As an old Chinese proverb says, crisis can be used as an opportunity by some. | |
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24744 |
__._,_.___
Indian nationals in Bangladesh
http://dailynayadiganta.com/2011/05/28/fullnews.asp?News_ID=280107&sec=2
Farida Mazed
No one was involved from Jamat in so called war crime acts who politically arrested by BAL Govt. now. Just after 1971 independence a list of collaborators were floated which were lasting for till 2000, where in that list Ameer of Jamath, Secretary of Jamat and other few leaders name were not there.
This is a great proof that The BAL Govt. standing on Vague baseless foundation.
- Jamath leader off course politically supported the united pakistan - a greater muslim power in the south east asia and we appreciate it, even though I am a freedom fighter fooled by a sectarian politician who was not capable of doing politics for the nikil Pakistan's peoples benefit. whose political agenda were not for the poorest of baluchistan, nor for the sind or pashtun who were only crying for bengalis. Should you appreciate if I do politics only for Noakhali ?
Sheikh Muzibur Rahaman was a greatest dalal of Hindustan, Agartala conspiracy was a true mater, still that seridhar villa standing in Agartala where muzib Hold his conspiracy talk with Hindustan, which leaded pakistanis not to believe sheikh Muzib for handing over the power.
Pakistani killed so many civilian, why Sheikh Muzib pardoned 195 war criminals ? kindly answer that. How Hasina Govt. people telling they have given those accused in hand of pakistan that pakistan will trial them ? is that meaning that pakistan will make a international tribunal for punishing his army personnel / shame to all the stupid awami leaguers for such a lying
Be cautioned no one can do any harm to Jamath leaders we shall win in the court of insha-allh, but not in Awami culprit court political court.
..................it will continue further.......
Mohammed Ramjan Ali Bhuiyan
Kuwait
India's One Basket Diplomacy
By Tridivesh Singh Maini
One lesson India should have learned from past experience in dealing with other countries, especially those in its neighbourhood, is that constructing a foreign policy based mostly around individual personalities is perilous, as once that individual is dislodged then his or her successor may simply undo everything.
Another problem with strengthening an individual perceived as being weak and unpopular simply because he or she is pro-India is that in the long run it can breed anti-India sentiment in the country.
With these points in mind, Indian policymakers should be careful to cultivate a range of political actors in a given country, especially if a particular leader looks like they are at risk of being too closely associated with India. Failure to do so means India risks that leader reversing policy to protect themselves politically. The India-Pakistan relationship of the late 1980s is a good example—much was expected of the Benazir Bhutto-Rajiv Gandhi meeting in 1988. But while at the time there looked to be a genuine thaw taking place, Bhutto did a complete about face when threatened domestically, delivering a number of vitriolic speeches against India in the process.
Sadly, India doesn't seem to have learned anything. The clearest illustration of this is its Bangladesh policy, which hinges on Sheikh Hasina, the current prime minister and leader of Bangladesh's Awami League Party.
Many in India argue that such reliance is justified as Hasina is pro-India, and they point to her government's consent to India's longstanding demand to grant transit facilities to New Delhi as evidence of her good faith. Yet although there's no doubt that Indo-Bangladesh ties are currently on a high, the goodwill seems based largely around the personal rapport between Hasina and Indian Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee.
But what if Mukherjee, currently extremely influential in the ruling United Progressive Alliance, should leave office? Or if the current Indian government were ejected from power? Would Hasina still hold India in such high regard?
Conversely, there's the question of whether, when Hasina is out of power, India be able to do business with the Bangladesh National Party, which is considered closer to China. This seems a genuine possibility as Hasina's popularity wanes at home, not least because she is viewed by critics as an Indian puppet.
Shahid-Ul-Islam, a researcher at the Institute of South Asian Studies in Singapore who specializes in Bangladesh, made this point recently in a blog entry on bilateral relations.
In an entry titled 'Transit, the Great Wall of India and Indo-Bangladesh Relations,' he wrote:
'Against the will of common people, the foreign policy of the current government in Bangladesh focuses primarily on India at the cost of developing strong ties with other major powers. The masses desire better bilateral ties with New Delhi, but at the same time would not like Bangladesh to be treated as a "satellite state" of India.'
Even if Hasina does survive, India must seriously ask itself if she will continue to support ties with Delhi so strongly now that it's clearly so politically dangerous for her to do so. Certainly, she will come under increasing pressure to shift tactics as her opponents seek to include an anti-India plank in their political platforms.
While India has been mature in assuaging the concerns of Bangladesh on issues like the shooting of Bangladeshis by the Border Security Forces, policymakers should still reach out to other political actors so as to ensure that there's a genuine and sustainable improvement in bilateral relations, rather than an intense honeymoon followed by an acrimonious divorce.
As US statesman Henry Kissinger once said, 'No foreign policy, no matter how ingenious, has any chance of success if it is born in the minds of a few and carried in the hearts of none.'
Some photographs....
নিয়ম নেই, তারপরও করা হয়...
This is a must-read for all those blatant and/or closet supporters of Bangladesh Genocide 1971.
Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan has spent the last few years confined by the Pakistan Army to one of his palatial Islamabad residences where he whiles away his days writing weekly columns in newspapers. This venerable metallurgist, who claims paternity rights over Pakistan's bomb, says it alone saves Pakistan. In a recent article, he wistfully wrote: "If we had had nuclear capability before 1971, we would not have lost half of our country – present-day Bangladesh – after disgraceful defeat."
Given that 30,000 nuclear weapons failed to save the Soviet Union from decay, defeat and collapse, could the Bomb really have saved Pakistan in 1971? Can it do so now?
Let's revisit 1971. Those of us who grew up in those times know in our hearts that East and West Pakistan were one country but never one nation. Young people today cannot imagine the rampant anti-Bengali racism among West Pakistanis then. With great shame, I must admit that as a thoughtless young boy I too felt embarrassed about small and dark people being among our compatriots. Victims of a delusion, we thought that good Muslims and Pakistanis were tall, fair, and spoke chaste Urdu. Some schoolmates would laugh at the strange sounding Bengali news broadcasts from Radio Pakistan.
The Bengali people suffered under West Pakistani rule. They believed their historical destiny was to be a Bengali-speaking nation, not the Urdu-speaking East Pakistan which Jinnah wanted. The East was rightfully bitter on other grounds too. It had 54% of Pakistan's population and was the biggest earner of foreign exchange. But West Pakistani generals, bureaucrats, and politicians such as Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, feared a democratic system would transfer power and national resources to the East.
Denied democracy and justice, the people of East Pakistan helplessly watched the cash flow from East to fund government, industry, schools and dams in the West. When the Bhola cyclone killed half a million people in 1970, President Yahya Khan and his fellow generals in Rawalpindi's GHQ could not have cared less.
The decisive break came with the elections. The Awami League won a majority in Pakistan's parliament. Bhutto and the generals would not accept the peoples' verdict. The Bengalis finally rose up for independence. When the West Pakistan army was sent in, massacre followed massacre. Political activists, intellectuals, trade unionists, and students were slaughtered. Blood ran in street gutters, and millions fled across the border. After India intervened to support the East, the army surrendered. Bangladesh was born.
That Pakistan did not have the bomb in 1971 must surely be among the greatest of blessings. It is hard for me to see what Dr AQ Khan has in mind when he suggests that it could have saved Pakistan.
Would the good doctor have dropped the bomb on the raging pro-independence mobs in Dhaka? Or used it to incinerate Calcutta and Delhi, and have the favour duly returned to Lahore and Karachi? Or should we have threatened India with nuclear attack to keep it out of the war so that we could endlessly kill East Pakistanis? Even without the bomb, estimated civilian deaths numbered in the hundreds of thousands if not a million. How many more East Pakistanis would he have liked to see killed for keeping Pakistan together?
Some might argue that regardless of the death and destruction, using the bomb to keep Pakistan together would have been a good thing for the people of East Pakistan in the long term. A look at developmental statistics can help decide.
Bangladesh is ranked 96th out of 110 countries in a 2010 prosperity index compiled by an independent London-based think-tank, the Legatum Institute, using governance, education, health, security, personal freedom, and social capital as criteria. Pakistan is at the 109th position, just one notch above Zimbabwe. By this measure the people of the East have benefited from independence. The UN Human Development Index puts Bangladesh at 146/182 and Pakistan at 141/182, making Pakistan only marginally superior. This implies that Bengalis would have gained little, if anything, by remaining with West Pakistan.
But numerical data does not tell the whole story. Bangladesh is poorer but more hopeful and happier. Culture is thriving, education is improving, and efforts to control population growth are more fruitful than in Pakistan. It is not ravaged by suicide bombings, or by daily attacks upon its state institutions and military forces.
What can the bomb do for Pakistan now? Without it, will India swallow up Pakistan and undo partition? Such thought is pure fantasy. First, India has a rapidly growing economy and is struggling to control its population of 1.2 billion, of which almost half are desperately poor. It has no reason to want an additional 180 million people to feed and educate. Second, even if an aggressive and expansionist India wanted, asymmetrical warfare would make territorial conquest and occupation impossible. The difficulties faced by America in Iraq and Afghanistan, or of India in Kashmir, make this clear.
The bomb did deter India from launching punitive attacks at least thrice since the 1998 tests. There were angry demands within India for attacking the camps of Pakistan-based militant groups after Pakistan's incursion in Kargil during 1999, the December 13 attack on the Indian parliament the same year (initially claimed by Jaish-e-Muhammad), and the Mumbai attack in 2008 by Lashkar-e-Taiba. However, this problem only exists because the bomb has been used to protect these militant groups. The nuclear umbrella explains why Pakistan is such a powerful magnet for all on this planet who wage war in the name of Islam: Arabs, Chechens, Uzbeks, Uighurs, and various westerners. It was, as we now know, the last lair of Osama bin Laden as well.
Pakistan is learning the same painful lesson as the Soviet Union and white-South Africa learned. The bomb offers no protection to a people. Rather, it has helped bring Pakistan to its current grievously troubled situation and offers no way out.
On this May 28, the day when Pakistan tested its nuclear weapons, let us resolve to eliminate this curse rather than celebrate. Instead of building more bombs, we need to protect ourselves by building a sustainable and active democracy, an economy for peace rather than war, a federation in which provincial grievances can be effectively resolved, elimination of the feudal order and creating a tolerant society that respects the rule of law.
The author is a professor of nuclear physics and teaches in Islamabad and Lahore
Published in The Express Tribune, May 28th, 2011.
Why does it hurt being called a razakar?
http://www.thedailystar.net/pf_story.php?nid=19777
There was an enraged response to this poem, numerous accusations of depravity of the worst kind were thrown at me then.
But WHY? The answer is important because it is needed to frame the charges of 1971 Genocide at the Tribunal.
One of the primary objects of holding such a Tribunal is to prevent future genocides.
This bunch of people are not only supporters of the past genocide but are harbingers of genocides to come.
~Farida Majid
Satan wept
Humayun Gauhar
humayun.gauhar786@gmail.com
The terrorist attack on our naval base in Karachi took me back to something I had read in 2008 about a RAND Corporation study suggesting that a war between India and Pakistan would revive the flagging US economy. At the time I filed it away as the usual wishful gibberish of think tanks. But when the attack took place it occurred to me: is someone is trying to start another India-Pakistan war?
RAND is a semi-official Corporation that receives some Federal funding. On December 26, 2008, Kurt Nimmo (another 'conspiracy theorist'?) wrote in Infowars that Paul Watson and Yihan Dai (more 'conspiracy theorists'?), had said in Prison Planet on October 30 that, "According to reports out of top Chinese mainstream news outlets, the RAND Corporation recently presented a shocking proposal to the Pentagon in which it lobbied for a war to be started with a major foreign power in an attempt to stimulate the American economy and prevent a recession. The reports cite French media news sources as having uncovered the proposal, in which RAND suggested that the $700 billion dollars that has been earmarked to bailout Wall Street and failing banks instead be used to finance a new war which would in turn re-invigorate the flagging stock markets…A war between India and Pakistan may provide an ideal pretext for U.S. involvement in the region…Reportedly, the RAND proposal brazenly urged that a new war could be launched to benefit the economy, but stressed that the target country would have to be a major influential power, and not a smaller country on the scale of Afghanistan or Iraq." The story quoted Reuters saying on December 24: "Pakistani militants have already said they would rally to help the Pakistani military in the event of war against India. Public sympathy and support for militant groups would soar as they would be seen as national defenders against the 'real enemy', India."
The story goes on: "A war between Pakistan and India and Pakistan's abandonment of the GWOT in its tribal regions would provide the U.S. with the near perfect pretext to attack targets inside Pakistan…An earlier report of the CIA predicted a Yugoslavia-like fate for Pakistan in a decade with civil war, bloodshed and interprovincial rivalries as seen in Balochistan."
Literal thinking made us believe that the Taliban couldn't carry out such a precision attack without 'outside help'. Our navy had been turned into a 'One Eyed Jack'. That helps India, so India must be the suspect. I'm not saying it is; I'm not saying it isn't – not until I have proof. In today's world the obvious usually is what America's Deep State's strategic communications and perception management wants us to believe.
Pause please. Why are the Taliban not capable of carrying out such an attack when they have defeated America and its NATO mercenaries and their fathers beat the Soviet Union before them? Competence is no proof of complicity.
Consider: would India, Pakistan and China too, which could perforce get sucked into such a war, not do a cost-benefit analysis before embarking on such a suicidal enterprise?
1. Given that all three are nuclear laced, all three would be losers. America would be the winner. Russia would stand by.
2. Much of India, Pakistan and a lot of China would be destroyed.
3. The economic march of China and India would be pushed back for years.
4. Millions of innocent people would be killed.
5. Entire cities would be destroyed.
6. Pakistan and India could be Balkanized because both suffer from many horizontal and vertical fissures. There are fissures in China too.
7. The entire region would be destabilized and national boundaries redrawn.
8. Terrorism would engulf the entire subcontinent, China's Xinjiang province and spill over elsewhere in the region.
9. Terrorists of other hues would emerge, each with their own agenda.
For the life of me, I cannot see any benefit in such perfidy, only Mutually Assured Destruction – MAD. Only the stupid – and India and Pakistan have a surfeit of them – who think with their egos would consider such an enterprise desirable.
Who benefits?
1. The country that is the engine of the global economy – America.
2. The engine of the US economy is its military-industrial complex (MIC).
3. The fuel that drives the MIC is constant new weapons orders.
4. The source of that fuel is war.
5. An additional benefit of a war directly involving America is the chance to test its latest strategies and weapons in actual war conditions.
6. War between China and India would set back America's economic and trade competitors, helping its economy recover.
Got it? Satan wept at such perfidy for even he couldn't better it.
America's first constitutional president, Major General George Washington, commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, realized that he had won the war against Britain with British weapons. This was untenable. That idea planted the seed of what was to grow into America's military industrial complex. The warriors of the complex are:
1. Extreme right-wingers.
2. The Pentagon.
3. US intelligence agencies.
4. Wall Street.
5. Large corporate syndicates including and other than from the MIC.
6. Christians of certain denominations.
7. Zionists.
8. Much of the US and western media.
9. Think tanks of a certain kind.
10. Certain academics.
Third World idiots and sellouts help America:
1. Most rulers.
2. Most politicians.
3. Some military officers, retired and serving.
4. Some bureaucrats, retired and serving.
5. Many NGOs.
6. Many journalists, witting and unwitting.
7. Certain academics.
8. The greedy and the stupid that provide 'inside help' for money or think that they are doing the 'holy work' of non-state terrorists when they are actually helping state terrorists pretending to be non-state terrorists.
9. Lightweight noveau riche informers who crave instant respectability after 'making' instant money.
They sell themselves cheap – visas, Green Cards, jobs, medical treatment, stints in think tanks to write books and papers the US likes since such things are more credible coming from people of the target country, admission of children in Ivy League universities...
Are India, Pakistan and China that stupid that they cannot see the obvious? Unlike America, we have histories and civilizations spanning five millennia and more. When it comes to the crunch millennia old wisdom normally prevails.
Prof Asif Nazrul on RAB debate
http://www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2011-05-28/news/157702