Re: [ALOCHONA] Partnership of Salman, Falu and Badal

So does this mean Falu and the Madam are no longer an item......... How is she taking it?

-----Original Message-----
From: Isha Khan
Sent: Sep 17, 2010 11:04 PM
To: Undisclosed recipients@null, null@null, sentto-1111040-17707-1285221047-rkhundkar00=gsm.uci.edu@returns.groups.yahoo.com
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Partnership of Salman, Falu and Badal

 

Partnership of Salman, Falu and Badal

 

 

http://www.bd-pratidin.com/?view=details&type=single&pub_no=144&cat_id=1&menu_id=1&news_type_id=1&index=0

__._,_.___

[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] American Muslims Nine Years After 9/11

Its all fault of our Mollaas. Before their illiterate followers arrived looking for a better life only us, students from upper class educated families were here from Moslim Countries, we used to laugh off our stupid Mollaas instead of becoming Sneak Attack Terrorists.
.
Now all the good reputation that we had created for Moslims in USA is gone because of these stupid people, who want to thank generosity of Americans only by antagonizing them and seeking every kind of JehaaD against USA and Americans. They are at war with Christians in the West, we were not.
.
Why they had to pick this Mosque Project so near the Monument about to be built for Martyrs of your Savage Attack on USA?
Which Moslim Country would permit its Immigrant Christians to build a Church near a Monument being built in the Memory of Victims of Savage Attack of Christian Immigrants?
Answer me Ghazali ...!
Why this was called 'Cordoba Project', Codoba, a city of Spain, from where Moslim Minority ruled Christian Spain for centuries and collected Protection Money, called 'Jiziya'?
Doesn't it tell, what dream is in the mind of starter of this project?
Answer me Ghazali ...!

--- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, Isha Khan <bdmailer@...> wrote:
>
> American Muslims Nine Years After 9/11
> By Abdus Sattar Ghazali
>
>
> *T*he seven-million strong American Muslim community, under siege since the
> ghastly tragedy of 9/11, is challenged in recent months with a growing
> anti-Islam and anti-Muslim bigotry sparked by the opposition to the planned
> Park51 project popularly known as the Ground Zero Mosque in Manhattan, New
> York. The inflammatory rhetoric surrounding the project, actually a cultural
> center and already approved by the New York City Planning Commission, has
> stirred hatred toward Muslims in America.
>
> There has been so much fear-mongering and so much misinformation in the
> debate peddled by bigots and rightwing politicians. The constant
> vilification of Islam and Muslims over the air on radio talk shows, in
> newspapers and the Internet is contributing to the rise in anti-Muslim
> sentiment across the country.
>
> The hate speech and fear-mongering has resulted in hate crimes against
> Muslims and their prayer centers. At least three anti-Muslim acts were
> reported in one day, on August 24. In New York, taxi driver Ahmed H. Sharif
> was stabbed after the passenger asked the driver "Are you Muslim?" When the
> driver said yes, the man slashed him with a knife on the throat, arm and
> face. The same night a drunk man barged into a Queens (New York) mosque and
> shouted anti-Muslim slurs at the congregation during the nightly Tarawee
> prayers. He then proceeded to urinate on the prayer rugs. Anti-Muslim acts
> are not limited to New York. Several thousand miles away in Madera,
> California, a mosque was vandalized with a sign reading 'Wake up America,
> the enemy is here.' Tellingly, earlier last month, a mock pig inscribed with
> "No Mosque in NYC" was left at a California Islamic center. It was also
> inscribed with "Remember 9-11" and "MO HAM MED the Pig."
>
> Amid growing anti-Muslim sentiment—stirred up by a raging debate over the
> Ground Zero mosque, at least two more incidents were reported till August
> 31. In New York State's tiny town, Carlton, five teenagers harassed
> worshippers at the town mosque. The teenagers were charged with disrupting
> religious services at the mosque after they honked their car horns and
> yelled obscenities during one prayer service, and fired a weapon outside of
> another. In the Nashville suburb of Murfreesboro (Tennessee) a fire was
> reported at the site of a planned Islamic center and mosque. More
> alarmingly, gunshots were fired when the community members arrived to
> inspect the site.
>
> All these hate incidents come in an atmosphere of near anti-Muslim hysteria
> that is currently being generated by the feverish discourse and manufactured
> controversy over the Ground Zero mosque. It is generating anti-Muslim and
> anti-Islam public sentiments. A poll on August 29 by the extreme right San
> Diego, California 760 KFMB AM talk radio station indicated that 70% of those
> polled are in favor of forced registration for American Muslims in a
> national database. The same day a poll conducted by Chris Matthews show at
> the MSNBC revealed that more than half of Republicans polled say they have a
> negative attitude toward Islam, this compared to only 27% of Democrats. A
> PEW Institute poll result released on August 24 corroborated the findings of
> Chris Mathews show. By more than two-to-one (54% to 21%), Republicans
> expressed an unfavorable opinion of Islam and by more than four-to-one (74%
> to 17%), Republicans say they agree more with those who object to the
> building of the Ground Zero Mosque. By contrast, more Democrats agree with
> the center's supporters than its opponents (by 47% to 39%).
>
> One may ask. If the feverish discourse about the so-called Ground Zero
> mosque is only about the building of a new mosque or something else? To
> borrow, Stephan Salisbury of Tom Dispatch, the mosque controversy is not
> really about a mosque at all; it's about the presence of Muslims in America,
> and the free-floating anxiety and fear that now dominate the nation's
> psyche. The dark stain of anti-Islam and anti-Muslim bigotry or Islamophobia
> had spread far and wide long before the controversy erupted. As Salisbury
> pointed out, "those opposing the construction of the center in New York City
> are drawing on what amounts to a decade of government-stoked xenophobia
> about Muslims, now gathering strength and visibility in a nation full of
> deep economic anxieties and increasingly aggressive far-right grassroots
> groups."
>
> Since 9/11, there has been a steady rise in Islamophobia, however recent
> months have seen exponential rise of anti-Islam and anti-Muslim bigotry.
> Many Religious Right leaders and opportunist politicians assert over and
> over that Islam is not a religion at all but a political cult, that Muslims
> cannot be good Americans and that mosques are fronts for extremist
> `jihadis.' Over the course of the past year there has been a substantial
> increase in the number of political candidates using Islamophobic tactics in
> an effort to leverage votes, and use such tactics as a platform to enhance
> their political visibility.
>
> Few examples: A Minnesota Republican congressional candidate, Lynne
> Torgerson, says that the religion of Islam cannot be protected by the First
> Amendment to the United States Constitution. Tennessee Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey,
> one of three Republican candidates running for governor, says Islam may be
> called a "cult" instead of a religion. Ron McNeil, a Florida congressional
> candidate tells local high and middle class students that Islam is against
> everything America stands for. Another Florida Republican candidate for
> Congress, Dan Fanelli, runs television ads in which he points to a white man
> and asks, "Does this look like a terrorist?" and then turns to an
> Arab-looking man and asks, "Or this?" A Texas congressional hopeful, Canyon
> Clowdus, wants no more Muslim immigration to America. The American Family
> Association also wants a halt to the immigration of Muslims into the U.S. to
> "protect our national security and preserve our national identity, culture,
> ideals and values." In Oklahoma an anti-Muslim measure is being pushed for
> November ballot.
>
> Alarmingly, allegations of anti-Muslim bias are being leveled against the
> U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, that advises the
> president and other government officials on issues related to religious
> freedom worldwide. The Washington Post has quoted some past commissioners,
> staff and former staff of the Commission as saying that the agency is rife,
> behind-the-scenes, with ideology and tribalism, with commissioners focusing
> on pet projects that are often based on their own religious background. In
> particular, they say an anti-Muslim bias runs through the commission's work.
>
> *Burning of the Quran stunt*
>
> Desecration of the Quran, Islam's holy book, is another method of bigotry.
> Anti-Islam and anti-Muslim Pastor Terry Jones of a tiny Florida Church,
> known as the Dove World Outreach Center, planned to commemorate 9/11 by
> burning copies of the Holy Quran. He abandoned the Quran burning stunt when
> US Secretary of Defense phoned him saying that his provocative act would
> inflame the Muslim world and jeopardize the lives of American troops now
> deployed in many Muslim countries. However, Jones message was not lost to
> many. Torn pages of the Quran were found on Saturday (9/10) at the front of
> the Islamic Center of East Lansing, Michigan. Some of the pages appeared to
> be smeared with feces.
>
> Amid heightened hate speech and fear-mongering mosques in California,
> Tennessee, New York, Illinois, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Texas, and Florida have
> faced vocal opposition or have been targeted by hate incidents in recent
> months. In the most recent incidents, on 9/11 eve, vandals spray-painted
> "9-11" on windows and countertops at the Muslim owned Jaffa Market in
> Columbus, Ohio. Some cash and a laptop computer were stolen, while several
> display cases were vandalized. Just after midnight on Wednesday (9/8), back
> wall of the Hudson Islamic Center in New York was pained with slur "sand
> n**gers" and an obscenity. Last week also, a Phoenix mosque under
> construction was vandalized. Paint was spilled on the floor and several
> tall, arched glass windows were broken by what appeared to be gunshots.
> There was also anti-Muslim graffiti. The same mosque was vandalized in
> February last.
>
> The presence of mosques and the building of new mosques have become a
> divisive issue in several communities across the country in recent years. A
> church may be a church, and a temple a temple, but through the prism of
> emotion that grips many Americans, a decade after 9/11, a mosque can
> apparently represent a lot of things.
>
> *Eid Al Fitr celebrations scaled back *
>
> This year the seven million strong American Muslim community scaled back the
> Eid Al Fitr celebrations at the end of the fasting month of Ramadan, which
> fell just one day before the 9/11 anniversary. Islamic civic advocacy groups
> worried that the proximity of Eid Al Fitr with 9/11 anniversary will
> increase suspicion and hostility towards Muslims at a time when feelings
> towards their religion are already running high.
>
> The Council of Muslim Organizations in Washington DC called on all US
> Islamic centers, schools and organizations to refrain from holding Eid Al
> Fitr celebrations. The Council said the move was out of respect for the
> victims of the 9/11 attacks.
>
> Muslim leaders feared that the celebrations might have been mistakenly -- or
> deliberately – misconstrued. "Definitely there are people who would like to
> make us look like we are celebrating on 9/11 and we are not going to let
> them," said Imam Johari Abdul-Malik, Director of Outreach at the Dar Al
> Hijrah Islamic Center, Washington DC.
>
> Many Muslims believed that sensitivity toward the anniversary of September
> 11 is crucial since this has been a tense summer for Muslims in the US due
> to the controversy over the Grand Zero mosque.
>
> The Islamic Cultural Center of Fresno, California announced cancellation of
> its Eid al-Fitr carnival on Sept. 11. For the past several years, the
> Islamic Cultural Center had celebrated Eid al-Fitr with a carnival on the
> first Saturday after the holiday, when the potential is greater for large
> attendance. Center officials said the cancellation was an acknowledgment
> that any celebration could be misinterpreted and also could be seen by some
> as insensitivity to the remembrance of 9/11.
>
> With anti-Muslim rhetoric reaching epic proportions in broader U.S. society
> -- largely tolerated, rarely condemned – the American Muslim community
> remains optimistic that the current campaign which is partly driven by the
> forthcoming elections will eventually subside since the religious freedom is
> a founding principle of this country and the main catalyst for its origins
> in the early seventeenth century. This principle was emphatically reiterated
> by President George Washington in his 1790 letter to the Jews of Rhode
> Island who built the Touro Synagogue:
>
> "The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud
> themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal
> policy -- a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of
> conscience and immunities of citizenship….The Government of the United
> States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance,
> requires only that they who live under its protection should demean
> themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual
> support."
>
> When President Washington wrote this letter 220 years back, he must have
> been aware of the effect it would have on the fledgling nation.
>
> *Abdus Sattar Ghazali *is the Executive Editor of the online magazine
> American Muslim Perspective:
> *www.amperspective.com*<http://www.amperspective.com/>Email:
> *asghazali786@...*
>

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

[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.comYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
alochona-digest@yahoogroups.com
alochona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
alochona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[ALOCHONA] Time to redraw nation's defence strategy

My comments are inserted below.

--- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, Isha Khan <bdmailer@...> wrote:
>
> Time to redraw nation's defence strategy
> * *
> *M. Shahidul Islam*
>
> A number of glaring testimonies of looming military danger make it incumbent
> upon our defence policy makers to update the nation's war book, or re-write
> a new one altogether in light of the intensified Indo-Chinese rivalry and
> the Indian distinctive strategic alliance with the USA.
.
TURKMAN: Indo-Chinese Rivalry in what? Is not China helping India in a few Sectors of her Economy and Infrastructure Development? Have not India and China had Joint Naval Exercises? Has India signed a Defense Pact with USA that you think, India now has 'distinctive strategic alliance' with USA? If some American Companies have moved in to India so what? A lot more American Companies have their factories in China also and USA is the biggest Customer of Chinese Exports. Has India reached that status? China earns $ 240 billion a year from USA. Does India? Is USA, India's main Arms Supplier? No. Russia is. Has USA helped India launch her satellite? No. Russia has. Could you tell us, what kind of strategic alliance is this when Arms Supplier of India is Russia, not USA? So, what kind of 'distinctive strategic alliance' alliance are you talking about? The Lie kind that ISI has been propagating?
--------------
> The security ambiance of the region plunged deeper into a danger zone
> lately with reports in the US and the Indian media of Islamabad's handing
> over of the Gilgit-Baltistan region of the Pakistan-administered Kashmir to
> China and China's deployment of 11,000 troops in that region.
.
TURKMAN: I live in USA and I have not even seen that Chinese Deployment News published in American Newspapers and I have not seen any such news in TV Media. Have not heard on News Radio either. US Government had no response. Why are you lying? Oh I forgot because this is what your Employer told you to do.
------------------
> Coupled with other recent geopolitical developments, these reports
> indicate the re-shaping of the regional strategic landscape and of Delhi's
> dogged determination to challenge Beijing's pre-eminence in regional and
> global politics, with help from Bangladesh.
.
TURKMAN: China has not deployed her Troops to fight a future war against India. You are hiding the fact that China so called by Pakistan, 'fastest friend of Pakistan' has deployed those troops near her border only because she does not trust your rogue state called Pakistan. You people had built a JehaaDi Camp near her Border to train, finance and arm her Moslim Dissidents in Western China and when asked, "Why?" by China, your C-in-C had said Pak Army had no control over that region. So, China is there fighting nefarious designs of Pakistan on Western China, not India.
-------------------
> Besides, the intensified Indo-Chinese tension seriously undercuts efforts
> by people of India, China and Russia for greater regional collaborations;
> despite the foreign ministers of the three nations slated to meet in
> Bangalore on October 26-27.
>
TURKMAN: But has China refused to send her Foreign Minister?
---------------
> *Denial unheeded*
> Reacting to the reports that started to make headlines in late August,
> Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Jiang Yu said on September 2, "We believe
> these attempts of some people to fabricate stories to provoke China-Pakistan
> or China-India relations are doomed to fail."
> Pakistan too issued similar rebuttal. A Pakistani Foreign Office
> spokesman, Abdul Basit, strongly denied the news being circulated in the
> American and Indian media and said on August 31, "The Chinese were working
> on landslide, flood hit areas and on the destroyed Korakoram Highway with
> the permission of Pakistani Government."
> All such denials did little, however, to assuage
>
>
> Indian concerns. India's ambassador to China, S. Jaishankar, met with the
> Chinese vice Minister for Foreign Affairs, Zhang Zhijun, on September 3 in
> Beijing and conveyed New Delhi's concern over the presence of Chinese troops
> in Gilgit-Baltistan. India also further reinforced its military capability
> along the 2,521 mile China-India borders.
>
TURKMAN: How come no news media knew about this and only you knew? In rest of your article you are giving a new spin to everything instead of letting the truth be left alone. I am not going to comment on rest of your Paki Propaganda that is full of lies. Your name is Shahid Islam but neither you are a 'Shahid' nor are practicing truth of Islam. You are a Monaafik.
----------------
> *Historical animosity*
> Although a recent New York Time report had linked the Chinese military
> presence in Kashmir to China's plans to gain a "grip on the strategic area
> to ensure unfettered road and rail access to the Gulf through Pakistan," the
> animosity is rooted in historic claims and counter claims made by the two
> nuclear armed neighbours on each other's territories. The New York Times
> report said there were two important new developments in Gilgit-Baltistan; a
> simmering rebellion against the Pakistani rule and the influx of an
> estimated 7,000 to 11,000 soldiers of the Chinese People's Liberation Army
> (PLA) in the area.
> In reality, these reports are tied with recent Indian war preparation and
> entrenchment of military capability along mutual borders on which the two
> nations had fought a brief but bloody war in 1962.
> The border dispute dates back to 1914 when the colonial Britain hosted a
> conference with the Chinese and the Tibetan governments to demarcate the
> Tibetan border along the so called McMahon line. China never recognised the
> McMahon Line and claims 90,000 sq km, nearly all of what India now calls
> Arunachal Pradesh (about 2000 sq kms), its own territory. Besides, India
> accuses China of occupying 8,000 sq km of its territory in Kashmir.
> The latest spark also emanated from Delhi's upping the ante on August 26
> following Beijing's refusal to grant a visa to Indian army's Northern
> Command Chief, Lt. Gen. BS Jaswal, to visit Beijing as an Indian military
> delegation member, saying the officer oversees Jammu and Kashmir which 'is a
> disputed area.'
> The incident left Delhi snubbed, insulted and injured; more so when
> Beijing asked to replace Lt. Gen. Jaswal, something India refused to comply
> and ordered instead a demarche by cancelling a scheduled visit by a Chinese
> military delegation to India's National Defence College. Delhi also ordered
> cancellation of another scheduled visit by Indian military officials to
> China.
>
> *Offensive postures*
> The ongoing rivalry may end up with another war, according to many
> analysts. Since 2007, India has been aggressively racing to match China for
> regional and global power, building and bolstering airstrips and army
> outposts along the common borders and rebuilding run-down roads and
> infrastructures. In June 2009, it started building a tunnel to bypass the
> virtually impassable Rohtang Pass to ensure all-weather access to Ladakh,
> which abuts the Tibetan Plateau.
> Coupled with recent procurement of huge state-of-the-art military
> hardware and Delhi's strategic alliance with the USA, these moves kept
> Beijing busy in shoring up its own deficiencies, tactically and
> strategically, while Delhi replaced its 'cold start' strategy with an
> aggressive doctrine to confront both China and Pakistan simultaneously.
> These bellicose postures are heading toward the outbreak of another major
> war among the two regional giants.
> Besides defending the sovereignty of the Arunachal Pradesh, Delhi wants
> to recover the Chinese-administered Aksai Chin, which India claims as part
> of its territory. Along the Kashmir frontier, north of Ladakh stands the
> disputed Siachen Glacier, an ice-capped river basin that had provoked both
> India and Pakistan to claiming and fighting over, almost frequently since
> the 1980s. Both India and Pakistan maintain military outposts on the 20,000
> feet high altitude of the Siachen's glacier- capped ranges.
>
> *Bangladesh's concern*
> Having lost Tibet to China in 1959, India took over Sikkim's sovereignty
> in 1975, but the predicament posed by the Siliguri Corridor in West Bengal,
> with an average width of 21 km to 40 km only, in connecting the north
> eastern region with the Indian mainland could not be reconciled as yet. That
> is what makes Bangladesh an integral part of the Indian and the Chinese
> defence priorities and makes it extremely difficult for Dhaka to maintain
> either a neutral stance, or align militarily with either of the
> protagonists.
> It also gives birth to a cliché, if not a strategic doctrine, that "He
> who controls Bangladesh will control north east India," making Bangladesh
> susceptible to pre-emptive military invasion by either of the protagonists.
> Geopolitically, China has two major claims over territories that India
> claims to be its own. The claim in the western sector involves Aksai Chin in
> the northeastern Ladakh District in Jammu and Kashmir. The eastern sector
> claim involves the territory belonging to the British era North-East
> Frontier Agency (NEFA) abutting Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Myanmar;
> including the Tibetan-Naga-inhabited Arunachal Pradesh which Delhi has
> turned into its 24th state on 20th February, 1987.
> These lands were fought over before. During the 1962 Indo-China war, the
> well-trained and well-armed PLA troops overpowered the ill-equipped Indian
> troops, who found themselves not properly acclimatized to fight at high
> altitudes. Following initial setbacks, Indian troops desperately sought to
> regroup and the Indian army strengthened its defensive positions in the NEFA
> and Ladakh to repulse possible Chinese attacks through Sikkim and Bhutan.
> The Indian attempt failed and the war reached close to Bangladesh
> frontiers (then East Pakistan), despite many Indian army units having moved
> from Calcutta, Bihar, Nagaland, and Punjab to guard the northern frontiers
> of West Bengal and Assam. The western NEFA witnessed deployment of three
> Indian brigades while two other brigades were deployed in Sikkim and the
> West Bengal border with Bhutan. Light Stuart tanks were drawn from the
> Eastern Command headquarters at Calcutta to bolster such deployments.
> Yet, an unrelenting Chinese onslaught wiped out virtually all Indian
> resistance in Kameng and, by November 18, the PLA had penetrated close to
> the outskirts of Tezpur, Assam, a major frontier town within the artillery
> range from Bangladesh and barely 50 kilometres from the Assam-NEFA border.
> Sensing Indian helplessness, China declared a unilateral ceasefire on
> November 21. Beijing also respected the McMahan line and withdrew troops
> beyond what it regards as 'unaccepted' Line of Actual Control (LoAC).
>
> *The big picture*
> There are those who blame the USA for the latest escalation in tension
> and military preparedness in Asia. They say the US department of defence
> annual report's claim that 'the pace and scope of China's military
> modernisation have increased over the past decade' has scared Delhi. The
> report cautioned that 'extreme secrecy is increasingly difficult to
> reconcile with China's role in the integrated global economy, which depends
> on transparency.'
> That is perhaps part of the story. Beijing's quest for access to the
> Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf regions for much needed energy resources
> lay at the centre of its alliance making in the region, although the Indian
> story is rooted more in geopolitical quest for land.
> Although other intelligence reports indicate Beijing is constructing over
> 22 tunnel and a rail link between Pakistan administered Kashmir and China,
> and further extending the Karakoram Highway that connects China's Muslim
> predominant Xinjiang province with Pakistan, the tunnel construction is
> related to a projected gas pipeline from Iran to China that would cross the
> Karakorams through Gilgit. India, however, fears they could be also used for
> missiles storage sites.
> They plausibly could, but such Indian fear is grossly misplaced. Given
> that Beijing has financed the construction of Pakistani naval bases at
> Gawadar, Pasni and Ormara in Balochistan, such connectivity aims mainly at
> transporting cargo and oil from the Persian Gulf to eastern China within 48
> hours.
> While those could be least of our concerns, Bangladesh must prepare not
> to get overrun by any of the contending armies of the region in the instance
> push come to shove. That is why it must devise a full spectrum defence
> capability of its own as a sovereign nation state of 150 million strong.
>
> http://www.weeklyholiday.net/front.html#01
>

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

[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.comYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
alochona-digest@yahoogroups.com
alochona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
alochona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[ALOCHONA] Loan from Delhi raisesbillion dollar questions

Every new job created helps the nation and this project also will. If Opposition is sincere with 'desh' it should not oppose anything like this. It should point out to corruption if it finds any so, the country is run right and influential people do not pocket money of Bangladeshis.
Job of patriotic opposition should be constructive criticism, not opposing everything and treating Hasina Government as its Enemy.

--- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, qrahman@... wrote:
>
>
> So you are working with Indian government? How will you make sure " M. Shahidul Islam" will end up with a heavier pocket? Will that "Generosity" help average Bangladeshis or Bangladesh's interest as a nation?
>
>
>
>
> As stated before, Bangladesh has a "Love-hate" relationship with India. We also have "Trust issues" with India. India made plenty of promises before but kept few of her liking. Currently we received more water than we need from certain India states. Soon we are going to have water shortages when we are going to need water to support small farmers of this country---courtesy of India. We have many "Pesky" issues like this. IMHO we can solve them if we have a sincere partner in India.
>
> Now coming back to this loan agreement. We are supporters of this initiative and some critics as well. Critics are saying the majority of the proposals are targeted at streamlining transition facilities for India. This will include water bodies, roads and railways. Since most of these initiatives are targeted to protect Indian interests, why can't India give this money as "Grant" instead of burdening people of this country by counting this as "LOAN"? The other major concern comes from those who are worried about security and sovereignty of Bangladesh.
>
> Then we have our own problem of inefficiencies and corruption.
>
> I think these are legitimate concerns and needs to be addressed. This sort of mega projects should be supported by public as long people have a clear idea about our long term goals. What Dipu Moni and couple other ministers did in a press conference was absolutely inadequate to reassure people of this country.
>
> We need to have a clear picture about transparency and ROI [ Return on investment ] timeline as well. Since we have vibrant media and internet technology, our government should use technology to connect with common people to gain support for "Nation building" projects like these.
>
> -qr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ANDREWL <turkman@...>
> To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, Aug 31, 2010 4:38 am
> Subject: [ALOCHONA] Loan from Delhi raisesbillion dollar questions
>
>
>
>
>
> Okay, okay, we will make sure this loans serves your pocket also.
>
> --- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, Isha Khan <bdmailer@> wrote:
> >
> > Loan from Delhi raisesbillion dollar questions
> >
> > *M. Shahidul Islam*
> >
> > The $1 billion loan agreement signed with India on August 7 begets some
> > billion dollar questions: Whose interest will it serve and whether the fund
> > was at all needed. Cynicism has exacerbated by the loan coming at a time
> > when it is least needed; over $500 million of ADB, IMF and other
> > source-loans lying idle in the government's coffer.
> > Decoding the mindset of policy makers in Dhaka and Delhi has become a
> > futile exercise since the coming to power of the AL-led regime in early
> > 2009. While any definitive answers to such questions will remain unanswered
> > for obvious reasons, a glance at the targeted projects where the borrowed
> > money will be spent may provide some valuable clues to unearthing the real
> > motive behind this unprecedented economic collaboration between the two
> > South Asian neighbours.
> >
> > *Whose interest?*
> > Of the 14 projects for which the predominance of the borrowed $1 billion
> > is slated for spending, over 76 per cent of the fund is earmarked for the
> > (1) construction of Ashugonj port and dredging of navigation route leading
> > to Tripura border, (2) upgrading of railway tracks and purchase of railway
> > locomotives and oil tankers to transport Indian goods across the border, (3)
> > construction of bridges astride Indo-Bangladesh border, including over the
> > Bhairab and the Feni river connection Tripura, (4) construction of
> > Ramgar-Subrom land port and the connecting roads, and, (5) construction of
> > Bheramara-Bahrampur 400 KV inter- connected lines at a cost of $150 million,
> > to name but a few.
> > The agreement stipulates that the pipeline projects must incur 85 per
> > cent of the costs by procuring goods and services from India only, and, the
> > consultants hired for advising must be from India too. That alone will
> > divert back 90 per cent of the fund to India.Add to this .50 per cent
> > penalty for non-completion of any project, 1.75 per cent annual interest and
> > .5 percent commitment fee per annum. The entire venture has little or no
> > value added dividend for Bangladesh, excepting an estimated $25 million or
> > so that is expected to come annually from custom fee and the allied levies
> > that are yet to be decided.
> >
> > Simply put: Delhi will plan, fund and complete all these strategically
> > important projects inside Bangladesh with materials from India, to serve
> > India's interest, while the cost incurred is a loan to Bangladesh which the
> > country may not be able to pay off within the stipulated 20 years time
> > frame. Besides, the loan's conditionality is so stringent that the negation
> > of any future government to comply with the projects' completion will not
> > absolve the nation from paying the interests and the penalties during the 20
> > years amortization period.
> >
> > As well, the 1.75 per cent interest is too high, compared with the loan
> > transactions occurring at public and private levels anywhere in the world;
> > due to the recession-battered prime landing rate being either zero, or at
> > best one per cent in the leading economies of the world. More disturbing is
> > the 20 years payment deadline, which covers only half of the payment
> > time-line usually offered by major international financial institutions
> > while the stipulated interest rate is seven times of what the IMF loan
> > charges, .25 per cent at best.
> >
> > *Why policy- shift?*
> > Despite that, our finance minister is on record for accusing the
> > opposition BNP of lying, as the latter insisted on not to sign the loan
> > accord in consideration of upholding national interest. The gala and the
> > glittering of the signing ceremony had also dwarfed the potential of an
> > economic and geopolitical disaster this particular loan is sure to bring
> > upon our nation.
> >
> > The finance minister is not alone in touting the issue as an epoch -
> > making economic bonanza. Prior to Dhaka consenting to inking the agreement,
> > few in the nation took pain to study the economic and the arithmetical
> > rationale for doing so, especially at a time when the decision to borrow
> > from external sources marked a radical shift from existing policies which
> > proved successful over the decades by reducing debt-dependency on external
> > sources, often phenomenally.
> >
> > We also feel numb as none among the policy makers even bothered to ask,
> > why Dhaka needed $1 billion credit from India when its debt-GDP ratio stood
> > at all time high, over 32 per cent of the GDP, or well over $50 billion, of
> > which public debt alone rose by over $2 billion since the coming to office
> > of the AL-led regime in late 2008 (Source: CIA fact sheet). Bangladesh bank
> > data also reveals, total government borrowing was Tk. 597.9 billion in FY
> > 2007, out of which Tk. 522.0 billion (87 percent) came from domestic sources
> > while the net flow of public borrowing from external sources remained nearly
> > stagnant in FY06-07, and declined further subsequently.
> >
> > *Deadly geopolitics*
> > Such compelling economic rationales aside, India's generosity remains
> > questionable; the loan coming to Dhaka at a time when India itself is
> > bleeding under a slew of catastrophic afflictions spurred by a lingering
> > recession, accelerated centrifugal drives spearheaded by insurgents from
> > Kashmir to Mizoram to Assam, and the widespread public discontent created by
> > a combustive mix of mass unemployment and hyper inflation which Delhi seems
> > totally unable to tackle.
> > Some observers say, this is hardly a micro-managed regional bonhomie to
> > bolster fraternity with a smaller neighbour in crisis. Faced with
> > unprecedented domestic crisis, Delhi had to display some geopolitical
> > acrobatics to deflect attention outward and the scheme fitted neatly with a
> > Machiavellian design to turn Bangladesh into an economic and military
> > hinterland that has been in the making since Delhi decided to join the
> > US-led anti terror bandwagon in 2001.
> > They say, ever since, Delhi has been on the driving seat in Dhaka while
> > irritating silence and procrastination remained our national hallmark amidst
> > the gradual but systematic enfeebling of the nation by (1) rendering the
> > armed forces impotent, and, (2) bludgeoning the economy through orchestrated
> > destruction of the main export sector, the RMG.
> >
> > This line of analysis jibes well with the desperation Delhi felt lately
> > as it witnessed, helplessly, Nepal turning into a Maoist state, Sri Lanka
> > drifting away toward China and the Pakistani success in checkmating Delhi in
> > Afghanistan amidst successive Taliban victory in the battles against the
> > India-allied NATO forces. They say as most of the earmarked projects involve
> > land and marine connectivity between India's north east with the mainland
> > via Bangladesh, our nation is being turned into a virtual India corridor.
> > This constitutes serious compromises of our territorial integrity and
> > sovereignty.
> >
> > http://www.weeklyholiday.net/front.html#02
> >
>

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

[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.comYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
alochona-digest@yahoogroups.com
alochona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
alochona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[ALOCHONA] The Arabs and Iran

The Arabs and Iran

 

 

Regardless of Arab public opinion, governments in the Arab world remain largely authoritarian, with a demonstrated capacity to go against their public sentiment on critical issues, such as war. To be sure, there are always consequences for ignoring public opinion—and these may be growing—but when push comes to shove, governments have been able to disregard their publics when the stakes are important enough. The question is therefore: how do Arab governments think about the Iran issue, including the prospects of an American or an Israeli attack on Iran?

The first thing to note is that there is no unified Arab government position. Although, with the exception of Syria, most are suspicious of Iran and worry about rising Iranian power and influence, the degree of concern varies, and the sources of concern vary even more. Even in the case of Syria, where Iran is seen for the foreseeable future as a strategic partner, the Syrian government, a secular Arab nationalist government, is not naturally comfortable with the Islamic regime in Tehran. This much is clear (and is the basis of the prevailing conventional wisdom in Washington): most Arab governments would like Iranian power trimmed, with some supporting a potential attack on its nuclear facilities by either Israel or the United States.

But Arab governments' calculations cover a broad spectrum and are based on assessments on several issues: the impact of an attack on their own security (and longevity) particularly in the short to intermediate term; the impact on the regional balance of power, which includes the impact on Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict; the impact on domestic politics (and in some places this also means the Sunni-Shiite divide); the impact on broader Arab regional and global influence; and the impact on Iraq's future. The weight of each issue varies across the Arab world, partly as a function of proximity to Iran or to the Arab-Israeli arena, partly as a function of internal demographics, and partly as a function of size and aspirations.

One has to put Iraq aside for the moment, since its politics are still unsettled, and the United States will remain there for the foreseeable future. Iran's small neighbors all have concerns about growing Iranian power in the region and Iran's influence in Iraq itself, and about their ramifications for regional security and for their own domestic politics, especially in places like Bahrain, where the Sunni-Shiite divide could become a bigger issue. Saudi Arabia too has its own worries about Iran, the nature of its government, and its growing power. But no one is as concerned as the United Arab Emirates, which is not only a close neighbor but also claims sovereignty over three islands that Iran controls. Even among these countries with close proximity to Iran, however, there are differences on how to deal with the perceived Iranian threats, including potential nuclear weapons.

Their publics may see the United States as a bigger threat than Iran, but governments of Iran's small Arab neighbors see the United States as protecting them from Iran, particularly after the decline of Iraq. Even Qatar, which has maintained good relations with Iran, at the end of the day is an American ally; it hosts a large American base—not Iranian troops. The differences are all about available options and the prospects of their success. And this is central in calculations of the possible use of force by either Israel or the United States to attack Iran's nuclear program.

If the assessment is that there would be a limited war that does not expand to their countries and disrupt their comfortable lives, and that the war would end by destroying Iran's nuclear weapons potential, weakening Iran's influence, and better yet, lead to regime change in Iran—supporting war would be a no-brainer for most of them. If on the other hand, there is a high risk that the war would not be short, that Iran would still be able to develop a nuclear-weapons capability and also acquire an interest in disrupting their lives (particularly if American forces operate from within their borders), the calculations will be different. With the exception of Saudi Arabia, these states are all small states concentrated on the Gulf, and are particularly exposed to potentially destructive attacks. If, in addition, they have to be concerned that a protracted war between the United States and Iran may lead to American overextension and American public pressure to pull forces from the region, thus leaving them to deal with Iranian wrath on their own, their preference will be to avoid war. Gulf Arab states are not all of the same mind on assessing the consequences of war and, therefore, on supporting that option.

There is a big strategic picture that matters to Arab elites, especially those with a strong Arab identity and in states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia where there is an expectation of regional leadership and of an enhanced global role. There is no escaping the current sentiment that overall Arab influence has diminished and that all non-Arab states in the region—Iran, Israel, and Turkey—have grown in power—particularly since the Iraq war. While governments in the region are first and foremost driven by what's good for them, they also face a public, including elites, that places more emphasis on transnational identity, whether Muslim or Arab, than on state identity. This means nuclear power not only has strategic value but also symbolic weight. And Arab governments would have to deal with the sense that Arabs are falling further behind.

They also worry about Israel's regional hegemony and, whatever cost there is in terms of public face, Arabs may still view Iran's potential to acquire nuclear weapon as added pressure on Israel, making it more likely its government will need Arab support.

Ideally, they would like to see the Middle East turn into a nuclear-free zone, with no Israeli or Iranian bombs. But it is also clear that the potential Iranian nuclear weapons have helped them make a stronger case for such a zone, assisting Egypt to secure what was seen as a foreign policy achievement when it successfully lobbied last May, in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, for taking up the issue of turning the Middle East into a nuclear free zone in 2012, with American backing.

This perspective also gives a different view of a possible Israeli (sans America) attack on Iran. An Israeli success would be a mixed blessing: Iran would be weakened, but Israel would emerge even stronger. On the other hand, Israel would then be engaged in a real conflict with Iran bound to last for the long term, regardless of the government in power. Whereas, at the moment, the conflict between Israel and Iran remains primarily ideological; war would create a deeper divide. The negative turn in Turkish-Israeli relations, particularly since the Gaza war in 2008, has oddly left Israel dependent particularly on its relations with Egypt, for creating some regional balance. To be sure, Israel continues to rely primarily on the backing of the United States and on its own military capacities, but it has always been mindful of maintaining regional friends. A war with Iran would jeopardize that leverage in the long term.

Taken to an extreme, a protracted Israeli-Iranian conflict (that did not draw in other Arab states) would be seen by many in the region in the same way that the protracted Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s was seen by Israel: two powerful and feared countries weakening each other—in this case, with strategic benefits for the Arab states.

The trouble is that it is hard to envision a war scenario that does not impact Arabs in the region, directly or indirectly—just as it is hard to envision an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities that does not draw in the United States. For states like Egypt, Jordan, or Morocco, the Iranian threat is not a direct military threat. What they fear most is Iranian influence, in the region, broadly, and in their own internal politics. In particular, they worry about the success and popularity of the militant narrative that Iran sells, and its support for groups they oppose, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, far more than they worry about the number of Iranian troops, or the number of Iranian weapons. And it is for this reason that these states see a connection between the Arab-Israeli conflict and the degree of Iranian influence: diplomatic failure sells militancy, and conflicts like the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war and the Gaza war in 2008 make Hezbollah and Hamas more popular in Arab countries. That is why they emphasize Arab-Israeli peace diplomacy as a way of curbing Iranian influence.

In theory, Iranian influence, and the militant narrative would suffer if either Israel or the U.S. were to carry out an attack on Iran that succeeds with minimal spill-over. But it is hard to see how any attack, whether undertaken initially by the United State or by Israel, does not ultimately involve the United States, and therefore Arab states, by virtue of the presence of American troops on Arab soil, and the logistical support that the United States will require in any military effort.

Even aside from such repercussions, and assuming that Iran lacked the immediate capabilities (or the political will) to retaliate against Arab targets in the Gulf, its will to support Hezbollah, Hamas, and any other militant group in the region will only expand, thus expanding the main threat that states like Jordan and Egypt fear.

There is another way in which the calculations of Iran's energy-rich neighbors differ from other Arab states: the economic consequences of war. Even the energy producers have to worry about production-interruptions that affect them at least in the short to intermediate term. But they also may benefit from spikes in energy prices down the road. For the majority of Arab governments whose economies are not energy-based, they stand to pay a price, with little silver lining.

This complex picture—from Arab governments that may favor an American or Israeli attack on Iran to those who fear the consequence of such an attack—is not captured by the current debate about Arab support or opposition for an American or an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. These calculations vary depending on proximity to Iran or to Israel, on the internal demographic mix of Arab states, and the level of aspiration for Arab and regional leadership. Above all, they depend on an assessment of the probability of "success" which is defined both in terms of the military outcome, and in terms of the subsequent Iranian capabilities and will to influence politics in the Arab world. For most Arab governments that are not neighboring Iran, the latter fear dominates.

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-arabs-iran-4109

__._,_.___

[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] Re: [KHABOR] BSF kills 875 Bangladeshis since January 2000

Dear Faruque Bhai,

The pro indian Jibis may opine that BsF should given the "Family Planning Prize "for reducing population in Bangladesh.

 

---

From: Faruque Alamgir <faruquealamgir@gmail.com>
To: khabor@yahoogroups.com; dahuk <dahuk@yahoogroups.com>; delwar <delwar98@hotmail.com>; wideminds <WideMinds@yahoogroups.com>; Sonar Bangladesh <sonarbangladesh@yahoogroups.com>; alochona <alochona@yahoogroups.com>; Md. Aminul Islam <aminul_islam_raj@yahoo.com>; Anis Ahmed <anis.ahmed@netzero.net>; Dr. Abid Bahar <abidbahar@yahoo.com>; Amra Bangladesi <amra-bangladesi@yahoogroups.com>; Mo Assghar <moassghar@yahoo.com>; Ayubi <s_ayubi786@yahoo.com>; maxx ombba <maqsudo@hotmail.com>; Nayan Khan <udarakash08@yahoo.com>; notun_bangladesh@yahoogroups.com; history_islam@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, September 23, 2010 12:35:34 AM
Subject: Re: [KHABOR] BSF kills 875 Bangladeshis since January 2000

Friends

Are the beasts Bestial security Force(bsf) of the Hindus of hindu staaaan killing Bangladeshis or what ?????????????????????????????????

Had it been  the case then what the K. Jibis, the Paa Chata Dalals of Hindus of Hindu Staaaan n the Raw owned/controlled print/electronic media are doing ??????????

No No the  beasts Bestial security Force(bsf) only and the only life term die hard friend of BAL n K.Jibis are killing the Razakara/ Jongis to clean  Bangladesh from the dirt of the religion of the majority(90%) else they would surly have roared like Tigress or Lej kata Sharmeos by chanting slogan HINDU  STAAN -BANGLA DOSTI OMOR HOWK.

As there is no  clear border demarcation and in hundreds of thousands of cases throughout the 1600 hundred mile long border with the BEAST HINDU STAAAN plus by dismantling of the real BONGO SHARDUL BDR (Padua Rowmari famous)Bangladeshi land/water/hills/enclaves are occupied by the freind but there is no sound from the "AKUTA BHOI CHETONA DHARIS  as if the BEAST has the perennial right to occupy and  kill/abduct anybody and everybody of the subjugated, subordinate Noto Janu nation and a section of intelligentsia (traitors to the cause of Bangladesh) still feel pride in the uneven high handed frienship with the BEAST.

SHOULD WE NOT TAKE  ISSUE OF ATROCIOUS KILLING BY THE BEASTS OF OUR INNOCENT CIVILIANS DAY IN DAY OUT TO THE AUGUST(????) UN N SEEK HELP TO STOP THE MURDERER NATION hindustaaan FROM FURTHER KILLING ELSE WE THE GENERAL PEOPLE SHOULD RISE TO THE OCCASSION TO STOP THE KILLERS AS WE DID(we forced Pakis n their doshors to chew their own balls !!!) TO THE JANWAR PAKIS ???????

Let the heroic sacrifice of the Martyrs remain ever glowing in the "Akash Batash Nodi Prantor" of BANGLADESH  n the Lal Sabuj Pataka to fly high with right dignity n honour forever n ever.

Hell with HINDU  STAAANI Paa Chata Dalals n Paki Janwar's Doshors

BANGLADESH  ZINDABAD
ZINDABAD  BANGLADESH ZINDABAD

Faruque Alamgir

 

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:

 

BSF kills 875 Bangladeshis in border areas since January 2000

http://amardeshonline.com/pages/details/2010/09/22/44926

 

 

Some 875 Bangladeshi nationals were shot dead allegedly by Indian Border Security Force (BSF) along Bangladesh-India border from January 2000 to August 31 this year.

During the period, the BSF also fired and wounded 923 people and kidnapped 933 others, according to 'Odhikar, a rights group.

Of the 875 people killed, some 47 were killed in the last eight months this year. Such kind of extrajudicial killings are not acceptable anyway, Odhikar said in a statement Tuesday.

Among the killed, many are farmers who were killed while working in their agriculture fields. The Indian BSF resorted to the killing, ignoring the international laws, Odhiker said.

Odhiker urged the government to ensure security of the Bangladeshi nationals living in the frontier and take steps to resolve the matter of killing by BSF through discussion with the Indian government.

http://www.unbconnect.com/component/news/task-show/id-30508

__._,_.___

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

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

__,_._,___

RE: [ALOCHONA] burqa

Feminists should see through a garment that crudely defines women

September 23, 2010

Cultural freedom may be our core dogma, but does it include freedom to be unfree? Bring it home. Say your daughter converts to Islam, as Western women are apparently doing by the bucketload. She comes to dinner in a burqa, tells you it is God's will, tells you it is forever. How do you respond?

The burqa is seen, here in the latte classes, as a symbol of the fight for cultural tolerance. But is this reasonable?

.......................................

It is alarming to find one self agreeing with Fred Nile, especially on gender issues. But feminists should fess up. The burqa belongs in cultures that still have bride-price. It is an antediluvian title deed, an all-enveloping, owned sexual identity. It's not for sale, because it is already bought and paid for. If that's not commodification, I'll burn my bra.

 

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/feminists-should-see-through-a-garment-that-crudely-defines-women-20100922-15mwa.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

__,_._,___

RE: [ALOCHONA] INDIA, BANGLADESH EMBARK ON STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP SILENTLY

Before India plans to compete with China, let the Indians achieve more important goals.

They have messed up preparation-work for Commonwealth games, in an un-precedented manner.

Why on earth Indians could not plan, supervise and implement construction work in a more civilized manner.

Producing few genius in IT, Physics and philosophy will not assist Indians to become a world power.

Who was responsinle for this failure???

khoda hafez.

---

To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
From: qrahman@netscape.net
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:02:12 -0400
Subject: Re: [ALOCHONA] INDIA, BANGLADESH EMBARK ON STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP SILENTLY

It never ceases to amaze me why Indian "Fiction" writers still thinks they can compete with China in near future with any aspects? The language and tone used towards BD was offensive. Who gives a damn about Indian "Credit"(Specially when you see most of these projects are to establish INDIAN connectivity and promote Indian interests)? Indian credit is no match for many GRANTS China awarded for infrastructure projects in Bangladesh.

It is a new day in BD and there are many donors who are ready to provide credit to this country. The "Bone headed" authors were comparing Bangladesh with Afghanistan!! ( Please wake up from your dreams!)

I hope our policy makers are smart enough to play their cards properly when negotiating with India (We need to get our fair share of water). India has a habit of forgetting promises and assurances ( Otherwise they would not have erected farakka death trap for us). We need to put their feet on fire until they address our fair concerns ( Lower tariffs on our exports, water and safeguards to protect our sovereign status etc).

Indians are actually buying into western media BS that, India is at par with China. Just to keep it real I like to remind Alochoks that, China recently organized the largest Olympic event in Olympic history and India is struggling to put together a foot bridge  over the main stadium and  keep ceiling fans attached to those ceilings for  upcoming commonwealth games!!

As I stated before, I am a bottomline guy. I am genuinely interested to see our relationship improved with our neighbor India. If we can figure out a "Fair" way to protect interest of both countries, it will benefit  both  countries.

The bottomline is India needs to learn to address us with respect due to a sovereign  nation and not  take us for granted ( As Syed Mujtaba Ali [ Famous writer]stated, Bangladesh is a desh not a Prodesh [ of India]).  Attitude towards our current Prime minister was also disrespectful (Taking her support for granted!---no pun intended).We did not struggled against the British and Pakistanis to gain a new "Master". Our forefathers  made  enormous sacrifices to give us a "Gift" of a "Free" country. We like to keep it that way..........

India needs to get off her "A$$" and move half way to meet us if they want good relations. Otherwise the current proposal looks much like out trade balance ------heavily tilted towards India.

Shalom!!

---qr

-----Original Message-----
From: Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, Sep 12, 2010 5:50 pm
Subject: [ALOCHONA] INDIA, BANGLADESH EMBARK ON STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP SILENTLY

 

INDIA, BANGLADESH EMBARK ON STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP SILENTLY

By Uddipan Mukherjee and Rajeev Sharma

In today's world when nations make a song and dance about their strategic partnerships, India and Bangladesh have embarked on a hardcore strategic cooperation without saying so.

It seems that New Delhi has finally come out of its diplomatic cocoon, at least as far as its immediate eastern neighbour is concerned. A $1 billion credit outflow accorded to Bangladesh, interestingly; is the highest that both countries may contemplate thus far.

Though analysts may argue that such disbursal of funds by the 'big neighbour' was already in the pipeline as per the Joint Communique signed by Sheikh Hasina and Dr Manmohan Singh in January this year when the former paid a visit to New Delhi, her first ever after coming back to authority in 2009. Nevertheless, Indian Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee's rendezvous with Hasina at Gano Bhaban on August 8 merit attention. It gave a practical shape to diplomatic formalities and provided meaty substance to dry rhetoric. It was a reality, a rather fruitful one for both the nations and not a chimera.

There is no gainsaying the fact that Bangladesh holds both geo-strategic and concomitantly geo-economic significance for India. If New Delhi needs to permanently strengthen its strategic hold in South Asia, then forging amiable relations with the countries in its backyard is an imperative. More so, when India has to tread cautiously with belligerent states lurking around; with China and its Pakistani proxy deserving an obvious mention in this regard.

On the other hand, Dhaka has to be pragmatic. Fomenting Islamic Fundamentalism and churning anti-India tirade at the behest of countries which are separated from it geographically, linguistically as well as ethnographically would imply a further detachment from reality. Moreover, acting as a satellite state of 'upstart' regional powers is sure to lead Bangladesh to yet another 'failed state' for the worse and destabilise it at best.

However, if the two countries can maneuver their ties in the present manner, then their diplomatic boat would not be rudderless; at least in the foreseeable future.

The Hasina Era

Ever since Sheikh Hasina won the parliamentary elections in Bangladesh on December 28, 2008 and assumed office as Prime Minister on January 6, 2009 for the second time (her first tenure was from 1996 to 2001), new vistas have opened up in Indo-Bangla relations. Actually, bilateral relations between New Delhi and Dhaka had touched rock bottom during the second tenure of the then Prime Minister Khaleda Zia (2001-06). It was no clandestine affair that during Khaleda's period, Islamic Fundamentalists found a new haven in Bangladesh in a post 9/11 world.

Begum Zia's second tenure was virtually a proxy of Islamabad and the ISI. In fact the latter was never more powerful in that country than in those five years. This was also the time when the 'Chinese Dragon' could spout fire in Bangladesh.

Apart from 'political fate', Pakistan and China would surely blame both Hasina and to a large extent Pranab Mukherjee for the present heightened bonhomie between the two nations which does not augur well for either of them.

In fact, such is the level of synergy and proximity between Sheikh Hasina and Mukherjee that when the latter took over as the Indian Finance Minister, Hasina set aside all protocol and rang him up to congratulate him.

The Hasina government didn't belie Indian expectations and this unprecedented line of credit by India has to be interpreted in that light. It took firm action against anti-India terrorist outfits on its soil and ordered a heavy clampdown over those groups in the last couple of years. That kind of action has led to the arrest of over a dozen suspected Islamic militants belonging to outfits like Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT). Incidentally, the LeT, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HuM), Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and Harkat-ul-Jihad-e-Islami (HuJI) are among the 15 foreign terror groups who were active or may be still covertly operating in Bangladesh since 1991.

The Deal

Scrutinising the Indo-Bangla one billion US dollar deal more closely, one finds that India's diplomatic acumen was at its recent best. For instance, the main terms and conditions of the credit line agreement, inter alia, include a low fixed rate of interest of 1.75 per cent per annum. It necessarily reflects India's magnanimity on one hand and supposedly a reverberation of the "Gujral Doctrine" in our foreign policy portfolio on the other. The said principle notes that India should stop 'calculating' relationships with its immediate neighbours based purely on a precept of 'mutual reciprocity'. Rather India should shower benefits so as to generate goodwill among the masses of the concerned country.

However, a half percent commitment fee per annum on unutilised credit after 12 months from the date of approval of the contract adds a 'business colour' to the whole programme of apparent largesse. Nonetheless, a 20 years' repayment period including a grace period of five years is by all means a superlative rapprochement scenario for the two countries.

While finally formalising this deal in Dhaka last month, Mukherjee emphatically declared that "this one-billion-dollar line of credit is the largest ever amount given by India to any country." He also meant business through the assertion that "I am confident that this credit line will be the stepping stone for a shared destiny and will transform our bilateral engagement."

India's Soft Diplomacy

India definitely has taken a page out of America's diplomatic notebook (not the "Counter Insurgency" notebook though). If New Delhi is seriously keen to establish a 'Pax Indica' in her neighbourhood and firmly proclaim its dominance vis-à-vis China, then these kinds of diplomatic maneuvers are essential. They say: 'when you cannot defeat them, just buy them'. And in Bangladesh's case, they are ready to be coaxed and molycoddled. There is no rationale for a cassus belli.

Interestingly, India has enlisted a set of 14 projects, primarily infrastructural, under this rubric of Line of Credit. And though it has not set deadlines on any of them, a commitment fee per annum itself is a countervailing measure against procrastination. Furthermore, the envisaged projects shall be an augmentation of Bangladesh's roadways, railways, port facilities and inland water system, among others.

It is evidently clear that post 9/11, India has embarked on a spirited path of 'soft diplomacy' in South Asia. Afghanistan was first and now Bangladesh. In the former, India has put in almost a similar amount but in a phased manner whereas in this case, it seems to be in a hurry. Actually, India is better prepared now than it was in Afghanistan and hence the results. It has been reported that India's soft diplomacy in the 'land of the Buzkashi' has earned it goodwill amongst the ordinary populace. And consequently Islamabad fears marginalisation in Kabul much more now than before.

Former Minister of State for External Affairs Shashi Tharoor opines that India's greatest asset in Afghanistan is its exhibition of 'soft power'. Indian films and soap operas enthral the plebian in 'the land of Abdali'. Scholastically speaking, this may be interpreted as a sort of 'invasion' on the "superstructure" as per Gramscian scheme of things.

And for Bangladesh, this cultural syncretism is evidently clear and does not need to be stressed further upon.

Thus New Delhi's endeavour is exactly in that direction: to extract goodwill and respect from the citizenry of its immediate eastern neighbour. And with a friendly regime enthroned in Dhaka, life is much easier for South Block. Moreover, the fulcrum of bilateral relations between the two countries, at present is undeniably our 'cold headed' politician 'Pranab-da' under whose guidance and philosophisation, the engines of economy, trade, commerce, energy et al. is expected to run smooth without periodic lubrication.

Other Developments

To add, very recently, on September 8 2010, India and Bangladesh finalized a railway link agreement to improve connectivity. The link will reduce the distance between Agartala and Kolkata via Guwahati from an arduous 1200 km to just 519 km.

There is also the proposed 13 km long Akhaurah-Agartala railway link, 5.4 km of which would be in the Indian territory. It is to be financed by India. This was agreed upon during the last visit of Sheikh Hasina in January 2010.

Role of the Army

Somewhat surprisingly, Bangladesh Army also deserves encomiums regarding the present harmonious relations between the two countries. It had a major role to play in subduing Islamic Fundamentalism during the Caretaker Government (CG) period of 2007 to January 2009. And the most significant thing it has done is to implant, not only in the psyche of its own people but also in the minds of its neighbours; that a coup d'etat might not be a distinct possibility whenever there is a political turmoil; quite unlike that in Pakistan.

The way present Hasina government could handle the upsurge of the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) in Feb 2009; barely a month after her re-incarnation, bespeaks the covert as well as overt support provided by the Army.

Contentious Issues

Though India and the Hasina government (present as well as past) have taken positive steps to ensure that the problematic bilateral issues are resolved; few things still remain unsolved.

For instance, the proper fencing of the 4096 km long land boundary is yet to be fruitfully achieved. It is one of the perennial problems that India, especially the province of West Bengal, faces with regard to illegal migrants from Bangladesh. The decision to settle the matter was reportedly taken at the highest political level in India on the eve of Sheikh Hasina's visit to New Delhi. But Manmohan Singh said that small disagreements cannot be allowed to come in the way of a dynamic relationship.

During the Home Secretary level talks in Dhaka (Dec 2009), India had offered a comprehensive agreement to Bangladesh --demarcating the remaining 6.1 km of the 4096 km long boundary, plus settling the matter of adverse possessions and enclaves. Factually speaking, India holds as many as 111 enclaves within Bangladeshi territory amounting to some 17,000 acres of land while Bangladesh holds some 51 enclaves amounting to about 7000 acres in India.

India has now agreed in principle to cede control over its enclaves, even though the difference is about 10,000 acres in Bangladesh's favour. In other words, once the negotiations are complete, the Indian enclaves in Bangladesh's territory would be absorbed in Bangladesh and vice-versa.

The Balance of Trade is skewed towards India which Bangladesh laments. Only 1 per cent of India's imports are from Bangladesh whereas around 20 per cent of Bangladesh's imports come from India. Closer economic ties between the two countries can offset this huge trade imbalance which can be addressed through greater Indian investment. Bangladesh Government has evinced keen interest in reconsidering investment proposals of the Indian business conglomerate TATA in this regard.

India Trade Fair (ITF) and North East India Trade and Investment Conclave were organised in the Feb 24-28, 2010 in Dhaka. The initiative was intended to attract Indian investment in Bangladesh and it helped the entrepreneurs to explore opportunities.

Bangladesh welcomed the position of the Government of India on reduction of a number of items from India's negative list. The Joint Communiqué issued after the Bangladesh Prime Minister's visit indicated that India would encourage import from Bangladesh. There are also indications that India would take steps expeditiously for removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers and port restrictions faced by Bangladeshi exporters. Bangladesh, on the other hand, has agreed to the Indian request for introducing 'Border Haats' (haat in Bengali means market).

Another facilitation that India has offered to Bangladesh is connectivity to Nepal and Bhutan through its territory. Trucks from Bhutan and Nepal would enter 200 m into Zero point at Banglabandha-Phulbari land customs station. This would boost trade activities for Bangladesh.

On the other hand, Bangladesh agreed to the Indian proposal to facilitate movement of containerized cargoes by rail and water. In the last week of February 2010, an Indian team visited Bangladesh to discuss the possibility of movement of container cargoes through railways and waterways. A joint group of customs meeting was held in New Delhi and various steps were taken for entry of Bangladeshi products to India.

Another problem zone for the two countries is with distribution of river waters. Interactions between the two countries are being held regularly under various institutional mechanisms. The 37^th Joint Rivers Commission (JRC) meeting was held in New Delhi in March 2010 and it will continue to be held regularly to reach broader understanding on the water related issues for greater welfare of both the peoples. A mechanism has been set in motion to facilitate an understanding on sharing of waters of Teesta and other common rivers.

On the Tipaimukh dam issue, which has generated controversies in Bangladesh, India has made it abundantly clear that it would refrain from doing anything that might harm the interests of the other party.

Conclusion

A common thread of pluralistic culture runs between the two countries and their peoples. Both the countries share the legacy of the visionary Rabindra Nath Tagore. Naturally, Bangladesh has expressed a desire to establish a Cultural Center in New Delhi to promote and showcase its cultural heritage.

Importantly, Bangladesh has conveyed support to India's candidature for permanent membership of the UN Security Council as and when the reform of UN Security Council takes place.

Thus, it may be inferred that the present camaraderie between the two nation-states is expected to herald a new era of bilateral relations. In that venture, keeping in mind China's ominous forays into Chittagong, and Pakistan's latent presence through a religious and cultural jihad; India has embarked on the right path of Realpolitik, albeit in a benevolent and apparently libertarian manner.

Hasina's second innings has made Indo-Bangla relations creditworthy (pun intended). And if soft loan diplomacy is the food of love and cooperation, bring it on. Keeping an eye on China, India needs to replicate its Bangladesh model of soft loan diplomacy in its near abroad, with a laser beam focus on neighbours like Bhutan, Myanmar and Vietnam.

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers41%5Cpaper4032.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

__,_._,___