This is a followup to Ennis’ post, in pictures (thanks, Sajit). Memos released in ’02 show that Richard Nixon continued supporting the Pakistani military throughout the genocide in Bangladesh, even sending them fighter jets. During the massacre, the U.S. ambassador in Delhi cabled Nixon:
The U.S. consul in Dhaka also wrote:
And:
But Nixon continued to support the Pakistani dictator Yahya Khan:
Instead of censuring Khan, he illegally circumvented Congress’ embargo and sent fighter jets:
Nixon’s Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, said:
In protest, the Dhaka consul communicated his disgust in the infamous Blood telegram:
Nixon retaliated by transferring him out of Bangladesh.
I disagree with one aspect of my fellow blogger’s belief in American exceptionalism, the idea that we rarely engage in unsavory realpolitik:
… much of Global Politics basically boils down to one big high school with America being the richest kid on the block. And we all know how everyone in High School felt about that kid… That’s not to say we don’t occasionally screw things up in a “careless” Daisy Buchanan sort of way…
American policy towards the subcontinent has hardly been accidental.
All documents here.
Very powerful with pictures !!!
And yet, Bangladesh repays India by not cracking down on militants using its territory to launch attacks in India’s NE states.
KXB,
Don’t softens the effect of this thorough documentation of Nixon’s collusion in genocide with potshots about the current Bangladeshi government.
They are two separate things.
What softening? I’ve criticized Nixon and Kissenger for their behavior in earlier threads.
It’s hardly a potshot to say that Bangladeshi governments are not overly concerned with Indian border security. Considering that Vietnam and the U.S. are becoming military partners, 30 years after a vicious war against each other – while Bangladesh causes trouble for the only country that came to its aid against the Paksitanis.
Interesting to also read there was no love lost between Nixon / Kissinger and Indira Gandhi — and Indians in general. Recently revealed on transcripts from the Oval Office: Nixon called the former Indian PM an “old witch” while Indians were, at best, “slippery treacherous people.” Savor the irony of Nixon calling others treacherous!
Oops, just noticed there’s already a thread on this. Where’s the embarassed emoticon when you need it?
In a couple of years South Asians will become a power hard to ignore in the US and then we can have the final laugh at people like Nixon…why…cos we WILL OWN THE WORLD!!!!!(Evil scientist laugh) One computer technician and one doctor at a time….
In a couple of years South Asians will become a power hard to ignore in the US and then we can have the final laugh at people like Nixon…why…cos we WILL OWN THE WORLD!!!!!(Evil scientist laugh) One computer technician and one doctor at a time….
what about the engineers!
Maybe if the Indian government wouldn’t divert rivers that Bangladeshis depend on, Bangladesh’s government would be a little more sympathetic 😉
I don’t know enough about this to thoroughly refute you, so I’ll just assume that you’re wrong about this since we disagree about almost everything else 🙂
And yet, Bangladesh repays India by not cracking down on militants using its territory to launch attacks in India’s NE states.
I have heard this complaint before but there is always another side to every story. I do not know what is exactly going on there but sounds awfully similar to complaints that Pakistan probably had when India was allowing Bdeshi freedom fighters setup training camps.
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. . .
I just wonder if these documents have been released just a few days ago ? I see a date of December 2002 on the website where the documents are hosted. It is a pity that it has taken soo long to come out in that case.
I hope india becomes truly secular and start taking more active stance so that we wont have any more communal fights within and soon or later we will be able to help all those suffering in bangladesh and Kashmir.
These were declassified in ’02, but this is a followup to a post on some docs which were just declassified.
Doesn’t it freak you out a little that a former President of the US seemed, well, cuckoo for cocoa puffs? Paranoid doesn’t begin to describe it.
Also, Indira “State of Emergency” Gandhi was not one of my favorites, either….
Is that whole forced sterilizations for population control true? Anyone know?
I know, I could look it up, but some of us work you know 🙂
Also, in regard to KXBs comment:
Documentation of ‘collusion’ with genocide is repellant. It’s oddly moving actually seeing the written words. Disgusting, disgusting man. Nixon/Kissinger foreign policy is truly vile.
*One a side note, I work with and live around a lot of Eastern European immigrants (croation, etc), and Polish immigrants. Does anyone feel that India buying military hardware from the Soviets was also a collusion of sorts? Not a snark or trying to deflect anything off the US! A genuine question. It’s always troubled me, I guess especially hearing the stories I hear. I suppose some would say India had no choice and was essentially backed into a corner by the foreign policy decisions of Pakistan/US etc. The world is a hard old place, innit?
MD,
I am not saying that Nixon’s behavior wasn’t reprehensible – it was. My main complaint was that Bangladesh, which owes its very existence to India, is now allowing its territory to be used by militants.
And I was chastised for using the epithet ‘HN’. The proof is in the pudding folks.
Oh, oops, I can see that’s what you meant KXB. I read your comment too quickly. Sorry.
sadly, yes. and the ways it was executed are stunningly horrible.
In my personal experiences with Pakistanis ( both American born and FOBs) most of them are in denial about the genocide in Bangladesh. The FOBs are usually more ignorant of this mini-holocaust than the American borns. I would imagine American Pakistanis have better access to info on the massacre in Bangladesh.
again,since I’m an ABCD, how exactly do you sterilize a person? Chemically? Cut their balls off? sorry to be so ignorant
MD:
“Collusion”? Yeah, any deal is a sort of collusion, I guess, but I don’t see anything wrong with it. Swadeshi armament industry did exist in the sophistication and scale necessary to defend against Pak/China, so India had to buy arms somewhere. Why not the Soviets?
The answer is Nasbandi
And there’s nothing specially Indian to it, apart from Mrs. Gandhi’s offer of a transistor radio in exchange for forced sterilization.
What does not knowing about the intricacies of sterilization have to do with being born here?
Bangladesh doesn’t “owe” its existence to the Indian government more than it does to the millions of people in Bangladesh who died fighting for its independence and/or being killed by the Pakistani army. This is the equivalent of arguing that the United States should have been subservient to the French Royalty because of their assistnce during the Revolutionary War despite whatever history and other interests intervened in the meantime.
Also, I would be SHOCKED if the Indian government’s decision to intervene didn’t have at least as much to do with the opportunity to cripple Pakistan as any kind of humanitarian sentiment; that’s how states work–Bangladesh and India both. I’m happy to be proved to the contrary, that Indira Gandhi and Congress were so committed to democracy and ending genocide that they made it a principle of their govenrment around the world and not just where it was geopolitically convenient. So save your moralistic bull$hit for another day.
But more to the point, try showing some solidarity. The extremists in Bangladesh cultivating militants (which i suspect is only the surface level complaint you have, and masks a deeper level of xenophobia or Islamaphobia or something) is part of a larger symptom of Hindu and Muslim extremists in INdia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh using and exacerbating religious tensions to undermine everyone else’s lives fo rthe benefit of their own power and f@#ked up ideology. And of course, they inherit traditions created by British Divide and Rule and the such (which I know you don’t like to think about).
I missed the part where the French expeditionary army captured New York the way the Indian army took Dhaka.
And of course, they inherit traditions created by British Divide and Rule and the such (which I know you don’t like to think about)
Paging “Dinesh Clueless Chooza” You lie! Vite man good. Vite man civilize me darky. Paging Dinesh. This Bengali forget about democracy and railroad and me speaking english.
Manish, I think you are missing Saurav’s point. Hes arguing that just because India helped BDesh in its struggle for independence does not mean that BDesh should live in such eternal gratitude to India where BDesh will forever play a subservient role to India. Gratitude is one thing, but BDesh does have the right to do things which India might not like or agree with. I am sure you do not believe that France should never defy the US just because the US helped liberate France during WW2.
desidancer-
i meant it more along the lines of “since I’m and ABCD i have no knowledge of this episode of sterilization in Indian History”…so i’ve never read anything about it till this blog, so I’m kinda saying i’ve been ignorant about a lot of India’s history thus far.
I dont think France will let US National Guards men murdered and their bodies mutilated, as the Bangladesh Rifles did it to the BSF Jawans US would have nuked a place in response.
I said earlier:
Of course, I meant, “Swadeshi armament industry did NOT exist in the sophistication and scale…”
Bangladesh most certainly does owe its existence to the Indian Army and Govt. You can make the argument that the Mukti Bahini would have won a guerrilla war in the months and years after 1971, which I strongly doubt would have happened. You could also argue that W.Pakistan would have relinquished E.Pak on its own by giving autonomy, or even independence in 1972 or later, which I think was more likely than not. But the fact is that the Indian Army defeated the W.Pak armed forces and made them surrender. That is what brought Bangladesh into existence, nothing else.
The war waged by the Allied armed forces, primarily Soviet and to a lesser extent the Western Allies, is what defeated Nazi Germany in WW2. The deaths of millions of Soviet citizens, Poles, Jews, Gypsies and other Europeans did not.
Thanks AM. Also, there were a few other parts to my point also–the reasons why states do things, and giving some credit to the people that created the social movement and not just the foreign military force that was there for a complex mixture of reasons.
Here’s the whole quote, Manish, which you took out of context. I highlighted the relevant portion.
However, if you really want me to go research find a better example than the U.S. and the French of a country that received assistance in its independence war and then later needed to define its own policies (i thought that’s what independence war for), I’m happy to do so. Perhaps Czechoslovakia and the USSR? Or Cuba and the US? Or Kosovo and the US?
It’s not really relevant though, whether I can cherrypick a better historical parallel or come up with a good counterfactual example. The analogy was there for illustrative purposes; not really the salient point in the argument.
The entire quote is in the comment right before mine. That’s not taking something out of context. That’s quoting the part you’re responding to.
If you’re saying I only responded to a portion, guilty as charged. I quoted the essence of what I disagreed with. The parts not quoted don’t change your argument, IMO.
I wish more people would quote selectively when the entire source is already available on the same page. We’re all busy. Only reference the precise part you’re referring to.
Ki Khobor Saurav?
While i agree with you that India helped Bangla Desh achive its victory against Pakistan as much for its own interets as for universal principals of human rights and democracy, I do think that you go overboard in taking whay may be a politically correct progressive south asian position (just like many indian americans do – for they obviously do not feel as strongly about certain issues since they are not Indians nor do they live in India). Bangladesh is not obligated to support India on every issue but least they could do (which is in their own interest) is to eliminate anti-India rhetoric in their political campaigns and taking overt and covert state actions which can only be described as anti-Indian. Hosting ULFA and other North Eastern terrorists/militants is not exactly being friends with your neigbhor. They need not thank us but they do not have to yank us either.
This bullshit – your words – of certain progressives of using British actions or communal politics of the subcontinent to rationalize every malafide policy of our neighbors needs to ebb a bit. Existence of water sharing issues certainly should not justify hosting armed militants on any territory.
We can ignore Indian Army’s help in BDesh creation as it was also strategically important to not have two hostile side on East and West.
But the following is hardly a good neighbourly behaviour (From the above linked article):
Its just that life is very cheap in India, nothing happened following this incident. Imagine US/Mexico here.
Saurav – And one more thing. One need not be xenophobic to feel that a neighboring state not host armed militants on its soil.
Do some research pal – on Bangladeshi actions in last couple of decades. I know may be your Bengali love is oozing out but I promise you will not be impressed with their human rights record or with their record on minority protection. I dare say that even though India has its own issues on this subject (Gujrat being the latest example), it does better than both Bangladesh and Pakistan where there is not even a pretence of any secularism or minority rights. You may want to pick up a book by Tasleema Nasreen in original Bengali to get a taste of life in Bangladesh!!
One last comment..
About having hostile govt. on two sides !!!
Pakistan propped up Taliban to have a non-proIndia govt. in Afghanistan, so that they dont have to worry about the western border. (Didnt quite work out the way they planned is another story) Northern Alliance (Ahmed Shah Masud) also had a pro-India bent.
Saurav,
Yes, Bangladesh “does” owe its existence to India. From taking in nearly 10 million refugees, to arming the Mukti Bahni, to invading – under what other possible set of circumstances could Bangladesh have achieve independence? That India’s own interests were served is also important – so what? When did self-interest become taboo? What nation survives on altruism of others?
To slightly elaborate on Manish’s point – the U.S. did not owe France allegiance for its aid, but it sure helped expel the Nazis out of France, at far greater cost in men and materiel than France incurred helping the U.S.
Kindly point out where I suggested Bangladesh owes any “allegiance” to India for being the only country to come to its aid? What I said was that Bangladesh should not allow groups to use its terrirtory that tend to cross the border, blow up civilians in rail cars and markets and then flee back to Bangladesh. It would be the neighborly thing to do. After all, if I had dog that kept pissing on your rosebushes, wouldn’t you ask me to keep my dog in my yard? Any personal animosity between us is an irrelevant matter as to the respect for boundaries.
Perhaps if you stepped out of the activist cocoon you’ve weaved for yourself, you would know that chief terrorist problems in the NE have little to do with Islam, so I failt to see where charging me as being anti-Islam comes from. Assamese groups in Assam resent Bengalis moving into their state – so they attack them. Nagas want to carve Naga majority districts from other Indian states and incorporate them into Nagaland, and the Bodo tribals want their own state as well. Islam has nothing to do with these insurgencies – yet all have found refuge in Bangladesh. While the evidence that Dhaka actively supports them is patchy, that Dhaka does nothing to curb their activities is well established.
Contrast this to the behavior of Bhutan. Last year Bhutan, with assistance from India, launched an assault on groups using its terriroty to launch attacks against India. Here is a tiny nation, yet it knows it has responisbilities in the neighborhood. That Bangladesh cannot muster even a token effort to crack down on militants does not speak too highly of them.
The Economist had its own take on Bangladesh’s current state of politics:
“State of Denial”, June 16, 2005
“It is the bitterness and lack of trust between these two women and their parties that has hijacked the democratic process, and encouraged the growth of extremism.”
“Even Manmohan Singh, India’s mild-mannered prime minister, is exasperated: “We can choose our friends,” he commented recently, “but we cannot choose our neighbours.””
The entire article from The Economist can be found here:
http://economist.com/World/asia/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4085719
Manish, what was out of context was that you omitted entirely the comparison I was making as to what factors to attirbute responsibility for Bangladeshi independence to (I even boldfaced it for you in the response–I was comparing two different factors that contributed to Bangladeshi independence and saying that KXB had overemphasized one factor and omitted entirely the other)–the two factors being the Indian government’s actions and the people in Bangladesh who built an indigenous movement. If that was unclear, I apologize; but you did misquote me rather than just responding to the portion you wanted.
Samsa, my point in bringing up the water sharing issues was to say that it’s perhaps a bit more complex than KXB’s original formulation, which Amardeep aptly called a “potshot” at current Bangladeshi politics given what we’re talking about. As for minority rights–to look at Hindu-Muslim relations in Bangladesh, Pakistan, or India (and maybe others in the reigion..i omit them from lack of knowledge, not to make a point) in isolation from the other two countries is ridiculous. You can blame Bangladesh’s elites for their increasing failure to protect minorities all you want, but as I pointed out above, the point is that power hungry religious fundamentalists in all three countries are responsible and India and Pakistan are the two major players in the region. I don’t want to make anyone wade through Lajja, but the event that triggers the anti-hindu violence in Bangladesh is the Babri Masjid riots. As for the responsibility of divide and rule–well it would be reductionist to say that’s the only factor, but to pretend it had no historical impact on subsequent events or in shaping the ways in which elites in all three countries behaved is to be in something more of the cocoon from which I will eventually emerge as a beautiful butterfly…or a moth who uses too many extended metaphors.
Saurav, given that the original comment was available half an inch above, I didn’t try to quote you at all. I responded on point with minimal anchors.
And this.
If the Web had red arrows and sticky notes, I’d have used those. Redundant quoting isn’t a good use of space.
Re: your point, you’re splitting hairs if you think the clauses left out of the anchors substantially change the meaning in terms of this argument.
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?”
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 🙂
Saurav:
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
Saurav:
I should add that I hold no brief for ‘KXB’.
Kumar
Kumar, thanks for your comments.
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.
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.
Saurav:
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
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? 🙂
Saurav:
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
Its interesting to hear all these remarks. I would like to quote “9. bdeshini” here
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.