Banner Advertiser

Sunday, July 31, 2011

[ALOCHONA] All set for conceding another 13.5 acres of Goainghat to India



All set for conceding another 13.5 acres of Goainghat to India

Everything is set for conceding another 13.5 acres of cultivable land to India at Kulum Chhara in Goainghat upazila tomorrow (Monday).

Bangladesh survey officials in the Indo-Bangla Joint Border Demarcation team said it was agreed to set bamboo pillars inside Bangladesh at Kulum Chhara border conceding 13.50 acres.

Confirming the decision ADC (Revenue) Ahmed Shamim Al Rajee told UNB that demarcation and setting of bamoo pillars at Kulum Chhara border are scheduled for tomorrow.

Law enforcing agencies including police, BGB and plain clothed security officials are being deployed in the area so that the joint border demarcation team can carry out its task without any disturbance, officials said.

Kulum Chhara area is in addition to 261 acres, including Padua, in Goainghat border already conceded to India during the last two weeks. Bamboo pillars have been set on the new line of border despite angry demonstrations by villagers.

Lamenting at the loss of their crop lands, farmers in these areas said Indians are not allowing them to go to their land, which they cultivated for ages. BSF threatens to shoot them if they venture to cultivate the newly demarcated lands.

Dildar Hossain, former MP of the area said the villagers under the banner of 'Amra Simantabashi (We the residents of the border)' will launch vigorous movement after the Ramadan to thwart the government move to handover the lands to India which the farmers used to cultivate for ages.

He questioned the necessity of fresh demarcation of border and viewed that the present subservient government has taken the step to handover certain areas of Bangladesh territory to India.

http://www.unbconnect.com/component/news/task-show/id-54528

Also:
http://amardeshonline.com/pages/details/2011/08/01/96473
http://amardeshonline.com/pages/details/2011/08/01/96471



__._,_.___


[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: Call to annex Bangladesh!!



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

From: Zoglul Husain <zoglul@hotmail.co.uk>
Date: Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:56 AM
Subject: Call to annex Bangladesh!!
To: Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com>

The president of the Janata Party, a former Union minister, and a professor of economics, Dr. Subramanian Swamy demands annexation of one-third of Bangladesh from Sylhet to Khulna at present. (Please click to read Amar Desh report, 1 August 2011)
 
http://www.amardeshonline.com/pages/details/2011/08/01/96476
 
 
(Please click to read his article as follows:) 
 
http://gregoryfegel.sulekha.com/blog/post/2011/07/dr-subramanian-swamy-s-controversial-dna-article.htm
 
Please see in the article:
 
Goal 4: Change India's demography by illegal immigration, conversion, and refusal to adopt family planning.
Strategy: Enact a national law prohibiting conversion from Hinduism to any other religion. Re-conversion will not be banned. Declare that caste is not based on birth but on code or discipline. Welcome non-Hindus to re-convert to the caste of their choice provided they adhere to the code of discipline. Annex land from Bangladesh in proportion to the illegal migrants from that country staying in India. At present, the northern third from Sylhet to Khulna can be annexed to re-settle illegal migrants.
 
Goal 1: Overawe India on Kashmir.
Strategy: Remove Article 370 and resettle ex-servicemen in the valley. Create Panun Kashmir for the Hindu Pandit community. Look for or create an opportunity to take over PoK. If Pakistan continues to back terrorists, assist the Baluchis and Sindhis to get their independence.
 
        Dr. Subramanian Swamy
                                     (National President, Janatha Party)
 
This is the full article in English -

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/07/dr-subramaniam-swamy-how-to-wipe-out-islamic-terror.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] Re: Ethnic minority, not indigenous people: FM

Indigenous People:UN rejects govt's view

The general segment of the United Nations Economic and Social Council
(ECOSOC) session rejected the official position of Bangladesh
government on the non-Bangalee people of the Chittagong Hill Tracts
(CHT), and adopted the report of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous
Issues.

The Bangladesh government, represented by Abul Kalam Abdul Momen,
raised its concern over the United Nations Permanent Forum on
Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) going beyond its mandate in dealing with
the issue of implementing the CHT Peace Accord, on the ground that
there are no indigenous people in CHT.

The government also pleaded ECOSOC to delete some paragraphs of
its10th session report.

But the request was not accepted following negotiations over the last
three days of the weeklong session that ended on Friday in Geneva,
Switzerland, said a press release of the International Council for the
Indigenous Peoples of CHT (ICIP-CHT).

ECOSOC will not distinguish between indigenous and tribal groups, the
release said.
ECOSOC is the parent organisation of UNPFII.

UNPFII assigned a special rapporteur, Lars-Anders Baer, who visited
Bangladesh and independently undertook a study on the status of the
implementation of the CHT Peace Accord 1997, and submitted a report to
UNPFII during the 10th session of the forum in May this year.

In June, UNPFII called on the Bangladesh government to undertake a
phased withdrawal of all temporary army camps from CHT, urged it to
declare a timeframe for implementation of the CHT Peace Accord, and to
establish an independent commission to inquire into human rights
violations perpetrated against "indigenous peoples".

UNPFII further recommended that the UN Department of Peacekeeping
Operations (UNPKO) review the military personnel and units who are
being sent on UN missions, to make sure no personnel or unit is taken
from any that are accused by "indigenous Jumma people" of violating
human rights in CHT.

At the ECOSOC session Bangladesh had to accept a "compromise" due to
lacking solidarity from other 53 member-states. However the concerns
of Bangladesh raised at the meeting were included as "noted" in the
nature of "footnotes", the release said.

The US, Bolivia, Australia, Mexico, and Morocco welcomed the report's
adoption while only China, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia provided some
support to the concerns raised by Bangladesh, the release added.

The Russian Federation supported the proposed draft amendment to the
resolution, and stressed the importance of careful consideration of
the definition of indigenous people, and careful interpretation of the
UNPFII mandate.

The US said it believes the resolution is consistent with the mandate
of the UNPFII.

http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=196646

On 7/27/11, Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:
> *Chittagong Hill Tracts tribes are not 'Adivashis' in Bangladesh*
>
> Mohammad Zainal Abedin
>
> The interview of Barrister Debasis Roy, an ornamental King of the Chakama
> tribe living in CHT (Chittagong Hill Tracts) of Bangladesh in which he
> claimed that tribal people of region are the 'adivashsi' created confusions
> among the people concerned and his claim is contrary to historical
> evidence.
>
>
> The interview was published in a number of dailies, including 'Amar Desh'
> on
> May 13, 2006. He claimed, "We are 'Adivashis' (indigenous/aborigine) of CHT
> according to the prevailing/current law of Bangladesh." To justify his
> claim
> Debashis Roy referred to Hill Tracts Manual of 1900, in which, according to
> him, the hill people were termed as 'adivashis.' His claim is far beyond
> true. The manual even did not recognise the tribals of CHT as the first
> human being settled in CHT. The manual rather used the term tribals to
> refer
> to the tribes of CHT.
>
> Debashis should know that the history of Bangladesh was not started in 1900
> or after the advent of the British or European or settlement of the alien
> tribes in this country. Moreover, it is irrelevant and unquotable what the
> occupied and imperialist alien power termed the alien tribal of CHT in the
> so-called manual that they framed to suit their exploitative and
> imperialist
> interest against the hopes and aspiration of the people. The manual was
> framed to deter the anti-British freedom to enter CHT.
>
> Besides, the manual was voided during the Pakistan period and the tribal
> people did not objected when it was repealed. It was not framed to save the
> interest of the tribal people, but to keep them isolated from the rest of
> people and civilised people.
>
> There is no trace of development in CHT in the 190-year rule of the British
> in CHT. So there is no justifiable room of quoting the colonial repealed
> manual to justify that the tribes of CHT have sole rights in CHT. Besides,
> the manual framed 106 years back, when the country was under foreign
> occupation and domination. So it cannot be acceptable in an independent
> sovereign country. He even did not mention that the special status of CHT
> mentioned in the manual was also nullified during Pakistan period.
>
> Debasis also tries to bury the history and reality quoting memo No. 143 of
> Establishment Division 1991, paripartra (circular) of Prime Minister's
> office February 20, 2002; speeches of different personalities and income
> tax
> ordinance, where the hill people were termed as 'Advashi.' All these
> documents cannot bury the historical documents and realities of hundreds of
> thousands of years. Whatever was mentioned about the tribes of CHT that
> Debashsis mentioned couldn't be accepted as law and might have been used
> subconsciously, which is very natural.
>
> Debasis tried to establish that the tribes of CHT are 'adivashis.' The
> English version of the term 'adivashis' is 'aborigine' or 'aboriginal.' Let
> us see what does the term 'aboriginal' refers to. According to 'Bangla
> Academy English-Bengali' Dictionary' edited by Dr. Zillur Rahman Siddiqui,
> 'aboriginal' means such a nation or group of people or animals that live in
> a region till date from the ancient age or the area got kwon. (First
> Edition
> 1993: p. 2). According to the 'OXFORD Advanced Learner's Dictionary'
> 'aboriginal' means "a member of race of people who are the original people
> living in a country, especially in Australia/Canada." (Sixth Edition,
> Edited
> by Salley Wehmeier: OXFORD University Press: 2001-2003).
>
> According to the ' Webster' New World Dictionary' 'aborigines' mean "The
> first people known to have lived in a certain place." (p. 3: Webster' New
> World Dictionary: Basic School Edition: 1983). That is those who first
> started to live in a region which, was not under anybody's control or
> possession before the arrival of first people, are to be termed as
> aborigines or 'adivashis.' Red Indians in America, aborigines of Australia
> are recognised as 'Adivashis' as they were the first people living in
> America and Australia respectively before the arrival of the Europeans in
> their soil. Tribes of CHT took shelter while it was a part of Bengal and
> they were not the first people in CHT. As CHT was part of Chittagong
> district of Bangladesh since prehistoric age, so the Bengalees were the
> first people there.
>
> In accordance with the 'Webster Dictionary' an 'aboriginal' refers to "An
> indigenous inhabitant especially as contrasted with an invading or
> colonizing people." (p. 3: Webster's Dictionary: American Book Company:
> 1980.). Bangladesh or its nationals were or are not "invading or colonizing
> people" in CHT. So there was no room of 'contrast' with the tribal
> settlers,
> rather CHT it is part of Bangladesh since prehistoric age. It was a part of
> Bangladesh even during the Maurya and Gupta dynasties.
>
> In the ancient age it was a part of 'Horical Region' of Bangladesh.
> Chittagong and Tripuar belonged to 'Horical' region. It was a part of
> Bengal
> during the Muslim rule that started in year 1204. Did the Chakma or other
> tribes reach CHT before 1204, not to speak of Maurya dynasty of 320 B.C. or
> prehistoric stone age? There was no sovereign tribal kingship or
> independent
> feudal state in CHT ever. The zamindars, who styled them as 'Raja,' were
> kings in name. They had no capital even like the capital of Isha Khan of
> Sonargoan or other zamindars of Bengal who are popularly known as 'Baro
> Bhuiyans' in history.
>
> All the Chakma kings showed their total allegiance to the Muslim rulers of
> Delhi and later Bengal and these 'Raja's even took the Muslim names in
> order
> to get their blessings and justify their total loyalty and allegiance to
> the
> Muslim rulers. They even voluntarily inscribed the Arabic term 'Allah-hu
> Rabbi' in their coins. What more examples should I cite to prove that the
> so-called Raja's during the Muslim period were their (Muslim ruler) tenants
> and subordinates.
>
> There is no record that these Chakma or Marma or Mong kings ever revolted
> against the Muslim rules. They did not do so, as the Muslims did not
> capture
> the region from the tribals, rather the region was a part of Bengal from
> time immemorial and the Muslims inherited it when they captured Bengal in
> 1204, much before the intrusion of the tribal people in CHT. For this
> reason
> the tribal kings were psychologically weak, as they were intruders and
> aliens and not the sons of the soil.
>
> Mir Kashem, who replaced Mir Jafar Ali Khan the Nawab of Bengal, handed
> over
> Chittagong to the East India Company in 1760. The British got it from the
> Nawab of Bengal. So how the tribals of CHT claim that they were the
> 'advashis' (first settlers) in CHT. The British for administrative and
> imperialist reasons made CHT a separate district on hundred years later in
> 1860.
>
> So in pursuance of any standard or universally acceptable document neither
> of the tribes that now live in CHT are the descendents of the original sons
> of CHT. According to their history all of the 13 tribes that now live in
> CHT
> came from foreign soils — Myanmar, India, Thailand, China etc. Chakmas
> themselves claim that they came to CHT from an alien unknown place named
> Champukpuri', or 'Champuknagar', etc. Chakma's has no acceptable history
> about their ancient abode (to be discussed later.).
>
> Encyclopaedia Britannica mentions another characteristic of the Australian
> aborigines by way of explaining who should be called aborigines. This
> characteristic is also absent in case of the 13 tribes of CHT. It says, "At
> the time of European colonization in he late 18 th century" Australia "is
> thought to have --- 3000,000" local people who "have been divided into some
> 500 tribes, each with its recognised territory and its distinct language or
> dialect." (New Encyclopaedia Britannica: Vol. 1: 15 th Edition: 1991: p.
> 714.) I think Mr. Debashis Roy now realsies the reality that the tribes of
> CHT, including his own tribe Chakma, are not the aborigines in CHT in the
> truest sense of the term, as neither of the tribes ever had or still have
> its recognised territory. Each tribe is scattered in several parts of CHT.
>
> Out of the 13 tribes of CHT very few have their distinct language or
> dialect. Even the Chakma dialect is the combination of Bengali dialect of
> Chittagong region, as CHT was a part of Chittagong up to 1860. It needs to
> be mentioned that the Chakma is the latest tribe that took shelter from
> unknown abode, named Champuknagar or Champapuri. Recently the Chakmas named
> a place of Rangmati as 'Chamkpuri' in remembrance of their imaginary
> homeland. So the argument of Mr. Debasis to establish the tribes of CHT as
> the 'adivashis' (first people) of CHT is totally fallacious and erroneous
> and contrary to historical evidence.
>
> It is not enough and justifiable claim to brand the sheltered tribes of CHT
> by merely mentioning or quoting some persons or bodies. If the Prime
> Minister's office or other official bodies or ministries used the term
> 'adivashis' to mean the people of CHT, those cannot bury the historical
> truth that the tribes of CHT are not the first people in CHT. If they claim
> that there was no Bengalees in CHT before their arrival, that is also
> fallacious and lame excuse. Any region of any country may remain devoid of
> habitation for many reasons. It does not mean that desolate region is not a
> part of that country or it can be reserved for only those intruders who got
> shelter there. There is no habitation in our Sundarbans and many offshore
> islands still today.
>
> Does it mean, if any foreigner, who may be the first comer, takes shelter
> in
> Sundarbans, or other islands, will become the 'so-called 'adivashi' of
> Sundarbans or islands? The answer is very easy, the intruders must not
> claim
> as the 'adivashis', because the territory where they took shelter is a part
> of Bangladesh. So the tribes of CHT cannot be the 'adivashis' as they
> settled in Bangladesh territory, and CHT was not a 'no man's land.' I would
> request Mr. Debashis not to mislead the people in home and abroad
> mentioning
> baseless and utopian arguments to prove them as 'adivashis'. For Bangladesh
> they are sheltered tribes not 'adivashis.'
>
> Now let me look into the history to prove that all the 13 tribes now live
> in
> CHT are not the 'adivashis' as they took shelter in CHT, a region of
> Bangladesh since prehistoric age. B G Verghese says, "The CHT tribes
> migrated into the area between the 16 th and 19th centuries with the
> Bengali
> settlements along the Chittagong coastal land. (B G Verghese: North East
> Resurgent: Konark Publishers: New Delhi: India: 1996, p. 374.). They came
> from different places in different phases of time and took shelter in CHT.
> Let us see their migration to CHT.
>
> Moghs or Marmas were the inhabitants of Burma, i.e., Myanmar. During the
> Moghal period, the Arakanese pirates (Moghs) often used to attack the
> coastal area of Bangladesh. To stop their heinous deeds, the Moghul rulers
> launched military operation against the Moghs. Quoting R.H.S. Hutchinson,
> Sugata Chakma wrote: "The Moghs being repulsed and driven by the Moghals
> took shelter in Arakan."
>
> In his book Sugata Chakma mentioned, "In 1784 Burmese soldiers sent by king
> Bhodafra invaded and captured Arakan. During that time thousands of Marma
> refugees fled away to Cox's Bazar, CHT, and Patuakhali from Arakan and
> settled down in those places permanently. (Sugata Chakma: The Tribes and
> Culture of Chittagong Hill Tracts: Rangamati: 1993, p. 40.) If the Marmas,
> who are now known as 'Rahkains; cannot claim them as 'advashis' of
> Patuakhali of Bangladesh, how Debashis could claim the Marmas and other
> tribes of CHT as 'advashis.'
>
> The Murongs came from Arakan of today's Myanmar a few hundred years ago and
> concentrated mainly in and around Bandarban district. (Dr. Mizanur Rahman
> Shelly:
>
> The Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh: The Untold Story: Centre for
> Development Research: Dhaka: 1992, p. 53.). They have been living in the
> Arakan region of Burma from the time immemorial. They migrated from North
> Myanmar to CHT in the earlier part of the 18 th century. (Sugata Chakma:
> Ibid: p. 53.)
>
> The Tripura state of today's India is the original home of the Bangladeshi
> Tripuras. Their ancestors migrated to CHT for secured life when their
> opponents routed them out from Tripura. However, some of them entered CHT
> in
> search of food. (Sugata Chakma: Ibid: p. 57.)
>
> The people of Lusai tribe living in Bangladesh once lived in the Lusai hill
> of today's Mizoram State of India. (Sugata Chakma: Ibid: p. 81.) They
> entered Bangladesh around 150 years back (Dr. Mizanur Rahman Shelly: Ibid:
> p. 57.)
>
> The Khumis used to live in Arakan region of Myanmar and entered CHT in the
> later part of the 17th century. (Dr. Mizanur Rahman Shelly: Ibid: p. 58)
>
> According to Sugata Chakma, the Bhoms entered in the Southern part of CHT
> sometime in 1838-39 under the leadership of their chief Liankung and
> settled
> in Barndarban.
>
> In the earlier part of the 18th century, the Khyangs used to live in the
> Umatang hill of Arakan. (Dr. Mizanur Rahman Shelly: Ibid: p. 62.)
>
> The original abode of the Chak was in the Unan province of China bordering
> Myanmar. They first took shelter in Arakan and some of them came to CHT. No
> documents are available when they entered Arakan from China and later from
> Arakan to CHT.
>
> The Pankho came to CHT from a village named Pankhoya situated in Lushai
> Hills of Mizoram. (Sugata Chakma: Ibid: p. 85.)
>
> The Tanchangyas are a sect of the Chakmas though they claim and are now
> recognised as a separate tribe.
>
> Chakma historian Satish Chandra Gosh and his subsequent followers though
> presented incredible fantasies to justify the imaginary glory of the
> Chakmas, yet failed to prove that CHT was their original abode. Mr. Biraj
> Mohon Dewan, one of the ardent followers of Satish Gosh, in his book 'The
> Chronicle of the Chakma Nation' presenting a research-based document
> concluded, " It is crystally clear that the Chakmas are not the sons of the
> soil of CHT." ('The Chronicle of the Chakma Nation: New Rangamati: CHT:
> 1969: p. 94'). Chakmas endeavour to prove that their ancestral homeland is
> 'Champaknagar' or 'Chmpapuri' as there is a bit similarity between the
> terms
> 'Chakma' and 'Champa' or Champak.' But where is that 'Champapuri' or
> 'Champaknagar' that the 'Chakmas' claim as their historical abode. On the
> other hand, if they are originated from 'Champaknagar' or 'Champapuri' how
> they claim that they are the 'adivashis' of CHT.
>
> In his book Biraj Mohon Dewan claimed that there are at least five places
> in
> and outside India named Champaknagar or Champakpuri. He mentioned their
> existence in North Burma, (Shan), ancient Magad (Bihar, India), Kalabaga
> (Assam), Mallakka (Malaysia) Cochin (India) and on the bank of the Shangupa
> River (Brahmaputra). Biraj Mohan's open admission, "The writers of those
> notable books that were written on various aborigines recorded the places
> from which places they came and which were their original abodes. But it
> was
> not possible on their part to ascertain our (Chakma's) real identity
> firmly." (Biraj Mohon: Ibid. p. 2). He categorically accepted, "The Chakmas
> have no documentary book." "There is no documentary history on Chakmas
> other
> than some popular legends and folklore." (Devajani Dutta and Anusuya Bosu
> Roy Chowdhury: The Politics and the Struggle of Chittagong Hill Tracts
> Border: Calcutta Research Group and South Asian Forum for Human Rights:
> Calcutta: India: 1990: p. 11.)
>
> Depending on a narrative opera, the Chakmas claim that they entered Burma
> under the leadership of an imaginary prince named Bijoygiri. But they
> cannot
> say from which country this imaginary prince went to Burma. No other
> historians, other than a group of modern Chakma intellectuals, ever
> mentioned anywhere regarding the existence of
> any price named Bijoygiri. Ashok Kumar Dewan, another Chakma historian,
> sincerely acknowledged, "There is no dearth of gossips and chats among the
> educated Chakmas whether Bijoygiria was an imaginary hero or legend or
> really a historical personality." (Ashok Kumar Dewan: An Investigation into
> the History of the Chakma Nation: Khagrachhari: 1991: p. 35.)
>
> Biraj Mohon acknowledged, "Being attacked by the Burmese imperial power,
> the
> Chakmas became weak and achieved the approval and assistance of the Subadar
> of Bengal on humanitarian ground to be settled down for the first time on
> the bank of river Toinchhari to protect their mere existence." How Debashis
> could deny the above acknowledgement and claim his ancestors as the
> 'adivashis' of CHT?
>
> The dialect or spoken language that the Chakmas of the CHT use evidently
> justifies that it can be termed as the 'deformed style of Bengali.' It
> means
> Chakmas settled in such an area, which was inhabited by the Bengalees,
> i.e.,
> it was originally the abode of the Bengalees. Biraj Mohon Dewan says that
> Chakma dialect has such a close similarity to Bengali that it can easily be
> termed as the dialect descended from Bengali. "---- about 80% words of
> Chakma dialects have the mixture of Bengali and Sanskrit languges. In the
> last ( i.e., 1961) census Chakma dialect was recorded as 'Chakma-Bangla
> language." (Biraj Mohon Dewan: Ibid: p. 6.)
>
> All these and many other documents evidently prove that the Chakmas are not
> the original people of CHT. Rather the Chakma is such tribe, which is
> totally rootless. The Chakmas and all other are refugees who got shelter in
> Bangladesh. So they are not the first inhabitants of CHT to claim them as
> 'adivashis." If they are aborigines or 'adivashis, they were so in other
> lands or countries, but not, in fact, in Bangladesh. For Bangladesh they
> are
> settlers and we are ready to accept them as tribes, not as 'adivashis.'
>
> Debashis Roy mentioned that the 'adivashis' must have two essential
> characteristics or preconditions. Firstly, they are to settle themselves
> earlier (first) in a place than others and secondly, they remained outside
> the process of forming imperialist colony or state or modern state. The
> tribes of CHT do have neither of these preconditions. They were not the
> first inhabitants of CHT and so they were not required to remain involved
> with the process of forming a state, as CHT was always a part of
> country/state named Bengal. In 1971, most of them, including the father of
> Debasis Roy sided with Pakistan and we achieved our independence despite
> the
> opposition of the Chakmas. We did not need their support to liberate our
> motherland. Most of them remained outside the process of the formation of a
> new state where they reside today.
>
> Debashis Roy cannot bury the real history and truth in his bid to establish
> the tribes of CHT as 'adivashis' by quoting or referring those words that
> were used by official notifications or speeches. These are only lame
> excuses. When the government realises the misuse of the terms that they
> used, its foreign ministry asked all to use the term 'upajati' when they
> refer to the tribal people of CHT. A government might have committed
> mistakes and it reserves the sovereign rights to amend them, whenever it
> realises the mistakes and it can even change name of a place whenever it
> wants.
>
> Debashis Roy should restudy the history of CHT. He would not be allowed to
> mislead the people in home and abroad. Despite the evidences and arguments
> that I mentioned above, some people, who are hired or lacked of historical
> facts and evidences, may tune to Debashis Roy.
>
> Debasis and associates deliberately try to establish that they are the
> 'adivashis' in CTH to implement their ulterior design of expelling the
> Bengalees from the region, an illegal demand that they have already raised.
> The inner goal of such demand and its implementation is to secede CHT from
> Bangladesh for which they waged armed battle for years. Bangladesh can not
> afford such demand, or accept the self-prepared arguments of Debashis.
>
> It is alleged that Debashis Roy clandestinely works to implement the design
> of forming so-called tribal independent 'Jhummaland.' Using his ornamental
> portfolio, he maintains liaison with the adversaries of Bangladesh in home
> and abroad. There is no logic to maintain such kingship in an independent
> country. India abolished the system far ago.
>
> In this regard I should suggest the government to frame required law to
> remove all the contradictions, anomalies, faults, limitations,
> perforations,
> etc. that the adversaries of the country use to implement their ulterior
> designs. The BNP-led alliance government is committed to review, even
> repeal, the controversial CHT treaty that not only violates the
> constitution, but also undermines and challenges the authority of our
> Parliament, government established in the capital and sovereignty of the of
> the country. It is contrary to our unitary system of State. Government
> should fulfill its commitment immediately. It has ample time still to
> review
> and remove the anti-Bangladesh clauses from the treaty.
>
> I would also urge all concerned to follow the instruction of the Ministry
> of
> Foreign Affairs. Mandatory law should be made immediately declaring all the
> 13 tribes of CHT as sheltered tribes. Their claim to use the term 'advashi'
> to refer to the tribal people of CHT should be immediately prohibited.
> Government should immediately issue an ordinance in this regard untill a
> new
> law is framed and enacted.
>
> http://www.bangladesh-web.com/view.php?hidRecord=117268
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ethnic minority, not indigenous people
>>
>> FM tells diplomats, editors
>>
>> The tribal people living in Chittagong Hill Tracts are "ethnic
>> minorities"
>> and they should not be called "indigenous" in the region, the government
>> said yesterday in clearing what it said some recent misconceptions about
>> their identity.
>>
>> Briefing foreign diplomats and UN agencies in Dhaka, Foreign Minister
>> Dipu
>> Moni said Bangladesh is concerned over attempts by some quarters at home
>> and
>> abroad to identify the ethnic minority groups as indigenous people in the
>> CHT region.
>>
>> Neither Bangladesh constitution nor any international laws recognise
>> these
>> people as indigenous, she said.
>>
>> Dipu Moni also explained the issue to editors and senior journalists from
>> print and electronic media in a separate briefing yesterday and urged
>> them
>> to take note of it.
>>
>> She told the diplomats that the tribal people most certainly did not
>> reside
>> or exist in the CHT before 16th century and were not considered
>> "indigenous
>> people'' in any historical reference books, memoirs or legal documents.
>>
>> Quoting the Oxford dictionary, the foreign minister said indigenous
>> people
>> are those who "belong to a particular place rather than coming to it from
>> somewhere else".
>>
>> Rather, the CHT people were the late settlers on the Bengal soil and the
>> CHT region compared to the Bangalee native ethnic vast majority residing
>> here for more than 4,000 years, she pointed out.
>>
>> Emerging from the briefing with diplomats, Dipu Moni told journalists
>> there
>> is a move to distract attention from the government's effort to implement
>> the 1997 CHT peace accord by raising the issue that the tribal people are
>> indigenous.
>>
>> She said implementation of the peace accord is top priority of the
>> government. But the process will be hampered if controversies are created
>> over the tribal people's identity.
>>
>> Dipu Moni told the diplomats, "We have noted with concern that the
>> "tribal"
>> people or ethnic minorities in the CHT region have been termed
>> "indigenous
>> peoples" of Bangladesh in two paras of the 2011 Report of the Permanent
>> Forum on Indigenous Issues-PFII, in the context of the Chittagong Hill
>> Tracts Peace Accord."
>>
>> She asserted that there is no internationally accepted definition of
>> "indigenous peoples", and there is no definition of indigenous at all in
>> the
>> UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the PFII in
>> 2006.
>>
>> Claiming that the CHT people are tribal and not indigenous, the foreign
>> minister said it is well recorded, and recent history of the Indian
>> subcontinent and the CHT region reaffirms that the tribal people of CHT
>> migrated to Bangladesh between 16th and 19th centuries from neighboring
>> countries and Mongoloid nations during the Mughal rule in Bengal, mostly
>> as
>> asylum seekers and economic migrants.
>>
>> She said in all acts and laws on the CHT, including the Hill Tracts Act
>> of
>> 1900 and the Hill Districts Council Act of 1989, the CHT ethnic
>> minorities
>> have been identified as "Tribal" population.
>>
>> Most significantly, in the CHT Peace Accord itself the CHT ethnic
>> minorities have been categorised as "Tribal" and not "indigenous
>> peoples."
>>
>> As per the census of 2001, the people of CHT account for less than 1.8
>> percent of the total population of Bangladesh.
>>
>> Giving a special and elevated identity to enfranchise only 1.2 percent of
>> the total population of 150 million by disentitling the 98.8persent
>> cannot
>> be in the national interest of Bangladesh, Dipu Moni said.
>>
>> Reaction of the diplomats was not immediately known.
>>
>> However, Chakma Raja Devasish Roy told The Daily Star, "The government
>> probably is under the impression that recognising indigenous people might
>> mean extra responsibility to bear."
>>
>> He went on, "The constitution does not say that there are no indigenous
>> people in the country. It has not used the word indigenous, but it has
>> not
>> used the word minority either to identify anybody."
>>
>> Devasish Roy also referred to the small ethnic group cultural
>> institutions
>> act made in 2010 by the present government where the law itself stated in
>> its definition part that small ethnic group would mean indigenous people.
>> http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=195963
>> http://www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2011-07-27/news/173388
>>
>


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

[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] FW: {GRP} Scholars raise voice against dowry



               Earlier I posted an announcement for this meeting.  I am now glad to post the outcome of the meeting.  Let us hope the ajami Muslims of the subcontinent will take heed. Violence against women centering on dowry dispute has become a kind of national entertainment in India and Bangladesh.
 
                     Farida Majid
 

Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 04:32:12 -0700

Raise voice against dowry

People urged in a resolution to boycott attending the un-Islamic marriage parties.

Dowry and Reception day dinner forced on bride's parents is illegitimate.

Scholars at Jeddah Seminar _ 20th July 2011
 
Scholars belonging to various schools of thought gathered on one stage and declared unanimously that the system of dowry prevailing in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh is not Islamic. It is corrupt, therefore, illegitimate. Presided over by Mr. Ahmeduddin Owaisi, organized by Socioreforms Society of Jeddah on 20th July, 2011 at Asian Delight Restaurant, Jeddah will be remembered by many with the incident that the electricity broke down before the start of the prog. People sat in severely hot and humid hall for two hours, sweating heavily, still did not move from the seats until the last speaker.

A resolution was signed by the scholars and audience both saying "The wedding parties will be boycotted where there will be dowry or wedding day dinner if given by the bride's guardians".
 
Aleem Khan Falaki who presented the resolution said in his opening speech that the dowry and the Reception day's dinner is allowed in Islam if spent by the bride-groom. This system has been reversed, the bride's parents are compelled to spend, therefore it is not legitimate in Islam. Highlighting the worst consequences, he said the people are crushed financially due to this extravagance. As a result there is alarming Increase in the rate of divorces, prostitution, immoral activities among the youths, girls' marrying to unmatched men without parents permission, court cases of strained relations etc. The witchcraft or satanic magic holders are exploiting the society by luring them to make the grooms slave to the bride. Most important damage is that the inheritance rules in Islam which Quran describes as Line of Control are spoiled due to the dowry system. Once the girls are paid lot of dowry they are deprived of the inheritance of the father. On the other hand the sons too are deprived of the money which they could use to start the business, but they are bound to search odd jobs as the parents are compelled to spend whole saving for the daughters' marriages.

He said the dowry and wedding dinner is a bribe, Israaf (extravagance, a need that is not genuine but created for the sake of pomp, show off for the sake of maintaining the status in the society), reversing of Quranic verses (Quran defines the "man" as who spends from his pocket on women but due to the dowry system the women have become "man" as they are spending from their pocket to buy the man), social blackmail and male prostitution (the price of the groom is fixed on the basis of the qualification, earning, family status etc, and vice versa if the woman Is less beautiful or less educated or widow or divorcee, she has to pay more to the groom), therefore the dowry is Haraam. He presented 2-point Resolution
 
  • Boycott the dowry ridden marriages and let the inviters feel guilty
  • Boycott the wedding day dinner if given by the parents of the girl, this type of dinner is against Sunnah.
 
All the scholars overwhelmingly supported the resolution in the light of Quran and Hadees.
Maulana Mohammed Banayeem, a well known Khateeb and scholar of Jameeatul Ulema-Hind based in Jeddah said the dowry system has become a cancer, Mere admonitions or advises will not effect, it needs operation, the boycott is must. He quoted the Prophet's saying "make the Nikah (marriage act) so much easy that the adultery becomes difficult" but today those who are spending a lot on the wedding day dinner and dowry are helping the adultery to become easy.
 
Maulana Fazlurrahman from Pakistan's Jamaat Ahle-Hadees said that the Prophet had instructed to make the criteria of piousness instead of money, beauty etc in the selection of boy or girl. Otherwise Allah imposes fitna and fasaad . Today whole world is engulfed in the punishment of Fitna. Every act which is not on the method of the prophet is a mutiny against Islam. When no government can tolerate any mutineer, how Allah will tolerate any mutiny against him? He supported the resolution on the basis of pomp and show off.
 
Sheikh Hidayat Sheikh Hamed, well known scholar and orator of Shia community said "people make excuse of the dowry items given to the Prophet's daughter Fatima peace be upon her". He said it is a biggest lie. All scholars of Sunni and Shia religions agree that the dowry purchased was from the money given by Ali peace be upon him as Mehr. He said dowry is defined as that thing which is from Man's money, not woman's otherwise it is illegitimate.
 
Well known scholar of South India's biggest and oldest Islamic university "Jama Nizamia" Maulana Abdul Qadeer Tahir Qadri said the practice of dowry or eating on the expense of girl's parents' expense is an act of begging. Begging is illegitimate in Islam. He quoted the Prophet's saying that "Giver's hand is better than takers hand". Whether it is given with consent in the name of the system or it is demanded, in both cases the taker is lower and giver is better and higher. It is against the self diginity and insult to the man's pride of manlihood.
 
Sheikh Arshad Basheer Madani, a well known ETV Urdu scholar from Medina University and MBA from England strongly supported the resolution and said the horrible damages to the society due to the dowry system are just uncountable. This has indulged the whole community in many morally corrupt activities. He showed how the Government of India too has introduced strict laws to curb this but, since the people do not hesitate to violate the Prophet's own instructions, how can they abide by the Government laws? He presented the statistics of feticide, infanticide, dowry deaths, harassments and court cases etc and proved that the dowry has scattered an imbalance in the society.
 
Chairman Mr. Ahmeduddin Owaisi hailed the anti-dowry campaign and assured that AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi is taking up this campaign to every locality. He said that the dowry, as said by the scholars, is totally unIslamic, and until a few years ago there was neither such dowry problem nor there were the compulsions of lavishly dinners. The excess of money is generating the extravagance. He supported the resolution and appealed to everyone to support to eradicate the dowry and wedding day dinner from the society.
In the conclusion over 200 men and 50 women pledged to boycott the dowry and dinners by raising hands and signed the pledge.
On the vote of thanks by Dr. Haroon Sayeed and Saleem Farooqi, the successful function came to an end.

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


__._,_.___


[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] We have met the Enemy: The Old



Robert Samuelson: We Have Met the Enemy, and He Is Old

07/29/2011 by Peter Hart
 
When your column is headlined "It's the Elderly, Stupid," I guess readers should know what to expect. Robert Samuelson delivers in today's Washington Post (a column that will appear elsewhere around the country, unfortunately), in a nasty diatribe about the kind of debt debate he thinks the country should be having--one that blames older people:

 
Older Americans do not intend to ruin America, but as a group, that's what they're about. On average, the federal government supports each American 65 and over by about $26,000 a year (about $14,000 through Social Security, $12,000 through Medicare). At 65, the average American will live almost 20 more years. Should these sizable annual subsidies begin later and be less for some? It's hard to discuss the budget realistically if you ignore most of what the budget does.

 
The Social Security money they're stealing is theirs, of course--taken out of their paychecks over their entire working lives. What Samuelson is proposing--if he really wants to discuss the budget realistically--is that they should get less of their money back in order to maintain tax cuts for the rich.
Medicare is different, in large part because  healthcare costs really have increased dramatically. That's someone's fault--apparently old people's.
Samuelson goes on to writes about the "contradiction" between people's desire to do something about deficits and their belief that Social Security and Medicare shouldn't be cut. Which isn't a contradiction at all; people support reducing spending in other areas, like the military, and raising revenues via tax hikes on the wealthy. But here's his case:

 
What sustains these contradictions is a mythology holding that, once people hit 65, most become poor. This justifies political dogma among Democrats that resists Social Security or Medicare cuts of even one dollar.
But the premise is wrong. True, some elderly live hand-to-mouth; many more are comfortable, and some are wealthy. The Kaiser Family Foundation reports the following for Medicare beneficiaries in 2010: 25 percent had savings and retirement accounts averaging $207,000 or more; among homeowners (four-fifths of those 65 and older), three-quarters had equity in their houses averaging $132,000; about 25 percent had incomes exceeding $47,000 (that's for individuals, and couples would be higher).

 
So to say "most" old people are poor is wrong--and to prove that, he shows that some older people aren't poor at all.
Go to the Kaiser report he's citing, and you get a very different impression.

From the key findings:
-Half of all Medicare beneficiaries had incomes below $22,000 in 2010; less than 1 percent had incomes over $250,000.
--Half of all Medicare beneficiaries have less than $2,100 in retirement account savings (such as IRAs), and half of all Medicare beneficiaries have less than $31,000 in other financial assets (such as savings accounts)

 
But why focus on the average Medicare recipient when you can isolate the wealthiest and decry all seniors for their plan to "ruin America"? What Samuelson is saying that "we need to recognize that federal retiree programs often represent middle-class welfare." What he actually seems to be saying is that there is inequality--rich people are getting richer. There are ways to redistribute that wealth in order to pay for everyone's healthcare. But something tells me that's not what he's advocating.
Tags: ,


__._,_.___


[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: Ratco Mladic and his arrest. Quite a story of hate politics of Europe.




  Hate politics goes on in Bangladesh as a wishful continuation of the 1971 Genocide.  Mladic's voice has the same ring as saqa Chow, Nizami, Sayeedi, etc.
 
                 Check out the vomit of hatred against India by bd-mailer dhaka-mailer(Munshi), ayi bahar mela, zag the jackal, Ramzan of Qatar, and fAlamgir's zulumgiri communalism.
 
 

ate: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 21:20:56 -0400
Subject: Ratco Mladic and his arrest. Quite a story of hate politics of Europe.

 

Ratko Mladic arrest: Neighbour reveals story

Nick Thorpe By Nick Thorpe BBC News, Lazarevo, Serbia
Nenad Stocovic in the garden of house where Ratko Mladic was arrested Nenad Stocovic tends peppers in the Mladic garden - but says he did not know he was there

"I could have killed 10 of you if I wanted..." Ratko Mladic told the Serbian policemen who came to arrest him. "But I didn't want to. You're just young men, doing your job."
Speaking in a BBC interview, Nenad Stocovic, a next-door neighbour who was with Gen Mladic for four hours during his arrest in the village of Lazarevo on 26 May, has given more details of the events of that morning.
It was a momentous day, when one of the world's biggest manhunts came to an end, and the man accused of committing genocide in Bosnia began his journey to face justice in The Hague.
It was 0500 on a Friday morning. Nenad Stocovic had come down to the garden adjacent to where, as it would turn out, Ratko Mladic was staying with his third cousin, Branko.
Nenad came to water his peppers - "the elephant's ear variety" he tells me proudly, showing the size and shape with his hand. "When suddenly there were policemen everywhere, four in uniform, about 10 in plainclothes."
"'Did someone get killed?' I asked them, 'or have you come to buy a pig or a sheep from Branko?'"
His request to leave quietly was rejected by the tall policeman in charge.
Two pistols "They had no body armour, no helmets, no long-barrelled guns... but they seemed afraid. And they were surprised when they found him."

Continue reading the main story

"Start Quote

If we had known, we would have made sure he was moved to a safer house... where the police would never have found him"

End Quote Nenad Stocovic

Ratko Mladic was sitting in the front room, wearing a tracksuit. His first words to the police were: "I am the man you are looking for." He seemed relieved to be have been discovered, Mr Stocovic tells me.

During the hours which followed, they asked him to sit first outside in the yard of the house, then back inside the room. Three other houses in the village were searched simultaneously.
The tip-off - if that was what brought the police here - appears to have been that Gen Mladic was in the village, not which house he was in. The other houses searched all belong to other, distant relatives of the general.
"The police were polite at all times," Mr Stocovic continues, "treating him almost like a father."
Gen Mladic's two pistols, one American made, with three clips of ammunition, 54 bullets, the other a Yugoslav Zastava 765, were found in a drawer of the closet.
Ratko Mladic, soon after his arrest Ratko Mladic seemed relieved to have been discovered, Nenad Stocovic said
"When the police inspector asked about it, he said the pistol was a gift of a volunteer in our army."
This was far from Gen Mladic's first visit to the village, but definitely the first time it had been searched by the Serbian authorities, in his 16 years on the run.
Around 10 years ago, Gen Mladic came here often, to stay with Branko, and kept his bees near the railway station.
"He walked openly in the streets, everyone knew who he was," Mr Stocovic explains.
"Once I told one of his bodyguards that his gun - a Heckler and Koch - was showing, protruding from under his jacket.
"'It is meant to be,' he said, coolly."
That was the period when either the political will to arrest him did not exist, or when the price - the potential loss of the lives in the police operation; or a nationalist backlash - was deemed too high.
Another bodyguard stood at the edge of the field at that time, and a third, in a white shirt, in the road. It was clear they wanted people to know they were there - 10 years ago.
Paralysis Under arrest this time, Gen Mladic was not handcuffed, and the police complied with his request not to lay hands on him or shackle him in any way.
House where Ratko Mladic was arrested Police had never searched the house before, despite its connection with Mladic
Mr Stocovic and Branko helped him put on a feather jacket, before they took him away. The paralysis in one of his arms made it hard to dress.
"Which one of you is the American?" the general asked the police - little surprise that after 16 years on the run, he could only imagine being taken into custody as part of a Western conspiracy.
Another interesting detail is that Gen Mladic's son Darko had visited Lazarevo very recently, on 6 and 7 May, to celebrate the family's patron saint - St George.
For a village so closely connected to the Mladic family, and where he was known to have visited, it seems astonishing that the Serbian authorities had never searched it before.
"Did you really not know that Mladic was in the village?" I asked Mr Stocovic, in conclusion.
"If we had, we would have made sure he was moved to a safer house, not connected to his relatives, where the police would never have found him," he replies.
Before I go, he says he has a message for the journalists of the world.
"You can help us a lot, but you can also do us a lot of damage. All I ask is that you tell the truth. Only the truth will extinguish the fires. This is the message of a self-educated man."



__._,_.___


[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] India firm on Tipaimukh project amid concerns across border



Incidentally, at the end of the three-day India visit of Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in January last year, a joint communique by the two countries had said:

"The prime minister of India reiterated the assurance that India would not take steps on the Tipaimukh project that would adversely impact Bangladesh."


>>>>>>> Ah those promises!!  :-X



-----Original Message-----
From: Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com>
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 1:06 pm
Subject: [ALOCHONA] India firm on Tipaimukh project amid concerns across border

 

India firm on Tipaimukh project amid concerns across border

The Indian government is going ahead its proposed 1,500-MW Tipaimukh hydel power project in Manipur despite objections from NGOs in India and opposition parties in neighbouring Bangladesh.

Quoting Prem Chand Pankaj, chairman-cum-managing director of the state-owned North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (Neepco), IANS said "All apprehensions are baseless. The mega hydel power project would be commissioned despite opposition within the country and outside."

A section of environmentalists and activists in Manipur and Bangladesh fear that rivers in that country could be adversely impacted by the project.

Originally conceptualised and awarded to Neepco in 1999, the giant power project was handed over to a consortium comprising National Hydroelectric Power Corp (NHPC) and Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam (SJVN) and the Manipur government last year.

Pankaj said: "We would soon ask the government to hand back the project again to Neepco for its early commissioning. The delay in execution of the vital power project would create numerous problems."

"Some so called environmentalists and NGOs for the past few years have been campaigning against the project and misleading people," said Pankaj, who took over as Neepco CMD last month.

Setting aside fears, the senior electrical engineer said only 74 families would be rehabilitated elsewhere due to the implementation of the Rs.8,138-crore ($1.7-billion) Tipaimukh project.

The project, located on the Barak river under Churachandpur district in western Manipur, is under attack from opposition parties and environmental groups in Bangladesh, which say it could cause
desertification in their country.

Part of the Brahmaputra river system, the Barak bifurcates into the Surma and Kushiyara rivers on entering Sylhet district in eastern Bangladesh.

IANS said Bangladesh's opposition leader and former prime minister Khaleda Zia in a letter also asked Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to stop construction of the project.

Incidentally, at the end of the three-day India visit of Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in January last year, a joint communique by the two countries had said:

"The prime minister of India reiterated the assurance that India would not take steps on the Tipaimukh project that would adversely impact Bangladesh."

Additionally, a 10-member Bangladeshi parliamentary delegation conducted an aerial survey of the Tipaimukh dam in July 2009 after opposition over the hydel project's possible ecological impact intensified in Dhaka.

http://www.unbconnect.com/component/news/task-show/id-52631

http://www.samakal.com.bd/details.php?news=13&action=main&option=single&news_id=172306&pub_no=749



__._,_.___


[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

__,_._,___