Banner Advertiser

Thursday, September 16, 2010

[ALOCHONA] Judgement by police before investigation



Judgement by police before investigation
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com



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

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Unsafe food items



Unsafe food items
 
 


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com



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

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Indo-China cold war hots up



Indo-China cold war hots up
  
India has apparently lost its cold war with China, or at least the current phase of it. What is disturbing to India is not only China's superior military power and stronger economy, but also China's intrusion into what was once regarded as India's backyard.

The development has rendered the so-called Indira doctrine ineffective or obsolete. The doctrine, formulated during the Indira Gandhi premiership, made it clear to regional countries that they should seek help from within the region — meaning India — before they approached any outside power. In terms of the doctrine, India opposed the presence of superpowers in the Indian Ocean which it regarded as its backyard. Small countries in the region were punished for defying the doctrine. It happened to Sri Lanka in the early 1980s. India armed, trained and financed the Sri Lanka's separatist rebellion. In the late 1980s Nepal tried to defy the doctrine and was punished. New Delhi economically suffocated the land-locked Himalayan nation by closing down almost all the trade routes.

Today India may be much stronger than what it was three decades ago. But its power is confined within its borders. In contrast, China has been increasing its soft and hard power and making its presence felt in South Asia and also throughout the world in so subtle a manner that India could do almost nothing except make belated remarks. Recent statements made by Indian leaders resemble the screams of a man who suddenly wakes up from his slumber under a tree and finds his belongings are gone.

Their statements, like a fiery storm, however, had blown away the cloth of diplomacy that had kept the disputes between the two countries covered. The disputes are now in the open.

The soft-spoken and usually philosophical Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was furious last week. The fire in his remarks made the rest of the world to stop and take note of what he said.

Though the remarks came against the backdrop of China's refusal to grant a visa to a top Indian military commander to visit Beijing, the real problem is more complex. It involves unresolved border issues — eg: Arunachel Pradesh — which led to a war between the two countries in 1962. It also involves Kashmir, the presence of Dalai Lama in India and New Delhi's perception that China is increasing its assertive presence in India's backyard.

India suspects China is interfering in Kashmir. A little known fact about Kashmir is that it is shared by not only India and Pakistan but also China. Kashmir's Aksai Chin region is with China. Though India has been making occasional noises about what it calls Chinese occupation of Kashmir, Pakistan goes along with China's claim of sovereignty over Aksai Chin. There is strong suspicion in New Delhi that not only Pakistan, but China also is stoking up trouble in Indian-administered Kashmir.

China last year started issuing a different kind of visas to the people of Kashmir, sending a strong message to India that Beijing did not recognize India's sovereignty over the disputed region. China's explanation to India in refusing the visa to the Indian military officer is that he was not welcome because of his role in Kashmir.

Premier Singh's remarks came days after India fired off a strongly-worded demarche — a diplomatic note — to China, saying it was calling off the defence exercises and exchange programmes between the two countries.

China responded to the Indian anger with cool diplomacy pointing to the thriving trade between the two countries and claiming that Beijing was committed to the Pancha-Sheela principles that define China's relations with India.

Singh charged that China was seeking to expand its influence in South Asia and gain a "foothold" in the region.

"China would like to have a foothold in South Asia and we have to reflect on this reality. We have to be aware of this," Singh said.

He said China's leadership would change in two years and there was a new assertiveness among the Chinese. "It is difficult to tell which way it will go. So it's important to be prepared," he said.

Hidden in Singh's statement is India's disappointment over its failure to check effectively China's intrusion into South Asia and the Indian Ocean region. India was a mere onlooker when China built ports in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Myanmar. Except for Pakistan, India has friendly relations with all its neighbours. But today China weighs heavier on the diplomatic scales of India's neighbours. China has become Sri Lanka's biggest aid giver. China's harbour project in Hambantota has raised the eyebrows of Indian defence analysts. However much both Sri Lanka and China insist that the harbour project is essentially a commercial venture and has no military intentions, these analysts say India could not prevent Sri Lanka from allowing China to have a strong foothold in Hambantota from which Beijing can, if it wants to or if the needs arises, control a vast area of the Indian Ocean extending up to Antarctica.

Myanmar has become a virtual Chinese protectorate. Last month, China and Myanmar conducted a series of naval exercises close to Indian waters, prompting India to put its naval troops on alert.

Premier Singh's statement is not the sole protest. Opposing China's assertiveness has become India's official policy. This week, India's Defence Minister A.K. Anthony addressing a combined commanders' conference in Delhi, said India could not ignore the fact that Beijing was fast improving its military and physical infrastructure on the border. He called on Indian military leaders to keep abreast of the military modernisation drive in the neighbourhood to ensure that the Indian armed forces held an edge in the region.

India's sudden awakening to the growing Chinese power has moved it to seek new strategic allies. It has found one such ally in Japan. In recent weeks, Japan and China have been trading charges and counter charges over the arrest of a Chinese fishing captain off some disputed islands in the East China Sea after his boat collided with Japanese coast guard craft. The uninhabited but believed-to-be oil-rich islands, known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China, are controlled by Japan, but are also claimed by China and Taiwan. The incident has raised tempers in both countries.

When Japan's Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada held talks with his Indian counterpart S.M. Krishna in New Delhi last month, they shared concern over Beijing's growing military power and its military build-up in India's neighbourhood.

The Indian Express newspaper quoted sources as saying that the two sides had expressed "similar language" in describing Chinese actions.

India is also seeking to strengthen its defence relations with the United States. During the George W. Bush administration, the two countries had struck a strong bond in the fight against their common enemy — Islamic terrorism. The relations between them improved with the signing of a civilian nuclear deal and enhanced defence cooperation. But under President Barack Obama, the speed with which the relations improved has slowed down a little. This was largely because of the Obama administration's pressure on India to find a speedy solution to the Kashmiri problem. However, the visit of Obama to India in November, analysts say, will give the necessary impetus for relations between them to reach the level that was seen during the Bush era.

Of course, the rise of China's military power is a concern for the US as well. According to Indian media reports, US Pacific Forces' commander Admiral Robert Willard on a visit to India referred to China's 'naval assertiveness', which he said had 'complicated matters'.

Though Admiral Willard did not elaborate, he was probably referring to the US concern over the growing Chinese presence in South Asia, Central Asia and the Pacific. One reason why the US is unwilling to leave Afghanistan is its fear that the vacuum created by its departure would be filled by China. According to the latest Globalfirepower.com rankings, China is second only to the United States in terms of military power. India occupies the fourth place after Russia.

These moves and diplomatic contacts may indicate informal alliance formation. The problem with these informal alliance formations is that no bloc has advantage over the other, especially in view of the nuclear capabilities of the major players. The nuclear deterrent works and will avert a major war. China certainly knows this and quietly spreads its power far and wide, reaching even Africa and Latin America.

http://www.dailymirror.lk/print/index.php/opinion1/21723.html          

__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com



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

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Pardon me, Mr. President



Pardon me, Mr. President
 
by Mohammad Badrul Ahsan
 
 
The president of the country in his presidential forbearance pardoned 20 death-row prisoners on the eve of Eid-ul-Fitr. These prisoners were convicted of killing a BNP activist four years ago, and as good as anybody's guess they belonged to rival Awami League.

The intensity of rivalry between these two political parties makes it difficult to separate recrimination from retribution. Awami League claims its workers were falsely implicated out of political motivation. Indeed it seems a bit of overkill that 20 people went to the death row for killing one person.

Then, the law knows best. It is possible that equal involvement made numerous people equally culpable. But if we believe those prisoners were innocent then it leads us to a presumptuous conclusion. It means the family of the victim was more interested to score political points than to find justice for the murdered son.

That being an afterthought, the question is not so much whether the president had the right to grant this pardon. The question is whether he was right to do it. He isn't required to justify his pardon to anyone. Such is the unique power vested in him.

While it doesn't seem surprising that the president would be inclined to save his party men, his wholesale pardon of these prisoners is equally puzzling, as was their wholesale conviction. Presidential pardon is an entitlement more in the line of an expense account. One can spend within the allocated amount so long as the expenses are proper and reasonable. Nobody can question whether the president has the power to pardon, but one can always ask if that power has been exercised after due consideration.

The president of every country in the world enjoys this perk in the tradition of the yesteryear kings. He enjoys the authority of saving a few lives or getting a few people off the hook as a privilege of the highest office in a republic. The presidential power of pardon was included in the American constitution much at the exhortation of Alexander Hamilton who believed a president could use this power at critical moments such as insurrection or rebellion.

Hamilton was proved right when the farmers of Pennsylvania revolted in 1794 against federal taxes levied on their crops. President George Washington used the power to pardon, for the first time in the United States history, the revolting farmers against the young nation. The action worked and the rebellion was quieted.

Thus the original intention for presidential pardon was meant to be as large as the office of the president. That eventually evolved into a political tool so much so that when president Bill Clinton pardoned tax evader Marc Rich, its impropriety almost got him indicted.

However, the presidential pardon has its limitations in the United States, some of which have been defined by the Supreme Court. The impeachment process is excluded from the scope of presidential pardon, which means when an officeholder is impeached the president cannot pardon him. A presidential pardon cannot be issued for a crime that has not been committed. Pardons also don't affect civil cases, or state or local cases.

The real scope of a presidential pardon in the United States is meant to dismiss sentences stemming from affronts to the state through the breaking of law. The Supreme Court has argued that a pardon doesn't have effect on contempt of court charge since, like a civil case, a contempt charge isn't considered an affront to the United States. Instead it is an affront to the court.

That means a president can pardon on behalf of the state such cases which are an affront to it. It raises a vital question when it comes to individuals or autonomous institutions. Can the president deny either of these two categories their right to seek restitution? Can the president do away with a family's right to seek justice?

The answer should be no, however it may have been worded in the constitution. In so much as the president of the country doesn't have the authority to draw money from a citizen's bank account, so he shouldn't be able to forfeit a citizen's right to win justice for the wrong done him by other citizens.

Last November the president granted pardon to a convict. The man was convicted of tax evasion, an affront to the state the president chose to forgive.

The latest pardon sent three pillars reeling under one blow. The president undermined rights of a family, balance of justice and perhaps of his own presidency in one go.

http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=154664


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com



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

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Dragon’s teeth



Dragon's teeth

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
China sees red over India securing Tawang, looks to attack where it hurts the most—Kashmir

By R. Prasannan

It is back to eyeball-to-eyeball, barrel-to-barrel and bayonet-to-bayonet on the India-China border. Narasimha Rao's 1993 agreement on border peace and tranquillity is dead. So is the 1995 agreement to pull back from Sumdorong Chu, as well as the 1996 agreement on military confidence-building. These agreements had enabled the Indian Army to move several divisions from the China border and deploy them in the Kashmir Valley to fight insurgents. It also enabled China to focus less on military matters, make economic progress, show a soft face to the world, host the Olympics and gain global prestige.

Kashmir is secure and the Olympics over. Both countries are currently on a military-building spree over the Himalayas. Indeed, China drew the first blood by building rail lines, roads and airfields so that it can quickly move huge divisions into Tibet from where they can pulverise the frontiers of India. Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh, with its politically sensitive monastery which the Chinese have always coveted, looked particularly vulnerable.

India has been paying back in the same coin, building border roads for quick troop movement, upgrading airfields in Ladakh and helipads in Arunachal, raising new Army divisions, redeploying an entire corps, and even giving wings to entire brigades for heli-lift. Operation Falcon, Indira Gandhi's 15-year border militarisation programme launched in 1980 and given up in 1993, has been re-started under another name. With the result that Arunachal, especially Tawang, is today an Indian fortress, or a windmill which would be quixotic for the Chinese to tilt at. A frustrated China, therefore, is seeking out another Achilles' heel in Kashmir's Ladakh.

Recent Chinese actions against Kashmir and Ladakh are evidence of this frustration, say senior Indian Army officers. Militarily, there were a series of Chinese border intrusions in Ladakh last year. Diplomatically, China altered its public posture on Kashmir from 'hands-off' (even during Kargil war, China refused to help Pakistan) to a declaration that Kashmir is 'disputed territory'. Adding insult, Beijing even offered to mediate on Kashmir between India and Pakistan. Then it offered to host Hurriyat chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq in China and began issuing visas to Kashmiris on loose sheets, indicating that Beijing does not recognise their Indian passports and nationality.

The latest: China denied visa to India's Kashmir commander, Lt.-Gen. B.S. Jaswal, who was to visit Beijing on a mutually agreed confidence-building military visit. Simultaneously, it moved a battalion of troops into Khunjerab Pass in Pakistan-held Gilgit-Baltistan, ostensibly to help Pakistan combat the floods, but probably to build a rail line that would take Chinese goods to Pakistan's ports and Chinese troops to the doors of Siachen. From there, the troops could threaten the Indian sources of several rivers that flow into Pakistan. All of a sudden, the Indian Army in Ladakh is finding the Chinese on three sides—Aksai Chin in the east which China occupied in 1962, Xinjiang in the north and Gilgit-Baltistan in the west annexed by Pakistan in 1947-48.

The Chinese build-up around Ladakh, India believes, is a tit-for-tat for India's fortressing Arunachal which, in turn, had been done in response to the Chinese build-up in Tibet. China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) had moved troops into Tibet following the anti-Beijing riots in March 2008. Hundreds of armoured vehicles, fit for fighting regular military battles, poured into Tibet from the Leshan-(Sichuan province) based 149 Division through the newly built Qinghai-Tibet rail line. More of them drove in through the Sichuan-Tibet Highway.

Most of the troops returned after shooting the rioters, but the 149 Division's 52 and 53 Brigades have since been converted into rapidly mobile units which can be deployed in Tibet's southern frontiers (bordering India) within 48 hours. Next, the PLA moved to acquire a capability to rail-move its 61 and 149 Rapid Action Divisions into Tibet.

Sensing trouble, the Indian defence ministry permitted the Indian Air Force (IAF) to move a squadron of Sukhoi-30MKI warjets from their Pune base to Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh from where they can strike deep into Tibet and even mainland China. And early this year, the 30 squadron of Sukhois flew into Tezpur in Assam and parked themselves there, just in case.

The presence of Sukhois rattled China. It suddenly realised that its rail line into Tibet, a military engineering marvel (runs at 4,200 metres from sea level, and so the crew and passengers need to be acclimatised for the journey), is vulnerable to interdiction bombing by Sukhois. It also realised that roads were safer for troop movement during war than trains. So Beijing embarked on a programme of upgrading its highways into Tibet, especially National Highway 318 which connects Linzhi (where the 52 Mechanised Brigade is stationed) to Lhasa, the Qinghai-Tibet Highway and the Sichuan-Tibet Highway.

The development was noted by the defence ministry. "...There is a feeling," Defence Secretary Pradeep Kumar told Parliament's standing committee on defence in a classic understatement, "that our neighbouring country, China, has been able to build up a very good infrastructure" close to the Indian borders.

China has also been enhancing its strike power in Tibet. The Indian Army believes that the PLA can move one full mechanised infantry division into Tibet in 48 hours in an emergency, and about 10 divisions in one month for a permanent base. More worryingly, in its largest ever tactical exercises (code-named Stride) last year, the PLA demonstrated awesome airlift capability. As per the Indian Army's assessment, China today can airdrop an infantry brigade of 3,000-plus in one airlift and an entire infantry division of about 15,000 troops and their equipment in a single operation.

In addition, China is also learnt to have raised a rapid deployment force (called Emergency-Resolving Mobile Combat Force) which can induct four divisions on any stretch of its frontier (or enemy territory) on a day's notice. Plus, the PLA's logistics management has been tuned in such a way as to gain a capability to move 20 to 25 divisions over two months. Most of these capabilities were proven in Stride-2009 in which 50,000 troops were moved across 1,600km by road, rail and air from the military districts of Shenyang, Lanzhou, Jinan and Guangzhou.

Stride-2009 was essentially aimed at proving the PLA's ability to mobilise in real time. However, what alarmed India was the simultaneous building of advance infrastructure in Tibet so that nearly 25 divisions could be moved into Tibet at short notice. China had three main airfields in Tibet—Kongka, Hoping and Pangta. However, in the months prior to Stride-2009, China built or operationalised two more around Lhasa, and four more elsewhere in Tibet, thus giving them nine airfields to land troops and support fighter operations. And about two months ago, China even exercised a few squadrons of Sukhois and J1s over Tibet. "Exercising them over Tibet has other implications," said an IAF officer. "You cannot have a sustained exercise programme without having built massive ground support system. Thus even if China is not basing advanced fighters in Tibet as of now, they have all the ground systems in place. They can move in the aircraft in a matter of two hours now."

More worrying has been the recent integration of their non-nuclear strategic missiles with their military area commands. India has kept its non-nuclear missile regiments (such as 333) under a separate command so that battalion or brigade commanders are not tempted to use them in the event of minor battlefield reverses. China, however, has integrated them into their area commands which signals that their use in battle is being left to the judgment of middle-level commanders.

All these military posturings, which have been evolving over the last two years, have been 'doctrinised' in the White Paper that China published on January 20, 2009, the day Barack Obama was inaugurated in Washington. The White Paper talked of a new doctrine called 'active defence' aimed at "winning local wars in conditions of informationisation [sic].... This guideline lays stress on deterring crises and wars.... It calls for the building of a lean and effective deterrent force and the flexible use of different means of deterrence."

Indian defence ministry reacted with unprecedented alacrity. It sought permission to restart Operation Falcon—programme to build border roads and other infrastructure for quick military movement into Arunachal— launched in 1980 by General Krishna Rao on the orders of Indira Gandhi. China had captured Tawang in 1962 but had withdrawn realising that it could not hold on in the event of a counter-attack by the Indian Army. The operation was launched to secure Tawang against any adventurism by China. However, India had to suspend the operation in 1993 in lieu of China promising not to foment any border trouble.

Now with China building up forces in Tibet, Delhi had no option but to re-start the operation. The foreign office made a high-level visit to Arunachal and apprised the cabinet of the pluses and minuses of agreeing to the defence ministry's request. Reacting with unprecedented swiftness, India launched a massive border road-building programme, not just by the defence ministry's Border Roads Organisation (BRO), but even under Centrally-funded state government efforts such as Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana. "Earlier the military doctrine of the country was not to have roads close to borders," Defence Minister A.K. Antony told the Rajya Sabha last month, "but the same has now been revised in the changing geo-political scenario, and the government has taken a conscious decision to expedite construction of road infrastructure in border areas."

A few days earlier, the BRO had told Parliament's standing committee on defence: "Two years back the philosophy of our nation was that we should not make roads as near to the border as possible.... It is only two to three years back that we suddenly decided a change in philosophy and said, no, we must go as far forward as possible."

Indeed, the military and the BRO moved with incredible speed to match the Chinese road for road. "Border Roads Organisation has been asked to concentrate on strategic roads," Antony told the Rajya Sabha on August 11. "There are 73 roads on India-China border (length 3,647km), out of which the BRO has been entrusted with 61 roads of total length of 3,394km in J&K, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh. Out of 61 roads, 14 roads of length 556.22km have already been completed and work is under progress on 42 roads....[Work] on five roads has not commenced." According to Antony, 41 roads are planned to be completed by 2013 and the remaining six later.

The IAF, facing a severe shortage of transport helicopters, too, has been asked to pitch in. It lent 142.45 tonnes of heli-lift capability to the BRO in the last six months. Finding this inadequate, the ministry has asked the BRO to hire Pawan Hans helicopters.

While the BRO has been building roads, the Army and Air Force have been enhancing their strike power. The Dimapur Corps (3 Corps), which has several mountain divisions under it, has been completely pulled out of counter-insurgency operations in the northeast and converted into a full-fledged offensive corps on the China border. The corps has also been given awesome firepower. The Rangia-based 2 Mountain Division has been pulled out from the Tezpur Corps (4 Corps) and attached to the offensive Dimapur Corps. The corps has also been promised, in an emergency, the services of 41 Division, which is still under the Tezpur Corps. And crowning all the moves is a recent accretion: two new mountain divisions—numbered 41 and 56—have been quietly raised and given to the Dimapur Corps.

In short, in case the Chinese attempt any kind of adventurism on the Arunachal-Sikkim sector, the Indian Army would have three full corps waiting for them—the Sukhna-based 33 Corps, the Tezpur-based 4 Corps and the newly-augmented Dimapur-based 3 Corps. All of them have also been given the light 155mm guns which can be heli-lifted. Advanced landing grounds have been built in Tuting, Pasighat, Vijaynagar, Along and Mechuka in Arunachal for heli-landing troops and equipment. "Take it from me," said a general staff officer, "if they come, the Chinese will find Tawang an impregnable fortress."

Apparently the Chinese know this. And so they have been shifting focus onto the western sector comprising India's Ladakh. A few probing trespasses were made there last year, to which India responded with three measures. First, Jairam Ramesh's road-blocking environment ministry withdrew its objections to building roads in some 760 Himachal villages. Second, the Indian Air Force augmented and activated a landing strip at Nyoma, 20km from the China border for taking troop-carrying Antonov-32 planes. Next, the IAF developed two more airstrips at Fukche and Daulat Beg Oldi.

The third move, by the cabinet, was to clear the contract for building a tunnel in Rohtang which would make it possible for the troops to move to Ladakh at any time of the year. At present the Ladakh garrisons are supplied troops, food, fuel and ammunition through two routes. One is the Pathankot-Srinagar-Zoji la-Kargil-Leh route, which is blocked by snow in winter and is within the firing range of Pakistani artillery (Kargil war 1999). The other is the Kullu-Manali-Rohtang-Leh route, which is also snow-blocked in winter. A horse-shoe tunnel in the snow-prone stretch at more than 3,000 metres near the 4,000-metre-high Rohtang Pass would make the route available throughout the year. The project was approved in 2000, but no progress has been made since. Suddenly the government remembered it and Sonia Gandhi inaugurated its construction on June 28.

These moves, India expects, would make a Chinese bid on Ladakh from Aksai Chin in the east almost impossible. So the Chinese are opening another front on the west—from Gilgit-Baltistan in Pakistan-held northern areas.
What next, Delhi?
 


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com



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

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Dhaka ignores existing protocol, allows Delhi to use heavy vehicles for transshipment of cargoes



Dhaka ignores existing protocol, allows Delhi to use heavy vehicles for transshipment of cargoes 
   
Dhaka, Sept 16 (APP):Bangladesh has finally yielded to the Indian demand of Over Dimensional Cargo (ODC) movement through Bangladesh territory bypassing the existing Protocol on River Transit and Trade signed between the two countries. The use of Bangladeshi transports for the purpose of transshipment of cargo from the port of call to the international boundary was made mandatory in the Article 11 of the Protocol of the River Transit and Trade.

But under the ODC, the Indian side would use their own logistics for transshipment purpose from the Ashuganj port to Akhaura-Senarbodi land port.The Indian side had pleaded for such extra facilities in the year 2006 but Bangladesh did not agree at that time to go beyond the scope of the River Transit Protocol.

Even the army-controlled last caretaker regime, headed by Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed, had refused to concede the Indian demand because the cargo to be transported from the port of call to the international boundary under the ODC would be bulky and Bangladesh lacks necessary infrastructures to support the ODC movement.

The 50-kilometer road infrastructure between the Ashuganj to Akhaura-Senarbodi land port is not suitable for the movement of heavy cargo trailers for which the previous government rejected the Indian proposal, officials said Thursday. The width of the road is around 25 feet whereas the width of the Indian cargo trailer is around 22 feet. The movement of Bangladeshi vehicles from either side would stop when the Indian cargo trailer would run.

Almost all the culverts and bridges on the 50-kilometer road would not be able to endure the pressure of the huge Indian cargo trailers. As a result, new diversion roads have to be built. Moreover 15-kilometer link road from Akhaura to the border is so narrow that it is not fit for cargo trailer movement, they pointed out.

The ONGC has appointed Monayem Bangladesh Ltd. as contractor for construction of the necessary diversion road and modification of the 15-kilometer narrow road network The concerned officials stiffly opposed allowing the movement of Indian huge cargo trailers without development of suitable road network but to no avail.India wants to start the ODC movement from November next facilitating transshipment of equipment for 1,000 megawatt Tripura power plant.

The development of the road network suitable for the huge trailer movement would require minimum one-year.
The officials also warned of the negative reaction from the common man as the movement of Bangladeshi  vehicles would stop when the cargo trailer would use the narrow road network.
Some irrigation facilities might also be disturbed seriously for construction of diversion roads, the officials said.It was learnt that the Awami League government, headed by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, has asked local members of the Bangladesh Parliament belonging to the grand alliance, to create public opinion in favour of the Indian cargo trailer movement.  
 


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com



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

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Fwd: Kissinger’s controversial prescription for Indian interest



-------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Zoglul Husain
It is a very good exposure of, what Zainal Abedin rightly termed, Kissinger's controversial prescription for Indian interest. It indeed is. But, there is nothing 'very strange and even difficult to believe' in Kissinger's moves. His covert and sometimes overt long association with the Neocons are well-known. His diplomacy has always been a ploy to cover his blood thirst. A self-made man, he started his career as an informer of the FBI and he has always been a hawk, a very active proponent of US imperialism. The Soviet Union also became an imperialist power and they militarily intervened in Afghanistan, which drew the other imperialist block in contest.
 
The people of Afghanistan will remain independent and it will not accept any shackles of, and mandate by, any consortium. The Afghan people have valiantly fought for nine years and they have defeated the whole imperialist block in direct fight. They are much better off without Kissinger's evil advice. 
 
Please see the following (from Wikipedia with my highlights ) introduction of Christopher Hitchens' book (which I read many years ago):
 
The Trial of Henry Kissinger (2001), is Christopher Hitchens' examination of the alleged war crimes of Henry Kissinger, the National Security Advisor and later Secretary of State for President Nixon and President Ford. Acting in the role of the prosecution, Hitchens presents evidence of Kissinger's complicity in a series of alleged war crimes in Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia), Bangladesh, Chile, Cyprus and East Timor.

Highlights from the book were serialized in Harper's Magazine in February and March 2001 (see The Case Against Henry Kissinger, Part 1 and Part 2).
This book inspired the creation of a 2002 documentary film, The Trials of Henry Kissinger. 
 
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 17:02:33 +0600
Subject: Kissinger's controversial prescription for Indian interest
From: bdmailer@gmail.com


Kissinger's controversial prescription for Indian interest
 
Mohammad Zainal Abedin
 
It is very strange and even difficult to believe that the former US Secretary of State Dr. Henry Kissinger in order to safeguard the so-called interest of India in Afghanistan advocated to involve a consortium of countries to define, protect and guarantee a definition of statehood for Afghanistan. Such advocacy utterly denies and defies the very fundamental sovereign rights of self-rule and self-determination of the Afghan people. Kissinger made his controversial theory while presenting a keynote paper at a seminar on 'Global security, governance and the emerging distribution of power held in Geneva on September 10. It was sponsored by International Institute of Strategic Studies.
 
PTI that covered the event quoted Kissinger as saying, "In many respects India will be the most affected country if a jihadist Islamism gains impetus in Afghanistan." He said, a uni-lateral American role cannot be a long-term solution. A long-term solution must involve a combination, a consortium of countries in defining, protecting and guaranteeing a definition of statehood for Afghanistan. He suggested, neighbours of Afghanistan should join hands to chart out the future of war-torn country, rather than depend on unilateral US efforts.   
 
India does not have common border with Afghanistan. It is difficult to calculate how the alleged Islamists will harm India. Will the so-called jihadis of Afghanistan swoop on India? Such apprehension is totally ridiculous.  Why Kissinger, a hero of diplomacy, didn't elaborate how India will seriously be affected. India, if really faces so, should it mean that Afghanistan will not be given its sovereign status to determine its affairs. Should the sovereignty of Afghanistan be divided among it neighbouring countries only to save Indian interest? Is Indian interest is more precious or valuable than that of Afghanistan's sovereign entity? Why he defies the role of the Afghan people? Shouldn't the Afghan people have the right to decide their own fate to protect their own interest?  Should Afghanistan sacrifice its sovereignty at the cost of Indian interest? How he could think that the neighours of Afghanistan should work out a definition determining the statehood of Afghanistan? What a wonderful theory it is! This theory is contrary to the universal concept of sovereign status of Afghanistan and international norms of non-interference on its internal and external affairs. It is the Afghan people who are the sole authority to decide how they will protect their motherland, what type of system they will adopt and follow. History says, no outside inference under any form will be tolerated by the Afghan people. External interference will only aggravate the situation further. Such move will not only prolong the misery and bloodshed in Afghanistan, but also inflame sanguinary war in the whole region. Kissinger should be smarter in dealing with the technicalities of Afghanistan.
 
India is not a party to Afghan conflict. India is the parasitic beneficiary of foreign invasion in Afghanistan. It was always with the invaders. For this reason when Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, India took the side of its Moscow mentors. During the whole cold war era India played such an ugly role, as if, it was a Soviet tentacle. India had to pack from Afghanistan when the Soviet soldiers were beaten out of Afghan soil. America, however, for mysterious reason, did not punish India for taking the side in favour of its arch rival Soviet Union.
 
After the extinction of Soviet Union, astonishing the whole world, India took shelter under American wing. Though India is not a party to US-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), it sent its security personnel and RAW operatives and agents in Afghanistan under the cover of reconstructing and rehabilitating its infrastructures. Availing American invasion India made huge business in Afghanistan under the cover of reconstruction of infrastructure, providing medical and humanitarian services and a bit of English language training. India opened more diplomatic missions in Afghanistan than its real requirements, basically to recruit and infiltrate its agents in Afghan society and its surrounding countries. Afghan freedom fighters comprehending the vicious and dubious role of India repeatedly killed the Indians. After these operations and renewal of its relations with the Federation of Russia — the heir of Soviet Union, India has already closed down some of its services in Afghanistan.
 
It is alleged that India secretly spies for Russian intelligence agencies and plays duel roles in Afghanistan. Outwardly it works for America to squeeze Pakistan and reap maximum benefits from the war; inwardly it fuels the Talibans financially and militarily. India not only supplies arms and explosives to the Talibans, but also infiltrated its former or working soldiers and common nationals in Taliban groups in order to prolong the war. The more the war prolongs the more benefits India will derive and above all, the more Pakistan will remain at bay. It is alleged at the instigation of its mentors in Moscow, India might be involved in Moscow-orchestrated design to ruin America militarily and financially in order to retaliate the defeat of Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
 
Knowledgeable sources allege, Kissinger sided with Indian interest, as India maintains close hobnob with Israel. They also opine Kissinger-like people instigated Bush administration to invade to Muslim countries — Iraq and Afghanistan that virtually ruined America's economy and degraded its image and creditability and acceptability. The latest theory of Kissinger to involve the neighbouring countries of Afghanistan is to ignite the fire of war in the whole region that will boom the arm business, which is a monopoly of the Jews — the community to which Kissinger belongs to. Other groups believe, as delivering lectures, has emerged as an income generating art, Kissinger might have got huge amount of cash, in exchange of presenting such a keynote paper at the Geneva seminar that entirely serves Indian interest. *  (Mohammad Zainal Abedin is a Bangladeshi researcher & journalist  Email: noa@agni.com).


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com



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

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Raising A Child On The Spectrum



Raising A Child On The Spectrum

Saima Hossain Putul     September 15, 2010

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a pervasive and debilitating childhood syndrome. It is a neurodevelopmental disorder that has no known cause or cure although many viable theories exist. ASD affects how a child develops his/her ability to learn from its environment, be it in the area of language, gross motor behaviour (such as running or walking up steps), fine motor (like writing or holding a pencil), daily living skills ( like using the toilet, buttoning their shirt), and in their ability to interact with others. Although there are some well known indicators of autism, each child's presentation of the disorder is unique. Therefore it is recommended that the treatment strategy should be planned according to the needs of the child and the family.

putul-inner

Autism occurs when the normal development of the brain is affected for some yet unknown reason, and the brain does not develop within the normal parameters. Hence adaptive behaviours are not acquired adequately and the child does not learn to acquire age appropriate behaviours, such as, making eye contact, responding to their name when called and learning to communicate both verbally and or nonverbally. In this vacuum of learning through observation, many behaviours and mannerisms appropriate in children in the first year or two continue to remain even to adulthood. That is why an early detection, followed by treatment that encompasses all the areas, is of utmost importance. In many cases with early detection and appropriate intervention starting as early as 1-3 years of age can achieve normal developmental milestones.

It is equally important that treatment plans include strategies that use the child's strengths and interests to deal with their areas of weakness. A positive intervention strategy needs to first and foremost target the ASD child's ability to communicate with his/her caregivers. Hence language skills need to be assessed: both what the child understands and is able to speak. A child with ASD frequently has weak muscles in their hands and fingers, or they are hypersensitive to textures, which leads to an inability to learn the simple activity of using a spoon or a pencil. Difficulties controlling their impulses, a tendency to express their angst in a physical manner, are all behaviours typical of a toddler. Most children as they grow older learn to replace these behaviours with verbal expressions which the child with ASD does not have. Therefore it is also of the utmost importance to teach the parents strategies on how to handle these meltdowns, or use rewards to change socially inappropriate behaviours.

Even as much as 10 years ago, it was believed that a majority of children with ASD were also functioning significantly below the average range of intelligence. Latest research has indicated otherwise. Current measures of intellectual functioning such as the Wechsler, Binet and Reynolds are not designed to take into account certain areas of significant weakness seen in ASD children. Which is why they should not be viewed as an overall indicator of intellectual functioning, but rather as measure of their strengths and weaknesses. Many children with mild autism and Asperger's Syndrome can achieve high levels of intellectual success. We have authors, poets, scientists, artists who are all within the spectrum. Many adults with autism are successful in their various careers and are contributing members of society. A supportive family, early and appropriate intervention targeting their areas of weakness has enabled them to succeed at home, in school and society as a whole.

A mother raising her child with special needs has to be braver and stronger than the average parent. Things that most of us as parents take for granted, such as seeing that first smile, our child reaching their arms out to be picked up, hearing their first words, are not what these mothers are rewarded with. Children who have autism get mesmerized by a flickering light or the changing shades on the window. They tend to shy away from people because we overwhelm them. All our changing expressions, tones of voice, facial movements that we inadvertently emulate during a conversation are almost too much information for their brain to process simultaneously. Therefore, from only a few months of age children with autism shy away and are unable to process and integrate average conversational behaviour. Soon this behaviour of attending to the various aspects of a conversation disappears from their normal repertoire of responses. Thus from a very young age they stop learning how to conduct conversational behaviour and hence do not acquire this typical developmental milestone. So in order to behave like the average child, the child with ASD has to be taught to recognize the varying facial expressions, changing tones, and respond back in a similar manner.

ASD affects not only how the child experiences the world around them but also how their families function in society. These children are beautiful, intelligent, creative and talented. They are not crazy or handicapped. They deserve our compassion, our understanding, our respect and our help. We as a developing nation need to create an environment where there is acceptance and tolerance for differences. All children are miracles from God.

I would go so far as to say that how we as Bangladeshis treat our children with special needs is a reflection on how we are going to advance as a nation. A nation that does not help and respect our most vulnerable members is a society that is destined to be unsuccessful.

http://opinion.bdnews24.com/2010/09/15/raising-a-child-on-the-spectrum/



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com



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

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Parameters for Indian Army 2020



Parameters for Indian Army 2020
 
By Lt Gen Vinay Shankar
Lt Gen Vinay Shankar, former Director General Artillery
 
Recently under the aegis of the Army a seminar was conducted to discuss the shape, size and structure of our Army in 2020. The scope of the seminar also included an assessment of emerging challenges and doctrinal issues. The deliberations during this event received some media coverage and comment.
 
If we are to go by the reports that doctrinal and organizational changes are in the offing based on the conclusions drawn during the Seminar clearly this event has been of considerable significance and extremely successful. The Army Headquarters, the organizers and the participants deserve to be congratulated. Equally it can be expected that the benefits of this event would encourage the defense establishment to engage in such debates more frequently.
 
The three service chiefs spoke during the inaugural session. A close scrutiny of what they said and the proceedings that followed would indicate that the deliberations were perhaps being conducted in a vacuum. Ideally, such a subject should have as its frame of reference a vision document of national strategy and security for 2020. Without such a conceptual framework the solutions arrived at are unlikely to be optimal and may even be flawed. We now have a National Security Council and a National Security Advisory Board comprising of some of our recognized and well-known members of the strategic community. Therefore it would be fair to expect a much greater degree of cohesion between national and defense planning.
 
For example what is our strategy in the next decade to settle the 'line of control' issue with Pakistan? Surely we should not have to forever live with this problem. Concurrently what is our action plan to win over the disaffected population of Kashmir so that militancy from the region is eradicated? Where does the military fit into this game plan? Again, what is our politico – diplomatic- military strategy for dealing with China on regional issues and the border problem? What about the 'war against terror' or the fallout of the actions in Iraq? What is our policy on sharing of responsibilities between the defense forces and the Central Police Forces till the problems in Kashmir and the North-east continue to fester? What diplomatic and military measures are contemplated to ensure that we retain the freedom of action to pursue our national interests without fear of arm twisting or intimidation and sanctions by other regional and global players? Only if we have answers to these and a host of other issues can we begin to formulate a plan for the Army, Navy and Air Force of 2020. Otherwise we shall continue to witness the disjunction between military capabilities and the Country's requirements as in 1947/48, 1962, 1965, Kargil, "Operation Parakrama' or in our ability to impose a military deterrent on Pakistan so as to dissuade that Country from engaging us- with a fair degree of impunity- in the covert war that we have been in, for the last decade and a half. Admittedly affordability will always be a major consideration but implications must be well digested before decisions are taken.
 
The discussion on Pakistan's nuclear capability and its ' absurdly low threshold' reaffirmed the tremendous triumph of Pakistan's nuclear strategy. Whether inadvertently or otherwise the US has rendered vital support in making the strategy succeed. The persistent projection of South Asia as a nuclear flashpoint since the eighties and the barrage of inputs that has flowed from the US since then has been effective in convincing us that Pakistan is capable of the utmost irresponsibility as a Nuclear weapon state. Consequently in our minds we have permitted our conventional military capability to get neutralized. The neutralization then finds expression in 'limited war', no deep operations, shallow objectives and other similar postulations.
 
The doctrine and capability definition that flow from such thinking can have an immeasurably debilitating effect on our entire military posture with the potential for disastrous consequences. Firstly it pushes us back into the old jacket of being totally defensive in our posture (it took us many years to get out of that mindset). Because whatever offensive capability we retain would be rendered virtually ineffective due to the fear of crossing Pakistan's nuclear threshold. And look at the enormous military advantage we transfer to Pakistan because of such thinking. Firstly it can continue to needle us by supporting terrorism and militancy without fear of any reprisal. Parakrama may well have reinforced this belief. Secondly in the event of war knowing that our offensives will be restricted to a few kilometers Pakistan can hold the front lightly with Para- military forces or with minimum regulars and then have the flexibility and freedom to concentrate forces to hit and hurt us at places of its choosing. Our nuclear doctrine of "no first use' adding to the comfort level of Pakistan's military planners.
 
There are similar problems with the notion of ' limited war'. In some sense or the other all wars are- limited. At a ridiculous level it can be argued that even the World Wars were limited. The catch is in defining limited wars and the conclusions we draw from such definition. Broadly, limited wars imply limitation of time, space and the use of force ( essentially weapon systems) In 1962 we did not employ our air force; neither did the Chinese. During the recent Kargil war the conflict was kept confined to the Kargil Sector and we also refrained from crossing the Line of Control. In 1971 we limited the war to the capture of Dacca. Even way back in 47/48 we chose to limit the duration of operations.(many today believe that had we carried on, the history of the subcontinent would have been different ).
 
So what is new now? Yet especially after the Kargil War we have many from our strategic thinkers community emphasizing that since future wars are likely to be 'limited' either by choice or due to the pressure of the UN/US our force structure ought to be suitably tailored. Implicit in such thinking is the belief that we can reduce force levels. This is a slippery route. And perhaps dangerous. As a matter of fact instead of considering scaling down because of restrictions that may be imposed we should seriously consider scaling up so that we acquire the capacity to impose limited fighting (strikes) like Israel or the US. Such a capability acquisition should be possible- at least- against some of our likely adversaries.
 
Throughout the close to fifty years of the 'cold war', assessments of thresholds had little or no effect on the conventional force levels and operational plans of the Warsaw Pact countries or the NATO. Nuclear contingencies and employment of nuclear weapons admittedly were considered as options and possibilities on the escalatory ladder. China has nuclear adversaries including India but it continues to give greater teeth to its conventional forces. As a matter of fact in the history of nuclear weapons states it would be difficult to find any country that is as constrained by the threshold of an adversary as we are. The subject requires greater reflection.
 
Nuclear weapons for nuclear deterrence and a powerful conventional force for dissuasive deterrence must remain the pillars of our military strategy. Therefore notwithstanding Pakistan's nuclear threshold we should maintain our focus on strengthening both pillars. Pakistan has convinced us of its low nuclear threshold. We have to now convince Pakistan that it does not matter. We are resolved to retaliate and punish if that Country transgresses our limit of tolerance.
 
In making a case for not compromising on conventional capability and the necessity to maintain the momentum of offensive operations, it would be incorrect, if it has been conveyed that nuclear threshold is altogether unimportant. In the planning and execution of operations it would remain a key consideration.
 
Over the last two decades our strategic horizon has undergone changes. But the shadow that Pakistan casts over our military minds continues to be disproportionately large. This must change. Areas to the North, North East and the Indian Ocean require much greater attention. The shift in focus must begin now. Then only can we expect to be well poised as we approach 2020.
 


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com



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

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Former Chatra Union and communists dominate govt



Former Chatra Union and communists dominate govt
 
 
 
 


__._,_.___


[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

__,_._,___

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)