kalu_miah's new world order, a road map for the future

[scholseys]

I don't see bangladesh joining aseam korea japam in it. If anything we will end up joining India, Indian business have already started to come to Bangladesh. Businesses in Bangladesh will face stiffer competition from India and at the end we will lose out to India, their bank interest is 8-9% where our bank interest ranges from 11-13%, you can't compete with that. No conflict is based on religion, it all comes down to economic interest. We have already given india, the transit the next phase will be giving them free trade. The plans have already been submitted to world bank.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...&sig=AHIEtbR_ZqhkZgl_8jrZB2Vc-vOTAAdVLg&pli=1

 

[American Pakistani]

Have all Bangladeshi been fed the same garbage since their childhood that they keep parroting same line again and again? Indian Muslims are a force by their own accord and achieved much more than their peers in Bangladesh.

Let me reiterate the same line, although cliched but true - Indian Muslims are more literate and earn more and growing at a faster pace than Bangladeshi or Pakistani Muslims.

Nobody wants to take over Bangladesh, it's a country without any natural resource and teaming with people even more poorer than us. And your undying hatred for us doesn't seem to stop the inward migration from BD to India of both Hindu and Muslims. Bangladesh seems to be inhabitable for both communities.

Don't prove yourself to be a joker.

 

[LaBong]

Don't prove yourself to be a joker.

The joke is on you noodle!

Economic | Indian Muslims

Literacy rate of Indian Muslims was 60% back in 2001 as opposed some 50%+- in Pakistan. Check the TFR as well.

 

[somebozo]

Kallu Mia could be Altaf Bhai in disguise who sees himself as the emperor of this world mega union.

 

[kalu_miah]

your time line is way to streatched. in a way , its rite, but, you integrate 2 massive wars in this simulation and the predictions will shrink....i am seeing one world goverment by 2050.

Wars will expedite the time line, nothing like wars to clear up delusions in human minds. But I am afraid MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) makes massive wars next to impossible.

 

[kalu_miah]

What is the relevance of the first premise in your hypothesis?

The relevance is that no country or nation state should be allowed to concentrate too much power relative to other countries in the world, if that happens, then they become corrupt and mess up the world for their benefit and to the detriment of everyone else. This can be seen from the history of all powerful empires down to present day sole super power US of A and the emerging one such as China and aspiring one such as India.

This applies to politics as well, where political parties concentrate power in their hand to the detriment of the voting public. So I support abolition of political parties and only allowing independent candidates to run for elections. That should be the next evolutionary step for democracy. But that is another off topic discussion.

 

[scholseys]

The relevance is that no country or nation state should be allowed to concentrate too much power relative to other countries in the world, if that happens, then they become corrupt and mess up the world for their benefit and to the detriment of everyone else. This can be seen from the history of all powerful empires down to present day sole super power US of A and the emerging one such as China and aspiring one such as India.

This applies to politics as well, where political parties concentrate power in their hand to the detriment of the voting public. So I support abolition of political parties and only allowing independent candidates to run for elections. That should be the next evolutionary step for democracy. But that is another off topic discussion.

the next evolutionary step for democracy and capitalism is socialism according to this chap from Britain called Karl Marx. It has already started in the US where the corporations are going to be taxed more and the state having more power in the corporations. China took a short cut here they have a hybrid of capitalism and socialism, very smart move by deng ziaopeng. Marx said that for a communist state to work, it must switch from a successful capitalist state, Xiaopeng took a short cut and it is paying off for China.

 

[kalu_miah]

I don't see bangladesh joining aseam korea japam in it. If anything we will end up joining India, Indian business have already started to come to Bangladesh. Businesses in Bangladesh will face stiffer competition from India and at the end we will lose out to India, their bank interest is 8-9% where our bank interest ranges from 11-13%, you can't compete with that. No conflict is based on religion, it all comes down to economic interest. We have already given india, the transit the next phase will be giving them free trade. The plans have already been submitted to world bank.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...&sig=AHIEtbR_ZqhkZgl_8jrZB2Vc-vOTAAdVLg&pli=1

I have no problem with free trade or transit (for the right price, including fair share of our water from common rivers and fair resolution of other mutual issues), but dada's are notorious about creating non-tariff barriers to our product, I have to see it to believe how much balanced trade we can develop.

But this is completely different from security and political arena, where I support that Bangladesh declare SAARC as only relevant for trade and economics and nothing more.

Indians in general do not want to create any kind of future union with Bangladesh or Pakistan, mainly because they are glad that these two Muslim majority parts were cut-off from British India and now they have an overwhelming Hindu majority, where they call the shots, without any competition from a size-able Muslim population (today there are 500 million Muslim population in the subcontinent - India, Pakistan and Bangladesh).

Bangladesh may want to join India as some would like to think, but India's majority population will never vote for such an union in the foreseeable future. Why should they? They are big enough as it is and they have enough problems of their own to solve and manage. Specially they do not need additional problem infested state like ours, not to mention "Islamist zealots" and "Muslim terrorists" that go with it as well. Indians are ok with a political union with all other nation states, other than Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan (Nepal, Bhutan, Srilanka and Maldives are ok). A large majority of Bangladesh population are naive and unaware of political undercurrents within India and the aggressive Hindu nationalist streak that is on the rise there.

So in a way, Bangladesh, have no other choice, but to look for other options, if we think we want to become a part of another larger union of nation states. Fortunately, our small land border with Myanmar gives us an opportunity to connect and integrate with ASEAN, first economically and with trade with more developed land routes (roads and railways) through Myanmar. Once we are able to achieve a developed country status and reach high HDI level, only then countries in ASEAN, Japan or Korea may think of closer unions, that future is still a long way off.

Years ago, I used to think that economics is the only thing that matters, but when I started talking to people about this, I realized that religion and its after effect still plays a major role in politics. If you look at politics in the US, it is a demonstration of this fact. Turkey's being rebuffed from EU is another demonstration. Religion may be on the wane, but it still affects politics and may do so for the foreseeable future. One cannot understand the world system and its future transformation without understanding the role of religious meme's among the human population.

Kallu Mia could be Altaf Bhai in disguise who sees himself as the emperor of this world mega union.

I am not a politico, lets just say that my personal details are not important. If I can raise some awareness among people and some new perspective to look at things, my job will be done.

 

[scholseys]

I have no problem with free trade or transit (for the right price, including fair share of our water from common rivers and fair resolution of other mutual issues), but dada's are notorious about creating non-tariff barriers to our product, I have to see it to believe how much balanced trade we can develop.

But this is completely different from security and political arena, where I support that Bangladesh declare SAARC as only relevant for trade and economics and nothing more.

Indians in general do not want to create any kind of future union with Bangladesh or Pakistan, mainly because they are glad that these two Muslim majority parts were cut-off from British India and now they have an overwhelming Hindu majority, where they call the shots, without any competition from a size-able Muslim population (today there are 500 million Muslim population in the subcontinent - India, Pakistan and Bangladesh).

Bangladesh may want to join India as some would like to think, but India's majority population will never vote for such an union in the foreseeable future. Why should they? They are big enough as it is and they have enough problems of their own to solve and manage. Specially they do not need additional problem infested state like ours, not to mention "Islamist zealots" and "Muslim terrorists" that go with it as well. Indians are ok with a political union with all other nation states, other than Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan (Nepal, Bhutan, Srilanka and Maldives are ok). A large majority of Bangladesh population are naive and unaware of political undercurrents within India and the aggressive Hindu nationalist streak that is on the rise there.

So in a way, Bangladesh, have no other choice, but to look for other options, if we think we want to become a part of another larger union of nation states. Fortunately, our small land border with Myanmar gives us an opportunity to connect and integrate with ASEAN, first economically and with trade with more developed land routes (roads and railways) through Myanmar. Once we are able to achieve a developed country status and reach high HDI level, only then countries in ASEAN, Japan or Korea may think of closer unions, that future is still a long way off.

Years ago, I used to think that economics is the only thing that matters, but when I started talking to people about this, I realized that religion and its after effect still plays a major role in politics. If you look at politics in the US, it is a demonstration of this fact. Turkey's being rebuffed from EU is another demonstration. Religion may be on the wane, but it still affects politics and may do so for the foreseeable future. One cannot understand the world system and its future transformation without understanding the role of religious meme's among the human population.

I have my personal interests for not supporting the free trade but as it would kill our businesses but a union with the India seems more likely than a union with Japan, korea ..... Japanese do not like other nationalities in their country even though their population is shrinking. Plus bringing Bangladesh into the Union would put huge strains on the economies of Japan, korea and the asean nations. To me a union with India seems more likely economically feasible for India. Nationalism always takes a backseat when it comes to economic interests. If the German and the French can come to one, then I don't see why Bangladesh and India cannot. After this generation, the next generation would be much liberal in the sub-continent and the generation after will be even more liberal in terms of religiosity.

 

[kalu_miah]

the next evolutionary step for democracy and capitalism is socialism according to this chap from Britain called Karl Marx. It has already started in the US where the corporations are going to be taxed more and the state having more power in the corporations. China took a short cut here they have a hybrid of capitalism and socialism, very smart move by deng ziaopeng. Marx said that for a communist state to work, it must switch from a successful capitalist state, Xiaopeng took a short cut and it is paying off for China.

Karl Marx was a German:
Karl Marx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He had an interesting idea, but there were many holes in this idea. Unfortunately his ideas were adopted and localized by Lenin, Mao etc. who put their own spin in it to suit their own situations and whims. That is part of history.

But I support socialist welfare system, which is currently in practice in Scandinavian countries:
Nordic model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Democratic socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Social democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The difference between these new socialist type structures is that they come out of democratic systems out of popular demand, rather than some totalitarian one party rule, which was true in many older marxist/socialist systems and is still true in China, which is essentially a totalitarian govt., but allows capitalism to flourish under its own structure.

Deng Xio Peng was definitely a brilliant man, and helped China get out of the mess that Mao and his followers had created, but that unfortunately provides no model for Bangladesh, as we are already a country with multi-party democracy, although, in reality the parties are nothing but clans of hoodlums.

 

[scholseys]

Karl Marx was a German:
Karl Marx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He had an interesting idea, but there were many holes in this idea. Unfortunately his ideas were adopted and localized by Lenin, Mao etc. who put their own spin in it to suit their own situations and whims. That is part of history.

But I support socialist welfare system, which is currently in practice in Scandinavian countries:
Nordic model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Democratic socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Social democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The difference between these new socialist type structures is that they come out of democratic systems out of popular demand, rather than some totalitarian one party rule, which was true in many older marxist/socialist systems and is still true in China, which is essentially a totalitarian govt., but allows capitalism to flourish under its own structure.

Deng Xio Peng was definitely a brilliant man, and helped China get out of the mess that Mao and his followers had created, but that unfortunately provides no model for Bangladesh, as we are already a country with multi-party democracy, although, in reality the parties are nothing but clans of hoodlums.

sorry, my bad marx is german i was probably sleeping during my sociology class. Hr did his major work in London though.

As i have stated earlier by karl marx the transition has to be from a prosperous capitalist state, one of the major reasons why communism failed in the USSR, lenin switched from feudalism to communism. So did mao, thus millions died of hunger and famine.

Bangladesh is a fairly young country, give it some time, i remember when I was young there were strikes atleast 4-5 days of the month, now the strikes are far between, it is indeed improving. Let our per capita GDP increase to $1500, the government will have less power in the country. Our right wing and left wing are slowly maturing. Next step will be to denationalize a few more public companies that have too much corruption in them like TNT. Already talks are being held at the top level to denationalize the water.

 

[kalu_miah]

I have my personal interests for not supporting the free trade but as it would kill our businesses but a union with the India seems more likely than a union with Japan, korea ..... Japanese do not like other nationalities in their country even though their population is shrinking. Plus bringing Bangladesh into the Union would put huge strains on the economies of Japan, korea and the asean nations. To me a union with India seems more likely economically feasible for India. Nationalism always takes a backseat when it comes to economic interests. If the German and the French can come to one, then I don't see why Bangladesh and India cannot. After this generation, the next generation would be much liberal in the sub-continent and the generation after will be even more liberal in terms of religiosity.

Please try to understand the points I am trying to make. Religion is still relevant for some, it may not be relevant for you and I, but it is for a whole lot of people in India, who do not like Muslims, and do not want more of them in their country. Just consider the case of Nepal, they have an open border policy with Nepal, and allow the Nepalese to get jobs not just in Indian privately owned business, but Gurkha's even have their own regiment in the Indian Army, although its a carry over tradition from the British period. With Bangladesh, they are not just building fences on the border, BSF continue to use Bangladeshi civilians for target practice and they are constantly harping about a bogus idea that a large number of Bangladeshi migrants have moved to India, which I have a feeling is a prelude to push in more poor West Bengal Muslims, who did not bother to get their citizenship papers.

German and French can come together, but they failed to agree on what to do about a Muslim Turkey.

If you do not agree with my opinion on this, I would welcome you to open up a thread with heading:

"Bangladesh will join in a union with India"

I would then let the Indians do the convincing, which I am failing at it seems. Also, you can register and post in many Indian forums on the web about this idea and see what kind of responses you get. And then you can talk to everyday Indians, specially Hindu Indians, and see what kind of responses they give you. All I can say is that you are not very much in touch with the ground reality on this issue. Because, as I said, I used to think like you are thinking now, it makes perfect logical sense for Bangladesh to be a part of India. But lets not forget that our forefathers actually worked to create a Pakistan which created these borders drawn by Sir Radcliffe and the conditions that led to the partition are still very much at play and will be there for the foreseeable future. It all goes back to history with Islams arrival in India and Bengal with Turko-Mongol nomads and unfortunately some can never forgive and forget that history, and I do not blame them for that either. But to not recognize this reality is to get set up to be misled and fooled into a blind alley with no way out towards a better future for our 160 million people.

 

[scholseys]

Please try to understand the points I am trying to make. Religion is still relevant for some, it may not be relevant for you and I, but it is for a whole lot of people in India, who do not like Muslims, and do not want more of them in their country. Just consider the case of Nepal, they have an open border policy with Nepal, and allow the Nepalese to get jobs not just in Indian privately owned business, but Gurkha's even have their own regiment in the Indian Army, although its a carry over tradition from the British period. With Bangladesh, they are not just building fences on the border, BSF continue to use Bangladeshi civilians for target practice and they are constantly harping about a bogus idea that a large number of Bangladeshi migrants have moved to India, which I have a feeling is a prelude to push in more poor West Bengal Muslims, who did not bother to get their citizenship papers.

German and French can come together, but they failed to agree on what to do about a Muslim Turkey.

If you do not agree with my opinion on this, I would welcome you to open up a thread with heading:

"Bangladesh will join in a union with India"

I would then let the Indians do the convincing, which I am failing at it seems. Also, you can register and post in many Indian forums on the web about this idea and see what kind of responses you get. And then you can talk to everyday Indians, specially Hindu Indians, and see what kind of responses they give you. All I can say is that you are not very much in touch with the ground reality on this issue. Because, as I said, I used to think like you are thinking now, it makes perfect logical sense for Bangladesh to be a part of India. But lets not forget that our forefathers actually worked to create a Pakistan which created these borders drawn by Sir Radcliffe and the conditions that led to the partition are still very much at play and will be there for the foreseeable future. It all goes back to history with Islams arrival in India and Bengal with Turko-Mongol nomads and unfortunately some can never forgive and forget that history, and I do not blame them for that either. But to not recognize this reality is to get set up to be misled and fooled into a blind alley with no way out towards a better future for our 160 million people.

I see your point here. But why would japan korea want to take us? we are very away from them, our economy compared to their's is simply comical. What does bangladesh have to offer them besides man power?

 

[kalu_miah]

sorry, my bad marx is german i was probably sleeping during my sociology class. Hr did his major work in London though.

As i have stated earlier by karl marx the transition has to be from a prosperous capitalist state, one of the major reasons why communism failed in the USSR, lenin switched from feudalism to communism. So did mao, thus millions died of hunger and famine.

Bangladesh is a fairly young country, give it some time, i remember when I was young there were strikes atleast 4-5 days of the month, now the strikes are far between, it is indeed improving. Let our per capita GDP increase to $1500, the government will have less power in the country. Our right wing and left wing are slowly maturing. Next step will be to denationalize a few more public companies that have too much corruption in them like TNT. Already talks are being held at the top level to denationalize the water.

The good thing that the two Begums did, which I give them credit for, is that they established democracy and put the army back in the barracks and cantonments, where they belong. Armed forces should protect the country, they are not trained to run a country and they should not touch it with a ten foot pole. Every time Army comes into picture, they mess things up, which is what happened with MUA and FUA, as our M_Saint bhai mentioned in one of his posts.

If we look at Pakistan, they still have Army controlling politics, which is one of the major problems for this country. At least Bangladesh has been out of that vicious cycle since 1991. So, yes things are improving slowly in Bangladesh, but a lot of things need to be done. For these details we will discuss further in the Bangladesh defense portion in some other threads, as we are going off topic in this thread.

But what is important for every country that wants to be part of a bigger union, is to democratize, democratize and democratize. How do we do that? We need to organize our civil society, people who are internet literate, can absorb information from many different sources, form their own opinion and then voice this opinion. The Arab spring started a new wave, Indignados and Occupy Wall Street movement is a subsequent wave that started in EU and USA. For other countries where the reach of the internet is not as much as it is in the developed countries, we can start organizing with the people who have internet access, who can be considered a part of the civil society of a particular country. The main goals for these movements is to:

- bring power back to the 99%, from the 1% elite
- use more consensus decision making among the 99% from grass roots level, using the web
- finally let the 99% people decide their future, not the 1% elite, including the political class who are an integral part of the 1% (this includes Hasina, Khaleda, Assad, Zardari, Imran Khan, Democrats, Republicans, Putin, Mullah's of Iran et al)

If we cannot unite the people (at least the internet literate civil society part), then we would have no way to move forward towards a better future for our people in our individual countries and work towards creating powerful unions to withstand threats from larger nation states, which had the advantage of accidents of history on their side.

 

[kalu_miah]

I see your point here. But why would japan korea want to take us? we are very away from them, our economy compared to their's is simply comical. What does bangladesh have to offer them besides man power?

Good question. Japan and South Korea are developed countries, although some would consider South Korea to be just getting there and not just there yet. For South Korean's these kind of thinking is new. Joseon Korea became a Japanese colony for 35 years (1910-1945), then they were divided up by the US and Russia into capitalist South and communist North. These two parts then fought a devastating war killing millions and became one of the places where powers like US under NATO was on one side and China and Russia on the other side. It ended in an armistice which still holds to this day, but remains a volatile place because of the mercurial and whimsical rulers in North Korea. So North Koreans are not in a position to think in these lines, because they are still essentially a Chinese vassal state. South Korea, with its improving economy and high HDI (Human Development Index, UN, please google) level, are still new to the high table of global geo-politics. One thing I know, however, from personal experience, is that they are very quick learners.

Japanese, on the other hand, are old hands in these geo-political games. Please look at the following:
Empire of Japan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Japanese have been involved in these areas and there is no reason why the old motivations cannot be revived when the power of the US and the West is going down in relative terms every day compared to the rest of the world. While China and India is trying to become the old status quo powers like before 500 years, there is no reason why Japan cannot lead a group of democratic nations that are smaller and feel threatened by these two rising giants.

Now why and how Bangladesh should be welcome in this group. To be fair, we are one of the poorest countries of the world, so at this moment it remains a good country as a cheap labor source and not much else. To become a power and become something of value for others as an ally, we need to improve the HDI level of our human resources, that is the challenge. Unless we can manage our affairs better and show ourselves to be worthy, we will not be welcome in ASEAN or in the ASEAN+2 grouping to make it a ASEAN+3 (not to be confused with ASEAN+Japan+South Korea+China). So at this point in time, it may seem like a lost cause, but over time, if we play our cards right, this is one direction I see some hope for our country and its future. It will not be easy, but I believe it can be done.

Both Japanese and Koreans are fairly homogeneous mono-ethnic nations and quite xenophobic. But one of their advantages is that they are geographically disconnected from the ASEAN main land. So they do not need to worry about a demographic invasion of hungry economic migrants. They are not even close to ASEAN main land, like EU is to Africa, where African migrants invade by boat loads. So the main objection may come from other ASEAN countries rather than Japan or South Korea about inclusion of Bangladesh. For that we will need to make sure that we reach a GDP similar to one of the middle GDP countries in ASEAN. And working on a EU like union does not mean that people will migrate en mass which will destabilize other societies. What it will mean is that they will unite politically and militarily so that as a group, they can face larger threats, which they cannot manage individually. And this integration will be done like EU in stages over many decades, with full democratic will of the voting public and by educating them about the advantages of such unions.