Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 14:53:15 +0600
Subject: Some old stuff
From: bdmailer@gmail.com
To:
General Moeen's Visit to India Tales of Six Horses and Four Dead Bodies
(Bangla Mirror 29/2/08)
General Moeen U Ahmed, Bangladesh's Army Chief, is currently on a high profile visit to India. He left Dhaka on 24th February and reached New Delhi the same day. After visiting the Indian capital, he would also visit several other places including the West Bengal capital of Kolkata. The whole program would take about six days. By the time this article is published, the General would be on his return journey home.
Normally, one should not try to make too much noise out of such a visit. The Army Chief of one country pays courtesy visit to another country to familiarise with the host country's defence bosses and to carry out discussions on topics of mutual interest. There is nothing wrong on such visits as such.
But General Moeen is no ordinary soldier and his much-publicised visit to India is no ordinary courtesy visit. Since the event has significant implications for the Bangladesh's internal politics as well as for its relations with India , it is necessary to understand what is going on or what may be in store for the Bangladeshi people.
Different media reports indicate that the Indian authorities have given special importance to General Moeen's visit, probably more than what is expected for an army officer of one country to another country. Although there has been relatively less publicity in Bangladesh media, prominent Indian newspapers including the Hindu, the Statesman, the Daily Telegraph, the Assam Tribune and Ananda Bazar have publicised the visit as an event of great significance.
For example, The Daily telegraph in its caption 'Bangla Boss to Meet Buddha (Buddhadev Bhattacharya), India Switches on the Charm' said that General Moeen would meet with the West Bengal Chief Minister on the last day his visit (29 February) to discuss some important issues. The Hindu said that the Bangladesh Army Chief's visit would help improve India-Bangladesh relations particularly on security and defence matters and also on other unresolved issues. The Assam Tribune quoted the Indian President that India wishes to see Bangladesh as a democratic and peaceful country. It was also mentioned General Moeen was seeking India's support for the on-going anti-corruption campaign in Bangladesh.
Daily News India in a story 'Bangladesh Army seeks India's Help' said that Bangladesh Army was once a part of the Pakistani Army and they were not friendly to India. It is significant that they have changed their attitude to India after the present government came to power. Moeen's visit to India should be judged with this background, the report said.
The New Delhi based news agency IANS in reported on Feb 21, "With a gift of six horses worth a little over Rs.35 million ($850,000), New Delhi is attempting to build bridges with Bangladesh's army chief in an attempt to persuade the eastern neighbour to cease support to anti-India insurgent groups operating from that country." The Indian ArmyChief, General Deepak Kapoor, presented two stallions and four mares to General Moeen on the second day of the visit as a goodwill gesture. It was suggested that 'they would be used for breeding and for helping to improve the standard of equestrian sports in Bangladesh.'
The IANS story quoted an official source as saying "It's an attempt to build bridges, to move forward in persuading Bangladesh to stop supporting anti-India insurgent groups that are operating from its soil. In the last four or five years, there has been an engagement of a positive nature, but there have been no concrete achievements. We need to turn that around".
It was also said that the alleged operations of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Harkat-Ul-Jehad-al-Islami (HUJI) extremist group from Bangladesh territories are even more worrisome than the anti-India groups in the North East. India blames the HUJI that was established in 1992, reportedly with assistance from Osama bin Laden's International Islamic Front, for two sets of blasts in Hyderabad last year.
At the time of writing this article, I am not sure what would be the official versions of General Moeen's visit to India. The topics covered in his discussions with the Indian military and political leaders are still not fully known, and any results obtained therefrom cannot be prejudged. But one wonders if it is a matter of simple coincidence that, on the very first day of the General's India visit, Bangladesh made a 180 degree turn from its earlier negotiating position on the building of 'security fence' in the no-man's land along the border and swallowed the Indian condition to start the railway service between Kolkata and Dhaka. Only a few days ago, on 12th February, an agreement was signed in New Delhi making Bangladesh air 'free' for Indian aircrafts. What Bangladesh gained out of these arrangements is not clear.
India seems to be obsessed with its own security and defence without any respect for the smaller neighbours including Bangladesh. While the Indian rulers and media constantly but unjustly blame Bangladesh for the decades old insurgencies in India's North East region, they never stop their anti-Bangladesh campaign to create destabilisation and anarchy within the country. They blame Bangladesh army for sheltering and arming the rebel indigenous and tribal groups in the North East and seek to intervene (joint operations!) within Bangladesh territories to root out the alleged rebel training camps. This is the same policy as Israel pursues in its neighbourhood and the imperialists everywhere.
India after joining in the Israel-US axis strategic alliance in recent years, and with a fast growing economy and colossal military, feels less inhibited than before to marginalise the smaller neighbours and coerce them to follow its terms.
As Israel does not consider killing the Palestinians a crime, India also does not consider it wrong to kill Bangladeshi citizens. Let me quote two news reports published in the Financial Express on the same day (24th February 2008):
The first report captioned 'BSF returns bodies of two Bangladeshis' says"The bodies of two Bangladeshi cattle traders, killed in BSF firing near Mundumala border in Baliadangi Upazila, were returned Sunday morning. Indian Border Security Force (BSF) handed over the bodies of Afajuddin and Faruk Hossain to Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) after a commander-level flag meeting at Zero Line of the frontier area at about 12:00 pm."
The second report captioned 'BSF kills two Bangladeshi traders on Satkhira frontier' says, "Two Bangladeshi cattle-traders were gunned down by Indian Border Security Force (BSF) on Rudrapur frontier of Satkhira Saturday morning. The deceased were identified as Abdul Majed (32) of Rudrapur village and Hasan Ali (30) of Bhabanipur village in Sharsha of Jessore. BDR sources said, the BSF-troops of Tetulbunia camp fired on the two traders when they were returning with cattle from India, killing them on the spot. BSF also took away the bodies of the cattle traders to their camp. Major Kamrul Hasan of Satkhira BDR 41 Battalion said, protesting the killing they have already dispatched a letter to BSF, demanding immediate return of the bodies."
According to the above reports, those killed at the border were cattle traders; even if they had crossed the border without valid papers, they could have been arrested and put on trial. But shooting at sight? Is this the behaviour of the so-called world's largest democracy? Does it have any moral ground to suggest what Bangladesh should do to establish democracy and human rights?
One may think that similar incidents along Indo-Bangla border happen only rarely. But the fact is that BSF has been killing innocent nationals of Bangladesh in the border areas for years.
According to a survey conducted by Odhikar, a human rights organisation, India 's BSF killed 479 innocent civilians of Bangladesh in border areas between October 2001 and October 2006. The pattern is well documented.
We are not sure if General Moeen was aware of the cold-blooded murder of four of his countrymen by India 's security forces on the very day he was received as a VVIP in New Delhi ! If he did, he should have retuned home immediately with the four Bangladeshi dead bodies and
leaving behind the royal-like gift of six horses. He could prove that he cared more for human lives than the 'standard of equestrian sports in Bangladesh '.
That would also prove that his loyalty lies to the people of Bangladesh and not to any foreign quarters.Most people would be surprised that India extended to General Moeen the honour and protocol reserved for a Head of State.
Some media even mentioned him as the 'President' of Bangladesh! Whether this is a sign of simple ignorance or mockery to a potential dictator is difficult to say, but it is evident that the Indian policy makers and media consider General Moeen as the most important player in current Bangladesh politics and government. To them, the President and Chief Adviser of Bangladesh are only secondary without any power or significance. Could it also be assumed that they consider General Moyeen as 'their man' in Bangladesh who would toe New Delhi's line and deliver what the past governments under Khaleda Zia or Sheikh Hasina could not or would not deliver. But this is a very dangerous game India should better not play – India's real or perceived puppets in Bangladesh, once fully exposed, do not last long.
General Moeen and Bangladesh Politics
Do we want another period of foreign-backed military rule? (Bangla Mirror 7/3/08)
http://atiquenews.blogspot.com/2008/09/general-moeen-and-bangladesh-politics.html
General Moeen U Ahmed emerged as the power broker in Bangladesh as a consequence of bitter hostility, blockades and streetviolence that prevented the holding of general elections scheduled for January 20 last year. The two political groupings led, respectively, by Khaleda Zia's Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Sheikh Hasina's Bangladesh Awami League (BAL) failed to find a common ground for holding 'peaceful and credible' elections which took the country to a nearly 'civil war' situation. This paved the way for the Army to intervene in the state affairs. The caretakergovernment headed by Dr Fakhruddin Ahmed was installed with the direct support of the Army. An emergency was declared, the elections were postponed, political activities were banned and some provisions of the Constitutions were suspended.
Scores of top politicians and businessmen were put into prison on corruption charges. Some of them have already been tried and others are waiting for trial. Although it was never officially acknowledged, the Army Chief was prompted to this act by the ambassadors of the USA, UK, EU and India in Dhaka. The restrictions put on media have made it difficult for any objective analysis on the roles the 'ambassadors' in the process. Their true motives in intervening in the political process of Bangladesh are unclear and mysterious to the public, but there is little doubt that General Moeen assumed the role of Bangladesh's 'saviour' with the blessings and prompting of powerful foreign powers.
It would have been better for everyone if the Army held power for a short time and allowed the civilian rule to be restored by holding the elections within the stipulated three months tenure of the caretaker government. But this did not happen. The army led government started a process of 'reforms', which were initially supported by the public, but by now, more than a year later, the proposed reforms have led the country to a greater mess. Although the government, including the army chief, have said it repeatedly that elections would be held by the end of the year 2008, there are lingering doubts in the public mind that this promise would be kept.
The main reason for the doubt is that General Moeen has already shown symptoms of his political ambition. The kind of speeches he has been continuously delivering on different occasions is political and totally unsuitable for a serving officer of the state, military or civilian. He spoke about the need for changing the Constitution of the State to bring about a balance of power between the President and the Prime Minister.
This and his recent statement that Westminster type democracy is not suitable for Bangladesh and that it needs its 'own brand of democracy' are political and this has already aroused suspicion about the true motive of the general. During his recent visit to India, he met with political leaders and talked about foreign policy and trade issues, areas of significant political contents. If he does not have any political ambition, he should refrain from making political statements that are unbecoming of a serving officer. On the contrary, if he really does intend to enter into political arena, he should resign from the Army and join any of the existing parties or float a new party of his own with clear agenda. As a civilian, he would be welcome to define the kind of 'democracy' he proposes for Bangladesh and it would be up to the public to accept or reject the proposed brand of democracy. Retired General Muhammad Ibrahim has recently floated a new party. There are also many other retired army officers who have been involved in party politics including BNP and BAL.
We do not find any problem in that. But making political statements while in office is unacceptable, since it violates the fundamental principle of a democratic state.
In this context, one may recall the dismissal of the American war hero General MacArthur by the US President Harry Truman. During the Korean War in early 1950s, MacArthur was serving as the supreme commander of the US and allied forces in Japan, and after the Chinese Army (volunteers) forced his army to retreat from North Korea, he suggested to the Press that the US should use 'nuclear' weapons on the Chinese. President Truman considered this type of statement as highly irresponsible and an act of provocation - clearly beyond the jurisdiction of a military general serving under civilian authority. When MacArthur realised that he is going to be dismissed by the President, he promptly resigned, thus saving his face and embarrassment. We know that military officers are very powerful in western countries including the USA and they play crucial roles in formulating and executing strategic policies, but they remain loyal to the civilian authorities elected by the public to run the affairs of state. This aspect of Western democracy has made it sustainable and prevented civil-military misunderstanding and discord.
The tragedy is that the civilian authority in Bangladesh, as in many other third world countries, is weak and inept. The political parties and their leaders are often without any long-term vision and
their promises to the people are seldom fulfilled. Failure to solve the problems faced by the common people and bring about qualitative changes in their life make people pessimistic about the politicians and political process. This creates the ground for emergence of 'saviours' from the army – more organized and disciplined of all forces in the third world countries. An added tragedy isthat many opportunist politicians and civilians accept military authority to rule the country without much protest. The political parties, being too divided and corrupt, are unable to foresee their own demise under the rule of military dictatorship, masked or direct.
It is very unfortunate that the democratic process, which started its journey in 1991 after the overthrow of military dictator General Ershad, was brought to an abrupt halt by the bitter feud and violent confrontations between the two main contenders of power, Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina. Despite many shortcomings, inefficiency and corruption, the country made impressive progress in different fields including economic development. We would not say that Bangladesh democracy as practised by the Khaleda or Hasina regimes was perfect, far from it, but at least there was scope for discussion and even dissent. Being at least partly responsive to popular feelings, none of these leaders could give in to the various illegitimate demands of foreign powers and their lending agencies, especially to those that would reduce the nation's sovereignty and cause economic ruin.
None of Khaleda's or Hasina's government could allow the road and air transit facilities, use of Chittagong port, or gas export to India without safeguarding Bangladesh's national interests and getting anything significant in return.
None of then agreed to make the national army an appendage of Indian Army despite different kinds of pressures.
But things did change dramatically since the Army became the driving force behind the so-called civilian caretaker government. General Moeen said it openly that nothing was achieved during the last 36 years of independence and that he wants to put things right. Some of his statements emphasised the need for improving relations with India, but how exactly this could be done was not elaborated. It is perhaps significant that Indian media have gone out of the way to predict that General Moeen and the army-backed interim government would take more concrete steps to improve Bangladesh 's relations with India , meaning perhaps that the present regime would deliver to India what the past elected governments did not.
There is no doubt that the people of Bangladesh do want to see improved relations with India, because this would bring various benefits to the citizens of both countries. Unfortunately, the Indian rulers have always adopted policies that are detrimental to Bangladesh's vital national interests. And they have never hesitated to extract one-sided benefits out of Bangladesh by different means including interference in Bangladesh politics, false promises, deception and coercive diplomacy.
General Moeen has stated publicly on different occasions (even during his India visit last week) that his job is only to help the interim government in holding elections by the end of 2008 and that the army would not take over state power directly. Despite some contradictory signals, we wish to believe that his purpose is honest and genuine. But many people remain sceptical about his stated promise. It has been a bitter tragedy in Bangladesh's 37 years of history that two of the most charismatic and elected Presidents were murdered and one elected President overthrown by military coups and conspiracies, often with foreign support. One attempted coup by then army chief failed in 1996. In Pakistan also, we have witnessed several army chiefs grabbing state power by staging military coups on charges of politicians being 'too corrupt', but they were never able to root out corruption nor did they succeed in bringing about 'democracy' or 'stability' to the country. Even after 60 years of independence, the country is fighting for its physical, social and economic survival. In contrast, our neighbouring India has allowed the democratic process to flourish without any military intervention, and this has earned it international respect and recognition. Like its neighbours, India also is beset with hundreds of problems including corruption but the country has maintained its territorial unity and made significant strides in different fields mainly due to the democratic nature of the state. If the army were in power, India would have probably disintegrated into different mini states.
We all know that Bangladesh is passing through a very difficult period in its quest for democracy. But the question remains: shall we follow the examples of military dictators as in Pakistan or the democratic practices of politicians as in India ?
__._,_.___
