What's new

Question to Pakistan and China

Whole fighting between these countries pak, India, and bd is game set by british. If Kashmir were an independent country, which choice was given to them and they couldn't make that choice and on the north east if when bangla was divided into two parts in british ruling era, one west bengal and other east bangla with the whole assam, and instead of two countries if there were three countries like Pakistan, India and Greater bengal then the whole south asia would've stayed balanced. We would have good relationship and I would say we would've gone more than south korea or brazil or mexico. Isn't it? Extinct British empire's hand still playing in the subcontinent. Now don't say I want greater bengal, it was hypothetical example.
 
.
why these Chinese derail each and every thread!!

Read my posts please, I am the one answering the question in the OP. :wave:

Yep, Indians are already paranoid enough about a "two-front war" with China+Pakistan, and the possibility that this time we may target the "chicken's neck corridor" and cut off the entire NE India. :azn:

The Indian Army has already made a statement saying that they cannot ever hope to match us.

So the last thing they would do, is get themselves involved in a military conflict in Bangladesh, with China sitting right on the border of Arunachal Pradesh, and Pakistan sitting right on the border of Jammu and Kashmir. They could end up with the possibility of a three-front war, even when they have already admitted they cannot even beat China alone.
 
.
u almost make me google about Bangladesh!!!

Are you really trying to lecture me about my own country city boy? :lol:

Just because it says it's a 'Unitary Parliamentary Democracy' doesn't mean it's a full Democracy. And elections are only part of a Democracy.

And yeah, that's why they call it Wikipedia :lol:

Let's see the Democracy Index:
83. Bangladesh.........5.86.......Hybrid Regime.
http://www.sida.se/Global/About Sida/Så arbetar vi/EIU_Democracy_Index_Dec2011.pdf

Even the courts are controlled by the government. That means whoever gets elected, controls the courts and immune to justice.
 
.
Whole fighting between these countries pak, India, and bd is game set by british. If Kashmir were an independent country, which choice was given to them and they couldn't make that choice and on the north east if when bangla was divided into two parts in british ruling era, one west bengal and other east bangla with the whole assam, and instead of two countries if there were three countries like Pakistan, India and Greater bengal then the whole south asia would've stayed balanced. We would have good relationship and I would say we would've gone more than south korea or brazil or mexico. Isn't it? British hand still plays a big role in south asia. Now don't say I want greater bengal, it was hypothetical example.

All your great Grandpa and Grandpa betrayed Indian Bengalis in 1905 and again in 1947 and now in 2011 you are caring about Greater Bangladesh because you need more dwelling place for your population explosion.
 
. .
Whole fighting between these countries pak, India, and bd is game set by british. If Kashmir were an independent country, which choice was given to them and they couldn't make that choice and on the north east if when bangla was divided into two parts in british ruling era, one west bengal and other east bangla with the whole assam, and instead of two countries if there were three countries like Pakistan, India and Greater bengal then the whole south asia would've stayed balanced. We would have good relationship and I would say we would've gone more than south korea or brazil or mexico. Isn't it? British hand still plays a big role in south asia. Now don't say I want greater bengal, it was hypothetical example.

The British don't have any active hand in South Asia at present.

But I agree, the whole map was flawed to begin with. Much of the blame does go to founding fathers.
 
.
Whole fighting between these countries pak, India, and bd is game set by british. If Kashmir were an independent country, which choice was given to them and they couldn't make that choice and on the north east if when bangla was divided into two parts in british ruling era, one west bengal and other east bangla with the whole assam, and instead of two countries if there were three countries like Pakistan, India and Greater bengal then the whole south asia would've stayed balanced. We would have good relationship and I would say we would've gone more than south korea or brazil or mexico. Isn't it? Extinct British empire's hand still playing in the subcontinent. Now don't say I want greater bengal, it was hypothetical example.

Kashmir was an independent country until it got attacked by Pakistan.
 
.
[/COLOR]anyway amardesh is a jehadi newspaper run by head conspiracy theorist joynal abedin and was banned in bd once, munshi wrote a long rant after the ban.

---------- Post added at 12:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:11 PM ----------

It is the Bangladeshi version of rupee news with less imagination.
 
. .
And then it got claimed by India. Oh wait, wasn't Kashmir an independent country in Indians eyes?

You need to brush up your knowledge on the issue.

According to the instruments of accession relating to the Partition of India, the rulers of princely states were to be given the choice of either acceding to India or Pakistan.[10] However, the Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh tried to avoid accession to either country. Following a Muslim revolution in the Poonch and Mirpur area[6] and an allegedly Pakistani backed[7]:18 Pashtun tribal intervention from the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa that aimed at supporting the revolution,[11][12] the Maharaja asked for Indian military assistance. India set a condition that Kashmir must accede to India for it to receive assistance. The Maharaja complied, and the Government of India recognized the accession of the erstwhile princely state to India. Indian troops were sent to the state to defend it. The Jammu & Kashmir National Conference volunteers aided the Indian Army in its campaign to drive out the Pathan invaders.
 
.
I believe no one should help them even if what he claims is true, bengalis should remember what they did to Pakistan in 1971
 
.
Pakistan probably won't because we have other headache and Bangladesh is really no benefit to Pakistan. Older generations have not forgot 1971.

China might supply the anti-indian Bangladeshis with arms, but I doubt they'll go on a one-on-one direct conflict with india over Bangladesh, maybe they will to free the disputed territories claimed by China that is occupied by india and is near the border with Bangladesh.

Bangladesh has 160 million people. India can not force that many people in their union. Bangladeshi army should put a leash on that Hasina.
 
. .
It would depend overall if Bangladeshi People accept this , UN would more likely get involved. However I likely see providing Weapons as long as there are people who are willing to fight. Indians on here like to accuse us of support for the Indian Maoist which was proven false, maybe we can gave all the imaginary weapons they claim to bangladesh :D
 
.
if we are talking about choice of rulers of princely states then the prince of junagadh area decided to accede to Pakistan but indian army annexed it, india is a terrorist nation truly

Point is that if Pakistan didn't invade the Independent state of Jammu and Kashmir, India would have never got involved in that issue.

You could draw parallel with Junagarh if the Maharaja had decided to join India instead of staying independent.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom