Talk:Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh

Neutrality

This looks like an important article, but the neutrality of the material is not convincing (especially the causes section). Needs to be rewritten with more references from netural sources. (See WP:NPOV). Bubka42 (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Doing... Faizan 10:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Anything more specific? The cited section has been rewritten. Please elucidate your reservations. Faizan 10:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Section improved. Faizan 10:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is better. Now try and include a reference for this section. And never sign your posts on wiki pages. Signing (~~~~) is exclusively for talk pages. Check WP:SIG. Bubka42 (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

That was a mistake. I am adding more references, Thanks Bubka. Faizan 10:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The reference by The Age says, The bodies of the dead - among them women and children - were thrown into a nearby river. There is nothing like the bodies were humiliated. So please don't use the word humiliated as it would be a blatant POV.--Zayeem ^(talk) 17:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

That's really annoying Zayeem. Throwing the bodies in river is not a humiliation? A person with a common vocabulary would not even do that. Faizan 17:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

That's what we call POV, in your view throwing the bodies in the river is humiliating while the source doesn't say this. --Zayeem ^(talk) 18:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, don't remove the POV tags before we reach a consensus about the whole article.--Zayeem ^(talk) 18:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No issues have been cited. Without them the tags are redundant. Faizan 14:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The issues cited by multiple editors have also been addressed. Faizan 14:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

There are plethora of issues. Starting from the first, what exactly prompted the Biharis to immigrate to East Bengal in 1947? Were they persecuted in their native land? Then, what are the main reasons behind the hatred against the Biharis? Their role in siding with the Pakistan Army and committing those atrocities against Bengalis are largely missing. Also, the present condition of Biharis in Bangladesh have largely improved but there is no mention about it.--Zayeem ^(talk) 14:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so you want:

1. "what exactly prompted the Biharis to immigrate to East Bengal in 1947? Were they persecuted in their native land?"
2. "what are the main reasons behind the hatred against the Biharis?"
3. "role in committing those atrocities against Bengalis are largely missing"
4. "present condition"

ALL THE ISSUES CITED ABOVE ARE ABOUT IMPROVEMENT< NOT ABOUT NEUTRALITY Faizan 14:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

These are surely about neutrality as the article is currently full of one sided views. And DON'T remove those tags before we reach a consensus here.--Zayeem ^(talk) 15:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Zayeem, I am tring to get references for the above statements. Please cooperate. Faizan 07:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

1. "what exactly prompted the Biharis to immigrate to East Bengal in 1947? Were they persecuted in their native land?"  Done Faizan 08:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You didn't state any info about what prompted them to leave Bihar in the first place. --Zayeem ^(talk) 08:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Please read your talk page regarding this. Faizan 14:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

More fixes made and info expanded for their immigration. Faizan 14:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

1. "what are the main reasons behind the hatred against the Biharis?"  Done Faizan 08:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
2. "role in committing those atrocities against Bengalis are largely missing"  Done Faizan 14:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
3. "present condition"  Done Faizan 14:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

 Doing...... Faizan 08:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to do what I can do, and I should not be forced for that for which I cannot. Faizan 14:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

All issues cited have been cleared as possible. User:Kmzayeem Faizan 14:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The first issue is still unresolved, I've also replied in my talk page. The third one is also missing. And the present condition needs to be expanded, there is no mention about the Biharis who are living outside the camps and have assimilated with the mainstream Bangladeshis.--Zayeem ^(talk) 14:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

For the first one, see the section "Migration from Bihar" and for the second one, see "Efforts for repatriation". Faizan 15:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

WHY ARE YOU REMOVING THE TAGS WITHOUT REACHING CONSENSUS? This is disruptive and can even get you blocked. The issues are still not fixed, there is nothing about the violence faced by the Biharis during the partition which prompted them to migrate to East Bengal. Also, no mention about the Biharis living outside the camps in Bangladesh and assimilating with the mainstream Bangladeshis. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Please read my message above. Faizan 16:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

All the issues cited above were addressed completely, sections expanded, references added. Faizan 16:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The issues are still not resolved. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Please elucidate the issues. I have done my best to resolve neutrality. If these issues are not elucidated then the tags are redundant. Faizan 15:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you think faizan that all media are telling the truth! if you want to make this article more neutral then please add some present point of view of biharis about bangladesh. The main problem of biharis are not their ethnicity or language. Still after 42 years of independence they are not able to accept bangladesch as an independent nation. Integration, you can forget it! their war crime in 1971 and strong present propakistani mind, spoil all chances to integrate in Bangladesh. You can´t live happily in one country which country you never recognised as your home and even as a sovereign nation!!!!thousand of non-bengalis, even some well integrated biharis live in bangladesh happily!!!!

another think that the biharis are self proclaimed pakistanis in bangladesh and they identify themself as Muhajiris (not as Stranded Pakistanis ).

I may be after my exam try to add some present circumstances of biharis in this article. Unfortunately we are extremely dependent on electronic media sources here in wikipedia!!Samudrakula (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Your valuable contributions will be eagerly awaited, Samudrakula.--Zayeem ^(talk) 14:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Is not the very title 'non-neutral'? —Concerned Citizen

Nah, it's a fact. Faizan 11:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

pakistankakhudahafiz.com doesn't seem to be a reliable source. Please establish the reliability of the source as referred in WP:RS.--Zayeem ^(talk) 15:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Doing...... Faizan 17:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Is Category Bihar relevant?

Adding category Bihar does not makes any sense. All entries are of Indian context. Solomon7968 (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it if you think. Faizan 17:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should now the redundant tags be removed?

A user is constantly adding pov tags in the article. In the sections above, I tried my best to fix the issues he cited. Now even after the fixation, he is not allowing me to remove the tags. Reverting again and again. So I request your comments for the removal of the tags. The page history clearly depicts my effort to solve the issues, I added content which was demanded by the user above, but still in vain. So please do comment. And only uninvolved users are bound to comment.

• The issues cited by User:Kmzayeem about neutrality here were:

1. "what exactly prompted the Biharis to immigrate to East Bengal in 1947? Were they persecuted in their native land?"
2. "what are the main reasons behind the hatred against the Biharis?"
3. "role in committing those atrocities against Bengalis are largely missing"
4. "present condition of Biharis"

• These issues were addressed and fixed and expanded with the following diffs respectively:
• [1][2][3][4]
• [5][6][
• [7][8]

And Still now, the tags are there intact in the place. Faizan 15:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE COMMENT AFTER THIS LINE, STARTING WITH A "*"

• Comment by Kmyazeem The user is just putting the  Done mark without actually addressing the issues. I've already stated that there is no mention about the violence faced by the Biharis during the partition which prompted them to migrate to East Bengal. Also, no mention about the Biharis living outside the camps in Bangladesh and assimilating with the mainstream Bangladeshis. These things are still not addressed and the user went on to remove the tags.--Zayeem ^(talk) 15:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to with pov tags. There was no violence before the partition in Bihar. There has been no significant development in Bangladesh over Biharis and they are still suffering. I tried my best to find info regarding that, but no mention is there in the sources. Faizan 15:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Now please let the people comment. Faizan 16:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Remove: Faizan has done a job of clearing away the reservations a few editors have regarding this... The tags must be removed now.—Шαмıq ☪ _тαʟκ✍ @ 19:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, nobody would leave their native land without any reason, there were violence which prompted millions of Biharis to migrate in another country, just like what happened in Bengal and Punjab. I've told you to search google books, but you ignored. Also the situation has largely improved for the Biharis in Bangladesh and many Biharis successfully assimilated with the mainstream Bangladeshis ([9]) but you refrained from including this into the article.--Zayeem ^(talk) 08:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Zayeem, as far as the improvement of Biharis in Bangladesh is concerned, I will get it improved more. Ok? No worries regarding that. But as far the migration of Biharis from Bihar to East Bengal is concerned, really I cannot find anything regarding that. That is impossible. There is no record of that. The Google Books, which are on migration are not online, and in some of the online books, where we can have a preview, the Biharis have not been given coverage. So my dear, how can I find that info? I have tried my best, but the only thing I have found is their migration to Pakistan as a result of Two nation theory. Again, I will improve info regarding present condition of Biharis, but for their migration, I cannot get any info regarding violence. Aid me with references if you have any? Have you read about violence in Bihar regarding migration? If yes, please provide with the links. I have searched Wikipedia articles too, but no substance gathered. Faizan 09:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

There you go, plenty of sources talking about the issue. This might be a good one. You need to find more.--Zayeem ^(talk) 14:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

EXTRACTING SUBSTANCE, thanks for the links. Faizan 14:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Added the info as requested about the "migartion of Biharis from Bihar" here. Added info regarding "causes of the hatred" as suggested here. Added the info regarding "present condition" here. Faizan 18:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Remove the tags, as they only seem to be WP:POINTY. Mar4d (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Just as a note here, no violence prompted the migration of the Biharis. You can see the wiki article on Mohammad Shahabuddin who is an Indian politician (from Bihar, Muslim). Being a MP and Indian politician has not barred him from maintaining arms supplies from ISI pakistan. Solomon7968 19:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes Solomon. There was "no migration due to violence". As far as ISI, is concerned, it is the number one intelligence agency of the world, and obviously no one can prevent it. Faizan 10:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Bitter Truth!!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

at first i was thought that this article may be to show off the reality. but now this article is shaped with complete pakistani point of view as some editors collect lots of exaggerated information from pakistani source and try to blame indirectly bangladeshi people for genocide. (like bangladeshi blame pakistan for 1971)!!!

Mobbing, Persecution and Rape all are included here and was also good method of Pakistan to show off the miseries of muslims and asking for more from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states!!!!

Bengalis ″war of independence″ was named by pakistanis as ″civil war″!! here ″Fall of Dhaka″ is another example!! (were Bengalis ″liberation army″ or ″conqueror″????)

Samudrakula (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Not impressive... The same thing like the fact that we like to call the events of 1857–8 as The War of Independence, whereas the British call it Mutiny, Rebellion, etc... The things you say are consistent with the norms here. Nothing special or unusual regarding what you have said...—Шαмıq ☪ _тαʟκ✍ @ 19:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

They all should have listened to the Mahatma in 1947. :( Salam alaykum. Mr Mobile Man (talk) 05:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, not convincing... If you read history more carefully, you would have known this, that when Calcutta went to India, Bengali Muslim leaders complained to Jinnah of it; at which he said that if the want it, they can decide to abandon partition and keep their Bengal united. They refused... And Bengalis became a part of Pakistan. No-one stopped Bengalis from listening to Gandhi. Jinnah had given then the option.—Шαмıq ☪ _тαʟκ✍ @ 05:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

India should have stayed united instead of all this senseless violence though. That was the point brother. Instead of the largest population displacement in history and Muslim against Muslim. Mr Mobile Man (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

And do you know, why that displacement occured? Due to the unfair Radcliffe plan, which was finally drafted by a Congress-minded Hindu and personally approved by J. Nehru, before announcement; which placed many League-supporting districts to India (Calcutta being one of them)?—Шαмıq ☪ _тαʟκ✍ @ 06:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I said all, meaning Congress and the League, if you'd read what I said instead of goose-stepping with artificial nationalism. They were all fools to pit us against each other. Mr Mobile Man (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Then I would really thank those fools, to have kept us seperate!—Шαмıq ☪ _тαʟκ✍ @ 08:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Well discussion is better than avoidance! In 1947 the main and first demand from Muslim League was to make a strong hindu-muslim indian federation with strong local government. unfortunately it was rejected by orthodox hindus ! and india was partitioned!

again in 1971 awami league′s proposal for pakistani federation with strong local government was rejected by pak army regime and ppp! and pakistan was partitioned! It's all about political supremacy! Religion and ethnicity are just weapons for divide and rule! Samudrakula (talk) 09:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

We can all agree, at least, that the idea of Pakistan as two vastly diferent areas separated by 1000km of India was absurd. Especially one unit rule and Punjabis domination of the country, which continues to this day. The name Pakistan itself doesn't include Bangla and the so-caled martial races thought them exploitable. Mr Mobile Man (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV term

Terming Bangladesh Liberation War as a civil war is a blatant POV. Also the sources don't claim this persecution as ethnic cleansing, hence the category is removed.--Zayeem ^(talk) 08:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The sources support it, even the "Encyclopedia Britannica" terms it as a civil one. References have been added from Britannica. Faizan 10:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Civil war would imply it was something different from war for independence. Ultimately the difference between the two is the outcome, no? Mr Mobile Man (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism by Armanj

(Personal attack removed)

[10] the sentence is referenced yet he persists with his vandalism 86.151.237.220 (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

you're source talks about persecution during the war and its immediate aftermath. don't twist the facts, (Personal attack removed).--ArmanJ (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

My source clearly states: "The Biharis became subject to widespread political persecution preceding and during the 1971 war as well as in the aftermath of liberation" I am not sure if you fully understand the english language but this clearly states that the persecution didnt just happen for a few months but has occured since the liberation war. You have once again proved you are a misleading vandal editor who has tried to whitewash valid information again and again I have alerted other neutral editors of your agenda stop lying and twisting the source to cater for your biased POV agenda stop now 86.151.237.220 (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Only you have an agenda here. The facts are well known, the reprisal attacks took place in December 71 and January 72. No where does it say that persecution continues "to this day".--ArmanJ (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)