Banner Advertiser

Monday, August 5, 2013

Re: [mukto-mona] ভারতের প্রতিশ্রুতি রক্ষা করা উচিত ছিল



Here there are three independent parties---the government, BJP, and Trinamool. Looks like the Singh government was ready to solve most of the problems with Bangladesh which it failed to do because of non-cooperation from BJP and Trinamool. My question was: is it so simple? Looks like you did not understand my wonderment.

From: QR <qrahman@netscape.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 7:17 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] ভারতের প্রতিশ্রুতি রক্ষা করা উচিত ছিল
 
Is that so simple? 

>>>>>>>>>> It is. If it was a different country, it would have been solved within months. Bangladesh lived up to all of it's commitments (At least major ones) to India and India FAILED to deliver for over 40 long years. Even Pakistan gets better treatment from India. The problem is India takes us for granted and want to squeeze us dry in every opportunities it gets. But times are changing and India is going to miss a huge window of opportunity if India continue to disappoint us and China continues to support us. Shalom!
-----Original Message-----From: Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>Sent: Sun, Aug 4, 2013 7:32 pmSubject: Re: [mukto-mona] ভারতের প্রতিশ্রুতি রক্ষা করা উচিত ছিল
 
We are aware of Mamata Banerji's noncooperation when PM Singh was eager to sign the Tista pact. Now I see the noncooperation from BJP. BJP does not want to give any credit to Congress before election. So Bangladesh is the victim of mean sectarian politics in india! Is that so simple? 

Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 4, 2013, at 6:38 AM, QR <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 





ভারতের প্রতিশ্রুতি রক্ষা করা উচিত ছিল



নিরাপত্তাসহ ভারতের নানা উদ্বেগ দূর করতে গত সাড়ে চার বছর সচেষ্ট থেকেছে বাংলাদেশ। তাই বাংলাদেশের 'ধর্মনিরপেক্ষ, গণতান্ত্রিক ও প্রগতিশীল' সরকারের স্বার্থেই তিস্তা ও স্থল সীমান্ত চুক্তি নিয়ে ভারতের প্রতিশ্রুতি রক্ষা করা উচিত ছিল। এখন দুই প্রতিবেশী দেশে সাধারণ নির্বাচনের আগে গুরুত্বপূর্ণ বিষয় দুটিতে অগ্রগতির সম্ভাবনা খুবই কম।
বাংলাদেশে হাইকমিশনার হিসেবে কাজ করার অভিজ্ঞতাসম্পন্ন কয়েকজন ভারতীয় কূটনীতিক এ অভিমত দিয়েছেন। সম্প্রতি প্রথম আলোর সঙ্গে আলাপচারিতায় তাঁরা বলেন, সম্পর্ক ঠিক করার দায়িত্ব ভারতের। তাই ভারতকেই গুরুত্বপূর্ণ ভূমিকা নিতে হবে।
এদিকে ভারতের সাবেক তিন কূটনীতিক এক আলোচনায় বলেছেন, গত সাড়ে চার বছরে ভারতের বিভিন্ন দাবির প্রতি সহানুভূতিশীল থেকেছে বাংলাদেশ। উদ্বেগ দূর করে দুশ্চিন্তামুক্ত করেছে ভারতকে। তাই ভারতেরও বাংলাদেশকে প্রতিদান দেওয়া উচিত ছিল।
ঢাকায় ভারতের সাবেক তিন হাইকমিশনার দেব মুখার্জি, বীণা সিক্রি ও রজিত মিত্তার সম্প্রতি রাজ্যসভা টেলিভিশনে এক আলোচনায় এ প্রতিক্রিয়া দিয়েছেন। গত সপ্তাহে এ আলোচনা ধারণ করা হয়। বাংলাদেশকে নিয়ে সাবেক তিন ভারতীয় কূটনীতিকের আলোচনা আজ রোববার সম্প্রচারের কথা রয়েছে।
প্রথম আলোকে দুই কূটনীতিক: দ্বিপক্ষীয় সম্পর্কোন্নয়নের প্রতিশ্রুতি পূরণে ব্যর্থতার দায়টা কার? কংগ্রেস নেতৃত্বাধীন ইউপিএর (প্রগতিশীল গণতান্ত্রিক জোট), নাকি ভারতের রাজনৈতিক দলগুলোর? এ নিয়ে ভারতের বিভিন্ন মহলে শুরু হয়েছে আলোচনা।
জানতে চাইলে ভারতের সাবেক পররাষ্ট্রসচিব মুচকুন্দ দুবে বলেন, ভারতের সংকীর্ণ দলীয় রাজনীতির শিকার হলো বাংলাদেশ। প্রধানমন্ত্রী মনমোহন সিং সমস্যা সমাধানে আন্তরিক ছিলেন। চেষ্টার কোনো ত্রুটি করেননি পররাষ্ট্রমন্ত্রী সালমান খুরশিদও। ভারতের পররাষ্ট্র মন্ত্রণালয়ের কর্মকর্তারাও সীমান্ত চুক্তি সমাধানে যথাসাধ্য চেষ্টা করেছেন। কিন্তু শুরুতে বিষয়টির সুরাহায় সংবিধান সংশোধনী বিলে সমর্থনের অঙ্গীকার করেও শেষ মুহূর্তে পিছিয়ে গেল বিজেপি। আসলে এই সরকারকে এখন আর কোনো রকম কৃতিত্বই দিতে রাজি নয় বিজেপি।
এ বিষয়ে ঢাকায় ভারতের সাবেক হাইকমিশনার দেব মুখার্জি বলেন, ভারতের কাছে বাংলাদেশকে সব সময় হাত পাততে হবে কেন? বাংলাদেশের যা প্রাপ্য ও যতটুকু প্রাপ্য, ভারতকে সেটা দিতেই হবে। সম্পর্ক ঠিক করার প্রধান দায়িত্ব ভারতের এবং ভারতকেই অগ্রণী হতে হবে।
দুই দেশের নির্বাচনের আগে গুরুত্বপূর্ণ বিষয় দুটির সমাধানে অগ্রগতি হবে বলে মনে করেন না মুচকুন্দ দুবে ও দেব মুখার্জি।
ঢাকায় ভারতের সাবেক হাইকমিশনার মুচকুন্দ দুবের ভাষায়, সমস্যাগুলোর সুরাহার তেমন আশা করা কষ্টকর। সাড়ে চার বছরে দ্বিপক্ষীয় সম্পর্ক ও সহযোগিতার যে ক্ষেত্রটা তৈরি হয়েছিল, তা ভবিষ্যতে কোথায় যাবে, সেটা বলা কঠিন। নিরাপত্তা নিয়েও যে নিশ্চয়তার বাতাবরণ ছিল, আগামী দিনে তা কতটা থাকবে বলা কঠিন।
দেব মুখার্জি বলেন, 'চুক্তি নিয়ে এখনই আর কোনো অগ্রগতির আশা ক্ষীণ। বাংলাদেশ আশাহত হতে পারে। কিন্তু এর ফলে ভারতের প্রতি বাংলাদেশের বর্তমান সরকারের মনোভাবের কোনো পরিবর্তন ঘটবে বলে মনে করি না।'
দীপু মনিকে প্রধানমন্ত্রী মনমোহন সিংয়ের প্রশ্ন ছিল, চুক্তি সই হয়নি ঠিকই কিন্তু তিস্তার স্বাভাবিক প্রবাহেও ভারত বাধা দেয়নি। তা ছাড়া এই সাড়ে চার বছরে বহু ইতিবাচক বোঝাপড়া দুই দেশের মধ্যে হয়েছে। সেগুলো প্রচারে প্রাধান্য না পেয়ে কেন নেতিবাচক প্রচার প্রাধান্য পাচ্ছে? এর ফলে বিরোধীদের হাতই কি শক্ত হচ্ছে না?
এ প্রসঙ্গে দেব মুখার্জি বলেন, এটা একটা রাজনৈতিক সমস্যা। এর মীমাংসা হতে হবে রাজনৈতিকভাবে এবং ভারতকেই অগ্রণী ভূমিকা নিতে হবে। যেহেতু ভারতের মধ্য দিয়ে প্রবাহিত হয়ে নদীগুলো বাংলাদেশে গেছে। একে উপেক্ষা করা যাবে না।
রাজ্যসভা টিভির আলোচনা: রাজ্যসভা টিভির ধারণ করা আলোচনায় দেব মুখার্জি, বীণা সিক্রি ও রজিত মিত্তার বক্তব্যের সুরে ছিল অদ্ভূত মিল। ওই আলোচনায় তাঁরা বলেন, ভারতের বিভিন্ন দাবির প্রতি বাংলাদেশ যেভাবে সহানুভূতিশীল থেকেছে, ভারতের উচিত ছিল তার প্রতিদান দেওয়া। ভারতও অনেক কিছু করেছে, বাংলাদেশকে অনেক কিছুই দিয়েছে। কিন্তু তিস্তা ও স্থল সীমান্ত চুক্তি বাংলাদেশের কাছে আবেগের বিষয়। ভারতের উচিত ছিল সেই আবেগকে সম্মান দেখানো। আলোচনার মূল নির্যাস হচ্ছে, দুই চুক্তি বাস্তবায়নে ভারত যে প্রতিশ্রুতি বাংলাদেশকে দিয়েছিল, তা যেকোনোভাবেই পূরণ করা দরকার ছিল।




Source: http://www.prothom-alo.com/international/article/34656/%E0%A6%AD%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%A4%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B0_%E0%A6%AA%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%B6%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%BF_%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%95%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%B7%E0%A6%BE_%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BE_%E0%A6%89%E0%A6%9A%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A4_%E0%A6%9B%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%B2


__._,_.___


****************************************************
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] India wanted to invade Bangladesh in 1975




I consider it as mischievous. When the yearning for friendship  between the peoples of India and that of  Pakistan is growing, this is motivated. The other intention is to campaign for theOpposition. My point is while I too prefer Awami League to BNP, I am of the view that we should wait for the elections and the verdict. It's the prerogative of the Bangladeshis to choose their government.
SR
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 07:15:57
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] India wanted to invade Bangladesh in 1975
 

Stupid Paki minded MBI Munshi invented an old known story.  Indira Gandhi was prevented from taking a stern action by Henry Kissinger besides she also shared her fathers opinion of not breeding a carbuncle on the butt.  JSD might have been funded by India as BNP had been since its birth as a political party.  I was made aware of it by decades ago by a leading BNP think tank.  "What is the reason" - I asked.  His answer was that Delhi does not want united Bengal.  Now that with everything from onion to sacrificial cow being brought in from India what level of 'independence' does Bangladesh have in the opinion of people who are like minded with Munshi.


On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:46 AM, mimunshi <MBIMunshi@gmail.com> wrote:
 

India wanted to invade Bangladesh in 1975

Hameed Shaheen

 

Pakistan Observer – August 5, 2013

Monday, August 05, 2013 - Islamabad—A startling revelation that Hindustan wanted to invade Bangladesh in 1975 to install there her own choice government appears in a new book `The Bangladesh Military Coup and the CIA Link' by B Z Khasru editor Capital Express New York, to be published shortly.

When Gen Ziaur Rahman emerged as a virtual ruler in Bandladesh following several bloody coups in 1975, he informed United States of an impending Hindustani invasion of Bangladesh. New Delhi, the book says, wanted to install government of her choice in Dhaka.

The invasion fear spiraled so high that Gen Zia made a radio call to his nation to be ready to confront the attack. It was an intense moment for the people of Bangladesh.

"The public mood in Dhaka reflected a total reversal of the sentiment at the end of the Bangladesh war in 1971 when the sentiment was explicitly anti-Pakistani and secular. Following the November 1975 events, the attitude turned explicitly pro-Pakistani, pro-Islamic, pro-American and pro-West" says an excerpt of the book.

This public mood in Dhaka reflected a total reversal of the sentiment at the end of the Bangladesh war in 1971 when the sentiment was explicitly anti-Pakistani and secular. Following the November 1975 events, the attitude turned explicitly pro-Pakistani, pro-Islamic, pro-American and pro-West.

In order to blunt the invasion, Gen Ziaur Rahman sent his acting foreign secretary Mr Nazrul Islam to seek US support to discourage New Delhi. Islam was to request that "America convey Bangladesh's feelings regarding the possible Indian move to China and Pakistan so that they could mobilize support from the Muslim countries. Accordingly, Islam asked Irving G. Cheslaw, U.S. Chargé d'Affaires in Dhaka, for support to checkmate any Indian invasion.

As Islam talked with Cheslaw in Dhaka, the U.S. consul general in Kolkata discussed the events in Bangladesh with Ashok Gupta, West Bengal chief secretary, and Gen. J.F. R. Jacob, Eastern Command deputy chief, at a Soviet reception. Gupta described the Bangladesh situation as worrisome. Fighting was still going on there, and Dhaka's air was thick with anti-Indian slogans", says the excerpt. Meanwhile Mahbubul Alam Chashi, principal secretary to Bangladesh President A. M. Sayem," telephoned Davis E. Boster, U.S. ambassador in Dhaka, to seek assurance from the United States with respect to any external threat."

"Boster informed the State Department that "although Chashi's formulation was vague, what he clearly had in mind was assurance from us that we would help deter India from intervening in the current situation."

Responding to Bangladesh's request, the State Department "instructed the U.S. Embassy in Dhaka on 8 November 1975 to deliver a message pledging American support. The message said the Bangladesh government's "requests for our support during this unsettled period have received urgent and careful attention in Washington. We support the independence of Bangladesh and want to carry on the close and cooperative relations we have had with previous governments in Dacca. We will continue to be sympathetic to Bangladesh's needs and concerns."

On 8 November, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told the U.S. ambassador in New Delhi to meet with External Affairs Minister Y.B. Chavan or Foreign Secretary Kewal Singh to seek a high-level Indian assessment of the situation in Bangladesh and convey the message that the United States supported an independent Bangladesh.

Singh assured the American that New Delhi had no intention of interfering in Bangladesh affairs. How Bangladesh ran its government was its affair. But if its policies created problems or hurt Indian interests, then "India must express its concern." He believed Zia knew of India's views.

Zia panicked for the second time on the night of 23 November when he feared India was about to attack Bangladesh. At 0:30 a.m., he went on the radio appealing for the nation's unity in "this fatefulhour."

The military regime took the threat so seriously that it sent a secret envoy to Pakistan to seek Prime Minister Z. A. Bhutto's help to fend off the Indian attack.

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=214665

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

Why Bangladesh feared Indian invasion after 1975 coup

B.Z. Khasru

Kashmir Observer – August 1, 2013

When Gen. Ziaur Rahman became Bangladesh's virtual ruler following several bloody military coups in 1975, he told the United States that India intended to invade its small neighbor to install a puppet regime.

 

So intense was Zia's fear of an Indian invasion that on 7 November 1975 he made a call on the radio for national unity to face the attack. His call triggered more processions in Dhaka, initially sparked by the news of his release from detention by the officers who had mounted a failed coup earlier. The processions were laced with anti-Indian slogans.

 

This public mood in Dhaka reflected a total reversal of the sentiment at the end of the Bangladesh war in 1971 when the sentiment was explicitly anti-Pakistani and secular. Following the November 1975 events, the attitude turned explicitly pro-Pakistani, pro-Islamic, pro-American and pro-West.

 

Fearing a direct Indian intervention, the new regime instructed Nazrul Islam, acting foreign secretary of Bangladesh, to seek U.S. support to discourage New Delhi. He was to request that America convey Bangladesh's feelings regarding the possible Indian move to China and Pakistan so that they could mobilize support from the Muslim countries. Accordingly, Islam asked Irving G. Cheslaw, U.S. Chargé d'Affaires in Dhaka, for support to checkmate any Indian invasion.

 

As Islam talked with Cheslaw in Dhaka, the U.S. consul general in Kolkata discussed the events in Bangladesh with Ashok Gupta, West Bengal chief secretary, and Gen.  J.F. R. Jacob, Eastern Command deputy chief, at a Soviet reception. Gupta described the Bangladesh situation as worrisome. Fighting was still going on there, and Dhaka's air was thick with anti-Indian slogans.

 

Indian general predicts Zia's peril

 

Jacob spent at least an hour at the reception. He was evidently in high spirits, obviously enjoying the host's vodka. He told Consul General David Korn that the Bangladesh situation was "very bad." He predicted Zia would not last very long.

 

When Korn asked if the fighting had ended, Jacob said it was continuing. Jacob knew this from monitoring of the Bangladesh army internal network. Korn asked what Jacob was going to do. Jacob replied, with a smile, "Nothing. I don't give a damn about Bangladesh."

 

Meanwhile, U.S. Consular Officer Joseph O'Neill spoke with a senior Indian Air Force officer and a Navy officer. He found both relaxed and unconcerned. A senior police officer told him the West Bengal-Bangladesh land border remained open.

The Bangladesh deputy high commissioner in Kolkata told O'Neill that he did not expect "outside interference," because the current leadership in Dhaka was very reasonable and intelligent. However, his deputy, in a separate conversation, told Korn he was quite worried about the possibility of an Indian military intervention.

Indeed, Bangladesh was worried.

 

Mahbubul Alam Chashi, principal secretary to Bangladesh President A. M. Sayem, telephoned Davis E. Boster, U.S. ambassador in Dhaka, to seek assurance from the United States with respect to any external threat.

 

Boster informed the State Department that "although Chashi's formulation was vague, what he clearly had in mind was assurance from us that we would help deter India from intervening in the current situation."

 

U.S. pledges support for Bangladesh

 

Responding to Bangladesh's request, the State Department instructed the U.S. Embassy in Dhaka on 8 November 1975 to deliver a message pledging American support. The message said the Bangladesh government's "requests for our support during this unsettled period have received urgent and careful attention in Washington. We support the independence of Bangladesh and want to carry on the close and cooperative relations we have had with previous governments in Dacca. We will continue to be sympathetic to Bangladesh's needs and concerns."

 

However, the United States faced "the practical question of how best to proceed in order to achieve what both our governments desire – to stabilize the present situation and avoid the possibility of outside intervention."

 

America was worried that any external pressure on India, particularly if it appeared to be organized by the United States, as suggested by Bangladesh, would only serve to confirm Delhi's suspicions and might well increase the possibility of Indian intervention. However, in line with Bangladesh's requests, Washington decided to keep in close touch with Pakistan to exchange views and to make clear America's "support for the restoration of stability in Bangladesh free from outside interference."

 

To calm the situation down, America urged Bangladesh to "take immediate steps to reassure" India that Dhaka intended to pursue good relations with New Delhi and to live up to its obligations to protect the foreign community and the Hindu minority. "In our judgment, this is the best way for the new regime to support our efforts in New Delhi to reduce the likelihood of Indian intervention."

 

On 8 November, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told the U.S. ambassador in New Delhi to meet with External Affairs Minister Y.B. Chavan or Foreign Secretary Kewal Singh to seek a high-level Indian assessment of the situation in Bangladesh and convey the message that the United States supported an independent Bangladesh.

 

Singh assured the American that New Delhi had no intention of interfering in Bangladesh affairs. How Bangladesh ran its government was its affair. But if its policies created problems or hurt Indian interests, then "India must express its concern."  

 

He believed Zia knew of India's views.

 

Zia panics again

 

Zia panicked for the second time on the night of 23 November when he feared India was about to attack Bangladesh. At 0:30 a.m., he went on the radio appealing for the nation's unity in "this fatefulhour."

 

The military regime took the threat so seriously that it sent a secret envoy to Pakistan to seek Prime Minister Z. A. Bhutto's help to fend off the Indian attack.

 

Immediately after receiving the news from Bangladesh, on 25 November Bhutto ordered Agha Shahi, Pakistan's foreign secretary, to ask the U.S. ambassador to see him, saying he was doing so at the prime minister's order.

 

Shahi had received a message hours earlier from the Pakistani ambassador in Rangoon, who had just had a meeting with Bangladesh Ambassador K.M. Kaiser. Kaiser was in Bangkok when he received telephonic instructions from the Bangladesh president to proceed immediately to Pakistan on a secret visit as a special presidential envoy.

 

He was to inform Bhutto of an alarming situation that had arisen for the security and independence of Bangladesh by actions of the Indians, who had already marched in and occupied certain areas of Bangladesh, an assertion the Americans later disputed.

 

Pakistan was less than pleased with Kaiser's proposed visit. The Pakistan foreign office preferred a "somewhat more reliable emissary." Kaiser asked for Pakistani visas for himself and an assistant.

 

Dhaka sends secret envoy to Islamabad

 

Henry Byroade, the U.S. ambassador in Islamabad, questioned Shahi on the timing of the reported Indian movement into Bangladesh, and specifically whether this might relate to reports a few days ago, which mentioned trench diggings along the border inside Bangladesh, or whether this was a new event. Shahi did not know. Byroade asked if he was concerned that India might try to make something big out of such a visit. Shahi said Bhutto had carefully considered that factor in deciding to go along with Kaiser's urgent plea to visit Pakistan.

 

Byroade in a cable to Washington downplayed Bangladesh's plea. He said "Kaiser is a bit of a self-starter, who gets involved in many, many things." Shahi described the visit as a "top secret." Bhutto agreed to see Kaiser because he feared that if he refused and his refusal became public there would be a strong negative public reaction against him for refusing to receive an envoy of the Bangladesh president.

 

Meanwhile, on 26 November, Bangladesh Foreign Secretary Tabarak Husain called Irving Cheslaw, U.S. Chargé d'Affaires in Dhaka, at home at 8 p.m. for a discussion, especially with Zia on Bangladesh's concern that India could invade Bangladesh. Husain asked Cheslaw to go at once to the presidential palace.

 

Husain's meeting with Cheslaw took place after an attack on Samar Sen, India's high commissioner in Dhaka, by some armed elements of the Jatiyo Samajtantrik Dal, a militant political group.  An Indian aircraft was coming to take him back to India for medical treatment. Husain believed that the high commissioner's departure under dramatic circumstances would only further heat up the existing situation, whereas his agreement to remain would help cool it down. Sen agreed and the Indian aircraft was turned around without landing in Dhaka.

 

After briefing Cheslaw of the situation, the foreign secretary called in Zia and Navy chief Admiral M.H. Khan, who wanted to pursue the discussion in greater detail. Zia described India's possible military invasion as an attempt to create instability in Bangladesh to bring into power a government completely under New Delhi's control.

 

India funded JSD?

 

Zia claimed that Bangladesh had evidence of military movements on the border. India also established training centers and even refugee camps in many of the same locations used in 1971. He felt that the incident at the Indian High Commission compound was no coincidence. The two men caught in connection with the incident were Jatiyo Samajtantrik Dal members. JSD had been receiving money from the Indian government – directly from the Indian High Commission in Dhaka, Zia told Cheslaw.

 

He expected the Indians to move into Bangladesh very soon, even possibly in the next few days. Zia asked that America put pressure on India not to follow through with this madness. He said India "should be made to realize that this is not 1971. This is 1975 and they will find a military force of sixty thousand and a population of seventy-five million that will present enormous problems for" for New Delhi. Zia believed that the Indian military needed to control the area – Bangladesh – that stood between India's eastern territories and the rest of the country. He inferred that the Indians believed this would be an easier move to carry out because they could hold off the Pakistanis and the Himalayan passes were snowbound.

 

Both Zia and Husain requested that the American envoy immediately convey their tremendous anxiety to Washington – and particularly their request that the U.S. government provide all possible assistance in making India realize that this situation must be cooled down immediately.

 

"Walking with me to my car, the foreign secretary said he would have no objection if I conveyed the general sense of this discussion to other missions in Dacca, such as the British, even the Australians, in hope they could also be of assistance," Cheslaw informed Washington.

 

As things grew tense, India sent its foreign secretary to Moscow for consultation. On 26 November, the Soviet political counselor in New Delhi told an American diplomat that he had just heard on All India Radio that Kewal Singh, India's foreign secretary, had been received by Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev. The Soviet officer expressed some surprise at this development. Singh's meeting with Premier Alexi Kosygin had only been arranged at the strong urging of the Indian government. The Soviet Embassy had recommended appointments with Defense Minister Andrei Grechko and Kosygin.

 

In Washington, the State Department did not consider Kaiser credible. It advised the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad to tell the Pakistanis that the Bangladesh situation was not exactly what Kaiser told them. Accordingly, the U.S. political counselor told Hyat Mehdi, director general for South Asia at the Pakistan Foreign Ministry, "that contrary to Kaiser's allegation in Rangoon, we had no evidence that Indian forces have occupied any portions of Bangladesh territory."

 

http://kashmirobserver.net/news/reviews/why-bangladesh-feared-indian-invasion-after-1975-coup

 




Get your own FREE website and domain with business email solutions, click here


__._,_.___


****************************************************
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] Secularism in search of truth/Waheed Nabi



Agnosticism and secularism were picked by Huxley from newly discovered inscriptions in the temple of Amun.


On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

Interesting article about secularism! 

Non-Fiction

Secularism in search of truth

Waheed Nabi

Galileo
Galileo
In the eleventh century, the conservative Arab philosopher Ibn Ghazali wrote a book called "Incoherence of  the Philosophers". In this book he bitterly criticized the progressive minded Muslim philosophers. In reply, a Spanish Muslim philosopher, Ibn Rushd, wrote a book called " Incoherence of the incoherence". The eminent historians thought that he clearly expressed secular ideas in this book. The debate between Ibn Ghazali and Ibn Rushd was about the study of philosophy. But secular thoughts were quite apparent in Ibn Rushd's book. Though in the ideas of ancient philosophers like Protagoras and Marcus Aurelius, secular thoughts were there, Ibn Rushd was the first philosopher who clearly gave expression to secularism. Ibn Sinha of Iran, a world renowned physician, was also a wise philosopher and believed in secularism. Ibn Rushd was a follower of Ibn Sinha. It seems that Muslim philosophers were the pioneers of secular ideas. But, unfortunately, because of the Crusades Muslims went backward in their intellectual activities.
It has been seen in history that when a particular idea gets stagnant with time then it is replaced by new ideas. The leading figures of the old thoughts do not realise  their own shortcomings and try to stick to their outdated ides. In situations like this the leaders of the old schools get aggressive against progressive thinkers. We can find many examples of  these in history. Following the ideas of Copernicus and through his own observation Galileo found that the earth moves round the Sun. He did not have any intention of fighting against the church authorities. He only wanted to present the proof of his findings. But the religious authorities were not interested in new scientific findings.
George Jacob Holyoake
George Jacob Holyoake
According to them, whatever was written in the Bible was the absolute truth. They put Galileo in prison, where he died. Michael Servetus, a Spanish scientist who described the blood circulation system in human beings, was burnt to death by the church authorities. Giordano Bruno talked about the eternity of the universe. He said that the Sun was among many stars. Bruno was also burnt to death by the religious establishment. Charles Darwin was given a hard time by priests for revealing a scientific truth. We now see that the truth arrived at by secular scientists is universally accepted and conservative superstitious doctrines have been flung into the dustbin of history. But in spite of that the forces of darkness show their muscle power every now and then and obstruct the progress of  history.
The term "secularism" was first coined by an English philosopher called George Jacob Holyoake. He was a follower of a school of philosophy called "agnosticism". This school of philosophy was established by Thomas Henry Huxley. He said that agnosticism is not a belief system but a process by which one can test whether an idea is true or false. Holyoake said that secularism was not against Christianity. Secularism takes the cause of  truth forward. He said that secularism was not the only way to establish the truth but definitely secularism helps in knowing the truth. In his opinion, our life is the foundation of secularism. He believed that human welfare was deeply related to this ideology. We can test the validity of this ideology with the experience of our life.
We believe that there is a need to discuss secularism in our country. Even the people who introduced secularism in our constitution did not explain secularism to our people. The political parties whose ideology is secularism also did not explain the ideology to the people. Because of these reasons conservative forces tell people that secularism is nothing but atheism. The fact is, with the progress of time circumstances change. To adjust to these changing circumstances is a necessity. If we try to stick to the circumstances of the long ago past, then our quality of life will remain poor. This is a reality. Secularism will help us get adjusted to our life's situations. Here is an example . Women's whole life used to be spent in giving birth to babies and to bring them up. They could not do anything else. Now because of modern scientific birth control methods women are contributing to the welfare of  society. If we go back from here then tremendous harm will be done to our society.
Secular thoughts were disseminated widely during the Renaissance. The Renaissance started in Florence in Italy in the 14th century. The pioneer of the renaissance was Francesco Petrach. The Renaissance then spread all over Europe. It brought a new awakening in Europe. It exerted its influence on art, literature, science and politics. Roman Catholics had brought stagnation in the lives of Europeans. The Renaissance brought about a new revolution. The Renaissance encouraged free thinking. It helped people acquire knowledge in all spheres of life.
Now let us look at the history of our own country. Perhaps William Hunter's book The Indian Mussalmans will help us. During British rule the Muslims of India felt as if they had lost. Even though during the period of Muslim rule they were nowhere near the centre of power, they felt as if they had some kind of relationship with the rulers. Because of these reasons there was some kind of distance between the Indian Muslims and the British rulers (according to Hunter, the Indian Muslims did not learn the Persian language during Muslim rules).  The Hindus learned the English language and got themselves educated. The Muslims stayed backwards. When the English wanted to spend money to promote Hindu religious education, Raja Rammohan Roy opposed it. He demanded education on scientific and other modern subjects. The Hindus benefited from his foresight. The backwardness of the Muslims was the reason behind the demand made by Pakistan. The religious basis of Pakistan was soon proved futile. The book Pakistan: between mosque and military" by Husain Haqqani will help us to understand this.
The disillusioned Bengalis demanded self-autonomy and when it was suppressed they fought for independence and got it at a very high price. The four pillars of this new state were "nationalism", "democracy", "socialism" and "secularism". The backward thinking people could not accept it. Under the leadership of two army generals they turned the wheels of history backward.  As  there was ignorance in our people about the four pillars of our constitution, the reactionary forces did not get any resistance in changing the constitution. Due to various reasons it is now difficult to come out of this unwanted situation. The only way out of this situation is wide discussion about secularism. Mass awareness about secularism is the only way out of the impossible situation we are in.
Waheed Nabi is a fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Britain.

 
"I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues."
-Seuss




__._,_.___


****************************************************
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] Secular Perspective



Best choice is to ignore an empty head like him.


On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

It would be more informative and interesting if you could elaborate which secularism model you would like to follow. Spell it out if you care.



 
"I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues."
-Seuss



From: QR <qrahman@netscape.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 8:32 AM

Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Secular Perspective

 
As I said earlier, I do not mind criticism but what I see a ambiguous statements and personal attacks against someone who happen to believe in religion. It is funny that the same set of people expects perfection and tolerance from others ALL the time.

First of all, MAKE A point if you have one.

Be specific where you disagree with me.

If some of you have some issues with other members, kindly take it to them. I cannot answer for someone else here.

Lastly, most countries have some contradictions within it. India is no exception. You do not have to get paranoid if someone criticize and point those things once in a while. Since most of you like to talk about religion all the time (While claiming you do not believe in it).

If you are happy being an atheist or agnostic, I am happy for you.

But if you are ignorant about religious views, it is only proper that someone offer you right information.

That is all I am doing here.

Shalom!


-----Original Message-----
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Aug 4, 2013 8:09 pm
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Secular Perspective

 

Trying to make sense of QR's comment is trying to straighten the tail of a dog. QR is the face of the religionist. Their universe revolves around religion. Their view on anything is tintent by religion. That's not how most others (90%) in the world think. Therefore, views of a religionist, like QR, on India will be nonsensical. To me - he displays immaturity in his thoughts.Then again, all radical religious people possess immature psyche.  

Jiten Roy


From: Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 4, 2013 5:31 PM
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] Secular Perspective

 
It is useless to point out idiotic statements to a troll like this Q. Rahman.  Who the hell ever spoke of "blindly following India"?  We are getting bombarded by Mohish mohiuddin, FAlamgir's zulumgiri communalism, Munshi and Bahar's monstrous anti-India obsession, and BNP chairperson's torjoni-heloni warnings of 'desh beche phelchhe', and so on and so forth.

I mentioned many times how the 1972 Constitution of Bangladesh made a studied, conscious improvement over the Indian Constitution by including Article 38 where political parties based on any single religion, caste or creed is prohibited.  Secularism of Bangladesh had a more solid basis in 1972 Constitution than it has in the Indian one.

                          The troll QR, in his troll-like manner, keeps forgetting basic facts and figures so that he can raise them as if he is the one who discovered them in the first place.

                               Farida Majid

To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
From: qrahman@netscape.net
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 07:10:06 -0400
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Secular Perspective

 



These are some reasons why we should be careful about blindly following India. If we do so, our minority population will suffer.

India has a good judicial system and we should try to emulate that tradition into ours. Despite dirty communal and regional politics; judicial system and elections are strong points in Indian democracy.


Shalom!




-----Original Message-----
From: Sankar Kumar Ray <sankarray62@rediffmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>; csss2work <csss2work@gmail.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 2, 2013 5:05 pm
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Secular Perspective

 
Very pointed piece on secularism by Irfan Engineer.
Sankar Ray




From: "csss1" <csss2work@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 06:22:00
To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>
Subject: [mukto-mona] Secular Perspective
 
India First or Upper Caste Elite First?
Irfan Engineer
 
(Secular Perspective August 1-15, 2013)
 
I: Contours of Communal Vs. Pseudo Secularism
The BJP is once again attempting to redefine secularism in order to attractively package its Hindu nationalist politics. The politics of Hindu nationalism bases itself on stigmatizing minorities, particularly the Muslim and the Christian community. The two communities are demonized in order to alarm the gullible members of majority community who fall for the propaganda regarding non-existing danger. The anxious and alarmed gullible members are then easy to mobilize for building an authoritarian, repressive and culture enforcing state which privileges the economic and social elite. The typical Hindu nationalist charge against the two communities is that Christians convert large numbers of Hindus using fraud, coercion and inducements (even though the population of Christians has fallen from 2.6% in 1971 to 2.3% in 2001); that all terrorists are Muslims (disregarding confessions of "Swami" Aseemanand and terror related accusation against "Sadhvi" Pragnya Sing Thakur and other); that loyalty of Muslims is suspect and they are more loyal to the neighbouring Pakistan and ISI uses them to destabilize India and mount terrorist attacks; that they nurture separatist goals; that they practice polygamy leading to rapidly growing population; that they infiltrate illegally from neighbouring countries – Pakistan and Bangladesh; that Muslim rulers demolished Hindu temples in order to destroy Hindu religion etc.
Demonization of the minorities provides justification for arming the state with unaccountable power through non-transparent security apparatus, which are then conducive to rapid growth of crony capitalism at the cost of marginalized under-class like the workers, peasants, landless, dalits, adivasis, women and other backward classes. The intruding security apparatus intimidates the under-classes. The alarmed under-class, anxious about the "security of the state", unwittingly surrenders the gains of democracy and democratic institution that would otherwise afford them space to collectively advance their interests. Hindu Nationalism also aims to persuade the members of majority community, particularly the under-class, to leave the feudal caste based hierarchies intact in the name of glorious ancient Hindu traditions. For Hindu nationalists, retaining the feudal traditions and hierarchical caste based structures in the name of traditions and constructing a strong authoritarian state which holds the minority communities down is "positive secularism". Congress' secularism comes under sharp attack from the BJP as "pseudo-secularism" on the ground that it is nothing else but "minority appeasement". By levelling the charge of "minority appeasement" the BJP really means that Congress is not as stridently anti-minority as itself.
The track record of Congress in treating the Muslim and Christian minorities too is nothing to go the town about. Over 40,000 people killed in communal riots, an overwhelming majority of which are members of religious minorities with the guilty having no fear of being brought to justice. The communal riots under Congress government include – Jabalpur in 1961, Ahmedabad in 1969 and 1984, Bhiwandi in 1970 and 1984, Nellie in 1983, anti-Sikh riot in 1984, Bhagalpur in 1989, Moradabad, Godhra in 1981, Meerut in 1987 etc. Staged fake encounter targeting
Sikhs in Punjab and Muslim youth in Batla House (Delhi), Mumbai, Hyderabad and other towns provide media opportunity to tarnish the minorities as terrorists and run stories demonizing the minority communities and increase their TRPS and circulation and coming up with anti-democratic legislations like AFSPA, UAPA, TADA and POTA giving virtually unaccountable powers in the hands of security agencies in the name of counter terrorism measures. Minorities are discriminated in providing infrastructure like roads, schools, access to drinking water and health facilities. Minorities are also discriminated in structures of opportunities, including education, public employment, bank loans, government contracts, etc., now well documented by Sachar Committee Report. Lack of proper security environment, discrimination in bank loans, government contracts and opportunities and poor infrastructure facilities have resulted in educational, social and economic backwardness among the minorities. Even a section of BJP has acknowledged after the Sachar Committee Report that Muslims have been in fact discriminated.
However, Congress attracts charge of "minority appeasement" by the BJP when it takes remedial steps which are too little too late and virtually ineffective to address social and educational backwardness among the minorities. BJP accuses Congress of minority appeasement also on another count – viz. when it frames legislations that are partly accommodative towards minority culture as regards affording them family law based on their faith. However, Congress has more than accommodated the upper caste elite, a tiny minority within the politically constructed majority community, by enforcing their cultural norms on the rest in matters of family laws, anti-cow slaughter legislations, anti-conversion laws that are prone to be misuse by its implementers against the minorities. VHP cadres have formed regular teams to extort money in collusion with some police officers regularly from members of minorities involved in transportation or trade of animals even when they are doing nothing illegal. The extortion amounts are ever increasing and have put the minorities out of business making space for others.
Congress governments have also been more than accommodative towards culture and religious beliefs of the upper caste elite and enforcing it on the rest with legal interventions for example, on the issue of Babri Masjid issue. It acquired the land on which Babri Masjid stood, and allowed the Masjid to be demolished! This later facilitated the Allahabad High Court to divide the land into three "equal" parts and distribute it among the "litigants" – two-third of it going to Hindu litigants and the original owner getting only one third and that too on the margins. Had the land not been acquired and had the mosque not been demolished, such a verdict would have been unthinkable. To conclude the above discussion, while the Hindu nationalists wants to obliterate all cultural uniqueness of diverse non-upper caste elite, perhaps with the exception of ways of worship, and leave political space only for upper-caste culture, the Congress would be a little bit space for culture of minorities and a bit more accommodative as its political strategy. It is this conflict that is reflected in the accusations of pseudo secularism (read minority appeasement) by the BJP and charge of "communal party" by the Congress.
II: India First
Narendra Modi, who is positioning himself as a national leader and prime ministerial candidate of the BJP for 2014 general election has now come up with a new definition of secularism – "India First". All he is reported to have said by way of "definition" is, "nothing less than India's wellbeing should be our goal and if this happens, secularism will automatically run in our blood" That leaves a lot to imagination an begs further questions – India's well being is in what? In allowing corporate India to prosper by grabbing the common resources of the nation at dearth cheap rate, leading to a jobless and futureless "growth" at the cost of the poorest in India, increasing the GDP and India's rating with "Standard & Poor"? Is it in liberalization, privatization and globalization attracting more and more risky and volatile global capital? Or is it in ensuring more equitable and sustainable development benefitting most to the poorest and improving their quality of life as a priority? While Modi does not answer these questions, but his priorities are well known to devote space here. Modi's "India First" definitely appears to be a slogan calculated to say, "not the poorest first, not the discriminated first, not the backward regions first, not the socially backward first, not the victims of development first and not the weakest sections first". For, if these sections are to be given priority and treated first, India, its GDP, will not be first! Standard and Poor will not be proclaiming "India is first", India will not be the first destination for global super profit pursuing capital.
BJP's "Positive Secularism":
While there is debate on what constitutes secularism, and different countries adopt its own version, any standard textbook on secularism would educate us that the least that is required of a secular state is that the state distances itself from religious institutions, religious texts, religious education and expenses by state on religion. However, performance of BJP governments when it was in power was in the centre and in the states where it is in power is contrary to all understandings of secularism. While in Centre, Murli Manohar Joshi was the HRD Minister proposed teaching of Courses in Vedic Astrology, karmakand, yogic consciousness etc. as a subject for Higher education. The universities in India would be producing Hindu priests! If you teach Vedas, you are positive secularist, and if you teach Qur'an and Bible, one is pseudo secularist. Madhya Pradesh Government introduced teaching Gita in school and forcing schools receiving government grant-in-aid to teach yoga and perform surya namaskar, sing saraswati vandana to children belonging to all religious communities. BJP Govt. in Madhya Pradesh started sponsoring senior citizens travel to pilgrimage within India and the pilgrimage sites are the one which Hindus visit. Therefore a Muslim senior citizen would not join the pilgrimage! If Haj Pilgrims are being "subsidized", it amounts to minority appeasement, while if citizens are sponsored for pilgrimage to various holy sites in India, it is positive secularism! We condemn subsidy to Haj Pilgrims as well as any expenditure on religious belief of any citizen.
BJP has been demanding anti-conversion laws that seek state regulation of conversions from one religion to another. However, the Hindu nationalists have been forcibly converting Christians to Hinduism in Kandhamal district. Victims of anti-Christian violence in 2007-08 were forced to stay in relief camps and could not return to their villages and cultivate their land or rebuild their houses until they agreed to be converted to Hindu religion. Stringent conditions were forced on them – tonsuring their heads, levying heavy fines for following Christian religion in the past and promising to join mobs that attack Christians should the "village" decide to do so. While forcible conversion from any religion is termed by them as "ghar vapsi", even voluntary conversions to Christianity and Islam is stigmatized as conversion by force or inducement and a campaign is mounted against every conversion from Hinduism to Christianity or Islam. Most conversions from Hinduism to Christianity or Islam is due to the fact that upper-caste Hindus exclude and oppress dalits, whereas the oppressed hope to be treated with dignity and equality in the religion they are seeking to convert to. There are other reasons as well for voluntary conversions which we do not want to into here. Under BJP rule, the Rajasthan Assembly passed a bill providing that conversion to religion of one's forefathers (read Hindu religion) would not be considered as religious conversion! Under Modi's supremacy, Gujarat Assembly passed a bill amending its anti-conversion law to provide that conversion from Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism could continue unregulated, operating under the principle that Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism were not separate religions, but sub-sects of Hinduism. The Gujarat Bill and Rajasthan Bill, both were not assented to by the Governor and were referred to the President of India. To force unwilling Christians to convert to Hinduism and to prevent the dalits from converting to Christianity or Islam is "India First" brand of secularism but to give the citizens freedom to follow religion of their choice is appeasement of minorities and following anti-national policies!
Anti-cow slaughter legislations in the country is becoming more draconian and an instrument of oppression of minorities in BJP ruled states. MP Govt. amended the legislation enhancing the punishment for cow laughter to 7 years imprisonment and shifting the burden of proof on the accused! Offences have been made non-bailable. Police have been authorised to enter kitchens if they suspect cooking or consumption of beef and seize vessels, equipments, storage (read refrigerator) etc. The law is indiscriminate and inhuman directed against minorities. It is being used to subjugate minorities. The anti-cow legislation have only one justification and one basis – religious practices of the Hindu upper-caste. Why should the state prescribe or regulate dietary preferences of citizens and enter their kitchens to enforce religion based ideology? Jains would similarly demand that state ban onions and garlic from consumption list of the citizens and Muslims would demand pork be banned! If the religion of Jains and Muslims is not being taken into account in proposing dietary prescription to citizens, why should that of upper caste Hindus be taken? Is it "India First" or upper castes first?
Moral policing
Hindu nationalists have vandalised M.F. Hussain's paintings on the grounds that they offend religious sensibilities of the citizens. M.F.Hussain was hounded out of the country using a combination of violence and misusing judicial proceedings. They prevented the film "Water" being shot in Varanasi. Bal Thackeray forced producers to cut scenes that were against his and his party's interests, even after the Censor Board approved it. Hindu nationalist have routinely imposed dress codes and opposed Valentine day, beaten up women in pubs, disrupted parties being organized by youngsters with boys and girls attending.
We could list many other measures, including the desire to impose upper caste family law on the entire nation in the name of uniform civil code and other things. For lack of space, we have to conclude here. India First is nothing else but Political Power First and imposition of patriarchal, feudal, hierarchical upper caste culture on the rest of Indians following rich and diverse cultural traditions, including egalitarian traditions. Diversity has taught the people to live in harmony and learn from various traditions through everyday interactions and further enrich themselves.
------------------------------------------------
Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
Mumbai.
 
 


Get your own FREE website and domain with business email solutions, click here








__._,_.___


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

__,_._,___