Banner Advertiser

Saturday, October 1, 2011

[ALOCHONA] Transit in exchange for water: from Ganges 1996 to Teesta 2011



Transit in exchange for water: from Ganges 1996 to Teesta 2011

The legitimate fear is the government will not be able to protect and uphold vital interests of the country properly, extensively and scrupulously. The outcome will be that India will get almost everything that it wants but Bangladesh will get a few anecdotal, symbolic and token items in return, writes Omar Khasru

THE food for work programme started as a relief operation in 1975 and was designed to gradually evolve into a development-oriented undertaking. In the tortuous attempt to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, the catchphrase is 'land for peace' swap, the connotation being Israel would relinquish occupied land in exchange for peace with neighbouring Arab countries. In the ongoing India-Bangladesh colloquy and proposed deal, it has now turned into transit for Teesta water exchange through a convoluted and capricious churning of events.

That is just too bad. The quid-pro-quo of granting transit to India in exchange for fair share of Teesta water is seriously objectionable. The share of water is our inherent and fundamental right according to international laws and covenants, of which India and Bangladesh, like rest of the civilised world, are co-signatories. Transit is an immense favour that Bangladesh has the right to grant India or refuse. The two cannot be put in the same category and bargained for to reach a barter deal similar to land for peace in the Arab-Israeli context.

In all these years the two countries have signed only the ineffective, inadequate and unequal Ganges water-sharing treaty. Extrapolating the mathematical computation, at this rate it would take more than 2,700 years to sign agreements on all 54 common rivers, with India in the commanding position as the upper riparian country of controlling the water flow of each to Bangladesh.

The sole trump card and potent factor and favour that Bangladesh has to offer is transit. If we use up this lone trump card to get a deal on Teesta, what will we offer for the water sharing deals in the remaining 52 rivers? Why would India care to reach a just agreement in any one of these in the future?

What would prevent India, as the perennially unfair, unfeeling and uncaring, and supremely insensitive and inconsiderate neighbour, to perpetually deprive Bangladesh of fair share of water from these rivers, notwithstanding the placebo and sugar-coated full-of-hope talk of good days, good times and great relationship between the two neighbours by the current regime and staunchly pro-Awami lobby, intelligentsia and cronies.

The Indian yearning and quest for transit through Bangladesh is nothing new. The craving was there ever since the partition of the British-ruled South Asian subcontinent into India and Pakistan in 1947. During 1947-71, when the current Bangladesh (the then East Pakistan) was a part of Pakistan, the clamour was largely muted because of the extremely antagonistic Indo-Pakistan relationship. The outcry got louder after the independence of Bangladesh.

The right of transit through Bangladesh to reach the Northeast Indian states has immense economic, military and strategic significance. The financial gains in terms of transport cost, time and distance factors would also be hefty. The Indian demand and desire for transit subsequently got to a cacophonous level and eventually reached a crescendo in the recent years.

Back in the mid-1990s, India pledged more Ganges water to flow into Bangladesh during dry season and lean period in exchange for gaining the right of transit to reach its North-eastern states of Assam, Arunachal, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura (so-called seven sisters) from the rest of India. The 'transit for water' deal was a part of the Indian position at the beginning of the negotiations which led to the Farakka accord in late 1996 during the previous Awami League regime.

During the July 1996 Dhaka visit, the then Indian foreign secretary Salman Haider linked Ganges water-sharing with land access to the Northeast India. When asked about the link between transit and water sharing, Haider said, 'Transit occupies a pivotal consideration in our thinking.'

Earlier, during Khaleda Zia's 1991-96 government, India proposed that Bangladesh allow rail and road traffic rights, use of Chittagong port, and export of Bangladeshi natural gas to India in return for increased Ganges water flow to Bangladesh at Farakka. In 1994, a few new features were added to this proposal: supply of electricity to India from gas-operated power plants in Bangladesh and setting up of petroleum, chemical and fertiliser factories along the border within Bangladesh to supply Indian markets.

Export of natural gas was also not a fresh proposal. India had asked Bangladesh in 1980 to explore and consider the possibility. Even the mere suggestion of this incited such a backlash that the then president Ziaur Rahman was compelled to reject India's proposal outright.

The railway transit proposal was raised by New Delhi several times during the military rule of General HM Ershad (1982-1990). The World Bank customarily broached the subject during the feasibility study of the Jamuna Bridge (renamed as the Bangabandhu Bridge). Ershad refused to consider the proposal after careful consideration of the possible political fallout.

The transit for greater quantity of water scheme created an outcry in Bangladesh during the previous Hasina regime, most stridently from Khaleda Zia's Bangladesh Nationalist Party, the opposition party back then also. The ruling coalition headed by Sheikh Hasina handled the matter rather gingerly and cautiously. In the course of the negotiations, the Indian side realised that the insistence on transit would be untenable, unattainable and futile.

The then Indian foreign minister IK Gujral, during his September 1996 Dhaka visit, stated that India was not pressing for transit in exchange of water. This was a departure from the previous stance as reiterated earlier by his foreign secretary. The minister perhaps realised that the 1996-2001 Awami League administration had a tiny majority and was not secure or strong enough to deliver transit. India did not want to cause discomfort or unease to a regime it regarded as more sympathetic and friendly than any other in recent times.

The inability to grant transit and other goodies perhaps partly explains the shoddy Ganges water sharing deal that turned out to be ineffective, inadequate and unequal. The evidence is that much of the river resembles a dry and sandy landmass during the lean period with Bangladesh never receiving the legitimate, justifiable or fair share of water. With guarantee or arbitration clauses missing in the treaty, there is very little Bangladesh can do to resolve the deprivation.

So what has changed? Why does the Awami League government now feel assured in offering transit in addition to the use of seaports with almost nothing substantial in return? The current Awami League regime, for one thing, has a big and brute majority in the parliament, whereas the major opposition party is in shambles. The regime feels powerful and confident enough to meet and deliver the age-old Indian demands. It is offering now what it did not feel comfortable with in 1996. It is complying with Indian wishes that it did not feel safe to comply with back then. India was just waiting for the right regime and the right situation.

The local Indian lobby, pliant politicians and partisan experts, foreign powers and their envoys, and multilateral donor agencies all started pushing hard and putting pressure for transit and assorted Indian desires. They presented rosy pictures of turning Bangladesh into Switzerland and Singapore, wiping off the yeoman trade imbalance, charging considerable transit fee from India to shower the country and its citizens with milk and honey, fulfilling all the country's needs and pushing the collective standard of living by a few notches.

Few members of the same transit promoting snake oil salesmen now proclaim that the pursuit of hefty transit fee is an uncivilised and uncouth gesture and Bangladesh at best should receive a token fee. Some advisors to the prime minister and others now are offering vague and intangible benefits in terms of jargons, such as connectivity, friendship, cooperation and togetherness. When some of them talk about the issue, they seem to represent the Indian point of view trying to spotlight long-term illusory and ambiguous gain for this country.

The legitimate fear is the government will not be able to protect and uphold vital interests of the country properly, extensively and scrupulously. The outcome will be that India will get almost everything that it wants but Bangladesh will get a few anecdotal, symbolic and token items in return. This genuine concern is based on past experiences and the ongoing fragile and bumbling bargaining attempts with big and powerful neighbour, with our acquiescent official representatives fawning and falling head over heels to appease the Indian side.

The Teesta deal, as we all know, was abandoned in the eleventh hour outwardly due to intransigent opposition of the newly crowned Pashchim Banga chief minister, Mamata Banerjee. She apparently was peeved that Bangladesh was offered whole of 48 per cent of the Teesta water on the basis of the measurement of the flow of water at Gojoldoba Point, 25 kilometres from Siliguri in North Bengal. She was hell-bent to spare no more than 25 per cent of the water. The latest news is that she and the opposition left front in Pashchim Banga are in total agreement not even to concede that paltry 25 per cent.

So if the offer of the long-sought-after longing for transit is unable to snare a fair deal of a single river, how can we get fair share of water from the 52 other common rivers? Once the trump card of transit is spent and gone from Bangladesh, India will lose both the enthusiasm and desire to arrive at deals to share the water of other rivers.

The future, like the present, looks bleak and hopeless. Bangladesh necessarily needs to be extremely stingy, slow, insightful and deliberate in granting even a part of transit (water, rail or land). The stiff asking price should be a fair share of Teesta water as the mere first instalment of emblematic down payment. The favour would be slowly and carefully expanded each time with the settlement of successive water-sharing arrangements that would both be acceptable and beneficial for Bangladesh.

If the transit facility is wholly surrendered now in an inequitable and fuzzy deal, with no guarantee or arbitration clauses and no veiled threat of cancelling it unless India lives up to its pledges and obligations, there will be nothing else to offer and no inclination on the part of India to delve into water sharing pacts with speed or sincerity. It will take forever to reach a comprehensive agreement on all fifty-plus rivers. By then these rivers will turn from canals into drains and eventually dry out. Desertification and salinity will prevail.

Unfortunately, it is likely that full-fledged transit will be offered in return for a hastily completed Teesta water sharing treaty that will excel in symbolism and sorely lack in substance. The ruling coterie will beat the public relations drums loud, claiming fair share of water, but the plight of Teesta bank people and farmers will be mired in uncertainty and deficiency with no way out. India's mission will be fully accomplished but this country will lose out yet again.

http://newagebd.com/newspaper1/editorial/35249.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] Road march in Jaflong



Road march in Jaflong


http://amardeshonline.com/pages/details/2011/10/02/109201


http://thenewnationbd.com/news_image/daily_news/20111002/Back1.jpg

http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=204873



__._,_.___


[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] Persona: Hidden camera



Hidden Camera on Persona, Now Influencing Evidences


Kaniz Almas

Last night was a shocking day for people of the country. Police recovered a hidden camera and hard disk full of offensive videos from beauty salon Persona. But the incident lost it's pace due to Persona's high movement around it.

Big medias just escaped the news like nothing happened. You can think it as result of Kaniz Almas's good relation with them. They are also trying to influence police and the woman who reported about it to the police. Persona is ready to provide any facility to take the report back from police. That is somehow working too, because there is no case filed even after 24 hours of the incident. The husband of that woman says, "If I filed a case I have to submit those naked videos to court. No one like to show pictures of his naked wife to anyone."

Some police official without disclosing the name says there is nothing bad in the video that recovered. As there was a big gap from reporting the police to when police reach, Persona guys may have deleted some parts before police came. Kanij Almas declared they will not remove cameras, they are for safety reasons.

But Bangladesh youth is actively working against this unacceptable behavior from a respected person and a company. Blogs and social networks are fully buzzing with the topic. But Persona is really working hard to save it's image. At first it deleted all negative comments and banned commenter of it's Facebook pages and then even they deleted all the whole Facebook pages and activities.

http://youth.net.bd/national/follow-up-hidden-camera-persona/

http://www.banglanews24.com/detailsnews.php?nssl=9a162271ad21886ea248dc0a044b606f&nttl=2011093010272360540&toppos=3

http://www.bd-pratidin.com/?view=details&type=gold&data=Football&pub_no=514&cat_id=1&menu_id=1&news_type_id=1&news_id=86072



__._,_.___


[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] Re: [Essay] Why We Critique Only Islam !



Also, as per the Holy Quran, Moses is the maternal uncle of Jesus.  Did you know that?  Seems that Allah was a bit old to remember events correctly.

On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 1:38 AM, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 

As I said, there is a DIFFERENCE between narratives of the Bible and the Qur'an about prophet Abraham (PBUH). As I mentioned earlier, your comments were about the Bible. Qur'an has a DIFFERENT narrative. The character of Abraham (PBUH) might have been flawed according to OT but it is fine in the Qur'an.

I would encourage you to learn a bit more about it BEFORE you "Borrow" more from others and publish them. As you know Muslims follow the Qur'an not the Bible. Albeit they share similar stories but they are not exactly the same!!

It seems like you were not aware of it. Let me also add that, as per Islamic narrative Jesus was not "Son" of God. neither did he die in the hands of Jews (His own people, he was part of "Children of Israel" as per Bible and the Qur'an!). The noble Qur'an says..

"…they killed him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so to them; and those who disagree concerning it are in doubt of it; they have no knowledge of it except pursuit of a conjecture; they killed him not for certain."

(Qur'an chapter 4, verse 157)


For more info about this topic, please click here.


Jesus in Islam


Shalom!!

-----Original Message-----
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Oct 1, 2011 4:53 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: [Essay] Why We Critique Only Islam !

 
Read the Old Testament carefully and between the lines as well.  Read other unbiased history books, also read 'Psychology of Prophetism' by Koenraad Elst and articles by Kierkegaard on Abraham .  The character of Abraham as per the OT is quite flawed.  He often told lies and behaved like a pimp of Sara, his cousin and wife, to enrich himself.

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:50 PM, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 
Abraham was a follower of Moloch for the first ninety nine years of life.  His name was Ab-hamra then, hamra was the altar where the first born was sacrificed as the burnt offering.  Having fathered no child for over seven decades of his procreative life, Abraham was naturally suspicious of having been cuckolded by others as two sons were born to his wives.  So he exiled Ismael to Mecca, and took Isaac to slaughter.  Then he changed his mind, and brought him back home.  Such practice prevailed for about two thousand years more on the belief that children are born as a result of the sin of procreation.  The practice died out after God himself was atoned by sacrificing his first born child Jesus.

>>>>>>>>> This is another "Copy and paste" job from anti-Christian web sites or persons. 

Albeit Abraham (PBUH) is shared among three religions, Islam does NOT follow this narrative. Where did you get this information? Please share!!


-----Original Message-----
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Sep 29, 2011 1:05 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: [Essay] Why We Critique Only Islam !

 
Abraham was a follower of Moloch for the first ninety nine years of life.  His name was Ab-hamra then, hamra was the altar where the first born was sacrificed as the burnt offering.  Having fathered no child for over seven decades of his procreative life, Abraham was naturally suspicious of having been cuckolded by others as two sons were born to his wives.  So he exiled Ismael to Mecca, and took Isaac to slaughter.  Then he changed his mind, and brought him back home.  Such practice prevailed for about two thousand years more on the belief that children are born as a result of the sin of procreation.  The practice died out after God himself was atoned by sacrificing his first born child Jesus.

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 9:42 AM, kajalahmed62 <kajalahmed62@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
 

I am in-line with Lopa Tasneem's conclusion, i.e
All religious intolerances are bad. Coming up essays after essays against one religion is doing nothing but serving the purpose of the fundamentalists of other religions. I also find SKM's approach tedious as he keeps his "search" limited to a specific religion (probably on purpose). I hope he will be brave enough use his intelligence on finding flaws religions as a "whole" (atleast all "Abrahamic" religions).

K.A

--- In mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com, "Lopa Tasneem" wrote:
>
> In response to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/7683
>
>
> America has a super plural society having many religions (Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jews, Buddha's etc). Every day, every hour or every minute—we are sick and tired of hearing in the radio, TV, or newspapers some very common (colorful) adjectives, such as: Muslim militants, Muslim terrorists, Islamic terrorists, Islamic radicals, and Islamic militants, Islamic fanatics, Al-Qeada, and Taliban. My question is that, why do not we hear about terrorists or radicals of any other religions? Why do not we hear these kind of ear-soothing colorful adjectives about those millions of atheists, agnostics or even Homosexual guys? Why it is always attached with the peaceful (?) ISLAM?
>
>
>
> One doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that the American media is after Islam, more for political reason than anything else. Western world, as a whole, is after Islam because if the Arab countries get united, they would pose a direct threat to the West. Besides, American media is mainly controlled by the Jews. All the main TV, radio, newspaper, magazines are owned by Jewish people. That's why we hardly hear what the Christians did to the Jews and what Israel is doing to the Palestinians.
>
>
>
> In the North America and throughout the western world—there are hundreds of societies bearing the name of only one religion and that is ISLAM. Examples: AMC, AMA, NABIC, ICNA, ISNA, CAIR etc. etc. There are hundreds of Ummatic organizations/societies throughout the North America and elsewhere in the whole world. Ummatic organizations mostly preach segregation/isolation of Muslims from other peoples in general in the host countries. They teach Muslims that they are superior and their religion is superior and ask to guard their children from mixing with the western "rotten" society. As a result, future generations of Muslims can not blend with the society of host country resulting isolationists and problematic youngsters in an alien society. Ultimate result is the scenario of item# 13 below. In this, I have many questions: How many Ummatic organizations for Hindu, Christian or Jews can we find? Why no such organization is needed by any other religions? Why only the people of Muslim origin need such Ummatic organization? What is the purpose of such organization?
>
>
>
> There are many Christian organizations in America. There are churches every 10 yards possibly at the place where I live in America. My door gets regularly knocked by some type Bible associations for fund-raising. What do you think the Christian missionaries have been doing all over the world for ages? Don't they preach Christianity as the best of all religions? In countries like Bangladesh, still they are very active in convincing the poor people to convert to Christianity and I have seen these in my own eyes.
>
> By searching through the internet, I found over a thousand groups related to Hinduism. Some of them do preach hatred against other religions. What do you think Shivsena, RSS, Bajrangi dal are doing in India? India is ruled by a Fundamentalist Hindu party. Haven't we heard what happened in Gujarat recently? How those Hindu fundamentalists are any less evil than the Muslim terrorists. In this age of internet one doesn't need to rely on American media only to know what's happening in the whole world.
>
>
>
> Can we find Jihadi organization in any other religions such: Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hizbullah, Horkut-ul- Jihad, Horkut-ul-mujahedin, Jaise Muhamad, Jihad-e-Muhammad, Tahrik-e-Nifaj-shariaat-e-Muhammad, Al-Hikhma, Al-badr-Mujaheddin, Jamah-e-Islamia, Hijb-e-Islamia, etc. etc.??? We can find several dozens of Jihadi Islamic terrorist organizations exists in every Muslim country throughout the world. Can we find such organization in other religions? If not, then why?
>
>
>
> Yes, we can. RSS, Shivsena, Bishwa Hindu Parishad, bajrangi dal, etc. Just visit any of their websites or websites of Mayer Dak or Hindu-unity like organization. You will see what kind of hatred they preach against other religions. And please don't forget what happened in Gujarat in the recent past. Dozens of posts about Gujarat were posted in Mukto-mona. Please read them.
>
>
>
> 6. Honor killing is the most inhuman and most disgraceful act by any human standard. This act is condemned by any sane human being today. But surprisingly—this horrendous episode is only present in the Muslim countries and Muslim societies. Islamists will argue that there is nothing in the Quran which suggests honor killing! Well, question here is, if Islam has nothing to do with it, then why it is only practiced by Muslims? NO OTHER SOCIETIES EXCEPT ISLAM PRACTICE IT, PERIOD. Even in the same country—example Nigeria, Northern Nigerian (Muslims) do practice this heinous act, but Southern Nigeria (Christians) do not practice this at all. It may present in any country in the whole world—but 100% sure that it will happened only in a Muslim family. My questions here are—please tell me why Muslims only perform this heinous act? Why this act is totally absent in any other religions?
>
>
>
> Satidaho is a form of honor killing too. And please search through the internet to find the recent incidents of Satidaho in India.
>
>
>
> 14. Dress code and food restriction: Do you know Islam has a special dress code for both men and women? Islam is nothing but Arab nationalism in the disguise of religion. Anybody from any foreign land convert to Islam also needs to adopt/change his dress and cultural habits, which is nothing but Arab national dress and Arab culture. A devout Bangladeshi, Chinese or a Burmese convert to Islam will pretend to be a good Muslim by wearing Arab garb or hijab for women, even though his/her own national dress is not at all similar to Arab national dress. Muslims also follow very strict food codes. Unlike other religious groups, Muslims can not eat western most hygienically produced meat products. Muslims need to eat so called un-hygienically produced halal meat. Convert Muslims even need to learn Arabic for daily rituals of Islam. They are not allowed to pray in their own mother tongue. Result is they do not know what they are praying. But unlike Muslim convert, Hindu, Christian or Jewish converts do not need to forsake their own national dress code or languages. My questions here are why the converts of no other religions need to change their own national dress code or food habits? Why Islam is so different?
>
>
>
> Not all Muslims living in various regions follow such dress code and they are not hanged for not following it. It is up to the individual. Sikhs wear turban, Jews wear small caps, Buddhist monks wear orange colored outfit, Hindu married women wear Shaka, Shidur. Hindu widows don't eat meat or fish. Orthodox Christian women wear dresses so that the whole body is covered. Jews don't eat pork, Hindus don't eat beef. Hindus of some part of India are strictly vegetarian because of the religion.
>
>
>
> September 11, Episode: America and other nations of the entire world will remember Sept.11 as the most terrible day of the human history and everybody will pass the day with much sorrow and somber mood. But do you know there are some Islamic folks (special human species) in Finsbury Park Mosque in north London who will celebrate this horrible day as the "towering day" of Islam??? These Islamic fanatics will hail/applaud the Sept.11 devilish deeds of those al-Qaeda heroes as the best deeds any Muslim can do. They will form the supreme Islamic council of London and will vow to fight for making England an Islamic Paradise. Their future plan will be to convert entire world including infidel America into a perfect Islamic Paradise. My questions are: do we get to see this kind of madness amongst any other religions? If not then why?
>
>
>
> Yes we do. Fanatics exist in every religion, they just change their color. Fanaticism of any religion is bad. If you lived in the South East Asia, for example, you'd have heard more about the recent Gujarat episode than anything else. (I hope Mukto-mona will remember the Gujarat episode too on its anniversary. )
>
> I can cite dozens of recent incidents of Hindu fanaticism/ communalism. They are no less evil than the fanaticism of any other religion. Most people, religious or not, would identify the fanaticism of their own religion as bad. I haven't met any Muslim in person who would glorify the incident of September 11. Similarly, none of my Hindu friends feel proud of the Gujarat incident.
>
>
>
> Most of Syed Kamran Mirza's other questions are repetitive and pose a very simplistic view of a religion. All religions have some uniqueness of their own such as dress code or food restriction. Each religion has its own rituals. As long as they do not have any harmful effect to the society, one does not need to be worried about them. If a Bangali girl is forced to wear sari when she's grown up does that mean Bangali culture is bad? NO.
>
>
>
> Similarly, 'brotherhood' may not necessarily be bad as long as it is not used to abuse. Brotherhood exists among the people of various regions in Bangladesh. We see associations like 'Jalalabad shangha', 'Shandip association', many ethinic, cultural associations all over North America.
>
>
>
> All religious intolerances are bad. Coming up essays after essays against one religion is doing nothing but serving the purpose of the fundamentalists of other religions. I find SKM's approach to show that Islam only is the 'evil' religion is wrong and could very well put an obstacle to the journey of the progressive minded people.
>
>
>
> Lopa Tasneem
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
>






__._,_.___


****************************************************
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] Re: Is Religion a Crazy-Glue?No It is the basis of life and morals



Apparently, you never learned of what happened in the war of Badr.  For the sake of Allah, please read any biography of the prophet.

On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 2:48 AM, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 

I think it is better to allow Mr. Hannan to reply on the personal insult.

I'll just say, one more time your understanding of history is "Borrowed" and "Out of context".

For example, I'll share a little more information about the alleged "Looting" of the caravan of Abu Lahab. You may want to know that, prophet Muhammad (PBUH) did (what Mahatma Gandiji did much later in India) suffered in the hands his own people for many years in his home town. He had to starve, spat upon, stoned, mocked for many years. He put up with such abuses without lifting his hands for many years. There were more attempts on his life by the same people. He did not attack anyone but kept forgiving them.

At the end with a heavy heart he left his home town to avoid conflict. Therefore he NEVER gotten into ANY wars to save his own life. Only took up arms to defend his community ( Jews, Muslims and idol worshipers in it)


Once he reached Media (After being invited by the people of that city!!) he established a pluralistic community (One of a kind for his time!) with specific rights (And guaranteed protection of lives, religious practice, properties for non-Muslims!!) for people of all faiths. However desperate people of Mecca wanted to wipe the new Muslim community from the face of the earth. This time prophet Muhammad (PBUH) decided to protect himself for the first time. During his life he participated in 23 wars and out of that his community was attacked 22 times!!

I could not find the caravan of abu lahab incident( If you supply the books or articles that mentioned this incident, I'll be grateful to you!) . However some caravan raids took place. These caravans raids was a response to actions by Meccan leaders to cease properties of Muslim in Mecca.  After being persecuted by non-Muslim leaders of Mecca, they left the city peacefully to avoid any conflicts between families and tribes. However Meccans Kept attacking the Muslims of Medina. After that, they took over their properties and started severe persecution on Muslims who did not leave Mecca. So these raids were a measure to PREVENT future attacks and persecution of Muslims who wanted to live peacefully after being persecuted around TEN long years!!

For esxample, if you study the raid known as "Battle of Waddan", you will discover that, The aim was to intercept the caravans of the Quraysh and the Banu Damra. First time when they did not find any Quraysh (The people who were persecuting Muslims in Mecca!!) it was left alone. Then Banu Damra ( Tribe) caravan was attacked. However they ended up signing a  treaty of non-aggression. Banu Damrah pledged to not attack Muslims or side with the Quraysh; and Muhammad pledged to not attack the caravans of Banu Damrah or seize their goods. [ Source: Mubarakpuri, The Sealed Nectar (Free Version), p. 127.]


If anyone analyze such actions, it would be clear these raids were designed to prevent attacks and persecution of Muslims in Medina and Mecca. Muslims under prophet Muhammad (PBUH) ONLY focused on those people who were attacking Muslims, stealing their properties in Mecca and persecuting Muslims. Therefore, describing this as ordinary looting would be VERY inaccurate to say the least.

Bottom line is Muslims never "Attacked" anyone to attain wealth or power during the time of prophet Muhammad (PBUH). I have studied several books to confirm that fact. ALL conflicts during his time were aimed to defend the newly form Muslim community. Meccans wanted to wipe them out, so they were forced to defend themselves. I'll share some references, if anyone want to verify


These myths were "Cooked" by orientalists and Christian missionaries against all eastern religions. Very inaccurate ( I am being polite here!) description of Hinduism (Sanatana dharma) was also hatched. That was one of the main reason for Swami Vivekananda's visit to Chicago. Swamiji (As some of you may know) ended up staying in the US for few years and successfully answered to ignorant hate-speech against his faith.

If you are interested to know more about prophet Abraham (PBUH), you may want to pick up the following book. Which covers Judaism, Islam and Christian point of view on this noble man.

Abraham: The Friend of God [Paperback]

Jerald F. Dirks


The Abrahamic Faiths: Judaism, Christianity, And Islam Similarities & Contrasts [Paperback]

Jerald F. Dirks



If you have any questions regarding this topic, feel free to ask me.

Peace!!


-----Original Message-----
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Oct 1, 2011 4:53 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: Is Religion a Crazy-Glue?No It is the basis of life and morals

 
Hannan is an incorrigible fool.  Spanish looted South America in the name of Christianity, Arabs did the same in the name of Islam to the Persians and Egyptians.  What were the roles of Sultan Mahmud, Muhammad Ghori, Alauddin Khilji, Nadir Shah, Muhammad shah Abdalli etc. in India.  Even the Sufi saints colluded with them!  What does the Sura Anfal all about?  Is it not how to share the loot from the opponent.  Was it not revealed after the caravan of Abu Lahab, uncle and former brother in law of the prophet, was looted.  If religions in general upheld the moral values, states all over the world would not be guided by the Roman laws  mostly made by Augustus.

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:59 PM, S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com> wrote:
 
[Attachment(s) from S A Hannan included below]
Religion is the basis of life, it generates values and make people moral. Secularism fails to do that. Secularism creates selfish and consumerist people. Atheism has never been  basis of any civilization. Abuse of religion is an aberration and not the norm, it can be controlled.
Islam in particular and all religions in general uphold moral values. Their leaders have explained the so-called misconceptions or contradictions.
Please read the attached article.
 
Shah Abdul Hannan
 
From: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jiten Roy
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 7:58 AM
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] Re: Is Religion a Crazy-Glue?
 
 
There are many people who believe religion creates a bond between co-religionists. Is this just another 'faith,' which has no basis, much like religion itself?
 
Even though we provide examples after examples indicating contraindications, yet they will find some excuses to keep their faith alive. You have heard many times the same argument – Oh, they are just a few misguided ones. My question is - why do religions create such misguided people, in the first place? There must be something that is misguiding people. Instead of fixing the source of the misconception, often people support the source of the problem saying that – they are just a few, and it's not a problem. So, the misconception remains alive forever. This is a universal problem with all religions. I am not trying to isolate any particular religion here.  
 
The universal truth about all religions is that – they are full of contradictions and misconceptions, which will always misguide people. The bottom line is – all religious people are suffering from eternal confusion, and the psyche of a religious person is entrapped in a cocoon. It is hard to get out of it. Religion is really a crazy-Glue?
 
Jiten Roy


--- On Wed, 9/28/11, S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com> wrote:

From: S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com>
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, September 28, 2011, 4:01 AM
 
 
This is not fairy are diluting the substance of the argument by some erratic actions of a section.
Shah Abdul Hannan.

From: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com [mailto: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Jiten Roy
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 8:33 AM
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?
 
 
Mr. Hannan,
 
Yes, religious bond is so strong that hundreds of innocent Muslims in Pakistan are dying regularly in bomb attaks by Muslims with strong religious convictions.
 
How is that religous bond working in Pakistan ?
 
Jiten Roy

--- On Tue, 9/27/11, S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com> wrote:

From: S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com>
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2011, 7:48 PM
 
 
Mr Shubimol Chakrabarty, yes, religion is the strongest bond of nationhood  compared to other bonds .Mr Jinnah said that Muslim majority areas should form independent state and Hindu majority areas of subcontinent should form another state and in both states  minorities would remain there with all human rights.
Shah Abdul Hannan

From: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com [mailto: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of subimal chakrabarty
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 7:17 AM
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?
 
 
Pretty funny! What kind of statement is this? 
What about the bondage between Muslims and Hindus of Bangladesh? Is it "thin"? Do they belong to "Bangladeshi jati"? 
Do Hindus of West Bengal and Muslims of West Bengal belong to "Indian jati"? Is it "thin" or "thick"? 
I think the purpose of Mr. Hannan's statement is to fish in the troubled waters. He is thinking more in terms of religious divide. This reminds me of Jinnah's Two-Nation Theory. Mr. Hannan seems to be talking in the same line. According to Jinnah all the Indian Hindus constituted one nation and all the Indian Muslims constituted another nation. He forgot about other religious groups.
Pretty funny!  
Mr. Hannan should recognize that religion is only one element (it may even be absent) in the structure of a nation. Hindu majority India and Hindu majority Nepal did not form one nation. All the Christian dominated countries in Europe did not form one nation. 
 
From: S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 10:46 AM
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?
 
There is no Bangalee Jati as there is no Gujrati jati or Bihari jati or punjabi Jati  Bond of unity of bangla speaking Muslims of Bangladesh and Banglaspeaking Hindus of West bengal is very thin.They belong to Bangladeshi jati or Indian jati respectively. For becoming jati you require much stronger bond.
 
Shah Abdul hannan
 
 
 

From: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jiten Roy
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 7:58 AM
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] Re: Is Religion a Crazy-Glue?
 
 




__._,_.___


****************************************************
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] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?



'dome and minaret represents'.  Sorry for a little grammatical fault here.  It appears that I go pidgin when arguing against pseudo-mullahs.

On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:
I have given you Sura Ibrahim to prove my point.  That Islam came for all humanity was first said by Ibn Kathir.  If it came for all humanity, the failure to convert Abu Talib would not have happened.  If you are the plaintiff, jury and judge, your ideas would not be accepted by anybody.  About 'an religious' mindset, just go through my immediate correction to which you might have been intentionally blind.  Nothing I say is based on fiction.  If your source of Wisdom is your interpretation of Quranic verses, you should speak to none other than the audiences that gather in mosques.  Do you know, what the dome and minaret represents?  It appears that you haven't read Sura al-Tawba, when you say that Islam has not been forced on anybody, and your knowledge on history is less than rudimentary.


On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 2:57 AM, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 

Two of three quotes are my original, with an religious mind set, one should voluntarily leave 'muktomona'.

With "An religious mind set". What is that??

I enjoy learning about your point of view. HOWEVER in this case it is based on fiction NOT FACTS!!

That is the problem. If you want to say something, it should be based on FACTS. So I can enjoy it even more.

NO where in the Qur'an it says Islam came for Arabs only. Rather it says Islam came for all of humanity.

Just to be clear I am not asking you to stop sharing your ideas. Simply encouraging you to speak the truth. You are most welcome to speak critically about Islam. We Muslims have many shortcomings. However it is my civic duty to correct people if any of their view is not accurate.

If you are not sure about something, feel free to ask. I am cool with that. :-)

Peace.


-----Original Message-----
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Oct 1, 2011 4:53 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?

 
Two of three quotes are my original, with an religious mind set, one should voluntarily leave 'muktomona'.  Following the early Greeks, Islam used to believe in the flat earth and geocentric universe.  Priesthood is not absent in Islam.

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:31 PM, qar <qrahman@aim.com> wrote:
 
It is written, Islam is exclusively for the people who speak Arabic

>>>>>>>> I am afraid, I am hearing this for the first time. If this was the case why did prophet Muhammad (PBUH) sent people to preach Islam to all corners of the world? In fact religions BEFORE Islam came to specific communities BUT Islam came for ALL of humanities. This is what I understand about Islam. 

Having said that, I am always up for learning new things. Therefore, kindly share the SOURCE of your statement. Where in Islam says it came for Arabs only? Appreciate your earliest attention!!

Religion is nothing more than a conspiracy of the priesthood

>>>>>>>>>> That was the complaint about religions BEFORE Islam ( Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism etc). Islam does not give much power to priesthood. 

The almighty God has not even revealed the correct structure of the universe to the proponents of religion


>>>>>>>> This is a popular argument about the Bible (OT AND NT). Not about Islam. I would encourage you to be a little more original. Anyone can cut and paste, can you back up your statements (With sources from religious scriptures)? 

Take care!! ;-)


-----Original Message-----
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Sep 29, 2011 1:05 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?

 
I would like to add that those people who want others to believe that religion is the strongest bond of nationhood has not studied religious literature properly.  It is written, Islam is exclusively for the people who speak ArabicReligion is nothing more than a conspiracy of the priesthood.  They survive and thrive on the tithes extracted from their followers.  The almighty God has not even revealed the correct structure of the universe to the proponents of religion.  One twenty inch telescope revealed more to Galileo than all the angels did to the prophets.

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:
Nationalism is the last refuge of scoundrels, wrote a savant named Samuel Johnson.


On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 5:48 AM, S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com> wrote:
 
 
Mr Shubimol Chakrabarty, yes, religion is the strongest bond of nationhood  compared to other bonds .Mr Jinnah said that Muslim majority areas should form independent state and Hindu majority areas of subcontinent should form another state and in both states  minorities would remain there with all human rights.
Shah Abdul Hannan

From: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of subimal chakrabarty
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 7:17 AM

To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?
 
 
Pretty funny! What kind of statement is this? 
What about the bondage between Muslims and Hindus of Bangladesh? Is it "thin"? Do they belong to "Bangladeshi jati"? 
Do Hindus of West Bengal and Muslims of West Bengal belong to "Indian jati"? Is it "thin" or "thick"? 
I think the purpose of Mr. Hannan's statement is to fish in the troubled waters. He is thinking more in terms of religious divide. This reminds me of Jinnah's Two-Nation Theory. Mr. Hannan seems to be talking in the same line. According to Jinnah all the Indian Hindus constituted one nation and all the Indian Muslims constituted another nation. He forgot about other religious groups.
Pretty funny!  
Mr. Hannan should recognize that religion is only one element (it may even be absent) in the structure of a nation. Hindu majority India and Hindu majority Nepal did not form one nation. All the Christian dominated countries in Europe did not form one nation. 
 
From: S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 10:46 AM
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?

 
There is no Bangalee Jati as there is no Gujrati jati or Bihari jati or punjabi Jati  Bond of unity of bangla speaking Muslims of Bangladesh and Banglaspeaking Hindus of West bengal is very thin.They belong to Bangladeshi jati or Indian jati respectively. For becoming jati you require much stronger bond.
 
Shah Abdul hannan
 
From: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com [mailto: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Jiten Roy
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 8:44 AM
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?
 
 
 
I do not know if there is a perfect English translation for the Bengali word "Jati." As a Jati - we are Bangalee, irrespective of our religious affiliations, castes, and creeds. Bangalee-Jati is our secular cultural identity. The Bangalee-Jatiotabad consists of certain secular characteristics, such as, we celebrate Pahela-Boishakh, Bashata-Baran, Ekushe-February (February 21st), etc. etc. with cultural, and ritualistic activities. There are other festivities and practices, which used to be celebrated widely, irrespective of religious affiliations, but now mainly scattered fashion. They are Poush-Sangcranti, celebrated with varieties of Cakes (Pithas), Chaitra-Sangcranti, celebrated with cultural activities and fairs, Maghi-Purnima, etc. etc.  Bangalee-Jatiotabad, being above and beyond our religious characteristics, is the glue that can unite the majority under a true secular platform.
 
Closest English word for 'Jatiotabad' is Nationalism; I know it does not completely express the full meaning of the term Jatiotabad, as we mean. That's where the confusion comes from. Bangalee-Jatiotabad or Bengali-Nationalism is not a state entity. But, state has to allow free exercise of those secular rights and characteristics, and state has to nourish it to flourish. Non-Bangalees have their own secular Jatiotabad, and they should be allowed to exercise them freely also.
 
If I have misconception, please let me know.
 
I appreciate all your comments. Thanks.
 
Jiten Roy
 
--- On Sat, 9/24/11, subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?
To: " mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com " < mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com >
Date: Saturday, September 24, 2011, 7:01 PM
 
"-------------and nationalism is a cultural identity, which reflects majority cultural."----Dr. Jiten Roy
 
Let us take an example to examine Dr. Roy's comment. Nationality of Indians is Indian which indicates that their nationality is Indian. No problem with that. But which group of people constitutes the majority and what is this majority group's culture? Are these the people in the Hindi belt? Obviously not. Even being an Indian by nationality, a Bengali or an Assamese is a Bengali or an Assamese. Even within the subset of Bengal ( West Bengal ), we cannot force a Gorkha to identify himself as a Bengali. If the Gorkhas are culturally, linguistically, and historically distinct from Bengalis, why should we force them to call themselves Bengalis?  
 
"There is no issue of fairness in nationalism."---Dr. Jiten Roy
 
It will be quite unfair to force a Chakma to call himself a Bengali as this very word reflects language, culture, and history. Politically he is a "citizen of Bangladesh " but culturally a Chakma. The majority has no right to force a Chakma to accept a Bengali's cultural identity. This is not only unfair, this is coercive also.
 
"There has been an orchestrated attempt to alter our cultural identity (Bangalee) in this region during Pakistani era, and it is still going on in Bangladesh ."----Dr. Jien Roy
 
I agree. Pakistani regimes tried to redefine Bengalis in East Pakistan as Pakistanis. That was a political game with India . But what is going on now? I would expect some elaboration. Regards.
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?
 
Everybody is missing my point. I am simply asking - what is our cultural identity, not our religious identity or nationality? 
 
Nationality and nationalism are two different things. Nationality is citizenship, and nationalism is a cultural identity, which reflects majority cultural. There is no issue of fairness in nationalism. There has been an orchestrated attempt to alter our cultural identity (Bangalee) in this region during Pakistani era, and it is still going on in Bangladesh .
 
Jiten Roy --- On Thu, 9/22/11, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
Subject: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?
To: " mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com " < mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com >
Date: Thursday, September 22, 2011, 10:29 PM
 
Bangladesh is a political entity, as opposed to a cultural one. May be, Najrul Islam's Bangla Desh and Ravindranath's Sonar Bangla were cultural, and those included more than the political entity of Bangladesh ; they also excluded at least the Chittagong Hill Tracts, which is a part of today's political Bangladesh .
 
Citizenship (nationality) is not cultural. I wish the secular politicians and intellectuals of  Bangladesh did not start this non-sense of Bangalee nationalism in 1971-72. It was wrong to ask the CHT people to call themselves Bangalees. Again, Bangalee nationalism was not really the spirit of all movements during 1947-71, and should not have been unless if we wanted to merge with West Bengal and allowed CHT to secede from us. Fairness, respect and dignity for Bangla and the Bangalees should not be considered the same as Bangalee nationalism. Bangalee nationalism would have demanded a separate nation for the Bangalees, even if the western Pakistanis treated the Bangalees with due respect. Our real spirit was no nationalism; it was fairness, respect and dignity for us.
 
Citizenship for anyone who seeks it? It is not done anywhere in the world. All countries have their laws to govern how a non-citizen would be given citizenship.
 
I would not ask Awami League to revive the so-called Bangalee nationalism (citizenship), rather I would ask them to respect all peoples of the land with respect; much like I would not ask them to call all Bangladeshis Muslims, much like I would not ask all Indians to be known as Hindus, much like I would not desire all cultural, linguistic and ethnic groups of the United States to be called Christians or English.
 
Well, so long for now,
 
Sukhamaya Bain
 
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] HAVOC CREATED BY JAMATI'S !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Dr. Bain's comments tells me that, in my last sarcastic comments, I did not clarify my points enough; hence confusions.
I was looking for a cultural identity for the people of Bangladesh . I explored 3 conventional identities (Bangalee, Bangladeshi, and Moderate Muslim), which have been used in the past to represent the people of Bangladesh . But, none of them seemed to encompass all people. As a result, the identity crisis still remains, and we do not know who we are.
After Bangladesh was born, our cultural identity (Jatiota) was Bangalee, and our nationality was also Banglalee. Ershad changed our nationality to Bangladeshi. The motive was to include all the people of Bangladesh , so he told us at that time. Was it really the motive? If that was true – all non-Bangalee Biharis should have been citizen by now, and Father Tim, the former Principal of Notre Dame College, would have been citizen already. If you say that our nationality is Bangladeshi - then we should grant citizenship to any permanent resident of Bangladesh , if they seek one.
In my view, it was done purposefully to defuse pre-independence secular mindset, and neutralize the Bangalee-Jatiotabadi spirit, the spirit of independence movement. As you know, Quranic verses and state religion (Islam) were also introduced in the secular constitution right around that time.
Dr. Bain, Bangalee-Jatiotabadi spirit has been the driving force behind all movements in the East Pakistan since the language movement in 1952. Even though Sheikh Mujib was not seeking independence at the beginning, but his movement was fueled by the Bangali-Jatiotabadi spirit. This is the spirit that still can unite the mjority in Bangladesh . That's why - I have been asking Awami League to revive that spirit for their sake.
 
Thanks for your comments. Love to hear from you. Don't be a stranger.
 
Jiten Roy --- 







__._,_.___


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

__,_._,___