Talk:Greater Bangladesh

To User:Mar4d

Please,don't start putting labels on something without verification. And stop adding random stuff that is related only in vague way. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a debating platform. It's not about you or I winning. It's about being factually correct. Before adding random stuff, please, discuss here. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The "labels" which you are referring to were only categories - which other irredentism-related articles follow too. I don't think there was anything wrong with the addition of the {{Irredentism}} template in the references section which you removed too; Mar4d (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mar4d, where did you find the fact that Bangladeshi writers use the term to imply irredentism, except to reply to a claim made otherwise? And, also which Wikipedia policy tells you to remove material from the lead that's already sourced in the body, without asking for a citation first? And, finally, what tells you that a map made without any verifiability is more credible than dozens of references? Please, discuss here before making accusations of bad faith (which definitely stands against the behavioral guideline). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Irredentism is defined here as "any position advocating annexation of territories administered by another state on the grounds of common ethnicity or prior historical possession, actual or alleged. Some of these movements are also called pan-nationalist movements. It is a feature of identity politics and cultural and political geography."

The concept of Greater Bangladesh is irredentist, if anything; regarding the map, I am not the creator. In fact, another user added it; however, you removed it without offering an explanation, which seemed WP:POV. Your other edits, such as the inclusion of "Indian writers" are also questionable. Who exactly are these Indian writers? The lead does not adequately provide the information that the concept is advocated by Bangladeshi nationalists. For this reason, the previous lead ("Greater Bangladesh is a political concept calling for the territorial expansion of the People's Republic of Bangladesh to include the Indian states of .."" etc.) had much more clarity. Mar4d (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop making personal attacks and stop assuming bad faith. If you want a POV, let's have the POV of Wikipedia here. We do have policies and guidelines that direct us to verifiable facts, not truth, and neutrality. Please go through the policies and guidelines to get a more clear picture of the Wikipedia before you make comments and edits like you are doing here. I am sure, with you level of enthusiasm, you'll make an excellent editor, as long you find that the Wikipedia environment respectable.

On top of that, the definition you provide seems to exclude unproven claims altogether. If I claim you're something and fail to substantiate it, you probably don't represent it (like Greater Bangladesh irredentism or your bad faith). And, finally, remember that Wikipedia is always work in progress. "Something was there already" is the lamest excuse for including or re-including something. I am keeping the argument open, and not reverting you immediately. Because, I believe you're perfectly able to discuss your POV and your faith. If necessary we can take it to wider forum for consensus. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The map in question is WP:OR. Is it supported by any references at all (i.e., has anyone outside wikipedia used or produced such a map to indicate the perceived extent of GB? I doubt that. The concept is such a fringe one, it has hardly any coverage outside local political rhetoric or Indian right wing writers). --Ragib (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, "Bangladeshi nationalists" hardly, if not "never", support the concept of GB. The two references often cited by Indian right wing authors are almost 20 year old gossip columns, written by non-notable journalists who have no importance in the Bangladeshi nationalist camp. Suppose, I today claim in an article that the whole Asia continent should be part of "GB" ... will that count as a claim by "Bangladeshi Nationalists"? Doubt that. The whole concept, if it exists, is a state-level political rhetoric used by some Indian regional politicians. --Ragib (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"The map in question is WP:OR" - would you also call this on Greater India O.R? And what about Unified India? Mar4d (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's called WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel the Map should stay even though the map has never been shown by the media or by any other organization because this will give an idea to people which areas might become a part of GB and the states which are shown as a part of GB have seen an increase in muslim population. --Pradeep90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC).

This is crazy

This article has to be a joke. This is pathetic enemity mongering against Bangladesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umran Chowdhury (talk • contribs) 23:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Every country thinks about its interest. Maybe the political establishment in Bangladesh feels that since they have a huge population and not enough land and resources, its better to try to take it from some other country. In this case the other country is India. Through Lebensraum maybe Bangladesh thinks that it can achieve it, something it cant achieve though war. -- Pradeep90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC).

Not notable

The topic is not notable.

1. A few old quotes by a small number of Bangladeshi politicians /officers as mentioned in Assam governor's report don't warrant an article. Unless there are greater number of serious claims made by a larger number of people as it is found for the greater Nepal demand, this topic doesn't stand.

2. The concept is that Bangladesh is intentionally pushing its citizen to make Indian north east a Muslim dominated area which will try to secede from India and join Bangladesh. Not a single major Indian newspaper takes it seriously. Immigration is a matter of concern but most Indian scholars agree it's due to economic reasons and no well known institution claims that Bangladesh is doing it intentionally. Although Bangladesh Government is criticized by Indian media for not acknowledging that the problem exists, it is not sufficient to put up a full article on a grave conspiracy.

3. The terrorist organizations mentioned are banned in Bangladesh itself. And main Huji leaders were sentenced to death as well.

--Iball (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Joke Article

I am a bangladeshi and first time i see the words "Greater Bangladesh". Someone indian crazy guy created this articel while in too much trying to find 'enemy'. Administrator, please check website and you will never see such word like "Greater Bangladesh".

There exist words like "Undivided Bengal" but thats a different thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.225.253.30 (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually it exists. Many Bangladeshis dream of Greater Bangladesh by including not only West Bengal, but even non-Bengali lands like Northeast India & Rakhine state in Myanmar. Tizen03 (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

“Many Bangladeshis” who exactly? I am Bangladeshi and I know as I fact that myself and my fellow citizens are more than content with the territory that we currently obtain, and have absolutely no interest in annexing the territory of sovereign nations. This entire article is nothing more than combination of grotesque and absurd conspiracy theories. AMomen88 (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry. That's the typical voice used by Indians when spewing conspiracy theories about its neighbours. They don't need evidence to support their malicious claims. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 03:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Great Article

I like the idea of Greater Bangladesh. Having West Bengal, Assam, Tripura with the current Bangladesh will make that a great country and a natural phenomenon. Will happen in near future. And yes Bangladesh has a subtle support for that idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.47.101 (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Greater Bangladesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415124641/http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/banglad.htm to http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/banglad.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725013418/http://dm.architexturez.org/digitalNE/assam%20agitation.htm to http://dm.architexturez.org/digitalNE/assam%20agitation.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723192023/http://www.gcim.org/attachements/GMP%20No%2042.pdf to http://www.gcim.org/attachements/GMP%20No%2042.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Assam here would mean entire Northeast India

Earlier "Assam" was a single state but due to an act in the Indian constitution, states were formed on the basis of ethnicities.

Even in "The Bengal borderland: beyond state and nation in South Asia" - the citation used in the article has mentioned that - "Assam, a state (province) of India, gradually broke into several smaller states: Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland (See Appendix Figure 2)"

And this demand of Assam Province merger with erstwhile East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) is as old as the ideology of East Pakistan. During 1947, West Pakistani leaders (including Jinnah) & East Pakistani leaders were expecting Assam Province as a part of Pakistan. Moinul Haque Chowdhary the Private Secretary of Jinnah, who after Independence became a Minister in Assam and later at Delhi, told Jinnah that he would "present Assam to him on a silver platter".

So I'm suggesting to add "Northeast" atleast in brackets, like - "Assam (currently Northeast India)", or just use the word "Assam Province" instead of just "Assam", or all Northeastern states can be mentioned here, or it can be written as "Assam and other Northeastern states".

Otherwise this article is quite misleading, because current "Assam" is different from the "Assam" that this article is implying. Tizen03 (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

How about "Assam Province (which includes Manipura, Meghalaya...)"? But, I am uncomofortable doing even that, as it smells kind of like WP:SYNTH. May be we stick to the basic information without trying the "analyze" or fill in the gaps, which is not very encouraged here. I not sure if there ever was a theory about Bangladesh trying to gobble up Nagaland or Arunachal (that would be WP:OR). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

But this way its even more misleading. Northeast (excluding Tripura) would fall under undivided Assam, as mentioned in the citation provided in the article. If its already mentioned in citation, then I don't see the problem here, unless you have some sort of political agenda.

Meghalaya & Manipur were considered as a part of Assam province too btw. But Manipur had more political power, than other districts of Assam. See Assam Province map for reference. The reason why Tripura is mentioned as separately in this article here is because it was a completely separate state from Assam. Tizen03 (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

A simple suggestion would be to just add the word - "undivided" infront of Assam, like - "undivided Assam". Tizen03 (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

None of that apply here, as van Schendel frames the conspiracy theory in early 2000s (page 233) and details the districts of Assam that excludes all other northeastern states (page 398). By that time Assam and other northeastern states were clearly separated. The conspiracy theory was not coined in 1947. So Assam of 1947 is irrelevant here. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Now you are repeating the same thing. This conspiracy theory is not from early 2000s. I already wrote that above.

Jinnah mentioned he wanted Assam Province for East Pakistan (Bangadesh). And Moinul Haque Chowdhary the Private Secretary of Jinnah, who after Independence became a Minister in Assam and later at Delhi, told Jinnah that he would "present Assam to him on a silver platter". All these events took place when Assam was still undivided. Tizen03 (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I see your point. But that belongs either to the background section or to another article called "Greater East Pakistan" or something. I am sure you see that "Greater Bangladesh" can't be thing before Bangladesh is born. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Demography

The Demography part is not relevant to the this page rather it should be moved to Bengal region page. Pitush Puttar (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)