Sinking State of Bangladesh: Idiotic Musings

[NerVik]

June 5- HC reinstates 30% quota, not Sheikh Hasina

High Court reinstates 30% freedom fighter quota in government jobs

A bench of Justice KM Kamrul Kader and Justice Khizir Hayat of the High Court delivered the ruling today (5 June), giving a final hearing on a writ petition related to the matter.

www.tbsnews.net

July 21- SC rolls back quota and brings situation to what was PRE-June 5

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/21/asia/bangladesh-supreme-court-rolls-back-job-quotas-intl/index.html

Yeah the 30% quota that lasted 45 days

From what I have read, the quota was increased to 30% well before 2018, but as fewer and fewer independence fighters are alive, the quota was over the years extended to include children and grandchildren.
In 2018 following student protests the quota was scrapped
2024 HC brings back the quota which ignited second wave of student protests.

My mistake was i wrongly read/assumed Hasina brought in the 30% quota originally, but it was already there.
It seems what happened was in 1997 Hasina's then government expanded the quota eligible people to include children of the freedom fighters, then in 2010 expanded it again to include grandchildren while still capping it at 30%. So Hasina's role was to expand the pool of those eligible to this quota which seems to have angered students enough that in 2018 they protested.
In response the gov seems to have rolled back the quota for first and second class jobs, whatever they are, and the protestors were placate enough (i can't find much online but I am guessing this roll back by the govt capped the % to 5 instead of 30 while keeping the eligible pool to freedom fighters, their kids and grand kids).
I'm 2024 HC under Hasina's gov canceled the roll back as illegal and reinstated the 30% cap. Since this was done during her rule and going by the history of expanding the quota pool all under her governments, i guess the students linked the dots and came to blame her for the quota (even though her government in 2024 challenged the HC ruling, but that seems to have not been enough to placate the protestors this time and they brought up all past greviences) and the protests erupted again.
So my original posts retain some validity, Hasina read the situation wrong, she might not have introduced the 30% cap but she ensured the 30% cap remained in place by expanding the pool of those eligible. The 5% roll back seems to have been a response to protests in 2018, and they the HC (during her tenure) canceled the roll back. You can see how Hasina is being blamed here. This whole quota for freedom fighters is her father's and later her program.
So yes, she can be blamed partly for what happened.
Now back to the tweet that started this conversation, post 2170, i was merely pointing out the conclusion that they were against the whole quota, they were in reality against the quota going up to 30%. They were fine for 6 years at 5%. They retained it and now expanded the pool of those eligible under that quota to include student protestors.
Now it's another thing if they end up increasing that quota %, then yeah that's duplicity.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

Here is my theory:

Empires always expand from the resource-constrained or resource-deficient regions towards the regions which can offer additional resources to cover the shortfall.

Ancient/Medieval India (the Northern plains in particular) was wealthy, agricultural land was plentiful, water was easily available. There existed no motivation to look/venture outwards. No wonder, it made our ancestors lazy and less aggressive.

No not always.
There are two dominant forms of empires in the ancient world:

a) resource-poor aggressive conqueror empires who's main goal of conquest is to loot and get rich or control foreign rich lands and get rich. Eg : Mongols, most of the Turkic central asian empires, Arabian empire, Afghan empires.

b) resource-rich empires, who's main goal of conquest is to unify resource-producing regions to exert financial dominance over neighbours and then expand to spread zone of settlement/influence and expand core territory of empire. Eg: Romans, Indian empires, chinese Empires, Thai empires, Babylonian/Assyrian empires, etc.

The only hybrid empire - that isnt strictly resource-looters or unifier of resource producing lands that expand core territory are Iranian empires.

They are a bit of both, since Iran's wealth mostly came from the resource production unification to a limited degree ( mostly because Iranian plateau does not have a vast, contiguous agri belt to produce resources or a chotanagpur type of region extremely rich in minerals, but Iranian plateau has many mini sized agri-spots and mining spots, plus Iran relied a lot on transit revenue from silk and spice road trade.


Indians didnt lack motivation to go expand outwards. Indians lacked means.
Pretty much ALL our great empires end in geographically insurmountable barriers in the north and east- they go into nepal and touch tibet plateau and go into either the brahmaputra river as border or the impenetrable arakan mountains with myanmar.

Well, expanding into Tibet is out of question - you need space age astronaut fitness dudes to go fight and march for months or years at 12,000 feet altitude on average or be genetically adapted like tibetans who LIVE there for tens of thousands of years.

You cant expand via land into Myanmar - the jungles of Arakan Yoma are towering and fearsome - not even the British could solve it in 1940s war period and Burma road is the most expensive road built in history in terms of human lives cost from dying to build it - just people falling off of cliffs, snake bites, malaria, sickness, etc.
I think something like each km cost 10 deaths or something crazy like that. So...that is out of question.

South is obviously just sea. This leaves the west.

Where all the invaders till the anglos came from. Well India has a huge problem going west : India itself has no horses and is poor in horses. India does not show native breed of horses till Marwari horse which shows up roughly 600-700 years ago. And mostly we imported horses FROM balkh ( like guptas, magadh empire, pals etc). So we aint getting any horses to invade Afghanistan.
So no cavalry.
That leaves elephants. Forget 5000 war elephants on the march like Dhananand against Alexander, if you march just 500 elephants towards Kabul, on day 1 outside Peshwar, your 500 elephants alone will drink the entire Kabul river (whos flow isnt even worth being in top 1000 for indian rivers, nullah, rivulets, etc in cusec terms). Now what ?

Where u get water for your ellies ? remember, each ellie needs MINIMUM 200L of water per day to live and about 300L to thrive. So now you dont have elephants.

You got infantry only. Except Indian infantry isnt roman or greek infantry, its light-medium infantry that cannot just close ranks and survive cavalry charges.

So now you as king gotta ask - what the foc is there in afghanistan for us to try and go conquer with infantry only vs people who are cavalry kings and will just shoot and run or charge and run till all ur men are dead, ala Roman defeat at Carrhae ?!?

Answer : Nothing of value. Land isnt agricultural OR mineral/iron capital of the world. The only possible answer is that afghanistan is crossroads of mega trade routes and u can get moolah by controlling trade route like Kushans did. But then you realize that there are two trade routes going into Afghanistan region- the southern one is from YOU INDIA YOURSELF that you can control from Peshawar and the northern one is from China that goes into Balk but Iranians end up being final controllers of it anyways, as it must enter through Maryy oasis-Nishapur region, that is pretty much SOLID persian for most of history.

The fact that India never went conquering in Afghanistan is IMPLICIT PROOF that India is an extremely advanced ancient civilization who didnt have kings that go conquer just for ego or how many women he can steal to rape or how he can just make his lands bigger, but acted like an advanced civilization, where conquest goals follow a more objective goal - geopolitical gain or financial gain or such.

This is the most logical answer i can think of, as to why Indian empires never expanded west. There is nothing worth expanding to and we lack the military means to cross the Indus as a dominant military power. You look at map of entire Balochistan+Afghanistan and realize, wot de foc am i doing here or going there for and dont do it. simple.

 

[ArjunMK1A]

India never invaded any other country for 5000 years why will we start now?

This is the sad reality, yours truly's haseen sapna is to see the Chicken's Neck widened into the Whale's Neck and for all of Chittagong including the Hill Tracts be ansclhussed into the India Republic without Alom, Rockybul and Sockybuls that infest it.

But the sad reality is that it will not happen

Rajendra Chola 1 is watching this comment with disgust from swarglog.

cholas hv no direct rule in south east asia, according to maps. but they hv influence in many south east asia countries. coz we see local hindu kings there. if cholas hv direct rule over some south east asia according to history books, plz explain. nd which chola king ruling those south east asia countries.
View attachment 26470
gupta empire hv extended near afganistan, but not in iran. i m saying this by maps. if u hv historical data than provide about it.View attachment 26471

Rajendra Chola conquered and let his descendants to rule those conquered places. He married some Cambodian princess I believe. He came back to Tamilnadu he died somewhere in brahmadesam, thiruvannamalai district.

Unfortunately we don't have concrete evidence since Chola palaces were gone, only their grand temple exist which have this inscriptions.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

Rajendra Chola 1 is watching this comment with disgust from swarglog.





Rajendra Chola conquered and let his descendants to rule those conquered places. He married some Cambodian princess I believe. He came back to Tamilnadu he died somewhere in brahmadesam, thiruvannamalai district.

Unfortunately we don't have concrete evidence since Chola palaces were gone, only their grand temple exist which have this inscriptions.

From what i know, Rajendra Chola went to Srivijaya with help of a very powerful Tamil sreni ( corporation) that facilitated the transportation of his troops across the Indian ocean ( 5000+km of open ocean is no joke fyi 1000 years ago - Rajendra Chola is the first ever HUMAN BEING in history, from what i can tell, to cross open ocean for imperial conquest. romans, greeks etc are not open ocean travellers,they are coast hugger row boater peoples and vikaaangz were not an imperial power, they were pirate-settlers who came in, whacked u and took ur women and gold and fucked off or came in, whacked u and took ur women and gold and stayed.
Knut the great etc do go on imperial conquest, but again, they dont cross open ocean, just north sea. He mostly sailed denmark to Uk and in and around the baltics, then once from Uk to Norway directly but not for conquest but just to go tour his domain or something and even then, england to norway is a quick spurt across open seas.

Either way, he didnt just go in there blind and alone, he formed alliance with Khmer devaraja and nature of it was Khmer devaraja Suryavarman the 1st (not builder of angkor- that is Surya-II) formed alliance with Rajendra Cholan for his war with Tambralinga, a kingdom in the stem of the malay peninsula. Which caused Tambralinga to form alliance with Srivijaya and Rajendra showed up and whacked Srivijaya while knowing IF his invasion didnt pan out well ( one never knows in what shape u will arrive after 5000km open ocean voyage and what really waits u at the shore),he had some friendly ports to retreat to not very far - coast hug up to thailand u r there, coz at this point Khmer controls Chao Praya valley, aka central Thailand.

What we do know, is that he caused collapse of Srivijaya empire and the region basically became the Malayu kingdom restored and a patchwork of thalassocracies and thrived for a while. This malayu kingdom shows a lot of Chola named princes/landed gentry etc.

He then basically married a Khmer princess and came home with the region remaining nominal vassals at very least to Chola empire - its unknown if they ever paid tribute or did chola ever send smaller fleet to collect tribute or not, though it seems unlikely given that majority of chola navy to go to Srivijaya was a merchant sreni giving Cholas their ships.

 

[Cheepek]

Wow quota after starting a "revolution" that was against quotas

https://www.prothomalo.com/education/admission/a6rkdc09rq

"They chanted slogans such as "Tumi Noi Ami Noi, Razakar Razakar [Neither You Nor Me, Razakar Razakar]" and "Quota na Medha, Medha Medha [Not quota, but merit, merit, merit]".

PM's quota remark: Students gather at TSC for protest rally

Students started gathering in front of the Raju sculpture near Dhaka University's TSC around 12:20pm today to hold a rally protesting Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's comments during yesterday's speech

www.thedailystar.net

 

[shade2]

No not always.
There are two dominant forms of empires in the ancient world:

a) resource-poor aggressive conqueror empires who's main goal of conquest is to loot and get rich or control foreign rich lands and get rich. Eg : Mongols, most of the Turkic central asian empires, Arabian empire, Afghan empires.

b) resource-rich empires, who's main goal of conquest is to unify resource-producing regions to exert financial dominance over neighbours and then expand to spread zone of settlement/influence and expand core territory of empire. Eg: Romans, Indian empires, chinese Empires, Thai empires, Babylonian/Assyrian empires, etc.

The only hybrid empire - that isnt strictly resource-looters or unifier of resource producing lands that expand core territory are Iranian empires.

They are a bit of both, since Iran's wealth mostly came from the resource production unification to a limited degree ( mostly because Iranian plateau does not have a vast, contiguous agri belt to produce resources or a chotanagpur type of region extremely rich in minerals, but Iranian plateau has many mini sized agri-spots and mining spots, plus Iran relied a lot on transit revenue from silk and spice road trade.


Indians didnt lack motivation to go expand outwards. Indians lacked means.
Pretty much ALL our great empires end in geographically insurmountable barriers in the north and east- they go into nepal and touch tibet plateau and go into either the brahmaputra river as border or the impenetrable arakan mountains with myanmar.

Well, expanding into Tibet is out of question - you need space age astronaut fitness dudes to go fight and march for months or years at 12,000 feet altitude on average or be genetically adapted like tibetans who LIVE there for tens of thousands of years.

You cant expand via land into Myanmar - the jungles of Arakan Yoma are towering and fearsome - not even the British could solve it in 1940s war period and Burma road is the most expensive road built in history in terms of human lives cost from dying to build it - just people falling off of cliffs, snake bites, malaria, sickness, etc.
I think something like each km cost 10 deaths or something crazy like that. So...that is out of question.

South is obviously just sea. This leaves the west.

Where all the invaders till the anglos came from. Well India has a huge problem going west : India itself has no horses and is poor in horses. India does not show native breed of horses till Marwari horse which shows up roughly 600-700 years ago. And mostly we imported horses FROM balkh ( like guptas, magadh empire, pals etc). So we aint getting any horses to invade Afghanistan.
So no cavalry.
That leaves elephants. Forget 5000 war elephants on the march like Dhananand against Alexander, if you march just 500 elephants towards Kabul, on day 1 outside Peshwar, your 500 elephants alone will drink the entire Kabul river (whos flow isnt even worth being in top 1000 for indian rivers, nullah, rivulets, etc in cusec terms). Now what ?

Where u get water for your ellies ? remember, each ellie needs MINIMUM 200L of water per day to live and about 300L to thrive. So now you dont have elephants.

You got infantry only. Except Indian infantry isnt roman or greek infantry, its light-medium infantry that cannot just close ranks and survive cavalry charges.

So now you as king gotta ask - what the foc is there in afghanistan for us to try and go conquer with infantry only vs people who are cavalry kings and will just shoot and run or charge and run till all ur men are dead, ala Roman defeat at Carrhae ?!?

Answer : Nothing of value. Land isnt agricultural OR mineral/iron capital of the world. The only possible answer is that afghanistan is crossroads of mega trade routes and u can get moolah by controlling trade route like Kushans did. But then you realize that there are two trade routes going into Afghanistan region- the southern one is from YOU INDIA YOURSELF that you can control from Peshawar and the northern one is from China that goes into Balk but Iranians end up being final controllers of it anyways, as it must enter through Maryy oasis-Nishapur region, that is pretty much SOLID persian for most of history.

The fact that India never went conquering in Afghanistan is IMPLICIT PROOF that India is an extremely advanced ancient civilization who didnt have kings that go conquer just for ego or how many women he can steal to rape or how he can just make his lands bigger, but acted like an advanced civilization, where conquest goals follow a more objective goal - geopolitical gain or financial gain or such.

This is the most logical answer i can think of, as to why Indian empires never expanded west. There is nothing worth expanding to and we lack the military means to cross the Indus as a dominant military power. You look at map of entire Balochistan+Afghanistan and realize, wot de foc am i doing here or going there for and dont do it. simple.

Nice write up, but i've compressed all this into one picture and some words



> shitty arid mountains and deserts to the North-West, North and West
> mountains and cursed rainforest to the east
> North, East and North East is Himalayas and the Tibetan plateau, cold and inhospitable aside from altitude

Literally why invade?
What benefit is there, Bharat is where all the good shit is, 2/3rds of it's surroundings are barren shitholes and the other surrounding is mountainous and rainforested shithole, why bother.

God already set us up in a good place compared to any central asian goat-fucker or Tibetan yak-herder

 

[Azaad]

View: https://twitter.com/taqbirhuda/status/1892251156300087456?s=19

"South Asia researcher & LLM @Harward" goes the bio on X .


View: https://twitter.com/CJBdingo25/status/1896214206342426820?s=19

 

[Asmodeus]

View: https://x.com/Iyervval/status/1896129340003520900

 

[GaudaNaresh]

Nice write up, but i've compressed all this into one picture and some words

View attachment 26530

> shitty arid mountains and deserts to the North-West, North and West
> mountains and cursed rainforest to the east
> North, East and North East is Himalayas and the Tibetan plateau, cold and inhospitable aside from altitude

Literally why invade?
What benefit is there, Bharat is where all the good shit is, 2/3rds of it's surroundings are barren shitholes and the other surrounding is mountainous and rainforested shithole, why bother.

God already set us up in a good place compared to any central asian goat-fucker or Tibetan yak-herder

i think people understand the 'why invade' from looking at this map well enough.
I dont think people understand the 'how invade' part from looking at this map, which is why i had to explain :
How the hell do u fight horse-lords without horses or elephants and infantry only ? Feck, last time romans were retarded enough to go up against an exclusive cavalry force with 95% infantry force, they got their richest guy larping as general wiped out in one of their most humiliating defeats ever - Carrhae.
And romans were the gods of infantry- heavy infantry, who could survive a full cavalry charge without breaking if prepared.
So what chance does Indians have ?? Indians did not have heavy infantry. the reason is simple - indian terrain doesnt favour heavy infantry, who do not find vast plains favourable : vast plains are all about movement speed and your army moves only as fast as its slowest link, which is people marching on foot. Which means indian infantry is light but can go from point x to point y in indo-gangetic plains far better than greco-roman heavy infantry.
if you made roman infantry in India, your local indian dude with medium-light indian infantry comes, wrecks u when u r distracted and gtfo before u can catch him coz his men march fastern than ur men coz his men are less armored than ur men.
heavy infantry likes choke points and broken terrain hence rome, greece etc invented them.

So there is a big 'how invade' that applies to these lands from Indian perspective as well. U cant take 500 elephants into afghanistan towards iran or balochistan towards iran and get them to be alive after 1 month lulz.