Banner Advertiser

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

[ALOCHONA] Indian hegemony continues to harm relations with neighbors



Indian hegemony continues to harm relations with neighbors

People's Daily

Nobody can deny that today's India is a power. In recent years, Indians have become more narrow-minded and intolerable of outside criticism as nationalism sentiment rises, with some of them even turning to hegemony. It can be proved by India's recent provocation on border issues with China.

Given the country's history, hegemony is a hundred-percent result of British colonialism. Dating back to the era of British India, the country covered a vast territory including present-day India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Bangladesh as well as Nepal. India took it for granted that it could continue to rule the large area when Britain ended its colonialism in South Asia. A previous victim of colonialism and hegemony started to dream about developing its own hegemony. Obsessed with such mentality, India turned a blind eye to the concessions China had repeatedly made over the disputed border issues, and refused to drop the pretentious airs when dealing with neighbors like Pakistan.
Many Indians didn't know that Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, had once said that India could not play an inferior role in the world, and it should either be a superpower or disappear. Although the pursuit of being a superpower is justifiable, the dream of being a superpower held by Indians appears impetuous. The dream of superpower is mingled with the thought of hegemony, which places the South Asian giant in an awkward situation and results in repeated failure.

Throughout the history, India has constantly been under foreign rule. The essence for the rise of India lies in how to be an independent country, to learn to solve the complicated ethnic and religious issues, to protect the country from terrorist attacks, to boost economic development as well as to put more efforts on poverty alleviation.
 
Additionally, the hegemony can also be harmful in terms of geopolitical environment. The expansion of India is restricted by its geographic locations. It has Himalaya Mountain to its north, a natural barrier for northward expansion; it has Pakistan to the west, a neighbor it is always at odds over the disputed border issues.

To everyone's disappointment, India pursued a foreign policy of "befriend the far and attack the near". It engaged in the war separately with China and Pakistan and the resentment still simmers. If India really wants to be a superpower, such a policy is shortsighted and immature.

India, which vows to be a superpower, needs to have its eyes on relations with neighbors and abandon the recklessness and arrogance as the world is undergoing earthshaking changes. For India, the ease of tension with China and Pakistan is the only way to become a superpower. At present, China is proactively engaging in negotiations with India for the early settlement of border dispute and India should give a positive response.



__._,_.___


[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] Pakistan Army Headquarter Seize Ends: What about Hasina style



Imagine the same happens in a military head quarter in Bangladesh and Sk Hasina is in control with the help of Pranab Mukherjee. She will select the most criminal minded ones of her party to assure the terrorists that the PM is with them. Then she will have a long chat with their leaders and assure them their safe passages while the culprits keep on killing the hostages.
Paki leadership ( I am not sure if one exists) have done a good job. They have done an excellent job right after Pilkhana incident in a police compound where thugs attacked the Pakistani Police Cadets. Remember the Pakistani security forces didn't deal with the rebels they dealt with the suicide squad.
 


--- On Wed, 10/14/09, S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com> wrote:

From: S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com>
Subject: [khabor.com] FW: Pakistan Army Headquarter Seize Ends: What Is The Solution--Asia Post editorial dated 13.10.09
To: dahuk@yahoogroups.com, "mahdiunite@yahoogroup" <mahdiunite@yahoogroups.com>, "mukto-mona@yahoogroups" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>, sonarbangladesh@yahoogroups.com, khabor@yahoogroups.com, witness-pioneer@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 3:37 AM



 

 

 

 

Pakistan Army Headquarter Seize Ends: What Is the Solution

 

Agencies have reported that Pakistani commandos freed dozens of hostages held by militants at the army's own headquarters Sunday, ending a bloody, 22-hour drama that embarrassed the nation's military as it plans a new offensive against al-Qaida and the Taliban. At least 19 people died in the standoff, including three captives and eight of the militants, who wore army fatigues in the audacious assault. The rescue operation began before dawn Sunday, ultimately freeing 42 hostages, the military said. One attacker, described as the militants' ringleader, was captured. Earlier Agencies reported that Militants held several security officers hostage inside an intelligence wing of the army headquarters Saturday after they and others attacked the complex in an audacious assault on Pakistan's most powerful institution.The attack, which left at least 10 people dead, was the third major militant strike in Pakistan in a week and came as the government was planning an imminent offensive against militants in their strongholds in the rugged mountains along the border with Afghanistan.It showed that the militants retain the ability to strike at the very heart of Pakistan's security apparatus despite recent military operations against their forces and the killing of Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud in a CIA drone attack in August. The attack began shortly before noon when the gunmen, dressed in camouflage military uniforms and wielding assault rifles and grenades, drove in a white van up to the army compound and opened fire, army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas and a witness said."There was fierce firing, and then there was a blast," said Khan Bahadur, a shuttle van driver who was standing outside the gate of the compound. "Soldiers were running here and there," he said. "The firing continued for about a half-hour. There was smoke everywhere. Then there was a break, and then firing again."Pakistani media said the Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, and Interior Minister Rehman Malik said the ongoing assaults strengthened the government's resolve to launch the offensive.

We condemn this pointless attack. A terrorist outfit can not gain in this way .It will only enhance hatred against them and enhance their rout. No sane person will support such groups, whatever be the cause. We are worried that this outfit is doing all this in the name of Islam though all Islamic movements and leaders have rejected this madness.

 




__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[mukto-mona] Taliban Leader Wants to Islamise Pakistan then attack India



http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=3.0.3877342737

Pakistan: Taliban leader warns India will be 'attacked'


Islamabad, 14 October (AKI) - The Pakistani Taliban's new leader Hakimullah Mehsud warned India of future attacks and sent a message to Pakistan's army that if it wanted a halt to attacks, it would have to stop taking orders from the Americans.

"We are fighting the Pakistan army, police and the frontier corps, because they are following American orders. If they stop following their orders, we will stop fighting them," said Mehsud in a video interview aired by British news channel Sky News on Wednesday.

Mehsud also said he would send his soldiers to the Indian border to fight once Pakistan had been turned into an Islamic state.

"We want an Islamic state. If we get that, then we will go to the borders and help fight the Indians."

Haikimullah's messsage surfaced after Al-Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri slated the Pakistani army, describing it as a "puppet" and a "Crusader tool" to save United States and NATO troops from certain defeat in Afghanistan.

Al-Zawahiri's warning was contained in a video posted to Muslim extremist websites on Tuesday. The video warned Pakistan's military would be defeated in a ground offensive in the militant stronghold of South Waziristan and called on Pakistanis to give full support to Jihad or holy war.

In early October, Mehsud appeared on local television vowing 'severe' new attacks to avenge the death of late Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud, who is believed to have died in a US drone strike in Waziristan on 5-6 August.

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

The Taliban are Islamic supremacists fighting to make Islam supreme as per orders from their Nabi:

[وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ للَّهِ]

(...and the religion (all and every kind of worship) is for Allah (Alone).) means, `So that the religion of Allah becomes dominant above all other religions.' It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Abu Musa Al-Ash`ari said: "The Prophet was asked, `O Allah's Messenger! A man fights out of bravery, and another fights to show off, which of them fights in the cause of Allah' The Prophet said:

«مَنْ قَاتَلَ لِتَكُونَ كَلِمَةُ اللهِ هِيَ الْعُلْيا فَهُوَ فِي سَبِيلِ الله»

(He who fights so that Allah's Word is superior, then he fights in Allah's cause.) In addition, it is reported in the Two Sahihs:

«أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَقُولُوا لَا إِلهَ إلَّا اللهُ، فَإِذَا قَالُوهَا عَصَمُوا مِنِّي دِمَاءَهُم وَأَمْوَالَهُمْ إلَّا بِحَقِّهَا وَحِسَابُهُمْ عَلَى الله»

(I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight the people until they proclaim, `None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. Whoever said it, then he will save his life and property from me, except for cases of the law, and their account will be with Allah.)


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

See also:

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/pak-sharia-chief-wants-islamic-law-for-ent/425126/

Pak 'sharia' chief wants Islamic law for entire world


After inking a deal with the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) government for implementation of Islamic law in the Swat Valley, the Tehreek-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat Muhammadi (TNSM) chief Sufi Muhammad, has expressed his desire of implementation of a similar law over the whole world.


Expressing his hatred for people's rule, Muhammad said Islam does not have any mention of democracy or elections.


"From the very beginning, I have viewed democracy as a system imposed on us by the infidels. Islam does not allow democracy or elections," 'The Daily Times' quoted Muhammad, as saying.


He said that the continuous bloodbath in the region was due to the hesitant approach of different regimes in the country to accept the superiority of the Islamic law.


"Had the government accepted our demands in 1994, we would have not seen the violence we are seeing today," he said.



Kisan.


Add whatever you love to the Yahoo! India homepage. Try now!

__._,_.___


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

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Is any one doing such stupidity ?




It is stupidity if someone wants to make solution of oil and water.
Similarly , it is stupidy if someone wants to make a united and strong party accomodating both
opportunists(so called reformists) and dedicated leaders and workers,particularly when the opportunists are exposed after 1/11?
 
 
Is any one doing such stupidity ?
The test of patriotism is not a one-off event for anyone, let alone the political quarters, that once passed is passed for ever. It is rather a perpetual process, especially for the ruling political quarters that have to pass it every moment- Nurul Kabir , Editor , The NewAge



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[mukto-mona] Our War against Indian Aggression against the so-called "peace-loving India"



My comments are inserted below.
---------



 

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 12:02 AM, abid bahar <abidbahar@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

                                    Our Second Liberation War against Indian Aggression
Mr. Devdas:
 You don't compare orange with apple. Sadam was a dictator, committed genocide, Afganistan is a Taliban state.
 
TURKMAN: Why then, Afghans hate guts of Taliban, call them 'Kharjian' (Outsiders) and Pakistani Agents?
---------------
Both had direct American interest in those two countries.  Bangladesh is different from those states. One has oil another had the 9/11 event.
.
TURKMAN: Then, how come Americans have not benefitted from those Interests for so many years?
------------------
You are wrong. You are totally wrong! If you are an political analyst, you are lost a long time ago. You are either fooled by your associates or you are simply a naive person fooling yourself and trying to fool others for some reason we don't know. You are being corrupted by your Bengali nationalism which is a thing of the past. You have to think clearly as a Bangladeshi. 
 
We fought against Pakistan to survive as an independent state. Bangladesh has to take the example of Cuba, located next to the giant USA. It has to take the example of Japan that defeated Russia and China and Singapore as an economic power. Georgia lived next to the Giant Russia. If people are alert and protest, a neighbouring giant even can't walk all over you.
 
Bangladesh is not Bhutan it is not a landlocked country; it has developed international Diasporas. India lives amid the international community. You see, India pretends itself as a nonviolent state. A progressive country with the face of Gandhi as the icon of peace. But the world knows that India's opposition party came to poer through violence; people know their agenda. If you know it is one of the poorest countries with its majority suffering in poverty.
.
TURKMAN: But is it poorer than Bangladesh?
--------------------
As a socalled peace-loving country, it even demands the UN security council membership. Here we are to show the real face of India.
.
TURKMAN: Why should not India have Security Coucil Seat? Because Indian People are dark like Bangladeshis and all Dark People are supposed to be Slaves?
------------------
 
This is our second liberation war. Every Bangladeshi; AL, BNP, Jamat or anybody who sympathizes with Bangladesh will fight for its rights. It is their country. Bangladeshis abroad and inside Bangladesh have to help the mother country to shame India. You see, one don't waste time to help one's beloved motherland.   
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman the most popular leader of Bangladesh followed the fools advise and listened to India; conceded to Farakka dam opening, signed the 25 years treaty, gave Barubari and opened its border and turned Bangladesh into a bottomless busket and ended up both himself and him family dead; the nation didn't cry for such naive thinking like you, Devdas! So remember the likes of prostutes never become prosperous. After this letter, if you understand, tell your friends you are wrong!
.
TURKMAN: But has not Prostitute called Pakistan has becoming a lot more prosperous than Bangladeshis since its Per Capita Income has almost doubled in the 8 years? How about the Prostitute, Japan that is still using the same Constitution that victorious Gen. Mc Arther had written after conquering it? Is Japan a poor country or 2nd richest in the World after Switzerland? What about the Prostiture Canada. Is that a poor country? What about the Prostitute Mexico? Is not that 20 times richer than Bangladesh? What about S. Korea, Taiwan and Singpure. No. All of them are poor Prostitutes?
----------------- 
 
Now Hasina is going by the Indian Dada rules to open the Tipaimukh dam, elected by the pro-indian caretaker government, she is doing the same mistake. There are international laws that India can not break. India can not do anything it wants. It can fool and rule but can not walk all over if you are awake. A prostitue opens her body to somebody who has money and power but a conscious person our mother can guard herself easily. The people who possess the defeatest mentality are simply behaving like prostutes. They still use the ghost of the Pakistanis to support the Indian agenda. In this newspapers like daily star, prothom alo find themselves as being progressive. What a shame!
 
India fooled us once, it is trying to fool us twice. It can fool people like you but not the one who knows how Cuba survived, or Georgia trying to survive. You don't have to tell, we know it is difficult to be a neighbour of a big brother but you have to be alert and tough. Don't forget Bangladeshis fought against the British, Pakistan; it has to now fight India. The point is after a country becomes independent, it is on its own and it has to develop skills for its survival, otherwise it doesn't survive. For countries, it the the survival of the fittest!
.
TURKMAN: I'm for the rights and freedom of Bangldeshis but not for them becoming 'ShaheeD' and dieing hitting their heads on a Steel Wall like Sneak Attack JehaaDi Terrorists are doing. That's not Islam. That's called Stupidity.
---------------
 
So you can fool yourself but don't fool others. You call yourself as a poet. Do you know that some poets are intelligent people ofcourse when they live their livelihood on their honestly earned money? 
.
TURKMAN: And what proof you have that Mr. Devdas, a Moslim has not earned money honestly?
--------------------
 
Shame on you Devdas to put your people down with a defeatist mentality but you somehow showing off as if like a scholar. My advise to you is to educate yourself first than show others to learn from you. But will you learn from this? I doubt it.
.
TURKMAN: Thanks for being nice enough to give Mr. Devdas the advice you think is wise but when are you going to educate yourself?

From: SAIF Davdas <islam1234@msn.com>

"The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one." (Adolph Hitler)

 

I warn you guys, as I warned Saddam and Ahmedinijad- ---be very careful, the Tipaimukh Dam game is nothing but a great strategic deception engineered by New Delhi to trap Dhaka further into this Political and economical quagmire. BNP and her Allies--- belligerence, bellicosity and intransigence reminds me of Saddam's stand against mighty America . O' how we Muslim love to commit suicide! The rightist politicians in Bangladesh are deeply suspicious of India 's grand game plan and are deeply paranoid about it. Their allies, the Jamaatis, have grandiose ambitions to re-create the Glory days of Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi and establish the Khilafat on the soil of entire Subcontinent. Intellectual and moral Bankruptcy of our anti-India posture is truly prosaic and myopic at best. The US , the Russians, and the EU have already conceded the hegemony of India in South Asia . The Indian's have setup naval bases in East African territories of Madagascar , Mozambique , Seychelles , and Mauritania . Mauritius offered its Agalega Islands to India on a 100 year lease term ostensibly for development as tourist destinations. The navies of five countries - India , Singapore , the United States , Japan and Australia regularly participate in naval exercise in the Bay of Bengal . To its west, India has been holding joint naval exercises in the Gulf of Oman , the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea with such countries as Oman , Iran and France . Only the militant Pakis and we think otherwise on this very vital issue. The Indians, armed with the largest Scientist force in the world, are beating the hell out of the Americans in every field. In last five years, more than Three Million Indians left USA for lucrative jobs in India . Doesn't common sense dictate that we the Bangladeshis also recognize this reality and act accordingly? After Mangle Pandey's revolution against the British in 1857---the wise Hindus, decided to beat the Brits by obeying them and learn from them. As a result, the British built the finest engineering schools in India ---owing to that, India landed on Moon in 2008! Back then, the Muslims listened to Deobandis and Brelevis---not that Kafir Sir Syed Ahmed Khan---with devastating and disastrous far reaching consequences for the Muslims of the world! Islamic history of last 1000 years is replete with these militant voices. How very sad and unfortunate indeed. Will we Muslims ever learn?

 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 
 
 
 
 
 
SaifDevdas
islam1234@msn.com




 


From: bd_mailer@yahoo. com






 


Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®. See how.




New! Hotmail sign-in on the MSN homepage.

Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.




Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.


__._,_.___


****************************************************
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] Interview: Zainah Anwar on Muslim Feminism

 
Based in Kuala Lumpur, Zainah Anwar, a leading Malaysian social activist and intellectual, is one of the founding members of 'Sisters in Islam', an activist group struggling for the rights of Muslim women. She is also one of the pioneers of Musawah, a recently launched initiative to build a global movement for equality and justice in the Muslim family. In this interview with Yoginder Sikand, she talks about her vision for an understanding of gender justice in Islam and the place of Islam within a democratic nation-state.
Q: You may not like being labeled, but how would you describe yourself? As a Muslim feminist? A feminist who is also a Muslim? An Islamic feminist?
A: I am a feminist. That is my foremost identity. But I am also a Muslim, and so I have no problems calling myself a 'Muslim feminist'.  I am very proud of my Muslim identity. I don't see any contradiction in being Muslim and feminist at the same time, because I have been brought up with an understanding of Islam that is just and God that is  absolutely just, including in matters related to women and gender relations. At the same time, I would hesitate to call myself an 'Islamic feminist'. I find that term 'Islamic' too ideological. I prefer to call myself a 'Muslim feminist', because the term 'Muslim' signifies human agency and how I, as a human being, understand God and religion. Because of political Islam, there is a tendency to believe that anything labeled 'Islamic' is the divine word of God, unmediated by human agency and interpretation, which is not the case, if course. Islam does not speak on its own, without human
intervention. So, at Sisters in Islam, we are trying to start using the term 'Muslim' more, rather than 'Islamic', to emphasise the human role in defining what is seen as Islam and what is not. For example, we prefer to use the term 'Muslim Family Law', rather than 'Islamic Family Law', to help Muslims better understand that the call for reform is not a call to change God's words, but, rather, to change Muslim understandings of God's message.  
Q: Many Muslim feminists seek to articulate a gender-just understanding of Islam based almost wholly on their reading of the Quran, without taking recourse to the corpus of Hadith and fiqh, possibly because the latter two sources contain prescriptions and rules that seem to greatly militate against gender justice. How do you relate to these latter two sources of Muslim tradition?
A: For me, as a Muslim, the Quran is the ultimate authority. Anything that contradicts it, including in the corpus of Hadith and fiqh, cannot be considered to be Islamic. Furthermore, I also believe that the Quran is open to multiple interpretations, as a result of human agency in seeking to understand the text. There is no final, authoritative human interpretation of the text. Thus, the history of Quranic exegesis is a story of a constant, and continuing, endeavour of Muslims seeking to understand the word of God, a wondrous exercise that can result in new meanings and perspectives evolving over time. If you read a particular verse of the Quran you might derive a certain meaning today, but, five years later, the same verse might suggest something quite different or deeper. There is nothing as a static, frozen interpretation of the text. Interpretations of the same text can vary due to temporal and spatial differences, differences in the class and
educational background or the gender of the reader or the sort of experiences the reader has been through and which informs her when she reads the Quran. Thus, every understanding of the Quran by us mortals is really simply an effort to understand it, rather than being the absolute understanding, which God alone knows. To claim that a certain understanding of the Quran—even if it be that of the most well-known ulema—represents the absolute, final understanding is simply fallacious. It is tantamount to the sin of shirk or associating partners with God, because only God knows absolutely what God intends to say and mean.
In other words, Muslim feminists argue against any monopolistic claims on the part of anyone, including the ulema, of knowing fully the mind of God, as revealed in the Quran. Every understanding of the Quran is necessarily a partial, limited, and humble one, which cannot be considered to be perfect or free from error. The great ulema of the classical period were always conscious of this. They never said, 'Islam says this or that'. It is 'I' who is saying or interpreting, and 'I' could be wrong or 'I' could be right. Only God knows best, they always ended. But, today, such acknowledgment of the humble, fallible self no longer exists. The ideologues who claim to speak for Islam always claim that 'Islam says this' or 'God says that', and anyone who challenges this is at once accused of being against Islam and God. This is tantamount to claiming to be the embodiment of God, and is, in fact, a form of shirk.
Q: Muslim feminists are routinely accused of seeking to undermine, if not defy, the authority of the ulema as authoritative spokesmen of Islam, and of allegedly serving as fifth-columnists or 'agents' of the West or of what are described as the 'enemies of Islam'. How do you respond to this charge?
A: We are not questioning the authority of the ulema because we want to. What we are saying is that if someone's interpretation of Islam violates the norms of justice, which are so integral to the Quran, and if this interpretation is then imposed on us as a source of laws and public policies that are oppressive and discriminatory towards women, then we, as citizens of a democratic country, must speak out against this. If there are ulema who subscribe to a gender-just vision of Islam, there would be no reason for us to disagree with them. We would, in fact, have lent them our whole-hearted support. But, sadly, there are very few such ulema on the scene.
If you want to take Islam into the public sphere, you can only expect people to challenge you if they disagree with your views, especially when your views are made into laws that govern the lives of citizens. You cannot prevent others challenging you  by using the argument that only you know what Islam is, and that no one else has the right to speak of, or for, it. This would, in effect, be tantamount to equating your own views with that of God, a grave sin in Islam. Sadly, however, that is precisely the tendency of conservative ulema and Islamist radicals alike.
We are not claiming that ours is the sole, authentic, authoritative interpretation or understanding of the Quran, which must replace the interpretation of the conservative ulema or Islamist ideologues. As I mentioned earlier, all interpretations are necessarily limited and partial, at best. But what we are arguing for is the need to respect everyone's right—the Muslim feminists', the ulema's, the Islamists' and everyone else's—to seek to understand and interpret God's word. We are all on a journey of discovery of the intent of God's word, and this journey will never be complete. We are arguing for recognition of this fact. We are arguing against the authoritarian tendency, sadly so marked among many conservative ulema and Islamist ideologues, to imagine that one's own understanding of God's word is absolute and binding on everyone else and that this must be a source, if not the only source, of law and public policy. In this way,
they are, in fact, limiting God to their own limited experience, understanding and intellect.
That said, I do not deny that the ulema and other religious scholars do have their own roles to play. And I do believe that there are principles within the rich heritage of Islamic jurisprudence that render open the possibilities for re-interpretation to bring about justice and equality in the modern world. What I am against are the monopolistic claims and the insistence that law and public policy must be based only on their misogynist and unjust interpretations, and that those who disagree with them are to be labeled as anti-Islam, as against God or as opposed to the shariah. This is what is turning people against the Islamist demand for an 'Islamic state' and Islamic law. It turns their project into a totalitarian scheme where there is no democratic space for anyone else to differ and disagree.
Q: Does this mean that you are opposed to the notion of the 'Islamic state', which is such a central pillar of the agenda of Islamist groups?
A: If Islam is to be a source of law and public policy-making, this has to come about as a result of democratic engagement, and cannot be imposed on the people, as the Islamists demand. The modern nation-state, with all its coercive powers, did not exist at the time of the Prophet Muhammad. For self-styled Islamist groups to seek to use the modern nation-state, with its massive coercive powers, to force people to lead a life that they see as consonant with Islam—that is to say, their own interpretation and understanding of Islam—completely negates the Muslim heritage, which was characterized by a tolerance of diverse schools of jurisprudence and theology that themselves emerged from diverse understandings of Islam.
Another reason for my opposition to the notion of a so-called 'Islamic state' is that this is used by many of its advocates simply as a tool for acquiring political power. It is also a regressive ideology, in the sense that, in the face, first of European colonialism, and, now, continuing Western hegemony, it is a reflection of a hankering for the times when Muslim political power was at its height. It is the yearning of a defeated people, a dream of a people who know, but perhaps refuse to recognize, that they are defeated by others. But going back in time is not really the way to overcome the predicament of loss, failure and defeat. It is not the way to acquire power and ascendancy, because the world has so dramatically changed today. Issues like human rights, justice, democracy, women's rights are the major ethical demands globally today. In the face of all this, the sort of 'Islam' that conservative ulema and Islamists alike want to impose,
stridently totalitarian and vehemently against democracy, human rights, minority rights and gender justice, is simply not the answer. It is, obviously, and needless to say, unsustainable. In Malaysia, even within the Islamist party PAS, there is now a debate on which direction it should take—to stay firm on its demand for an 'Islamic state' ruled by the ulema or to democratize and modernize, along the lines of the AKP model  in Turkey. Hardliner 'Islamic' rule will in the end miserably fail in providing the credible alternative to the present global system that its advocates believe they are able to offer.
Q: Muslim 'progressives' like yourself seem to argue that the right to engage in creative, independent interpretation of Islam, or ijtihad, is not, or should not be, the sole preserve of the ulema, but that it should be democratized. On the other hand, the ulema argue that those outside their circle do not have the right to engage in ijtihad as they lack the necessary scholarly credentials in the Islamic tradition. How do you view this conflict, which is really about competing visions of religious authority?
A: I am most happy to be silent about religion if Islam is just in the private sphere, between me and God. But we live in a country where Islam is a source of law and public policy. Unfortunately, those in religious authority who construct these laws do not recognize equality and justice. They seriously believe God made men superior to women and therefore men's authority over women is eternal and divine. Never mind the realities before their very eyes. There are some men who are superior to some women and there are some women who are superior to some men. But this belief in the inherent superiority and the authority of all men over all women has led to laws and practices that continue to discriminate and oppress women. I recognize the authority of the ulema to use their scholarship to help draft laws made in the name of Islam.  But what I am opposed to is the belief that only the ulama and the Islamists have the sole authority to do this and that we
as citizens of a democratic state have no right to question and challenge the injustice of these laws, in substance and implementation.  What I am questioning is the use of one's authority of the authoritative text for authoritarian purposes.
Now, if no one among those who consider themselves ulema or mujtahids is going to challenge this hegemonic agenda, then civil society will have to stand up and speak out and protest. We are not engaged in protesting against this simply to challenge the ulema. We are doing this because their understanding of Islam impacts so deleteriously on us, and so grossly violates our vision of Islam as a religion based on justice. I, as a citizen of a democratic state, who has not gone through a traditionalist education in Islam and do not speak Arabic, still have the right to speak out, and seek to understand and interpret my religion, because the conservative, misogynist ulema have miserably failed to make Islam relevant to women in the 21st century, to human rights, to social justice, to democracy. They have failed to address the social aspirations for justice and equality of the people. It is because of our experience of injustice, discrimination, oppression
justified in the name of Islam that we seek to claim our right to understand our religion in ways that makes sense to our realities. I believe in a God that is kind, just and compassionate. So anything done in the name of Islam must be just and compassionate. It is as simple as that.  We are doing this because as Muslims, we do not want to have to abandon our faith in order to be a democrat, a feminist, a human rights defender. We believe that equality, fundamental liberties, freedom of religion, gender justice and so on, do not contradict the teachings of Islam. The problem is our understandings contradict the understandings of Islam of the conservative ulema and Islamists, which they want to impose on the rest of society. Why should they have the right to deprive me of my right to love my God and love my religion?
If the ulema can provide me the answers that I am looking for, to enable me to be a Muslim and a feminist, a democrat, a human rights defender, then  I'd rather they do that job. But, the sad fact is that they simply are not doing the job. This is the challenge before them. The answer is not to silence the dissenting and questioning ummah, and to declare them as apostates, but to rise up and engage in dialogue in the face of the huge challenges before us.
Let me come back to your point about the argument that is sometimes put forward that 'modernist' Muslim scholars, including Muslim feminists, do not have the necessary qualifications to engage in ijtihad, and, therefore, do not have the right to interpret the Islamic sources on their own. Let me say it again: if you want to use Islam as a source of law and public policy, then every citizen has the right to question and speak out. Public law and policy must pass the test of public reason. If you don't want any public debate, then you must remove religion from the public sphere. Also, consider the various Islamist groups here in Malaysia, and around the world generally. Most of them are led not by traditional, madrasa-trained ulema but by graduates of secular universities, mainly doctors, engineers, science graduates. They have similar a secular educational background as us. They are not experts in Arabic or in Quran, Hadith and fiqh. They have not
spent twenty years studying in madrasas or at Al-Azhar. Yet, why is it that their claims to speak for and of Islam and to engage in ijtihad are not similarly dismissed, as ours are? As far as I can see, the only reason for this is that they say the 'right' things, the things the conservative ulema want to hear, unlike us who dissent on a host of issues from the conservatives.
Q: How do you see the link or relation between secular feminism and Muslim or even Islamic feminism? Can there be a synergy between them for common goals and purposes, or are they mutually opposed?
A: I think the sort of feminism that will work in a given context depends on contextual factors, and so there is indeed a possibility, and even a need, for different forms of feminism to collaborate on common issues.  Given the rise of political Islam in most Muslim countries, secular feminism today faces a brick wall.  Perhaps it can work in some contexts where women are up against an authoritarian state that claims Islamic credentials and uses its own version of Islam to marginalize, even oppress, women. But in Malaysia, many Muslims still fantasise about this utopian Islamic state. Given the socio-political context, our struggle for equality and justice has to be justified in 'Islamic' terms for the Malay Muslims. But we believe that any understanding of Islam as a source of law and public policy must also be grounded as well in human rights principles, our constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination and our lived realities
today. We do not live in a vacuum where Islam can be exercised in a vacuum. We pose a challenge to the Islamic state agenda of the Islamists because we speak for gender justice in the name of Islam itself, which is something that resonates with every Muslim woman who has suffered some form of oppression or discrimination in the name of her religion.
In such a context, for us to provide an understanding of Islam that is gender-just is a great source of empowerment for Muslim women because, all along, they have been taught that a good Muslim woman is one who meekly obeys her male guardians and suffers in silence because this is what Islam is supposed to be.
To return to your point about possibilities of dialoguing with other streams of feminism, let me say that Sisters in Islam is at the forefront of a global initiative to bring Muslim women activists together to build a movement for equality and justice in the Muslim family. We are generating hope among many Muslim feminists, those who work with religion and those who work just within human rights principles. What we bring to the women's and human rights movement is the possibility of Islam as a source of liberation and empowerment, not a source of oppression. We believe it is important to ground our demands for reform of the discriminatory Islamic family law and practices  within a holistic framework that include Islamic arguments, Constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination, international treaties that our governments have ratified and the lived realities of women and men today.
Q: Numerous Muslim feminist groups across the world, including Sisters-in-Islam, are dependent on foreign, especially Western, institutional funding. Why is this so? I ask this question particularly since their source of funding opens them to the charge of serving as 'agents' of non-Muslim forces that are portrayed as engaged in a 'conspiracy' to undermine Islam.
A: It is strange that although Islamist groups, too, get funding from overseas, no one levels the same sort of criticism against them. If we Muslim feminist groups are 'tools' of the West, the same could also be said of Muslim governments across the world that are so dependent on Western countries and Western-dominated institutions for aid. If our Muslim critics are so concerned that we should not have to take recourse to Western organizations for funding, why don't rich Muslims, like the Gulf Arabs drowning in petrodollars, ever assist groups like us? We would be happy to accept their aid as long as they do not interfere with our work. But, of course, they will not aid groups like ours.  The reason is simple: they do not believe in equality for women.
I would like to make it clear here that our donors do not interfere at all with our functioning. We draw up proposals, set the agenda, and set it before potential funders, who, if they provide us with money, do not at all meddle with the way we go about doing the things we do. We just have to be accountable for the money we spent.
That said, I must also add that we are now beginning to approach more local donors so that Malaysians have a greater stake in our work, with which they have become increasingly familiar in recent years. In fact, every attack against us is an opportunity for us to open up the space for us to be heard. Because of this, the support for our work has grown, as there is greater awareness of the significance of our work to Malaysia's survival as a democratic multi-ethnic country.  
Q: A major problem that 'progressives' face is that they seem to be dialoguing among each other, preaching to the already 'converted', without being able to reach out to others, particularly the 'traditionalists' and 'conservatives'. Do you at Sisters in Islam face the same sort of problem?
A: I think the situation varies in different countries. In Indonesia, for instance, some of the most progressive Islamic thinkers are based within traditional Islamic institutions. Several Indonesian scholars associated with pesantrens or traditional Islamic schools have worked on issues such as human rights, religious pluralism, and gender justice, and are in the forefront of the movement for greater democratization. In their case, it appears that the deeper their understanding of Islam, the greater is their commitment to genuine democracy. One reason for the Indonesian case is that Islam has remained largely outside the purview of state authority and control. Some of the largest Islamic movements in the world are based in Indonesia, such as the Nahdlatul Ulama and the Muhammadiyah, and, because they have developed independent of state authority, they are among the leading voices for democracy and social justice in the country. Interestingly, they are
also opposed to the setting up of a so-called 'Islamic state' in Indonesia. Perhaps this is because they have a long history of struggle against dictatorship. This must have forced them to re-examine their own understandings of the relationship between Islam and politics, being wary, from experience, of any form of dictatorship. They seem very aware that an Islamic state would only impose one understanding of Islam on every citizen and this would lead to totalitarian rule and totally undermine the pluralism of Indonesian society. I am amazed to have met so many democracy activists in Indonesia from the pesantrens and Islamic universities who openly declare their opposition to the idea of an Islamic state and shariah rule. "Islam social" yes, "Islam politics", no, they declare.
The situation is very different in Malaysia, where the state has much greater control over the Islamic discourse, and Islamic education and scholarship have evolved to serve state power. And over the past few decades with the rise of political Islam, what is being taught and propagated is an ideological Islam to serve the interests of those who demand for an Islamic state and shariah rule.  
Q: Despite Muslim, particularly Malay, groups being actively patronized by the Malaysian state, and despite the rhetoric of Malaysia being a 'model Muslim state', why is it that the level of Islamic intellectual discourse in Malaysia remains so limited?
A: It is sad, but undeniable, that Malaysia lacks a vibrant intellectual tradition. The contrast with neighbouring Indonesia, for instance, is really stark. I think one reason for this is the sudden and enormous economic growth in Malaysia, which has made us a very materialistic people. Everyone here seems so busy with pursuing material accumulation that the intellectual scene appears so stultifying. One good indicator of this is the fact that there is no faculty of philosophy in a single Malaysian university! No one sees the usefulness of philosophy in life. The focus of our universities is not to encourage critical or innovative thinking, but, rather, to churn out people with degrees who can fit the so-called 'development' agenda, which is based entirely on material acquisition and consumerism, which has come to be regarded as the key measure of one's worth.  Consequently, intellectual activity or social activism has come to be regarded as
something unrewarding, subversive even. Questioning the state can invite its wrath. Not surprising, then, our intellectual scene, particularly among the Malay Muslims, is pathetic. Since the Malay middle-class is so dependent on the state for its economic fortunes, it is hardly surprising that few of them would be willing to risk challenging the state, including the state's discourse about Islam, which is largely very conservative. State patronage of the Malays has led the community to become very complacent. When life for them is 'good', they believe, why rock the boat, or push away the hand that feeds them? The government has also instilled in them the need to feel grateful to it for the material prosperity that they enjoy and that, therefore, they should desist from anything that might even remotely seem critical of the state and its ideology.
This tendency is buttressed by aspects of traditional Malay culture, which is feudal and hierarchical, which teaches that those in authority are always right and must not be challenged. It stresses conformity and frowns on questioning and dissent.
But this is now slowly changing, after the March 8th elections which saw the ruling party lose five state governments to the opposition. People are far more critical and questioning now. Thus the ever more open contestations on all issues, including Islam. We cannot be silenced anymore.
 
Q: You, along with colleagues from various countries, recently set up a platform, called Musawah, to galvanise the struggle for gender justice in Muslim communities world-wide. What sort of work does Musawah envisage for itself in the coming years?
A: Musawah was launched last February to a roaring welcome from Muslim women activists and scholars from 50 countries. Over the next few years, we are focused on knowledge-building and movement building.  We are about to start a research project on the Qur'anic concept of qawwamah or men's authority over women, which lies at the core of the unequal construction of gender rights in Islam. It is through this concept of qawwamah  that women's subjugation is rationalised, sustained and operationalised. The legal rights that emanate from this concept not only put women under male authority, they give men the right to terminate the marriage contract at will, to control their wives' movements, to polygamy, and to other inequalities in the family. Given the changing realities of women's lives today, the fact that women are also providers and protectors of their families, how can we re-understand and re-construct this concept so that equality and
justice between genders and in the family are ensured? This is what we want to focus on.
 

At the international level, we plan to intervene with international organisations with regard to laws in place in many of our countries that restrict or contravene the international treaties that our governments are party to, especially on the issue of women's rights and CEDAW. Musawah as a knowledge-building movement will concentrate on developing a body of knowledge on different issues related to Islam, women's rights and human rights, that can help inform activism and legal and social change in Muslim communities worldwide.
Zainah Anwar can be contacted on zmha54@yahoo.co.uk
For more details about Sisters in Islam, see www.sistersinislam.org.my
 
 
Yoginder Sikand works with the Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Social Policy at the National Law School, Bangalore.


 
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:
www.islampeaceandjustice.blogspot.com
www.madrasareforms.blogspot.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/

[ALOCHONA] ACC under BAL : Toothless to get clawless



 



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

RE: [ALOCHONA] Vegetable price rising



Hunger situation in Bangladesh  alarming

say int'l reports
Poverty worsened by food shortage,
financial crisis, lack of employment
Khawaza Main Uddin



http://www.newagebd.com/2009/oct/15/front.html#4





Can we expect....any response from AL thugs and chamchas?
what are the excuses this time/
you morons...manufactured lot of fascinating stories,,,during ...1972 to 1975, when corrupt Mujib govt. was looting the country and ordinary people suffered.

best wishes.

khoda hafez.


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[mukto-mona] Can ICC breach Burma’s Sovereignty?



The International Criminal Court (ICC) came into existence in 2002. The ICC has been hailed by international community as a valuable instrument to combat impunity for serious international crimes.

Regardless of the very high hope and expectations of ICC enthusiasts, there is an intense debate going on between ICC's opponents and proponents over its legitimacy and utility.

Book front-cover

(Picture on front cover is courtesy of Thierry Falise.)

Buy this book on amazon.com

Proponents describe the court as the most significant new international institution created in so many years. The ICC, they claim, will be a powerful new weapon in the fight to end the prevailing "culture of impunity", deter atrocities, promote national reconciliation in divided societies, and trigger major progress in efforts to promote the rule of law.

Critics view the ICC as an undemocratic and unaccountable institution. They also see it as a forum for politicized prosecutions which impose a threat to their national security. Making such allegations, some key actors in international affairs such as the US, Russia, China, India and Israel are refusing to become parties to the ICC.

The Court's opponents and proponents agree at least on one main issue: the ICC has a potential to influence states' national politics so much that it may trespass on national sovereignty.

Moreover, in addition to its potential threats to states' national sovereignty, ICC's standing has been scrutinized, and debated upon, on a few other important issues such as _ whether ICC will be able to maintain a strict political neutrality, who ICC will hold responsible for collective wrongs of crimes against humanity, whether or not ICC will have deterrence effect on potential human rights abusers, how ICC's indictments and prosecutions will affect other peaceful means of national reconciliation, etc.

As soon as international human rights activists' attempts to get ICC Prosecutor's attention on Burma's human rights abuses start to gain significant momentum, the Burmese military leaders and their regional allies will start challenging the ICC's investigations on Burma; by throwing the usual criticisms at ICC, they will try to discredit, and defy, any ICC's investigations on Burma's human rights abuses. The main issue which the regime will raise with all vigour is that the ICC imposing its jurisdiction on Burma amounts to an encroachment on Burma's national sovereignty.

So, the book "Challenges ahead on Burma's Road to ICC" examines the background history and the whole regime of ICC, comparing and contrasting it with other similar parallel international or supranational institutions wherever appropriate, with a view to assess whether advances towards universal jurisdiction over human rights protection jeopardise states' national sovereignty; and if so, what measures are available to reduce such an adverse impact, but also highlighting the fact that states may exploit any restrictive measures limiting the ICC's jurisdiction to render it virtually powerless.

And, the ultimate aim of international human rights activists, and also the aim of this book, is to argue that the ICC, despite all its actual and potential weaknesses, is a welcoming development in international quest for a universal Rule of Law. It so would imply that Burma needs to, and can safely, embrace ICC to get justice eventually brought to her indigent people long suffering under the heels of various forms of dictatorship.

Buy the book "Challenges ahead on Burma's Road to ICC" on amazon.com

Proceeds from the sale of this book are all to be donated to non-governmental health-care charities in Burma.




__._,_.___


****************************************************
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] Foley Hoag LLP Retained by Bangladesh for Arbitrations Against India and Myanmar



Foley Hoag Retained by Bangladesh for Arbitrations Against India and Myanmar Over Boundaries in Bay of Bengal's Resource-Rich Waters

Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:09pm EDT

Reuters

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS196525+13-Oct-2009+PRN20091013

 

 

WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 /PRNewswire/ -- Foley Hoag LLP has been retained by the government of Bangladesh in two just-filed arbitration actions against the neighboring states of Myanmar (Burma) and India over maritime borders in the resource-rich Bay of Bengal.

 

The actions by Bangladesh were brought under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to which all three countries are signatories. The Convention provides for compulsory arbitration to resolve maritime boundary disputes among parties to the treaty, which are obliged to accept the arbitral body's final ruling.

 

Bangladesh negotiated with Myanmar and India off and on for several decades in an attempt to resolve overlapping claims in the Bay of Bengal, which is reportedly rich in undersea deposits of oil and natural gas. Paul Reichler, who leads the Foley Hoag team representing Bangladesh, says foreign oil companies holding exploration licenses from Bangladesh, including ConocoPhillips and UK-based Tullow Oil plc, have been intimidated by warships from Myanmar within waters Bangladesh claims as its own.

 

"The exaggerated claims of Myanmar and India, and aggressive actions by Myanmar in particular, have effectively prevented Bangladesh from exploiting potentially huge deposits of oil and natural gas located off its coast," said Mr. Reichler. "Unfortunately, negotiations have been deadlocked for years, leaving international arbitration as the only way for Bangladesh to achieve peaceful and lawful resolutions of these maritime boundary issues, and definitive borders that will ultimately allow it to access natural resources that will benefit the Bangladeshi people."

 

In separate proceedings against each of its two neighbors, Bangladesh has referred to binding arbitration its maritime boundaries in the territorial sea (out to 12 nautical miles from the shoreline), the Exclusive Economic Zone (or EEZ, to 200 nautical miles from shore), and the continental shelf (beyond 200 miles from shore).

 

Bangladesh's complaint against Myanmar states that Myanmar has granted concessions to oil companies that, "have engaged in drilling and other exploratory activities in disputed areas without prior notice to or consent by Bangladesh." The complaint against India states that it "denies Bangladesh any portion of its continental shelf whatsoever beyond 200 nautical miles, [and] is inconsistent with the principles and rules established by UNCLOS."

 

Neither Myanmar nor India has yet responded to the arbitration notifications, which were filed by Bangladesh on October 8. They each have 30 days under the applicable rules to appoint an arbitrator, or one will be appointed for them. Mr. Reichler said that arbitrations of this type can take up to 3 to 4 years from the initial notification to the final decision.

 

Bangladesh Foreign Secretary Mohamed Mijarul Quayes said, "This will allow us to once and for all settle this dispute with our neighbors, to ensure that our sovereign rights to the natural resources in the sea are fully respected, and to move forward to an era of prosperity as we exploit our national wealth for the good of all the people of Bangladesh. It is in keeping with our obligations under the Charter of the United Nations to seek a solution to disputes by peaceful means. We wish to conclude by reassuring our neighbors India and Myanmar of our commitment to friendship and the pursuit of mutual prosperity."

 

In addition to Mr. Reichler, Bangladesh is represented by Foley Hoag partners Lawrence Martin and Andrew Loewenstein, as well as Professor James Crawford of Cambridge University in the United Kingdom and Professor Payam Akhavan of McGill University in Canada.

 

Foley Hoag has represented numerous governments before international arbitral tribunals worldwide and at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, including Guyana in its successful maritime boundary arbitration against neighboring Suriname, also brought under UNCLOS. Foley Hoag is currently counsel to Nicaragua in a maritime boundary dispute with Colombia before the ICJ, and earlier this year successfully represented Nicaragua at the ICJ in a case against Costa Rica that reaffirmed Nicaragua's exclusive sovereignty over the river that forms part of the border between the two Central American states.

 

About Foley Hoag

Foley Hoag LLP is a leading law firm in international law, litigation, and arbitration of disputes among sovereign states and between sovereign states and foreign investors. Foley Hoag also represents foreign governments in litigation before the federal and state courts of the United States. The firm's 250 lawyers are located in Washington, DC, and Boston. For more, visit www.foleyhoag.com

 

Contact:   James Bourne 212-262-7470 jimbournenyc@aol.com

Allan Ripp 212-262-7477 arippnyc@aol.com

Meghan Gross 617-832-7112 mgross@foleyhoag.com

 

SOURCE:  Foley Hoag LLP

James Bourne, +1-212-262-7470, jimbournenyc@aol.com, or Allan Ripp,

+1-212-262-7477, arippnyc@aol.com, or Meghan Gross, +1-617-832-7112,

mgross@foleyhoag.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], 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

__,_._,___