Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Maruf Nov 7 2006, 03:04 PM

The previous thread is below:

http://www.bdsdf.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=3413

Posted by: Maruf Nov 7 2006, 03:09 PM

India has turned into a safe paradise for convicted criminals of Bangladesh. Most of the top terrors fled Bangladesh and found a new home in India. They married Indian citizens and doing various businesses right under the nose of the Indian government. Despite repeated request from Bangladesh, India refused to handover these criminals for the reason best known to them.

http://nation.ittefaq.com/artman/publish/article_32027.shtml

Posted by: akzaman Nov 8 2006, 10:53 AM

Underworld dons are reappearing

REPORTS are seen in the press that notorious criminals who once fled the country, are returning to Bangladesh and taking political shelter. This is a very worrying development. The caretaker government cannot and must not show any leniency to these returning lords of the underworld. Allowing them to return and consolidate their positions, would only lead to a full resurrection of the terror that countrymen had to suffer in the past.

The ones who are visible must be immediately arrested and put behind bars and in carrying out this task, the police and the RAB must show their unflinching determination. If necessary, the different political parties may be consulted and asked to delink themselves from these criminals. Message should be conveyed to the parties that the administration would move with all the capacities at its command to arrest them, regardless of their party affiliations and that no attempt should be made to give political colours to such a purely law enforcement drive.

http://www.financialexpress-bd.com/index3.asp?cnd=11/8/2006&section_id=6&newsid=42972&spcl=no

Posted by: akzaman Nov 9 2006, 09:06 AM

Exiled crime lords ready to return before polls

With the interim government in power and the parliamentary elections only a few months away, some of the most wanted criminals of the country, in jail or exile, are looking for ways to take advantage of the situation.While the fugitive criminals are planning to bring an end to their prolonged exile, the criminals in jail are doing everything to get out of prison by using legal loopholes and manipulating trial procedures.

Sources in the underworld said the criminals, irrespective of party affiliation, would throw their weight behind the aspirants to form the next government and would use such aspirants to get out of the predicament they are in now.

As the criminals played an important role during elections in the past, some BNP leaders have contacted some fugitive criminals and asked them to work in their favour.BNP leaderstalked with us on a number of occasions and assured us all kinds of support in Dhaka,’ Subrata Bain, one of most-wanted criminals now living in Kolkata, told New Age over telephone on Tuesday.

He quoted a BNP leader as saying, ‘We are still in power and the whole administration is working at our instruction.’ But the crime lord said he could not depend on these words as the caretaker government is yet to launch a crackdown.

Assured by the previous BNP government, almost all the exiled criminals visited Dhaka even amid the drive of the Rapid Action Battalion and went back safe. Underworld sources said some BNP leaders based in one of the alternative power house of the BNP arranged their safe passage with the help of the policemen.

The fugitive criminals are frequently holding meetings in Kolkata to sort out strategies as the immediate-past BNP government betrayed them soon after assuming office in 2001.

‘Many of us worked for the BNP in 2001 elections, but it prepared a list of most-wanted criminals and launched a crackdown to arrest us,’ said Subrata, who was based in Moghbazar and worked for the BNP’s candidate for a Dhaka constituency.

‘This time we will be more cautious. We reached a consensus that we will not be used and then ditched,’ said another criminal, Jishan, who crossed the border after killing two Detective Branch officials in the Hotel Sunrise at Malibagh in 2003.

Nine listed top criminals were captured by the BNP government.Jishan is also weighing the option of working for the Awami League and so are top-rated criminal Tanvir Islam Joy and his aide Mukul.A former AL lawmaker from the Dhaka city west is maintaining contact with them. ‘We told him to create a ground safe for our return and stay,’ one of them told New Age.

The criminals, exiled or jailed, have, meanwhile, been carrying out illicit activities such as extortion, killing, abduction and drugs peddling through hundreds of teenaged criminals groomed in Dhaka.The jailed criminals meet their followers on court premises while the exiled criminals talk with their men over telephone.Some budding criminals told New Age they had eagerly been waiting for the return of their bosses. The new band of criminals has, meanwhile, started participating in political programmes of both the BNP and the Awami League.

The major parties used the services of the 23 criminals on the police’s most-wanted lists during previous elections. The politician-criminal nexus had a significant influence on the results in three previous elections.

‘We were regarded with due importance as winning the elections was crucial for the politicians,’ said one of the most-wanted criminals, talking with New Age over telephone.

Shortly after the launch of the Rapid Action Battalion in 2004, several key figures of the underworld were killed in the ‘crossfire’ of or ‘encounters’ with the battalion, prompting others to get away.

Subrata Bain, Khandakar Tanveer Islam Joy, Molla Masud, Haris Ahmed Haris, Kamrul Hasan Hannan (younger brother of the arrested most-wanted criminal Liakat Hossain), Prakash, Imam Hossain, Aga Shamim and Jafar Ahmed Manik are staying in rented houses at Dumdum, Broad Street, Sealdah, Beck Bagan and few other areas in Kolkata.

Listed criminal Pichchi Hannan was killed in the ‘crossfire’ of the battalion and Alauddin died in mob beating. Killer Abbas, Arman Khan, Liakat Hossain Liakat, Rasu, Titon, Kamal Pasha, Freedom Sohel, Moshiur Rahman Kochi and Bikash are now in jail.

Mukul, accused in the Badda arms haul case and suspected of being involved in the August 21 grenade attack on an Awami League rally in Dhaka, is staying with his boss, Joy, in a luxurious flat on Broad Street.

Chhanga Babu and Nabir Hossain Nabi of Mohammadpur, Mobile Kader of Mirpur, Laren, Reaz, Ganda Jahangir, Tajgir, Ekhtiar (accused in Detective Branch people murder cases) of Motijheel, Dakat Shahid of Old Town and Rony of Moghbazar are also staying in hotels in Kolkata and in adjoining areas.
http://www.newagebd.com/front.html#2

Posted by: akzaman Dec 12 2006, 04:28 AM

'Strengthen Indo-Bangla ties for mutual benefit'

Speakers at a rally yesterday recalled the contribution of India to the liberation war saying that it was not possible to free the country from the occupation of Pakistan army within only nine months without the help of India. They said friendship between Bangladesh and India must be strengthened for the greater interest of both the countries. The rally was organised by Bangladesh-Bharat Sampriti Parishad at the Central Shaheed Minar in the city.

Around 20,000 to 25,000 Indian soldiers sacrificed their lives during the liberation war(?). But a vested quarter is now trying to misguide the countrymen through propaganda against India which is very shameful for us," said Major General (Retd) KM Shafiullah Birbikram. He said India helped Bangladesh in all possible ways in 1971 which should not be forgotten.

"We should maintain good relations with India as both the countries believe in democracy and secularism," said Journalist Shahrier Kabir, acting president of Ekattorer Ghatok Dalal Nirmul Committee. He said the ideals of the liberation war should be disseminated among people to save the nation from present political stalemate.

Colonel (Retd) Shakhawat Ali, a former legislator, said there is no scope for denying the contributions of India and then Soviet Union to the liberation war. "We should be in good terms with India as it is our closest neighbour," said Prof Nim Chandra Bhoumik, general secretary of Bangladesh-Bharat Sampriti Parishad.
Bangladesh Muktijoddha Sangsad Chairman Prof Abdul Ahad Chowdhury, General Secretary M Salahuddin and Sampriti Parishad leader Abir Aahad and Nazrul Ahsan Pakhi also addressed the rally.

http://thedailystar.net/2006/12/12/d61212100199.htm

Posted by: akzaman Dec 12 2006, 12:26 PM

Indian assiatance in the Bangladesh Liberation War : Perceived or Real?

Isha Khan

Some writers say India assisted us in 1971. This is half truth. India had hidden designs. India saw an opportunity and made use of it to enable break up an existing entity.With the every passing day she is exposing her veiled intensions against Bangladesh.

Avebury and Dholakia spoke ill of Bangladesh .Avebury is a tout. He was heavily involved in promoting an Iranian terrorist group based in Saddam's Iraq but with a huge support amongst Iranian refugees in Europe. No one in England gets involved in these activities for free! Avebury's Iranian terrorist group got banned in USA and Europe after Iraq occupation. Since then Avebury has become involved with anti-Bangladesh groups much encouraged and aided by Indian proxies.

Dholakia is a Gujarati Hindu. He keeps protesting that he is into peace and Gandhi. Such pronouncements go unchallenged because white English love the sound of Gandhi even when the hipocrites make illegal wars in Iraq, support nuclear weapons for themselves or bribe, pimp and corrupt royals!

A very cunning Gujarati, Dholakia exploits decent sounding rhetoric beloved of the English. But British and others, including the media, should question him about how Hindu Gujaratis have been funding fascist Hindus in India from UK and Africa They should ask him about his knowledge of the Hindu oppression, harassment, genocide and massacres of Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Untouchables and Tribals in his Gujarat state over the last 40 years with the active financial and moral support of the Gujarati Hindu diaspora.But Hindus only form 50% of the population of the state.

Why did not Dholakia highlight all the Gujarati Hindu crimes against non-Hindus in his homeland.They conviniently forget the daily violence and killings elsewhere in India.But may we ask what is his link with Hindu Gujarati charities collecting money in Africa and UK for their hate crimes in India and Gujarat? We must expose this two faced RSS/VHP/BJP monster who pretends to be decent. He has no business spreading lies about Bangladesh.

Bangladesh is only nation in the entire region of South Asia in relative peace, even with all the terrorist provocations from unstable and failing states of India like West Bengal and insurgency-torn northeast. I think the Bangladesh nationals of UK should also rise up against such propaganda war.

Ref:NFB article"RAW-sponsored anti-Bangladesh campaign" by Mohammad Zainal Abedin( http://www.bangladesh-web.com/view.php?hidType=OPT&hidRecord=0000000000000000140381 )

http://bangladesh-web.com/view.php?hidDate=2006-12-12&hidType=OPT&hidRecord=0000000000000000141674

Posted by: akzaman Dec 31 2006, 12:28 AM

Gangsters start to cross border for election job

As the countdown to the parliamentary election has begun, the listed and wanted criminals, who fled abroad fearing arrest, have started returning to the country to work as 'gunmen' for the candidates.The criminal gangs have already appeared in the fierce competition for securing this type of jobs, which are especially lucrative during the election period. Most of these groups are not yet organised and waiting for their top leaders' return.

Of the criminals hiding in India, several have already come back to the country while some have sent back their sidekicks to organise their groups in Bangladesh before they arrive, sources said.Those who entered the country have started demonstrating the 'signs' of their return and demanded tolls from various people in the city, even though.

The two most powerful underworld kingpins, Joy and Shuvro, however, are yet to step in the city. "They have sent their men to work during the election period," said one such operative who came to the city six days back.Asked, for whom they are working, he named some of the former lawmakers of the immediate past government from the capital."It's safer to work with the powerful side. We think the immediate past government is still in the power," he said.Some, however, decided to work for the rivals of the immediate past government out of 'anger' at the four-party alliance. "We worked for them (four-party alliance), but in reward, they prepared criminals' list after getting elected, compelling us to leave the country," said another expressing his indignation about the immediate past government.Joy's men are active in the Mirpur, Mohammadpur, Moghbazar and its adjacent areas, he added, while Shuvro's goons operate in Motijheel, Ramna and its surrounding areas.

Several men of Shahadat Bahini, infamous in Mirpur area, stepped into Bangladesh a week back and are now busy organising the group that became scattered after Shahadat fled Dhaka to escape arrest.Several businessmen from Mohammadpur, Mirpur and Moghbazar areas have reported of being threatened by the gang.Sources also said another gang, known as the 'Kakrail Group,' has also regrouped and started their activities in Dhaka.

Contacted, Rapid Action Battalion (Rab), however, denied any such entrance of the criminals in the country. The Director General of Rab SM Mizanur Rahman told The Daily Star last night that the anti-crime forces have kept vigil on the situation."There is no report of any such entry of the wanted criminals in the country. We have put our men on alert and are working on the matter," he said.

http://bangladesh-web.com/view.php?hidDate=2006-12-30&hidType=TOP&hidRecord=0000000000000000144542

Posted by: Maruf Jan 1 2007, 08:20 PM

Posted by: akzaman Jan 22 2007, 11:17 AM

Detour Asian Highway is feasible for none

Mohammad Zainal Abedin

It is learnt from reliable sources that India designs to compel the interim caretaker government of Bangladesh to meet some of its strategic demands. The havoc that India creates along her border with Bangladesh since emergency was declared is nothing but a pressure to meet Indian demands. One of such demands is to get the approval of the detoured map of Asian Highway that the immediate past government declined considering the greater eco-strategic interest of the country.

India exercising its influence changed the original map of the Asian Highway that enters Myanmar via Teknaf of Bangladesh. India succeeded in redrawing its map that will come from India and enter India again via Tamabil of Sylhet of Bangladesh. This map is beyond the basic principle of the Asian Highway. One of the basic principles of Asian Highway says that it will not touch a country twice. Moreover, it will connect one capital of a country to the capital of its immediate its neigbouring country. But the redrawn map ignores these principles. It not only technically denies Bangladesh as separate independent sovereign country, but also degrades its to the status of Indian states. Because the changed map does not connect Bangladesh with Myanmar capital direct from Bangladesh. India's basic aim for a detoured Asian Highway is to arrange direct road link through Bangladesh to its troubled Northeastern States. India tried to get corridor facilities through Bangladesh under the cover of transshipment or transit. But the immediate past government considering long-term eco-strategic-military and defence interest declined to provide transshipment facilities or railway link or road link for movement of trucks, etc.

Due to India's negation Bangladesh could not yet restore the original map of Asian Highway. If India does not concede to Bangladesh's demand, yet Bangladesh should not bend down to Indian pressure. Let the Asian Highway be constructed in accordance with Indian prescription without connecting Bangladesh. A detoured Asian Highway will be of no use for Bangladesh or others, even for India. All the vehicles will have to ply about 2,000km detoured and zigzag mountainous and militant infested way and India will never be able to ensure security of the vehicles and crews as well .

One Indian research associate M Amareet Singh, a Research Associate, Institute for Conflict Management of New Delhi uncovered the most accurate and real assessment of the happenings of northeast, particularly of Manipur, through which the India-proposed detoured Asian Highway may pass through. In an article 'Manipur: Highways of Extortion' (available in SAIR: Vol. 4: No. 46: May 22, 2006), he referred to the assassination attempts on Manipur Chief Minister Okram Ibobi Singh on May 17, 2006, while his cavalcade was traveling along National Highway (NH) 39, to Langmeidong in Thoubal District.

The attempt is considered as a sharp reminder of the utter insecurity of Manipur's crucial road links – the State's lifelines. M Amareet Singh said, "While a high-profile ambush on the Chief Minister does make news even now in a State wracked by incessant violence, much of the daily and routine militant activities and innumerable acts of extortion, intimidation and murder pass largely unnoticed under the scanner of public and media attention, particular outside the State. " This is the reality. Indian media deliberately ignores many reports to save the image of the India and its heavyweights in New Delhi. If any happening is reported daily, not only the outsiders, even the locals will believe that India is facing a constant assaults in Northeast, which also undermines its sovereignty and authority on Northeast. Indian media only releases those items, which they cannot bury.

Indians may claim that attack on the chief minister is an abrupt and isolated incident and it may not repeat in future. But how can India say that Northeast is safe for the common people, particularly for those foreign vehicles, which will ply along the most volatile region of the present-day world, if the detoured Asian Highway is constructed to suit India's interest.

India cannot ensure the security of the existing highways. Blockade of highways has been the most common and effective method for militants and agitators to bring pressure on the State Government in landlocked Manipur. But the most uneasy situation the common people, particularly the vehicles that daily face in Manipur and elsewhere in Northeast is highly disturbing. Militants to raise the permanent income took extortion on the highways an easy business. "These two factors, in combination, have made life for the common citizen increasingly unbearable," Singh mentioned in his article.**

Manipur is principally connected by road to the rest of the country and to Myanmar by three National Highways: NH-39, NH-53 and NH-150, totaling 965 kilometres of road through the State. With no rail links, the only other connection is two flights a day, which serve the elite of the State. Of the highways, the Mao-Imphal section (109 km) of NH-39 is the State's main lifeline, its major link route to the outside world. Over 300 trucks ply along this route daily to bring petrol, diesel, cooking gas and other essential items, including food grains, from other parts of the country. In addition, large numbers of passenger buses and private vehicles ply along NH-39. Further, the Imphal-Moreh section (110 km) of NH-39 is also widely used by the trading community to shop at key town of Moreh on the Indo-Myanmar border. Besides, NH-53 connects Imphal to Silchar in Assam (223 km) and NH-150 connects Imphal to Kohima in Nagaland and Aizawl in Mizoram (523 km). (Is Asian Highway Safe? M. Amarjeet Singh: Research Associate, Institute for Conflict Management: SAIR: Vol. 4: No. 46: May 22,2006).

As things stand, extended sections on all these highways operate on the whims of various militant groups. The Mao-Imphal section of NH-39, which passes through the Naga dominated areas of the Senapati District is virtually under the control of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland – Isak-Muivah (NSCN-IM), an outfit that is currently engaged in peace talks with the Union Government, but which operates a widespread and systematic extortion network across both Nagaland and in all Naga-dominated areas in neighbouring States. The Imphal-Moreh section of the NH-39 is similarly under the control of various Kuki militant outfits as well as the NSCN-IM. The poorly manned NH-53 has also been parceled out between various militant groups like the NSCN-IM, NSCN-Khaplang (NSCN-K) and United National Liberation Front (UNLF). Likewise, NH-150 is under the sway of various Kuki and Naga militant groups.

With various militant outfits asserting dominance over extended segments of these highways, the State and its people are perpetually at their mercy. Extortion along these highways is rampant and several militant groups, prominently including the NSCN-IM, impose different rates of 'illegal tax' on commercial vehicles plying on these highways, depending on the value of consignments, at several points marking the transition from one militant group's area of dominance to the next.

On the Dimapur-Mao-Imphal section of NH-39, for instance, the NSCN-IM, according to media reports, charges an oil tanker about INR 3,000 per trip, followed by trucks carrying cooking gas cylinders at about INR 2,000, and those carrying cement, INR 1,000. Besides this, the NSCN-IM charges a truck about INR 7,000 and a tourist bus about INR 12,000 annually as a 'permit fee' to operate in the State. On July 26, 2002, Manipur Chief Minister Okram Ibobi Singh accused NSCN-IM of collecting 'vehicle tax' amounting to INR two hundred to three hundred million annually from vehicles carrying essential items into Manipur through the Dimapur-Mao-Imphal section of NH-39 and the Imphal-Jiribam-Silchar section of NH-53. The NSCN-IM is said to have opened tax collection centres at Mao in Senapati District and Dimapur in Nagaland for the Dimapur-Mao-Imphal section of NH-39; Imphal and Pallel in the Chandel District for the Imphal-Moreh section of NH-39; and None and Nungba in the Tamenglong District for NH-53. (Is Asian Highway Safe? M. Amarjeet Singh: Research Associate, Institute for Conflict Management: SAIR: Vol. 4: No. 46: May 22,2006).

While speaking in the State Legislative Assembly in Imphal on August 4, 2003, Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), Ibomcha Singh, stated that each and every passenger bus plying along the Imphal-Moreh section of NH-39 annually paid a sum of INR 30,000 to various militant groups such as the Kuki National Organisation (KNO), United Kuki Liberation Front (UKLF) and NSCN-IM. He also stated that smaller commercial vehicles paid INR 20,000 annually. (Is Asian Highway Safe? M. Amarjeet Singh: Research Associate, Institute for Conflict Management: SAIR: Vol. 4: No. 46: May 22,2006).

Militant groups have threatened to block the highways on several occasions when the owner's of commercial vehicles refuse to pay the 'revolutionary taxes' demanded. On February 1, 2006, for instance, services of passenger and transport vehicles running along the Imphal-Moreh section of NH-39 were cancelled following the threat of an unidentified militant group to increase the extortion amount collected from vehicle owners.

Insecurity on the highways is compounded by repeated militant attacks on Security Force (SF) and commercial vehicles. As these highways pass along rough hilly terrain, the over-extended SFs can do little to pre-empt attacks. Looting and harassment of commercial and personal vehicles by armed miscreants is also a common occurrence and over 200 cases of looting and dacoity were reported on NH-39 in 2003 and 2004. Some of the more recent and prominent incidents of this nature include:

May 13, 2006: Heavily armed men looted two Manipur-bound passenger buses on the NH-39 at Jakhama in Nagaland.February 15, 2006: Five security force (SF) personnel were wounded in an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) explosion triggered by suspected UNLF cadre along NH-39 at Sangakpham in Imphal East District.September 9, 2005: Unidentified gunmen looted three vehicles along NH-39 at Leingangpokpi area in the Chandel District. August 24, 2005: Unidentified gunmen looted six passenger vehicles plying along the Imphal-Moreh section of NH-39 in the Leingangpokpi area in Chandel District. July 20, 2005: Suspected NSCN-IM militants blew up a bridge along NH-53, located between Khongsang and Noney in Tamenglong District.

There have also been a number of attacks on tankers carrying liquefied petroleum gas and diesel/ petrol over the years. Militancy has also disrupted road construction and maintenance work on these highways, as militants have hijacked vehicles and abducted and harassed construction workers. Work along NH-150 had to be repeatedly stalled because of the State Government's inability to provide adequate security coverage to Border Roads Organisation (BRO) workers. In one incident, four personnel of the Border Roads Task Force (BRTF) were abducted by unidentified militants from a place near Jiribam in the Imphal East District on October 31, 2004. The abductors reportedly demanded INR Five million for their release. They were subsequently released on November 10, 2004. Following that incident, the BRTF suspended road construction and maintenance work from Jiribam to Barak on the NH-53 in 2004. Work only resumed in June 2005 when better security cover was provided.

Frequent blockades by protestors on the highways are another crucial challenge, and these has severely affected the well being of the entire State and led to acute scarcities of essential commodities, including life-saving medicines, on several occasions. Indeed, the blockade of highways has become the most common and effective method of protest adopted by agitating groups in the State to bring pressure on the Government. It is useful, in this context, to recall the 52-day long 'economic blockade' imposed by the All Naga Students' Association of Manipur (ANSAM) from June 19 to August 11, 2005, in protest against the State Government's decision to declare June 18 as 'State Integrity Day' in honour of 18 persons killed while protesting against the extension of ceasefire between the Government of India and the NSCN-IM in Manipur. Surprisingly, the 52-day blockade was followed by another three-day highway blockade from August 10-12, 2005, imposed by the Sadar Hills District Demand Committee demanding a new district in the Sadar Hills of the State. Subsequently, the All Tribal Students' Union of Manipur (ATSUM) imposed an 'indefinite' highway blockade from midnight, May 15, 2006, (which lasted till May 21)) demanding better education facilities in the Hill Districts of Manipur.

Ironically, despite these repeated and disturbing incidents and persistent extortion on the highways, the Manipur State Government fails to initiate effective action to bring the situation under control. An Indian researcher provided all these information. He might have refrained from uncovering further information. What he informed is enough to guess what will happen to the vehicles and crews that will cross the region along the proposed Asian Highway.

On the other hand India will use this highway to squeeze Bangladesh. It may often impose ban on the movement of Bangladeshi vehicles along this highway, which will cause a lot to its economy. India may halt and delay the movement of the Bangladeshis vehicles for days in the name of searching the contrabands in the vehicles.

The detoured highway excluding Bangladesh will remain incomplete. It will not solve Indian problems and Bangladesh will retain its importance both to India and other Southeast Asian nations, if it is not connected with the controversial detoured highway. Bangladesh needs to remain static and rigid to its current position of denying detoured Highway. Rather it should work with patience to implement the original map of the Asian Highway. We should not bend down to Indian pressure or propaganda by its stooges who claim that Bangladesh will lose a lot if it is not connected to Asian Highway prescribed by India. Actually Bangladesh will lose nothing if it remains disconnected with the detoured Asian Highway.

Bangladesh should better try to open a new door of road link through mutual understanding with Myanmar. If it is possible, all the east-bound vehicles will use Bangladesh-Myanmar Highway instead of the detoured Asian Highway through troubled Northeast Indian region. Indian propaganda and pressure should not scare our scare our present policymakers. All types of Indian pressure and conspiracy should be faced with patience and vagour.*

Mohammad Zainal Abedin is an ex freedom fighter, writer and a free lance journalist , Bangladesh
E Mail : noazabd@gmail.com
http://bangladesh-web.com/view.php?hidDate=2007-01-22&hidType=HIG&hidRecord=0000000000000000147626

Posted by: MB444 Jan 27 2007, 03:54 PM

India is directly aiding terrorist and meddling in our affairs. It should be reported to the International court of justice and branded a nation which directly supports and assists terrorists in destabilizing other nations.

Posted by: Maruf Jan 27 2007, 05:16 PM

We cannot stop the Indian intel agencies from aiding the forces inimical to Bangladesh's security. What we can do, however, is spreading our own intel network deep inside India to cultivate good working relations with the forces inimical to India's security. It calls for more budgetary allocation for the DGFI and a change in the operational doctrine to support missions beyond the boundary of Bangladesh.

Posted by: akzaman Jan 28 2007, 08:47 AM

Bangladeshi criminals take refuge in Kolkata: Reports

Dhaka, Jan 28: Most of Bangladesh's underworld dons, wanted criminals and politicians with godfather image have taken refuge in Kolkata, the capital of West Bengal, to escape the on-going police raids, media reports claimed.

Most of the local newspapers ran front page stories over the past one week, mentioning that many of the Bangladeshi criminals were now well established in Kolkata and some other parts of West Bengal, and were running businesses allegedly with the help of their Indian mentors over there.

Slipping of Giasuddin al-Mamun, a close business associate of Tarique Rahman, the eldest son of immediate-past Khaleda Zia her Bangladesh Nationalist Party's senior joint secretary general, to India with the assistance of a section of lawmen from both sides of the border was reported prominently in many newspapers.

Awami League leader Shamim Osman, a bank-loan defaulter businessman Obaidul Karim, ward commissioner Chowdhury Alam, and Monowar Hossain Dipjal are among many others who have crossed the border to India since the army-backed interim government took over on January 12. The government launched a combine operation against the criminals and corrupt people in a bid to free the country's politics from the influence of money and muscle powers.

A Bangla language newspaper, Ajker Kagoj, reported on Saturday from Kolkata that Mamun was being given security by a group of Bangladeshi criminals. The Bangladesh Government had announced bounty a few years ago for capturing him. "Mamun passes his time in holiday mood in Kolkata," headlined the vernacular daily.

New Age, an English language newspaper, reported quoting intelligence sources that Bangladeshi criminals who are now well-established in different places of West Bengal, were providing them with shelter and ensuring their security, using their influence on the local administration Some politicians, who have links with the underworld, and some businessmen, who have amassed huge wealth through illegal means, have managed to cross the border, it said.

"There are dozens others, including criminals, commissioners and political leaders, who have managed to reach Kolkata since the imposition of a state of emergency on January 12," said an underworld operative over telephone from Kolkata.

The New Age reported according to available information, a number of Bangladeshi wanted criminals took shelter in Kolkata over the last few years. The most-wanted criminals Subrata Bain, Khandakar Tanveer Islam Joy, Molla Masud, Haris Ahmed Haris, Kamrul Hasan Hannan (younger brother of the arrested criminal Liakat Hossain), Prakash, Imam Hossain, Aga Shamim, Moshiur Rahman Kochi and Jafar Ahmed Manik are staying in rented houses at Dumdum, Broad Street, Sealdah, Beck Bagan and a few other areas in Kolkata.

These criminals had maintained links mainly with the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the Awami League, and also the politicians who have links with crime and corruption. Many other criminals who got huge money sent to them by their understudies in Dhaka also took refuge to West Bengal and run informal cross border trading between the two countries.

Police say these criminals have been involved in all types of criminal and illegal activities like murder, extortion, mugging, and smuggling of firearms and drugs for decades.

http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?rep=2&aid=350549&sid=SAS

Posted by: akzaman Feb 6 2007, 10:00 AM

India shuns Bangladesh TV Channels:


http://www.amadershomoy.com/news.php?id=133683&sys=3

Posted by: akzaman Feb 12 2007, 11:46 PM

Yunus for Dhaka-Delhi-Islamabad highway link

Pallab Bhattacharya, from Kolkata

Prof Muhammad Yunus has suggested building a highway network connecting India, Pakistan and Bangladesh and introducing "Saarc passports" for people of the member countries of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. The Nobel laureate, now in Kolkata to receive Shera Bangali (Best Bengali) award, made the suggestion addressing a press conference yesterday. He also called for introduction of "Saarc scholarships" at the universities of the region. Replying to a question, Prof Yunus said the deadlock in Indo-Pak relations is holding back strengthening of the spirit of Saarc. "The future of Saarc hinges on improved relations between India and Pakistan. As there is no amicable resolution to the disputes between these two countries, our work as Saarc members is not complete," Yunus, also the founder of Grameen Bank, told the press conference.

On India's repeated charges that fundamentalist and terrorist groups operate against India from Bangladesh, he said "I do not find any endorsement of this view in my country." Yunus, who had expressed his willingness to float a new political party in Bangladesh for the forthcoming elections, said he is awaiting people's response. "If they say 'go ahead,' I will join politics... form a party. I am ready to take this risk. My politics will be to build a new country... set a new trend in politics."

The Nobel laureate said that Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is keen on boosting small credit and has sought his advice on a law being considered by the Indian government for overseeing micro-finance activities in the country. 'The prime minister has sought my advice on the proposed law, which I will give," he said adding there was need for legal framework for promotion of social activity in the country.


"I have also spoken to NABARD (National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development) and RBI (Reserve Bank of India) and a new law is being considered in India for overseeing the micro-finance programmes, which would be done by NABARD." Yunus said that in his discussions with Singh on micro-finance activities in India "we agreed that its pace was slow and needed to be increased."

He said the micro-finance concept in vogue in Bangladesh could also work for India as it involved similar kind of people. At present over 100 million people have benefited from micro-financing across the world. Half of the beneficiaries live in India (34 million) and Bangladesh (16 million), he added. Emphasising the need to spread micro-finance and social business in every walk of life, he called for setting up micro-credit banks in India.
http://www.thedailystar.net/2007/02/13/d7021301085.htm

Posted by: Maruf Feb 16 2007, 05:13 PM

India has bracketed Bangladesh with China and Pakistan in an watch list of foreign investment that could pose potential threat to its national security. The sectors that have been identified as sensitive are telecom, ports, airports, shipping, oil refining and gas pipelines. It is an Indian way to limit the trade and commerce with Bangladesh and other nations. India does not want its neighbours make money from its market.

http://www.newagebd.com/front.html#18

Posted by: akzaman Feb 17 2007, 10:39 PM

India for transit facilities among SAARC countries

India will push forward the issue of transit facilities in the SAARC region as it prepares to take over the chairmanship of SAARC, Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said here Saturday.

"Physical connectivity will open up the channels of communication and transport," he said, inaugurating a 2-day second SAARC Business Leaders Conclave, which will discuss the issue of connectivity among the member states of SAARC.

The SAARC Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCI) organized the business leaders' conference in association with the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) to help set agenda for the SAFTA and SAARC meetings. A 23-member delegation of the Federation of Bangladesh Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FBCCI), led by its president Mir Nasir Hossain, is attending the conference.

Mukherjee said connectivity implies physical connectivity, economic connectivity and a connectivity of people and ideas, while the provision of transit facilities, access to roads, railways, waterways and increased air connectivity are all elements of physical connectivity."As India prepares to take over the chairmanship of SAARC, we would like to move this idea forward in all its aspects," he said.

The 14th SAARC Summit is scheduled to be held April 3-4 in New Delhi following the meetings of SAFTA Committee of Experts (SCOE) and SAFTA Ministerial Council (SMC) of Commerce Ministers in Kathmandu late this month.'"With the 14th SAARC Summit less than two months away, this is an appropriate time to suggest some concrete solutions," the Indian External Affairs Minister said, adding that the Summit would be a landmark one.

He said an important aspect of economic connectivity is freer trade in the region that requires smooth and complete implementation of SAFTA, which could be an important instrument to deepen intra-regional trade if implemented in letter and spirit.

http://nation.ittefaq.com/artman/publish/article_34114.shtml

Posted by: Maruf Feb 19 2007, 04:10 PM

Dhaka agreed to jointly combat terrorism with India and implement Dhaka-Kolkata bus service for better connectivity. I hope both the countries would be able to suppress the shanti bahini terrorists that are being sponsored by the Indian defence and foreign ministries.

http://www.newagebd.com/front.html#1

Posted by: MB444 Feb 19 2007, 06:56 PM

pointless waffling...........even more pointless than my post here!!!!

Posted by: akzaman Feb 19 2007, 10:20 PM

Well, if we could beleive these


Trade barriers to go: Pranab : No water withdrawal from Tipaimukh

India will remove Non-tariff and Para-tariff barriers from Bangladesh goods and import two million pieces of duty free RMG products, as part of friendly gesture.

The next-door big neighbour will also remove restriction from the import of cosmetics from Bangladesh to its market, make Sealdah-Joydevpur passenger train service operational as early as possible to strengthen communications between the two friendly country. Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukharjee disclosed this while talking to journalists at Zia International Airport last evening, winding up a 7-hour visit to Bangladesh yesterday.

He said India neither would withdraw waters from the Tipaimukh dam nor any other common rivers unilaterally jeopardising environment and interests of Bangladesh.

The number two man in the Indian government said during the meeting with his Bangladesh counterpart, Foreign Affairs Adviser Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury, that Dhaka and New Delhi both agreed to take step to place the bilateral relations on an “irreversible higher trajectory.”

He said, “India attaches ‘highest importance’ to its relation with Bangladesh and wants Bangladeshis get the opportunity of electing a government of their own choice in a free, fair, peaceful and credible democratic election.”

Indian External Affairs Minister passed a busy day in Dhaka during his visit when he called on President Prof Dr Iajuddin Ahmed, Chief Adviser Dr Fakhruddin Ahmed and had separate meetings with former Prime Ministers—BNP Chairperson Begum Khaleda Zia and Awami League (AL) President Sheikh Hasina.

He handed over Indian Prime Minister Dr Monmohan Sigh’s invitation to Chief Adviser Dr Fakhruddin Ahmed to attend the 14 th SARRC Summit in New Delhi in next April.

Pranab Mukharjee had an-hour long bilateral meeting with Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury at the state-guest house Padma in Dhaka.

Referring to his talks with Chief Adviser Dr Fakhruddin Ahmed and Foreign Affairs Adviser Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury, the Indian Minister said Bangladesh side offered early operationalization of Sealdah-Joydevpur passenger train service and building a bridge over Raghnacherria River. He said both sides agreed to jointly combat terrorism that poses now a grave challenge to society and threatens the rapid economic development among the SAARC nations. Asked about Dhaka’s concern over the Indian Tipaimukh dam, Pranab Mukharjee said the matter came up during discussion with the Adviser and he assured that India has no intention for diverting waters from the Tipaimuk project. About Tata’s investment and cooperation in the energy sector, he said they did not discuss any individual investment project, but “we discussed expanding economic cooperation and cooperation in various areas, including the energy.” Pranab Mukharjee called for greater connectivity among the SAARC countries to be linked with East Asia and Southeast Asia. “In fact that is one of the objectives of the SAARC summit, and if we can establish the transit facilities among the SAARC countries and going through Bangladesh, we will be able to connect East Asia and South East Asia. And through Afghanistan, we shall have access to Central Asia and West Asia,” he told a questioner. He said he had also discussions with Bangladeshi leaders on early and full implementation of SAFTA for setting up free-trade area in South Asia. He said both sides agreed on establishment of South Asian University as a center of excellence.

Sounding similar note of optimism like that of his Indian counterpart about the Indo-Bangla bilateral relations, Foreign Adviser Dr Iftekhar Ahmed said, “We are working together to take the bilateral relations to a new height so that the future governments both in Bangladesh and India found a solid foundation to move forward.”

He described the Indian External Affairs Minister’s day-long visit to Bangladesh as “most successful.” “I must say, I was pleased that Mr Pranab Mukherjee’s visit to Bangladesh was most successful,” he said in a press statement.Dr Iftekhar who saw off the high-profile Indian Minister at the Zia International Airport, said, “The main purpose of Pranab Mukharjee’s visit was to invite Bangladesh to the 14th SAARC summit.
However, he said both sides took advantage of the occasion to establish the groundwork on a firm footing of relationship that would enable the two countries to address specific bilateral issues.“A wide range of issues were discussed, and it was agreed that what was begun will be continued in the near future,” the Adviser said, adding the ‘important element’ was the spirit of friendship and cordiality that marked this important event. He said Chief Adviser Dr Fakhruddin Ahmed would head the Bangladesh delegation to the SAARC Summit to be held on April 3-4.

Earlier, briefing reporters after his meeting with Pranab Mukharjee at Padma, he said Dhaka has reiterated its position that it would neither allow Indian terrorist or insurgent groups to use Bangladesh territory nor tolerate anti-Indian propaganda.

Dr Iftekhar said both the sides agreed to continue discussions on bilateral issues within the set framework.
Acting Foreign Secretary Tawhid Hossaina and Indian High Commissioner Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty were among others present at the press briefing.

http://nation.ittefaq.com/artman/publish/article_34161.shtml

Posted by: Maruf Feb 23 2007, 03:06 PM

Posted by: Maruf Feb 23 2007, 03:24 PM

The writer seems to have failed to take into consideration the fact that the huge trade volume between India and Bangladesh is not in favour of us. India is the direct beneficiary of Bangladesh's open market economy. Besides he has overestimated the gains of transit/transhipment. He showed the amount of fees that Bangladesh might earn through transit but he failed to consider the cost involved in maintaining the highways through which goods will be transported. Then he blamed Bangladesh for not accepting the India sponsored route for Asian Highway. He should know that the route that goes through Tamabil will only jeopardize Bangladesh's business competitiveness due to 700 km. extra distance.

http://www.thedailystar.net/strategic/2007/02/04/strategic.htm

Posted by: Maruf Feb 24 2007, 03:02 PM

The writer advised Bangladesh to use international law to resolve bilateral problems and be sensitive to India's security concerns as a means to forge deep strategic relations with India. What baffles me is that, the writer did not outline India's responsibility to remove Bangladesh's fear that India is not respectful enough about Bangladesh's sovereignty. How can Bangladesh use international laws to resolve bilateral problems when India showed extreme disregard to such laws in the past? India's direct help for the insurgents in CHT is a grave security concern for Bangladesh but the writer did not even mention this.

http://www.thedailystar.net/2007/02/25/d70225020326.htm

Posted by: Maruf Feb 26 2007, 03:51 PM

The writer suggested that India should pay more attention to Bangladesh's legitimate economic, security, and environmental concerns to forge a long lasting strategic relationship. He thinks both the neighbours should resolve their differences in an amicable manner for common benefit.

http://www.thedailystar.net/2007/02/27/d702271501130.htm

Posted by: akzaman Mar 3 2007, 12:53 AM

Lack of transit facility stands in way of Nepal-Bangla trade thru' Banglabandh

The government's plan to increase the volume of trade between Nepal and Bangladesh through the Banglabandh landport by establishing a direct road link seems to be a distant dream, sources said.Both Bangladesh and Nepal need transit facilities from India for establishing the direct road link before making the Banglabandh landport functional to boost trade between the two countries, they observed.

An expert, however, told the FE Friday that opening the landport only for trade with India in large volume would not yield much benefit, unless the big neighbour allowed Nepal and Bangladesh the transit facilities.
"We have written to the Ministry of Commerce and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to take up the matter for discussion at the earliest," said a high official of Bangladesh Land Port Authority (BLPA).Requesting anonymity, he said presently trade through this border is being conducted on a transshipment basis as the Indian authority allows Nepalese trucks up to the zero point.

Both India and Bangladesh need to reach a consensus on establishing railway links on both sides of the border, a source said, adding that the same type of rail line--broad gauge or meter gauge-should be established on either side of the border to facilitate easier rail communication.Importing essential commodities from Nepal and nearby countries to supply the same at lower cost will be more beneficial, according to the sources.

However, functioning of Birol landport, one of the country's 13 landports, is also hanging in the balance due to a problem involving India. However, sources said the Hili landport in bordering Dinajpur and the Bibir Bazar landport in the bordering area of Comilla will start operation by June this year under the supervision of private operators.

Presently, two landports, one at Teknaf in Cox's Bazar and another at Sonamasjid in Chapainawabganj, are being run by private operators while the Benpole landport in Jessore is under the government's supervision. According to sources, the process for appointing private operators for five more landports on the Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis is also under process.

The landports are at Bhomra in Satkhira, Burimari in Lalmonirhat, Haluaghat in Mymensingh, Tamabil in Sylhet and Akhaura in Brahmanbaria.On completion of handover of these landports, the authority will move to appoint private operators for the remaining landports including that at Darshana in Chuadanga, said a source.

With the start of functioning of these landports, the country's cross border trade with the neighbouring countries will increase to a large extent, which would boost the revenue earnings, said A T M Mustafa Kamal, joint secretary and member (traffic) of the BLPA.
http://www.financialexpress-bd.com/index3.asp?cnd=3/3/2007&section_id=1&newsid=54241&spcl=no

Posted by: Maruf Mar 6 2007, 07:27 PM

The speakers blamed mistrust between the two nations for slow progress in establishing a deep strategic relation. They asked the media of both the nations to play a constructive role to remove suspicion. They also observed that cultural cohabitation and geographical proximity can act as a driving force to draw the people of both the countries even closer.

http://www.newagebd.com/nat.html#2

Posted by: MB444 Mar 7 2007, 02:49 PM

The CPD is a treacherous thinktank with some clearly anti-state philosophy. It is therefore hardly surprising to see them organising such preposterous meet.......

Posted by: Maruf Mar 9 2007, 03:44 PM

Posted by: Maruf Mar 9 2007, 03:47 PM

The writer is very optimistic about a close strategic relationship between Bangladesh and India. He urged the politicians of both the nations to demonstrate honesty and sincerity to remove the irritants that soured the bilateral relation.

http://www.thedailystar.net/strategic/2007/03/02/strategic.htm

Posted by: Maruf Mar 10 2007, 06:14 PM

The Indian foreign minister has informed the parliament that 893 Indians are languishing in different jails in Bangladesh. These Indians were involved in various anti social activities.

http://www.newagebd.com/front.html#20

Posted by: akzaman Mar 20 2007, 02:32 AM

India for ending restriction on overland trade:Seeks transit with Bangladesh to link its north

New Delhi, Mar 19: India Monday urged the SAARC nations to end all restrictions on "overland" trade in the subcontinent to help South Asia emerge as one of the fastest-growing regions in the world, reports UNB."It is regrettable that South Asian nations have denied each other basic transit rights for overland trade in goods. Some of our neighbours support movement of goods one way, but oppose two-way transit arrangements," Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said at a Regional Conference on Economic Cooperation in SAARC."We believe that entire region stands to benefit if we end all restrictions on overland trade among the nations of the region," he told the meet.

The foreign minister said that India is keen to have transit arrangements with Bangladesh to link up with their northeastern region. "Positive response to this possibility would allow our neighbour to simultaneously leverage the growing strength of the Indian market as well as their own geographic location. Comprehensive transit arrangement in South Asia will see everyone win and no one lose," he told his audience.

Mukherjee noted that the SAARC region has to become dynamic component of the larger process of regional cooperation and globalisation-it could not remain "disconnected with itself". It must bring about economic integration amongst the member-countries and then with regional organisations. Otherwise, it runs the risk of being left far behind by other regional groups, he said.

He also expressed concern over Pakistan''s "non- compliance" of the South Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA) and hoped that Islamabad would revise its position to ensure that international commitments that it has undertaken are complied with. "Otherwise SAFTA and the process of regional economic cooperation will continue to remain fragile."

The Minister was also optimistic about launching "truck trade" between Srinagar and Muzzafarabad. After many years border trade has once again resumed between Sikkim and Tibet on the Sino-Indian border.
He said that it is in India''s national interest to see South Asia prosper. "As the fastest-growing economy, India has the potential to become a growth opportunity for all our neighbours."

Meanwhile, Indian State Minister for Commerce Jairam Ramesh, after inaugurating Bangladesh Fair in Agartala, assured Bangladesh that all non-tariff barriers (NTB) on its import would be reduced to correct a huge imbalance in the two-way trade."India is also ready to consider a proposal to remove Bangladesh from the negative list of nations which are barred from investing in the country," he said after inaugurating the Bangladesh Fair in the capital of Tripura State.

India has already addressed Bangladeshi concern about NTB on export of famous Jamdani Saris and Hilsa fish. For this, India has allowed duty-free import of 8 million pieces of garments from Bangladesh, the function was told."This shows our (India''s commitment) for moving towards the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA)," said Jairam Ramesh.

He hoped that the issue might figure during the upcoming SAARC summit as it would provide an opportunity to Indian and Bangladeshi leaders to hold meeting on bilateral matters on the sidelines of the summit.The summit would provide a great opportunity to signal a new economic
cooperation with Bangladesh and Pakistan by removing these two neighbouring countries from the FDI negative list.

However, the Minister said that India could retain the right toexamine all proposals from these countries on case-to-case basis to allay the fears of the security forces."We are committed to removing all non-trade barriers, but in the long run, their elimination alone won''t be enough to increase Bangladeshi
exports to India," said the state minister for commerce.

The government is also focussing on increase in connectivity with Bangladesh. The Indian government has earmarked 150 million dollars
to improve rail connectivity with Bangladesh, he informed the function.

Bangladesh road organisation has also taken up construction of Bridge at Raghnachera. This would help increase trade between the two countries which has touched 3-billion mark.

http://www.newstoday-bd.com/frontpage.asp?newsdate=#4799

Posted by: Maruf Apr 13 2007, 02:11 PM

The writer urged the Indian policymakers to reconsider the decision to fence the entire Indo-Bangla border for the sake of cultivating deeper strategic relations with Bangladesh. He is of the opinion that without strong people to people contact, the state to state relations will never flourish.

http://www.thedailystar.net/strategic/2007/04/02/strategic.htm

Posted by: deshpremik Apr 19 2007, 03:07 PM

http://www.newagebd.com/edit.html

Rahul Gandhi’s infantile innuendo

‘You know that when any member of my family had decided to do anything, he does it. Be it the freedom struggle, the division of Pakistan or taking India to the 21st century,’ boasted Rahul Gandhi, the heir apparent of the Nehru-Gandhi political dynasty, on April 15 at a public meeting during his ‘Jan Sampark’ (public relations) programme for the Uttar Pradesh assembly elections. In other words, he believes his family was responsible for the division of Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh in 1971. Rahul’s remark — infantile and insensitive as it is — suggests that he is either divorced from, or delusional about, the history of the subcontinent in general and Bangladesh in particular.

The nine-month bloody struggle that led to the emergence of Bangladesh was the culmination of a people’s struggle for independence that began way back in 1948 with the public outrage against a plan of the West Pakistan-based ruling elite to impose Urdu as the state language on the Bangla-speaking majority. The initial outcry gathered momentum and became a full-blown language movement in 1952. Then came the education movement in 1962, the autonomy movement in 1966, the people’s uprising in 1969 and the 1970’s resounding popular verdict for the legitimate right of the majority Bengalis to rule Pakistan, which was brutally denied by the West Pakistan-based military junta.

Therefore, Rahul Gandhi’s attempt to hijack the credit of a nation’s prolonged pursuit of independence, which culminated in a bloody armed struggle, may seem politically infantile but comes nonetheless as a serious affront to those named and unnamed millions who either laid down their lives or underwent endless days and nights of torture and trauma. He would be well-advised to understand the fact it was primarily the Bengalis of all strata — peasants and labourers, teachers and students, members of the police and the army — who fought and won the war. It is, however, not to say that we disregard the crucial support India provided us with during those days, particularly in terms of giving shelter to some ten million refugees, providing military training to our freedom fighters and, of course, a good number of Indian soldiers sacrificing their lives in the collaborative war against the occupation army of Pakistani.

Regrettably, Rahul Gandhi is not the only one among the Indian elite to have such a delusional view of the independence of Bangladesh. That he is not has been amply proved by the absence of any meaningful protest against his remark from the Indian political establishment and, more pointedly, by the statement of Abhishek Singhvi, a spokesperson for Congress, who said: ‘Viewed holistically in sum, substance, essence and spirit, Rahul Gandhi said and did nothing wrong.’ That India had a geopolitical interest in dismantling Pakistan, which was evident once again in Rahul’s statement, is stating the obvious. The people of Bangladesh had ample reason to understand it in 1971, and the post-independence generation has no reason to miss it. But what the Indian political establishment apparently love to ignore is the fact that it is not unprecedented in history that the popular aspiration of a country has matched the geopolitical interest of another. There is no denying the fact that the division of Pakistan served the geopolitical interest of India. But to suggest that the Bengalis fought and won the independence war to serve India’s geopolitical interest is simply ludicrous.

People like Rahul Gandhi must realise that such a condescending attitude towards Bangladesh is the biggest impediment to the good relations between the next-door neighbours, which is very important for the peoples of both the countries. If the Indian elite really want the Indo-Bangla relations to improve, they have to forsake such an attitude.

Posted by: akzaman Apr 30 2007, 08:30 AM

We Divided Pakistan - Rahul Gandhi

In a shocking development, Rahul Gandhi showed his amateurism and inexperience in Indian politics, when he proudly announced that his family divided Pakistan. Rahul's statement not only created a political storm in India, but also it gave Pakistan a shot in arms to accuse India of playing subversive activities on its soil.

Although the 1971 Bangladesh war was wide open and everyone knew who was involved, India never admitted openly that it divided Pakistan. India always maintained that it just supported the "freedom fighters".

Rahul made this unprecedented remark while campaigning in Bareilly. This is the second time he made such a controversial remark. It can be recalled that he made a similar remark on the Babri demolition a few days back. It clearly shows his arrogance and monarchic attitude, as he gives the credit for India's growth to Gandhi family, not to the Congress Party.

It is an irony that the sycophants in Congress support and defend everything Rahul and Gandhi family say and do. The whole episode again proved that Congress is unable to survive without the "Gandhi" tag.

http://breakingnewsonline.blogspot.com/2007/04/we-divided-pakistan-rahul-gandhi.html

Posted by: akzaman Apr 30 2007, 08:51 AM

Bangladesh-India relations Addressing irritants head on

Recent statements of Manmoham Singh during the last Saarc summit give hope for better Indo-Bangla relations, providing action replaces rhetoric

by BRIG GEN AHM ABDUL MOMEN (RETD)

Bangladesh's Adviser for Foreign Affairs described the outcome of the Saarc Summit as “superb” while briefing the newsmen on return from New Delhi, India. Terming the Fakhruddin -Manmohan meeting as productive, Iftekhar said they raised Bangladesh’s three concerns – demarcation of over 6.5 km of boundary; sharing Teesta River waters and India’s Tipaimukh dam; and tariffs on Bangladeshi exportable items.

The Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said, while addressing at the India Today Conclave, “I want India to be more open to all our neighours. I want our neighbours to feel secure and confident that in India they have a well-wisher. We see their prosperity as a guarantee of our own prosperity. The destiny of the people of South Asia is interlinked and interdependent.”

To the above, I may add that after each and every meeting, whether it is the Saarc Summit, Prime Ministers' meetings, Foreign Ministers' meetings or even the meeting of the two countries' Border Force Chiefs, high hopes are raised about the resolution of the existing unresolved issues through very positive statements. However, even before the ink dries, things happen which just contradict the statements of these leaders.

A perusal of the events since 1974 would present before us a very different picture from the hopes expressed by the Prime Minister of India. It is hoped that with Manmohan Singh, there will a change of mind through the implementation of the long outstanding issues between the two neighbours. One of Mr. Manmohan Singh’s proposals about open borders of the Saarc countries has just been given a manifestation though the recent car rally. It was indeed a great event and this proved that given an open mindset, issues can be resolved and peace and tranquility along the countries borders will prevail.

Further to this, Manmohan Singh unilaterally announced concessions to South Asian neighbours without reciprocity. These are, as an immediate step, India announcing a unilateral liberalization of visas for students, teachers, professors, journalists and patients from Saarc countries. India is ready to accept asymmetrical responsibilities, opening her markets to her South Asian neighbours without insisting on reciprocity. India’s long–standing policy of strict reciprocity seems to have been put aside this time.

In this respect, I may remind the readers about the “Gujral Doctrine” of the former Prime Minister of India who writes about it in his book titled A Foreign Policy of India (1998). . He writes, "The Gujral doctrine, if I may call it so, states that first with reighbours like Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka, we do not ask reciprocity but give what we can in good faith.”

India so long insisted on reciprocity but it appears that the ice has started melting.

Bangladesh on her part in good faith ratified the Indira-Mujib Treaty of 1974 and physically handed over Berubari enclave to India but till the writing of this article, India is yet to reciprocate. The Bangladeshis living in 25 square km area in Dahagram-Angarpotha enclave are having a very difficult living even when agreed to partial implementation after two decades. The Teen Bigha corridor remains open for 12 hours (only during the day) and even the most serious patients are not allowed to be taken to mainland for proper treatment. The health complex in the enclave remains useless for lack of electric power and the futile effort to lay a power cable through Teen Bigha corridor is yet another act of impediment in the blossoming of good relation between these two neighbours.

Chief Adviser Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed, during his meeting with Manmohan Singh, called for the demarcation of little over 6.5 km undemarcated boundary as this will have a positive impact on the existing relations between the two countries.

Sharing of waters of common rivers remains another most volatile area and this needs sincere and urgent attention of the authorities concerned to resolve before aggravating further. In fact, the news of the proposed Indian plan of linking the rivers to meet the requirement of barren areas has further upset the lower riparian areas and Bangladesh in particular. It may be pointed out here that the request of late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi for a trial run of the Ganges was duly honored but the trial run became permanent.

The occupation of Talpatty Island by the Indian Navy is a point to ponder as how to bring about amity between these two neighbours.

The demarcation of both land and maritime boundary remains a thorn in the relation between these two neighbours.

The trade imbalance is natural as India happens to be the 10th industrialized country of the world and has everything to offer and Bangladesh is yet to develop her industrial capacity. In spite of this huge differences between these two countries, India is putting up one tariff barrier or the other when exports from Bangladesh hardly will fill a small portion of Indian market. Qualitatively most of these products have an edge because of imported raw materials. Even Bangladeshi products will be competitive in NEFA vis-à-vis Indian products but there is no formal trading taking place.

India’s products are reaching Bangladeshi markets in large volumes through informal channels thus depriving Bangladesh of huge foreign exchange. Of course, Bangladesh has to tighten her borders against such irregular entry.

In respect of criminals and most wanted persons, both sides have to decide sincerely not to provide safe haven in each others’ countries.

Only the actual implementation of all these agreements will ensure that the meetings will not simply remain as exercises in rhetoric as in the past.
http://probenewsmagazine.com/index.php?index=2&contentId=2469&PHPSESSID=2da5f3f26a286b4d56d406319f80a2e7

Posted by: akzaman May 4 2007, 09:44 PM

'71 war: Senior ex-army men criticise Lt Gen Jacob's claims

LT Gen jfr Jacob's (retd) recent claims to have bypassed the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war plan drawn up by then Chief of Army Staff Gen Sam Manekshaw and heading off on his own to capture Dhaka without his approval have drawn sharp criticism from the former defence personnel.

Major General (Retd) Himmat Singh Gill, who was posted at the Military Operations Directorate at Army Headquarters, Delhi, during the 1971 war terms it a fairytale story weaved by Jacob and an attempt to get the credit he least deserves.

"Jacob was only a Chief of Staff at the time of 1971 war and not a Commander. Lt General (Retd) Jagjit Singh Aurora was the Field Commander for the war and its only the Field Commander would win a war or lose one. Role of General Jacob was very much under the supervision of the Army Commander and to say today that he won the war on his own is not correct," said Major Gen Gill (retd).

He further added that it is "also debatable whether the moving of 3 Infantry Brigades from the China border did not open up a flank which Chinese could have exploited had they wanted to put pressure on India at that time."

Brig (Retd) Harwant Singh says that any war plan is subject to modification with the change in circumstances during a war. "No plan is followed in toto and is initially drawn with the perspective of the enemy. They change with the opportunity available. Even if we agree that Dhaka was not in the original plan then it must have been included when the opportunity appeared to capture it. Sam Manekshaw was a great general and he had to look after not only the war but also the international opinion and many other aspects," Brig Singh said. He added that at the highest level directions and instructions are given and very rarely are orders given. "Orders cannot be disobeyed but instructions give you a lot of flexibility," Singh said. Brig M S Aggarwal (retd) said that raking up an issue after 35 years when FM Maneksahw is not in the position to comment is highly deplorable.

"All this is not befitting of a man of Gen Jacob's stature. Certainly he is doing it to gain cheap publicity and is in very bad taste," Brig Aggarwal said.

Col (Retd) V S Sodhi who took part in the 1971 war questioned the credibility of the claims made by Jacob. "Chief of Army Staff would give orders to the Field Commander Jagjit Singh Aurora and not COS Jacob. To say that he disobeyed Sam's order is beyond any reasoning. I guess Jacob is doing it for limelight and nothing else," Col Sodhi sad.

Col Angad Singh (retd) too agreed with the lot. "If any mishap had happened during the war Sam would have been responsible and not Jacob. During 1962 debacle Gen Thapar had to go. So to say that he won the war for the country on his own is an exaggeration," said Singh.

http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=234516

Posted by: akzaman May 4 2007, 09:46 PM

'India could revert to pre-1947 state'

New Delhi, April 22: Bogged down by internal and external security threats, India could revert to its pre-independence territories if divisive trends are not firmly arrested and reversed, a defence analyst has said.

Naxalism and insurgency affected "more than 40 per cent" of India's territory, while psychological fragmentation over language, religion, caste or region had spread due to vote- bank politics, "resulting in overwhelming regional pressures in determining our foreign policy", Capt (retired) Bharat Verma said in an editorial in Indian Defence Review.

Painting a grim picture of the security situation in and around the country, he said the writ of state governments were being "rolled back towards their respective state capitals by Naxalites" while the entire land border was facing different threats.

"Despite India's pretensions of an emerging great power, its influence is shrinking -- both internally as well as on its external periphery," he said.

Observing that these negative and divisive trends need to be immediately arrested firmly and reversed, Verma said India could otherwise face the prospect of "reverting to its pre-independence status of splintered territories, principalities and fiefdoms ruled by feudals and their private militias who may well seek outside military support to subjugate their kith-turned-adversaries".

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=85283#compstory

Posted by: Maruf May 4 2007, 09:56 PM

Posted by: akzaman May 4 2007, 10:01 PM

Dhaka - Kolkata train service unlikely to begin before early 2008

Is the proposed Kolkata-Dhaka train service prelude to transit facility to Tripura and Agartala? That will fulfill the long-drawn plan of New Delhi to have an easy access to her seven sisters in the east, which are fighting for greater autonomy on independence.
The over-enthusiasm of the Indian government in opening the train service is understandable. About six weeks ago a senior official told an Indian TV channel that "Train service to Bangladesh will start shortly; we will start going to Joydevpur on the first of Baishak (14 April).
That was immediately dismissed by officials in Dhaka. The joint secretary of the communication ministry who was engaged in discussions with Indian counterparts on train service said no date was fixed. Now again Indian officials are speculating that the train service will be opened in mid-July. But officials in Dhaka say it is unlikely before early next year when Shialdah station in Kolkata will be connected with Dhaka railway station.
Railway link between Kolkata and Goalunda in Faridpur district existed until it was suspended during the 1965 Indo-Pakistan war. At the time Goalunda was well linked with Narayanganj with adequate steamer service. Those heydays are gone and Narayanganj has lost all its significance as the nerve centre of commercial connectivity because of the river communication system. Now the proposed train service from Kolkata is to enter through Darshana and reach Dhaka over the Jamuna Bridge.
How Bangladesh and India will benefit from resumption of train service with Kolkata after 42 years? Skeptics as well as customs and immigration officials at Darshana in Chuadanga district apprehend that the train services are likely to accelerate cross border smuggling and easy movement of terrorists from either sides.
The officials identify gold, brass metals, costly statues, imported fuel oil and fertilizer as the main items to be smuggled from Bangladesh. A report from Chuadanga last Tuesday said that a clearing and forwarding agent, also local BNP leader, was shot dead by unknown gunmen. Neighbours suspect that he was involved in the smuggling of 18kg gold to India in the recent past. Police are investigating into the alleged gold smuggling.
Phensidyl, drug, cosmetics, cloth, and cattle are the main items come from the other side. Cattle, however, cannot be smuggled in trains.
Thousands of Bangladeshi nationals go to India every year but few Indians come to visit Bangladesh. The train service will provide them an easy, less costly mode of transportation and more Bangladeshi nationals are likely to avail the facility. According to an estimate about Tk 3,000 crore (about US$435 million) is being spent by the Bangladeshi nationals in medical treatment alone per year in India. The affluent guardians of Bangladeshi students send them to India to study in peaceful academic environment and also spend an equal amount each year for the purpose. The guardians believe too much politics involving the teachers and students in our educational institutions could spoil the future of their wards.
"You will find most Bangladeshi nationals to avail the Dhaka-Kolkata train service. Few Indians will come and go," said an official at Dhaka railway station. Then why Bangladesh is agreeing to resume the train service? Is it to boost smuggling, transborder movement of terrorists, more people going for medical treatment and students for studying in India?
A senior immigration official however expressed caution. "The ultimate goal of India is to extend the train service to Tripura and Agartala. India is a big country and can always mount pressure on us. Any weak government may give in," said the official requesting not to identify him.
However, analysts feel that one thing is certain: people of Bangladesh are conscious. They will never allow rise of Lendup Dorji, an accursed leader of Sikkim who led the accession of Sikkim to India in the early 70s.

http://www.weeklyholiday.net/front.html#05

Posted by: akzaman May 21 2007, 11:37 PM

India, Bangladesh need extradition treaty: Chakravarty

Shillong, May 21: India and Bangladesh need to build trust and
cooperation to counter terrorism in both the countries, a senior Indian
diplomat said today.

''We need to build trust and co-operation including common initiative to
counter terrorism and intelligence sharing,'' Indian High Commissioner
to Bangladesh, Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty, told.

Chakravarty, who is on an official visit to Shillong said, ''India
wishes to see Bangladesh as a prosperous country and that can happen
only if both the countries mutually agree to extend cooperation and
understanding.''

He stressed on the necessity of developing infrastructure and
connectivity. ''If Bangladesh prospers, cross-border movement, whether
it is influx or crime will come down,'' he asserted.

''New Delhi has been suggesting Dhaka to have extradition treaty and
mutual legal assistance,'' he said.

The caretaker government of Bangladesh had been helping India in
tracking the insurgents. ''It (government) acted against the
Indian-based insurgents in Bangladesh and few of the Bodo militants were
arrested from Sherpur district (Bangladesh)'', Chakravarty said.

He stressed on the need for extradition treaty. ''In absence of this
treaty, both the countries find difficult to get back criminals. It is
time that both New Delhi and Dhaka sign an extradition pact to ensure
justice,'' Chakravarty suggested.

He informed that India would again request Bangladesh to handover Anup
Chetia, a key-ULFA leader. Chetia, arrested in Dhaka by the previous
government on charges of illegal stay and possessing forged documents,
was released from jail on completion of his term in February 2003.

Bureau Report Zee News
<http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?aid=372461&sid=NAT>

Posted by: akzaman May 23 2007, 01:58 AM

Hyderabad Blast:Foreign adviser trashes Indian media reports

Foreign Affairs Adviser Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury yesterday dismissed reports appeared in a few Indian newspapers recently that some Bangladeshis were involved in planning and execution of recent bombing in the Indian city of Hyderabad.

"The accusation is purely speculative and unsubstantiated. Finger pointing of this kind without adequate proof is extremely unhelpful to the spirit of good neighbourliness," Iftekhar told the media at his office. He asserted, "Bangladesh condemns all terrorist activities" and reiterated that terrorists have no nationality whatsoever.

A number of Indian newspaper reports have linked the May 18 bombing in Hyderabad with an Indian militant group who allegedly imported chemical from Bangladesh and used Bangladesh territory to execute the bombing.

Meanwhile, Bangladesh has pledged US $1 million, in cash and kind, to flood-stricken Maldives after Chief Adviser Fakhruddin Ahmed called Maldives President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom to express his sympathy to flood victims.

http://www.thedailystar.net/2007/05/23/d70523012414.htm

Posted by: akzaman May 27 2007, 10:37 PM

Dhaka-Kolkata train likely to start in Aug

Workers of Bangladesh Railway turn the metre-gauge lines into dual-gauge at Khilkhet in the capital to facilitate Dhaka-Kolkata direct train service which is likely to begin from August.

The Dhaka-Kolkata direct passenger train via Darshana might start operating from August.Members of recently formed technical and commercial committees comprising high railway officials from Bangladesh and India are reviewing necessary preparations regarding the service, officials concerned said.
Following two meetings between delegations of the two countries, the high officials are now negotiating the finer details. Laying of broad gauge tracks from Joydevpur to Kamalapur in Bangladesh is almost finished, sources said. "The new broad gauge line up to Dhaka Cantonment from Joydevpur is complete. Right now trains from Shialdaha railway station can directly come to Cantonment station. But we have not decided yet whether trains will commute between Joydevpur and Shialdaha or between Cantonment and Shialdaha," said Shafiqul Alam Khan, director of public relations of Bangladesh Railway.

Policy level details are being worked out now, including accommodating the immigration and custom departments, fixing the fare, the sizes of trains and the number of passengers they will be able to carry. According to a proposal, there will be three categories of fares of $8, $12 and $20. Bangladesh will keep 78 percent of the revenue while India will get the rest, as the distance between Shialdaha and the Bangladesh border is 120 kilometres while the length of the rail track in Bangladesh territory is 418 kilometres.

A 10-coach train with the capacity of carrying a total of 760 passengers will commute everyday. The train will start at 7:45am from Bangladesh towards India and at 7:00am from Shialdaha to Bangladesh. "If immigration checks are conducted at the station then it will take eight hours to reach Kolkata. But if the check is conducted at the border, then it will take no less than 11 hours," said Shafiqul Alam Khan. "But decisions are not finalised yet. If both governments agree then the decisions will be finalised at a joint meeting," Shafiqul said. Bangladeshi crews on board a train will ride up to the border and will come back on board the train coming from India, while the Indian crews will come to the border and go back with the passengers going to India.

Meanwhile our Delhi correspondent reports quoting Indian Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Jadav that conversion of the narrow gauge tracks into broad gauge is completed in India. "The Dhaka-Kolkata rail link will be ready by August this year," Prasad told a delegation of 35 civil service officers from Bangladesh in Delhi on Wednesday, Indian railway ministry officials said. He also said India agreed to provide a $150 million credit line to Bangladesh to upgrade railway tracks here.


Governments of the two countries signed a deed regarding the Bangladesh-India railway link in 2001 during the regime of Awami League government. But the work stalled during BNP-Jamaat-led four-party alliance government's rule. Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukharjee raised the issue again while visiting Dhaka after the current interim government had taken over the reins of Bangladesh, eliciting positive interest about the project from the Bangladesh government.

http://www.thedailystar.net/2007/05/28/d7052801044.htm

Posted by: Maruf May 29 2007, 03:07 PM

Isn't it the best time for Bangladesh to remind India of its involvement in the insurgency in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh? The so called "Shanti Bahini" gets weapons, traning, and political support from the Indian government establishment. Why is the Bangladesh government not communicating its displeasure over this matter?

http://www.thedailystar.net/2007/05/30/d70530012814.htm

Posted by: akzaman Jun 8 2007, 10:37 PM

Book Review: INDIA DOCTRINE

http://www.daily-dinkal.com/details.php?nid=4482&pubdate=2007-06-09

Posted by: akzaman Jun 19 2007, 01:56 AM

Why Manmohan Singh supports Bangladesh Govt


http://www.dailynayadiganta.com/fullnews.asp?News_ID=28123&sec=1

Posted by: Maruf Jun 19 2007, 09:33 AM

QUOTE(akzaman @ Jun 18 2007, 11:56 PM)

Posted by: Maruf Jun 25 2007, 05:28 PM

Bangladesh has its own laws to deal with mis-guided politicians. I think our neighbours have no role to play in the campaign against mis-use of power and corruption in Bangladesh. Whatever is happening in Bangladesh is an internal matter and this is very unfriendly and hostile to poke nose into our affairs. We must do our best to ensure amicable coexistence and refrain from doing something that has the potential to jeopardize the friendly relation. Hope our neighbours get the message.

http://nation.ittefaq.com/artman/publish/article_37094.shtml

Posted by: Maruf Jun 26 2007, 04:16 PM

There is nothing out of ordinary if two close neighbours of South Asia agree to cooperate in the field of security to combat terrorism. But we get worried when one party seeks cooperation from the other without reciprocal commitment to help the latter. It is a common knowledge that India has been arming and sheltering the forces inimical to Bangladesh's sovereignty. In the report below, we did not find India's commitment to help Bangladesh to neutralize the military wing of Shanti Bahini. There are many convicted criminals from Bangladesh who got safe asylum in India. It was also not clear from the report whether India was willing to deport those criminals or not.

http://www.newagebd.com/front.html#9

Posted by: akzaman Jun 26 2007, 09:59 PM

India's pressure on Bangladesh

Mohammad Zainal Abedin

Shib Sankar Menon, the home secretary of India, reached Dhaka on June 24 on a two-day visit, mainly to put pressure on Bangladesh on many sensitive issues, particularly to protect pro-India politicians in the country. It is learnt that during his two-day stay in Dhaka, the Indian Home Secretary will mainly focus on those issues that India thinks are related to India's security and vital interests. But India will ignore to talk on those outstanding problems and issues that India imposed on us over the last 36 years.

India through her diplomatic channel and media for baseless reason shows that she is seriously annoyed and feels embarrassed for those steps that the incumbent caretaker government takes internally. Menon is came to Dhaka to convey India's deep concerns and disappointment on various issues.

India is not satisfied with the performances of the incumbent caretaker government. Initially India took the incumbent as "friendly and cooperative." India even went on saying the caretaker government is more dynamic and realistic in comprehending India's demand and desire. India's allies in Bangladesh openly declared that the incumbent caretaker government was the outcome of their movement. But the tone of India and its allies in Bangladesh changed overnight when India sensed that the government virtually, according to India, did not provide any "concession" to India that disappoints India most. Menon is sure to take strong position in dealing with his Bangladesh counterpart. Besides, Menon is carrying strong-worded notes from South Block, as India is not whole-heartedly pleased with the performance of Bangladesh government.

On militant issue, Menon may raise the alleged involvement of Bangladeshi nationals in the recent bomb blast inside Mecca Mosque of Hyderabad. He will also raise India's traditional allegation how ISI-financed agents use Bangladesh territory to sneak to India and escape what India says after committing subversive activities. Menon may place some recent evidence on the issue.

Memon will also reiterate India's serious concerns on anti-India tendency in Bangladesh. Menon may refer to intelligence reports how alleged anti-India militants are reorganising a number of cells in the southwestern districts of Bangladesh, particularly, Narail, Khulna and Jessore, adjoining Indian border. But he will remain mum and ignore those issues that India imposed on Bangladesh and anti the Bangladesh activities that are continued inside India.

Indian side will express its deep disappointment over Bangladesh's virtual rejection of TATA investment in Bangladesh, a proposal virtually put forwarded by Indian government. The other issues that will get priority in the meeting are railway transit and gas pipeline from Myanmar through Bangladesh, which are declined by the immediate-past alliance government. He expects favourable official declaration from Bangladesh that tri-nation gas pipeline passes through Bangladesh.

Menon may also indirectly convey this message that India does not find any difference between the performances of former alliance government of Begum Khaleda Zia and the present caretaker government of Dr. Fakharuddin Ahmed.

If Menon finds the attitude of Bangladesh favourable in getting assurance of gas pipeline or railway transit, he sure to convey the message that India is extremely worried over the future and security of India's allies in Bangladesh. He may directly raise the latest political scenario of Bangladesh, particularly government's unfriendly behaviour with Bangladesh Awami League (AL) and its supremo Sheikh Hasina. Indian anxiety surfaced due to the crackdown on AL leaders and restriction on Sheikh Hasina's free movement.

India now feels that the government not only declines India's demand, but it also tries to minus AL, the trusted ally of India, by launching crackdown on it.

The recent arrest of AL leaders and the information that they are leaking out during their interrogation regarding Sheikh Hasina's relation with Indian intelligence agency RAW, worried India most. India fears that its long investment behind AL will be at stake if AL's image withers away due to the leakage of information that AL and its chief maintain with Indian agency. This will surely make AL's politics difficult in Bangladesh.

Knowledgeable observers and some dailies opine that Indian foreign secretary visits Dhaka mainly to put pressure on the government to avert Sheikh Hasia's political disaster and probable arrest. Uncovering the reason of India's anxiety, they said, if Sheik Hasina is arrested, the secrecies between Sheikh Hasina and India may be leaked out during the interrogation, and that will seriously question India's image internationally. Such steps will also undermine pro-India politics in Bangladesh. So India is naturally active to avert Sheikh Hasina's probable arrest and interrogation.

Observers believe, Indian government is serious to ensure AL's return to power at any cost. So they will not take easy anti-AL move in Bangladesh. Indian government feels if AL is not returned to power its strategy will not be aptly safeguarded in Bangladesh.

Pointing to India's seriousness for AL and deep relations with AL leaders observers said, RAW chief Tribedy called on Sheikh Hasina while she was in America. Besides, Indian foreign minister Pronab Mukharjee and other concerned officials while she was in UK and USA repeatedly and regularly talked to her over telephone ensuring India's constant and solid support to her party and her.

India's policymakers feel that Sheikh Hasina should be kept undisturbed to protect India's short and long-term vital interest in Bangladesh, and India should have a role to play in this regard. Menon will simply convey this message to the government. Observers predict that India will revenge on the government if Menon returns to Delhi with empty hand. Bangladesh government now faces two opposite and contradictory problems in dealing with India.

If government pleases India, our national interest will seriously be hampered. If it tries to safeguard national interest, India will let loose its allies to unseat the government that will also be a debacle to the country. Still observers suggest the government that it should avert India's threat and pressure and protect national interest at any cost. In that case the position of the government among the common people will be solidified and Indian allies will not be able to create further anarchy in the country, rather they will be isolated further from the people.

http://www.bangladesh-web.com/news/view.php?hidDate=2007-06-26&hidType=HIG&hidRecord=0000000000000000164205

Posted by: Maruf Jun 28 2007, 12:41 PM

QUOTE(akzaman @ Jun 26 2007, 07:59 PM)

Posted by: akzaman Jun 28 2007, 10:53 PM

Kolkata HC accepts misleading writ petition :Minority repression in Bangladesh alleged

The judicial organ of any nation must have the nerve and the resolve to withstand politically-motivated pressures. It must also exercise discretion in deciding whether to entertain litigations that have international ramifications and can negatively affect the country's foreign policy. After all, something may seem domestically perfect but can be totally imperfect internationally.
Yet, days before Indian Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon landed in Dhaka to meet with his Bangladesh counterpart and senior leaders of Bangladesh, including Chief Adviser Fakhruddin Ahmed, Foreign Adviser Iftekhar Chowdhury and Army chief General Moeen U Ahmed, a new conspiracy against Bangladesh took a concrete shape inside one of the highest bodies of the Indian judiciary.
The acceptance by the Calcutta High Court on June 19 of a writ petition filed by a little-known human rights group, Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities (HRCBM), seeking refugee status for the members of Bangladesh minorities who took shelter in India to escape what the petition said was 'violence in their home country' was not only an act of prejudice against a friendly neighbour, it was a conspicuous political ploy to serve India's foreign policy interests.
The arguments over the jurisdictional aspects of international laws aside, no Bangladesh court would have entertained similar allegations that accused the government of India of the widespread persecutions and outright murders of minority Muslims all over India, year after year.
Surprisingly, the writ petition number WP11718w/2007 is being handled by a high-powered team, comprising Chief Justice SS Nirjhar and Justice Deba Prasad Sengupta. The petition was moved jointly by an HRCBM counsel, Jasobanta Rakshit, and the head of HRCBM West Bengal chapter, Subash Chakrabarty.
The petitioners have sought issuance of an order calling upon the Government of India and the state Government of West Bengal to explain "why Bangladesh minorities who are currently residing in India escaping violence at their home country cannot be declared refugees".
The apparent legal loopholes of the petition notwithstanding, a court notice has already been served to both the central and state governments, asking them to respond to the allegations, it was learnt.
The petitioners alleged that minorities of Bangladesh were subjected to "state-sponsored discrimination" and "religious hate crime" and since 1971 millions of Bangladesh minorities have taken, and are still taking, shelter in various Indian states.
The allegations have undoubtedly cast shadows on the desired neutrality of India with respect to its effort to restore democracy in Bangladesh in concert with the USA as was claimed earlier by Nicholas Burns, US undersecretary of state.
The Indian government can hardly distance itself from the writ's institution as, by definition, any public benefit (interest) litigation is interpreted by judges to incorporate the intent of the public at large and to have public policy implications. Besides, both the central and the West Bengal governments have been made respondents in the writ.
As well, the writ seemingly aimed at drawing attention to the plights of what the petitioners claimed were "millions of those refugees" and internationalising the issue by getting the UN and the governments of both India and Bangladesh involved in the matter, sooner or later the Indian government will be drawn to it in a much direct manner.
The writ also purportedly aims at pressurising the government of Bangladesh by accusing it of state-sponsored persecutions of ethnic minorities, an assertion that has serious foreign policy implications and needs to be proved.
Whatever may be the hidden agenda, an investigation into the background of the litigation shows the ground for such a move was paved earlier in 2006 when the HRCBM filed a similar public benefit litigation with the High Court Division of Bangladesh Supreme Court, requesting the court's intervention for protection of minorities.
Although there was little evidence to prove any "intentional persecutions" of minorities in Bangladesh, the court, as a responsible measure, issued a rule nisi on the government, reminding it of its constitutional obligations toward the minorities. That being an internal affair of Bangladesh, the petitioners seemed to have acted legally as Bangladeshi citizens.
The filing of a similar petition with the Calcutta High Court, however, has different connotations and seems to have stemmed from the findings of a flawed report prepared earlier in connivance with some unknown government agency of India that made a startling conclusion about routine flights of Hindu minorities from Bangladesh to India. The petition is undoubtedly related to the routine allegations made by the Indian government of infiltration of Bangladeshis into India.
The flawed report blamed the Enemy Property (Custody and Registration) Order II of 1965, known as EPA, of the erstwhile East Pakistan government and the Presidential Order No 29 of 1972 relating to the Vested Property Act (VPA) as the root causes of discriminations against minorities in Bangladesh.
The report said the government of Bangladesh formed "Thana Vested Property Verification Committee following the issuance of a law ministry directive... on 4 November 1993 to all Deputy Commissioners, asking them to conduct verification on census list of all vested properties."
It further claimed that about 30 per cent or 10 out of every 34 Hindu households (including the missing ones) became victims of the EPA\VPA execution.
Although the estimates were based on plausible assumptions, the Association for Land Reform and Development (ALRD), a Dhaka-based NGO, wrote earlier in one of its reports that "the implementation of EPA\VPA has accelerated the process of mass out-migration of Hindu population from the mid-1960s onward. The estimated size of such out-migration (missing Hindu population) during 1964-1991 was 5.3 million, or 538 persons a day, the report said. How credible is such a finding, prima facie?
Look carefully how such accusations were built into evidence based on such assumptions. The base research faulted previous censuses, albeit by way of extrapolation, and concluded that the Hindu population of Bangladesh in 1971 would have been 11.4 million, instead of 9.6 million as reported in the official documents. Likewise, in 1981, the actual Hindu population would have been 14.3 million (12.5 million of 1981 plus 1.8 million missing during 1964-1971), instead of the 10.6 million reported in the 1981 census.
It was thus found that had there been no "out-migration" the Hindu population in 1991 would stand at 16.5 million (12.8 million as on 1991 plus 3.7 million missing during 1964-1981), instead of the 11.2 million reported in the 1991 census. Thus the estimated total missing Hindu population during the 1964-1991 was decided to be 5.3 million.
The findings of both the reports may tally, but they have failed to take into cognisance the totality of the Hindu population migrated to other countries of the world, died and/or obtained legal status in India through filial ties, matrimony or other legal recourses.
Due to the litigation being based on such uncorroborated findings and allegations, any ruling in favour of the petitioners will either impose an obligation on the Indian government to give refugee status to more than 5 million Bengali-speaking Hindus or Bangladesh will be under heavy pressure to allow them to relocate here. In any case, the litigation and its outcome will entail serious consequences for both India and Bangladesh and can metamorphose into a major bone of contention in the future.
The fact is finding more than 5 million undocumented Bengali-speaking Hindus in West Bengal, or across India, and proving beyond reasonable doubt that they had illegally migrated to India from Bangladesh since 1971 is a challenge difficult to meet. Yet, we shall await with baited breath the Calcutta High Court's decision.

http://www.weeklyholiday.net/front.html#01

Posted by: MB444 Jun 29 2007, 12:00 PM

The decision of a court in another country has little or no bearing on bangladesh.

For it to matter internationally, these people needs to be labelled as refugees and given refugee status with the assistance of the UN.

There is no way that is going to happen. This is a storm in a teacup. What is india going to do seize bangladeshi investments in india as compensation.........we have no tangible asset in india as india forbids bangladeshi investments. Furthermore internationalising such a case would bring to bear the full focus of the world media of illegal indian occupation of the seven sisters as well as its various nefarious policies and practices in the region. India have always feared and fears internationalising any crisis to avoid giving oxygen to various freedom movements within it and to leave intact the mirage of a viable state in front of the world.

Posted by: akzaman Jun 30 2007, 01:39 AM

'THE TERRORISTS USE KOLKATA AS A PASSAGE ON ACCOUNT OF IT BEING THE
CLOSEST METROPOLIS'

`The police is fully prepared to handle any terrorist threat'

Gyanwant Singh is all set to take over as the Deputy Commissioner of
the Detective Department. In an interview to Newsline, Singh talks
about the terrorist threat and ways to counter it

Express News Service

Kolkata, June 29: Q. Is Kolkata turning into a haven for terrorists?
Off late, several miscreants with Kolkata links have been arrested
for their involvement in blast cases.

A. No, definitely not. We have to understand the changed terrorist
map of India and also the sub-continent. Due to changes in
international policies, entry of Pakistani militants from the
western and northern borders has come down. But, the situation is
still the same in Bangladesh. The terrorists use Kolkata as a
passage on account of it being the closest metropolis. Rather than a
safe haven, the city can be termed as a stopover. This cannot be
solved unless the border is properly fenced and the Bangladeshi
government takes firm measures against terrorists.

Q. Is it a fact that various Bangladesh-based militant groups are
using Bengal as a conduit for arms and explosives? If so, what are
the routes and the risks?

A. We cannot deny this. Recently, we seized a consignment of weapons
from Bangladesh. As I have already said, this cannot be checked
unless the border is properly fenced. There is also the problem of
riverine ways into the border, which cannot be fenced. Majority of
the armaments are brought here through the unfenced parts along the
Malda, Petrapole and Nadia border.

Q. How well prepared is the Kolkata police to handle the situation?

A. We are fully prepared. The problem can be solved through a three-
tier system-intelligence network, investigations and retaliation.
The State Bureau (SB) and other intelligence agencies look after the
intelligence part. We maintain a close liaison with them. Besides,
we have prepared a contingency plan and formed a quick reaction
team. We have also networked with the Central Forensic Science
Laboratory (CFSL) and State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFL) to
arrange their representation.

Q. Why have local networks of the Detective department weakened in
the recent years? Is it due to the Home Department's `frequent
transfer policy'?

A. I have already answered that. There is a misunderstanding of our
role by the public. The detective department is for investigation
and action. For intelligence in insurgency-related cases, we depend
on the SB and other central intelligence agencies. Besides,
militancy detection is not our prime job.

In answer to the second question, I want to clarify that there are
not many cases of transfer here. The Home department posts only IPS
officers in Kolkata. Most of the middle and junior-level officials
are posted here for years together.

Q. The terrorists are using modern equipment for communication and
surveillance. Is the police fully equipped to counter the threat?

A. Our equipment is quite advanced. We have sufficient manpower,
equipped with the latest hardware and software. But, our officers
require a little more training in the use of the hi-tech equipment.
Believe me, at the pace we are going it is now only a matter of
time .

Q. What about the chief minister's social policing policy? Can it be
helpful in curbing terrorist activities?

A. Social policing is a unique concept. On one hand, it helped us
gain mass support, while on the other it developed a strong network
at the grassroots level. Everyone must realise that terrorist
activities in Kolkata are very negligible. There is only one
example, which is the attack on the American Center. In case such an
activity takes place, I am sure social policing will help us solve
the problem.

Q. Are the youth in Kolkata actively embracing terrorism?

A. In any society, there are some elements motivated by outlawed
organisations. But, here the figure is negligible. In the recent
Harkat-ul-Jehadi Islami case, where HuJI activists were found to
have a Kolkata connection, only one was an activist. The others were
merely supporters.

Q. Does the frequent transferring of critical crime cases to the
Crime Investigation Department (CID) attest to the city police's
inefficiency?

A. Please cite a couple of such cases. There are hardly any cases
that were handed over to any other investigating agency as we failed
to solve it. Yes, sometimes, some cases are assigned to other
agencies on the orders of the High Court or the Human Rights
Commission or directly by the government.

http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=243611

Posted by: akzaman Jul 1 2007, 10:55 PM

The Bangladesh India Talks last week

Overview:

When Indian home secretary Shivshankar Menon visited Bangladesh recently, speculations abounded that he would apply pressure on many sensitive issues, particularly to ensure its proposed investments and to protect pro-Indian politicians (read Awami Leaguers) in the country. Being the India's Home Secretary first such visit in two years, it was expected that his focus would be on the issues that are related to India's security and future investments. These two issues are multi dimensional, one being related to military, and the other integrated with pure economic gains. In reality, during his two day stay Menon raised New Delhi's concerns about security, illegal migration and the entire gamut of anti-India insurgents like the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) insurgents finding shelter in Bangladeshi territory. Dhaka, unsurprisingly, denied the presence of any anti-India group on its territory, but reassured that it will keep alert while nodding on the remaining issues.

Bangladesh possibly as not to embarrass its guest did not bring in the question of Bangladeshi criminals sheltered in RAW safe houses in India, the imbalance in trade with its big neighbor, its refusal to allow access of Indian skies to the burgeoning Bangladesh satellite televisions etc. Also absent from the agenda was India's unilateral decision to erect fence in its border with Bangladesh.

India appears to have stayed clearly away from the recent political debacles afflicting Bangladesh, asking only for smooth transition to democracy. Bangladesh perhaps played its card well by permitting him to meet both ex-Prime Ministers, Khaleda Zia of the BNP and Sheikh Hasina of Awami League, although not much of substance was heard to have emanated out of the talks. India remained non-committal about the much talked about `minus two' plans and it was unclear how it views the military backed civilian government.

India expressed its willingness to work together on different issues including land reform, border posts, and said it always wants to see a peaceful, stable and democratic Bangladesh. Whether its intentions are genuine is yet left to be seen as India has been harassing Bangladesh from the very day of its independence in 1971. Sheltering Shanti Bahini in the Chittagong hill tracts to keep the Bangladesh Army reactive, controlling water through several gates for destroying livelihoods, supplying drugs to destroy youth – are just to name a few from the never ending list. But things are different now. Indian government appears sincere to resolve these issues if Bangladesh guarantees investments of big Indian conglomerates like Tata's proposal of $2.5 billion and Mittal's $2.9 are just tip of the iceberg. Essar, Reliance, Birla and others are in the pipeline.

Securing water from India is the prime agenda for Bangladesh, signing a favorable Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is the next in the list. A favorable FTA means, Bangladeshi business houses will get duty-free access to the Indian growing market. On the other hand, Indian goods would be given duty-free access to the Bangladeshi market over a period of time. Currently, some $2 billion worth of smuggled Indian goods enter Bangladesh annually in contrast to $1.5 billion legal ones. This ratio with change in favor of Bangladesh after a FTA takes place.

Recommendations:

Keeping in mind that diplomats are paid by the governments for saying only wonderful things; not all statements made by Menon can be taken as granted. Over the years, India did not give importance to quite a few issues and followed a somewhat one eyed policy towards Bangladesh. One statement where India said it would not interfere in the internal affairs of Bangladesh was received favorably by the host country. Bangladeshi diplomats for the first time in history negotiated efficiently. It successfully forced India to agree on holding a 'Joint Committee of Experts' to resolve disputes over Common River waters, as soon as possible. The job is not over though for Bangladeshi needs to pursue the issue at earliest and there might yet be dillydallying as has been the case with recent overtures. Bangladesh needs to follow up on what the Indian home secretary assured and needs to ensure that things are done as transparently as promised. Bangladeshi also needs to make confidence-building measures with their Indian counterparts in a bid to ensure a long lasting relation; a cordial one, that is. Bangladesh can push for numerous issues and gain advantages over India, only if the high officials and diplomats play it cool. It is India that wants to secure its internal security and economic investment; Bangladesh for the first time is in a position to negotiate and attain favorable conditions. And it should not let this chance go away. It is time to ensure about Bangladesh's own agendas.

Forecast:

While one may be fairly optimistic about the outcome of Menon's visit to Bangladesh this must be balanced against the geopolitical realities now prevailing in South Asia. It would be unrealistic to think that an FTA would automatically resolve all the other outstanding issues between the two countries as the World Bank has already said that such an agreement would not really be in Bangladesh's interests. Strategic relationships cannot be merely viewed through the prism of economic determinism especially in a region where history and religion have played a bigger role. The major concern for India in the short term is the increasing encroachment of both China and the US in South Asia leaving it a limited role in the region which it is not likely to easily accept. Another factor that could affect relations between Bangladesh and India is the slow pace of negotiations on certain business deals while agreements with Chinese companies seem to be moving far more quickly (at least according to some Indian writers and analysts).

Already India has expressed concern over Chinese involvement in Nepal and Sri Lanka while controversies still remain over the Arunchal Pradesh issue none of which helps in its attitude to Bangladesh which retains a close understanding with China. Alongside these considerations the negotiations between the US and India do not appear to be going well which could have unpredictable consequences for the region. These factors do impinge on the India-Bangladesh relationship and there appears a hardening of attitudes in New Delhi as strongly worded write-ups begin to show-up in the Indian press and media about the Interim Government and the Bangladesh military as well as allegations of a resurfacing of Islamist terrorist groups linked to the Jamaat-i-Islami as alleged by some Indian columnists. In short, what started as a promising change in relations between Bangladesh and India after January 11 seems to be gradually souring due to a more careful appraisal of Indian intentions by the military backed Interim Government and of geopolitical considerations by New Delhi.


Bangladesh Open Source Intelligence Monitors
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Sunday, 1st July 2007

Posted by: Maruf Jul 5 2007, 06:26 AM

QUOTE(akzaman @ Jul 1 2007, 08:55 PM)

Posted by: Maruf Jul 6 2007, 02:51 PM

The learned writer has put forth a set of suggestions for the policymakers of Bangladesh and India to improve the existing ties between the two hugging neighbours. Most of the suggestions were already forwarded by many writers in the past but none of them was implemented for political reasons. It's not that the policymakers of the two neighbouring countries are not aware of these suggestions, what they have failed to do is to create a congenial atmosphere where the two nations can sit together to implement these wonderful set of suggestions. Pointing out a 'to-do' list is not going to help in improving the deteriorating relations between Bangladesh and India. The intellectuals of both the nations have to find a way to safeguard the interest of both the nations while implementing the set of suggestions put forth by the writer.

The learned writer put too much emphasis on shared culture and heritage. Look, Europe has seen so many big wars despite sharing the same culture. The same goes for the Middle East and other parts of the world. You cannot solve the problems between the two nations if the balance of power is absent. Bangladesh will always remain on the receiving end due to its smaller economy and military. It is our responsibility to find a way to overcome the weaknesses in our economy and military power so that we can force India or any other bigger neighbours to take our concerns into account. The less we depend on the goodwill of others to eradicate our problems the better for our future. We cannot solve the issues like equitable share of water, trade imbalance, and border demarcation by depending on the good neighbourly spirits alone. Once a scholar said that, your best neighbour is a country which has a big economy but small army and your worst enemy is a country with a small economy and a big army. India wants to be a superpower and maintaining a good relation with Bangladesh cannot figure out prominently in its foreign policy. India has to stop all its neighbours from advancing to make sure its own rise to prominence. All big powers in the world do this, India is no exception either.

The writer should have talked about the strategies to force India to heed to our concerns rather than putting forth a set of suggestions that has no chance of getting implemented. Let's take an example from the article. The writer observed that the Ganges-Kobadak project was working after so many years and tried to justify his argument that we still have to be optimistic in forging a strategic relation with India based on it. But little did he know that India was preparing a mega river linking project to withdraw all the water flow from Ganges and other common rivers. He should have consulted the water managmement ministry of Bangladesh before airing optimism in solving water problems between the two nations. If the river linking project is implemented, the ecological balance of Bangladesh will be destroyed for ever.

True, India cannot address all our concerns and we should not expect too much from a neighbour. But being a riverine country, Bangladesh's existence depends on the river water. If India plays politics with water, it is actually playing politics with our existence. How can we call India a friend, when our existence is threatened by it? Bangladesh has to look for friends beyond Sout Asia to create a strategic balance of power. China and the ASEAN nations are prospering and have quite a bit of political influence in international politics. By aligning with them, Bangladesh can gain the strategic clout that it is missing right now vis-a-vis India. I would have welcomed the writer's article if he talked about the need to create a strategic alliance between Bangladesh and China/ASEAN to obtain greater strategic value in South Asia.

http://www.thedailystar.net/strategic/2007/07/01/strategic.htm

Posted by: Maruf Jul 8 2007, 09:54 PM

The officials of Bangladesh and India are hopeful about the prospects of gradual improvement of the bilateral relations between the two close neighbours. They are of the opinion that the restoration of rail link after four decades will pave the way for closer people to people contact, which will ultimately help in removing mis-understanding in the relation. I also share the same sentiment but mere rail link is not enough to establish broad based relations between the two countries. The real issues must be addressed by India to reap the benefit of this rail link between the two neighbours.

http://www.newagebd.com/front.html#3

Posted by: akzaman Jul 18 2007, 12:34 AM

Dhaka-Kolkata train link :Why not similar service with NE India?

In all probability Dhaka-Kolkata train service will be opened sometime in September. Bangladesh should take up the matter of similar direct communication with Gawahati and Tripura in the east. That will improve the relationship through trade, exchange of visits by business people, cultural teams and people in general. Bangladesh and the seven sister states of India are less known to each other. Direct communication facilities will help improve relationship.
Modalities of the train service have been completed in the two-day Bangladesh-India official level meeting in Dhaka that concluded on Tuesday. Certain security issues remained unresolved, which are expected to be finalised when the Bangladesh official team goes to Kolkata in a trial run of train from Dhaka on July 29.
If everything goes well, in the final meeting in Kolkata, train will start running twice a week from early September, said an official of the Railway Ministry. He said some security issues ? security of passengers, trains and establishments like the Jamuna Bridge ? remained unresolved. Security issues got priority in view of extremist activities on both sides. All possible steps should be taken to ward off sabotage and destructive activities by the extremists.
The moot question is whether the train service will sustain. How much will Bangladesh benefit from the service? The immigration and customs officials at Benapole are found pessimistic. Benapole is the main route through which two BRTC buses from Dhaka and two from Kolkata now run every day. Most of the travelers, estimated at 600 on an average every day, are from Bangladesh. Barely 50-60 Indian nationals come to Dhaka mainly to meet their relatives and hardly carry foreign exchange.
In sharp contrast Bangladeshis go to India for medical treatment, students for studies, in connection with hundi business, shopping and travelling. This depletes huge foreign exchange of the country. Immigration officials said the number of bus passengers to Kolkata is however declining. These days dozens of seats are found vacant in every bus. The reason is attributed to the decline of black money circulation following crackdown on corruption. Propensity of medical treatment and study is likely to decline with improvement of the situation at home.
India is interested in early opening of the train service. Indian business sources feel that train service will give impetus to more Bangladeshis visiting India and spending more money in their markets. According to the arrangements, no commercial goods will be allowed in the trains from either side. But a passenger can carry luggage up to 35kg.
The business community in Dhaka suggests that the Government should consider Dhaka-Tripura and Dhaka-Gwahati train and bus service. That may give Bangladesh more travellers from the seven states of eastern India. Direct communication link with the seven sisters will provide Bangladeshis scope to improve the relations through trade, exchange of visits of officials, cultural teams and people in general. Dhaka should have good relationship with eastern Indians for mutual benefit
http://www.weeklyholiday.net/front.html#06

Posted by: YourNeighbor Jul 18 2007, 05:36 AM

QUOTE(Maruf @ Jun 26 2007, 04:16 PM)

Posted by: Maruf Jul 18 2007, 07:33 PM

QUOTE(YourNeighbor @ Jul 18 2007, 03:36 AM)

Posted by: YourNeighbor Jul 19 2007, 10:56 AM

I don't think Bangladesh actively supports unrest in NE but I do believe that their is a lot of illegal immigration from Bangladesh into NE which does add to the problem.

Furthermore, we are doing something about it by building a fence. Fences make good neighbors

Posted by: Maruf Jul 19 2007, 11:42 AM

QUOTE(YourNeighbor @ Jul 19 2007, 08:56 AM)

I don't think Bangladesh actively supports unrest in NE but I do believe that their is a lot of illegal immigration from Bangladesh into NE which does add to the problem.

Furthermore, we are doing something about it by building a fence. Fences make good neighbors

Posted by: akzaman Jul 22 2007, 09:58 PM

Abdar!

India seeks transit to reduce trade gap

Indian state minister for commerce Jairam Ramesh Sunday floated a number of proposals including transit to reduce trade gap between the two countries.( The News Today)

While dealing with Indo-Bangla trade and investment scenario, Jairam mooted six proposals, which included early decision on Tata’s $ 3 billion investment proposal, giving transit facility to India, access to the New Mooring terminal at Chittagong port, opening additional land customs stations, participation of Bangladesh in some Indian projects like bamboo-based paper mill in Mizoram purchase of 1110 mw power from the Indian power plant outside Agartala.

Indian State Minister for Commerce Jairam Ramesh spelt out the proposals while speaking as special guest at the inauguration of India-Bangladesh Chamber of Commerce and Industry (IBCCI) at the Pan Pacific Sonargaon Hotel.

On transit, the Indian State Minister said granting the transit rights to India would help reduce Dhaka’s trade deficit with New Delhi quickly.

Seeking access to the New Mooring terminal near the seaport, he said, “ This, of course, will be commercial transaction. But, I believe, by granting us permission, you will be ensuring the full utilization of the container-handling capacity created.”

On industrial giant Tata’s proposed big-venture investment, Ramesh said, “ I believe that investment is the key to reducing Bangladesh’s trade deficit with India. Investments made by Indian companies in Bangladesh will help India to import more from Bangladesh.”

On implementation of the Tata-proposed projects, he said India’s import from Bangladesh could increase by at least one billion US dollars every year, covering steel, urea and coal.

He thanked Bangladesh government for allowing the opening of the Belonia land customs station in Southern Tripura as well as allowing construction of a bridge over Raghnacherra river. After completion of the bridge, he said, Raghnabazar land customs station in Tripura can be used widely for bilateral trade.

Ramesh proposed that an 1110-MW power plant, which is being set up outside Agartola, could supply electricity to the deficit regions of Bangladesh as well.

He hoped that the IBCCI would soon emerge as a powerful force for sustained collaboration between the two countries’ economics and for deeper partnerships between two societies of the countries.

Ramesh said India is firmly committed to seeing and assisting in the emergence of an economically strong and prosperous Bangladesh.

On deepening economic ties, he mentioned India’s offer to buy 8 million items of garments annually from Bangladesh, which are today on the sensitive list. An MOU is to give effect to this import by India is now awaiting final approval by Bangladesh.

“This could mean an additional earning of anywhere between $ 50-70 million every year for Bangladesh,” he told his business audience and elite of Dhaka.

http://www.newstoday-bd.com/frontpage.asp?newsdate=#6876

Posted by: YourNeighbor Jul 23 2007, 03:09 AM

QUOTE(Maruf @ Jul 19 2007, 11:42 AM)

Please do make sure that the fence is beyond the zero line to avoid confusion As for the illegal immigration issue, many Indians are also working illegaly in Bangladesh but we don't make a political issue out of it.

Posted by: Maruf Jul 24 2007, 03:22 PM

The comment itself is not harmful. We, the Bangladeshis, also want a country that respects human rights and doesn't offer shelter to forces inimical to other nations. But the comment may be construed as indirectly blaming the politicians of Bangladesh for failing to establish rule of law in the country. I think the Indian politicans should refrain from making speeches that may be indicative of interfering in the domestic affairs of Bangladesh.

http://www.newagebd.com/front.html#12

Posted by: Maruf Jul 24 2007, 03:26 PM

QUOTE(YourNeighbor @ Jul 23 2007, 01:09 AM)

Posted by: Maruf Jul 25 2007, 04:11 PM

The writer blamed Bangladesh for not designing a consistent policy for India but he ignored the reason behind it. India consistently follows a hostile policy to keep Bangladesh within its sphere of influence and with a view to achieve its goal the top leadership of the country cultivate clandestine political relations with selected ambitious politicians of Bangladesh. It's a common knowledge that a few top leaders of certain political parties keep close relations with infamous RAW. Under such circumstances, it is almost impossible to draw a consistent policy to deal with India. This is a kind of divide and rule policy that India inherited from Britain and Bangladesh has been a brutal victim of this. If India stops meddling into our domestic affairs, I am sure, a consistent foreign policy to negotiate with India could be designed at ease.

Then the writer indirectly blamed Bangladesh for being insensitive to India's foreign policy need. This is a serious allegation and I would say his allegation is completely baseless. Isn't it Bangladesh that has never supported Pakistan in the Kashmir Issue? Isn't it Bangladesh that has never internationalised the water sharing issue after the 70s, despite being the victim of India's unilateral withdrawal of water from the main common rivers? Isn't it Bangladesh that never sought direct intervention of the U.N. in issues such as 'South Talpati', India's involvement in CHT and 'border demarcation'? On the other hand, it is India that has internationalised the ULFA and imaginary illegal migration issues to put undue pressure on Bangladesh. I would have accused the writer of hiding India's ill doing for political gains if he was not a military officer.

The writer is correct in his observation that India views Bangladesh as the main source of 'insecurity' now-a-days. There is a reason for this though. After the nuclear blasts by Pakistan, India lost the military edge and any war between the two nations will produce no favourable outcome for India. This is precisely why India had to search for a weaker opponent to use its military might, which he acquired to get big power status. The nuclear parity has helped Pakistan to restore calm on the Western border but the Eastern border shared by Bangladesh and India will continue to be volatile due to Bangladesh's military inadequacies.

http://www.thedailystar.net/2007/07/26/d70726020330.htm

Posted by: akzaman Jul 28 2007, 10:50 PM

Transit cannot be a condition for increased trade with India

The large trade gap between India and Bangladesh remains among the
major problems for the smaller country as far as its foreign trade
is concerned. Bangladesh's imports from India, amounting to almost
$1.5 billion, is over ten times worth its exports to the
neighbouring country officially. But the volume of trade from both
sides should increase to far higher levels if South Asia is to
become a thriving and vibrant region in terms of trade and commerce.
Rather regrettably, the internal trade of the countries in this
region account for only four per cent of the trade volume of the
entire region, whereas such intra-regional trade accounts for
substantial proportions of trade in the case of the European Union
or other groups of countries.

We find the inauguration of the India-Bangladesh Chamber of
Commerce and Industry an encouraging move in the direction of a
stronger regional integration with new avenues of commerce opening
up and increased interaction between the peoples of the two
countries. The enthusiasm of the visiting Indian state minister for
commerce, Jairam Ramesh, is also heartening. His forthcoming
attitude indicates a genuine interest in narrowing the trade gap
between the two countries.

We point out here that there are two main factors that deter
potential exports to India, in the form of tariff and non-tariff
barriers. While the Indian government acknowledges the existence of
tariff barriers, it is not the case with non-tariff barriers that
deter Bangladesh's exports. That Beijing also wishes to increase
bilateral trade volume to be increased to some $5 billion is also
welcome. We urge the government to continue its negotiations, but
keep in mind above all that the trade gap with both New Delhi and
Beijing must be reduced and, with that end in view, look towards
increasing the export opportunities to both the countries.

It is evident from the volume of Indian imports that domestic
tariff regime is friendlier to Indian products. But the Indian state
minister for commerce has linked trade boost to transit facility
through Bangladesh to its seven north-eastern provinces among other
facilities. Such an attitude refuses to acknowledge that the Indian
trade regime does not extend similar privileges to Bangladeshi
products that Indian products receive in Bangladesh and that the
onus is on India to remove its trade distorting barriers. One
remembers the case of Rahimafrooz batteries that only showed some
potential of gaining a tiny share of the Indian battery market but
were restricted from entry to India due to undue exploitation of an
anti-dumping rule which was later withdrawn. But the battery
manufacturer is yet to regain that market.

Furthermore, only trade issues, especially those regarding tariff
and non-tariff barriers, should be linked to each other, not other
such issues as transit. As far as transit is concerned, we contend
that it is a show of India's hegemonic behaviour that is customary
within the subcontinent. However, since the issue has been broached,
it must be the position of the Bangladesh government that transit to
the seven sisters be linked with Bangladesh's transit facilities to
Nepal and Bhutan through India on similar terms that might be agreed
upon between the two parties.

The bitter acrimony between the peoples of the two countries
would only be aggravated if this exercise of boosting trade with
India comes at undue costs. Both countries across the border must
agree to similar terms on similar grounds for their mutual benefit.
http://newagebd.com/edit.html

Posted by: akzaman Jul 29 2007, 11:44 AM

Bangladesh a launchpad for terrorists into India: Narayanan

Bangladesh has emerged as a launchpad into India for Pakistan-based terror groups like the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Dhaka is not cooperating with New Delhi in cracking down on them, National Security Advisor MK Narayanan said on Thursday. Most leaders of terrorist and underground outfits operating in the northeastern states like Manipur are in Bangladesh, he told reporters at an interaction in Bangalore with police officials from Karnataka.

"We regard Bangladesh as an area which gives sanctuary to these (leaders of militant groups). We have been in touch with the Bangladesh government," Narayanan said."I don't think the cooperation (from Dhaka) as we like is forthcoming as it should be. But that's something we will continue to press."

On Pakistan not handing over terrorists wanted in India and the way forward, Narayanan said, "Obviously, they will not come (Pakistan would not hand them over)."But he added, "That's part of the dialogue and that will continue".

Earlier, he gave a perspective on the national security scenario at the interactive session. Senior police officials from Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh also attended the two-and-half-hour session.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print.aspx?Id=73264b3a-b1e7-4ddf-b95a-6f60726b7b3a
© Copyright 2007 Hindustan Times

Posted by: YourNeighbor Jul 30 2007, 04:09 AM

QUOTE(Maruf @ Jul 24 2007, 03:26 PM)

Posted by: Maruf Aug 10 2007, 05:50 PM

The government to government talks have failed so far so yes, the private citizens of both the nations should take the initiative to bridge the gap for the betterment of the people of these two neighbours.

http://www.thedailystar.net/strategic/2007/08/02/strategic.htm

Posted by: Maruf Aug 10 2007, 06:02 PM

QUOTE(YourNeighbor @ Jul 30 2007, 02:09 AM)

Posted by: akzaman Aug 26 2007, 11:03 PM

Dhaka rejects allegation

Dhaka has strongly condemned the bombing in Hyderabad, but totally rejected Andhra Pradesh chief minister YS Rajasekhara Reddy's allegation that a Bangladeshi terrorist group was behind Saturday's blasts.
'This allegation is baseless, and we will contest any wrong allegation,' foreign affairs adviser Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury told newsmen when his attention was drawn to the Reddy's statement.
He said Bangladesh must uphold its interest and would never retreat from it.
Meanwhile, in a letter to Indian foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee, Iftekhar condemned the bombing in the strongest terms and extended his heartfelt condolences to the families of those who have lost their lives
'Such abhorrent violence is a blot on the conscience of humanity. Our thoughts today are with those who lost their dear ones because of this dastardly act,' he said. Several bomb blasts in the southern city of Hyderabad on Saturday killed at least 42 people.
The Indian media, quoting Reddy, reported that information obtained by an Indian intelligence agency pointed to the involvement of terrorist organisations based in Bangladesh.
Intelligence agencies are investigating a possible link with Harkat-ul-Jehad-i-Islami, a Bangladesh-based Kashmiri separatist group.
http://www.newagebd.com/front.html#9

Posted by: akzaman Sep 8 2007, 11:28 AM

Bangladesh 'Should Merge With India'

A member of the International Scientific Committee of the World Centre for Studies and Researches on The Green Book, says that there is a call for Bangladesh to merge with India in order to save it.

He said that Bangladesh faces no future as it will disappear under the sea, something that the author of The Green Book, Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi has confirmed on a number of occasions. He said Bangladesh's best bet is to submit a proposal to India to say that it is willing to become a state in an Indian Union, and thus to cease to exist as an independent country.

By becoming additional eastern states within India, local democracy will continue, and thus the effect on the people is positive. Moreover, the resources of India's central government would be required to defend its territory and care for its citizens and they can relocate to any other part of the country in the case of flooding.

He pointed out that Bangladesh has no need for an armed force of its own but should instead say to India we are ready to submit to you, come and occupy us and intergate us within India. This would put an end to accusations against Bangladesh regarding terrorism, and allow India to take full responsibility for its new state.

Historically, he said, the entire region has one culture and one destiny. It was British colonialism which ripped the region apart into several failed states the borders of which produced tensions.

Bangladesh has one chance for survival and that is immediate and unconditional offering of itself for full integration into India, he said.

All politicians of Bangladesh, can submit themselves for election to the new local state after an interim period of transition to India's democracy, or immediately be removed should India wish upon reunification. The armed forces, police and other institutions can be integrated or maintain their existence during a transition phase, or the new states of Bangladesh can have certain autonomy functions at the state level.

The precedent for integration is not new, with Hong Kong, East and West Germany being but two recent examples which lessons can be learnt from that it is entirely possible for a larger state to easily absorb a smaller one with more benefits than disadvantages, he said.

http://mathaba.net/news/?x=563364

Posted by: akzaman Sep 29 2007, 12:19 PM

Love thy neighbour… Don’t love thy neighbour

India and its borders are layered with tenuous and complex relationships. Will it all change in 2007?

Sonia Shukla Delhi

After decades of hard bargaining with its smaller neighbours, India has an uphill task in resolving its border disputes. Gazing into the new year, however, the process of building peace with its neighbours holds some promise. The most promising, ironically, seems to be the one that has endured the longest: the dispute with Pakistan. For the first time there is evidence of some imagination in negotiations and the usual planned rounds of talks could prove to be less than mundane.

Minister for External Affairs Pranab Mukherjee is likely to visit Islamabad on January 13 to invite Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf for the SAARC summit in New Delhi in April 2007—a visit that will provide an occasion for summit-level discussions on the peace process. The two foreign secretaries will meet in February, in Islamabad, to launch the fourth round of the ‘composite dialogue’. This could be followed by a visit by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Islamabad in the first half of 2007.

This follows the meeting between Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon and his Pakistani counterpart, Riaz Mohammad Khan, in New Delhi on November 14-15, 2006, to resume talks that had been placed on hold after the July 11 Mumbai blasts. The foreign secretaries reviewed the third round of the composite dialogue, which includes talks on eight subjects: confidence-building measures, Jammu and Kashmir, Siachen, Wullar Barrage/Tulbal Navigation Project, Sir Creek, terrorism and drug trafficking, economic and commercial cooperation, and promotion of friendly exchanges in various fields.

On the Siachen dispute (Pakistan brought a reworded proposal to accommodate India’s non-negotiable demand for authentication of troop positions of both sides), Pakistan says it is willing to authenticate troop positions provided that would not in any way endorse any Indian claims on the status of that area. However, it did not elaborate on how exactly troop positions would be authenticated and there is skepticism in Delhi whether Islamabad would be willing to mark troops’ positions on a map: a bottom-line Indian demand. Highly placed sources say gaps still remain between the two sides and an early solution is unlikely.

The Sir Creek dispute has moved a step closer to resolution. Delhi and Islamabad agreed to hold a meeting of experts on December 22-23, 2006, to decide on the coordinates for jointly surveying Sir Creek and the adjoining areas. The experts would conduct discussions on the maritime boundary. The joint survey is to be completed by February this year.

Meanwhile, Musharraf has sent out another trial balloon through an interview. Referring to the joint Indo-Pakistani administrative mechanism for J&K, he substituted his earlier calls for "self-rule" with the terms "autonomy", "self-governance" and "joint management" of J&K with "joint supervision". These new formulations bring Pakistan closer to India’s position. High-level sources believe these proposals have been raised by Musharraf through the media to allow him to gauge reactions within the Pakistani establishment.

The government of India has been guarded in its response. But the political parties in Kashmir, including the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), the National Conference (NC) and the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), have welcomed the proposals.

In Islamabad and within the prime minister’s office (PMO) in Delhi, some of the keenness on Siachen revolves around providing a suitable occasion for a summit meeting in Islamabad between Singh and Musharraf. Delhi wants a suitable breakthrough in the dialogue process; Islamabad believes the visit would itself be the breakthrough. The compromise could be an agreement on Sir Creek. Not in itself an intractable dispute, lack of movement on Siachen is likely to result in a Sir Creek accord being made the highlight of Singh’s visit to Pakistan.

Overall, there is potential for a slow, incremental progress on the dialogue, and dramatic, unexpected developments that could surprise political players in the J&K arena. Musharraf’s television diplomacy and the joint statements after the foreign secretaries’ talks last month represent the public margins of the debate. What is holding up further advance is Musharraf’s need for assurance that the proposals being discussed will be acceptable within Pakistan.

There is little political consensus within India on a final settlement with Pakistan on J&K. The UPA government has barely consulted its own coalition partners, far less opposition parties like the BJP. However, given the BJP’s history, an illogical and hostile position can’t be ruled out.

The visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao (November 20-23, 2006), meanwhile, saw some movement on the boundary issue with Beijing. While the visit did not yield any breakthrough in the 57-year-old boundary dispute, Indian apprehensions that Beijing had placed the boundary talks on the back-burner were allayed by a joint declaration at the end of the summit talks: "An early settlement of the boundary question will advance the basic interests of the two countries and shall, therefore, be pursued as a strategic objective."

Building on the ‘Agreement on Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for the Settlement of India-China Boundary Question’, which was signed during Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit on April 11, 2005, New Delhi and Beijing declared their intention to "complete at an early date the task of finalising an appropriate framework for a final package settlement covering all sectors of the India-China boundary".

There are indications that China may not be happy with India’s representative, MK Narayanan. Just prior to Hu’s visit, India had proposed a meeting of the special representatives. China turned down the proposal.

Despite this, the political-level dialogue on the border issue between the special representatives will continue, alongside the meetings of the official-level joint working group, which is clarifying and confirming the Line of Actual Control (LAC) and the implementation of confidence-building measures. It was agreed to start the drawn-out process of exchanging maps, indicating the respective perceptions of the alignment of the LAC.

Growing economic ties between India and China look set to dominate the relationship, perhaps more than the geopolitical dimension. Despite the call to expedite the boundary settlement, there is bound to be slow movement because of disagreement over the future of the border district of Tawang and the large Tibetan diaspora in India, including the Dalai Lama.

This negative potential was evident from the controversy triggered by Chinese envoy Sun Yaxi’s pro forma remark that Arunachal Pradesh was part of China. Indignation had to be quelled by Pranab Mukherjee, who stated in Parliament that India "unambiguously rejected the Chinese contention" and that Arunachal is an integral part of India.

Despite these hiccups, the growing trade relationship between the world’s two fastest growing economies is challenging traditional mindsets and is encouraging improved ties. China is deeply interested in Delhi’s growing ties with Washington, especially the landmark nuclear agreement. India is watching China’s relations with Pakistan and whether it will offer a similar deal to Islamabad.

As for Bangladesh, in whose birth India played midwife, it finds it easier to deal with Pakistan, a country that Bangladesh itself blames for the deaths of three million Bangladeshi freedom fighters in 1971. Thirty-five years later, India has been unable to function with the Awami League, and the ruling Bangladesh National Party (BNP). The BNP beats India with every stick it can find. Thanks to India’s hard bargaining over simple border demarcation and water sharing treaties, this is good politics in Bangladesh.

India alienated large sections of Bangla opinion by its handling of as sensitive an issue as the sharing of water. The Farakka Barrage, on the Ganga, completed in 1974, gave India control of much of the water flowing into Bangladesh. During the years the water-sharing treaty was being negotiated, Bangladesh had little choice but to accept the water released to it, which it considered too little during the dry season and too much during the monsoons. While this was a shared problem, India’s arbitrariness created enormous ill will among the 40 million farmers in Bangladesh whose livelihood depended on water flows. The water-sharing treaty was signed in 1996, but the bitterness is still being tapped by the BNP.

A border agreement in 1974 between Indira Gandhi and Mujibur Rehman left only 6.5 km of border to be demarcated, with an area of just 3,000 acresworth haggling over for a farmer, but hardly for an aspiring superpowerto be negotiated. Indeed, this little detail sums up the tenuous and troubled, but still evolving and hopeful, relations between India and Bangladesh, specifically, and largely, with others in the neighbourhood.

The writer is a Delhi-based foreign affairs journalist

http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/portal/2007/09/1218

Posted by: akzaman Oct 7 2007, 07:29 PM

Kolkata police send back 3 Bangladeshi wanted criminals

Kolkata police on Sunday handed over three alleged criminals wanted by Bangladesh to the Criminal Investigation Department.
A 12-member CID team, led by additional special superintendent Abdullah Arif, received the three Bangladeshi criminals — Naimul Hasan Taj, Lambu Selim and Sohel Ibrahim — on the Benapole border at about 12:30pm.
The three were members of the Kala Jahangir gang of Dhaka and were reportedly responsible for various crimes like extortion and murder in the capital, especially in Kafrul, Mirpur and Ibrahimpur and adjacent areas.
Taj was engaged in extortion from the transport sector while Lambu Selim was responsible for murder, said the police sources. The three together are wanted in about 50 criminal cases filed with different police stations in Dhaka, said the sources.
The CID team, after receiving the three criminals, started for Dhaka and was provided special protection on the way. The team reached Faridpur at about 6:00pm and was expected to reach Dhaka by midnight yesterday.
The Kolkata police arrested the three from a mess in Kolkata in March and August. They were sentenced to jail for illegal intrusion into India.
‘As there is no extradition treaty between India and Bangladesh, West Bengal’s CID contacted the Bangladeshi CID police and agreed to deport the three from India and hand them over to the Bangladesh police,’ said the CID chief, additional inspector-general Fani Bhushan Chowdhury.
Accordingly, a CID police team reached Benapole on Sunday morning.
A 30-member team of the Indian police, led by additional superintendent Swapan Saha, handed over the three criminals to the Indian Border Security Force at Haridaspur land-port. The BSF then passed them to the Bangladesh Rifles in the no man’s land and the BDR then handed the three over to Bangladesh’s CID.
Kala Jahangir and other criminals and their gangs created a reign of terror in Dhaka city, and soon after the 2001 general elections the BNP government, on 27 December, 2001, announced a list of 23 most wanted criminals, but could not improve the situation as they successfully eluded the police’s dragnet.
The government rated Kala Jahangir, Prakash Kumar Biswas, Molla Masud, Trimoti Subrata Bain, Abdul Hannan alias Pichchi Hannan, Liakat Hossain Liakat, his brother Kamrul Hasan Hannan and Amin Rasul Sagar alias Tokai Sagar as most vicious criminals and declared a reward of Tk 1 lakh for the arrest of each of them.
A reward of Tk 50,000 was declared for the arrest of Khandakar Titon, Sohel alias Freedom Sohel, Khandakar Tanvirul Islam Joy, Haris Ahmed (Haris), Khorshed Alam (Rasu), Imam Hossain, Jabbar Munna, Abbas aka Killer Abbas, Kamal Pasha, Moshiur Rahman Kochi, Pichchi Helal, Mohammad Alauddin, Aga Shamim, Arman Khan and Zafar Ahmed Manik.
Those who have been arrested and are now in jail are Kamal Pasha, Rasu, Titon, Freedom Sohel who were arrested in 2002 and Killer Abbas, Liakat, Pichchi Helal, Kochi who were arrested in 2003. Pichchi Helal, however, was in jail before the announcement of the reward.
Successive police drives were futile as the police officers and godfathers used to alert the criminals before launching any operation to arrest them. But the scenario changed when the RAB clashed with Pichchi Hannan’s armed gangsters at Uttara on June 25, 2004.
Hannan, for whose arrest the government had declared a reward of Tk 1 lakh, was arrested from a clinic in Savar the following day, and was killed in the so-called ‘crossfire’ between his followers and RAB on August 6.
RAB arrested Arman from Keraniganj on Friday, but 11 most wanted criminals are yet to be nabbed. Of them, all but Tokai Sagar are in hiding in India while Sagar lives in Canada. The Kolkata police reportedly arrested Haris and Joy last year.
The police officers in Dhaka said that they would bring back the other wanted criminals in the same manner if the Kolkata police continue to cooperate.
http://www.newagebd.com/front.html#4

Posted by: Maruf Oct 9 2007, 04:50 AM

The misery of the residents of Tin Bigha will never be alleviated due to India's big brotherly attitude. As per the Indira-Mujib agreement, Bangladesh handed over Berubari to India and to do that the government had to amend the constitution. On the other hand, India started playing politics with Tin Bigha without showing slightest respect to the agreement that was signed between the former prime ministers of both the countries. The B.N.P government signed an anti state agreement with India in the early 90s that provided only a passage to the Tin Bigha residents for a stipulated time. This is not a solution rather it complicated the matter even more. Right now, Bangladesh even lost the bargaining power to correct the wrong done by Awami league and B.N.P. The then Awami League government shouldn't have handed over Berubari so hastily without making sure that Tin Bigha would be returned to Bangladesh. And B.N.P should not have settled down for a passage when we deserved sovereignty over Tin Bigha.

http://www.thedailystar.net/forum/2007/october/tin.htm

The Tin Bigha corridor 15 years on
Jason Cons provides the unofficial perspective

This past June 26 marked the 15th anniversary of the opening of the Tin Bigha corridor, a land bridge that connects the Bangladeshi chhitmahal (enclave) of Angarpota/Dahagram (AGDH) with mainland Bangladesh. June 26 is usually a day of celebration for AGDH's 16,000 residents. This year, the day was marked by a sour mood of discontent and resentment.

"We spoke to the UNO," a friend told me, "and decided that because of the emergency, this year we wouldn't have any public events." And so, while activist groups from the surrounding Indian village of Mekhliganj gathered in the corridor to protest the existence of the Tin Bigha, shouting slogans of: "United we stand, united we fight" and "Leave Bharat!" AGDH residents gathered in tea stalls and grumbled.

The discontentment this year was not only about the lack of celebrations and the failure to answer the Indian protesters with rally cries of their own. Over the past 2 months, a rumour had been circulating that finally, after a long fifteen-year wait, the corridor would finally open for a full 24 hours a day. Currently, the corridor is open for only 12 hours, from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., allowing AGDH residents to access local markets and resources in Patgram. The corridor, which is controlled by the Indian Border Security Force (BSF), remains closed during the night, presenting a range of complications for residents. But now it sounded as though things might change.

One resident excitedly told me: "About two months ago, the BSF started construction on two new buildings in the corridor. The BDR [Bangladesh Rifles] immediately protested and stopped the construction. The BDR told them that construction couldn't continue until the corridor is open for 24 hours. But two weeks ago, construction resumed …"


BANGLAPEDIA

Though there was limited basis for such rumours, they still served to ignite optimism in even the most sceptical of AGDH residents. When no concrete action was taken by the 26th, it served to further dampen spirits within the enclave. The hopes of AGDH residents had been dashed. Again. Reports that the corridor would be opened full time, and that the remaining enclaves within India and Bangladesh would finally be exchanged, emerge almost annually. Yet, little changes for the residents of these complicated spaces along the northwestern border, and the enclaves remain one of the sticking points in India-Bangladesh relations.

Throughout the past 60 years, debates over the chhitmahals have arisen as a series of puzzles. What are these odd spaces that are both part of, and separate from, their home countries? What country do their residents "belong" to? Is it constitutional for India or Bangladesh to "give" a piece of their land away? Can India provide passage through their sovereign territory for Bangladeshis to move from one part of Bangladesh to another? Yet, posing such questions as policy puzzles makes it difficult to see the enclaves as spaces where people are regularly denied basic rights of citizenship. Viewing them as such shifts the debate away from which state the enclaves "belong" to towards how people within the enclaves have defined the terms of their own belonging. The past 60 years have demonstrated that the questions of the corridor and of enclave exchange are issues that cannot be easily sorted out between the two states. What might happen if, instead of territorial exchange, the debate was shifted to securing citizenship for enclave residents? Such a shift in perspective can transform the debate over how long the Tin Bigha corridor is left open, from one of state sovereignty to one of basic human rights. To approach the question of the corridor and AGDH from this perspective, it is first necessary to understand their peculiar history.

Brief official history of the chhitmahals

The enclaves are small pieces of Bangladesh completely bounded by India, and vice versa, and are concentrated along the Lalmonirhat/Cooch Behar border. Their residents must illegally cross two borders simply to reach their home countries. Official counts put the number of these enclaves at 51 Bangladeshi enclaves inside India and 111 Indian enclaves inside Bangladesh. Though the chhitmahals date from Mughal times, the particular complications for those living within them began with Partition and became acute in 1952, with the implementation of a passport/visa system between the two countries.

In 1958, there was an official agreement to exchange all of the enclaves in the Nehru-Noon Accords, though deteriorating relations between East Pakistan and India and a series of court cases in India prevented this from being implemented. Another attempt to resolve the enclave issue was mounted in 1974 under the Indira-Mujib Accords. The accords make specific provisions to exchange all of the enclaves with the exception of AGDH and Berubari Union, a disputed area along the border with Jalpaiguri. As the Accords have it: "India will retain the southern half of South Berubari Union No.12 … in exchange Bangladesh will retain the Dahagram and Angarpota enclaves. India will lease in perpetuity to Bangladesh an area … to connect Dahagram with … Bangladesh."

This agreement, too, remains only partially fulfilled. While Bangladesh ceded South Berubari shortly after the agreement was signed, the corridor only opened 18 years later. Despite regular discussions, there has been no move to exchange the enclaves themselves.



It is not clear exactly why the two countries cannot come to an agreement on this seemingly simple problem. In official documentation, each side seems to blame the other for the failure to resolve the issue. Border working groups and joint-forces committees regularly agree to "discuss the matter further at a future date." Viewed from this perspective, the enclaves may help to maintain an open dialogue between the two countries' border security forces. However, the lack of resolution of the Tin Bigha issue continues to pose both practical and conceptual difficulties for those living in both AGDH and the other enclaves scattered along the border.

View from inside Angorpota/Dahagram

To understand the situation in AGDH, one must understand its history leading up to the opening of the corridor. AGDH is unique amongst the Indian and Bangladeshi chhitmahals. Its access to the Tista river, its size (approximately 4,000 acres), and the political struggle fought at both local and national levels over the opening of the corridor distinguish it from other areas. Yet many of the difficulties its residents have faced over the past 60 years are similar in kind to other enclaves'. Before the opening of the corridor, the lives of AGDH's residents were, to a large extent, governed by the tide of relations between India and East Pakistan and, later, Bangladesh.

When relations were good, residents were able to go to Mekhliganj, the surrounding Indian thana, to sell crops and buy essentials. But even during these periods of relative calm, residents faced numerous kinds of exploitation. As one resident described it to me: "We had to go through the camp, where the BSF man would note our names, inspect the goods we were carrying, and suggest, 'Okay, you can go to market later, first come inside the camp and cut the grass, or clean the lavatory, or so on.' They used to force us to pay in labour for around one hour. Afterward , we were allowed to bring rice, or wheat, weighing at most 5 kg."

When relations between the two countries were less good, residents had to risk crossings at night to reach the village of Patgram to buy and sell goods. They were subject to periodic blockades where conditions inside AGDH often reached near famine states. Many residents shared experiences with me of having to survive by eating shrubs while staying trapped in the enclave for months on end. "We had to bury our dead in rags or banana leaves," many told me. Looting was a constant problem, as was cattle theft and even abduction of women. Many residents complained of communal tensions that frequently escalated into outright conflict amongst residents of AGDH, the BSF, or residents of Mekhliganj.



One of the most serious incidents took place in the months before the India-Pakistan war in 1965. One night in March, members of surrounding Indian areas burned the village to the ground. Many of the villagers remember the horror and confusion of that evening. One man described the event to me. "We noticed some hasty movement of villagers and noticed fire on the north side. Most of the men returned home, shutting their shops … We saw people north of the village crossing the road. Everybody was carrying bundles, gripping their children, and walking fast. The fire in the north was widening … My father rushed to the cow-shed and untied all of the cows, so that they could save their lives … My father took hold of the rice pot. We kids were walking alongside my mother. We reached Tin Bigha …Then the population of the enclave was around 12,000. Around 3000 stayed at their homes. These were non-Muslims (Hindus). The rest of the mass gathered there. When we arrived at the Tin Bigha, the BSF weren't allowing us to pass. I remember hearing a few gunshots. The BSF was firing to prevent people from crossing Indian territory, but we were desperate, and by 10 p.m. we passed Tin Bigha and reached the mainland."

The bulk of the refugees sheltered in makeshift camps in Patgram thana, staying there for three weeks while cross-border tension remained high. Eventually, residents were allowed back into the enclave and received nominal compensation from the Indian government, including a cow for each family and other household essentials. Many residents report that they were forced to eat the cow to survive during the ensuing months of hardship, while houses were rebuilt and crops re-sown.

Such experiences were certainly not unique to AGDH. Indeed, many residents of Indian also reported incidents of looting, land grabbing, cattle theft, burning, and blockades, particularly during the East Pakistan period. However, AGDH's size and politics have made it a particular focus of conflict and tension since the Indira-Mujib accords.



In the early 1980s, several young activists inside AGDH formed a Dahagram Movement Committee to advocate for the implementation of the '74 treaty. This group staged public awareness campaigns and activist events to call attention to their cause. As one former member described it: "We printed hand-bills informing people of the condition in Dahagram, asking for help. We stuck these hand-bills in railway compartments to inform the country. We used to meet with the DC and suggest ways to solve our problem." Among other things, the committee organised a long "funeral" march to the Tin Bigha. As another member recalled: "We performed janaja [funeral rights] prayer in Dhaka. Then we began the Long March. We said that we would go through the Tin Bigha, as it should have been Bangladeshi land according to the treaty … It was a huge procession, looking like it was just waiting to explode. We were stopped, however, by Bangladeshi authorities short of the border."

At roughly the same time, in Mekhliganj, an Anti-Tin Bigha Movement Committee was also formed, pursuing a parallel campaign to try and prevent the corridor from being opened. For the Anti-Tin Bigha activists, the issue was also one of complicated geography. Committee members argued that ceding the Tin Bigha to Bangladesh would cut off a large portion of Mekhliganj thana, effectively making it into an enclave itself.2 Activists from each group took constant risks, defying the authority of both border security forces and frequently ending up on either country's wanted lists.

The activities of the two committees did succeed in attracting attention to the issue in both countries. In India, the cause of the Anti-Movement Committee was championed by the Bharatiya Jananta Party (BJP), which fought bitterly against the opening of the corridor, locally and in the Lok Sahba. On the Bangladesh side, in 1986, then president Ershad made the first of two visits to the enclave, becoming the first head of state to visit the chhitmahals. For many, this visit was a long-overdue acknowledgement of AGDH's belonging to Bangladesh. As a resident recalled: "After Ershad's arrival, we were quite speechless. It was as though we helpless folks got our father. We began weeping before him." Ershad's visit became a rallying cry for AGDH members, both encouraging them that the Bangladeshi central government was aware of their suffering and giving them hope that some resolution to the issue would be reached.

Ershad proposed a number of solutions to the AGDH problem, including constructing a flyover so that residents could cross the Tin Bigha corridor without ever touching Indian soil. However, it was not until 1992, under the BNP, that the corridor was finally opened amidst strong protest from the Anti-Movement Committee. "At last, we got it," said one resident. "Now the corridor is open for 12 hours a day. Even if it were for 1 hour a day, still we would be happy, because we have suffered a lot, which embittered our heart so much that I never wish to step in India. Now, by God's grace, everybody's lot has changed."

Current state of affairs

The opening of the corridor was undoubtedly a positive step for AGDH members. The existence of the corridor means that residents can access markets, services, and resources in Patgram every day, which has provided a stable basis for agricultural trade and growth. As importantly, the corridor facilitates access to services inside of AGDH, including micro-credit and government aid initiatives. Further, the BDR has established camps in both the north and south of AGDH. Residents can bring border issues to the BDR, who can mediate with the BSF through Flag-meetings, often allowing for peaceful resolutions to tense situations.

In addition to this overall improvement of security and well-being for residents, the creation of the corridor has wrought a number of social changes as well. The most dramatic of these is an influx of new people. Following the opening of the corridor, the majority of Hindu residents in the enclave moved to India, creating a surfeit of cheap land. A number of people living on chars and erosion prone areas along the banks of the Jamuna purchased this land. These new residents, who the locals call Bhatiyas, now compose roughly 50 percent of the population. This has radically redrawn the political landscape of AGDH where, now, elections tend to be fought not along party lines, but between "original" inhabitants and the newcomers.

Beyond these changes, the corridor has served to formalise the border. While many residents used to conduct business in Mekhliganj haats, less then one km from the northern end of AGDH, now they report that going to India is no longer possible. All business is conducted in Patgram. This proves a significant difficulty for some residents, particularly those who live in Angarpota, situated in the north of the enclave. These residents are forced to travel 12 km south to the Tin Bigha, before reversing direction and traveling another 12 km north-east to Patgram. The BSF has virtually surrounded AGDH with camps, and from most places inside the enclave it is possible to see, and be seen, by the many BSF watchtowers.


Marble trading between AGDH children and Indian children standing across the borders. ERIN LENIZ

Further, the fact that the corridor is under sovereign control of the BSF means that residents themselves do not control what goes into, and out of, the enclave. Last September, the BSF implemented a "cattle ceiling" to combat what they claimed was illegal smuggling of cattle to the slaughter markets in Patgram byway of AGDH. This ceiling limits the number of cattle that can be taken to market on any given haat day to 10, a ludicrously small number for an impoverished village of 16,000. Many AGDH residents posses no significant assets other than their cattle, and the ceiling, which is monitored and governed by the local UP Council, makes raising money for everything from land purchases to medical emergencies next to impossible.

The most pressing issues facing residents are electricity and access to Bangladeshi mainland during evening hours. Many residents blame this for continuing underdevelopment within the enclave, suggesting that any new business ventures inside AGDH are stymied by a lack of electricity. The absence of electricity also prevents a hospital built during the Ershad period from opening its doors, leading to limited medical facilities for enclave residents. For most medical procedures, residents must make the journey to Patgram. Thisis particularly problematic in medical emergencies that take place during the night when the corridor is closed.

A BDR officer in charge of handling frequent local negotiations with the BSF, highlighted this issue. "Yesterday morning, just after the morning prayer [before dawn], my sentry knocked at my door to inform me that there was a critical patient with a baby who needed to go to Patgram. I ordered two jawans to take her up to Tin Bigha and make a request to the BSF. They allowed her to pass. These sorts of necessities frequently occur and we have to play our part. The problem happens during the night. If it is 9 p.m. or more, the BSF has many formalities … and these processes swallow one hour or more of time, which is critical for a patient or someone in medical emergency or labor pain. They dilly-dally and sometimes they just don't allow. They don't categorically deny passage because they may be condemned for violating international law. But they pretend to talk to other authorities, and after some time come out suggesting: "Our company commander isn't available now, so we can't allow you."

From states' rights to human rights

A white-paper available on the India High Commission for Bangladesh's website titled: "Tin Bigha: A Proper Perspective," observes: The importance of the Tin Bigha question involves much more than leasing of a particular piece of land. Its resolution symbolises, above all, the will of the people of India and Bangladesh to live together in amity and good neighbourliness. The leasing reflects the shared resolve of the two governments to eliminate a long-standing and major irritant in bilateral relations, thus setting the stage to bring about a mutually beneficial upgradation of Indo-Bangladesh relations." If this is so, then the partial fulfillment of the '74 Treaty and the ongoing difficulties faced by residents of the enclaves are also symbols of the incompleteness of this "upgrade." Yet, I would suggest that part of the difficulty faced by enclave residents is the result of seeing the Tin Bigha corridor and the enclaves as "problems" or "issues" to be sorted out: territorial oddities that are a feature of the uneven and incomplete border between India and Bangladesh.

Understanding the enclaves not as territorial puzzles and rather as the homes of beleaguered residents helps to reposition the enclaves as absurd and easily remediable impediments to residents' rights as citizens. The official history of the enclaves begs a series of questions: Which country do the enclaves belong to? Who should control the Tin Bigha corridor? What are reasonable terms of a lease from one country to another? These questions are abstract and debatable. However, the questions have more immediate answers if instead one asks: how can we ensure the enclave residents' rights as citizens? What does it mean to prevent someone from accessing their home country for 12 hours a day? What are reasonable restrictions on what goods a citizen can bring to market?

Indeed, as I have tried to do in this essay, it is critical to view the chhitmahols not as policy puzzles but as places where people live their daily lives in the face of complicated and at times dangerous institutional and political configurations. From this perspective, the various different stumbling blocks in resolving the enclave issue and the Tin Bigha corridor by both India and Bangladesh appear as petty squabbles over small and strategically unimportant pieces of land. Residents of AGDH repeatedly expressed their pride at being citizens of Bangladesh and their desire to be fully integrated into the country. As long as both countries continue to view the enclave issue in general from the perspective of territory and sovereignty, as opposed to citizenship and rights, their desire and their long struggle, not to mention two treaties and numerous promises, will remain.

Posted by: akzaman Oct 9 2007, 05:39 AM

Indo Bangladesh Relations and Coup in August 1975

By Rabindranath Trivedi - for Asian Tribune from Dhaka

PART- I: Coup in Bangladesh Killed Bangabandhu on 15 August 1975

Dhaka, 04 August, (Asiantribune.com): The August, the 8th month of the zodiac, named after the great Augustus, is full of ecstasy and sorrowful events in this subcontinent. August gave birth to two nation states as Hindus and Muslims, India and Pakistan, sixty years ago in August 1947. The August also mourned for Rabindranath who died on 7 August 1941(Thursday 22 Srabon 1348 Bengali year) and Founding Father of Bangladesh Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman who died in a coup along with his family members except two daughters on 15 August 1975.

With their death, these noble sons of Bengal had contributed to civilization and their endeavor for nationhood had earned both for themselves and the Bangalees an honoured place in the community of nations.

The East Bengal renamed East Pakistan turned into a perpetual colony of Pakistan. The political movement that was launched for Bengali language and for democratic rights on different occasions subsequently turned into a freedom movement and war of Bangladesh liberation in 1971. In the War of Liberation the great poet Rabindranath was a source of inspiration at all stages.

It is a volatile nation whose roots baffle the historians. Bangladesh, rightly observed an American political scientist,” is a country challenged by contradictions”. The history of the birth of Pakistan was associated with communal strife and bitterness. But Bangladesh is the product of the War of Liberation. It was a movement against the Pakistani military-bureaucratic oligarchy for the establishment of democratic rights.

I was moved by Tagore's posthumous volume where
"Death like Rahu" reveals:

“That whatever I grasped as truth was only a tissue of lies -

How could the laws of nature be so unnatural?

This I know in my heart of heart;

He who knows the world exists -His I-ness is witness of the world's existence:

He too exists in the ultimate I.'

Some scholars have translated those verses, yet the intrinsic meanining of those poems employs a statement of doubt and negation- asserts doubts and negation and ultimately transforming into a confident affirmation. Those poetic statements become a means of communicating quintessential truth and amazingly fine nuances of feeling. Not a word is extra; some, in fact, are really telegram in verses.

Since Rabindranath's last journey for the 'great unknown' on August 7, 1941 (Thursday 22 Srabon 1348 Bengali year) the world has rolled in her orbit sixty six times. Many waters have flown to the Bay of Bengal. Since his death in 1941, India was partitioned and Bengal was divided in 1947 and its accompanying bloodshed. West Bengal has indeed gradually lost her leadership of India in every field-- political, commercial, intellectual and artistic. The crux of the political problem was the Hindu-Muslim divide in Bengal. It is even today a congenital defect that has crippled both the communities and particularly the Hindus in East Bengal.

Bangladesh is a product of Bangla language and double secessions. Bangladesh is a nation state that changed its statehood and identity twice in less than a quarter of a century. The dramatic emergence of Bangladesh runs counter to conventional tenets of nationalism in South Asia."The most tragic death of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in a coup on the night of August 15,1975 continues to haunt Bangladesh. The Coup of August 15,1975 in which Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his family were assassinated, shows how easy it really is to change a government by such means.

The events of the three months following the coup, especially the power struggle in the week of November 3, 1975, have also shown that it is easier to change a government than to established and maintain an effective administration.” (Raunaq Jahan, 2005, p- 165)

The country is now bitterly divided internally. The struggle for democracy still persists. A democratic Bangladesh at peace with itself and the world will be a long time coming unless the legacy of Bangabandhu is faced honestly and there is national atonement for the brutal murder, former editor of the Bangladesh Observer, Mr.Obaidul Huq (Obaidul Huq, 1996, p-132) noted.

It may be recalled after six decades of partition of India Founding Father of Pakistan M.A. Jinnah was in favour of making Pakistan a modern secular state as evident from Jinnah's 11August, 1947 speech in the Pakistan Constituent Assembly (CAP). But Jinnah's strong advocacy of Urdu as the national language of Pakistan provoked the Bangali of East Bengal to think seriously about their position. Their cultural identity threatened.)"Non-Muslims would have stayed back in Pakistan if Quad-e-Azam M A Jinnah's reinterpretation of the two-nation theory had been carried out. Its ethos becomes secularism, not religion.

He said that Muslim ceased to be Muslims and Hindus ceased to be Hindus; they were either Pakistani or Indian. Mahatma Gandhi, in turn, declared that he would live in Pakistan and seek no visa to enter. Gandhi was shot dead by the extremists and Jinnah was abandoned by similar elements and left dying as a disillusioned man. Both leaders who were at the helm of political affairs then did not envisage that the minorities would have to quit because of their religion in the country to which they belonged. Both were dejected when the migration began, Kuldip Nayer writes.' (The Daily star, 17 Dec. 2004).

The sad demise of Mahatma M K Gandhi by bullets and Quid-I-Azam M A Jinnah by Tuberculosis in 1948 put minorities in East Bengal under a pecuniary situation . If Jinnah continues his office one more decade, minority in the subcontinent may not quit their ancestral homes. "Non-Muslims would have stayed back in Pakistan if M A Jinnah's reinterpretation of the two-nation theory had been carried out. Its ethos become secularism, not religion..” Jinnah unequivocally did not want a theocratic state run Mullahs. His statements about minorities are significant: I am going to constitute myself the Protector –General of the Hindu minority in Pakistan’. Speech after speech confirmed this. A cabinet was created; Jinnah had seven ministers in the cabinet, one a Hindu Mr. Jagendra Nath Mondal.

“ Had Jinnah’s vision prevailed- and found an echo in India- we would have been a very different South Asia… There would have been open boarder, free trade and regular visiting between the two countries. The lack of tension would have ensured that the minorities were not under pressure and, as both Jinnah and congress leaders like Gandhi and Nehru wanted, lived as secure and integrated citizens. The fabric of society would have been different,and a more humane subcontinent might have engaged: s land true to the visions of the leaders and spirit of the sages.”(Jinnah,Pakistan and Islamic Identity, OUP, 1997,P-183)
And the assassination of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib in a coup on 15 August1975 put under identity crisis.

Both Pakistan and Bangladesh , these two nations under subsequent military rules over decades raised the question "Can Pakistan Survive?" and " Fragility Thy Name is Bangladesh”. Pakistan Army has been in politics; lacking in legitimacy, soldiers in power are always on the defensive. They rely on Mullahs, the prayer leaders, to mitigate some of it. The most glaring examples of military-Mullah alliance was seen in East Pakistan during 1971 and in General Zia's regime during 1970s and 1980s , the two are natural and historical alliances”( M V Naqvi, DS,14 April 05) .

History repeats itself , what had been a possibility in M A Jinnah's Pakistan that was established in Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib's Bangladesh -a secular democratic state, a state which makes no difference between a citizen and a citizen, which deals fairly with all irrespective of caste, creed or community in its constitution of Bangladesh-1972 but subsequent military regimes in Bangladesh changed the course of the nation .

“This, I believe, is what makes Bangabandhu the central figure of our time. In assessing the state of nation, the prospect the nation has before it; it is relevant to go a little into what may be called the driving force behind the phenomenon that is Bangabandhu. From 25th March 1971 to 10th January, 1972 Bangabandhu is totally absent from the scene where unequal forces are locked in a deadly struggle. Bangabandhu and Bangabandhu alone is the symbol round which the adherents of the forlorn cause group themselves. And that is no accident says Prof Abdur Razzak of DU.And he opined: “In those dark days, in that testing time, among the millions who would constitute the nation, there was no misunderstanding and there was no ambiguity.

Bangabandhu alone was the symbol. But there have been other symbols in the long freedom struggle in the subcontinent.” To take only two examples: Gandhiji and M A Jinnah. Either of them could sway millions; make them do their biddings. Jinnah, a man of the highest integrity, of very great forensic skill, a dedicated public man, had after due deliberation, espoused a cause which he believed to be righteous and brought it to amore or less successful conclusion. MahatmaGandhi was different. He did preach love.

But that was because love was Dharma-Dharma for all men. He belonged to the world. It was accidental that he was an Indian. He was a medieval man in the best sense of the term. Important as this life was, it was with him but a mere appendix to the far more important life to come, the everlasting life in God. This is the difference, large as life, between Bangabandhu on the one hand and Jinnah and Gandhi on the other. Bangabandhu had forged an indivisible fusion between and the nation.”(Bangladesh: State of the Nation,Prof Abdur Razzak , DU, 1981 P4-5)

History repeats itself, what had been a possibility in M A Jinnah's Pakistan that was established in Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib's Bangladesh -a secular democratic state, a state which makes no difference between a citizen and a citizen, which deals fairly with all irrespective of caste, creed or community in the Constitution of Bangladesh-1972 but subsequent military regimes in Bangladesh changed the course of the nation and becomes a theocratic state. "Sheikh Mujib combined in himself the charisma of Fazlul Huq and the patent political skill of Suhrawardy.

He consolidated the party, discovered the nation. He built upon the foundations of his elders but the thrust, the originality of his own leadership is beyond dispute. .. He gathered around him a band of devotees, willing to lay down their lives for the cause and many did. He was the man of the people, as Bhashani was, and, a leader of youths where he resembled Suhrawardy. Unlike political philosophers, Abul Hashem for example, he lacked in creed but his vision was whole. Heroes and tragedies go together. Tragedy was perhaps inevitable in this case too, but the form it took will remain an eternal shame to the people. Students of Shakespeare will look for the tragic flaw in Mujib's character…. What failed him, or who failed him?

In Shakespeare's heroes, it is not always the fatal flaws, which work on these flaws. In the case of Sheikh Mujib, the last, perhaps the greatest and certainly the most tragic of our heroes, the tragedy stemmed, perhaps equally from both within and without. The greatness of a tragic hero is hardly diminished on account of the flaws. The flaws explain, however weakly that may be, but never justify, the huge waste, the tragedy of the fall. There is a time for mourning and a time for exegesis.

Apparently, we have already passed from the one to the other. At a farther remove from both, there is a time for the poet, for the raw life to be transformed into art, for lived experience to be rounded off into a poetic vision. When the time comes, a great tragic poet may find his hero in Sheikh Mujib. He will have enough material for his work. What I wonder about, is how will he provide the catharsis-"Calm of mind all passion spent"? This will be his supreme challenge, opined Zillur Rahman Siddiqui in 1982.

The successive post-1975 governments have changed the concept of nationalism from Bengali nationalism-characterized by ethno-linguistic identities and not by religious (Muslim) identity - to Bangladeshi nationalism-characterised by religious (Muslim) identity of the Bangladeshi majority- which make them distinct from the Bengali Hindus of the Indian state of West Bengal who never showed any interest in forming a separate state based on Bengali nationalism.

In August 1975, I was then at Bangabhaban, the president’s palace, I could recollect those early days of Martial Law. In a nation wide broadcast on the 15 August, Khondakar Mustaq Ahmed propounded the doctrine of historic necessity He glorified the role of the Armed Forces in the following words: The armed forces had to come forward in changing the government as it became impossible to bring a change.

The armed forces have opened up the gate of “golden opportunity’” before the countrymen by discharging responsibility with utmost sincerity. “In course of time, what had been construed as a golden opportunity for the people would, in fact, is a “golden opportunity” for the army - an all-embracing form, the Bishwarupa - for making or unmaking the government and the constitution of the country. “ Wrote Dr Aleem-Al-Razee in his book (Constitutional Glimpses of Martial Law in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh).

“In Bangladesh, the end of one dream marks the beginning of another. The Army crackdown in March 1971 ended the Bengali’s dream for a fully autonomous East Pakistan, but it immediately created a new vision, the hope for an independent republic of Bangladesh. Perhaps, so it is now, although the traumatic collapse of the Mujib regime--and the death of the founder of the state--would leave the Bengalis in a state of shock for a long, long time. …. Yet sooner or later, the young republic, long used to a succession of tragedies, will again start looking at its future ready to make a new beginning. Again, there will be new dreams, new dreams and new hopes,wrote Mr. S M Ali.

Since then three and half decades have passed. Bangladesh has been changed in her course of path under military regimes .The legacy of lies in the body politic of Bangladesh that It was just one of the many lies that caused Bengalis so much grief in 1975. “The result has been a deeply divided, wounded society. A whole generation of Bengali men and women, born after liberation, has come of age through a palpable process of a peddling of political untruth.”(DS, 15Nov.06)

What Maulana Abul Kalam Azad cites two instances of “blunders” committed by Nehru in dealing with League in 1946? As he mentioned in his book entitled ’India Wins Freedom’. The same ‘blunders’ in different perspective had committed by Nehru’s daughter, Prime Minister of India Mrs. Indira Gandhi in dealing with Bangladesh and Bangali Hindus in 1971. Her father Pundit Jawharlal Nehru, a scholar politician and liberal democrat, made Bengali Hindus uprooted -refugee in Andaman, abandoned railway wagons of West Bengal and dense forest of Madhya Pradesh. And his daughter Mrs.Indira Gandhi, tapped by her statesmanship image, made Bangladeshi Hindus ‘Stateless Citizens’ in India and ‘power less –vote bank-vested property holding-citizens in Bangladesh’

Prime Minister Mrs.Indira Gandhi could realise that only ‘go back all refugees’ would not dissolve the old congenital Hindu-Muslim issue. She had lately recognised agony of Hindus after August 1975.

When she replied a question to BBC interviewer on 20 August 1975 that “ Whatever be the new situation in Bangladesh, India will remain dominant in the affairs of Bangladesh, if Pakistan becomes a close friend of Bangladesh, she may cause harm to India and then Bangladesh will become an issue of trouble in the sub-continent. As a result, the subsequent circumstances will not be favorable to India. Replying a BBC question Mrs. Gandhi said, "Of course, had the Government of Bangladesh adopted the Islamic principles, the question of the Hindu minority would have arisen.

The Hindu minority might also leave Bangladesh for India creating new economic and political problems for India.”

Bangladeshi Hindus become the perpetual slaves in the hands of history, their fate have been a concern of US, EU, UNs and Amnesty International.. India had done her job in returning refugees to an independent Bangladesh. What a fateful event in the annals of history that Bangladesh could not break away from the past and remained steeped in the legacy of her history of the 23-year existence as theocratic-military regimes owned part of Pakistan.

Both Pakistan and Bangladesh, these two nations under subsequent military rules over decades raised the question "Can Pakistan Survive?" and " Fragility Thy Name is Bangladesh” The defeated Axis of 1971has been organising the forces of retaliation by extending money, men and materials in Bangladesh. In the post-August 1975 period, the attitude towards the minorities changed and Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, collaborators of occupation Pakistan Army, and other right wing religious anti-independence forces became partners in the power game with BNP and the army assuming the role of ‘arbitrators’ in Bangladesh politics.

Unfortunately, for the last three decades, Bangladesh– India relations have passed through several ups and downs of the successive Generals-turned-politicians’ regimes.

The relations between Bangladesh and India have changed in several phases. Correspondingly, relations have changed the basic fabrics of the fundamental principles with the color and texture of their bilateral relations. We will continue to discuss some points in the following articles. (to be continued)

Part-II The Coup in Bangladesh in August 1975 and News coverage in World Media

Dhaka, 05 August, (Asiantribune.com): “Now, we go on to the last week's (August 15,1975) overthrow of President Mujibur Rahman of Bangladesh,’ this was a BBC report in August 1975. The report said: Sheikh Mujib was India's friend and owned his position to the fact that Indian Armed Forces helped to create Bangladesh. Also the fact cannot have been lost on Mrs. Indira Gandhi who is now ruling in a highly personal way that would leave her in a state of a coup.

Neville Maxwell of Oxford University made this point to BBC interviewer: Mujib changed the constitution and tailored it to one-party rule, an act which at that time drew congratulations from Mrs. Gandhi.

Mrs. Gandhi followed suit last month. Again a parallel was drawn and Sheikh Mujib returned the congratulations. Now after a brief period, Sheikh Mujib's authoritarian rule has been terminated by the army. I think that this, as it were, underlines in blood the writing on the wall that has been visible since June 1975, reports BBC. Twenty-four hour feature, August 18, 1975

.The BBC report had continued that : Now, I am saying that there is an imminent or even an early danger of the same thing happening to Mrs. Gandhi as happened to Sheikh Mujib. Then what are the implications of the fact that Bangladeshis under its new "Islamic Republic".

Neville Maxwell said, "This is, in fact, an assertive reappearance of the basic conflict in South Asia, between Hindus and Muslims. Sheikh Mujib declared that Bangladesh would be a secular state. In doing so, he opened himself to criticism that he was tool of India and by implication a tool of Hinduism as against Islam. And this was, of course, running very strongly indeed against Sheikh Mujib this year as a part of the general disaffection that led him to establish his abortive dictatorship."

Interviewer: Pakistan has moved very quickly to recognise the new administration. It has been strange, undoubtedly, what has happened in Bangladesh has concerned Pakistanis and the news has repeatedly been articulated by Prime Minister Z A Bhutto that the essential Islamic nature of East Pakistan, Bangladesh would reassert itself in time and that when it did so East Pakistan, presently Bangladesh, would move into a more cordial relationship with Pakistan that the blood and injuries of 1971 would be forgotten and that these two states would once again move into at least a close association. This leaves, in fact, India's Eastern flank vis-à-vis Bangladesh open again.

Neville Maxwell said: "I think, that would undoubtedly be the feeling in Delhi. A feeling of great in case that East Pakistan has in a way been reborn in the new guise of the "Islamic Republic of Bangladesh" and that this has ominous political and strategic potential for India." (BBC,18 August 1975)

Radio Japan, Bengali service, Press Review: on 20 August 1975: The Japanese daily Asahi Shim Hun: "Three main problems facing the new government are serious to take note of these, and the main problem is the cherished political goal of the people of the region. During the last three and a half years, the leader of the newly born nation tried to establish the political philosophy of the nation on the principles of secularism, socialism and democracy. The paper said undoubtedly the people of the region nourish a nationalism of their own, but secularism could not work out properly. The main reason behind it is that 79% of the people are Muslims.

Secondly, a complex international situation faced by the whole world kept the new nation under a constant confusion in her diplomatic trend. The new government seems to have taken a trend towards Pakistan and the United States. Thirdly, the main, rather the most important issue, is the construction of her shattered economy.

Radio Japan said: Another daily analyzed the situation contributing to the downfall and killing of Sheikh Mujib. The worldwide inflation has a severe impact in the economy of the developing nations. This was acute in Bangladesh, which the government, in spite of its promises, could not lessen, in any way. This frustrated the hungry millions to such an extent that the one-party rule made by Sheikh Mujib could not last long and suffered from this setback. The big powers should keep themselves aloof and let Bangladesh move forwards all by herself ….However, this change in one part of the South-East Asian region will undoubtedly have effect on the rest. ( Radio Japan,20 August 1975)

BBC on August 20, 1975 in its Bengali commentary said: “ Pakistan is the country to recognize the new Government of Bangladesh first. Prime Minister Bhutto appealed to the Muslim states and the third world countries to recognize the new government of Bangladesh. Following the death of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Pakistan recognised the new Government of Bangladesh without any delay while Mrs. Indira Gandhi expressed her grief. When Mr Robert Bernard, a journalist of the "School of Oriental African Studies", was asked whether Mrs. Gandhi has lost her control over Bangladesh, he said, "Yes, as India had been closely involved in the liberation movement of Bangladesh and established close relations after its liberation, she now feels that her control over Bangladesh is, to some extent, lost. Again, since Mrs. Gandhi had good relations with Sheikh Mujib, the administration and political situation in Bangladesh are being considered to be in a mess by India following the Sheikh’s death. Mr. Bernard asked Mrs. Gandhi, “Do you think that there are some barriers in the way of promoting good relations between Pakistan and Bangladesh even after Pakistan's quick recognition to the latter? Mrs. Gandhi said, "It does not seem that a federal state comprising Bangladesh and Pakistan are to be established in the near future. Whatever be the new situation in Bangladesh, India will remain dominant in the affairs of Bangladesh. "However, if Pakistan becomes a close friend of Bangladesh, she may cause harm to India and then Bangladesh will become an issue of trouble in the sub-continent. As a result, the subsequent circumstances will not be favourable to India.

Mrs. Gandhi further said, "Of course, had the Government of Bangladesh adopted the Islamic principles, the question of the Hindu minority would have arisen. The Hindu minority might also leave Bangladesh for India creating new economic and political problems for India.” (BBC commentary: Bengali, 1945 hrs. August 20, 1975)

During Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s period in the post-August 1975 era the relations of the two countries were not cordial. Anti-Hindu and anti-India campaign started by the defected forces of liberation war in Bangladesh and a section of the press contributed a major damage in that direction. The illegal crossing of border by the Hindus and others caused strains in relations between Bangladesh and India. When the Janata government in India headed by Prime Minister Morarji Desai came, illegal entry of Bangladeshis and vested property issue were discussed. When Morarji visited Dhaka he discussed the problems with President Ziaur Rahman.

The attack on the Indian High Commissioner, Mr. Samar Sen, on 26 November, 1975 was a result of anti- India and anti- Hindu campaign. Mr. Samar Sen, as India's permanent representative to UN in 1971, dealt with Bangladesh issue with extraordinary diligence, perseverance and commitment. His outstanding contribution came in for fulsome praise not only in India but also among the freedom-loving citizens of Bangladesh. He was, therefore, the logical choice as India's High Commissioner in Dhaka after the premature departure of Mr. Subimal Dutta, first High Commissioner to Bangladesh. It is a matter of great love for Bangladesh that Mr. Samar Sen turned down an offer made by Mrs. Indira Gandhi to send an Indian Air Force plane to evacuate him to Calcutta for treatment saying he had full confidence in the Bangladesh medical services and doctors. When he was offered the post of India's Foreign Secretary, he turned it down on the ground that he could not afford it.

It is a part of history of Bangladesh that on December 3, 1971 when Indian Prime Minister Mrs. Gandhi was addressing a mammoth public meeting in Calcutta Parade ground, the Defence Minister, Mr. Jagjivan Ram, in Patna and the Finance Minister, Mr. Y B Chavan, in Bombay, Pakistan's armed forces launched aggression against India. The overwhelming majority of the elected representative of Bangladesh irrevocably declared themselves in favour of separation from the mother-state of Pakistan and set up a new state of Bangladesh. India has recognized this new state. In a letter addressed to the Secretary-General of the UN, Ambassador Samar Sen with reference to the General Assembly adopted resolution 2793 (XXVI) entitled “Question considered by the Security Council at its 1606th, 1608th meeting, on 4th, 5th, and 6th, and 7th December, 1971.

The UN provided the forum where last-minute efforts were made to preserve Pakistan’s unity. The Security Council discussed a US resolution calling upon India and Pakistan for an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal of their armies to their own side of the border. On 5 December 1971, after an eight-hour debate, the Soviet Union’s representative to UN Mr Malikov vetoed the resolution; Britain and France abstained. Two days later, The General Assembly adopted a resolution of similar content by a vote of 104 to 11, with 10 abstentions. Indian representative to the UN Mr Samar Sen turned it down. Then , the Soviet Union vetoed two other resolutions in the Security Council to the effect, one by Belgium, Italy and Japan and the other by Argentina, Belgium and seven other countries.

Meanwhile, situation in East Pakistan worsened. Mitra Bahini and Freedom Fighters headed by General G J Aurora have been occupying more lands and arms from occupied Pakistani forces. General Niazi of eastern command of Pakistan‘s urgent request for help for West Pakistan did not evince any favourable response. Instead,it was authorized to take suitable decisions, as circumstances required.

Z A Bhutto rushed to New York on December 11 and The US representative Mr. Bush, later president of USA, moved an other resolution in the Security Council on 13 December, calling for an immediate cease-fire. The Soviet Union vetoed this resolution as well On 14 December, Poland moved a resolution, which called for the release of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman,and transfer of power to the lawfully elected representatives headed by him, while speaking on the Polish resolution, in an emotional out burst, Bhutto tore up the agenda papers and stormed out of the security council. The same day Soviet Union vetoed another resolution moved by France, the UK and Ireland,demandingan immediate cease-fire. Meanwhile Pakistan army surrendered to avoid’further bloodshed and heavy loss of civilian life’ to the joint forces of India and Bangladesh at 16.28 hours, at Ramna race course on 16 December,1971.

In December 1971, after a lengthy and heated discussion in the Security Council on the question of the tragic events in East Pakistan, which grew into a military conflict between the two biggest states of the region, India and Pakistan, and which has now become an international problem, this question has come before the General Assembly for consideration, said Mr. Jacob Malik, Permanent Representative of the USSR. He further said, "One can see how the voting went in the Security Council.

Unrealistic draft resolutions were submitted that failed to take into account the real state of affairs in East Pakistan and the sub-continent that closed their eyes to the facts. As a consequence, the Soviet Union twice voted against such draft resolutions, and the United Kingdom and France abstained. Thus, three permanent members of the Security Council did not support those draft resolutions. Who did support them?

The United States of America, which had submitted their draft of all -- a draft in accordance with their plans in that region - supported by the delegation of China, This is the picture of the voting. "Ambassador Samar Sen in exercise of his right to reply, said, "I have listened with great attention to the various comments made in this important debate. Without going into a detailed analysis, I think it is fair to say that four trends of thought against India have emerged: One led by the United States of America, one by Portugal, one by China and one by Pakistan."

The Security Council considered the situation in the Indian sub-continent again from December 12 to 21, 1971. The draft resolution tabled by the USA for an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal of armed forces was vetoed by the USSR on December 13, 1971.

Meanwhile, the situation in the sub-continent changed with the fall of Dacca and India's unilateral declaration of cease-fire resulting in a better understanding of Bangladesh by India and the unilateral declaration of cease-fire in the Western sector, following the unconditional surrender by Pakistani military occupation forces in Dacca on December 16, 1971, confirmed the repeated assurances given by India that it had no territorial designs on Pakistan. Pakistan's attempt to collect signatures to take the whole issue back to the General Assembly failed as it was able to collect 23 signatures out of 104 countries which had earlier voted for General Assembly Resolution. This was clearly indicative of the understanding of the realities of the situation in Bangladesh by the members of the United Nations. (Bangladesh Documents, Vol-II, pp-514-517).

(Mr. Samar Sen (1914-2003), a doyen among Indian diplomats and a former member of the Indian Civil Service passed away in a London Hospital on February 16,2003. We pray to the Almighty for the salvation of the departed soul and express condolences to the bereaved family. I wrote an article in the Daily Janakantha on September 23, 2003 entitled "Leave here the old, A new game has started here" quoting a line from Tagore's poem.)

Part-III Coup in August 1975 : An Analysis by BBC

Dhaka, 06 August , (Asiantribune.com): Bangladesh President Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, along with all, but two daughters, of his family members, was killed by a group of young officers of the Army , said BBC, on 15 AUGUST 1976 after just one year. Richard Open Haimer of the Eastern Division of the BBC reviewed the causes of his killing in the context of development and present situation in Bangladesh. The Bangladeshis and the people abroad were equally shocked and terrified at the way Sheikh Mujib had been killed.

Whatever criticism is labeled against his rule and corruption, there is no doubt that this great personality had helped much in the liberation struggle of Bangladesh four years ago. Still, Sheikh Mujib was killed at a time when he wanted to establish Democracy, Nationalism, Socialism and Secularism the four basic pillars of the Constitution. Doubts have been expressed about it and the economy of the country was almost collapsed at that time.

Obviously, Sheikh Mujib was only partially responsible for the miserable economic condition of Bangladesh. There was no magic to fulfill the promises overnight which were made during the liberation for the economic freedom and to be free from the clutches of West Pakistan. Besides this, the hope for rapid economic revival and recovery after the liberation met with a severe blow following the world wide economic depression caused by the oil crisis in 1973 and 1974.” Richard Open Haimer continues and added: “But some new trends had appeared in the political and economic horizon of Bangladesh for which Sheikh Mujib was responsible. Some of these trends came to an end abruptly after his death and some are still going on in a changed form. But all these trends made him hostile.It was basically Sheikh Mujib who introduced parliamentary form of government. Again, Sheikh Mujib himself introduces one-party presidential system of government which he termed in January, 1975 as the Second Revolution.Sheikh Mujib’ s predecessor Khandakar Mushtaque Ahmed banned political parties as a condition for preparing a time schedule for the resumption of political activities and holding general elections in February, 1977.

The election time schedule remained unchanged despite coups after coups by the shipahis (soldiers). Now it is to be seen as to what extent the political parties can carry out their activities, how fairly the election is held and what role the Army play in any future government.It now appears that the twin policy of nationalism and secularism is the cause of Sheikh Mujib's death.

The plotters of assassination of Sheikh Mujib and the leader of the so-called Majors, Lt. Colonel Farooqur Rahman said several times that the killing of Sheikh Mujib was inevitable because he deviated Bangladesh from the Islamic path and placed it in the hands of India and the Soviet Union After the death of Sheikh Mujib, Bangladesh established diplomatic and trade relations with Pakistan and China. Sheikh Mujib, however, was also gradually approaching towards that direction. The economic policy adopted by the present government is quite different to that of Sheikh Mujib's socialistic policy.

Following the adoption of some liberal policies in the field of industrial ownership, jute industry and foreign investment, it appears that the pattern of nationalization is being changed. The powers which Sheikh Mujib handed over to his party workers from political point of view are now being practically given back to the professional bureaucrats and Martial Law Administrators. This is such a peculiar stability in the trend of events that has not been discontinued even after the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman or the military coup of November 1975." (BBC, 15 August 1976).

Aftermath the August Coup in Bangladesh

It is worthy to mention here that after the government was formed to project a civilian appearance, power lies with the coup leaders. They made Bangabhaban their own permanent residence and operated from a martial law control room located there. They replaced Major General Shafiullah with Major General Zia as the Army Chief of Staff. General (retired) MAG Osmani was appointed Defence Adviser to the President, which created a mixed reaction in the minds of the people and a respectable image so far it was learnt.

Brigadier Khaled Musharraf staged a coup with apparent success on November 3, 1975. The President sent the coup leaders abroad. Musharraf, after a hot exchange of words, compelled Mustaque to hand over power to the chief justice of the Supreme Court. But when the killer majors with the help from certain quarters murdered four national leaders in the central jail on 3rd November, 1975 before they flew out, big demonstrations were staged by AL and others against the killing of Bangabandhu and four national leaders. The killers claimed that they were acting on president Mustaq’s orders

After 15th August, 1975, many leaders and workers were detained by the military junta and tried by military courts.The DCMLA Air Vice Marshal M G Tawab was ousted as he had participated in an Islamic Jalsa held at Race Course on March 7,1976 where followers of Jaamat fundamentalists and banned rightist political parties raised slogan “Tawab Bhai, Tawab Bhai, we want flag of crescent and star,” (i.e., Pakistan)They raised 6-point demand;Islamic Republic of Bangladesh; Change of national flag; change of national antheme, demolision of Shahid Minar of language movement -1952.and so on (Ittefaq , 08 March 1976).

Air Vice-Marshal M G Toab , a Pakistan Air Force Officer, was serving as an instructor in a NATO air force school ,and made the Air Force Chief of Bangladesh on 16 October,two months after the Coup. He had settled down with his German wife in West Germany. " It is assumed that after the dismissal of his colleague and the Deputy Chief Martial Law Administrator, Air Vice Marshal M.G.Tawab, the de facto leader of today's Bangladesh, General Ziaur Rahman, is the supporter of secularism alike Khandaker Mushtaque Ahmed. He is also opposed to the idea that Bangladesh is an Islamic state. General Zia has given his firm support to nationalism and particularly he is very much vocal at the Colombo conference during the last few days against the alleged Indian interference in the affairs of Bangladesh.” ( BBC reported on 15 August’76)

Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan, the great revolutionary leader, also known as the prophet of violence, who was then on the sick bed at P G Hospital, made a clarion call to resist these elements. That worked promptly, and compelled Tawab to quit Bangladesh." Zia faced several attempted coups and counter coups. He crushed these and removed fast to forcibly oust his main rivals Air vice Marshal M G Toab and also executed Lt.Colonel (retired) Abu Taher on July 21, 1976 at Dacca Central Jail. By removing Tawab, known to be an extreme rightist, and Taher known to be an extreme leftist, Zia managed to win over moderates and centrists and consolidated his own power by gaining majority support in the army." (Hussein Golam,1988, p-17).In Pakistan, the army was bound to gain ascendancy sooner or later; and the tune of ‘Islam in danger’ is the harmony with the genesis of Pakistan. A Tradition of changing the government through Coups! On the other hand, the people of Bangladesh have along tradition of political struggle, and they had totally rejected politicians and generals who traded on communal passions Yet the Pakistani tunes of ‘civil war’ and ‘Islam in danger’ were piped in Bangladesh on the day Bangabandhu was killed and afterwards.

The conspiracy against Bangladesh began even before it was liberated, and some of those men who plotted against Sheikh Mujib were in the conspiracy. If the coup had been staged by-rather through-men who had openly opposed the liberation struggle, there would have been greater resistance immediately. The killers were a part of Pakistan’s ‘Operation Phoenix’, who participated in the liberation of Bangladesh did create confusion and was helpful to camouflage the real enemy. This anti- Bangladesh force came out later on . After assuming office as head of the state Major-General Ziaur Rahman, Chief Martial Law Administrator (CMLA), issued a proclamation order amending the Constitution of Bangladesh framed by elected people's representatives in 1972, to insert Bismillah-ir- Rahmanir Rahim (In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the merciful) and other Islamic principles in the of the Constitution in place of secular ideals, which was subsequently ratified in the form of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution in April 1979.Zia’s amendment gave a clear signal about the regime’s political ideology and support base. Through the amendment, Zia started a revisionist process on the identity question and the Liberation movement. These debates would dominate the political discourse of the country for the next two decades. (Rounaq Jahan, 2005, p-281)

Part- IV Indo-Bangladesh Relations Pre-August 1975

Dhaka, 07 August , (Asiantribune.com): Bangladesh is "Birth by Fire" and "Bangladesh, the youngest nation in South Asia, tore itself apart from the then West Pakistan in 1971, under the leadership of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. The aftermath of the historic elections of 1970-71, proved the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. Bangladesh found itself catapulted to sovereignty and independence, master of its own destiny, negotiating its problems directly with all countries. It was suddenly groping for a new identity, a new culture, new philosophy, a new motivation to forge new relations to find fresh solutions to old problems, both internal and external. India occupies a pivotal position in Bangladesh's foreign policy matrix.

“Bangladesh is surrounded by India, therefore, Bangladesh's stability and prosperity are inextricably linked with India, and as such, Bangladesh's future prosperity can be best served by strengthening its relations with India,” said a former diplomat at a party.

Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib who was arrested in March 1971 and faced trial of sedition in Pakistani jail, was released following the achievement of independent Bangladesh in the early morning of January 8, 1972 and flown to London, together with Dr. Kamal Hussain. According to press reports, President Bhutto had explained to him that he could not send him direct to Bangladesh or India without political repercussions in Pakistan, and had suggested that he should first go to Iran or Turkey, whereupon the Sheikh suggested London as an alternative.

The first news of his coming which the British Government received was a message from the British High Commissioner in Islamabad that he was already on his way. While in London Sheikh Mujib had an hour’s talk with the Prime Minister, Mr. Hearth, at 10 Downing Street, and met the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Wilson, and the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth. Mr. Arnold Smith.

Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib told a press conference in London that President Bhutto hoped that there might continue to be some links between Bangladesh and Pakistan, but he had told the President that he would have to consult his people on this, describing Bangladesh as “an independent sovereign nation”. While in prison, he said, he had not been physically maltreated, but he had been allowed no visitors, no letters, no newspapers and no communication with his family. He had guessed that there had been a war because of the blackout and troop movements which he could hear from his cell, but he had not known that the Indian Army had defeated the Pakistani forces in East Pakistan
Sheikh Mujib left London on January 9,1972 by an R.A.F. Comet which the British Government placed at his disposal, and was flown to New Delhi, arriving on the morning of January 10.

Although he had not been formally sworn in as President of Bangladesh, he was received at the airport with the honour reserved for a Head of State, including a 21-gun salute. He was welcomed by President V.V.Giri and Mrs Indira Gandhi and by diplomatic representatives of 24 states, including the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, several Western European and Communist countries and the Vatican. Neither the United States, China nor any of the Moslem countries were represented. After three hours in New Delhi Sheikh Mujib continued his journey to Dacca in the Comet, declining an offer of an Indian Air Force plane and request to stop in Calcutta on the way - a gesture that was interpreted as an affirmation of his independence of India.

When Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib arrived at Dacca airport on Monday, January 10, 1972 he was welcomed by such huge crowds that it took him 12 minutes to force his way through them to the reception party. After he had been greeted by the members of the Government, consular representatives (including the U.S. Consul-General) and his three sons, he was driven through crowded streets in an open police lorry to the Race Course, where on March 7, 1971; he had declared that there was “still time for us to live as brothers if Pakistan Army had surrendered.”

Addressing a crowd estimated at 500,000 people, Sheikh Mujib solemnly affirmed the independence of Bangladesh.” When I left,” he said, “Mr. Bhutto asked me at the last moment to agree to keep Pakistan together by some link. I told him that I could not make any commitments without consulting my people. Now all of you present please note what I tell him: All links with Pakistan are snapped for good. You have killed millions of my countrymen, dishonored our mothers and sister, burnt innumerable houses and driven away 10,000,000 of my people to India. Even so, although your army has committed grievous crimes against us, we do not harbour any hatred against you. We shall try to respect you. You have your independence; let us also have our independence. We can be you friends as equals.” Warning the crowd against taking the law into their own hands, he said: “We have achieved our independence, but it will be spoilt if we indulge in further killing and looting, I ask you to forgive….”

Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib visited Calcutta on February 6-8, 1972 for talks with Mrs. Indira Gandhi. Addressing a crowd estimated at over 500,000, he declared”I firmly believe that friendship between India and Bangladesh will be everlasting. No power on earth will be able to make any crack in this friendship. No more games of imperialists will be allowed in India and Bangladesh.

Freedom of Bangladesh has been achieved at the price of millions of lives. None has the power to snatch away our hard- earned independence. No one in the history paid a higher price for independence than us. The people of Bangladesh will preserve this hard earned independence till the last Bangalee is alive.

My Bangladesh is land of Titumeer, Surya Sen, Subhas Bose, Fazlul Huq and Suhrawardy. The land of Bangladesh is silted and soft. During rainy season it becomes still softer. And in the scorching heat in the month of Chaitra this soft soil turns so very hard that you can smash the head of a conspirator.

The occupation army had ravaged my country. Three million people were killed by them. They killed my intellectuals, educationists and scientists and dishonoured my mothers and sisters. They looted all that we had. but the people as one man fought with an iron determination and annihilated the beastly strength of those hordes. And today with the same determination and confidence the people of Bangladesh will build a ‘Sonar Bangla’ on the ashes of these ruins.

I express my heartfelt gratitude and thanks to the great people of India, the Government of India and its armed forces, especially her great leader Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi. The Pakistan army forced 10 million people to leave their hearths and homes and take refuge in India. The help you rendered to them by providing shelter, food, clothing and consolation is really unique. I cannot repay your debt. I can only echo what Rabindranath Tagore had said:

I am poor, I am empty handed.
Please take my love for that is all I have

I also express my thanks to the people of West Bengal, Tripura, Meghalaya and Assam for not only the help they extended to the thousands of uprooted people but also the way they shared their own meals with my people and also the way they helped our liberation movement.

I express my gratitude to the people and the Government of Soviet Union and also United Kingdom.

I thank the people and the press of U.S.A. but I cannot give any credit for the policy adopted by the Government of America as Nixon Administration supplied arms to Pakistan at a time when the people of Bangladesh were being butchered by barbarous Yahya Government. The US Government stopped giving aid to India for her moral and material support she had extended to the cause of Bangladesh. They did it only to protect Pakistani market. But I warn the U.S. Government that the days of imperialism are over. No game of imperialist will be allowed to be played in this sub-Continent.

I would like to tell them in the words of Kabiguru Rabindranath Tagore:

“The snakes are exhaling venom all around
The sermon of peace will only carry the message of dismay.
As I bid adieu, I say, preparations are in every house
To face and fight the demon”

I appeal to the people of India to kill the last roots of communalism completely. My people are not communal. The vested interest of West Pakistan tried to fan up communalism in both the countries. And because of this, our struggle for independence got frustrated again and again. Secularism, nationalism, democracy and socialism are the principles of both the countries. The foundation of our friendship is based on these principles. No power on earth can create a rift in our friendship. I would like to tell leaders of Pakistan that Bangladesh is now a sovereign and independent country. If they still consider Bangladesh to be a part of their country. I would then recommend them to seek accommodation in lunatic asylum”.

Bangabandhu said that those Pakistani leaders who still talked of Bangladesh as a part of Pakistan “should be sent to a lunatic asylum”. In his strongest criticism yet of the U.S. attitude to Bangladesh, Bangabandhu said supplies to Pakistan were being used to kill Bengalis; it had not stopped the supply, but instead had stopped aid to India. He expressed his gratitude, however, for the role of the British and Soviet Governments during the crisis.

A joint declaration signed by Sheikh Mujib and Mrs.Indira Gandhi, which was released on February 8, 1972 announced that all remaining Indian troops would be withdrawn from Bangladesh by March 25, 1972.“The two Prime Ministers,” the declaration said, “resolved to give practical shape to the legitimate and deeply-felt aspirations of the common peoples of the two countries, guided by the principles of democracy, socialism, secularism, non-alignment and opposition to reclaims and colonialism in all its forms and manifestations. Towards these ends they expressed their determinations to promote in every possible way of co-operation between the Governments and peoples of Bangladesh and India, inspired by the vision of lasting peace, amity and good neighborliness.

"The Prime Minister of Bangladesh paid warm tributes to the armed forces of India and the part they played in the liberation of Bangladesh. The task having been completed, the two Prime Ministers felt that these armed forces should be withdrawn. The withdrawal of the Indian armed forces would be completed by March 25, 1972. …

“The Prime Minister of Bangladesh solemnly reaffirmed his resolve to ensure by every means the return of all refugees who had taken shelter in India since March 25, 1971, and to strive by every means to safeguard their safety, human dignity and means of livelihood.

The two Prime Ministers noted with satisfaction that the refugees were returning to Bangladesh, and that nearly 7,000,000 had already returned in the short space of six weeks. …“The two Prime Ministers reviewed the measures for rapid evolution of mutually beneficial economic relations between the two countries. It was agreed that regular talks, consultations and visits of delegations will take place between the two countries, and that the appropriate machinery will be set up where necessary to promote close co-operation in the fields of development and trade on the basis of equality and mutual benefit.”

“To understand the internal dynamics of the Indo-Bangla relations one has to peep into the past to the days immediately after the independence. The relations between India and Bangladesh began at a very cordial level. There was a sincere feeling of gratefulness in the minds of the people of Bangladesh towards the Indian people and their leaders for supporting the Bangladesh liberation movement with men and material. India continued to provide support to the nascent country in all spheres of national life.

To show gratitude to the people of India for their support in the Liberation War, Bangbandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman visited Calcutta and addressed a public meeting in the presence of Mrs. Indira Gandhi. During this visit, Bangbandhu raised the question of India returning to Bangladesh the weapons and equipment captured from the Pakistani Army in Bangladesh. He also raised the question of resolving the pending issues inherited from India-Pakistan days, like the sharing of Ganges water, return of the enclaves belonging to Bangladesh , writes Brigadier General Shafaat Ahmad, ndc, psc (Retired)in his article on Indo –Bangladesh Relations,published in the Daily Star on July 28 ,2007 .

Late Mr. J.N. Dixit, the first Deputy High Commissioner of India in Bangladesh has very succinctly discussed the state of Indo-Bangladesh relations. He writes in his book 'Liberation and Beyond', “In any case, fissures began to appear in Indo-Bangladesh relations by the first quarter of 1973. They accentuated to critical level in 1974. The honeymoon phase of Indo-Bangladesh relations came to an end by spring of 1973.” He further writes that some policy decisions of the Indian Government were detrimental to the improvement of bi-lateral relations between the two countries. In another place in the same book he writes, “ With the benefit of hindsight I feel that we should have handed over all the captured Pakistani military equipment to Bangladesh instead of retaining it. It would have been emotionally and politically satisfying to Bangladesh. By not returning these equipment, we created an undercurrent of resentment about India in the newly emerging Bangladeshi military establishment.”

In the initial years three crucial bilateral issues came up for consideration between Bangladesh and India. They were (a) sharing of the Ganges water on a permanent basis, (b) the issue of the enclaves on both sides and © the delimitation of the sea boundary in the Bay of Bengal. Given the relationship that existed between the leaders of the two countries, particularly between Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Mrs. Indira Gandhi, these issues should have been resolved. However that was not to be.

Barrister Harunur Rashid, in his book “Indo-Bangladesh Relations An Insider's View,” gives a vivid description of the reasons why the relationship started plummeting so early. The relationship could never again go back to the early days; it has been a roller coaster ride all along. The Bangladeshi Government and the people got a shock when India decided to operate the Farraka Barrage in the dry season of 1975. Earlier in a Joint Declaration in May 1974, the two Prime Ministers had agreed that the two sides would “arrive at a mutually acceptable allocation of the water available during the periods of minimum flow in the Ganges.”

Again in July 1974, at a Ministerial meeting India once again confirmed that they would arrive at a mutually accepted solution before operating the Barrage. This showed the value of a categorical commitment given by India at the highest level.

Similar fate was meted to the “Agreement of Bangladesh-India Land Boundary 1974”. As per Article 5 of the Agreement, “This Agreement shall be subject to ratification by the Government of Bangladesh and India and the Instrument of Ratification shall be exchanged as early as possible. The Agreement shall take effect from the date of the exchange of the Instruments of Ratification.”

Till to date the Agreement has not been ratified by the Indians whereas Bangladesh ratified the Agreement in 1974. Barrister Harun writes in above-mentioned Book, “India argued that the considerable delay was caused because the Agreement, in particular the lease of Indian Territory to Bangladesh was challenged in the Indian Courts. However, under rules of international law India cannot cite its internal laws as a justification of its failure to perform a treaty (article 26 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969).”

“The above two incidents clearly show that the warmth in the relationship between the top leaders of two countries in the early days of independence were artificial. There was no change in the overall policy in regards to the problems between India and Bangladesh. There was no sign of any softening of attitude of India in dealing with the bi-lateral issues with Bangladesh. Before the above-mentioned issues could be resolved, a new issue cropped up in South Talpatty”, writes Brigadier General Shafaat Ahmad.

Unfortunately, for the last three decades, Bangladesh– India relations have passed through several ups and downs of the successive Generals-turned-politicians’ regimes. The relations between Bangladesh and India have changed in several phases.

Correspondingly, relations have changed the basic fabrics of the fundamental principles with the color and texture of their bilateral relations. Mr. I.K.Gujral said in an interview in May 1990 that “there was a feeling in India also that the government that took power in Bangladesh after 1975 was not friendly towards India. I think if we get stuck in such accusations of the past we will not get anywhere. What is needed is a determination on both sides to look to the future and to forge a closer and cooperative relationship. (Dhaka Courier, May 4-10, 1990). Emergence of an adversarial relationship was a natural corollary of the tendency to stay prisoner of the past.

Bangladesh's application for admission to the United Nations was vetoed by China in 1972 and early 1973 Bangladesh was taking back all the refugees, but India continued to contribute to their rehabilitation. I was then special officer attached to the Bangladesh Mission in Calcutta. Minister for Relief Mr. A H M Kamaruzzaman was entrusted with the responsibility of looking after the repatriation of the refugees. I used to run between Jessore and Calcutta twice a week. Deputy Commissioner A Z M Nasiruddin was very affectionate to me and he provided me with an accommodation in the Roads and Highways bungalow at Karbala, Jessore. There was a tragic train accident at the Jessore railway station. A running mail train hit a standing goods train due to wrong signaling by the Bihari guard. Some hundred lives were lost and hundreds other injured. It was a sabotage done by a Pakistani agent.

Part-V : Indo-Bangladesh Relations in Sheikh Mujib’s Era

Dhaka, 08 August, (Asiantribune.com): Chiao Kuan-Hua, chairman of the delegation of the People’s Republic of China, made a speech at the Plenary meeting of the 28th session of the UN General Assembly on October 2, 1973. Mr. Chiao Kuan-Hua mentioned in his speech Para 6 'The Question on Bangladesh' : In the 26th session of the General Assembly in 1971, the Soviet Union supported India in dismembering Pakistan by armed force. The General Assembly, and then the Security Council, adopted resolutions by overwhelming majorities calling for cease-fire, troop withdrawal and repatriation of prisoners of war by India and Pakistan.

At its 27th Session in 1972, the General Assembly further adopted two interdependent resolutions calling for the repatriation of Pakistan prisoners of war and expressing the desire for the admission of Bangladesh to the United Nations. It was not until August 28, 1973 that an agreement on the repatriation of prisoners of war and civilians was reached between India and Pakistan.

The Chinese Government holds that the question of admitting Bangladesh into the United Nations can be considered once the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council are implemented without qualification. But this can be done only after the thorough implementation of the U N resolutions, and definitely not before.”

Suddenly Pakistan experiment forcefully brought home the fact that religion by itself was not a strong cementing force. So, the relationship that developed between the governments of Bangladesh and India during the war led them to follow ‘common policies in matters of interest to both the countries’ in order to formalize this relationship which was ‘cemented through blood and sacrifices’.

‘The two governments signed a Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Peace for a period of 25 years with a provision for renewal under a Joint Declaration signed by Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Indian Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi when the latter came to pay her first visit to Bangladesh on the 53rd birthday of Bangabandhu on March 17, 1972.

Bangabandhu, at a dinner in Dacca in honour of Mrs. Gandhi, on 17 March, 1972 said: "Today is a memorable day for the 75 million people of Bangladesh. We have in our midst, for the first time, the Prime Minister of India, Mrs. Indira Gandhi. It is my great privilege, Madam Prime Minister, to welcome you to Bangladesh on behalf of my people and the Government. The people of my country hold you in great esteem and admiration. I take this opportunity to express my sincerest gratitude for the services and sacrifices that you have made for the liberation of our country. The maintenance of close friendship with India is one of the fundamental objectives of our foreign policy. This is the dictate of both history and geography.

The freedom-loving people of India under the leadership of their great Prime Minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, gave us unstinted help and support during our liberation struggle. The Indian armed forces made supreme sacrifices for liberating our motherland by fighting shoulder to shoulder with our brave Mukti Bahini to end the tyrannical colonial rule of Pakistan from our sacred soil.

The friendship between India and Bangladesh has, therefore, been cemented forever by blood and common scarifies. The Indian military forces came to Bangladesh as our allies. They accomplished their mission in the most admirable manner.
During my last meeting with Your Excellency in Calcutta, we agreed to the withdrawal of the Indian forces from Bangladesh by 25th March, 1972.

However, the Indian forces completely withdrew from our country last week-- even a few days earlier than the agreed date. We will always remain very grateful for the splendid work that they have done during their brief stay on our soil. It is the declared policy of my Government to create a just society in Bangladesh on the principles of nationalism, democracy, socialism and secularism. In international relations my Government will pursue a policy of non-alignment and develop bilateral relations with foreign countries on the basis of mutual interests.

The recent events have made us realise more than ever before that India and Bangladesh have everything to gain by co-operating with each other."

(Later both Sheikh Hasina and Begum Khaleda Zia had, as part of the June-1996 election campaign, pledged not to renew the Indo- Bangladesh Treaty of Peace and Cooperation.) In 1974, the leaders of India and Bangladesh signed a borderland boundary agreement with regard to the demarcation of some disputed areas. Bangladesh ratified the agreement the same year making it a part of its constitution but India till today has not ratified the agreement.

The 1974 Land Boundary Agreement requires its implementation in word and spirit. India at the highest political level should come forward as a tested friend to ensure full cooperation in implementing the boundary agreement. It was learnt that Sheikh Hasina and her Government was going ahead in that direction.

However, "Indo-Bangladesh relations were in a negative drift from the second half of 1974. The famine and the general economic crisis in Bangladesh led to heightened political tension and opposition to Mujib. Levels of political violence increased. Violence perpetrated by extreme leftists as well as the Islamic parties became common. Communal disturbances between the Hindus and the Muslims reappeared after a gap of a nearly a decade.

Durga Pujas were disrupted, the Ramkrishna Mission in Dhaka was threatened and it had to be provided with special protection during the Durga Puja celebrations of 1974. (J. N. Dexit, pp-195-96).

Part –VI Indo-Bangladesh Relations in Sheikh Mujib’s Era

Dhaka, 09 Augus , (Asiantribune.com): It is interesting to note that from the 16th December1972 to the 16th December 1973-within this one year, Bangabandhu in his address to the nation on December 15, 1973, said, “Our achievements in the national and international fields are by no means insubstantial. This was the time for the enforcement of our Constitution. .. The Delhi-Agreement was signed to reduce tension in this sub-continent.

Bangalees stranded in Pakistan have started to return home. Upto the 14th December ’73 more than 64 thousand Bangalees have returned. Bangladesh has participated as an honoured member in the Commonwealth Conference at Ottawa and the Non-Aligned Conference (NAM) in Algiers. By admitting Bangladesh at the Algiers Non-Aligned Conference, the majority of the Arab and African states have acknowledged and recognized our sovereign state.”

The 29th session of the UN General Assembly formally gave de jure recognition to the de facto status of Bangladesh, which had already become a member of various UN-bodies. The keynote of success of the foreign policy of Bangladesh emerged from the principles that it upholds.

In February 1974, Bangladesh and Pakistan accorded mutual recognition that was followed by the visit of Bangabandhu to Lahore to attend the Second Islamic Summit. The Foreign Ministers of Bangladesh, India and Pakistan in April 1974 met in New Delhi where Bangladesh granted clemency to 195 Pakistani prisoners of war against whom there were grave charges of crime against humanity.

This was the greatest contribution of Bangladesh to peace in the subcontinent. By then, almost all the countries of the world had accorded recognition to Bangladesh. The Awami League led Government of Bangladesh and exchanges made at different levels with the Governments and the leaders of the People’s Republic of China and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1974-75 had established contacts.

The process had begun three weeks ago in Cairo and was clinched in Lahore. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, supported by Saudi Arabia's King Faisal and Algeria's President Boumedienne, "persuaded" Mr. Bhutto that a delegation from seven Muslem countries should rush to Dacca for the last-minute negotiations with Sheikh Mujib. In talks held throughout the night, the Sheikh insisted that recognition must be unconditional; he refused to allow any formal statement that Bangladesh would drop its intention to try 195 Pakistani prisoners-of-war for crimes committed during the 1971 war." (The Economist, London, 2 March 1974).

A Chinese spokesman said, "After resolution of the war trials issue, Peking will recognise Dacca, and the way will be open for Bangladesh to be admitted to the United Nations". (The Observer, London, 24 February 1974).

Former Foreign Secretary Fakhruddin Ahmed wrote: "Our Ambassador in Cairo Mr. Ataur Rahman and Justice A S Choudhury, Special Representative in Geneva, had established contacts with Saudi authorities but without success. It was reported that Jaamat leaders, including Golam Azam, had considerable influence on King's advisers who misinterpreted to King the word ‘secularism’ in the constitution of Bangladesh. They implied that secularism meant anti-religion. However, they forgot to mention that both Indonesia and Turkey had incorporated 'secularism' in their constitution but Saudi Arabia had no problems with them.

Now, looking in retrospect, it can be said that a separate meeting between King Faisal and Sheikh Mujib could have been arranged in Lahore and Saudi objection to recognise Bangladesh could have been resolved at that time. But in Lahore, Pakistan wanted a formal resolution on 195 prisoners of war and a draft was submitted by them. We succeeded by intense lobbying not to press the matter and in that process we did not have time to focus on Saudi- Bangladesh relations." (Critical Times, p-105).

However, the visit of Prime Minister Z A Bhutto of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the People’s Republic of Bangladesh did not fulfill Bangladesh’s expectations. Bangladesh had naturally expected that Pakistan would respond to the gesture positively and come forward to settle the outstanding issues relating to the division of assets and repatriation of the remaining 63,000 Pakistani families on the basis of justice and fairplay and in fulfillment of their obligations under the Delhi Agreement. Because of Mr. Bhutto’s intransigence no tangible results came out of that visit.

J N Dixit writes, "The Bhutto visit was a watershed marking a qualitative shift in Mujib's attitudes relating to domestic political processes as well as on Indo- Bangladesh relations. This was destined to have a profound and tragic impact on events that followed till his disappearance from the political scene." (Dixit, pp-192).

"Following Bhutto's visit, pro-Pakistani feelings began to emerge alarmingly. The military circle in Pakistan wanted to avenge their shame of defeat in 1971." (Critical Times, p145). China and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia accorded recognition to Bangladesh after the gruesome murder of Bangabandhu along with his family members in August 1975. Political uncertainty prevailed in Bangladesh, and a number of coups followed. I was then attached to Bangabhaban.

Foreign Secretary Fakhruddin Ahmed wrote: "Until August 15 the image of Bangladesh abroad in foreign relations had been positive. The coup had changed all this. I did not know how Bangladesh would regain its position." (Critical Times, p144).

It was the declared policy of both Bangladesh and India not to interfere in the internal affairs of each other’s countries. An Indian External Affairs Ministry statement said on 17 August, 1975 that although events in Bangladesh were her ‘domestic affairs’ but India could not ‘remain indifferent and unconcerned’ about them. India was worried about Bangladesh turmoil because of her close border on all sides of Bangladesh.

A section of the Press carried vituperative columns against what they persistently called "Soviet-Indian hegemonies” Honaker Mehta announced his future political programmers on the 26th day of Ramadan. A large number of Muslim was allowed to perform Hajj, as last year Bangalee pilgrims had to face hard time.

Kuldip Nayar in his popular column "Between the Lines" wrote: "The Bangladesh pilgrims to Mecca had a hard time this year. They were forced to call themselves East Pakistanis and even fly the Pakistani flag. The Saudi Arabian Government had made it clear that if they refused, they would not be able to make the pilgrimage." (The Statesman, New Delhi, 20 February 1974).

Bangladesh was only three years old in 1974 : Diplomatically, 1974 was a successful year for Bangladesh. The most glaring diplomatic successes that Bangladesh achieved in 1974 were the country becoming the 136th member of the United Nations on September 19, Pakistan's recognition on February 22, significant development in its relations with the United States, major breakthrough in relations with the Arab World and China's de facto acceptance of its reality. Chronologically, President Josif Broz Tito of Yugoslavia, one of the pioneers of the non-alignment movement (NAM), visited the newly-independent and sovereign country from January 29 to February 2, President Anwar Sadat of Egypt and President Houri Boummedine of Algeria made a brief visit, for a few hours, after the Lahore Islamic summit meeting in February, President Ne Win of Burma from April 26 to 29, President Leopold Seder Senghor of Senegal from May 26 to 29, President V.V. Giri of India from June 15 to 19 , Prime Minister Zulfi Ali Bhutto of Pakistan from June 27 to 29, Chairman Nguyen Hui Tho of PRG of South Vietnam on September 4 and 17 (stopover), Dr Henry A. Kissinger, Secretary of State of the United States, from October 30 to 31, Mr. Honst Sindermann, Chairman of the Council of Ministers, German Democratic Republic, from November 26 to 29, and the King of Malaysia Pruto Diagong from December 3 to 6,1974.

It was not all, and by no means, the end. Bangladesh would not sit idle thereafter. To project Bangladesh's policy of peace and win laurels for his country, Bangabandhu undertook journeys to attend the Non-Aligned Nations (NAM) summit conference in Algiers, Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference at Ottawa and the U N General Assembly session in New York, and visited Algeria, Japan, India, Iraq, Egypt, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. Besides, he met President Ford of the United States in Washington and other American leaders and friends during his stay in the USA in September 1974.

To understand the socio-politico environment in the country, it is better to quote Bangabandhu's speeches of that time. Those speeches are the real reflection of our socio-political situation in society. The Great Leader had no hesitation in admitting that his administration could not save thousands of people from starvation in 1974. In his address to the nation on the eve of the National Day (Victory Day) in 1974

Bangabandhu said: "December 16 is our National Day. Stained with blood of the martyrs this day symbolishes the sacrifices and hopes and aspirations of seven and a half crore people of Bangladesh. To-day we remember with a sense of deep respect those fearless heroic martyrs and freedom fighters for whom "Sonar Bangla" is now free from colonial domination and exploitation. The 16th December, 1971, marks the end of our struggle for political freedom and the beginning of our struggle for economic emancipation. For us, this is a life and death struggle. The struggle is long and arduous. But if we remain united and work hard with honesty of purpose, victory, Insha Allah, will be ours.

”The Prime Minister said, "You are fully aware under what circumstances and with what resources we started our journey at the dawn of independence. Standing on the ruins of a war-ravaged country, we could not start even with empty hands. We had to start with the burden of loans left behind by the Pakistanis. The period from 1971 to 1974 is only three years. It is true that I told you that I would not be able to give you anything for three years. Nevertheless that account, too, is not blank… But two successive catastrophes befell the country when it had just embarked upon a reconstruction programme despite the long drought in 1972 and damage caused by regional floods and cyclones in 1973… The economy of Bangladesh, badly mauled by these two catastrophes, now faces a serious challenge. Our national reconstruction programme has suffered a setback.”

Bangabandhu identified the three enemies and causes of economic danger. He said, "Bangladesh faces three great dangers, rather confronts enemies on three fronts: (I) Inflation, which has gripped the entire world in an awesome manner; (ii) Natural calamities like floods; and(iii) Smugglers, profiteers, hoarders and bribe-takers. Government had to plunge with all its might into a new struggle of resistance against these three enemies.” … On the optimistic programme of exploration of natural resources, he said, "There are bright prospects for striking oil in the coastal areas of our country. We have already signed contracts with some foreign companies for exploration and extraction of oil.” It is an irony of fate that in 2005, oil and natural gas has become a bargaining asset of Bangladesh.

Bangabandhu identified the miscreants, their purposes and the communal forces who had been granted clemency,-those who were accused and convicted for collaboration during the War of Liberation Bangabandhu said: "I cannot but mention here of the handful of miscreants. They thrive mainly by creating terror in the darkness of night. So far 3,000 Awami league leaders, workers and innocent villagers, including four MPs, have lost their lives at their hands. They do not hesitate to add to the miseries of the people by destroying their property. What to speak of the government, even the peace-loving citizens cannot tolerate such a situation. The welfare of the people and solution to any problem cannot be attained through terrorism. This practice has been discarded long ago in many parts of the world…. Besides, some people who have been granted pardon are trying to vitiate the atmosphere by spreading communal feelings in the country. But they will not be allowed the opportunity. There is no room for communalism on the soil of Bangladesh. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Christians who live in Bangladesh, are all citizens of the country. They will enjoy equal rights in all spheres. …” Who were those miscreants? What were their purposes? Who were those communal forces? All these questions were raised in 1974.

Prime Minister Sheikh Mujibur Rahman said, "Our relations with our nearest neighbouring countries, particularly with our nearest neighbours, India and Burma, are very cordial. We have tried to normalise our relations with Pakistan. We have even pardoned those war criminals who were to be tried for the most heinous crimes against humanity. This generosity and munificence of the people of Bangladesh will be recorded in the history in golden letters. It now rests with Pakistan on a fair and just basis and to expatriate Pakistani citizens from Bangladesh. Unfortunately Pakistan is not coming forward…. Our relation with our Arab brethren, a new horizon of possibilities, has opened up... At the same time, he warned his countrymen: “But one thing must not be forgotten. The fate of this poor country cannot be changed without a change of character. Rising above nepotism, corruption and self-deception we shall have to purify our hearts through self-criticism and self-restraint. It has to be borne in mind that what is important is the extent to which you do your duty to the country and to the people. …” He said: “Despite our sincerest efforts, we could not save several thousand people from starvation. I have no hesitation in admitting this. Because I know that in spite of our limited resources, we alone stood by those unfortunate people at that hour of hardship. We did not end our responsibility by raising storm of speeches and statements like some given to emotionalism. We have to accept the most difficult challenge of preventing the recurrence of death due to starvation by increasing food production.

Part-VII : The Great Turn in Bangladesh History

Dhaka, 10 August , (Asiantribune.com): In his speech in Parliament on 25 January 1975, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman said: "I have to report with heavy heart that four members of this Assembly have been assassinated. Earlier, members of the Constituent Assembly were murdered. Among the murdered are Gazi Fazlur Rahman, Nurul Huq and Motahar Master. One man was even shot to death when he was offering his prayers at the Eid congregation --- an event which we have never heard of in our country. Thousands of party workers have been killed.”

Highlights of his speech:

"Our Constitution had given the right to change the government through the ballot. This right we had granted. … They then said that this government should be overthrown by force of arms. They have collected arms openly. After the independence of Bangladesh, it has become a hotbed of international clique. Money flows in here and people are offered that money. Here certain elements become agents of foreigners.…. Twenty-seven thousand people died of starvation. Even now people are suffering from hunger. They have no clothes on their body. Honourable Mr. Speaker, I had told this house one day that we wanted democracy of the exploited in order to remove the sufferings of these people --- not the democracy of those who rob money under cover of darkness, who are big moneyed men, who get money from other countries to buy votes. What we wanted is the democracy of the exploited. That is why the Constitution had to be changed to-day.

It pains me because, together with the amendment to the Constitution, you have made me the President. I had no dearth of power. You have given me all the powers as the Prime Minister had two-thirds majority in the House; yet you have amended the Constitution and made me the President. Mr. Speaker, we have brought about a fundamental change in the Constitution. Because a well-ordered administration must be introduced in the country. It is a new endeavour. I want to say: this is our Second Revolution. This Revolution means bringing a smile on injustice? ... Come forward to work, the door is open to you all.

All those who believe in the principles of the Constitution, should defend the Constitution. Come forward to work, defend and save the country. Save the people and remove their misery. And root out the corrupt elements, the bribe-takers and the smugglers.” The amendment empowered the President to constitute one-Party which was named ‘Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League (BAKSAL)’.

A former Chief Justice and Chief Adviser to Caretaker Government, Justice Habibur Rahman wrote:

"Sheikh Mujib, the founding father of the country, initially attempted to run a parliamentary style democracy, but faced armed resistance from various factions of leftists and trade union groups. By the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution he introduced one- party system and called it as the Second Revolution for the amelioration of the have-nots. He is reported to have told Chief Justice Abu Sadat Mohammad Sayem in February/March, 1975 that the Fourth Amendment was a temporary measure and that he would, in course of time, restore the Constitution as it was before that amendment. Unfortunately, he had not had the luck of Julius Niyerere whom he, it appears, tried to emulate. He was assassinated along with almost all of his extended family by a group of junior military officers on August 15, 1975." (The Daily Star 14-1-2005).

Bangabandhu was in power for only 1287 days since January 10, 1972, he gave the nation a democratic constitution, and he led us to UN membership, and earned recognition of 134 countries, except China and Saudi Arabia. He established all the institutions of democracy as enunciated in the Constitution of Bangladesh in 1972 i.e., Parliament, Judiciary and Executive. Sheikh Mujib declared that Bangladesh would be a secular state. In doing so, he opened himself to criticism that he was a tool of India and, by implication, a tool of Hinduism as against Islam. And this was, of course, running very strongly against him in 1975 as part of the general disaffection that led him to establish his abortive dictatorship. "His whole life was a saga of sacrifices and dedication and finally he experimented? His name, fame and life in the midst of conspirators and sycophants. Moreover, the opposition to Mujib was not confined to the army alone. The 'bureaucracy', an important institution in any modern state, businessmen and petty industrialists as well as pro-Chinese radicals and pro-Islamic forces, became hostile to the Mujib government. It may be that some of these disgruntled and hostile groups aided and abetted the Army to stage the military coup in August 1975. It is also probable that some foreign country or countries were also involved in the coup. On the night of November 3, an abortive counter coup struck the 82-day old regime of Mushtaque. Four National Leaders, Syed Nazrul Islam, Tajuddin Ahmed, M Mansoor Ali and A H M Kamaruzzaman, who were attested and jailed after 15 August 1975, were assassinated mysteriously inside Dhaka Central Jail.

It may be recalled that before Bangabandhu's return to Dhaka on January 10, 1972, only India (6 December 1971) and Bhutan (7 December 1971) had recognised Bangladesh. On his return, country after country accorded recognition to Bangladesh. Only those countries that suffered strategic defeat along with Pakistan in the Liberation War remained out of the race. Following the greatest tragedy of Bangladesh in August 1975 erstwhile foes are now friends of Bangladesh, one even turned to be "trusted". It only proves that in inter-state relations, there is no permanent friend or foe, the only permanent thing is national interest.
Barrister Moudud Ahmed writes: “As nationalist he tried his best to bring Bangladesh out of the Indian subjugation.

He signed a Friendship Treaty with India but he was able to send out the Indian troops from the soil of Bangladesh within 2 months after his arrival. He flew over the Indian Territory to their utter disgust to attend the Islamic Summit at Lahore. By inviting Bhutto to Bangladesh he normalized relationship with the United States. He was able to establish the Aid to Bangladesh Consortium in 1974 and received the US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger at Dhaka. He started to shift his economic policy by providing opportunity for foreign and private investment and accorded a warm reception to McNamara, the World Bank President. With McNamara’s visit to Bangladesh he also sent emissaries to China for a formal relationship. He removed Tajuddin Ahmed to reduce the weight of Indo-Soviet influence inside the government. With the membership in the United Nations, he met with the United States President Gerald Ford. What it all meant was that he was gradually taking a neutral position and continued to play the role of a nationalist to retain and consolidate the independence and sovereignty of Bangladesh. (Moudud, 1983, p.-266-267)

Yahya Khan in an interview to Newsweek Magazine on November 8, 1971 said: "Many people might not believe me, but I think if he (Mujib, the Bengali leader currently on trial for treason) went back (to East Pakistan) he would be killed by his own people who hold him responsible for all the sufferings. In any case, it is an academic question. He had been discussing internal autonomy with me for two years and went back on his word. He organized and led an armed rebellion against the State. There was no alternative but to suppress the rebellion. Any other government would have done the same thing. How can I now call that man back and negotiate with him? He is charged with waging war against the state and subverting the loyalty of the army. He is being defended by A.K. Brohi, who is the best and most respected lawyer in the country; Brohi would not have taken the case if he thought there was going to be any hanky-panky in the military court. I did not shoot Mujib first and try him later as some governments are prone to do. What we do after sentence has been passed is the prerogative of the head of state. I cannot release him on a whim. It’s one ###### of responsibility. But if the nation demands his release, I will do it."

It was in the context of trial in August 1971 when whole world was very much concerned about the life of Sheikh Mujib. But, in one sense, Yahya Khan identified that Mir Jafers were born in Bengal. That is why Pakistan picked up Muhamadi Beg, with a tutored mission to crush the fate of Bangladesh. Following the sad death of Bangabandhu, Pakistan was the country to recognize the new Government of Bangladesh first as an Islamic state.

The Prime Minister, Mr. Bhutto, appealed to the Muslim states and the third world countries to recognize the new Government of Bangladesh. It has been strange, undoubtedly, what has happened in Bangladesh has concerned Pakistanis and the news has repeatedly been articulated by Bhutto that the essential Islamic nature of East Pakistan, Bangladesh would reassert itself in time and that when it did so East Pakistan, presently Bangladesh, would move into a more cordial relationship with Pakistan, that the blood and injuries of 1971 would be forgotten and that these two states would once again move into at least a close association. This leaves, in fact, India's Eastern flank vis-à-vis Bangladesh open again. In response to Mr. Bhutto's appeal to the Islamic countries for recognizing the new government of Bangladesh, King Khaled of Saudi Arabia, who is also the guardian of the holy places of Islam, recognized the Islamic Republic of Bangladesh. This recognition would enable Bangladesh to work for Islam and in the interest of the Islamic world …Pakistan's gift of rice and clothes to Bangladesh bears the testimony that the people of Pakistan have deep friendship and love for the people of Bangladesh.

The recognition of Pakistan has consolidated the peoples of the two countries with the ties of Islamic brotherhood and it is hoped that this spirit will continue to be strengthened further in the days to come. But when Reuters on August 20, 1975 quoting diplomatic sources in Islamabad said that now it has been officially admitted that Bangladesh has not changed its name to Islamic Republic and earlier reports on this matter were baseless, some sort of shame and despondency was then brooding in the Foreign office in Islamabad.

Part-VIII Bangladesh Anatomy of A Coup

Dhaka, 11 August , (Asiantribune.com): Bangladesh Anatomy of A Coup by Lawrence Lifschultz Noted : “ When, on the night of august 14,1975, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was killed along with a large number of members of his family and friends, it was put out that the assassins had acted uniterally,with no larger political objective than of ridding the country of a tyrant. Unspecific talk about ‘foreign involvement’ in the assassination or, more explicitely, of CIA involvement, was, on the basis of evidence available then, rightly dismissed as spacious propaganda. These conclusions now need to be completely reexamined. According to new information obtained from interviews with senior U S embassy officials then in Dacca, from well-informed Bengali sources, and from official documents available in the U S now consequent upon the Freedom of Information Act, it now appears that not only did the U S have prior knowledge of the coup, but that American embassy personnel had discussed possibilities of a coup more than six months prior to his death.

But the links of the conspirators with the US do not date merely to the period immediately preceding the coup; they go back to the days of the provisional government of Bangladesh functioning from Calcutta in 1971. (This Article lays bare the anatomy of the coup. It is a long article published in two parts in the Economic and Political Weekly, on 7 and 15 December,1979 ).

“Jack Anderson in his latest interview to New Yorker scored another hit: “And, of course, Yahya Khan and our Ambassador to Pakistan, Joe Farland, were drinking buddies”, and that his despatches “reflected the kind of affection that only one drinking pal can have for another”. One does not have to go back to John Quincy Adams, but US has had great diplomats even in our own days from Joseph Davies to John Galbraith to understand the third-rate calibre of Nixon’s man at Islamabad.Nixon’s claims that between India and Pakistan in 1971, the US was “the only Great Power in a position to try to provide a political alternative to a military solution”. And what was the record of his Administration? Joe Farlands’s drinking buddy went on receiving arms supplies right up to November, while as early as August 11, by Nixon’s own admission, the US Secretary Rogers told the Indian Ambassador in Washington that US economic aid would be withheld from India.

There was no US attempt whatsoever to impress upon Yahya Khan to come to a political settlement with the elected representatives of East Bengal. It is worth noting that nowhere in the entire Report does Nixon mention that it was Smt Gandhi who went all the way to Washington in October to plead with him for bringing about a political settlement between Pakistan Government and the elected re-preventatives of Bangladesh.

Nixon claims that it was his intervention that had saved Sheikh Mujib from the gallows, but he does not admit that Yahya was not ready to negotiate with Sheikh Mujib. As for saving his life, Sheikh Mujib has already stated that he would have been executed in any case if Yahya had succeeded in war, and Bhutto also confirmed this when he said that it was be who had quashed the death sentence on Sheikh Mujib.

Nixon refers to having “established contact with Bengali re-presentatives in Calcutta” in August. As is well known now, t6his surreptitious move was not meant to be a part of a political settlement between the Awami League leadership and the Pakistan Government, but to split the unity of the Bangladesh leadership an attempt which received its deserved rebuff.

The US President quotes at length from his letters to Yahya Khan and Smt Gandhi in May, but carefully avoids mentioning the fact that not once did he make a public disapproval of the killings in Bangladesh, a stand which was taken by many world statesmen from President Podgorny to Chancellor Brandt. If anybody indeed had provided encouragement and support to Yahya Khan in his desperate gamble for a military solution through unheard-of genocide, it was Nixon and his men both in the State Department and the Pentagon.

In the section on the Indo-Pak war, Nixon has painted this country black as the warmonger, while Pakistan has been shown as peace-loving. He talks of “convincing evidence” that India had planned to grab the rest of Kashmir-the area which is, in law and in fact, under Pak aggression-and to destroy the Pak war machine, built up with such meticulous care from the days of Dulles to those of Nixon. One wonders if “the convincing evidence” in Kissinger’s pocket was only some of the loud-mouth-ed utterances of Sri Jagjivan Ram, which he himself had taken back when their absurdity was shown up.

What is amazing is that nowhere does Nixon mention that it was India which had unilaterally ordered cease-fire on the western front as soon as the liberation of Bangladesh had been formalised with Niazi’s surrender at Dacca.

Another equally significant omission in the Nixon Report is the absence of any reference to the movement of the US Seventh Fleet into Bay of Bengal. This conspicuous mission might have been due to the calculation that any reference to the Seventh Fleet would have to lead to the inescapable conclusion that the much published terror armada of the US could not save Yahya’s kingdom sicnce3 it failed to scare away India’s armed forces and the freedom-fighters of Bangladesh.

Not only could the fighting people of Vietnam but even the supposedly docile Indians not be black-mailed by Nixon’s nuclear gunboat.

The US President’s claim that his emergency aid for Bangladesh refugees surpassed that from other countries is meant to under play what India has done for the one crore of people thrown out by the Nixon-backed Pak regime. Throughout his Report, Nixon, while attacking India, poses to be concerned with the welfare of Bangladesh; the obvious impression is that he has been trying to make a subtle ploy hoping to disrupt the close unity between India and Bangladesh today.”(Editorial note : Mainstream: Vol X No, 25 February 19, 1972 )

It is interesting to note that in a discussion entitled “Genocide and Mass Political Killing: Why Does It Happen ?” organised by the Centre for Human Security at R C Majumder auditorium of Dhaka University, in Feb.2006 renowned American academic Daniel Chirot ,a professor at Henry M Jackson school of International Studies at the University of Washington at Seattle confessed that ‘ the US sided with Pakistan during the Bangladesh Liberation War as it wanted to improve its relation with Communist China, which was then having very close ties with Pakistan. On the other hand former Soviet Union, the arch rival of the US during the Cold War stood by the Indian Government assisting the Bangladesh freedom fighters,” he observed. Chirot noted “The US played an anti-Bangladesh role in 1971 for its foreign policy and ‘Most of the genocide and political killing take place mainly for the purpose of gaining economic, political, ideological or ethnic supremacy. However it now has no such tendency,’ he added. (DS 22 Feb .06)

However we know that Pakistan, of course, was Kissinger’s secret bridge to China. But Bangladesh had to pay for ‘Pakistan army genocide’ and US policy of ‘political killing’. Bangladesh is now leaderless and rudderless floating in the ocean of despair as a model of ‘Muslim democratic state ‘US policy has been murky, to say at least. It is worthy to note here U.S. Government used to release to public all classified documents after thirty years. But it is interesting to note that American government would not make public of those documents related to Bangladesh. It would be made public after five years of death of Henry A Kissinger.All those documents are under Mr. Henry A Kissinger's custody.

Part-IX : Whither Bangladesh?

Dhaka, August 12 , (Asiantribune.com): After evaluating all those events of August-November 1975— would anybody describe the real character of the killers of Sheikh Mujib? Who are the beneficiaries of the killing of Sheikh Mujib? Why should the Constitution, framed by people's representatives, bear the scars of martial law proclamations? People would be submissive, docile, as they have no direct role to play in this system of constitution making or amendments? But it was the people’s representatives who adopted the Constitution. Article 7 of the constitution is the touch- stone of the Constitution. Sheikh Hasina rightly questioned, “What particularly worries me is that those quarters which have in the years roundly criticized the Fourth Amendment have somehow never seen it fit to repeal the said amendment and take the country back to the situation prevailing before the amendment came into force. (Hasina, democracy, p-22)

In keeping with shift in ideology, certain changes in foreign policy were discernible. While Khondakar Mustaque declared the continuation of the non-aligned foreign policy, he also announced that efforts would be made to establish friendly relations with countries” who had not been friend before”-an obvious reference to Pakistan and China. Professor Rounaq Jahan opined that”Indeed much of the of the new regime was taken up by the “ins” and ‘outs’ game. Those who were very much ‘in’ with the Mujib regime (pro-Soviet and pro-India forces) were out, and those who were against Mujib (pro-Peking left and Islamic forces) were ‘in’ with the new regime.”(Rounaq Jahan, 2005, p-175)

Mushtaque's pledged to support the constitution was meant to buy time to consolidate the regime’s shaky base. He abolished BAKSAL and in a statement on October 4, 1975 He said that he would return the country to Parliamentary democracy; a general election was scheduled for February 1977 and the political activities were to be revived from August 1976. On 3rd November 1975 the seventy-nine-day old regime headed by Khondokar Mushtaque Ahmed was overthrown. The army leadership under Briugadier Khaled Musharaf led a bloodless coup and made himself Chief of Army Staff in place of Ziaur Rahman, seized power in Bangabhaban (Bangladesh President’s House) from the junior officers who had brought President Khondokar Mustaque Ahmed to power on 15 August 1975. Four national leaders of Bangladesh, including Prime Minister Tajuddin Ahmed and Acting President Syed Nazrul Islam of the Provisional Government of Bangladesh, who had steered Bangladesh to freedom and a sovereign nation, were assassinated on 3rd November 1975. The two others assassinated were Cabinet Ministers A H M Kamaruzzaman and M Mansur Ali. These leaders were killed in the Dhaka Central Jail, where they had been lodged after the 15 August Coup.

Keesing’s Contemporary Archives reported that Coln. Farook had admitted that the leaders of the 15August coup were responsible for the killing of the four political leaders, who were ‘the possible civilian challengers to the new military rulers’. Radio Bangladesh said that President Mostaq Ahmed had appointed a Commission of three judges to enquire into the ‘heinous crime’ of killing ‘four prominent persons’ in jail and also into the circumstances in which the miscreants were given a safe conduct.

On 6 November 1975, Chief Justice of Bangladesh Justice A S M Sayem took over as the President. In his first broadcast over radio the same evening, he said, “On the 15th of August a few retired and serving military officers staged an uprising and killed the then president (Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman) and members of his family. Khondaker Moshtaque Ahmed assumed the responsibility of president and promulgated Martial Law. In fact the Armed Forces were in no way involved in this happening.” He announced the dissolution of Parliament and the holding of elections before February 1977. He said his country would strengthen its friendly relations with ‘our close neighbors.’ India was worried about Bangladesh turmoil because of her close border on all sides of Bangladesh.

Since the ‘coup of August 1975’ which brought Bangladesh's infant parliamentary democracy to an abrupt end, there has been no real return to civilian politics as it is normally understood. The course of Bangladesh politics over the last decades seem to have jelled in the form of a cycle in which a coup is followed by a series of invariably violent readjustments within the armed forces involving different groups contending for power, the emergence of a single leader whose capture of the executive power of the state leads to the establishment of a base for the regime in the form of a new political party, the eventual alienation of the armed forces from the Head of State thus 'civilianised' which paves the way for another major coup aimed at a reassertion of the dominance of the military." (Economic And Political Weekly, May 4, 1985) .For the last three decades, we have been listening the concert of criticism against the era of Sheikh Mujib. People tested and enjoyed the adventures of multiparty democracy, freedom of the press, human rights, constitutional obligation and rule of law for 15 years under the army rule of two Generals. 'BAKSAL goes' but presidential system remains.

When the mission of dividing the society in the name of religion, culture and international Muslim brotherhood had been completed, the fortune and ###### of Alibaba and his thieves increased. Then a mockery of parliament came and the form of government changed for the second round of exploitation in the name of democracy, party politics and development for the people. People do not know where they really stand?

Millions of educated youth are unemployed; thousands of millionaires are born out kleptocracy. Bangladesh has become a hot-bed of fundamentalists. Politics has become a kind of investment as in other businesses. Businessmen are giving up their entrepreneurship to become members of Parliament for making easy money, followed by assets and power. Stump orators have become today’s leaders. Diplomacy has become a businessman’s show. But diplomacy which is to do and say the nastiest thing in the nicest way is not found in our present day culture. All political parties die at last by swallowing their own lies. I have hated many people in the past; the language of hate still comes to me easily. But I don't really hate anyone now. It is defeat that makes one hate people-- and now I have no sense of defeat anywhere. No one needs ever be defeated. I think freedom is the basis of everything and it is that freedom that has compelled me to write this book as I am no longer a bonded labour.

The country former director of the World Bank, Ms Christine Wallich, is reported to have remarked, "Bangladesh is not a failed state but a fragile one." (The Independent, September 27, 2004). The term 'fragile democracy' used earlier by some analysts was largely in the context of the continuous process of political instability caused largely by imposition of martial law followed by civilian rule with the architects of martial law putting on civilian garb, floating political parties in order to ensure stay in power.

Dr. A M M Shawkat Ali, CSP, a former secretary to the Bangladesh Government, in a signed article "Fragility thy name is Bangladesh" says: “The way forward out of the ignominy of a fragile state lies in the recognition of the fact that power resides not in individuals or political parties but in the institutions of the state and that power has to be exercised for maximizing public weal and not for ensuring stay in power of the state. (The Independent, November 3, 2004).

The state turned authoritarian and for fifteen years (1975-1990) military dictators ruled the country, the initial constitutional commitment to socialism and secularism was gradually diluted by successive amendments introduced by the military regimes. In 1977, through a martial law ordinance, secularism was dropped from the guiding principles of state and substituted with” absolute trust and faith in Almighty Allah” and in 1988, Islam was declared to be the state religion.” by two successive military regimes of General Zia and General H M Ershad since August 1975 to December 1990.

"The India-factor in Bangladesh politics is umbilical linked with Bangladesh’s birth, both in consonances and contradictions West Bengal's decadent metropolitan culture and the patronizing impositions of Calcutta Kultur elite since the early days of Bangladesh's independence which would offend the cultural pride of the educated people in Bangladesh…It simply offends whether under the Congress or the CPI (M) or whether it is Anada Bazar Patrika or Ajkal. If it seeks to impose its long-lost superiority as one of the backyards of India's growing cosmopolitan political and economic culture, it will certainly get the expected rebuff from Bangladesh…. But those are matters way past. But the India-factor in its internalized dormancy was once again stirred by I K Gujral’s impolitic statement in Dhaka, while he was visiting here in his short-lived capacity as Prime Minister of India, to the effect that after many years his government has found a welcome friend in the Awami League government that was thrown up by the 12 June 1996 polls. Mr. Gujral not only burnt his claims to liberalism but made Awami League synonymous with Indian friendship.

This synonymy has had worse fallout on the mainstream opposition, the BNP; and painted Awami League of the present time a surrogate of the Indian ruling class. Too much proximity of a political party of a smaller State with India breeds contempt. And Awami League's dealings with India on such mundane matters as trade, gas export, border-enclaves, sub-regional cooperation, not to speak of SAPTA and SAFTA, are symptomatic of the wages of contempt it has brought upon itself.”(Holiday,23 June 2000) Relations with India 'a priority' for Bangladesh : Observing that Indo-Bangla relations remained imbalanced, Bangladesh's caretaker government said it is according priority for developing ties with India and wanted New Delhi to take equal responsibility and also make Dhaka feel secured. "India is a priority in Bangladesh foreign policy and vice versa because of the dictates of geography, history, culture, interest etc...We are pleased to note India has accepted a symmetry responsibility being a large neighbour endowed with more resources," Foreign Adviser Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury said in an exclusive interview to PTI, on 17 July 2007.

Analysts said the Dhaka-New Delhi ties in the past few years was dogged by issues like border management and terrorist infiltration, water sharing and trade imbalance as the two close neighbours have a more than 4,000 km porous border and 230 common rivers mostly originating from India.

The Indo-Bangladesh relations took a nosedive after the death of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Mrs. Indira Gandhi who was the Prime Minister of India took a very hard stand on Bangladesh. However, with the Janata Government coming to power in India, bi-lateral relations improved considerably between Bangladesh and India. Mr. Morarji Desai's Government tried to resolve the issues with India's neighbours.

As a result 'The Ganges Water Agreement' was signed in November 1977. With the return of Mrs. Gandhi as Prime Minister of India the relations cooled down again. However, this time Mrs. Gandhi was much more pragmatic and allowed the 'Ganges Water Agreement' to be extended by another five years although without the guarantee provision, Brigadier General Shafaat Ahmad opined (Ds, 28July .07) he added : With the passage of time more issues started cropping up between India and Bangladesh. But none of them have been resolved. At present there are ten major issues that have to be resolved between the two countries. They are:

* Non-ratification of the Indo-Bangladesh Land Boundary Agreement of 1974.

* Handing over of Enclaves

* Delimitation of the sea-boundary in the Bay of Bengal between India and Bangladesh

* Settlement of the ownership of Talpatty Island

* Border fencing

* Sharing of waters of all common rivers

* Transit facilities

* Trade deficit

* Cross border militancy

* Illegal migration

Mr. Dixit has been candid in accepting that India has to play a major part if the pending issues between the two countries are to be resolved.

I quote “As far as the relation with India goes it has been a roller caster ride over the last 23 years. Despite all the professed mutual goodwill and declared commitments to bilateral cooperation by both countries, a number of issues dating back to the times of liberation still remain unsolved.”

India has to understand that unless there is reciprocity in dealing with the bilateral issues, these cannot be resolved. It cannot be that Bangladesh is always on the giving side. Bangladesh attaches great importance in having a friendly, working and cordial relationship with India. India has to realize that Bangladesh has developed regional and multi-lateral relationship with other countries, which are equally important. After all Bangladesh has also to look after her own national interest.

We will write a separate chapter on “Indo-Bangladesh Relations : Post August 1975” by the next month.

Rabindranath Trivedi is a retired civil servant, author and columnist.

- Concluded –

Posted by: akzaman Oct 15 2007, 08:35 PM

It is a wonderful article. Thank you, Maruf:


Why did India help in 1971?

By Shah Mohammed Saifuddin, Bangladesh

Unlike our other neighbours India has a special place in our history because of its help in our liberation war. When the Pakistani military was murdering hundreds of thousands of unarmed people and raping the women of the then East Pakistan, India came forward with its helping hand and contributed to arming and training the mukti bahini. Almost 10 million people took shelter in India, especially in the states adjacent to East Pakistan border. Nobody in Bangladesh questions the fact that we got help from India but many question the nature of the help. Was it selfless help or India had a strategic interest in helping Bangladesh?

With a view to find out the truth we have to analyze what India gained from our freedom struggle and its attitude toward Bangladesh after our liberation war. Let us examine the entire thing from strategic, economic, and political point of views.

Strategic point of view
India's peculiar geographic position constituted a major threat to its national security. Due to the geographic location of then East Pakistan, the seven sisters were completely isolated from the mainland. A small corridor, popularly known as chicken neck, was the only passage that could be used for traffic movement. Militarily, India was pretty vulnerable especially due to Chinese presence along the border. The war that was fought between India and China taught India the lesson that faster troops mobility is the only way to win a war. So, India needed transit facility through East Pakistan to transport troops and logistics faster to defend its vulnerable North Eastern states. Besides that, Pakistan was playing a vital role in instigating the insurgents in Assam and elsewhere to break up the entire region. The Indian military strategists were out of options and didn't know how the North Eastern region would be saved. The Hawkish politicians in India came to the conclusion that breaking up Pakistan is the only way to save the militarily insecure North Eastern region. By doing so,

•They could weaken Pakistan and reduce the threat level.

•Recapture the Pakistani portion of Kashmir

•Create a new state that would be militarily and economically weak and provide the much needed transit for troops and logistics transportation

•Project India as a regional superpower and warn all elements inimical to India's security that India had the power to defend itself.

Economic point of view
India also had an economic objective to dismember Pakistan. India was a country with huge population and needed additional resources to uplift its economy. The economic cooperation with Pakistan was all but encouraging. Besides that, the water resources of the Himalayas were needed for India for irrigation and power generation. Due to Pakistan's strong military, India was unable to use the resources unilaterally. Despite being a third world nation, Pakistan was a huge economic market that was able to absorb millions of dollars worth of Indian commodities. But the hostility between the two nations retarded the possibility of a robust economic cooperation between the two nations.

Indian policymakers thought that if they could break Pakistan and create a new and weaker Bangladesh then they would be able to gain unrestricted access to its economic market. India knew that as a new nation, Bangladesh would need cheap industrial products to revive its economy. So, there was a tremendous potential for economic cooperation between the two nations. India also wanted to get transit through Bangladesh to transport raw materials for its North Eastern states. The economically backward North Eastern region needed more investment and various products to energize its economy. So, the Indians thought Bangladesh would be much more beneficial for Indian economy than East Pakistan. The economic calculation was very accurate because India managed to sell hundreds of millions of dollars worth of cheap products to Bangladesh both legally and illegally. They destroyed the thriving jute industry of Bangladesh to build their own right after our independence.

India flooded the local Bangladeshi market with its products and offered millions of dollars more as loans to buy Indian commodities. We were reduced to a trading nation and almost destroyed the very basis of our own industry. India encouraged smuggling along the Indo-Bangla border so the government of Bangladesh had to close the border to stop the rampant smuggling to save the local traders. India never wanted an economically prosperous Bangladesh rather it wanted to use us as a market for its own products and in the process make us dependent on them.

If we look at the present situation, the lopsided trade relation between the two nations speaks volume of the Indian intention to help us in 1971. Bangladesh is an open market economy and allows duty free access for Indian products to our market. But India follows a restricted policy when it comes to importing Bangladeshi products and imposed numerous tariffs and para-tariffs on the Bangladeshi goods. The yawning trade imbalance is a testament to the fact that India never wanted an economically self-sufficient Bangladesh.

Political point of view
Former Indian foreign secretary Mr. Dixit said, "We helped in the liberation of Bangladesh in mutual interest, it was not a favour," His statement is clear evidence that India did not help Bangladesh on humanitarian ground. India had a long-term strategic plan to dismember Pakistan for its own gain. India had cultivated deep political relation with the disgruntled elements within the erstwhile East Pakistan. [1] As per a senior RAW intelligence officer, "Bangladesh was the result of a 10 year long promotion of dissatisfaction against the rulers of Pakistan".

This goes to prove that helping Bangladesh was not an instantaneous decision of India rather it was a carefully designed strategic plan that was executed in pinpoint precision.

One of the top bosses of RAW, K. Sankaran Nair, was responsible for training the erstwhile East Pakistani officers in guerrilla warfare. He also established excellent relation with Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. The relation was maintained via a RAW operative Mr. Banerjee. RAW even funded the 1970s election, in which Sheikh Mujib emerged as the winner [2].

But after the liberation, things did not go the way India had planned. Mujib was assassinated and Awami League was ousted from the power. General Ziaur Rahman came to power and adopted an anti India foreign and defense policy to drag Bangladesh out of Indian sphere of influence. He established good economic and political relation with America and China. He also repaired relations with the Middle Eastern countries and created a huge opportunity for the Bangladeshi workers in the Arab nations. Money started to pour in and the economy got better. He amended the constitution to give it an Islamic flavour in a country where 90% people were Muslims. The Indian policymakers observed the political development in Bangladesh and clearly understood that things were getting worse as far as Indian interest was concerned.

In the meantime, General Ziaur Rahman took various measures to upgrade the military. A close defense relation was established between Bangladesh and China. This irked the military establishment of India. They considered it a hostile act and found it hard to digest. The disgruntled elements in Delhi decided to create a rebel group in Chittagong hill tracts to keep Bangladesh under pressure and drain as much resources of this newly born poor country as possible. Shanti bahini played havock with the lives and properties of the people in CHT. General Zia quickly decided to populate CHT with Bengalees to maintain the territorial integrity of Bangladesh. In the meantime, India forcefully occupied South Talpatty disregarding Bangladesh's request for a joint survey to determine the ownership of the Island. [3] General Zia was assassinated in 1981 and many observers believe that RAW had a hand in the incident.

General Ershad came to power in 1982 and more or less followed the same foreign policy as General Zia. But Ershad knew he should not annoy India beyond a certain limit so a tendency to keep India in good humour was obvious in his India policy. During his tenure, he agreed to abolish the guarantee clause from the water sharing treaty signed by General Zia. It went against our national interest because after abolishment of the guarantee clause, India reduced the water supply even further and that affected our agriculture and ecology. But the fact of the matter is even General Ershad couldn't take a fully pro-Indian stance due to public pressure. He had to continue the military modernization and amended the constitution to declare Islam as the state religion. This drew ire from the top leaders of India. Ershad didn't even try to take any initiative to give transit to India fearing wide spread protest across the country.

Actually, the Indian leaders knew that the only party that was able to meet the Indian strategic demands was Awami League. They never stopped keeping relations with Awami League and provided all sorts of logistis support to Sheikh Hasina. According to some well-informed observers, India provided Tk. 300 crore to Awami League to win the 1996 election(Weekly Shugondha, 26th April, 1996). India's clandestine support for a particular party is a testament to the fact that India had a strategic reason to help Bangladesh in 1971.

If India's help was altruistic in nature, India would have tried to win the hearts and minds of the people of Bangladesh but they never felt the need to do that and continued with their policy to clandestinely help bring Awami League to power. Even today, India leaves no stone unturned to malign Bangladesh. The Indian foreign ministry spends millions of dollars to hire foreign journalists to make fictitious reports to portray Bangladesh as Taliban sympathizer. Fortunately, Bangladesh took quick action to hang a few mis-guided Mullahs who were creating some disturbances. Bangladesh even signed various treaties to help the international community to combat terrorism.

More can be written to prove that India's help in 1971 was not an altruistic one rather it was for gaining strategic advantages. India has an ambitious vision of becoming a world power but how can they achieve their goal if they cannot convince their neighbours that their intentions are benign? Using force to subjugate the weaker neighbours is not the way to go to establish a relation based on mutual trust and respect.

References :
1.RAW: Top-Secret Failures, p: 5
2.Ibid. , p: 8
3.Limits of Diplomacy: Bangladesh, Partha. S. Ghosh

http://bangladesh-web.com/view.php?hidRecord=173793

Posted by: akzaman Oct 21 2007, 09:27 PM

Why did India help in 1971?By Shah Mohammed Saifuddin (NFB of October 13)

Actually, I like Kissinger\'s analysis a lot better. India was against detente and wanted to sabotage Nixon\'s China visit. That is why it was not in India\'s agenda to continue to shelter the 10 million refugees or to watch with indifference the murder of 3 million Bangladeshi civilians or the rape of a quarter million Bangladeshi women. Shame on India.

Zillur Ahmed
Columbus, Ohio USA
zillur.ahmed@yahoo.com

http://bangladesh-web.com/view.php?hidRecord=174295

Posted by: akzaman Oct 24 2007, 09:17 PM

INDO-BANGLA PASSENGER TRAIN :Security, but no fencing, insists Dhaka

Bangladesh on Wednesday cleared its position on the commencement of the Dhaka-Kolkata passenger train service after a question arose in some sections of the press about Bangladesh’s ‘reluctance’ to launch the much awaited service.
‘The fact is that discussions are going on and a draft of the agreement on the passenger train service has been sent to the Indian authorities by Bangladesh,’ said a spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Wednesday.
A release issued by the ministry further said a response from India is now being awaited.
‘It must, however, be understood that on this or on any other negotiations with a particular country, Bangladesh will always seek to protect her perceived national interest,’ said the spokesman.
The Indian high commissioner in Dhaka, Pinak R Chakrabarty, on Monday categorically blamed the Bangladesh government for non-resumption of railway communication between the two countries.
Speaking at a meeting between the businessmen of Bangladesh and India, the envoy regretted the existing ‘psychological partition’ between the Indians and the Bangladeshis, which he felt should be ended forthwith.
‘Railway communication requires two things — infrastructure and security. The Bangladesh government is apparently not willing to help ensure security,’ Chakrabarty told the gathering in the conference room of the Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
The fate of the cross-border passenger train service hangs in balance as Dhaka is opposing New Delhi’s proposal to fence the cross-border railway track.
Dhaka thinks that such fencing within 150 yards from the international boundary ‘is against the norms of the friendly relationship between Bangladesh and India’.
The Bangladesh side, taking into consideration India’s concern for the passengers’ security, suggested strengthening of the joint security arrangement along the border, and strong monitoring and improved security inside the train, instead of fences along the railway tracks.

http://www.newagebd.com/front.html#4

Posted by: akzaman Dec 2 2007, 12:12 AM

An unquiet periphery:India should do more to help its troubled neighbours

James Astill

South Asia has long been a rowdy neighbourhood. But the view from the Secretariat building, the elegant south Delhi seat of India's foreign ministry, will be particularly riotous in 2008. In Pakistan and Sri Lanka, there will be war; in Bangladesh, there will be protests against army-backed rule; in Nepal, a return to war will be a constant threat. Only tiny Bhutan, a Himalayan recluse whose foreign policy India dictates, will be a peaceful fellow resident of the subcontinental hood.

Neighbourhood watch

Who will preside over the mayhem in Pakistan? The hope was that it would be a civilian—for the first time since General Pervez Musharraf seized power in 1999. General Musharraf had himself re-elected president in October, in uniform. He planned to divest himself of it shortly after, provided that the Supreme Court accepted the legitimacy of the October poll. The court, however, may have had other ideas, and in early November 2007, as its ruling loomed, General Musharraf suspended the constitution. Emergency rule has thrown Pakistan's political outlook into deeper confusion.

The general election that had been planned in Pakistan for January 2008 may be delayed by a year or more. In a free election, the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) of Benazir Bhutto, a former prime minister who returned (to a huge welcome horribly marred by two deadly bombs) from eight years of self-imposed exile in October 2007, and the Muslim League (Q), which backs General Musharraf, might each win about a third of the votes. The Muslim League (N) of Nawaz Sharif, another former prime minister, and smaller Islamist and regional parties would account for the rest.

India has a poor record of meddling in the politics of its troubled neighbours.If an election happens—and assuming General Musharraf is in charge—a long-mooted partnership between the PPP and ML(Q) might be the best hope for stability, though the November "coup" made it less likely. The political troubles will distract the president from an ongoing campaign to defeat a Taliban insurgency along the Afghan border. There is no hope of victory in 2008.

Sri Lanka's government, under the populist president, Mahinda Rajapakse, will prosecute a war in 2008 that is partly of its choosing. Officially, a ceasefire has been in place since 2002 between the government and the Tamil Tiger rebels who control the country's north. But over the past year it has broken down. Having shelled the Tigers out of another fief, in eastern Sri Lanka, the government will try to conquer the north.

Government forces will gain ground; losing the east has weakened the Tigers. But the government will not end Sri Lanka's ethnic strife because it does not understand it. It calls the Tigers terrorists, and so they are. Yet they also reflect the grievances of many Sri Lankan Tamils against a bullying Sinhalese majority, the government's main constituency. So long as the Tamils' basic demands—including autonomy for the north and a proper share of state patronage—are not met, Sri Lanka's troubles will endure.

Bangladesh's will worsen in 2008. Its technocratic administration, installed by the army in January 2007, promises to hold elections in December 2008. It will break its promise. At the army's behest, it has arrested the country's main political leaders, Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina Wajed. The charges against the two women—of corruption and extortion, respectively—may or may not be deserved. But, in the absence of other leaders, their parties demand their release. This gives the army a choice: democracy and the two begums (as the feuding Mrs Zia and Sheikh Hasina are known) or no begums and no democracy. It will choose the latter in 2008. Public disaffection with the government will increase during the year. Violent protests are all but guaranteed.

Mao still lives

Nepal, which recently ended a civil war, will enjoy little of a peace dividend in 2008. A key part of the peace process—the election of an assembly to write a new constitution—was due in November 2007, but was postponed. Armed Maoists within the transitional government were to blame. They fear they would wither in a democracy. Under pressure from India, they were persuaded not to quit the government.

Alas, India is rarely so helpful. It is rightly proud of its more stable democracy; yet India has a poor record of meddling in the politics of its troubled neighbours. It has held back somewhat of late. But India still spurns opportunities to do good. In particular, it could do more to expand its miserly trade with Pakistan and Bangladesh. For both countries, this would bring much-needed relief. And India would profit.

James Astill: South Asia correspondent, The Economist

http://www.economist.com/theworldin/asia/displayStory.cfm?story_id=10094457&d=2008

Posted by: akzaman Dec 6 2007, 07:55 PM

MUKHERJEE'S DHAKA VISIT Can he change Delhi's perception?

M. Shahidul Islam

With the right intent, collaborations during natural disasters can act as a harbinger of increased fraternity between nations. The Indian response to the latest cyclone devastations in Bangladesh has increased such a relation and may further improve the existing ties between the two next-door neighbours. Or, will it?
Seemingly touched by the severity of the devastations wrecked by cyclone Sidr, India lifted its ban on rice exports to the tune of five lakh tonnes to help Bangladesh deal with its predicted food shortage. During his snap visit to Dhaka on December 1, Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee also expressed his country's desire to pay for the full rebuilding of 10 cyclone-ravaged villages.
The decision to allow Bangladesh to import rice from India will enable Dhaka to fulfil its recently expressed desire to purchase five lakh tonnes of food relief to stave off what seems like an impending shortfall. It will not, however, deliver the desired benefit as Dhaka must pay the market price for the rice which it wanted the donors to buy and donate.
Earlier, immediately after the cyclone had struck, India waived the rice export ban for 50,000 tonnes and had provided 20,000 tonnes as direct relief. Mukherjee also carried with him more than 36 tonnes of relief goods, including ready-to-eat meals, powdered milk, medicines, water filters, and blankets. All these were truly encouraging and inspirational, although, despite a mixed basket of donations pledged so far by India, its overall contribution to the suffering multitudes of Bangladesh still rank as one of the lowest among the commitments made by other countries.
That is okay. How much one gives in charity depends on the giver's generosity. But the goodwill gestures made by India in terms of commitments for relief and rehabilitation were not sans politics. The concern lies therein.
Coinciding with Mukherjee's Dhaka visit, the director general of Tripura police, K.T.D. Singh, said on December 1, "Despite the changing scenario in Bangladesh, nothing much has changed in terms of Indian militants getting logistic support in that country. Indian separatists continue to operate out of Bangladesh despite the change of government there.?
Singh said, "The outlawed All Tripura Tiger Force (ATTF) and the National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT) maintain more than 30 camps in Bangladesh. The National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN-IM) and United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) are supporting the ATTF and NLFT. All the Indian militants are helping each other in purchase of arms and training of new cadres in Bangladesh.? More alarmingly, he claimed, "At least 10 Tripura militant leaders have been staying in safe and luxurious houses in Dhaka.?
That is not all. Singh's blaming of Bangladesh was preceded by a different message from J.A. Khan, inspector general of the Indian Border Security Force (BSF), who said in Agartala only a day before, November 30, that India was stepping up vigil along its border with Bangladesh by increasing troops strength and setting up more border outposts (BOPs). "As per the recommendations of the Subramaniam Committee report on the Kargil conflict, New Delhi has been working on strengthening the security along the 4,095km border that India shares with Bangladesh,? Khan disclosed. Formed after the 1999 Kargil conflict, the Subramaniam Committee was headed by security expert K. Subramaniam to assess security risks at Indian borders.
Viewed objectively, how ridiculous it seems to equate the threats to Indian security at the Indo-Pak border with those at the Indo-Bangla border? And, excepting in not accusing Dhaka this time of harbouring Islamist terrorists, the statements of the BSF and the Tripura police chiefs sounded like the same good old innuendos aimed at creating pressure on the government of Bangladesh. One would have felt happier if such pressure tactic were left for deliverance once Bangladesh recuperated from the trauma of this unprecedented natural disaster.
The BSF chief also disclosed, "The distance between two BOPs has now been reduced from 15km to about 4-5km and the strength of BSF battalions along the Bangladesh border has almost doubled compared to the past. Within the next couple of months, the entire 856km border between Tripura and Bangladesh will be fenced with superior surveillance equipment like thermal imagers and night vision devices installed.?
The paraphernalia of security arrangements being made by India at the border indicates that the BSF chief is expecting a huge exodus of Bangladeshi refugees towards India soon; especially given the promptness with which the entire Bangladesh-Tripura border is being barb-wired.
Besides, the Indo-Bangla border-fencing having evoked much controversy in the past and India never rationalising fully its action in the context of either the existential threat perceptions or other reasons that usually prompted nations to go for such defensive infrastructure building, the moves are bound to arouse suspicion in the mind of any discerning observer. Some of the constructions are also within 150 yards of the no man's land, something the 1975 border agreement explicitly prohibits.
Yet, according to an estimate, more than 1,300 miles of the planned 3,034-mile fencing has already been completed since the project's launching in 1986. By the time the project is completed in 2008, construction cost itself will overshoot the $1 billion mark due to the fence being 10- to 12-foot high, floodlit, and razor-wire-filled.
Compare the rationality of this grand project in terms of bilateral relations, geo-political compulsions, and the precedents available elsewhere. The USA has begun to construct a $2.2 billion double fence project along 700 miles of its border with Mexico to prevent illegal immigration. The flow of illegal migration from Mexico to the USA stems from an axiomatic economic fact of poor Mexicans getting better economic opportunities in the affluent USA. That is not the case between Bangladesh and India.
According to 2007 data of the International Monetary Fund, per capita GDP in the USA is $44,765 against Mexico's $11,880, while both India and Bangladesh are at the bottom of the list: India ranking at 117th with a per capita GDP of $4,183 against Bangladesh's $2,270 (ranking at 144th). India also has a very restrictive immigration policy that does not entice illegal aliens to live and work there.
Other such constructions in the ancient and modern history were for defensive purpose or ideological enmity. The Great Wall of China is one of the greatest construction projects in world history - about 4,500 miles long. The wall was built, rebuilt, and maintained between the 5th century BC and the 16th century to protect the northern borders of the Chinese empire during successive dynasties.
The barrier that separated West Berlin from East Berlin from 1961 to 1989 was a series of concrete walls up to 15-foot high, topped with barbed wire, watchtowers, stationary guns, mines, and electrified fencing. Dubbed once as the Iron Curtain by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, the wall aimed at segregating communism from capitalism. Both India and Bangladesh are parliamentary democracies, not ideologically different nation-states.
The Morocco-Western Sahara Wall is a 1,600-mile system of sand beams and rock walls built by Morocco in the 1980s to fend off attacks from Western Sahara, where tensions continued between Morocco and Polisario Front separatists despite a UN-brokered cease-fire. The wall is built of earthen mound, about 7-foot high, with a 23-foot-wide ditch studded with bunkers, barbed wire, and anti-personnel and anti-tank mines. Indo-Bangla situation is not akin to the Morocco-Polisario situation either.
In the Mid-East, Israel has built about 170 miles of barrier to separate the Jewish state from the Palestinian-dominated West Bank. Another 140 miles of barrier are planned or under construction and 155 miles more under review. The barrier is composed of a wire fence in some places and concrete wall in others and has been designed to foil terrorists, says Israel. In reality, it aims at unfairly grabbing Palestinian land. Former US president Jimmy Carter termed the Israeli segregation strategy as apartheid.
Hence, in all likelihood, Indian fence construction along the Bangladesh border has more to do with strangulating its small neighbour than any other expressed desire.
That notwithstanding, and not to belittle the messages emitted from Agartala by the heads of the BSF and Agartala police in the wake of Mukherjee's 'humanitarian trip' to Dhaka, Mukherjee was reassured by his Bangladesh counterpart that Bangladesh would not allow its territory to be used for anti-India activities as the two sides are determined to further develop their friendly ties.
Like in the past, that assurance is unlikely to change Delhi's perception on such matters, if the pattern of relationship of the past is taken as an indicator of what may follow. India has been tightening its nooses in all fronts to strangulate Bangladesh while gesturing as a good and compassionate neighbour. The prevailing misunderstandings are severely hindering the bilateral relationship and having detrimental impacts on bilateral trades.
Observers feel now is the time to change that hostile paradigm and work diligently to achieve parallel economic developments in all South Asian nations as economic prosperity of all is the sine qua non for regional peace and stability. As a regional leader, India must lead the way in South Asia instead of standing on its way.
For that to happen, the expected paradigm shift must occur in the realm of bilateral trade first. India's exports to Bangladesh during April 2006-February 2007 amounted to $1.5 billion against imports from Bangladesh being worth only a paltry sum of $205 million. This occurred at a time when the Indian economy registered a more than 9.4 per cent growth, the fastest in 18 years, and India could have facilitated and absorbed more Bangladeshi products, if it wanted.
Experts also say the fencing of borders will jeopardise Bangladesh's desire to enhance its trading with about 40 million inhabitants of the Northeast India comprising the Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, and Tripura. Export to India is also bottlenecked by the existing tariff and non-tariff barriers, lopsided currency valuation, and Delhi's protectionist policy that does not allow Bangladeshi quality certificates and sets preconditions of fresh tests inside India before allowing goods from Bangladesh to enter its market.
The arbitrary fencing of the border also contravenes many bilateral agreements, especially the Trade Agreement of March 21, 2006 that makes it incumbent on both the governments to "Make mutually beneficial arrangements for use of waterways, roadways and railways for commerce between the two countries and for passage of goods between the places through the territory of other.? The fencing will deprive Bangladesh from choosing the most economically viable route for on-land export at the lowest possible transportation cost to ensure competitiveness.
Mukherjee did take into cognisance the issue of the grossly lopsided trade imbalance and expressed a desire to address the issue during his recent Dhaka visit. The fact is: Such an assurance came from every visiting official from Delhi over the decades and nothing much has happened in reality to allow Bangladesh to improve its fortune through trade.
We only hope, Mukherjee being a Bengali speaking Indian minister for external affairs is the right person to help change Delhi's entrenched negative perception about Bangladesh to turn the region into a major hub of reckonable regional trading.
http://www.weeklyholiday.net/front.html#02

Posted by: akzaman Dec 11 2007, 11:11 PM

Indo-Bangla Dialogue :Water discord should be solved for better ties

Foreign adviser Iftekhar A Chowdhury yesterday said now is the right time for India and Bangladesh to seriously negotiate on issues, since India has accepted a greater responsibility in the relationship. Expressing deep concerns regarding the construction of dams and reservoirs in India that would deprive Bangladesh of crucial water resources, he said water sharing issues need to be addressed immediately to take the relations forward."Both parties should realise that if there are hills to climb, waiting would not make them any smaller," Iftekhar said at the inaugural session of the three-day 16th Bangladesh-India dialogue at Brac Inn in the capital.

The dialogue is organised by the Centre for Policy Dialogue, and India International Centre, while the session was chaired jointly by CPD Chairman Rehman Sobhan and former Indian diplomat Dev Mukherjee.Iftekhar said the present goodwill between the two neighbours exists because of India's acceptance of a 'higher degree of responsibilities in the conduct of bilateral relations, often without reciprocity'.

He said the public opinion of India has improved in Bangladesh because of 'the understanding on the part of India of Bangladesh's need to evolve policies that would enable her to live in concord with, but distinct from her larger neighbour'.Iftekhar added that sharing of river water and the issue of diverting water from shared waterways, through Tipaimukh, are areas of concern that need to be addressed."As a lower riparian country, Bangladesh voices concern over the construction of reservoirs and dams in India and Nepal over the River Shaptakosi," he said.

The foreign adviser said removal of non-trade barriers and greater Bangladeshi access to Indian markets are imperative to reduce the massive gap in bilateral trade.He also asked both countries to work together on climate change.Iftekhar called upon the Indian and Bangladeshi civil society participants in the dialogue, to make a greater contribution to crucial bilateral issues, such as energy and connectivity.

Dev Mukherjee, a former Indian high commissioner to Bangladesh, dismissed the water sharing issues, saying, "Personally I don't see any problem here in Bangladesh with regard to construction of dams or reservoirs in India and Nepal."He however added that the two governments must realise, their relationship is mutually beneficial as 'what is good for Bangladesh is good for India'. He said the motto must be used to drive the efforts on trade, investment, and connectivity.

Rehman Sobhan said both countries must cooperate on addressing shared concerns such as climate change and recurring floods. He said the cooperation needs to be underpinned by a 'collective security approach' both on bilateral and regional levels.

The dialogue will deal with disaster management, development of water resources, energy sectors, and cooperation in trade, investment and communications. The participants will deliver recommendations on the issues on the last day of the talks.

http://thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=15188

Posted by: Maruf Dec 12 2007, 08:59 PM

QUOTE(akzaman @ Dec 11 2007, 08:11 PM)

Posted by: akzaman Dec 21 2007, 08:32 AM

Lest we fail to understand Indian design

Mohammad Zainal Abedin

On December 16, 2007 Bangladesh entered 37 years of its existence. But during this long span of time Bangladesh could not reach its cherished goal of independence for which we fought, it rather faced unthinkable impediments and predicaments. This happened due to our utter failure of identifying our friends and foes, mending our stupidity and zeal for personal interest and power. It is our ill luck that we considered and some of us still consider our arch rival and foe as our friend.

The country that came forward as an ally and salvager during our war of liberation, ironically emerged as deadly giant. Our successive governments, right from Sheikh Mujibur Rahman to Fakharuddin Ahmad, though comprehend Indian designs, could not and still cannot take bold step to frustrate them (Indian designs), as they remain busy to tackle internal chaos and problems imposed by India. On the other hand, it is an irony that most of the Bangladeshi policymakers, politicians, intellectuals, bureaucrats, business magnets, etc., who directly and indirectly control the statecrafts of Bangladesh have either become India's pawns to grab their self-interest, who give priority to their immediate gains instead of national interest and sovereignty and independence of our motherland for which three million sons of our soil welcomed martyrdom. Some of them, including Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, on good faith sincerely believed that India would behave with us as brotherly and friendly neighbour and never poke its nose in our affairs or try to minimise our sovereignty and independence or impede our march towards prosperity.

But Indian Brahmanic policymakers, since pre-Palasy War era, sided with the then British East India Company and aligned to one principle till date to keep the Muslims of the subcontinent under their knee. Indian leadership who against their will, though conceded to the partition of the subcontinent that led to the emergence of a separate Muslim homeland named Pakistan in 1947, kept their dream alive to jeopardise Pakistan and unify the map of the British-administered India, what they term as 'Ramraj' or 'Awkhand Bharat'. Nehru through his writings and utterances repeatedly declared that the areas that comprised Pakistan, particularly East Pakistan (today's Bangladesh) and West Punjab (today's Punjab Province of Pakistan) would return to Indian fold immediately after the partition of the subcontinent. To translate this dream into practice, Indian leaders, whether they are so- called secularists, or communists, or fundamentalists, or arch communalists, never set aside their dream of unifying the British-India and all the successive governments, right from Nehru to Manmohan Singh, worked and work to materialise that end into practice.

To reach their goal the then Hindu-dominated Congress leadership prepared a secret blueprint of undoing the separate homeland—

Pakistan strangely eight days before the partition of the subcontinent and kept their efforts continued to implement it. Indian government, its intelligence agencies and media, availing the errors, omissions and failures of the Pakistani rulers, above all anti-West Pakistan sentiment in East Pakistan that originated due to the exploitative policies of the successive Pakistan governments, fueled secessionist movement in the then East Pakistan that subsequently paved the way for Indian intervention in the liberation war of Bangladesh. Indian media and intellectuals proudly declared that the dismemberment of Pakistan in 1971 was one step forward to reunify those territories India that formed Pakistan and later Bangladesh.

Through such comment they confessed that India assisted our liberation war against Pakistan not for our sake but India's sake. Now it is clear that India helped us not to flourish Bangladesh as an independent and sovereign country, but to make it as its sole Bazar and subsequently merge it with India right way. With this end in view, India deliberately marched its Army to Bangladesh, which is unprecedented in the contemporary world. Many countries, including USA, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan, etc., were liberated through armed struggles. France extended its support to the liberation war of the United States of America; Russia and China to Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. To liberate Afghanistan many countries, particularly all the Muslim countries and Western world, even China extended their open support, but none ever militarily intervened in the name of liberating Afghanistan.

India's subsequent ugly and cruel behaviour unfolded the fact that under the cover of liberating Bangladesh, Indian government assisted us virtually to merge our country with India in course of time. It means Indian Army marched to Bangladesh not to leave it, but to remain stationed here (Bangladesh) for ever, but was compelled to retreat considering the then world opinion in favour of Bangladesh whose founder Sheikh Mujibur Rahman publicly asked India to withdraw its troops. Indian President late Zail Singh later publicly indicated that India withdrew from Bangladesh against its will. In his last interview as President with an Indian newsweekly 'Sunday' (July 27, 1987) he lamented saying that the decision of withdrawing Indian troops from Bangladesh was not judicious and it hampered India's interest. India's covert design is amply uncovered if one goes through the 7-piont secret treaty that India before militarily involving in Bangladesh War of Liberation compelled the then revolutionary interim government of Bangladesh exiled in India to sign. The treaty contained the following uneven and unacceptable conditions:

a.After the establishment of Bangladesh, the administrative officers who actively participated in the war of liberation would remain in their posts. The rest would be terminated and the vacant posts would be filled up by the Indian administrative officials. (To fill the so-called vacancies, many Indian civil servants reached Dhaka soon after the Indian soldiers took its control and an Indian ICS official presided over the first meeting of the Bangladeshi administrative officials held at the DC's office in Dhaka.)

b.After the liberation of Bangladesh the required number of Indian soldiers would remain in Bangladesh. (It was not made clear for how many years or decades they would remain in Bangladesh.)

c.Bangladesh would not form and maintain any formal and regular Army. (Sheikh Mujib raised a small-sized weak Armed Force defying Indian pressure.)

d.To maintain internal security and law and order a militia was formed comprising the freedom fighters. (Accordingly a brutal militia was formed under the name 'Rakkhi Bahini' whose power and facilities superseded that of the Armed Forces. It is strongly believed that the real headquarters of the Rakkhi Bahini was at Delhi and many Indian nationals hailing from West Bengal and the Deccan were recruited in this militia who resembled to the Bangladeshis in appearance and physical height.)

e.The chief of Staff of Indian Armed Forces would lead the probable war with Pakistan. The Mukti Bahini (Freedom Fighters) would work under the command of Indian Armed Forces.

f.Trade transaction between the two countries would be free and open. The volume of trade would be calculated once in a year and the price would be paid in pound-starlings. (Interview of late Humayun Rashid Chowdhury: see the books 'BAngladesher Sadinata Juddayee RAW O CIA' by Masudul Haq and RAW and Bangladesh' by Mohammad Zainal Abedin.)

g.The foreign ministry of Bangladesh would maintain a close liaison with External Affairs Ministry of India and the latter would assist the former as far as possible. (It means Bangladesh would follow Indian foreign policy what Bhutan or Sikkim (India swallowed Sikkim in 1974).

To keep uniformity with this accord, the provisional Bangladesh government headquartered in India conceded to the following arrangements:

a.Lt. Gen. Arora was appointed as the commander-in-chief of the Allied Forces instead of Gen, M A G Osmani, the Chief of Bangladesh Armed Forces and Mukti Bahini.

b.Surrender of Pakistani soldiers to Indian solders (Lt. Gen.

Arora) instead of Bangladesh Army. (By doing this India documentarily tried to burry the contribution and sacrifices of the Bangladeshi people in liberating their homeland and prove that our war of liberation was a war between India and Pakistan. It paved the way for India to loot Bangladesh and grab all the weaponries and equipments of Pakistani soldiers that they accumulated in East Pakistan. India also got the chance of arresting 93 thousand Pakistani soldiers as prisoners of war and compelled the Pakistan government to sign a humiliating Simla Treaty.)

c.Allow the Indian civil servants to arrive Dhaka to take over the responsibility of civil administration. (Indian civil servants came to Dhaka accordingly, but failed to stay).

d.Continued presence of Indian soldiers in Bangladesh even after surrender of Pakistan Army on December 16, 1971.

e.Formation of Rakkhi Bahini (virtually under Indian command).

Indian efforts to maintain permanent military presence in Bangladesh, above all, turn it to a subservient vassal State outright after our war of liberation though were partially stumbled, Indian policymakers did not retreated from their original blueprint. They comprehended that it was not an easy task to swallow Bangladesh by muscle power—the traditional way of occupying a country, which was neither appropriate nor practicable in the changed international scenario. So they chalked out fresh strategies and intrigues to cripple Bangladesh politically, economically, psychologically, and culturally, which India and its intelligence agencies ably implement till date through their local tentacles.

The pro-India tilt of the helmsmen of our statecraft utterly failed to strengthen our sovereignty and ensure economic prosperity, by frustrating Indian designs. Rather they to assume and remain in power did not hesitate to hand over our vital and strategic interests to India one after another. Their outward and verbal sources of power are Bangladeshi people prior to election, but India becomes their inward power and inspiration as soon as they assume any responsible position to run the country.

Bangladesh in its 37-year of existence failed to stand on its own feet due to the multi-pronged problems one after another that India imposes on us due to the pro-India tilt of our leaders. No governments right from Sheikh Mujb to Fakharuddin Ahmed could rule the country facing no hazards manipulated by India -- from street and campus violence, and from arson and burn the industrial and business installations to political feuds.

To make Bangladesh totally dependent on and subservient to India, Indian expansionists ruined our education, culture, social value, economy, agriculture, industries. To frustrate national unity and irk chaos, if possible civil war, India fuels controversies that include Bangali versus Bangladeshi, freedom fighters versus razakars, secularists versus fundamentalists, anti-liberation versus pro-liberation forces, so on and so forth. These are being done to pull Bangladesh from behind its back. India designs to throw Bangladesh to such an awkward position so that it becomes dysfunctional and failed State goes beyond our ability to salvage it by ourselves so that Bangladeshis beg India to merge Bangladesh with India.

We the people, particularly the bureaucrats, students, teachers, intellectuals, journalists, business community, politicians, above all the Armed Forces, who directly and indirectly run and influence the country, should genuinely comprehend the danger that looms on us. Our time to solidify national unity and reconciliation and consensus sharply passes by. We have no room to allow our foes to use us. We should restudy the history why the Muslims sought for separate homelands through Lahore Resolutions. Our new generation should know under what circumstances, our forefathers opted to side with those Muslims who were unknown to and differed from them geographically, culturally, socially. It is not only our religion (Islam) that prompted the Bengalee Muslims to massively side with the Muslims of Northwestern regions of the British-India (today's Pakistan). Our forefathers finding no other way to get rid of the master-like misbehaviour, torture, exploitation and subjugation of their neighbouring Hindus were compelled to massively vote for single Pakistan. Their decision was so genuine that enabled us to secede from Pakistan and form another Muslim country, our great achievement—Bangladesh.

If our forefathers by being bewildered with the sweet words of the Hindu leaders like Gandhi, Nehru, Patel or even Moulana Abul Kalam Azad or Olama-e-Hind, we would never be able to struggle for our linguistic and separate political identities that led to the creation of independent Bangladesh. Our neighbouring Bengali-speaking Hindus of West Bengal have already lost their language, identity and even prosperity. Our all the ethnic nations living under Indian domination in Meghalaya, Assam, Tripura, and Mizoram just on the other sides of our border, now feel the bite of the mistake of their forefathers who trusting on the sweet assurances of the Indian leaders merged with India. They cannot get out of Indian claws and yokes despite their long armed struggle and sheding tears and bloods for six decades. We should also get lessons from the sufferings of the India's minority religious communities, particularly the Muslims. The fate of the Bengali speaking Muslims would have become far worse than their Kashmiri counterparts if our forefathers would have merged with India.

Indian leadership throughout the 60-year of partition of the subcontinent, remains busy in creating undesirable and unexpected situation inside Pakistan. After the creation of Bangladesh India gets encouraged to reverse our glorious history and achievements to pre-partition era in order to encage us under Indian fold. We are to remain vigil of Indian game. We have no room to handover our anymore strategically essential keys to India like transits, fort facilities, gas or coal-based investment, joint patrol in the bordering areas, open border trade, detour Asian Highway via Assam etc.

We must understand this bitter reality that whatever facilities India designs to get from us are directed to minimise and jeopardise our independence, as in the map of dreamy 'Awkhand Bharat' there is no existence of Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Nepal and even Bhutan. Chronologies and analysis of India's rude behaviour from looting Bangladesh to water blockading, from unilateral withdrawal of the waters of the international rivers to killing our people living in the bordering areas and from surfacing and fueling so-call Islamic extremism to sponsoring and imposing secession war, unequivocally justifies that India helped us not to keep us independent, rather to grab our country today or tomorrow. Like all other expansionist bullies India deliberately creates and imposes problems one after another on Bangladesh and keeps us busy to tackle them so that we cannot give attention to face and frustrate Indian design and uplift our position.

To deter and frustrate India's expansionist zeal and dream we should shun all types of internal debates and controversies and rivalries to gain personal petty interest and strengthen our national unity. We, in our lifetime, should build a prosperous and solid independent country for our future generation for which we fought. We must not forget that we left Pakistan to end foreign domination and exploitation, but not to become the slaves of India and allow her to dominate and exploit us. We must not forget what inhuman sorrows and sufferings and tortures our forefathers had to bear that were caused by our Hindu neighbours who kept them under their feet during the entire British period. The British were their (Muslims) rulers but the Hindus were their local masters.

This is for the first time in our known history that we the real sons of this soil rule ourselves. If we are not alert and cautious and accordingly work, we or our next generation will become the victims of Indian domination that will again make us or them the slaves of the Hindus. On August 20, 2004, Hindu leaders at a meeting of the Dhaka City Puja Celebration Committee held at Dhakershari Mandir expressed their anti-Muslim anguish saying, no Muslim is available to work in the house of the Hindus as servant. They said, "It is very pity that the Muslims do not come to work in the houses of the Hindus. This sorrowful situation started since 1947 (when a separate Muslim homeland came into being)." I think this open anguish of the Hindus is enough to imagine and comprehend the hidden reason why India disturbs and frustrates us in all fronts and the reason is very clear and clean that India does not believe in our separate independent existence and works to make us their slaves merging Bangladesh with India.

We cannot allow India anymore to dictate us and frustrate our independence. The more we will engage in quarrel and debate, the more chance India will get to undermine and undo our independence and sovereignty and enslave us. Let us comprehend and face Indian game and keep us from her domination and subjugation and build a prosperous Bangladesh for which we fought and sacrificed a lot. We should not allow others to become our mentors and shun policy of mortgaging our nation to grab power or remain in power.


Mohammad Zainal Abedin is a Ex Freedom Fighter and a Free Lance Journalist writes from Bangladesh
E Mail : noazabd@gmail.com
http://www.bangladesh-web.com/view.php?hidRecord=181735

Posted by: akzaman Dec 24 2007, 02:05 AM

India's anti-Bangladesh design:


http://www.dailynayadiganta.com/fullnews.asp?News_ID=58112&sec=1

Posted by: akzaman Dec 25 2007, 11:23 PM

The failure of India's Bangladesh policy

G. Srinivasan
25 December , 2007

A diplomat's diary always makes interesting reading. And if the envoy is a man steeped in history with a sense of balance strengthened by dispassionate analytical acumen, the resultant autobiography is bound to whet one's interest, even as it might provoke the players portrayed in the book.

The Jamdani Revolution by former Foreign Secretary Krishnan Srinivasan provides vignettes on politics, personalities and civil society in Bangladesh during 1989-1992 when the author was India's High Commissioner to Bangladesh.

The tome (the title of which is reminiscent of the famous Jamdani saree of Bengal) covers the first and only time so far in the annals of the South Asian sub-continent that a military-backed authoritarian regime had been dismantled by a relatively bloodless civil society uprising, ricocheting similar such revolutions as velvet, orange and rose revolutions.

Strained relations
India might have played a key role in the liberation of Bangladesh from East Pakistan but subsequent strained bilateral relations even till date is not inexplicable.

"Both India and Bangladesh continue the fiction that while India and Pakistan are known to be enemies, India and Bangladesh enjoy friendly relations — or rather would do if few irritants were removed," the envoy notes, adding that in fact the relationship is complicated by, and indeed rooted in, domestic tensions.

Battle for minds
Perceptively Krishnan contends that it is nothing less than a post-Partition battle for men's minds.
Neither the events of 1947 nor 1971 have resolved this matter in East Bengal. The protagonists are Indian secularism on the one hand and Pakistani conformism on the other.

Porous border
The envoy rightly cautions that Bangladesh with its large and destitute population is a time bomb in the north-east of India, which is tribal, under-populated, under-developed and seething with various forms of discontent. Stability and economic progress in Bangladesh are essential if millions are not to cross the borders as illegal immigrants.

Hence it behoves India to be supportive to Bangladesh's economic and political progress, the author opines, adding that "I have seen little of that; too much of my time has passed bewailing New Delhi's insensitivity or indifference… the political will and attention span have been lacking in New Delhi even when the bureaucracy has been wiling to give a shove in the right direction."

Poor foreign policy
For envoys the customary frustrations with the headquarters and the degree to which the Indian envoy is compelled to improvise in the absence of instructions, Krishnan candidly chronicles his own experience as he was getting frustrated at the Dhaka assignment when the External Affairs Ministry and the PMO appeared to be "knee-deep in the morass they have created for themselves in Sri Lanka, quite apart from Nepal where the problems of trade and transit seem intractable."

He chides the establishment for paying lip-service to democracy particularly when on the Chinese oppression of its student democracy movement (Tiananmen Square) nothing condemnatory has been stated with the obvious intention of pulling some bilateral chestnuts out of the fire. "Winning China's respect will not come about by abandoning principle and exercising such self-restraint," the author avers.

The irritants
Throughout his three-year span chronicled in a weekly format, the three issues that crop up frequently relate to the Chakma refugees, the Tin Bigha corridor and the releases to Bangladesh of the waters of the river Ganga at Farakka.

Of these, the lease of a corridor of land connecting Bangladesh with its two biggest enclaves in India was a long-standing obligation of the Indian government and the question of the releases of Ganga waters in the dry season had been a matter controversy from Pakistani times and the quest for a 'permanent' solution had remained elusive.

While the author does not believe that the resolution of one or all of these three concerns would transform the Indo-Bangladeshi relationship into one of cooperation and amity, he is not convinced that the best way of attending to such problems was to pigeonhole them. He squarely blames the Indian politicians for harping on the Bangladeshi government's alleged support to insurgents, on which there is little concrete evidence that can stand scrutiny in court.

Better understanding needed
The author observes point-blank that the Indian government has tended to allow the hard-liners and Hindu chauvinists to set the agenda for its policy towards Bangladesh when a more rational approach would have been to come to some understanding on Dhaka's agenda in order to bestow some stability on whichever regime is in power and to work for strong cultural and economic changes with Bangladesh.

The book is peppered with idiosyncrasies of Bangladeshi leaders ranging from the military leader and former President Ershad, Awami League leader Hasina and BNP leader Khaleda Zia and also that of late Prime Ministers of India Chandra Sekhar, Rajiv Gandhi, Narashima Rao and former President R. Venkataraman.

The fact that a diplomat post-retirement has come out clean on the acts of omission and commission in his assignments and has, in the process, thrown some refreshing light on the conduct of the dramatis personae involved makes the forthcoming book an instructive and interesting reading for discerning people.

http://sify.com/finance/fullstory.php?id=14580279

Posted by: akzaman Jan 30 2008, 10:14 AM

India is not a threat to Bangladesh !


http://dainikdestiny.com/ND.aspx?SID=3003&NID=1

Posted by: mohan Jan 31 2008, 09:38 AM

QUOTE(Maruf @ Oct 9 2007, 09:50 AM)

Posted by: akzaman Feb 15 2008, 08:41 AM

Bangla criminals and terrorists in India


http://www.dailynayadiganta.com/fullnews.asp?News_ID=66990&sec=1

Posted by: akzaman Feb 18 2008, 06:24 AM

Dhaka reacts to Indian HC''s remarks

Reacting to the Indian High Commissioner''s remarks about exporting rice to Bangladesh, the Foreign Ministry Sunday said rice procurement from India was being done on the basis of "commercial purchase" without ''undue cost to either", reports UNB

Indian High Commissioner Pinak Ranjan Chakraborty after a meeting with the Home Affairs Advisor last week told reporters that "India can not herself be hungry in order to feed Bangladesh." A spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs observed that "rice procurement from India was being conducted on the basis of commercial purchase, which should be a win-win situation for both parties, without undue cost to either".

Posted by: difi624 Feb 18 2008, 09:39 AM

QUOTE(akzaman @ Feb 18 2008, 05:24 PM)

Posted by: akzaman Feb 25 2008, 02:09 AM

Indo-Bangla train service to resume after 43 years :The agreement was renewed and the duration was extended to 2010

Bangladesh has agreed to an Indian proposal for construction of a box-type temporary fence on the ‘no man’s land’ between the two countries, paving the way for resumption of the much-talked about direct passenger train service between Dhaka and Kolkata.

‘It will help to launch the passenger train between the two next-door neighbours in the shortest possible time as both the sides are prepared now,’ said a spokesman of the interim administration on Sunday after the council of advisers approved the proposal.

The proposal will be included in Indo-Bangladesh agreement signed earlier, on whose basis the train service between the two countries will remain operative until the middle of 2010.The chief adviser, Fakhruddin Ahmed, presided over the meeting.

India has been insisting on construction of a 150-metre ‘security cage’ on both sides of the border from the zero line to prevent illegal immigration from the train. Bangladesh initially opposed the idea.The dispute over the issue delayed the beginning of the train service which was actually scheduled to be kicked off in August 2007.Finally the Bangladesh government agreed to the construction of the security cage to enable the ‘Moitree Express’ to ply the railway track between India and Bangladesh.