I know, as this is a controversial subject, many are hesitating to post their point of view. And take no offence, but I think it's good not to comment if you are not totally aware of the fundamentals of the topic or don't wanna contribute in such refutable subject, rather than posting 'very informative post'. But I'm again writting to clearify my point of view and make you people think about this stuff at a more broader sense. Before making my comment I wanna say that, I am not advocating any political party or am not supporting any political ethics but, just saying the things as a regular Bangladeshi, that makes sense.
If you say BANGLA, you mean or refering to all those people whose first language is Bangla and who has a connection to the Bangla race. The BANGLA point of view gives all these above illustrated people, an opportunity of being under a 'BANGLA' oriented country. But if you say BANGLADESH, you are refering the people who only live at Bangladesh and have Bangladeshi nationality. Now if you ask me, I'd definately say that, this 'BANGLADESH' concept makes more sense.
Because, when you are refering BANGLA, you are refering that, this country belongs to the Bengali people what actually narrows the civilian concept. Because one question arises and that is, what mistake did the tribal or the aboriginal people of Bangladesh do that they are deprived from being considered the civilians of Bangladesh? They neither speak Bangla nor they're Bengali but yet they have been living in this country for ages. So I think this is a matter, worth to be thought of...
