Banner Advertiser

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

[ALOCHONA] Dhaka should pursue joint basin management of Teesta River



Dhaka should pursue joint basin management of Teesta River


Former interim government adviser Akbar Ali Khan tells New Age

by Shahidul Islam Chowdhury

BANGLADESH should push for complete implementation of the 1974 land boundary agreement and the protocol to the agreement signed during the September 6-7 visit of the Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, says Akbar Ali Khan, a former adviser to the interim government.

'Bangladesh should demand complete implementation of the agreement and the protocol,' he said in an exclusive interview with New Age on Monday.

Akbar Ali believes the government should press for the formation of a Teesta River Commission a la the Mekong River Commission (in Southeast Asia) for total basis management in light of the framework agreement signed during the Indian prime minister's visit.

'Agreement on water sharing is a small part of the solution to a huge problem. The larger issue is solution to river basin management,' he said. 'It would help us sharing power in addition to sharing water.'

Akbar Ali, also a former cabinet secretary, said he was 'disappointed' with Manmohan Singh's statement on the Tipaimukh project.

In the paragraph 22 of the joint statement, India has made it clear that it has 'assumed the responsibilities to decide what is good or bad for Bangladesh, especially in the case of Tipaimukh,' he said.

'This means that India would decide whether Tipaimukh would be good or bad for Bangladesh,' he added.

Excerpts:


What is, in your view, the outcome of the state visit of the Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh?

The relations between Bangladesh and India are very complex. It is not very easy to unfreeze the situation.

It is unfortunate that no meaningful dialogue took place in the last decade at the highest level of the two countries.

I think there should be more consultations between the two governments.

Another problem is that too much expectation were raised by the government and the media that all the problems between the two countries would be solved at one go during Manmohan Singh's visit to Dhaka.

It was an unrealistic dream.

I think we should not be disappointed about the outcome of the visit. We must understand that the road is very long. So, in the larger interests of the two countries, we should try to find ways to continue the journey together.


Some ministers have given the impression that the government bracketed the exchange of letters expressing intent to provide India transit with the signing of an agreement on the sharing of Teesta water? Is it a correct approach to deal with bilateral issues?

This is a myth.

I saw a television interview of Gowher Rizvi who categorically stated that there is no relation between transit and Teesta.

If we read the joint communiqué carefully than we find that Mr Rizvi is right.

In the joint communiqué it is mentioned that Bangladesh has already given transit for transporting oversized containers (over-dimensional cargos) for power station in the Indian state of Tripura through Ashuganj inland port (in Bangladesh) and the road linking Ashugranj and Agartala (in India).

There was a commitment in the paragraph 36 of the joint communiqué that says 'the port could be used for movement of bulk cargo immediately as far as practicable'. It was clearly a case of transit which was given before (signing of) any agreement and it will continue.

Bangladesh has made a very unequivocal commitment to transit and legally it is not essential that there has to be an agreement. It is clear from what has happened in Ashuganj.


Some experts say that the government has in fact provided a 'corridor' to India by allowing transfer of goods between two points of the country through Bangladesh territory. What do you think?

Transit and corridor carry separate connotations. Corridor is a dangerous expression.

Those who were talking about corridor unknowingly do it. It is a dangerous concept. So far the Indians have never claimed a corridor through Bangladesh. We have not given it either. We shall not talk about it.

Transit is a matter of discretion of the Bangladesh government. There is no right involved (for the country which is given transit). Any sovereign country can give transit facility to any country any time. Transit is not a matter of right for India. Transit is a favour given by the Bangladesh government.


What is your view about the discussion on allowing use of Chittagong and Mongla seaports for transfer of goods to and from India for third country trade?

In fact, the government has given transit facility through Ashuganj. Any other form of transit would require time—five to ten years. It would obviously take time to build infrastructure and India need not hurry.


The two countries signed a protocol to the 1974 land boundary agreement for transferring enclaves, exchanging of adversely possessed lands and demarcating 6.5 kilometres of border although India is yet to ratify the agreement. Do you believe the agreement and the protocol would be implemented?

The 1974 land boundary agreement was accepted by all the governments in Bangladesh. Bangladesh has implemented all the commitments that could be implemented from her side alone.

It is the Indians who have thus far not implemented the 1974 land boundary agreement on the plea of agitations and court cases.

However, I have seen in television that some politicians here are raising question about the land boundary agreement. I think there is no use of raising question about the agreement. It is not a matter of some small five or ten acres of land. It is a settled fact done on the basis of some principles agreed in 1974. If you raise questions at that level, the problem will never be solved.

I think Bangladesh should demand complete implementation of the agreement and the protocol.

However, we are not yet sure whether India would implement it at all. We are afraid that they may not be interested to implement the land boundary agreement.


Bangladesh has signed a framework agreement covering almost all aspects of bilateral and multilateral relations without specifying a timeframe.

There is no binding for implementation of the provisions of the framework agreement.

One important thing is some of the provisions reflected India's shift from its previous stands on certain issues.

Article 2 of the agreement says, 'to enhance cooperation in sharing of the waters of common rivers, both parties (countries) will explore the possibilities of common basin management of common rivers for mutual benefit.'

This is for the first time India has formally agreed for 'common basin management of common rivers'.

Now we need to work to develop separate basin management plan for each of the common rivers.


Basin management requires involvement of all co-riparian countries. How can a bilateral agreement be applicable for management of rivers flowing through more than two countries, for example Brahmaputra is originated in China. Some other rivers flowing through Bangladesh and India originated in Nepal and Bhutan.

The agreement would cover most of the common rivers flowing in Bangladesh from India. It is not for all rivers.

There should be wider management for some rivers like Brahmaputra.

However, this is a progressive achievement.


There is no time limit for the framework agreement.

There is a provision (in Article 12 of the agreement) to establish a Joint consultative commission, which will meet annually, for effective and smooth implementation of the agreement.

So no time limit is required when there is a commitment for annual meeting.

If any side does not join the annual meeting then implementation of the agreement would be automatically disrupted.


Ministers here say that the two countries would sign an agreement on sharing waters of Teesta within three months. Is it realistic when the sides have been in discussion on the issue for several decades?

I do not consider it realistic.

Another important thing is I do not believe that signing an agreement for only sharing water would bring much benefit for Bangladesh.

In fact, in summer we see no water in Teesta. There are also serious problem of flood in the region.

India is planning production of 15,000 megawatts electricity by establishing several storages on Teesta.

How this would be administered and what would be share have not been spelt out so far.

Moreover, because of construction of a number of large embankments, there is possibility of more earthquakes in the region.

So for Teesta, according to the framework agreement, we should push for formation of a Teesta river commission like the Mekong River Commission (in Southeast Asia) for total basin management.

It would help us to share power in addition to sharing water.

So agreement for sharing of water is a small part of solution to a huge problem. The larger issue is solution to river basin management.


What is your view about Manmohan Singh's assurance about the Tipaimukh project?

I am very disappointed with paragraph 21 of the joint statement that said Dr Manmohan Singh assured that 'India would not take steps on the Tipaimukh project that would adversely impact Bangladesh'.

This paragraph made it clear that India has assumed the responsibilities to decide what is good or bad for Bangladesh, especially in the case of Tipaimukh.

This means that India would decide whether Tipaimukh would be good or bad for Bangladesh.

I think there should be a discussion between the two countries. It should not be a one-sided decision.


What do you think about India's decision to allow duty free access of 46 textile products from Bangladesh?

The most important thing in this case is whether necessary conditions are there in favour of Bangladesh. These provisions do not ensure that Bangladesh would be able to export these products.

The Indian companies need to buy our products for implementation of duty free access to Indian market. If they do not buy showing different reasons what would we do?

In the past we have seen there were a lot of problems in the form of anti-dumping duties on products, for example battery, exported from Bangladesh. There are other non-tariff barriers.

So I am not very confident that there would be any significant increase in bilateral trade. But we should continue to try to find out solutions to all the problems.

That is why I have said that there are complex problems in trade between the two countries.


How about the memorandum of understanding on exchanges of programmes between the BTV and Doordarshan?

The number of viewers of the BTV is decreasing. If the government thought that the BTV programmes would be shown on Indian national television, I do not know to what extent the BTV would be successful.

If the BTV produces programmes only for Bangladesh audience, it would fail to attract audience in India.


And connectivity?

Paragraph 42 of the joint statement says 'the establishment of physical infrastructure would promote exchange of goods and traffic, and lead to the connectivity of services, information, ideas, culture and people'.

Here we need to observe that they have kept 'people' after 'services, information and ideas'.

I think connectivity among people is much more important for connectivity of services, information and ideas. There will be no benefit of connectivity unless the people are not connected.

But in real life we see a lot of obstacles to connectivity among the people. Barbed wire was erected along the border. We are firing on innocent people on the border. We have a complex visa system. We have unresolved problems at enclaves for couple of decades that hindered movement of people across the region.

These are the barriers on ways of building trust which is essential for connectivity among people.

What I must say is that we should move fast to restore confidence.

I believe when there will be a climate of goodwill in both sides, only than people will build connectivity for them across the region.

http://newagebd.com/newspaper1/op-ed/33195.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: Corridor by tricks- Bangladesh in crisis of protecting sovereignty [1 Attachment]

[Attachment(s) from Isha Khan included below]

Corridor by tricks- Bangladesh in crisis of protecting sovereignty.doc

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:
Zoglul Husain
zoglul@hotmail.co.uk writes:

Subject: কৌশলে করিডোর প্রদানঃ সার্বভৌমত্ব রক্ষার সংকটে বাংলাদেশ -মেজর ফারুক আহমেদ (অবঃ)

Forwarding to you the excellent article by Maj (Retd) Faruk Ahmed as follows:  
 
http://www.voiceofbangladesh.info/details_all.php?id=103&table_name=essays&writer_id=0



Attachment(s) from Isha Khan

1 of 1 File(s)


__._,_.___


[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] Worth a listen - As'ad AbuKhalil on Saudi counter revolution



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7KUu2Swp4E

Saudi counter revolution

A talk As'ad AbuKhalil (Angry Arab) given in London in July on the Saudi counter-revolution at the invitation of Saudi opposition groups. (thanks Rashid)


__._,_.___


[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: [mukto-mona] Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury's column--my comments--see bel ow




Jinnah's proposal alone would not have created Pakistan. It was Suhrawady's call for direct action that led to the very first communal riot in Kolkata, creating a notion that Hindu and Muslim cannot live together, which motivated Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, etc. to give in to the demand for separate Muslim State.

 

Did it end communality in that part of the world? Not at all, in fact, it has increased communality. Therefore, it won't be too outrageous to say that Jinnah-Suhrawardy theory was wrong. I think - that was the point of Ghaffor Chowdhury's column.

 

When we say that leaders may make erroneous decisions based on the prevailing circumstances, we want to give them a pass for their wrong decisions. Why is that? Jinnah-Suhrawardy actions have adversely affected cores of innocent Hindu and Muslim lives. Shouldn't we at least point out their wrong decisions?

 

Jiten Roy

 
--- On Wed, 9/14/11, nightingale30@juno.com <nightingale30@juno.com> wrote:


From: nightingale30@juno.com <nightingale30@juno.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury's column--my comments--see bel ow
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2011, 1:17 PM

 
Hello Dear:
I could not resist myself to add something here regarding Mr. Gaffar Chowdhury's analysis of Jinnah time and time again. Mr. Chowdhury's make up stories cannot hold water and if anyone can read the readers' comments underneath the article of Mr. Chowdhury - especially Mr. Kader Siddiqy's bomb shell comment against Mr. Chowdhury then it will be enough NOT to take Mr. Chowdury seriously! Mr. Chowdury lies purposefully and does not bother to create (H)istory himself, which is deplorable! The perspective of 1947 and division of India were totally different at that time and though it is very easy to say many things today but at that time the ongoing politics proved CORRECT and RIGHT so that the main stream of politics took the RIGHT stand on the prevailing issues at that time. The Pakistan was created in 1947 had lost its way right after the pre-mature and mysterious sudden death of Jinnah - Jinnah did not create or WANTED to create the Pakistan, which we got in Post Jinnah time since 1948 and that's why the first Pakistani opposition party was formed under the name of Jinnah by Bengal's leader Hussein Shaheed Suhrawardy, the mentor of our national pride and father of the nation Bongobondhu, as Jinnah Muslim League to confront the perverted Muslim League politics at post Jinnah time! From Jinnah Muslim League to create Awami Muslim League and then to Awami League all of these political platforms were created by Hussein Shaheed Suhrawardy as its prime initiator to get back the real Pakistan, which was envisioned at the time of its inception from 1940's Lahore Resolution to 1947s division of India time period!! Since Pakistani quotery interest/vested Interest could not be subdued due to many reasons eventually Suhrawardy's creation Awami League and disciple Sheikh Mujib led the nation to break the shackle of faulty Pakistan country to get our own!!
Sheikh Mujib himself was the instrumental in promoting and campaigning to Miss Fatema Jinnah as the COP (Combined Opposition Party) presidential candidate against Field Martial Ayub Khan and at that time the main reason to bring non-political element Miss Jinnah to politics just to prove that the current Pakistani leadership lost the way of Jinnah so that father of the nation Quide Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah's own sister Miss Fatema Jinnah would lead back to the nation towards the right direction of Jinnah's Pakistan - at least Bongobondhu (Mr. Gaffar Chowdhury did not think in that way at that time?) also believed in that and took side with Miss Jinnah just to bring back Pakistan to the path as Jinnah saw at the time of its inception!!!
As Mr. Chowdhury pointed out once more that one US Journalist told him that if we were in Pakistan today then we would be turned fundamentalist country as Pakistani army made the country nowadays - Mr. Gaffar Chowdhury is being GGAAN PAAPI and knows every equation well but twists the fact in his favor. The clear cut answer of this glorifying of Bangladesh chapter is that if we remained with Pakistan today then definitely Mujib and his Awami League would not let Pakistan to be the fundamentalist country as it is nowadays - Mujib - AL and his promoter daily Ittefaq and all other patriot political parties and leaderships' goal of the time was to bring back Pakistan to the right track as it was lost its way since Jinnah's death and neutralize the FAUZI (army) rule and their audacious interference in governance - that was total aim and objective of Pakistani politics of the time. So, if we did not get Independence at that time even then we would not be a part of perverted Pakistan as it is today - whole lot of movements in Pakistan in 60s to 1970 election period was aiming at creating the secular Pakistan as Jinnah dictated in his first speech as a Governor General of new State in 1947!
Pakistan movement never to be meant for creating a one State - obviously it was envisioned States - more than one PAKISTAN, which was a conception, in Muslim majority areas of the sub-continent. Bengal was totally out of Jinnah's Pakistan movement - so that Suhrawardy-Abul Hashim within Muslim League politics was engaged at the same time of Jinnah's Pakistan movement to create an Independent Undivided Sovereign Bengal! But for whose unwillingness and foul play we did not get the Undivided Independent Sovereign Bengal just get that fact! Jinnah never ever asked us to be part of his Pakistan but it was Nehru-Patel's Congress and RSS leader Dr. Shyama Prashad Mukherjee type of Hindu leaders sealed off our fate in 1947 and put us to go for Jinnah's one Pakistan boat to create the most unscientific creation of a country in the world history and we had to get a truncated country but it was NOT due to Jinnah to have the sealed off fate of Bengal and truncated country rather it was otherwise and Mr. Chowdhury is so blind that he refuses to see that historical facts because he has some intention to put UDOR PINDI BUDHOR GAAREY as usually.
To get the fact of Division of India the curious reader should read, even Mr. Chowdhury too, the most informative and authentic book LOOK IN TO THE MIRROR by Mujib's lifelong friend and daily Ittefaq's News and Executive Editor Journalist Serajuddin Hossain!
 
Regards,    
Saleem R. Noor
New York
USA
 
 
Please note: message attached

From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury's column--my comments--see below
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:26:06 -0700 (PDT)



____________________________________________________________
2550% Penny Stock Gains?
Our last pick exploded 2550% - Join our newsletter for free picks!
PennyStocksExpert.com


__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




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: [mukto-mona] Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury's column--my comments--see bel ow



Hello Dear:
I could not resist myself to add something here regarding Mr. Gaffar Chowdhury's analysis of Jinnah time and time again. Mr. Chowdhury's make up stories cannot hold water and if anyone can read the readers’ comments underneath the article of Mr. Chowdhury - especially Mr. Kader Siddiqy’s bomb shell comment against Mr. Chowdhury then it will be enough NOT to take Mr. Chowdury seriously! Mr. Chowdury lies purposefully and does not bother to create (H)istory himself, which is deplorable! The perspective of 1947 and division of India were totally different at that time and though it is very easy to say many things today but at that time the ongoing politics proved CORRECT and RIGHT so that the main stream of politics took the RIGHT stand on the prevailing issues at that time. The Pakistan was created in 1947 had lost its way right after the pre-mature and mysterious sudden death of Jinnah - Jinnah did not create or WANTED to create the Pakistan, which we got in Post Jinnah time since 1948 and that's why the first Pakistani opposition party was formed under the name of Jinnah by Bengal's leader Hussein Shaheed Suhrawardy, the mentor of our national pride and father of the nation Bongobondhu, as Jinnah Muslim League to confront the perverted Muslim League politics at post Jinnah time! From Jinnah Muslim League to create Awami Muslim League and then to Awami League all of these political platforms were created by Hussein Shaheed Suhrawardy as its prime initiator to get back the real Pakistan, which was envisioned at the time of its inception from 1940’s Lahore Resolution to 1947s division of India time period!! Since Pakistani quotery interest/vested Interest could not be subdued due to many reasons eventually Suhrawardy’s creation Awami League and disciple Sheikh Mujib led the nation to break the shackle of faulty Pakistan country to get our own!!
Sheikh Mujib himself was the instrumental in promoting and campaigning to Miss Fatema Jinnah as the COP (Combined Opposition Party) presidential candidate against Field Martial Ayub Khan and at that time the main reason to bring non-political element Miss Jinnah to politics just to prove that the current Pakistani leadership lost the way of Jinnah so that father of the nation Quide Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah's own sister Miss Fatema Jinnah would lead back to the nation towards the right direction of Jinnah's Pakistan - at least Bongobondhu (Mr. Gaffar Chowdhury did not think in that way at that time?) also believed in that and took side with Miss Jinnah just to bring back Pakistan to the path as Jinnah saw at the time of its inception!!!
As Mr. Chowdhury pointed out once more that one US Journalist told him that if we were in Pakistan today then we would be turned fundamentalist country as Pakistani army made the country nowadays - Mr. Gaffar Chowdhury is being GGAAN PAAPI and knows every equation well but twists the fact in his favor. The clear cut answer of this glorifying of Bangladesh chapter is that if we remained with Pakistan today then definitely Mujib and his Awami League would not let Pakistan to be the fundamentalist country as it is nowadays - Mujib - AL and his promoter daily Ittefaq and all other patriot political parties and leaderships’ goal of the time was to bring back Pakistan to the right track as it was lost its way since Jinnah's death and neutralize the FAUZI (army) rule and their audacious interference in governance - that was total aim and objective of Pakistani politics of the time. So, if we did not get Independence at that time even then we would not be a part of perverted Pakistan as it is today - whole lot of movements in Pakistan in 60s to 1970 election period was aiming at creating the secular Pakistan as Jinnah dictated in his first speech as a Governor General of new State in 1947!
Pakistan movement never to be meant for creating a one State - obviously it was envisioned States - more than one PAKISTAN, which was a conception, in Muslim majority areas of the sub-continent. Bengal was totally out of Jinnah's Pakistan movement - so that Suhrawardy-Abul Hashim within Muslim League politics was engaged at the same time of Jinnah's Pakistan movement to create an Independent Undivided Sovereign Bengal! But for whose unwillingness and foul play we did not get the Undivided Independent Sovereign Bengal just get that fact! Jinnah never ever asked us to be part of his Pakistan but it was Nehru-Patel's Congress and RSS leader Dr. Shyama Prashad Mukherjee type of Hindu leaders sealed off our fate in 1947 and put us to go for Jinnah's one Pakistan boat to create the most unscientific creation of a country in the world history and we had to get a truncated country but it was NOT due to Jinnah to have the sealed off fate of Bengal and truncated country rather it was otherwise and Mr. Chowdhury is so blind that he refuses to see that historical facts because he has some intention to put UDOR PINDI BUDHOR GAAREY as usually.
To get the fact of Division of India the curious reader should read, even Mr. Chowdhury too, the most informative and authentic book LOOK IN TO THE MIRROR by Mujib's lifelong friend and daily Ittefaq's News and Executive Editor Journalist Serajuddin Hossain!
 
Regards,    
Saleem R. Noor
New York
USA
 
 
Please note: message attached

From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury's column--my comments--see below
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:26:06 -0700 (PDT)



__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




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: [mukto-mona] A short analysis of present western civilization and Islamic teachings and system ¨ : Shah Abdul Hannan

The topic was Western society Vs. Islamic Society. Please make a stand so that we can advance this thought. I clearly expressed mine, and so did Mr. Hannan and others. I did not hear yours' yet.  



Actually all societies of our world have some positives and some bad sides to them. Therefore, as stated earlier this topic ( Western society Vs. Islamic Society) is flawed. I have no problems in recognizing contributions of the west and I have no issues in recognizing contribution of Islamic civilization either.

Also all "Western" societies do not have same values. For example Europeans do not support death penalty but Americans do. On the other hands Americans mostly avoided colonizing nations to accumulate wealth but Europeans did not for hundreds of years.

Same story with "Islamic societies".  Malaysia and Saudi Arabia are both Islamic countries but they have different values and laws for themselves.

For the same reasons I do not waste my time "Debating" between Rabindranath and Nazrul Islam. I enjoy both.

I do not debate between Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Ziaur Rahman either. I think both had great contribution towards our freedom of 1971 ( One inspired the nation for it and the other fought from the first day the country was attacked!). Both of them made some mistakes after becoming leaders of the nation but they are human and  I am willing to forgive them and celebrate their contribution.

Both western democracies and Islamic communities have "Common values" as well. After Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) died, the best leader was selected to lead his people. Prophet's family members were NOT asked to lead the people. Maybe it was primitive form of democracy but it was not family rule. Over 1400 years ago minorities and women were given specific rights that was unheard of during that time. In fact most current "Islamic communities" cannot claim to come close to that "Ideal" place in Medina or even in Spain.

I like bit and pieces of both Islamic practices and western practices. So it would be hypocritical for me to take sides.  Hope it answers your questions.

Peace. :-)


-----Original Message-----
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Sep 14, 2011 6:09 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] A short analysis of present western civilization and Islamic teachings and system ¨ : Shah Abdul Hannan

Mr. Rahman,
The topic was Western society Vs. Islamic Society. Please make a stand so that we can advance this thought. I clearly expressed mine, and so did Mr. Hannan and others. I did not hear yours' yet.  
 
Jiten Roy

--- On Tue, 9/13/11, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:

From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] A short analysis of present western civilization and Islamic teachings and system ¨ : Shah Abdul Hannan
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2011, 9:15 AM

Both Mr. Roy and Mr. Hannan failed to give a dispassionate opinion here. They stayed with their own point of view and did not see any good in a different point of view.

The truth is NO society in this world is perfect or even close to prefect. We live with contradictions and preferences. Often our preferences define our communities. Not only women, men are also treated as numbers and "Commodities" in free market societies. Islam is for free market but offers "Safe guards" against exploitations of men and women. Bottom line is even near perfect systems and perfect systems can produce bad results if you have leaders like Saddam or Ghaddafi.
=========================

Next - nudity. It's a freedom of expression for women. Every woman has options to choose from.

I respectfully disagree!!

I am all for freedom for men and women but walking nude in public is NOT a right. I do not know of any country of our time who tolerates or accept such thoughtless ideals. If a woman wants to walk nude inside her house, even the strictest religious scholar from Saudi Arabia cannot do anything about it. However try walking nude in Time Square of New York city and see how many seconds will it take to meet "American Sharia police" to haul your ass to jail!! ;-)

So I do not buy these immature one liner which has NO connection to the real world.

I noticed we have many smart individuals in this forum of free thinkers but free thinkers need to "Free themselves" from their biases to make a credible argument. My two cents...


Shalom!!

-----Original Message-----
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Sep 12, 2011 7:43 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] A short analysis of present western civilization and Islamic teachings and system ¨ : Shah Abdul Hannan


I do not mind whatever you like believe. It's your choice. You have posted in the Mukto-mona forum for discussion, so I am going to opine on the subject.
 
I do not judge a social system by its theory alone; I need outcome. I believe that - a tree is known by its fruit. There is no better social system than Socialism, but did not work in practice. Islam as a social system has similarity with Socialism, and, I know, it has not worked in practice also. Can you show me a country that is prosperous under the strict Sharia Laws? The Islamic countries that are semi-prosperous (Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc.) do not follow Sharia Laws, as far as I know. Countries that follow Sharia Laws closely are Saudi Arabia and Iran.  They are semi-prosperous, but not due to their social system. If you take away contributions of their natural resources from their economy - you will see Ethiopian societies and life-style in those countries also. Therefore, before you can sell the argument that Islam is the best social system – you have to show us some results. Otherwise, don't call a blind-eye a lotus-eye, because nobody will believe it, except ideologues, with faith, who don't need proof or result.
 
Forget about the Western societies. How about China and India? They are attaining prosperity without Islam, if you want to know. You cannot trash the Western societies by pointing out some negative aspects like alcoholism, divorce, nudity, etc. These are the results of freedom of choices, where individuals (both male and female) make their own decisions. 
 
Alcohol consumption is not as evil as you think. I believe - it is one of many inventions that have contributed towards the prosperity in the world. It helps relax your brain, which is needed for replenishment. It's like taking a nap after tiresome works to regain energy. A relaxed brain is a fertile ground for innovations. I really believe - alcohol has helped the western world to be where it is today. Of course, excess of everything is bad.
 
Next is marriage and divorce. Do you know why divorce is less in the Islamic society? It's because – women have no choice but to stay with their men. They live in a man's world.
 
Next - nudity. It's a freedom of expression for women. Every woman has options to choose from. Do you want to cover rose flowers in your garden with black clothes so that nobody – but you can see? That's what you do when you cover beautiful faces with veils or push women in the harem. Your argument is that - you do this to protect women from men. Who is at fault here – man or women? Why will you punish woman for man's fault?  I hope - you can understand my point.
 
I have many more to say on this subject, but I will stop here. It's getting too long.
 
Jiten Roy

--- On Sat, 9/10/11, S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com> wrote:

From: S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com>
Subject: [mukto-mona] A short analysis of present western civilization and Islamic teachings and system ¨ : Shah Abdul Hannan
To: dahuk@yahoogroups.com, "'WitnessPioneer'" <witness-pioneer@yahoogroups.com>, "'Khobor'" <khabor@yahoogroups.com>, banglarnari@yahoogroups.com, mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, September 10, 2011, 10:17 PM

 
 

পাশ্চাত্য ইসলামি ব্যবস্খার তুলনা

শাহ আবদুল হান্নান

ইসলামি জীবনধারা পাশ্চাত্য জীবনধারার তুলনামূলক আলোচনাই এই নিবন্ধের উদ্দেশ্য। কারণ আমার অনেক বন্ধু পাশ্চাত্যের ভক্ত। পাশ্চাত্যের উন্নয়ন, তাদের বিরাট বিরাট বিল্ডিং, তাদের যোগাযোগব্যবস্খা, তাদের গণতন্ত্র আমার বন্ধুদেরকে খুবই আকৃষ্ট করে। পাশ্চাত্যের ভালোকে মন্দ বলা লেখার উদ্দেশ্য নয়। তবে তাদের জীবনধারা এবং সিস্টেমগুলোর অসম্পূর্ণতা তুলে ধরা লেখার উদ্দেশ্য। শেষের দিকে ইসলাম বা মুসলিম সিস্টেমের ব্যাপারেও কিছু উল্লেখ করব।

এর মধ্যে লেখক হুমায়ূন আহমেদের আত্মজীবনীমূলক বই আপনাকে আমি খুঁজিয়া বেড়াই পড়লাম। তাতে হুমায়ূন আহমেদ আমেরিকার সমাজব্যবস্খাকে পছন্দ করেননি। তিনি লিখছেন যে, একটা সন্তান জন্ম নেয়ার পর থেকেই আলাদা কটে থাকে। শিশুকে ঘড়ি ধরে খাওয়ানো হয়। কাঁদলেও সময়ের আগে খাওয়ানো হয় না। সন্তান দাদা-দাদি, নানা-নানি, চাচা-মামা, ফুফু, খালাদের সঙ্গ পায় না। বয়স হলে আলাদা বাসায় থাকতে হয়। তার চাকরি তাকে জোগাড় করতে হয়। তার বিয়ে তাকে করতে হয় মেয়ে হলে শত শত ছেলের পেছনে ঘুরতে হয়। এর জন্য তাকে অনেক মূল্য দিতে হয়। তা বলার অপেক্ষা রাখে না। মা-বাবার সাথে সম্পর্ক খুব কমই থাকে। ধরনের বিয়ে টেকেও কম। ছাড়াছাড়ি অনেক বেশি হয়। স্ত্রী বা স্বামী বদল অনেক ঘটে। হুমায়ূন আহমেদ আরো অনেক কিছু লিখেছেন। আমার ধারণাও তাই। তাদের সমাজব্যবস্খা ভালো নয়। বৃদ্ধরাও ভালো নেই। শিশুরাও ভালো নেই। উন্নয়ন আর ভালো যোগাযোগব্যবস্খা অনেকটা নিরর্থক। তাদের কালচার দু:খজনক। সবই নোংরামি। মদ নোংরামি তাদের কালচার। শিক্ষাপ্রতিষ্ঠান, সিনেমা, টিভিতে নোংরামি নগ্নতা। সি-বিচ, হোটেল, ভ্রমণ সব কিছুতেই নোংরামি নগ্নতা। হুমায়ূন আহমেদ তার বইয়ের এক জায়গায় লিখেছেন, সেখানে নারীর মর্যাদা বলে তেমন কিছু নেই। পুরুষরা মনে করে, যা কিছু খারাপ সব মেয়েলি কাজ। নারীকে মানুষ হিসেবে দেখা হয় না, কেবল নারী হিসেবে দেখা হয়। হুমায়ূন আহমেদের লেখায় কথা পেয়ে আমি অবাক হয়েছি। নারীকে যে বাস্তবে পণ্য হিসেবে বিবেচনা করা হয় তাও আমরা জানি।

শত উন্নতি সত্ত্বেও তাদের আর্থিক ব্যবস্খাকে ভালো বলা যায় না। নিজের দেশের নিম্নবিত্তদের পরদেশ শোষণ করে ইউরোপ আমেরিকার বিত্ত গড়ে উঠেছে। পুঁজিপতিরা মূলত শোষক। কিছু করপোরেশনের হাতেই সব বিত্ত। সুদব্যবস্খা সম্পদ কেন্দ্রীভূতকরণে সাহায্য করেছে। সে দেশে গৃহহীন লোকের সংখ্যা অনেক। অনেকের চিকিৎসাসুবিধা নেই। পুঁজিবাদ দারিদ্র্য সমস্যার সমাধান করতে অক্ষম।

সেসব দেশের ভালো দিক বলা যায় গণতন্ত্রকে। কিন্তু তা- এখন পুঁজিপতিদের নিয়ন্ত্রণে। পুঁজিপতিদের চাঁদায় তারা নির্বাচিত হন এবং পার্টি চালান। ফলে পুঁজির স্বার্থে তাদের দেশীয় নীতি পররাষ্ট্রনীতি পরিচালিত হয়। অবস্খায় গণতন্ত্রের আসল উদ্দেশ্য পূরণ হয় বলে মনে হয় না।
এর তুলনায় আমাদের ব্যবস্খা তুলনামূলকভাবে ভালো। ইসলামি ব্যবস্খার তো কথাই নেই­ যেখানে পরিবার শক্তিশালী করাই মূল কথা। বাবা-মা এবং শিশুদের স্বার্থরক্ষা করা গুরুত্বপূর্ণ। মুসলিম কালচারে নোংরামি নগ্নতা বলে কিছু নেই। মুসলিম সমাজের নোংরামি পাশ্চাত্য থেকে আমদানিকৃত। ইসলামি অর্থনীতিতে পুঁজিবাদ নেই। বাজার স্বাধীন, তবে তার হিসাবায়ন (হিসবা বা accountability) সরকারকে করতে হয়।

ইসলামে সরকারের দায়িত্ব সবার কাজের ব্যবস্খা করা, না হয় ভরণপোষণের ব্যবস্খা করা। অবশ্য তা তখনই করা হবে, যখন আত্মীয়স্বজন সে দায়িত্ব নিতে সক্ষম নয়। জাকাতব্যবস্খা দারিদ্র্য লাঘবে সাহায্য করে। ইসলাম উন্নয়ন চায়। ব্যাপারে অবশ্যই আমাদের অনেক ব্যর্থতা আছে। মুসলিম বিশ্বের অনেক জায়গায় এখনো দারিদ্র্য রয়ে গেছে উন্নয়ন না করার কারণে। আমাদের ব্যর্থতায় বাংলাদেশেও দারিদ্র্য ব্যাপক।
সবাই একমত যে, গণতন্ত্র ইসলামসম্মত, তবে তা আল্লাহর বিধানসাপেক্ষ হবে। ক্ষেত্রেও আমাদের ব্যর্থতা অনেক। আমরা ভালো করে গণতান্ত্রিক ব্যবস্খা গড়ে তুলতে পারিনি। বাংলাদেশের গণতান্ত্রিক ব্যবস্খা দুর্বল।

লেখক : সাবেক সচিব, বাংলাদেশ সরকার
[
সূত্রঃ নয়া দিগন্ত, ১১/০৯/১১]