Banner Advertiser

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

[ALOCHONA] Some reflections on India's Defence Policy



Some reflections on India's Defence Policy

India remembered Kargil a few weeks back. We all recall with pride the sacrifices our soldiers and airmen made in this conflict ten years ago. Kargil no doubt was a military success but it exposed our inadequate military preparedness and highlighted other lacunae or weaknesses in our defence set-up. This was unfortunate.

A comment which has gained momentum is that none of our higher-ups or political leaders had the courtesy to be present at the Soldiers Memorial in Kargil to honour our dead. Such lapses do no credit to India or its Government. A country is known by the way it respects and treats its War Veterans and dead. What one finds is that while India announces awards and rewards, little is done thereafter. Certainly, medals and decorations are given to the gallant officers and men.

The rewards that are announced have a different track record. Except for perhaps the Punjab and Haryana (which was part of the undivided Punjab), other States are often found lacking in implementation. The Ex-Servicemen have to run from pillar to post to realize what they are promised. This is unfortunate. In times of war we remember the Soldier and God but once peace prevails both are conveniently forgotten and relegated to the basket! This is the sad fact.

None of our higher-ups or political leaders had the courtesy to be present at the Soldiers Memorial in Kargil to honour our dead. Such lapses do no credit to India or its Government.

We owe a special debt of gratitude to France for turning on the spotlight on the Indian Army and its long forgotten international legacy. The occasion was the Bastille Day Parade in Paris, when a contingent of the Indian Armed Forces – Army, Navy and Air Force marched smartly on the Champs Elysees. It was for the first time that this event took place. The French President Nicholas Sarkozy did India the rare honour. India recruited over 1.5 million men in the Army during WW I (1914–1918), with over 950,000 men serving in France, Egypt, Palestine, Mesopotamia and East Africa. Over 60,000 soldiers laid down their lives in that war. India Gate, the grand memorial, which stands today was raised in their honour and memory and also for all those who died in the three Afghan Wars.

Somehow, we have failed to honour all our soldiers who fell during WW II (1939–1945). India had over 2.5 million men under arms during this period, the biggest all volunteer force raised till then. We honoured our fallen soldiers of the 1971 War by adding the 'Amar Jawan Jyoti' at India Gate. It seems that our leaders suffered from an aversion to the Indian Army on account of its association with Britain. This was unfortunate. Now, after 60 years it is high time that India honoured its dead soldiers – good men all who contributed so much to the defeat of the Axis Forces in the African and Italian Fronts, in Palestine, Iraq and Iran and most decisively and massively in the Southeast Asia theatre of war – especially in Burma.

Perhaps this is the right time to give serious thought and decide that India needs to reclaim with pride its record and contribution to world history and also to give active thought to the expeditionary capabilities of our Armed Forces. India, which is rising and gaining increasing economic and political clout, would do well to remember its past record, and be better equipped in discharging its responsibilities as an emerging great power.

Budget allocation allotted for modernization of our military, especially for re-equipment of artillery, etc was surrendered in the last fiscal year! How callous can we get?

The biggest deficiency which was exposed in Kargil in 1999 was in artillery pieces – especially the 155mm gun and light howitzers. Since the BOFORS scandal 25 years ago, due to one reason or the other we have not been able to acquire the required gun and in adequate numbers. This is quite an unprecedented situation! It shows that we are not serious in building up our Army to the necessary level of a credible military force. It is a very dangerous situation for the defence and security of our country.

The Defence Ministry grants are rarely debated in Parliament these days. The MPs have neither the military background nor the aptitude to sit and debate the matter intelligently. This is not a happy situation. The Lok Sabha sat for only 46 sittings last year! In days gone by, it sat for over 100 days annually. This shows the sad decline in our body politic. Budget allocation of Rs.7,000 crores allotted for modernization of our military, especially for re-equipment of artillery, etc was surrendered in the last fiscal year! How callous can we get? I cannot imagine why we allow such things to happen.

The recommendation of the Group of Ministers after Kargil, to set-up a post of Chief of Defence Staff and an Integrated Headquarters under a Four Star Officer remains still unfulfilled. It appears that the political leadership and the senior bureaucrats remain uncomfortable with this idea. So, in other words we shall remain where we were and continue to muddle through. All the ideas and proposals shall remain only a dream. Is this how we are going to face the challenges confronting us now and in the immediate future?

To date nothing appears to denote that we are serious about implementing the much felt necessity of having structured decision making machinery in government, to deal with emergent situations such as Kargil which occurred ten years ago or Mumbai which happened in 26/11. As far as is known, we still have a situation where each Service and each Agency is operating and acting on its own.

When Kargil erupted in 1999 literally in our homes, thanks to television, our then Chief of Army Staff was absent, being feted around in Poland! It was so clear that the Army was caught on the wrong foot and found napping! It involved a lot of difficulties and a grueling fight of guts and courage, which took 25 days of hard action before the Indian Army could prevail over the enemy and declare a victory. This action clearly exposed all our weaknesses for the world to see. Ultimately, after the intruders were thrown out or they withdrew, due to the supreme sacrifice of our brave officers and men who fought under impossible conditions at extreme altitudes in the mountains of Kashmir, our Generals and high ranking officers celebrated the victory with champagne. But the fact remains that it was a pyrrhic victory! One can only hope that India has learnt her lesson.

Recently in Vishakhapatnam, the wife of our Prime Minister launched our first indigenous nuclear submarine, INS Arihant. It was a red letter day for the Navy and India. It is the logical accomplishment of India's basic arrangement of its nuclear deterrent. It completes the strategic triad. But a nuclear submarine without the commensurate complement of arms is hardly a deterrent.

This should now mark the beginning of a debate on India's Nuclear Doctrine. One does not know if we have such a doctrine or not! A doctrine determines our policy of building nuclear weapons and how they will be deployed. It will make no sense to build such weapons if there is no doctrine. An ambiguous situation can lead to a nuclear arms race which could be ruinous to a developing country. An informed consensus must be reached for the quantum of nuclear weapons needed for a minimum deterrent. It has to be adequate and realistic. Such a situation eases the situation for the adversary also, to calibrate the size and nature of his deterrent accordingly.

India should never forget that it lies between two nuclear weapons states, with one of them regularly showing signs of going astray!

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/IDR-Updates/Some-reflections-on-Indias-Defence-Policy.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] Barrister Rafiqul Huq



Barrister Rafiqul Huq



http://www.bd-pratidin.com/?view=details&type=gold&data=College&pub_no=334&cat_id=1&menu_id=1&news_type_id=1&index=13


__._,_.___


[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] Gandhi --A sexual weirdo, a political incompetent and a fanatical faddist"



Indian state bans Gandhi book over racist claims

http://www.thedailystar.net/photo/2011/03/31/2011-03-31__inter01.jpg

An Indian state yesterday banned a new biography of Mahatma Gandhi which allegedly describes the Indian independence leader as a racist bisexual.The chief minister of Gujarat state, where Gandhi was born in 1869, imposed an immediate block on Joseph Lelyveld's book in a move that could be followed by India's national government."The depiction about Mahatma Gandhi made by Joseph Lelyveld deserves to be despised," Narendra Modi wrote on his Internet blog. "This shall not be tolerated under any circumstance.

Maharashtra state was also considering outlawing the book, which the author claims has been grossly misrepresented by reviewers."Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and his Struggle With India" was published in the United States on Tuesday but has not yet been released in India.

Local press outrage erupted over the British Daily Mail's review headlined "Gandhi 'left his wife to live with a male lover' new book claims", while the Daily Telegraph said he "held racist views against South African blacks".

Lelyveld, a former executive editor of the New York Times, attacked the reviews for distorting his book -- particularly his analysis of Gandhi's relationship with amateur bodybuilder Hermann Kallenbach."I do not allege that Gandhi is racist or bisexual," he said in a statement. "The word 'bisexual' nowhere appears in the book."National law minister Veerappa Moily said the government in New Delhi had "taken a serious note of the book that has made disgraceful statement on the national leader"."It is demeaning for the nation," he said.

The Wall Street Journal review said the book depicted Gandhi -- who is revered as the father of independent India and an icon of non-violent protest -- as "a sexual weirdo, a political incompetent and a fanatical faddist".Gandhi lived with Kallenbach in Johannesburg for about two years from 1907 before leaving South Africa to return to India in 1914.

 http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=179835


__._,_.___


[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: Read what BNP said about Dr. Yunus and Grameen in 1991-2006

I don’t see anything what you mentioned in the subject. Where did you find that in 1991 - 2006 KZ asked Saifur to go against Dr. Yunus? Instead of hearsay, anonymous sources, etc., please bring some concrete evidences that KZ really said so. I really like to know that. I know that KZ is no friend of Dr. Yunus and she is taking political advantage out of the current situation.

Regards,

Afsar

--- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, Shamim Chowdhury <veirsmill@...> wrote:
>
> Khaleda Zia is making hue and cry on expulsion of Dr. Yunus from Grameen
> Bank. Conversely, while she was in power her government’s attitude
> toward Dr. Yunus was full of jealousy. From a close source of Khaleda
> Zia who dose not wants to be named told journalists that Khaleda Zia
> directed her Finance Minister Saifur Rahman to disparage the news of Dr.
> Yunus getting Nobel Prize. Accordingly BNP Finance Minister ridiculed
> Dr. Yunus saying “ FOKIRNIR HATA DUI TEEN HAZAR TAKA AR AKTA MOBILE
> PHONE DHORAI DILA DESHER UNNOYON HOYNA.Finance Minister Saifur Rahman
> cast doubt on contributions by Nobel laureate Prof Muhammad Yunus and
> micro
> credit to the country's development.
>
> Following Khaleda Zia’s
> instruction FM Saifur Rahman arranged agitation against Dr.Yunus and
> Grameen Bank in Sylhet and elsewhere
> during BNP first term in power. Finance Minister himself said in his
> speech speaking at the inaugural ceremony of Dutch Bangla Bank Ltd
> Moulvibazar branch in Oct 19th of 2006.
>
> Now in 2011 being opposition
> leader Khaleda Zia all of a sudden becomes solemn defender of Dr. Yunus
> and Grameen Bank. Who you believe, Khaleda Zia of 1991 and 1996 who
> asked her Finance Minister to agitate people against Dr. Yunus and
> Grameen as well as ridicule role of Grameen small finance in real
> economy or the champion defender of Grameen and Dr. Yunus in 2011.
>
> Readers please read Daily Star report on October of 2006 and come to your own conclusion.
>
> Thanks,
> Shamim Chowdhury
> Maryland, U.S.A.
>
> Link: http://www.thedailystar.net/2006/10/23/d61023011713.htm
> Link: http://www.thedailystar.net/2006/10/20/d61020011913.htm
>
> ================================================================
>
>  
> Committed
> to PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO KNOW
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Vol. 5 Num 858
>
>
> Mon. October 23, 2006
>  
>
>
>  
>  
>
>
>
> Front Page
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Saifur doubts contributions of Prof Yunus
>
>
> Staff Correspondent
>
>
> Emphasising the BNP-led government's achievements, Finance Minister
> Saifur Rahman yesterday cast doubt on contributions by Nobel laureate
> Prof Muhammad Yunus and microcredit to the country's development."What
> did microcredit do regarding life expectancy, women literacy and
> reserve of foreign exchange?" Saifur asked while addressing a farewell
> programme at the finance and planning ministry. Officials of his
> ministry organised the programme at the ministry auditorium as the
> government's tenure expires on October 27.The minister
> sarcastically remarked that the government has established thousands of
> schools across the country. He posed a question whether a handful of
> those institutions was established by Prof Yunus or the BRAC.Citing
> examples of the country's development during the BNP government's rule,
> he asked how much of it was the result of microcredit system.Though
> Prof Yunus won Nobel Peace Prize for microcredit Saifur claimed the
> then government of 1979-80 actually initiated the system.Meanwhile, in his last speech as a minister of the outgoing government, Saifur yesterday discussed a number of other issues.Regretting
> the current political trend, the minister said he would not involve in
> politics any further, as unethical "things" have to be done in this
> arena.He stressed that these unethical "things" are the reasons behind corruption.He mentioned an incident when a World Bank official informed him of a serious corruption attempt in a project.Saifur
> however ruled out one-sided criticism of Bangladesh in connection with
> corruption, saying officials from international organisations are
> equally involved in irregularities.He expressed his
> frustration over the mammoth size of the government and the differences
> among the ministers, MPs and bureaucrats and lamented for the "good old
> days"."We miserably lack democratic mentality," he bemoaned.Though
> Bangladesh has a permanent civil service, Saifur said corruption
> occurred too frequently in this sector and it must be stopped.Admitting
> that his ministry had delayed project implementation process, he said,
> "The prime minister used to say that the planning ministry is to blame
> for these."The planning ministry actually holds up the project
> proposals from the concerned ministries as it finds various problems
> during scrutiny and thus the implementation further slows down.The
> accusation is 99 percent appropriate, Saifur observed, adding, though
> he formed a committee to avoid such circumstances it did not work.The minister started working at 10:30am and except for two to three hours, he was busy signing files even at the farewell venue.Saifur also attended a programme at the Finance Division yesterday.
> ================================================================
>
>
>  
> Committed
> to PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO KNOW
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Vol. 5 Num 855
>
>
> Fri. October 20, 2006
>  
>
>
>  
>  
>
>
>
> Front Page
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Saifur critical of Grameen Bank
>
>
> Our Correspondent, Moulvibazar
>
>
> Finance and Planning Minister M Saifur Rahman said true development of
> the country will be achieved through establishing large-scale industries
> and modernising agriculture, not by running microcredit programmes.Saifur
> criticised Grameen Bank's microcredit scheme and other activities even
> though he congratulated Prof Muhammad Yunus on his winning the Nobel
> Peace Prize.He was speaking at the inaugural ceremony of Dutch Bangla Bank Ltd Moulvibazar branch yesterday afternoon. Saifur
> said the people of Sylhet region demonstrated against the Grameen Bank
> during the previous term of the BNP government and he had to go to the
> spot himself to sort the situation out. He claimed that the
> current government has distributed more microcredit loans than the
> Grameen Bank. He said according to his knowledge none was able to
> relieve themselves of poverty with the help of microcredit only and they
> failed to become self-reliant. Saifur alleged that Yunus was
> able to win the Nobel Peace Prize only because he has good relations
> with former US president Bill Clinton and New York Senator Hillary
> Clinton, who helped Yunus in this regard. Saifur also criticised
> Yunus' recent announcement to form a new political party. The finance
> minister said great leaders like Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and
> Ziaur Rahman had formed political parties and their parties have been in
> power several times. But they could not solve all the problems of the
> people.
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Yunus victim of vendetta: Khaleda
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sun, Mar 6th, 2011 4:13 pm BdST
> Dial 2000 from your GP mobile for latest news  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dhaka,
> Feb 6 (bdnews24.com) â€" BNP chairperson Khaleda Zia has said Muhammad
> Yunus has been the victim of the government's political vendetta and
> urged all to remain alert about its 'pernicious campaign'.
>
> "The
> controversy unleashed over Grameen Bank and Prof Muhammad Yunus is the
> manifestation of political meanness. It'll only harm the microfinance
> organisation, depriving the underprivileged people, and women," she said
> in a statement on Sunday.
>
> In the statement, undersigned by her
> press secretary Maruf Kamal, Khaleda said, "The government has long
> been involved in undermining a personality like Prof Yunus of
> international repute in a planned way."
>
> "…it has become clear
> to all that the recent move to remove him [Yunus] as the managing
> director of Grameen Bank is the effort to bring down the curtain of the
> conspiracy against the Nobel laureate," Khaleda said, voicing her deep
> concern over the incident.
>
> She continued: The 'unethical and
> discourteous' behaviour towards Yunus reflects some government high-ups'
> sheer jealousy against him and lack of knowledge about his
> contributions.
>
> Referring to the role of Grameen Bank in
> changing the lots of poor people both at home and abroad, Khaleda said,
> "The organisation [Grameen Bank] has been in a constant effort to
> improve the state of the poor people, particularly of the womenfolk …
> organisations like Grameen Bank has been replicated in Africa, South
> America and even in the USA to alleviate poverty."
>
> "But it's so
> unfortunate that the present prime minister [Sheikh Hasina], whenever
> she gets any chance, undermines the role of Grameen Bank and other
> microfinance institutions through her sweeping comments that do not
> match her position," observed Khaleda, also a former prime minister.
>
> She
> alleged that the government had neither left any room for justice in
> the country nor had it been able to protect the name and fame of any
> respectable citizen.
>
> The BNP chief said, "Grameen Bank is a
> non-government organisation with government stake in it. Although the
> chairman of the organisation is nominated by the government, it is
> virtually a self-governed organisation under the direct supervision of
> its board of directors."
>
> "Its female members own 95 percent of
> its shares while the government has a scanty 3.5 percent stake. So,
> there is no reasonable ground to consider it as a government-owned
> organisation. The bid to label Grameen as a scheduled bank only reflects
> the ignorance about related rules and regulations," Khaleda added.
>
> "The
> issue, I believe, should be kept above party politics and personal
> meanness," she said and called upon all irrespective of political
> affiliations and beliefs to unite against the heinous attempt to malign
> respected personalities.
>
> She also hoped that the people of good
> conscience, teachers, employees, peasants, labourers, professionals,
> political activists and the members of Grameen Bank in particular, would
> unitedly foil the conspiracy against Yunus as well as Grameen Bank.
>
> bdnews24.com/sm/sht/mr/1835h
>


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

[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] Elliott Abrams' Plan For Syria



Elliott Abrams' Plan For Syria

by Tony Cartalucci

Degenerate globalist co-conspirator Elliott Abrams, has been consistently supporting the recent conflagration throughout the Arab world and is pushing for ever-expanding US meddling in the region. In his recent piece, featured in the Washington Post titled "Ridding Syria of a Despot," he fleshes out what is a fairly predictable plan of action already taking shape against the Bush-era "Axis of Evil" member.

Elliott Abrams is a member of the corporate-financier Council on Foreign Relations, a Project for a New American Century signatory, and former deputy national security adviser to President George W. Bush. He was convicted for his involvement in the Iran-Contra conspiracy and promptly pardoned by George Bush Sr. He would later go on to be implicated for his involvement in the 2002 Venezuela coup attempt against Hugo Chavez. His history of betraying and disgracing his country, and getting away with it, is probably why he feels perfectly comfortable making broad, sweeping threats toward entire nations today.

Elliott Abrams recently issued a personal threat to Libya's Qadaffi and his intelligence chief, stating that they would both meet the "same fate as Saddam Hussein" if any American is attacked in the wake of increasing US threats and actions against Libya. He also had weighed in on Egypt in his piece "Less 'Engagement,' More Democracy" in the New York Times. In this piece he criticizes the current policy of engaging as equals with nations he deems as repressive regimes and calls for a revisit to George Bush's "freedom agenda." In other words - the export of "democracy" that has brought America the trillion dollar military adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya at the cost of thousands of US soldiers' lives and the lives of millions of foreigners killed, maimed, or displaced.

It should be no surprise then that Abrams, who has never shouldered a rifle for his nation himself, is more than eager to move on to Syria with a myriad of aggressive attacks on its sovereignty prepared and ready in hand.

Abrams calls on the White House and Congress to condemn Syria, in particular the Assad government. He suggests that Syria be immediately brought before the UN Security Council, who just recently finished extra-legally ordaining the war with Libya. The Human Rights Council and the International Criminal Court are also mentioned as possible avenues to pressure Assad and the Syrian government.

Regarding the newly US-reordered Tunisia and Egypt, Abrams suggests they convene the Arab League and expell Syria as a member, as he claims they just did to Libya. Abrams' suggestion echos fellow globalist policy wonk Kenneth Pollack's proposal in his Brookings Institutes report, "Bifurcating the Middle East." Bifurcate, meaning to "divide," indicates the classic gambit of divide and conquer is in play. Pollack, like Abrams, suggests that the "Arab street" after being "reformed" be rallied against states like Libya, Syria, and of course, Iran.

Abrams also suggests that Europe begin acting against Syria. Nicolas Sarkozy of France seems to have gotten the memo and is already making lofty threats toward Syria, including threats of military action, citing the ongoing atrocity in Libya as a stern warning for other Arab nations to consider. Sanctions are also being pushed by Abrams, but to what extent the Europeans are willing to carry them out remains to be seen.

Finally, Abrams suggests that the US pull its ambassador from Syria, reiterating his belief that it was a mistake in the first place to show this token sign of mutual respect for the sovereign nation. He concludes with a breathtakingly absurd display of patriotism and propaganda by stating, "Our principles alone should lead us to this position, but the memory of thousands of American soldiers killed in Iraq with the help of the Assad regime demands that we do all we can to help the Syrian people free themselves of that evil dictatorship." And help the US is, with the entire opposition being funded, defended, supported, and even partially based out of the United States and England.

Strange that Abrams has implicated Assad as complicit in killing US troops in Iraq, when Abrams himself and his "Neo-Con" cabal have hands-down done more to send US troops off to their needless deaths with their willful lying regarding WMD's, than any Arab with a Kalashnikov. Also interesting, considering his statement, is Abrams' support for the armed campaign in Libya, where the US is currently providing air support and arms for Al Qaeda linked rebels who themselves have sent fighters to Iraq to kill American troops, on record.

Of course, Abrams is writing for the impressionable readership of the Washington Post, so this blinding hypocrisy is most likely fodder strictly for the public's consumption. However, sweeping aside the propaganda, we see a very real strategy already beginning to play out in regards to Syria. Let us remember that this is already a plan in motion, and recognize the surprise displayed by our feckless "leadership" as the poorly-feigned act that it is.

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/03/elliot-abrams-plan-for-syria.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] Country lost Tk 210 billion in evaded taxes in fiscal 2009-10



Country lost Tk 210 billion in evaded taxes in fiscal 2009-10

Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) on Wednesday revealed that the country lost around Tk 210 billion in evaded taxes in fiscal 2009-10.
The evaded tax was 2.8 per cent of the national income and one-third of the revenue collected at present by the National Board of Revenue (NBR), the TIB said unveiling the key findings of its research on NBR. The research paper, titled 'The National Board of Revenue: Challenges in Transparency and Accountability and Its Way Out', was presented at a roundtable at the CIRDAP auditorium.

Former advisers to the caretaker government Dr Mirza Azizul Islam and Dr Akbar Ali Khan, former NBR chairman Badiur Rahman, and NBR members Aminur Rahman and Farid Uddin attended the roundtable, chaired by TIB trustee board chairman M Hafizuddin Khan.TIB researchers M Zakir Hossain and Nina Shamsunnahar carried out the study on sampling method. The research team collected data from 713 people and 50 businessmen. The team conducted the research from April 2007 to February 2011.

The TIB paper mentioned that an additional 34 per cent of revenue could have been collected in fiscal 2009-10 if the NBR would be able to realize the evaded taxes.
The reasons identified on avoiding payment of taxes by potential taxpayers include absence of citizen benefits, lack of confidence in the government on proper utilisation of the taxes paid, complex tax collection system, underhand dealing by taxpayers and taxmen, absence of exemplary punishment for tax evasion, and lack of automation and e-governance.

The TIB research has found that black money totaling Tk 90 billion was whitened in 1976-2006 period. It said the black money whitening scheme had neither helped the NBR in collecting higher revenue, nor was it morally acceptable.

The TIB has recommended scrapping the black money whitening scheme, mandatory financial transaction through banking channel, and making public the wealth statement submitted by the policymakers.

The TIB study also identified that tax-GDP ratio has increased only 6.5 per cent in the last 35 years as the government gave less priority on increasing tax revenue earning. It has recommended ensuring efficiency, transparency and accountability of the NBR to boost tax collection.TIB said that the existing tax structure puts much pressure on low income people due to high rates of indirect tax. In its report, the TIB also identified tax evasion as a major reason for the country's poor tax-GDP ratio.

Referring to the 2010 national household survey, the TIB report said 62 percent of the holders of taxpayers identification number (TIN) faced harassment at the time of tax assessment and registration.The TIB said taxpayers have spent Tk 3500 on an average for bribing the tax officials for tax assessment and also faced harassment on getting tax rebate.

In case of imported consignments, around 72 percent of the people had to pay bribe to get clearance from the ports.The TIB has recommended the government to appoint a chairman of NBR for at least three annual budgets.

For resolving complexities in the tax appeal process, the TIB report has recommended appointment of judges, income tax lawyers and chartered accountants as members of the appellate tribunal.The report criticized abolition of the Tax Ombudsman Act instead of reforming it. It said the move will fuel corruption and irregularities in the tax administration. But the NBR has rejected the TIB findings and opposed the method of calculating Tk 210 billion in tax evasion.

"I've doubts about the amount. The TIB doesn't clarify whether it is because of the gap in tax that could be collected from potential taxpayers or tax evasion," said NBR member (customs and VAT administration) Farid Uddin at the roundtable.

He, however, accepted the allegation on distortion in the tax system and lack of skill and capacity of taxmen. "Still, the country is collecting 39 percent revenue at customs points. But manpower strength is very poor in those points. The NBR has appointed PSI (pre-shipment inspection companies) for this reason, but it failed to perform well," he said.

The NBR member said the present requirement of manpower is 4,000 but there are only 1,200 officials working at the customs points. "Most of the officials, promoted from field level are under-graduates or aged over 55." He said the NBR has moved to digitalise all its services to address the allegations on harassment.

NBR member (income tax policy) Aminur Rahman said: "Other countries calculate provincial tax along with central tax revenue, but we are not. It can be a reason of poor tax-GDP ratio in the country."

He said the NBR is often forced to give tax exemption on different grounds including curbing prices of essential food items.

Aminur Rahman said the NBR has taken appropriate steps to check tax evasion, but it wants to build up voluntary compliance for payment of tax.

Former adviser to the caretaker government Dr Akbar Ali Khan rejected the TIB recommendation of disclosing wealth information of policymakers, saying that tax information cannot be disclosed.He said the NBR will have to be cautious about maintaining privacy of the taxpayers so that they can keep confidence on showing actual earnings.Akbar Ali Khan, also a former NBR chairman, stressed the need for a detailed study on tax matters and said that the TIB's research findings are not acceptable on some points.

Another adviser to the caretaker government, Dr Mirza Azizul Islam has expressed its doubt on credibility of the TIB research findings as it was conducted on a small segment of taxpayers, only numbering 713, out of thousands. "It won't be prudent to come to a conclusion on the basis of those findings," he said.

Former NBR chairman Badiur Rahman said the government's willingness is needed for boosting revenue collection. He suggested that undisclosed money can only be allowed to be whitened after collection of normal tax.

http://www.unbconnect.com/component/news/task-show/id-44498


__._,_.___


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




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

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Fwd: Sohrab Hasan on Khaled killing



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

From: Zoglul Husain <zoglul@hotmail.co.uk>
Date: Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 9:09 PM
Subject: RE: Sohrab Hasan on Khaled killing
To: Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com>


People like Sohrab Hasan have a very selective sense of judgment and a very selective way of looking at and inferring about politics. Their selection always seem to favour the positions taken by the propagandists influenced by India, which, for reasons unknown, has been shredding and destroying all documents relating to their operations in Bangladesh in 1971!! Is it the fear of revelations of, or questions from, the researchers?
 
I would suggest to Sohrab Hasan to start from the beginning of the problems. Can he explain: Why was it that India made Tajuddin sign a 7-point agreement, in which it was specifically mentioned that Bangladesh would not have a national army, it would only have a national guard force (Jatiyo Rakkhi Bahini) and that Bangladesh would have to conform to India's foreign policies? Why was Rakkhi Bahini later raised with India's money, arms and training, and why was it put under Indian command? Why was Mujib Bahini raised under the command of General Oban and with what objectives?
 
It is often mentioned that Awami terrorists, Rakkhi Bahini, Mujib Bahini, etc., during Mujib regime, Killed 30 thousand patriots. BNP usually puts the figure between 37 thousand and 50 thousand. Would Sohrab Hasan explain why were these patriots killed and whether they were killed in accordance with the provisions of law or the constitution? What would he say about the killing of Siraj Sikder? Was the killing judicial?? Should he not campaign for setting up an independent enquiries commission to find out about the killings during the Awami govts as well as during other regimes? Should he not campaign for punishments for all illegal killings?   
 

Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:00:51 +0600
Subject: Sohrab Hasan on Khaled killing
From: bdmailer@gmail.com
To:



__._,_.___


[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] Fw: Please Listen: MEGHNA GUHATHAKURTA remembers the memory of her father and March 1971




-----Forwarded Message-----
From: Robin Khundkar
Sent: Mar 30, 2011 1:19 PM
To:
Subject: Please Listen: MEGHNA GUHATHAKURTA remembers the memory of her father and March 1971




MEGHNA GUHATHAKURTA remembers the memory of her father and March 1971.

 

Please take a listen!!

 

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/witness/witness_20110328-0912a.mp3



__._,_.___


[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] Transit, not Teesta



Always a dime short and a day late when it comes to getting fair share for Bangaldesh. When will we learn to negotiate with our neighbors without giving up the country for grab? 




-----Original Message-----
From: Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com>
Sent: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 12:37 pm
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Transit, not Teesta

 
Transit, not Teesta
India receives transit, but what about sharing Teesta waters?
by ALTAF PARVEZ, M M ALI and K MAHMUD
"Bangladesh will receive 5000 crore taka through transit/transshipment" (The Independent, 26 February 2011 )
The above statement bears serious significance given the prevailing socio-economic circumstances in Bangladesh. Readers will recall that not in the distant past the media was similarly used by quarters interested in the extraction and export of natural gas, coming up with headlines like: "Bangladesh floating on a sea of gas."
The fact that Bangladesh is not floating on a sea of gas is more than obvious to the consumers right now. In many households of the capital city, meals have to be cooked by the crack of dawn as the gas supply dwindles to nothing by the morning and stoves lie useless. Now, following the Bangladesh-is-floating-on-gas hype, quarters in the media are bent on reporting how Bangladesh can earn thousands of crores of taka by granting transit to India. What these quarters are failing to mention is how Bangladesh is being totally deprived of what is rightfully should be getting from India, and that is water.
Why has this particular time been selected to harp on the revenue supposedly to be gotten through transit? This period of March-April is a hard time for the people of the north-west and south-west regions of the country. Inflow of water is at an all time low in the shared rivers with India Though these rivers are of an international category, Bangladesh does not get its fair share of water from them. As a result, the regions through which these rivers run face immeasurable hardship during this period.
Though India and Bangladesh share a total of 54 rivers, over the last 40 years the two countries have only managed to reach an agreement on one river, the Ganges, through a 30-year treaty. And yet India has been holding talks on water and river-sharing issues ever since 1972. The Joint River Commission has had 38 meetings so far. Despite all this, the net result has been zero. Very little has been gained.
Bangladesh has moved far back even from the diplomatic aspects of the water-sharing issue. Even though no agreement may have been reached at least the water crisis was given priority during bilateral talks all along. Now that has been relegated to the back burner and the issues of transit and security have come to the forefront, issues in which Bangladesh's interests are not directly involved. A review of the policy-making level talks held between the two countries over the past two years reveals that all the decision that have been taken are related to transit and security. The other issues, including water, have been left hanging in limbo with the diplomatic politesse of "hopeful outcomes". In the joint declaration signed during Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's visit to India in 2010, the issue of sharing River Teesta's water was relegated to 27th place.
The only water-related agreement between India and Bangladesh so far is the Ganges Treaty. The last time this treaty was signed was during the Awami League government rule of 1996-2001. Based on this, diplomats had thought that this time the water sharing issue would advance forward another step, particularly the Teesta issue.
In 2010, the Bangladesh government did submit to India a draft of an agreement related to Teesta. India's Water Resources Minister Pawan Kumar also submitted a draft in this regard from his country's side. Neither country has made any public statement about the submitted drafts.
The source of the approximately 246-mile river Teesta lies in Northern Sikkim. Upon entering Bangladesh, Teesta continues for about 83 miles before joining Jamuna. During the ongoing dry season, Teesta's water falls to about 400 to 500 cusecs (1cusec = 1 cft per second). The reason of this unfortunate situation is the unilateral withdrawal of water by means of a barrage newly constructed in Gazaldoba, 50 miles upstream from Bangladesh's border. This barrage has two irrigation canals which diverts 20 thousand cusecs of water to West Bengal and Bihar, providing these Indian states with 10 thousand cusecs of water each for irrigation purposes.
When it comes to common rivers, Bangladesh is the downstream country and so with no water sharing treaty in place, the farmers have no idea how much water they will be receiving in the dry season and so invariably the cultivation in the river basin is severely affected. Additionally, as the population is rapidly increasing in the river basin regions, naturally the demand for water is increasing manifold too. However, the Greater Rangpur region of Bangladesh has never received the internationally recognized amount of water required on the basis of population and agricultural requirements.
So far the discussants have restricted their discussions to the volume of water, but the farmers of the river basin, particularly of the Rangpur region, also want the qualitative aspect of water to be brought to the table. After all, the rate that industries are being set up on both sides of the river upstream, by the time the water enters Bangladesh, it is almost unusable due to industrial pollution. The common consumers want the enforcement of the international laws for the qualitative aspect of shared waters.
Negotiations and bargaining concerning Teesta has been on since 1972. At the 20th meeting of the Joint River Commission a consensus had actually been reached to the effect that India would get 40% of Teesta waters, Bangladesh would get 40% and the remaining 20% would be kept in reserve.
Then in 1983 again this sharing was agreed upon by both sides in an ad hoc agreement. Bangladesh still adheres to this stand, but India now wants the entire flow to be shared, leaving nothing to maintain the normal flow.
The longer the water talks are stalled, the more the upstream country benefits. That is why in 1996 when the Awami League government signed the Ganges water sharing treaty, people welcomed it despite its limitations. However, this treaty hasn't been fulfilled even a fraction of the extent that the 1977 five-year treaty in this regard was fulfilled. The 1996 treaty may have come to an agreement about water sharing, but there is no guarantee of receiving that share of water. Even so, based on Awami League's diplomatic success of this treaty in 1996, from 2009 it has been heard that this government will be signing a Teesta treaty. This is not surprising because after staying away from the table for five long years, India finally agreed to participate in the 37th Joint Rivers Commission meet only after the present government came to power. In the meantime another meeting of the Commission has been held, but it is not known if anything has been finalized regarding the sharing of Teesta waters, or the waters of any other river for that matter.
It has been learnt that the visit of the Indian Prime Minister to Bangladesh is being delayed due to the delay in reaching an agreement regarding Teesta's water sharing. The Teesta treaty is to be signed during his visit.
So far it could be determined, the Teesta treaty is to be of a 15-year term for the time being and applicable in times of need. By means of such a treaty, there would be an increase in irrigation for 7.5 lac hectares of land in Rangpur region. After the Ganges Treaty if the Teesta Treaty is actually signed, then agreements could be reached more easily on the other shared rivers as these treaties would stand as models.
Other than the Teesta water sharing treaty, Bangladesh is also attaching much importance to reaching an understanding with India on advance flood warnings. Bangladesh wants to be informed 55 to 60 hours in advance when there are increased water surges upstream of the shared rivers. India is unwilling to provide flood warnings so much in advance. Yet they have that sort of treaty with Nepal where, since 1989, the ebb and flow of rivers in at least 42 places within Nepal is monitored.
In ninth clause of the 1996 water treaty between Bangladesh and India, it was stated that the two countries were in consensus about having water-sharing agreements concerning other common rivers, with equality, transparency and not harming each other in any way. But it is evident that India has no intention of adhering to the Ganges Water Treaty because a decade and a half since then, it has not come forward to sign any agreement concerning any other common river with Bangladesh. Yet when it raised the transit issue with Bangladesh, it is immediately being granted this facility.
While India may be reluctant to give Bangladesh its fair share of water, it has in the past satisfactorily implemented the Indus water sharing treaty with Pakistan (1960) and the sharing of the Mahakali and Koshi river waters with Nepal (1996). The World Bank provided technical cooperation in certain instances in this connection.
India is wholly involved in Nepal's Buri Gandhaki hydroelectric project. India has created the opportunity to produce 83 thousand MW of electricity from Nepal's rivers. When Bangladesh has proposed to work on the production of hydro-electricity on a tripartite basis, India refused. Yet now, with Bangladesh's approval, it plans to sell that same electricity to Bangladesh!
When Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina visited India last year, the people of Bangladesh were given the idea that if India was given transit, Bangladesh would be given electricity. But the draft agreement sent by India in February 2011 (see www.kalerkantho.com) shows that India wants to provide 250MW of electricity on condition that it will maintain control over disconnecting the line, determining the cost, increasing the cost and, if need be, extracting interest too. India's Central Energy Regulatory Commission would determine the price of electricity from time to time. Not only that, the electricity costs would have to be paid on quarterly basis, that too in advance. Even more shocking is that even though this electricity would be sold by India, Bangladesh would have to bear transmission costs and the risks of transmission. It is rare in the global context that the supplier has such a strong position in today's commodities' market. It is with such a commercial counterpart that Bangladesh is having to fight for its fair share of water decade after decade.
India has always refused for a third party involvement in these agreements so as to conceal this attitude. It always opts for bilateral treaties to extract its political and economic interests from the respective countries. For example, it refused to involve any third party when it comes to water sharing with Bangladesh, but in the case of transit, it is very eager to involve ADB and the World Bank. The Indus river treaty which India has with Pakistan for six rivers was assisted by the World Bank, but India has been accused of violating the treaty. According to the agreement, India would not be able to have any manmade structures on the common rivers. However, recently it has built the Navigation Project structure on the river Jhelum. Pakistan has protested vehemently. Yet when India builds similar structures on rivers shared with Bangladesh, the Bangladesh government, the civil society and the water experts remain mum.
It is ironic that while India itself is creating desertification in downstream Bangladesh through its dams and barrages, it protests loudly against China's Brahmaputra barrage construction.
It may be mentioned here that according to the UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Usage of International Watercourses (adopted in May 1997), there are three main compulsory requirements concerning the use of international river water. These are: the water must be used responsibly with acceptance of equal rights for all concerned; the normal flow of the river must not be hampered; and, if any project is to be undertaken on the rivers, all the countries of the river basin must be informed. Concerning the international rivers that flow through Bangladesh, the upstream countries are repeatedly violating this convention. Yet there is no awareness in this regard in Bangladesh, no discussions, no protest. And the Teesta Treaty which is around the corner has offer no solution regarding the barrages and dams being constructed.
Various Indian sources report that India is preparing to construct dams in six places in Sikkim and two in West Bengal in order to use Teesta's waters to generate electricity. In West Bengal, the proposed dams at Semco Ropeway and Coronation Bridge will be 27 metres and 39 metres high respectively. These dams will be used to generate 332 MW of electricity from Teesta.  During the dry season, these dams will cause drought downstream and during the monsoons when the floodgates are opened, the Greater Rangpur area will be deluged.
The writers are members of the non-political voluntary research organization, Transit Study Group (TSG).


__._,_.___


[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] Read what BNP said about Dr. Yunus and Grameen in 1996-2006

Khaleda and Hasina are not only cut from the same cloth, their agendas and behaviour (be it in opposition or in government) are identical. 2 sides of the same dirty, filthy, soiled and abused coin.
------Original Message------
From: Shamim Chowdhury
Sender: alochona@yahoogroups.com
To: Shamim Chowdhury
ReplyTo: alochona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Read what BNP said about Dr. Yunus and Grameen in 1996-2006
Sent: 30 Mar 2011 05:11

Khaleda Zia is making hue and cry on expulsion on Dr. Yunus from Grameen Bank. Conversely, while she was in power her government's attitude toward Dr. Yunus was full of jealousy. From a close source of Khaleda Zia who dose not wants to be named told journalists that Khaleda Zia directed her Finance Minister Saifur Rahman to disparage the news of Dr. Yunus getting Nobel Prize. Accordingly BNP Finance Minister ridiculed Dr. Yunus saying " FOKIRNIR HATA DUI TEEN HAZAR TAKA AR AKTA MOBILE PHONE DHORAI DILA DESHER UNNOYON HOYNA.Finance Minister Saifur Rahman cast doubt on contributions by Nobel laureate Prof Muhammad Yunus and micro credit to the country's development. Following Khaleda Zia's instruction FM Saifur Rahman arranged agitation against Dr.Yunus and Grameen Bank in Sylhet and elsewhere during BNP first term in power. Finance Minister himself said in his speech speaking at the inaugural ceremony of Dutch Bangla Bank Ltd Moulvibazar branch in Oct 19th 2006. Now in 2011 being opposition leader Khaleda Zia all of a sudden becomes solemn defender of Dr. Yunus and Grameen Bank. Who you believe, Khaleda Zia of 1991 and 1996 who asked her Finance Minister to agitate people against Dr. Yunus and Grameen as well as ridicule role of Grameen small finance in real economy or the champion defender of Grameen and Dr. Yunus in 2011. Readers please read Daily Star report on October of 2006 and come to your own conclusion. Thanks, Shamim Chowdhury Maryland, U.S.A. Link: http://www.thedailystar.net/2006/10/23/d61023011713.htm Link: http://www.thedailystar.net/2006/10/20/d61020011913.htm ================================================================   Committed to PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO KNOW Vol. 5 Num 858 Mon. October 23, 2006       Front Page Saifur doubts contributions of Prof Yunus Staff Correspondent Emphasising the BNP-led government's achievements, Finance Minister Saifur Rahman yesterday cast doubt on contributions by Nobel laureate Prof Muhammad Yunus and microcredit to the country's development. "What did microcredit do
Emanur Rahman | m. +447734567561 | e. emanur@rahman.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.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/