Two India alternate history questions

Apr 2018
517
India
#41
Bangladeshi Muslims had been migrating into India illegally, 4 millions illegal Bangladeshis had been detected in Assam alone, but still there had been a steep decline of the population of Hindus in Bangladesh percentage wise, it was 1/3rd of the population in 1947.
Do not compare with '47. An enormous number of Hindus left Bangladesh in '71. The Hindu population never recovered from that.
 
Likes: Futurist
Apr 2018
517
India
#42
Patel's clout came to be being the home minister after independence. Pre- independence, he wasn't much of a factor. Also, collective clout of an united Punjab wouldn't be much insignificant either. Bengal's move along similar line would increase their chance too.
I am talking about post independence. Even if Unionists had initially chosen to remain independent like Hyderabad, Patel would have definitely arm twisted a weak guy like Tiwana into joinning India anyway.
 
Likes: Futurist
#45
Why didn't they return after Bangladeshi independence?
Thing is, it was out of the question. Because things didn't improve in Bangladesh until 90s. In 1975 Seikh Mujib and his entire family was massacred. From that time to 90s Bangladesh struggled with Islamist governments and military dictatorships. All those Pakistani collaborators, Razakars and all, virtually roamed free. It wasn't until the first Awami League Government under Seikh Hasina that these elements began to be executed and things begin to improve.

General Zia (Ziaur Rahman) wanted to distance himself and his country from Indian influence somewhat like Charles De Gaulle. He wasn't very pro-India in the first place and fought India in the war of 65. His association with India was like basically a relationship strictly based on limited mutual interest. However when he came to power his primary aim was to improve the economy of Bangladesh and politically stabilize the country. In order to do so he made way too many compromises with the ideals of secularism. He made peace with the elements that opposed the very independence he fought for, carried out so many massacres in collaboration with Pakistanis. His Islamist policies (not like other Zia's in Pakistan) helped his country gain an favourable image in the Middle-East. All these things helped the economy a lot but spelled doom for a whole lot of people especially in places where the presence of Government was minimal to nonexistent, i.e. the rural areas. Also military coups and violent political repressions were regular things. So all in all, it wasn't anything anyone with the memories of '71 and before would ever go back to. And India provided better opportunities, even if not immdiately but certainly in future. Plus in India, one wouldn't have to be afraid for just being a Hindu.

This thing continued well into the 90s and early 2000s. Now things are better but sporadic incidents happen. Jamaat E Islami Bangladesh is still a thing. Also most Bangladeshi Hindus have relatives in India and therefore prefer to migrate. Furthermore its not only Hindus that migrate but a great number of Muslims do too, for opportunities and all. Also these refugees provide an easy votebank to the politcal entites of West Bengal. CPM was notorious for this. West Bengalis (In general) frown at this, Assamese take it way too more seriously these days.

IMHO - This sort of one helluva fu**ed up mess happens when some drunk appointed by Churchill draws a line on a map that goes through someone's paddy field, someone's toilet, between two platforms of a train station and everyone blindly accepts that as an acceptable political solution of an artificially cooked up problem based on some divine crap that mattered so little to so many outside their homes and family rituals.
 
Likes: Futurist
Apr 2015
4,451
India
#47
1
Patel's clout came to be being the home minister after independence. Pre- independence, he wasn't much of a factor. Also, collective clout of an united Punjab wouldn't be much insignificant either. Bengal's move along similar line would increase their chance too.
Patel was the most popular leader in Congress and he was going to PM until Gandhi handpicked Nehru. Even in Punjab, the Sikhs were supporting Akali Dal.
 
Likes: Futurist
Jul 2012
3,191
Dhaka
#48
Thing is, it was out of the question. Because things didn't improve in Bangladesh until 90s. In 1975 Seikh Mujib and his entire family was massacred. From that time to 90s Bangladesh struggled with Islamist governments and military dictatorships. All those Pakistani collaborators, Razakars and all, virtually roamed free. It wasn't until the first Awami League Government under Seikh Hasina that these elements began to be executed and things begin to improve.

General Zia (Ziaur Rahman) wanted to distance himself and his country from Indian influence somewhat like Charles De Gaulle. He wasn't very pro-India in the first place and fought India in the war of 65. His association with India was like basically a relationship strictly based on limited mutual interest. However when he came to power his primary aim was to improve the economy of Bangladesh and politically stabilize the country. In order to do so he made way too many compromises with the ideals of secularism. He made peace with the elements that opposed the very independence he fought for, carried out so many massacres in collaboration with Pakistanis. His Islamist policies (not like other Zia's in Pakistan) helped his country gain an favourable image in the Middle-East. All these things helped the economy a lot but spelled doom for a whole lot of people especially in places where the presence of Government was minimal to nonexistent, i.e. the rural areas. Also military coups and violent political repressions were regular things. So all in all, it wasn't anything anyone with the memories of '71 and before would ever go back to. And India provided better opportunities, even if not immdiately but certainly in future. Plus in India, one wouldn't have to be afraid for just being a Hindu.

This thing continued well into the 90s and early 2000s. Now things are better but sporadic incidents happen. Jamaat E Islami Bangladesh is still a thing. Also most Bangladeshi Hindus have relatives in India and therefore prefer to migrate. Furthermore its not only Hindus that migrate but a great number of Muslims do too, for opportunities and all. Also these refugees provide an easy votebank to the politcal entites of West Bengal. CPM was notorious for this. West Bengalis (In general) frown at this, Assamese take it way too more seriously these days.

IMHO - This sort of one helluva fu**ed up mess happens when some drunk appointed by Churchill draws a line on a map that goes through someone's paddy field, someone's toilet, between two platforms of a train station and everyone blindly accepts that as an acceptable political solution of an artificially cooked up problem based on some divine crap that mattered so little to so many outside their homes and family rituals.
You have an excellent awareness of Bangladesh situation. I will make just a few corrections to an otherwise accurate summary:

There never was an Islamist government in Bangladesh, not even remotely. Ziaur Rahman did not have any Islamist policy, he simply took some superficial steps to appease ME states. He was a very astute statesman.

Violent political repressions of leftists (JSD) was a thing during Sheikh Mujib's rule (72-75), not Zia's. Ziaur Rahman actually restored political freedom of all parties which was banned by previous Awami League government (See Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League - Wikipedia).

Muslims and Hindus live in near perfect harmony in Bangladesh. It's the political parties that create the divide at opportune moments. Contrary to your perception, it's Awami League that instills fear among Hindus to exploit their votes.
 
#49
You have an excellent awareness of Bangladesh situation. I will make just a few corrections to an otherwise accurate summary:

There never was an Islamist government in Bangladesh, not even remotely. Ziaur Rahman did not have any Islamist policy, he simply took some superficial steps to appease ME states. He was a very astute statesman.

Violent political repressions of leftists (JSD) was a thing during Sheikh Mujib's rule (72-75), not Zia's. Ziaur Rahman actually restored political freedom of all parties which was banned by previous Awami League government (See Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League - Wikipedia).

Muslims and Hindus live in near perfect harmony in Bangladesh. It's the political parties that create the divide at opportune moments. Contrary to your perception, it's Awami League that instills fear among Hindus to exploit their votes.
What I meant by Islamist was reconciliatory rather than radical. I understand the word is somewhat inappropriate. However the appeasing policies like amending the constitution to make it more Islamized than secular, letting all those war criminals and former Razakars go free etc can be perceived as not so tolerant, what the underlying cause may be.

Mujib's dictatorial tendencies are well known and it is also well known that because of this attitude he became quite unpopular in a short time.

I don't have the perception that Awami League is some divine salvation for anyone. Political parties are all the same morally corrupt votebank sharks under different banners and colors, some are a little better than others at certain times. However hanging terrorists and war criminals is a good job I think. Elements like Golam Azam, Matiur Nijami etc didn't deserve to go scot free for what they had done in '71. Also a lot muktijoddhas never got an ounce of what they deserved for their sacrifice. For similar reasons I consider the Nuremberg Trials somewhat ineffective.

My knowledge of post '71 Bangladesh is actually very limited when it comes to specific events. I generally concentrate more on Military History. I based my post on Wiki and whatever I hear and heard from various people.