I asked you to read up on what I said.. look up the proposal that was tabled by the last prime minister of Bengal Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy.


He conceived of the idea, got everyone on board including the Brits and Jinnah.. only the Brahmins disagreed with his proposal.



Even now those same fearmongers are operating in WB under guise of BJP, which interestingly was an offshoot or atleast was influenced by syama prasad mukherjee the head of the Hindu mahasaba of Bengal.


Meanwhile, Indians are crying about Bangladeshi infiltratrators while in reality our tourists run the West Bengal and particularly Kolkatan economy.

I would blame the brits for A-not accepting this, B- probably Hindu mashasaba also didn't accept it
Both can happen, but what I am sure of is British rejected the idea of independent Bengal despite what Bengali leaders, Jinnah wanted
It had to be under the name of Pakistan dominion

Maybe this "independent" Bengal (if it was suggested after British saying "no") was supposed to serve as an autonomous republic like Hong Kong or even something like Australia is to UK?

It was to be an independent sovereign state under dominion of the United Kingdom; The Freestate of Bengal.

 

[magra]

I would blame the brits for A-not accepting this, B- probably Hindu mashasaba also didn't accept it
Both can happen, but what I am sure of is British rejected the idea of independent Bengal despite what Bengali leaders, Jinnah wanted
It had to be under the name of Pakistan dominion

Maybe this "independent" Bengal (if it was suggested after British saying "no") was supposed to serve as an autonomous republic like Hong Kong or even something like Australia is to UK?

Even if Hindu Mahasabha "probably" did not accept it, it did not matter since British did not accept it, right? So the matter ends there?

You’re avoiding the fact that Bangladeshis will not bend over backwards to please india. If india messes with us they’ll pay dearly.

Am I asking BD to do acrobatics for India?

Pakistan is legally tangled in this too.

Really? I thought Pak wanted to move on and do not want to recall your joint past with BD.

 

[El Sidd]

Really? I thought Pak wanted to move on and do not want to recall your joint past with BD.

This is a dispute inherited by Bangladesh from her Pakistani past.

 

[magra]

They agreed to it, why are you listening to him ? I asked you to read up on what I said.. look up the proposal that was tabled by the last prime minister of Bengal Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy.

He conceived of the idea, got everyone on board including the Brits and Jinnah.. only the Brahmins disagreed with his proposal.

Okay, so as per you, @Sainthood 101 is confused. British and Jinnah agreed on the '3 nation' formula?
This united Bengal with 50% Hindu and 50% Muslim population would have been secular with possibly a Hindu leader or a Muslim leader, right?

Our tourists run the West Bengal and particularly Kolkatan economy.

If WB really did make a bad choice in not joining united Bengal and is now worse off, why is it that it attracts so many tourists from BD and not the other way round?

It was to be an independent sovereign state under dominion of the United Kingdom; The Freestate of Bengal.

'Independent sovereign' and 'dominion' are oxymorons. You need to be clear man. Freestate of Bengal would have been completely independent or still under UK rule?

 

[DalalErMaNodi]

Okay, so as per you, @Sainthood 101 is confused. British and Jinnah agreed on the '3 nation' formula?
This united Bengal with 50% Hindu and 50% Muslim population would have been secular with possibly a Hindu leader or a Muslim leader, right?


If WB really did make a bad choice in not joining united Bengal and is now worse off, why is it that it attracts so many tourists from BD and not the other way round?


'Independent sovereign' and 'dominion' are oxymorons. You need to be clear man. Freestate of Bengal would have been completely independent or still under UK rule?

Do you understand how tourism works ?

Can't be tourist, If you have no money.. BD has a massive middle class when compared to WB, who travel to WB for a quick vacation.



India and Pakistan were released as dominions of the United Kingdom, do you never read history ??





And yes, a unifirdy Bengali state based on secular principles and a government formed on the basis of power sharing.

 

[magra]

Do you understand how tourism works ?

Can't be tourist, If you have no money.. BD has a massive middle class when compared to WB, who travel to WB for a quick vacation.

You are assuming that WB people do not go on tourism. The only fact we see is that they do not tour BD much. May be they go elsewhere - rest of India, other countries. What does BD offer to WB people in tourism that WB itself or rest of India cant?

India and Pakistan were released as dominions of the United Kingdom, do you never read history ??

India and Pakistan became fully independent in 1947, not dominion status to UK. In 1920s, Indian leaders were demanding only dominion status but later the demand was upgraded to full independence.
In dominion status, India / Pak would have to acknowledge England's Queen as our queen / head of state, which is clearly not the case.

And yes, a unifirdy Bengali state based on secular principles and a government formed on the basis of power sharing.

This is where I would request you to provide proof that such a plan (of 50% Hindu, 50% Muslim secular state) was approved by British and Muslim League but rejected by Congress.

 

[DalalErMaNodi]

You are assuming that WB people do not go on tourism. The only fact we see is that they do not tour BD much. May be they go elsewhere - rest of India, other countries. What does BD offer to WB people in tourism that WB itself or rest of India cant?


India and Pakistan became fully independent in 1947, not dominion status to UK. In 1920s, Indian leaders were demanding only dominion status but later the demand was upgraded to full independence.
In dominion status, India / Pak would have to acknowledge England's Queen as our queen / head of state, which is clearly not the case.


This is where I would request you to provide proof that such a plan (of 50% Hindu, 50% Muslim secular state) was approved by British and Muslim League but rejected by Congress.

Dominion of India - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Dominion of Pakistan - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

A third dominion? How the plans for a United Bengal fell through

The proposal of a United Bengal and its rejection thereafter though, was rooted in years of communal conflict that had emerged in the province, especially since the mid-1930s.

indianexpress.com

 

[magra]

Dominion of India - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Dominion of Pakistan - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So this dominions were dominions only in name. We were not answerable to UK in any manner since 1947. And after adoption of our respective constitutions (India - 1950, Pak - 1956), we were dominions no longer.

A third dominion? How the plans for a United Bengal fell through

The proposal of a United Bengal and its rejection thereafter though, was rooted in years of communal conflict that had emerged in the province, especially since the mid-1930s.

indianexpress.com

I am unable to read the full article as it needs registration. Can you post the full article here.