Banner Advertiser

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

[ALOCHONA] A crucial period for International Crimes Tribunal



A crucial period for International Crimes Tribunal

... the tribunal has itself forcefully argued that it will apply the highest standards of due process and has said clearly that it will abide by its own procedural rules. With the tribunal now assessing evidence and considering defence applications about the nature of the offences, it must be at the top of its game., writes David Bergman

THE international crimes tribunal, prosecuting crimes alleged to have been committed by Bangladesh citizens during the country's 1971 war of independence, is now entering a crucial period.

  The tribunal has 'taken cognisance' of 'the charges' against Delwar Hossain Sayedee, one of the seven men detained by the tribunal on war crimes allegations, and is due on Monday to give its decision on whether to frame charges against him and, if so, for what offences.

Until recently, the issues before the tribunal have been mainly about bail and interrogation; now, however, the tribunal is starting to make key decisions about law and evidence.

To many in Bangladesh the guilt of Sayedee and the other detained men are foregone conclusions; tribunal hearings about cognisance and charge framing are simply procedural obstacles on a legal conveyor belt that will inexorably take Sayedee and the others towards their rightful convictions.

However, those people concerned about issues of due process and fairness will recognise that the credibility of these trials will be determined by the decisions the tribunal makes on assessing evidence, on how it interprets the offences set out in the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act 1973 and, of course, on the reasoning it provides for its decisions.

Unfortunately, however, in relation to the now completed hearings about cognisance, things have not started that well.

The tribunal's own rules of procedure, drafted by the judges themselves, set out what is required if they wish to take 'cognisance' of an offence.

Rule 29(1) states that, 'The Tribunal shall take cognisance of an offence against any accused upon examination of the formal charge, the investigation report, the papers, documents and the evidence submitted by a prosecutor in support thereof, if they disclose a prima facie case for trial of the accused.'

What does this mean? First, cognisance has to be taken for each separate offence alleged against an accused. Second, the decision should be taken on the basis of scrutiny of the formal charge, the investigation report and all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor. And third, cognisance can only be taken for an offence if, in the view of the tribunal, the evidence discloses a 'prima facie case for trial.'

On July 11 the prosecution provided the tribunal with a copy of the formal charges and the associated evidence, and the tribunal then set July 14 as the date for hearing an application concerning the taking of 'cognisance'.

On that day, without hearing either the defence or the prosecution, the tribunal passed a short order.

It ruled that after 'perusing those materials, we are of the view that evidence of the case are prima facie available, regarding the offences stated under section 3(2) of the ICT Act 1973 against the accused … We also have found that they disclosed a prima facie case for trial of the accused.'

At this point, in the proceedings, no one other than the prosecution and the tribunal had a copy of either the 'formal charge' or any of the supporting evidence, so it was not possible to make much of an assessment of this order other than to say, of course, that the tribunal provided no reasons at all for coming to this decision.

When, ten days later, the defence lawyers did receive a copy of the documentation, it decided to ask the tribunal to review its own ruling.

On August 18, the lawyers made two main arguments to the tribunal. First, they argued that the order breached basic international norms by failing to provide any reasons for its decision. As part of this, they questioned whether three days was sufficient for the tribunal to look at all the 542 pages of evidence with 97 of them illegible.

They argued in court that the order 'failed to give any indication or reasoning as to why it was of the view that a prima facie case had been established against the accused. There was no explanation as to what material the tribunal examined and on what basis it took cognisance of offence.'

Second, the defence lawyers contended that the court could not take cognisance of these offences alleged against Sayedee as the way that they are defined in the 1973 Act fails to conform to the accepted definitions of the offences that existed under customary international law in 1971 which is when they were alleged to have been committed.

So for example, they argued that in 1971, the offence of 'crimes against humanity' only existed when there was an 'international conflict' which the tribunal had already ruled was not the case in relation to the 1971 war. They also argued that the offence of genocide could not be committed in relation to the intention to destroy a 'political' group as the offence in the 1973 act allows.

The tribunal was unconvinced by these arguments, and confirmed its earlier decision taking cognisance.

The first thing to say about the August 18 order is that it did not respond to any of the legal points made by the defence. The only oblique reference to them was a comment in the order stating 'We are of the view that the learned counsel went beyond the jurisdiction of what is cognisance.' It is, however, unclear what that statement means or indeed why the tribunal is of this view.

This failure to engage with any of the legal arguments made by the defence in repeated hearings has become a particular characteristic of this tribunal. Perhaps the defence arguments are weak and easily dismissed. A court cannot, though, just simply ignore the arguments as this gives the distinct impression that the tribunal has no adequate response to them.

However, the order did this time give some reasoning behind its earlier decision taking cognisance.

'We are of the view', the order stated, 'that witness no 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24 have stated that the accused was involved in torture, looting, extermination in several places of Bangladesh. It appeared that accused was also involved in killing of some people of the Hindu community and the Awami League. Allegations are available that he forcefully converted Hindus to Muslims. All comes under the purview of crimes against humanity. So we took cognisance.'

At the time the order was given, observers of the tribunal still did not know what were the actual offences alleged against Sayedee. Were these 20 witnesses substantiating just a few offences or many? Clearly, if these witnesses were giving evidence for just a handful of offences and if their evidence appeared convincing—for one moment, putting to one side the legal issues raised by the defence—this may well have been a sufficient reason for the tribunal to consider there was prima facie evidence and allow cognisance.

However, two weeks later, on September 4, when the prosecution set out its application seeking the framing of charges, we learned that the prosecution was in fact alleging that Sayedee had committed 31 different offences. Was it really possible that 20 witnesses could give sufficient evidence to substantiate 31 offences?

Well, it might have been possible if all these witnesses were giving evidence that substantiated multiple offences. However, it was clear from the prosecution application that this was far from the case—that in fact the 20 witnesses were only linked to 17 of the 31 alleged offences in the formal charge (counts: 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, 22, 23, 26, 27, 37).

This raises two key issues.

First, the tribunal seems to have taken cognisance for many of these twenty offences on the basis of looking at just one witness statement. It is difficult to see, unless the statements were extremely strong, how the tribunal could come to the conclusion that there is 'prima facie' evidence for the commission of an alleged 'crime against humanity' which took place forty years ago just on the basis of one witness statement.

In the context of a criminal trial, the term 'prime facie' generally denotes evidence that, in itself, without hearing defence rebuttals, would be sufficient to prove all the elements required in the commission of a particular crime. Can one witness be enough to satisfy this test?

Second, and perhaps more significantly, it appears from the order that the tribunal did not give consideration at all to any witness testimony that the prosecution alleged substantiated 14 out of the 31 counts set out in the prosecution charge application. How then did the tribunal take cognisance of these offences?

Can the tribunal move onto framing charges relating to any of these 14 offences—which in fact includes all five alleged genocide offences—when it appears, from its own orders, that the tribunal has not taken any proper cognisance of them?

What appears to have happened is that the tribunal did not look in detail at each and every alleged offence and consider how witnesses or other evidence supported the different elements of the offence.

Rather, the tribunal seemed to have looked generally at some of the witness testimony—which alleged that Sayedee was involved in 'torture, looting, extermination in several places of Bangladesh … [and] in killing of some people of the Hindu community and the Awami League' along with forceful conversion of Hindus—and, on the basis of the allegations in these particular statements, took cognisance of all the offences.

The rules, however, are clear that cognisance must be taken of each offence.

Moreover, there is a separate issue about whether the tribunal even had, in its hand, all the witness statements when it took cognisance.

At a hearing relating to charge framing that took place on August 23—five weeks after the tribunal initially took cognisance of the offences—it came to light that neither the tribunal members nor the defence had been given the second volume of witness statements, i.e. while it had statements numbered 1 to 30 contained in volume one, it did not have statements numbered 31 to 68.

On September 21, the defence again sought a review of the cognisance order, this time questioning how it was possible for the tribunal to take cognisance without having seen all of the witness statements.

In its order, the tribunal stated that although it did not have the hardcopy volume of the statements it did 'consider the CDs and DVDs' provided on July 11 which contained 'all the documents.'

Only the tribunal and the prosecution know exactly what documents were on those CDs and DVDs, but it is notable that in its August 18 order not a single of the mentioned witnesses came from this second volume of witnesses!

Other than the defence lawyers, few people or media organisations within Bangladesh appear concerned about the issues of due process for the accused detained by the International Crimes Tribunal.

Local independent human rights organisations are silent, and the Human Rights Commission chairman has raised no concerns.

Of course, the silence has a lot to do with people holding little interest in technical issues of law and procedure and not wanting, in any case, to do anything that could bring the tribunals into question. The accused are, to many people, already proved to be guilty with the tribunal simply acting as a mechanism to give their 'guilt' a judicial stamp.

Others with concerns are also not willing to raise questions about the tribunal fearing that it will open them up to accusations of being 'pro-Jamaati' or 'anti-liberation'—two insults often used to simply de-legitimise  otherwise reasonable arguments.

However, the tribunal has itself forcefully argued that it will apply the highest standards of due process and has said clearly that it will abide by its own procedural rules.

With the tribunal now assessing evidence and considering defence applications about the nature of the offences, it must be at the top of its game. At the moment, however, there is a serious risk of the tribunal providing additional reasons for the defence to argue that they are being subject to an unfair trial.


David Bergman is editor, special reports at New Age

davidbangladesh@gmail.com.

See his blog on the ICT at http://bangladeshwarcrimes.blogspot.com/

http://newagebd.com/newspaper1/op-ed/35250.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] Not a balanced friendship



Not a balanced friendship


No reason to rush into an agreement on Teesta water sharing,says Professor Asif Nazrul of Dhaka University

by Abdullah Juberee

ANY agreement on sharing of the river Teesta should entail proper negotiations, ensuring Bangladesh's due rights as a lower riparian country, says Professor Asif Nazrul of Dhaka University.

The law professor also laid emphasis on quantum, as opposed to percentage, of Teesta water.

'Our bureaucrats seem obsessed with percentage,' he said in an interview with New Age on September ***. 'Some say 40 per cent and others 30 per cent. However, we need to know first how much water is available at a given period at a given point.'

'If 50 cusecs of water is available of water is available at a certain point, its 50 per cent would mean very little for us,' he added. 'We need an amount of water that ensures uninterrupted irrigation of the Teesta-based projects during dry season.

Nazrul believes there is the need for a coordinated management of the Teesta by all countries in the basin. 'A basin-wise committee is needed for the management, development, utilisation and protection of shared water flow. All the countries in the basin should be involved in it.'

He acknowledged that such a process might take 5-10 years for completion and said there can be an interim agreement in the meanwhile.

Nazrul was especially critical of the contradictory and obscure statements by the ministers and the prime minister's advisers on the transit issue.

'The foreign minister said one day that any deal on transit was yet to be signed and a few days later the prime minister's foreign affairs adviser claimed that provision of transit already existed in the laws and no deal was required for transport of Indian goods through Bangladesh,' he said.

He also criticised the adviser's remarks that Bangladesh should not seek share in the amount that India could save after getting transit facilities. 'Such statements are against the country's interests.'

He was of the opinion that connectivity should be spread to South Asian countries and beyond.

Asif also came down heavily on the government's claim that it did not sign a transit deal as India was not ready to sign the Teesta agreement. 'Bangladesh has the moral and legal rights to Teesta water but for India it will be a privilege if Bangladesh allows it transit facility,' he said.

'These cannot be compared. Yes, transit facilities can be allowed to India through proper negotiation but it has to ensure benefit for the people of both the countries. We want a win-win situation for the people of both the countries,' he said.

On India's decision to grant duty-free access for 46 Bangladeshi commodities to Indian market, he observed that such duty waiver would do little for Bangladesh.

Nazrul laid stress on removing all non-tariff barriers for access of Bangladeshi commodities to the Indian market for reducing the trade imbalance. 'Without removing the barriers Bangladesh would not be benefited,' he said.

On the land border agreement, Asif said signing of the agreement could not be considered completed till the Indian parliament ratifies it. 'Once they were claiming that a small part of border was yet to demarcated so they cannot ratify it. Now, there is no such barrier, the remaining 6.5 kilomteres of border has been demarcated. So, where is the obstruction to ratify the agreement?' he said.

Nazrul was surprised about the Bangladesh government's role in signing a deal for a Tk 1 billion credit. 'If it was essential, the same amount of loan could be achieved from the IMF or the World Bank or other agencies. It makes no sense why such a deal was signed. It raises question as to whose interests are protected by it,' he said.

He said the Bangladesh government had met all the demands of India but the Indians seemed not too serious to meet the major demands of Bangladesh.

'All they are giving are mere assurances. It is not a balanced friendship. It is exploitation (by a powerful country) of weak country and its less efficient government and bureaucracy,' he said.

http://newagebd.com/newspaper1/special/34952.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] Caution is key



Caution is key

Dhaka should remain cautious about future deals pursuant to framework agreement with Delhi, says M Humayun Kabir, a former diplomat and vice-president of the Bangladesh Enterprise Institute

by Shahidul Islam Chowdhury

The government should remain cautious about 'actions' to be taken and 'agreements' to be signed pursuant to the framework agreement signed with India, M Humayun Kabir, vice president of Bangladesh Enterprise Institute, a think tank, said.

'What made us concerned is the last line of the framework agreement, which said, "actions taken or agreements reached pursuant to this agreement shall not be affected by its expiry or termination",' he said in an exclusive interview with New Age on September 15. 'According to this line whatever would be done under this agreement in the future cannot be terminated, making this agreement apparently permanent.'

'I do not understand what the purpose of the sentence is and why Bangladesh agreed with this provision,' he said.

Kabir, also a former foreign secretary, said Bangladesh's experience in implementation of agreements signed with India was 'not good'. 'Many things were agreed. The full agreement on land boundary, which was signed by two prime ministers (Indira Gandhi and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman) in 1974, was never ratified by India.'

He hoped that the new protocol (signed on September 6, 2011) would not face the same fate.'

Kabir, who was ambassador to the United States and high commissioner to Australia and New Zealand, also raised questions about Bangladesh's benefit from allowing transit to India. 'We have gotten a proposal to give transit to India, Nepal and Bhutan. My question is where our transit is.'

Giving an assessment on the visit of Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh to Dhaka on September 6-7, he said any such high-profile visit carries two things—symbolism and substance.

In terms of symbolism, the bilateral visit of an Indian prime minister held after 12 years after the bilateral visit of Atal Behari Vajpayee in 1999 is undoubtedly symbolic.

There was intense parley from both sides preceding Singh's visit. Several Indian dignitaries including external affairs minister SM Krishna, home minister P Chidambaram and national security adviser Shiv Shankar Menon visited Dhaka. From the Bangladeshi side, foreign minister Dipu Moni and the prime minister's advisers Mashiur Rahman and Gowher Rizvi visited New Delhi.

Bangladesh is in transition to democracy. Both the Indian Congress-led UPA and the Bangladeshi Awami League-led alliance came to power with huge mandates. It can be said that the parties are close in ideological affiliation.

Another visible symbolic act was Singh's visit to various places including the National Memorial in Savar, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Memorial Museum and Dhaka University.

From the angle of symbolic import, then, this visit was a big success.

'We also need to weigh up the visit from another, what I would call 'important', perspective—from the view acknowledging the fact that how India-Bangladesh relations evolved did not carry much attention in Delhi in the past.'

Commenting on how Bangladesh has gotten a reasonable amount of attention in Delhi, and this has manifested in the statements made by think tanks and coverage in the Indian media, he said, 'I must say it is a big shift.'

'Now for how I look at the message that we got from Manmohan Singh, who repeatedly said India considers Bangladesh "a good partner" and Bangladesh has made and can make "significant contribution" to the country.

'In reality, India's ambition is to become a global power and they require Bangladesh at their side to accomplish it. Making a good bond between the two countries would not only help India, it would also help Bangladesh if she (Bangladesh) can properly nurture the bond.

'In terms of substance of the visit, Bangladesh has received something. It also has not received something. Let's look at the framework agreement signed during the visit. It is interesting as there are elements that are forward-looking. For the first time India has agreed to basin-based management of common rivers. This provision is a significant development, particularly for Bangladesh. Now we are required to work on it.

'The framework agreement also talks about trade, security, environment, technology and people to people contact where there are many opportunities for both sides. But what made us concerned is the last line of the framework agreement, which said, "actions taken or agreements reached pursuant to this agreement shall not be affected by its expiry or termination." According to this line, whatever would be done under this agreement in the future cannot be terminated as if it were permanent.

'I do not understand what the purpose of the sentence is and why Bangladesh agreed to this provision. I think the government should remain cautious about "actions" to be taken and "agreements" to be signed pursuant to the framework agreement.'

On the protocol to 1974 Land Boundary Agreement, Kabir said this is definitely a progress as problems along the border can jeopardise peaceful relations between the two countries. 'We do not want to see terrorists lurk along the border. We also do not want human trafficking and smuggling of narcotics. Good border management is a desirable kind of thing.'

'However, our experiences are not good. Many things were agreed. The full agreement on land boundary, which was signed by two prime ministers (Indira Gandhi and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman) in 1974, was never ratified by India. I hope that the new protocol (signed on September 6, 2011) would not face the same fate.'

Several memorandums of understanding, which were signed during the visit, might help us to move forward in terms of bilateral relationships.

But there are areas where Bangladesh could make some more progress, Kabir said.

Regarding the Teesta water-sharing agreement, which could not be signed this time, he said, Bangladesh's position on Teesta has been consistent for long. 'We were asking for a certain amount of waters for rivers and the balance of water should be equally shared. We were very close to that kind of understanding; it has almost finalised.'

About Bihar's chief minister Nitish Kumar's demand for reviewing the Ganges water-sharing treaty signed between Bangladesh and India in 1996 on the plea of 'gross injustice' meted to the Indian state, he said there is provision In the Ganges agreement that both sides can review it after every five years.

'The countries have come half way through the 30 years' life of the Ganges agreement. There is a provision for review. But neither Bangladesh, nor India, has so far asked for review. If I understand that means that both sides are happy so far with existing flow of waters which has been shared.'

'Maybe Nitish Kumar has some other ideas…I think it could be part of local politics as the Ganges also flows through Bihar and lots of political elements are involved in it,' he said.

Asked whether he expects a guarantee clause in the Teesta treaty, he said, 'we would love to have a guarantee clause (in the agreement) to get a guaranteed amount of water for us.'

About transit for passage of goods between two places of India, he said, 'we are looking at the issue from a very narrow angle.'

'Transit carries certain larger connotations in terms of both vertical and horizontal aspects as connectivity is now an economic resource.'

'We have gotten proposal to give transit to India, Nepal and Bhutan. My question is where our transit is.'

'Should we not have the equal right to ask for use of some of the other states' lands to get transit for whatever destination we want to reach?'

'As a Bangladeshi, my point is, I am giving. But, where is that which should be mine? From that point of view I would rather flip the argument—yes, I am giving. But I would also ask for exchange. You come. But I would also ask for same kind of facilitation from you or beyond.'

Asked whether allowing passage of goods between two places of a country should be considered as 'corridor,' he said, 'yes, there are technical and political arguments on transit and corridor issues.'

He observed that the government was shifting many times on its positions about transit.

'We were told that it (transit) will bring huge economic benefit to Bangladesh. We were told to be courteous by not asking for fees. Then somebody told us that we should not make it a political issue, which was already decided. Finally, we have heard that it is a non-issue, as if it is not an issue at all!'

'I think it is important to let the nation know what we are doing, what exactly that is and what the cost benefit is for us. Because we are giving, the most important strategic capital we have is where we must maximise our profit from all possible aspects.'

About the MOU signed for cooperation between the two state-owned televisions, BTV of Bangladesh, and Doordarshan of India, he said, 'it is good we are not available in India. The point is how many people would want BTV. There are many other channels outside. I would love to see that our private channels are also allowed to get access in India. It is better than nothing.'

Describing India's decision to allow duty free access for 46 Bangladeshi textile products, he said, 'this is a good beginning. We have heard that the Indian government has already issued SRO allowing access to these 46 products. However, we would also need to remain careful about the barriers. In India, there are non-tariff and para-tariff barriers.'

'I also hope that India would open up its market for all products from Bangladesh as there is still a big gap in trade between the two countries. It would help to create jobs in Bangladesh, in addition to demonstrating goodwill of India.'

'I look forward to more robust economic interests in India for Bangladesh, because, the economic relationships should form the backbone of our new relationships.'

About Manmohan Singh's assurance that 'India would not take steps on the Tipaimukh project that would adversely impact Bangladesh', he said, 'the statement is good. But let us see. The project has received clearance from the environment ministry of the central government (of India). I would prefer to see how things evolve.'

Asked about the management of Singh's state visit from two sides in the context of the trust deficit between the two countries, he said the top political leaders expressed their commitments. 'However they could take all the stakeholders on board.'

'It should be the people who would be the beneficiary of the relationships. So the people (in general) and the representatives of the people in different fields, including the social, economical and political realms, should be incorporated in the process.'

Asked about his perception about who deals with foreign affairs in general and Indian issues in particular, Kabir said the foreign ministry should be more utilized. 'It has institutional memory, skills, knowledge, expertise and the capacity to contribute if they are supported by political mandate anywhere on any issue. The foreign ministry has the best available resources. It still can deliver.'

Asked about the necessity of a well thought-out foreign policy, he said the government is required to prepare a foreign policy. 'Policy means when we have a goal and when we systematically try to build blocks to reach that goal.'

'In the new global context, there are lots of new ideas, new actors and new tools. There is scope for extensive use of public diplomacy. Mission systems should be improved. Close coordination of the foreign ministry with other ministries is also required. Forward and backward linkages are to be strengthened. Our best efforts and capacities should be utilized to advance our foreign policy objectives.'

Asked about whether the country requires a specific policy on relationships with India, the country surrounding us from three sides, he said, 'definitely. India is transforming. It will continue change. So understanding India is necessary to bargain with it and to know how it is behaving with other neighbours. Then we have to set our foreign policy framework.

http://newagebd.com/newspaper1/special/34954.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] Two sons of a state minister....



Two sons of a state minister....


http://jugantor.us/enews/issue/2011/10/05/news0847.htm



__._,_.___


[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] Jogajog Montri's house and a road....



Jogajog Montri's house and a road....



http://www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2011-10-05/news/191340



__._,_.___


[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: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?



Narendra Nath Datta aka Vivekananda had his lopsided view of Hinduism.  Veda and Vedanta are not the same things.  Upanishads are collectively called the Vedanta, i.e., the end of the Vedas.  According to the Vedanta, even the Vedas are the source of aparavidya.  Hinduism is a culture and not a religion.  The brown skinned people were called Hindus by the Persians.  According to Genesis, God created man in his own image, though in fact, the reverse is true.  God and Khoda are derivative words of the ancient Persian word 'Godde' meaning leader.  As the Gnostics believe, the serpent shaped Sophia, the Goddess of wisdom, went to explore the unknowable God (Achintya Dev of Hinduism) and became pregnant.  In course of time, she bore the Demiurge, a lion faced sepent, otherwise named as Ialdabaoth (comparable to Vishkarma).  He created the Universe.  Even Brahma is not nirakar, he had five faces, but lost one due to the wrath of Shiva, while pursuing Saraswati, his own manash kanya.  Compare the myth with the birth of Athena.

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:49 PM, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 

One can be dwaitwadi, adwaitwadi, ek-ishwarwadi, bahu-ishwarwadi even nir-ishwarwadi and still can be called. Hindu.


>>>>>>> If you seek a "Pure" definition of "Hinduism", you will see that, it is not even a religious definition. Rather a geographical definition. As per Swami Vivekananda, he asked "Hindus" ( As we commonly use the term) to be termed as "Vedantists" ( One who follows instructions from holy Veda). Scholars of religion also refer this religious as "Sanatana dharma" or "Adi dharma".

You are giving the definition given by Swami Vivekananda of Hinduism. He also made some interesting observation not known to common Hindus and Muslims. He embraced Veda as the highest scripture and concept of "Formless" God.

We find that in the "Hindu" scriptures as well.

Brahma Sutra of Hinduism:

The Brahma Sutra of Hinduism is:

"Ekam Brahm, dvitiya naste neh na naste kinchan"

"There is only one God, not the second; not at all, not at all, not in the least bit."

[ Source: IRF India]

.....
A true karmayogi
Vivekananda respected Islam for its vigour and he even suggested a combination of Islam and Vedanta that would draw from the best of both (Volume VI, page 367).
Ramakrishna had impressed upon his disciples that the concept of God embraces both form and formlessness.  Vivekananda, too, stressed the underlying thread of unity between all faiths. Forms differ, but ultimately all worship leads to the realization of the same truth, he stressed.
If this is true, then there is no scope for conflict between the temporal and the spiritual, between conquest and renunciation. Human life is a celebration. Effort and creativity might be different, but the result is the same; there is no dividing line between affirmation and negation, acceptance and protest, he argued. It is this supreme realization that placed Vivekananda in the position of 'karmayogi' a champion of the Universal Being.
Vivekananda believed that renunciation and a monastic life were the paths to salvation, but also stressed that it would be a mistake to overlook the material side of life. He stood for a sort of robust Hinduism and deplored the idea of pacifism. For him, Vedanta breathed strength; non-violence — both moral and intellectual was suicidal and responsible for the downfall of Buddhism. He believed hard work and service to humanity went together with knowledge. Helping the needy and going to a temple was the same, he stressed.


[ Source:The Neo-Vedantist ]



-----Original Message-----
From: jaan.bhide <jaan.bhide@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Oct 4, 2011 7:02 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?

 
Bramho is not a separate religion, it is a samaj or a sect within Hinduism.

One can be dwaitwadi, adwaitwadi, ek-ishwarwadi, bahu-ishwarwadi even nir-ishwarwadi and still can be called. Hindu.

You interpret the texts as per your understanding and find your own path to the ultimate is what is Hinduism.

Hinduism is a fount of many philosophies, It is funny when these are assumed to be different from Hinduism.

In fact, go ahead and imagine that the Adhinayak, tagore refers to is almighty Allah!

Prasad
Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone

From: Mahbub Kamal <mahbubk2002@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 11:04:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?

 
Mr. Singh:
 
Where did you find the name of 'Lord Krishna'?
 
Gurudev Rabindranath Thakur was a follower of 'Bramho' religion, this relgion depicts Bramha the Creator as the single God.
 
I don't think Gurudev had meant the British monarchy as 'Janagana Mana Adhinayaka', he meant the divine God. I don't want to cooment on SriKrishna, whether he is a god or a mythological character (to me both are same) is a matter of belief.
 
Brahma Kripahi Kebolom.
 
Thank You

--- On Sat, 10/1/11, nihar singh <nihar_singh786@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: nihar singh <nihar_singh786@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Received: Saturday, October 1, 2011, 6:12 PM

 
Dear All,

Tagore wrote Jana Gana Mana For Lord Krishna. Please read the short article at 
 

For the complete article read it at 

Please forward this mail to as many people as you can. The British created the myth that our gods and goddesses are mythological characters. This is not true and our Vedic scriptures confirm it.

Regards,

Nihar Singh



--- On Sat, 10/1/11, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:

From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, October 1, 2011, 4:50 PM



Q. Rahman has misinterpreted the events in early Islam



>>>>> I asked you for "SOURCES" of your knowledge but only received some allegations ( Also inaccurate--I may add)  as response.


Had Islam been sent for all humanity, in spite of over a thousand years of effort, Muslims are about twenty percent of the total world population, that certainly speaks about non almightiness of Allah

>>>>>>>> I don't mind clearing up your misunderstanding but this is high school stuff my friend. Islam speaks to humanity. Unlike other religious scriptures ( Bible OT and NT came for JEWS only, Veda, Puranas for Indians only). I don't mean to use this information as insults but taking this information from scriptures only.

Islam teaches us NOT to force religion unto others. { Source: Al Qur'an 2:256, Chapter 109 }

So despite Muslim rule over Spain and India, people carried on with their faith traditions. Allah does NOT want to force people into anything. You have been given "Free will" and Allah will judge when time will come. No need to get so excited about Islam. Slowly I'll try to answer all of your questions. I'll also try to give you sources to my answers, so you can ALSO verify them. Inshallah!!

I do not care what religion you follow ( Or if you do not follow any religion) but simply see a lot of misconception about this topic. So I am just trying replace wrong information with correct information. I hope all members can relax and put your feet up and just do some old fashion "Adda". We can learn from each others. I am always open for "Correction" and open for new knowledge. I happened to spent some time in interfaith discussions, so I happen to know a few things about Islam. However if I make any mistakes, feel free to correct me (Hopefully with source of your point).

Take it easy!! :-)

-----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?

 
Sorry for 'an religious', it was originally 'an Islamic', then I decided to generalize the termQ. Rahman has misinterpreted the events in early Islam.  Prophet sent emissaries demanding conversion and tithes, the Abissynian Emperor agreed to give a hearing but refused the tithes and hence was denied a conversion.  The Byzantines and the Persians rejected the deal right away. No religion is ever revealed.  It comes as necessary modification to the existing society.  Had Islam been sent for all humanity, in spite of over a thousand years of effort, Muslims are about twenty percent of the total world population, that certainly speaks about non almightiness of Allah.  And if Mr. Rahman has any idea of the demography of Islam, he might observe that most Muslims live in an area formerly ruled by Hindus.  The decadence of Hinduism brought about the prominence of  Islam.  Conversion to Islam has saved it from the descendants of Halagu Khan, but it was not encouraged before the Abbasids.  Actually it was discouraged by the Ummayads.

Priesthood is quite powerful in Islam.  If you pray under the guidance of your Imam at the mosque, you get 27 times more sawab.  The list of people you can't criticize also includes the Imam, your local priest.

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 6:02 AM, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:
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

__,_._,___