Misplaced Pages

Talk:Bangladesh–India relations

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AshishG (talk | contribs) at 06:58, 15 April 2006 (moved Talk:India-Bangladesh Relations to Talk:India-Bangladesh relations: Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:58, 15 April 2006 by AshishG (talk | contribs) (moved Talk:India-Bangladesh Relations to Talk:India-Bangladesh relations: Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:WikiProject Politics of India 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. AshishG01:17, December 26, 2024 (UTC).

Move?

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