Banner Advertiser

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

[ALOCHONA] Fire and arson by Juba Leaguers



Fire and arson by Juba Leaguers
 
 
 
 
 
Barisal, Aug 3 (bdnews24.com) – Demonstrators, supposedly followers of metropolitan Juba League convenor Nizamul Islam, allegedly vandalised private property on Monday protesting an earlier attack on the leader.

Witnesses said that they vandalised three buses and 10 trucks, injuring two passengers in the process. It is also alleged that they fired a couple of shots during the demonstrations.

Golam Mostofa, a passenger of Desh Paribahan, told bdnews24.com: "The Dhaka to Kuakata-bound bus arrived at the terminal at around 11.30pm. A group of young people on about 30 motorcycles arrived at the location and stopped the buses from leaving."

"They set fire to tyres on the road. Some of them vandalised the buses. Two passengers, Kamruzzaman and Mostofa, suffered cuts on their necks and chests from the glass shards."

"They then ransacked the terminal for around half an hour and vandalised two buses of Druti Paribahan and Annya Poribahan, a covered van, a military vehicle and around 10 trucks."

Transports workers and passengers became aggravated when the police arrived after the incident, alleging that RAB and police are normally at the terminal every night but were absent on Monday.

Assistant police commissioner Anwar Hossain Khan denied there was any significant altercation between the police and passengers and said, "People tend to get aggravated during such incidents. However, no clash took place."

Mohammed Rabiul, a truck driver who was arriving at Barisal from Natore at that time said that he stopped his vehicle on the roadside when he saw a motorcycle procession of a group of people carrying hockey sticks, sharp weapons and firearms.

Some one from the procession shot at his truck. His windshield was shattered from the bullets.

The motorcycle procession headed to former student leader Moazzem Hossain Chunnu's residence at Kalu Shah Road. They are said to have fired five shots at the residence and vandalised the adjoining Rahim Memorial Charity Club.

From there, the men went in front of Police Line and took out a procession demanding punishment for the miscreants behind the attack on Juba League leader Nizam.

Moazzem Hossain Chunnu told bdnews24.com over the phone that a group of miscreants led by Mamun and Dipu fired shots and threw brickbats at his home, shattering windows and frightening residents.

However, assistant police commissioner Anwar Hossain Khan said, "No shooting took place. A number of miscreants gave a show down on motorcycles. They threw brickbats and broke glasses on a number of vehicles."

Meanwhile, Barisal Sher-e-Bangla Medical College Chhatra League took out a procession with the same demands at around 12.30am. The procession circled the Band Road and ended at the campus.



__._,_.___


[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] Bengali and Bangladeshi Nationalism



Bengali and Bangladeshi Nationalism
 

By Dr. Afsar Ali,USA

In light of the recent Supreme Court verdict, the issue of the Bengali and the Bangladeshi nationalism came to the fore front again. This was a confusing issue to me for quite long time. So I took sometime to study the matter in depth and found that there is no contradiction between the Bengali and Bangladeshi nationalism as oppose to the pundits and the politicians wanted us to believe in.

One is the territorial identity of ALL the people of Bangladesh (Bangladeshi) while other (Bengali) is the linguistic (ethnic) identity of 98% of the people of Bangladesh. The study further revealed that the confusion arises from the very word nation� which unfortunately has more than one meaning. So I start my main body of this article with the dictionary definition of the word nation�.

Encyclopedia AMERICANA defines Nation as: A large number of people who see themselves as a community or group and who generally place loyalty to the group above any conflicting loyalties. They often share one or more of the following: language, culture, religion, political and other institutions, a history with which they identify, and a belief in a common destiny. They usually occupy contiguous territory.� Funk & Wagnalls standard desk dictionary says the following about Nation: A body of persons associated with a particular territory, usu. organized under a government, possessing a distinctive cultural and social way of life or a nation is primarily the people under one government.�

From the above definitions it is clear that the word nation� is a very broad term. Nationalism is the ism of a particular nation and followed by the nationals of that nation. In the present day world, people feel nationalism among themselves based on sovereign and independent territorial boundary (nation-sate), religion, ethnicity, and race or even on gender. These later kind of nationalisms do not have territorial boundary.

Muslims all over the world feel some sort of nationalism based on their religion; it does the Christian, Hindu or the believers of all other religions. The existence of religion based nationalism is manifested by many means. The word nation in Luis Farrakhan's nation of Islam� is an example of such nation (no territorial boundary). Muslim brotherhood and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) are some of the worst kind of manifestations of religion based nationalism.

People belonging to the same race also feel some kind of nationalism among themselves. Organizations such as NAACP, KKK are the positive and negative manifestations of such nationalism.

Peoples, who speak the same language, have identical cultural and social background feel another kind of nationalism among them, which is generally known as ethnic based nationalism�. There are hundreds of ethnic based non-territorial nations in the world. Bengali nation (Bengali Jati and the ism is� Bengali nationalism� equivalent to “Bangali Jatiotabad� in Bangla), Chinese, Panjabi, Arab, Persian are some examples of this kind of nation. Nationals of these nations have also strong affinity among themselves. The basic unit of this type of nationalism is the common linguistic and cultural heritage; not necessarily all have to live in the same territorial boundary and unite under one government.

Modern civilization brings forth the concept of nation-state, which is commonly known, as nation. I mean here the political nation, the country or the political entity we belong to. Bangladesh is a political nation. In some cases, one ethnic nation has been divided to form more than one political nation; for instance, the ethnic Arab nation has been divided to form many political Arab nations. Ethnic Bengali nation has been divided to form Bangladesh, and part of India (The State of West Bengal).

The examples of forming a political nation with many ethnical nations are galore. India belongs to this kind of nation. She united many ethnic nationalities under the name of a political nation (nation-state) called India. Most recently immigrant counties like USA, Canada are vivid examples of this kind of political nations. There are also many political nations in the world, which comprise of mainly people with same ethnical nationality. In this case, all the people of an ethnic nation formed a political nation.

Nationalism under the purview of political nation is obligatory in nature. Every nationals of a political nation has to obey and show respect to the laws, rules & regulations of that nation. Every body must show their allegiance and abide by the laws set forth by the people's representatives of their political nation. Individual's passport bears the political identity (Bangladeshi) not ethnical identity (Bengali). The word nation� in united nations� refers to the political nation.

In the perspective of modern civilized world, political identity is far and foremost important than any other kind of identity, say ethnic or religious. Palestinians did never lose their ethnic identity which is Arab, but they lost their political identity more than six decade ago and the world have seen how ferocious and desperate people become to regain their political identity. To the nationals of the political nation of Kuwait, nationalism based on the political nation is far more important than the Arab nationalism based on their ethnic identity. The reason is obvious to every one as Kuwait was engulfed by their ethnic Arab brother from the political nation of Iraq. In our subcontinent Ethnic Panjabi of India fought four times with their ethnic Panjabi from Pakistan.

A most stable political nation may be formed with the people from the same race, same ethnic background and the same religion. Unfortunately, this did not happened for many of the political nations. Political nationalism is fundamentally different from all other kind of nationalisms. This is the first identity of a human being, and then may have others. There is always strong interaction between ethnic, religions and racial based nationalism.

In spite of conflict regarding religious issues and belonging to different countries, Bengalis from both East and West showed stronger brotherhood to the ethnical nationhood than to the religious nationhood. Bangladeshis are predominantly Muslim by religion and Bengali by ethnic background. But the ethnic Bangali nationalism seems to be stronger than the religious Islamic nationalism. The proof is the 1971 - East and West Pakistan could not stay together as a single political nation just based on Islamic nationalism.

The ethnic nationality Bengali and Political Nationality Bangladeshi are not the same thing. In the same way the words Bangla and Bangladesh do not bear the same meaning. One is the name of a language, name of a culture, name of an ethnic nation and the group of people who practices this culture in their day-to-day life and feel home communicating among themselves with this language is called the “Bengali�. Other is the name of a sovereign nation, name of a political identity, which has been earned at the cost of hundreds of thousands of brave sons of the soil. So the name Bangladesh� is very dear to us - all Bangladeshis, but not necessarily to all the Bengalis.

That's why late Nirad C. Chaudhuri, a prominent Bengali from England (in Shanand Bichitra�; a Bengali weekly from Calcutta) sometimes in 1991 termed Bangladesh as Tothakothito Bangladesh� (so called Bangladesh). Bangladesh Government banned that issue in Bangladesh. Mr. Chaudhuri does not like to give the sole proprietary of the word Bangladesh� to the East Bengal people. He thinks Bangladesh, Bengal, Bongo, etc. all these words are synonymous and as such are the property of all Bangla speaking people. So, the word Bangladesh according to Mr. Chaudhuri can't be used to mean a section of bangalee only, it should be used to represent whole bangla speaking population.

After the independence of Indian subcontinent from British Raj in 1947, the single most important event took place for the people of Bangalee nation is the “Ekushey February�. The bangla speaking mass of East Bengal protested vehemently against the imposition of Urdu as the sole state language of the then Pakistan. But in the subsequent years, it proved to be an event mainly for the East Bengal people.

In West Bengal, they started to celebrate the Ekushey� very lately and with much less passionately compared to that in East Bengal. The main cause behind this difference in spirit in celebrating the very Bengali cause in both Bengal is that Bengali from East Bengal did not take long time after their so called independence from British that in real sense they did not achieve independence; just the name of their master has been changed.

So Ekush was the first milestone to the East Bengal people toward their goal of achieving real independence. This important item was absent to the minds of the bangalees from West Bengal. In West Bengal, it was never felt that they need to be separated from India and make a new nation comprising of whole bangla speaking population. It is historical truth that West Bengal people feel safer and much ease to live with Hindu majority India than with the was� or would be� Muslim majority Akhando Bengal�.

Definitely, West Bengal is happy to see Bengalis from East Bengal are freed from Pakistani tyranny. This does not mean they are willing to form a Bengal where Muslims will be majority in number. So, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in no sense struggled for the emancipation of whole Bengali population. West Bengal Bengalis were not under any kind of tyrannical rule. Mujib was champion to the cause of the East Bengal people now Bangladeshis. He fought against the Pakistani tyranny to liberate the people of East Bengal.

Sheikh Mujib is considered to be the Father of the Nation�. What this Nation refers to? Definitely, it refers to the political nation of Bangladesh not the ethnical nation of Bengali. So is it appropriate to term him the father of the ethnic Bengali nation? (Bangalee Jatir Pita). No ethnic nation� can have a single father in any sense. Time for evolution of an ethnic nation� (like Bengali jati�, Tamil Jati� et) measured in thousand years.

It is the legacy of our heritage. Credit goes to those people who enriched the bangla language and literatures by their thoughts, actions and writings. There will be numerous patrons in this cadre. We the Bengalis owe too much to great souls like Rabindranath, Nazrul and many hundred others who made the ethnic Bengali nation what we are today. So in no way Mujib is the father of the ethnic Bengali nation�. He may be the founding father of the political nation “Bangladesh�. Political nationality changes with the change of political identity.

For the past several centuries, our political identity changed several times. Our political nationality was British Indian when British ruled Indian subcontinent, then it was Pakistani and now it is Bangladeshi. If in future, the name of our country changes, so does our political nationality but Ethnical nationality remains the same under any political change. Our (98%) ethnic nationality was Bengali under British rule, it was Bengali during Pakistan period, and it is again Bengali now and will be Bengali in future.

The ethnic nationality Bengali and political nationality Bengladeshi is complementary to each other rather than competitors. We are simultaneously Bangladeshi (100%) and Bengali (98%). But first we are Bengladeshi, then Bengali, Chakma, Muslims, Hindus, Asian etc. If our ultimate goal is to form an undivided Bengal and if in future Bengal become a political entity rather then ethic identity, then both our political and ethnic identity will be BENGALI. Before happening that, our political identity is Bangladeshi and Ethnical identity is Bengali.

No big force divided Bengal against the will of the Bengalis. Big forces were involved to divide German and Korea like countries. Bengal division is not comparable to the just mentioned divisions. Hundreds if not thousand years of stray but persistent conflicts between Hindu and Muslim Bengali worked as a catalyst to the permanent division of Bengal and the subsequent birth of a new political nation (nation-sate) called Bangladesh whose citizens are known as Bangladeshi and the ethnical identity of her 98% people is Bengali.

Dr. Afsar Ali writes from Minnesota, USA: Email: maaliy2k@yahoo.com

http://newsfrombangladesh.net/view.php?hidRecord=329513


__._,_.___


[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] Which Way Is Our Nation Going?



Which Way Is Our Nation Going?

Mrinmoyee Rahman, Bangladesh

It was the dream of a "Digital Bangladesh" that prompted us to vote the current Awami League government to power. We, the first-time voters, were shown dreams of a "digital" nation that would be more modern, up-to-date and would fulfill our modern-day needs more perfectly well. While the previous government could not show us any such "dream", it was these shrewd people who manage to persuade (or tantalize) us the first-time voters; and they got it!

More than one and a half years gone, and we have seen – with hearts full of grief and discouragement, feeling that with them we have lost everything – how each and every dream has been shattered. The first big bang on our dreams came with the 2/25 incident of BDR carnage in 2009. All those majors and lieutenants and high-rank army personnel killed, we are now left with a backbone-less BDR and an unguarded border. The first question that comes to the mind of anyone on such an incident is: "Who has got benefited most?"

A look at the more frequent killings of Bangladeshis in the border regions by the Indian BSF of the powerful neighboring country may give the answer. We now are so used to the news of BSF killing Bangladeshis that we forget to mourn at the news of another. Though the answer seems clear to us, the government and opposition still go on blaming each other for such a huge loss of the nation and we the general people are still a long way from knowing who were behind the perpetrating of that tragedy.

The chaos game in the universities, where the main players are the gangs of the pro-government student organization, is no more a secret now. How many days our student population are collectively losing from their valuable student life, while passing their days in fear and apprehension because of this game will remain always unanswered. This is one of the many questions that we have got used to living with without an answer.

The price hike – leaving many living below or around the poverty line – has shattered the "dream" of basic sustenance for many – though it should have been a basic and fundamental human right. One and a half years are not too long for them to forget the promise that they collectively believed, consequently voting for nouka marka (boat, the symbol of BAL). I am talking about our honorable Prime Minister's promise of feeding us rice at Tk. 10 per kg.

Then comes the slow poisoning of democracy. We have been witnessing one tyrannical act after another. The closure of a newspaper and television channels, the arrest and brutal torture of an editor in the name of remand, recurring remands being awarded to the senior opposition leaders and torturing them in police custody, mass-arrests of opposition people, people being arrested and tortured at their homes, taken to remand and being tortured for reasons as small as "attending a political meeting" or "distributing opposition leaflets" day after day without any medical check-ups, and the list goes on.

With our borders unsafe, our primary rights unmet, our democracy questioned, we the young generation sit and wonder whether this is the "digitalization" of Bangladesh we were promised.

When we expect practical steps taken by our government to all these current problems in which our country is clearly submerged, we instead have to be content with being taken to the past! Our Constitution, they say, has now gone back the constitution of '72.

With that, we as a nation, step four decades back, while yet, we are told to dream of a prosperous and developed nation by 2021!

That reminds me of a word of wisdom I once heard as a young: "Regrets of the past, colorful dreams of the future and unplanned present is the life of a fool".

I hope our leaders will have some time to reflect on this saying and do something to rescue us all from the burden of being labeled as a foolish nation.

Mrinmoyee Rahman, Chittagong.
E Mail :
r.mrinmoyee@gmail.com
 


__._,_.___


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




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

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] August 15 in Retrospect: Walk the Memory Lane



August 15 in Retrospect: Walk the Memory Lane

A Obaid Chowdhury, USA

August 15 is round the corner. On this day in 1975, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, most of his family members and some relatives died in a pre-dawn military coup. According to the Awami League government-arranged trial, it was a "murder" or "assassination". The defense and others, however, argued that those deaths--including a few from the attackers--took place in crossfire and could, at worst, be termed as casualties of a successful coup. Nonetheless, unnatural deaths are not at all desirable and it is extremely unfortunate that Sheikh Mujib and others had to die that way.

During the following 21 years, August 15 passed quietly and few really bothered to recall the day. After Sheikh Hasina, the daughter of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, became Prime Minister in 1996, she initiated a trial for the killing and made August 15 a 'Mourning Day'. The process remained suspended during the next 7 years of BNP plus Caretaker administration from 2001 to 2008. Sheikh Hasina became Prime Minister again in January 2009 and quickly restarted the process from where she left. Five of the accused coup leaders, who were at hand languishing in Dhaka jail for long 13 years, were quickly sent to gallows.

The Hasina government re-instituted the 'Mourning Day' and August 15 has since been observed as such by the Awami League and its sponsored supporters. On the other hand, most others consider it a 'Day of Deliverance' because the day heralded a new democratic beginning for the country, bailing it out from the ugly clutch of an autocratic repression.

Walk the Memory Lane:

To understand the genesis of August 15, one needs to go back in time to the Bangladesh of that period (1972-75), which those who lived through and experienced can only visualize. Generations in their late forties and below perhaps only heard or read about that period, again interpreting it from their personal perceptions and political orientations. It will be totally illogical and unfair to evaluate August 15 by those who did not walk that period.

Overtly though, the military coup of August 15, 1975 was staged by a group of about two dozen young officers and participated by two half-sized units, however, it seemed to have covert support of almost the entire military, as well as the whole nation. Following known facts corroborate it:

1. When under attack, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman called then army Chief General Safiullah for help. According to Safiullah's own admission, he was helpless as he found that the whole army was supportive of the coup.

2. The moment Brigadier Khaled Mosharraf, then army chief of the general staff, learnt that the main guns of the tanks that were out for the coup were without ammunition, he immediately ordered shells for the guns.

3. By 10 am on August 15, chiefs of army, navy, air force, BDR, police, JRB (Jatiyo Rakkhi Bahini) and Ansars rushed to the Dhaka Radio to announce their support for the coup and loyalty to the new president.

4. If the military did not support the coup, it could have crushed that handful of officers and men within hours, if not minutes.

As for the public support for the coup, one may note the following:

1. Hardly any Innalillah….was heard upon the news of Sheikh Mujib's death. In fact, people said to have heaved a sigh of relief with an Alhamdulillah.

2. There was not an iota of resistance or protest from any quarter anywhere following the coup or "killing" of Sheikh Mujbur Rahman. One may check the newspapers in the archives for facts.

3. During the 2-hour relaxation of curfew for Jummah prayer on August 15, 1975 (it was a Friday), people swarmed the Dhaka streets in thousands in jubilation and celebration of the success of the coup. Similar celebrations were reported from other parts of the country. The scenario may only be compared to the victory day celebration of December 16, 1971.

4. People offered special prayers and distributed sweets on the day. Such celebrations were also reported form Bangladeshi communities abroad.

Political Support:

1. The post coup administration was formed entirely by the Awami League members of the parliament; only exception was that former president Justice Abu Sayeed Chowdhury was given the foreign ministry portfolio. None of the coup leaders was seen within miles of the new administration.

2. Veteran Awami Leaguer Abdul Malek Ukil said on the fall of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman that the country was saved form a Zalim Feroun. Malek Ukil later became the President of Awami League and Speaker of the House.

3. Following the August 15 coup, newspapers and TV channel were filled with greetings from various political, educational and cultural groups from all over the country. Again, one may visit the media archives-- national and international---to find facts.

Diplomatic Acknowledgement:

The new government formed after the August 15 coup was immediately welcomed and recognized by international community, including India, the US, the USSR and the UK. China and Saudi Arabia accorded recognition to Bangladesh for the first time.

The reasons for the overwhelming local and international support for the August 15 coup are not far to seek. Following facts may give an idea:

1. 40 Thousand Political Opponents Eliminated: According to various estimates, the Rakkhi Bahini, a para-military political force and other draconian elements of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, killed 35 to 40 thousand political opponents and dissidents. Mujib himself bragged the death of leftist leader Siraj Sikdar in the Parliament. According to Professor Aftab Ahmed (a top former Chatra League leader) of Dhaka University, nearly 42,000 political activists killed and about 86,000 jailed between 1972 to 1975 (The Daily Star Nov 1998).

2. Half a Million Lives Lost Due to Corruption: The man-made famine of 1974-75 took nearly half a million lives. There was no dearth of relief materials but they did not reach the needy; they were hoarded at the AL leaders' personal warehouses instead, to be sold in the black markets or dispensed on political expediency. Most dead could not receive the minimum burial rituals for want of clothes. Men and animals struggled for food in the city garbage. To add to the irony or insult, people witnessed the royal style weddings and birthday celebrations at Gonobhaban, Sheikh Mujib's official residence, around the same time. Check NY Times of December13, 24, 1974 and January 26, 1975; the Washington Post of November 8, 1974 plus other media sources.

3. Political Rights and Press Freedom Snatched: Under the emergency of 1974, all fundamental rights were suspended, political activities banned, social gatherings restricted and all but four government controlled media outlets were closed. It was Morar Upar Kharar Gha!

4. Dictatorship Formalized: In January 1975, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman amassed all state powers to himself by changing the constitution in 20 minutes without any debate, thereby becoming an absolute dictator.

5. One-Party Formed, Democracy Burried: In early 1975, Sheikh Mujib formed one-party BAKSAL (Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League), banning all other political parties. For the first time, bureaucracy and military were politicized by allowing them to join the BAKSAL. Sixty-one political Governors or Commissars were to take post in 61 districts on September 1, 1975.

There is no doubt that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman contributed greatly to the awakening of Bengalis in then East Pakistan and he was a great inspiration for their fight for the independence in 1971. However, he never himself talked of an independent East Pakistan or Bangladesh. His demands and fight were for the autonomy of East Pakistan, based on some Bengali civil servants-devised 6 Points, within the framework of Pakistan. He did have a towering presence but not the intellect and vision of Nehru, Gandhi or Mandela. In an overt pretense of greatness, he at times showed characters of misunderstood complications. He failed to come out of his narrow greed for self-glorification in one hand while blind weakness for family and party members on the other. He and his followers took it granted that Bangladesh was a personal property and everything of importance must bear his name. He could never come to terms with Ziaur Rahman who dared to declare the independence of Bangladesh after the Pakistani crackdown on Bengalis on March 25/26, 1971 and with Tajuddin who risked forming the Bangladesh government in exile on April 17, 1971 and successfully steered it through the war of independence.

On a closer look, Sheikh Mujib's politics were hardly without controversies, some of which proved to be very costly for the nation. Let us revisit 1971 alone and pose a few questions to the nation:

1. Why did Sheikh Mujib request General Khadem Hussain Raja in Dhaka on the night of March 6, 1971 to be taken into custody (if the accounts of Siddiq Salek in the "Wintness to Surrender" to be believed)?

2. Why did Sheikh Mujib come out with "…..Ebarer Sangram Swadhinatar Sangram, Ebarer Sangram Muktir Sangram…..." and ended his speech with "Pakistan Zindabad" rather than the much expected Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) of Bangladesh on March 7, 1971?

3. Why did Sheikh Mujib choose to enter into a protracted negotiation with the Pakistani military junta for the unity and solidarity of Pakistan from March 15 to 24, 1971 even though he called for a 'Swadhinatar Sangram' on March 7?

4. Why did Sheikh Mujib continue the dialogue---and publicly speak of its 'progress'---with the military, which was openly militarizing East Pakistan with an ominous evil design?

5. Why did Sheikh Mujib snub at the suggestion provided by a representative (Capt Amin Ahmed Chowdhury) of senior Bengali offices in Chittagong namely, Lt Col M R Chowdhury, Major Ziaur Rahman, Capt Rafiqul Islam and others that a military crackdown on the Bengalis was imminent and if permitted they could take counter measures?

6. Why should Sheikh Mujib not take part blame for the Operation Searchlight by the Pakistanis aimed at annihilating the Bengalis for not taking preemptive measures to counter it? It was unthinkable for a politician of his stature not to visualize its advent, the early warning from Chittagong notwithstanding. A timely political decision and counter measures could have saved the lives of thousand of Bengalis on March 25/26, 1971 and then after.

7. Why did Sheikh Mujib choose to surrender on the night of March 25, 1971 rather than make moves to lead the nation for a liberation war? Reportedly, Tajuddin Ahmed, ASM Abdur Rob and others went to his residence the same night requesting him to leave the house, which Sheikh Mujib declined. Tajuddin and Rob said to have brought prepared UDIs but Mujib refused to sign on the ground that the Pakistanis would then brand him and try him as traitor. What a loyalty to Pakistan even at that crucial moment!

8. Why and how did Sheikh Mujibur Rahman call US Ambassador in Islamabad Joseph Farland before his surrender at midnight on March 25/26, 1971? Such a call at that juncture could only be possible with the help of Pakistan military authority.

9. Why was the family of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman allowed to stay at his Dhanmondi residence under the care and protection of the Pakistan military during the entire period of the war, even though he was being tried as a 'traitor' and two of his sons were in Mukti Bahini? The Sheikh family was so peaceful and happy that Sheikh Hasina had son Joy during that period. Few families in occupied Bangladesh having members in Mukti Bahini were so fortunate!

10. Why did Sheikh Mujib never visit the wartime Mujibnagar capital in Kushtia where Tajuddin formed the Bangladesh exile government on April 17, 1971? Was it his disapproval of the Government-in-Exile, which won the independence without him (Sheikh Mujib)? Perhaps, it was not in Sheikh Mujib,s character to credit persons who outsmarted him, be that Ziaur Rahman or Tajuddin.

Yet, Bangladeshis are forced to call Sheikh Mujibur Rahman the "Bangabandhu" and "Jatir Pita" under a punishable law enacted by his daughter!!

As the AL government and a section of people mourn August 15, they should also pause and recall the killing of some 40 thousand political opponents and loss of almost half a million lives in the 'man-made' famine (due to corruption) under Shiekh Mujibur Rahman.

A Obaid Chowdhury
NY, USA.
E Mail : alaldulal@aol.com
http://newsfrombangladesh.net/view.php?hidRecord=329500


__._,_.___


[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] ZIA'S FIFTH AMENDMENT AND THE MULTIPARTY DEMOCRACY IN BANGLADESH



Dear Farida Apa,
Hitler and Zia both are famous for having led oppressive regimes in the past century, modern day politicians too violate the law and bend the rules when considered necessary especially in undemocratic societies where it is inevitably easier.
-Monaz
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com>
To: Alochona Alochona <alochona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Jul 27, 2010 9:59 pm
Subject: RE: [ALOCHONA] ZIA'S FIFTH AMENDMENT AND THE MULTIPARTY DEMOCRACY IN BANGLADESH

 
 
   A Military strongman illegally usurping civilian power after the gruesome mass murder of the civilian leader and his family is being held as the 'Savior' who ushered multiparty democracy in Bangladesh!  A known pychopath like our Ayi Bahar Mela via bdmailer via dhaka mailer and other kinds of mela is in charge of mailing this info.
        
            Read this column for an expose of the jaliyati ...
 
http://www.amadershomoy.com/content/2010/07/27/news0347.htm
 
           Farida Majid
================================

From: bdmailer@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:04:24 +0600
Subject: [ALOCHONA] ZIA'S FIFTH AMENDMENT AND THE MULTIPARTY DEMOCRACY IN BANGLADESH

 
ZIA'S FIFTH AMENDMENT AND THE MULTIPARTY DEMOCRACY IN BANGLADESH

Abid Bahar , Canada
abidbahar@yahoo.com

Hasina is poised to change the Fifth Amendment. People question, was Zia, A military Dictator or the Father of Bangladesh's Multiparty Democracy  in Bangladesh? Is Zia the Founder of Modern Bangladesh?

Link:
http://www.bangladesh-web.com/view.php?hidRecord=299367

Bangabandu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman made the Fourth Amendment and President Ziaur Rahman made the Fifth Amendment is evident in the constitutional amendment bills. The Constitution (Fifth Amendment) Act was passed by the Jatiya Sangsad on 6 April 1979. This Act amended the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution by adding a new Paragraph which is # 18.

The changes:
(1) The expression ˜BISMILLAH-AR RAHMAN-AR-RAHIM™ was added before the Preamble of the Constitution.
(2) The expression ˜historic struggle for national liberation." in the Preamble was replaced by the expression a historic war for national independence.
(3) The one party BKSAL system was replaced by multiparty system. Newspaper freedom was restored.
(4) Fundamental principles of state policy were made as 'absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah, nationalism [Bangladeshi nationalism], democracy and socialism meaning economic and social justice.
 
President Ziaur Rahman a man (came from cantonment) came closer to his people by establishing the multi party democracy over BKSAL's one party system and allowed Hasina to enter in politics and he helped to bring order over chaos of Bangabandu's BKSAL.Bangabandu originally fought for democracy all his life but installed the BKSAL one party rule and banned all the opposition party newspapers.Here history tells us that one doesnt always have to be a military leader to become a, we see many of the presidents of USA and UK came from army career dictator and in the same was a civilian leader is not always democrat, as is the case of Bangabandu. Additionally. It is also true about some Russian leaders.

To me the interpretation that Ziaur Rahman (of Bangladesh, not Pakistan) was a dictator is wrong. Ziaur Rahman opened the multi party democratic process where he also helped open a political party. Thus the interpretation that Zia was a military dictator even we see repeated in the Daily Star columns is a distortion of history. It seems that such interpretation is based on the West Bengali and Indian Congress's xenophobic interpretation of South Asian history based on its false moral high ground where they see Bangladesh¨s political development necessarily follows developments similar to Pakistan. Certain AL analysts ignoring facts conveniently copy this type of misleading interpretation.
 
Further Readings::
(1) Abid Bahar, Zia, the Father of Modern Bangladesh
(2) Abid Bahar, Claims of Ownership, Politics of Vengeance and Anarchy in Bangladesh 




__._,_.___


[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] On why Jamaat-e-Islami does not deserve our sympathy



On why Jamaat-e-Islami does not deserve our sympathy 
 
Sohail Taj 
 
sohailtaj2008@gmail.com                                                         
 
Without referring to the events of 1971 and the allegations of war crimes offences leveled against several Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI) leaders I would like to draw the reader's attention to other aspects of this case since the charges framed against the five accused remain to be proved and we should not preempt the findings of a court of law. The JeI finds itself in this present predicament solely out of its own doing and cannot blame anyone but itself. Its decision to participate and pressure the BNP to join in the 2008 elections against the better judgment of Khaleda Zia led to the Awami League gaining an overwhelming majority in Parliament which they are now using to their full advantage. That the elections might be rigged or manipulated under the dubious stewardship of Gen. Moin U. Ahmad never seems to have occurred to the JeI leaders. This single act of stupidity sealed the fate of the party and its five senior most leaders who are now languishing in jail.  
 
That the JeI had been repeatedly warned that the AL would achieve at least a two-thirds majority in the elections was ridiculed with the reply that under a democracy there would be limitations on what a majority government could do. It seems the JeI did not learn from the experience of the AL governments of 1972-1975 and 1996-2001 in which the party almost managed single handedly to ruin and decimate the country and in the latter case without even possessing a two-thirds majority.  The JeI's decision to participate in the elections was an act of pure selfishness and opportunism merely to take advantage of the weakened position of the BNP and to humour it's foreign backers in the West and the Middle East. Had the JeI and BNP boycotted the elections the illegal and unconstitutional Caretaker Government of Fakhruddin Ahmed would never have achieved even partial (prospective) legitimacy and the AL could not have carried out its political programme without sustained and credible opposition.  Unfortunately due to JeI's horrendous miscalculation and ineptitude the AL is able to brandish the label of a democratically elected government while systematically curtailing the people's rights, repressing the opposition and engaging in massive corruption. This is the elected dictatorship that Gen. Moin U. Ahmed had warned us about in one of his controversial speeches but that was before he delivered the country to the AL (and India) in true Mir Jafor fashion.  
 
The obvious reason for the JeI's political immaturity and incompetence is that while internally democratic it is ideologically and doctrinally rigid and is therefore incapable of absorbing outside opinion. Primarily for this reason many of its leaders and supporters suffer from intellectual arrogance and a certain pompousness in character such as Motiur Rahman Nizami, Delwar Hossain Sayeedi and Mahmudur Rahman, none of whom are original thinkers. Even after the election debacle the top leaders of the party were allowed to retain their positions. This last point proves that the JeI cannot be reformed and so no one should be surprised that there was no outburst after the arrest of its leaders as the monolithic structure of the party cannot quickly adapt to the new situation.  
 
In conclusion one may ask if the JeI has a right to our sympathy regardless of what may have been their involvement in the events of 1971.  My answer is no. Does the party deserve our condemnation? My answer is an unreserved yes. Should we nevertheless support the JeI? My answer is still no. Should we accept JeI help in saving the country from the fascist AL? My answer is yes but they will remain the junior partners whether they like it or not. The only question mark remains over the viability of the BNP which is heavily infiltrated with Indian stooges. I feel it unlikely that the BNP will be able to sustain a movement against the government unless it removes most of its top leadership and only after it takes a strong stand against Indian encroachment in Bangladesh. Unless it takes a principled stand on the last issue it will merely be viewed as the C Team of India after Sheikh Hasina's A Team and Sheikh Rehana's B Team.  
 
Regards 
 
Sohail Taj 
Imperial College London


__._,_.___


[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] On why Jamaat-e-Islami does not deserve our sympathy



On why Jamaat-e-Islami does not deserve our sympathy                                                           

Without referring to the events of 1971 and the allegations of war crimes offences leveled against several Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI) leaders I would like to draw the reader's attention to other aspects of this case since the charges framed against the five accused remain to be proved and we should not preempt the findings of a court of law. The JeI finds itself in this present predicament solely out of its own doing and cannot blame anyone but itself. Its decision to participate and pressure the BNP to join in the 2008 elections against the better judgment of Khaleda Zia led to the Awami League gaining an overwhelming majority in Parliament which they are now using to their full advantage. That the elections might be rigged or manipulated under the dubious stewardship of Gen. Moin U. Ahmad never seems to have occurred to the JeI leaders. This single act of stupidity sealed the fate of the party and its five senior most leaders who are now languishing in jail.  

That the JeI had been repeatedly warned that the AL would achieve at least a two-thirds majority in the elections was ridiculed with the reply that under a democracy there would be limitations on what a majority government could do. It seems the JeI did not learn from the experience of the AL governments of 1972-1975 and 1996-2001 in which the party almost managed single handedly to ruin and decimate the country and in the latter case without even possessing a two-thirds majority.  The JeI's decision to participate in the elections was an act of pure selfishness and opportunism merely to take advantage of the weakened position of the BNP and to humour it's foreign backers in the West and the Middle East. Had the JeI and BNP boycotted the elections the illegal and unconstitutional Caretaker Government of Fakhruddin Ahmed would never have achieved even partial (prospective) legitimacy and the AL could not have carried out its political programme without sustained and credible opposition.  Unfortunately due to JeI's horrendous miscalculation and ineptitude the AL is able to brandish the label of a democratically elected government while systematically curtailing the people's rights, repressing the opposition and engaging in massive corruption. This is the elected dictatorship that Gen. Moin U. Ahmed had warned us about in one of his controversial speeches but that was before he delivered the country to the AL (and India) in true Mir Jafor fashion.  

The obvious reason for the JeI's political immaturity and incompetence is that while internally democratic it is ideologically and doctrinally rigid and is therefore incapable of absorbing outside opinion. Primarily for this reason many of its leaders and supporters suffer from intellectual arrogance and a certain pompousness in character such as Motiur Rahman Nizami, Delwar Hossain Sayeedi and Mahmudur Rahman, none of whom are original thinkers. Even after the election debacle the top leaders of the party were allowed to retain their positions. This last point proves that the JeI cannot be reformed and so no one should be surprised that there was no outburst after the arrest of its leaders as the monolithic structure of the party cannot quickly adapt to the new situation.  

In conclusion one may ask if the JeI has a right to our sympathy regardless of what may have been their involvement in the events of 1971.  My answer is no. Does the party deserve our condemnation? My answer is an unreserved yes. Should we nevertheless support the JeI? My answer is still no. Should we accept JeI help in saving the country from the fascist AL? My answer is yes but they will remain the junior partners whether they like it or not. The only question mark remains over the viability of the BNP which is heavily infiltrated with Indian stooges. I feel it unlikely that the BNP will be able to sustain a movement against the government unless it removes most of its top leadership and only after it takes a strong stand against Indian encroachment in Bangladesh. Unless it takes a principled stand on the last issue it will merely be viewed as the C Team of India after Sheikh Hasina's A Team and Sheikh Rehana's B Team.  

Regards 

Sohail Taj 

Imperial College London

 



__._,_.___


[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] Re: Pranab Mukherjee due Aug 7



He has a pacification agenda
 
 
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:
Pranab Mukherjee due Aug 7
 
 
  
Indian Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee will pay a whirlwind visit to Bangladesh on August 7. Pranab Mukherjee is scheduled to meet Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina during the visit.
 
He is also expected to present at a ceremony where a memorandum of understanding (MoU) will be signed between India and Bangladesh granting Bangladesh Tk 100 crore as loan, private television ATN Bangla reports.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agreed to provide the loan during Hasina's visit to India on January this year.
 



__._,_.___


[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

__,_._,___