Banner Advertiser

Monday, February 15, 2010

[ALOCHONA] China and India



China and India

A Danger in Thin Air

By CONN HALLINAN

Of all the world's potential hotspots, one of the most unlikely is tucked into the folds of the Himalayas. It is a slice of ground that is little more than frozen rock fields and soaring peaks that is decidedly short on people, resources and oxygen. But for the past year it has been a worrisome source of friction between India and China, including incursions by Chinese troops, the wounding of several Indian border police, and a buildup of military forces on both sides.

Some Indian analysts go so far as to say that China has how replaced Pakistan as India's greatest threat, while Beijing has been uncharacteristically assertive in pushing its claims for a sizable chunk of India's Arunachai Pradesh state.

Sorting out why the two huge Asian nations are facing off over ground that all but the hardiest of goats avoid, involves a combination of the past: colonialism's bitter legacy—and the present: current U.S. efforts to maintain its pre-eminent role in the region.

The area in question, which borders Tibet and covers an area about the size of Austria, is delineated by a boundary that has shifted over the millennia. The British drew the current line in 1914, but the Chinese have never recognized the agreement that established it—the so-called "Simja Convention"—because they saw it as just another treaty forced on China by Western colonial powers.

Because the area in dispute was once connected to Tibet, Beijing says the region is part of China.

So far the tension on the border has resulted in little more than Chinese soldiers painting rocks red on the Indian side, and the one shooting incident that wounded two members of the Indo-Tibetan Police Force. The Indians have responded by moving 30,000 troops and its latest warplanes into the area.

The region has long been a volatile one, and similar tensions in 1962 sparked a 32-day war that killed 3100 Indian and 700 Chinese soldiers, and resulted in a humiliating defeat for New Delhi.

India's Right, led by the Bharatija Janata Party (BJP), has raised the specter of the 1962 war and is demanding that India respond to Chinese "aggression." "India must take adequate precautions," says BJP President Rajnath Singh. Retired Indian Air Force Marshall Fali Homi says that China now poses a bigger threat than India's traditional adversary, Pakistan, and former Indian National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra predicts a China-India war within five years.

Some Indians even charge—without evidence— that China is supporting India's homegrown Maoists, or "Naxilites," who are waging a low-key insurgency against the Indian government.

The rhetoric on the Chinese side is less bombastic, but Beijing's statements have been unusually sharp, especially after the Dalai Lama visited the region this past November.

China's prickliness over its borders is hardly new, but with the exception of its attack on Vietnam in 1979, Beijing has threaded a careful path between asserting its power, and reassuring its neighbors that it isn't about to become the bully on the block. Why then the pugnaciousness over what can hardly be considered strategic ground?

Enter the United States.

In 2005, the Bush Administration executed a full court press to bring India into an alliance with Washington and its allies in the Pacific region—specifically Australia, South Korea, and Japan—to counter the rise of China. Washington warned that the Chinese military, in particular its naval arm, was expanding rapidly and would soon pose a threat to other nations in Asia. The U.S. and India held joint military operations, and the U.S. urged New Delhi to actively patrol the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea.

India's former UN ambassador, Arundhati Ghose, told the Financial Times that China's navy is "flexing its muscles" and "what they want to do is to say, 'We are the big boys here and Asia can only afford one power,'"

Countries that border the region control 60 percent of the world's oil reserves and more than 30 percent of its natural gas

Since 80 percent of China's oil and gas supplies transit the Indian Ocean and South China Sea, talk of joint patrols was certain to draw a response from Beijing, and indeed, the Chinese Navy is increasingly making its presence known in the area. China is also in the process of developing a series of friendly ports—its so-called "string of pearls"—from Africa through Southeast Asia.

The Bush Administration also pushed through Congress the "1-2-3 Agreement" through Congress that allows India to violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by buying uranium on the world market even though New Delhi won't sign the pact. This will allow India to rapidly increase its nuclear arsenal, which is certain to spark a similar buildup by Pakistan.

The nuclear deal is not all about strategy. U.S. companies are due to make billions building nuclear power plants in India. And India is considering buying $15 billion in arms from the U.S's largest arms company, Lockheed-Martin.

China has long had a friendly relationship with Pakistan and is Islamabad's leading military supplier. It is concerned that tension between India and Pakistan could lead to war; a war that the Pentagon predicts would likely escalate into a nuclear exchange. A recent study by climate scientists Alan Robock and Brian Toon found such a war would result in a "nuclear winter" that would devastate China, indeed, much of the world.

New Delhi and China are also at loggerheads over Afghanistan, with the Chinese dubious of the U.S. war and the Indians strongly supportive. With a number of NATO allies getting ready to bring their troops home, the Obama administrations has pressed India to back the war, going so far as to touch on the sub-continent's third rail: intercommunal violence.

Writing in the Indian publication Outlook, Bruce Riedel, chair of the Administration's Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy review, says that defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan is essential, or India's Muslim minority will "face the danger of radicalism." That is incendiary talk in that part of the world. A recent report on the massacres of Muslims following the destruction of a mosque 17 year ago placed much of the blame for the savage intercommununal bloodletting on the BJP

China's response to the growing U.S.-Indian alliance was to oppose the "1-2-3 Agreement," block India's application for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council, and try to torpedo a loan from the Asian Development Bank to fund flood control in Arunachai Pradesh.

Yet the current tensions between India and China over 90,000 thousand square miles of ice and rock fly in the face of a growing interdependence between the two Asian giants. China is now India's number one trading partner. Bilateral trade has risen from under $3 billion in 2000 to almost $52 billion in 2008, and is growing at almost three times the rate of U.S.-China trade. Estimates are that by 2020, China-India trade will surpass $410 billion, a figure equal to last year's U.S.-China trade. With China's powerful manufacturing sector, and India's wealth of raw materials and its cutting-edge technology industry, the two countries complement one another.

China needs India's iron ore, bauxite and manganese, and India needs China's low-priced manufactured goods to upgrade its infrastructure. China also has huge foreign reserves to invest, although cross-border investment is still modest.

Both nations also share a colonial experience. Some 300 years ago, the two countries accounted for approximately 50 percent of the world's GDP. By the middle of last century, they were among the world's poorest nations. China is on track to become the second largest economy in the world, and India may claim third place in the coming decades.

There have been efforts by both sides to tamp down the border dispute. Asked about tensions between New Deli and Beijing, India's Deputy Foreign Minister Shashi Tharoor replied that "things seem to be very good," adding that "minor irritants" had been blown our of proportion by the media.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh held what he called "frank and constructive" talks with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao during the recent meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

And yet the region remains a witch's brew of dangerous hot spots and powerful cross currents: the U.S. escalation in Afghanistan, ongoing tension between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, and Washington's sometimes warm, sometimes cool attitude toward China.

Indian newspapers have been filled with headlines like "Red Peril," and "Enter The Dragon," and senior Indian national security advisor M.K. Narayamen warned that "media hype" could set off an "unwarranted incident or accident." Chinese newspapers and websites have also reflected strong nationalist sentiments over the issue.

If the Obama administration wants to avoid making a dangerous situation worse, it should revisit the "1-2-3 Agreement" and put the peaceful resolution of the Kashmir problem back on the table. During his presidential campaign, Obama promised to pressure both sides on Kashmir, the flash point for three wars between India and Pakistan, but under intense Indian pressure, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Special Envoy to South Asia Richard Holbrook dropped the issue.

It is also time for the U.S. to realize that it can no longer dominate Asia, and that, in its efforts to maintain its former status as top dog in the region, it has exacerbated tensions between a number of countries in the area, tensions that have the potential to produce catastrophic consequences.

Conn Hallinan can be reached at: ringoanne@sbcglobal.net

This article originally appeared in Foreign Policy in Focus.



__._,_.___


[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] Now BCL, Jubo League clash over admission



Now BCL, Jubo League clash over admission
 

At least 15 persons were injured in a clash between Bangladesh Chhatra League and Jubo League activists in Kushtia yesterday. The two groups were locked in a battle to control admission trade in Kushtia Government College only a day after the college authorities had been forced to stop its first year honours admission process for the second time on Sunday.(The Daily Star)

Kushtia sadar unit BCL President Abu Taiab Badshah was arrested in the evening in connection with the clash, police said.Campus sources said a band of Jubo League men led by Kushtia town unit general secretary Emam Hannan Biswas had been trying to enter the campus around 11:00am.

The members of college unit BCL obstructed the Jubo League activists at the main entrance to the institution triggering a fight. The two groups started chasing one another using firearms, hand-made bombs, bamboo sticks, iron rods and brickbats, police said. Several shots were fired and cocktails were hurled from both sides.
About 15 activists of both organisations were injured in the clash, campus sources said.

On information, several police teams from the district headquarters rushed to the spot around noon. They charged batons and lobbed at least eight teargas shells and dispersed the fighting groups.

Additional police forces were deployed on the campus and the situation had calmed down, police said.Academic activities, including admission process and classes, of the college remained suspended.

The college authorities, in an urgent meeting, vowed to continue the admission process. "We have informed the higher authorities [National University] of the matter and we are hopeful of removing all barriers within a short time," the college principal said.

Contacted, Kushtia Govt College unit BCL president Enamul Bari Sumon and general secretary Abdullah Al-Mamun blamed Jubo League leader Emam Hannan Biswas for the incident.

On the other hand, Hannan said some unscrupulous and greedy people were holding hostage the educational institution using BCL banner. Hannan, however, urged higher authorities to take stern action against BCL Kushtia Government College unit.

Earlier on February 1, the college unit BCL for the first time locked several rooms of the college and stopped the admission process soon after the viva voce had started following a merit list prepared by the NU. They had been demanding illegal enrolment of some 200 students.
 


__._,_.___


[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] The Key Issue



The Key Issue

We need to ask for undiminished river flow, argues Nazrul Islam
 

It is a welcome development that the relationship between Bangladesh and India is expected to have turned for the better following Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's recent India visit. It has been reported that trust has been re-established as a result of the goodwill measures taken by Bangladesh in response to India's security and economic needs pertaining to her North-Eastern states.

The question that many are discussing is how India should reciprocate these goodwill measures of Bangladesh. Many suggestions have been made. We argue here that the most important way in which India can reciprocate Bangladesh's goodwill steps is by restoring and ensuring undiminished flows of the shared rivers.

Given her geography, the most important bilateral relationship for Bangladesh is the relationship with India. And, among all the different bonds that Bangladesh and India have, rivers provide the most important bond. Almost all of Bangladesh's major rivers enter her territory via India.

As the upper riparian country, India therefore holds over Bangladesh an enormous leverage, which she has been using to her advantage. The most damaging for Bangladesh has been river flow diversion, which violates Article 7 (obligation not to cause significant harm) of the 1997 UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses.

This article clearly says that: "Watercourse states shall in utilizing an international watercourse in their territories take all appropriate measures to prevent the causing of significant harm to other watercourse states."

There is hardly any doubt that diversion of river water by Farakka, Gozaldoba, and other such structures constructed by India has caused "significant harm" to Bangladesh's ecology and economy. Now that goodwill has been restored, Bangladesh should ask for the undiminished flow of rivers, instead of negotiating for a "share" of the river flow.

Restoration and ensuring undiminished flow of rivers is in the long-term interest of India as well. First, diversionary structures erected by India have proved to be of very limited benefit for India, particularly in view of the opportunity cost of resources spent.

Second, unless undiminished flows can be restored, rivers of Bangladesh will not be navigable enough to make the connectivity provisions of the recent agreements fruitful, frustrating India's intention to ease transportation of good to and from her North-Eastern states.

Third and most important, India must restore undiminished river flow in order to thwart the risk she faces from population displacement that may occur in Bangladesh due to climate change. Sedimentation has been historically the most effective protection for the Bengal delta against sea level rise.

Diminished river flow cause sediment volume to decrease, making Bangladesh vulnerable to the submergence effect of climate change. By restoring full volume of river water and thereby of sediment flow, India can help Bangladesh counter sea level rise and thus avoid the threat of large-scale migration.

Responses
Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina's recent India visit has generated considerable discussion. Many have applauded the visit, terming is as historic and as a landmark event in the way towards better relationship between India and Bangladesh. However, many opposition parties have deplored the visit, characterising it as a sellout, and judging that Bangladesh has achieved nothing in return to agreeing to use of her Chittagong and Mongla ports by India.

The very geography of Bangladesh suggests that she needs to have good relationship with India in order to prosper. History also points to the same conclusion. After all, India's help was crucial for the success of Bangladesh Liberation War.

Unfortunately, over the years, the relationship between Bangladesh and India turned from bad to worse. India complained that Bangladesh territory was being used for supporting subversive activities in North-Eastern states of India. While Bangladesh had been denying such activity, the ten-truck arms haul incident, and similar other incidents, have shown clearly that the Indian complaint has considerable basis.

The main outcome of the Hasina visit has been expression of Bangladesh's unequivocal commitment to stop any such subversion or insurgency abetting activities. Broadly, this stand applies to all types of terrorist and criminal activities. The commitment has been reciprocated by India, resulting in the agreements signed during the visit.

This commitment and resulting agreements have taken away the main strategic barrier that was obstructing the Indo-Bangladesh relationship. The step has established goodwill and a level of trust that can now exert positive influence on other spheres of Indo-Bangladesh relationship.

Another important development during the visit has been expression of Bangladesh's willingness to allow her ports for use by neighbouring countries, not only India, but Bhutan and Nepal as well. By doing so, Bangladesh has conceded to another important Indian wish, namely alleviation of the semi-land locked situation of her North-Eastern states.

The question many have asked is what Bangladesh has gained in return to these steps. On the issue of security, the commitment is mutual, so that the question of additional gain to be had by Bangladesh in a sense may not apply. However, many have seen the Indian offer of $1 billion credit and the opportunity to buy electricity from her as indirect reciprocal steps.

On the issue of use of ports, the question of Bangladesh's gain is a genuine one, because after all it is predominantly an economic issue. However allowing ports for use by other countries of the region can be a mutually advantageous step for Bangladesh too. From being national sea ports of Bangladesh, Chittagong and Mongla can now become regional ports, enjoying many benefits of entrepot trade, as do Hong Kong, Singapore, and other such regional ports.

The regional status can be particularly helpful for Mongla, which is generally regarded as underutilised. Of course, Bangladesh has to carefully negotiate the modalities of use her ports by neighbouring countries, so that her legitimate interests are protected and due expected economic gains are maximised.

However, many are not satisfied with the above. They think that Bangladesh should get more from India in return for her cooperation in meeting India's security and economic needs. They have put forward many additional demands, the important among which are: (i) removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers to Bangladesh export to India, (ii) halt to killing of Bangladeshis by Border Security Force (BSF) of India, (iii) transit facility to Nepal and Bhutan, etc.

These are justifiable demands that Bangladesh should indeed put forward to India and press upon. The joint communique suggests that Bangladesh has raised these issues, and negotiations are continuing towards reaching outcomes satisfactory to both sides.

Undiminished River Flow
However, the most important thing that Bangladesh should ask from India is "undiminished river flow." The joint communique indicates that Bangladesh did raise this issue. In fact, press reports suggest that Bangladesh tried hard to reach an agreement during the visit on sharing of the Teesta River. However, it did not materialise, and the communique mentions the intention of both nations of continuing the negotiation on this issue.

What is however necessary is for Bangladesh to adopt a completely different stance on the issue of rivers. Now that Bangladesh has secured the goodwill of India by taking steps with regard to security and connectivity, a favourable situation has arisen for Bangladesh to make this stance more prominent and to ask for India's agreement to it. Instead of asking for a part of the river flow, which negotiations on "sharing of the rivers" imply, Bangladesh needs to ask for "undiminished river flow."

Bangladesh can justify this stance on the ground of her rights to "prior and customary use" of the river flow. The international norms and conventions with regard to trans-boundary rivers support this right. India very well knows that the entire economy, society, and culture of Bangladesh have developed over thousands of years based on flows of the rivers that pass through her. Any diminution of these flows violates Bangladesh's inalienable rights on her rivers.

Experience of Farakka
India has already done a gross injustice to Bangladesh by constructing the Farakka barrage that has diverted significant part of the Ganges river flow and has done irreparable damage to the rivers and ecology of south-eastern Bangladesh.

India has done similar injustice to Bangladesh by diverting Teesta flow through its Gazaldoba barrage. It is of utmost concern that India has similar diversionary plans with respect to other common rivers. Just as the security threat was poisoning Indo-Bangladesh relationship from Bangladesh side, so is the water diversion poisoning this relationship from India's side.

Just imagine how electrifying the effect on Bangladesh people's attitude toward India and thereby on Indo-Bangladesh relationship would be if India announced that it would decommission Farakka barrage! Yet, such a proposition is not unreasonable at all. Since 1974, Farakka has been in operation for 36 years now. The experience has shown that Farakka has not brought much benefit for India (West Bengal). It has not qualitatively changed the port situation of Kolkata.

On the other hand, Farakka has become a source of flooding in many parts of Bihar and West Bengal. More importantly, Farakka has led the Ganges to change its course so that it is likely that in future the river will completely bypass the barrage making this huge structure redundant.

That being the case, is it not advantageous for India to do what nature seems to be already set to do, and yet derive the dividends in terms of further warming her relationship with Bangladesh? The same may be said with regard to Gozaldoba barrage, which though relatively new, but will also have similar fate as Farakka.

Enhanced Connectivity
It may be noted that restoration of undiminished flows is needed to ensure adequate navigability of Bangladesh rivers. Without such navigability, the proposed provisions allowing use of Bangladesh ports by India's North-Eastern states will be of limited value.

Rivers provide the cheapest way of transporting goods, particularly the bulky ones. Year round navigable rivers are also necessary for the east-west transportation of goods. Yet, diminished flows have already reduced navigability of Bangladesh rivers, and the navigability will shrink further if India goes ahead with other planned diversionary structures. Hence, restoration and ensuring of undiminished flow is in the interest of India from the viewpoint of more fruitful connectivity of her North-Eastern states.

Climate Change
Finally, letting the flow of rivers undiminished is also in India's interest from another long term strategic point of view. This is related to climate change. India knows very well that submergence of a significant part of Bangladesh may render millions of people as climate refugees. Where will these people go? Obviously, India is at risk. No barbed wire is going to stand the thrust of millions of people. Hence it is in India's interest to help Bangladesh withstand the submergence effect of climate change.

One of the most important protections that Bangladesh has against submergence is land accretion through sedimentation caused by river flow. About 2 billion tons of sediment used to be carried by rivers into Bangladesh. Unfortunately, this sediment volume is decreasing due to India's diversion of river flows. By stopping such diversion, India can restore the flow of sediment, which upon better management by Bangladesh can allow her to counteract the sea level rise due to global warming.

Conclusion
Thus, there are many reasons why India should agree to the demand for undiminished river flow. However, Bangladesh has to raise this demand, make the arguments clear, and win over both the Indian public and the Indian government.

Other things, such as trade opportunities, are important, but not as important as river flow. Trade is something that Bangladesh can do with other nations too. But, for undiminished river flow, Bangladesh has only India to turn to.

Undiminished river flow is the most important thing that Bangladesh can ask from India in return for her goodwill gestures and steps. If there has to be any quid pro quo, here is the quo.

Dr. Nazrul Islam is the Global Coordinator of Bangladesh Environment Network (BEN) and Vice President of Bangladesh Poribesh Andolon (BAPA)


__._,_.___


[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] Repeated BSF provocations ominous



Repeated BSF provocations ominous

 
THE sequence of events that eventually led to the exchange of fire between the Bangladesh Rifles and the Border Security Force of India on the Jaintapur frontier in Sylhet on Sunday, in which three Bangladeshi nationals were hit by BSF bullet, only underlines what could be termed the characteristic propensity of the Indian border guards to instigate flare-up on the border. As a report front-paged in New Age on Monday indicates, the BSF actions were provocative through and through.
 
According to the report, 30 to 40 Indian nationals crossed some 300 metres into the Bangladesh territory for fishing at a marshland while more than one hundred others, led by BSF personnel, stood guard on the zero line. When the on-duty BDR soldiers requested their BSF counterparts to take back the intruders, it led to an altercation, at one point of which the Indian border guards opened fire. Soon, the border guards were firing into the Shreepur Stone Quarry near the Shreepur border outpost, wounding three civilians, including a woman. The exchange of fire did end in the afternoon; however, the BSF refused to entertain a BDR request for a flag meeting.
   
The incident occurred in less than two weeks after the BSF had crossed about 50 metres into the Bangladesh territory and kidnapped a BDR soldier of the Jaintapur outpost at gunpoint on February 4. Although the BSF eventually handed over the BDR soldier, it now seems that the Indian border guards were only too keen to make sure that the border remained tense. So much for the Indian government's commitment, as articulated in the Dhaka-Delhi joint communiqué issued at the end of the Bangladesh prime minister's January 10-13 state visit to India. It is pertinent to recall that the BSF killed a Bangladeshi on January 12 a day before the communiqué was issued.
   
Insofar as the border trouble is concerned the communiqué was a travesty of truth, to say the least. The phrase 'both Prime Ministers agreed that the respective border guarding forces [should] exercise restraint' unduly brackets the BDR with the BSF in respect of atrocities on the frontier. The statistics would vouch for that. For example, in less than a year since the February 25-26 rebellion at the BDR headquarters, the BSF killed more than 50 Bangladeshis. Needless to say, there has not been any report of any Indian nationals killed by the BDR. Moreover, so rampant have been the BSF atrocities that the BDR, in a report submitted to the home ministry in January, even recommended a dawn-to-dusk ban on the movement of Bangladeshis within 150 yards of the zero point inside the Bangladesh territory, to save Bangladeshi nationals from getting killed by the Indian border guards.
   
Still, the Awami League-led government has seemingly chosen to keep faith in the assurances of its Indian counterparts, although such assurances often proved empty in the past and despite the continued BSF atrocities on the border. Indeed, Bangladesh needs to have cordial relations with India. Indeed, mutual trust is essential for healthy bilateral relations. However, in respect of its relations with Bangladesh, trust and goodwill gestures have been largely one-sided. Moreover, in view of the repeated BSF, many have started suspecting that India may be trying to drag Bangladesh into large-scale border skirmishes. Hence, the government would do well to look at the recent developments, and look hard; after all, it is always better to err on the side of caution.
 


__._,_.___


[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] The role of Attorney General and the rule of law



The role of Attorney General and the rule of law

By Barrister Nazir Ahmed , UK

The term ˜rule of law is well placed in the Constitution of Bangladesh. Its Preamble states ˜rule of law as one of the objectives to be attained. In Anwar Hussain Chowdhury v Bangladesh 1989 BLD, the rule of law was said by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh as one of the basic features of the Constitution. To attain this fundamental aim of the State, the Constitution has made comprehensive and substantial provisions whereby any machinery of the State must justify its action with reference to the law (Article 7 and Article 31).

One of the basic characteristics of the rule of law is ˜equality before the law and this is ensured by Article 27 of the Constitution when it says All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law. The other characteristic of the rule of law is the ˜absence of arbitrary or discretionary power, that is no one is above the law (whatever rank he/she may be) and the persons in authority do not enjoy wide, arbitrary or discretionary powers. Our rich Constitution provides the concept of due process, both substantive and procedural, and thus prohibits arbitrary or unreasonable law or State action (Article 31). Individual liberties are also one characteristic of the rule of law and our Constitution guarantees this in the name of fundamental rights of the individuals in Part III.

The Attorney General is the highest law officer of the Republic appointed by the President. His position is a constitutional post. In order to be appointed as an Attorney General, a person must be qualified to be a Judge of the Supreme Court [Article 65(1) of the Constitution]. He performs such duties as may be assigned to him by the President [Article 65(2)]. He holds office during the pleasure of the President and receives such remuneration as the President may determine [Article 65(4)]. The office of the Attorney General is not an office of profit and therefore holding this office is not debarred from being elected as a Member of Parliament. However, unlike the British system, traditionally and historically Attorney Generals have not been Members of Parliament in Bangladesh.

Recent partial role played in and hostile attitudes shown towards the highest court by the current learned Attorney General have caused concerns to conscious citizens of the country. His aggressive remarks and dam care attitudes have led the Judges of the Supreme Court and senior lawyers of the country in making negative and alarming remarks/comments about him. For example, while a former Deputy Minister was tortured after taking in further remand in spite of the High Court ruling not to do so and not providing proper treatment despite High Court's directives, the High Court Judge said: “We are here to protect peoples’ liberties. You are more powerful. What is the necessity of keeping the High Court? Pull it out. Take us to the remand and torture.

In another Division Bench, the learned Attorney General's office aggressively pressured the Judges not to give the rule and then subsequently said they did not want the matter to be dealt with by that particular Bench. The matter was in the final stage but because of the Attorney General Office's persistent opposition and aggressive attitude, the Division Bench reluctantly sent the file to the Chief Justice for sending the matter to another Bench. In relation to this incident an eminent lawyer of the country Barrister Rafiqul Huq commented with regret “If Allah gives Attorney General long life, the High Court will automatically be vanished.

The concerned High Court Bench impliedly agreed with him. In another reaction in another matter Barrister Rafiqul Huq, who himself was an Attorney General in the past, said During my 50 years of advocacy life I have never seen an Attorney General like the present one. In another matter concerning bail and treatment of a former State Minister before the Chamber Judge in the Appellant Division of the Supreme Court, the learned Attorney General, in reply to the submission/argument of the State Minister's counsel, said: Let him die, then file a case against me! We are regularly seeing in newspapers how the current Attorney General is behaving with High Court Benches/Judges. When he fails to pursue a Bench with legal arguments and submission, he often threatens by saying ˜you cannot issue the rule in this matter. The above incidents are alarming and directly threaten the rule of law.

No doubt the Attorney General is a powerful position. In England, the mother place of the common law from where the laws of Bangladesh are predominantly derived from, the Attorney General is appointed from leading lawyers, loyal to the government of the day, who are Members of Parliament. The Attorney General is usually a Cabinet Member and hence attends at all cabinet meetings. Thus, the Attorney General is accountable to government through cabinet and to people through Parliament.

The power and position of British Attorney General is proved by the fact that on the legal advice of the former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith alone as to the legality and necessity of the second UN resolution, the British government along with the US government went on war and invaded Iraq. Although the learned Attorney General of Bangladesh may have the same power as the British Attorney General, certainly he does not have the same status and prestige as his British counterpart. He is neither a Member of Parliament nor a Member of the Cabinet or equivalent to it (even by virtue of warrant of precedence). There is no mechanism in place of holding him accountable to people for his actions. However, his special position is ensured in the very Constitution. Ultimately, he is the highest law officer of the Republic.

No matter how powerful an Attorney General may be, when representing a case in the higher court he is nothing but an Advocate representing the State (one party in dispute/litigation, probably the stronger party) and the State is represented by the government of the day. In resolving legal disputes, he is neither equivalent nor above the Supreme Court Judges, who perform constitutional tasks to adjudicate between the parties, be it between strong and weak, strong and strong or weak and weak parties. Supreme Court is the last and final hope and expectation of the people. The Supreme Court Judges are the guardians of the Constitution and upholders of the fundamental rights of the ordinary citizens guaranteed by the Constitution. Threatening the Supreme Court Judges with aggressive languages, dictating the Judges to do this or not to do that and getting agitated with political ill motives are contradictory to the principles of the rule of law. To some extent, these behaviours/attitudes are tantamount to the contempt of the Supreme Court.

The learned Attorney General is the highest law officer of the Republic (Article 65) as opposed to a political party or narrow government party. As such, his priority should be the interests of the Republic, not of the political party or of the narrow vision of the government party. This is his constitutional obligation to ensure this. He is expected to play a universal role ensuring rule of law and promoting fairness and justice. It looks odds when we see the learned Attorney General appeared before the High Court on behalf of the government and strongly opposed a bail when lower courts issued summons upon cases of individuals, who apparently did not have locus standi and who were not even remotely aggrieved, in defamation cases/suits (25 cases in number) against a journalist and editor of a national daily and then that journalist/editor had no other option but to go to the High Court for ad interim bail. Can the learned Attorney General appear in cases where individuals filed cases against another individual or where the State or government is not even a party? Whose interest the learned Attorney General has gone to serve?

As the Constitutional position holder and the highest law officer, the learned Attorney General is expected to act with fairness, authority and transparency. From him we expect high standard of wisdom, juristic view and integrity. Of course, he will represent the government of the day (in fact, he has been appointed for doing so), but he should not forget that if his role and attitudes are seen as obstructions to the delivery of justice in the higher court, public confidence will gradually be lost on the higher court and its justice delivery system. That would ultimately damage our basic features of the Constitution: supremacy of the constitution, democracy, independency of the judiciary, fundamental rights and rule of law.

The Attorney General and his office have key role to play. His constructive and positive role can ensure promoting good governance, human rights and smooth delivery of justice. However, his hostile attitudes with highest judiciary and partial role with narrow political motives can damage the judicial institution, create confusion and suspicion on the justice delivery system. This can in the long run lead to anarchy resulted in rule of other than by law. Whatever course he takes, other law officers of the State (i.e., Additional Attorney General, Deputy Attorney Generals, Assistant Attorney Generals, Pubic Prosecutors, Government Pleaders, so on and so forth) would follow him. Water drops from the top of the mountain and not the vice versa.

I have had the opportunity of seeing the current Attorney General on few occasions. I met him twice in the UK and seen him once in Bangladesh appearing as an Additional Attorney General before the High Court Division during the last Awami League government. Personally learned Attorney General Mahbubey Alom is a gentle, polite and well spoken person. I do not know why he becomes agitated and aggressive before the High Court Judges/Division Benches of the High Court. He was Additional Attorney General during 1996-2001 of the last Awami League government, but he was not then seen behaving aggressively before the High Court Judges. What does prompt him to be so? Is it the present government policy or instruction on him to do so?

If it was a government tactic, technique or direction, we can say in confidence that these are bound to be failed and counterproductive. Power is not forever. No one can remain on power for good. The last BNP government tried to do a lot of things with the higher judiciary. Did those go in their favour? Their once appointed Attorney General Advocate Hasan Arif acted against them as an Advisor during the last caretaker government. Increasing the ages of the Judges of the Supreme Court could the BNP do what they had arguably wanted to do! Various examples in such line can be given. Soon the government realises this, the better for them, the better for the country and the better for the democracy. Delay in realising this can threatens the rule of law.
----------------------------
Nazir Ahmed FRSA FCMI
LLB Hons (London), LLM (London), FRSPH (London), FCIArb (London), Barrister-at-Law (Lincoln's Inn)
E Mail : ahmedlaw2002@yahoo.co.uk
http://newsfrombangladesh.net/view.php?hidRecord=305394


__._,_.___


[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] FW: Blow to Religion-based Politics in Bangladesh



 

Dear sirs,

 

Assalamu Alaikum. Please see the letter below.This is the real Farida Majid .Her quoting Quran some time is fraud.

 

Shah Abdul Hannan


From: alochona@yahoogroups.com [mailto:alochona@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Farida Majid
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 11:30 PM
Subject: [ALOCHONA] FW: Blow to Religion-based Politics in Bangladesh

 

 


       A very good summing-up without any frills. 
 
       I would clarify only one thing.  The notorious Fifth Amendment did not include the placement of "Bismillah" in the Preamble of the Consitution.  Therefore the repeal of the Amendment does not by itself remove "Bismillah
".  There has to be another Parliamentary gesture to clean up the Constitution of any sign of preference for a particular religion.
 
             Farida Majid 


 

Blow to Religion-Based Politics in Bangladesh

Friday 05 February 2010

by: J. Sri Raman, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

 

 

Here is some disconcerting news for all disciples of neocon gurus, who had discovered Islam as the enemy of democracy and the successor to the "evil empire" of the cold war era. An Islamic country of 160 million people, under an elected government, is witnessing important but ill-noticed moves to abolish religion-based politics.

 

On February 2, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh struck down a nearly 11-year-old constitutional amendment that had allowed religion-based political parities to function and flourish in the country. The ruling had the effect of restoring the statutory secularism, which Bangladesh adopted in 1972 after liberation from Pakistan and lost five years later following a series of military coups.

 

It may also have the effect of inspiring at least a debate on the issues in Pakistan, the other Islamic country of South Asia. It may also have a ripple effect, helping to raise the issues subsequently in sections of the rest of the Islamic world.

 

This only carries forward an old battle. The logic of Bangladesh's liberation war itself led the nation's founder, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, to place its linguistic identity above the religious. The reverse of the same logic drove religion-based groups in the the pre-liberation East Pakistan to side with Islamabad in the war.

 

The first constitution of Bangladesh, under Article 38, placed a bar on religion-based parties and politics. Mujib, as he was popularly known, and most of his family were assassinated in a coup on August 25, 1975. A series of coups since then culminated in the country's takeover by Maj.-Gen. Ziaur Rahman in 1977. In April 1979, the Zia regime enacted the infamous Fifth Amendment to the constitution, paving the way for the return of religion-based parties and politics.

 

Article 38 of the original constitution proclaimed: "Every citizen shall have the right to form associations or unions, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interests of morality or public order." But it clearly added: "Provided that no person shall have the right to form, or be a member or otherwise take part in the activities of, any communal or other association or union which in the name or on the basis of any religion has for its object, or pursues, a political purpose."

 

As revised under the Fifth Amendment, the Article said: "Every citizen shall have the right to form associations or unions, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interests of public order or public health." The amendment scrapped the original Article 12, which enshrined "secularism" and "freedom of religion" in the supreme law of the land.

 

Earlier, by a proclamation, the martial law regime made other major changes in the constitution as well. The Preamble to the constitution was preceded by the religious invocation, "Bismillah-ar-Rahman-ar-Rahim" (in the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful). In the text of the Preamble, the words "a historic struggle for national liberation" were replaced with "a historic war for national independence." The phrase mentioning "nationalism, socialism, democracy and secularism" as the "high ideals" in the second paragraph was replaced with "absolute trust and faith in Almighty Allah, nationalism, democracy and socialism meaning economic and social justice."

 

Article 8 of the original constitution - laying down nationalism, socialism, democracy and secularism as the four fundamental principles of state policy - was amended to omit "secularism" and replace it with "absolute trust and faith in Almighty Allah." In repeated pronouncements, Zia also substituted "Bangladeshi nationalism" for the "Bengali nationalism" of the Mujib days that stressed a non-religious identity.

 

Lt.-Gen. Hussain Muhammad Ershad, who staged yet another coup and ruled Bangladesh during 1982-86, carried Zia's initiative forward by making Islam the "state religion" through the Eighth Amendment.

 

The battle between the secular and anti-secular camps continued through all this, and became more open after the country's return to democracy in 1991. The Awami League (AL), headed by Mujib's daughter Sheikh Hasina Wajed, has always fought for abrogation of the Fifth Amendment. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), founded by Zia and now led by his widow Begum Khaleda Zia, and its allies pursuing religion-based politics have remained uncompromising supporters of the amendment.

 

The AL and its allies scored a legal victory in August 2005, when the country's High Court held the amendment unconstitutional. The court said: "These changes (made by the Fifth Amendment) were fundamental in nature and changed the very basis of our war for liberation and also defaced the constitution altogether." It added that the amendment transformed secular Bangladesh into a "theocratic state" and "betrayed one of the dominant causes for the war of liberation."

 

The government in Dhaka, then a coalition of the BNP and the religion-based Jamaat-i-Islami (JeI), moved a petition in the Supreme Court against the ruling. The order was stayed and the issue of the amendment was put on the back burner, where it stayed for four years.

 

Then came a major political change. A year ago, on January 6, 2009, Hasina returned as prime minister after a landslide electoral victory. In early May 2009, the AL government withdrew the old, official petition for staying the 2005 court ruling. The BNP-JeI alliance was quick to react. BNP Secretary General Khondker Delwar Hossain and three lawyers from the JeI rushed to the Supreme Court with petitions seeking to protect the amendment. Their petitions have been thrown out.

 

The JeI and other religion-based groups did not endear themselves to the country, as the results of the last general election showed, with their violent activities. The serial bombing they carried out across Bangladesh in 2005, taking a heavy toll of human lives, did not help the BNP return to power through the ballot box. The period 2001-06, when the BNP-led alliance wielded power, witnessed "unprecedented" atrocities against religious and ethnic minorities, according to Bangladeshi rights activist Shahriar Kabir. The victims included Hindus, Ahmediyas and other communities and the atrocities ranged from killings and rapes to destruction and desecration of places of worship.

 

After the Supreme Court's verdict, Law Minister Shafique Ahmed has said that all religion-based parties should "drop the name of Islam from their name and stop using religion during campaigning." He has also announced that religion-based parties are going to be "banned." The government, however, has disavowed any intention to remove the Islamic invocation from the Preamble of the constitution.

 

All this has already drawn attention in Pakistan, which has continued to suffer from religion-based politics despite its popular rejection in successive elections. Veteran Pakistani columnist Babar Ayaz, in an article captioned "Amendments for a secular constitution" in the Lahore-based Daily Times, talks of the clauses in Pakistan's constitution, introduced by former dictator Zia ul-Haq "who considered himself a kind of religious guardian of the country."

 

Noting the moves in Bangladesh, Ayaz adds: "Pakistan may not be able to ban religion-based political parties in the near future, but it should move towards expunging the ridiculous constitutional clauses mentioned above ... It would be a long and hard struggle, but it is doable."

 

Bangladesh is in for a long and hard struggle, too. The BNP has threatened an agitation against the changes. It is likely to combine this with a campaign against India (under whose pressure Hasina is alleged to be acting), and New Delhi can be counted upon to keep providing grist to Khaleda's political mill with Big Brother-like actions widely resented in Bangladesh.

 

There are also limits to which a constitution alone can counter religion-based politics. The far right's activities in India, proud of its staunchly secular constitution, furnishes just one example.

 

The significance of what is happening in Bangladesh, however, cannot be belittled either. It demonstrates the far greater role popular will can play in combating religion-based politics than cluster bombs and drones.



 

Quantcast

 


Your Mail works best with the New Yahoo Optimized IE8. Get it NOW!.

 

 


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



__._,_.___


[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] A Man Who Dared To Dream



Please check following para of your article: After the fourth amendment of the constitution on 25th January 1975 (changing the form of Government from the Parliamentary to the Presidential system), the Bangabandhu entered upon the office of the President of Bangladesh. Within three years of independence he put the war-ravaged country along the path of political stability and economic reconstruction.
 
You forgot to mention what the 4th ammendment was all about and, after being elected by overhelming majority, why did Shaik decide to do the ammendment to the constitution- that he established One-party rule and the only one party would be called BAKSAL. One would never know, after reading your article as why he was killed along with his family members!
 Thanks
sami

From: touhid faisal <tmfaisalkamal@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 9:17:19 AM
Subject: [ALOCHONA] A Man Who Dared To Dream



Sheikh Mujibur Rahman

By Dr.Touhid Muhammad Faisal Kamal

Some of the biographers of the Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman have said that he was the most astonishing and much talked about leader in South East Asia. In an age of military coup d'etat he attained power through elections and mass upsurge; in an age of decline of democracy he firmly established democracy in one of the countries of Asia and in an age of "Strong Men" he spurned the opportunity of becoming a dictator and instead chose to become the elected Prime Minister. The way he turned a nonviolent non-cooperation movement of unarmed masses into an armed struggle that successfully brought into reality the liberation of a new nation and the creation of a new state in barely ten months will remain a wonder of history.

March 7, 1971 was a day of supreme test in his life. The leaders of the military junta of Pakistan were on that day eagerly waiting to trap him. A contingent of heavily armed Pakistani troops was poised near the Suhrawardy Uddyan to wait for an order to start massacre the people on the plea of suppressing a revolt that Bangabandhu was about to declare against Pakistan at the meeting he was going to address there.

In fact, the entire Bangladesh was then in a state of revolt. The sudden postponement of the scheduled session of the newly elected National Assembly and the reluctance of the military leaders to transfer power to the elected representatives of the people had driven the people to desperation and they were seeking the opportunity to break away from the Pakistani colonial rule. Nearly two million freedom-loving people who assembled at the Suhrawardy Uddyan that day had but one wish, only one demand : "Bangabandhu, declare independence; give us the command for the battle for national liberation."

The Father of the Nation spoke in a calm and restrained language. It was more like a sacred hymn than a speech spellbinding two million people. His historic declaration in the meeting on that day was : "Our struggle this time is for freedom. Our struggle this time is for independence". This was the declaration of independence for Bangladeshis, for their liberation struggle. But he did not give the Pakistani military rulers the opportunity to use their arms. He foiled their carefully laid scheme. In the same speech he took care to put forward four proposals for the solution of the problem in a constitutional way and kept the door open for negotiations.

He was taller than the average Bangalee, had the same dark complexion and spoke in a vibrant voice. But what special power gave him the magnetic qualities of drawing a mass of seventy-five million people to him? This question stirred the minds of many people at home and abroad. He was not educated abroad nor was he born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Yet he was as dear to the educated Bangladeshi compatriots as to the illiterate and half-educated masses. He inspired the intelligentsia and the working classes alike. He did not climb to leadership overnight. It has been a slow and steady process. He attained his enviable eminence the hard way. He began as an humble worker at the bottom rung. He arduously climbed to the position of a national leader and rose to the very pinnacle as the Father of the Nation.

He was born in a middle class Bangalee family and his political leadership arose out of the aims and aspirations of the ordinary Bangalee. He was inseparably linked with the hopes and aspirations, the joys and sorrows, the travails and triumphs of these ordinary people. He spoke their language. He gave voice to their hopes and aspirations. Year after year he spent the best days of his youth behind the prison bars. That is why his power was the power of the people.

Whoever has once come in contact with him has admitted that his personality, a mingling of gentle and stern qualities, had an uncanny magical attraction. He is as simple as a child yet unbending in courage; as strong as steel when necessary. Coupled with this was his incomparable strength of mind and steadfast devotion to his own ideals. He was a nationalist in character, a democrat in behavior, a socialist in belief and a secularist by conviction.

Bangabandbu had to move forward step by step in his struggle. He had to change the tactics and the slogans of the movement several times. It can thus be said that though the period of direct struggle for freedom was only nine months, the indirect period of this struggle spread over 25 years. This 25-year period can be divided into several stages. These are : (a) organizational stage of the democratic movement; (b) movement against BPC or Basic Principles Committee's report; (c) language movement; (d) forging of electoral unity and the victory of the democratic United Front; (e) military rule; (f) movement against the military rule; (g) movement for autonomy; (h) the historic Six-Point movement; (i) electoral victory and the non-cooperation movement; and j) armed liberation struggle.

Bangabandhu has been closely associated with every phase of this 25-year long struggle for freedom and independence. Bangladesh and Bangabandhu have, therefore, become inseparable. We cannot speak of one without the other.

While still adolescent, he took his first political lesson from Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy, a leading political personality of the then Bangladesh . It was in Faridpur that Young Suhrawardy and adolescent Sheikh Mujib came to know each other. Both of them were attracted to each other from that first acquaintance. Adolescent Mujib grew up under the gathering gloom of the storm-tossed politics of the sub-continent and the Second World War. He witnessed the ravages of war and the stark realities of the 1943 famine and the epidemics in which about five million people lost their lives. The miserable plight of the people under colonial rule turned him into a rebel.

He passed his matriculation examination in 1942. His studies had been interrupted for about four years due to an attack of beriberi. He got acquainted with the revolutionary activities of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose during the Hallwell Monument movement in Calcutta . Suhrawardy's staunchly logical approach and Subhash Bose's spirit of dedication influenced him immensely. He was influenced by another great leader, "Sher-e-Bangla" A.K. Fazlul Huq and his political philosophy of the plain fare ("dal-bhat") for all. At that very early stage he realised that in a poor exploited country political programmes must be complimentary to economic programmes.

He completed his college education in Calcutta . His sojourn to the prisons began in his teens. He first spent six days in a prison for participating in a political movement. While he was a student in Calcutta , he moved the natural eddies of the political movements of the subcontinent and got himself associated with the Muslim League and the Pakistan movement. But soon after the creation of Pakistan and the partition of Bengal in 1947, he realised that his people had not attained real independence. What had happened was a change of masters. Bangladesh would have to make preparations for independence movement a second time.

He graduated in the same year and came to develop a deep acquaintance with the works of Bernard Shaw. Karl Marx and Rabindranath Tagore. The horizon of his thought process began to expand from that time. He realised that Bangladesh was a geographical unit and its geographical nationalism was separate; its economic, political and cultural characters were also completely different from those of the western part of Pakistan . Over and above, linguistic differences and a physical distance of about 1,500 miles between them made the two parts of Pakistan totally separate from each other.

He could, therefore, realize that by keeping the two areas under the forced bonds of one state structure in the name of religious nationalism, rigid political control and economic exploitation would be perpetrated on the eastern part. This would come as a matter of course because the central capital and the economic and military headquarters of Pakistan had all been set up in the western part.

The new realization and political thinking took roots in his mind as early as 1948. He was then a student in the Law faculty of Dhaka University . A movement was launched that very year on the demand to make Bengali one of the state languages of Pakistan . In fact, this movement can be termed as the first stirrings of the movement of an independent Bangladesh . This demand for cultural freedom gradually led to the demand for national independence. During that language movement, Bangabandhu was arrested on March 11, 1948. During the blood-drenched language movement of 1952 also he was pushed behind the bars and took up leadership of the movement from inside the jail.

Bangabandhu was also in the forefront of the movement against the killing of policemen by the army in Dhaka in 1948. He was imprisoned for lending his support to the strike movement of the lower grade employees of Dhaka University . He was expelled from the University even before he came out of the prison.

In 1950, Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan of Pakistan announced the Basic Principles Committee's report for framing a constitution. This report manipulated to turn the majority of Bangladesh into a minority through subterfuges, and to make Urdu the state language. There was a spontaneous countrywide upsurge in Bangladesh against this report and the Bangabandhu was at its forefront.

Bangabandhu was elected Joint Secretary of the newly formed political organization, the Awami League. Previously he had been the leader of the progressive students' organization, the Chhatra League. In 1953 he was elected General Secretary of the Awami League.

Elections to the then Provincial Assembly of Bangladesh was held in 1954. A democratic electoral alliance-the United Front-against the ruling Muslim League was forged during that election. The 21 -point demand of the United Front included full regional autonomy for Bangladesh and making of Bengali one of the state languages.

The United Front won the elections on the basis of the 21 -point programme and Bangabandhu was elected member of the Provincial Assembly. He joined the Huq Cabinet of the United Front as its youngest Minister. The anti-people ruling clique of Pakistan dissolved this Cabinet soon and the Bangabandhu was thrown into prison.

In 1955 he was elected member of the second Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. He was again appointed a Minister when the Awami League formed the Provincial Cabinet in 1956. But he voluntarily left the Cabinet in July 1957 in order to devote himself fully to the task of reorganizing the party.

General Ayub Khan staged a military coup in Pakistan in 1958 and the Bangabandhu was arrested on various charges and innumerable cases were framed against him. He got back his freedom after 14 months of solitary confinement but was re-arrested in February 1962.

THE AWAMI LEAGUE

The Bangabandhu revived the Awami League after the death of Mr. H.S. Suhrawardy in 1963. By that time the military Junta had lifted the ban on political parties. Thus the Awami League began its constitutional struggle under the leadership of the Bangabandhu to realize the demand for self-determination of the Bangalees.

The Bangabandhu placed his historic Six-Point programme at a political conference in Lahore in 1966. This programme called for a federal state structure for Pakistan and full autonomy for Bangladesh with a parliamentary democratic system. The Six- Point programme became so popular in a short while that it was turned into the Charter of Freedom for the Bangladeshis or their Magna Carta. The Army Junta of Pakistan threatened to use the language of weapons against the Six-Point movement and the Bangabandhu was arrested under the Defence Rules on May 8, 1966. The powerful mass upsurge that burst forth throughout Bangladesh in protest against this arrest of the Bangabandhu came to be known as June Movement.

On June 17, 1968 he was removed from Dhaka Central Jail to Kurmitola Cantonment and was charged with conspiring to make Bangladesh independent with the help of India . This case is known as the Agartala Conspiracy case. He was the No. 1 accused in the case. While the trial was in progress in the court of a military tribunal the administration of the military junta collapsed as a consequence of a great mass upsurge in Bangladesh at the beginning of 1969.

As a result, he was released together with all the other co-accused. The case was withdrawn and the Bangabandhu was invited to a Round Table Conference at the capital of Pakistan . At this conference President Ayub Khan requested Bangabandhu to accept the Prime Ministership of Pakistan. Bangabandhu rejected the offer and remained firm in his demand for the acceptance of his Six-Point programme.

President Ayub Khan stepped down from power on March 25, 1969 and General Yahya Khan took over the leadership of the army junta, Apprehending a new movement in Bangladesh he promised to re-establish democratic rule in Pakistan and made arrangements for holding the first general elections in December, 1970. Under the leadership of the Bangabandhu. the Awami League won an absolute majority in the elections. The military junta was unnerved by the results of the elections. The conspiracy then started to prevent the transfer of power. The session of the newly elected National Assembly was scheduled for March 3, 1971. By an order on March 1, General Yahya postponed this session.

It acted like a spark to the powder keg; entire Bangladesh burst into flames of political upheaval. The historic non-cooperation movement began. For all practical purposes Bangabandhu took over the civil -administration of Bangladesh . The military junta however began to increase the strength of its armed forces in Bangladesh secretly and to kill innocent Bangalees at different places.

Yahya Khan came to Dhaka by the middle of March to have talks with Bangabandhu. Mr. Zulflqar Ali Bhutto and other leaders also came a few days later. When everybody was feeling that the talks were going to be successful Yahya Khan stealthily left Dhaka in the evening of March 25. The barbarous genocide throughout Bangladesh began from that midnight.

Bangabandhu was arrested at midnight of March 25 and was flown to the western wing. But before he was arrested, he formally declared independence of Bangladesh and issued instructions to all Bangladeshis, including those in the armed forces and in the police to take up arms to drive out the Pakistani occupation forces.

For ten long months from March 1971 to January 1972 Bangabandhu was confined in a death-cell in the Pakistani prison. His countrymen did not even know if he was dead or alive. Still, stirred by his inspiration, the nation threw itself heart and soul into the hick of the liberation war and by the middle of December the whole of Bangladesh was cleared of the occupation forces.

Freed from the Pakistani prison, the Bangabandhu came back home on January 10, 1972 and stepped down from the Presidentship and took up the responsibility as the Prime Minister of independent Bangladesh on 12 January 1972. Immediately he took steps for the formulation of the Constitution of the country and to place it before the Constituent Assembly. After the passage of the Constitution on 4 November 1972, his party won an overwhelming majority in the elections held on 7 March 1973 and took up the responsibility of running the administration of the country for another five-year term. After the fourth amendment of the constitution on 25 January 1975 (changing the form of Government from the Parliamentary to the Presidential system), the Bangabandhu entered upon the office of the President of Bangladesh. Within three years of independence he put the war-ravaged country along the path of political stability and economic reconstruction. On 15 August 1975, he along with all the members (excluding two daughters, Sheikh Hasina and Sheikh Rehana who were abroad) of his family were brutally assassinated by a splinter group of armed forces.

The Bangabandhu is the Father of the Nation. His state philosophy has four pillars: Nationalism, Democracy, Socialism and Secularism. His foreign policy opened up new horizons of peace, cooperation and non-alignment throughout Asia . He visited many countries of Asia and Europe including China and the Soviet Union . Statesmen of many countries of Asia countries were his personal friends. He was awarded Julio Curie Peace Prize for his being a symbol of world peace and cooperation. In the eyes of the people in the third world, he is the harbinger of peace and development in Asia .

 







__._,_.___


[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

__,_._,___