Banner Advertiser

Saturday, December 17, 2011

[mukto-mona] Article_on_adibasi-in-1971 [2 Attachments]

[Attachment(s) from Charu Haque included below]

Dear Muktomona,

Heartiest Greetings!

Please find here two attachments regarding aborigines contribution in Liberation War 1971 for publishing on your blog.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

charu haque

01713492423

Attachment(s) from Charu Haque

2 of 2 File(s)


__._,_.___


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

__,_._,___

[mukto-mona] Pakistani's will never forget, the treachery of Hindu'desh, and one day we will get even, when India will break apart into five pieces



http://pakistanthinktank.org/ptt-book-reviews/item/1224-hindu-indias-treacherysarmila-bose-myth-busting-the-bangladesh-war-of-1971



Pakistani's will never forget, the treachery of Hindu'desh, and one day we will get even, when India will break apart into five pieces. IA
Sarmila Bose: Myth-busting the Bangladesh war of 1971 Last month, Al Jazeera published an article entitled Book, film greeted with fury among Bengalis. Here, Sarmila Bose, author of Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War, responds to the criticism levelled at her work. In all the excitement about the "Arab spring" it is instructive to remember the 1971 war in South Asia. Then too there was a military regime in Pakistan, easily identified as the "baddies" - and a popular uprising in its rebellious Eastern province, where Bengali nationalists were reported to be peacefully seeking freedom, democracy and human rights. When the regime used military force to crush the rebellion in East Pakistan, India intervened like a knight to the rescue, resulting in the defeat of the bad guys, victory for the good guys and the independence of Bangladesh… Or so the story went for forty years. I grew up with it in Calcutta. It was widely repeated in the international press. Several years ago I decided to chronicle a number of incidents of the 1971 war in-depth. I observed that many Bangladeshis were aggrieved that the world seemed to have forgotten the terrible trauma of the birth of their nation. Given the scale of the suffering, that lack of memory certainly appeared to be unfair, but there did not seem to be many detailed studies of the war - without which the world could not be expected to remember, or understand, what had happened in 1971. My aim was to record as much as possible of what seemed to be a much-commented-on but poorly documented conflict - and to humanise it, so that the war could be depicted in terms of the people who were caught up in it, and not just faceless statistics. I hoped that the detailed documentation of what happened at the human level on the ground would help to shed some light on the conflict as a whole. The principal tool of my study was memories. I read all available memoirs and reminiscences, in both English and Bengali. But I also embarked on extensive fieldwork, finding and talking to people who were present at many particular incidents, whether as participants, victims or eye-witnesses. Crucially, I wanted to hear the stories from multiple sources, including people on different sides of the war, so as to get as balanced and well-rounded a reconstruction as possible. As soon as I started to do systematic research on the 1971 war, I found that there was a problem with the story which I had grown up believing: from the evidence that emanated from the memories of all sides at the ground level, significant parts of the "dominant narrative" seem not to have been true. Many "facts" had been exaggerated, fabricated, distorted or concealed. Many people in responsible positions had repeated unsupported assertions without a thought; some people seemed to know that the nationalist mythologies were false and yet had done nothing to inform the public. I had thought I would be chronicling the details of the story of 1971 with which I had been brought up, but I found instead that there was a different story to be told. Product of research My book Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War, the product of several years of fieldwork based research, has just been published (Hurst and Co. and Columbia University Press). It focuses on the bitter fratricidal war within the province of East Pakistan over a period of a little more than a year, rather than the open "hot" war between India and Pakistan towards the end. It brings together, for the first time, the memories of dozens of people from each side of the conflict who were present in East Pakistan during the war. It lets the available evidence tell the stories. It has been described as a work that "will set anew the terms of debate" about this war. Even before anyone has had the chance to read it, Dead Reckoning has been attracting comment, some of it of a nature that according to an observer would make the very reception of my book a subject of "taboo studies". "Myth-busting" works that undermine nationalist mythology, especially those that have gone unchallenged for several decades, are clearly not to be undertaken by the faint-hearted. The book has received gratifying praise from scholars and journalists who read the advance copies, but the word "courageous" cropped up with ominous frequency in many of the reviews. Some scholars praised my work in private; others told me to prepare for the flak that was bound to follow. One "myth-busting" scholar was glad my book was out at last, as I would now sweep up at the unpopularity stakes and she would get some respite after enduring several years of abuse. Scholars and investigative journalists have an important role in "busting" politically partisan narratives. And yet, far too often we all fall for the seductive appeal of a simplistic "good versus evil" story, or fail to challenge victors' histories. So far the story of valiant rebels fighting oppressive dictators in the so-called "Arab spring" has had one significant blemish - the vicious sexual attack and attempted murder of CBS foreign correspondent Lara Logan by dozens of men celebrating the downfall of Hosni Mubarak in Tahrir Square in Cairo. It initially vanished from the headlines and has still not led to the kind of questioning of the representation of such conflicts that it should have generated. "Tahrir Square" became shorthand for freedom and democracy-loving people rising up against oppressive dictators. People in other countries started to say they wanted their own "Tahrir Square". Logan has given a brave and graphic account of what happened to her at the hands of those supposedly celebrating the fall of a dictator and the coming of freedom, democracy and human rights. Her life was saved by burqa-clad Egyptian women and she was rescued by soldiers. Her account endows "Tahrir Square" with an entirely different meaning. It should caution us against assuming that all those opposing an oppressive regime are champions of non-violence, democracy or human rights. It should alert us to the complexities of political power struggles and civil war, and stop getting carried away by what we imagine is happening, or would like to happen, rather than what the evidence supports. Such was the impact of the 1971 war on South Asians that the year has transformed into a shorthand for its particular symbolism: 1971, or ekattor, the number 71 in Bengali, has come to stand for a simple equation of a popular nationalist uprising presumed to embody liberal democratic values battling brutal repression by a military dictatorship. But was it really as simple as that? Over time, the victorious Bangladeshi nationalist side's narrative of Pakistani villainy and Bengali victimhood became entrenched through unquestioned repetition. The losing side of Pakistani nationalists had its own myth-making, comprising vast Indian plots. Pakistan had been carved out of the British Empire in India as a homeland for South Asia's Muslims. It was a problematic idea from the start - a large proportion of Muslims chose to remain in secular and pluralistic India, for instance, and its two parts, West Pakistan and East Pakistan, were separated by a thousand miles of a hostile India. In 1971 the idea of Islam as the basis of nationhood came apart in South Asia along with the country of Pakistan, after a mere 23 years of existence. What went wrong? And what do the memories of those who were there reveal about the reality of that war? The publication of Dead Reckoning has spoiled the day for those who had been peddling their respective nationalist mythologies undisturbed for so long. Careers have been built - in politics, media, academia and development - on a particular telling of the 1971 war. All the warring parties of 1971 remain relentlessly partisan in recounting the conflict. As the dominant narrative, which has gained currency around the world, is that of the victorious Bangladeshi nationalists and their Indian allies, they stand to lose the most in any unbiased appraisal. Unsurprisingly therefore, the protests from this section are the shrillest. Mixed reaction The reaction to the publication of Dead Reckoning by those who feel threatened by it has followed a predictable path. First, there has been an attempt to damn the book before it was even available. Apart from random rants on the internet - which provides opportunity for anyone to rail against anything - reports have been written by people who haven't read the book, citing other people who also haven't read the book. The reason for this may be summed up as the well-founded fear of "knowledge is power". When people read the book they will be far better informed as to what really happened in 1971. Hence the desperate attempt by those who have been spinning their particular yarns for so long to try to smear the book before anyone gets the chance to read it. A few people also seem to be trying to laud the book before reading it, an equally meaningless exercise. These commentaries are easy to dismiss: clearly, those who haven't read the book have nothing of value to say about it. Second, detractors of the book claim that it exonerates the military from atrocities committed in East Pakistan in 1971. In reality the book details over several chapters many cases of atrocities committed by the regime's forces, so anyone who says it excuses the military's brutalities is clearly lying. The question is - why are they lying about something that will easily be found out as soon as people start reading the book? The answer to this question is more complex than it might seem. Of course the detractors hope that by making such claims they will stop people from reading the book. Part of the answer lies also in that the book corrects some of the absurd exaggerations about the army's actions with which Bangladeshi nationalists had happily embellished their stories of "villainous" Pakistanis for all these years. But an important reason for falsely claiming that the book exonerates the military is to distract attention from the fact that it also chronicles the brutalities by their own side, committed in the name of Bengali nationalism. The nature and scale of atrocities committed by the "nationalist" side had been edited out of the dominant narrative. Its discovery spoils the "villains versus innocents" spin of Bangladeshi nationalist mythology. A key question about the "controversy" over Dead Reckoning is why this book is stirring such passions when other works do not. One reason for this is that there are precious few studies of the 1971 war based on dispassionate research. This is the first book-length study that reconstructs the violence of the war at the ground-level, utilising multiple memories from all sides of the conflict. Two eminent US historians, Richard Sisson and Leo Rose, published the only research-based study of the war at the diplomatic and policy level twenty years ago. Their excellent book, War and Secession: Pakistan, India and the Creation of Bangladesh (University of California Press, 1990), challenged the dominant narrative, but their work does not seem to be known among the general public as much as within academia. However, a crucial reason for the special impact of Dead Reckoning has to do with who the author is. I am a Bengali, from a nationalist family in India. As Indians and Bengalis our sympathies had been firmly with the liberation struggle in Bangladesh in 1971. The dominant narrative of the 1971 war is the story as told by "my side", as it were. My reporting of what I actually found through my research, rather than unquestioningly repeating the partisan narrative or continuing the conspiracy of silence over uncomfortable truths, is thus taken as a "betrayal" by those who have profited for so long from mythologising the history of 1971. It is important to note that not all South Asians subscribe to the myth-making. One eminent Indian journalist thought that my "courage, disregard for orthodoxy and meticulous research" in writing Dead Reckoning made me "the enfant terrible of Indian historians". A senior Bangladeshi scholar has found it "fitting that someone with Sarmila's links with Bengali nationalism should demonstrate that political values cannot be furthered by distorting history." South Asians are prone to conjuring up all manner of conspiracy theories when faced with unpleasant realities, but those looking for one for Dead Reckoning are at a loss, as the only explanation for what it contains is that it reconstructs what really happened on the basis of available evidence. The process of dismantling entrenched nationalist mythologies can be painful for those who have much vested in them, but the passions stirred by the publication of Dead Reckoning has sparked the debate that the 1971 war badly needed - and set on the right course the discussion of this bitter and brutal fratricidal war that split the only homeland created for Muslims in the modern world. Sarmila Bose is Senior Research Fellow in the Politics of South Asia at the University of Oxford. She was a journalist in India for many years. She earned her degrees at Bryn Mawr College (History) and Harvard University (MPA and PhD in Political Economy and Government.) Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War is published by C. Hurst and Co. and Columbia University Press.



__._,_.___


****************************************************
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] পরাজিতদের আবার কিসের বিজয় দিবস ?



1. What the state minister for law has said is purely a political statement aimed at branding BNP and its founding father Zia as anti-liberation forces. BNP being the biggest political rival, this statement by the AL minister will obviously have positive impact on AL politics. Prof. Muntasir Mamun is not a politician. But he is a historian with strong faith in the ideals of Bangladesh liberation struggle. Difference in opinions of a historian and a politician is not unusual. 
 
2. I think one element in Zia's character can explain his entire professional and political career. This element is "ambition". He wanted to rise as high as possible by hook or by crook. He never had a great ideological and political vision. Since he was abandoned by the mainstream political parties and intelligensia interested in promoting the great ideals of liberation struggle, after 1975 he gradually found himself dependent on and trapped by the antiliberation forces. His politics was primarily shaped by these antiliberation forces. We may remember that all the members in his first advisory board were respectable and progressive people. But they were no good for an ambitious army officer who by exploiting the then stunned political vacuum was aspiring to secure the topmost leadership position in the country. It has been said that he approached the then temporarily demoralized AL leadership for giving him the position of AL president. Having failed in such a negotiation, he turned to the antiliberation forces with whom subsequently joined many frustrated leftist (but staunchly anti-AL and anti-Soviet Union) elements. The latter group among his allied forces was with him merely to share power and see their anti-Indian agenda being materialized with zero influence of their leftist ideals on Zia's policies. Personal ambition not backed by ethical and moral values can turn a person into a monster. We have evidences from history that a highly anbitious leader is also a suspicion maniac and tends to eliminate any thing and every thing that is on his way to the fulfillment of his desire. Zia had to kill precious soldiers of the land only to consolidate his power. He had to have his savior Col. Taher killed for the same reason. He used both carrots and stick to destroy the political system of the country.    
 
3. There is no proof that before 1971 Zia was ever imbued by the ideal of freedom. Ambition was the last word for him. Joining the liberation forces by betraying the Pakistani army in initial period was deemed to be too risky for an ambitious officer like him. Having failed in his pursuit to perform his duty to his employer (unloading ammunition) he very quickly turned into a freedom fighter. Not only that, he tried to exploit the vacuum and the chaotic and confusing state to assert himself as the leader of the movement. He was so much blinded by his ambition that initially he tried to sideline AL and Mujib, and claim himself to be the revolutionary leader. He, however, as we know now, was forced to read the declaration of independence on behalf of Mujib. It is also said that he used to be in personal touch with AL leadrs to persuade them to keep provision for including second-in-command of the army in BAKSAL (verification may be needed.) There is no evidence to believe that he left Khaleda Zia behind only for her to act as a tie between Pakistan army and himself. If any thing has been done "wrong", it might have been done with the consent (free or coerced) of Khaleda Zia herself. It has been reported that after 1971 Mujib himself had to get imvolved personally in bridging a gap between Zia and his wife.          
 
4. On the issue of the observance of Bijoy Dibos by the antiliberation forces, it is the realization on their part that Pakistan is now a hiostory. They have to accept the reality and play in the political field of a new country with old political ideologies. That's why content and spirits of their political speeches will vastly differ from those of the other political parties.                   

From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] পরাজিতদের আবার কিসের বিজয় দিবস ?

 

This article raises many important points:
 
1) Why did a party, founded by Ziaur Rahman, a Freedom Fighter, align with the anti-independence forces?
2) Why did Khaleda Zia stay back in the cantonment when Zia joined Freedom Fight?
3) Why do anti-independence forces want to celebrate the victory day (Bijoy Dibosh)?
 
These points deserve scrutiny.
 
Jiten Roy


Subject: [mukto-mona] পরাজিতদের আবার কিসের বিজয় দিবস ?

 
পরাজিতদের আবার কিসের বিজয় দিবস?
মুনতাসীর মামুন
বর্তমান আইন প্রতিমন্ত্রী এ্যাডভোকেট কামরুল ইসলামের সঙ্গে পরিচয় বেগম জিয়ার দুঃসহ আমলের বিরুদ্ধে আন্দোলনের সময় থেকে, রাস্তায়। এখনও তিনি দেখা হলে মন্ত্রী হিসাবে নয়, পুরনো সংগ্রামী হিসাবে সম্মান করেন। আমিও তাঁকে পুরনো সহযোদ্ধা হিসাবে সম্মান করি। অবশ্য তাঁর অনেক রাজনৈতিক কথাবার্তার সঙ্গে আমি একমত নই, তিনিও হয়ত আমার অনেক বক্তব্যের সঙ্গে একমত নন। কয়েক দিন আগে টেলিভিশনে এক আলোচনায় আমরা দু'জন ছিলাম। আমার বক্তব্য ছিল, জিয়াউর রহমান নিজ স্বার্থ অটুট রাখতে রাজাকারদের বুকের গভীরে গ্রহণ করেছিলেন। কামরুল এ মন্তব্যের প্রতিবাদ করে বললেন, তিনি তা মনে করেন না। দৃঢ়কণ্ঠে বললেন, জিয়া পাকিস্তানী এজেন্ট ছিলেন। তার যুদ্ধে যাওয়ার ধরন, তার স্ত্রীর স্বেচ্ছায় ক্যান্টনমেন্টে থেকে যাওয়া, তার মতাদর্শ সবই এর প্রমাণ।
আমি তাঁর মন্তব্যের সঙ্গে তখন একমত হইনি। এখনও একমত হব এমন নয়। বিএনপির একজন মহিলা এমপি ফোনে প্রশ্ন করেছিলেন, তা হলে জিয়াকে কেন বীরোত্তম উপাধি দেয়া হয়েছিল, উপসেনাধ্যক্ষ করা হয়েছিল? কামরুল জবাব দিয়েছিলেন, বঙ্গবন্ধু সবাইকে বিশ্বাস করতেন, তাকেও করেছেন, কিন্তু ১৯৭৫-এর পর তার চারিত্রিক বৈশিষ্ট্য ফুটে উঠেছে।
কামরুলের এ মন্তব্য আবার আমার মনে পড়ল বিএনপির ভারপ্রাপ্ত মহাসচিব মির্জা ফখরুলের এক মন্তব্যে। তিনি বলেছিলেন, তাদের বিজয় দিবস পালন করতে দিচ্ছে না সরকার। মনে হলো, তিনি কেন বিজয় দিবস পালন করতে চাচ্ছেন? এতে তার লাভটা কী? সরকার তাদের বিজয় দিবস পালন করতে দিচ্ছে না এ কথার সত্যতা নিয়ে যথেষ্ট সন্দেহ থাকা সত্ত্বেও বলছি, আচ্ছা কেন তাদের বিজয় দিবস পালন করতে দিতে হবে?
১৯৭১ সালে পাকিস্তানী হানাদার বাহিনী, রাজাকার, আলবদর, শানত্মি কমিটির সদস্য বা অন্য কথায় জামায়াতে ইসলামী বা মুসলিম লীগ ছিল পরাজিত শক্তি। এরা পাকিস্তানী ভাবধারা বা মতাদর্শে ছিল বিশ্বাসী।
বাঙালীরা বিজয়ী হয়েছিলেন, বাঙালী মতাদর্শ জয়ী হয়েছিল।
জিয়াউর রহমান এসে বাঙালীর মতাদর্শের প্রতীক সংবিধান থেকে বাঙালিত্ব ছেঁটে ফেললেন। তিনি পরাজিতদের মুক্ত করে তাদের নিয়ে দল গঠন করলেন বা তাদের সহযোগী শক্তি হিসাবে প্রতিষ্ঠিত করলেন। তার জীবদ্দশায় তিনি পাকিসত্মানী মতাদর্শ যতটা সম্ভব ফিরিয়ে আনতে সচেষ্ট হলেন। বাঙালী মুক্তিযোদ্ধা হলে তিনি এটা কেন করবেন? এ প্রশ্নের উত্তর পাওয়া জরম্নরী।
এ একই মতাদর্শ এগিয়ে নিয়েছেন খালেদা জিয়াও। পরাজিত শক্তিদের তিনি স্থায়ী মিত্র করেছেন। যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের তিনি ৰমতায় এনেছেন। এটা ভাবতে আমার খুব অবাক লাগে_ যারা সমাজ-রাষ্ট্রে খুনী, ধর্ষক এবং লুটেরা হিসাবে পরিচিত তাদের কিভাবে মন্ত্রী করা যায়? তাদের মতাদর্শ কিভাবে রাষ্ট্রে তুলে ধরা হয়? আমি কি একজন খুনীর সঙ্গে বসবাস করতে পারব? তবে, আমি যদি তাকে খুনী না মনে করি তা হলে বসবাস করতে পারব। বেগম জিয়া যদি তাদের পাকি আমলের মিত্র মনে না করতেন তা হলে এটি কি সম্ভব ছিল!
রাজনৈতিকভাবেও এ ধরনের মৈত্রী সম্ভব নয়। ইউরোপে মূল স্রোতধারায় কোন দল নাজি বা ফ্যাসিস্ট কোন দলের সঙ্গে মৈত্রী করেছে এমন উদাহরণ দেয়া যাবে না। সেখানে এ মতাদর্শ নিষিদ্ধ। কিন্তু অবাক ব্যাপার হচ্ছে, যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের বিচার শুরম্ন হলে বিএনপি এর বিরোধিতা শুরম্ন করে। খালেদা জিয়া, মির্জা ফখরম্নল থেকে শুরম্ন করে বিএনপির সবাই যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের রৰায় আন্দোলনে প্রস্তুত হচ্ছেন। পরাজিত মতাদর্শ, পরাজিত শক্তির সঙ্গে এ ধরনের মৈত্রী তখনই সম্ভব যখন নিজেদেরও কেউ সেই মতাদর্শে বিশ্বাসী মনে করে। শর্মিলা যেমন মর্ষকামী পাকিসত্মানী সৈন্যদের দ্বারা নিপীড়িত হওয়ার বাসনা পোষণ করে, সে কারণে পরপর পাকিসত্মানী ধর্ষক-খুনীদের সাফাই গাইছে, বিএনপি নেতানেত্রীদেরও তাই মনে হয়।
যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের যারা প্রকাশ্যে সমর্থন করে তারাও বাঙালীদের শত্রম্ন। যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের যারা সমর্থন করে তারাও অপরাধী। খুনীকে যদি কেউ প্রশ্রয় দেয় ফৌজদারি আইনে সেও অপরাধী। আর এখানে প্রকাশ্যে খুনী-ধর্ষকদের সমর্থন দেয়া হবে তারা অপরাধী হবে না কেন? বিজয়ের মাসে তারা রাজাকারদের বিজয় গাইবেন এটা কেন মানা হবে? বিএনপিতে মুক্তিযোদ্ধা থাকে কিভাবে? যারা থাকে তারা হলো জিয়া টাইপের মুক্তিযোদ্ধা, কামরম্নলের ভাষায় পাকিসত্মানী এজেন্ট? আমার মনে হয়, মুক্তিযুদ্ধ পদকের অবমাননা করছে তারা এবং এসব পদক ফিরিয়ে নেয়া যৌক্তিক। রাজাকারদের সমর্থকরা কেন বিজয় দিবস পালন করতে চায় তাই বোধগম্য নয়। এর একটা কারণ তারা জানে দেশের সংখ্যাগরিষ্ঠ মানুষ রাজাকারবিরোধী। সুতরাং বিজয়ের মাসে মুক্তিযুদ্ধের কথা না বললে লোকজন রাসত্মাঘাটে তাদের প্রহার করতে পারে। এভাবে তারা বিভ্রানত্মি ছড়াতে চাচ্ছে। এটিই বিজয়ের বিরম্নদ্ধে এক ধরনের ষড়যন্ত্র। পুরনো রাজাকারদের যারা সমর্থক, তারা অবশ্যই নও রাজাকার, নও মুসলমান বা নও নাজিদের মতো।
আমরা বাঙালী আদর্শে বিজয়ী, বিজয় দিবস আমাদের। রাজাকাররা ডিসেম্বরে পরাজিত। তারা পরাজিত শক্তি। রাজাকার ও নও রাজাকাররা পরাজয় দিবস পালন করুক, আপত্তি নেই। তাদের আবার বিজয় দিবস কিসের?






__._,_.___


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

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Gita Sahgal - Dead Reckoning: Disappearing stories and evidence




http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=214510


The Daily Star, Dhaka, Bangladesh

December 18, 2011


Dead Reckoning: Disappearing stories and evidence

The 40th anniversary of the liberation of Bangladesh is special not simply because it marks the passing of decades, but because of the current passionate attempt to recapture the founding spirit of the nation. The recent debates on the Constitution and an attempt to return it to its original secular character of 1972 are vital to the future survival of the country. But the hurried changes made, with an ultimate outcome of keeping Islam as the state religion, have disappointed many. In contrast, the war crimes trials that are underway still offer hope.
But I observe that, in London, Bangladeshis seeking justice are isolated and told instead to seek reconciliation, and even that genocide didn't happen. Further, Bangladesh is criticised for holding the trials in a national court rather than as a Rwanda or Yugoslavia style international process. But the establishment of an International Criminal Court was intended to step in only when national judiciaries failed to act, or collapsed entirely.
The current war crimes trials should be able to provide a basis for future examination of other issues. Ending the impunity enjoyed by those responsible for violence in 1971 will go some way towards reassuring minorities that attacks on them will not be tolerated. As it grapples with one kind of impunity, Bangladesh, which has shown the way on many issues, should be able to tackle the constitutional questions that were avoided earlier. Removing Islam as the state religion is one of the key changes that will begin to ensure full citizenship for all, and a framework for addressing more modern forms of impunity.
My own encounter with 1971 was War Crimes File, a documentary I produced for Channel Four (UK). The film investigated three men of Bangladeshi origin, by then all British nationals, for 1971 war crimes or crimes against humanity. David Bergman was a stubborn and persistent reporter, and he led the research with a large team of Bangladeshi academics, filmmakers and young researchers until we found a trail of information that led to the three accused. We found serious and credible allegations that they were involved in making lists of people to be picked up, ordering killings, being involved with torture centres and participating in the killing of the intellectuals. Many of those we interviewed were eye witnesses, or even targets who had evaded capture.
Our interviewees told us that local collaborators of Jamaat e Islami "not only collaborated with the Pakistani army in the genocide, but had their own scheme of killing." But recently, a number of recent writings about Bangladesh have obscured this story entirely.
At a December 8th presentation at SOAS, London, Sarmila Bose presented a talk "The legacy of 1971 - 40 years on," at the invitation of theCenter for the Study of Pakistan. During the Q&A session I asked her directly why, in her book Dead Reckoning, she had been dismissive about Razakars, as if it was a figment of fevered Bengali imaginations. She had treated them as a "discourse" rather than a fact on the ground that needs examination. Why was there no discussion of their actions, no mention of peace committees or their political linkages to the Jamaat e Islami? In reply, she simply said that these issues were not her concern and the book dealt with only certain incidents. This evasive response is elaborated in her just-published essay "The question of genocide and the quest for justice in the 1971 war" (Journal of Genocide Studies, November 2011), where she states: "It may be argued that the groups doing the killings were the creation of the regime, but their exact identity and motives remain shrouded."
Looking at how she responded to various questions at SOAS, she appears to be going through a central shape shifting in the face of mounting criticism of her book. At the time of launch, she claimed Dead Reckoning was groundbreaking, a new account of the war, showing that the major narrative was not merely flawed or incomplete but fundamentally wrong. By now, after months of published criticisms of her book (Mookherjee, Mohaiemen, in EPW, among others), she says it is only a "few incidents" and when key issues like Razakars are brought up, she says these are "not her concern."
When the book was first launched, the Pakistanis were gentlemen and the Bengalis were racist and nasty towards them. Now, she states, she was not intending to be rude, but rather to display "the richness of the vocabulary" of Bengalis criticising Pakistanis. Then, there was no genocide (except of Biharis). Now, she says she has written an article saying that there might have been some genocidal killings.
That is why I call her a shape shifter.
One method used by her is to look at written narratives, and then take them apart by "checking" with the Pakistani army. She clearly started out with a great deal of access, but she uses none of the material which could help make a case against the Pakistan army. In several cases, people are alive and she could have talked to them directly rather relying on hearsay. Bose has certainly not attempted to raise the shroud she referred to, although she had the perfect opportunity to do so.
In Dead Reckoning, Bose quoted General Niazi, who wrote that sanction to set up al Badr and al Shams was given at the end of August 1971 and they were drawn from well-educated students from schools and madrassas. But by the time she writes this new article on genocide, she has apparently forgotten this citation and all mention of al Badr. In the book, she discusses accounts of "the killing of the intellectuals." Now, in the article, she concludes that there is no evidence that the Pakistani army was involved. In neither the book nor the article does she connect al Badr and al Shams to the Jamaat e Islami or examine their ideology, intentions or actions. There is a blackout in her book about the peace committees and the role of the Jamaat in systematic killings and torture.
The most striking thing about the book is the complete absence of any framework, theoretical or political. Some of her material clearly shows an uprising in progress. Fear, rumours and exaggeration are well known features of uprisings, but you don't get any sense that she understands this, or has read anything about the behaviour of crowds. There is also a non-discussion of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanityeither legal or political movements for accountability, or the case that has developed through international tribunals
Now it is true that only certain incidents are discussed, so she may argue she does not need to cover every incident. But the book claims to dismiss the genocide allegation based on these selective incidents. In her book, she summarily denied genocide allegations against Pakistanis. For instance, she makes no determination on the crimes committed at Dhaka University, though she doesn't deny the direct accounts of targeted attacks on civilians. But she mocks them for "cowering" instead of fighting. There is a strong whiff of admiration for the military, instead of these paltry people who hid when the army launched a massive attack. Her main concern is numbers and other issues of burial and evidence.
There was an emphasis in her EPW article on rape (preceding this book) on randomness, as she keeps calling rape "opportunistic." In the book, there is a refusal to see any patternstargeting of civilians, even where it is described, it is not commented on. After being challenged on the EPW article (by Mookherjee, Mandal, Rahman and others), she excluded some of the rape material from the book. Although Yasmin Saikia is cited as a reliable source, none of Saikia's information about rape, or contrition of Pakistani soldiers, is used. Other secondary sources are frequently used, so why not this one? My film The War Crimes File is cited, but very little of the material in it, except for footage of the killings in Dhaka University, is discussed.
One of the difficulties of the definition of genocide is that there is a requirement to prove "intent." That, along with the requirement to show that a group (for instance, religious or ethnic but not political) is being destroyed is of paramount importance. This requirement does not have to be met in the case of war crimes or crimes against humanity. But evidence that crimes are either "widespread" or "systematic" would be crucial in determining a crime against humanity. As the Rwanda tribunal showed, inflammatory speeches calling for extermination of a group, can be an element in genocide. It would be important to show whether there were organised groups, whether they were acting on their own or under military command. Bose's failure to gather and present such evidence, in a book and subsequent article on genocide and other grave crimes, is inexcusable.
The writer is Executive Director of Center for Secular Space, London (centreforsecularspace.org). She earlier headed Amnesty International's Gender Unit. Gita also produced the award-winning War Crimes File (Channel 4), a documentary on alleged 1971 war criminals associated with Islamist groups in England.


__._,_.___


[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

__,_._,___

[mukto-mona] Sanskrit thriving in British schools [Must See]



Sanskrit thriving in British schools

British Kids Chanting Vedic Sanskrit Mantras

Sanskrit Language: The Most Scientific, Ancient, Spiritual


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cQ4hIG9w7c&feature=colike
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ4gWh5jVgo&feature=colike
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9A_q8kxE8g&feature=colike
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Brv2FaOluU&feature=colike [Full]
Thinking Allowed - Sanskrit Tradition
Location: Israel

Prof. Dean Brown points out that most European languages can be traced back to a root language that is also related to Sanskrit - the sacred language of the ancient Vedic Hindu religions of India. Many English words actually have Sanskrit origins. Similarly, many Vedic religious concepts can also be found in Western culture. He discusses the fundamental idea of the Upanishads - that the essence of each individual, the atman, is identical to the whole universe, the principle of brahman. In this sense, the polytheistic traditions of India can be said to be monistic at their very core.

 
Thanks & Regards,


Sudhir Srinivasan
B.Arch, MSc.CPM, Dip.ID, Dip.CAD, Dip.PM
| Architect |




__._,_.___


****************************************************
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] Fw: [notun_bangladesh] 1350 unidentified bodies buried in 2011




                     Many may remember the days when 'adorer jamai' was the loudest and the most vociferous sponsor of RAB recommending using them for solving every problem from  dowry-claim torture of women to student up-rises.

         There was then the BNP regime who created the 'notorious' RAB, so jamai baba was jumping up and down fearlessly in joy at a few target killing.  He even spoke against hartal by AL,  the Opposition party.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/banglarnari/message/4603  condemning hartal by AL



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/banglarnari/message/3598


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/banglarnari/message/4791

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/banglarnari/message/5009


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/banglarnari/message/5003

 

 




To: akhtergolam@gmail.com; awamileague@yahoogroups.com; syed.aslam3@gmail.com; pressministerwash@yahoo.com; veirsmill@yahoo.com; akhtarudduza@gmail.com; captchowdhury@yahoo.ca; manik195709@yahoo.com
CC: nurannabi@gmail.com; manik061624@yahoo.com; srbanunz@gmail.com; hares.syed@dc.gov; chowdhury.harun@yahoo.com; faithcomilla@gmail.com; mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com; vinnomot@yahoogroups.com
From: mohiuddin@netzero.net
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 21:29:42 +0000
Subject: [mukto-mona] Fw: [notun_bangladesh] 1350 unidentified bodies buried in 2011

 

Mr. Golam Farid Akhter,
Human Righhts Activist of greater Washington Metro Area,
 
Please do  your best to stop
 this madness and killings by notorious RAB in Bangladesh. Speak fearlessly and
try to save human lives before next target of RAB being killed.
 
Thanks.
 


 
 
1350 unidentified bodies buried in 2011

Figures were 1204, 296 in two preceding years

At least 1,350 unidentified bodies were recovered from the desolate and marshy land in different parts of the country, mostly from the outskirts of the capital, in last 10 months.Many of the deceased were victims of 'silent' killing, human rights organization sources have said.

Anjuman-Mofidul Islam the only private organization in the country involved with the burial of unidentified bodies, said they have buried 1,103 bodies in last 10 months in capital city alone.At least 1,204 bodies were buried as unidentified by Anjuman-Mofidul Islam in the year 2010 while 296 in 2009respectively. Anjuman has buried a total 3,437 bodies during the last 10 years.Anjuman-Mofidul Islam in Chatagong also buried 239 unidentified bodies.

Police recovered 15 unidentified bodies from Ashulia Turag, Keraniganj and bypass areas in last 4 days. In most of the cases, the victims are picked-up by people introducing themselves as law enforcers, particularly as RAB personnel. However, the law enforcers have denied the accusations.

http://thenewnationbd.com/newsdetails.aspx?newsid=25560
 
 
 


____________________________________________________________
LifeLock® Official Site
Identity Theft Can Happen to Anyone So Get Protection with LifeLock.
LifeLock.com


__._,_.___


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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___