Banner Advertiser

Friday, December 24, 2010

[ALOCHONA] Dangerous living on gas field



Dangerous living on gas field
 
 
 


__._,_.___


[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] UK hopes to influence Islamic education in Bangladesh



WikiLeaks cables: UK hopes to influence Islamic education in Bangladesh
 
British officials working with US to change madrasa curriculum as a 'common counter-terrorism goal', cables reveal
 
Muslim students discuss before the start of their class at Islamic madrassah Jamia Binori in Karachi 
Muslim students studying at an Islamic madrassah. Photograph: Zahid Hussein/Reuters

British government officials have made moves towards influencing Islamic education in Bangladesh as part of regional counter-terrorism strategies.

A leaked diplomatic cable, released on WikiLeaks, has revealed how the Department for International Development (DFID) has been working with the US to change the curriculum of thousands of madrasas as a "common counter-terrorism goal".

In one cable discussing British and American counter-terrorism tactics for Bangladesh, the US ambassador to Dhaka, James Moriarty, notes how their plans involved asking the country's prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, to develop and implement a standardised curriculum for unregulated Islamic madrassah schools.

The moves followed a proposal for a madrasa "curriculum development programme" to the Bangladeshi government by the US government development agency, USAid.

There are around 64,000 Islamic schools in Bangladesh. They are seen as an important part of Bangladesh's education system, often providing free schooling to children whose parents are unable to send them to conventional schools. However, the 15,000 or so unregulated madrasas have been a constant cause for concern for the current government, which claims the standard of education received is poorer than average.

Some have also blamed madrasas for radicalising children, with claims emerging that they could be used to set up jihadist training camps.

Last week, the Bangladeshi government ordered an investigation into funding for madrasas after claims that banned Islamic militant group Hizb-ut-Tahrir had been establishing bases there.

Dr Ghaysuddin Siddiqui, of the Muslim Institute in London, agreed that DFID's intervention was an attempt to prevent radicalisation of Muslim youths in South Asia. "This is a very old problem," he said. "There has been a need to look at the curriculum in unregulated madrasas for a very long time."  DFID declined to comment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/21/wikileaks-cables-uk-bangladesh-education?INTCMP=SRCH



__._,_.___


[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] Rajiv Gandhi and RAW



 Rajiv Gandhi and RAW
 
 

During the little over five years he was the Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi had three chiefs of the R&AW. G.C.Saxena, an IPS officer of the UP cadre,who had taken over as the chief in April, 1983 when Indira Gandhi was the Prime Minister, continued till his superannuation in March 1986. S.E.Joshi, an IPS officer of the Maharashtra cadre, who succeeded him, retired in June 1987, after having served as the chief for 15 months. Rajiv Gandhi was keen that he should continue so that he had a tenure of three years like his predecessor, but Joshi felt it would be unfair to his successor.

An officer of the Tamil Nadu cadre was to succeed him, but Rajiv Gandhi reportedly got annoyed with him because he was unaware of the Bofors scandal when it broke out in the Swedish electronic media. He had him shifted as the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee and designated A.K.Verma, an IPS officer of the Madhya Pradesh cadre, as the chief. He had a full tenure of three years----partly under Rajiv Gandhi and partly under V.P.Singh.

Saxena, like Kao and Suntook, was suave in his behaviour and gentle in his words, but hard-hitting in action. Joshi and Verma were more like Sankaran Nair—anything but suave, blunt in words and hard-hitting in action. Like Sankaran Nair, Saxena, Joshi and Verma were experts on Pakistan and political and militant Islam. Saxena, Joshi and Verma knew more about Pakistan than any other expert in India or abroad. Saxena had never served in the Islamic world, but he had been dealing with Pakistan right from the day he joined the R&AW shortly after its formation. He did not have much to do with Pakistan only during his posting in Rangoon in the 1970s. Joshi was the only chief of the R&AW to have served in Pakistan. Verma had served in Kabul and Ankara and had been dealing with Pakistan and the Islamic world during most of his postings in the headquarters.

Sankaran Nair and Verma were held in awe and respect in Pakistan's intelligence and policy-making communities.They knew of the active role played by Nair under Kao in the liberation of Bangladesh and of Verma's reputation as a mirror image of Nair----as an officer who would like nothing better than to break Pakistan again if he was given the go-ahead by India's political leadership. During my posting in Geneva and subsequently in headquarters, I had much to do with Pakistan and with various sections of the Pakistani civil society and Government.

An officer of the Tamil Nadu cadre was to succeed him, but Rajiv Gandhi reportedly got annoyed with him because he was unaware of the Bofors scandal when it broke out in the Swedish electronic media.

I could see for myself that those, who had an opportunity of interacting with Verma, looked upon him as one of the very few Indians who had a really good understanding of the Pakistani psyche and of the Pakistani military mind-set. I have no doubt in my mind that if Rajiv Gandhi had not lost the elections in 1989 and if Verma had continued as the chief of the R&AW under Rajiv Gandhi for two or three years more, Pakistan would not be existing in its present form today and innocent civilians in our country would not be dying like rats at the hands of jihadi terrorists.

There was a strong convergence of views between Rajiv Gandhi and Verma that unless Pakistan was made to pay a heavy price for its use of terrorism against India, India would never be free of this problem. The process of re-activating the R&AW's covert action capability, which had remained in a state of neglect under Morarji Desai, started after Indira Gandhi returned to power in 1980. Suntook, Saxena and Joshi played an active role in carrying forward this process, but it was Verma, who gave the R&AW once again the strong teeth, which it was missing since 1977, and made it bite again.

Well-deserved tributes have been paid to the Punjab Police under K.P.S.Gill, the IB under M.K.Narayanan, the National Security Guards under Ved Marwah, the other central para-military forces and the Army for their role in restoring normalcy in Punjab. But, the Indian public and the political leadership as a whole barring the Prime Minister of the day hardly knew of the stealth role played by Saxena, Joshi and Verma in making our counter-terrorism success in Punjab possible. While Saxena and Joshi laid the foundation for an active and strong liaison network and for improving the R&AW's capability for the collection of terrorism-related HUMINT, Verma gave the R&AW the teeth which made Pakistan realize that its sponsorship of terrorism would not be cost-free.

Also read: The Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi

All the three of them were fortunate in having Rajiv Gandhi as their Prime Minister. Rajiv Gandhi came to office as the Prime Minister with very little knowledge of the intelligence profession and of the Indian intelligence community. When Indira Gandhi was the Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi used to take an active interest in the physical security arrangements for her after Operation Blue Star. She used him often in her attempts to find a political solution to the problem in Punjab. Many of his clandestine meetings in this connection were organized by the R&AW when Saxena was the chief. Beyond that, he had very little interaction with the R&AW and very little knowledge of it before he became the Prime Minster.

Rajiv Gandhi came to office as the Prime Minister with very little knowledge of the intelligence profession and of the Indian intelligence community.

It used to be said that after he took over as the Prime Minister, he was amazed-----even somewhat disturbed----- when Saxena briefed him at a one-to-one meeting on the sensitive on-going operations and covert actions of the R&AW. It was also said that while he did not have the least hesitation in approving the continuance of all the R&AW operations relating to Pakistan, China and Bangladesh, he was somewhat confused in his mind regarding the wisdom of the operational policies followed under his mother in relation to Sri Lanka . He took some time to make up his mind on Sri Lanka. Ultimately, he decided to continue on the lines laid down by his mother in relation to Sri Lanka too.

It would be incorrect to characterize his operational policy towards Pakistan as a carbon copy of the policy followed by Indira Gandhi. There were nuances, which differed from those of his mother. Indira Gandhi came to office with a strong dislike and distrust of Gen.Zia-ul-Haq, which continued till her death. She was convinced in her mind that Zia was not a genuine person and that his expression of warmth and bonhomie towards Indians was contrived. And the fact that Zia and Morarji Desai got along comfortably with each other prejudiced her mind against him.

Rajiv Gandhi did not inherit his mother's anti-Zia prejudices. He was fully aware of the role played by the ISI in supporting terrorism in Punjab. The suspicion that the ISI under Zia might have been behind the assassination of Indira Gandhi by her security guards was never proved, but it kept haunting the minds of some persons (including me) during the 1980s. Despite this, Rajiv was prepared to consider meaningful ideas for a co-operative relationship with Pakistan. His ready acceptance of the offer of the then Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan to arrange a dialogue between the chiefs of the ISI and the R&AW to which a reference had been made in an earlier chapter was a typical example of his open mind to such initiatives.

At the same time, Rajiv Gandhi was convinced---as strongly as his mother was---- that India's preoccupation had to be not with individual Pakistani leaders, who are a passing phenomena, but with the Pakistani mindset, which was an enduring phenomenon right rom the day Pakistan was born in 1947. In India, there is no such thing as an enduring Indian mindset towards Pakistan. The mindsets keep changing with leaders and circumstances. It is not so in Pakistan. The compulsive urge to keep India weak, bleeding and destabilized influences policy-making in Pakistan--- whoever be the leader, civilian or military. It has nothing to do with its humiliation in Bangladesh in 1971. It was there before 1971 and it has been there since 1971. Some leaders such as those of the fundamentalist parties openly exhibit it, but others manage to conceal it behind seeming warmth in their behaviour. Till that mindset changes, India has to adopt a mix of incentives and disincentives in its operational policies towards Pakistan---incentives towards a co-operative relationship and disincentives to discourage hostile actions.

On the need for a mix of incentives and disincentives, Rajiv Gandhi, Saxena, Joshi and Verma were on the same wavelength. Rajiv Gandhi's ready acceptance of Crown Prince Hassan's offer was an example of such an incentive. It was fully backed by the R&AW without any mental reservations, though it did not ultimately produce the desired results. As examples of disincentives, one could mention the timely and effective pre-emption of Pakistani designs to use the Siachen glacier to weaken the Indian position in the Kargil and Ladakh areas and the use of the R&AW's covert action capability to make Pakistan realize that it would have to pay a heavy price for its use of terrorism against India in Punjab.

Also read: Navies in the Indian Ocean

Another component of the operational policy followed under Rajiv Gandhi was to frustrate Pakistan's goal of a strategic depth in Afghanistan. The policy of frustrating Pakistan's goal in Afghanistan was actually initiated under Indira Gandhi by Kao immediately after the formation of the R&AW in 1968. Strong relationships at various levels----open as well as clandestine--- were established not only with the people and the rulers of Afghanistan, but also with the Pashtuns of Pakistan. India's desire for close relations were readily reciprocated by the Afghan people and rulers and by large sections of the Pashtun leadership. The networks established in the 1970s continued to function even after the occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet troops and the installation in power of a succession of pro-Soviet regimes in Kabul.

When Indira Gandhi was the Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi used to take an active interest in the physical security arrangements for her after Operation Blue Star. She used him often in her attempts to find a political solution to the problem in Punjab.

The Soviet Union blessed and welcomed this networking and helped it grow in strength in whatever way it could. This networking created misunderstanding in India's relations with the Afghan Mujahideen leaders. They were hurt and disappointed by India's reluctance to support their struggle against the Soviet occupation, but these feelings of hurt and disappointment did not turn them hostile to India. Many Afghan Mujahideen leaders---Pashtun as well as Tajik--- maintained secret contacts with the R&AW even while co-operating with the ISI and the CIA against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan. Rajiv Gandhi fully supported this policy.

Thus, Saxena, Joshi and Verma under Rajiv Gandhi's leadership followed a triangular strategy towards Pakistan----co-operative relations where possible, hard-hitting covert actions where necessary and close networking with Afghanistan.

This policy started paying dividens in Punjab even when Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister in the form of reduced ISI support for the Khalistanis, but this did not prevent the ISI from interfering in a big way in J&K from 1989. The successors of Rajiv Gandhi as the Prime Minister had the good sense to realize that this was an argument not for discontinuing Rajiv Gandhi's policy, but for further strengthening it. This triangular strategy was continued with varying intensity under the successors to Rajiv Gandhi, but, unfortunately, Inder Gujral, who was the Prime Minister in 1997, discontinued it under his Gujral Doctrine. He ordered the R&AW to wind up its covert action division as an act of unilateral gesture towards Pakistan. His hopes that this gesture would be reciprocated by Pakistan were belied. His policy towards Pakistan became one of unilateral incentives with no disincentives.

Also read: India's China Syndrome

However, he had the good sense not to change the operational policy in respect of Afghanistan as laid down by Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. It continued to pay dividends. So far as dealing with Pakistan is concerned, we have had no coherent strategy since 1997. The innocent civilians of India are paying a heavy price for this at the hands of the jihadi terrorists trained, armed and used by the ISI to keep India bleeding.

He (Rajiv Gandhi) was fully aware of the role played by the ISI in supporting terrorism in Punjab.

The PSYWAR division of the R&AW, which had been wound up under the budgetary cut imposed by Morarji Desai, was revived after the return of Indira Gandhi to power and further strengthened under Rajiv Gandhi. An officer of the Indian Information Service, who had worked in the R&AW before 1977, was re-inducted to revive the PSYWAR Division. The work of this Division was largely focused on countering the ISI's disinformation campaign against India and providing the dissident elements in Pakistan with the means of having their views disseminated inside and outside Pakistan. This revived PSYWAR Division was to do very good work when jihadi terrorism broke out in a big way in J&K in 1989, when V.P.Singh was the Prime Minister. This would be discussed later.

Rajiv Gandhi took great interest in the modernization and computerization of the R&AW. Under the modernization programme, its TECHINT capability was considerably increased. This was made possible through adequate investments for strengthening its capability for satellite communications monitoring, for aerial surveillance through the ARC and for the use of technical means in the collection of HUMINT. Prior to 1980, the R&AW's capability for the collection of communications intelligence (COMINT) was largely confined to tapping landline telephones, which needed a human intervention to get access to the line. Before and during the 1971 war, its Monitoring Division was also able to intercept telephone conversations between the two wings of Pakistan. However, its capability for the interception of Pakistan's overseas telephone communications was limited. The investments in satellite monitoring in the 1980s overcame these limitations to a considerable extent.

Also read: Euphoria in Indo-Pak Relations

While the investments in the ARC improved the R&AW's capability for the collection of electronic intelligence (ELINT), those in its technical laboratories added to its capability for the collection and dissemination of HUMINT. These investments were in fields such as secret writing, clandestine photography, wireless communications under hostile conditions, clandestine recording of communications and scrambling of telephone communications. Its Science and Technology Division continued to do good work in the collection of intelligence regarding Pakistan's nuclear and missile programmes.

When Indira Gandhi was the Prime Minister, Kao was able to see that any differences between the R&AW and the Armed Forces regarding their respective roles in the collection of military intelligence were always sorted out in favour of the R&AW.

The R&AW's Pakistan Division was the main beneficiary of the improvements brought about by the fresh investments under Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. Morarji Desai's budget freeze had resulted in a stagnation of the organization's TECHINT capability. This process was reversed and then the capabilities further improved. However, the Armed Forces continued to voice dissatisfaction over the gaps in the collection of military intelligence relating to Pakistan. Their constant complaint was that while the R&AW was able to collect Pakistani military intelligence relating to overseas procurement, new raisings, deployments etc, its ability to collect intelligence regarding the future plans of the Pakistani Armed Forces, their military exercises, the deficiencies noticed during those exercises, their war games, their future intentions etc remained inadequate.

Our Armed Forces---particularly the Army---therefore started demanding that they should also be permitted to collect external intelligence outside the Indian territory through human sources and to make similar investments for strengthening their TECHINT capability.

When Indira Gandhi set up the R&AW in 1968, she had laid down that it would be exclusively responsible for the collection of external intelligence. Kao and those, who followed him as the chief, interpreted this to mean HUMINT as well as TECHINT. In respect of HUMINT, they took up the stand that while the Army could collect tactical military intelligence upto a limited depth across India's international borders through intelligence collection posts set up along the borders, it could not run clandestine source operations outside Indian territory through military officers posted under cover outside the country. They insisted that any military officer posted outside the country for clandestine intelligence collection had to be from the R&AW.

Also read: Battle of Hajipir Pass 1965

A practice also grew up under which all proposals from the Armed Forces for substantial investments for improving their TECHINT capability were referred to the head of the R&AW for his concurrence. The R&AW particularly was adamant in its refusal to let the Army develop its own capability for satellite monitoring to supplement that of the R&AW. These issues, which were a source of dissatisfaction to the Armed Forces, were agitated upon by them much more vigorously under Rajiv Gandhi than they were able to do under his mother. When Indira Gandhi was the Prime Minister, Kao was able to see that any differences between the R&AW and the Armed Forces regarding their respective roles in the collection of military intelligence were always sorted out in favour of the R&AW.

While the R&AW continued to maintain its monopoly ---approved by Indira Gandhi--- in respect of HUMINT, the process of weakening its monopoly in respect of TECHINT started under Rajiv Gandhi.

After her assassination and the final exit of Kao from the intelligence community, the R&AW did not have the same kind of clout with Rajiv Gandhi as it had with Indira Gandhi. As a result, while Rajiv Gandhi ruled in favour of the R&AW in respect of HUMINT, he was more open to the arguments of the Armed Forces in respect of TECHINT. Proposals from the Armed Forces for substantial investments for improving their TECHINT capability---particularly in the field of satellite monitoring--- received a sympathetic consideration from Rajiv Gandhi.

While the R&AW continued to maintain its monopoly ---approved by Indira Gandhi--- in respect of HUMINT, the process of weakening its monopoly in respect of TECHINT started under Rajiv Gandhi. But its progress was slow and reached its culmination only after the Kargil conflict of 1999 when a decision was taken to set up a separate agency for future investments in TECHINT and to allow not only the Armed Forces, but also the IB to improve their TECHINT capabilities without making their proposals subject to a veto by the R&AW.

After the exit of Kao, not only the Army, but also the IB started questioning the exclusive authority for the collection of external intelligence---HUMINT as well as TECHINT--- entrusted by Indira Gandhi to the R&AW in 1968. The IB expressed dissatisfaction over the R&AW's coverage of external intelligence having a bearing on India's internal security. It was particularly critical of what it projected as the inadequate intelligence flow from the R&AW on the activities and plans of the Khalistani terrorists. Some officers of the IB, who were unhappy over the bifurcation of the IB by Indira Gandhi in 1968, now started insisting that the Government should have a second look at the orders passed by her in 1968. They even questioned the wisdom of her orders that the R&AW would be responsible for liaison with foreign intelligence agencies and that all contacts of other agencies such as the IB with foreign intelligence agencies would be only through the R&AW. Their argument was that since many of India's internal security problems had external linkages, the IB, which was responsible for internal intelligence, should also be in a position to collect independently intelligence about the external linkages----either through its own source operations or through liaison with foreign security agencies. They felt that the IB should not be solely dependent on the R&AW for this purpose.

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/homeland-security/Rajiv-Gandhi-and-RandAW-I.html



__._,_.___


[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] Aung San Suu Kyi speaks of sanctions, karma, and the future



 

Aung San Suu Kyi

After years of detention by Burma's junta, the nobelist speaks of sanctions, karma, and the future.

Redux

Aung San Suu Kyi in Rangoon, Burma in November 2010.

You spent much of your time under house arrest listening to the radio. What do you like to listen to?

Listening to political programs was a duty, a job. But cultural programs I enjoy. I listen a lot to the BBC World Service, but for some reason they don't seem to have very many music programs these days. Maybe they came on at the times I was listening to Burmese-language BBC and Radio Free Asia. I listen at least six hours every day. There were so many shocking bits of news all the time. There seems to be so much violence and natural disasters all over the world, not just here in Burma. Floods, earthquakes, cyclones…c12/21/1012

How did you feel to hear the news of the monks' uprising [against the Burmese junta] in 2007?

I knew from the very beginning it was not going to end well, so I was very sad. [But] it created change in the minds of lots of people, and that's what's really important. I think there were many people who had felt politics was not their concern [but] were so deeply shocked by how the monks were treated that they began to see you cannot ignore what is going on in the country.

You've been criticized for taking a stubborn stance on sanctions [against Burma's military-dominated regime].

Some people are using economic sanctions as an excuse for the [country's] economic mess. [But] most economists think the main problem is the policies the present regime has imposed. A change in government policies [would] bring about a change in the economic situation. And that's what organizations like the IMF say, as well as economists.

Why have they not changed?

Because some people seem to be doing well out of it. Those who are close to the ones in power are not particularly interested in change.

How can your party avoid a leadership vacuum when the older generation moves on?

There are plenty of young people inside the country who are active, alert, and eager to learn. [They] may not know as much as their contemporaries abroad, but they are learning. We have to work at keeping some of those who are best educated from leaving the country. There is not a vacuum, just fewer than we would wish.

What obstacles face those who have chosen to stay?

So many obstacles! I don't think I could enumerate all the obstacles. I'm just wondering whether we couldn't find a stronger word than "obstacle."

There are quite a few female political figures who seem to have inherited a desire to do work for their country from their fathers. Is that true for you?

I've always looked on my father [Burmese independence leader Aung San] as my leader as well as my father—a political leader in whom I believe, because I've studied his life and his work and his political thoughts.

Do you think this has been your destiny?

I don't believe in destiny in that way. The Burmese like to talk about karma. I keep reminding people karma means "doing." What you sow, you reap. So you create your own karma by doing; your karma is your deeds. I don't believe in destiny as fate or kismet, like that.

You've maintained a sense of humor despite the hardships you've witnessed.



__._,_.___


[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] Yunus vs. Awami League



Yunus vs. Awami League

The ruling party pounces on Prof, Yunus, albeit verbally, as controversial reports appear about the Nobel Laureate

by Anwar Parvez Halim

Grameen Bank's success made Prof. Yunus into an icon of micro-credit, particularly in the western world. He received one international award after the other, the icing on the cake being the Nobel Peace Prize. He became an international personality and the darling of the West. If there were any anomalies in Grameen Bank, this was covered in an avalanche of praise and adulation from abroad.

However, he has had his fair share of detractors too, both at home and abroad. They were waiting to pounce on the Professor and then the moment arrived. It was a report from Norway itself that dragged the Nobel Laureate into a quagmire of controversy.

In a documentary telecast on Norway's state TV channel, it was said that Professor Yunus has channeled funds given by various European donors for Grameen Bank, to a different organisation called Grameen Kalyan. This occurred back in 1996, apparently, and the matter was settled when the funds were transferred back to Grameen Bank in 1998. Whatever the matter be, the report created a stir in the media, both inside the country and outside. Prof. Yunus hard-earned reputation was subject to controversy.

It was certainly shocking, though, that at this time of crisis for the Nobel Laureate, the Bangladesh government did not stand by his side. The matter was proven to have been resolved, but the government and ruling party Awami League lost no time in virtually declaring a jihad against the micro-credit guru. The Prime Minister, minister and leaders of the ruling party decried Prof. Yunus in no uncertain terms, using harsh language to criticise him and Grameen Bank. If fact, he is even having to appear in court due to a case filed against him by some insignificant person. And the central bank is now investigating Grameen Bank's programmes.

On December 1 bdnews24.com released a news report based on a report, 'In the Micro-Credit Debt' by Tom Heinemann on Norway state TV aired on November 30. The very next day most newspapers in Bangladesh picked the report stating that Prof. Yunus has misappropriated crores of taka. Anti-Yunus quarters immediately took up the issue and began spewing put criticism. Finance Minister Muhith said, "If funds are transferred with an understanding, there is nothing wrong.' The Prime Minister was out of the country at the time. Upon her return from her Russia, Belgium and Japan trip on December, she spoke in her characteristic caustic manner about Prof. Yunus: "It has been proved that no one can lives off the blood of the poor people. This is an instance of siphoning off poor people's money. Bangladesh's people have been used as guinea pigs. We never approved of this."

The Prime Minister perhaps should not have so publicly castigated a national figure like Prof. Yunus. The public may wittingly or unwittingly say many things, but Hasina is the Prime Minister of the country. Another influential leader of Awami League directly accused Prof. Yunus of being corrupt. People naturally began to question why all this arsenal was being fired at Prof. Yunus?

Of course, Hasina's criticism of Yunus was nothing new. In fact, Awami League's aversion for Dr. Yunus surfaced towards the end of 2006 during the caretaker government of Dr. Iajuddin Ahmed. The four-party alliance had just stepped down from power and the grand alliance had stirred chaos in the country. At this juncture Prof. Yunus called upon the President at Bangabhaban and advised him not to succumb to any pressure, but to adhere to any decision that he feels best. That was enough for Awami League to be up in arms against Yunus, taking or granted that he was of the BNP camp. Thus began their Yunus-phobia.

It was when the caretaker government was carrying out an operation after 1/11 to clear the country of political debris and "minus" Hasina and Khaleda from the political scene, that Prof. Yunus was bestowed with the hallowed Nobel Peace Prize. The country was agog with pride and joy. Perhaps the adulation went to his head, because with the blessings of the caretaker government, he decided to form a political party of his own. But he learnt that the development scenario was quite a different world from politics.

While others remained non-committal about his forming a political party, Sheikh Hasina called him a shud-khor, an insulting term for usurer or money lender who lives off the interest of his loans. Awami League's characteristic zero-tolerance reared its head. Anyway, the new political party never really took off the ground.

Prof. Yunus is a prominent economist. As it is, the concept of micro-credit was debated in the field of economics. His contemporary economists like Dr. Wahiduddin Mahmud, Br. Abu Barakat, Dr. Muzaffar Ahmed and Dr. Anu Muhammed were all stern critics of Prof. Yunus. However, none of them grudged him the Nobel Prize, some even according him receptions. But the differences remained.

While Prof. Yunus may have enjoyed the bright image of a Banker of the Poor abroad, he was no demigod to the poor people of Bangladesh. He was just another NGO leader who gave them micro-loans at high interest rates. So when he plunged into politics, the people did not respond as he had expected them to and he was not welcomed. His timing was perhaps all wrong -- the right man at the wrong time. The people felt that he had taken full advantage of the "minus two" operation and had come up with his King's Party. Despite all the 1/11 endeavouring to belittle the politicians, the fact remained that Khaleda and Hasina were by far more popular than Yunus. Yunus initiative fell flat.

Elite urban circles did support Yunus at the time because they saw that Yunus was much more respected and liked by foreign leaders and dignitaries than Khaleda or Hasina. Yunus has wanted to use his global strength for local politics. He got his math all wrong. Politics is power play, not a game he was good at.

Even so, the politicians remained wary of Yunus. He always seems to hang above their heads like Damocles' sword. There were speculations of a national government to replace the failed political government and rumours were that Dr. Yunus was the man to head such a government.

However, ground reality remains that the two political forces of the country are Awami League and BNP. Everything else revolves around them. Even parties like Jatiya Party or Jamaat-e-Islami depend on these parties for their existence. Without Awami League, Jatiya Party will be reduced to "old autocrats" and without BNP, Jamaat is condemned as "razakars" or collaborators. They have to be affiliated by one or the other if they are to survive. The two parties are unwilling to allow any new kid on the block. They protect their turf fiercely against any possible third force, civil or military. In this matter, both the parties are in consensus. Neither Khaleda nor Hasina are ready to make way for any other replacement. So Prof. Yunus finds himself left out in the cold when it comes to politics.

In the meantime, Prof. Yunus' leadership within Grameen Bank itself has also been questioned. It is alleged that many experienced and expert perhaps have left Grameen Bank, or were obliged to leave, because of Prof. Yunus one-man rule.

From the very outset Prof. Yunus has remained at the helm of Grameen Bank. There is no second man. no chance of any alternative to grow. Yet at home and abroad he champions democracy, good governance and rights. So how does he explain his dictatorial style of management? However, even the persons who accuse him of being a dictator in the bank and even those who have left the bank because of this, have never accused him of corruption. It was only Awami League and its leaders who have directly called him a corrupt man.When Hasina saw that Prof. Yunus 'strength' has been internationally questioned she took these opportunity at full length

The West too now questions the sustainability and efficacy of micro-credit as a tool for poverty alleviation. Prof. Yunus himself is changing too and his replacing his social work with the term 'social business'. Critics say by attaching the term 'social' to business, he can do away with certain taxes and tariffs applicable to regular businesses.

Telenor, Grameen Phone's mother organisation, is at loggerheads with Yunus over business matters. Some say that it was Telenor who instigated reporter Tom Heinemann to report about discrepancies in Yunus' dealings.

All said and done, quarters are now questioning whether Prof. Yunus can remain as the head of Grameen Bank.

Analysts are saying his days at the top are numbered. Rather than politics or statesmanship, he now will have to concentrate on recovering his lost personal and professional image. So it looks like Prof. Yunus will have to bid farewell to any political proclivities he may have been nurturing in his heart.


__._,_.___


[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] TIB findings must have shaken people’s faith in judiciary



TIB findings must have shaken people's faith in judiciary

THE findings of the latest national household survey on corruption by the Bangladesh chapter of the Berlin-based Transparency International, which indicate that the judiciary has overtaken the law enforcement agencies and the land administration as the most corrupt institution in the service sector, must have shaken the people's faith in what they may have regarded all along as their last bastion of hope for justice. The survey report, 'Corruption in Service Sector: National Household Survey 2010', which was released on Thursday, says about 88 per cent of people who turned to the judiciary were victims of corruption one way or the other. Corruption, according to the report, runs through the entire judicial system—68.9 per cent had to bribe magistrates' court, 58.4 per cent judges' court and 73.6 per cent the High Court. Corruption in the judiciary increased by 40.3 per cent in the past three years, says the report; it was 47.7 per cent in 2007. On the other hand, 41 per cent faced delay in disposal of their cases. In a nutshell, over the past three years, not only has corruption in the judiciary gone up but its service delivery has also dwindled.

   Intriguingly, as the chairman of the Anti-Corruption Commission, who was chief guest at the programme where the survey report was launched, pointed out, the surge followed the theoretical separation of the judiciary with the executive branch of the state. Needless to say, this is not quite the outcome that the people have expected from an independent judiciary; they have certainly not bargained for prevalence of corruption to replace influence of the executive. The people would certainly expect the Supreme Court, especially its chief justice, to initiate immediate measures so as to determine cause and context of such stupendous surge in corruption in the judiciary. The apex court needs to realise that, despite several recent setbacks, it continues to be deemed by the people at large as their last resort for justice. With their faith in other key institutions of the state, e.g. the legislative and the executive, substantially eroded, the people still look up at the judiciary as the custodian of law and the protector of their right. Pervasive corruption in the judiciary risks eroding the faith that they have reposed in the justice delivery system. The apex court also needs to realise that if it fails to cleanse the judiciary of corrupt practices, even if by the courtroom staff and not by the judges themselves, its moral authority will stand diminished in the eyes of the public.

   Intriguingly still, the surge in corruption in the judiciary took place in a period, most of which coincided with the tenure of the Awami League-led government, a government that is oath-bound to the people to take 'multi-pronged' measures to curb corruption. Here it is pertinent to point out that corruption has gone up not only in the judiciary but also in other service sectors. In other words, a government that is promise-bound to deterring corruption seems to have instead managed to create an atmosphere conducive for corrupt practices. Hence, not only the apex court but the government also needs to do some soul-searching and initiate decisive measures to combat corruption
 


__._,_.___


[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] R A W




INDIAN MEDIA REPORTIs RAW operating in Bangladesh?
Shamsuddin Ahmed
Have our security agencies launched crackdown against the Indian secessionist outfit ULFA? India has been claiming that as a gesture of goodwill established with Awami League's coming to power in Bangladesh security forces cracked down on ULFA outfits hiding in this country.


New Delhi has praised the government for the arrest of ULFA chief Arabinda Rajkhowa along with five of his associates early this year and subsequently handing them over to BSF at Assam border. However, Bangladesh police and RAB had pleaded total ignorance about the episode and denied involvement in ULFA leaders' arrest.








http://www.weeklyholiday.net/front.html#06

__._,_.___


[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] ULFA leader's son abducted in Bangladesh

India's Ulfa rebel leader: Son abducted in Bangladesh

By Subir Bhaumik

BBC News, Calcutta


The leader of an Indian separatist group has alleged that his son has
been kidnapped in Bangladesh.

Paresh Barua, head of the military wing of the United Liberation Front
of Assam (Ulfa), said his teenage son's kidnappers were "pressurising"
him to negotiate with the Indian government.

Indian intelligence officials have dismissed Mr Barua's claim.

They say the Ulfa is divided on the question of whether to join the
peace process with India or not.

Ulfa rebels have fought for a separate Assamese homeland since 1979.

In an emailed statement, Mr Barua said his son's kidnappers tactics
"won't work".

"Thousands of young men and women have died fighting for Assam's
independence and my son may join that long list of martyrs. If that
happens, I will be prepared for it," he said.

Mr Baruah did not provide details about when his son was kidnapped. He
broadly alluded to "an Indian conspiracy", but the rebel chief was not
specific about who could have been behind it.

But his statement attacked some senior Ulfa leaders, who Mr Barua
alleged, were now "throwing all ideals to the wind" and trying to
start the negotiations with India.

Mr Barua has opposed negotiations, saying there could be no dialogue
with India, unless the "issue of Assam's sovereignty" was on the
agenda, something that the government refuses to accept.

A spokesman for the group's pro-negotiations faction, Mithinga
Daimary, dismissed the reported kidnapping as "a fiction".

A large number of Ulfa leaders have been released from prisons in
Assam after they promised to start a dialogue with India.

The group's chairman Arabinda Rajkhowa, who was detained in Bangladesh
last year and handed over to India, is also likely to be freed soon as
the Assam government has not opposed his bail petitions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12065557


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

[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.comYahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

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

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

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

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

[ALOCHONA] RAB TRAINING:UK govt faces legal challenge

RAB TRAINING
UK govt faces legal challenge

Dhaka, Dec 24 (bdnews24.com) — The UK government faces a legal
challenge to its support for Bangladesh's anti-crime elite force Rapid
Action Battalion (Rab).

Lawyers are to seek a judicial review of the legality of training
assistance provided to Rab, arguing that it places the UK in breach of
its obligations under international law.

The legal challenge is being mounted by Phil Shiner of Public Interest
Lawyers, which represents the family of Baha Mousa, the Iraqi hotel
receptionist tortured to death by British troops in 2003, according to
a report run by The Guardian.

Members of Rab have been held responsible for hundreds of
extrajudicial killings since the unit was established in 2004. The
unit itself admits to being responsible for more than 600 deaths,
which it euphemistically attributes to 'crossfire'.

Dhaka has resisted pressure to disband the unit, as influential
British newspaper The Guardian reported, with one government minister
declaring last year: "The government will need to continue with
extrajudicial killings, commonly 'called crossfire'."

Details of British support for Rab were revealed in US embassy cables
released by WikiLeaks and reported by the Guardian on Wednesday.

bdnews24.com was the first to run the news in Bangladesh.

They show that the government has been providing training in
'investigative interviewing techniques' and 'rules of engagement'.

At least some of the training has been provided by serving police
officers who travelled to Bangladesh under the auspices of the
National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA), a body established three
years ago to promote good practice in UK policing and share it with
overseas police.

In a letter to the Foreign Office and Home Office, Phil Shiner of
Public Interest Lawyers alleged that the UK had 'aided and assisted
Bangladesh in breaching peremptory norms of customary international
law'. The UK must withdraw its support for Rab, conduct a prompt
investigation and possibly pay compensation to the unit's victims.

Shiner said: "The British public by now should be sick of our
governments' hypocritical approach to torture and unlawful killings.
It pretends to condemn both, but in practice it aids and assists
states that they know are violating these basic rights. This
represents a serious violation of international law."

The British Foreign Office has defended the training as 'fully in line
with our laws and our values'. A spokesman sought to suggest it was
providing only 'human rights training' for Rab, although NPIA says
other training has been given, and Rab's head of training told the
Guardian he was unaware of any human rights training since he was
appointed last June.

NPIA asked whether it was appropriate for British police to be
training members of "a government death squad", and whether courses in
investigative interviewing techniques might not render torture more
effective, and said the support had been approved by the government
and the Association of Chief Police Officers.

Rab officers say they received British assistance as recently as last
October, five months into the coalition government.

The leaked cables make clear that the United States believed Rab would
be an ideal partner in counter-terrorism operations, but was unable to
offer the sort of assistance the British have been providing because
of the US law, which prohibits training or financial support to
overseas military units responsible for gross human rights abuses.

Complaints about British support for Rab are to be raised at a human
rights advice group established last month by William Hague, the
foreign secretary. Sapna Malik, a lawyer and member of the group,
said: "The reports make for very disturbing reading and I intend to
raise this issue at the foreign secretary's advisory group on human
rights."

Human Rights Watch, the New York-based NGO that has been condemning
Rab as a death squad for more than four years, said the UK should
withdraw its support immediately.

Meenakshi Ganguly, the group's South Asia director, told the
Associated Press: "Criminals should be arrested, prosecuted and
punished, not randomly picked up and killed in an effort to put an end
to the activities of which they are suspected. The UK and the US
should stop their co-operation unless there are immediate and visible
efforts to reform Rab, and hold those responsible for human rights
violations to account."

Human rights activists say they were particularly dismayed to learn of
the British support for Rab, as the unit enjoys a degree of popular
support in Bangladesh, and is likely to be disbanded only as a result
of pressure from other governments. They argue that British support
lends a degree of legitimacy to Rab and to the methods it employs.

http://bdnews24.com/details.php?id=182487&cid=2


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

[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.comYahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

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

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

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

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