Red pill me on this country

Culturally more Indian nation assigned as Pakistani land because colonialism. Fought a civil war with a bunch of civilian casualties that fucked them over and they continue to get fucked over by natural disasters. Will be India's worst humanitarian disaster when the country goes under in 20 years because global warming.

Why do you have to lie to get your political agenda across?

Okay, wrong date. Nevermind I found the cap.

Once one of the Indian state, host to numerous Indian dynasties. By extension, its a Hindu/Buddhist region for most of its history. Famous Buddhist masters from Bengal taught in Tibet and Tibetans came down to Bengal to learn.

Later on during Mughal era(~16th-17th century). Then British tookover. And finally partitioned as Pakistan.

Pakistan leaders tried to take control of the Bengal with strict control. Bengali declared independence. Pakistan commited genocide against Bengalis.

India intervened and stopped Pakistan. US threatened to nuke India for stopping Pakistan. Russia threatens the US for threatening India. Cooler heads prevail and US backs down.

Bengali-India create bilateral partnership.

>US threatened to nuke India
um...

there certainly are enough refugees coming to europe

Did they win anything

>thread about a rarely talked about old country on Veeky Forums
>filled with /pol/ larpers imagining they'll go full rambo on some strawman refugees
christ Veeky Forums, why are you like this?

Bengal is at the far end of the Gangetic plain, about as far as you can get before you start running into the Himalayas. This was the furthest east that the Indo-Aryans went (or at least had their culture diffused to). Bengal was on the radar of larger polities more centrally located but was fairly distant and difficult to manage, owing to it being the drainage basin of three major rivers and thus mostly jungle. Thus Bengali culture is distinct from other north Indian cultures, reflected in their diet (lots of fish) and language (preserves more phonemes from Sanskrit).

During the Mughal Era a strong central government ruled that was capable of undertaking larger works, thus it was 'colonized' by Muslims who were absorbed by the native population by marriage but not by religion; thus it was underdeveloped in comparison to Hindu-majority West Bengal which had a much longer history of human habitation and cultivation of the environment.

Prior to Partition Bengali Muslims might've hoped to be part of an independent united Bengal or at least be granted more ethnolinguistic minority rights than they were (again bear in mind that the Muslims brought over by the Mughals to clear, cultivate and settle the land were culturally assimilated) but the Pakistanis did not oblige, thus they fought an independence war.

But poor, mostly agrarian land susceptible to major flooding is not conducive to running a country, and thus we have the Bangladeshi immigrants across the globe.

USS Enterprise CVN-65(Taskforce 74) was launched against India. Nixon backed off after Russia launched their own Pacific fleet group(Battlegroup 10) to reinforce India.

Russians were already near the area spying on the British. But as the American carrier group arrived, they were given the command to not allow American carrier group to enter.

One of the few places in the world not converted to Islam forcibly iirc (the other being SEA and the Turkic countries)

Okay.

...

Why were they part of Pakistan when they weren't even connected? Why did the British cut up India in such a dumb way? Was it autism?

>dumb way
Maybe to spite them? Who knows what the leadership was like. We know the popular Chuchill hated the Indians. One can conclude certain members of his government retained influence on the matter of Indian partition.

>b-b-but thats petty
Yea well, people are petty. Nixon/Kissinger hated India and India's first female prime-minister.

sad but true

80%+ are not refugees, simply economic migrants which migrated under the manufactured label of 'refugees'. Otherwise go ahead and explain why they're almost exclusively "fleeing" to a few European nation such as Germany and Sweden and are actively refusing not just to seek asylum in countries they pass trough but also destroying their documents in order to avoid being documented. Furthermore why are those refugees who were literally allocated, trough quotas, turning down their move and a number of those that do disappearing, as in being lost by authorities in countries they were allocated too that aren't as developed (read: less money for the welfare state) as the west?

Case in point.
>567 people are offered refuge in Slovenia
>217 accept
>173 of them are still in Slovenia after a month
Those actual refugees within them are fleeing war, not the climate so your fucking point is moot. It's hardly the climates fault that africas population is quadrupling. I say let them deal with it, not let them into Europe until Europe turns into Africa, which will inevitably happens if we do let them in as at this rate you'd have to take 30 million people per yer in to Europe to just to keep Africa's population level at 1.2 billion right now, up from ~450 million in the 1980's. The population of the EU is ~500 million, Europe as a whole is ~750 million.

>implying capitalists like paying extra taxes for the welfare and policing costs

proof Malthus was right all along

>capitalists
>paying taxes
You're the ones paying for their welfare, dumbasses.

...

>At this rate
>120 people a month, if that, are reaching Europe now Vs. 5000-10000 in the past

>I take something out of context
>I make up numbers and pretend its an argument

It wasn't just the British who decided, it was decided by committee between Brits, Hindus, Muslims, and various local rulers.

It's easy to blame the British for every bad border, but that's just an acknowledgement of the incompetency of the locals to fix their own fucking problems.

Didn't Gandhi/Nehru threw a shitfit when they decided that India would hold it's Raj Borders?

>No need for consent
man my fucking sides

india wasn't cut up dumb. pakistan matches the Durrani Empire en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durrani_Empire

you do realize our government health programs are administered by publicly traded corporations used as technology and infrastructure contractors right?

>implying the people don't pay taxes that turn into welfare so the capitalists dont pay for shit

>he thinks there are any capitalists that make less than 370k a year
Since they're basically the 0.1% they account for what, 25% of the income tax revenue? Even if it was 33%, for every dollar they pay you pay 2 and the only thing you get in return is depressed wages from competing with pajeets.
Welfare is basically a way for them to finance social benefits for the poor by having taxpaying workers' take on most of the burden, as your graph shows.
By the way, what do you think the income tax is like in Qatar or Singapore?

also
>he doesn't understand the concept of tax evasion

>bilateral partnership
Unilateral partnership*

Bangladeshi refugees will be India's problem, not Europe's.

Muslim Japan

Yeah, and when India deals with them in a way that won't be humane it will somehow become our problem too.

Better than Pakistan.

I know, a very low bar, but still...

Maybe... the eternal Anglo never should have been in India in the first place?

Just a thought.

Flag looks like kermits asshole

The Durrani Empire didn't have Bangladesh.

Takes in incredibly many refugees despite problems. Executes islamists

But it had the rest of the Pakistan. I don't agree with making West Bengal part of Pakistan but most people think the British just pulled Pakistan out of their ass which is completely untrue.

>you'd have to take 30 million people per yer in to Europe to just to keep Africa's population level at 1.2 billion right now,

Nigger what the fuck is up with your numbers.

He's still wrong.

Most countries due it's mostly developed ones that throw bitchfits over it.

>Nigger what the fuck is up with your numbers.
In the past year the population of the African continent grew by 30 million. By the year 2050, annual increases will exceed 42 million people per year and total population will have doubled to 2.4 billion, according to the UN. This comes to 3.5 million more people per month, or 80 additional people per minute. At that point, African population growth would be able to re-fill an empty London five times a year.

theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/jan/11/population-growth-in-africa-grasping-the-scale-of-the-challenge

You know projections are a total joke right?

>taxpaying workers take on most of the burden
>top 10% accounts for 70% of the tax money
you're a retard, bro

Hard to believe there's 150 million people there, it looks like a giant swamp from space.

That's why I used the actual yearly increase of 30 million, not the projected one. The population of Africa tripled in 40 years. Do you actually have an argument, faggot?

That is irrelevant to the point I made.

Because it was a muslim majority centre, to allow eastern Muslims to migrate to it/ It was unified with Pakistan because Muslim nationalists wanted Pakistan to be an all encompassing indian-subcontinental islamic state