Bangladesh: A Rajakar speaks.I created Pakistan and I was defending my country.

I am a Razaker and my father was a Razaker.1947, He was involved to make East Pakistan. In 1970, my father was running for MP as a Muslim league candidate with harrican marka and in 1971, he was peace committee chairman in Balagong. 1906, my grand father was founding member of Muslim league, sate of Assam, district of Sylhet, Balagong delegate.My grand father and father argument was to release East Bengali Proza (Slave)from Hindu Zamidar.Their stupid philosophy has put us 60 years of bloodshed, hatred. Last 36 years of deep hatred between Bengali Nationalist and Razaker .Now, this is the time to reunification.Bengali will be greatly happy to reunited with their old master West Bengal and Razaker will happy to preach and practice their religion Islam, so let us reunite with India. They made the mistake, now let us solve it.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Bangali
• Bangladesh

[ShittingOnIndia]

watch?v=a3h3dkyJ2a8

[Rahul99ish]

bangladesh and india should stick together ,,, fuck pakistan.

[Re4perZer0]

@workhardt2 you were talking about INDIANS. perhaps i worded it wrong. tamil nadus history is INSEPARABLE from india, it has no geographical adjacencies with other countries or heteroethnic regions, Northern south asia has middle eastern influence, you're right. so then the term "indian" itself is just a name is it not? the ethnically different bhutanese, tibetans, and nepalese are considered "indian" as well, just as black negritos are considered malaysian. doesn't mean it's same ethnicity.

[workhardt2]

@Re4perZer0 ... Actually the Tamils are dravidians not Indo-Aryans. The language hasn't evolved from the sanskrit. Their culture is alot different. The Northern India, share alot in common with the Pakistanis, more so the Punajbi Indians and the Punjabi Pakistanis (If u put aside religion).

Your statement that the Bangladeshis aren't indian, has little substance. India,Bangladesh ( are terms that are just 60 and 40 years old) the histories of these people go back about 2500 years.

[Re4perZer0]

@Re4perZer0 ok but bangladesh itself has again had different unindian occupations. india is ethnically diverse, true, but certain ethnicities are more native like those in delhi and tamil nadu. pakistanis aren't completely indian, bangladeshis aren't completely indian.

[workhardt2]

@Re4perZer0 The last 500 years of the people that today call themselves "Indians" is the only link between its people. 

[workhardt2]

@Re4perZer0 India, itself is a fabricated word. It acutally stands today for 22 different languages, Three ethnic groups and 3-4 beliefs. There is no one characteristic that is shared among all the Indian except maybe a merger in our history for the last 500 years since Akbhar united the sub continent. Look at the people that inhabit the sub continent more closely u will see the diversity.

"India is a geographical term, it is no more a united nation than the equator " Winston Churchill.

[Re4perZer0]

@workhardt2 exactly, so just because they were once part of the empire, doesn't mean they're indian.

[workhardt2]

@Re4perZer0 Actually India's influence end in Pakistan Punjab and Sindh. India has had little influence over the Pashtuns and the Balochs and its influence on Iranians and Afghans are minimal.

[Re4perZer0]

@workhardt2 greater india? it included afghanistan and iran, are you going to call THOSE indian too? greater bengal itself included burma, tibet, and bangladeshis have had a long history with ayutthaya, bagan,arakan especially, indonesia( sumatra, java, bali) as well as various arab nations and you still haven't responded to my previous arguments, you just keep restating your thesis.