Banner Advertiser

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Re: [ALOCHONA] To Awami League Back Benchers

 Sheikh hasina  should resign  for  two reasons.1. violating the constitution. She has no power as PM to declare amnesty, it is the power of President.
 
2.  inspiring killing of captured army officers  by declarating amnesty before hand.
 
 If she had minimum sense of responsibilities,  at least she would made someone scapegoat  from shy of eye(chokkho lozza).
 
 So we can not expect that she would resign . In this case, Four party alience should declare that they would try hasina for inspring killing by violating constitution.
 


 
Has Bangladesh Army paid enough price for making wrong headed(declared by court) PM or will have to pay more? How much people will have to pay if she remains five year?


--- On Tue, 3/10/09, mufassil islam <mufassili@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: mufassil islam <mufassili@hotmail.com>
Subject: [ALOCHONA] To Awami League Back Benchers
To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 2:25 PM

Dear Readers,
 
As it has now been proved beyond doubt (well at least from the statements from narrowly escaped ones) that:
 
PM Hasina did know that Mr. Shakil was still alive when she have had a meeting with Mr. Tauhid and as it has been established that none was killed until 11am and as it has been proved that Mr. Moeen and PM have had falsely promised that a Brigade would have been sent to rescue the hostages and as it has been proved that the Home Minister had nervous breakdown and as it has been established that we Bangladeshis are not prepared to allow Baaper Shahson when Jamai's Shashon failed and we are not ready to turn Bangladesh into a paribarik  shompod - I - as a concerned citizen demand the hypocrite PM to resign along with her whole cabinet. Let's bring in some back benchers even from within Awami League. I think Abdur Razzak would make a better PM until Pola Joy, vagney Taposh, Bon Rehana and vai Farukh and Selim can well settle. 
 
What do u think? No problem hoping for the unthinkable - is there?
 
Please follow the link to listen to Hasina's hypocricy and the statements of the army officers (banned in Bangladesh):
 
http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=TpfUh7W- mEU
 
Mufassil Islam
Human Rights Advocate
 

To: alochona@yahoogroup s.com
From: ezajur.rahman@ q8.com
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 20:41:31 +0000
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Re: Khaleda wants removal of home minister

Yes, it's rich that Khaleda is demanding the resignation of anyone given she has never demanded the resignation of any of the crooks and cronies in her own governments.

I don't give a flying rat's anatomy what she wants either.

Sadly, tragically, absurdly - there are millions of voters, who by dint of their vote alone, do care what she wants.

How are we to get out of this mess?

Oh God!

--- In alochona@yahoogroup s.com, Cyrus <thoughtocrat@ ...> wrote:
>
> Khaleda can want whatever she pleases, but no one gives a flying rat's anatomy!
>
>
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: Ezajur Rahman <ezajur.rahman@ ...>
> To: alochona@yahoogroup s.com
> Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 9:12:29 AM
> Subject: [ALOCHONA] Khaleda wants removal of home minister
>
>
> Khaleda wants removal of home minister
> New Age 4/3/09 Staff Correspondent
> The BNP chairperson, Khaleda Zia, on Tuesday demanded the removal of the home minister in the interest of a fair and neutral investigation of the killing in the Bangladesh Rifles headquarters and slated limiting the terms of reference of the committee formed to investigate the incidents.
>    ‘The government reconstituted the probe body dropping the home minister and the state minister for law realising their mistake. But we think it is not enough. If the present home minister remains in office, the investigation process might be influenced. So I advise the prime minister to ask the home minister to resign in the interest of a fair and neutral investigation,’ Khaleda said at a briefing at her office at Gulshan at night.
>    Khaleda also criticised the government for limiting the terms of reference of the committee formed to investigate the killing in the BDR headquarters to only finding out the ground and the cause of the happenings and making recommendations.
>    ‘We think all including behind-the-scene planners, instigators and persons involved with the heinous killings, looting, ransacking and repression need to be identified and exemplary punishment of the culprits has to be ensured,’ she said.
>    ‘The investigation committee will have to be allowed to work freely and neutrally. We also demand that the terms of reference of the committee should be widened to cover everything under investigation,’ Khaleda said.
>    The leader of the opposition in parliament also called for making public who have been assigned to investigate the case filed with the police and regularly informing the people of the development of the investigation in a transparent way.
>    ‘The prime minister already instructed the army conducting Operation Rebel Hunt not to arrest anybody but the BDR soldiers in hiding. I want to know whether the persons who are not BDR members but had planned and instigated the massacre would be arrested. If yes, who will arrest them?’ she asked.
>    ‘Reports on long telephone conversations and exchange of texts and having meeting with the killers have been published in different newspapers. People want to know whether the suspects would be removed from important positions, arrested and interrogated,’ she said.
>    ‘I said granting general amnesty was a great strategic mistake and it has been proved that the amnesty inspired the criminals to kill and repress people and loot valuables. They could dump the bodies in mass graves and flee during the long period. The amnesty has failed and I suggest the prime minister to withdraw it,’ she said.
>    ‘Allegations of having links with the criminals have been made against the persons who had negotiated with the rebels from the government. I also demand investigation of their roles,’ she said.
>    Refuting the prime minister’s speech in the parliament, Khaleda said getting to know of the massacre on February 25, she went straight to her office at Gulshan, discussed it with the central leaders and waited till evening for a call from the government.
>    ‘But the prime minister said she had failed to trace me. It was clear that she had no mentality to trace me or accept my cooperation as she made fun of the killing in the BDR headquarters saying it was not her daughter’s wedding which requires people to be invited to,’ Khaleda said.
>    ‘Not only me, she also ridiculed the Armed Forces. She told the parliament my arguments were similar to those of the members of the Armed Forces. I do not know what demands the Armed Forces had made. I just mentioned some mistakes of the government in tackling the situation. What is there for the prime minister to resent if the Armed Forces personnel had said the same?’ Khaleda said.
>    Khaleda said the government and the treasury bench were eager to get into a heated debate, divert public attention from the prime issue and damage the environment for national unity and understanding which were the most necessary thing for the nation.
>  
>
> ____________ _________ _________ __
>




Windows Live Messenger just got better. Find out more!



__._,_.___


[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

__,_._,___

[mukto-mona] Madhyamam: An Indian Muslim Media Success Story


Madhyamam: A Muslim Media Success Story

By Yoginder Sikand,
Kerala's Muslims, who form roughly a quarter of the state's population, are among the most literate Muslim communities in India. A major reason for, as well as a consequence of, the community's high literacy rate is the thriving Muslim-owned Malayalam press. Today, literally hundreds of magazines, journals and newspapers are brought out by various Kerala Muslim organizations. These deal not simply with religion (as in the case of many north Indian Muslim-owned publications) but with social and political issues as well. These publications have played a crucial role in promoting social and political awareness among Kerala's Muslims and in getting Muslim views and concerns across to fellow Malayali non-Muslims and to the state authorities and in promoting closer interaction between the various communities in Kerala.
Set up in 1987 by the Ideal Publications Trust, most of whose members are affiliated with the Kerala unit of the Jamaat-e Islami, Madhyamam is regarded as the most successful Muslim-owned daily newspaper in Kerala. It boasts the third highest circulation among all Malayalam daily newspapers in the state. Its chief editor O.Abdur Rahman stresses that it is not a specifically Muslim or an Islamic paper. 'Madhyamam is geared to all Malayalam readers and takes up general issues, while focusing in particular on those related to marginalized and minority communities, including Dalits, Adivasis and Backward Castes, and not just Muslims alone. We see it as the voice of the voiceless', he states. 'We have been consistently anti-imperialist, supporting a range of liberation movements and also bitterly critiquing fascism, extremism in the name of religion and terrorism', he adds. He describes Madhyamam as 'a value-based paper, stressing ethics and morals, in contrast to commercial papers, whose sole motive is profit-making.'


 
Madhyamam's editorial offices are located in Calicut, the major intellectual centre for Muslims in Kerala. Currently, it brings out separate editions from six cities in Kerala—Cochin, Trivandrum, Cannanore, Mallapuram, Kottayam and Calicut—and two in Karnataka—Bangalore and Mangalore. Separate Gulf editions, catering to the half million-odd Malayalis living in Arab countries, come out from Dubai, Bahrain, Kuwait, Doha, Dammam, Riyadh and Jeddah, making Madhyamam the largest-circulated Malayalam newspaper in the region. In addition, the Madhyamam Weekly magazine has a circulation of some 25,000. Currently, the entire Madhyamam group has some 1200 staff on its rolls, including around 500 full-time journalists.
A major challenge that Madhyamam has had to contend with is lack of sufficient advertisement revenue. Explains Abdur Rahman, 'Newspapers survive on money from advertisements, but from the very beginning we had decided, as a matter of policy, to be very selective about the advertisements we published. No ads showing immodestly-clad women, no ads for banks, alchohol, fraudulent investments and movies. This is why we had to suffer major losses, and even now just manage to break even.' A portion of the profits that the paper generates is diverted to the Madhyamam Health Care Programme, which provides free medical facilities to poor people, irrespective of religion and caste in hospitals with which it has a tie-up with. In the last six years, some 3000 patients have benefited from the Programme at a cost of 3 crore rupees.
A major problem that Muslim-run papers face, Abdur Rahman explains, is the lack of professionally-qualified journalists. It was to address this concern that last year the Madhyamam Institute of Journalism was launched. Currently located in the paper's Calicut office, the Institute offers a one year diploma in journalism. At present, it has fourteen students—girls and boys, Muslims and Hindus—on its rolls. The course fee is Rs.20,000. 'This is the only Muslim-run institution of its kind in Kerala,' says Abdur Rahman. The course involves considerable hands-on training in Madhyamam itself, and successful students are likely to be absorbed by the newspaper after they finish.
What lessons does the successful Madhyamam experiment provide for Muslim-owned media houses in India? How is it that Madhyamam has made such bold strides, in contrast to many Muslim-run papers in other parts of the country? Abdur Rahman insists that for Muslim-owned newspapers in India to be effective must be broad-based in their appeal and approach, and not limited just to Muslims alone. 'A Muslim-owned daily newspaper should be secular, and not confined to simply Muslim community or religious issues,' he says. 'This is the only way we can present our views and problems to the wider society. Otherwise, others will not take us seriously and we won't be able to have any impact outside a narrow Muslim circle. The example of ghettoized north Indian Urdu papers well illustrates this argument. Because of our approach, many of our readers are non-Muslims.'
'We do not regularly publish articles on or about religion as such, limiting ourselves, as any newspaper should, to just news and views about news', Abdur Rahman elaborates. 'On religious festivals we bring out special issues, but this is not limited to just Muslim festivals. We do this for Onam and Vishu—Malayali Hindu festivals—and for Christmas as well.' He contrasts this ecumenical approach to that of most Muslim-run publications in other parts of India, which, he laments, 'focus only on Islam alone, often narrowly defined, and ignore social issues.'
'At the same time,' Abdur Rahman continues, 'this does not mean that a Muslim daily newspaper should ignore Muslim concerns. What we in Madhyamam do is to present news as news, and highlight all relevant news, and not just developments concerned only with Muslims. But we also highlight our own views about the news in our editorial pages and in the columns to which we invite specialists to contribute. In this way, Muslim perspectives on various developments can be articulated. We also allow people to critique us in our columns. Muslim papers must allow this, and abstain from a one-way monologue.'
Another advice that Abdur Rahman gives for Muslim-run papers is to invite non-Muslim writers to contribute their views. 'A number of leading non-Muslim intellectuals and social activists write for Madhyamam.' To make for a healthy work environment, he also suggests that Muslim-owned papers employ non-Muslim professionals too and not make themselves into a Muslim-only concern. 'In Madhyamam some forty per cent of our journalists are non-Muslims—Christians, Hindus, Marxists and atheists. And our staff have their own political leanings and affiliations. Some are pro-Muslim League, others are with the Congress, and yet others are with the Communists, but that does not matter as long as they work in a professional manner,' he says. This openness to others, he remarks, is a hallmark of Kerala society, where different religious communities share a common culture and a strong common identity as Malayalis. 'A major drawback of most Muslim-owned papers', he opines, 'is the lack of professionalism. A multi-religious and multi-communal workplace can make much of a difference in this regard.'
Madhyamam has ambitious plans for the future, says Abdur Rahman. These include a daily English newspaper, with simultaneous editions from Delhi, Mumbai, Calcutta, Hyderabad, Bangalore and Chennai, a regular television channel (that would follow the same media policy as Madhyamam), as well as new editions from some other locations in Kerala. Certainly, then, a novel experiment that other Muslim media houses could learn much from.



__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

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], 190




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

__,_._,___

Re: [ALOCHONA] Massacre at Pilkhana: Propaganda and the Truth (Corrected)



On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:17 AM, MBI Munshi <mbimunshi@gmail.com> wrote:

I have also read the Muhit Rahman article (The Daily Star – March 12, 2009) and it makes some interesting points. The most interesting is that while describing other commentators as mere arm-chair Generals he is himself only a banker. I wonder how much military knowledge and tactical experience is required to get a bank job these days. The follow-up article by Mr. Abdul Momen raises some further and important issues. He explains that in all the cases where military assaults have been allowed by the government in a hostage type situation there have usually been significant civilian casualties. He provides the examples of Lal Masjid, Kargil, Mumbai, Wako, the Russian Threatre and the Ossetia-Alania School takeovers. In all these cases probably the Kargil is the least relevant as this involved a military operation of two countries and the issue of hostages never arose. In all the other scenarios the taking of hostages was an important element in the plan of the terrorists. However, there are other substantive differences between the above cited cases and the BDR Mutiny –

 

1.   The commitment and morale of the BDR mutineers was questionable with the vast majority trying to escape and a small minority perpetrating the atrocities. If the army had been allowed to effectively cordon off the area and move in heavy weaponry outside the boundary walls it is possible that the mutiny would have folded early on - according to several eyewitnesses the killings only took place after 11 am on the first day of the revolt. It is also possible that the BDR soldiers would have turned on the hard core group but this theory was not tested because of the hesitancy of the PM and COAS to act in a timely and prompt fashion.

 

2.   The BDR mutiny was strictly not a hostage type situation. The intent was to kill the officers within the compound. There were apparently no negotiations for release of the officers or their families. There was no sign of goodwill on the part of the hardcore mutineers to release the women and children. Inexplicably in this situation the PM gave a general amnesty without securing release of the captives inside the compound or verifying the extent of the carnage inside the BDR HQ. In these circumstances an immediate response may have saved lives. Only once the mutiny was nearing its end with the majority of perpetrators having already escaped were some officers released but clearly this was a ruse (indicating a wider and more sophisticated conspiracy) and not part of a negotiating strategy.

 

3.   In all the other incidents terrorists had to be forcibly dislodged when negotiations failed. In the BDR mutiny the perpetrators had no intention of holding out within the compound as nearly all escaped during the second night. This point was proven when tanks were brought into position on the 3rd day and the left-over mutineers submitted meekly. If a forced entry was considered then the surrounding area would have been evacuated (as was actually done on the last day) leaving the risk to civilians at a complete minimum.

 

4.   That amongst the BDR soldiers were 'outsiders' who hid their faces throughout the mutiny and ultimately escaped. In none of the other situations described by Muhit or Momen were there any external groups within the hostage takers. With sufficient pressure and a show of force the BDR soldiers may have been convinced that continuing with the mutiny was not worth the trouble and surrendering was now the only viable option. The 'outsiders' numbering no more than 20 would have been left to their own devices. 

 

In all the other cases there was no indication of government complicity. The arrest of an AL leader seems to suggest some connivance at higher levels of government if not outright assistance. The transfer of army officers out of the DGFI and NSI in the preceding weeks of the mutiny explains some of the intelligence failures but still requires an explanation from the government.

 

On these four grounds I do not believe that the points expressed by Mr. Muhit Rahman or Mr. Abdul Momen hold much credibility or substance. During the 3 day mutiny the resolve of the mutineers was never tested. Every time the army wanted to move against the mutineers they were thwarted by the worthless and cowardly COAS and the perverse and mentally imbalanced Prime Minister. By not acting with courage and decisiveness the mutineers gained confidence and proceeded on their killing spree.  

 

MBI Munshi




--
MBI Munshi

Facebook ID - Mohammad Munshi


__._,_.___


[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

__,_._,___

Re: [ALOCHONA] Massacre at Pilkhana: Propaganda and the Truth

I have also read the Muhit Rahman article (The Daily Star – March 12, 2009) and it makes some interesting points. The most interesting is that while describing other commentators as mere arm-chair Generals he is himself only a banker. I wonder how much military knowledge and tactical experience is required to get a bank job these days. The follow-up article by Mr. Abdul Momen raises some further and important issues. He explains that in all the cases where military assaults have been allowed by the government in a hostage type situation there have usually been significant civilian casualties. He provides the examples of Lal Masjid, Kargil, Mumbai, Wako, the Russian Threatre and the Ossetia-Alania School takeovers. In all these cases probably the Kargil is the least relevant as this involved a military operation of two countries and the issue of hostages never arose. In all the other scenarios the taking of hostages was an important element in the plan of the terrorists. However, there are other substantive differences between the above cited cases and the BDR Mutiny –

 

1.   The commitment and morale of the BDR mutineers was questionable with the vast majority trying to escape and a small minority perpetrating the atrocities. If the army had been allowed to effectively cordon off the area and move in heavy weaponry outside the boundary walls it is possible that the mutiny would have folded early on - according to several eyewitnesses the killings only took place after 11 am on the first day of the revolt. It is also possible that the BDR soldiers would have turned on the hard core group but this theory was not tested because of the hesitancy of the PM and COAS to act in a timely and prompt fashion.

 

2.   The BDR mutiny was strictly not a hostage type situation. The intent was to kill the officers within the compound. There were apparently no negotiations for release of the officers or their families. There was no sign of goodwill on the part of the hardcore mutineers to release the women and children. Inexplicably in this situation the PM gave a general amnesty without securing release of the captives inside the compound or verifying the extent of the carnage inside the BDR HQ. In these circumstances an immediate response may have saved lives. Only once the mutiny was nearing its end with the majority of perpetrators having already escaped were some officers released but clearly this was a ruse (indicating a wider and more sophisticated conspiracy) and not part of a negotiating strategy.

 

3.   In all the other incidents terrorists had to be forcibly dislodged when negotiations failed. In the BDR mutiny the perpetrators had no intention of holding out within the compound as nearly all escaped during the second night. This point was proven when tanks were brought into position on the 3rd day and the left-over mutineers submitted meekly. If a forced entry was considered then the surrounding area would have been evacuated (as was actually done on the last day) leaving the risk to civilians at a complete minimum.

 

4.   That amongst the BDR soldiers were 'outsiders' who hid their faces throughout the mutiny and ultimately escaped. In none of the other situations described by Muhit or Momen were there any external groups within the hostage takers. With sufficient pressure and a show of force the BDR soldiers may have been convinced that continuing with the mutiny was not worth the trouble and surrendering was now the only viable option. The 'outsiders' numbering no more than 20 would have been left to their own devices. 

 

In all the other cases there was no indication of government complicity. The arrest of an AL leader seems to suggest some connivance at higher levels of government if not outright assistance. The transfer of army officers out of the DGFI and NSI in the preceding weeks of the mutiny explains some of the intelligence failures but still requires an explanation from the government.

 

On these four grounds I do not believe that the points expressed by Mr. Muhit Rahman or Mr. Abdul Momen hold much credibility or substance. During the 3 day mutiny the resolve of the mutineers was never tested. Every time the army wanted to move against the mutineers they were thwarted by the worthless and cowardly COAS and the perverse and mentally imbalanced Prime Minister. By not acting with courage and decisiveness the mutineers gained confidence and proceeded on their killing spree.  

 

MBI Munshi



__._,_.___


[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

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] An army general with philanthropic mind

An army general with philanthropic mind

 
Maj Gen Rafiqul Islam
 
 
The people in south-western region will never forget Maj Gen Rafiqul Islam as they witnessed his untiring work to mitigate sufferings of affected people after cyclonic storm Sidr ravaged the area on November 15 in 2007.
With an excellent career in the army, Rafiqul Islam, GOC of 55 Infantry Division and Jessore area commander, was equally committed to performing humanitarian tasks when there was a need.
 
 
 
The last salute from his son
 
As an army helicopter carrying Rafiq crashed at Elenga in Tangail on Monday morning, he along with pilot Lt Col Md Shahidul Islam died inside the same helicopter that had carried him to Sidr-hit areas to help the affected people.
Operation 'Ashar Alo' (Light of Hope), a programme for relief and rehabilitation work in Sidr-hit south-western region, was conducted under the guidance and supervision of Maj Gen Rafiq as troops of Bangladesh army quickly responded to the call to stand by the side of the hapless people.
 
He was never late in reaching the distressed Sidr-hit people with food and other relief goods, said Anwar Hossain Panchayet, chairman of Southkhali union parishad under Sharankhola upazila of Bagerhat district. He broke down in tears hearing tragic death of Gen Rafiq.
 
Rafiqul Islam who joined as GOC of 55 Infantry Division in March 2007, also played the key role in resolving the menacing waterlogging problem at Bhabadaho of Jessore, reforms of Benapole landport, preparation of national ID card and improving law and order situation in the outlaw-infested south-western region after one-eleven changeover in the country.
 
The army officer with a philanthropist heart had survived a road accident on August 24 last year while on the way to Dhaka with his wife and children.
As the army jeep carrying Maj Gen Rafiq, his wife and children collided head-on with a Khulna-bound passenger bus of Eagle Paribahan near Goalando Ghat of Rajbari district, the jeep fell into a ditch and Maj Gen Rafiq and his family members sustained serious injuries.
 
Later they were treated Dhaka CMH.Our Barisal Correspondent adds: Hundreds of people paid their last respect to Maj Gen Rafiqul Islam as his body was brought to Banaripara upazila headquarters, his native town, by a helicopter yesterday noon.
 
Brig Gen Sakib, Col Hassan, local lawmaker Manirul Islam Moni, journalist Golam Sarwar, also cousin of the deceased, brother-in-law Osman Gani Shikdar and the late general's sons Rafib and Rabib accompanied the coffin.
Senior officials of the army and civil administration, noted citizens and hundreds of people took part in the janaza held there after the Zohr prayers.
The body was brought back to Dhaka after the janaza.His namaj-e-janaza was also held at Jessore Osmani Stadium earlier yesterday, reports BSS.
 



__._,_.___


[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

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] FW: About State Religion in Bangladesh

 

 

-----

-----

 

Dear sirs/ friends/members,

Assalamu Alaikum.Some people want to abolish Islam as state religion of Bangladesh as reported by the Press.Islam was made state religion by General Ershad’s government about two decades back.

 

The move to abolish Islam as state religion is inappropriate. Whether written or not , all Islamic/Muslim states ( whether Khilafate Rashida or Banu Umayya or Banu Abbas or Usmani or Mughals or others ) had  effectively Islam as state religion.These states had Islamic law in force , they found their legitimacy in observing and defending Islam.The state observed Islam but the non-Muslim citizens had all freedoms including freedom of religion.I hope this government will not take any such step.It should not take more controversies on its head now in this grave situation.

 

Secularism is no answer in a Muslim majority state.Islam and secularism in proper sense are just opposite to each other. There are many European and Latin American countries with Christianity as state religion.

 

Shah Abdul Hannan

 

 

 

 

 



__._,_.___


[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

__,_._,___

RE: [ALOCHONA] Massacre at Pilkhana: Propaganda and the Truth

Military assault in the case of Lal Masjid in Islamabad (Pakistan) took 12 days to end and it caused 127 deaths including 27 officers. Military assault in the Mumbai case took 3 days to end plus 173 deaths. Remember, Lal Masjid had only 30-35 jihadis and Mumbai had only 10 jihadis  In the case of Kargil War, to dislodge Pak army, it cost nearly 600 Pak army personnel and nearly 800 Indian soldiers besides 4,300 thousand wounded in both sides. India had to mobilize narly 730,000 soldiers, air force and sophisticated weaponary.  It took many weeks to end.
 
Mr. Muhith Rahman mentioned about the Russian Threatre and the Ossetia-Alania School takeovers plus the Wacco event of USA (see the article below).  In all those cases, even for a well-trained well equipped forces, it tooks days to end the takeover. In each case, death tool was very heavy. For example, in case of Wacco, Texas, it took 51 days and 73 deaths. In case Russian Threatre, it took 4 days and nearly 129-200 deaths.
 
Therefore, given the historical experience and record of managing terrorsim or mutiny, it is difficult to believe as the author of 'Massacre in Pilkhana: Propaganda and the Truth' that if "Army to move in, the so-called mutiny would have come to an end within 20 minutes to half an hour". 
 
BDR HQ is located in a very densely populated area and reportedly it had few hundred mutineers or murderers plus nearly 160 captive army officers.  It had sufficient stockpile of weapons.  The perception that the mutiny could be wiped out through military assault in one and two hours is not only very ambitious but appears to be unreasonable and without basis.
 
To my own experience, in 1971, only a few Bangladeshi EPR with minimal weapons created a barricade and it took a whole day and night for a well-armed well-trained Pakistan army just to dislodge them....... ..eventually they failed and they retreated. That area became 'free'.  Lesson is; it is always difficult to destroy even a small group if they are well armed and correctly positioned.  
 
It is a miracle that a newly elected government could resolve such a difficult situation in such a short time..... ... there is no record of resolving such uprising in such a short time no where in the planet earth. However, the sad episode is; so many well trained officers, highest in Bangladesh history, were killed by a bunch of murderers in such cool blood within hours of uprising, reportedly within the 1st 1.5 hours of uprising. 
 
There has been record of killing of Bangladesh army officers in 1975, 1977, 1981, and 1982 and many many civilians in various periods but neither that many officers nor in such barbaric way. It is a great loss to the nation and to the tax payers that apid for their upbringing and training.  The question of the hour should be 'how come six or seven intelligence agencies of the country could not get an iota of indication when so many were involved and even leaflets were reportedly distributed. Very sad indeed!!!  After 9/11, the U. S. administration took varieties of initiatives and since 9/11, there has not been any terrorist killing in the U. S. Terrorist fatalities in USA is 'zero' now.  
 
Instead of speculation, it is time to pray for the departed souls and seriously evaluate as to how to end the recurrance of such massacre and as to how to strengthen and enhance the capability of intelligence forces.  It is time to end terrorism or merciless killings.  It needs both short and long term initiatives. It is a fact that the growth of terrorism in South Asia is the second highest in the world since 9/11 and fatalities have also gone up by over 300 per cent, only exceeded by that of the Middle East region.  It is time to stop blame game and work harder to find the culprits and punish them in such a way so that no one dares to commit such crime again. It is time to get united to find the truth and take corrective actions.  
 
Abdul Momen   
 
 
--------
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 07:10:05 +0000
Reply To:


Political Gossips and Speculation- BDR Carnage

 

Muhit Rahman


 
 
Recently, in discussions around the country and in the blogosphere, I see and hear extensive criticism and 2nd guessing of how the sad and despicable affairs of the BDR incident were handled. A principal refrain seems to be that the army should have been rushed in to shoot their way to a glorious rescue. Are we serious?

All you armchair generals, can you cite ONE instance of a situation in known history where an armed force of thousands had taken over a barricaded area with a large trapped civilian population in a dense urban setting and another armed force attacked immediately (within two to three hours) and successfully rescued the hostages and/or disarmed the 'rebels'? Let me make it easier, can you cite an example of armed hostage taking of even a few (ten to twenty) by a smaller, heavily armed force (sub-machine guns, mortars and grenades) in a dense urban setting where an assault team has immediately and successfully stormed the premises? By successful storming, I mean with no or minimal unintended deaths or collateral damage.

Here are some examples: On October 23, 2002, approximately 30-40 heavily armed Chechens took about 800-900 people hostage in a Moscow theater. The highly trained and fully equipped Russian security apparatus negotiated and waited four days before pumping in poison gas and storming the theater and killing/executing a reported 39 of the Chechens. Even then somewhere between 129 and 200 civilians died – all but one as a result of the "rescue" operation. A special forces operative was reported as saying that had they not used the poison gas, there could have been more than 150 casualties amongst the rescuers. There are many other examples: On September 1, 2004 in Beslan, North Ossetia-Alania, a group of armed Chechens took over a school, holding over 1,000 hostages. Three days later, Russian security forces stormed the building with tanks and heavy weapons. The resulting carnage caused almost 350 hostage deaths and hundreds more wounded or
missing. On February 28, 1993, agents from United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) attempted to execute a search warrant at the Branch Davidian ranch in Waco, Texas. The resulting siege situation lasted 51 days. When FBI agents ultimately moved in, the "rescue" caused 76 deaths. In 1972, the attempt by German police to rescue Israeli athletes taken hostage by the terrorist group, Black September, resulted in the death of 11 hostages (source: Various Wikipedia articles).

The moral is not that you do not ever attack terrorists and hostage takers but that you do it with a cool head, after all other means of recourse have failed and that it almost always results in massive casualties. According to a "hostage negotiation study guide" developed with the help of the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, the first rule is "ICER" isolate, contain, evaluate and report. Note that "assault" is not on the menu for first responders! For over thirty years, the New York City Police Department has used a process concerning terrorist incidents that they characterize as "time, talk, and tear gas."

The reality is that the world's most highly trained forces could not have secured Peelkhana by force without massive loss of innocent lives ranging from innocent BDR personnel and their families who may have been coerced or were swept up in the mutiny, to the very hostages that they were going to save. Even the army officers who remained alive (and if you assume there had been about 150 officers present and about 60 are dead or missing, that implies 90 of them were in there, alive) were wearing BDR uniforms (as is customary) and they had taken off their rank markings — they too would very possibly have been killed in a rushed, ill-conceived attack. The ringleaders and outside agents, if they had done their planning (as seems likely) could very well have escaped and in the middle of the hundreds, if not thousands of victims, truth would have been the first casualty. As it is, few seem to want to wait for the truth to emerge before pointing at their
favorite scapegoats. No one can ever say for certain what could have happened from the path not taken. But there is plenty of evidence that hot-headed assaults are minimally effective and cause maximum anguish.

There is NO gamebook, except perhaps in the lands of the likes of Idi Amin and such despots, where massive armed conflict is precipitated in a dense urban civilian zone in the midst of the fog of lack of information and disinformation. The other reality is that our security forces have very little preparation for this type of event (note I do not say "army" I say security forces). How do you use anti-aircraft guns to flush out "rebels" hiding amidst "innocents" in residential quarters and office buildings? What happened when the lights were out? In classic hostage rescue, it is usually the rescuers who try and turn the power off so that they can have the advantage of night vision equipment over the hostage takers who are usually less prepared. The power being off was a golden opportunity for elite, trained units (again I don't say army - but "trained units") to go in and assess the situation and come back with reports and/or a plan of
action. The reality is that while we have many brave men, we have no such well equipped, elite, trained units. So all we seem to be doing is crying about the darkness, instead of wondering why we didn't take advantage of a situation when advantage normally reverts to those who have better plans, equipment and capabilities. Whoever had the responsibility of securing the perimeter (if there was such a person or entity), did not even seem to know exactly how the perimeter worked. Reportedly, they were guarding the principal gates and left much of the perimeter wall around Gate 5, including, perhaps Gate 5, unsecured. Did someone order that Gate 5 and the surrounds be left unguarded – or did they just forget about it? Whose job was it? It is not the prime minister or even the home minister's job to secure an area. The buck may stop there but they only recently got that charter. The responsibility for controlling the security forces and maintaining
discipline and command and of staying informed about their morale lies with the command structure and this was a massive command failure. It was likely also a cynical and brutal attempt by as yet unknown parties to start a civil war and precipitate the fall of the government.

I commend the civilian government as well as the military high command for handling a terrible situation about as well as they could have – perhaps even, brilliantly!
Moreover, the prime minister showed excellent responsiveness in going in front of the officers and I do not blame the officers for being emotional - they are Bengalis!
All in all, I give the civilian government an "A" for their handling of the crisis and the army an "A" for its restraint. The intelligence agencies, however, all of them - police, RAB, DGFI, etc. all get an "F". And as for those trying to make hay out of this sad moment by undue finger pointing and 2nd guessing (certain political leaders come to mind), I give an "U" for unsatisfactory conduct.

So, enough already!
Let the investigations proceed and let the nation try to heal its wounds!
Let the investigations be thorough, just and transparent.
Let the institutions that govern and guard the country show their true strength by being fair and open and by being accountable to the people they serve.
 
Justice must be sure – not just sure as in inevitable, but also sure as in certain.
The past is the past and will always color our thoughts and actions - but think of the future and what ought to be done NOW - not what could have been done. If you have to indulge in "I wish they had done …" fantasy, then consider "I wish they had a better feel for the pulse of the BDR jawans … so that matters could have been headed off long before things came to a head".
 
But it would be better if instead, you pray for the souls of the departed and for the safety and security of Bangladesh and its people and thank God that a larger calamity was avoided.
 
...........................................................................................................

 


To: zoglul@hotmail.co.uk; shahin72@gmail.com; janashah_1@yahoo.com; alfazanambd@yahoo.com; adelm@uapb.edu; hossain.khilji@yahoo.com; mbimunshi@gmail.com; rehman.mohammad@gmail.com; ahmadashiqulhamid@yahoo.com; farhadmazhar@hotmail.com; mahmudurart@yahoo.com; kmamalik@aol.com; dhakamails@yahoogroups.com; khabor@yahoogroups.com; alochona@yahoogroups.com; bdresearchers@yahoogroups.com; bangla-vision@yahoogroups.com; mouchakaydheel@yahoo.com; odhora@yahoogroups.com; ayeshakabir@yahoo.com; sayantha15@yahoo.com; minarrashid@yahoo.com; history_islam@yahoogroups.com
From: bd_mailer@yahoo.com
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:07:18 -0700
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Massacre at Pilkhana: Propaganda and the Truth

Massacre at Pilkhana: Propaganda and the Truth

 

Ahmad Ashiq-ul Hamid

 

 

The massacre at the BDR head quarters has become an issue of politics recently. The government and their supporters and patrons have started playing game with such a tragic event of our history. They are trying to establish that the Islamist and nationalist parties were behind the killing. The motive has also been `invented'. It has been alleged that the motive was to thwart the government's effort for trial of the so-called war criminals! With this peculiar and surprising `invention' they have started an all out propaganda against the patriotic forces of the country.

 

 

 

The nation has not yet been able to recover from the terrible shock of the so-called mutiny at the BDR head quarters on February 25th. A fast recovery is not possible in fact. Because the nation has lost its brave, brilliant and patriot sons- 67 army officers were brutally murdered in the so-called mutiny. Such an orgy of carnage was really beyond anyone's imagination, but nevertheless it has happened and the nation's Army has suffered an irreparable loss.

 

Unfortunately the people have not been allowed to know about what really had happened at Pilkhana, who had masterminded such a heinous and dangerous massacre and what their motive was. The people could not gather correct information from the media also. In the mean time, confusing debates and arguments between the government and the patriotic political leaders have become a major cause of sorrow and frustration for the common people. The government has failed in another way to fulfill the peoples' expectation. In spite of sincerely calling up on the political parties to be united and tackle the situation jointly, the government has, from the very beginning, rather started debating with the opposition political parties. The opposition parties too have become compelled to go in the path of confrontation. So the `battle' began and the blame-game has been going on while the people remained in the dark with much disappointment.

 

The `battle' began after the opposition political parties, especially the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Bangladesh Jamaat-E- Islami, raised some very important questions and demanded for answers. How the so-called mutineers dared to commit such a massive killing and why the government did not even try to prevent them, were the main questions. The government has presented an argument that they had `correctly' decided to resolve the problem `politically' and `peacefully'. But this has not satisfied any quarters, including of course the army officers. Begum Khaleda Zia, Leader of the Opposition in the Jatya Sangsad (National Parliament) asked the questions and strongly opined that since the so-called mutiny was a military problem, it should have been dealt with in the military way. But in spite of the Army's complete preparations the government did not allow them to carry out a military operation. It should be mentioned that the RAB had arrived at the Pilkhana gate at about 10 am. They sought permission to move in but the Home Ministry did not permit them. Two Battalions of the Army's 46 Brigade had also reached by 11 am. But they were directed not to move in. This time a big `no' had come from the Chief of Army Staff, General Moin U Ahmed, it was alleged. Sheikh Hasina also did nothing even after receiving an SOS request from the D. G. of the BDR, Major General Shakil Ahmad.

 

Begum Khaleda Zia in fact echoed the common peoples' sentiment in the Sangsad on March 1st. Bangladesh Jamaat-e- Islami and other patriotic parties and organizations have also expressed the same opinion. Even the retired Army Chiefs and Generals including the government's coalition partner H. M. Ershad have publicly said that had the government allowed the Army to move in, the so-called mutiny would have come to an end within 20 minutes to half an hour. On the other hand the government `tried' to resolve the problem `politically' and `peacefully'- as if it was something like a general strike in a garment factory! This particular decision of the government had almost directly allowed the so-called mutineers to kill as many army officers as they wanted to kill. The killers also tortured the family members of the army officers, ransacked their houses and committed heinous offences like rape. Not only that, the government's delay in reaching at a `peaceful understanding' with the representatives of the killers had allowed them to escape safely. This has been authenticated by the officers who could save their lives. They have said that most of the killings had happened within the first hours in the morning, which could be avoided had the government allowed the Army to move in. On the other hand in the name of `peaceful' and `political' solution the government took controversial steps. The government's steps made the situation more complex and the killers took full advantage of it. Thus the government totally failed to protect the lives, properties and dignity of the army officers and their family members.

 

It has been correctly alleged that the Prime Minister did not consult the military experts. In stead she depended utterly on Gen. Moin, whose real role and intention have been questioned by many. Sheikh Hasina's decision to send Jahangir Kabir Nanak, a State Minister and Juba League President, as the Chief Negotiator has also caused serious debate. Nanak's personal acquaintances and friendship with DAD Tauhid, a leader of the so-called mutiny, have been genuinely discussed in the news papers and TV channels. Being the Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina allowed the leaders, Tauhid and 13 other armed killers to meet her, who were not properly dressed. They did not even wear their caps, which was a must. This and the subsequent events including the so-called dialogue had clearly indulged the killers. They were successful in buying necessary times from the Prime Minister and her negotiators to complete their mission. The argument of saving civilian casualties and properties could not gain any support, since the government failed to save the officers who mattered most during the event. A simple announcement could have vacated the adjacent areas and the Army too could have easily got in the BDR head quarters.

 

The experts and former senior army officers have confidently opined that the killers would not have even dared to confront the Army. They would have simply fled away and lives of many officers could be saved. It should be mentioned that the adjacent areas were astonishingly vacated on the second day by the local Awami League MP Barrister Fazle Noor Tapash, a nephew of Sheikh Hasina. But the motive was to create opportunity for the killers. The killers also utilized the opportunity and escaped safely.

 

On the other hand the government's reaction to various questions, allegations and explanations has been very sharp and aggressive. In her speech in the Sangsad on 1st March, the Prime Minister alleged that there was a `political instigation' in the events and the opposition parties were shouting because the `conspiracy' to topple her government could not succeed. Criticizing the Leader of the Opposition Sheikh Hasina said that the so-called mutiny was a `game' of those who have played with the army on various occasions in the past. It was a clear attack against the BNP and Begum Khaleda Zia. Sheikh Hasina also defended the government's decision of political solution and said that since it was not an occasion like her son's or daughter's matrimony, she did not consider it necessary to invite the opposition leaders for consultation or help.

 

The Prime Minister's speech in the Sangsad has come as another reason of doubt and disappointment. Such a harsh statement and attack on the opposition was not expected at this juncture. Her effort for searching any connection of the opposition parties in the events was seen as a tactic to divert the peoples' attention from the failure of the government. Her arguments too were not acceptable. The conscious section of the people had to remember the instance of the former Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Bajpayee during the Kargil war against Pakistan. Mr. Bajpayee had called up on the leaders of all parties and the leaders too responded positively. Even during the recent terrorist attack on the Taj Hotel in Mumbai, political leaders of India stood by the government's side and resolved the crisis jointly. In Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina too could have created such an instance, had she called up on the leaders of all parties. But she did not, and acted unilaterally.  

 

Another very significant point should be mentioned here. During the campaign involving the Islamist and nationalist parties of the country, it has been told that they organized the so-called mutiny to thwart and foil the process and effort to bring the so-called war criminals to justice. Even in her last speech on March 7th Sheikh Hasina has also repeated the same statement and alleged especially against the BNP and Jamaat-E-Islami. She said that the parties wanted to create a law and order situation, instigate a civil war and finally topple her government. It should be noted that Sheikh Hasina and her supporters have been using these points as `weapons' against the BNP and Jamaat.

 

Interestingly, the anti-Bangladesh forces of India are also using the same `weapons'. In fact the Indian media has launched a total war against the patriotic forces of the country. Dailies including the Anandabazar and the Telegraph have been playing the leading role since the beginning of the so-called mutiny. They too have `invented' the `hands' of the BNP and Jamaat leaders behind the killing. But the information they mentioned did not strengthen their claims. In stead it has appeared that in the course of events the Indian government had to do many things. For example, in the wake of the so-called mutiny none else but the Foreign Minister Pronab Mukherjee had received an `explicit request' from Dhaka and he instantly assured that India was `ready' to come to the `rescue' of Sheikh Hasina! India acted also very rapidly- the `Parachute Regiment' of the Indian Army was brought overnight to West Bengal from Agra and the Air Force was kept on `high alert' in Kolkata and Guahati of Assam. It should be mentioned that the `Parachute Regiment' had airdropped the Indian Army and fought against Pakistan in Bangladesh in December, 1971. According to the Telegraph, India uses such Regiments when neibouring countries are in turmoil.

 

These information regarding the Indian government's activities and preparations to come to `rescue' Sheikh Hasina have been seen as very significant. The Indian media has used their country's intelligence agencies as their sources of information. On the other hand, after the so-called mutiny was over and the killers escaped safely, `Guru' Nanak disclosed a very significant information which has bewildered every Bangladeshi. According to him not only lakhs but crores and crores of taka was distributed among the killers by the conspirators. A question was raised instantaneously- how did Nanak alone discover this information? The reason of the question was simple- it is possible only for him or her or them who had been involved in both the conspiracy and the murders.

 

Was it then a `slip of tongue' of `Guru' Nanak? The next question is also very important- why Nanak did not inform the government, especially his dear leader Sheikh Hasina? How could he come to know that the Prime Minister was going to make none but him the Chief Negotiator? Had Sohel Taj, State Minister for Home Affairs, to leave the country and go to America for creating the necessary `space' for Nanak? Sohel Taj has been staying in the United States since February 18th. This is really mysterious that the State Minister was not seen in a situation where his presence and actions were essential and where in stead of Nanak he should have played the role of the Chief Negotiator.

 

As time passed on the question about the real motives of the so-called mutineers has also come to the prominence. Because, besides killing, the so-called mutineers were seen spreading malice especially against the Army. The clear intention was to mobilize the people against the patriotic Armed Forces of the country. In fact they tried to weaken the nation and posed a serious threat to Bangladesh's independence and sovereignty. Hence the patriotic political parties have strongly opined that the so-called mutiny was a conspiracy to make Bangladesh a failed state. The effort in this regard has been going on for a very long time. A particular group of anti-Bangladesh forces have been trying to identify Bangladesh as a terrorist country. But they have failed so far. They wanted to use the land and water of the country for their expansionist purposes, but the patriotic political parties resisted.

 

After the consecutive failures they had decided to damage and gradually destroy the country's brave Armed Forces so that the people and the parties become compelled to fulfill their evil desires. The so-called BDR mutiny was a part of that anti-Bangladesh conspiracy and those foreign forces were involved in it, who are trying to identify Bangladesh as a failed state and a terrorist country. They wanted to destroy the BDR first to make the border a free zone. In the second phase they wanted to bring the Army in the streets. They thought that after seeing their officers' killing the Army would certainly react and topple the government. Had the Army really snatched the power the Indian Army would have come to `rescue' Sheikh Hasina and a war would have been inevitable. And as the superior power India would have won that war, it was assumed. The consequence can be easily imagined- Bangladesh would have become a vassal state of India.

 

But in spite of a well planned conspiracy India could not succeed. The brave and brilliant Army and the Armed Forces in general have foiled the conspiracy. This failure has made India and her friends and agents in Bangladesh mad and lunatic. They have even lost their common senses and started a serious campaign against the Islamist and nationalist forces. One can easily understand the reason of their propaganda. Because, the Islamist and nationalist forces have been struggling to keep the independence and sovereignty of Bangladesh unharmed. The arguments like thwarting the so-called war criminals' trial, creating a law and order situation, instigating a civil war and finally toppling the Awami League government were in fact `manufactured' to divert the common peoples' attention. Every Bangladeshi should understand that the so-called mutiny was intrinsically linked with the country's independence and sovereignty and some foreign forces were involved in it. Fingers have correctly been pointed at India. It is high time to ensure that such a killing and mutiny do not happen again.

 

The following special points should be considered carefully to understand the conspiracy and to identify the real killers:

 

1. Sheikh Hasina was supposed to move to the old `Gano Bhaban' where renovation works are going on. But in stead she had suddenly moved from `Sudha Sadan' of Dhanmondi near Pilkhana to `Jamuna' recently.

2. Sheikh Hasina had refused to attend the annual dinner of the BDR scheduled for that night.

3. Sohel Taj, State Minister for Home Affairs was sent to America on 18th of March. If he was present then `Guru' Nanak would not have got the chance of becoming the Chief Negotiator. Did Sohel Taj deny to become a part of the conspiracy?

4. What Sheikh Rehana has been doing in Bangladesh for such a long time? Is she performing the role of the Chief Coordinator? It should be mentioned that India depends much on her than Sheikh Hasina.

5. The Indian High Commissioner Pinak Ranjan Chakraborti was not seen in public after the incident took place. On the other hand usually he talks too much on every issue of Bangladesh. Does his silence indicate anything?

6. What Jainal Hazari is doing after returning from India? For, his return and the so-called mutiny have coincided mysteriously.

7. Sheikh Hasina did not respond positively even after receiving an SOS from Gen. Shakil. Her Military Adviser Maj. Gen. (Retd.) Tariq Siddiqui also ignored many requests. But why?

8. In spite of going to Pilkhana or staying in Cantonment, why did Gen. Moin spend hours after hours at `Jamuna'- the Prime Minister's office? He did neither respond to any requests from the endangered army officers nor did he give any effective advice to Sheikh Hasina. He even ordered the Army not to move in Pilkhana. Was he then allowing the killers to complete their mission?

9. The Home Minister Sahara Khatun visited Pilkhana several times. But she never enquired about the army officers and did not try for their release. Why?

10. Who had made the `explicit request' to Pronab Mukherjee to help and `rescue' Sheikh Hasina?

11. Why the Indian Army had taken all preparations for a war?

12. Now it is a known fact that many killers spoke in their own languages, not in Bangla. Who were they?

13. Nanak was a friend of Tauhid, Mirza Azam was a brother-in-law of Shaikh Abdur Rahman and Col. Guljar was responsible for the arrest and death of this JMB leader. And Col. Guljar is still missing. Were the appointments of Nanak and Azam as negotiators pre-planned?

14. How could the Indian media echo the statements and allegations of Sheikh Hasina? Was it a result of the same plan?

These are the most important points which will provide the correct answers regarding the so-called BDR mutiny and killing of army officers. A large section of people even believe that a `Sweet Revenge' of 1975 has been taken through the Pilkhana massacre. We do not want to comment on that. But it must be understood that neither the BNP nor the Jamaat had anything to do in the events. The points mentioned above should be sufficient to authenticate it.

 

** Ahmad Ashiq-ul Hamid is a Columnist and Researcher of political history of Bangladesh. He can be reached at < ahmadashiqulhamid@ yahoo.com>

 

http://daily-khabor.blogspot.com/2009/03/khaborcom-massacre-at-pilkhana.html




Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.

__._,_.___


[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

__,_._,___