Banner Advertiser

Friday, September 11, 2009

[mukto-mona] Partition Puzzle-Role of British ISP Sept 2009 II

Partition Puzzle: Role of British Policy

Ram Puniyani

Jaswant Singh in his recent book on Jinnah has praised the secular nature of Jinnah and has held Nehru-Patel responsible for Partition of India. Many people from Pakistan are praising Jaswant Singh's book to the sky, while here in India there is a mixed reaction. Most strong one came from BJP President Rajnath Singh who hinted that any praise of Jinnah, will be met with strict action. The problem with such formulation, Jinnah was secular, Nehru-Patel were responsible for partition, is that it is an extremely superficial analysis and does not look at the complex multilayered phenomenon of partition tragedy. It totally by passes the role of British rulers and the different interests of diverse classes during freedom movement. The response to the book is either at emotive level, our leader versus your leader, or how dare you speak against our icon!

In the midst of the whole debate, the British get away with the cake. As such they not only took all the measures, implemented all policies which were divisive but also accepted all the demands which led to partition. In the process they ensured that even after they leave, the interests of imperial powers, UK-USA, in the Middle East remain safe and secure. This ensured that they continue to dominate the area and retain their military and political base in the region. While the mini battle, Jinnah versus Nehru-Patel is on, the role of the major culprits of partition, the Colonial powers of yesteryears and the imperialist power of today is generally not being brought under scrutiny.

If we look at the British polices, right from the beginning there were germs of divide and rule. They saw Indian society as divided along religious lines, underplaying the fact that the real divisions were not along religious lines but along class and caste lines. Shaken by the massive revolt of 1857, their subtle policies of 'divide and rule' started becoming more overt and articulate. In 1858 Lord Elphinstone, Governor of Bombay Province, in his communication to The East India Company's executives wrote, "Divide et Impera' (Divide and Rule) was old Roman motto and it should be ours." In return Charles Wood, Secretary of State for India wrote that, "The antagonism of Indian races was an element of strength to the British India. Therefore 'a dissociating spirit' should be kept up, for if India was to unite against us, how long could we maintain ourselves."

Both these quotes amply indicate towards shape of policies in times to come. As a foundation of these polices, 'doctoring of mass consciousness' along religious lines began through specially sponsored History books. The two major ones' in this direction were Six Volume 'History of India as told by her Historians' by Elliot and Dawson and History of India by James Mill, who periodized the Indian History into Hindu Period, Muslim Period and British period. This periodization gave the impression that history's period is determined by the religion of the king. Needless to say that the medieval administration of Kings was never based along religious lines; their court officials and chain of Landlords were belonging to both the religions. These British sponsored accounts of History argued that Muslims Rulers had enslaved India and now British have come to end the misrule of Muslim Kings. Such an account became a convenient tool in the hands of
Hindu communalists, Hindu Mahsabha and RSS, to play their part of divisive politics amongst masses. The Muslim League turned it around to say that Muslim rulers were glorious and great.

This communalization of minds was the fertile soil on which the communalists could plant their narrow agenda of Muslim Nation and Hindu Nation. Another British Historian Sir T.W. Holderness in his book Peoples and Problems of India mooted the idea that Hindus and Muslims regard themselves as separate nations. This book came out in 1923 and in the same year Savarkar came out with his book, 'Hindutva or Who is a Hindu'?, where the same formulation was presented in a different way.

At concrete level on the political chessboard, Lord Curzon, the then Viceroy of India, partitioned Bengal (1904) with communal motivation and this was probably the first concrete experiment in communalizing the politics at big level. Curzon went on to declare that this is an attempt to invest in the Mussalmans of Eastern Bengal. Just a couple of years later (2006) the delegation of Muslim Landlords and Nawabs was received by Viceroy, where he declared that these Muslim elite to be the representatives of Muslim community. The delegation went to ask for separate electorate for Muslims, and these separate electorates introduced later acted as the trigger to polarize the nation along religious lines. Many a members of this delegation were also part of United India Patriotic Association, an organization of Hindu and Muslim landlords and Kings which had come up in the wake of formation of Indian National Congress. Indian National Congress was critical of
British and in response, this association pledged to enhance the loyalty of the people to the British crown.

Thus Viceroy Minto subtly encouraged Muslim communalism, and later the same delegation members went on to form Muslim League. Lady Minto in her communication takes pride in what the Lord had done. She commented that what has happened, the receiving of delegation etc. will pull back sixty million people from joining the ranks of seditious opposition, meaning the rising national movement.

MacDonald's Communal Award of 1932 was the next step, which enhanced the communal divides. Interestingly in 1939 Congress firmly told the British that they will not join the war efforts until they are guaranteed freedom in return. And lo and behold in 1940 Jinnah comes with the demand for Pakistan at Lahore Muslim League convention. Can such things be coincidental? Demand of Pakistan may have been a bargaining counter but its timing is interesting.

No doubt the Cabinet mission plan could have prevented partition, but it is debatable whether it would not have sown the fissiparous tendencies amongst the princely states and the states where Muslim League was in majority. The other necessity which made British to partition India, related to their strategic needs in the area. At the end of WWII, the global power equations changed. USA and USSR both emerged as major powers. US had posted its representative in India from 1942. With British deciding to leave India, freedom was imperative. The British calculation at this time was that an Undivided India with leadership of Congress will not let Britain continue with its military bases in the area. With USSR coming up in a big way, Mao Tse Tung rising in China and section of Congress leadership impressed by socialism, UK-USA were sure that India will not side with them in their global designs of countering USSR militarily and in continuing their oil plunder
in middle east. Here comes the Radcliff Line, which runs in the areas adjacent to Iraq, Afghanistan and Sinkiang. British diplomats had the job cut out for them, to make Jinnah accept moth eaten Pakistan and to make Congress leadership to accept the partition.

Somehow the plans of imperialists were immaculate. And in times to come Pakistan, where Mr. Jinnah wanted to have religious freedom, was converted into a land ruled by Mullahs, Army and American Ambassador. It was the same Pakistan which was supported to the hilt on the Kashmir issue; the idea was that US strategic interests are safe with this arrangement. It is a matter of great relief that Pakistan is struggling to come out from the vice like grip of Army, but can it shed its client state type status vis a vis US, is the million rupee question. The people of Pakistan have been big victim of Imperialist designs all through while Pakistan military has been having all the green pastures for itself.

In partitioning India, colonialists reaped rich harvest at the cost of the people of the subcontinent, millions dead, a single entity India, divided into Pakistan, India and Bangla Desh. These countries keep on spending a major part of their budgets in investing in armaments and fattening of their armed forces, something which could have been meaningfully invested for the growth and development of the region. We need to wake up from the blame game and see the real culprit.

--
Issues in Secular Politics
September 2009 II
www.pluralindia.com
ram.puniyani@gmail.com


Connect more, do more and share more with Yahoo! India Mail. Learn more. http://in.overview.mail.yahoo.com/


------------------------------------

****************************************************
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], 190Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:mukto-mona-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:mukto-mona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mukto-mona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[mukto-mona] Syed Akbar Ali: The Quranic Islam versus the ‘Religion’ of ‘Islam’



skip to main | skip to sidebar Syed Akbar Ali: The Quranic Islam versus the 'Religion' of 'Islam'

Born in 1960 Ipoh, Perak, Syed Akbar Ali is a Malaysian of Tamil Muslim (Mamak) origin. He studied business management and engineering in the United States, after which he returned to Malaysia to work as a banker and then served a stint as a Consultant at the National Economic Action Council of the Prime Minister's Department. He presently runs a jewellery business in Kuala Lumpur. He was also a newspaper columnist for several years, writing mainly about religion, politics and current affairs He has published three books so far: To Digress A Little (2005), Malaysia And The Club of Doom (2006) and Things in Common (2008). He is an activist of the ruling United Malays National Organisation (UMNO).

Ali is not a trained traditional alim, but he assumes that, as a Muslim, it is his right to seek to understand the Quran on his own. A striking feature of Ali's approach to Islam is his reliance only on the Quran, for, as he argues, God Himself has guaranteed that the Quran shall be protected by Him. The same is not true, he argues, for the Hadith as well as the corpus of fiqh, all of which he dismisses as unreliable. Given that many of the problematic issues in traditional and contemporary Islamic discourse to do with women, non-Muslims, inter-community relations and so forth, have their basis in the Hadith and fiqh, and not in the Quran, Ali's approach enables him to provide novel answers to such issues without having to engage with the Hadith and fiqh at all.

A second major aspect of Ali's understanding of Islam is his insistence that Islam is not a religion, in the sense of a cult and a set of beliefs about the supernatural. Rather, it is a complete way of life, ad-din in Arabic, which has been taught by all the many prophets that God has sent to the world, the last of whom was the Prophet Muhammad. 'Islam', he points out, simply means 'to surrender' to God, and this has been the way life that all the prophets. As he puts it, 'Islam is not a religion or agama. There is no such thing as a religion of Islam […] Islam is a deen or way of life, a good way of doing things. Deen can also imply an Order—an ordered way of life.'[1] In these two senses, then, he argues, Islam represents true universalism.  In contrast, he claims that Muslims have reduced Islam from a way of life to a mere religion, a narrow set of laws and beliefs. In his view, they wrongly understand Islam as a cult that is in fierce completion with other cults for supremacy. In this way, he claims, they are not 'true' Muslims, in the literal sense of the term (which means to 'submit' to God's Will). Instead, he generally refers to them as 'deviationist religionists'[2] and 'cultists'.

A third significant aspect of Ali's understanding of Islam relates to the question of Islamic authority. God's last revelation to humankind, the Quran, he says is for all to study and understand. There is no priesthood in Islam, and hence the class of ulema, who presume themselves to be authoritative interpreters of Islam, functioning almost similarly as priests in other religions, has no basis in the Quran. From this follows the argument that one is not bound to follow the opinion of the ulema, past or present.

A fourth central focus of Ali's approach is to deconstruct, even dismiss, much of the corpus of what has come to be widely understood as the Islamic shariah. He claims that much of this is actually the invention of the earlier ulema, mixed with what he regards as fabricated Hadith narratives for which there is no reliable historical record, as well as the baneful impact of Jewish and Christian thinking on the early Muslim scholars.[3] In this way, Ali is able to argue that many of the deeply problematic aspects of the historical shariah are simply not Islamic at all, in that they have no sanction in the Quran, which, Ali insists, is the only text that Muslims must rely on.

One of Ali's principal concerns is the formidable rise of conservative, supremacist and reactionary, groups speaking in the name of Islam, in Malaysia and elsewhere, many of which have taken to violent means. These include, but are not limited to, the principal opposition party in Malaysia, the 'Islamic' PAS. He considers them a danger to Islam itself. With regard to such elements in Malaysia, he argues that they are a 'corrupting influence', because they are 'advocating chaos and confusion' and that they would destroy Malaysia if they are left unchecked. Despite claiming to be champions of Islam, most of them, he says, '[do] not possess Islamic values.' Hence, 'they just [do] not represent Islam'. In a meeting with the then Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, chief of the UMNO of which Ali is an activist, Ali pointed out that in a way he, Mahathir, was responsible for the promotion of such elements because of his so-called Islamisation policies that had been 'hijacked by some of the extremists to almost destroy our nation'. Mahathir's 'indulgence', through financial patronage and setting up various 'Islamic' institutions in which they had been employed, had empowered them, particularly the conservative ulema, 'to a level which had never been seen before' in Malaysia. Many of them, although funded by the UMNO-led Government, were ardent supporters of the PAS and were, so he alleged, 'abusing government machinery' in order to further 'their evil beliefs'.[4] He accused the private 'Islamic' schools being run by what he called 'religious extremists' in Malaysia of 'churning out mindless kids who cannot contribute much good to themselves or to their society'. Such schools, which received government patronage, taught their students 'to hate and foment violent and aggressive thinking.'[5]

The oft-discussed 'Malay Dilemma' is another issue that Ali deals with at length. He argues that the post-1970 New Economic Policy that gives special privileges to the Malays has killed the spirit of competition and hard work and the desire for knowledge, making them dependent almost wholly on state patronage.[6] This dilemma is exacerbated by narrow understanding of Islam as a stern religion that forbids even minor pleasures and that preaches Muslim supremacism and abhorrence of non-Muslims, thus leading to  a 'complex psyche that has many fears to contend with'.[7] Excessive government patronage has been made the Malays complacent. In contrast to the 'enterprising' and 'industrious' Chinese, the Malays remain 'backward' because, he says, they spend their time obsessing about 'useless' things: religion, sex, 'hocus pocus black magic', and endless consumption, caring little, if at all, for intellectual pursuits. This is not something unique to the Malay 'Muslims', however, Ali argues. Rather, he says, in this 'they have friends among all the "Muslim" peoples of the world.' 'In every "Muslim" country', Ali writes, 'their peoples are at the bottom of the heap. It can be seen that among the poorest, most unhygienic […] most unintelligent  people in the world today are the so-called Muslims.'[8]

As Ali sees it, 'backwardness' is thus not something limited to the Malay 'Muslims', but, rather, is somewhat of a general 'Muslim' phenomenon. Ali regards this as owing principally to the fact that Muslims the world over have developed a distorted understanding of Islam itself, as a result of which they have collectively failed to adhere to the 'clear teachings' of the Quran. That is to say, Ali argues, it is not because of Islam that they are 'backward'. Rather, the contrary is true. 'Because of their own non-adherence' to the Quran, he insists, 'they suffer many calamities. They have been forsaken in this world.' Ali goes so far as to argue that what he regards as the 'false' Islam that they follow, which he considers as having nothing at all to do with what he believes is the true Islam of the Quran, that they have met this fate. Hence, it is inevitable, he says, that their 'distorted' religion, which they regard as the solution to their woes, will only further exacerbate their plight rather than solve it. As he puts it, 'They are also led to believe that somehow they will be blessed in the Hereafter for doing the same things that makes them non-achievers in this world'.[9]

A major target of Ali's ire are 'Muslim' clerics, whom he derisively refers to as 'priests', and 'shamans' and 'morons'[10], denying them the exalted title of ulema or 'scholars'.  He accuses many of them of 'depend[ing] on outright lies to make a living', of using religion as a 'money-making venture'. He remarks that the Quran condemns priests for taking people's money, and that it viscerally opposed to the concept of priests offering 'the keys to paradise' and serving as intermediaries between Man and God, which is what he regards the class of Muslim clerics as having virtually become. To make matters worse, he argues, the average guru agama or Malay Muslim religious teacher 'will likely not know the contents of the Quran', which is why the people they preach to also remain ignorant of the real message of the Islamic revelation.[11]

If Ali denies the self-styled ulema the right to speak for Islam or even to define it, he is equally critical of efforts by the state, in Malaysia and other Muslim-majority countries, to impose 'Islamic' laws. Naturally, he is also opposed to the Islamists' agenda of an 'Islamic' state. His argument is that the Quran is 'clear as to what a person should do and not do', and hence there is no need for the state to legislate in such matters.[12]  Since Islam 'has already been perfected' in the Quran, to seek to legislate it is, Ali argues, meaningless.  That would only lead to the shackling of the law, to endless disputations resulting from differences in interpreting Islamic legal injunctions, to the hegemonic imposition of the views of one 'Muslim' sectarian grouping over the others and to gross human rights abuses, particularly of vulnerable groups such as women and non-Muslim minorities.[13] It would also hurt those Muslims who differ with the interpretation of Islam of the state and religious authorities, who can easily accuse them of 'heresy' and 'apostasy', which are punishable crimes in Malaysia and many other Muslim-majority countries.[14] In other words, Ali argues the case for a secular, that is to say religiously-neutral, state, claiming that this is precisely what Islam itself mandates.

Ali's critique of dominant understandings of Islam includes a denunciation of the conflation of Islam with elements Arab culture, or what he derisively dismisses as 'desert culture'.[15] To equate the two, he believes, is to completely undermine the universality of Islam, which, in his view, is compatible with all human cultures and is not tied to any particular one. A 'major cultural failure' of Malaysian Muslims', he argues, 'is our inability to fend off the Arabisation of Malay music, culture, religion and language'.[16] This tendency to 'ape the Arabs' by regarding Arab culture as somehow more 'Islamic' also leads to a pervasive sense of alienation from local culture and a profound feeling of inferiority vis-à-vis the Arabs, who are considered to be somehow 'better' Muslims just because of their culture and language. This attitude, Ali laments, nurtures among the Malays a strong sense of 'self-deprecation' and 'low self-esteem' that keeps the community down, leading to 'negative values' and 'arrogance, rudeness and withdrawal into racial and religious cocoons' that become shields to cover up for their weakness.[17] In this regard, Ali caustically asks:

 '[W]hat is the worth of being respected by the Middle Eastern countries […]? They are without doubt among the most oppressive, undemocratic, poor and corrupt nations on the surface of Allah's earth. They are hardly the paragons of Islamic virtue that they are made out to be. Even their citizens do not like their countries.'[18]

It is not the Arabs that the Muslims should emulate or learn Islam from, Ali argues. Since he interprets Islam as 'an ordered way of life' or  'a good way of doing things',[19] Islam, he contends, is found wherever this way of life is practiced, no matter what those who practice it call themselves as. Islam stresses the acquisition and application of knowledge, upholding the truth, intellectual courage, hard work, logical thinking, honesty, integrity, justice, politeness, care and respect for fellow humans, professionalism, a scientific approach, non-aggression and so on. A true Muslim 'has to be a non-threatening person to his fellow human beings' and have 'evil thoughts against others', he adds. 'This is what Islam really is', he insists, arguing against the dominant notion of Islam as a 'religion', a set of do's and don'ts, beliefs and legal restrictions.[20] Those who adopt these values Quranic are practicing Islam even if they do not call it or recognize it as such. For instance, he argues the enormous scientific and economic 'development' that China has witnessed and the rising standards of living of its people is 'Islamic', because this is a reflection  of a truly Islamic way of, and approach to, life.  Islam, then, he argues, conduces to material prosperity, for God is said to have promised this to those who truly submit to Him.

 

Why, then, Ali asks, are most Muslim countries economically deprived? He has a simple answer: in the name of following Islam, they actually follow something else which they call by the same name. The 'Islam' of 'the confused religionists'  makes its followers 'dirt poor', besides 'stupid, violent and downtrodden by everyone else.' Only the 'more crafty religionists frequently enrich themselves' at the expense of the many.[21] The self-styled 'Muslim' religious authorities are, Ali contends, directly complicit in the Muslims' economic and intellectual backwardness, because of the various restrictive laws that they seek to impose, their inculcation of a deadening fatalism, their opposition to intellectual and religious freedom, their stern, their deep-rooted misogyny and stern authoritarianism, their opposition to science, and their hatred for non-Muslims, all in the name of Islam.[22] To repeat a point made earlier, Ali insists that this is not Islam at all, but what he calls a 'deviant religion'. Because most Muslims follow this 'religion' instead of the Islam of the Quran, he argues, they have 'been forsaken' by God, which, in turn, has led to horrific 'poverty, violence and ignominy' among many Muslim communities. Unless the Quranic Islam is properly understood and practiced, he warns, the situation will not change. Contrarily, if Muslims continue to adhere to their 'religion' that they wrongly consider to be the true Islam, their problems will only get worse.

 

In this regard, Ali sees little hope, for a whole range of forces, including and particularly Muslim political and religious authorities throughout the world, are viscerally opposed to any reforms in the Muslims' religious thought, erroneously believing this to be 'un-Islamic'. Thus, he writes:

 

 

'Despite such horrific truths, the confused Arab religionists keep insisting that the same Allah who has forsaken them in this world will somehow bless them in the Hereafter for the same non-achievements. This is the sick logic which they force their followers to swallow hook, line and sinker […] The confused religionists are following the Fool's Law of repeating the same unsuccessful method again and again with the hope that maybe the next time round the results will be magically different [….] They are hoping that all the things they do which can make them violent, poor and unsuccessful in this life will somehow win favour from Allah for success in the next life. Such tragic stupidity!'[23]

 

 



[1] Syed Akbar Ali, To Digress A Little (published by the author), Kota Bharu, 2005, p.103.

[2] Ibid., p.2.

 

[3] In his Things in Common, Ali argues that several contentious aspects of contemporary Muslim thought and practice, such as degradation of women, ill-treatment of non-believers and punishment for apostasy, are not sanctioned in the Quran, but, rather, were borrowed by the later Muslims from the Old and the New Testaments (see www.syedakbarali.blogspot.com).

[4] Ibid., p.6.

[5] Ibid., p.11.

[6] Ibid., p.14.

[7] Ibid., p.42.

[8] Ibid., p.58.

[9] Ibid., p.58.

[10] Ibid., p.94.

[11] Ibid., p.93.

[12] Ibid., p.96.

[13] Ibid., pp.103-4.

[14] In this regard, Ali writes, with reference to Malaysia, 'It is an irony that the Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Taoists, Tien Taos, Sikhs and everyone else has total freedom to interpret and practice their religion any which way they want but the so-called "Muslims" do not have the same right', their right to do so being restricted by the state (p.106)

 

[15] Ibid., p.107.

[16] Ibid., p.100.

[17] Ibid., pp.115-18.

[18] Ibid., pp.103-4.

[19] Ibid., p.103.

[20] Ibid., p.263.

[21] Ibid., pp.233-35.

[22] Ibid., pp.241-47.

[23] Ibid., pp.248-49.



 
Allah, Farid, juhdi hamesha
Au Shaikh Farid, juhdi Allah Allah.

Acquiring Allah's grace is the aim of my jihad, 0 Farid!
Come Shaikh Farid! Allah, Allah's grace alone is ever the aim of my jihad
 
(Baba Guru Nanak Sahib to Baba Shaikh Farid Sahib)
 
PLEASE VISIT MY BLOGS:



__._,_.___


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

__,_._,___

[mukto-mona] A Tale Of A Two Star General



By Shah Mohammed Saifuddin

 

At a time when the BDR incident is still being investigated, the political blame game is still on, the people are still being haunted by the barbaric gruesome murder of the army officers, and the heart-wrenching mourning of relatives of the  slain officers is still being heard, a report carrying a picture of the BDR and BSF joint patrol at Agartala border point  was published on Aug 5 in one of the Bengali news dailies. The news report raised a few eyebrows and many questioned the necessity of a joint border patrol with the Indian border security force at a time when objections are being expressed by many security experts to possible Indian involvement in the reorganization process of the Bangladesh Rifles. Against the backdrop of all this, the DG of the Bangladesh Rifles gave an interview to the Bengali daily to refute the allegations that he ordered the Bangladesh Rifles to participate in the joint patrol with the Indian border security force and to express his views on border management, in general and border crossings, border killings, and geographical and economic threats, in particular. I, as a citizen of Bangladesh, have found his views on the above mentioned issues not only shallow and incompatible with reality, but also disheartening for the fact that such deleterious views on national interest exist among some of the top brass of the Bangladesh Rifles. I, therefore, would like to contradict his views and discuss the issues from a realistic perspective so that the ordinary citizens of Bangladesh know the flaws in the BDR DGs views and get a vivid picture of the consequences of such ill-informed, unrealistic, absurd, and narrow views for the people of Bangladesh residing in the border areas.  

 

Economic threat vs Geographical threat

 

While the BDR DG acknowledged the existence of economic threats, he summarily dismissed the existence of geographical threats from other nations and implied that we should be more flexible and open-minded about India.

 

I neither agree that Bangladesh is facing an economic threat from any particular nation nor approve his complacent views that geographical threats have diminished in the current global geopolitical situation. True, we are at fault for the huge trade imbalance that the nation has been incurring since the early 90s with India as not only did our the then finance ministry fail to conduct a thorough impact analysis of the consequences for local small and medium scale industries of opening market to a much larger and more powerful neighbor, they didn't even see that without a negotiated deal India would not be morally or legally obligated to compensate for the losses that Bangladesh would sustain because of trade imbalance through soft loans, investments, and duty-free access for our products to Indian market. Had they only analyzed the U.S.-Canada trade relation, they would have seen that Canada is making 81.6%[1] of its total export earnings from the U.S.A alone because of smart application of free trade principles  to extract maximum economic benefits from a larger economy. Unfortunately, the then finance ministry could neither show the foresight nor the prudence to realize the risks of creating a lopsided trade relation with India by opening up our market without extracting similar privileges from India on a reciprocal basis. But the trade imbalance with India does not constitute an economic threat for Bangladesh yet as we have diversified our import source by opening up market to the Chinese,[2] achieved trade surplus with many other nations and had a unique opportunity to act as a land bridge to enhance regional economic interactions between SAARC and ASEAN and to transform ourselves into a regional commercial hub to achieve formidable economic growth and to cancel out the negative impact of mammoth trade imbalance with India before it could escalate into an economic threat.   

 

 

I also vehemently reject major general Moinul Islam's views that the days of geographical aggression against  weaker countries are over and major powers such as Russia and the U.S.A are working together on various global issues dissolving their past bitter rivalries because such sugar-coated empty words are often uttered by gullible people who do not keep abreast themselves of current world affairs and by  those who are unaware of the growing rivalries between Russia, China and the U.S.A for establishing supremacy in East Europe, Central Asia, and Asia-Pacific to achieve their respective energy, political, and military objectives. After the end of the WWII we have seen the world to get united under the umbrella of the United Nations to promote peace, stability, and tranquility throughout the world by engaging in constructive dialogue with the member countries to reduce the risks of conflicts and to foster cooperation, confidence, and friendship.[2] But because of the desire of global domination, the strategic rivalry among big powers never ceased to stop and we have seen fierce competition between the erstwhile Soviet Union, China and the U.S.A in Korean peninsula, Vietnam, the Asia-Pacific, Europe and the Middle East  throughout the cold war. At the end of the cold war, the world breathed a sigh of relief and hoped for peace and stability across the world because with the demise of erstwhile Soviet Union, the root cause of instability was gone forever, at least the world had thought so. But the soaring hopes and aspirations were soon dashed with the start of the first gulf war and the subsequent mass militarization of the Middle Eastern countries. The world could hardly manage to recuperate from the scars of the first gulf war, when a deadly terrorist attack upon the U.S.A shook the whole world and plunged it into deep instability and confusion. The subsequent reckless invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and mindless killings of innocent civilians by the Western powers in the name of war against terrorism did nothing to improve the situation filled with fear, uncertainty, and insecurity. Russia has been highly critical of the U.S. unilateral actions worldwide to impose its will on other nations and deplores the U.S. move to establish anti ballistic missile defense shield in East Europe and Central Asia, rejects the U.S. action against Iran, regrets the U.S. criticism against lack democracy in Russia, and opposes the U.S. policy in the Balkans.[3] Under this circumstance, Major General Moinul Islam's remark that both Russia and the U.S.A are working together in international issues is naive at best and ignorant at worst. In fact, Russia has formed strategic partnership alliance with China to counter the U.S.A in Central Asia,[4] flexed its energy muscle to make the European nations dependent on Russia,[5] and sold arms to anti U.S. nations like Iran and Venezuela to expand its own sphere of influence.[6]  

 

In South Asia we have witnessed similar strategic game plan between regional powers that resulted in four Indo-Pak wars in 1948, 1965, 1971, and 1999 respectively that changed the map as well as the strategic landscape of the region. Despite being peaceful nations and having nothing to do with competition for regional supremacy, Bangladesh and Sri-lanka became the worst victims of proxy war sponsored by India in the Chittagong Hill Tracts and Jaffna and had to fight a full-blooded guerrilla war against Shanti Bahini[7] and Tamil Tigers for more than two decades before some sort of peace was established in their respective insurgency infested regions. Because of strategic geographical location, Bangladesh cannot rule out the threat of a physical aggression against her either directly or through a proxy so long as India continues with its exploitative policy in the North East to alienate the indigenous people and fails to make China agree to abide by the McMahon Line to relinquish its claim over Arunachal Pradesh.  

 

Economic relation vs Patriotism

 

The BDR DG accused the people of fake patriotism who, on the one hand, protest against BSF's excesses in the border and on the other hand, buys Indian products in the market. It occurred to me that major general Moinul Islam is unable to distinguish between economic and security relations and has no idea about how nations around the world are cooperating with each other on the economic front while acting against one another on the strategic front. China, on the one hand, is sending ship load of products to the U.S.A to make $337 billion a year from the U.S. market[8] and on the other hand, is forming strategic partnership with Russia to counter-weight the U.S. influence in East Europe, Central Asia, and the Asia Pacific. The U.S.A is playing the same strategic game with China and working closely with Japan, Australia, and India to contain the rising Chinese influence in the Asia Pacific while importing cheap Chinese products worth of $71.5 billion for its own economic interest.[9] The same mismatch of economic and strategic interests in the relationship between India and China also exists. China considers economic progress vital to its goal of achieving domestic stability, and therefore it is making vigorous effort to promote its economic interests overseas. The trade between China and India has reached the $20 billion mark and is likely to hit the $50 billion mark by the year 2010.[10] But the booming trade between the two Asian giants should not be construed as strategic rapprochement between the two countries who fought a bloody war in 1962. China is busy cultivating deep military relations with countries near the Indian Ocean as part of its 'string of pearl' strategy, making massive military preparation in Tibet and Xinjiang Autonomous Regions, and refusing to honor the so called McMahon Line, which India views as a direct threat to its national security.[11] In response to Chinese strategy, India has already signed a strategic agreement with the U.S.A to acquire the most modern nuclear technology and military hardware to augment its own deterrent power, and has initiated talks with Maldives for a permanent Indian naval base to counter Chinese 'string of pearl' strategy.[12] So like others, Bangladeshis can remain alert about their strategic interests while doing business with India and there is absolutely nothing unpatriotic about it at all. Major general Moinul Islam's comments prove his narrow views, paucity of knowledge, and lack of understanding about world affairs.        

 

Border crossing vs DG's outburst

 

The BDR DG, major general Moinul Islam, attributed the indiscriminate border killings by BSF to illegal border crossings by Bangladeshis at night time, defended Indian actions at the border, and made it clear that he cannot help stop such mindless killings by BSF because of jurisdictional ambiguities meaning all of the killings occur inside the Indian territory and he has no power to exercise his authority beyond the border of Bangladesh.  It is obvious that he narrated the Indian version of the border situation and tactfully ignored the fact that most of the time it is the BSF that enters into Bangladesh territory to kill, abduct, and destroy the properties of Bangladeshis residing near the border. Let me quote a statement by one of the Humanitarian organizations in Bangladesh for the readers to know how the Indian border security force trespass into Bangladesh territory to commit grisly crimes against innocent villagers. Human rights watchdog Odhikar said in its survey report, "A humanitarian crisis has been created on the border in the wake of unrelenting intrusion by the BSF troops and Indian hoodlums into Bangladesh territory, who are shooting down or kidnapping innocent civilians and plundering their property."[13] The same organization reported this year that BSF killed 700 people and injured 800 more between January 1, 2000 and January 31, 2009.[14] Let me also quote from a prestigious Indian news daily to show how BSF intrude into Bangladesh territory to kill innocent villagers at night time: "The BDR officials of Pachagarh 25 Battalion said at least eight to 10 drunken BSF personnel from the Nayabari camp in India entered Maynaguri village near the Majhipara border, at least 500 metres inside Bangladesh, after 10 p.m. on Sunday and ransacked several houses.......When the villagers protested, the intruders entered the house of one Shahidul Islam and fired indiscriminately, leaving three people killed and one injured."[15] Now as a citizen of Bangladesh I would like to know the reason why our own BDR chief narrated the untrue Indian version in the media, blamed his own people for the extra-judicial killings by BSF, and conveniently escaped his responsibility of protecting the lives and properties of the citizens of Bangladesh. I think he owes an explanation to the nation. 

 

 

Accidental death vs Border killing

 

The primary duty of government is to use its state machinery to improve the living condition of its citizens regardless of their racial and religious background, to provide security, to maintain internal stability, and to promote social harmony through alleviating poverty, deprivation, exploitation, and racism. Being one of the most important state organs, the BDR is entrusted with the responsibility of protecting the lives and properties of the unarmed, innocent people living in the border areas from external state or non-state aggression. But to my utmost disappointment, the BDR DG showing complete disregard to the government's and his own responsibility of protecting the citizens of Bangladesh from external aggression, equated the deaths of Bangladeshis at the hands of the Indian border security forces with the deaths of Bangladeshis in road accidents. I was also dumbfounded by his comments that the government has no responsibility for victims of BSF's atrocities if they have more than two children violating the state's policy of two-child family. This was utter insensitive, irresponsible, uneducated, and outrageous comments from a two star general who happens to be the DG of Bangladesh Rifles. Hypothetically speaking, if we go by his absurd logic, shouldn't we disconnect the three-child families of the armed forces and the politicians from all state privileges that a two-child family enjoys? 

 

Geo-politics vs Unknown enemy      

 

While I was writing this piece, the BDR DG came up with another gem of information and was magnanimous enough to share it with the jawans and the journalists present at the BDR darbar hall  on Aug 18 that under the current global geopolitical situation each country has enemies working against its sovereignty[16], which may I humbly say, contradicts his own previous assertion that in today's world barring  economic threats, there exist no geographical threats. Then he talked about some 'unknown enemies' of the country who are there to harm the national interest of Bangladesh, and without naming them he made an oblique reference to forces that were against our independence in 1971 to blame for the carnage at the BDR headquarters. If he had good grasp of the geopolitical interests of Bangladesh then he would not have too much difficulty in figuring out the nation(s) whose geopolitical objectives are contradictory to our own geopolitical interests. Our geopolitical interests are to use geographical advantages to create relationships with other nations on the basis of equality and mutual interdependence, to maintain balance of power, and to promote multilateralism to foster regional and global cooperation among the nations with common interests. Now, any nations that aspire to acquire disproportionately more power than their neighbors to create asymmetry in balance of power, to impose bilateralism in conflict resolution, and to use bilateral treaty agreements in their favor to substantially diminish the other contracting parties' power to exercise their sovereign rights to establish relations with and to seek assistance from third parties to enhance their bargaining power in various regional and global issues should be considered a force inimical to our sovereignty. Now without naming such nation(s) and going deep into this geopolitical mumbo jumbo because it's well beyond the scope of this article, I would like to leave it up to the people of Bangladesh to decide whose geopolitical objectives are contradictory to our national interest. Lastly, I would like to draw people's attention to major general Moinul Islam's contradictory comments on geopolitics in connection with the killings of ordinary Bangladeshi citizens by BSF and the gruesome murders of the army officers at the BDR headquarters by some 'unknown enemies'.      

 

Concluding observations  

 

Internal stability, economic development, social harmony, and proper functioning of the government are directly dependent upon proactive border security strategies to manage and control human trafficking, illegal arms and drug trading, smuggling, terrorism, and illegal trespassing of foreign troops to loot and plunder the citizens of Bangladesh along the long and porous borders with neighboring states. Laxity in border security, negligence in responsibility, and complacency in border management may have catastrophic consequences for national security and stability. We should take lesson from the history of the mighty Roman empire which was brought down to its knees by the barbarian tribes through repeatedly attacking and destabilizing the border. The last thing we want is the BDR DG playing the role of Nero while scores of innocent Bangladeshi citizens are being killed by the border security forces of neighboring states.               

 

References  

 

1. Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada

http://www.international.gc.ca/canadexport/articles/385251.aspx

2. China tops import source for Bangladesh

http://english.people.com.cn/200602/20/eng20060220_244154.html

3. United Nations

http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/index.shtml

4. Putin arms threat may steal headlines at G8 summit

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL0519220820070605

5. China and Russia counterweigh US influence in Eurasia

http://www.thedailystar.net/strategic/2006/07/01/strategic.htm

6. Vladimir Putin threatens Europe over energy supply

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL0519220820070605

7. Russia ratchets up US tensions with arms sales to Iran and Venezuela

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4781027.ece

8. Bangladeshi Insurgents Say India Is Supporting Them

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/11/world/bangladeshi-insurgents-say-india-is-supporting-them.html

9. The U.S.-China Business Council

http://www.uschina.org/statistics/tradetable.html

10. ibid

11. China, India trade to hit US$20b this year

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-11/22/content_739381.htm

12. Govt aware of China developing infrastructure on border

http://www.zeenews.com/news551209.html

13. Navy eyes Maldives- Counter to China's `string of pearls' plan

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090820/jsp/frontpage/story_11385890.jsp

14. BSF's spree of killing continues, Newagebd, 12, Aug, 2006

15. BSF kills 700, wounds 800 in 9 years

http://www.newagebd.com/2009/feb/10/home.html

16. BSF regrets killing of civilians, says BDR

http://www.hindu.com/2008/11/19/stories/2008111956831400.htm

17. Foreign enemies got benefited

http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=101882



__._,_.___


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

__,_._,___