I was also surprised and disappointed to know that India India have shown themselves to be as stupid and callous as the feudal and military rulers of Pakistan
I say the above in spite of my recognition of the difference in the reasons for Hindu migration to India and Muslim migration to Pakistan India to be rulers or to seek power that they did not have, a lot of Muslims migrated to Pakistan India India were victims of real oppression in their homeland; while real and perceived danger was a reason for a significant number of Muslims to leave India , many left for Pakistan India
Sukhamaya Bain
From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ALOCHONA] Amendments to controversial Enemy Act rejected
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ALOCHONA] Amendments to controversial Enemy Act rejected
1. India has Enemy Properties Act! I did not know about it until recently. Indian one was created in 1968 while Pakistani one had already been there in various forms. Bangladesh has inherited the Pakistani one but has renamed it more than once to adapt to the evolving circumstances.
2. If I depend on the little information I have about how it has been implemented in India, I will say that properties left behind by Indian citizens have been placed under the custody of a trustee. Looking at the levels of corruption in India, I will not be surprised if allocation of all the abandoned properties have not been done honestly. I am also not sure if any of abandoned properties have been misappropriated by the powerful people in the society. But we are now sure that most of the abandoned properties in Bangladesh are now under the possession of the powerful members of the two major political parties viz. AL and BNP (see the report by Dr. Barkat of DU.)
3. The name "enemy property" is pretty laughable. How can property of some one who ran for life (99.99% or more of those who left) be called enemy property? He did not leave his land of birth to join the army of her enemy to engage in a war against his country of birth. Most of them left penniless to engage in a far greater struggle for existence and to rot in a refugee camp in a hopelessness condition. Although there have been continual tensions over various issues, officially India and Pakistan were each other's enemy only for two brief periods---one in 1965 and the other one in 1971. Enemity between two states--repeat, between two states--in no way means enemity between the citizens of the two enemy country countries. But those who control the state machinery will never let us know about this fact.
4. Since 1947 states have failed to protect the lives and properties of their own citizens. People became homeless and tried to find a new home somewhere else although not good successes all the time. People did not leave their country because they hated their country. They did not leave their country because they wanted to wage a war against their country. They left their country because the shameless state machinery did not protect or did not want to protect them. Sometimes a state manufactured communal riots to force a section of its people leave the country. Pakistan was pretty good at it. Even BNP has done it in 2001 after winning the election as a retaliatory measure.
5. How the properties of a person who left his country in 1947 could come under the purview of an enemy properties act that came into being lot later? Officially there was no enemity between the two countries in 1947! But there are practical reasons that warrant intensive review of such cases. 61 years have seen more than two generations. Things have now become extremely complicated. Practically it will become almost impossible to sort out these issue. You settle one issue by amendments, other claims will prop up. It can be a never ending process.
6. It is immaterial for the sufferers in Bangladesh what India does. Proper justice needs to be done to the hindus still living in Bangladesh who have lost their legitimate rights to their forefathers' properties.
From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ALOCHONA] Amendments to controversial Enemy Act rejected
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ALOCHONA] Amendments to controversial Enemy Act rejected
A correction to Dr. Roy's comment below; ordinary Hindus did not leave Pakistan/Bangladesh for India for 'whatever reasons'. They left because of systematic hatred and discrimination in their homeland of centuries by religious majority controlled governments, not just by ordinary criminals. All the Muslims migration from India happened during the turbulent break up of the subcontinent in and around 1947. Most of the Hindu migration from Pakistan and Bangladesh happened during pretty normal times - ignore the 1971 migration which was mostly reversed shortly after the independence of Bangladesh on December 16, 1971.
Sukhamaya Bain
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ALOCHONA] Amendments to controversial Enemy Act rejected
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ALOCHONA] Amendments to controversial Enemy Act rejected
There is a big difference between what Pakistani-King is asking and what Hindus in Bangladesh are asking. Bangladesh is not returning the properties of Hindu Kings and Jamindars. This is an attempt to return properties taken from ordinary folks who left for India for whatever reasons. I am skeptical about its success. Only time will tell. The difference between these two claims is huge, and we should analyze it with proper context. Otherwise it will be construed as toying with anti-Indian sentiment.
Jiten Roy
.
__._,_.___
