| Revision as of 06:29, 19 January 2007 editArmanaziz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,608 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Revision as of 04:30, 26 June 2007 edit undo24.24.233.158 (talk) ←Replaced page with '{{WP India|class=|importance=|politics=yes}} {{WP Bangladesh|class=start|importance=Mid}}'Next edit → |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{WP India|class=|importance=|politics=yes}} |
|
{{WP India|class=|importance=|politics=yes}} |
|
{{WP Bangladesh|class=start|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WP Bangladesh|class=start|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
|
|
The section on "Areas of Dispute" in "India-Bangladesh Relations" is highly disputable, and clearly written from a mainstream Indian perspective. Further, it is loaded with uncorroborated facts and does not give any substantive information for the readers except that India is victimised by its 'peripheral' neighbours. It says ultra-leftist pro-Chinese groups were supporting Zia-ur Rahman, but who were they? "Ultra-leftism" in South Asia generally means adhering to Maoism or Mao-tse-tung thought, and at the time Rahman stabilised his rule, China had discarded Mao; so it is likely that the socalled "ultra-leftists" rejected the new Chinese direction as in India. Secondly, the article talks about "anti-India forces" and "illegal immigrants" which are evidently diplomatic rhetorics used by India against its neighbours. Thirdly, who has testified that "every day around 6,000 immigrants cross over into India" from Bangladesh? It is not only a hillarious piece of statistics, but it is a clear evidence of anti-immigrant perception of the writer. And who else can see Anti-India Pakistani ISI hand in every bilateral or international disputes in South Asia (as the writer evidently does) but a non-neutral Indian chauvinist? I think the article should be deleted or written with more informative and clear-headed manner, as bilateral issues are always very sensitive ones. The writer must accomodate the perspectives of all parties involved in the disputes. ] 15:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I tried to neutralize the subject of disputation. I don't have more information than what was present in the article, hence, I tried to reword or eliminate unsubstantiated points of contention. If you feel it is still POV, you are free to discuss or edit. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>{{CURRENTTIME}}, ], ] (]).</sub> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Move?== |
|
|
This should probably be titled ]. ] 00:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Agree. I moved. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== comments on POV == |
|
|
|
|
|
I removed the following point from the "Areas of dispute" section: |
|
|
|
|
|
:''In 1975, Mujibur Rahman was assassinated and in his place, a staunch anti-India leader, General ] assumed power. He was supported by reactionary communal forces which were opposed to Bangladesh’s independence as well as by local communist groups which were highly critical of expansionist Indian policies. Initially he received support from Western powers and China and projected India as Bangladesh’s enemy in international arena. During this period, bilateral relations became complicated and hostile. '' |
|
|
|
|
|
This point is very POV. First of all, there is no proof that Zia was a "staunch anti-India leader". After all, he took initiatives that resulted in the founding of ]. Next, it is also POV to say that Zia "projected India as Bangladesh's enemey in international arena". Finally, to say that Zia was supported by "Reactionary communal forces" is not entirely correct. Zia did allow a section of them to return to politics, but at the same time, Zia was a decorated Freedom fighter too. |
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, I looked into the previous comments, and the section on disputes did look something from an Indian perspective. Right now, it has become better, but would need more editing to make it neutral. I'd try to do some when I have time. Thanks. --] 06:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
