Topics of debate : Can Army as an institution be condemned for military rule ? Should the army bureaucracy and the military as an institution should be condemned for the failure and mess in political system and crisis of democracy and economy in Bangladesh, or the politicians be condemned ? Did army bureaucracy or the army itself rule Bangladesh for 16 years, and thus do they have to be responsible and accounted for that period of 16 years time ? Was army as an institution made involved in state matters ? --these are the questions or topics for which Mr. Zamil defended or sided the army arguing that, for example, army as an institution did not rule for 16 years and so on. Readers might be thinking, why I am arising an old resolved topic again ?Actually, I have gone throw lot of personal problems this month and I am in still in struggle here. I am afraid, in near future
I might be not able to attend in forum or sending article for Mukto-mona forum because of hardship or struggle. Moreover, I am having trouble with internet long time and do not have time for this. This article was so far ready long ago, but I did not have time to type in this into my e-mail.
Now let's start with the topics.
I am happy to find that my message could provoke Mr. Zamil's thoughts. He has written," The cultism
started with Mujibism and culminated in Baksal doctrine. The bottom line here is that democracy was nipped in the bud in 1975. And it was not sudden, it was a gradual process between 1972-1975".
1. I concur with Mr. Jamil for the first part of the first sentence. Yes , there was, no doubt, an external perception of cultism for Mujib which harmed the progressive and pro-liberation forces. I said 'external', that means it appeared to be a cultism, but I seriously doubt how much it was genuine how much it was fake. Those groups of licker who licked Mujib's feet to merely use him for their own benefit in the name of 'Mujibism', neither actually they loved or admired Mujib, nor they did seek the well-being of Mujib,-they never adjusted and digested the goals of Mujib to turn Bangladesh a democratic welfare country, namely 'Golden Bangladesh'. That's why I said that their cultism was external-i. e., actually areal hypocratic under the simulation of so-called 'Mujib's worship', Mujibism or 'Mujib's doctrines'-whatever we name it. But there were and are still people who genuinely admired(in Mujib's time) and admire people, and there is a
difference between cultism and admiration.
2. But it's not clear though, how Mr. Zamil Asgar found the relevence of that cultism with Baksal ? He should have explained that more specifically. Leftist parties who merged into BAKSHAL were big critic of Mujib but they admired him too. But He added in the above statement that "democracy was nipped in the bud in 1975..........it was a gradual process between 1972-1975". Mr. Jamil should have explained how 'the democracy was nipped' according to his version of democratic principles ? I explained elaborately about the incidents of this period as to how all these happened in my article as a response to Farida Majid and Mr. Zaman. Anyway, I'll repeat these here. Mr. Harun reminded us concerning the "first major assault on the constitution came in the form of instituting a one-party government in 1975 in complete violation of one of the four principles of the 1972 constitution, namely Democracy". I have the following points
or answers which I woul request him to rethink.
a. How many parties were existing during the rule of Sheikh Mujib ? Did BNP exist that time ? No. Most of the leftist parties were merged into BAKSHAL voluntarily. Only JSD and pro-chinese NAP(Bhashani) were against the government(if my memory decieves me, someone can correct me). Were those parties forced to merge into BAKSHAL ?
b. Should we forget, in what situation Mujib had to establish BAKSHAL which was actually a National Goverment ? And also had to take over the presidential power violating the constitution which he created with Dr. Kamal's help ? On one hand, we can not appreciate that action. But we should also take into account that the country was war-devastated, the famine attacked . Sabotage was taking place in the entire country-throwing off the bales of rice in the rivers, setting fire in the godowns of jutes, creating black marketting of food by stocking in the godowns etc.-whole thing was a well-planned plot which were made happen with active colaboration with the reactionary and pro-American civil-military bureaucrats who were bribed with a large sum of money and were promised with higher rank or promotion or business. This was how the famine was artificially created to destroy the popularity of Mujib and to undermine the rule of Mujib in order
to destroy the independence and the dreams of our liberation. In such a situation, in many countries emergency rule had to be enforced as a temporary measure. On the other hand, the left extremists such as Gonobahini was destabilizing the country. Anti-independence forces and the feudal minded extreme ambitious army officers were distributing liflets in army barack. What Mujib could do as alternative ? If somebody else was in his place, what he would do ? Taking over the position of president was a result of all these threatening and dangerous circumstances. We should not forget that the time was against him. He was a victim of time.
c. Let's take precedence from other country in the same situation. After getting independence, in a critical and emergency situation after a bloody war, was it the first time or the only example of forming 'National Government' ? Are the people of South Africa blaming Nelson Mandela to form 'National Government' saying that was undemocratic ? The emergency need of the historical moment must be taken account.
d. We should not forget, that what Mujib did was not the action of the person Mujib, his action was merely a response to the anarxy taking place, to save the country. It was a temporary measure for that critical situation, but he was not given chance to correct and to finish his term. As a matter of fact, the bourgeois in the AL, the extreme rightists inside and outside the AL and extreme leftists-all are responsible to faile Mujib. He was a victim of a critical time. Today's BNP was also part of that.
d. In a far less critical situation, almost no emergency situation, Ershad and Zia assaulted the constitution. Compared to Mujib, their actions such as various mandates and ordinances were not taken in response of unstable circumstances, on the contrary, they enjoyed comparatively lot more peaceful time. In that respect, Mujib's actions, whatever that is establishing of emergency rule or others, were merely defensive and for saving the country from famine.
e. The goal of BAKSHAL was not bad. We should not forget that 'socialism' was also a commitment in our constitution-one of the fundamental principles or foundation of state. Moreover, why would the workers and peasants and lower middle class and poor educated leftist minded people participate in the liberation war if there is no commitment for them ? Many are still asking, "what we have achieved from the independence, was not the Pakistani period better than now ?" What answer can we give them ? Here is where the question of social justice and equility arises. But, how could that be implemented keeping a colonial type of adminstration ? The agendas of BAKSHAL were very progressive which were the directions for the prospect of adminstrative or bureaucratic reform, but may be the time and the parties or people were not ready for that. Another important thing or fatal mistake he made was that he did not leave any alternative party or power or did not
let any other constructive and alternative patriotic pro-liberation party to strengthen. Here was the dangerous mistake of BAKSHAL. The lack of foresightedness is evident here.
f) Yes, we wanted democracy; people of Bangladesh wanted democracy before independenc; but the question is : What type of democracy ? Did we want capitalist democracy ? Which is nothing but the political culture of capitalism ? Did the peasants, the labourers, middle class, farmers sacrifice their blood or fight for capitalism ? Or they fought for democratic socialism or welfare or social democracy ? Mr. Zamil and his class always blame for establishing one party monopoly in the name of BAKSHAL. I want to ask them, 'what type of political system is existing in U.S. ? That is nothing but a one party system in the covering of two party rule. This is not just my comment. Some democrati party member familiar to me once commented this. Does these two party have any difference in agendas concerning internal policy such as economy and so on, foreign policy etc. ? Is the politics of social democracy allowed in this country like in Sweaden,
Finland, Britain etc ? No. So, the Mujib was not only leader who practised one party system-the difference only here is that he did not make it in a cunning and tactful way, in a deceptive way that some so-called 'democratic and civilized' capitalist coutries are practicing. The senators can be bought very easily. It doesn't matter whatever congress decides, the special interest groups are the key role player about almost everything-politics and economics, that is, war, foreign politics, economics etc. If you ask any educated American or a student, he will tell you who is controlling the President-the senators ? the U.S. public or the special interest group ? Did the people of Bangladesh gave so much blood and lives for that type of democracy ?
Another point is very important here. The dream and desire of Mr. Zamil and his class will never and ever agree to ours. Therefore, our outlooks will never agree to his or his establishment-because we(who are exploited and lower class) they are live in two opposite poles. Our struggle will continue against Mr. Zamil's class and his establishment- untill then no unity will prevail in the society. Since every party represents some interests, desires, or dreams of some specific classes as well as some ideologies, therefore the clashe between parties or between establishment and people's true representative parties is unavoidable. When some folks or so-called 'civil society persons' try to image that clash negatively, either they do it because of not understanding the above fact, or they do it intentionally to benefit the establishment for their own interest.
I know that not everybody can support BAKSHAL. Because, the dream of one Mr. Zamil and a peasant or a poor Rabiul Islam are never same. The class-difference creates that difference of dream or view.
But we do not believe that Mujib had any plan to go twards the socialism. What most he wanted is British model democracy and scandinavian socialism. But, the uncle SAM and its local agents and servants did not even let him to commit that. But again, I would like to emphasize that if the concept or agendas of BAKSHAL could succeed, and Mujib was not assassinated, Bangladesh would develope to a country like Malayasia or even more. A recent research by an organization has expressed this information.
3. Secondly, he wrote,-"Army as an institution was never in power for too long...................The main army command never accepted their rule. The main army command never accepted the rule. It was Zia's BNP that ruled the nation between 1977 and 1981. A leftis ideologue ..............................was unhappy with Zia's civilianization of the Government. It was civilian party. Zia never involved the army after that in state matters. ................Then after Ershad's takeover it was a shortlived army rule before Ershad also formed a civilian party and ruled Bangladesh as civilian party chief".
I really have to praise his intelligence(or cunningness?). He gave(or imposed ?) legitimacy to Ersad's military regime and the illegitimate, unconstitutional 'military rule'(emphasis added) because he had to give legitimacy to Zia's illegitimate military rule.
'Army as an institution was never in power for too long'-the question is : Then Zia and Ershad were in power without utilizing the influence and power of Army bureaucracy ? Who doesn't know that both of them came to power by the force of weapon ? Mr. Zamil himself knows it, but his partisan mindset can not admit that. I shall provide more evidence and light on it later on with respective context.
4. He argued that main army command never accepted the rule. This is one of the greatest lie I ever heared. Where did he found this false information ? Then how did Zia and Ershad manage to rule completely in an illegitimate way for 16 years without the assistance of the army ? Has Mr. Zamil heard about the 'rule of business' for the employees of the republic ? Doesn't he know that army members are the employee of the republic ?
The bottom line here is army bureaucrats took over the power with the gun point and their junior followers in the chain of command loyal to them supported their illegal
action. Since they are the employee of the republic, 'the aiming of weapon towards the state to takeover the power' is an act of treason.
Does the 'rule of business' allow the army bureaucrats and their loyal officers and army members involve in political affair ? The answer is 'No'. We should not forget that the army members primarily are to be loyal and accountable to the state, who employs the army. So, when any army bureaucrat violates that rule of business, the army members are not obliged to comply to his orders. But, when army members actively cooperate and associate their senior officers' illegal and illegitimate action in the name of so-called 'maintaining chain of command', the intention of what is actually to benefit or enjoy the the left-over of state power enjoying through, for example, 'militarization of adminstration'-then the army, off course, can be thus convicted(not just condemned) as an institution for military rule and treason to the state not just in the court of public, but also in the court of justice. Didn't both Zia and Ershad involve the army through
the 'militarization of adminstration' ? So, it is a big fallacy to say that main army commanded never accepted military rule. Mr. Zamil intended to prove us that army(as an institution) never ruled for 16 years. In the above discussion this nonsense and untruth claim has been disproved.
5. "The main army command never accepted the rule. It was Zia's BNP that ruled the nation between 1977 and 1981".
Yes ! Zia's BNP ruled from 77 to '81. So what ? What Mr. Zamil is trying to imply here ? Is he defending army rule ? That's what his message suggesting. Again, as I already proved above, the first sentence here is a ultimate lie and a real fallacy. Now about the next sentence for so-called BNP rule-where did he find that baseless information ? Did Zia's BNP rule with the mandate of people ? The answer is 'No'. It was the main army command who, in every step, made possible for Zia, to forcibly occupy the position of the president, to manage and persist these illegal actions to continue, to manage and continue to enjoy the power in an unrepresentative way-without the colaboration and assistance of the army high command, Zia or Ershad could not maintain that power against the constitution and the state. Only pro-army, pro-rightist and groups of permanent interest(and elite-minded may be) can try to justify military rule this way.
Off course, the main army command was with him in the entire period of illegitimate and actively colaborated with all his illegal and illegitimate actions such as declaring or enforcing royal mandates, raping the constitutions with illegal ordinances and other evil-doings. Therefore, this has to be asserted again and again in newspaper column to remind people that the army as an institurion ruled the country 16 years and responsible for the political mess and for destroying the economy which resulted today's crucial situation. I shall keep saying that truth.
6. (Again, for refuting from another angle--) "It was Zia's BNP that ruled the nation between 1977 and 1981". I can't really figure out whether I have to laugh or regreat. Whom he is trying to befool(personally for me, I don't mind, but I would request him not to do that with readers please-oath of ethics in the name of readers). Does forming of BNP makes Zia's rule legitimate ? Doesn't Mr. Zamil comply to the ethics and code of conducts indicated in the 'rule of business' in his employment ? I believe he does. Doesn't he know that, as an employee of the republic, no army officer or bureaucrat can involve in politics ? Then how does his moral allow this completely unethical act ? I am sorry but I can't prevent myself to ask(if Mukto-Mona moderators find this abusive, I can withdraw that to inside my mind and I appologize-), 'Is this what a moral of the rightists' ? I am happy to know that this act doesn't mean anything for him. Doesn't he
understand that this kind of action is another kind of treason ? I want to ask Mr. Zamil a question: "If we call an one-eyed boy 'Padmalochon'(Lotus-eyed) then, will he be turn into lotus-eyed ?"
7. Then why do we call Ershad's rule despotic. Did people of Bangladesh make mistake or crime going in movement and struggle against the autocracy or authoritarian rule of Ershad ? Was the sacrifice of blood by Nur Hossain, Dr. Milon and countless others were lie and in vain according to Mr. Zamil ?
Appears that it shows the feudal as well as bureaucratic mindset which is simply unable to value the sacrifice of patriotic people and realize the spirit of struggle of Bangalees against the despotic rule.
The reasons for what we call the Ershad's rule despotic, for the same very reason we must call Zia's rule as a despotic military rule(savage) rule. Again, he forcibly occupied the state power with the gun-point committing the treason and the entire time he treaded upon the constitution under his boots.
8. "was unhappy with Zia's civilianization of the Government. It was civilian party". This has already been refuted proving and depicting as a treasonable act. But, I shall add some more here. This was a kind of deception too with the nation using the covering of so-called 'civilianization'. I shall elaborate the uglyness of this matter afterwards in the proper respective context.
9. "Zia never involved the army after that in state matters".
Is it ? I don't know, is there any bigger lie and fallacy than this ? (In no 3 at the end of the passage I said that I shall provide more evidence and light for refuting the statement'Army as an institution was never in power for too long).
Then who employed the army literally for 'Yes-No' vote in the name of taking mandate from the people ? It was so-called an 'election'(?) what gave him so-called 'mandate' for the 'representative status' from people. Possibly, it is a good enough and convenient information for Mr. Zamil and he will be happy to know that this gave Zia the 'civilian status'. For the folks tied with army or army establishment with elite mindset, this is probably an ideal or noble action for a army bureaucrat. But, for the people of Bangladesh it was a great deception to the country. Proof ? Here is the evidence provided by a (retired) Major Gen. in his article :
Please read the article if interested.
http://www.shamokal.com/archive.details.php?nd=2006-11-09&nid=42003
This was an election where only cunning Zia participated in a 'one candidate election'-no other candidate had chance to participate in that. Moreover, he arranged that 'drama' keeping his rank designation which is not only a treason, but also he thus manipulated that 'Yes-No' vote utilizing the army. It was a big crime, because, through these deeds, such as enforcement of royal mandatges during the entire time, he treaded upon the constitution under his military boots while the army as an institution accompanied him, associated him violating and breaching the loyalty to the state. We saw with our own eyes how he used the army for the 'drama of Yes-No vote'. I do not know, is there any precedence of such kind of drama in the world,-specially getting of more than 100 percent votes in many centers whreas in many centers very few people went to cast the votes in actual fact. These happened in front of our very eyes and the army as an
institution was with him to help commit these kind of crimes. This is regreat that the people of Bangladesh did not have the opportunity to bring Zia and his follower army to justice. This is how Army as an institution was off course, made involved by Zia . Therefore, the statement 'Zia never involved army in state matters' is thus not just refuted, the facts and proofs expose the fallacious lie of this statement.
10. More proofs to condemn the 'army as an institution'- Zia knew how to pacify the dogs throwing out the left-overs. This was an open fact that time that how both Zia and Ershad brought about the militarization of adminstration. We can still notice today the brought over or evidences in different goverment and semi government organization which is actually nothing but the legacy of that action by Zia and Ershad . The army members colaborated with all his illegal, illegitimate and also dark and criminal(that is, crime against state and people, I shall explain his crime in more details later on ) activities for their own benefit and interest. As Ershad established various district and local zones(branches) for the Martial Law Adminstrators, same did Zia(if Mr. Zamil Asgar doesn't remember, I'm helping him to recall). This is how the 'entire army as an institution', off course, was in power in for more than 16 years. And this is how, the army was,
off course(emphasis added) made involved in state matters. Moreover, not only that this is how Zia and Ershad created opportunity for military officers or army bureaucrats for corruption of the wealth of state. Here I want to give a reference. Aeysha Siddika is a prominent writer who retired military analyst of Pakistan. She wrote a book 'Military Incorporated' based on her experience during her employment period and the information she gained from the investigations for the activities of military officers. In the book, it is shown that almost 80 to 90 percent of Pakistan's industry and business is controlled by the army officers except business like saloon and small retail stores. It did nor happened suddenly, it was result of long term literal robbery by the army officers during their regime while they forcibly occupied state power and enjoyed that regime literally with looting. No such investigation is performed for Bangladeshi military,
but if some day any investigation conducted, the truth about the corruption of our 'patriotic(or rajakar)' army will be revealed. It is a regreat(aphsos !) that the nation was not able to have the army stand in the witness-box of the court. I shall give more evidence of army's corruption with the proper context later on.
11. a) More proofs to condemn the 'army as an institution'-one of the most vile andbarbarous acts of zia was ethnic cleansing in Chittagong Hilltracts in which he literally involved the army. The army had been committing various types of human right abuses and corruption, there, i.e. perpetrating attocities on various innocent and simple aborigines and tribes, specially on chakmas, such as killing, raping their women, uprooting them from their lands, burning their houses and destroying their forests for getting large sum of commission from wood-cutting business and thus destroying the environment, destroying their cultural identity as a whole. Please read this if interested-
http://www.idp.ntnu.no/Register/UpLoadFiles/Rajesh_Kharat_idp-ref.pdf
Hundreds of thousands of aborigines had to leave their ancestral homesteads. According to Zia's plot, Bangalees were immigrated to there in order to make the local and original inhabitants minority-it was a very nasty and terrible evil idea which came out from the from the evil brain of Zia. Who often or sometimes visits CHT,- they know this 'open fact' that army officers are crazy for getting posted at CHT. There is no mystery behind this tendency as informed and conscious people know what kind of 'honey' is available there. As the police officers, so the army officers spend Taka of lakhs(100000) to get posting in CHT. The reason is nothing but free looting and corruption-one of which is forest-destroying business, there are others too, for example, bribe for the approval for occupying the lands of indegenous people.
In order for getting posting in CHT(hill tracts), the army officers not only corrupted the bureaucrats, they also corrupted the politicians by bribing them throught the bureacrats. In such ways, the corruption is institionalized in the army and in exchange of this corruption and looting, the whole army as an institution colaborated the top Generals and top army bureaucrats for illegitimate army rule. This is how entire army can be convicted as an institution for military rule as they benefited from this. Here it is worthy to mention, which is very relevant to this issue that why the army membrs were so malicious against Awami League during the 2001 election at and around the vote centers in the villages or thanas. The reason is nothing else, performing the CHT peace treaty, Hasina just closed the opportunity of unobstructed corruption in CHT, which made them really unsatified and angry. The couldn't digest their free practice of
looting. So, the result is very evident. The Awami leaders and activists were beaten and tortured in the many rural areas of vote centers. The people of that areas know this very well.
This uprooting process and human right abuse continued up to Ershad's and BNP time as BNP rule was actually a despotism under the cover of democracy. After the peace treaty made by Sheikh Hasina's Govt., there was some hope for both side and it was a one of the major successes of Hasina's govt. Except Hasina's time,(if I am not wrong), in the entire time from 78 to 2008, the human right abuse persisted where 'army as an institution, off course, were involved in barbarous actions.
Another common and famous technic used by Zia was to provide the opportunity to loot, not only for pet and obedient politicians, but also for the army officers. The army officers have been being involved in destroying forest in the hilltract through timber business with the colaboration of forest officers. This started from Zia's period and continues in the Ershad's rule and up to now. Proof ?
http://www.shamokal.com/archive.details.php?nd=2006-03-19&nid=17694
In BNP time, when UNICOL was destroying the forest in Lauachhora in the name of building up 'Echo Park', people started protest demonstration. It was the army who took the side of UNICOL and shot the people dead who pay their salary. The reason is simple, their interest is tied with the interest of UNICOL-which is commission, bribes, business partnership and positions-that is permanent bourgeis interest of the military establishment was involved there.
http://www.newagebd.com/2005/feb/02/nature.html
As we always have been saying that the army in a capitalist country is just a servant of the internal bourgeis and the outsider imperialist demon-companies. That's why BDR kills people in Fulbaria for protecting the interest of Asia Energy. They beated even the teenagers and children entering in house to house. Through this evidence of barbarous attrocity perpetrated by our so-called 'patriotic' BDR is reavealed theier real anti people nature who can win their own people but are properly beaten by the BSF of India.
There have been many investigative reports made by the human right organizations in Bangladesh and abroad such as for ethnic cleansing of tribes of Hilltracts, destroying forests there and many other human right abuses perpetrated by the forest and army officers; anybody can search these information from various source who wants. Conscious people know these facts except the radical rightists or BNP supporters who do not accept these facts-the reason is understandable; emigrating of the hindu minorities from their homeland and ousting from their ancestors-homested for this never touched the conscience of the BNP supporters (as I evidenced that from my BNP friends), because everything is just politics for them. Now, let the readers with conscience judge with the given information if the 'army as an institution should be condemned for human right abuse and illegitimate military rule from which most of them benefited.
b) The indegenous Cholesh Richhil was an well famous social worker who was very popular for his honesty, integrity and various developement projects for the villagers for making them self-dependent and solvent. With his local people, he combatted against destroying of forest by the forest officers. That was his crime-the disobedience to the ever-criminal bureacrats and establishment . In a deceptive and false lawsuit of corruption by the forest officers, who were actually involved in the business of timber cutting, Cholesh Richhil was taken away by army to their camp and was tortured to death. This took place during the earlier time of present care taker govt. The army of Bangladesh is one of the most corrupt, barbarous, tyrannical army of the world who never cared about the law and order of the state, they always regarded themselves beyond the law and never had a minimum patriotism. Behind the killing of Cholesh Richhil was nothing but
the motive of protecting the group interest-whatever it be-getting higher position, commission etc. In the following link is provided an investigative report as an evidence of pepetrating attrocity on Cholesh Richhil and others by the barbarous army members, which is prepared based on the investigatins on different parties such as the victims, police station, local people, govt. officials etc.The report also reveals the reasons involved with corrupt and political motivation and interest behind this barbarous slaying of an honest person of our society :
http://www.drishtipat.org/blog/2007/04/05/what-happened-cholesh-army-custody/
This report shows to what level of brutal and beast the Bangladeshi army members could be, how much politically motivated and corrupt they could be to slay a popular and honest human being so easily. In their training, the army members are taught to be brutal and barbarous like this. One of the reasons shown in the report is that Cholesh Richhil helped Awami League to build up the party bases and local committes in that area.
This also proves the fact of army attrocities in different districts in the villages on Awami League leaders and activists during 2001 election. The army members beaten the activists, sank them in the ponds, took them to their camps to torture. The polling agents of Awami League and the leaders were not allowed neither for campaign, nor to stay in the vote centers. The army membners were directly involved in politics in 2001 election.
Who should be condemned for the slaughtering of people of Lauachhora and Cholesh Richhil ? Off course, the army as an institution. Why ? Because, in civilized countries, when an army member commits any crime or human right abuse, the criminal is brought to be judged in a special army tribunaland. In our country such law exists for making a trial for such crime, but hundreds of hundreds of human right abuses such as attrocities and brutalities of army members have been persisting to take place, but not a single army member was never executed. The reason is simple, the entire army got corrupted-these continual hundreds of human right abuses destroyed the moral and proffessionalism of the whole army totally--what has been happening in CHT is the evidence for this.
Can somebody tell me how an army member would be brought under special trial while all the officers are involved in illegal business of wood-cutting, occupying of lands of the indegenous in exchange of bribes ? The law or act exists but it is just unpractical. The whole army is supporting this kind of barbarous acts. This is how the entire army as an institution is convicted. This fact also shows that army as an institution was very well used by Zia and Ershad. This is how the entire army as an institution can be convicted for army rule which they benefited and did not oppose because.
and their autocratic BNP government in the guise of democracy for the former crime and army and the present caretaker govt. for killing of Cholesh Richhil and many other innocents in extra judicial killing . This incidence also clearly evidences that respondent people with conscience and sensitiveness can not survive in our society-they are either made inactive or destroyed by the establishment. This is one of the reason why there is so dominance of corrupt people in every field including politics-only corrupt, oppurtunists and flatterers of state power and establishment can survive in our social and political system-who will dare to challenge this sytem will be just shut off or disappeared either by cross-fire or by taking to barbarous army camp. This is the social system maintained by the establishment in the name of market economy where everything is commodity-including moral, honesty, ideology-everything. Making the politicians the
scapegoat for the failure is just a technique to survive the existing system. It's like another way of hiding the actual truth saying, "the problem is the politics and the politicians, so we need to depoliticize(they don't say it directly, but from the activity of present govt. this is very obvious)". the goal is to hide from the eyes of people that the root of all problems lie actually in the socio-economic structure and of the state system, which is standing on the foundations of corruption and exploitation. By continued propaganda against politics they want to leave people in the darkness that the existing system needs to changed. Crying for reform is another example of this kind of technique. They never want ful treatment, they just want kind of remedy for their own interest which is very understandable.
Who calls our army 'patriotic' very often, they are just hypocrete. How can a demonic army be called patriotic who could assassinate their own father of nation ? It is true that a group of ambitious officers committed this crime, but the entire army supported this through their passiveness and silent role. It is that Rajakar Army who slaughtered hundreds of hundreds of freedom fighters under the leadership of Zia. Zia evern could not speak Bangla well, he had Urdu accent in his Bangla. The rest of the freedom fighters were gradually discharged illegally during ZIa's, Ershad's and BNP regimes. Now, the rest of the army is mostly Pakistani minded who got their training from Pakistan and adapted with Pakistani culture and language for their long time staying there. It is very true for Zia and Ershad, today's Gen. Motin and other army bureaucrats around Moyeen are supporter of Jamaat-that is rajakar. Despite of that some stupid people are
'praying' to them for bringing the war-criminals of Bangladesh to bring to justice. It is so ridiculous-I do not know, I should laugh or weep.
Now, what was the interest
12. "Then after Ershad's takeover it was a shortlived army rule before Ershad also formed a civilian party and ruled Bangladesh as civilian party chief. Ershad also formed a civilian party and ruled Bangladesh as a civilian party chief. So, the direct state rule by army cannot be more than couple of years. The fact that Zia and Ershad came from army hardly makes their rule of Bangladesh by the civilian party formed by them a military rule. Saying so would be absurd as saying that Mujib rule between 1972-1976 was an Islamic rule because Mujib was a muslim".
This nonsense argument in the first three sentences of the statement has already been refuted properly, I believe, with enough evidences in the passages from No. 4 thru 8. Once again, Mr. Zamil gave legitimacy to Ershad's rule in order to legitimate Zia's rule-this is really ridiculous. The underlined sentence above is showing just a childish argument. This is another ingredient for laughing. I do not think, it is necessary at all to rufute this childish argument. Let the readers judge and laugh little bit-that is our last reliance against the untruth and unjust.
13 "Mujib was backed by the army led by Gen. Shafiullah during 1972-1975. So, Awami rule can also be called an army backed Government. So is the Awami rule of 1996-2000. The fact that they were not democratically elected is different matter."
a) This is just another childish and ridiculous argument. This is raw type of lie too. Did Mr. Zamil forget the fact that Mujib had a popular mandate constitutionally from the people of Bangladesh through the democratic election ? If his memory deceives, we can recall him, but if he forgets intetionally, then it is beyond our capacity. I want to recall him Mujib had a legitimate representative government in which Gen. Shafiullah and the army were under the constitution and accounted to the republic. Therefore, by no meanse Mujib's government was backed by the army. Specially when he says, "So is the Awami rule of 1996-2000"-this shows his intellectual indigence. I feel really embarassed and sorry that I have to teach him the basic political science or suggest him to learn and read more to gain knowledge about modern political science. I appologize if moderators find it abusive. Ok, I shall explain for him little bit more how a democratic
system works. According to the constitution, the people are the prime and main owner of the republic. Now, in a democratic election, people vote for their candidates for MP and thus deposits(in other term, mandates) their ownership or authority to the people's representatives. Those representatives are accounted for their state affairs to the constitution and the republic and that is how their accountability maintained to the people-the true owner of the republic. I hope that Mr. Zamil has understood enough the concept of representative government in a democratic system. Now, the rule of Awami League in the period '96-2000 was mandated by the democratic election held by Justice Habibur Rahman. So, how he finds that rule was backed by army is beyond my intellect.Possibly, my intellect has some lacking and deceiving me.
b) The fact that they were not democratically elected is different matter." From the refutation in No. 4 thru 8 and 12 and also 13(a) it appears tha the underlined passage shows his pro-military mindset or kind of weakness to military rule. He himself images himself with the mentality that 'not being democratically and hijacking the representative governorship-the mandate transformed from the ownership of people' does not bother him-Are we hearing the verse from the ghost of Parvez Mosharraf, the ex-dictator of Pakistan ? Isn't this a typical feudal and authoritative-cam bureaucratic mindset of a army bureaucrat ?
14. After the above statement he wrote,"But it is fallacy to say that army ruled Bangladesh for 16 years"-Should I discuss about this separately ? I can only-ha ha ha ha ha ha ....................................
15. After that he wrote, "It is fashionable to make army scapegoat for the utter failure of the political system in Bangladesh which was brought about by the political leaders themselves and their cohorts, and ultimately the blame should go to the people electing them to power assuming they were elected farely"-The first underlined sentence is another big lie. In terms of military rule who was scapegoat and who was benefited, between the people and the army, the readers hopefully can decide from the proves, argument, information and refutation discussed above. In the above discussions we have got a light partly who was actually responsible for the failure of political system, not fully though. We need to discuss this to disprove the baselessness of this assertion. It was and is an open notion that one of the famous verse of so-called honest Zia was "Money is no problem". Yes, money really was no problem for Zia. He corrupted and depraved the
politicians and political system by two ways-
a) He opened the door of darkness-he created unbarred oppurtunity for free style looting and corruption for the politicians in exchange of obedience and merging in to his party. Mr. Zamil can say that why politicians should be greedy and trapped in exchange corruption ? Those who were not subdued by money and corruption oppurtunity, they were threatened with torture, law suits and completely disappearing. Hundreds of communists were taken to unknown destination tied on eyes and many were killed who sacrificed their entire life with honest politics and progressive ideology.
b) What it matters if he was so-called 'personally honest' or not ? He used state treasury to buy the politicians for his own party and dividing and breaking the parties(I shall give the specific examples later on with the proper context of his statement for which parties were broken by Zia, don't worry), creating clash and so on among the leaders in every party. Is this the defination of honesty ? He used the treasury of the republic without any legal or legitimate authority-which is nothing but a robbery. This was Zia, his army intelligence and his loyal follower officers who introduced the game of money in politics and depraved or spoiled the political system. Before the independence, the national politiicians who became people's representatives in Pakistan time, were not corrupted. How after the independence, within a few years they became corrupted ? This was the environment and circumstances, where such a dirty politics of money
game were created by the army establishment of Zia and Ershad that later on it was impossible for the honest politicians involve in politics and they voluntarily got themselves out of these dirty politics created by Zia's and Ershad's regime. Once Ershad sent a private secretary to Nirmal Shen in Newspaper office with an offer of 10 lakh to compromise with Ershad otherwise threatened to harass him publicly in jailing for corruption charge. Nirmol Shen was neither afraid, neither he accepted his dirty approach. This incident was described in a newspaper and Ershad didn't send any message to the daily newspaper protesting this news. Now, the fact here shows how the honest politicians like Nirmol Shen were made inactive through dirty game of money politics and tyranny. Because, not every politicians had enough courage to risk themselves and go to confrontation with army establishment.
C) As the satan(the dark side of knowledge and power) knows that the source of prime and actual force in a human being lies in his or her moral strength and ideology and honesty, Zia therefore intended to destroy that moral and ideology of who he regarded the most challenging opponent against him-the moral of the university students from where the national leadership come out. So, he invited the brilliant students for pleasure trip in Hizbul Bahar. There was an arrangement for everything literally there-wine and lechery. But, it did not end up here. Such kind of amusement is not availed without exchange or deal. So, in exchange of money, business permit and power, those students were bought and handed to them weapon. Thus, by the 'Golden boys of Zia' was formed the Chhatro Dol who were assigned for introducing violence and terrorist activities in the education campus following the foot step of BSF founded by Ayub. Zia actually
overtook Ayub in that case. Because, Ayub only tried to occupy the campus and control the student politics through the violence of BSF. But he did not have that much cunningness of Chanoikya, he did not deprave the moral of the students. Those corrupt students were made leaders later on in Chhatro Dol by the blessing of Zia. As the tiger gets the taste of human blood, the brilliant students and the student leaders since Zia's time found the way of getting rich in short-cut way. Since then, fighting for tender and permit began to take place among different groups of student leaders. The brought over of this still continues.
Now it has a serious importance of impact on the national politics. Because, the national leaders come out from the university students. It was the army intelligence or military bureaucracy who spoilt the political culture of Bangladesh. Because, the students were not corrupted and terrorist, before independence. Yes, there were kind of hooliganism in a limited level but it was mainly perpetrated by the BSF guys.
d) Another evil deed Zia committed was making the student organizations as tail or branch organisations of Political parties. This was how student politics introduced. This also impaired deeply the political system. Because, before that, as Muzahidul Islam Salim(Salim Bhai) of CPB wrote in an article published in the Shamokal(6 June, 2007) long ago : " After 1976, how it happened I don't know, the appelation of 'student politics' changed to 'student politics' and was begun to be designated so. In our student life we used to identify ourselves as the activists of 'students movement', we never called ourselves 'activists of studet politics'.......................... The ordinance of PPR(Political Party Regulations) what military dictator Zia declared In 1976, by that for all political parties, such as in case of students and laborers, he made it compusory to declare the names of each party's own branch organization. 'If not
declared this way, then political activites won't be allowed'-such kind of code derived from an injudiciousness has been giving birth of various diseases.........". He described how Zia caused the campus and the student organizations to become diseased and unrest :
http://www.shamokal.com/archive.details.php?nd=2007-06-06&nid=63279 Dear readers, Mujahidul Islam Salim is a politician who sacrificed his entire life for noble ideology who never benefited anything for personal happiness(I hope, Mr. Zamil will not call this admiration 'cultism'). Therefore, his article, I think is worthy to regard as honest evidence. With all these arbitray ordinances and ammendates, Zia assaulted the constitution in a fully illegal and unauthorized way and with all these illegal actions- which are actually serious treason, the army was with him and should automatically be convicted, not just condemned. If the political govenments with enough majority does not correct(re-ammendment or repeal) these illegal ordinances and laws, they shall also be convicted in the court of public. In a countless way, military rule damages a country the wounds of which lasts for long time. In how many way, military rule(for which Mr. Zamil is
defending) rule can cause a far-reaching damage to a country can be comprehended reading the article 'Seed of the destruction is that PPR' by A. N. Rasheda in the daily Shamokal(21st June, 20007) : http://www.shamokal.com/archive.details.php?nd=2007-06-21&nid=64668 -This article reveals the facts about the damages caused by dictator Zia and his army through enforcing PPR as well as many other fields such as industry, education, professional organizations and institutions etc. But she missed one thing as because it is irrelevant for her topics, for this article it is relevant-that is so-called 'Revolution of digging of canal through which hundreds of poor farmers lost their lands. The routs of rivers were changed artificially and created a causes of permanent flood every year.
Before Zia's ordinance enforced, students organised movements for various issues like demands and rights of students, for education policy and important cultural and national issues but they did these independently and never been the branch of political parties.
What was planted in Zia's period for corrupting the politicians and students, Ershad expanded that more. As every Military autocrat declares zihad against corruption, he also did the same thing. Afterwards,he institutionalized the corruption. He continued the buying and selling of politicians.
Again it is being proved that the army(as an institution) ruled 16 years and made happen lot of damages to country. They introduced culture of violence in the universities.The whole army was with Zia and Ershad while all those evil deeds took place.
Thenthat Mr. Zamil refuted the following statement:
"When Zia was in power, he started the evil politics of breaking the mainstream parties and creating some domestic pet parties".
Mr. Zamil responded in the following way: "Such remarks reveal intellectual bankrupcy. On one hand they will clamour multi party democracy, and on the other hand they would condemn forming new parties. Colonial mindset still persists it seems. Which mainstream parties did Zia break ? Awami League ?.................And so what if a new party is formed from former members of other parties. Is that undemocratic ? 'Then shall only have mainstream parties and no new party should be formed' sounds like a dogma to me.....................'--This was the dogma of BAKSAL"
No, I do not consider myself an asset for the country in terms of many other model intellectuals, so I really don't know what to bankrupt. Let's test for this. How Mr. Zamil found relevance of breaking of parties with multi-party democracy ? Does he want to suggest that breaking of parties is necessary and compulsory for multi party democracy ? No, the colonial and bureaucratic mindset is related with the breaking of parties which is controlled from upper forces of the establishment. That is the colonial mindset lies in the fact fhat everything should be controlled from top as like decision comes from piramid-like heirarchy-this clearly shows his a feudal mindset. No. We are not against forming new parties. But, we are against the immoral way and process they are done.
Mr. Zamil wanted to know which mainstream parties were broken. Why he is asking me ? OK, I shall recall him:-
Next to AL, JSD was the second largest mainstream party. JSD were broken into several pieces-JSD(Jalil-ROB), JSD(Shahjahan Shiraj); JSD(Jalil-Rob) also was broken later in several pieces such as JSD(Rob), JSD(Nure Alam) etc. NAP(Bhasani) was also a big party which was broken into NAP(Moshiur), NAP(Kadgi Zafar, pro-China) and so on.
NAP was formed from Awami League In Pakistan, JSD was also formed from AL after Independence. We are never against this. Nobody is saying that forming new parties is undemocratic.
The problem is when some party is given birth from the army barack. When some parties are formed as a result of money game and immoral deals. It seems that Mr.
Zamil doesn't mind these unethical and immoral practice which are corrupting the political system. In the past, during Pakistan time, when new political parties were formed by some party members leaving some partie, they let this now in the party, they maintained some rules and regulations according to the code of conduct for discipline of the party. Before they leave the party, they used to inform their decisions to the party. Moreover, there was no game money or immoral deals of getting sold. Doesn't Mr. Zamil know that party has to comply with some code of conducts as a discipline of the party which is a part of democratic culture ? It's not surprising to me that for Zia's followers such kind of immoral policy doesn't bother-as because, this is mindset of the supporters of right-wing politics-we simply don't understand them. Now, the quiestion is why we are against this kind of practice ? Because, the game of money that played by the
army intelligence or bureaucracy lead by Zia and Ershad behind breaking those parties corrupted the political culture or system in Bangladesh. But, with his above statement he himself is providing the proof that army bureaucrats corrupted the political system. Now, the question is: Does it bring well-being for the country if a party is formed by some bureaucrats who had no relation with grass-root people. The bureaucrats are those who contribute to isolate a prime minster or minster from people.
We always welcome a party which is formed in a natural way- that is, from the grass-root people in the way of mixing with people, through the movement for the demands and issues of people, not something that is imposed from the top artificially. Mr. Zamil related my statement with Baksal. I already explained what circumstances existed when Baksal was formed and why it had to be done.
Afterwards, Mr. Zamil added,"Democracy is a free market system. Anyone can join any party and form any any new party. We have seen what what AL and BNP done to Bangladesh............."--
I want to ask Mr. Zamil,"Are the moral and ethics also subject of selling and buying in this free market system?" Does he know that in free market also exist some rules ? It seems like ideology doesn't matter to him. Then why he is upset and blaming AL and BNP for what they did to Bangladesh ? Doesn't he understand that the corrupting of political system happened because of this lack of moral in political culture which was introduced by Zia ? This type of remarks supporting immoral and unethical deeds hasn't surprised me at all-because it is normal and natural for the followers of Zia or the extreme rightists-for the believers of so-called 'free market economy'; I know that everything is commodity for them, even the love, moral, honesty everything.
In the above discussion I already proved and showed how the military rulers and the army bureaucrats corrupted the political system and the economics. Off course, AL and BNP are just part of this establishment. But the origins are the military and civil bureaucracy.
Then he wrote "The loggi bhoita wielding Awami goons or BNP plaunderers ? Each calling hortal after hartals when the other is in power ?. If so, eventually people of Bangladesh will get what they deserve, a Taleban style Islami fanatic rule..................or a dangerous mix of Islamic and communist ideology by bodies like the murderers Sarbahara party or some mutation of that........"
Mr. Zamil is bothered with logi boitha, but my question is: who are now demonising loggi boitha ? Where their conscience was when almost 40,000 activists and supporters of AL were killed ? Where their conscience was when almost 16000 women were raped and tortured ? Where their conscience was when public's pockets were emptied through the looting by syndicates ? Where their conscience was when people were killed for the demonstration demanding electricity ? Where their conscience was when 11 people of a hindu family were burnt alive ? Mr. Zamil and many like him who always give the reference of loggi-boitha should know that the so-called 'anarchy' of loggi-boitha does not happen suddenly-this is an expression of long term anger, oppression, tyranny etc. People just wanted to take revenge, wanted to change and to go out of the vicious circle.
The way to freedom for the people is not a matter of months or years, it's a matter of era or epoxes. Would we call Nazrul anarxist; because he wrote: "I shall be pacified on that day,.................".
I don't think that loggi-boitha was the answer. However, I have to say that sometimes the the rhetoric about the word 'anarchism' is very popular to the folks of bourgeois minset or folks closer to the establishment. Bangladesh needs another '71 to get rid of the old and new Rajakars who are ruling the country now. They need another revolution to have a new democratic culture-democrtatic welfare or socialist system-reform or
repairing will not work. We shall need more and more 1/11 untill the real freedom of people is achieved. The freedom, that we dreamt in '71-we got the independence, but not the freedom which has a comprehensive meaning for real people.
I partly concur to what he remarked about hartal. But, he should know that hartal is a democratic right. However, the parties should be cautious about using this weapon. It depends on the severity of need or situation. I am not defending AL as an Awami supporter. I know, as everybody knows that hartal brings lot of damages in the economy and business. However, corruption, looting and exploitation do more harm than hartal. Moreover, people need more and more sacrifice to reach a developed society. However, the reason why hartal still persists is several: 1. the old conolial and bureaucratic composition or structure of our state. 2. Exploitation and draining of wealth to outside the country are almost same like before independence-that is we are not truly independent.
3. The mindset of bourgeis parties also is responsible. Moreover, we should remember that in the last parliament, AL MPs were not let to speak, their microphones were used to shut off. There are other reasons-killing of thousands of activists made them also take such decision. But, who or what actually are responsible behind these ? We should not forget that the damages that military rulers made by corrupting the whole political system contributed for the situation which we are seeing now. They did'nt let the judiciary to be independent.
But again, is there any precedence that people gained or won any of their demands from the ruling class without conducting movements and sacrifice in any country ? During the time of Mc Carther, U.S. war veterans had to go in continuous demonstrations for gaining their bonus to be paid. They occupied a large area in front of the White House having set up hundreds of temporary camps. One time, the police and military fired at them and many veterans were killed. But, they achieved for what they fought for.
It is regreattable that Mr. Zamil seems to be not bothered with the fact that journalists are being tortured by the military. They were tortured in BNP time also-as BNP rule and army rule have no difference. The difference is only in cover. How then the political culture will be civilized if there is no freedom of press ? Hartal is only a fractional phenomena of the entire problem of disease. The disease should be seen as a whole, not just partly. If people are out of jobs, and nothing to do, they don't have opportunity to earn money in honest way, then they are tempted to break cars in the street from frustration. We can call this 'anarchism', but those people who are breaking the cars in the roads, know very well that in a poor country like Bangladesh, in most cases, a car can not be possessed by someone without corrupt money. And that is where their anger comes from. They know that, without some exception, those cars
(which are breaking hartal) have been bought stealing theire money-the government's money. So, what happens is, the class-hatred is expressed in a violent way, not in a proper way which could be used to change the society.
By the remark "people of Bangladesh will get what they deserve......" indicates his ultimate intellectual bankrupcy. It shows clearly his military or bureaucratic mindset. Why he is blaming the people ? Who is responsible for the lack of education, poverty, corruption etc. ? People ? Lack of political awareness comes from lack of sufficient education. It is related again with sufficient nutrition. Lack of these again is related with corruption. The corruption is related with so-called 'market economy' and policy of dependence with WB and IMF which is a favourite policy of people like Mr. Zamil. I want to ask him, "Does people have alternative to give vote to any other party ?" These are the biggest parties they know well. This type of remark sounds like childish also.
It's not clear why he is so afraid of communist ideology. Not clear also how he relates this ideology with Sarbohara and such parties. Sarbahara doesn't represent communist ideology. Is Mr. Zamil afraid that he has to loose his class position if communist ideology is established ? He doesn't have to worry about that-he can be sure that in 15 years that won't happen.
In response to my following statement-"Now this military bureaucrats are involved in destroying our forest wealth and other resources, thus selling the country-the purpose of what they were brought for by the foreign powers."--
Mr. Zamil remarked "Another example of naivette and intellectual bankrupcy. Seeing foreign powers behind everything. Bhasani also used to accuse Mujib of serving imperialist interest.............It seems like seeing foreign masters behind powers or persons they don't like is ingrained in the mindset of these intellectuals. "---
Is any intellectuality needed for the above remarks ? This is fully an informative topics. I think, it is his style to comment this way. But, that's OK, I dont mind. What he is trying to imply in his remark ? Does he want to defend that western powers do not dominate the third world ? I am really interested to know, doesn't Mr. Zamil live in this planet ? Or, he is just pretending ? I would suggest him to read the book written by a famous American Proffessor-"The exeption to the ruler". I would suggest him to read the newspapers 'New York Times, The Gardian, The Christian Science Monitor etc. Doesn't he know that only one God exists for this planet earth ? And I don't know if there is any other God. That God is mighty Government(I can't pronounce the name of the uncle, from where I live in), a notorious octopas-like organization and the big business giants around them-the multinational companies and
their representatives or associates IMF, WB, ADB etc(know as imperialist organizations).--the mighty empire who are controlling even the lifestyle of almost every country, the foreign and economic policy of the third and second world countries. Who are controlling and determining policy about forming of governments in the third and second world countries. We have information how the uncle's empire spent millions of dollars to influence the adminstration and media of Italy to prevent the communists to come in power. In the public channel of the U.S.(PBS channel) and 'Democracy Now TV channel' we saw how in the recent national election of Mexico, leftists were prevented from being elected by spending millions of dollars. We saw from these TV programs how the Haiti's X-president was kidnapped by the foreign navies(not mentionable) and exiled in another country.
Is Mr. Zamil blind about the dominance of this well-known empire over the entire world in this unipolar world ?
Now I'll give him two evidences, one for Benjir Bhutto and another for Bangladesh-specifically for minusing two leaders or 1/11 incident. Before Benjir was assassinated, she gave an interview with the F.S. TV of US.(this is a public TV). She was asked if she knows why she was thrown out of power, Does she know that a foreign force was behind this because some of her activities or policies were against the interest of it ? Benjir avoided the reference or implying of the uncle's govt. tactfully. She answered that 'I don't know is which forces are behind this, but whatever they are, it harmed the democratic process and helped the Islamists in Pakistan...................." She added, "I proposed a plan to my secretaries and minsters one day for the rout of the gas pipeline from Uzbekistan to pass through Afganistan. So that for Afganistan will get a golden opportunity to be industrialized and
to be modernized. Their tribal system will thus change and mordernize." The secretaries and minsters present there reacted in great laughter. Benjir didn't know that they already have been bought by the big uncle's multinational companies through the diplomats there. There was another reason. Benjir was thrown out by the command of
Senior ' " to President Golam Ishak Khan. The reason was: she suggested Saddam not to get trapped by US going in Kuait War. Bush Senior ordered Golam Ishak Khan,"Sack Benjir out of her cabinet at once".
Now, about Bangladesh. Several months before 01/11, in a column published in the New York Times, it was predicted that Khaleda and hasina are going to be removed from the politics in the upcoming change by the military-backed government. Dear readers, conscious people know that the New York Time is the most prestigeous and influential newspaper in the U.S. When a newspaper like this predicts something like this, they must have known something, based on what they can predict. We could do some other calculation. We could recall that since long before 1/11 takes place, the black U.S. ambassader(who was before Butenis, I don't remember the name) warned the mainstream political party leaders indirectly saying-"There is a fight going on for who will occupy the master bedroom. But, I am afraid, none of them will get that. The third force might come. Everybody should be carefull about that". He repeated
about the 'third force' several times. Now, add with that the attitudes and activities of the foreign diplomats before 1/11. The rest, I shall leave for the judge of of the readers concerning the validity of my remarks about the involvment of 'foreign forces' for the occurence of 1/11.
There is a current phrase used in today's realm of journalism-'the fate of third world countries(specifically Latin American and African countries) are determined in the boards of directors of giant multinational corporations'. The conspiracies that have been plotted in order to impose war upon Iraq were introduced after the second world war; which started during the rule of Pres. Truman. In 1948 the then Defense Secretary of the Big Uncle's country James Forestale met with multinational for petroleum 'Soconey Vacuum Oil Company' in a meeting for discussion. He explained the Oil Company executive and authorities that if Palestaine can not be subdued, then the Big uncle will not be able to enter the domains of oil in the Middle East. If the entering is obstructed, the wretched condition of the Motor Industry is unescapable. So, there is no desistance by the Big uncle in the effort of expanding the supremacy and hegemony
in the Middle East by various diplomatic missions, in association with tactful economical policy as effective weapon.
Now I shall provide some information concerning the dominance of the most powerful empire of the present. Once, the phrase 'Pax Britanica' was widely used. Now, this is the era of 'Pax Americana'. If we open the history book, we would see that 35 states or Britis colonies were afflicted by the influence of 'Pax Britanica'. Now, the position of Britanica is occupied by the uncle's empire. After second world war, using the opportinity of economic dominance and dominant foreign policy, in 60 countries military colonies were founded by this empire of our uncle. Only in Middle East, there are military colonies of this empire in 10 territorries; In Afganistan, Pakistan, Quatar,, Bahrain, Saudi Arab, Oman, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenya, Kirghizya.......................not because of oil merely, in the unipolar world our uncle wants absolute and uncurbed right of world ruling.
I watched a documentary movie(I can't recall the name) after 9/11 which was composed by the famous movie director of Hollywood Michael Moor. In the documentary he gave evidences how the octopas-like organization was involved in killing and disappearing thousands of thousands of people in Chillie, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Granada.................etc. whose crime was struggling against the dictatorship and the puppets of the uncle, against the tyrrany of the rulling class.
When Noam Chomski(Linguist, phillosopher, proffessor of Massachussets Institute of Technology) was visiting in India on 2001, he reminded all about the desire of the big uncle 20 years ago. The big uncle that time expressed the desire of activating their foreign policy showing the excuse of fear about international terrorism. That was the beginning...........................
The big shock from the retreat from Vietnam after the defeat of a meaningless war was a big incident. Immediately after that, the defeated foreign policy of our big uncle jumped down on the middle east and Latin America and Africa : Oman(1970); Laos(1971-73); South Dacota(1973); Chillie(1973); Combodia and Iran(1980); Libya(1980-81); El Salovador(1981--82); Nicaragua(1981-90); Lebanon(1982-84); Honduras(1983-89); Granada(1983-84); Libya(1986); Virgin Islands(1989); Panama(1989-90); Liberia((1990); Iraq(1990-91); Kuait(1991); Somalia(1992); Yogoslavia-Bosnia(1992-95); Haiti(1994-96); Croatia(1995); Liberia(1997); Sudan(1998).
In a well-known periodical The World Policy Journal once it was said citing a comment by a high official(I don't have freedom to mention the name and position) that:-- 'By developing and gaining the power of a mighty empire, the ' ' empire shall resist all the chances of the 'savage nations'(?) from being united.' The statement of Kisincher was also cited in that journal. According to Kisincher, their empire has to rise up to the unrivalled position, as like the mightiest 'empire' of the medieval time. Dear readers, note that the word 'empire' is being used directly to explain the expression of state power. We know that Kisincher was directly involved in the criminal incident taken place in Dhaka on '75. The expression of imperialism exists in different realms--in it's politics, economics, policy of oppression and exploitation, arrogance of power etc.
In many different terrytorry of the world up to 1988, there were 795 military bases outside the uncle's country :--627 bases in the Europe, Canada and North Atlantic; 121 in the East; South-East Asia and the territorries of pacific ocean; 39 in Latin American and Caribean territorries; 7 in Africa & Middle East; one in Indian ocean. During the second world war and immediately after that, most of the bases were founted and occupied . Afterwards, the wars that were imposed forcibly by this well-known big uncle's empire-such as Korean war, Vietnam war, Gulf war-during these wars the rest of the bases became inactive. Why it's so necessary to keep these bases under occupation? What other humanitarian need or purpose is served by these bases except maintaining the military dominance and influence of the 'uncle's empire'?
With hid remark about foreign powers, seems to me that Mr. Zamil has shown his pro-imperialist mindset-quite natural for his class interest and fact of closelyness to the establishment.
Is Mr. Zamil blind about the 'big uncle's dominance on the entire world ? If he is willingly blind, that's another thing. Nobody can open that. I am not very surprised. Blood-succer banker like Jagat Sheth-Umichand helped British East India company to establish their colony in the old India. Has the situation changed now ? Why I am not surprised of Mr. Zamil's remarks ? Very simple calculation. You don't need Karl Marx for this. Rightists and their establishment have some common interest in every third world countries with that of the multinationals-core representatives of the neocolonialism and neoimperialism. We saw how the ex-fuel secretary Mahmudur Rahman, other immoral and sold-out bureaucrats and some parties(not political parties-interest groups of consultancy or NGOs) of so-called 'high educated gentlemen' and specialists-so-called 'civil intellectuals'(actually elite intellectuals) were, on one hand, advocating in
their columns and seminars defending for issuing coal-contract with Asia Energy to extract and dig coal in Fulbaria, surrendering the nation's interest, on the other hand they were taking large sum of commission(bribe) company. The lumpen bourgeois and some upper middle class persons benefit from the left-overs, if the contract is issued.
Mr. Zamil gave the reference of Bhasani. But he did not mention, with what context, in what time, and for what situation or circumstance Bhashani blamed Mujib for serving imperialism.
We should not forget that Mujib was a leader of multi-class political party. One of the causes behind our independence was the desire of the rising capitalist class of the then East Pakistan to be free of obstacle and competition from the 22 companies of then West Pakistan. Mujib represented not only the middle class, he represented that rising Bengali capitalists of Pakistan too. After liberation, those capitalists became very stronger and asserted strong pressures on Mujib from inside and outside Awami Leage. Needless to say here about their connection with Big uncle for their permanent establishment-interest.
From history we saw that many state leaders served imperialist interest unwilling or unintentionally-they had no choice except compromising in order to survive. Not everybody is Fidel Castro to have extraordinary courage to challenge the demons and monsters. However, some really served imperialist interest voluntarily, who were or are usually reactionary or far-rightist govts.
Mr. Zamil didn't mention the time when Bhasani made such remarks and exactly what he said(i.e., the citation). It is important. Because, if this was said after liberation, the time was extremely bad for the Founding Father of the nation. The country was war-devastated and was going through man-maid famine. Mujib had no other alternative except depending on the food supply from the Big uncle and on the aids from other western imperialist countries.
However, today's Bangladesh is not similar as Bangladesh in '72-75, international situations are worse than '75-we are living in an unipolar world.We should not forget that Bhasani was an extraordinary popular leader, who emerged from the grass-root level-not like favourite bourgeis politicians of our friend Mr. Zamil's class' community who are imposed from the top-the establishment; who have no accountability to public. He was a real public leader sympathetic to the oppressed and poor people(Is it cultism to praise this way which he deserves ?). When a leader like Bhashani made a remark like that must had some ground-they did not use to use light and iresponsible verses, only for political purpose that days.
Now, conscious people with conscience know long ago how the Father of Nation was assassinated. The demonic organization involved is responsible for overthrowing many other disobedient governments. A journalist from Big Uncle's country has been researching for years for this and it's revealed that this octopus-organization was involved in this crime. Most recent example is Haiti. We saw, how the president of Haiti, Mr. Aristid was kidnapped by the navy of Big uncle and forcely exiled in another latin American country. Some days after this incidence, I read a newspaper called 'The Caribean' published from New York, where it's reported in a column that before Aristid's rule, in the tenth of ninety so far, Big Uncle's army has been in Haiti for like 10 years or more and during that time they robbed from the national bank of Haiti like 100 millions of dollars. I read this long ago, that's why the exact amount could be not fully correct.
As a conclusion I want to infer that in no country of the world in a modern history there is a precedence and evidence that a country has developed in a military rule. We don't have to go far, I would suggest to compare the economic data of for the democratic rule of two 'criminalized' parties to the military rule. Then it will become clear. Several time in newspapers, some columnists have shown this analysis based on the report of U.N. Based on that report, the developement and GDP that were gained in 10 years of Ershad's rule was equal to the outcome of 5 year's rule of Hasina. The outcome of BNP rule was not that much impressive, however, much better than the military rule. I do not remember all the indexes. I would request the readers to find out themselves the facts-the readers shouldn't just rely on my claims. Better performance from bourgeois partis we can not expect-I do not expect better than that
personally.
Regarding other topics what Mr. Zamil arised, I don't want to discuss because those topics were not arised by me. What he remarked about military rule at the end, I don't want to refute, as because these staff are already discussed well in above paras. I am afraid, he or his relative might be from military establishment or elite class. I am sorry to remark like this. But, it is needed for reasoning.
Thanks-
Rabiul Islam.
Original Message ----
From: Jamil Asgor <kaljatri@emailme.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 7:37:01 AM
Subject: [mukto-mona] Re: Re: Moyeen and Jago Bangladesh
WRT:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/mukto- mona/message/ 49006
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/mukto- mona/message/ 48988
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/mukto- mona/message/ 48973
I have more to agree with the message by Dr. Zaman than the other
two though.
>>
What the cultism derives from ? Does this happen suddenly ? No. The bottom
line here is a true democratic culture that does not exist in Bangladesh.
<<
Cultism started with Mujibism and culminated in Baksal doctrine. The
bottom line is that democracy was nipped in the bud in 1975. And it
was not sudden, it was a gradual process between 1972-75
>>
They often forget or want to forget that Bangladeshi Army establishment
had been in power almost 16 years in Bangladesh
<<
Army as institution was not never in power for too long. A group pf
rebel army officers ran a parallel government in Bangabhaban headed by
Moshtaq between 8/1975 - 11/75. The main army command never accepted
their rule. So that cannot be called an army rule. After 11/75 the
army ran the nation for about a year and half. The it was Zia's BNP
that ruled between 1977 and 1981. it was civilian party. Zia never
involved the army after that in state matters. That may have been
the cause of his downfall as General Manzoor, a leftist ideolougue
wanted a sort of revolutionary command to rule Bangladesh and was
unhappy with Zia's civilianization of the government and is assumed
to be the main player behind Zia's assasination. Then after Ershshad'
s takeover it was a shortlived army rule before Ershad also formed
a civilian party and ruled Bangladesh as a civilian party chief. So
the direct state rule by army cannot be more than couple of years.
The fact that Zia or Ershad came from army hardly makes their rule
of Bangladesh by the civilian party formed by them a military rule.
Saying so would be as absurd as saying that the Mujib rule between
1972-76 was an Islamic rule because Mujib was a Muslim. They may have
had army support. But that is true for any head of state. The army is
supposed to be loyal to the prevalent head of state. Mujib was backed
by the army led by Gen Shafiullah during 1972-75. So Awami rule can
also be called an army backed government. So is the Awami rule of
1996-2000. The fact that they were not democratically elected is a
different matter. But it would be a fallacy to say that army ruled
Banglaesh for 16 years.
It is fashionable to make army the scapegoat for the utter failure
of the political system in Bangladesh which was brought about by the
political leaders themselves and their cohorts, and ultimately the
blame should go to the people electing them to power, assuming they
were elected fairly. It is intersting that AL accuses BNP of vote
rigging and vice versa. If both are right then who were the people
voting for truly, Jamat?(Shudder) . Supporters of the mainstream
political parties would not own up their misdeeds and take
responsibility for the mess and thu they blame it all on the army.
>>
Zia was in power, he started the evil politics of breaking the main
stream parties and creating some domestic pet parties.
<<
Such remarks reveal intellectual bankruptcy. On one hand they would
clamour for multi-party democracy and then they would condemn forming
new parties. And pray tell what is a "domestic" party? Colonial
mindset still persists it seems. Which mainstream party did Zia
break? Awami league? Did we or do we have two Awami leagues then or
now ? And so what if a new party is formed from former members of
other parties. Is that undemocratic? "Thou shalt only have mainstream
parties and no new party should be formed" sounds like a dogma to me.
That was also the dogma of Baksal who only wanted one party, namely
Baksal. Democracy is a free market system. Anyone can join any party
and form any new party. We have seen what the AL and BNP had done to
Bangladesh. At a time when we need a third alternative, or a reformed
mainstream parties, the cynical people of Bangladesh have spurned Dr.
Yunus' effort to join politics and have also the spurned the
reformists in favour of the same old politics as usual of Khaleda and
Hasina. And now these people are complaining against formation of new
parties saying it is blessed by this power or that. So what do they
want? The loggi boitha wielding Awami goons, or the BNP plaunderers? ,
each calling hartal after hartals when the other is in power? If so,
eventually people of Bangladesh will get what they deserve, A
Talebani style Islami fanatic rule by Jamat, IOJ, ICM, or KM, or a
dangerous mix of islamic and communist ideology by bodies like the
murderous Sarbahara party or some muatation of that.
>>
Now this military bureaucrats are involved in destroying our forest
wealth and other resources, thus selling the country-the purpose what
they were broght for by the foreign powers.
<<
Another example of naivette and intellectual bankruptcy. Seeing
foreign powers behind everything. Bhasani also used to accuse Mujib of
serving imperialist interests, as did JSD. Mujib in turn used to accuse
the leftist parties as being the stooges of Russians etc etc. It seems
like seeing foreign masters behind powers or persons they don't like
is ingrained in the mindset of these antillectuals.
>>..that the military is unlikely to be a heralder of a healthy
democracy, and that a military backed political system is a poor
substitute for a civilian multi-party democracy, however flawed
the latter may be.
<<
However flawed sounds like a dogma. What is better and what is
worse cannot be an absolute. It should all be based on pragmatism
and what is best should be decided in a given situation on a case
to case basis. When the civilian political parties engage in mayhem
and destruction and fight amongst each other like tribal societies
destroying public properties and innocent lives are lost in the
process, then that is not a flawed democracy, that is a primitive
tribal system. In such a situation insisting on or preferring status
quo over military backed political system, however flawless it may
be, smacks of a dogma. Of course it may be politically correct to tout
such dogmatic position. After all democracy is a noble princple and
military dictatortship is not. But such a clear digital divide does
not apply in Bangladesh where political parties do not believe in
or practice democracy. And who claimed that military was or has to
be heralder of democracy? Military has stepped in only after the
politicians have taken the nation to the brink of complete
lawlessness and anarchy and holding the entire nation under hostage,
disrupting public life. Military intervention becomes the only
option in such a situation. Antibiotics are supposed to kill the
bacteria, antibiotics are not supposed to be health food. That's
the analogy that is appropriate here. To have a "civilian multi-
party democracy" there has to be a civilized society and where the
main political parties are also civilized. In absence of either
there can never be a "civilian multi-party democracy". And in the
absence of either, the painful truth is that military intervention
is the only recourse to avert a complete breakdown and reversion to
tribal system of clashes. And a civilian government, military
backed or not led by technocrats and sensible people would then be
infinitely preferable to such tribal system od feuding politicians
by any objective criteria. Dr. Zaman has rightly pointed out the
raping of the constitution and democracy in 1975 by the Mujib
regime. The first murderer/raper of democracy in liberated
Bangladesh was not the military but the putative liberators if
Bangladesh.
>>
Then, there is a "democratic movement" led by the dysfunctional
politicians to overthrow the even more dysfunctional military
<<
One may ask the legitimate question: by what objective criteria is
the military (or military backed system like the current one) "more
dysfunctional" than the dysfunctional politicians? Dysfunctional may
be a kinder word to describe the political thugs who have ruled
Bangladesh, who should be characterized as criminal, not
dysfunctional.
We often hear the platitudes by many critics about "military being
responsible for this or that, military has ruined secularism" etc.
as typified by messages 48988 & 48973. The clamour in message 48988
that military has desecularized Bangladesh and subverted democracy
is a case in point. As pointed out by Dr. Zaman, it was not military
that raped constituition in 1975. The fact is that historically
military in BD has never subverterd democracy, military had
intervened only when democracy was subverted by politicians
themselves. Just because a government is civilian (not civilized
necessarily) that does not automatically make it a democratic one.
The glaring example being the 1975 Baksal regime. Regarding
desecularization, it was Ershad mainly who took it as a personal
agenda to islamize Bangladesh taking cue from Ziaul Huq of Pakistan.
It cannot be characterized as military de-secularization as much as
the the Baksali de-democratization in 1975 cannot be characterized
as the de-democratization by the Bangali nation, whom Awami league
was supposed to represent. Sheikh Mujib offered Bhutto a red carpet
reception in Dhaka in 1973 to gain his support in joining the OIC
(An Islamic organization) . So by that token Bangladesh(meaning it's
people) itself embraced Bhutto, who is blamed more than anyone else
for the butchering of Bengalis in 1971. After all if Ershad's act
can be blamed on military then Mujib's acts can be blamed on Bangladesh
as a whole. It is more logical to do so as Bangladeshi people elected
Mujib. Military as a body do not elect their chief of staff.
Military chief like Ershad were political appointees. Military as an
institution has not been any less secular than the civilian society.
In fact during Pakistan military was more secular than the civilan
wing. It was the military court that issued death sentence to
Maududi in 1955 for fomenting anti Ahmedia sentiment. Military has
been historically very pro-western and secular. In Pakistan it was
Ziaul huq and in Bangladesh Ershad that tried to instil islamic
element into the civilian society as part of their personal
philosophy and agenda, and/or to satisfy the oil rich Islamic
countries, not as part of military doctrine or strategy.
Unfortunately that process by Ershad went on for so long that it has
made some changes irreversible, like making Friday a business
holiday, causing immense harm to the business (thus economy). But
most importantly how should one interpret desecularization( or
secularization) . By mere symbolism or by the acts and policies that
have DIRECT impact on society? Zia's (Ziaur Rahman, not Ziaul Huq)
token sybolism of appending Bismillah in the constitution and
deleting the word secularism (unfortunate) and replacing it by
"religious freedom" did not cause any noticeabe change in the the
society as far as secularism is concerned. He rather pursued a
secular policy much like Kamal Ataturk, of whom he was a fan.
Policies like inducting women in police and encouraging sports for
women. No communal bigot refered to that amendment in the
constitution and and started to engage in any communal act or in
acts of religious bigotry following the amendment. I hasten to add
that such amendment was nevertheless very unfortunate, even though
it was done as desperate move by Zia to appease the oil rich
Sheikhdoms for much needed help during the oil crisis of the 70's. I
think that Mujib's act of embracing Bhutto and joining the OIC,
establishing Islamic Foundation, these had more direct and adverse
anti-secular effect on Bangladeshi society. Regarding actual acts of
communalism and and bigotry look at the Awami rule of 1996-2000.
Awami thugs had feasted on enemy property acts and usurped Hindu
properties. Mayer Dak of Kolkata did extensive coverage of
communalism during that time, so much so that Awami appointed BD
consulate in Kolkata demanded banning of Mayer Dak. And what about
Hasina? She openly criticized Hindus of Bangladesh as placing their
one foot in India and the other in Bangladesh. She had made a deal
with Jamat in 1994 just to defeat BNP. And to top it all she even
made a deal with the fascist communal party Khilafat Majlish in 2006
December. She had completed what Ershad left unfinished. Complete
madrasization of Bangladesh, boasting of having poured more money
for madrasa education than any other government. With all these
glorious record by the civilian leaders by the putative torch
bearers of secularism, it is laughable to accuse military of de-
secularization.
- JA
------------------------------------
*****************************************
Sign the Petition : Release the Arrested University Teachers Immediately : An Appeal to the Caretaker Government of Bangladesh
http://www.mukto-mona.com/human_rights/university_teachers_arrest.htm
*****************************************
Daily Star publishes an interview with Mukto-Mona
http://www.mukto-mona.com/news/daily_star/daily_star_MM.pdf
*****************************************
MM site is blocked in Islamic countries such as UAE. Members of those theocratic states, kindly use any proxy (such as http://proxy.org/) to access mukto-mona.
*****************************************
Mukto-Mona Celebrates 5th Anniversary
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Special_Event_/5_yrs_anniv/index.htm
*****************************************
Mukto-Mona Celebrates Earth Day:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Special_Event_/Earth_day2006/index.htm
*****************************************
Kansat Uprising : A Special Page from Mukto-Mona
http://www.mukto-mona.com/human_rights/kansat2006/members/
*****************************************
MM Project : Grand assembly of local freedom fighters at Raumari
http://www.mukto-mona.com/project/Roumari/freedom_fighters_union300306.htm
*****************************************
German Bangla Radio Interviews Mukto-Mona Members:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Special_Event_/Darwin_day/german_radio/
Mukto-Mona Celebrates Darwin Day:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Special_Event_/Darwin_day/index.htm
*****************************************
Some FAQ's about Mukto-Mona:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/new_site/mukto-mona/faq_mm.htm
****************************************************
VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/
****************************************************
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
-Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:mukto-mona-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:mukto-mona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mukto-mona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/