Talk:Bangladesh–India relations: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:19, 17 September 2006 editGaneshbot (talk \| contribs)Bots120,433 editsm BOT, Replaced: {{WikiProject Politics of India}} → {{WP India\|class=\|importance=\|politics=yes}} using AWB ← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:24, 19 January 2007 edit undoArmanaziz (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,608 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WP India\|class=\|importance=\|politics=yes}}		{{WP India\|class=\|importance=\|politics=yes}}
			{{WP Bangladesh\|class=start\|importance=Mid\|politics=yes}}

	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)		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>		: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>

Revision as of 06:24, 19 January 2007

India: Politics Unassessed

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup.

Bangladesh Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Bangladesh To-do list:

Add more images to Bangladesh Liberation War and related pages
Clean up Climate change in Bangladesh, it needs a lot of work
Clean up History of Bangladesh after independence, it needs NPOV
Improve Bangladesh back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion)
Improve Bengali language back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion)
Improve Bengalis and related pages
Take a look at the requested articles.
Make a MRT line 3 article.
Extend, add an infobox and a map of New Eskaton to New Eskaton.

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. Pchandra 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. AshishG_{02:31, December 27, 2024 (UTC).}

Move?

This should probably be titled India-Bangladesh relations. NickelShoe 00:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I moved. AshishG 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 Zia-Ur-Rehman 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 SAARC. 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. --Ragib 06:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Categories: