Banner Advertiser

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

[ALOCHONA] Dhaka the second worst city

Dhaka, the second worst city
Courtesy Financial Express 10/3/10

Shamsul Huq Zahid

Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, has been rated by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) as the second worst city in the world in terms of living conditions. Surprise, surprise!

The Dhakaites even would not have been surprised had their city been placed at the very bottom of the table of the 140 global cities in the survey conducted by the EIU, the business information arm of the London-based Economist Group, elbowing out the Zimbabwean capital Harare.

The survey found Dhaka with a population of over 13 million scoring below the average marks in five broad categories that citizens of towns and cities most care about: stability, healthcare, culture and environment, education and infrastructure. Bangladesh has found a companion in Algiers of African state of Algeria, each scoring 38.7 points. Harare scored 37.5 points.

The EIU survey finding has come at a time when many people are found expressing their deep resentment about the fast deteriorating living conditions in Dhaka city.

Harare has hit the bottom of the table because of unending social and political crises, mainly triggered by autocratic rule of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe. One can well imagine the situation in a country where rate of annual inflation is almost beyond counting. A cup of coffee and a bottle of mineral water now cost several million Zimbabwean dollars. One has to carry to the market a sack of currency notes to buy a chicken there. And Zimbabwe is yet to see a turnaround of its situation, following the political 'reconciliation process' and the assumption of office by a new prime minister.

But the situation in the case of Dhaka is totally different. The country has witnessed an average economic growth between 5.0 and 6.0 per cent over last two decades. The rate of annual average inflation only once reached the double digit during the year 2008 because of domestic and external factors. There were political crises, but mostly in transient nature.

Actually, Dhaka city has become un-livable mainly because of indifference, mismanagement and wrong planning, continuing over the years in an uninterrupted sequence. The authorities have failed to create a situation where the citizens can live in minimum comfort both within and outside their homes. They suffer most because of the lack of necessary infrastructures; power and gas supply is highly erratic, water crisis is most common during summer, drainage and swear system is extremely under-developed. Nearly one-third of the population lives in slums having no basic amenities of life.

Healthcare system is highly discriminatory. Health facilities mostly cater to the needs of the affluent section and middleclass people. The public sector health facilities that are generally visited by the poor and lower middle class people are inadequate. Many patients are accommodated on the floor or corridors of the government-run hospitals where supply of medicines is very scanty.

The quality of education imparted to students in educational institutions varies widely. The guardians, at the beginning of every academic year, are found engaged in a rat race to get their children admitted to a handful number of educational institutions providing quality education. The public universities cannot accommodate even a fraction of the seeking admission. The quality of education offered by a large number of private universities is being questioned very often and the tuition fees charged by these institutions are high.

The city's traffic system is in a total mess. The authorities concerned, apparently, have given up hope with regard to streamlining it. Commuters remain stuck up in traffic gridlock for hours together as it takes more than three hours to cross a distance of 10 to 12 kilometres. The government is talking about building cost-intensive expressways, flyovers and underground rail system. It would take several years to get those facilities in place. But in the meanwhile, city's traffic system is destined to turn worse.

The woes of Dhaka city are very much linked to wrong economic planning and reluctance of the successive governments to decentralize the decision-making powers.

Since the government failed to create enough employment opportunities in rural areas, unemployed people have been coming to Dhaka in particular in search of jobs. There is no going back, no matter whether they get jobs or not. The city is not in a position to take the load of an unending inflow of population from mufassil areas.

Moreover, the decision making process has been made so much centralized that even for a petty decision, the people concerned are forced to come to Dhaka for lobbying. Hundreds of people come to Dhaka everyday just for lobbying purpose.

The government would have to bring about radical changes in the decision- making process with delegation of more authorities to district and thana level officials.


 

Regards

 

Ezajur Rahman (Junel)

Kuwait


Re: [ALOCHONA] 8th May a comparative discussion: Begum Rokeya and Taslima Nasreen



Begum Rokeya was a pioneer and productive for her community. Taslima Nasreen is a distraction and destructive for her community. Now she lives in India and causing deaths and chaos in India as well. It seems like she thrives on chaos and destruction.
 
I have read Taslima's book(Few of them) and read some of her articles. I feel comparing her with Begum Rokeya is an insult to Begum Rokeya.
 
Although I do not see much merit in Taslima, I feel that way she was treated was wrong as well. She should have been invited to a discussion with Islamic scholars in open forum and people could have easily seen that, Taslima does not have much to offer to us. Our over zealous "maulanas" made her famous. We should not pay attention to any "Attention monger" and get away from our goal to build a country we can be proud of. We are not where we should be as far as empowerment of women is concern but we should recognize that we made some progress and we should keep working towards a better day.
 
--Quazi


-----Original Message-----
From: haque@berlin.com
To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, Mar 9, 2010 9:32 pm
Subject: [ALOCHONA] 8th May a comparative discussion: Begum Rokeya and Taslima Nasreen

 
People of Bangladesh had celebrated the International Woman's Day yesterday with a dew respect. On 9th December we would also commemorate the Begum Rokeya day in memory of the First Muslim Women Educationist who fought for the equal rights of man and woman in Bengal.
 
Begum Rokeya Sakhawat Hossain was died on 9 December 1932; she was born in 1880 in a village called Pairaband in the district Rangpur. Widely regarded as Bengal's earliest and boldest feminist writer, Rokeya Sakhawat Hossain was a pioneering and creative educationist and social activist, and the school she founded in Kolkata, the Sakhawat Memorial School for Girls, still thrives.She was also a social activist, who organized middle-class women in undertaking slum development and training poor women in incomegenerating activities.
 
Her style of writing was in a way to raise popular consciousness; she used humour, irony and satire to focus attention on the injustices faced by Bengali Muslim women. She criticized oppressive social customs forced upon women in the name of religion, asserting that the glory of God could be best displayed by women fulfilling their potential as human beings.
 
She wrote several novels and essays, her best known publications are Sultana's Dream (1905), Padmarag (1924), Motichur (1903) and Abarodhbasini (1931). Sultana's Dream, written in English (to test her proficiency in English), is a delightful ironical and satirical work set in Ladyland, where the men are in curtain „purdah" and the women go out and work.
 
And the irony of Bengali history is that, what Begum Rokeya achieved at the end of 19th century as a pioneer of women's liberation movement in undivided Bengal; Taslima Nasreen - a writer on trial - did not achieve even at the end of 20th century. Taslima has been rejected by the same Bengali society after 100 years. Does Taslima push the boundaries of religious tolerance?
 
-Mir Monaz Haque, Berlin


 


__._,_.___


[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] Peacekeeping Doubles Its Female Mission Chiefs, From One to Two



Peacekeeping Doubles Its Female Mission Chiefs, From One to Two

By Barbara Crossette
 

Ameerah Haq, from Bangladesh, is the new peacekeeping chief in Timor-Leste and one of just two women special representatives of the secretary-general. The other is Ellen Margrethe Loj in Liberia.
March 3 -- In the annals of the UN, the names of women at the top of peacekeeping missions are few and far between. After more than half a century, there are still only two among the top civilians coordinating 16 major missions around the world, working as special representatives of the secretary-general.

One, Ameerah Haq from Bangladesh, has just taken over in Timor-Leste, one of the world's newest countries. Her counterpart, in Liberia, is Ellen Margrethe Loj of Denmark, the special representative of the secretary-general, as these highest-ranking officials in the field are known in the UN.

For Haq, the appointment in Timor-Leste, formerly East Timor, not only caps a long UN career that included difficult assignments in Sudan and Afghanistan but also signals a rise in the ranks of top officials from developing nations who are familiar with the lives, hopes and possibilities of people in poor societies.

Anwarul K. Chowdhury, a former ambassador from Bangladesh to the UN and later an under secretary-general and head of the office looking after the interests of the smallest and most vulnerable countries, said he was delighted when Haq was named to lead a peace-building and recovery mission in Timor-Leste, which is still a country that is troubled by crime and political tension more than a decade after a harsh Indonesian occupation ended in a referendum administered by the UN.

"She deserved it, particularly in view of her rich development and nation-building experience," Chowdhury said of Haq. "I am also happy that she has joined the ranks of very few women SRSGs, but even fewer from developing countries." He described her as "one of the finest and remarkably efficient senior officers of the UN."

It will be a decade this fall since the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1325, initiated by Chowdhury and other members at the time, which demanded, among other groundbreaking council provisions, that women not only be better protected in areas of conflict but that they also be given roles in peacekeeping and postwar development. The secretary-general was urged to name more women as mission chiefs.

Over the years, the list of women who have worked in this domain is short, and none of their assignments, all made since the early 1990s, were easy. Angela King of Jamaica served in South Africa; Elizabeth Rehn of Finland in Bosnia-Herzegovina; Carolyn McAskie of Canada in Burundi; Gro Harlem Brundtland of Norway in Cyprus; Heidi Tagliavini of Switzerland in Georgia; and Margaret Joan Anstee of Britain in Angola.

Haq Called 'Sister' in Sudan
In an interview on a recent visit to New York to meet the Security Council, Haq, who has degrees in community organization and business administration from Columbia University and New York University, respectively, spoke about what she learned from dealing with regimes such as Omar al-Bashir's in Sudan and with a very unsettled and violent environment in Afghanistan.

Haq is a believer in building personal relationships, for which she was roundly criticized in Sudan because of the Sudanese leadership's involvement in the catastrophe in Darfur, which led to war crimes charges against President Bashir in the International Criminal Court.

"In Sudan," she said, "I would say the most difficult time was [when] a group of activist NGOs would say, You can't go anywhere near the government. And I would say, You have to talk with the government. You can't just take a collision path and confrontation. You stick to your principles, but you've got to be able to talk and listen. It is their country." When she left, she said, officials called her "sister" -- a sign of approval.

Haq said she also learned to go slowly in trying to change politics, improve human rights and steer people toward sustainable development. "There is a way, I think, to try and see how one can blend these things in post-conflict countries without throwing out traditional means and mechanisms," she said.

Haq is a modern Muslim who dresses in stylish "international" clothes, which she wears without concern in Islamic countries, where she is sometimes amused to see non-Muslims outdo her in sartorial modesty. Muslim leaders "know I'm a Muslim woman, and see me as a Muslim woman" she said. But her fashion sense is not normally challenged by officials.

"I say that in my country I don't cover my head," she said of Bangladesh, a nation with a Muslim majority but a lively Bengali culture. "I'm always like this," she said, pointing to her pinstriped pants suit. "I remember when I went to Afghanistan and in the first meeting I saw a colleague from Denmark, and some others, sitting there with their heads covered." Hers wasn't.

Barbara Crossette is the United Nations correspondent for The Nation and a former New York Times UN bureau chief.

Margaret Anstee of Britain


Wanted: More Women to Keep the Peace

Peacekeeping Stalls at a Crossroads, Aiming to Move Ahead


Anstee, who is now Dame Margaret after receiving a British honor for her international service, wrote a book, "Never Learn to Type: A Woman at the United Nations," which was published in 2003 and is alternately funny, sad and angry about her pioneering role in Asia, Europe, Latin America and Africa. A bold woman given to madcap adventures (she moved to a ranch in Bolivia after her retirement), she always enjoyed being female, she said, and was occasionally, even conspicuously, a party girl, sought after by numerous men.

"My philosophy was that, in my generation, one had so many disadvantages in being a woman," she told an interviewer in Vienna in 2005, "that one might as well make the best of the advantages that one did have." When she was assigned to a nasty post in Angola, she went to London to have military-looking clothes tailored so that she could look intimidating.

Anstee has remained a respected voice in international security. In June she will be a centerpiece speaker at a conference in Vienna held by the Academic Council of the United Nations System. Similarly, Carolyn McAskie returned from a stint of negotiating the peace among warring factions in Burundi to become the first head of the new UN Peace-Building Commission in New York.

Before her appointment in Timor-Leste, Ameerah Haq was the deputy special representative and humanitarian coordinator in Sudan from 2007 to 2009. She held the same positions in Afghanistan from 2004 to 2007. She also served as UN Development Program representative in Malaysia and Laos. Her career began in Jakarta, and she is now back in the orbit of Indonesia, which still looms large over the Timorese but in much more positive ways, she said.

Keywords:

Ameerah Haq, Timor-Leste, Anwarul K. Chowdhury, Ellen Margrethe Loj, Margaret Joan Anstee, Carolyn McAskie
 


__._,_.___


[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] Fwd: What are we to celebrate on Women’s Day?



---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Zoglul Husain <zoglul@hotmail.co.uk>
Date: Mar 11, 2010 5:13 AM
A brilliant article. It has related the movements for women's liberation with the general movement for people's liberation, by showing the historic perspectives and its projection to our industrial women workers.
 
I wish wide readership of this article and would welcome more articles on women's rights and on people's economic emancipation. These struggles are inseparably linked with our struggle against imperialism and hegemonism.
 

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 11:41:27 +0600
Subject: What are we to celebrate on Women's Day?
From:
bdmailer@gmail.com
To: dhakamails@yahoogroups.com

What are we to celebrate on Women's Day?

by Farida Akhter
The implicit danger in the institutionalisation of the working women's struggle into an UN event of International Women's Day may become a depoliticising and disempowering process if women remain unaware of history and that of the propertied and powerful classes to disarticulate the historical connection between working class movement and the women's movement.

GERMAN Socialist leader Clara Zetkin has become a household name in the global women's movement because of her declaration of a 'day' for women called 'International Women's Day'. At the Second International Conference of Socialist Women in 1910 held in Copenhagen, Denmark, Clara's declaration of International Women's Day was indeed international in both spirit and character because her internationalism was akin to workers' in general. Honouring the movement for women's rights and to assist in achieving universal suffrage for women was and still is a working class issue. The proposal was greeted with unanimous approval by the conference of over 100 women from 17 countries.
   
However, on the day International Women's Day was declared in 1910, no fixed date was selected for the observance of the day. The following year, 1911, International Women's Day was marked by over a million people in Austria, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland, on March 19. It was very successful event in the countries it was celebrated. In 1913 International Women's Day was transferred to March 8 and this day has remained the global date for International Women's Day ever since. The proposal to select March 8 as International Women's Day was to commemorate the struggles of women workers in different countries. The first recorded organised action by working women took place in New York on March 8, 1857, with hundreds of women in the garment and textile factories staging a strike in protest of low wages, long working hours, inadequate pay, inhumane working conditions and the absence of the right to vote. Similar incidents happened in 1860 women workers formed trade union of their own and in 1908 on March 8; women workers staged protest in New York.
   
We must not be confused that the date of March 8 was the most important thing in declaring International Women's Day. It was rather the acknowledgement of women's struggle in the industrialised countries where women started to appear as the wage earning workforce and faced hardship with appalling working conditions. Their struggle was to make their workplaces better. Women protested and took political actions. They did not appear to seek 'help' as 'victims' rather became the symbol for all women's struggles to improve their lives.
   
For Clara, the interest in women's rights grew in the context of rapid industrialization during the period of the 1880s and 1890s in Germany. During this period women and children were drawn into industry on a large scale. The Social Democratic Party of Germany (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands) was born as the mass workers party. It laid the basis for a socialist led and working class-based women's organisation. In 1891, the first issue of an independent paper Die Gleicheit, subtitled 'for the interests of working women' with its own editorial board, led and coordinated by Social Democratic women, appeared.
   
Till 1908 women did not have freedom of association, thus barring them from party membership and also trade union membership according to laws in Prussia. Women faced very particular problems in the Germany of that time. There was hostility in the party to the involvement and demands of militant women. Many trade unionists saw women workers simply as a threat to their jobs and bargaining position. Clara had to fight against the male hostility and draw women into conscious political action.
   
In Germany, the proportion of women in the workforce increased from 18.5 per cent to 44.3 per cent during the period 1882-1907, but due to campaign for women's membership in the trade unions, it increased by 2,000 per cent between 1895 and 1907.
   
The women leaders in the SPD waged a consistent campaign for women's rights within the party and the trade unions and finally in 1890 secured the right to elect women delegated to party conference from special women's meetings. During the successive years, their painstaking works resulted in the adoption of a comprehensive party programme for the protection of women workers in 1891 and succeeded in establishing a system of permanent women's vertrauenspersonen – women's spokespersons – in the party, whose task was the political education of proletarian women, the organisation of work amongst women in 1892. These are important landmark events that led to the legitimacy of Clara Zetkin's declaration of International Women's Day. She worked hard for more than 20 years prior to the declaration.
   
In the United States, American women socialists demanded political rights for working women and celebrated a Women's Day for the first time in New York honouring the involvement of thousands of women in the numerous labour strikes in the early twentieth century in many major centres such as Montreal, Chicago, Philadelphia and New York. These women protested and rallied for the right to vote, a decent wage, and an end to sweat shops and child labour. In 1908, socialist women in the United States convinced their party to designate the last Sunday in February as a day for demonstrations in support of 'woman suffrage' – votes for women.
   
The two most important democratic rights of women were addressed prior to the declaration of International Women's Day – (a) women workers rights to unionise and (b) the right to vote. During the same time, the suffrage oriented bourgeois feminism in Germany was also developing. However, Clara Zetkin wanted an independent working class struggle for women's suffrage. The difference in opinion between Social Democratic women and the bourgeois feminists was over the question of protective legislation for women workers. For the bourgeois feminists 'emancipation' meant the right to freely compete with men on an equal basis inside capitalist society. The Die Gleicheit and the Social Democratic women campaigned for protective legislation for women – whose standards could then be applied to all workers – recognising that women were the weakest and most exploited section of the working class. However, the Social Democratic women did not pose universal suffrage, protective legislation as ends in themselves. For Zetkin the right to vote was to be fought for as part of the struggle to draw working class women into an active fight against capitalism as part to the struggle to draw working women into the battle for socialism.
  
 In 1906, Clara Zetkin presented a paper on Social Democracy and Women Suffrage at a Conference of Women belonging to the Social-Democratic Party held at Mannheim. She said:
   We take our stand from the point of view that the demand for Woman Suffrage is in the first place a direct consequence of the capitalist method of production. It may seem perhaps to others somewhat unessential to say this so strongly, but not so to us, because the middle-class demand for women's rights up to the present time still bases its claims on the old nationalistic doctrines of the conception of rights. The middle-class women's agitation movement still demands Woman Suffrage to-day as a natural right, just as did the speculative philosophers in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. We, on the contrary, basing our demand on the teachings of economics and of history, advocate the suffrage for women as a social right, which is not based on any natural right, but which rests on social, transient conditions.
   
In her paper Clara gave examples of Russia, Prussia, Austria and other provinces, where women's right to vote was restricted to those who own land and pay taxes. In Sweden women who fulfilled the same conditions of property were allowed to vote in the elections for local bodies. In England, too, women could take part in elections for local bodies; but this again was only under conditions of owning a certain amount of property or paying a certain sum in taxes. Clara said:
   
When we carefully consider all these cases, we find that women do not vote because they are women; they do not enjoy, so to speak, a personal vote, but they only have this right because they are owners of property and taxpayers. That is not the kind of Woman Suffrage which we demand; it is not the right we desire to give a woman, as a burgess of the State, it is only a privilege of property..... But when we demand Woman Suffrage, we can only do so on the ground, not that it should be a right attached to the possession of a certain amount of property, but that it should be inherent in the woman herself, This insistence of the personal right of woman to exercise her own influence in the affairs of the town and the State has received no small measure of support, owing to the large increase in the capitalist methods of production.
   
The present celebration of International Women's Day is guided by the United Nations theme rather than its original history of socialist women's struggles. In the year 1975, which was designated as International Women's Year the United Nations began celebrating International Women's Day on March 8. Two years later, in December 1977, the General Assembly adopted a resolution proclaiming a United Nations Day for Women's Rights and International Peace to be observed on any day of the year by member states, in accordance with their historical and national traditions. In adopting its resolution, the General Assembly recognised the role of women in peace efforts and development and urged an end to discrimination and an increase of support for women's full and equal participation. The growing international women's movement, which has been sponsored by global United Nations women's conferences such as Mexico conference in 1975, has guided a new dimension, with much less political actions and positions, to support for women's rights and participation in the political and economic arenas. The next important step of the United Nations was to adopt the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in 1979 by the United Nations General Assembly. It is considered as the essential international tool for achieving women's human rights. More NGOs, rather than women's political organisations, have appeared receiving support from the United Nations and its member countries to achieve women's rights.
   
But what do we see in Bangladesh in terms of women workers and on women's political rights? Women constitute 38.8 per cent of 60.3 million in the civilian labour force (Labour Force Survey 2000 of the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics). Women are increasingly entering into job market mainly in readymade garments and allied sector, tea gardens, NGOs, health care services, food processing industry, export processing zones, services sectors and commercial enterprises and informal sector, i.e. construction, agriculture, etc. The majority of women are in the readymade garment factories. The number of garment workers in Bangladesh is 2.5 million, (90 per cent are women) in 5,300 factories.
   
The workers are still struggling hard for a minimum wage. In 1994, the minimum wage for the garment workers was fixed at Tk 930 per month for the unskilled workers and Tk 2,300 for skilled workers. After lots of movements by workers the minimum wage was set at Tk 1,662.50 ($23) per month, whereas the demand from the workers was Tk 5,000 ($70) per month. Even this is not implemented by all the member factories of the Bangladesh Garments Manufacturers and Exporters' Association. The wage of the unskilled workers is very uncertain and still is at a very low level. Most of the garment factories do not follow the labour law and ILO conventions. The workers cannot enjoy the weekly holiday, job security, social security, gratuity or provident fund. In most of the cases the management does not provide appointment/contract letters, identity cards and service books. The transportation facilities are not provided in most cases. The working environment is dangerous and cannot get out of the factories at the time of fire incidents. The provision of sufficient and pure drinking water and toilets for the workers is not ensured despite so much discussion on the issues of compliance from the international buyers. The most recent case of Garib and Garib Sweater Factory is shameful with tragic deaths of 21 workers. The workers could not get out of the factory because of the lock in the heavy gate and blocked stairs. They were suffocated to death.
   
Garment workers who are now organised as informal unions cannot protest openly if they are on the job. Many leaders of the garment workers could not go and visit the Garib and Garib factory after the incident. Police force was deployed to protect the factory from agitation of the workers.
   Regarding suffrage issue, women in Bangladesh have the right to vote and elect their own representatives at all levels. But women are discriminated by the existing constitutional and legal arrangements in denying the right to vote for the representatives for the reserved seats exclusively for women. These seats are indirectly elected by the elected members of the parliament. This is nothing but denial of rights and goes against the principles of equality in the suffrage issue. Women counted as 'numbers' for votes, their right to be elected depends on the social and economic power. Women in the local government bodies are directly elected but have not been given the privilege of working for the people.
   
The implicit danger in the institutionalisation of the working women's struggle into an UN event of International Women's Day may become a depoliticising and disempowering process if women remain unaware of history and that of the propertied and powerful classes to disarticulate the historical connection between working class movement and the women's movement. In the latter case women are social being and not merely 'women'; their struggle is in no way different from working class movement but with added responsibility to fight against patriarchy, masculine world views and global capitalist processes. She is constantly being reduced into a means of cheap labour or consumer. Feminist movement is aware that women's question must be addressed assertively with due attention and focus to women's problems concretely and from the collective social endeavour for human emancipation.
   
A simple way to keep us alert is to ask a question: are we celebrating Clara Zetkin's spirit of the working class women or are we just trying to be the part of the present global regime – celebrating a United Nations event?

   Farida Akhter is executive director of UBINIG. kachuripana@hotmail.com
 


Do you have a story that started on Hotmail?
Tell us 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

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] BDR mutiny: Credible independent public enquiry demanded



BDR mutiny: Credible independent public enquiry demanded

Speakers at a seminar in London demanded a credible independent public enquiry into the BDR mutiny that left 74 people including 57 valiant army officials to find out the real perpetrators, their masterminds and accomplices for the sake of justice and national unity.

The seminar on "The Peelkhana Tragedy: Bangladesh and Regional Perspectives" held on Saturday at Devanant Centre, London paid rich tributes to the BDR martyrs in the massacre on February 25-26 last year at the BDR Headquarters.

The speakers observed that the Peelkhana massacre was the outcome of a long and deep-rooted conspiracy and that there is a mystery shrouding the background of Peelkhana carnage. They expressed their anger and frustration that the nation lost 57 valiant officers and somehow, people of Bangladesh are yet to know the entire truth.

It was felt that a great injustice had been done to the family members and orphans of the fallen victims in the name of politics. If not addressed honestly and fairly and if kept under the carpet, this tragedy will result in greater carnage, said a speaker.

The meeting rejected Anisuzzaman Khan's enquiry report because of its inadequacy and failure to pinpoint the real culprits, condemned the government's delayed actions and atempts at cover-up.
The meeting asserted that justice delayed is justice denied. It warned the Government that failure to deliver justice will bring about lurking danger to the country's democracy and freedom and that the government will ignore this warning only at a great risk of yet another violent breakout, said a press release

The speakers alleged that the government was collaborating with a foreign power in dismantling the patriotic forces in the Army, civil administration and political parties.They condemned the recent intrusion of India's Border Security Forces (BSF) into Bangladesh territory in Sylhet 'by force' as mentioned by the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) chief Major General Mainul Islam despite the so-called 'understanding reached.'

The speakers also condemned sponsorship of armed insurgencies in the Chitagong Hill Tracts by a foreign power and its worldwide anti-Bangladesh propaganda in a conspiracy to sever the region from Bangladesh. They condemned the foreign power's atempts at land grabbing, creating destabilisation in the border region, and killing and harassing innocent Bangladesh citizens.

Presided over by Dr. K M A Malik, former teacher of Dhaka University and Cardiff University, the meeting was also addressed, among others, by Dr. Hasanat M Husain, Convenor of Voice for Justice World Forum, Barrister Nazir Ahmed, Chair of Justice for Bangladesh, journalist Shamsul Alam Liton, political analyst Zoglul Husain, Ferdous Rahman, Major (Retd) Faruk Ahmed, K M Abu Taher Chowdhury, Monwar Badruddoza, Barrister Nazrul Islam, Chowdhury M Faruk, Dr Kamrul Hasan, Syed Mustak Ahmed, Mirza Zillur Rahman, Moulana Rafiq Ahmed Rafiq, Dr. A Mumin Chowdhury, Oliur Rahman, Mufti Noman Siddiqui, Towhidul Karim Mujahid, Anwar Ahmad, Motinuddin Afzal, Mohiuddin Ahmed, Ahmed Azad, Dr Khurshed Alam, Mujibur Rahman Chowdhury and Liakat Ali.
 


__._,_.___


[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] Re: War Crime by Mukti Bahini



Political differences are common and natural in a democracy but that difference questions the very foundations and ideals of a nation this is treachery and treason. In 1971 we were fighting against a brutal enemy who wanted to destroy us and to make us slaves. In this life and death struggle we fought to kill and destroy anyone who came in our way. The migrant Bihari's openly joined the Pakistani army and fought against us. Therefore they were our direct enemies and the Mukti Bahini has done the right thing if they have killed them. These ungrateful Indian migrant Muslims lived among us, we gave them shelter when they have nothing but when the crisis started they shamelessly sided with Pakistan. In a war these people were our mortal enemies and we had to defeat them. Now people like Mohammad Ramzan talking like another Bihari by blaming the freedom fighters. If his love of Islam is more important than his motherland let him find out another place where only Islam reigns. This is ridiculous to note that his interpretations of Islam condones killing of innocent human beings in their homes and fields than he is not talking of any virtuous faith, he is professing genocide what Pakistan did in 1971. A human beings identity is not through faith. It's through his/her national identification. In Kuwait he is known as a Bangladeshi expatriate not as a Muslim.

 

Akbar Hussain


 




To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
From: shafiq013@yahoo.com
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 21:16:22 +0000
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Re: War Crime by Mukti Bahini

 

Dear Ezajur

That is the difference. You are very hopeful that some of Ramjan's nearest and dearest ones are on the list. I only apprehend that. You may be a very smart guy and may have a very good command on History of Bangladesh but we are talking the era of 1971 and the liberation war of Bangladesh. Today you and people like you will try to dilute the gravity of the situation by citing Rokhi Bahini though Rokhi Bahini did not exist at that time. Tomorrow you may and you will also bring the rising price of essentials in this context.  

I am not very clear what justice you are obliged to serve. However, I urge you to "serve" justice to English language. Thanks for reminding me that some of my nearest and dearest ones have already been ticked off the list a while back. I was ignorant about it but how you know this? You must be a man. Hats off to you

You are right. There are enough guns pointing in all directions.

Regards

Shafiq


 
 
 
--- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, "ezajur" <Ezajur@...> wrote:
>
> Shafiq
>
> I hope some of Ramjan's nearest and dearest are on the list. But the glibness with which you ignore the crimes of the rokhi bahini obliges me to serve justice and remind you that some of your nearest and dearest have already been ticked off the list a while back.
>
> There are enough guns pointing in all directions.
>
> Ezajur Rahman
> Kuwait
>
>
>
> --- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, "shafiq013" shafiq013@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > Mr. Mohammed Ramjan
> >
> >
> > Even 100 thousand clips this will not deter nation's desire and
> > will to try the war criminals. I can really feel pity for you for all
> > your futile efforts. All attempt by you and people like you cannot and
> > will not dissuade people of Bangladesh determination to try these so
> > called guardians of Islam. Sorry son, but it seems some of your nearest
> > and dearest ones are in the list.
> >
> >
> >
> > Shafiq Ahmad
> >
> > @yahoogroups.com, Mohammed Ramjan <mramjan@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > War Crime by Mukti Bahini
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0hSH5ctyk0&feature=related
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
> > > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/
> > >
> >
>





Live connected with Messenger on your phone Learn more.

__._,_.___


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




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

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Hasina's music!



hello
 
Alrite son, you wana dance with blood, please do! What's the broader picture? BAKSAL? Socialism?
 
What?
 
These are dead song, sing something new! Haisina is milking 'rajakars' for last 30 years, go ahead son, RIP with rajakars!

--- On Mon, 3/8/10, shafiq013 <shafiq013@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: shafiq013 <shafiq013@yahoo.com>
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Re: Hasina's music!
To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 7:56 PM

 
Dear Mr. AssGhar
Too bad is not it? We condemn this type of voilence from the core of the heart. But have you seen the broader picture. Oh! what I am talking. To see a broader picture you need a broader vision. Sorry son, keep on your rhetoric. I should not disturb you.
Shafiq Ahmad
 
 
--- In alochona@yahoogroup s.com, Mo Assghar <moassghar@.. .> wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=jYKch23wj- E
>
> Dr Manik dada,
> (Phd, Joynal Hajari University, Tungipara)
>
> Why don't you watch this video?
> http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=jYKch23wj- E
>
> Very entertaining! How hasina and Logi-Boitha brutally killed an innocent man! Must watch and tell me if your blood does not boil and how inhuman it could be?
>



__._,_.___


[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] 7 March 71 Speech



7 March 71 Speech and Call for Independence


Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's speech of 7 March 1971 has a special place in the history of Bangladesh's war of independence. Throughout the 9-month's bloody struggle against the Pak occupation forces people drew inspiration from it. Many people term it as the call for independence. But what was in it?

A careful analysis of the speech will demonstrate that different parts of the speech were addressed to different audience; part of it was for the people of Bangladesh and part for the Pakistani authorities. In fact, although there were things in the speech, which were meant for domestic consumption, the speech was mainly used to send a clear message to the Pakistani authorities. The message was that the Pakistani authorities had no other option but to handover power to Mujib if they wanted the unity of Pakistan.

Mujib was jumping from one issue to another and the speech lacked coherency. He talked about the frustration of Bengalis for not being able to take up the reigns of the country. Reminding about the majority position of the Bengalis in Pakistan he said, "In the past too, each time we, the numerically larger segment of Pakistan's population tried to assert our rights and control our destiny, they (West Pakistanis) conspired against us and pounded upon us."

He called for total civil disobedience. Then he said, "The people of this country are being murdered; so be on guard. If need be, every thing will be brought to a standstill. Officers will collect wages on the 28th day. If the salaries are held up, if a single bullet is fired, if the murder of my people does not cease, I call upon you to turn every home into a fortress. Use whatever you can to confront the enemy. Even if I cannot give instructions, every last road must be blocked."

Mujib in his speech addressed the Pakistani troops as his brothers and gave them full assurance of security if they would remain in the barracks. This was despite the fact that they had already engaged in killing hundreds of Bengalis. An official statement published by the then Pakistan Government on 10 March 1971 admitted that up to that date 172 Bengalis were killed and 3558 were injured at the hands of the Pak military and security forces.

The most significant part of the speech was Mujib's four demands. A careful analysis of these demands will show that even if all these demands were met, Bangladesh would not have been independent. Mujib demanded (1) immediate lifting of Martial Law; (2) return of Army to the barracks; (3) investigation of all killings; and (4) transfer of power to people's elective representatives. The most striking point was No. (4) transfer of power to elected representatives. What does it mean? To put it bluntly, Mujib demanded to make him the Prime Minister of Pakistan.

Towards the end of his speech Mujib declared, "when we have given blood we will give more, but we will make this country free Inshallah. This time, the struggle is for freedom, this struggle is for independence."

Apart from this single utterance nowhere in his speech he mentioned independence.

When journalists later accosted Mujib whether he had made a declaration of independence, he carefully avoided the issue by stating, "it can be interpreted in many ways". Between the election of 1970 and 25 March 1971, Mujib did not do anything that can be regarded as a challenge to the unity of Pakistan. In fact Mujib never stated in public that he did not have allegiance to Pakistan. He spoke about autonomy, but that was no secret; it was his election manifesto and part of 6-points.

However since the independence of Bangladesh some people have been claiming that it was always Mujib's intention to establish independent Bangladesh and that he had been dreaming about it since 1947. However, writers like Herbert Feldman have rejected this. For him, such ex post facto statement can hardly be reliable. (See Herbert Feldman The End and the Beginning: Pakistan 1969-71).

For the West Pakistanis, on 7 March, Mujib had this message, "To them, I say, you are our brothers. I beseech you not to turn this country into a living hell. Will you not have to show your face and confront your conscience some day?" He continued, "If we can peacefully settle our differences there is still hope that we can co exist as brothers. Otherwise there is no hope. Do not go to the extreme - (if you choose that), we may never come to see each other's face."

This would puzzle one - if Mujib had called for independence why was he talking about living as brothers?

Mujib ended his speech with 'Jay Bangla', 'Jay Punjab', 'Jay Sind', 'Jay Baluchistan', 'Jay Frontier Province', 'Jay Pakistan'. However later 'Jay Punjab' etc. was edited out from the record.

'Jay Bangla' together with 'Jay Pakistan' was not a new slogan for Mujib. On 3 January Mujib administered Oath to the elected representatives of Awami League at the Ramna Race Course Ground (present day Shurwardi Udyan) and finished it with 'Jay Bangla' and 'Jay Pakistan'. This was reported by the Daily Pakistan of 4 January. Abul Mansur Ahmed also mentions this incident in his book.

418 members of national and provincial assemblies took part in this Oath taking ceremony. An Oath-form was printed; every member was given a copy. 'Jay Bangla' and 'Jay Pakistan' were written on it. Mujib conducted this Oath taking ceremony pronouncing both 'Jay Bangla' and 'Jay Pakistan'. In fact during this time, as Abul Mansur Ahmed noted in his '50 Years of Politics' (Amer Dheka Rajnitir Panchash Bacher) Mujib was regularly uttering 'Jay Bangla' and 'Jay Pakistan'.

If Mujib had really called for independence on 7 March, then one wonders why would Yahya come to Dhaka to discuss politics with Mujib? It is inconceivable that a Pakistani President would come to talk about the break up of his country. He would only come for a discussion if he were given some sort of assurance that what was said at the Ramna Race Course was not what Mujib was actually contemplating. By the same token if Mujib had declared independence on the 7th why did he continue to have dialogues with Yahya? Surely he should have taken further steps to implement his desire for independence?

On 15 Narch 1971 Yahya came to Dhaka and he had several rounds of talks with Mujib. These two actually met for no less than 3 times without any aids in one-to-one meetings. They also had talks aided by members of their teams. Mujib never mentioned in public that the discussion was going nowhere. Rather he told journalists that he was making satisfactory progress. Awami League has never informed the nation what was discussed or agreed in these series of meetings.

The Dawn reported on the 24th March 1971 that a broad agreement and understanding was reached between Yahya and Mujib on the 22nd of March 1971 'to end the present political crisis in the country'. Unfortunately, the AL leadership have never explained what was this broad agreement and understanding. However, some light can be thrown; Shahjahan Siraj informs that on the 22nd of March Sheikh Moni told top student leaders that Mujib had agreed to form a coalition government at the centre with Bhutto's People's Party. A section of Awami League leadership was also willing to go ahead with this. However, the student leaders did not support this idea and pressure was placed on Mujib not to proceed with it.

The Awami Leadership after 25 March started calling Yahya's action of 25 March as a betrayal. The declaration of 17 April 1971 by the Mujibnagar government also mentioned that the Pakistani authorities acted treacherously instead of fulfilling their promise and that due to that act of betrayal this war of independence had commenced. But why call Yahya a betrayer? He was barbaric, no doubt, but why a betrayer? A person is a betrayer if he gives a pledge or promise and then goes back on it. What promise did Yahya make to Mujib or AL? Are they referring to that 'broad agreement and understanding'? Was it that they would be allowed to form the next government or share power and thus the question of independence would be pushed under the carpet? How can one come to terms with a call for independence on 7 March with the formation of a government in Islamabad?

Shahjahan Siraj also informs that Mujib knew about the impending crackdown of Pakistani Army much earlier than 25 March 1971. Mujib told the student leaders on the night of 23 March 1971 that Yahya Khan had agreed to share power with Mujib, however, his generals were not willing. Mujib also warned the student leaders that the crack down was imminent and it might start as early as the next day, 24 March 1971.

On 25 March, whole day, Mujib was waiting for a phone call from Lt. Gen Pirzada for a last meeting with Yahya. Mujib asked his top party brass to move to secured places on the night of 25 March. Alas! He did not do the same with his countrymen. If he had alerted the nation the way he had alerted his lieutenants about the impending crackdown, things would probably have been very different.

Before he was taken in by the Pakistani security forces Mujib gave an interview with the well-known French daily La Monde. He said, "Is the Pakistan Government not aware that I am the only one able to save East Pakistan from Communists?" This interview was published after his arrest on the 31st of March 1971. The irony is although Mujib here portrayed himself as a saviour from or a defender against communism, after liberation he inducted 'socialism' as one of the four fundamental principles of state policy. Some of his die heart supporters say that it was when Mujib was about to implement true socialism the agents of imperialism killed him.

Mujib might have good reasons for playing this communist card. The East Pakistan Communist Party and other Marxist and left leaning outfits had already started campaigning openly for an independent Bangladesh. They called for armed struggle to achieve it. On the other hand, AL or Mujib never uttered the word 'independence' apart from the speech of 7 March. Mujib saw himself as the person who could stop this communist campaign. He knew how worried the USA was about East Pakistan falling into the grip of communists.

What was the general mood in the then East Pakistan in March 1971 prior to the gruesome night of 25? Delay in handing over power to people's representatives had already turned the campaign for autonomy into a full bloom movement for independence. However, Awami League (except its students' wing) did not take part in it. In fact, during this period Awami League's student wing Student League (Chatra League) actually acted contrary to the politics of the main party.

On 2 March DUCSU (Dhaka University Central Students Union) VP and Student League leader A S M Abdur Rab hoisted a newly-designed flag of Bangladesh at the Dhaka University. Pakistani flag was burnt and 'Amar Sonar Bangla' was sung as national anthem for an independent Bangladesh. Later, Bangladeshi flags were hoisted in many shops, offices and vehicles by ordinary people. On the same day Siraj Sikhder, on behalf of the East Bengal Labour Movement issued an open letter to Mujib with a call to commence arms struggle against the Pakistanis.

On 3 March at a meeting at the Paltan Maidan organised by the Students League, Shahjahan Siraj, the then General Secretary of the Students League read out memorandum (Ishtehar) of independence of Bangladesh and declared programmes for the establishment of an independent and sovereign Bangladesh.

Mujib also spoke on this occasion. In his 30 minutes speech, Mujib however said nothing about an independent Bangladesh. He called upon the people to continue their struggle in a peaceful and organised manner (peaceful satyagraha). He urged them to remain alert against agent-provocateurs and to maintain complete peace and discipline and to rise to the occasion to protect the life and property of everyone living in East Pakistan [not Bangladesh!] whether Hindu or Muslim, Bengali or non-Bengali.

Mujib, who was earlier scheduled to lead a huge procession after the meeting, announced that the procession would not be held. Instead he led a prayer for the salvation of the departed souls of the martyrs who had, as he said, died in the struggle for democracy [not independence!]. No reason was offered for the postponement of the procession led by Mujib. This was a programme which Mujib himself announced the previous day. Could it be the case that Mujib wanted to dissociate from the independent Bangladesh memorandum of Shahjahan Siraj?

On 6 March, a group of artists and writers published a booklet called 'Pratiroth' (Resistance) and asked everyone to resist the repressions of the Martial law Administration and rise to the occasion for establishing an independent Bangladesh. They declared, "Set fire to any statement of compromise" (Aposher bani agune jalia dao).

On 7 March an organisation called 'the Co-ordination Committee of Communist Revolutionaries of East Bengal' issued a call for establishing independent East Bengal through armed struggle. On the same day, the National Awami Party (Muzaffar) published its 17-point constitutional proposal for Pakistan in which they demanded right to self-determination for East Pakistan along with the right to secede from the federation.

Next day, 8 March a left lenient students organisation 'Forward Students' Block' published a leaflet urging people not to cloud 'the rising sun of independence' by going in for any compromise with the Martial Law Administration and the ruling cliques. They also urged people to organise 'Bengal Liberation Front' in the rural and urban areas for establishing 'an independent socialist Bangladesh'. On the same day an anonymous leaflet was published in which various methods and rules of guerrilla warfare were explained.

On 9 March, the Central Committee of the East Pakistan Communist Party in a statement called upon the people to fight the enemy forces and to keep up the struggle for establishing an independent Bangladesh. On the same day, Maulana Bhashani issued a leaflet calling upon the people to join the struggle for preserving the independence of East Pakistan. He said that their only aim was the full independence and urged people to continue their struggle until that aim was achieved. He also warned against any attempt to compromise the independence of East Pakistan by coming into terms with the military elites.

On 10 March, while addressing a huge public meeting at Paltan Maidan Maulana Bhashani declared that no one would be able to suppress the struggle of 70 million Bengalis for freedom and liberation. He made it clear that in this respect, no compromise was possible. He called upon President Yahya to give freedom to 70 millions Bengalis. He even gave Yahya an ultimatum of 28 March 1971 to accept his demand.

On 11 March the Student Union (student wing of the Communist Party) called for the establishment of an exploitation free independent East Bengal. They also circulated leaflets about this.

On 17 March the Dhaka English daily 'The People' wrote, "Independence of Bangladesh a fait accompli".

On 19 March Bengali officers and soldiers of the East Bengal regiment stationed at Joydevpur revolted.

On 22 March EPR battalion in Chittagong led by Captain Rafiqul Islam arrested all the non-Bengali officers and soldiers of EPR. On the same day EPR captured the Chittagong port and tried to resist the unloading of Pakistan army's arms and ammunitions. The same day saw the slaughter of hundreds (one estimate says 1500) of Bengali officers and soldiers of East Bengal regiment at the East Bengal Regimental Centre in Chittagong by the Pakistan army.

The incidents mentioned above show that the campaign and actual war for independence had already started before 25 March although no formal declaration was made.

If a call for independence has been made on the 7th then the most logical follow up step should have been preparation for war – planning, organising, training etc. There is no evidence that Mujib or Awami League did anything to prepare the nation apart from shouting, " You get ready with whatever you have" on 7 March. They were themselves even not prepared for it. There was no strategy, no programmes.

Maulana Bhashani was very candid in his comments about the war preparation of Awami League leaders. Maulana said, "These fellows had already had their sherwanis tailored and were rehearsing for the oath-taking ceremony; these fellows had thought the power was in their pockets." (See Arun Mukerjee Dateline Mujibnagar). Maulana was always sceptical about the motives of the Pakistani authorities and did not believe that they would easily give the Bengalis share of power.

Communist Leader Abul Bashar said, "During 1971 when we urged people to take preparation for independence, then on 23 March Awami League observed 'Pakistan Day' and blamed us as secessionists."

Major Jalil's view was that Awami League leadership did not think of independence, they tried till the last moment to capture power through dialogue.

Even if there was a call for independence on the 7th, subsequent action or inaction by Mujib negated it. The speech was rather used to warn the Pakistani authorities that Mujib was the de facto ruler of the East and the only way to save the unity of Pakistan was to handover power to him. Mujib was probably right. However, this then run contrary to what has been said about Mujib's call for independence on 7 March.

Mujib's inclination to compromise should not surprise anyone. It was reported by The Dawn on 1 March 1971 that on 28 February, Mujib reiterated his assurance that six points would not be imposed on any one. This shows that he was ready to negotiate over them.

In his speech of 7 March Mujib said, "I made it clear that I could not agree to any deviation from the six points. That right rested with the people. Come, I said, let us sit down and resolve matters." One wonders if six points were not open to compromise why was Mujib asking the West Pakistanis to have discussion to settle the issues?

After his arrest when Mujib was taken to Pakistan, he allegedly said at the Karachi airport that he gave himself up to the Pakistani authorities to save Pakistan.

The US State Department's newly declassified documents about the 1971 Bangladesh War show that Mujib wanted to have a "form of confederation" with Pakistan rather than a separate country. When Bhutto released him from Pakistani prison in early January 1972, he apparently agreed to establish a confederation between Bangladesh and Pakistan. This was confirmed by Anthony Mascarenhas (Bangladesh: A Legacy of Blood). Mascarenhas spoke to Mujib in London after his return from Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto also said that her father and Mujib had an agreement to form a confederation.

It is the humble opinion of this writer that had the declaration of independence come earlier, may be soon after 7th March, things would probably have been different; the carnage of 25th March could have been avoided. The Pakistani army would not have the opportunity to strike the unarmed Bengalis as they did. The mass slaughter of Bengali troops in Cittagong, EPR in Pilkhana, Police offices at Rajarbag and university students and teachers could have been prevented. These forces could have come out of the barracks and dormitories and could resist the advances of the Pakistani troops. They could also disperse in the countryside and organise fight.

The first Bengal regiment stationed in Jessore was actually out of the cantonment on their winter exercise. They could have struck the enemy forces and continue fighting. As there was no declaration or direction given by Mujib, these troops remained inactive. After 25 March they were brought back to the cantonment, forced to surrender their arms and killed.

One should not forget that Mujib took it upon himself the responsibility of conducting the movement. On 7 March he urged, "Leave everything to me. I know how to organise a movement."

What was Mujib's personal relationship with Yahya Khan? While addressing the newly elected Awami League members at the Oath taking ceremony at the Ramna Race Course on 3 January 1971, Mujib thanked President Yahya for fulfilling his commitment in holding election. However, Mujib was worried that a section of Yahya's subordinates were conspiring to undo the election results. This news was published on the 4 January 1971 issue of the Pakistan Observer.

In one of the earlier meetings with Yahya, Mujib thanked Yahya personally for holding the election and even proposed to keep Yahya as the President after the handover of power, since Yahya had established democracy in Pakistan, democracy would be secured if he continued with the Presidency. (See Asghar Khan Generals in politics).

Yahya Khan also publicly declared Mujib as the future Prime Minister of Pakistan while talking to journalists in Dhaka. He also introduced Mujib to the Shah of Iran as the future Premier.

It appears that Mujib and Awami League leadership was convinced that Yahya Khan would transfer power to Mujib, and for that reason, they waited till the last moment and did not give up the hope. However, the fate dictated otherwise.

By going into an elaborate dialogue with Yahya and the Pakistani authorities and trying to devise a formula to keep Pakistan together they showed that independence of Bangladesh was probably not their main goal. There is also no evidence that they thought of any contingency plan should the dialogue fail to produce any results. Their action was contrary to the prevailing spirit of the country, which was overwhelmingly in favour of independence.

By the evening of 25 March 71, the emotional split with the West Pakistanis was complete; the country was ready to sever all formal ties with them and march ahead towards independence, but the question is whether the leader was ready for it?

Tuhin Reza
London
UK


__._,_.___


[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

__,_._,___