Banner Advertiser

Friday, August 19, 2011

[ALOCHONA] The Bloody Month of March 1971



The Bloody Month of March 1971: From the End of a United Pakistan to the Beginning of Bangladesh

BY Abid Bahar, Canada

Bangladesh is a tropical country where Bangla New Year begins from the middle of April known as the Pohela Boishaki. It begins with huge storms, torrential rain and thunder perhaps to remind the deltaic dwellers of Bengal to be ready to face the unpredictable that is yet to come throughout the year. In 1971 Bangladesh, then known as East Bengal there came a huge political storm not in the month of April but in March, it was as if the beginning of the Pohela Boishaki; a bloody month that began with a civil war followed by a genocide and on the on 27th of March to the declaration of independence. (1) The month of March 1971 has been remembered as an eventful month that led to the end of united Pakistan and the beginning of Bangladesh.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS:

In "1970 Cyclone (Nov 12-13) with cyclonic surge of 3.05-10.6m high with wind speed of 222 km/h occurred during high tide causing most appalling natural disaster claiming 0.3 million human lives."

Nov 14 Bhasani declared "Ora Kau Asheani"(Pakistani rulers didn't come to our help)

November 23, at Polton ground he declared, " Hail independent Bangladesh" and he dissolved the All Pakistan NAP, formed the East Bengal NAP and declared the independence of East Bengal. (2)

7th December 1970, when Pakistan's National Assembly Election took place

" … the Awami League, the largest East Pakistani political party, led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, won a landslide victory in the national elections. The party won 167 of the 169 seats allotted to East Pakistan, and thus a majority of the 313 seats in the National Assembly. This gave the Awami League the constitutional right to form a government.(3)

Beginning of Civil War

" Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (a Sindhi), the leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party, refused to allow Rahman to become the Prime Minister of Pakistan. Instead, he proposed the idea of having two Prime Ministers, one for each wing. The proposal elicited outrage in the east wing, already chafing under the other constitutional innovation, the "one unit scheme". Bhutto also refused to accept Rahman's Six Points.(4)

"Bhutto's reaction and Yahya's postponement of the assembly" was seen as a betrayal and as proof of the determination of the army and of the West Pakistan authorities to deny [East Bengalis] the fruits of their electoral victory."

March 2. In a statement on 2 March Awami League called for a five-day general strike (hartal) throughout East Pakistan.

"Dacca, Khulna, Jessore and elsewhere in a number of clashes between [Bengalis and the non Bengalis] and demonstrators and looters, in which the army opened fire on unarmed civilians. The Pakistan authorities later stated that a total of 172 persons had been killed in this period, but some of them were killed in intercommoned clashes." (5)

March 3, "the army were ordered to return to their cantonments and remained there until March 25. The Pakistan authorities say that their purpose was to avoid further clashes during the period of negotiation. Some have suggested that the army were holding their fire until they were ready to strike, but this seems unlikely as few, if any, units were flown into East Pakistan between 4 and 25 March. Whatever the reason for the withdrawal, it had the effect of keeping down the violence in a period of extreme tension."(6)

March 3 "… Serious riots in Chittagong on and after the night of 3 March, and some less severe incidents on the same day at Jessore and Khulna. The events at Chittagong on the night of 3/4 March are described as follow in the Pakistan White Paper:"(7)

'At Chittagong, violent mobs led by Awami League storm troopers attacked the Wireless Colony and several other localities, committing wanton acts of loot, arson, killing and rape. In one locality (Ferozeshah Colony), 700 houses were set on fire and their inmates including men, women and children were burnt to death. Those who tried to flee were either killed or seriously wounded. Apart from those burnt alive, whose bodies were found later, over 300 persons were killed or wounded on 3 and 4 March.(8)

"According to information received from foreign nationals in Chittagong, which is believed to be reliable, the incident began when Bengali demonstrators passed in procession through Bihari areas in order to make the Biharis keep to the hartal. The demonstrators were fired upon by Biharis, and a serious riot followed in which people were killed on both sides and a substantial number of Bihari houses were burnt." (9)

"On March 3, President Yahya Khan invited 121eaders of the main political groups in the newly elected National Assembly to meet at Dacca on 10 March in an effort to solve the crisis. Sheikh Mujibur rejected the invitation the same evening and started issuing a series of instructions or' directives' to implement a' non-violent and non-cooperation movement '. These included an injunction not to pay taxes." (10)

7th March Speech. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's historic 7 March "if" (Jodi Akta Goli Poree) Speech saying if another shot is fired there will be parting of ways. "The general expectation was that he would then declare the independence of Bangladesh." "On 7 March. Sheikh Mujibur replied by putting forward four demands, which had to be accepted before the Awami League would consider attending the National Assembly. These were:

(I) Immediate withdrawal of martial law;

(2) Immediate withdrawal of military personnel to their barracks ;

(3) An official enquiry into army killings in East Pakistan;

(4) Immediate transfer of power to the elected representatives of the people (i.e. before the National Assembly met).

A fifth demand was added later that reinforcements of army units from West Pakistan must cease.

"The first four demands were in effect a demand that President Yahya Khan should accept the then status quo. According to the Awami League representatives these demands were never in terms rejected. It was clear, however, that for President Yahya Khan to implement formally the first and fourth demands would have amounted to a complete surrender. The second was already in force and the third was accepted in principle, though agreement was never reached on the form of the enquiry. The fifth demand, of course, was not accepted." (12)

The 7th March speech as an "if speech" was like Bhasani's Assalamu Alikum of 1957 warning to the West Pakistani rulers that if autonomy was not granted it will say goodbye. The powerful speech sent a chill down everybody's spine to get united to fight against the Pakistani occupation forces. Although Mujib's 7th March speech was more forcefully delivered than Bhasani's goodby speech, but for Mujib's negotiation again to save Pakistan, the if speech was not considered as the declaration of independence.

To avert serious deterioration of the situation, President Yahya Khan in an address to the nation on 6 March announced that the National Assembly would meet on 25 March. However, he added the warning:

'Let me make it absolutely clear that no matter what happens, as long as I am in command of the Pakistan Armed Forces and Head of the State, I will ensure complete and absolute integrity of Pakistan. Let there be no mistake on this point. I have a duty towards millions of people of East and West Pakistan to preserve this country. They expect this from me and I shall not fail them.' (13)

March 9th Bhasani made his goodbye speech to Pakistan at the Polton ground and asked his red brigades to work on it to achieve independence. In fact, his followers began working underground up to making the Bangladesh flag and for an armed struggle. On March 9th standing in the Paltom Ground, he reiterated "Nobody could keep the seven crore Bengali's demand suppressed and in this struggle there is not going to be any compromise."(14)

During this time Bhasani was concerned about the condition of the minorities. He requested that the Bengalis, the Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and Beharis to try to forget their differences and keep peace. He said, "I love the Beharis. They came to this country after much suffering."(15) Beharis are an Urdu speaking Muslim minority who migrated from India to East Pakistan in 1947.Although Bhasani was fighting for equality and rights of the Bengalis, it seems unlike the other leaders of his time, he was not propagating an extreme nationalist sentiment and was worried about the minority's safety.

"As from 7 March, The new governor, General Tikka Khan was unable at that time to find anyone prepared to swear him into office. …

"…the killing of 3 people by the army when barricades were formed at Joydevpur on 19 March. (At the time, Bengali police estimated that about 15 civilians were killed by the army in this incident.)" (16)

" In mid-March some young Awami League supporters set up check-points on the approaches to Dacca airport in order to search fugitives to West Pakistan to see that they were not taking large sums of money or jewelry with them. This led to one case of violence with the victim being taken to hospital."(17) "

March 13,

"… There is evidence to show that attacks were made on non-Bengalis in Rangpur during the week ending March 13, and at Saidpur on March 24, during which shops and properties were burnt and a number of people killed. But considering the state of tension that prevailed, the extent of the violence was surprisingly restricted. Students and Awami League supporters were, however, preparing themselves for an eventual armed conflict. Many accounts have been given on the Pakistani side of looting of arms and ammunition and preparation of petrol and hand-made bombs manufactured from stolen chemicals. While the army remained in their cantonments, Awami League supporters subjected them to a blockade, so that fresh rations and other civilian supplies were prevented from reaching them. This action added to the fury of the army attack when it came."(14)

"On March 15 "President Yahya Khan flew again to Dacca to hold constitutional talks with Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Leaders of various West Pakistan parties arrived later in Dacca to join ill the talks. The Pakistan Government's version of these talks is given in their White Paper."

"According to the Pakistan White Paper, by 20 March President Yahya Khan had provisionally agreed to make a proclamation providing for an interim constitution until a new constitution had been drawn up by the National Assembly. Under the interim constitution, Yahya Khan was to continue as President and Head of State under the 1962 Constitution with a Cabinet of Ministers selected from representatives of the political parties of East and West Pakistan; the powers of the central legislature were to be as provided in the 1962 Constitution save for' certain limitations and modifications to be agreed upon with respect to the Province of East Pakistan'; Provincial Governors were to be appointed by the President and Provisional Cabinets appointed from the members of the Provincial or National Assemblies to aid and advise the Governors; martial law was to be revoked as from the day the Provincial Cabinets took office, but if ever it appeared to the President that a situation had arisen in which the government of a province could not be carried on, the President was to be able to assume to himself the executive government of the province. All this was to be subject to the agreement of other political leaders and to the 'all-important question of legal validity '.

This referred to an objection raised by President Yahya Khan's advisers that if martial law were revoked, the instrument establishing the Central and Provisional Government would have no legal validity; 'a constitutional vacuum would therefore be created in the country '. Considering the number of constitutional irregularities, which had already occurred in the short history of the state of Pakistan, this objection showed a surprising degree of constitutional sensitivity.

Mujibur Rahman's legal expert, Dr. Kamal Hossein, was convinced that there was no validity in the objection. He suggested, and it was agreed, that the opinion should be sought of the leading Pakistan constitutional lawyer, Mr. A. K. Brohi. Mr. Brohi's opinion supported the view of the Awami League that the objection was invalid. He advised that a precedent was to be found in the method of transferring power from the British Government at the time of Independence. According to the Awami League representatives, this opinion was accepted by President Yahya Khan and his legal adviser, ex-Chief Justice Cornelius, 'and it disappeared from the dialogues at an early stage.'(15)

March 20. When by March 20 a fair amount of agreement seemed to have been reached on an interim constitution, the Awami League representatives urged President Yahya Khan to bring over a statutory draftsman to draw up the necessary proclamation. President Yahya Khan kept pressing the Awami League to produce their own draft. Unwisely perhaps, they eventually agreed to do so. In the circumstances, and with no agreement secured from Mr. Bhutto, the Awami League could hardly have been expected to draft a compromise proposal. Their draft (which appears to have been based on their draft constitution prepared for submission to the Constituent Assembly) expresses their negotiating position. They claim that they put it forward, not in the belief that it would be accepted in full, but expecting it to lead to more specific negotiations. Moreover, they contend that at no stage were their proposals rejected by President Yahya Khan, who kept referring matters for discussion by the expert advisers on both sides.(16)

21 March

The unexpected degree of progress, which had been made in the talks, led President Yahya Khan to call Mr. Bhutto to Dacca, where he arrived with his aides on 21 March. It was soon evident that there was no area of agreement between him and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. He insisted that martial law should be retained until the new constitution was in force, and, in order to prevent the exercise by the Awami League of what he termed their 'brute majority', he maintained that no law or constitution should be able to be presented in the National Assembly unless approved by a majority of the members of each wing, and any constitution approved by the National Assembly should still be subject to the Presidential veto under the Legal Framework Order.2 It may be assumed that Mr. Bhutto's objection was to ensure that there was no lawful way in which East Bengal could obtain their economic independence, still less their political independence.(17)

23rd March was 'Pakistan Day', and was provocatively declared in Dacca to be 'Resistance Day'(18)

On the same day his representatives produced to the President's advisers a draft proclamation going well beyond the proposals which appeared to have been provisionally agreed three days earlier and, in one important respect beyond even the Six Points. The Awami League draft, which is set out in full as an appendix to the White Paper 13 provided for:

1. Martial law to stand revoked in a province from the day when the Provincial Governor (who was to be irremovable) took office, and in any event within seven days of the proclamation;

2. Members of the National Assembly from' the State of Bangladesh , were to sit as a separate Constituent Convention to frame a constitution for the State of Bangladesh within 45 days, and members from the States of West Pakistan (Punjab, Sind, North-West Frontier Province and Balukistan) were to do likewise for a constitution for the States of West Pakistan;

3. The National Assembly was then to 'sit together as a sovereign body for the purpose of framing a constitution for the Confederation of Pakistan' (not, as in the Six Points, a Federation), and the President was to be deprived of the power of veto which he had reserved for himself under the Legal Framework Order;

4. The provincial government and legislature of East Pakistan were to have substantially increased powers during the interim period, including foreign trade and aid, control of finance and taxation and control of their own state bank.(19)

"On the morning of March 22, 1971, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman resumed his dialogue with President Yahya Khan. At the same time, the Awami League team was busy negotiating the wording of the proposed constitution with the President's advisers. (20)

"Others believe that President Yahya Khan would, for his part, have been ready to accept an accommodation with the Awami League but that agreement could not be achieved with Mr. Bhutto. For example, the Times correspondent, Mr. Peter Hazelhurst has written: 'It was Bhutto who finally brought the President to take the decision which set East Bengal on fire. When the President put the Sheikh's proposal to the West Pakistan leaders, Bhutto pointed out that if the Martial Law was withdrawn, Pakistan would be broken up into five sovereign States, the moment the President restored the power to the Provinces. He expressed the fear that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was trying to liquidate the Central Government, because when the President withdrew the Martial Law, he had no sanction to carryon as Head of the State. Half convinced, the President went back to Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and expressed these fears. He promised Mujib that he would withdraw the Martial Law the moment the National Assembly met and gave the Central Government some form of validity. Sheikh Mujib reiterated his demand for the immediate withdrawal of the Martial Law.'

"According to the White Paper, the talks broke down because the Awarmi League representatives were not prepared to compromise on the essential features of their proposed proclamation", and because their proposals were unacceptable to Mr. Bhutto or to the other party leaders from West Pakistan, or to President Yahya Khan and the army"

"It is impossible to reconcile the accounts given by the two sides. Wherever the truth lies, it can be said that the Awami League believed that the election results, coupled with the complete support they had received from the people and all organs of government in East Pakistan since 2 March, entitled them to the degree of autonomy, which they had claimed in the Six Points. When that was finally refused to them, they considered that they were entitled to claim the independence of Bangladesh in accordance with the principle of the right of self-determination." "To President Yahya Khan and to the other army leaders, the claim to autonomy and the conduct of the Awami League appeared as treason. By 25 March the President had evidently concluded that no negotiated settlement was possible. There was no need to protract the fruitless constitutional negotiations any further. The army's contingency plans were brought into force. It struck, and struck with terrifying brutality." (21)

March 23rd Calm before the Storm

It was as if calm before storm, Mujib continued the talks with Yahya Khan [someone important who held all the cards]. On March 23rd Yahya Khan, Sheikh Mujib and Butto jointly gave a declaration that the assembly is postponed for an undetermined period of time. It mentioned that this was done with Mujib's permission. Mujib did not protest this. Mansur Ahmad observed "At this I realized that Sheikh (Mujib) had not only made a wrong move he also had stepped in the trap laid by Yahya and Butto." Referring to Mujib's confusing moves, Mansur Ahmad says, "I did not understand Mujib then, I do not understand him now."(22)

March 24-25

On 24 and 25 March, a group of Pakistani Generals, accompanied by General Hamid, General Mittha, the Quartermaster General, and Col. Saadullah, Principal Staff Officer, visited major garrisons via helicopter and personally briefed garrison commanders and senior West Pakistani officers on the operation. General Farman was sent to Jessore, General Khadim himself briefed the Comilla and Chittagong garrison commanders while Brig. El-Edrus and Col. Saadullah visited Rangpur.(23) "

"On March 24, 1971, the Awami League leadership stayed busy all morning working out the finer details of the economy-related issues pertaining to the Awami League's position on a transfer of power. Meanwhile, the regime, in the guise of carrying on negotiations with Bangabandhu and his team, was essentially giving the finishing touches to the planned military action against the Bangalee population. Mujib wanted confederation," (24)

On the night of March 24th, Yahya secretly left Dhaka for West Pakistan, ordering the army to invade Dhaka.

"Reports that the talks were foundering was common knowledge by the evening of March 24 and this resulted in outbreaks of violence in a number of centres on 25 March. The break-down in law and order which then occurred was a consequence of the breakdown in the decision to break off the negotiations and to start the army 'crack-down' must have been taken at the latest on March 24. However, at a further meeting on the evening of that day, President Yahya Khan's advisers did not reject the proposals and agreed to telephone Dr. Kamal Hossein next morning with a view to arranging a further meeting on the next day to discuss its terms. This was "the telephone call which never came." (25)

Operation Search Light (Beginninng of Genocide)

"Yahya Khan refused to sanction the arrest of Awami League leaders during a meeting with him, as the plan had proposed.The amended plan was approved and distributed to various area commanders.(26)

The Operation was to start on the night of March 25, 1971 in Dacca, and other garrisons were to be alerted via phone about their zero hour to start their activities. General Farman Ali commanded the forces in Dhaka, while the rest of the province was commanded by General Khadim. Lt. General Tikka Khan and his staff were present in the 31st field command center, to supervise and support the command staff of the 14th division." (27)

March 25. From afternoon until midnight Mujib was approached by Awami League high command to declare independence. Finally Tajuddin came with a typed letter declaring the independence of Bangladesh, but Mujib declined. Mujib only asked them to go to safety, which they did but the ordinary citizens remained unaware of the failed talk and became the victim of genocide.

It is clear, the claim that Mujib sent a telegram to Chittagong declaring the independence couldn't be true. Firstly when he didn't even sign a simple handwritten paper why and how a wireless message should be sent to Chittagong in those communication wise difficult moments remains questionable? It is possible that Awami League high command led by Tajuddin that approached Mujib to declare the independence in its failure finally sent a telegram to Chittagong that was received buy Hannan who approached Zia to declare independence on March 27.

March 25 "… Rumors were in air that the Sheikh had been arrested before midnight on the 25th March that was soon confirmed from various foreign media sources. While the people were in utter confusion in the absence of the Sheikh in leadership, many of us in Dhaka knew that in the absence of the Sheikh, and in overcoming the confusion as to what the people to do, an unknown Major of the East Bengal Regiment of the Pakistan Army had declared independence of Bangladesh on the 26th March and also assumed himself the Presidency of independent Bangladesh based at Kalurghat Radio station near Chittagong, 200 away from the capital city Dhaka. The next day, on the 27th March, we knew that on insistence of some of Zia's close colleagues, nothing of any whatsoever indication from Mujib, there was no scope of any for the two had nothing of any prior contact much less knowledge of each other, he amended the announcement in inclusion of Mujib's name for more acceptability to the people in the declaration of independence.. "It may not be irrelevant to mention here that Mujib did not only stick to his street program for Hartal on the 27th March that he asked Tajuddin to enforce in his rhetoric SANGRAM CHALIYE JAO, but also repeatedly asked Dr Kamal until late at the 25th night (10:30 P.M.) if the much sought for lone telephone call from Yahya Khan had come or not.(28)

March 26 after midnight Mujib was found dressed up to surrender. He was taken into custody.

Mansur Ahmad narrates: "Sheikh Mujib surrendered without resistance. He did not try to escape nor hide himself." Mansur Ahmad questioned "Is this the way the leader of a people fight against opposition?"(28)

The longwinded question why Sheikh Mujibur Rahman didn't do the unilateral declaration of independence. It is true, Mujib was not a naïve politician as many would think. It is now clear that before the election with the other leaders of Pakistan Mujib signed the Legal Framework Document (LFD) with Yahya Khan, which restricted him to have Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI). If he did the UDI, he feared that he would be charged for treason and hanged.

Daily Star reports that Mujib wanted Confederation: "The decision to break off the negotiations and to start the army 'crack-down' must have been taken at the latest on March 24. However, at a further meeting on the evening of that day, President Yahya Khan's advisers did not reject the proposals and agreed to telephone Dr. Kamal Hossein next morning with a view to arranging a further meeting on the next day to discuss its terms. This was the telephone call which never came.'(29)

"Sheikh Mujib was arrested and taken to Pakistan after midnight." "People knew only about a political action program of hartal call by the Sheikh on the 27th March".

"The US State Department's newly declassified documents about the 1971 debacle show that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman wanted to have a "form of confederation" with Pakistan rather than a separate country. The documents include two telegrams dating Feb 28, 1971 and Dec 23, 1971 "based on the sentiments of Sheikh Mujib and the then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi," showing that Sheikh Mujib was not secessionist, as many in the then West Pakistan believed." (30)

In not declaring the independence, it seems he saved himself and he saved his AL colleagues and most importantly his family members. While Mujib saved his near and dear ones but the uninformed citizens especially in Dhaka didn't know when and where to escape thus became the victims of genocide.

FROM CIVIL WAR TO LIBERATION WAR

March 26 "Major Zia kept his troops at Kalurghat Bridge, but after being requested by several people found time to broadcast a declaration of independence with himself as the provisional head of state in the evening. March 27th he amended the message and declared independence on behalf of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman after consulting with Awami League leaders, and arranged to broadcast the message hourly. (31)

"The impact of this broadcast, which were picked up by the civilians and isolated Bengali units fighting the Pakistanis, was significant. Gen. Mitha planned to send another commando platoon to blow up the station, but the fate of the first platoon convinced him to send this in speedboats instead of overland.(32)

[The historic Kalurghat radio station

"...a Japanese ship anchored mid- stream in Chittagong harbour picked up Major Zia's message. When the news of this declaration was broadcast by Radio Australia, the rest of the world came to know of it... (33)

April 3 The army went to Tangail to arrest the "Kafir" Bhasani who under the guise of a peasant avoided the invading army and left for India where he became the Chairman of the Advisory Committee of the Government in exile.(34)

After 9 months of war, on December 16, 1971 Bangladesh emerged as an independent country. Mujib returned to Bangladesh from his exile in Pakistan and became the first Prime Minister of Bangladesh and soon after his AL party made him "the father/ artechect of Bangladesh liberation war."

It is 2011 and after 40 years of Bangladesh's liberation war, it is still a time for reflection about the bloody events of the month of March 1971's stormy days. As we trace the missing pieces to reconstruct history, the clock ticks away moving Bangladesh in both directions, past and future. For partisan politicians it seems everything was predetermined and settled in favor of Awami League and the appointed court judges are now giving history its final touches but for historians concerned about epistemology and its child called knowledge about Bangladesh history, surely the chapter is not yet closed.

( Abid Bahar Ph.D. is a playwright and public speaker, teaches in Canada)

Endnotes:

(1) http://www.globalwebpost.com/genocide1971/docs/jurists/3_events_march.htm;

(2)Abid Bahar, Searching for Bhasani, Citizen of the World, Xlibris, 2010, p.195

(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War

(4) Ibid

(5) http://www.globalwebpost.com/genocide1971/docs/jurists/3_events_march.htm

(6) Ibid

(7) Ibid

(8) The Crisis in East Pakistan, Government of Pakistan, 5 August, 1971, p. 31.

(9) http://www.globalwebpost.com/genocide1971/docs/jurists/3_events_march.htm

(10) Ibid

(11) Ibid

(12) Ibid

(13) Ibid

(14) Ibid

(15) Quoted in http://www.globalwebpost.com/genocide1971/docs/jurists/3_events_march.htm

(16) http://www.globalwebpost.com/genocide1971/docs/jurists/3_events_march.htm

(17) Ibid

(18) Ibid

(19) Ibid

(20) http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=178681

(21) http://www.globalwebpost.com/genocide1971/docs/jurists/3_events_march.htm

(22) Abul Mansur Ahmad, Amer Dhekha Rajnitir Ponchas Bochor, (Fifty years of Politics as I Observed It), p. 555.

(23) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Searchlight

(24)Ibid

(25)'http://www.globalwebpost.com/genocide1971/docs/jurists/3_events_march.htm

(26) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Searchlight

(27) Ibid

(28) Abul Mansur Ahmad, Amer Dhekha Rajnitir Ponchas Bochor, (Fifty years of Politics as I Observed It), p. 555.

(29) Syed Badrul Ahsan Mujib Wanted Confederation, http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=178939

(30) http://archives.dawn.com/2005/07/07/nat3.htm; http://www.storyofbangladesh.com/blog/tmhussain/48-baseless-tainting-of-historical-facts.html

(31) Maj. Rafiqul Islam, A Tale of Millions, pp. 130–131

(32)Siddiq Salik, Witness To Surrender, p. 82

(33) http://www.virtualbangladesh.com/history/declaration.html

(34) Maksud, Mawlana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhasani, p. 391, pp. 392-393.

Abid Bahar, Canada
E Mail : abid.bahar@gmail.com

http://www.bangladesh-web.com/view.php?hidRecord=352727


__._,_.___


[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] Maritime border: where do we stand now? [2 Attachments]

[Attachment(s) from Isha Khan included below]

Maritime border: where do we stand now ?

by M Inamul Haque

BANGLADESH on February 26submitted its claim to the United Nations over its extension of continental shelf in the Bay of Bengal according to Clause 76 (8) of the United Nations Conferences on the Law of the Seas 1982, known as UNCLOS III. Bangladesh and its neighbouring countries, India and Myanmar, have ratified this convention. Myanmar submitted its claim on the Bay of Bengal on December 5, 2008, India on May 11, 2009. Before Bangladesh put its claims, it floated tenders to explore some deep-sea blocks in its continental shelf in April 2008. India and Myanmar put objections to those tenders claiming the areas are owned by them. Bangladesh took this matter to UN in November 2009 to settle the disputes over the ownership as per UNCLOS III.


The Law of the Sea

THE present day Law of the Sea is the outcome of United Nations conferences on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS I of 1958, UNCLOS II of 1960 and UNCLOS III of 1982. According to Articles 3 and 15 of UNCLOS III, every state has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines in the line of low water tide along the seashore of a state. As per Article 17, ships of all states, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea. Article 33 gives authority of a state on certain other matters to further 12 nautical miles called as contiguous zone. Article 55 allows an exclusive economic zone, an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea, where the coastal state has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources. As per Article 57, this economic zone shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines. The UNCLOS III of 1982 in its Article 76 gives rights to the coastal states to own some more areas beyond the economic zone called the continental shelf.


Continental shelf

AS PER Article 76 sub-article 1, the continental shelf of a coastal state comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin. As per sub-article 3, the continental margin comprises the submerged prolongation of the land mass of the coastal state, and consists of the seabed and subsoil of the shelf, the slope and the rise. As the limits of sea boundary prolongs towards the deep sea, disputes should arise between adjacent states on their boundaries and claims over their natural resources. To resolve the disputes sub-article 4(a) of Article 76 gives clarifications that the coastal state shall establish the outer edge of the continental margin beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines by either, i) a line delineated where the thickness of sedimentary rocks is at least one per cent of the shortest distance from the foot of the continental slope; or ii) line delineated in accordance to fixed points not more than 60 nautical miles from the foot of the continental slope. Article 76 limits the continental shelf on the seabed, drawn in accordance with paragraph 4 (a) (i) and (ii), not beyond 350 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, or not beyond 100 nautical miles from the 2,500-metre isobath, which is a line connecting the depth of 2,500 metres.

Disputes with India and Myanmar

BANGLADESH in 1989 divided its mainland and territorial waters into 23 blocks for gas and oil exploration. In 2008, eight blocks under exclusive economic zone and 20 blocks under continental shelf were tendered inviting interested parties for exploration. But objections were raised from India and Myanmar over claims on those deep-sea blocks. A recent discovery of huge hydrocarbon reserve in the continental shelves of India in Orissa, and Myanmar in Rakhaine states triggered these disputes with Bangladeshi claims. Bangladesh needs to solve this problem as per Articles 59 and 76 of UNCLOS III.

Article 59 of UNCLOS III says, in cases where the convention does not attribute rights or jurisdiction to the coastal state or to other states within the exclusive economic zone, and a conflict arises between the interests of the coastal state and any other state or states, the conflict should be resolved on the basis of equity and in the light of all the relevant circumstances, taking into account the respective importance of the interests involved to the parties as well as to the international community as a whole. As per this article, Bangladesh's claim of equity should be based on all relevant circumstances, particularly the basis of sedimentary rocks deposited from its mainland.

Bangladesh with its Territorial Waters and Maritime Zones Act of 1974 was rather unaware of its rights in the deep sea. Following the equidistant formula for setting limits of the territorial sea between adjacent states, Bangladesh extended its boundary limits in 1989 by straight lines and remained content with its exclusive economic zone. In 2006, when India floated tender for offshore exploration in the Bay of Bengal, the Bangladesh government only got concerned, as the media reported that India has encroached into its EEZ block number 21 (see http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers19%5Cpaper1877.html).

India signed a production sharing contract with Australian company Santos on March 2, 2007 for oil exploration in the block NEC-DWN-2004/2. The Myanmar government awarded the offshore blocks AD-8 to China National Petroleum Corporation of China and AD-9 to Oil and Natural Gas Corporation of India, in addition to block AD7 to Daewoo of Korea.

As India and Myanmar started their aggression into Bangladesh waters, the Bangladesh government also started preparing for third round bidding for oil and gas exploration in the deep sea with a fresh production sharing contract. By April 2008, Bangladesh delineated its outer boundary of the continental shelf and floated tender for exploration on eight shallow water and 20 deep sea blocks. India and Myanmar quickly opposed this move claiming Bangladeshi tenders were on their blocks. But Bangladesh navy was active to put pressure on Santos not to encroach into Bangladesh waters. The navy was also deployed, in a similar move, to thwart attempt by Daewoo rigs to explore in the AD7 block of Myanmar (The Daily Star, November 14, 2008). This area would fall under the Bangladesh deep sea block No DS-08-13 about 60 kilometres off St Martin's Island.

The Bangladesh government took a commendable step in November 2009 by approaching to the UN to resolve its sea boundary dispute with neighbours as per its convention. Another commendable step was taken in February this year, when it put forward its claim of sea boundary to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, known as CLCS. Though this claim was not made public, it is known that the claims were made in accordance with the Article 76 and its Clauses 1, 2, 3, 4 (a) and (b), 5, 6 and 7. Clauses 4 and 6 of Article 76 set out specific formula to establish outer edges of the continental shelf of a country. The claim submitted has an executive summary and an outline map which has references fixed points defined by coordinates, and straight lines joining them not exceeding 60 nautical miles in length. These are required as per the Clause 7 of Article 76. Bangladesh claim is also supported by technical and scientific data prepared with the support of the navy, Geological Survey of Bangladesh, Bangladesh Oil, Gas and Mineral Corporation, Bangladesh Petroleum Exploration and Production Company, Space Research and Remote Sensing Organisation and Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Authority.

The offshore blocks NEC-DWN-2004/1 and NEC-DWN-2004/2 and part of D31 of India, and blocks AD7, AD8, AD9, AD10, AD11, AD12, AD13 and AD14 of Myanmar fall under the waters of Bangladesh as per UN Convention, is illustrated in the map.  Bangladesh has taken a rightful step for winning its sea boundary by diplomacy rather than war. In the name of equity, India and Myanmar are now trying to pursue Bangladesh for a negotiated settlement. But the matter is now under the disposal of the UN Commission, where it is to be settled according to the convention set by the international community. Any attempt of bypassing the convention would be a matter of objection from it. Against this backdrop, our present stand in claiming our sea boundary appears to be just and very strong. We should not make any delay now in updating our Territorial Waters and Maritime Zones Act of 1974 according to the UNCLOS III of 1982.

__________________

M Inamul Haque is former director general of Water Resources Planning Organisation under the water resources ministry. minamul@gmail.com.

http://newagebd.com/newspaper1/op-ed/30511.html

Attachment(s) from Isha Khan

2 of 2 Photo(s)


__._,_.___


[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] Dipu Moni



Dipu Moni



http://dailynayadiganta.com/2011/08/19/fullnews.asp?News_ID=295080&sec=6


__._,_.___


[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: Jogajog Montri's shafollo




http://www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2011-08-20/news/179660

http://www.kalerkantho.com/?view=details&archiev=yes&arch_date=19-08-2011&type=gold&data=Airline&pub_no=617&cat_id=1&menu_id=13&news_type_id=1&index=0

http://www.edailystar.com/index.php?opt=view&page=1&date=2011-08-20

http://www.edailystar.com/index.php?opt=view&page=1&date=2011-08-19

http://www.edailystar.com/index.php?opt=view&page=2&date=2011-08-19

http://amardeshonline.com/pages/details/2011/08/19/100293


http://dailynayadiganta.com/2011/08/19/fullnews.asp?News_ID=295032&sec=1

http://www.jjdin.com/?view=details&type=single&pub_no=190&cat_id=1&menu_id=1&news_type_id=1&index=0

http://www.jjdin.com/?view=details&archiev=yes&arch_date=19-08-2011&type=single&pub_no=189&cat_id=1&menu_id=1&news_type_id=1&index=0

http://www.thedailysangbad.com/?view=details&type=gold&data=Food&pub_no=809&menu_id=13&news_type_id=1&val=75958

On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:


http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=198980


http://www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2011-08-17/news/178815
http://www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2011-08-17/news/178816


http://jugantor.us/enews/issue/2011/08/17/news0956.htm
http://jugantor.us/enews/issue/2011/08/17/news0953.htm


http://www.samakal.com.bd/details.php?news=13&action=main&option=single&news_id=183283&pub_no=785




http://www.thedailysangbad.com/?view=details&type=gold&data=Jobs&pub_no=806&menu_id=13&news_type_id=1&val=75651



http://www.kalerkantho.com/?view=details&type=gold&data=Visa&pub_no=615&cat_id=1&menu_id=13&news_type_id=1&index=2


On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:


http://www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2011-08-16/news/178535
http://www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2011-08-16/news/178536

http://www.bd-pratidin.com/?view=details&type=gold&data=Loan&pub_no=470&cat_id=1&menu_id=1&news_type_id=1&index=0
http://edailystar.com/index.php?opt=view&page=20&date=2011-08-16
http://edailystar.com/index.php?opt=view&page=23&date=2011-08-16

http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=198841
http://jugantor.us/enews/issue/2011/08/16/news0798.htm

http://www.samakal.com.bd/details.php?news=13&action=main&option=single&news_id=182994&pub_no=784

http://www.thedailysangbad.com/?view=details&type=gold&data=Book&pub_no=805&menu_id=13&news_type_id=1&val=75549

On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:

AL MP Roni on communication minister

http://www.bd-pratidin.com/?view=details&type=gold&data=Mobile&pub_no=468&cat_id=1&menu_id=1&news_type_id=1&index=1

Peer Habib on communication minister

http://www.bd-pratidin.com/?view=details&type=gold&data=Mobile&pub_no=468&cat_id=1&menu_id=1&news_type_id=1&index=4

Tareque, Mishuk among 5 killed

Passenger bus crushes film-making unit on microbus at Manikganj; Tareque's wife Catherine among injured


http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=198549

'Break rules' now rules highways

About 4,000 people die in around 20,000 accidents a year for reckless driving

http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=198551

Moon ride on another route stops

Transport owners suspend operation on Dhaka- Tangail highway for battered road condition



http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=198552http://www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2011-08-14/news/178046
http://www.thenewnationbd.com/newsdetails.aspx?newsid=14551

Potholed highways turn into death traps

http://newagebd.com/newspaper1/frontpage/29902.html
http://www.samakal.com.bd/details.php?news=13&action=main&option=single&news_id=182411&pub_no=782
http://www.kalerkantho.com/?view=details&type=gold&data=College&pub_no=612&cat_id=2&menu_id=19&news_type_id=1&index=1


http://www.jjdin.com/?view=details&type=single&pub_no=184&cat_id=1&menu_id=1&news_type_id=1&index=4


http://www.thedailysangbad.com/?view=details&type=gold&data=Loan&pub_no=803&menu_id=13&news_type_id=1&val=75349







__._,_.___


[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: Blitz report: RAW says Mujib was not their agent



------ Forwarded message ----------

From: Zoglul Husain <zoglul@hotmail.co.uk>
Date: Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 4:06 PM
Subject: Blitz report: RAW says Mujib was not their agent

The weekly Blitz published the report, RAW says Mujib was not their agent by Special Correspondent on 14 August 2011, as follows:

http://www.weeklyblitz.net/1648/raw-says-mujib-was-not-their-agentA friend requested my views on it.

I sent him the following quick comment:

A former General Secretary of RAW writing to Bangladesh and Indian govts to 'clear' Mujib's name is quite unusual. Every word of RAW needs to be checked with other verifiable documentary evidences and also needs to be checked for its objectives and objectivity.

 
My position about our independence and India is: We wanted independence for one reason, but India wanted to divide Pakistan for another reason. The report in the Blitz shows that India wanted to divide Pakistan and it sent money and weapons to East Pakistan before 1971 war of independence, and that was certainly not for philanthropic reasons.
 
According to the report in the Blitz, "He (Yadav) also endorsed the fact that prior to the war of independence of Bangladesh, Indian intelligence were regularly meeting Pakistani nationals, giving them money and arms to continue insurgency inside East Pakistan." After this assertion, all the other narratives are just details. It can be inferred from the report that many of Mujib's associates took money ("bags full of cash") and arms from India. Many reports show that Mujib was surrounded by RAW's operatives.
 
Form many reports and writings, it can be concluded that Mujib worked closely with both CIA and RAW. 
 

Before 1947, Mujib was actively involved in Pakistan movement. There is no credible proof that he ever wanted anything more than a confederation of Pakistan i.e., there is no proof that he ever wanted independence of Bangladesh. He did not know about the independence of Bangladesh, before his release from Pakistan prison in January, 1972. When Bhashani wanted independence of East Pakistan in 1957, Suhrawardi and Mujib opposed it, and Bhashani was compelled to form NAP. But after Suhrawardi's death, Mujib declared 6-points in 1966, which was at most a demand for confederation of Pakistan. On the night of 25 March 1971, Mujib did not go to India, while most of his close associates did. He willingly went to Pakistan prison, thought to be under arrangements worked out by Kamal Hossain (who also went to Pakistan, not arrested, reportedly in the same plane with Mujib) and the US ambassador in Pakistan. Mujib's family was protected by the army in Dhanmondi in 1971 and good financial support paid to the family by the Yahya govt. However, it was Kissinger who instigated Yahya for the most brutal crack down. Later on it was Kissinger again who was behind Mujib's assassination in 1975. (Hasina accepted 1998 UNESCO prize from Kissinger, knowing full well that Kissinger was behind Mujib's assassination!!) 
 
It was thought that it was through US arrangements that Mujib was released from Pakistan prison in January 1972. Mujib never claimed that he declared independence. He never visited Mujib Nagar. He asked Indian army to be taken back from Bangladesh, which is thought to be a reflection of US intention. He removed Tajuddin, thought to be pro-India, from the cabinet and made Mushtaq, pro-US and anti-India, his right hand person. Mujib invited Bhutto and also joined the Islamic conference. He declared general amnesty to the war criminals.
 
So, why did he create Rakkhi Bahini? Well, Rakkhi Bahini was created by India, with Indian finance, training, arms and Indian top command. Mujib agreed, as by that time the army was reduced almost to prisoners in the cantonment, without any powers, under Indian arrangements. Soon Rakkhi Bahini was made all powerful. And why did Mujib agree to BKSAL? The answer is, in order to survive. Mujib regime killed 30 to 50 thousand patriots, while 3 to 5 hundred-thousand people perished in the man-made famine of 1974 during his regime. Whatever manoeuvres Mujib did, his regime was totally controlled by India and it was a thugs' rule all through with a tyranny unseen since then. 
 
I think the above will give some indications of Mujib's relationship with India.
 
After the present govt, I hope historians will have opportunity to write the true history of Bangladesh. RAW's real games will hopefully be exposed then!! India has destroyed all their documents of the 1971 war. One would want to know, WHY???

Zoglul Husain





__._,_.___


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




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

__,_._,___

[mukto-mona] Re: Where have you been, Mr. Buffet?

My response to Professor Dewan's Comments:

Hello everybody!

The conventional view is - as your income goes up, so goes your tax bracket. Therefore, Buffet tax-rate being lower than his employees is a legitimate question for those who are not Professor of Economics. At first, I could not understand it also. So, Professor, you don’t need to be so condescending to those who did not get it right away.

I agree â€" Professor Dewan knows more about tax laws than me, because it is his bread and butter. But, I am a tax payer, just like everybody else, and we are supposed to know some common sense tax rules, if not the nitty-gritty. It’s like talking about government policies or military policies using common knowledge without details. We know why â€" corporations move abroad â€" it’s because labor is cheap and tax is low there. You cannot implement many rules considering our strategic interests. I know this much - if you tax a corporation for the remaining tax balance in the US, as professor is suggesting, it will be counterproductive to the policy of providing incentive to bring back their business in the US. They will, instead, move whatever still left in the US to elsewhere. Professor, you cannot put the Jinee back in the bottle once it is out. Can you? We don’t need to be a tax expert to figure this out?

I am glad that Professor does not have any argument against anything I said. Thank you very much!

The last part of his mail tells me that he is not happy with Sara Palin and Rick Perry, although I could not figure it out what they have to do with the topic. I bet - he hates them, especially Perry. I thought for a moment that - I was watching one of those liberal shows on - The View, MSNBC or CNN. I am sorry, I cannot match his passion. He also hates tea-Party people, the so called stupid people as per Democratic Party talking-point, as articulated by Professor Dewan.

I happen to like Tea-Party people a lot, as they are the Paul Revere of the modern time to warn US about the forthcoming entitlement society that the current President has been trying to bring in the US ever since he got elected. He is facing hurdles on the way â€" because of these Tea-Party folks. I am sure - they do not belong to the so called intellectual class you see in the College Campus. Thanks God for that! Most intellectuals are ideologues, trapped in the cocoon of their ideal-world views that never existed or will ever be realized. In other words, being non-pragmatist, their impractical views mostly create problems, not solutions. No offense to the Professor, but, may be because of that fact â€" not many intellectual Professors we see as CEO. Just a thought â€" I wanted to share with you.

Thank you very much.

Jiten Roy


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

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

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

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

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

[ALOCHONA] You don't like France? Leave ...!



After Australian Prime Minister and some other Political Leaders of rich Western Countries, now French Prime Minister has come up with the same Message for crazy thankless Moslim Immigrants at JehaaD with the countries that generously provided them a Sanctuary and a good life.

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Zaman Khan <khanzaman@hotmail.com>

Well said..!

Hats off to Monsieur Fillon!!!

 EEFDCB582B4F49F7975B5AA846D8CDBC@Tatjana

 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_France> Prime Minister of France For once, a French politician has the courage to say out loud what the French think and sometimes cry out about Interesting approach.

Learning to live in peace and harmony .

Muslims who want to live under the law of the "Islamic Sharia" have recently been told to leave France in order to guard against possible terrorist attacks, the government has targeted radicals.

Apparently, the Prime Minister, Francois Fillon has angered some French Muslims in stating:

THOSE IMMIGRANTS, WHO ARE NOT FRENCH MUST ADAPT.

Take it or leave it, I'm tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture.

Our culture has developed with struggles and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.

Our official language is French, not Spanish, or Lebanese, or Arabic, or Chinese, or Japanese, or any other language.

Therefore, if you want to be part of our society, learn the language!

Most French people believe in God. This is not some Christian obligation, influence by the rightists or political pressure, but it is a fact, because men and women founded this nation on Christian principles, and this is clearly documented.

It is then appropriate to display this on the walls of our schools' .

if God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your home, because God is part of our culture.

We will accept your beliefs without question.

All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in peaceful harmony with us.

This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, AND OUR LIFESTYLE.

And we offer you the opportunity to enjoy all this.

But if you're tired of our flag, our commitment, our Christian beliefs, or our lifestyle, I strongly encourage you to take advantage of another great French freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.

If you are not happy here then LEAVE.

We did not force you to come here.

You asked to be here.

So accept the country YOU chose.

 

(Perhaps if we circulate this email to the world's citizens we may find a way to stand up and spread the same truths)

       

Well said. Mr Fillon!


 


 

 

 


 

 

 

<<...>>



__._,_.___


[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

__,_._,___