Not that I am not grateful . . . But, let’s remember that both parties gained by working together. While Bdesh got it’s freedom, India got a chance to goad Pakistan. .

That is the feeling of the general Bangladeshis.

It would be wrong to undermine India’s help or the freedom fighters contributions. The Muktibahini helped by millions of common people did cripple the Pakistani Army contingent and it was almost a smooth walk to Dhaka for the Indian Army (we honor the Indian Army personals killed during the war). India helped immensely by giving refuge a lot of distressed people and give arms and training to many of the Muktibahinis. Now why would India do that? Is is totally out of love? No, because it didn’t want Pakistan on both of its sides.

It is sad that many of us react to an event only hearing one side of story. I am sure you have read thousands of times about the brutal death of 2 BSF jawans in Bangladesh territory (why did they enter Bangladesh in the first place nobody investigates). But you have ignored (or never heard) that BSF has so far killed more than 400 Bangladeshis. I hope nobody is making it up that every Bangladeshi rejoiced the killing of BSF jawans. Actually the average Bangladeshis would never want any of the deaths to happen. Every death is deplorable. Just the same about the other issues. There are other perspectives also if commentators like KXB ever wanted to hear: 1) insurgents issue 2) Infiltration issue

The interesting thing is apart from these skirmishes, is the relationship between India and Bangladesh really so bad that Indians have to be panicked? Unfriendly Bangladesh government you would say.. is it so?

One BNP lawmaker Mr. Motlub (owner of NITOL group-agent of TATA motors in Bangladesh) talks against India in podium but makes sure that his business is not hampered by protective budget rulings. About 80% of the ruling party lawmakers are businessmen many are with India. Would they want any impediment to their trade? never. Indian goods (including media) has a big business in Bangladesh. There is a trade imbalance. The Bangladeshi TVs are not aired by cable operators in India. Bangladeshi companies give ads in Indian media because they have a good viewership in Bangladesh. The tensions are being kept alive for political reasons.

Just as people like KXB’s comments do not represent the well informed Indians views, some of the Bangladeshi governments hostile actions (if we take the Indian view) do not represent their acutual friendly involvement.

There is a bigger politics behind this all and we should not forget that making enemies is very easy, but making friends are not. And Bangladesh should not be treated like Bhutan or India. Because by tradition, Bengalis do not like to be dominated.

All these media attacks all these non-cooperations are supposed to benefit some, which wants a rift between the Bangladeshis and the Indians. We are yet to know who.

There’s really no inconsistency between analysis and action (based on the world as it is) for me. I don’t share your nostalgia for what-might-have-been since I’m quite pleased with the status quo, more or less. More precisely, the Republic of India is a very good thing, more or less.

In any case, I fear I have misled you into thinking that I hold int’l law in great esteem Rather, Bangladesh has obligations to India–these obligations constitute part of int’l law. If Bangladesh doesn’t police its territory effectively, it will effectively lose sovereign control over that territory. Either the terrorists’ writ or the GOI’s writ will run in those areas.

To be sure, as you alluded in an earlier comment, India also has certain obligations towards Bangladesh. But even if India hasn’t entirely fulfilled those obligations, they don’t match the nature and seriousness of Bangladeshi violations.

BTW, the GOI is not alone in its concern over the situation in Bangladesh.

Kumar

Yeah, the point is that we’re not politicians in Bangladesh. We’re commenters on a blog who should at the very least acknowledge the role of that larger analysis and try to have one.

I expect politicians to have to make policy choices (And also to be tools of whatever the strongest social force is…but that’s a different story); and I expect people outside of the political world to feel free not to constantly buy into their framework of looking at the world with a “this is how it is” analysis.

It’s really kind of silly.

You’re allowed to think whatever you want, and particularly to develop a broad understanding of the many facets of an issue so you can understand, in the end, what the best choice to make is. And if you ever become a policymaker, you’ll probably make better choices.

Also, as it stands right now, relying on international law as a justification is for suckers. Geopolitics is defined by interests and power, not by niceties like law, with very few exceptions. Maybe, (hopefully?), that will change, but right now, all the governing bodies of international law on trade, human rights, blah blah blah are dominated by the most economically and militarily powerful countries. And that’s probably how it will always be.

How Ameircan do I sound right now?

Correct me if I’m mistaken, but you seem to be positing a linear relationship b/wn level of ‘oppression’ and the viciousness of any consequent ‘revolution’. While you may not think it controversial, I am far from alone in demurring.

There are many examples which falsify the linearity of the relationship. For example, I’d argue that the French Revolution, Communist Revolution (in Russia) resulted in excesses far more disproportionate to any excesses occuring under their older regimes. More importantly, there is not a sufficient relationship between the two variables (think Gandhi and the Indian revolution) nor a necessary one (think Khalistan or Kashmir).

But even if you disagree and think the presence of illiberality or oppression is the engine of secessionism in India (and elsewhere), I’m afraid that is no guarantee of the liberality of any secessionist revolution or post-secessionist regime. Far from being a deformation of the liberal character of secessionism, the necessity of rallying people to a cause usually involves drawing lines of one sort or another–ethnicity and/or religion and/or language. It’s not a surprise, then, that secessionism tends to be a very dirty enterprise at its inception.

Only a very few revolutions and post-revolutionary regimes manage to be otherwise to some degree(American Revolution and America and yes even the Indian revolution and the Republic of India, though of course, Partition’s violence and communal violence is a significant stain on the latter). Partly that’s to do with ideology and partly with the character of the revolutionaries. Or, thank Bhagvan for Nehru and Gandhi and the Republic of India.

Once again, the focus on roots (historical and contemporary) is fine for the academy or the drawing room. One may even draw appropriate lessons for today from such analysis. But that is simply no reason to excuse contemporary politicians, in say, Bangladesh from doing their duty under int’l law. I’m surprised by your surprise over a such a pragmatic focus.

Kumar

not a single one of the secessionist movements has a ’cause clean to fight for’.

my premise, based primarily on personal experience and random observations, is that secessionist movements frequently arise when recognition of diversity and local autonomy is suprressed and/or there’s accompanying extreme oppression (“the point where man is, unequal distribution of resources, etc. if local autonomy and voice is recognized adequately, people no longer want to secede, let along take up arms for it. On the other hand, the more they are suprressed, the more their tactics and aims become not-so-nice (and correspondingly, a culture of divisiveness and overcentralization becomes more prevalent, since it becomes easier for poseurs to claim the need for unity in rebelling against the center). The worst case scenario are the Egyptian torture chambers that produced 1/2 of what’s now Al Qaeda.

This is not a very controversial position to take.

You ask why the focus of some commenters is solely on Bangladeshi complaceny about terrorists operating from Bangladesh and none on the original sin of India’s birth.

No, what I’m asking is why is the focus on Bangladeshi government complacency about alleged insurgents in NE India rather than on any number of other factors, not limited to, but including, the historical roots of communal division in South Asia (both pre and post partition). What I chose to first focus on was “all those (including those in government) who embody and promote illiberalism or excessive nationalism in South Asian politics and society, both through their actions through the state and what they push the state to do as well as in broader society.” That’s a fairly specific group of individuals and people–the RSSs, Jamaat e Islamis of the world. It also includes secular nationalists who are so hellbent on promoting the “national interest” that they lose sight of everything else (keeping in mind we started this discussion with Kissinger and Nixon foreign policy).

In any case, I was specifically asked to imagine a scenario in which there was a Bangladesh formed without Indian military intervention. I don’t really understand why it’s unrealistic (even if it’s more difficult) to go back to the 1940s to do so, but perfectly legitimate (or at all interesting) to go back to 1970 and ask what could have happened in 1971.

I should add that I hold no brief for ‘KXB’.

Kumar

I too agree that the focus of the comments ought to have remained on the massacre perpetrated by the (West) Pakistani army and President Nixon’s complaceny about the massacre.

But to turn your question around, where are you coming from ? Look, I don’t begrudge a man his fantasies, political or otherwise. Yours leave me cold but pine all you want for a world in which “….the immense diversity and variety of South Asian cultures…” had not been “….subsumed under a single imperial and then national idea, rather than being allowed to build to it slowly…” For the record, though, let me note that not a single one of the secessionist movements has a ’cause clean to fight for’. Diversity and variety is precisely what the Khalistanis didn’t much like (Hindu, or Sikh for that matter). Certainly, those Muslim Kashmiris who desire secession don’t much hanker after diveristy, nothwithstanding their PR. No doubt that’s the fault of Hindoo fundamentalists.

You ask why the focus of some commenters is solely on Bangladeshi complaceny about terrorists operating from Bangladesh and none on the original sin of India’s birth. Unless one is willing to resort to violence, such counter-factual speculation is idle at best. Enjoy your fantasies, but when debating actual politics, well, it’s a good idea to remember some elementary facts. India exists–get over it! Bangladesh exists and has a responsibility, under int’l law, to ensure that its territory isn’t used as a launching pad by terrorists.

Kumar

I see what you’re saying about how changing the quote doesn’t substantively change your point…I just don’t like what I write being quoted so that it looks like a substantially different position than I might actually hold. Here, the words you cited before the ellipsis attribute to me the view that Bangladeshi independence in 1971 owes nothing to Indian armed intervention when I said no such thing. And since I don’t actually believe that, I’ve bothered to object repeatedly to the way you quoted me.

This is, however, getting ridiculous and overly solipsistic, even by my standards. Particularly since you care about avoiding a waste of space

What you did is use language like “repays,”, “owes its very existence to India,” “causes trouble for the only country that came to its aid against the Paksitanis,” which to me implies that you feel that the government of Bangladesh has some historically derived obligation to the government of India and to the interests of the state of India. Perhaps Bangladesh’s government, for better or worse, has other priorities than to spend its military, economic, and political capital on curbing border region militancy that affects other countries? Or perhaps you’re right that it’s an example of intentional malign negligence. Or perhaps its covert warfare on India? Or perhaps a little of both?

My primary point in responding to you, which you still haven’t answered, is this: why is blaming Bangladesh for not doing a good enough job to protect India your assessment of this situation? Why not all those (including those in government) who embody and promote illiberalism or excessive nationalism in South Asian politics and society, both through their actions through the state and what they push the state to do as well as in broader society?

I’m not defending the government of Bangladesh for allowing militants to cross into Assam–I’m arguing why focus on that, in this context (which started as a converseation about tacit U.S. support for the genocide in Bangladesh), and without looking at any of the other things that are going into the situation.

Why not focus on the overcentralized state of India’s tendency to generate numerous armed minority rebellions–in the Northeast, in Punjab, in Kashmir, in Bihar, and elsewhere? Why not focus on how ridiculous it is and destructive it has been that the immense diversity and variety of South Asian cultures were subsumed under a single imperial and then national idea, rather than being allowed to build to it slowly? And that certain people still perpetuate the idea that political unity is something you accomplish overnight, rather than recognizing that in certain circumstances, it’s a way for political elites to further centralize their power? After all, we don’t have to make stark policy choices as readers on a blog–we’re in the position of having the luxury to look at what’s going on and trying to figure out what we think of it.

For example: as for what possible counterfactual set of circumstances Bangladesh could have achieved independence–well, perhaps if the interests of the Indian National Congress, Muslim League, and Hindu elites in West Bengal hadn’t come together in a perfect storm to partition Bengal and instead adopted something like the ABC plan, there would have been different circumstances to the emergence of a Bangla-speaking state. There’s no reason that you have to look at the end state–where Bangladesh had arrived at by 1971–and not anything that preceded it. Similarly to how you don’t have to evaluate whether the United States should or should not have invaded Iraq by looking at the politics and history of 2000-2003 only, and not what preceded it or any of the context of other U.S. foreign policy.

And for the record, I never explicittly said you were anti-Islam–what I said was that your comments “mask a deeper level of xenophobia or Islamaphobia or something,” because I can’t make sense of the ways in which you choose to focus on particular facts and not others, grant validity to particular concepts (like nations need to be neighborly) and not others (like social movements, not outside military intervention, have a greater potential to create an opportunity for decent societies). In the past, I’ve seen you cite and defend Daniel Pipes, focus incessantly on this allegedly open border with Mexico that the U.S. has without looking at the U.S.’s own role in promoting coyotes, economic disaprities, and defend religious profiling. In fairness, I’ve gone back and seen you make more statements than not that are not at all anti-Muslim, which didn’t stand out in my mind. So islamophobia (in a narrow sense) was probably a bit strong, and i apologize for that.

But the implied question still stands: “Where exactly are you coming from?”