What's new

Why did Bangladesh become an independent country and did not re-merge with India?

Slog

Senior Test Player
Joined
Feb 15, 2015
Runs
28,984
Post of the Week
1
There’s a school of thought which says that the separation of East Pakistan was a blow to the two nation theory.

If it was why did the East Pakistanis / Bengalis still want to remain a separate country and effectively state that the Muslim Bengalis were still a separate nation to Hindu Bengalis?

Do you think Bengalis from the region would have been open to idea of merging into one state with West Bengal and being part of India?
 
Interestingly, I was recently reading a book which mentioned that at one stage Mountbatten had proposed dividing India into three entities; Pakistan, India and a third state combining East and West Bengal. In fact in his opinion this independent Bengal would have been the most viable of all three states. The idea however was immediately shot down by Nehru.
 
Interestingly, I was recently reading a book which mentioned that at one stage Mountbatten had proposed dividing India into three entities; Pakistan, India and a third state combining East and West Bengal. In fact in his opinion this independent Bengal would have been the most viable of all three states. The idea however was immediately shot down by Nehru.

I tend to agree.
 
Don't think India would have preferred to assimilate 100 Millions Muslims into their country.
 
For similar reasons that Pakistan will help an independent Khalistan and not ask them to merge into Pakistani Punjab. The merged region would have been a tinderbox with frequent riots and religious hardliners on both sides having a field day. Besides the freedom fighters would not stop with the guerilla war.
 
Ideal world, there would be the following countries carved out of India:

BIMARU (youknowwhichones)
Dakshin (The Cream of South Asia)
Greater Bangla (West Bengal, Bangladesh, NE India)
'Pahad' Pradesh (Kashmir minus the part that Pakistan wants to take, Himachal, Uttarakhand, et al - leave them outta the BIMARU mess)
 
Ideal world, there would be the following countries carved out of India:

BIMARU (youknowwhichones)
Dakshin (The Cream of South Asia)
Greater Bangla (West Bengal, Bangladesh, NE India)
'Pahad' Pradesh (Kashmir minus the part that Pakistan wants to take, Himachal, Uttarakhand, et al - leave them outta the BIMARU mess)

Keep Maharashtra and Karnataka out of Dakshin. Don’t think we have much in common tbh.
 
Keep Maharashtra and Karnataka out of Dakshin. Don’t think we have much in common tbh.

Yeah nah we want to holiday in Goa so we absolutely need both of you to 'capture' that state for the pubs, beaches, the works. :batman:
 
Yeah nah we want to holiday in Goa so we absolutely need both of you to 'capture' that state for the pubs, beaches, the works. :batman:
Lol no way bud. I will recommend relocating to Maharashtra. The Dakshin states without the north won’t stay the cream for long. 2 of the 4 states, Kerala and the new Andhra have no industries to speak of. Tamil Nadu has a policy paralysis since Jaya’s death. This harping on Bimaru really banks on the growth from Maharashtra and Karnataka, infact most of the IT in Chennai is due to proximity to Bangalore. So we rightfully see no reason to prop you up :-)
 
People here commenting about bimaru states forget about the great history shared by bimaru states. Sadly the way these states exploited and the current situation of these states.
Regarding bangladesh not remerging with india. Well anyway million of illegal bangladeshis live in india. They have two options always.
 
Interestingly, I was recently reading a book which mentioned that at one stage Mountbatten had proposed dividing India into three entities; Pakistan, India and a third state combining East and West Bengal. In fact in his opinion this independent Bengal would have been the most viable of all three states. The idea however was immediately shot down by Nehru.

No not by Nehru. But by the hindu bengali population of then bengal. This idea was floated by Suhrawardy, after it became evident that the hindu bengalis will no way agree to become a part of Pakistan and the voted for partition of Bengal.

Its called the bengali hindu homeland movement.
 
Don't think India would have preferred to assimilate 100 Millions Muslims into their country.

Precisely. It was never up to Bangladesh, India exploited the situation, but after that they don't want them onboard as esteemed Hindu Bengali member joshila bhai has forcefully reiterated many times.
 
No not by Nehru. But by the hindu bengali population of then bengal. This idea was floated by Suhrawardy, after it became evident that the hindu bengalis will no way agree to become a part of Pakistan and the voted for partition of Bengal.

Its called the bengali hindu homeland movement.

Maybe in a separate instance. My knowledge of the history of Bengal is limited so I can only talk about what I read. I was quoting the book Freedom at Midnight. I dont know how credible or respected that book is but the incident it narrates specifically mentions that the idea was also floated by Mountbatten. Since he was not sure of how it would be received by the congress and muslim league leadership he privately mentioned it to Nehru as he regarded him as a close friend. According to the book Nehru's reaction was so aggressive that even Mountbatten was taken aback given his good relationship with Nehru.
 
bangladesh not merging back with india proved that given a choice, muslims and hindus would like to be separated. it also proved, that given a choice, muslims would like to be separated from other muslims based on other more important identifiers. therefore TNT should be seen in a new light post 1971. that hindus and muslims cannot coexist, that is true, but muslims are not a single nation either.
 
Probably because Bangladeshi Muslims were the same people who chose a Muslim homeland over India in 1947?
 
I have an Indian muslim friend who says if Pakistan wasnt seperated the Muslims of India would have had a much bigger say in India today as they would have been a lot more in numbers. I wonder how true that is and I also wonder if a seperate homeland for muslims was also supported by the hindus at the time for this very reason.
 
Clearly they weren't the same people otherwise they would have remained East Pakistan.

They would have if your army didn't butcher them by millions.

The point here is that they wanted a Muslim country, not a secular one, hence the obvious decision.
 
I have an Indian muslim friend who says if Pakistan wasnt seperated the Muslims of India would have had a much bigger say in India today as they would have been a lot more in numbers. I wonder how true that is and I also wonder if a seperate homeland for muslims was also supported by the hindus at the time for this very reason.

It was as must be clear from Indian replies in this thread. Joshila has said it openly, the rest will say it was Bangladesh's choice/Pakistan's fault to avoid saying it themselves.
 
Maybe in a separate instance. My knowledge of the history of Bengal is limited so I can only talk about what I read. I was quoting the book Freedom at Midnight. I dont know how credible or respected that book is but the incident it narrates specifically mentions that the idea was also floated by Mountbatten. Since he was not sure of how it would be received by the congress and muslim league leadership he privately mentioned it to Nehru as he regarded him as a close friend. According to the book Nehru's reaction was so aggressive that even Mountbatten was taken aback given his good relationship with Nehru.

One of the criticisms of the book - Freedom at Midnight - is that it steers too closely to a Mountbatten influenced narrative. The egocentric last viceroy always had an eye to posterity and propagated a certain narrative of events to bolster his own image. Few today would so uncritically swallow his version of events as Collins and Lapierre did.

Specifically on the United Bengal proposal raised in 1947 by Suhrawardy (in alliance with Sarat Bose), this was supported by the Bengal Governor at the time, Frederick Burrows and Mountbatten was indeed initially quite sympathetic to it.

In the Muslim League camp, opinion appeared divided. But when Mountbatten asked Jinnah his views on Suhrawardy’s proposal of “keeping Bengal united at the price of its remaining outside Pakistan,” the Muslim League leader replied: “I should be delighted. What is the use of Bengal without Calcutta, they had much better remain united and independent; I am sure they would be on friendly terms with us.” This was despite Jinnah’s differences with Suhrawardy. Other influential Bengali Muslim League leaders - Khawaja Nazimuddin and Akram Khan - and many in the rank file were lukewarm at best to the idea.

Amongst Hindus the proposal could only find support amongst a limited number, which included Sarat Bose and a small band of Congressmen including, Kiran Shankar Roy, Akhil Chandra Datta, Nishitha Nath Kundu (as well as the Congress Muslim, Ashrafuddin Ahmed Chaudhuri.) Within the Congress high command, the proposal was firmly rejected by Nehru and Patel. Gandhi initially gave some qualified approval but soon reversed his decision after conceding that the Congress Working Committee had ‘taken him to task for supporting Sarat Babu’s move’. The Bengal Provincial Committee in general preferred partition of the province, a position which was also urged on by the Hindu Mahasabha.

More widely, there did not seem much popular enthusiasm from Muslims and Hindus to keep the province united and the lateness of the proposal - only a few months before the eventual partition - left very little time to generate any support for an alternative to scission.
 
One of the criticisms of the book - Freedom at Midnight - is that it steers too closely to a Mountbatten influenced narrative. The egocentric last viceroy always had an eye to posterity and propagated a certain narrative of events to bolster his own image. Few today would so uncritically swallow his version of events as Collins and Lapierre did.

Specifically on the United Bengal proposal raised in 1947 by Suhrawardy (in alliance with Sarat Bose), this was supported by the Bengal Governor at the time, Frederick Burrows and Mountbatten was indeed initially quite sympathetic to it.

In the Muslim League camp, opinion appeared divided. But when Mountbatten asked Jinnah his views on Suhrawardy’s proposal of “keeping Bengal united at the price of its remaining outside Pakistan,” the Muslim League leader replied: “I should be delighted. What is the use of Bengal without Calcutta, they had much better remain united and independent; I am sure they would be on friendly terms with us.” This was despite Jinnah’s differences with Suhrawardy. Other influential Bengali Muslim League leaders - Khawaja Nazimuddin and Akram Khan - and many in the rank file were lukewarm at best to the idea.

Amongst Hindus the proposal could only find support amongst a limited number, which included Sarat Bose and a small band of Congressmen including, Kiran Shankar Roy, Akhil Chandra Datta, Nishitha Nath Kundu (as well as the Congress Muslim, Ashrafuddin Ahmed Chaudhuri.) Within the Congress high command, the proposal was firmly rejected by Nehru and Patel. Gandhi initially gave some qualified approval but soon reversed his decision after conceding that the Congress Working Committee had ‘taken him to task for supporting Sarat Babu’s move’. The Bengal Provincial Committee in general preferred partition of the province, a position which was also urged on by the Hindu Mahasabha.

More widely, there did not seem much popular enthusiasm from Muslims and Hindus to keep the province united and the lateness of the proposal - only a few months before the eventual partition - left very little time to generate any support for an alternative to scission.

Thank you for the very informative post. Now that I think about it the book does seem to revolve around Mountbatten's views too much.

Another point is that the matter of princely states had not been settled at the time the proposal was under consideration and at least according to the book Mountbatten was also sympathetic to the independence of some of the princely states. Nehru therefore feared that any concession on the proposal could pave the way for balkanisation of the sub-continent.
 
Nehru therefore feared that any concession on the proposal could pave the way for balkanisation of the sub-continent.

Yes, I think this is a fair point and was indeed a factor in the vehement rejection by the Congress high command of the proposal.
 
For similar reasons that Pakistan will help an independent Khalistan and not ask them to merge into Pakistani Punjab. The merged region would have been a tinderbox with frequent riots and religious hardliners on both sides having a field day. Besides the freedom fighters would not stop with the guerilla war.

OK, but in case you don't know that khalistani wants Lahore as their capital just in case you didn't knew try Google.
 
There’s a school of thought which says that the separation of East Pakistan was a blow to the two nation theory.

If it was why did the East Pakistanis / Bengalis still want to remain a separate country and effectively state that the Muslim Bengalis were still a separate nation to Hindu Bengalis?

Do you think Bengalis from the region would have been open to idea of merging into one state with West Bengal and being part of India?

The real solution should have been East Bengal (separated from Pakistan) and West Bengal (separated from India) merge to form the new country Bangladesh. It is the most logical solution.
 
Bangladesh (East Bengal/East Pakistan) citizens never wanted to be a part of India. It was never even thought of or mentioned by Sheikh Mujib and the revolutionaries in 1971.

Yes, we share similar language and culture to a certain extent with Kolkata and West Bengal. But we thought it is better to be the master of our own fate rather than be a minority (as muslims) in India.

We wanted a secular but predominantly Muslim state. The Muslims wanted to keep their religious freedom and heritage intact. If we merged with India, all of a sudden we would have been a minority and had to face a lot of issues that modern day Indian Muslims are facing.

On the other hand, India was wise not to integrate BD. It would have doubled its Muslim population overnight and would disrupt/challenge their Hindu majority. Additionally, they wouldn't just let West Bengal secede as that would result in the other regions of India breaking off as well.

Both India and Bangladesh had nothing to gain from a so called merger.

We are better off the way it is now. The two bengals will always be linked at their souls and cultural exchanges will continue for days to come. But if you put them together, it will result into an inevitable religious riot and bloodsheds.
 
Bangladesh (East Bengal/East Pakistan) citizens never wanted to be a part of India. It was never even thought of or mentioned by Sheikh Mujib and the revolutionaries in 1971.

Yes, we share similar language and culture to a certain extent with Kolkata and West Bengal. But we thought it is better to be the master of our own fate rather than be a minority (as muslims) in India.

We wanted a secular but predominantly Muslim state. The Muslims wanted to keep their religious freedom and heritage intact. If we merged with India, all of a sudden we would have been a minority and had to face a lot of issues that modern day Indian Muslims are facing.

On the other hand, India was wise not to integrate BD. It would have doubled its Muslim population overnight and would disrupt/challenge their Hindu majority. Additionally, they wouldn't just let West Bengal secede as that would result in the other regions of India breaking off as well.

Both India and Bangladesh had nothing to gain from a so called merger.

We are better off the way it is now. The two bengals will always be linked at their souls and cultural exchanges will continue for days to come. But if you put them together, it will result into an inevitable religious riot and bloodsheds.

If that is the feeling of majority Bangladeshis, why are there claims that the elections were rigged and opposition parties arrested or violently shut down, along with the internet? Answer might be they are lying. Or alternatively it could be you are lying, and the banning of the internet might support the latter.

Note that I am not against one party rule, but am not happy with sham democracy either. This can also be dangerous. Better to be upfront and admit that democracy is the wrong tool put in the hands of those too stupid to make the best of it.
 
If that is the feeling of majority Bangladeshis, why are there claims that the elections were rigged and opposition parties arrested or violently shut down, along with the internet? Answer might be they are lying. Or alternatively it could be you are lying, and the banning of the internet might support the latter.

Note that I am not against one party rule, but am not happy with sham democracy either. This can also be dangerous. Better to be upfront and admit that democracy is the wrong tool put in the hands of those too stupid to make the best of it.

umm what? I simply discussed OP's points about why Bangladesh didn't merge with India after the war of 1971. He didn't brought up recent election and neither did I wrote anything remotely related to it.

2018 election has nothing to do with OP's point.

This election was a farce and everybody knows it. Opposition leaders were arrested and shut down.
 
Interestingly, I was recently reading a book which mentioned that at one stage Mountbatten had proposed dividing India into three entities; Pakistan, India and a third state combining East and West Bengal. In fact in his opinion this independent Bengal would have been the most viable of all three states. The idea however was immediately shot down by Nehru.

Interestingly in light of recently declassified documents, here is an article published today on the United Bengal plan:

https://scroll.in/article/907754/wh...as-going-to-be-an-independent-country-in-1947

Why did British prime minister Attlee think Bengal was going to be an independent country in 1947?

On December 28, Pakistan newspaper Dawn published a somewhat curious bit of news. “UK PM Attlee believed Bengal may opt to be a separate country,” read the headline. As per recently declassified documents, Clement Attlee had briefed the US ambassador in the United Kingdom on June 2, 1947, about the plan to partition India. “A division of Punjab is likely,” said Attlee, but he added there was a “distinct possibility Bengal might decide against partition and against joining either Hindustan or Pakistan”.

The news caused some buzz on social media, which is not unexpected: This is a little discussed facet of India’s partition. What Attlee was speaking about was a plan to have not two but three successor states to British India: India, Pakistan and Bengal. Rather than divide Bengal and apportion each half to India and Pakistan, a third option held that Bengal would be kept united and be given the status of a dominion alongside India and Pakistan.

Looming partition

As 1946 drew to a close, India was in shreds. The British were desperate to leave but, somewhat tragicomically after two centuries of a colonial occupation, did not know how to. The 1946 Cabinet Mission Plan, a scheme to transfer power to a united India had been rejected by the Congress, wary of how little power it gave the Centre. Some form of partition now seemed to be emerging as a Hobson’s choice.

British Bengal roughly consisted of modern-day Bangladesh and the Indian state of West Bengal. Like North India’s Muslims, Hindus in Bengal were wary of the British exiting, leaving them a minority. Since 1937, ever since democratic government had been introduced in the provinces of British India, Muslim-majority Bengal had seen Hindus out of power. Matters were exacerbated by horrific communal rioting in August, 1946, in Kolkata. By the end of the year, there was a growing acceptance that, as historian Joya Chatterji wrote, “Bengal must be divided and that Hindus must carve out for themselves a Hindu-majority province”. A Bengal Partition League was set up, but most of the grunt work to prepare public opinion was done by the Bengal Congress as well as the Hindu Mahasabha. As could be expected, there was a distinct geographical split to this demand, with the Hindu-majority western districts and specifically Kolkata most enthusiastic. Also providing crucial support was the city’s Marwari business community. “I am in favour of separation, and I do not think it is impracticable or against the interest of Hindus,” GD Birla said as early as 1942.

The campaign was an instant success. A poll in April, 1947, conducted by Amrita Bazar Patrika, a newspaper influential amongst elite Bengali Hindus, saw 98% in favour of Partition. All of 0.6% of respondents supported any scheme for a united Bengal.

The United Bengal plan

It was against these odds that HS Suhrawardy, the then premier of Bengal, addressed a press conference in Delhi on April 27, 1947, in order to make the case for an “independent, undivided and sovereign Bengal”:

“Let us pause for a moment to consider what Bengal can be if it remains united. It will be a great country, indeed the richest and the most prosperous in India capable of giving to its people a high standard of living, where a great people will be able to rise to the fullest height of their stature, a land that will truly be plentiful. It will be rich in agriculture, rich in industry and commerce and in course of time it will be one of the powerful and progressive states of the world. If Bengal remains united this will be no dream, no fantasy.”

Apart from an appeal to Bengali exceptionalism, there was also an undercurrent of left-wing populism, with Bengal’s ills being blamed on non-Bengali capitalists. Abdul Hashim, the socialist ideologue who was secretary of the Bengal Provincial Muslim League and a strong opponent of Partition argued that “Cent percent alien capital, both Indian and Anglo-American exploiting Bengal…visualise difficulties in a free and united Bengal”.

The plan did attract some support. The British saw in it a way to better protect their commercial stakes in Kolkata. On May 8, 1947, Viceroy Louis Mountbatten cabled the British government with a partition plan that made an exception for Bengal: it was the only province that would be allowed to remain independent should it so chose to. On May 23, in a cabinet meeting Prime Minister Attlee also hoped that Bengal would remain united.

However, by far the most-influential supporter of the plan was Sarat Chandra Bose, senior Congressman and elder brother of Subhas Chandra Bose (who was abroad, unreachable – probably dead). On May 20, 1947, a plan for a United Bengal was thrashed out between Suhrawardy and Bose. The proposed country would have joint electorates and universal adult franchise. Hindus and Muslims would have equal quotas in the military and the police which would be indigenised and “manned by Bengalis”. A Hindu-Muslim coalition government would be set up with parity between the communities in the cabinet. The prime minister would be Muslim and the home minister a Hindu. The plan was made public on May 24, 1947, ten days before the final partition plan was announced.

Supporters and detractors

MA Jinnah, the leader of the Muslim League, was not averse to the idea since, as he said in his talks with Mountbatten, “What is the use of Bengal without Calcutta”. However, the Bengal Muslim League itself pulled in every direction. A sub-committee set up by the Bengal League to discuss the plan itself saw four out of six oppose a Bengal that was not part of Pakistan. Much of this was split along linguistic lines. While Urdu-speaking Muslims in Bengal did not want Bengal partitioned they also desired union with Pakistan. Muslim Bengalis, on the other hand, were fine with a free Bengal. Similar to Hindu Bengalis, there was also an East-West split. Speaking to Jinnah, one Calcutta League member accused East Bengali Muslims of being “happy to see this partition”.

In the Congress, Mohandas Gandhi was an initial supporter of United Bengal but then backtracked given that the Congress Working Committee had “taken him to task for supporting Sarat Babu’s move”. Both Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel were implacably opposed to a United Bengal, seeing in it a possibility that every province might get similar ideas. On May 27, Nehru formally announced that the Congress would “agree to Bengal remaining united only if it remains in the [Indian] Union”, leading to Bengal governor Burrows announcing that “Bengal will be sacrificed at the altar of Nehru’s all-India outlook”. Nehru’s opposition to the proposal was enough for Mountbatten to backtrack on pushing the plan any more with London.

Failure and Partition

But Bose did not back down. “It is not a fact that Bengali Hindus unanimously demand partition,” Sarat Bose wrote to Vallabhbhai Patel on May 27, 1947. “The demand for partition is more or less confined to the middle classes”. Bose also pointed out the conundrum of partitioning a region that was as contiguous as the Bengal delta: a West Bengal province would have “only about half of the total Hindu population in Bengal” leaving East Bengali Hindus in the lurch.

Sarat Bose’s plan, however, did not attract much backing. Hindu Mahasabha leader SP Mookerjee was not very far off the mark when he wrote to Patel on May 11, saying: “Sarat Babu has no support whatsoever from the Hindus and he does not dare address one single meeting”.

Eventually, the United Bengal plan came a cropper. On June 3, 1947, when Mountbatten announced his plan to transfer power to native hands, there were only two contenders: India and Pakistan. Bengal was partitioned, the western part joining the Indian Union and the east, Pakistan. The mass upheavals and the population transfers it caused is still buffeting the politics of Assam. However, Attlee’s prediction wasn’t completey off the mark: within just 24 years of the British transfering power, East Bengal broke from Pakistan to emerge as Bangladesh.
 
Interestingly in light of recently declassified documents, here is an article published today on the United Bengal plan:

https://scroll.in/article/907754/wh...as-going-to-be-an-independent-country-in-1947

Interesting. The events described also seem consistent with Freedom at Midnight. Here is an excerpt of the incident I was referring to which pretty much says the same thing but portrays the plan as an initiative of Mountbatten without mentioning the Bengali leaders or the factors that may have led to the proposal:


"Simla's brisk climate, its Olympian calm, however, inspired reflection, and as it did, uncharacteristic doubts began to gnaw at the Viceroy. Since the plan had reached London, he had been inundated by a stream of cables from the Attlee government proposing textual modifications which, while they would not alter its substance, would change its tone. More serious, however, was the real concern which underlay his growing apprehension. If the implications in the plan that he had sent to London were fully realized, the great Indian subcontinent would be divided into three independent nations, not two. Mountbatten had inserted in his plan a clause that would allow the sixty-five million Hindus and Moslems of Bengal to join into one viable country, with the great seaport of Calcutta as their capital.

Contrasted to Jinnah's aberrant, two-headed state, that seemed an entity likely to endure, and Mountbatten had quietly encouraged Bengal's politicians, Hindu and Moslem alike, to support it. He had even discovered that Jinnah would not oppose the idea. He had not, however, exposed it to Nehru and Patel, and it was this oversight that disturbed him now. Would they accept a plan that might cost them the great port of Calcutta with its belt of textile mills owned by the industrialists who were their party's principal financial support? If they didn't, Mountbatten, after all the assurances he had given London, was going to look a bloody fool in the eyes of India, Britain and the world. A sudden inspiration struck Mountbatten. He would reassure himself privately,informally, with the Indian leader, whom, to the distress of his staff, he had invited to vacation with him in Simla... Determined to follow his hunch, Mountbatten called the members of his staff he had brought to Delhi to his study and explained his concerns and his idea to them. They were horrified. To show the plan to Nehru without exposing it to Jinnah would be a complete breach of faith with the Moslem leader, they pointed out. If he discovered it, Mountbatten's whole position would be destroyed. For a long time, Mountbatten sat silently drumming the tabletop with his fingertips. "I am sorry," he finally announced, "your arguments are absolutely sound. But I have a hunch that I must show it to Nehru, and I'm going to follow my hunch."

... White-faced, shaking with rage, Nehru stalked into the bedroom of his confidant Krishna Menon, who had accompanied him to Simla. With a furious gesture, he hurled the plan onto his bed. "It's all over!" he shouted. Mountbatten got his first intimation of his friend's violent reaction in a letter early the following morning. For the confident Viceroy, it was "a bombshell." As he read it,the whole structure he had so carefully erected during the past six weeks came tumbling down like a house of cards. The impression that his plan left, Nehru wrote, was one of "fragmentation and conflict and disorder." It frightened him and was certain to be "resented and bitterly disliked by the Congress Party."
 
Honestly BD should have been an independent country from the get go.... A country cannot function when it's two wings are so different from each other and they are separated by thousands of miles of hostile territory.
 
Honestly BD should have been an independent country from the get go.... A country cannot function when it's two wings are so different from each other and they are separated by thousands of miles of hostile territory.

Indeed. But as an independent country it should have included the whole of Bengal including the part walled off by India.
 
Bangladesh shuts down main opposition newspaper
Campaigners fear media crackdown under PM Sheikh Hasina after suspension order upheld

The only newspaper of Bangladesh’s main opposition party has stopped publication after a government suspension order was upheld, stoking fears about media freedom in the south Asian nation.

Campaigners and foreign governments including the US have long expressed worries about efforts by the prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, to silence criticism and what they see as creeping authoritarianism.

The Dainik Dinkal, a broadsheet Bengali-language newspaper, has been a vital voice of the Bangladesh Nationalist party (BNP) for more than three decades. It employs hundreds of journalists and press workers and covers news stories that the mainstream newspapers, most of which are controlled by pro-government businesspeople, rarely do.

This includes the frequent arrests of BNP activists and what the party says are thousands of fake cases against its supporters.

The newspaper said the Dhaka district authorities ordered the shutdown on 26 December, but it continued to publish after lodging an appeal at the press council headed by a top high court judge.

“The council rejected our appeal yesterday (Sunday), upholding the district magistrate’s order to stop our publication,” Shamsur Rahman Shimul Biswas, the managing editor of the newspaper, told AFP.

...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ewspaper-sheikh-hasina?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
 
During partition, Bangladesh joined Pakistan due to Muslim identity. There was no other reason.

So, Bangladesh didn't have any reason to join India. If they wanted to do that, they could've done it in 1947 (during partition).
 
Bangladesh promises free, fair elections in response to US visa curbs

DHAKA (Reuters) -Bangladesh will take steps to tackle and prevent unlawful practices or interference in its elections, authorities said on Thursday, a day after the United States threatened curbs on citizens of the South Asian nation who undermine them.

Concern flared after accusations of vote-rigging and the targeting of the political opposition marred national elections in 2014 and 2018, charges denied by the government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said the United States is adopting a new policy to restrict visas for Bangladeshis who undermine the democratic election process at home.

"The government apparatus will take necessary measures to prevent and address any unlawful practices or interference ... to compromise the smooth and participatory conduct of the elections," the Bangladesh foreign ministry said in response.

"The electoral process will remain under strict vigilance, including by international observers as accredited by the Election Commission," it added in a statement.

The commission retains the ability to perform its functions in full independence, credibility and efficiency, the ministry said.

Political analyst Badiul Alam Majumder welcomed the U.S. curbs.

"I see this restriction as a preventive measure," he added. "This could avert efforts by individuals to rig elections in their favour."

Hasina, who has kept tight control of the South Asian nation since coming to power in 2009, has been accused of human rights violations, obliteration of press freedom, suppression of dissent and the jailing of critics, including many supporters of the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP).

The BNP has been calling for Hasina to step down and for the next election, due in January 2024, to be held under a neutral caretaker government, a demand her government has rejected.

...
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...p&cvid=707be077913840a6b82a7f4c84befab6&ei=17
 
I have an Indian muslim friend who says if Pakistan wasnt seperated the Muslims of India would have had a much bigger say in India today as they would have been a lot more in numbers. I wonder how true that is and I also wonder if a seperate homeland for muslims was also supported by the hindus at the time for this very reason.

It was never about say or rights for the people. The two biggest points of contention were Political power and land ownership. Remember the then Indian leadership wanted to take back land from the zamindars into state ownership, redistribution etc.... the elites in the Western parts of then British India were having none of it. Religious divide was a convenient excuse.
 
Back
Top