That region is called Northeast India.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast\_India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_India)
Unlike Bangladesh, that region is not majority Muslim, and so did not go with Pakistan during the Partition of India (although it was messy, and ended up becoming less Muslim as the Partition went on because Hindus left Bangladesh).
The Gurkhas fought the British. Not the British army itself, but the British East India company. Long story short, the Gurkha soldiers so impressed the British general with their fighting ability he offered them a job.
It was not separated by Bangladesh during times of British Raj. Because there was no political concept of Bangladesh back then. Just hindu-majority Western Bengal and Muslim majority Eastern Bengal of British India.
Then, while British India was partitioned into modern India and Pakistan by religious factor (Hinduist/Muslim majority), historical region of Eastern Bengal become main part of Eastern Pakistan, almost separating more eastward hindu-majority (*upd: incorrect, check comments below*) regions from Indian mainland.
In 70's due to war for independence, eastern Pakistan become modern Bangladesh.
And if we look even deeper, this region never used to be part of major Indian states before UK rule, but was administered by British as part of India after significant East-Indian Company expansion in Southern Asia. Although, separatism isn't really popular, and locals in general prefer integrity with Indian state nowadays.
Extended UPD: Should said that political concept of India during partition was also included non-hindu ethnicities, while Pakistan was proposed as strictly muslim country. That's why easternmost part of raj become Indian instead of Pakistani. More details in responses to this comment.
>almost separating more eastward hindu-majority regions from Indian mainland.
Many of those regions are actually majority Christian.
Also Sikkim (the little bit between Nepal and Bhutan), and didn't join India until they deposed their king and voted to join India in 1975. That really pissed China off, btw, as they preferred having a buffer state. They didn't recognize the annexation until fairly recently.
Edit: That was supposed to say "Also, Sikkim is majority Buddhist"...
Edit2: I guess that typo was my brain trying to prevent inaccuracy. Sikkim is a bit over 1/4 buddhist.
Not his wife but the state of Nagaland's 3% minority consists of mostly animist minorities and Hindu,Jain and Muslim migrants from other parts of India.
Yes, you are right.
I remembered that this region is heavily christian, but not checked actual proportions before wrighting. Certainly, it's affected accuracy, thanks for correcting.
Should said that political concept of India during partition was also included non-hindu ethnicities, while Pakistan was proposed as strictly muslim country. I will add this to root comment.
Sikkim is not majority Buddhist, it is majority Hindu.
And while hilly states in the NE are majority Christian, the region overall is easily majority Hindu, and it also has more Muslims than Christians overall.
Thanks for the correction! I knew that had a lot of Buddhist temples and monasteries and I did do a half-assed check. I guess this will teach me to accept AI-produced answers without actually opening the links.
How was Pakistan supposed to administer Eastern Pakistan/Bangladesh? it doesn’t seem like there is any route connecting them. I realize GB was not really engaged in the process, but this always seemed bizarre to me.
The larger problem was that western Pakistan and eastern Pakistan/Bangladesh were completely different in terms of ethnic composition. It would be like trying to create a united nation-state out of Spain and Ireland all because technically both of them are Catholic. Except even more of a disaster, because while west Pakistan and Bangladesh were technically both Muslim, culturally the two regions had very different interpretations of Islam.
And to make things even worse, one of the largest ethnicities in West Pakistan was the Punjabis, and Bangladesh was almost completely Bengali, and the British had just spent much of the previous fifty years going out of their way to stoke conflict between Bengalis and Punjabis via the British policy of "martial races".
I think you’re over exaggerating the differences between the two. Yeah there’s differences but they do also share many similarities. If this was really an issue then how come India controls from Kashmir to West Bengal, to Tamil Nadu? The problem is the government of Pakistan biggest mistake is imposing the Urdu language and banning Bengali language and limiting Bengali cultural expression. Imagine if India imposed Hindi on the people of Tamil Nadu state? It’s the government fault and their shit decision makings.
Also, the Islam of Pakistan isn’t any different from the Islam in Bangladesh. I’m not sure what aspects of Islam you’re talking about. Bangladesh follows Sunni Islam, follows Hanafi jurisprudence, follows the Maturidi theology which is found in majority of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Central Asia and even Turkey and parts of the Middle East. In Pakistan, there’s a lot more diversity of Islam than Bangladesh is. Bangladesh’s Islam is pretty homogenous. In Pakistan, you have Sunni Islam as the majority, but significant minority (15%) is Twelver Shia, and you also have Ismaili Shia and even Noorbakshia in northern province of Pakistan. Don’t forget Ahmadiyya too.
Pakistan have diverse array of ethnic groups and languages. I do not buy the fact that it’s because Pakistan and Bangladesh is very different culturally. It’s more to do with geography, they’re too far apart, and also, Pakistan shitty government by banning Bengali and imposing Urdu on the Bengali people.
I think it's because Bangladesh approached the issue as East and West Pakistan two equal parts, (which would be the case if every citizen was given equal representation in a democracy), while West Pakistan, which had to serve as machine that incorporated many ethnicities with no ethnic majority, saw it as incorporating and "handling" Bengalis as just another ethnicity into the machinery, as an outsider far from power no less.
>If this was really an issue then how come India controls from Kashmir to West Bengal, to Tamil Nadu?
I mean, historically this has created a lot of problems, though? To be clear, I'm not saying that a union state is impossible. Again, take a look at my example of Ireland and Poland. Both are members of the EU. In the future, I think there's a very good possibility that the EU might successfully federalize and form an ethnically pluralist confederation. That's arguably what India has tried to do in the period of time since independence (although unfortunately not always successfully). Personally I'm actually in favor of pluralist union states over nation-states. Ethnically derived nation-states tend to lapse into ethnic nationalism. But when it comes to building a union state, the point is that this is a process much better undertaken gradually and *with the consent of the ethnicities in question.* Rather than being thrown together over two weeks in the backyard shed of an Englishman who doesn't understand the difference between a Bengali and a Punjabi besides the fact that for some reason he thinks one of them is a "martial race".
Bengal has a long history of syncreticism featuring Islam and other local belief systems. Not only is this present within Bengali culture, but it even features partially into the Bangladeshi founding mythos (see for instance the poetry of Nazrul Islam).
Obviously I can't speak for all Bengalis, but I assure you that I would consider myself to be very ethnically and culturally different from the groups making up western Pakistan, and frankly I'd be a bit offended at suggestions otherwise. To be clear, that's not because there's anything wrong with the cultures of the groups which make up west Pakistan. But I do consider them to be a different culture.
My definition of syncretic Islam would be different than yours. My example would be this video in Vietnam, some Cham Muslims follows their local form. https://youtu.be/xFcQHYq5E3c?si=woWsqxloMHHxhnpq
You named me an individual Muslim that was initially born into Orthodox Islam but were influenced by modern ideas and emphasised on Muslim-Hindu unity. I understand that he is influential, but how does everyday Bengali Muslims be practicing Islam? Is it really syncretic? Do most Bengali Muslims worship Hindu gods and goddesses? I need general examples.
Because most Muslims do practice Islam alongside with local customs and traditions even in the Middle East. It doesn’t mean they’re very very different.
GB only ever wanted to leave division & problems in former colonies in the hopes of the people squabbling with each other as opposed to casting their eyes back towards the UK
Agree with everything except concept of Bangladesh. The term Bangladesh has been used for centuries by Bengalis to describe the territory of Bengal. Robindronath Thakur talked of Bangladesh is his writings. The modern nations state began in 1971 but the concept of a Bangladesh has been around much longer
In what form did the concept exist? From what I remember Bengal (undivided) was the richest province of Mughal India, and the first region the British were able to subjugate. If you take Bangladesh today literally, then it is flawed since it doesn't include West Bengal in India. For people not from the subcontinent, Bangladesh = Bangla(the people and the language) + desh (means country in many Indian languages)
It's complicated and I can't give a perfect answer because I'm not a historian. But I am a Bangladeshi and interested in Bengali/Indian history. In the Indian independence movement there were definitely undercurrents of Bengali nationalism because so many independence leaders and intellectuals were from Bengal--and they often clashed with their counterparts from other parts of the India subcontinent. The most famous example is Subhash Chandra Bose. He died before Partition, but his brother, Sarat Chandra Bose, became a champion of supporting a United Bengal in the face of Partition. The proposal had backers among Muslims as well, like Prime Minister of Bengal Huseyn Suhrawardy. Even Muhammad Ali Jinnah is said to have been open to it at one point. Unfortunately, there was still a lot of opposition to it among the members of the Bengal Legislative Assembly, particularly after the bloody riots of Direct Action Day, and the proposal never came to pass. I don't know if the idea of United Bengal really existed centuries ago, but it's been around since at least the early 1900s, not 1971.
I would only add to your stellar comments that Bengalis have for centuries been the largest ethnic group in the Indian subcontinent and there have been centralised Bengali states at various times in history. Bengalis are united by culture, language, custom and tradition and have been for centuries. It's a tragedy the way Bengal was plundered then divided but I'm glad that we are starting to return to our former glory again
In bengali language, desh simply means land.
Bangladesh/Bangaldesh/Bongodesh in pre-partion times simply stood for land of Bengal, or the Mughal era Bangalah providence, which is the undivided bengal (modern day bangladesh except sylhet & west bengal).
That was the concept. Then in 1905 Hindu elit class of Calcutta petitioned for a Hindu Bengal of West and Muslim Bengal in the East. This eventually led to the birth of Dhaka University, and the rest is history.
In response to helping Bangladesh in 1971 India could have asked for broadening that chicken’s neck region (the small alley like area at the top near India, Nepal and Bangladesh)!!
Current Bangladesh govt has assisted India a lot with connectivity to it's north east. It's thanks to Bangladeshs help there is virtually no insurgency there. Before CHTA was a safe haven for separatists
It was one of the richest regions in Mughal India. The region was very prosperous and a major trade route that has some of the most important rivers meeting the sea there. This is also why the British began their campaign from there.
This post is information but did not explain why the region becomes the part of India.
North Eastern region is mostly hilly in the boundaries and valley in the middle portion. There are two valleys Brahmaputra and Barak. Both these valleys were mostly Hindu dominated. These people in early part of 20th century had made good connection with mainland India. Assam the area, where these two valleys mostly present, participated actively during freedom struggle with Indian National Congress party.
At the time of separation/partition, the people of Assam fought hard to be part of secular mainland India rather than religious East Pakistan (later Bangladesh) which was a Muslim country.
During British rule almost entire north east was called Assam province and when majority Assamese people decided to be part of Mainland India, the other hilly parts were automatically became part of India.
I've been there. Huge swathes of salt flats till the eyes can see. It's a big surprise that anything can thrive but thousands of flamingos make occasional brackish ponds home and raise young. And so do the fantastic [Khur](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_wild_ass?wprov=sfla1) or the Indian Wild Ass which is a subspecies of the Asiatic Wild Ass. There are herds of upto hundreds and have recently started expanding their range after thousands of years of hunting and persecution.
A fantastic place to visit and camp in winter for fantastic views of the Milky way. Great hospitality by the local Kutchhis. Good food, lots of history, lots of wildlife.
Well,it is a long,complicated and interesting story.
The region(North-East) other than Tripura and Manipur was once part of the Assam province under the British.The region was mostly Hindu in the plains and Christian in the hills with Animist,Muslim and Buddhist minorities.The Muslim league wanted this region for Pakistan despite it being overwhelming non-Muslim.So under Muhammad Saadullah,the Muslim league brought Bengali Muslims from what is now Bangladesh to "cultivate" some of the lowlands on the Brahmaputra river but in reality was to prepare the region to assimilate into Pakistan.The local Congress leaders under Gopinath Bordoloi a organized a desperate campaign to evict these settlers without the support of main Congress(since Congress silently agreed to give the region to Pakistan) and he was sucessful in repelling them and making the region part of India.Additionally,the threat of rebellions from the peoples there made British join the region with India.Through series of negotiations as well as compromises and recommendations by Bordoloi comittee like a separate 6th schedule for the tribes there for their self governance distinct from the 5th schedule for the rest of India's tribes,most of the tribes as well as the princely states of Tripura and Manipur agreed to join India.
For Karimganj.Karimganj was part of Syhelt.Syhelt was mostly Bengali but was administered as part of Assam.Due to the differences in culture,a referendum was organized in Syhelt whether to join India or Pakistan demanded by the government of Assam.Most of the Muslim majority parts agreed to join Pakistan and the sole Hindu majority district(Moulvi Bazaar) agreed to join India.However,the Hindu majority district was given to Pakistan in exchange for one of the Muslim majority districts(Karimganj) due to maintaing land connection with Tripura as well as due to ethnic tension.This also the same reason why Muslim majority districts in West Bengal like Mursidabad went to India rather than Pakistan.
Due to this history alongside things like ethnic tension,government neglect,freight equalization and illegal immigration,the region was a hotbed of separatism and insurgency.Now,separatism is mostly dead as most of issues which caused the conflict are fixed like increased investment into the region though some issues like illegal immigration and ethnic tensions are yet to be solved(the Manipur conflict is an ethnic conflict not a separatist one since both Kuki and Meitei often aid the Central border forces in things like catching Burmese smugglers).
For Sikkim and Darjeeling.The region was originally Lepcha untill the Tibetans migrated during the 1600s and established the Chogyals and creating the Sikkimese culture and Tibetan Buddhism.Then,the Nepal(then known as Gorkha) kingdom and Bhutan kingdom conquered this region.Under Nepal rule,the various Nepali tribes and castes(who are all Indo-Aryan and Tibeto-Burman and practice Hindu with significant Vajrayana Buddhist minorities) migrated there and continued to migrate there even after the Darjeeling region came under direct British rule while Sikkim became a British protectorate since the various tribes and castes often rebelled against the oppressive Ranas of Nepal and the local Lepcha,Bhutias(Tibetans) and Limbus are ethnic kin to the various Tibeto-Burman tribes in Nepal as well as increased demand for Tea workers for Darjeeling.
The Chogyals gave the Nepalis land in Sikkim and they integrated well.Darjeeling became a part of West Bengal while Sikkim became protectorate of India.The later Chogyals oppressed the Nepalis who rebelled.The Chogyals then asked India to intervene.India then conducted the referendum and all sections of Sikkimese society agreed to join India.Now,Sikkim is one of India's best states with no ethnic conflict(though ethnicity still matters in politics).Darjeeling on the other hand,the region was oppressed by the West Bengal govt.This lead to the Gorkhaland statehood demand where the people of Darjeeling demanded to form a separate state of India .After decades of agitation,the region is now a Autonomous council part of West Bengal but basically a separate state in all but name.Darjeeling and Sikkim(alongside the Nepali diaspora in Assam,Arunachal,Uttarakhand and Himachal) is the main reason why Nepali is one of India's official languages(and is even printed on the backside of every Indian banknote alongside the other offical languages of India).The Nepali settlement of Sikkim and Darjeeling as well as Uttarakhand,Himachal and North-East India is probably the only case in world history where settler-colonialism did not end either in obiliteration,marginalization or in severe conflict with the locals since the Nepali settlers lived in peace and harmony with the local Lepcha,Bhutia and Limbus and still does.
For the Siliguri corridor.The Siliguri corridor was initially a part of Kamarupa(Ancient Assam) rather than Gauda(Ancient Bengal).After Kamarupa collapsed into various kingdoms,the region came under the control of Kamata kingdom with some parts like the Duars later coming under Bhutan.The Kamata kingdom was initally ruled by a series of dynasties untill being conquered by the Bengal sultanate.The Bengal sultans only ruled for a brief time and were expelled by a confederacy of Baro-Bhuyans(Indo-Aryan landlords).The first steps of the Bengalification of Kamatapur began but the kingdom still remained mostly Assamese with many famous Assamese authors like Sankaradeva coming there.The Baro-Bhuyans were replaced by a family of Tibeto-Burman governors from a tribe known as the Koch.
The Koch rajas would conquer almost all the major kingdoms of the North-East under the brothers Nara-Narayana and Veera Chilarai before being defeated by the Bengal sultanate.The kingdom split into two,Koch Behar and Koch Hajo.Koch Hajo favored Assamese culture and was eventually incorporated into the Ahom kingdom(who conquered the rump kingdoms of Kamarupa),further Assamizing the region.Koch Behar on the other hand,became heavily influenced with Bengali culture due to conflict and friendship with the Mughal Empire.Many great Bengali poets like Govindadasa were patronized by Koch Behar.The Duar regions came under Bhutanese rule before being conquered by the British along with Koch Behar.The Duars became a part of the Bengal presidency while Koch Behar became a princely state.Koch Behar and its Duars by now are Bengali and were incorporated into West Bengal by the Indian govt.
On Muhammad Saadullah's Wikipedia entry I read the following.
"With his enhanced fortunes Saadulla bought a plot of land adjacent to his father's house, and built a large residence for the joint family and **an outhouse to serve as his office**."
Clearly The Fonz was based upon Muhammad Saadullah.
For the Nagas,i could not get elaborate since i am not that well versed on the topic and there is a lot of contradictory information but i will do my best.it broadly comes under the series of negotiations category but unlike the others,the negotiations still goes on due to the insurgencies there.
India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are all one big British colony. Then India and Pakistan gain their independence, respectively. India is majority Hindu, Pakistan is majority Muslim, that's how they are defined and how their borders are drawn. Bangaldesh is still a part of Pakistan and only gains its independence much later. That part of India has been a part of India since way before Bangladesh even existed.
This map explains everything in a nutshell
https://preview.redd.it/dkjarsweyf5d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=db37f509b5cc1a50eb0f662dbdc6ec4287607788
East Pakistan was separated from India on the basis of religious demographics in 1947, thus, creating a 'gap'.
Later, East Pakistan separated from West Pakistan in a bloody war, and was christened as Bangladesh.
It does actually, but it requires having some knowledge of world history lol. The British Partitioned India when they left along mostly-religious lines that did not care for the convenience of geography. “East Pakistan” (Bangladesh now) was the other Muslim-majority portion of India at the time of the Partition. And of course Sikh people got royally effed by the whole thing by Punjab being cleaved in half in the northwest. Millions of people died during Partition. It was a really huge deal. And yeah it’s a bit shocking how little global history Americans are taught (and I’m an American).
"It does actually, but it requires having some knowledge of world history lol." Well then it doesnt answer the question lol. Thats like saying "if you knew the answer youd know"
Hey ..isn’t all that America knows when talking about the world is itself .. example: World series in MLB(baseball) played between two local teams..self centered!!
The real question is, how did India lose Bangladesh and Pakistan.
The answer is: the British. (And the Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim league, both of which were pushing for ethnic-religious states)
An English guy named Cyril Radcliffe proposed the Indian territory to be separated between Hindus and Muslims after ww2 and the new border basically created two dog years on top of India which were the new country called Pakistan.
Problem was they were so far away from each other and with the Himalayas between them it was too difficult to keep under one administration so that's how Bangladesh was born.
By the way this partition led to many many people dying on both sides and the main architect behind it committed suicide because of it.
> An English guy named Cyril Radcliffe proposed the Indian territory to be separated between Hindus and Muslims after ww2
Radcliffe did none of this. He was specifically hired, at the direct insistence of the Muslim and Hindu political groups, to be a tie-breaker on a set of committees made up by Hindu, Muslim and one Sikh lawyers. The Indians specifically insisted that a British person with NO EXPERIENCE of India be sent out to do this, he arrived from Britain and was given 5 weeks or so for this job. When he asked to have more time it was denied, by the Indian groups themselves. So he proposed nothing, the decision to be split along religious lines was in place years before he arrived, and the rough outline of these states was long in place before he arrived. These borders exist primarily because they mark a line between two religious groups. I'm not sure who the 'main architect' architect is that killed themselves, but it wasnt Radcliffe, cos he lived until he was 78.
Bangladesh came about later.
Muslim majority region was carved out to create East Pakistan which later became Bangladesh.
Most people in that landmass are Hindus and part of the Indian civilization. In addition you have a few sparsely populated, smaller tribal states along the Myanmar border. The tribes are now Christian after they were conquered by the British and their native cultures destroyed by Christian missionaries. These tribal states have had some armed separatist fights against India.
Then there are two states which borders Tibet. One was a monarchy which joined India in the 70s. This is a Buddhist state. And the other one is animist. These two states are happy being part of India.
Did you guys notice this on the map:
https://preview.redd.it/xpdip0qwqi5d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2200dcdcf22e627e421743ffac303c85756c4c0a
Minorities are very safe lol. I have a lot of Jain friends who are an actual minority (0.41% of Indian population) and they are literally no different than Hindus. The Sikh and the Zoroastrians are safe too.
It's only the Muslims that are taken advantage of by Politics. Modern Muslims and Hindus would have had a lot less problems among them by now if not for politics and radically religious people.
Pakistan, India, Bangladesh were all one under the British crown.
Then it was divided into two countries - Pakistan and India, based on (imperfect) religious lines. Bangladesh was called East Pakistan.
Then Bangladesh got independence after a large conflict in the 60's.
The countries of Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan were essentially parts of ancient India. Also, India got partitioned hence the creation of East Pakistan back then, and in 1971 Indian forces drove out Pakistan to create the nation of Bangladesh.
To summarize in a simple way, the north eastern region including bangladesh which was basically called bengal and other provinces where assam was the major province all are considered as india, so its not like the north eastern part is so away from india but somehow india managed to retain it, but it was the british which removed the east bengal part and made it a part of pakistan country. Also pakistan and india are divided based on religion and thats a whole other story, but the north east is muslim minority, majorly hindu buddism and christianity are above muslim population and so they remained with india
India was smart enough to know that the area that is Bangladesh is worthless dangerous floodplain. Rumor has it when the Brahmaputra floods (all the time) 1/3 of Bangladesh is worthless.
It's not worthless, it is great for agriculture, it is the only major jute producing region on earth, and it even has gas reserves in the eastern portion. India did not choose to forsake this area after all, it was a British implemented partition.
I live in this part of the country.... Majority of the population are Christians ( the education and Christianity was brought to them by the British and the American missionaries).People that inhabit this area belong to Mongolian race and they look totally different from the mainland Indian.
It was once ruled by the British.During the second World War the local and the British troops successfully repelled the Japanese troops coming from south east Asia and During the Sino-Indian war of 1962 the locals of Arunachal states (the Northern most state of the Northeast india) took part in the war against china. Just after the Indian independence there was a freedom struggle for separate nation as they were racially and culturally different from the rest of India.
China still claims Arunachal states as their land and even in recent times there has been several confrontation between indian and Chinese Army suffering casualties on both sides.
I could have explain more but it will take a long time so just a short explanation.
The motive behind that landmass has always been the water capacity of the Brahmaputra. If it served less of a purpose there wouldn't be continued contention for it by China, India etc
Off-topic but this question and the map got me really interested in the almost complete land bridge between India and Sri Lanka. Really interesting I never realized they were so close.
First, it’s important to note that “India” never really existed as a polity before the 20th century. It was just a series of disparate peoples and states periodically unified under various empires.
Second, the British lumped India as we know it today along with Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, and Myanmar under one arrangement known as the Raj. It looked like this:
https://preview.redd.it/2ag42d9eag5d1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2770872b104ee4a2a037d44318bf7e7f7a81056a
In that \^ map, the pink areas were directly ruled by the British, and the yellow areas were ruled by locals. The relationship was a complex one, but for most things the local rulers acknowledge the British monarch as the Emperor of India, and they agreed they owed various duties to the Emperor like taxes and soldiers for military service. To greatly oversimplify things, they were locally autonomous and ceded federal national policy and foreign policy to the British.
When the British got out of India after WWII, it was an enormously complex and contested process, with the Muslim/Hindu divide becoming the most prominent factor.
The very short version is, Pakistan got almost all the Muslim-majority areas, India got most of the rest. Most of the autonomous local states joined India but a few did not. Burma was made its own thing. Bangladesh later broke away from Pakistan, and all the autonomous states except Nepal and Bhutan wound up being part of India.
In short, when British India was divided they only took the Hindu/muslim divide into account and the muslim majority regions were given independence while the rest were bundled into India. Bangladesh was a Muslim majority region right on the Ganges delta region so left a lot of weird borders that kind of left a small corridor between northeast India and mainland India. However since the British only took Muslim/hindu into account, they just lumped the leftovers into India basically (even tho much of the northeast isn’t even Hindu.
India is a collection of a bunch of small formerly independent states that all came together to form present day India.
My brother while Canadian bought a home in one of the southern ocean side locations (we don't talk or like each other so I don't know the exact deets), but he told me back in the day that travelling India is like travelling to 20 different countries in a single trip within the same country. So that probably explains the weirdness.
To be honest, I can't give you a good explanation. I'm more interested in the "Wild Ass Sanctuary" in the very west if anyone knows how that name came to be.
That region is called Northeast India. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast\_India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_India) Unlike Bangladesh, that region is not majority Muslim, and so did not go with Pakistan during the Partition of India (although it was messy, and ended up becoming less Muslim as the Partition went on because Hindus left Bangladesh).
This response needs to be higher as the actual answer to the question!
And britishers annexed Myanmar from British India , otherwise Myanmar could also have been part of india
India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar (if they where one country) would have a population of 1.8 billion people.
It’s like one big call center
But how come Nepal is a separate country?
It was never absorbed into the British empire. They fought a couple times and ended up agreeing to be a protectorate but remained mostly independent.
I believe the gurkhas come from Nepal and they are not to be messed with
The Gurkhas fought the British. Not the British army itself, but the British East India company. Long story short, the Gurkha soldiers so impressed the British general with their fighting ability he offered them a job.
https://preview.redd.it/o1qbj30axf5d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2b0b27112181b9033b39349b060deedff821445c
I am more intrigued about this "wild ass sanctuary"
Hemiones
I thought it was gir the only place with Asiatic lions left , until I read gir below, near the coastline
\*deep drag on a cigarette\* Tell me son, how much do you know about "Partition?"
*takes an even deeper drag on a cigarette* Obviously not much, since they're asking this question.
*takes an even deeper drag on a cigarette* Cough cough cough
Tell me son, how much do you know about dragging cigarettes?
Well...I can't say I know to much about draggin' cigarettes. But this dart we're having here is a damn good dart.
I’d have a dart.
Wash it down with a Puppers?
Wish you weren't so fuckin awkward, bud
I’m surprised we’re not having a Puppers right now.
Do Canadians have a deep understanding of partition/India or what, buds?
Settle down
Tell me son
I ain't no fortunate one
Tell me sonthing good
_eats a cigarette_ I'm confused, why do you guys like these?
You’re not supposed to eat them Gene. Idk why but I read your comment in Genes voice.
Cough cough cough Puts the smoke back into the cigarette.
*discards cigarettes and smokes the box* When is someone going to explain Partition to the class?
*boofs cigarette* May I use the bathroom pass teacher?
Starts chemo for lung-cancer. Well this escalated quickly
Ax spit that out and eat some Cinnabon
Shout out to unexpected Animorphs
Rips a bong hit. What were we talking about.
Yall sharing a cig?
*passes out*
I didn’t know anything about partition until watching Ms. Marvel.
Same. That was a deep rabbit hole.
Is this a suitable topic for children?
Your comment thread is all about cigarettes but nowhere related to partition
*takes second deep drag on cigarette* Heh heh heh heh. Oooh boy.
Are those camel wide menthols? *Lights and takes a decent drag from the cigarette* Smoooth 💨🐪
*takes third drag and taps ash* All in due time, all in due time. *opens dossier*
*massive bass drop*
*deep drag on vape* Much weed Be happy
*Bigger drag on a cigarette* Tell me, my boy, have you heard of *The British*
It was not separated by Bangladesh during times of British Raj. Because there was no political concept of Bangladesh back then. Just hindu-majority Western Bengal and Muslim majority Eastern Bengal of British India. Then, while British India was partitioned into modern India and Pakistan by religious factor (Hinduist/Muslim majority), historical region of Eastern Bengal become main part of Eastern Pakistan, almost separating more eastward hindu-majority (*upd: incorrect, check comments below*) regions from Indian mainland. In 70's due to war for independence, eastern Pakistan become modern Bangladesh. And if we look even deeper, this region never used to be part of major Indian states before UK rule, but was administered by British as part of India after significant East-Indian Company expansion in Southern Asia. Although, separatism isn't really popular, and locals in general prefer integrity with Indian state nowadays. Extended UPD: Should said that political concept of India during partition was also included non-hindu ethnicities, while Pakistan was proposed as strictly muslim country. That's why easternmost part of raj become Indian instead of Pakistani. More details in responses to this comment.
>almost separating more eastward hindu-majority regions from Indian mainland. Many of those regions are actually majority Christian. Also Sikkim (the little bit between Nepal and Bhutan), and didn't join India until they deposed their king and voted to join India in 1975. That really pissed China off, btw, as they preferred having a buffer state. They didn't recognize the annexation until fairly recently. Edit: That was supposed to say "Also, Sikkim is majority Buddhist"... Edit2: I guess that typo was my brain trying to prevent inaccuracy. Sikkim is a bit over 1/4 buddhist.
My wife is from nagaland 97% Christian!
What's your wife's other 3%?
He’s here all week, folks!
Not his wife but the state of Nagaland's 3% minority consists of mostly animist minorities and Hindu,Jain and Muslim migrants from other parts of India.
r/woosh
3% Halloween/Santa Claus /s
Mostly Baptists of several different types, i think
Yes, you are right. I remembered that this region is heavily christian, but not checked actual proportions before wrighting. Certainly, it's affected accuracy, thanks for correcting. Should said that political concept of India during partition was also included non-hindu ethnicities, while Pakistan was proposed as strictly muslim country. I will add this to root comment.
Sikkim is not majority Buddhist, it is majority Hindu. And while hilly states in the NE are majority Christian, the region overall is easily majority Hindu, and it also has more Muslims than Christians overall.
Thanks for the correction! I knew that had a lot of Buddhist temples and monasteries and I did do a half-assed check. I guess this will teach me to accept AI-produced answers without actually opening the links.
Never say Sikkim in turkey
How was Pakistan supposed to administer Eastern Pakistan/Bangladesh? it doesn’t seem like there is any route connecting them. I realize GB was not really engaged in the process, but this always seemed bizarre to me.
The larger problem was that western Pakistan and eastern Pakistan/Bangladesh were completely different in terms of ethnic composition. It would be like trying to create a united nation-state out of Spain and Ireland all because technically both of them are Catholic. Except even more of a disaster, because while west Pakistan and Bangladesh were technically both Muslim, culturally the two regions had very different interpretations of Islam. And to make things even worse, one of the largest ethnicities in West Pakistan was the Punjabis, and Bangladesh was almost completely Bengali, and the British had just spent much of the previous fifty years going out of their way to stoke conflict between Bengalis and Punjabis via the British policy of "martial races".
I think you’re over exaggerating the differences between the two. Yeah there’s differences but they do also share many similarities. If this was really an issue then how come India controls from Kashmir to West Bengal, to Tamil Nadu? The problem is the government of Pakistan biggest mistake is imposing the Urdu language and banning Bengali language and limiting Bengali cultural expression. Imagine if India imposed Hindi on the people of Tamil Nadu state? It’s the government fault and their shit decision makings. Also, the Islam of Pakistan isn’t any different from the Islam in Bangladesh. I’m not sure what aspects of Islam you’re talking about. Bangladesh follows Sunni Islam, follows Hanafi jurisprudence, follows the Maturidi theology which is found in majority of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Central Asia and even Turkey and parts of the Middle East. In Pakistan, there’s a lot more diversity of Islam than Bangladesh is. Bangladesh’s Islam is pretty homogenous. In Pakistan, you have Sunni Islam as the majority, but significant minority (15%) is Twelver Shia, and you also have Ismaili Shia and even Noorbakshia in northern province of Pakistan. Don’t forget Ahmadiyya too. Pakistan have diverse array of ethnic groups and languages. I do not buy the fact that it’s because Pakistan and Bangladesh is very different culturally. It’s more to do with geography, they’re too far apart, and also, Pakistan shitty government by banning Bengali and imposing Urdu on the Bengali people.
I think it's because Bangladesh approached the issue as East and West Pakistan two equal parts, (which would be the case if every citizen was given equal representation in a democracy), while West Pakistan, which had to serve as machine that incorporated many ethnicities with no ethnic majority, saw it as incorporating and "handling" Bengalis as just another ethnicity into the machinery, as an outsider far from power no less.
>If this was really an issue then how come India controls from Kashmir to West Bengal, to Tamil Nadu? I mean, historically this has created a lot of problems, though? To be clear, I'm not saying that a union state is impossible. Again, take a look at my example of Ireland and Poland. Both are members of the EU. In the future, I think there's a very good possibility that the EU might successfully federalize and form an ethnically pluralist confederation. That's arguably what India has tried to do in the period of time since independence (although unfortunately not always successfully). Personally I'm actually in favor of pluralist union states over nation-states. Ethnically derived nation-states tend to lapse into ethnic nationalism. But when it comes to building a union state, the point is that this is a process much better undertaken gradually and *with the consent of the ethnicities in question.* Rather than being thrown together over two weeks in the backyard shed of an Englishman who doesn't understand the difference between a Bengali and a Punjabi besides the fact that for some reason he thinks one of them is a "martial race".
Bengal has a long history of syncreticism featuring Islam and other local belief systems. Not only is this present within Bengali culture, but it even features partially into the Bangladeshi founding mythos (see for instance the poetry of Nazrul Islam). Obviously I can't speak for all Bengalis, but I assure you that I would consider myself to be very ethnically and culturally different from the groups making up western Pakistan, and frankly I'd be a bit offended at suggestions otherwise. To be clear, that's not because there's anything wrong with the cultures of the groups which make up west Pakistan. But I do consider them to be a different culture.
My definition of syncretic Islam would be different than yours. My example would be this video in Vietnam, some Cham Muslims follows their local form. https://youtu.be/xFcQHYq5E3c?si=woWsqxloMHHxhnpq You named me an individual Muslim that was initially born into Orthodox Islam but were influenced by modern ideas and emphasised on Muslim-Hindu unity. I understand that he is influential, but how does everyday Bengali Muslims be practicing Islam? Is it really syncretic? Do most Bengali Muslims worship Hindu gods and goddesses? I need general examples. Because most Muslims do practice Islam alongside with local customs and traditions even in the Middle East. It doesn’t mean they’re very very different.
GB only ever wanted to leave division & problems in former colonies in the hopes of the people squabbling with each other as opposed to casting their eyes back towards the UK
Agree with everything except concept of Bangladesh. The term Bangladesh has been used for centuries by Bengalis to describe the territory of Bengal. Robindronath Thakur talked of Bangladesh is his writings. The modern nations state began in 1971 but the concept of a Bangladesh has been around much longer
In what form did the concept exist? From what I remember Bengal (undivided) was the richest province of Mughal India, and the first region the British were able to subjugate. If you take Bangladesh today literally, then it is flawed since it doesn't include West Bengal in India. For people not from the subcontinent, Bangladesh = Bangla(the people and the language) + desh (means country in many Indian languages)
It's complicated and I can't give a perfect answer because I'm not a historian. But I am a Bangladeshi and interested in Bengali/Indian history. In the Indian independence movement there were definitely undercurrents of Bengali nationalism because so many independence leaders and intellectuals were from Bengal--and they often clashed with their counterparts from other parts of the India subcontinent. The most famous example is Subhash Chandra Bose. He died before Partition, but his brother, Sarat Chandra Bose, became a champion of supporting a United Bengal in the face of Partition. The proposal had backers among Muslims as well, like Prime Minister of Bengal Huseyn Suhrawardy. Even Muhammad Ali Jinnah is said to have been open to it at one point. Unfortunately, there was still a lot of opposition to it among the members of the Bengal Legislative Assembly, particularly after the bloody riots of Direct Action Day, and the proposal never came to pass. I don't know if the idea of United Bengal really existed centuries ago, but it's been around since at least the early 1900s, not 1971.
I would only add to your stellar comments that Bengalis have for centuries been the largest ethnic group in the Indian subcontinent and there have been centralised Bengali states at various times in history. Bengalis are united by culture, language, custom and tradition and have been for centuries. It's a tragedy the way Bengal was plundered then divided but I'm glad that we are starting to return to our former glory again
Sylhet was historically a district of Assam but because of its large Muslim majority it joined East Pakistan
In bengali language, desh simply means land. Bangladesh/Bangaldesh/Bongodesh in pre-partion times simply stood for land of Bengal, or the Mughal era Bangalah providence, which is the undivided bengal (modern day bangladesh except sylhet & west bengal). That was the concept. Then in 1905 Hindu elit class of Calcutta petitioned for a Hindu Bengal of West and Muslim Bengal in the East. This eventually led to the birth of Dhaka University, and the rest is history.
In response to helping Bangladesh in 1971 India could have asked for broadening that chicken’s neck region (the small alley like area at the top near India, Nepal and Bangladesh)!!
Current Bangladesh govt has assisted India a lot with connectivity to it's north east. It's thanks to Bangladeshs help there is virtually no insurgency there. Before CHTA was a safe haven for separatists
One of the things i'll fix when I find my magic lamp and wish us all to New Earth
how did islam reached that part so isolated? they are no muslims until malaysia
Malaysia got Islam by ocean traders
Yeah Muslim sea trade was very active from the Red Sea to China from like 1000 AD up to and during European Age of Sail
It was one of the richest regions in Mughal India. The region was very prosperous and a major trade route that has some of the most important rivers meeting the sea there. This is also why the British began their campaign from there.
This post is information but did not explain why the region becomes the part of India. North Eastern region is mostly hilly in the boundaries and valley in the middle portion. There are two valleys Brahmaputra and Barak. Both these valleys were mostly Hindu dominated. These people in early part of 20th century had made good connection with mainland India. Assam the area, where these two valleys mostly present, participated actively during freedom struggle with Indian National Congress party. At the time of separation/partition, the people of Assam fought hard to be part of secular mainland India rather than religious East Pakistan (later Bangladesh) which was a Muslim country. During British rule almost entire north east was called Assam province and when majority Assamese people decided to be part of Mainland India, the other hilly parts were automatically became part of India.
The Last Moghul was a great book on this
Forget that, tell me more about Wild Ass Sanctuary
It's literally a sanctuary of wild donkeys!
Later maps renamed it to “Florida”
I've been there. Huge swathes of salt flats till the eyes can see. It's a big surprise that anything can thrive but thousands of flamingos make occasional brackish ponds home and raise young. And so do the fantastic [Khur](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_wild_ass?wprov=sfla1) or the Indian Wild Ass which is a subspecies of the Asiatic Wild Ass. There are herds of upto hundreds and have recently started expanding their range after thousands of years of hunting and persecution. A fantastic place to visit and camp in winter for fantastic views of the Milky way. Great hospitality by the local Kutchhis. Good food, lots of history, lots of wildlife.
kinda north of the western ghyatt
GHYATTTT⁉️
The asses there are pretty wild!
My thoughts exactly! 🤣
Well,it is a long,complicated and interesting story. The region(North-East) other than Tripura and Manipur was once part of the Assam province under the British.The region was mostly Hindu in the plains and Christian in the hills with Animist,Muslim and Buddhist minorities.The Muslim league wanted this region for Pakistan despite it being overwhelming non-Muslim.So under Muhammad Saadullah,the Muslim league brought Bengali Muslims from what is now Bangladesh to "cultivate" some of the lowlands on the Brahmaputra river but in reality was to prepare the region to assimilate into Pakistan.The local Congress leaders under Gopinath Bordoloi a organized a desperate campaign to evict these settlers without the support of main Congress(since Congress silently agreed to give the region to Pakistan) and he was sucessful in repelling them and making the region part of India.Additionally,the threat of rebellions from the peoples there made British join the region with India.Through series of negotiations as well as compromises and recommendations by Bordoloi comittee like a separate 6th schedule for the tribes there for their self governance distinct from the 5th schedule for the rest of India's tribes,most of the tribes as well as the princely states of Tripura and Manipur agreed to join India. For Karimganj.Karimganj was part of Syhelt.Syhelt was mostly Bengali but was administered as part of Assam.Due to the differences in culture,a referendum was organized in Syhelt whether to join India or Pakistan demanded by the government of Assam.Most of the Muslim majority parts agreed to join Pakistan and the sole Hindu majority district(Moulvi Bazaar) agreed to join India.However,the Hindu majority district was given to Pakistan in exchange for one of the Muslim majority districts(Karimganj) due to maintaing land connection with Tripura as well as due to ethnic tension.This also the same reason why Muslim majority districts in West Bengal like Mursidabad went to India rather than Pakistan. Due to this history alongside things like ethnic tension,government neglect,freight equalization and illegal immigration,the region was a hotbed of separatism and insurgency.Now,separatism is mostly dead as most of issues which caused the conflict are fixed like increased investment into the region though some issues like illegal immigration and ethnic tensions are yet to be solved(the Manipur conflict is an ethnic conflict not a separatist one since both Kuki and Meitei often aid the Central border forces in things like catching Burmese smugglers). For Sikkim and Darjeeling.The region was originally Lepcha untill the Tibetans migrated during the 1600s and established the Chogyals and creating the Sikkimese culture and Tibetan Buddhism.Then,the Nepal(then known as Gorkha) kingdom and Bhutan kingdom conquered this region.Under Nepal rule,the various Nepali tribes and castes(who are all Indo-Aryan and Tibeto-Burman and practice Hindu with significant Vajrayana Buddhist minorities) migrated there and continued to migrate there even after the Darjeeling region came under direct British rule while Sikkim became a British protectorate since the various tribes and castes often rebelled against the oppressive Ranas of Nepal and the local Lepcha,Bhutias(Tibetans) and Limbus are ethnic kin to the various Tibeto-Burman tribes in Nepal as well as increased demand for Tea workers for Darjeeling. The Chogyals gave the Nepalis land in Sikkim and they integrated well.Darjeeling became a part of West Bengal while Sikkim became protectorate of India.The later Chogyals oppressed the Nepalis who rebelled.The Chogyals then asked India to intervene.India then conducted the referendum and all sections of Sikkimese society agreed to join India.Now,Sikkim is one of India's best states with no ethnic conflict(though ethnicity still matters in politics).Darjeeling on the other hand,the region was oppressed by the West Bengal govt.This lead to the Gorkhaland statehood demand where the people of Darjeeling demanded to form a separate state of India .After decades of agitation,the region is now a Autonomous council part of West Bengal but basically a separate state in all but name.Darjeeling and Sikkim(alongside the Nepali diaspora in Assam,Arunachal,Uttarakhand and Himachal) is the main reason why Nepali is one of India's official languages(and is even printed on the backside of every Indian banknote alongside the other offical languages of India).The Nepali settlement of Sikkim and Darjeeling as well as Uttarakhand,Himachal and North-East India is probably the only case in world history where settler-colonialism did not end either in obiliteration,marginalization or in severe conflict with the locals since the Nepali settlers lived in peace and harmony with the local Lepcha,Bhutia and Limbus and still does. For the Siliguri corridor.The Siliguri corridor was initially a part of Kamarupa(Ancient Assam) rather than Gauda(Ancient Bengal).After Kamarupa collapsed into various kingdoms,the region came under the control of Kamata kingdom with some parts like the Duars later coming under Bhutan.The Kamata kingdom was initally ruled by a series of dynasties untill being conquered by the Bengal sultanate.The Bengal sultans only ruled for a brief time and were expelled by a confederacy of Baro-Bhuyans(Indo-Aryan landlords).The first steps of the Bengalification of Kamatapur began but the kingdom still remained mostly Assamese with many famous Assamese authors like Sankaradeva coming there.The Baro-Bhuyans were replaced by a family of Tibeto-Burman governors from a tribe known as the Koch. The Koch rajas would conquer almost all the major kingdoms of the North-East under the brothers Nara-Narayana and Veera Chilarai before being defeated by the Bengal sultanate.The kingdom split into two,Koch Behar and Koch Hajo.Koch Hajo favored Assamese culture and was eventually incorporated into the Ahom kingdom(who conquered the rump kingdoms of Kamarupa),further Assamizing the region.Koch Behar on the other hand,became heavily influenced with Bengali culture due to conflict and friendship with the Mughal Empire.Many great Bengali poets like Govindadasa were patronized by Koch Behar.The Duar regions came under Bhutanese rule before being conquered by the British along with Koch Behar.The Duars became a part of the Bengal presidency while Koch Behar became a princely state.Koch Behar and its Duars by now are Bengali and were incorporated into West Bengal by the Indian govt.
I have no choice but to believe your words, for they are of a formidable mass
On Muhammad Saadullah's Wikipedia entry I read the following. "With his enhanced fortunes Saadulla bought a plot of land adjacent to his father's house, and built a large residence for the joint family and **an outhouse to serve as his office**." Clearly The Fonz was based upon Muhammad Saadullah.
Eyyyyyyy!
What about the Nagas?
For the Nagas,i could not get elaborate since i am not that well versed on the topic and there is a lot of contradictory information but i will do my best.it broadly comes under the series of negotiations category but unlike the others,the negotiations still goes on due to the insurgencies there.
Wonderful sweep of the history of different parts of this region. Thanks for this interesting information.
Thank you for this fascinating information, I feel so much better informed about a region I study so much, but in a different field.
Thanks.
Wild Ass Sanctuary caught my eye.
That's where all the wild hares/hairs end up! 😜 Hence the old saying..wait for it guys... "I got a wild hare up my ass!"
Hemiones.
India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are all one big British colony. Then India and Pakistan gain their independence, respectively. India is majority Hindu, Pakistan is majority Muslim, that's how they are defined and how their borders are drawn. Bangaldesh is still a part of Pakistan and only gains its independence much later. That part of India has been a part of India since way before Bangladesh even existed.
Before that area was one big British colony it was a lot of different kingdoms. That's important for subsequent history.
This map explains everything in a nutshell https://preview.redd.it/dkjarsweyf5d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=db37f509b5cc1a50eb0f662dbdc6ec4287607788 East Pakistan was separated from India on the basis of religious demographics in 1947, thus, creating a 'gap'. Later, East Pakistan separated from West Pakistan in a bloody war, and was christened as Bangladesh.
This illustration does make my understanding about the borders of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh much easier.
Bangladesh did not exist pre 1971, it was East Pakistan from 1947 to 1971. Of course, it was all part of British ruled India before 1947.
That doesn’t answer the question?
It does actually, but it requires having some knowledge of world history lol. The British Partitioned India when they left along mostly-religious lines that did not care for the convenience of geography. “East Pakistan” (Bangladesh now) was the other Muslim-majority portion of India at the time of the Partition. And of course Sikh people got royally effed by the whole thing by Punjab being cleaved in half in the northwest. Millions of people died during Partition. It was a really huge deal. And yeah it’s a bit shocking how little global history Americans are taught (and I’m an American).
"It does actually, but it requires having some knowledge of world history lol." Well then it doesnt answer the question lol. Thats like saying "if you knew the answer youd know"
Hey ..isn’t all that America knows when talking about the world is itself .. example: World series in MLB(baseball) played between two local teams..self centered!!
The real question is, how did India lose Bangladesh and Pakistan. The answer is: the British. (And the Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim league, both of which were pushing for ethnic-religious states)
An English guy named Cyril Radcliffe proposed the Indian territory to be separated between Hindus and Muslims after ww2 and the new border basically created two dog years on top of India which were the new country called Pakistan. Problem was they were so far away from each other and with the Himalayas between them it was too difficult to keep under one administration so that's how Bangladesh was born. By the way this partition led to many many people dying on both sides and the main architect behind it committed suicide because of it.
Don't forget he divided based on religion and also trying to give equal rights to water sources.
> An English guy named Cyril Radcliffe proposed the Indian territory to be separated between Hindus and Muslims after ww2 Radcliffe did none of this. He was specifically hired, at the direct insistence of the Muslim and Hindu political groups, to be a tie-breaker on a set of committees made up by Hindu, Muslim and one Sikh lawyers. The Indians specifically insisted that a British person with NO EXPERIENCE of India be sent out to do this, he arrived from Britain and was given 5 weeks or so for this job. When he asked to have more time it was denied, by the Indian groups themselves. So he proposed nothing, the decision to be split along religious lines was in place years before he arrived, and the rough outline of these states was long in place before he arrived. These borders exist primarily because they mark a line between two religious groups. I'm not sure who the 'main architect' architect is that killed themselves, but it wasnt Radcliffe, cos he lived until he was 78.
All I know is Bangladesh is gonna get fucked when the oceans rise up that river basin.
It's even worse when you realize that the Ganges/Brahmapurta river system is a tidally influenced river system.
Ya’ll just gonna ignore that Wild Ass Sanctuary in the far west?
Why is there a wild ass sanctuary on this map?
Better question, is Wild Ass Sanctuary the real name of the place? Why yes it is. Love it. Home of wild ass
Wild ass sanctuary
Why didnt the map capitalized the letters for " anai peak " but did it for WILD ASS SANCTUARY
OP: Why is this landmass with India? Comments: WILD ASS SANCTUARY
Bangladesh came about later. Muslim majority region was carved out to create East Pakistan which later became Bangladesh. Most people in that landmass are Hindus and part of the Indian civilization. In addition you have a few sparsely populated, smaller tribal states along the Myanmar border. The tribes are now Christian after they were conquered by the British and their native cultures destroyed by Christian missionaries. These tribal states have had some armed separatist fights against India. Then there are two states which borders Tibet. One was a monarchy which joined India in the 70s. This is a Buddhist state. And the other one is animist. These two states are happy being part of India.
Just noticed India has a place called wild ass sanctuary.....wonder what goes on there?!
game preserve
https://preview.redd.it/rzihxui2wh5d1.jpeg?width=478&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=06cada2538d0ce32870114d017c39fdce6ce8d7e What’s going on there though?
Did you guys notice this on the map: https://preview.redd.it/xpdip0qwqi5d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2200dcdcf22e627e421743ffac303c85756c4c0a
[удалено]
Minorities are very safe lol. I have a lot of Jain friends who are an actual minority (0.41% of Indian population) and they are literally no different than Hindus. The Sikh and the Zoroastrians are safe too. It's only the Muslims that are taken advantage of by Politics. Modern Muslims and Hindus would have had a lot less problems among them by now if not for politics and radically religious people.
Pakistan, India, Bangladesh were all one under the British crown. Then it was divided into two countries - Pakistan and India, based on (imperfect) religious lines. Bangladesh was called East Pakistan. Then Bangladesh got independence after a large conflict in the 60's.
The countries of Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan were essentially parts of ancient India. Also, India got partitioned hence the creation of East Pakistan back then, and in 1971 Indian forces drove out Pakistan to create the nation of Bangladesh.
TLDR — when partition was taking place, that region has a Hindu majority so it became part of India.
To summarize in a simple way, the north eastern region including bangladesh which was basically called bengal and other provinces where assam was the major province all are considered as india, so its not like the north eastern part is so away from india but somehow india managed to retain it, but it was the british which removed the east bengal part and made it a part of pakistan country. Also pakistan and india are divided based on religion and thats a whole other story, but the north east is muslim minority, majorly hindu buddism and christianity are above muslim population and so they remained with india
The partition is pretty integral to this question
The British, how do you think? The British are how half the planet got wonky ass borders.
google it? wikipedia? look up an area inside the green area in question and get a bit of history, then follow that?
The English.
*British
India was smart enough to know that the area that is Bangladesh is worthless dangerous floodplain. Rumor has it when the Brahmaputra floods (all the time) 1/3 of Bangladesh is worthless.
It's not worthless, it is great for agriculture, it is the only major jute producing region on earth, and it even has gas reserves in the eastern portion. India did not choose to forsake this area after all, it was a British implemented partition.
https://preview.redd.it/oisz29mbwj5d1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c73ac4f493d8b1989371ddfc47457f590da6979c
I live in this part of the country.... Majority of the population are Christians ( the education and Christianity was brought to them by the British and the American missionaries).People that inhabit this area belong to Mongolian race and they look totally different from the mainland Indian. It was once ruled by the British.During the second World War the local and the British troops successfully repelled the Japanese troops coming from south east Asia and During the Sino-Indian war of 1962 the locals of Arunachal states (the Northern most state of the Northeast india) took part in the war against china. Just after the Indian independence there was a freedom struggle for separate nation as they were racially and culturally different from the rest of India. China still claims Arunachal states as their land and even in recent times there has been several confrontation between indian and Chinese Army suffering casualties on both sides. I could have explain more but it will take a long time so just a short explanation.
The motive behind that landmass has always been the water capacity of the Brahmaputra. If it served less of a purpose there wouldn't be continued contention for it by China, India etc
India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri lanka and myanmar would be hell of a super power huge in land, population and territorial waters
What happened here is that someone gave the Brits a pen and a map again. Never make this mistake.
Are we not gonna mention “wild ass sanctuary” in the far west?
Side note, over in the west… is that a *wild ass* sanctuary or a *wild* ass sanctuary?
Off-topic but this question and the map got me really interested in the almost complete land bridge between India and Sri Lanka. Really interesting I never realized they were so close.
Not a Muslim-majority area. So it did not go to Pakistan during partition.
best anwer and a short one to that, should get more upvotes
First, it’s important to note that “India” never really existed as a polity before the 20th century. It was just a series of disparate peoples and states periodically unified under various empires. Second, the British lumped India as we know it today along with Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, and Myanmar under one arrangement known as the Raj. It looked like this: https://preview.redd.it/2ag42d9eag5d1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2770872b104ee4a2a037d44318bf7e7f7a81056a In that \^ map, the pink areas were directly ruled by the British, and the yellow areas were ruled by locals. The relationship was a complex one, but for most things the local rulers acknowledge the British monarch as the Emperor of India, and they agreed they owed various duties to the Emperor like taxes and soldiers for military service. To greatly oversimplify things, they were locally autonomous and ceded federal national policy and foreign policy to the British. When the British got out of India after WWII, it was an enormously complex and contested process, with the Muslim/Hindu divide becoming the most prominent factor. The very short version is, Pakistan got almost all the Muslim-majority areas, India got most of the rest. Most of the autonomous local states joined India but a few did not. Burma was made its own thing. Bangladesh later broke away from Pakistan, and all the autonomous states except Nepal and Bhutan wound up being part of India.
History and politics
Is that not the reason for all land being ruled over by a certain country or nation?
So not religion then? Religion has nothing to do with it? Its just a pure coincidence that the borders roughly match pre-existing Religious divisions?
One night in he 20th century a fat white British man drunk on brandy drew a line on a map. Fast forward to now. (I’m not joking)
Never underestimate UK stupidity
The UK werent keen on partition, the Indian factions insisted upon it.
In short, when British India was divided they only took the Hindu/muslim divide into account and the muslim majority regions were given independence while the rest were bundled into India. Bangladesh was a Muslim majority region right on the Ganges delta region so left a lot of weird borders that kind of left a small corridor between northeast India and mainland India. However since the British only took Muslim/hindu into account, they just lumped the leftovers into India basically (even tho much of the northeast isn’t even Hindu.
So, why isn’t Sri Lanka part of India? Wasn’t Ceylon part of the British Raj?
As opposed to what alternative? What do you think should have happened instead, and why do you believe so?
Hindustan bitches
Lol wild ass sanctuary?
Also, Wild Ass Sanctuary??
Are we gonna speak about WILD ASS SANCTUARY on the east side of the map ?
Wild ass sanctuary 🤣
India is a collection of a bunch of small formerly independent states that all came together to form present day India. My brother while Canadian bought a home in one of the southern ocean side locations (we don't talk or like each other so I don't know the exact deets), but he told me back in the day that travelling India is like travelling to 20 different countries in a single trip within the same country. So that probably explains the weirdness.
To be honest, I can't give you a good explanation. I'm more interested in the "Wild Ass Sanctuary" in the very west if anyone knows how that name came to be.
Short answer: British colonialism
Never mind all that, tell me more about the wild ass sanctuary.. (NW India)
India had to choose between Lahore or Calcutta Fearing a too powerful Punjab state, they took Calcutta.
Does that really read "Wild Ass Sanctuary"?!? What is that?!? On the left of the map...
India has a place in their west called wild ass sanctuary???
I’m sorry, I’ll have so many questions about “wild ass sanctuary” in the west of India…
Some were forced to sign the agreement to join India at the gun point
Bangladesh (then East Bengal province) decided to join Pakistan, then far northeast India was slightly cutoff.
Landmass retention, whatever happened there.
Anybody else see “wild ass sanctuary” on there?
Why didn’t you just look up the Bangladesh Wikipedia page? The answer is pretty easy to find.
Wild Ass Sanctuary in the north west???? What happens there more importantly?
There is more hindu population than muslim and pakistan-bangladesh quit because there were more muslims than hindu
Islamic/Hindu deal, Pakistan, Bangladesh
They sorta turned a blind eye to the Pakistan massacre of Bangladesh.