Why not Pakistan then...is'nt that part of Pakistan neighboring India has similar situation as author hints of between West Bengal and East Bengal..is not not true PUNJAB is in Both Pakistan & India is,nt not true Jammu & Kashmir is still disputed between India & Pakistan...
I think it has been many water under the bridge Bangladesh do not need necessarily need bad relation ship with its neighbor..but has been their since 1971 Dec that is almost 41 year...and will make it longer..
May not be surprised some the author do not mention who where LORD CURZONS adviser..they.are the same who wish to divide INDIA into further..it is the same force they are the one that divided the are the one wanting to put it back together, they are the one that again conspiring to break it down further( India as each state each country)..
All I can tell you is this..I would not give them ANY OF THAT PLEASURE...LORD CURZON & BRITISH had left many years ago..they even left HONG KONG..
It is the same force..in US & British National Assemblies...
The thing is it will be long time some one from TAMIL NADU/ OR ASSAM/OR URISSA will be prime minister or President of India..and same in many other states of India..it was an exception this time MAMATA BANERJEE tried SONGMA..they do have state assemblies..and Gov and etc..
What ever India wishes..my opinion may not matter...I just do not like those guys gleeing
From: Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com>
To: Zoglul Husain <zoglul@hotmail.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, September 7, 2012 8:08 PM
Subject: [chottala.com] Re: Existential threat to Bangladesh
Existential threat to Bangladesh
On 9/8/12, Zoglul Husain <zoglul@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
In The Hindu (one of the principal English dailies of India) M V Kamath wrote,
"Let it be said in simple and plain language : Bangladesh has no
business to exist. Its creation in 1947 was as historic a mistake as
Lord Curzon's partition of Bengal was in 1905. Curzon's plan to divide
Bengal was annulled because in the end Bengal's sense of unity
prevailed.Bangladesh, if it wants to survive, must return to India and
India in return must help it to do so. The answer to the problem of
illegal immigration of Bangladeshi's into India lies in one word :
Federation. No mather how loudly the current rulers of Bangladesh may
deny it, Bangladesh can never be self-sufficient. It has a cultural
identity of its own that it shares with West Bengal. It could never be
part of Pakistan and its creation should have been foreseen. So should
its ultimate unity with India, no matter what resistance Begum Zia may
offer or the Jamaat-e-Islami. What needs to be worked out is the
nature of Bangladeshi's reconciliation with India."
http://www.mail-archive.com/assam%40pikespeak.uccs.edu/msg03800.html
>
> Please click to read the Daily Sangram article (4 September 2012), which refers to the above:
>
http://www.dailysangram.com/news_details.php?news_id=95170
>
On 9/8/12, Zoglul Husain <zoglul@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
In The Hindu (one of the principal English dailies of India) M V Kamath wrote,
"Let it be said in simple and plain language : Bangladesh has no
business to exist. Its creation in 1947 was as historic a mistake as
Lord Curzon's partition of Bengal was in 1905. Curzon's plan to divide
Bengal was annulled because in the end Bengal's sense of unity
prevailed.Bangladesh, if it wants to survive, must return to India and
India in return must help it to do so. The answer to the problem of
illegal immigration of Bangladeshi's into India lies in one word :
Federation. No mather how loudly the current rulers of Bangladesh may
deny it, Bangladesh can never be self-sufficient. It has a cultural
identity of its own that it shares with West Bengal. It could never be
part of Pakistan and its creation should have been foreseen. So should
its ultimate unity with India, no matter what resistance Begum Zia may
offer or the Jamaat-e-Islami. What needs to be worked out is the
nature of Bangladeshi's reconciliation with India."
http://www.mail-archive.com/assam%40pikespeak.uccs.edu/msg03800.html
>
> Please click to read the Daily Sangram article (4 September 2012), which refers to the above:
>
http://www.dailysangram.com/news_details.php?news_id=95170
>
__._,_.___
