The current establishment has been signing peace treaties with a multitude of rebels/factions in the NorthEast – the Isak-Muivah in Nagaland, the Tripura peace accord, the accord with NDFB in Assam -all of these in the last 6 years. These are stepping stones to a saner region that can then focus on economics. The whole CAA-NRC discussion is much more central to the North East than anywhere else despite what Delhi liberals are wont to characterise it as.

The larger endgame is to achieve a economic trans-union with BD which will provide much needed sea access to most of the North East and propel its economic growth – this was the case for the last 3 centuries – 1947 was a pure political decision with no economic understanding of the region.

The problem with simply a economic trans-union is manifold as can be seen with the travails of many EU states. When India began to form her union, there was a big discussion on the nature and ways of the beast (the Centre, State and Concurrent list). Some wanted no army, only a loose confederation of politically independent states. Others wanted UK borough style municipalities. In the end, Nehru cut the Gordian knot by insisting on three must-haves – a national Army, a political union and a centralised foreign policy. The brilliance with this lakshman-rekha was that Nehru asked for subsumed localism without stating it as much. The planners then went ahead with these broad contours and produced the Constitution.

If you have noticed every one of the peace accords India has signed with rebel groups, they have 3 main asks – lay down arms, participate in elections, cut contacts with foreign sovereign parties – the same Nehru formula.

Now to achieve a economic union, an accord is needed. To achieve an accord, Nehru’s three factors must come into play. To get to a position where Nehru’s agenda can be asked, a conflict is needed.

Perhaps pragmatism from both parties can avoid a long-drawn out process. It is however inevitable that real life will overtake many of these processes.

lol
https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/2016/11/20/abul-barkat-632-hindus-left-country-day/

I know you said you are not responding to me, but such passive-aggressive comments about me demand a response (if not for you than at least for everyone else reading this).

Everyone has a narrative (I note you picked up the Urdu word “nazariya” which I never mentioned). On this blog, we are engaged in discussions of History and politics, not in discussions of physical science (in which objective truth is possible). I have never claimed that my worldview is the only one that conforms to objective reality. I will openly admit to being a Nehruvian secular liberal (not a “Muslim apologist” which I take offense to). I have come to this worldview through my reading and life experience, as well as family background. You claim not to be a Hindutvadi but like others on this forum believe in the rhetoric of “one thousand years of Occupation”. This is obviously a narrative and not the absolute truth (anyone who thinks it is is delusional).

On the other thread, I responded to your arguments about “forced conversions” by citing Richard Eaton, a renowned scholar on this topic (whom Razib has also discussed previously). I would be happy to consider arguments from the other side. However, you would have to cite academics who are equally respected as Eaton. Your individual opinion is neither here nor there (especially as someone who is not academically trained in History).

Someone who denigrates all Sufi saints as “Islamists” is guilty of either ignorance (which is pardonable) or disingenuousness (which is not). Even someone like Anan (whom I profoundly disagree with on many things) shows respect for saints like Hazrat Nizamuddin Auliya, as do the millions of Hindus who worship at his tomb in Delhi.

It is futile to engage in historical discussions with someone who shows no understanding of the historical method or of nuance more generally. I am happy to cease responding to you, but if you make snide and passive aggressive remarks, I will be forced to respond once again.

sir, it is dose, small da!!! not dha( big da)

when an Indonesian or Nigerian can be the face of a Muslim as much as a Saudi citizen is?
i feel already started. there were indonesian preachers in hyderabad and in the nizamuddin markaz incident. this event is now the south korean virus example in india.

Kabir

Indians killed themselves in order to get linguistically organized states (I think Andhra Pradesh was the first).

You have forgotten Sri Lanka a 30 year civil war to establish a state with separate language and culture.

Might have made sense except right next door are 55 miilion (SL is 21 miilion) with the same language and culture.

not logan’s run brown guy 😉

“in The Idea of the Muslim World author (who is a Turk) argues Indian Muslims were the leaders in the 19th and early 20th centuries.”

I haven’t read the book, but what came to mind was the fact that this was around the time that the Ahmadiyya movement arose, which even if not that influential in its place of origin now (I know about how Ahmadiyya is considered heretical in Pakistan) was indeed internationally influential for being strongly internationally proselytizing, and many westerners’ first explosure to Islam, in the UK and the US (e.g. I’ve read Ahmadiyya was influential among African Americans prior to the 50s and 60s and was even said by some to have contributed to racial egalitarianism leading up to the US Civil Rights movement, bridging black Americans and immigrant Asians/Arabs alike, though I have no idea how strong an influence scholars accept it played stateside). And it seems like even today, Ahmadiyya while only making a small proportion of Muslims, is quite well represented in the South Asian diaspora in the west, as well as among Africans.

So, somehow, something was going on so that Indian Muslims were having the inspiration and impetus to spread this new movement abroad and others were receptive to it.

I watched a Youtube video on Chittagong cuisine once. I’m basically an expert on Bangladesh.

What is the sandman reference.