In Bangladesh, at the moment there is a lot of heated debate about a war that made it an independent country from Pakistan – after the British Raj granted India independence, a partition followed, that joined Pakistan with Bangladesh. It was difficult for the Raj at that time, to govern a state that was known to give the Hindu majority privileges that were not open to Muslims. Although, it had tried to rule the state and improve the lives of Muslims in the region the thought was difficult to realize at that time because of barbarity and constant protests against British rule. The picture in the region today is very different: India and Bangladesh both have to grapple with a flawed democracy and numerous regional troubles, such as too much diversity, with their unique point of views and a land that needs to be concerned about its historic past (perhaps a lot more than it’s amicable neighbour) and it’s position as a somewhat liberal Muslim state in the region.
I believe it is not correct to get carried away with passion in politics: when you talk about Pakistan’s role in the war you must think that it is also a border country that Bangladesh should aim to have positive ties with. The general idea of the day seems to suggest that homegrown terrorism has marred the global reputation of both Sri Lanka and Pakistan, and subsequently altered the perspectives about it for all of its neighbours because of how foreign policy governs politics around the world. Add to that the notion that the country Pakistan was responsible for the war, instead of a certain section of people from Pakistan, some of who, if rumours are to be believed found “glory” in Pakistan after losing Bangladesh’s Liberation War (1971) only seems to steam up diplomacy in the region.
There is no denying that politics in the region is complicated because when a questionable party comes to power in the region (sans India and Bangladesh) they are known to distort not only their national history and cultural beliefs, with total disregard, they also try to erase out history of the War. In that respect, it’s very easy to get carried away because so many do love to do that in politics but is that correct diplomacy? Its doubtful. I think India speaks as less as possible about its own independence from the British Raj which puts into focus questions about its diplomatic national agenda but for Bangladesh the real focus should be on how the state actually wants to define its history in its entirety – throw in diplomacy too, both for it and India.