RE: [ALOCHONA] Re:Propaganda against Moulana Abul Kalam Azad

Dear Alochok Ratri

Who are you who liberated Bangladesh? Awami League? The same Awami League that lost 40% of its support soon after Liberation?

Forget about Pakistan. Just as it is cheap and easy to decribe AL supporters as Indians it is also cheap and easy to describe BNP supporters as Pakistanis. This really needs to stop. Our standards of namecalling and political witticism are really poor!

There are millions of Bangldeshis who stand against Awami League and who are not paid up members of Jamaat. No party and no individual is the owner of our Liberation. Ordinary people paid as catastrophic a price as any freedom fighter, student leader or politician.

The reality is we had to keep Bismillah in our Constitution otherwise the Leader of the Miskin, from Miskinland, would be embarrassed when going to pay homage to the Wahabbi Sauds soon after election (it is a tradition in Miskinland).

A freedom fighter who opposes Awami League is as entitled to anything as a freedom fighter who supports Awami League. A citizen who opposes Awami League is as entitled to anything as a citizen who supports Awami League. Liberation and Bangladesh are not brands or franchises owned by anybody.

And, like everything in our history, the threats to freedom of speech and language existed but are exaggerated today. Well, it helps us to feel better because it turns us into bigger heroes than we really are.

As far as I have seen the opposition to Awami League hardly ever mentions Pakistan favourably. But Awami League mentions India favourably at breakfast, lunch and dinner.

I don't know if Moulana Abul Kalam Azad committed a crime in 71. And he doesn't appeal to my own understanding of Islam. But if it seems that he is being deliberately targetted ahead of all other criminals from 1971 - and 2009 - then I know for sure that the role of Islam in Bangladesh today will never be resolved by Awami League. Because people from Swat don't contact him - Bangladeshis from all over the world call him up. Or are they all terrorists?

I've heard him at Banani mosque on Fridays and seen what people think of him. Unless Banani is full of terrorists. He needs to be used - not abused. Our problems need clever engagement.

Alas. Lets lock him up.

And ensure that the Moulanas who vote for Awami League continue to be busy bringing cases against others for defaming Bongobondhu... Rather than taking Islam back from Jamaat.

Islam. Its not a bloody cat that you can chose to keep indoors or outdoors. It needs sophisticated, inclusive, modern and emapthetic engagement.

Call the fighters in Swat whatever you want. Of course they are rotten fools. But they sure ain't looking at Dhaka for anything meaningful... least of all men who can stand up to squabbling housewives.

Best regards

Ezajur Rahman
Kuwait

--- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, ratri@... wrote:
>
> For your information we are the ones who liberated this country
> Where you now have the freedom of speech ,and can speak in bangla ,maybe you should be in swad defending your brothers and brutally inforce lawlessness and beat your own mother and sister for trying to improve themselves by educating themselves
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wohid <bidrohee@...>
>
> Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 06:31:16
> To: <alochona@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [ALOCHONA] Murder and Rape by Bachchu Rajakar aka Moulana Abul Kalam Azad
>
>
> Well, please go to the court and let him face the justice if he is what you accuse him of. However, if you have rudimentary sense of decency and minimum respect to justice, constitutionality and human rights, you should remind yourself that a person should be presumed to be innocent unless and until proven and convicted guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction following due course of law. Who are you the hell to monger hatred and lies against him who is not even charged yet in any court of law???? That is the real character of an ultra-reactionist, ultra-secularist, neo-BAKSAlite extremist who are good for nothing for the nation but exclusively for their extremism in barbaric behavior. Again, you are kindly requested to go to a court with all your evidence rather than barking here. Best regards. W
>
> ________________________________
> From: "ratri@..." <ratri@...>
> To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 1:43:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [ALOCHONA] Murder and Rape by Bachchu Rajakar aka Moulana Abul Kalam Azad
>
>
>
>
>
> Why are you so headstrong defending this vile of a person,moulana or no moulana ,if he os found guilty he should be hanged for the crime against humanity,may be defending the the rapist and murderer is your passion because of your ignorance and your indoctrination in a hateful party
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
> ________________________________
> From: Cyrus
> Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 14:11:14 -0700 (PDT)
> To: <alochona@yahoogroup s.com>
> Subject: Re: [ALOCHONA] Murder and Rape by Bachchu Rajakar aka Moulana Abul Kalam Azad
>
> If Bacchu Rajakar, one of the most vile individual that I had ever met is a "Islamic Scholar", then I should win a Nobel prize in every subject. You should really think about what is "Islamic" and who is a "scholar". "Curse on him"? What are you? the village priest or the holy pope? Why not demand an investigation to unearth the truth?
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Wohid <bidrohee@yahoo. com>
> To: alochona@yahoogroup s.com
> Sent: Friday, May 8, 2009 7:15:31 PM
> Subject: [ALOCHONA] Murder and Rape by Bachchu Rajakar aka Moulana Abul Kalam Azad
>
>
> Curse on him if he really did those that you accuse him with. Million times curse on you if he in fact commit those but you're just putting all your politically vengiant lies on him. If that's the case, be fearful of a day when you will be directly accountable before Allah to prove what you say. We know for sure why you hate Islamic scholars. Regards. Wohid
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: musasarkar <m_musa92870@ yahoo.com>
> To: alochona@yahoogroup s.com
> Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2009 6:57:09 PM
> Subject: [ALOCHONA] Re: Murder and Rape by Bachchu Rajakar aka Moulana Abul Kalam Azad
>
>
> Of course he just killed and raped some people in 1971 to please his master Pakistani Army.  But that doesn't make him guilty.  Furthermore, committing rapes and murders might have been prerequisites to enroll into moulana program in the Jamaati madrassah that he attended (I am really not sure whether he attended any).
>
> --- In alochona@yahoogroup s.com, Mohammed Ramjan <mramjan@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > All are false propoganda against Maulana
> >
> >
> >
> > To: alochona@yahoogroup s.com
> > From: m_musa92870@ ...
> > Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:49:06 +0000
> > Subject: [ALOCHONA] Murder and Rape by Bachchu Rajakar aka Moulana Abul Kalam Azad
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Source: http://www.shamokal .com/archive. . details.php? nd=2009-04- 24&nid=110109
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >__________________________________________________________
> > Hotmail® goes with you.
> > http://windowslive. com/Tutorial/ Hotmail/Mobile? ocid=TXT_ TAGLM_WL_ HM_Tutorial_ Mobile1_052009
> >
>

__._,_.___

[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: [bangla-vision] International Crimes (Tribunal) Act Remained Void Ab Initio

yes, your thinking is right. But i think this 'International Crimes (Tribunal) Act -1973' has already been null and void by simla agreement which was legimate by International Court of Justice by its correspondance letter on 14 December 1973-   'On completion of repatriation of Pakistani prisoners of war and civilian internees in India, Bengalis in Pakistan and Pakistanis in Bangla Desh referred to in clause (v) above, or earlier if they so agree, Bangla Desh, India and Pakistan will discuss and settle the question of 195 prisoners of war. Bangla Desh has made it clear that il can participate in such a meetingonly on the basisof sovereign equality . . ."   and then the tri-partite simla agrement was signed to remoe the accuisition against war criminals for friendly simbol.   pls see the web of International Court of Justice.   Kazi Mohammad Ismail --- On Thu, 5/14/09, Isha Khan <bd_mailer@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Isha Khan <bd_mailer@yahoo.com> Subject: [bangla-vision] International Crimes (Tribunal) Act Remained Void Ab Initio To: "Dhaka Mails" <dhakamails@yahoogroups.com> Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 5:05 PM International Crimes (Tribunal) Act Remained Void Ab Initio –Dr. M.T. Hussain   There is a group claiming that trial of the 1971 'war crimes' could be done by the International Crimes (Tribunal ) Act, 1973 that followed four days after the First Amendment of the Constitution made on the 15th July 1973 and also based on that amendment. I am afraid, not. First, it is a basic principle of legal jurisprudence that no law can be retrospectively effective. In this case the incidents of 1971 can have no scope to have cognizance by the act passed after about two years in mid 1973. Second, they are putting in idea of the Cambodian war crimes trial having some backing from the UN that started on the 18th February 2009 of one Khmer Rouge prison commandant of Tuel Sleng, Kaing Guek Eav nick named Duch, who used to claim for execution order on behalf of the top leader Polpot. The distinct and very much crucial difference is that Cambodia remained the same and one country before and after the human rights violations said to have had perpetrated in late 1970s. That the case of Cambodia was only for changing the government or regime change from the toppled Khmer Rouge whose top administrative leader Polpot (already died) had been the key person to order for and execution of victims.   The regime change had nothing to do so far as the change of entity of Cambodia was concerned, much less any way was for creation of a different independent country as it happened in case of Bangladesh through secession from the sovereign and independent State of Pakistan as that lawfully stayed until the 16th December1971. Had the country remained one Pakistan as before 1971 and Bangladesh would not have emerged as a different and independent country after December 1971 and that would remain so until now, the successive government or changed regime could put the perpetrators of 1971 to trial as is being done in Cambodia remaining the same country. Third, the dismemberment of the sovereign and independent State of Pakistan in 1971 through aggression of Indian armed forces actively aided by the Bangladesh Freedom Fighters did resort to no less in similar crimes of human rights violation as the alleged anti-Bangladesh lot did. Furthermore, the pro-Bangladeshi groups had perpetrated the crimes against humanity not only during the period but also even after the formal war ended on the 16th December 1971. These pro-Bangladeshi lots had been given indemnity by the post 1972 Bangladesh government.   In the same token of indemnity, the top leader announced in public that he forgave all of the 195 listed war criminals, as well, and so the Pakistani army's listed 195 were permitted to go without facing any trial whatsoever and so they gracefully went to their own country Pakistan (West ). There was at that time none, not a single person other than those 195 had been listed for war crimes. The issue of war crime was picked up later here in Bangladesh only recently despite the fact that the 1973 tribunal was enacted in mid July, 1973, and curiously since then none had been indicted under the provision of the tribunal, mainly because the 1973 Special Tribunal Act had been void ab initio for being in essence grossly violating the basic human rights, apart from many other internal and external issues of serious concern for the then government that forced them not to go for any trial under the Act, and that still now exists for which the original 195 are in all likely would remain untouched and outside the proposed trial to take on in 2009 in Dhaka. The small fries here would thus be made escape goats while the big fries would remain untouched that in itself would be nothing but abuse of justice, if not miscarriage of justice Fourth, so far as the constitution of the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act was concerned, it violated basic fundamental rights of citizens provided in the Bangladesh Constitution so much so that even the right of appeal in the Supreme Court for fair trial and justice had been denied that clearly went against basic human rights the UN is committed to uphold. That is why the Bangladesh retired Chief Justice Habibur Rahman in a meeting held on the 23 March 2008 in Dhaka stated in unambiguous term that no fair trial would be feasible under the Act unless it would be amended in consultation with neutral international jurists. Fifth, should anyone now pick up the issue of 1971 in terms of de jure legitimacy of Bangladesh in 2009, it should be quite logical to put the question open that those who acted with full knowledge for dismemberment of Pakistan having no mandate of the people in the question of secession might be a valid point to turn the table upside down. In fact, that fear of the post 1972 Bangladesh charismatic leader rightly intended to finish up the sad business saying 'let's forgive and forget'.

__._,_.___

[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

__,_._,___

How truthful is ZJAfreen, in saying, "If Indira's doctrine didn't attack bangldesh in the name of Bangladeshi freedom, three millions people would not have been killed as well."?
 
How many people died in Bangladesh during the brief Indo-Pak war in December of 1971? How many people Pakinstani military and their collaborators/cohorts in Bangladesh like Jamat, Nezam, PDP, Shanti-Bahini, Rajakar, Albadar, Alshams, etc. killed and raped?
 
Please provide the accurate and authentic accounts of these violent acts during 1971, before asking any derogatory questions to someone, and bullying the internet traffic.
 
Is the freedom of Bangladesh has anything wrong for Bangladeshis? Of course, to the Pakistanis, it may be terrible. Because, the creation of an independent Bangladesh broke Pakistan. So, they can never be happy about it. We understand it. But if the Pakistanis would understand their faults and would be ashamed of their wrong doing, we could normalize our relations with them to a certain extent. But They are not at it. They rather are trying all their best to demolish Bangladesh, by any means, at any cost.
 
 So, What options Bangladeshis have other then staying away from them and remaining vigilant against their subversive activities? 
 
If you are a Pakistani, why don't you pass your opinions to them in their forums? This is a Bangladeshi forum. If you are a Bangladeshi, siding with the Pakistanis, Bangladesh has the right to face you.
 
The current Jamaat and all allied organizations (open and underground) in collaboration with the ISI and other Pakistani groups, financed by the fanatic middle-easterners are trying their best to decimate the independence of Bangladesh. All patriotic Bangladeshis are quite aware of it.

 

---

To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
From: zjafreen@yahoo.com
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 07:35:44 +0000
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Re: Fifth Amendment!

>>He should have wiped out all those Pakistan Lovers, Razaakars, AlBadars, AlShams, Jammat-e-Islami and every Chinese, Saudi and American agent.<<

If Davdas would have had included Indian-lovers in his list of
wiped-out agenda, then I think none but Mujib and Davdas would have had left over to rule themselves only. Wouldn't it? Think about it?

But again why should Indain-lovers, RAW agents and Mossad agents have extended life-line, Mr. Davdas? Indira Ghandhi said something like "hajar salo ka badla leh liya" by killing 3 millions of Bangladeshi people in the name of "Bangladeshi freedom". Why does Devdas babu's blood boiling again? Does he require more human blood to grow crops as was practiced by the mammons?

To euphemize war all you just have to do is to invent another song "ekti phol ke bachabo bole jhudho kori" but don't care if we kill 3 millions weed. That would a nice song Mr. Devdas, wouldn't it?

BTW Why did Bangladeshi people decided to join with Pakistan during seperation in 1947? perhaps Pakistan might have had bribed Moulana Vashani, Abul Kalam Azad and Sher-i-Bangla? I don't know but do you know why devdas babu?

Instead of wiping out 95 percent bangladeshi people as suggested by devdas, simple solution might be devdas kind should cross the boder and India's BSF will gladly wipe em out gradually ... no need gas chambers.

if bush's doctrine didnt attack iraq in the name of "Iraqi freedom" no body would have been killed in iraq. Similary, If Indira's doctrine didn't attack bangldesh in the name of "Bangladeshi freedom", three millions people would not have been killed as well.

Do we need to kill 3 millions to change a regime in the name of freedom? I think not. It is unfortunate that we bangladeshis are incapable of living with indians or pakistanis or among ourself. Social scientists should look into this and come up with an agenda to save all these humanity before devdas's killing aganda should materialized and called it collateral demage not innocent civilians.

--- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, SAIF Davdas <islam1234@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Infamous, Illegal, Unfortunate, and Extra-Constitutional 5th Amendment to the Bangladesh Constitution is a Big Fat Lie—the Bangladeshi's must live with---for the rest of their lives. You see, we are comfortable with our Lies. The Razaakars will justify 5th Amendment because they loved the killing of Bongobondhoo. Sanctity of the Constitution is not important---personal hatred is more important. We lie in the name of God. We see nothing wrong in selling Alcohol with Bismillah. Once in power, Bongobondhoo made the biggest blunder of his life that ultimately destroyed him and his beloved Bangladesh. Khomini, borrowing a page from Lenin and Mao, unleashed cruelty, barbarity, inhumanity and terror on the counter-revolutionary forces in Iran. He took on powerful Army, Airforce, Savak, the Leftists, the Communists and every other counter revolutionary movement and obliterated them from the face of the earth. He killed millions to save his nation. Bongobondhoo should have done exactly what Khomeni, Lenin and Mao had done to preserve the republic. He should have wiped out all those Pakistan Lovers, Razaakars, AlBadars, AlShams, Jammat-e-Islami and every Chinese, Saudi and American agent. Like Abraham Lincon---he should have pushed the country towards Civil War. Due to Bongobondhoo's foolishness---The Association of Pakistan Lovers have been empowered on the soil of Bangladesh. They openly justify the killing of the Greatest Bengali ever. Their ultimate aim is to see Bangladesh fail, so that they can boast on Diganta Channel proudly—See we told you Mujib was an Indian agent and he destroyed `our' beloved Pakistan.
>
> SaifDevdas
> islam1234@...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To: dhakamails@yahoogroups.com
> From: bd_mailer@...
> Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 16:55:45 -0700
> Subject: *~history**Islam~*** Fifth Amendment Imbroglio: Bangladesh in Huge Ransom
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Fifth Amendment Imbroglio: Bangladesh in Huge Ransom
> M.T. Hussain
>
>
> SC Full Bench
> The declaration by the High Court in 2005 of the 5th Amendment as illegal and then filed leave to appeal right then by the previous government that was withdrawn by this AL Government on the 3rd May 2009 have obviously put Bangladesh into huge ransom. Fortunately, some responsible citizens of the country have rightly stood to become a party to the appeal that has been granted on the 4th May 2009 by the Supreme Court 7 member full bench, and allowed them to file appeal in one month's time.
> Continuity at stake
> The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution made on the 6th April 1979 was not only historic but also extremely crucial as life and death issue for constitutional continuity of Bangladesh. One must ask oneself how could any responsible and patriotic person much less responsible government with any bit of concern for the country's lawful continuity abandon the appeal petition in 2009 earlier made in 2005 to the supreme court in the case and pending since then.
> Naïve's exercise
> I am neither a professional lawyer nor a political party anybody but a humble senior citizen retired from formal job nearly 15 years ago felt extremely stunned at the news of the withdrawal of the appeal on the 3rd May evening by the present government of Bangladesh that I may like to explain in some detail below.
> 13 minutes drama
> The Fifth Amendment in serial order followed the Fourth Amendment of the Bangladesh Constitution made on the 25th January 1975. Ironically the Fourth Amendment though made in the Bangladesh Parliament had been notoriously not only ill conceived but also followed evil process so far as parliamentary norms were concerned. It had been a 13 minutes business session wherein the Leader of the House alone had his edict announced and passed without having gone through due process of debate and all that needed. Based on that violation of norms the amendment lacked normal legality of parliamentary democratic process.
> Dictator
> Why was that so? Why was the hide and seek with democracy and national future? The reason was simple. The leader wished to become lone dictator for life having there none in opposition to him, much less any opposition party in the national Parliament. He banned all political parties and then imposed instead the lone party of his own Awami League versioned anew as the BAKSAL or Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League, as if by changing thus the nomenclature he brought in all into the party fold! The multi-party nature of the State and the Constitution abruptly changed by the leader in thirteen minutes in such haste that he allowed none to speak in the floor against the undemocratic romantic venture.
>
> Questionable
> How much was the leader honest and sincere for overall welfare of the people was not above question for his lieutenants and cadres had been engaged in fortune seeking so much unkindly that they had inflicted famine of their own making in the country in 1974 that brought in unnatural deaths to 27,000 vulnerable men, women and children due to hunger according to government estimate and lakhs according to other estimates. The death scenes in even the city of Dhaka at the nose of the government were not only tragic but also so menacing that hundreds of dead bodies had been picked up from the streets day in and day out by voluntary organizations like Anjumne Mafidul Islam, etc. for burial.
> Hoodlums and killers
> The repression on the political opposition whoever had been in some action program for the welfare of the country was sized up through various private armed hoodlums including one under the leader's eldest son Kamal, another under his nephew Moni, still another under his most favorite and S.P. of Dhaka Mahboob and the unconstitutional Para military force Rakhi Bahini unleashed indiscriminately on the imaginary political opponents. That Rakhhi Bahini, in fact, had been raised under the Indian R&AW and Indian Army General Ovan as a specially trained and armed force in parallel with the regular armed forces only for protection of the leader and answerable to the lone top leader.
> Apart from making the legislative and executive taken under the sole control of the leader, the judiciary had also been made totally subservient so much so that even the Supreme Court judges had been made removable at the top leader's mercy.
>
> Undignified image
> At the international level Bangladesh had no dignified image. Countries like China, Saudi Arabia, etc had not even in over three and a half years of existence recognized Bangladesh as an independent country for its subservience to India and the then Soviet Union. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution that turned the country into one party dictatorial rule made it more friendless, particularly, in the West.
> National Relief
> Then came the national relief from repression in mid August 1975. The leader was toppled in a successful military coup profusely welcomed by the people at home and abroad. The people had a great sigh of relief so much so that none lamented the fall of the leader. Though counter coups had been tried but all failed and pro 15th August coup putsch remained in full hold. The notorious lone party BAKSAL had been declared void, medias freed, declarations one after another for freedom and democracy issued, multi-party general elections held, and ultimately the Fifth Amendment passed in the newly elected Parliament on the 6th April 1979.
>
> Pluralism
> The Fifth Amendment had been clearly featured not only by provisions for pluralism and multi-party democracy but also changing the constitutional principles. The main changes included three issues; left off Bengali nationalism and in place adopted the logical Bangladeshi nationalism, abandoned socialism to Islamic social justice, and replaced secularism to Faith and Absolute Trust in the Almighty Allah. These changes had full consent and support of the people measured not only in the election results but also as they kept in tune with the general aspirations of the people in the past historical process. All these three issues incorporated in the 1972 Constitution had no reflection of the common aspirations of the people, much less majority demands, but were well known to be imposed by Delhi as they wished to make through the armed intervention in the 1971 war.
> Three decades
> Since then over the last three decades, the country has moved ahead by the underpinning strength of the Fifth Amendment that nothing came up posing any challenge. How come that some evil omen in 2005 came up with a case against the Amendment. Amazingly the bench judge of the High Court who declared the 5th Amendment illegal had already proved himself in another case as some one vindictive and against the victorious coup of August 1975.
>
> Successful coup's indemnity
> The successful coup of the 15th August 1975 by any account was not a simple murder case but victorious one that by itself had the indemnity of any bloodletting as is provided in law. There is no denying the fact that successful coup is a legal mode for political power ascendance. That was what happened following the August coup, first making Khondoker Moustaque the President of the Republic by the coup heroes on its own right and power of the victorious coup itself on the very day. Then followed the transfer of power from Moustaque to Justice Sayem in about three months (83 days) and then on to General Ziaur Rahman on the 29th November (1975) -all transfers of State power as a follow up of the lawful 15th August coup. These changes had come about one after another in sequences of continuity based on the lawful change of the 15th August 1975. In addition, Ziaur Rahman had the overwhelming `yes' vote in the referendum made in 1977 for the President of Bangladesh. The Fifth Amendment was not made arbitrarily but in the duly elected Parliament in 1979 as a continuity of the national events and changes made through participatory democratic process all based on the successful coup of August 1975 that was given nod and due allegiance for further legitimacy by all concerned at home and abroad.
> Silly
> It was absolutely silly that the challenge of the Fifth Amendment was made in the court after 30 years. It was very stunning and possibly very injurious for the nation that the sort of judgment was made in the case for it implied so many vicious syndromes to obviously resurface before the nation and the country.
> Vacuum
> First, in the vacuum created by the judgment, shall the country go back to the constitutional position of the 4th Amendment as it was on the 25th January of 1975? Could now any party be in existence except the BAKSAL? How about even the Awami League and its chief now holding the position of the P..M. as the elected leader of the house and of the Awami League and not of the BAKSAL? How about the validity and legality of all administrative actions taken after the 15th August 1975 for about 35 years now? Could the 2009 parliament be legal or made legal and in what way? Could Sheikh Mujib's dead body dug out of the grave and placed as the President of the BAKSAL and of Bangladesh Republic as of today in 2009? Or else, could his daughter and now the P.M. be given legitimacy in power due to her being the legitimate inheritance? I am sure none could make any satisfactory reply to these questions today.
> The Fifth Amendment's fate
> It is a matter of simple common sense that even if the Fifth Amendment is to be done away with, one has to follow steps based on the same Amendment for the time being. That is, the present parliament as the continuity of the Fifth Amendment has to initiate a bill in the due process and then get that passed in the Parliament for scrapping not the Fifth Amendment proper but issues possibly one by one that constituted the Fifth Amendment.
> Not easy
> Such scrapping off would entail naturally the three issues involving the principles of the Constitution, and certainly the BISMILLAH at the top of the Constitution. Though this Muslim code words are not part of the Constitution, and its scrapping off involves no amendment process as such, but the task may not be that easy as some might have thought. The Muslims constituting 90% of the population emotionally attached to the code words BISMILLAH may play some havoc in case the issue is surfaced. Attempts to change the other three of the principles would face the same situation, I am afraid. Why should any government of Bangladesh go for the venture at all? Are these changes anyway needed to uplift the well being of the people of Bangladesh? I would suppose, not at all.
> Underlying fallacies and spirit
> On the contrary, I would argue that these principles if pursued in spirit, not in letters alone, may bring in better welfare in smoother way for in such case of development process people would have motivation for spiritual end. In fact, the Prophet of Islam induced the followers with this spiritual incentive to work and to do well to others. Abandoning spiritually inspired Islamic fraternity and going back for Bengali secular approach to society is no way worth for wholesome development in Muslim dominated Bangladesh society. People of Bangladesh are everywhere better known as Bangladeshi and not as Bengali, not even in passports issued by the Government. The so-called principle of secularism has even failed in the West so far as family solidarity and social cohesion for comprehensive peace are concerned. So far as the issue of socialism put up in the 1972 Constitution is concerned, that is almost a matter of bygone days except dictatorial Cuba and North Korea that can hardly be a model for development for the 21st century Bangladesh pursuing pluralism and multi-party democracy, on the one hand, and free market open policies appreciably with efficiency for the last three decades, on the other.
>
> Inherent good
> It is true that the spirit of the Fifth Amendment had hardly been implemented in Bangladesh but the spirit is inherent there and if stayed they might well be taken recourse to in future for social uplift and for increased productivity through materialization of what some authority rightly calls spiritual incentive.
> Loss and gain
> Going secular would no doubt please our big neighbor and some Western powers but that may not equally please our brothers in faith in many countries. The loss and gain have thus to be measured with care and for accuracy.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Hotmail® goes with you.
> http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Mobile1_052009
>

---

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

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Background On Nepal's Revolution

Background On Nepal's Revolution   By Walter Smolarek Countercurrents.org Fiery speeches about revolution and socialism ring across factories, fields, and the slums. A new, radically left-wing government takes power and attempts to fundamentally change the country. Opposing them in this nation of thirty million are the landowners and capitalists, while imperial powers play a hand in a secessionist movement. This isn't Venezuela; in fact it's thousands of miles from Latin America. A revolution has rocked the former Hindu kingdom of Nepal, and it now faces one of its greatest challenges as the army blatantly disregards the constitution and massive demonstrations are held daily. While the situation in Nepal may have just now caught the attention of the wider progressive community, it's important to go back and understand the roots of the movement against both autocracy and capitalism, twin agents of exploitation.   History The revolutionary process can be traced back to 1990. It was then that the first People's Movement, commonly referred to in Nepali as the Jana Andolan, was launched. The movement was led by both the Nepali Congress (an organization that will be dealt with further on) and the United Left Front (which was in many ways a precursor to the Communist Party of Nepal Unified Marxist-Leninist, another group that will be analyzed later). Thanks to massive popular mobilizations, it partially succeeded by bringing about the creation of a constitutional monarchy as opposed to the previous absolutist system. However, this type of government proved to be a disappointment, and parliamentarianism, as it always has done, marginalized the demands of the people. The anti-feudal elites stopped fighting after the enactment of the new constitution, but the poor majority, living in one of the most impoverished nations in the world, did not. In 1992, there was a wave of strikes and protests led by a coalition of communist parties that was brutally repressed. This made it clear to some that the social relations that persisted in Nepal could only be changed by force of arms.   In 1996, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), led by the charismatic Chairman Prachanda, launched what became known to their supporters as the People's War. Rallying the peasantry around their revolutionary message, the war intensified at the turn of the century, and the United States began giving military aid to the repressive government. It was under these conditions that the Royal Massacre of 2001 (in which the ruling King Birendra was killed by his son) took place, which led to the ascension of Gyanendra to the thrown. To repress the Maoists, he took full control of the state and reestablished the absolutism that prevailed before the 1990 People's Movement..   This move alienated the Nepalese bourgeoisie, who found themselves no longer allied with, but in opposition to the ruling feudal class. As the CPN (M)'s People's Liberation Army captured more and more of the countryside, the revolutionary movement climaxed in 2006 with the Peoples Movement II, which definitively overthrew the monarchy. A provisional government took its place, led by the Seven Party Alliance, which consisted of various social democratic and reform-communist parties. The Seven Party Alliance was allied with the Maoists, who suspended the People's War and prepared to contest the election for the Constituent Assembly, a body that would be charged with drafting the nation's constitution.   Postponed twice, the election was finally held on April 10th, 2008. Recognized as free and fair by international observes like the Carter Center (1), the results revealed an overwhelming leftist victory (2). Combined, the various communist parties won a little less than 60% of the vote, with the CPN (Maoist) itself winning 38% of the seats, becoming, by far, the most popular political force in the nation. It soon assembled a government along with the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) and the Madhesi People's Rights Forum (MJF), with Prachanda as the Prime Minister.   The Political Forces Overall, the political landscape is firmly orientated to the left, but in many cases only rhetorically. There are three significant parties/ movements that can hinder or further the creation of a New Nepal.   With tremendous support from the impoverished peasantry, the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), which added "Unified" to its name after its merger with the Communist Party of Nepal (Unity Centre-Masal), is in (not unchallenged) command of the revolution. They have won the support of such a significant portion of the population due to their ability to take real steps towards radical, systemic change in Nepalese society. They advocate the redistribution of land, equal rights for women, a decent minimum wage, and a myriad of other pro-people stances. They have the courage to uphold these positions because, although they aren't flawless, the Maoists are loyal to the working people of Nepal, in whom they seek to vest supreme political power. In constant opposition to fundamental change, the Nepali Congress is, in word, a social democratic party affiliated with the "Socialist" International. In deed, however, the party is situated to the right and strongly supportive of capitalism. Sometimes in alliance and other times in antagonism with the monarchy, the NC has tried to advance Nepal to bourgeois democracy, and no further.   In lukewarm support of the UCPN (M) until very recently, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) is, despite its revolutionary-sounding name, a largely Eurocommunist outfit. They had supported the revolutionary government but dragged their feet when it came to transferring political and economic power to the people.   Finally, a complex situation is found in the Terai region of Nepal, home to the Madhesi ethnic group (although several other ethnicities reside there). The two major political parties representing the Madhesi people are the Tarai-Madhesh Loktantrik Party (TMLP) and the MJF. The TMLP opposes the Maoists, but the MJF, led by former Maoist Upendra Yadav, seems to have a progressive outlook. The demands of the Madhesi people for sovereignty (to one degree or another) have a good deal of merit, but only after the capitalists, who divide-and-rule the people, are marginalized can the question of nationalities be adequately addressed and a just solution materialize.   Solidarity Forever As the people of Nepal continue to fight against oppression and for democracy and socialism, it is absolutely essential that we reciprocate with solidarity. Their revolution is one of the least known despite being one of the most harrowing and inspiring. It is essential that all people who believe that more just and democratic world is possible educate and inform their friends and comrades of the struggle for New Nepal and participate in solidarity demonstrations so that the rebellious masses of this Himalayan nation can go forward knowing that they have the support of progressive people the world over.   Notes (1)http://www.cartercenter.org/news/features/p/ elections/nepal/political_beginning_apr10.html (2) http://www.election.gov.np/reports/CAResults/reportBody.php   Walter Smolarek is a student from Pennsylvania that supports the movement for Socialism in the 21st Century. He encourages you to send him your comments and questions at  wsmolarek@hotmail.com

__._,_.___

[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] Army inquiry court finds no militant, political link

BDR REBELLION Army inquiry court finds no militant, political link   The court of inquiry formed by the army found no link of militancy and politics to the February 25-26 soldiers' rebellion at the Bangladesh Rifles headquarters.    The court of inquiry in its report submitted to the army chief, General Moeen U Ahmed on May 10, identified a dozen reasons, including soldiers' grievances and misunderstanding, for the rebellion.    The summary of the report, a copy of which New Age obtained on Thursday, however, said no link of any civilian and political personalities to the rebellion could be found because of limitations in collecting evidence, verifying obtained information and confirming information sources.    The government inquiry committee, formed to investigate the rebellion is, however, yet to submit its report. The report is ready and is likely to be submitted on Sunday, said sources in the home ministry.    A copy of the report of the army's court of inquiry will also be submitted soon to the prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, who is also the defence minister.    Reasons behind the rebellion as identified in the report includes wrong impression about the facilities of the army, lack of transparency in establishing and running BDR shops, delay in payment of duty allowances for the 2008 national elections, misunderstanding about lease and contracts of different works in the BDR headquarters, admission to schools in the headquarters and wrong impression about the BDR's director general Shakil Ahmed, his wife Nazneen Shakil and Dhaka sector commander Mujubul Haque's alleged involvement in the irregularities, and delay made by the home and finance ministries in resolving BDR problems.    The report identified the operation 'dal bhat' as a major reason for the rebellion. It said punishment of some BDR soldiers for irregularities in the programme, getting blank or several forms signed by the soldiers for administrative requirement although they were entitled to get allowances for the programme, denial of their leaves and over-work had caused resentment among the soldiers.    Curbing financial irregularities of the BDR soldiers by their officers from the army also instigated their resentment, the report said.    As the army officers deputed to the BDR did not take any initiatives to correct the wrong impressions created among the soldiers about the officers, some of the soldiers could obtain support of others for the rebellion by distributing leaflets on February 21, the report observed.    It also said undue interference in the administration by the families, friends and staff of some officers also caused resentment among the soldiers.    The report said no evidence, information, documentary evidence and forecast of direct or indirect link of any local or external militant organisation to the rebellion could yet be found.    As for any political links to the rebellion, it said some soldiers had contacted some civil personalities and political leaders before the national elections in 2008 to press home their demands violating the rules and regulations.    It is presumable that certain civil and political personalities were naturally aggrieved by the army's role in aid of the civil administration during the immediate-past government.    As some soldiers contacted civil and political personalities hoping to have their commitment to realising their demands, the civilian and political personalities could have used the soldiers as a weapon to take revenge.    The report said local leader Torab Ali, also a former subehdar, his son Liton and former nayeb subehdar Kanchan's son Zakir were very much involved with the rebellion. As Liton is an illegal arms dealer, he could have helped the rebels to get arms of the Bangladesh Rifles.    The report recommended a high-level inquiry by the intelligence agencies to look into the link of any other organisations, institutions and personalities to the rebellion.    It observed the intelligence agencies had completely failed to inform the authorities of the meetings of the soldiers with certain civilian and political personalities.    As the members of the BDR intelligence agency, Rifles Security Unit, were directly involved with the rebellion, they did not inform their authorities of the rebellion.    On political negotiations, the report praised the home affairs minister, Sahara Khatun, state minister for LGRD and cooperatives Jahangir Kabir Nanak and other members of the teams for their highly courageous move to quell the rebellion.    It, however, observed they had failed to take any timely measure for lack of their experience in quelling such rebellions and military matters.    The report observed the scope for quelling the rebels before they could get organised could not be used as 350 Rapid Action Battalion members, who reached the three gates of the headquarters by 10:10am on February 25, were not allowed by their headquarters to conduct operations.    Although the rebellion broke out at 9:30am, the rebels were not organised and they did not set up heavy weapons at the gates of the headquarters until 11:00am.    Regarding the activities of the army, the report said the army personnel could not be deployed in time as they could not carry out any reconnaissance because of time constraint and necessary military weapons (armoured personnel carriers and tanks) were not readied in the Dhaka cantonment.    The report, moreover, added the 46 Brigade could not play its role as the political personalities sought time to resolve the matter through negotiations.    Although the army personnel were deployed around the BDR headquarters at 10:50am on February 25, they were ordered to go out of sight from the headquarters and the rebels got time to get organised.    At 12:45pm on February 26, in the presence of army, air force and battalion personnel in the army headquarters, a plan was chalked up for military operation against the rebels. An H-hour, when a military operation begins, was set at 4:00pm in accordance with directives issued by the army chief's office at 1:30pm.    As the home minister and her team were holding a meeting with the rebels in the BDR headquarters, the H-hour was changed repeatedly and finally the operation was cancelled at 5:50pm.    According to the report, a team of 30 to 35 soldiers, in several groups, killed the officers in the Durbar Hall and the residence of the director general. Killing elsewhere was carried out later. The plan for the killing was initially limited to a few soldiers.    Physical torture on the wives of the officers was planned and the list of the wives to be tortured had also been prepared before the rebellion broke out, the report said.    The report observed immediately after the national elections, politicians, intellectuals and other personalities, in the parliament and television talk-shows, started character assassination of army officers, evaluating their activities of the preceding two years and it instigated the rebellion.    The Inter Service Public Relations, public relations office of the army, failed to play any effective role in projecting correct information vis-à-vis the propaganda made by BDR soldiers who were giving wrong information, the report observed.    It said 74 people — 57 army officers, 9 soldiers and 8 civilians — were killed in the rebellion.    The report recommended exemplary punishment of the perpetrators under the Army Act and expeditious trial of the civilians, who might be found involved with the rebellion.    It also recommended formation of a high-level court of inquiry to investigate the involvement of civilian personalities and institutions with the rebellion observing that the court of inquiry could not obtain information on them because of its limitations.    It recommended that the name of the Bangladesh Rifles should be reorganised, by changing its name, uniform and infrastructure.   http://www.newagebd.com/2009/may/15/front.html

__._,_.___

[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] Counter-offensive not allowed: Army officers were killed when peace process was on, negotiators lacked professionalism

Counter-offensive not allowed: Army officers were killed when peace process was on, negotiators lacked professionalism The army led court of enquiry identified several reasons for the carnage at the Peelkhana BDR headquarters on February 25 and 26, the foremost being the deep resentment of BDR jawans against the " Dal Bhat operation" launched during the last caretaker government. More facilities for the army personnel compared with BDR jawans, non-payment of bills of the BDR jawans for duties in connection with the national elections and stoppage of illegal income of the BDR men have been cited as some of the major factors that incited them to stage the mutiny, according to a report submitted to the chief of army staff General Gen Moeen U Ahmed by the court of enquiry on May 11. The 20-member court of enquiry was headed by Lt.Gen. Md. Jahangir Alam Chowdury. The report said that the BDR jawans used to work as sellers of fish and grocers in the Operation Dal Bhat and this hurt their dignity. Many of the jawans had to suffer punishment for this operation. Their signature on blank forms for making payment also created doubts in their minds and many harboured the belief that fund for the operation has been misappropriated, the report was stated to have mentioned. The court of enquiry, however, found no proof of the involvement of militants in the BDR mutiny. The report also blamed the intelligence agencies for their failure to forestall the mutiny by taking prompt action in advance. Despite holding meeting with the political leaders on their demands by some BDR men, the intelligence agencies were dark about it, the report added. Referring to the role played by the Home Minister Sahara Khatun and others, it said they could not take timely and effective measures for their lack of knowledge on military affairs. It was also critical of the role of Rapid Action Battalion (Rab) for its inaction to put down the mutiny. The report pointed out that though a 350-member of Rab team was stationed at the three gates of Peelkhana after the mutiny, no permission was given to it to launch counter offensive against the mutineers. If the Rab was ordered to carry out offensive at that time the lives of the army officers could have been saved, it noted. About the role of army to quell the mutiny, the report said the army could not be deployed on time as no rake could be carried out in advance for time constraint and absence of stock of required military equipment. Besides, the 46th brigade could not play its due role because of negotiation with the political leaders, the report mentioned. The morale of the army broke down following the airing of the news of brutal killing of army officers and repression and insult to their family members. The report accused the BDR men of breaking law while trying to enlist the support of the political leaders by meeting them. The report held the view that many political and non-political leaders might have been angry with the army for helping the administration during the tenure of the caretaker government. These people might have used the mutiny as revenge against the army. The report further said that Awami league leader subedar Torab Ali , his son Leather Liton and jawan Kanchon's son Zakir stoked the mutiny by holding meeting with the BDR men. Shedding light on killing and pillage at Peelkhana the report said at first 30 to 35 BDR jawans embarked on killing spree of army officers at Darbar Hall, DG building and other buildings. It later spread to other places. The court of equiry could not ascertain who killed the army officers and where. It could neither collect the names of the main planners of the mutiny. Most of the BDR jawans knew in advance about holding the army officers hostage but very few of them knew about killing of them, it said. The report said 74 people including 57 army officers lost their lives in the mutiny. During the carnage, the BDR jawans indulged in four types of crimes namely killing, repression on women and children, loot and holding hostage. Disruption of electricity in the headquarters and removal of law enforcing agencies from the around the headquarters for reaching an understanding with political leadership paved the way for fleeing the BDR warns from the headquarters easily with light weapons, looted money and goods and other materials, it said. The report further said that all the four battalions stationed at the BDR headquarters took part in the mutiny. Though the 44 rifles battalion saved their officers, the 36 rifles battalion killed their officers. The members of the BDR intelligence wings also took party in the mutiny directly. The report put forward 27 recommendations. They include trial of the rebels under army rule, provision for capital punishment, reorganization of BDR, coordination of the whole affair and due compensation to those killed and wounded during the BDR carnage. In all three committees were constituted to hold enquiry into BDR carnage separately. The army team was headed by Lt.Gen. Janhangir Alam Chowdhury, the CID team by ASP Abdul Kahhar Akand and the government probe committee by former bureaucrat Anisuzzman. http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2009/05/15/news0262.htm

__._,_.___

[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] Strategic importance of Bangladesh

Strategic importance of Bangladesh By Shah Mohammed Saifuddin Despite her small size, Bangladesh does have certain geographical advantages that make her important to regional and extra regional powers which may drag her into a complex strategic scenario created due to rivalries between big powers. Bangladesh may be seen as a key player in strategic game plans of India, Pakistan, the U.S.A. and China because of the following reasons:(The New nation) The unique geographic location of Bangladesh which cuts the troubled North East region of India off from mainland constitutes a significant security weak point for India for the fact that the region shares border with China and that various insurgent groups are active within the region who are fighting against the Indian government for self determination. In light of their experience in Indo-China war in 1962, the Indian defense planners consider the strategic chicken neck to be inadequate and see Bangladesh to be the safest and the shortest route to transport military logistics to North East region in case of a military conflict between India and China in the future. A strategic corridor through Bangladesh is also seen as important to conduct sustained military campaign against the insurgent groups in North East. The corridor through Bangladesh has economic significance as well because it is the most cost effective route to connect North East with the rest of India for the transshipment of industrial goods to and from North Eastern states, which is vital to improve the economic condition of this land locked region. Bangladesh, which is seen as a bridge between SAARC and ASEAN, also has enormous geographic advantages for its proximity to Myanmar and other South East Asian nations to promote interregional economic, political and security cooperation. Once connected via Asian Highway and Trans-Asian Railway, the South and South East Asian nations will be using Bangladesh as the main transit point to increase economic interactions amongst themselves. Bangladesh with appropriate policies and infrastructures in place will be playing pivotal role in defining the direction of economic relations between the two emerging regional groups. Bangladesh is considered the gateway to Bay of Bengal with its 45000 sq. miles of sea territory in which lies valuable marine resources such as hydrocarbon, fisheries etc. Its well developed sea ports offer both economic and military opportunities because India can use the port facilities to increase trade with its land locked North East region while other South and South East Asian countries and China can use the same facilities to increase interregional economic interactions. With the ambition to protect the oil transshipment and trade routes in the Indian Ocean, the Chinese navy is making rapid progress in developing relations with the coastal nations such as Myanmar and Bangladesh to gain access to their port facilities so as to conduct sustained naval operations in the sea. In light of recently concluded Indo-U.S. Strategic agreement, it can be assumed that the U.S.A might also seek similar facilities from Bangladesh as a response to Chinese naval presence in the Bay of Bengal. Because of her burgeoning population, high economic growth, and rapid industrialization, India has become the sixth largest energy consumer in the world, but she has to import oil to meet 70% of her domestic demand which cost 40% of her total export earnings. She has to diversify import sources for uninterrupted supply of energy, but due to international politics importing hydrocarbon from Iran and Venezuela has become uncertain leaving Bangladesh and Myanmar as only cheap and secure sources of energy supply. While Bangladesh has a speculative gas reserve of 33 TCF, its proven reserve is only 12 -15 TCF which is inadequate to meet its own domestic demand so the government has already decided against exporting gas to other countries unless new reserves are found. Even though Bangladesh has expressed her inability to export gas at the moment, India considers Bangladesh a major source of energy in the long run because of its potentials to discover huge hydrocarbon reserves in the Bay of Bengal. Bangladesh also is the most cost effective route for India to import gas from Myanmar, therefore, Bangladesh may emerge as a significant player in regional strategic energy game. Bangladesh is significant because of the complex strategic scenario that has emerged due to India's strategic alliance with the U.S.A to contain China and its rivalry with Pakistan for regional supremacy. India has to take cognizance of the fact that Bangladesh has established deep military relations with China and repaired her relations with Pakistan to correct the problem in balance of power in her relation with India. So, the possible military role of Bangladesh in case of a war either between India and China or between India and Pakistan could be a strategic concern for India. In light of Bangladesh's endeavor to take control of her own affairs and her attempt to seek greater independence in foreign policy matters, India formulated a set of strategies to isolate, intimidate, and coerce Bangladesh to submit to Indian domination to reap the strategic benefits of break up of Pakistan.. The following strategies have been put into action by Indian foreign and defense services to create pressure on Bangladesh: 1. Delaying tactics to solve bilateral problems: Having shared land and maritime borders, both Bangladesh and India should have demarcated their borders based on mutual cooperation, trust, and interest for peaceful co-existence, but regrettably, despite a series of diplomatic efforts by Bangladesh, India refused to respond adequately so as to resolve border disputes in an amicable fashion and employed a delaying tactics to create pressure on Bangladesh. Bangladesh, on the other hand, showing political maturity and the spirit of amicable co-existence has already ratified the border agreement signed between the two governments in 1974 and also made several diplomatic moves to demarcate maritime border only to be frustrated by lukewarm Indian response. Non ratification of the border agreement by India and its reluctance to find solution to maritime border dispute has caused a gradual deterioration in bilateral relations giving birth to mutual suspicion and mistrust. The aggressive posture of its border security forces along 4096 km. Indo-Bangla border and the deployment of its navy near a disputed Island in the Bay of Bengal named South Talpatti in the 80s are signals that in case Bangladesh fails to accommodate Indian interests causing further deterioration in bilateral relations, India will not hesitate to use military power against Bangladesh. 3. Policy of supporting secessionist movements in Bangladesh: Chittagong Hill Tracts, which is one tenth of the total size of the country, with its enormous natural resources and strategic geographic location is vital for the existence of Bangladesh. Taking advantage of geographic proximity to its Tripura state and the desire of the local Chakma tribes for greater autonomy with an ultimate goal of creating Jumma land-an independent state for Chakmas--- India used its military and intelligence resources to provide help and support to Shanti Bahini. The surreptitious Indian involvement in providing money and weapons to tribal insurgents in the Chittagong Hill Tracks since 1976 was acknowledged by Bimal Chakma-a Shanti Bahini official-- in an interview with 'The New York Times' in June 11, 1989. India used the insurgents against Bangladesh as a tool to gain political, and economic concessions which she would not othrwise be able to extract from the government of Bangladesh. Finally, Bangladesh entered into a peace agreement with Shanti Bahini in 1997 to end insurgency and restore law and order in Chittagong Hill Tracks, but the security and intelligence agencies of the country are still convinced that a lot of ex-Shanti Bahini members and other terrorists are still getting help from Indian security agencies and are hiding in the North East states of India. Because of India's step motherly attitude towards its landlocked North Eastern states, a growing sense of deprivation, exploitation and insecurity is prevalent among the people of this region, which has contributed to give birth to a number of insurgent groups who have taken up arms against their own government for self-determination. India's myopic decision to crush insurgency through military means without finding the root causes to better understand the problem and the absence of a mature policy of providing economic and social incentives to remove inequalities have created myriad of problems causing further alienation of indigenous people. India in an attempt to portray itself as a victim of terrorism is now trying to find a scapegoat in Bangladesh to blame for the insurgency to conceal its failure to contain insurgencies in the North East and disprove its own involvement in secessionist movement in Chittagong Hill Tracks. Notwithstanding its small landmass, Bangladesh, in terms of population, is the eighth largest country in the world and a home for 130 million Muslims. She has been playing a major role in international peace efforts and war against terrorism through contributing the second highest troops to U.N missions and introducing tough anti terrorism ordinance with a provision of death sentence for those convicted of terrorism. The then U.S. Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns termed Bangladesh as a unique example of democracy in South Asia region, and as a model for democracy and tolerance by Harry K Thomas-ex U.S. Ambassador to Bangladesh. Disregarding the support and appreciation of International community for Bangladesh's role in the war against terrorism, Indian media keeps inventing fictitious stories about Bangladesh's alleged inability to respond to the security needs of India, in particular, and the world, in general to create pressure on the government of Bangladesh. But the fact of the matter is, Bangladesh takes regional and global security matters seriously and working closely with the international community to stop its soil from being used by elements inimical to regional and global security. It can be mentioned that the international community including the United States has welcomed Bangladesh's dismantling of the terror network of Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) and the execution of its top leaders after following due process of law and termed Bangladesh as a valuable partner in war against terror. In bilateral trade relations with its neighbors, India follows a policy of deriving maximum benefits by securing duty free access for its commodities and cornering other smaller regional countries by not allowing them similar privileges and imposing non tariff barriers on their exports. Bangladesh is a victim of the same exploitative Indian trade strategy and suffers from a trade deficit to the amount of $2 billion with India which can be attributed to non removal of tariff and non tariff barriers on its exports. To offset the negative impact of this yawning trade gap, so far no significant amount of investments and loans were made available to Bangladesh by India. The Indian strategy of bilateral ism and non implementation of water sharing treaties has caused enormous difficulties to its lower riparian neighbors because India uses prevailing asymmetry of power to its own advantage to deprive its neighbors of their due share of water. This has caused enormous ecological damage to riverine Bangladesh as supply of water during dry season has dwindled at an alarming rate. With 20 times larger landmass, 10 times larger population, and 10 times larger military, India is placed in an advantageous position to negotiate with Bangladesh from a position of strength to define the bilateral relation that suits its own political, strategic, and economic interests. Being the weaker party, Bangladesh has to be creative in devising strategies to utilize India's geographic and security vulnerabilities to its advantage by using geographical advantages, forming alliances with strong friendly nations and being part of powerful international security forums to reduce its own strategic vulnerabilities that arise from asymmetry in power vis a vis India and protect its strategic, political and economic interests. The government of Bangladesh will define the responsibilities of different agencies to design, implement, and enforce strategies to deal with existing power inequalities with India, and they will also establish policies to review the current strategies to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses to ensure effectiveness to respond to current risks and to adjust to future risks. No single strategy is enough to deal with a country as big and powerful as India, so Bangladesh has to employ several different strategies to diminish India's strategic advantages over Bangladesh through identifying India's security weak points and using them as Bangladesh's own strategic assets, and through internationalizing bilateral issues to seek help from powerful friends and international forums so as to force India to resolve any disputes on the basis of justice, equality and mutual respect. In light of the above discussion, Bangladesh may employ following strategies to protect its national interest vis a vis India: To use bilateral diplomatic channels to resolve disputes in an amicable manner, and if that fails then use regional forums to raise the issues and involve other regional actors in the dispute resolution processes, and if still that doesn't work then use the United Nations to take diplomatic actions to prevent disputes from escalating into conflicts. International security forums: To make exhaustive efforts to raise bilateral security issues with India in ASEAN Regional Forum in an attempt to engage all the members of the forum in constructive security dialogues to resolve disputes through confidence building or preventive diplomacy. Strategic alliance: To form strategic alliance with China to obtain security guarantee in the event of a military conflict with India, and to obtain political guarantee that China will use her veto power to thwart Indian attempt to use the United Nations Security Council to legalize its actions with respect to disputes with Bangladesh. Bangladesh will also work with China on matters that affect Chinese security interests based on mutual cooperation, interest, and utmost respect for each others sovereignty. Strategic chicken neck: To consider the 'chicken neck' as strategic asset and take political decision based on national consensus to not allow India to get transit rights on a bilateral basis through Bangladesh to transport goods, military or industrial, to its North East region. This will give Bangladesh a clear strategic advantage over India because the latter will be forced to rely on Bangladesh for the stability and economic development of its North East region. Military strength: To gain substantial military power to tie the entire Eastern Command of India in a long term war to cause erosion in its ability to fight a simultaneous war against Bangladesh, and China or the insurgents in North East region, and give Pakistan an opportunity to escalate the dispute over Kashmir into a major conflict on the Western side. Despite a few irritants in their bilateral relations, Bangladesh and India, being so close neighbors and part of so many regional and international forums, should try to take solid actions to minimize differences to foster understanding and cooperation in various socio-economic and security issues for amicable co-existence and regional stability. The following set of actions are recommended to achieve a peaceful bilateral relation: To promote regional cooperation to harness water resources for the benefit of agriculture and electricity production To provide duty free access for each others commodities to promote greater economic cooperation To take prompt diplomatic actions to demarcate land and maritime borders in the spirit of justice, equity and good neighborliness To work closely to combat sea piracy, illegal arms trade, drug trafficking, and human trafficking for the sake of regional security and stability To create culture of non-interference in each others internal affairs to promote trust, confidence, and cooperation  http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2009/05/14/news0204.htm

__._,_.___

[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

__,_._,___