Why do Bangladesh and India share less state animosity than Pakistan and India?

[street cricketer]

India and Pakistan are probably the most bitter rivals in the entire world, maybe on par with the North Korean and South Korean rivalry if not more. Both countries share a deep animosity at state level. Yet it is surprising when you think that, Bangladeshis, who were once Pakistanis too, are able to freely visit places in India and vice versa for Indians. I myself have seen plenty of Bangladeshis visiting Chennai for medical treatment and plenty do visit Kolkata for the deep cultural ties they share with the city. I've read many Indians visit Bangladesh too for IT consultancy purposes. Yet the scenario of an Indian visiting Karachi or Peshawar and a Pakistani visiting Mumbai and Bangalore for any reason is almost unimaginable now.

So why do you think there is far less state animosity between India and Bangladesh as opposed to the enmity that India and Pakistan share. When I think about the reason why India and Pakistan share a deep enmity, I can only think of two reasons:

1. The after effects of the partition and
2. The obvious one in Kashmir

Now Bengal experienced as much violence as Punjab did during the partition. So that's not a concrete reason, which brings us to the real reason - Kashmir dispute. Why hasn't Bangladesh as a state taken up the cause of Kashmir as fervently as Pakistan has done and why has there been very little animosity at state level between India and Bangladesh, no matter what rule Bangladesh was under.


Now I know some BJP leaders have given objectionable statements and some Bangladeshis may personally have deep resentment towards India for Kashmir, but that hasn't translated at state level bothering the relations between both countries. Never have we seen anything even remotely close to a war between both countries happening or severing of relations between each other as it has happened between India and Pakistan in the past.

Is there a remote possibility that Pakistan and India could one day share a relationship something akin to what India and Bangladesh share and people can visit both countries freely?

Or is the Kashmir dispute too big of an elephant in the room for that to ever happen without it getting resolved first?

 

[street cricketer]

Also was visiting India and Pakistan always this difficult for both countries since independence or was it different in the past?

 

[Giannis]

I get the opposite impression from my interactions with Bangladeshis and Indian people, there's not much love between them and there bigger geopolitical problems brewing in that part of the world but there will obviously be mutual respect as Bangladesh became independent because of India.

As for your question about why Bangladesh doesn't speak out about Kashmir the way Pakistan does, I don't know that's a serious question cause anyone with a half brain would know why. Almost half of the disputed territory lies in Pakistan and Pakistan claims the other half as part of its country - resolving the Kashmir dispute is very important for the people in Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir as their constitutional future is linked to any solution, in addition to that Kashmiris have deeper ties and a shared history with the areas that make up Pakistan, more so than they do with Bangladesh. A lot of Pakistanis also have ancestry from the occupied Kashmir valley and these are people in very high positions so for them Kashmir has will always have a special significance. Even in Pakistan's name, the K stands for Kashmir because it was expected to be a part of the federation.

 

[Napa]

India and Pakistan are probably the most bitter rivals in the entire world, maybe on par with the North Korean and South Korean rivalry if not more. Both countries share a deep animosity at state level. Yet it is surprising when you think that, Bangladeshis, who were once Pakistanis too, are able to freely visit places in India and vice versa for Indians. I myself have seen plenty of Bangladeshis visiting Chennai for medical treatment and plenty do visit Kolkata for the deep cultural ties they share with the city. I've read many Indians visit Bangladesh too for IT consultancy purposes. Yet the scenario of an Indian visiting Karachi or Peshawar and a Pakistani visiting Mumbai and Bangalore for any reason is almost unimaginable now.

So why do you think there is far less state animosity between India and Bangladesh as opposed to the enmity that India and Pakistan share. When I think about the reason why India and Pakistan share a deep enmity, I can only think of two reasons:

1. The after effects of the partition and
2. The obvious one in Kashmir

Now Bengal experienced as much violence as Punjab did during the partition. So that's not a concrete reason, which brings us to the real reason - Kashmir dispute. Why hasn't Bangladesh as a state taken up the cause of Kashmir as fervently as Pakistan has done and why has there been very little animosity at state level between India and Bangladesh, no matter what rule Bangladesh was under.


Now I know some BJP leaders have given objectionable statements and some Bangladeshis may personally have deep resentment towards India for Kashmir, but that hasn't translated at state level bothering the relations between both countries. Never have we seen anything even remotely close to a war between both countries happening or severing of relations between each other as it has happened between India and Pakistan in the past.

Is there a remote possibility that Pakistan and India could one day share a relationship something akin to what India and Bangladesh share and people can visit both countries freely?

Or is the Kashmir dispute too big of an elephant in the room for that to ever happen without it getting resolved first?

The most important reason is that Bangladesh is ruled by a civilian leader whose source of power is the economic development she has brought to her country. The most powerful entity in Pakistan is the Army/ISI which controls foreign policy and needs India to be an external enemy for the continued justification of its domestic power.

 

[gani999]

Also was visiting India and Pakistan always this difficult for both countries since independence or was it different in the past?

It used to be quite easy for Indians and Pakistanis to visit each other's countries right up to the early 2000s. Even our respective cricket teams used to tour. I think travel between the two countries became difficult after the Indian parliament attack in 2001, and things got worse after Mumbai 2008.

 

[MenInG]

India is considered liberator - a debt is owed by Bangladesh for it's existence so stands to reason (for now)

 

[OMB]

The only Bangladeshis that Indians have any problems are the illegal one who are outside the purview of law.
The housemaid and laundry man at our home in Mumbai used to be Bangladeshis who caused some trouble. This is a common story all around Indian cities and is the only cause of consternation.

 

[NishanKonar]

A lot to do with leadership

Modi & Imran are 2 loose canon leaders who love to go at each other to earn political brownie points - leading to lot of such bad blood among the general public

No such issues with Bangladesh ( barring such loose canons ) . 20 years back when Khaleda Zia was in power , relations got strained but current PM Sheikh Hasina is genuinely pro India ( out of gratitude for 1971 & also becoz of the refuge she got in Delhi after her father's assassination in 1975 ) . Some Indian ministers like Amit Shah made stupid incendiary statements on Bangladesh & things soured but looks like fences have been mended again

I have a feeling both India & Pakistan will do better with more sensible & friendly leaders in power like Nawaz Sharif & Manmohan Singh. From India's POV - Nawaz was seen more as a peacenik. When Modi met Nawaz on his birthday in Lahore - there was anticipation of better relations

Currently Imran's regular rants on twitter leaves bitter taste - even among those Indians who were his fans as cricketer. Of course Modi is no better now - but when he became PM in 2014 he did make an attempt - inviting Nawaz to his inauguration & visiting Lahore

Now things are gone to the dogs with little prospects of improving

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

India & Bangladesh will always have close ties on a state level. India immensely helped Bangladesh in its cause of freedom & provided shelter to more than 10 million bengali refugees during 71 and Bangladesh is eternally grateful for the role India played during the war.

 

[Pakpak]

Hasina's father was Mujeeb who wasn't liked by Pakistan. She's always been a bit anti-Pakistani but otherwise relations have been cordial. Pakistan has sold them many weapons over the years as well.

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

A lot to do with leadership

Modi & Imran are 2 loose canon leaders who love to go at each other to earn political brownie points - leading to lot of such bad blood among the general public

No such issues with Bangladesh ( barring such loose canons ) . 20 years back when Khaleda Zia was in power , relations got strained but current PM Sheikh Hasina is genuinely pro India ( out of gratitude for 1971 & also becoz of the refuge she got in Delhi after her father's assassination in 1975 ) . Some Indian ministers like Amit Shah made stupid incendiary statements on Bangladesh & things soured but looks like fences have been mended again

I have a feeling both India & Pakistan will do better with more sensible & friendly leaders in power like Nawaz Sharif & Manmohan Singh. From India's POV - Nawaz was seen more as a peacenik. When Modi met Nawaz on his birthday in Lahore - there was anticipation of better relations

Currently Imran's regular rants on twitter leaves bitter taste - even among those Indians who were his fans as cricketer. Of course Modi is no better now - but when he became PM in 2014 he did make an attempt - inviting Nawaz to his inauguration & visiting Lahore

Now things are gone to the dogs with little prospects of improving

Nawaz Sharif is the only decent option Pakistan has. Congress is also important for the stability of the region. Modi has failed in fulfilling most of his promises and Imran is just a puppet of the Military. Nawaz Sharif is the only person who showed any courage in standing upto the Pak army.

 

[gani999]

A lot to do with leadership

Modi & Imran are 2 loose canon leaders who love to go at each other to earn political brownie points - leading to lot of such bad blood among the general public

When was the last time Modi had a go at Imran? He largely ignores Imran.

Coming back to the thread, another reason for the lack of animosity between Bangladesh and India is that there is no territorial dispute between the two.

 

[NishanKonar]

Nawaz Sharif is the only decent option Pakistan has. Congress is also important for the stability of the region. Modi has failed in fulfilling most of his promises and Imran is just a puppet of the Military. Nawaz Sharif is the only person who showed any courage in standing upto the Pak army.

I dont know much about Pakistan politics but in India Nawaz is seen as someone who wants peace & friendship with India. Of course from our side we have to get a more sensible PM like Manmohan Singh

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

India is considered liberator - a debt is owed by Bangladesh for it's existence so stands to reason (for now)

This is pretty much it. Bangladesh owe their existence to India, and they will forever be indebted to them as a result. That there is a fence dividing Bengal along religious lines tells the real story. Indian ministers can even refer to Bangladeshi immigrants as termites and Bangladeshis have to stay quiet and suck it up.

Also need to bear in mind that India has a lot of influence over the Bangladeshi govt, one that was allegedly put in place due to rigged elections. BD is not really in any position to say much which would offend Indian leaders.

 

[GenericBrand]

Sure, at the government level they are cordial.

But general public not so much. Country is pretty much split down the line on whether they hate Pakistan or India.

 

[PakLFC]

This is because without a Pakistan there would have been no Bangladesh. From India's perspective the formation of Pakistan was the original sin that broke up India, Bangladesh was formed much later. The absence of Kashmir like conflict also helps the Indo-Bangladesh relationship.

 

[guna]

Bangladesh are not as radicalized as Pakistanis and Afghanis. Their identity is their language. Not religion. There is rivalry with India. But no hate. An average Bangladeshi I have seen is very moderate compared to a Pakistani imo.

 

[MenInG]

Bangladesh are not as radicalized as Pakistanis and Afghanis. Their identity is their language. Not religion. There is rivalry with India. But no hate. An average Bangladeshi I have seen is very moderate compared to a Pakistani imo.

Lot of assumptions in this post.

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

Lot of assumptions in this post.

Bengali nationalism and Secularism are two of the four fundamental principles of Bangladesh's constitution(Democracy and socialism being the other two)
Bangladesh has a vibrant culture, a distinct national identity based on language & ethinicity. Bangladesh is no where near as radical as Pakistan & Afghanistan.

 

[guna]

Lot of assumptions in this post.

Just look at the french cartoons fiasco in Pakistan. How TLP came on to the streets and paralyzed Pakistan over it. You did not see that in Bangladesh other than odd peaceful demonstration.

Pakistan has a huge segment of highly radicalized people vying to be the best Aashiq-e-Rasool they can be.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Just look at the french cartoons fiasco in Pakistan. How TLP came on to the streets and paralyzed Pakistan over it. You did not see that in Bangladesh other than odd peaceful demonstration.

Pakistan has a huge segment of highly radicalized people vying to be the best Aashiq-e-Rasool they can be.

In Pakistan all political parties do that, over various issues. Liberal parties also take to the street and try to paralyze the government. And its not restricted to political parties. Unions, Lawyers, etc also do that. Its just the culture there to take to the streets, so its not accurate to single out the religious parties.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Bangladesh was created on Bengali nationalism. So their is no reason for them to care about issues effecting Kashmir, or Gujarat, etc. Their is also a huge Muslim population in West Bengal, and the West Bengal government is usually (always?) liberal. So their is no need for them to have any tension with India on West Bengal either.

Bengali Muslims got the best deal of any ethnic group in the subcontinent. They got an overwhelming Muslim Bangladesh, but a huge Bengali Muslim population which still lives in West Bengal. Unlike Punjab which has genocide on both sides. They also received the Chittagong Hill Tracts, which had almost zero Bengali Muslims before 1947, but now is like half Bengali.