By Mahabubul Bari
Dhaka, Bangladesh - The New Nation
Dhaka, Bangladesh - The New Nation
For several years, discussion of transport issues and problems in Dhaka has had a singular focus on the supposed contribution of cycle rickshaws to traffic congestion, and the need to facilitate movement of automobiles. In line with this analysis of the transport situation, various projects have been undertaken, focusing on banning rickshaws and rickshaw vans from major roads, and sometimes relegating them to narrow rickshaw lanes. The problem of car parking has been addressed mainly through insistence on provision of separate parking places by offices, shops and restaurants even by enacting law under the building code. It is a matter of deep regret that not a single transport policy decision was undertaken after conducting a proper scientific or knowledge-based analysis of the transport problems of the city. It has become a standard norm to take important policy decisions rather arbitrarily, whether it is rickshaw ban or Strategic Transport Plan (STP) for the city.The results of these various initiatives have been made clear through government-mandated studies, including the HDRC report on the rickshaw ban on Mirpur Road (HDRC 2004), and the DUTP after-study report (DUTP 2006). The results, almost astonishingly negative, would suggest that the basis for the policy decisions and transport plans are flawed. This would be less than surprising when considering the fact that important transport policy decisions were taken without employing any knowledge-based approach or scientific study.
Moreover, despite the strong evidence of increased travel costs and traffic congestion, transport planning continues to focus on expanding the role of the automobile and reducing that of fuel-free transport. That pattern has been reflected by the further extension of the rickshaw bans on more city roads. In this connection, readers are requested to draw their attention to the following news item:
gTraffic Division of the Dhaka Metropolitan Police made Purana Paltan-Bijoynagar Road off-limits to rickshaws from Thursday. The decision was taken at a meeting on Wednesday. All the deputy commissioners of four traffic divisions were present at the meeting. M Sayedur Rahman, deputy commissioner (south) of traffic division, told New Age on Thursday that the authorities banned plying of non-motorised vehicles on the stretch between Purana Paltan and Bijoynagar to ease traffic congestion.h The New Age, Dhaka, Friday, October 19, 2007.
This arbitrary decision making process as depicted in the news item draws attention to a number of disturbing questions as follows: Do the police have the authority to ban or restrict rickshaw movements?If yes, from whom do they get that authority?
Do the police have similar authority to limit the movement of motorised vehicles when there is not sufficient road capacity for them, e.g. narrow lanes, which cannot accommodate cars without causing traffic jams?
Probably not, it is therefore clear that such misguided policy actions are being pursued just to give absolute priority in the transport system of the city for a tiny minority of car owners, i.e. the so called elite section of the society.
Do the police have requisite training to make proper transport decisions?
If so, why dies Dhaka needs organisation like DTCB, when the police can do the job better?
The rickshaw bans are being extended beyond Mirpur Road, but it seems unlikely that those bans were carried out by the police, rather than by a section of the powerful bureaucrats behind the scene. It may be mentioned here that after failure of the rickshaw ban in the demonstration project of the Mirpur Road, the World Bank has set the standard of extending further bans on the condition that: gAny future support from the World Bank would be possible only if it can be demonstrated that aggregate positive impacts of NMT-free conversion on transport users and transport providers outweigh the aggregate negative impacth.
It is matter of deep regret that policies continue to give car owners absolute priority, while ignoring the fundamental principle of any transport project appraisal, that is, that net user benefits of any transport intervention must exceed net loss.
Now, it may be appropriate to concentrate on, possibly, the most important argument in the news item, that is, gthe authorities banned plying of non-motorised vehicles on the stretch between Purana Paltan and Bijoynagar to ease traffic congestion.h In the following paragraphs answer to this question and other related aspects of such transport policy interventions, will be analysed in the light of knowledge-based and participatory decision-making approach.
Did the previous rickshaw ban in Dhaka City ease traffic congestion?
The answer lies in the gAfter Projecth report of the government mandated study of the Mirpur Road Demonstration project (DUTP 2006), where fuel free transport was banned.
It might be appropriate to look into the issue considering a number of key congestion indices with respect to before and after scenarios of the Mirpur Road Demonstration project as follows:
Average journey time per vehicle
Average journey time per person
Journey reliability
Throughput (total number of vehicles per time interval that pass a point on the carriageway)
Average Journey time per Vehicle
The Table 1 shows the comparison of travel times of fuel dependent (motorised) vehicles between 2000 and 2005. Considering large variability of the travel time data, it is evident that there is no statistically significant difference of travel times of fuel dependent or motorised vehicles between pre and post rickshaw ban scenarios. This means that no travel time gain for fuel dependent vehicle was achieved due to rickshaw ban.The Table 2 demonstrates the comparison of travel times of buses between 2000 and 2005. Although there is no statistically significant difference of travel times for fuel dependent vehicles between pre and post FFT ban scenarios, the travel times for buses did undergo significant deterioration with a 26.1% increase of travel times. This means that bus congestion has increased significantly due to imposition of rickshaw ban in the Mirpur Road demonstration corridor.
On balance average vehicle congestion in terms of journey time per vehicle has increased significantly due to the rickshaw ban.
Average journey time per person : Bus travel has worsened following the FFT ban, with a 26.1% increase in travel time; passenger travels by bus has become slower than by rickshaw. Thus all the bus passengers (28.1% of total passengers)-both those who continue to travel by bus in pre- and post-project scenarios, and those who were forced to shift from rickshaws-have experienced significant increase in travel times.
Impacts of the project on car passengers who have been riding a car both pre- and post-project are more or less neutral, as there is no significant difference in travel time.
The passengers of motorised para-transit who continue to travel both in pre- and post-project scenarios are likely to suffer increase in average journey times. While there is no significant difference in travel times between scenarios, the times required to find a driver who would be willing to go for short trips have gone up substantially as per HDRC report (HDRC 2004) thereby increasing average travel times per person.
Despite being subjected to a ban on Mirpur Road, rickshaws remain the most popular means of transport in the corridor, accounting for 30% of all trips. Rickshaw passengers have become net losers, being forced to take long detours using congested side roads, and thereby substantially increase their travel time.These evidences from the after project studies prove that congestion in terms of average journey time per person have increased significantly after rickshaw ban in the Mirpur Road demonstration corridor.
Journey Reliability: Both DUTP after project study (DUTP 2006) and HDRC studies reported significant deterioration of waiting times for bus passengers. Again, as reported in the HDRC report, baby taxi operators are reluctant to take short trips, causing significant increases in waiting times for passengers. Similarly, finding suitable taxicabs at an affordable cost has become increasingly troublesome and time-consuming for short trips.
It is therefore clearly evident that journey reliability of the Mirpur Road demonstration project deteriorated significantly due to imposition of rickshaw ban. This in turn represents increase of congestion.
Throughput (total number of vehicles per time interval that pass a point on the carriageway)
Although it might not be appropriate to compare throughputs between a FFT free road and a mixed vehicles road, it is obvious from the Table 3 that number of vehicles that pass at North of Dhanmodi R#2 of Mirpur Road, decreased significantly both in terms of absolute number of vehicles and passenger car equivalents due to rickshaw ban. This indicates the congestion in terms of throughput has increased significantly due to rickshaw ban in Mirpur Road.
Again, although passenger carrying capacities of the whole network under investigation were found to increase on average by 30% due to a significant increase of bus services under a private sector-driven initiative, increase in passenger capacity for the demonstration project was only 15%. Again, a careful analysis of data reveals that nearly total elimination of FFT combined with a very high increase in bus service resulted in only a 15% increase in passenger capacity, whereas a small decrease in cars combined with only a modest increase in bus service resulted in a 27% increase in passenger capacity in a VIP road, which has been under FDT-only operation in the base case, indicating that as far as road capacity is concerned the problem is cars, not rickshaws.Whether car more efficient than rickshaws in terms of road space occupancy?
Despite constant claims of the city officials that rickshaws are the main source of traffic jams, data indicate that rickshaws are far superior to cars as far as road space occupancy is concerned (see Table 4). In the base case i.e. before fuel free transport ban, rickshaws made up 69.8% of vehicles, yet utilised only 43.5% of road space to transport 59.4% of passengers (all trips). Cars made up only 6.4% of vehicles, yet occupied as much as 29.9% of the road space in the base case to transport far fewer passengers (5.5%) than by rickshaw.
Despite being removed from the main roads, rickshaws are still the most popular mode of transport, serving 30% of the passengers, whereas cars serve only 8.5% of all trips (11% of vehicular trips) while requiring the greatest share of road space (54.2%). Although the modal share of cars in overall has gone up only 3.0%, they now claim about 25% more road space than prior to FFT ban. If one considers the additional parking space required for them, total road space required would be much higher. It is clear that a combination of fuel-free transit and public transit would be far superior to a fuel-dependent transport and public transit option.
It may be mentioned here that despite 50% traffic growth of motorised vehicles during 2000 to 2005 period, the traffic in terms of PCE (passenger car equivalent) in Mirpur Road Demonstration corridor was lower in 2005 in comparison to that of 2000. However, despite having less number of traffic in 2005, the performance of the corridor was significantly worse under FFT free condition after the ban.
It is therefore clearly evident from the data analysis of the DUTP after project study that congestion in terms of all major congestion indices has increased significantly due to imposition of fuel free transport ban in the Mirpur Road demonstration corridor.Isha Khan <bd_mailer@yahoo.com> wrote:
Reflections on Bangladeshfs Liberation Struggle, War Crimes, Freedom Fighters and Other Related National Issues
By Tayeb Husain, Sweden
Before I discuss about the Bangladeshfs declaration of independence, liberation struggle, atrocities by opposing forces, war crimes, freedom fighters and other related issues I would like to say that, I would have preferred, certainly, a united India in 1947 if I was an adult at that time because I know now better what are the real benefits of being a citizen of a big country.
I would again never ever like to see Pakistan breaking away into pieces in 1972 if West Pakistanis or and correctly to say, the Punjabis, were not so selfish and irrational. I wanted united Pakistan, right? And now you got me where I stand? And do you find in me a 5th columnist or a traitor or a ghost of Golam Azam or Farid Ahmad or like any other diehard Islamic fundamentalist in any way? You have right to do so but please hold on for a while and let me continue you draw any conclusion, whatsoever.
It is good living in a big country with abundance of space and that is why I preferred united India if she was a real a secular state with a fair government. A big country has a big market and that is good for the economy, personal choice and freedom; it is also good in political, social and on cultural perspective. But when unity becomes a burden or national integration turns to domination by one group on other, surely one must consider an alternative. I was not in favour of Bangladesh but I supported the cause when everything went wrong and Pakistani military played havoc in the then East Pakistan.
Even if I did not support Bangladesh seceding from Pakistan until and unless Bangladesh was created and recognised by the world community as a sovereign state nobody has any right to call me a traitor or a criminal until and unless again, I had taken arms against the state and did kill anybody in the process or destroyed someonefs property. I have every right to have my own views on political, social, cultural, and economic questions of my country as long as a horrendous draconian decision is not taken by the very state I am talking about that denies an individual or a group to have such a right. I must have respect for law, even for a bad law and does not matter how much bad that law could be. I have also right again, to oppose or to propagate in favour of a law, good or bad, peacefully.
Nobody should deny me from such a right except a fascist dictator as in fascism, anything can happen and fascists have no problem finding reasons to justify anything. Again, I care very little about religion, and using religion in politics I strongly believe, is the job of the scoundrels. And what I said about supporting united India or maintaining Pakistan intact was for the above reasons and certainly not for any consideration of any religious bigotry or adherence to it. After saying and candidly proclaiming where I stand, I shall now continue expressing my points of view on nature of our freedom struggle, Indo-Pak war, 5th columnists in that struggle, banning political parties based on religion, secularism and finally on the freedom fighters.
Last year our nation celebrated 36 years of independence on 16th Dec 2007 gsaluting the gallant sons and daughters of the soil who had unflinchingly sacrificed their lives in the Liberation War of 1971 to translate the national dream of an independent motherland into a realityh, someone wrote in Daily Star some time ago. But how far that dream has been fulfilled is a million dollar question we need to examine. But most vexing questions in the nationfs psyche at the moment, it seems to me, are many irrelevant queries which have no relevance today but we are still arguing on those issues. We hear clarion calls from ultra patriots, freedom fighters, intellectuals (?), international lawyers (?), partisan civilians and students to punish those who committed crimes against Bangladesh and the humanity at large. It seems, every one is a prosecutor and a judge, a perfect Sony two in one, and loves finding culprit and signing death warrant to anyone they find by their raw standard of criminal codes.
First, we have problem in understanding the nature of Bangladeshfs freedom struggle. Some call it liberation war and to some consider it was a civil war. What was it?
Secondly, was the war that created Bangladesh an Indo-Pak or Bangla-Pak war? This is another serious question to many minds.
Thirdly, what to do with the individual or the group that opposed creation of Bangladesh? Should they have a place in our society or we deport them to Saudi Arabia? After all, they were mostly highly Islamic minded and wanted to remain with Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
Fourthly, what to do with our freedom fighters? They are too many and still growing.
Fifthly and finally on secularism and political parties based on religion: should we allow religious parties who want to turn Bangladesh into an Islamic state, to function in free and independent Bangladesh?
1. On the Nature of our Freedom Struggle
Bangladesh was part of Pakistan and no liberation war was ever declared officially by anybody so to say correctly and clearly. There was no referendum, no general consensus and no majority public decision regarding formation of a free Bangladesh or declaration of a war for liberation. A private announcement by a politician or an army man does not make this civil war a war of liberation, technically.
Bangladesh struggle for independence by nature started as a civil war. Mujib never wanted destruction of Pakistan and no clear evidence in this regard we do not find as yet. Awami Leaguefs manifesto in 1970 election was not for an independent Bangladesh, The then East Pakistani people voted AL to form a government in Pakistan and not to wage a war on anything. All documents available then and now suggest that fact strongly and very truly.
By giving benefit of doubt that liberation war was declared by Mujib, the natural question immediately comes what about he was negotiating with Yahya Khan? Negotiation broke down and civil war followed. It was not a war of independence by any definition, East Pakistani people did not want liberation but it was forced upon them by the Pakistani military and feudal leadership. Those who deny this fact are hiding truth; it is utter distortion of history or construction and presentation of our past in truly dishonourable way. When we talk about the question of fighting between the Mukti Bahini and the Razakar/Al-badar forces, it was fully civil war because both the parties were Bangladeshi people and they were fighting with each other on a political issue where one wanted, after being denied to form a government in the country, to build an independent Bangladesh and the other party worked against it. Biharis who worked as Pakistani agents were also East Pakistani citizens. A large section of Bengali speaking and Bengali origin people were also fighting against Bengali Mukti Bahini. Or, shall we call them fanatic Muslims only and thus, had no legal ground to be called Bengalis? The case in plain language was a civil war that turned into a war for liberation of Bangladesh and we need not argue long 37 years to understand this simple logic.
2. Was the war that created Bangladesh an Indo-Pak or Bangla-Pak war?
Some argue on the partner of war that lead to creation of an independent sovereign Bangladesh and the question they raise whether it was an gIndo-Pakh or gBangla-Pakh war.
This much is true that the Mukti-Bahini was fighting guerrilla-warfare in different fronts against the Pakistani army. But it is also true that the Mukti Bahini were trained and armed by India and they never encountered strong Pakistani forces face to face. It is also true again that Mukti Bahini could never win any war by 1972 without Indian help. The actual war was fought between India and Pakistan and the issue was Bangladesh which India wanted to create by breaking-up Pakistan for her own political interest. The civil war in East Pakistan was a god sent opportunity to India. Indian intention and Bangladeshfs dream was not again compatible. India wanted Bangladesh to merge with India if it was really possible; the other option to her agenda was to make it a vassal state if Bangladesh did oppose the merger and, in worst scenario, she wanted to let her remain independent but a friendly state within her full domination. To call it a Bangla-Pak war is a distortion of history and certainly not an honourable way of presenting facts for whatsoever reason it could be. In his recent visit to Bangladesh the then former chief of the Indian army's eastern command Lt Gen (retd) JFR Jacob, out of courtesy, said that it was the freedom fighters' gallantry that liberated Bangladesh from Pakistani occupation may be a point to many to oppose my view but please do not accept a guestfs patronising politeness as an evidence of history.
3. What to do with the individual or the group that opposed creation of Bangladesh?
Pakistan was one country until Bangladesh was not created and recognized so by the world community. Now, after Bangladesh was created and became a recognised state, what to do with those who opposed Bangladesh? Surely, we need to examine the question very carefully before we give any verdict on who should have a place in Bangladesh and whom shall we deport away from the country.
First, we need to ask a core question; did these people or the party become loyal to Bangladesh after the country was created? If the answer is gyesh, the rhetoric does not make any sense any longer.
Secondly, was there ever any law in the country that forbade individual or gparties opposed to the Liberation War should not have any place in independent Bangladeshh? Again, if the answer is gnoh, the slogan is invalid and offensive.
Thirdly, was there any law in the country that indicated or did not allow any individual or social or political organization NOT to oppose creation of Bangladesh? If the answer is enof again, nobody has any right to deny that individual or social or political organization to be part and parcel of Bangladesh society if that individual or social or political organization has/have offered his/her/their political allegiance to Bangladesh after the state was created and recognised by the world communities.
We need to talk sense to judge things and take a correct decision about people whom we consider anti-state and anti-liberation people. We must not give any verdict on anybody without proper evolution of a crime. If we want rational, secular, democratic Bangladesh we need to be rational, secular and democratic first by our action, words and deeds.
Let us also discuss the core question or the basis on which some group blame and condemn the Razakars and the religious group (and mostly the Jamat-e-Islami party) for opposing independence and committing atrocities on people who fought for a free and independent Bangladesh.
Criminal offences such as loot, arsons, murder etc are offensive activities and can not be justified under any circumstances. The people who committed such crimes should have been punished as soon as possible and thus, justice should have been done to the victims of such atrocities. The Mukti Bahini and the freedom fighters were not 100% clean people either. Same crimes and violence these supporters of freedom also did commit on those who opposed independent Bangladesh. There was no peaceful dialogue between the freedom fighters and the opposing parties. If the society punishes anybody, the punishment must be fair, just and to the right proportion to all for their respective offences.
The war cry after 37 years and punishment for offence that was once pardoned make no sense today and no honest person can make it an issue now for whatsoever purpose it may be. Justice and political vengeance are not the same things. We shall also remember that Mujib had no war plan against Pakistan as he had no clear-cut independent Bangladesh manifesto in his political programme; he did not consult any foreign power seeking help or support against possible Pakistani retaliation while he was taunting highly organised Pakistani army. gThe struggle this time is our struggle for freedomh was a poly by Mujib to bargain with the Pakistani Army for winning Premiership of Pakistan. Yes, his objective was to become Prime-Minister of Pakistan and if he was given that opportunity he would have forgotten all his rhetoric and acted like any other Bengali politicians, including his mentor H. S. Surawardhy. Did not Surawardhy declare in 1956 that Bangladesh got full autonomy as soon as he became Prime Minister of Pakistan?
Mujibfs activities after East Pakistan was liberated by India and became Bangladesh was again candid proves of his bad leadership and unforgivable follies. He established a government made of his cronies and incompetent corrupt relations. He did not try to find out and punish the criminals who opposed freedom struggle or committed atrocities on other people but pardon them after, rumour goes, pleading from his buddies who received bribes from the offenders. He established an administration devoid of common sense. He did not respect grule of lawh and gpersonal ruleh was everything that he loved to exercise like any other typical 3rd world dictator. He ignored and kept a blind eye what Awami League goons were doing in the country after liberation by India. He gave Awami League student group a free hand to do corruption and made money anyway they could, because, gthey suffered so much in the warh, rumour goes again Mujib saying so to excuse the offences committed by the so called students. Some of them became ministers and minted money by corruption and unfair means. Let Tofail and his buddies hear what I am publicly saying.
Mujib was also responsible in giving new strength to the Muslim fundamentalist groups in Bangladesh who were cowed down for working against Bangladesh and co-operating with Pakistani leadership and the army. He courted the fanatics and zealots for further strengthening his power and authority. gNobody can touch Madrasa as long as I am aliveh, he had said to have said to these religious groups. He did not discourage Madrasa education or try to put en end to that primitive educational system but supported it either out of ignorance or to win future political support. Madrasa education, no doubt about it, has created millions of fanatics and useless ill educated parasites that would continue pulling the country backwards for decades to come by their rustic outlook and with an useless education that has nothing to do with rational thinking and scientific inquiries of our time. Madrasa should have been banned soon after Bangladesh became independent. But every leader extended support to this primitive schooling, its products and thereby tried to strength his/her own political power base. Do you hear me Hasina and Khaleda? I need not utter Ershadfs name and Zia got his punishment long ago.
4. The Freedom Fighters
Let us now talk about our freedom fighters. This group is very vocal these days and recently this group loudly demanded, after long 37 years, that the gparties opposed to the Liberation War have no place in independent Bangladeshh. To me it seems that this is nothing but foolish political tricks of these people. These are dishonest people and doing politics of convenience only and to distract public mind from the real issues of corruption, poverty, illiteracy, nepotism and favouritism which the country needs to fight against relentlessly. These freedom fighters indeed need our careful attention.
I salute those who fought for the country, suffered or scarified their lives. But the fact remains, quite a few or rather a large number of them, are impostors, self-serving and dishonourable people. They used the freedom struggle to wage war on their personal enemies and make fortune out of sufferings of others. After the independence was won they took bribe from real and criminal Razakars and anti-Bangladeshi elements and gave them clean and free passage to kill the issue. Governmentsf effort to help those who suffered fighting our freedom struggle was good but how to find out the genuine freedom fighters and the fake swindlers? Anyway, helping those who needed help for sometime after 1972 were commendable but carrying on helping genuine or fake people with freedom fighters stamp on their back even today is not fair and does not make any sense. Special service quota, reserve seats in educational institutions for freedom fightersf sons and daughters are bad examples that are still continuing by the name of helping freedom fighters. Who did not fight or suffered in 1970-1972 except those who opposed and were in good book of the Pakistani oppressors? Is it not time to close down everything that benefits some people and make them parasitical elements with the stamp on their back as gfreedom fightersh?
I like to draw the attention of those people and particularly the sector commanders who have recently waged almost an all out war demanding trial of the war criminals. Where were you, all these years, Sirs? Busy in making money by corruption and illegal means? Please tell us what you have done for the country except serving yourself and making Bangladesh continuously five times the most corrupt country on earth? What the country gained by being independent through your (?) struggle? Give an account of yourself and clear your own name first. Are you not in the gang who live in luxury by corruption and unfair means keeping Bangladesh poor and let her people suffer beyond limit?
5. On secularism and political parties based on religion
This write-up would remain unfinished if we do not talk about secularism and what to do with the religion based parties who try to propagate religion through politics and vice-versa.
We should not have any dispute or any genuine reason not to support secularism. It is for our own good and it is the most human political philosophy. It would help us to integrate and assimilate ourselves with the great civilized societies of the world. Apart from that, Bangladesh being a Muslim majority country, what she has to loose by being secular? Nobody in Bangladesh would ever propose any legislation or ask for any law that could be against Islam, the religion of the majority. For that matter, why there should be any law against any religion if we want to be civilized people? Religious fanaticism we must discourage, we shall make religion a private and individual matter and it must not have anything to do with our state apparatus. Religion and state must be separated fully and completely.
Secularism has many benefits. Jinnah, who fought for Pakistan wanted a Muslim homeland but not a religious state. Many did not understand that and wrongly pictured Jinnah a communal fellow. What he emphasised was a true secular Muslim homeland with equal rights for each of its citizen.
Secular Bangladesh would give a sense of gone country, one peopleh to all Bangladeshi irrespective of religion and political affiliation. Only through secularism full integration of our minority communities with the mainstream majority would be possible. And that would be wonderful if the state remains neutral on matters of belief, and most importantly, if the state does not offer any special privilege or subsidies to religious matters. Secularism asserts that certain practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious belief and as such it is good for everybody. Why any special privilege at the cost of someone elsefs who has a different belief? Let the state be neutral and secular. Peace and harmony in a society is possible again when there is true secularism.
Regarding religious groups in politics this much could be said that no encouragement to religion based parties but no banning it either, please! Banning is dangerous because then these sorts of groups go underground and find their loyalist among fanatics and ignorant and their numbers multiply quickly and disproportionately. Secular education and freedom of religious practices within the frameworks of law and fairness and justice to all minimize the influence of religions and broadens peoplesf outlook. Give good, secular education to people and the result would be the disappearance of the religion based political parties.
Let us fight wrong in the right way and let us respect truth even if it is against our interest and false ego. Truth always prevails in the long run and all that is true let us try to uphold and respect from our heart.
http://newsfrombangladesh.net/ view.php? hidRecord= 193783
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
Syed Siful Alam Shovan
shovan1209@yahoo.com
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. __._,_.___
[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___