Untold Facts

Obama Won’t Restrain Israel

Obama Won’t Restrain Israel - He Can’t

His error has been not to think through the clout of America’s pro-Israel lobbies

( The Muslim World, particularly the Arabs, can see it clearly that when it come to a difference between the USA and Israel, it is resolved by submission by the US. Israel will continue to destablise the Middle East on its own and South and South East Asia through India and Singapore. If the USA really wants to restrain Israel, it does not need to put phoney pressure, it just needs to look the other way when neo-imperialist states of India and Israel suffer the consequences of their policies. Usman Khalid )

March 18, 2010 “The Independent” — All you can say is, we’ve been here before. “Who the **** does he think he is? Who’s the ******* superpower here?” Bill Clinton spluttered in fury to his aides back in 1996. The “he” in question was Benjamin Netanyahu, then as now the Prime Minister of Israel.

Barack Obama, a cooler character than the last Democrat to be president, may not have used quite such salty language about the behaviour of the current Netanyahu government that has so incensed the US. One thing though may safely be predicted. Mr Netanyahu will get away with it.

More than a week on, the in-your-face effrontery of the announcement that a new swathe of Israeli homes will be built in disputed East Jerusalem still amazes. Not only was it another pre-emptive strike on one of the toughest issues to be resolved in the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to which even Mr Netanyahu pays lip service. It came just 24 hours after painstaking diplomatic efforts by Washington had secured agreement on “proximity talks” in which both sides agreed to talk to each other, albeit indirectly. The fate of even these modest contacts are now in the balance.

And it came at the very moment that Vice-President Joe Biden – a true friend of Israel if ever there was one – was in the country promising America’s “absolute, total and unvarnished” commitment to Israel’s security. Mr Netanhayu maintains he was blindsided by the announcement. But close friends don’t treat a superpower protector like that.

Worse still, Mr Netanyahu raised his two fingers just when there was an opportunity to move the tectonic plates of the Middle East crisis. Israel and the moderate Arab states are united in their fear of a nuclear-armed Iran bestriding the region. Serious progress on the Palestinian dispute would not only remove the biggest obstacle dividing them; it would also blunt Iran’s most potent appeal to the region’s Islamic population, as the one champion Palestinian rights that dared stand up to the Israeli and American oppressors.

Now that opportunity has all but vanished. For the Palestinians and other Arabs, Israel’s move has confirmed what they suspected all along, that the Jewish state – at least under its present management – is concerned not with concessions, even symbolic ones, but with creating facts on the ground. Mr Netanyahu however believes he can call Mr Obama’s bluff and ride out the storm. The plan to build 1,600 settlements, he says, will go ahead, whatever Washington’s demands to the contrary. And on all counts, he’s probably right.

And the reasons for such confidence? The first is his calculation that for Washington, whatever its anger at Israel’s behaviour, the need for strategic co-operation with its closest ally in the Middle East against the Iranian nuclear threat will trump its concern for the Palestinians – even if the two issues are connected. The second is his confidence that the President will never ultimately defy the mighty pro-Israel lobby in Washington.

Beyond the shadow of a doubt, Mr Obama is more sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians than any recent president. In his Cairo speech last June, he spoke movingly of the daily humiliations faced by a people living under occupation: the situation for the Palestinian people, he said, was “intolerable.” He followed up by demanding a total freeze on settlements, as proof the Israelis were serious about a peace deal.

But Mr Netanyahu said no, and the Obama administration, essentially folded. It was forced to content itself with a limited and partial freeze, from which East Jerusalem was excluded. When Hillary Clinton praised this modest step as “unprecedented,” disappointed Palestinians and Arabs concluded that for all the fine words in Cairo, it was business as usual in Washington. When push came to shove, the proclaimed “honest broker” tilted invariably and irretrievably in favour of the Israelis.

Mr Obama’s defenders now say that if he misplayed his hand, it was because he had too much on his plate, obliged to corral up crucial healthcare votes one moment, plot the future of the US banking system the next, and then make a flawless move in the three-dimensional chess game that is Middle East policy. In fact, his greatest error was not to think through the clout of America’s pro-Israel lobby.

When the university professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt published The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy in 2007, some intitial reaction was scornful. Critics dismissed the book’s thesis as exaggeration at best, sheer fantasy at worst. There was no sinister lobby, only the instinctive collective sympathy felt towards Israel by ordinary Americans.

But power lies in the perception of power, and no organisation in Washington is perceived to wield more power than AIPAC, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee. For proof, look no further than January 2009, when most of the rest of the world was horrified at the Israeli offensive in Gaza. At that moment the US House of Representatives, by a vote of 390 to five, chose to blame the entire crisis on Hamas.

Now the lobby is working to defuse the present row, naturally on Israel’s terms. First AIPAC expressed its “serious concern” at events, reminding (or perhaps warning) of the “vast bipartisan support in Congress and the American people” for the US/Israeli relationship. Then the Israeli ambassador here issued a statement claiming he had been “flagrantly misquoted” in reports saying he had warned his staff of the worst crisis in 35 years between the two countries. By Tuesday evening Ms Clinton herself, who last week was accusing Mr Netanhayu of insulting the US, poured further oil on the already quietening waters: “I don’t buy the notion of a crisis.”

And there we have it. The settlements in East Jerusalem will go ahead whatever the US thinks. The proximity talks, even if they do proceed, are doomed in advance. And next week AIPAC holds here what it bills as the largest policy conference in its history. The Israeli Prime Minister will be in town to address it, so will Ms Clinton.

President Obama however will be about as far away as possible, on a long-planned visit to Indonesia and Australia. And probably just as well. Grovels, even the most elegant grovels, are not an edifying spectacle.

Author: Rupert Cornwell

Hasina and Nur Chowdhhury

Bangladesh P M Hasina in an interview with the Canadian publication, Macleans, dated 16 March, 2010, impressed upon the Canadian Government to send back to Bangladesh one of her father’s ‘killer’ Nur Chowdhury to hang him to death. Five other convicted of the same ‘offence’ had already been executed in unusual haste on the early hours of 28th January, within thirteen hours of the final verdict of the SC special bench passed on the 27th January morning. Many senior lawyers in private termed the verdict and the execution as the mockery of justice. The international weekly the Economist on the 27th November, 2009 soon after the first verdict was given on the 19th November rightly labeled it not anything fair in due process of law but ‘POLITICAL TRIAL”.

It is important to recall that the civilized world community and organizations of international prestige like the Amnesty International, European Union etc all opposed the execution for at least two main reasons. One, they are against death sentence just as is maintained in 95 more civilized countries. Two, the delivery of justice was not beyond question of fairness, neutrality and above all free from interference of the top executive of the country, Hasina. She misused and abused her all powers both of the Awami League fascist party organization in orchestration of intimidation of the defense lawyers and the judges, on the one hand, and on the other, of the top executive’s undue interference since 1996 to the last day for getting the verdict she wanted for reprisal and deep vengeance she had crammed for. In fact, she declared openly in early 1980s on entering politics that her only goal to enter politics that she hated all along but for taking revenge of her father’s blood spilled on the 15th August 1975. (See, BBC’s retired journalist Serajur Rahman’s interview with her published in the daily Nay Diganta- Bengali- on the 24 March 2009).

The world then knew well that the 15th August Army mutiny though had some unfortunate blood spilling, not one side but both sides in encounter as had been normal occurrence in coup including even lives of children and women (Russian Revolution of 1917 had even a disabled child of the Czar including the whole family killed) that was by itself indemnified as is provided in law, she made the occurrence later on in 1996 holding for the first time the position of the PM as the ordinary killing under the Cr. P.C. flouting in defiance of law the indemnity both inherent and specifically provided by the post coup government through shear abuse of the position in indicting few scapegoats leaving the Army Chief Safiullah as ‘innocent’ by clear interference in the due process of law. Otherwise the mutineers enjoyed freedom in their own way in profession or even in politics, participated in national elections and above all freedom from any indictment for 21 years.

Soon after she took on to the power of the PM she swooped on those so called ‘killers’ who stayed at home for they believed that Hasina would not be vengeful against them. Some had same party connections and some close relations with her father. Some smarter ones, however, left the country for fear of Hasina’s vengeance.

The arrested few were put on severe torture in police remand. Even Zobaeda, the wife of one accused Col Rashid was taken to police custody and remand as the accused was not available for arrest inside the country. International pressures, however, forced Hasina to let Zobaeda released and left Bangladesh for good.

Hasina at the start was seriously bent upon to get the accused tried in army court martial for speedy trial in months or even weeks. But for the President Shabuddin she could not do that and instead went for the civilian court (See, The daily Independent, Dhaka, January 5, 2002). She hardly let the hand picked single judge court and even the defense side to work freely in the due process keeping them under pressure through her bullies in hundreds and at times thousands. The single judge while giving his first verdict on the 8th November 1998 admitted that he had no time enough to go through every details of the matter. That meant clearly that he gave the verdict in haste to make Hasina happy so much so that he passed death sentence to 15 of the 20 accused and execution in FIRING SQUAD, nowhere provided in Cr. P.C. of Bangladesh.

The next step was the confirmation of the death reference in the High Court. The two judge bench in about two years passed a split verdict, one confirming death sentence to 10 and the other to all 15. As the split verdict was nothing final, it went to the third judge. The third judge had been intimidated the most by holding rallies in the capital city around the High Court premises led by Hasina’s Home Minister Nasim that produced a result Hasina liked; the judge added two more to 10 and made that 12 or minus 3 from the other judge’s list of 15 convicted to death that was celebrated by them along with the judge himself in April 2001.

Shape of political scenario changed in the mean time when the case went for appeal of the 4 convicts (another added latter who was brought back from USA). New BNP government came into power, Hasina being defeated and ousted in the general election in October, 2001. The appeal left pending in the Supreme Court for, as was known, for shortage of Supreme Court senior judges.
During the Caretaker Government a bench was constituted that in 2007 allowed the leave to appeal. Had there been the Hasina Government this appeal would in all likely have been rejected just as we knew recently about the rejection fate of another case about the 5th Amendment of the Constitution that in a way was closely related to the 15th August Mutiny and revolutionary change of the Government of Bangladesh.

Hasina coming back to power winning the 2008 December election took the case with the highest priority while thousands other similar cases left aside in the list of death conviction, appointed new judges, all well known to have been the former party cadres. That was how she had managed to have the verdict she crammed for since decades in her heart of heart. The last bit she colluded in appointing a junior judge superseding senior ones and got the final Review done on the 27th January 2010 in a quick fix before the spineless judge went on to retirement after one week from service on superannuation at the age of 67 years on the 6th February!

Thus the case, convictions and executions of five on the 28th January had been anything but rule of law, much less fair, neutral and without collusive executive interference but only vengeance driven ego of Bangladesh PM Hasina in executing clear judicial murder. The beastly vengeance unbelievably stooped as low as one dead convict Pasha’s (died in Zimbabwe few years ago) ancestral rural home in Ghior, Mankganj, Bangladesh by hundreds of hoodlums of Hasina vandalized and set on fire that the Amnesty International (AI) has as well made a protest note on recently.

As far as Nur Chowdhury and other five in the list of death conviction is concerned, Hasina as her blood thirsty ego is well known, she would not spare anything at any cost of the exchequer to bring them all back and hang them to death here in Dhaka. It is now the civilized world and humane conscience that must resist Hasina’s still unmet thirst for more blood as they did very rightly oppose and resist for the five already executed.

However, should the table of political power turns down before her wish is accomplished further for the rest put to death, the lives of the rest six might be saved. The turn of table might further bring in Hasina and some of her close ones like Taposh, Nanok, and Azam to the dock specially for the 2009 Dhaka BDR massacre as some hints are obtained in the Human Rights Watch Report (New York) dated the 17th March 2010, and if convicted to death she might seek asylum for life in Canada like Nur Chowdhury, indeed!

A few questions, not all crucial, to all serious readers at the end: (1) had there been any government in Dhaka during the trial other than of Hasina, would the convictions have been the same? (2) Had there been no 15th August successful army coup operated by the decorated army men and freedom fighters, how could the country have been freed from absolute dictatorship of the demagogue and of the State of lone party BKSAL for multi-party democracy that the people enjoy still today? (3) Had there been no change of the 15th August, how could the extra-judicial killer Rakhsmi Bahini (40,000 killed with impunity by the time in three and half years) have been disbanded? (4) Had there been no 15th August revolutionary change, how could the freedom of press restored in Bangladesh? (5) Why was there no lament, much less any resistance against the demagogues fall?

Author: BK Din

Zionism and Jewish nationalism

Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu once remarked to a Likud gathering, “Israel is not like other countries.” Oddly enough for him, that time he was telling the truth, and nowhere is that more evident than with Jewish nationalism, whether or not one pins the “Zionist” label on it

Nationalism in most countries and cultures can have both positive and negative aspects, unifying a people and sometimes leading them against their neighbours. Extremism can emerge, and often has, at least in part in almost every nationalist/independence movement I can recall (e.g., the French nationalist movement had The Terror, Kenya’s had the Mau Mau, etc).

But whereas extremism in other nationalist movements is an aberration, extremism in Jewish nationalism is the norm, piting Zionist Jews (secular or observant) against the goyim (everyone else), who are either possible predator or certain prey, if not both sequentially. This does not mean that all Jews or all Israelis feel and act this way, by any means. But it does mean that Israel today is what it cannot avoid being, and what it would be under any electable government (a point I’ll develop in another article).

The differences between Jewish nationalism (Zionism) and that of other countries and cultures here I think are fourfold:

1. Zionism is a real witches’ brew of xenophobia, racism, ultra-nationalism, and militarism that places it way outside of a “mere” nationalist context - for example, when I was in Ireland (both parts) I saw no indication whatsoever that the PIRAs or anyone else pressing for a united Ireland had a shred of design on shoving Protestants into camps or out of the country, although there may well have been a handful who thought that way - and goes far beyond the misery for others professed by the Nazis.

2. Zionism undermines civic loyalty among its adherents in other countries in a way that other nationalist movements did not - e.g., a large majority of American Jews, including those who are not openly dual citizens, espouse a form of political bigamy called “dual loyalty” (to Israel & the US) that is every bit as dishonest as marital bigamy, atempts to finesse the precedence they give to Israel over the US (lots of Rahm Emanuels out there who served in the IDF but not in the US armed forces), and has absolutely no parallel in the sense of national or cultural identity espoused by any other definable ethnic or racial group in America - even the Nazi Bund in the US disappeared once Germany and the US went to war, with almost all of its members volunteering for the US armed forces.

3. The “enemy” of normal nationalist movements is the occupying power and perhaps its allies, and once independence is achieved, normal relations with the occupying power are truly the norm, but for Zionism almost everyone out there is an actual or potential enemy, differing only in proximity and placement on its very long list of enemies (which is now America’s target list).

4. Almost all nationalist movements (including the irredentist and secessionist variants) intend to create an independent state from a population in place or to reunite a separated people - it is very rare for it to include the wholesale displacement of another indigenous population, which is far more common of successful colonialist movements as in the US - and perhaps a reason why most Americans wouldn’t care too much about what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians even if they did know about it, is because that is no different than what Europeans in North America did to the Indians/ Native Americans here in a longer and more low-tech fashion.

The implications of this for Middle East peace prospects, and for other countries in thrall to their domestic Jewish lobbies or not, are chilling.

The Book of Deuteronomy come to life in a state with a nuclear arsenal would be enough to give pause to anyone not bought or bribed into submission - which these days encompasses the US government, given Israel’s affinity for throwing crap into the face of the Obama administration and Obama’s visible affinity for accepting it with a smile, Bibi Netanyahu’s own “Uncle Tom” come to Washington.

The late General Moshe Dayan, who - Zionist or not - remains an honoured part of my own Pantheon of military heroes, allegedly observed that Israel’s security depended on its being viewed by others as a mad dog. He may have been correct But he neglected to note that the preferred response of everyone else is to kill that mad dog before it can decide to go berserk and bite. It is an option worth considering.

Author: Dr Alan Sabrosky
(Alan Sabrosky (PhD, University of Michigan) is a ten-year US Marine Corps veteran and a graduate of the US Army War College)

Building friendly relationship with China

Regarding the Prime Minster’s Chainese visit Foreign Minister Dr Dipu Moni said connectivity, economic and defence cooperation will be priorities during Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s China visit from March 17 where she will meet her Chinese counterpart, Wen Jiabao.

“Three agreements will be signed during prime minister’s visit : an Economic and Technical Cooperation Agreement, a framework agreement on the Shahjalal Fertiliser Factory and an agreement on the 7th Bangladesh-China Friendship Bridge,”

She added that other agreements may be signed at the high profile visit She said the two sides will discuss a number of projects, including Chitagong Kunming rail and road links through Myanmar-the route will have to pass 111 kilometres through Myanmar.The leaders will also discuss the 2nd Padma Bridge, the 8th Bangladesh-China Friendship Bridge, Capacity Building in the Agricultural hybrid sector and telecommunications and solar energy projects.

China has expertise in the renewable energy sector and that Bangladesh will seek cooperation on solar power for rural schools. Two countries close defense ties would be discussed during the visit There would be no discussion on any security deal during the Prime Minister’s tour.

Dhaka’s relation with Beijing will not effect relations with India.

“We have thousands of years of historic relations with India and China.”

The minister dismissed suggestions that stronger relations with New Delhi could upset ties with Beijing.

She said after formation of the new government, the Chinese had sent a special representative to the Prime Minser with a strong desire to cooperate. Bangladesh also wants to strengthen bilateral ties and cooperation.

In 2009, the bilateral trade volume was US$ 4.58 billion while China provided $319.17 million to support 186 projects until 2010.

Dipu Moni hinted that the Awami League government would not abandon the Look East policy not abandon the look East policy of the previous BNP government that presses for closer relations with South East Asian countries and China.

Dhaka would urge Beijing to support border demarcation on the maritime boundary China is a major backer of military-ruled Myanmar. The government wants to expand and improve Chitagong and Mongla seaports to make them regional business hubs. Bangladesh also said that Chineses traffic could help make the planned deep sea port in Chitagong viable. Bangladesh may request China to use her good offices to resolve the problem with Myanmar.

Prime Minister (PM) Sheikh Hasina is now on five-day visit to China. This is the PM’s first visit to that country since taking over charge some thirteen months ago.

For obvious reasons, a great deal of expectations are centred on this visit which would be significant for Bangladesh is all respects.

Traditionally, China has been a source of support for Bangladesh is different fields. Some large communication projects such as bridges in Bangladesh were almost entirely funded and provided with technical expertise for their construction by China. Besides this, China is providing notable support to Bangladesh in other fields including, among others, the defence. A large volume of Bangladesh’s imports comes from China. Diplomatically, China has stood by Bangladesh’s side and its diplomatic persuasion played no small a part in helping Bangladesh to improve relations with Myanmar as Beijing has a great deal of influence on Yangoon.

China is the fastest rising power in the world today. It is already considered as an emerging superpower or the number two country in the economic and military sense after the United States. Thus, it is a mater of some fortune for Bangladesh that it has such a powerful and friendly country as its neighbour.

Cementing its friendly and cooperative relations with China can contribute to Bangladesh’s security and economic growth and development on a lasting basis.

Following the recent visit of the Prime Minster to India, her meetings and discussions with the Chinese leaders at the helm assume an added importance. Bangladesh’s avowed policies of seeing friendship with all are well understood and appreciated by all concerned. There should, thus, be no misgivings in any quarters. The PM’s visit is likely to open a new vista of cooperation with Beijing. The Prme Minster can seek China’s support and cooperation for Bangladesh’s endeavours for beter geographical connectivity with neighbours. This can lead to greater trade facilitation and economic cooperation that would serve the common interests of all the countries in the region.

Bangladesh has also requested China for building direct road connections with it through Myanmar. Chinese aid for funding major projects, specially infrastructures, would also likely be sought Further, Beijing may be requested to go on exercising its influence on Myanmar so that Bangladesh can expeditiously setle its disputes with Myanmar, specially the one of demarcation of maritime boundaries.

The Chinese side may be sensitised during the visit about the imbalance in Bangladesh’s bilateral trade with the former. In this connection, some concessions by China would set the stage for greater export of Bangladeshi goods to China to help narrow this gap. Pledges of Chinese technological assistance for emerging sectors in Bangladesh, specially agriculture-related ones, would also be welcome.

Thus, the visit on the whole could prove to be a useful one for both countries and should be also notably helpful for improving inter-state relations in this part of the world.

Author:Anu Mahmud
Source: The New NAtion

Zardari & Geelani: Who are they Working for? India?

Every time the Afghan President in dressing gown visits Pakistan, the people become very apprehensive. Who does this fellow - Karzai - represent? Not Afghans! Who does he work for? Not Afghanistan! He will be on the first plane out of Afghanistan when the US withdrawal, if its disorderly, begins. Why is President Zardari so eager to please him? Does he want to secure a seat on the same plane? But it does not matter what either of them wants because the people of Pakistan see Zardari’s role to be to frustrate every effort to safeguard Pakistan’s national interests and to advance India’s agenda.

Pakistan’s military has with some consistency argued that the Americans can make a dignified withdrawal from Afghanistan only if Pakistan helps. Generals Petraeus and MacChrystal now agree with General Kiani and they are writing a narrative which makes that possible. But India is very upset and is acting the role of a spoiler. Even in its ‘strategic partnership’ with erstwhile USSR, all the damage was suffered by the Soviet Union while India walked away un-blamed from the disastrous Soviet exit from Afghanistan. Typical of its past conduct, India wants the USA to dig in and ‘tough it out’ but is not ready to send fighting formations to Afghanistan. India needs the US presence to continue its support to the Baloch and TTP terrorists. That is all it cares about.

It is clear what India wants whereas Pakistan is working with the Americans to bring a negotiated settlement in Afghanistan. But what do (President) Zardari and (Prime Minister) Geelani want? Geelani, typically, usually does not know what he wants, drags his feet for a while to make public show of defiance, and then submits to the wish of Zardari. This ‘Punch and Judy show’ has been mildly amusing when it comes to ‘minor matters’ like load shedding that has blighted the industry; like precipitous decline in the value of Rupee, declining exports and rising imports; like stealing of billions from public sector corporations by Zardari appointed kleptomaniacs in charge. But it is in foreign policy that the most damage – largely irreversible - is being done to Pakistan’s national interests.

Messrs Zardari and Geelani do not even understand the question on policy matters let alone provide answers or give guidance. The military was able to sideline India over Afghanistan because its role is that of a spoiler. But Karzai promptly turned up in Islamabad to secure endorsement of an Indian role in Afghanistan. Not just that, the Punch and Judy ‘duo’ are prepared to facilitate the Indian role. They have privately told India that they will not oppose India getting a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. Until now, Pakistan had not just objected but mobilised opposition to a seat for India until ‘it implements the UN Security Council Resolutions on Kashmir.’ Who are these people? Who is the ‘duo’ working for? Clearly it is for the archenemy India!

As if that was not bad enough the Minister of Railway, one Mr Billor from ANP - protégés of India of long standing – has said that he is going to move a resolution in the parliament to allow SAARC to be connected by rail with Central Asia through Afghanistan. Thankfully, the insurrection in FATA makes that impossible, but the readiness of the ruling coalition parties in Pakistan, all of who are pro-India, to allow Indian vehicles through passage into Pakistan, Afghanistan and beyond, is mind boggling. Has India decided to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir? Has India decided not to build dams on Rivers Chenab, Jhelum and Indus in Jammu and Kashmir? What has India done to deserve so many favours from the ‘duo’? It just could not be pressure from the USA not to defend Pakistan against military or water aggression by India! That is of long standing; that is not a change.

I am reminded of a research paper by ‘Global Research’ of Toronto, Canada, which was printed in LISA Journal two years ago. In this paper Professor Michel Chossudovsky stated that the objective (from 2008 Elections in Pakistan) of the USA is: 1) to install a government in Pakistan that does not care about national interests, and 2) which allows Pakistan to suffer the fate of Yugoslavia under pressure from a demand for “Provincial Autonomy”. It appears that Zardari’ is under pressure to deliver. He has to deliver on 1) ‘economic collapse’, 2) break-down of law and order, and 3) ‘Provincial Autonomy’ that propel Pakistan towards chaos and disintegration. Zardari has made sure that energy crisis is exacerbated by the day leading to fall in industrial production and exports and ballooning balance of payment deficit. It has to be deliberate because solution to the energy crisis was simple. All that was needed was to address the issue of ‘circular’ debt; restart closed down thermal power plants; provide electricity without load shedding; provide gas to industry and power plants; carry out load shedding of gas to domestic users for as much as 20 hours a day providing gas only for two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening. It is not rocket science and yet it is not being done. The sabotage of industry is indeed deliberate and Zardari-Geelani Administration is culpable.

The Government has not deployed the arguments that al-Qaeda and TTP are Takfiri; like the Khawarji before them, they are the instruments of kufr. On the contrary, the Government has allowed JI, JUI, and TI to decry Pakistan as the agents of kufr i.e, America. The law and order minister – Rehman Malik – does look and behave like the agent of kufr thus giving some credibility to the Takfiri argument. But the real test of Zardari-Geelani Administration would come perhaps this month when a consensus on constitutional amendments at Committee Stage would come before the parliament. That would show if the MQM-ANP view of provincial autonomy has been accommodated. If it is, Pakistan would be ready to follow the example of Yugoslavia. However, it is unclear yet if the Obama Administration has indeed changed its policy on Pakistan and Afghanistan and is ready to give non-military measures a chance with a view to stay in Afghanistan and have some influence over Central Asia. But it is quite clear that India wants the ISAF to keep fighting in Afghanistan so that India can continue to use its soil for clandestine operations against Pakistan.

It was not just Hamid Karzai who is pleading India’s case, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh tried to outflank Pakistan and warm up towards Saudi Arabia. The objectives of India are not mysterious. India plays its card of 150 million Muslims in that country very skilfully but has not been confronted with the cries of anguish that India keeps muted by portraying the Muslims as terrorists and thus successfully terrorising them into submitting to structural unemployment, alienation, repression and social decline. India may want to buy oil from Saudi Arabia which is no bad thing. But India wants to pay for it by Saudi investment in India. No one has made money by investing in India – not even America. Indian companies like Tata and Mittal Steel have become big in UK and Europe by transferring their capital outside. It would be very foolish Arab who saw investment in India to be secure let alone lucrative. But the effort to lure the Arab capital to India is being led by Jewish banks in the USA because decline in economic prospects of North America has made every investor wary of investment in the USA. The Arabs have better beware; the trap is being set by the experts – the Jews.

The most pressing problems of Pakistan spring from the Zardari-Geelani administration being unwilling as well as unable to safeguard Pakistan’s interests. They are on probation and the people are watching how they deal with India over Afghanistan, Kashmir and the issue of water of river flowing into Pakistan from Kashmir. Militarily, India is not a bigger problem than what Pakistan has faced and defeated in FATA and NWFP. After all, India is not stronger than the USA and the Kashmiris are not as friendless as the resistance in Afghanistan. Those who say there is no military solution to the problem of River water and Kashmir should look at the example set by the USA. When your national interests are at stake, be ready to fight. If you are not, the enemy would not be softened by flattery, concessions or begging. The answer to clever tricks of India is to confront them with risk of war. ++

Author: Brigadier (retd) Usman Khalid
The writer is Director of London Institute of South Asia.

Digital Rape in Analog Bangladesh

The most glamorous election promise with which the Awami League had tried to thrill and tantalize the people of Bangladesh prior to 29 December 2008 Election was ‘digital Bangladesh.’ But since the party came to power through that ‘election’, the nation has not yet seen much change to the direction of digitalization. However, some secondary school going girls of the district of Pirojpur and other places of the country have recently had the taste of ‘digital Bangladesh’, as some of them were raped and digitalized by local leaders of Bangladesh Chhatra League (BCL), the student wing of Awami League (AL).

Perhaps, this is the first and the only delivery of the party leader Sheikh Hasina’s election pledge of digital Bangladesh that the country has witnessed so far! Other than that, the whole country has more or less remained the same analog as it was before, except for the increase in the lawlessness of the Awami affiliates and tortures by Chhatra League members of students of other political organizations at college and university campuses throughout the country.

One story goes, as reported in the Daily Star (Dhaka, 28 September 09) and the Naya Diganta (Dhaka, 30 September 09), Ahsan Kabir Mamun known as Tiger Mamun, a leader of Pirojpur district unit Bangladesh Chhatra League, and some of his cohorts stopped and raped few female students of a secondary school after taking them to a secret location. The rapists recorded their sexual exploits in a mobile phone camera. Later on, CDs of this pornographic scene of raping the girls became available in video shops in the area. Ashamed of the social stigma and embarrassed by digital CDs of ‘digital’ BCL, family members of the rape victims wanted exemplary punishment of the criminals and resolved to ‘go for legal action’ (Daily Star, 28 Sep 09) and the local police administration accordingly assured the shocked family members of all legal aid and security. However, the police arrested three people involved in trading in the CDs, but not the rapist student leaders of the ruling Awami League party. According to the Daily Star (29 September 09), “A similar incident took place in Faridpur where a girl was gang-raped and the video was released in the market”. But no arrests were made in that case either.

Two days after reporting Pirojpur digital rapes, on 30 September 09, the Daily Star printed another rape report titled “10 BCL men rape girl”, involving leaders of Chhatra League. In this incident, ten activists of the student wing of the ruling party, Awami League, gang-raped a teenage girl who is a student of Year-7 in Pakhimara in Kalapara upazila of Patuakhali district in the division of Barisal, Bangladesh. The incident happened when the victim was returning home with her cousin Nasir Uddin in the evening. The BCL men tortured and drove the helpless Nasir away and took the girl to a nearby garden and gang-raped her.

However, local Awami League leaders and heavyweights intervened and ensured the exoneration of the culprits through a fake trial of village arbitration. They “compelled the victim’s father not to go for legal action and also took their signatures on three blank sheets to stop any future move to that end”. According to the father of the victim, local AL leaders including Kalapara upazila unit Secretary Rakibul Ahsan and Upazila Parishad Vice-Chairman Sultan Mahmud took his and his daughter’s signatures on three blank sheets asking them not to seek justice in any law court. Rakibul Ahsan later tried to hide the rape crime by saying to the Daily Star, “The youths did not rape the girl, they just made an attempt. We punished them so that they don’t indulge into such activities in future.” Threats and intimidation forced the family of the victim to go into hiding, while the rapists remained still at large (Daily Star, 1 October 2009). Awami League leaders Rakibul Ahsan and Sultan Mahmud then orchestrated a press conference at Kalapara press club and had the victim and her parents present at the event. Then “the victim girl was forced to read out a written statement, declaring she was not raped but tortured while she along with a cousin was returning home after visiting a puja mandap on September 25″ (Daily Star, 2 October 2009).

Readers of this essay who followed the activities of BCL leaders during Sheikh Hasina’s last tenure as Prime Minister of Bangladesh (1996-2001) may remember a series of rapes and incidents of sexual harassment involving them. As Hana Shams Ahmed narrates:

The first report in the media came out on August 17, 1998 in the Daily Manobjomin where it was reported that three female students of Jahangirnagar University had been raped by student cadres of Bangladesh Chhatra League (BCL) of the university. A fact-finding committee later reported (The Daily Star, September 26, 1998) that a total of 20 JU students were raped in different locations on campus and 300 were sexually assaulted by members of this group. The perpetrators were all political cadres of Chhatra League. Jasimuddin Manik, a student of Drama and Dramatics department and the former general secretary of the JU unit of BCL, was on the top of the list of seven persons accused of having committed rape. The report also said that Manik on completion of his 100th rape ‘celebrated the occasion by offering sweets and throwing a cocktail party’. (Violating a Sacred Relationship, Star Weekend Magazine, 7(31), August 1, 2007)

As in the case of the rapes of September 2009, the victims of the rape crimes at Jahangirnagar University also did not go to court for legal redress; and that obviously for the social stigma attached to it. An important Awami League leader Prof Alauddin Ahmed was the Vice-Chancellor of the University at that time. He justified his inaction with regard to the punishment of the rapists BCL leaders by saying: “under the law of the land, the victim has to lodge the complaint herself” (ibid.). None of the rape criminals of BCL of JU had to face any criminal punishment, and thus was giving ‘a license to rape’. The rapist century-scorer Jasimuddin Manik was sent to Japan by Awami League government to avoid further embarrassment. Manik must have preferred better life in prosperous Japan to imprisonment in poor Bangladesh. He was given a reward, not punishment, for his rape records. Manik is now believed to live in the United States.

After a gap of seven years, Awami League with the same leadership of Sheikh Hasina has come to power; and the same incidents of rape are being repeated by Chhatra League activists. Some rape cases are reported, but many are not. During 1996-2001, Sheikh Hasina was the Prime Minister; and now also she has taken the help of the country. Being a woman, she must understand the urgency of the matter. People want quick action from her. She should control her sons in Chhatra League who obviously misconstrued her slogan of ‘digital Bangladesh’. I am sure Sheikh Hasina did not mean digitalized rape when she campaigned for election victory by using the slogan of ‘digital Bangladesh’. Dear Prime Minister! Chhatra League has shown us enough of your ‘digital Bangladesh!’ Please deal with them!

Author:Shimul Chaudhury, Canada

Freedom of expression in Bangladesh: the case of Abu Karim

Left-leaning and pro-AwamiLeague intellectuals and university teachers in Bangladesh have been typically vociferous on the debate of ‘freedom of expression’ on a regular basis. It began with the Salman Rushdie affair which was followed by Taslima Nasrin’s defamation of Islam and the Qur’an, the Danish cartoons and the few other sarcastic and derisive writings on the religion of Islam and on the Prophet Muhammad — both nationally and internationally. On all such occasions when the Muslims around the world were shocked and thunderstruck for the psychological devastation those vicious attacks wreaked on their beloved religion and Prophet, secular pro-AwamiLeague intellectuals in the Muslim-majority Bangladesh tried to show their defiance by raising their voice in favour of the ‘freedom of expression’ of the writers like Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasrin.

They did the campaign for Salman Rushdie and the Danish cartoons in a sotto voce fashion, as Rushdie’s affront against Islam and its prophet was too obvious and the escalated grievances over the Danish cartoons too heavy, and as the public sentiment of the Muslim-majority Bangladesh too wounded. But when Taslima Nasrin’s Lajja was banned, many left-leaning and pro-AwamiLeague intellectuals of Bangladesh took to the streets and shouted slogans against the then BNP government. They generally ignore the religious feeling of the majority and use the catchphrase of ‘freedom of expression’ to defend Salman Rushdie or Taslima Nasrin, when most of the people feel their religion is being targeted and their faith taunted.

For example, a young pro-Awami teacher of Dhaka University branded BNP as “a usual ally of the fundamentalists” in his article “Under the gaze of the sate: policing literature and the case of Taslima Nasrin” in which the writer promotes Taslima Nasrin’s putative bravery to hurt the feelings of the Muslims of her country, and vehemently criticises BNP for banning her offensive book Lajja. No wonder that such writings are published in the West, as many Western publishers maintain a particular fascination for such kind of writings though they have little room for the ‘other’ view.

But recently Awami League came back to power, Sheikh Hasina became Bangladesh’s Prime Minister and a poet had to lose his highly-prestigious government job for practicing ‘freedom of expression’. He was one of the top-most civil servants of the Government of Bangladesh and most talented secretary to the Ministry of Information. ATM Fazlul Karim alias Abu Karim was force-retired from his post of information secretary for writing a poetry book titled Baganey Phutey Achhey Oshonkho Golap (Innumerable Roses Have Blossomed in the Garden) in February 2006. In his poetry, the poet uses some fictitious names and satirises Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and some his family members in the same manner as many Western writers do with regard to their living and dead political leaders.

After Awami League came to power after the general elections of 29 December 2008, Abu Karim was sent on compulsory retirement on 23 February 2009. The Suchipatra Prokashona, the publisher of his book, is now under a perceived threat of closure, which will mean job losses of a number of people working for the publishing house. Under the circumstances, one can easily imagine the fear and intimidation under which Sayeed Bari, proprietor of the Suchipatra Prorkashana, is passing his days. Both Sayeed Bari and I myself know that dozens of people have been lynched and killed by Awami activists since the party won the last general election few months ago. For the same reason, no wonder, I am using a pseudonym to write this humble essay.
Awami bigwigs and intellectuals for the time being remained forgetful about the catchphrase ‘freedom of expression’ and used a not-previously-known Awami leader Hazrat Moulana Mohammad Elias Hossain Bin Helali, the president of Bangladesh Awami Olama League Central Committee, to file a case against Abu Karim with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court in Dhaka on 22 February 2009. Again on 5 March 2009, Moulana Mohammad Ismail Hossain, President of Bangladesh Olama League, filed another case with the same court against Abu Karim and Sayeed Bari, the proprietor of Suchipatra.

This time, the streets of Dhaka have not had the privilege of experiencing any pro- freedom of expression demonstrations. Nor did they have the touch of the feet of the many Dhaka University professors who were quite active and loud while promoting the case of Taslima Nasrin. In previous cases, the target of the ‘freedom of expression’ was the prophet of Islam; hence, that ‘freedom’ had to be maintained and promoted! This time, the target is Sheikh Mujibur Rahman; hence, the ‘freedom of expression’ should be stopped and punished! Such double standard is not surprising in a country like Bangladesh where ‘intellectuals’ are mesmerised by the ‘glamour’ of rebuking their religion (Islam) with the hope that such a stance may earn them Western approval of their academic standing and secular orientation.

Lastly, it is interesting to note that Awami League used two ‘Moulanas’ (Islamic clerics) – not any secular intellectuals – to file the cases against Abu Karim and Sayeed Bari. Such a strategy serves another purpose: it is always the madrasah-educated religious obscurantists who are against the freedom of expression and go to the court to stop a poet! By using the apparently Islamic clerics like Hazrat Moulana Mohammad Elias Hossain Bin Helali and Moulana Mohammad Ismail Hossain, they want to reinforce the supposed association between Islam and the absence of freedom of expression. Or shall we believe that the secular intellectuals in the rank and file of Awami League did not bother to file any case against Abu Karim and Sayeed Bari? Was it simply because of these two Moulanas that Abu Karim lost his important government job? If not, why these two Moulanas?

*The writer teaches at the University of Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Author: Shimul Chaudhury

Razakar -post-modern razakars

I was born in post-1971 Bangladesh and started to be familiar with national politics and political debates in the late 1980s. The 1990s onwards has been the period of my political come-of-age. Throughout my whole political exposure and experience, I think I have heard the work �razakar� more than any other terms as far as Bangladeshi politics is concerned. It is at times used as a tool to damage the reputation of rival political groups and as a swearing word during informal conversations. It is used both by educated and un-educated people alike, equally by professors and the street urchins. I have also heard renowned Bangladeshi university academics using the term in a manner which does not befit their status. In the West, children at schools are taught not to use bad language that includes swear words. However, in Bangladesh, with regard to using the term razakar, many educated gentries including university professors seem to bring themselves down to the vulgarity of streetscape. All these facts about the term �razakar� make me most curious and persuade me to look at it critically.

My curiosity with the word razakar reached its climax on several occasions. On two such occasions, the name �Jalil� has been at the centre of interest. The first Jalil is Major M A Jalil who bravely and fearlessly fought for the liberation of Bangladesh during the 1971 war of independence. That he was the commander of the ninth sector of the freedom fighters should amply point to his extraordinary contribution to the Bangladesh war of liberation. However, despite his glorious credentials as a freedom fighter and as a sector commander, he had to die with the �taint� of being a razakar. My next climax of curiosity is very recent, and it involves the second Jalil. In September this year (2009), the former secretary general of Awami League, Abdul Jalil made known in the UK that the party had come to power through an �understanding� and that the general election of 29 December 2008 was �fake�. Few days after Jalil�s disclosure, an Awami League rally in Sylhet branded him a �razakar�.

Apart from the branding of these two Jalils as razakars, I have encountered many other incidents where people randomly call each other razakar. At students� dormitories at the universities in Bangladesh, if a student is regular in masjid and is not involved in antisocial and immoral activities, he takes the risk of being called a razakar. In public offices in Bangladesh, if an officer does not take bribe and stops his subordinates from the unethical practice, he may not be able to avoid the fate of being regarded as a razakar. Sometimes in everyday life, a morally clean person with Islamic leanings runs the risk of being called a razakar. My experiences with the term razakar may not agree with those of many people; but I believe no sensible person will deny that in Bangladesh many good people are being labeled as razakars irrespective of their roles in 1971. People who did not collaborate with the Pakistani army in 1971 and people who were born after 1971 are not necessarily immune to this derogatory term. These anomalies with the term razakar must make a person pause and think in order to get to the root of the issues involved in the contemporary politics of Bangladesh.

Actually, razakar is a Persian word and it means volunteer. However, during the liberation war of Bangladesh in 1971, a group of people aided the Pakistani army against the local freedom fighters, and they were known as razakars. But, current indiscriminate and bewilderingly misplaced use of the term has given it newer meanings in Bangladeshi politics. This will become clearer if we analyze the reasons why the two Jalils mentioned above were termed as razakar. Major M A Jalil became a razakar in the eyes of his opponents mainly for three reasons: 1) his dissociation from secular politics in Bangladesh, 2) his subsequent Islamic leanings, and 3) his writing and political stance against Indian hegemony. Later day Abdul Jalil was branded a razakar because of his criticism of his party Awami League, which implicitly suggests his anti-Indian sentiment as the party�s affinity and close tie with India is common knowledge. Theoretically at least, the term razakar should be used to describe a Bangladeshi person who goes against the interest of Bangladesh. But, practically in the current political reality of Bangladesh, any person who goes against Indian interests is generally given the bad name of razakar. Thanks to a number of Bangladeshi newspapers with understood Indian inclination! If Sheikh Mujibur Rahman were alive today and maintained his usual anti-Indianism, he had every chance to be categorized as a razakar by the pro-Indian newspapers in Dhaka.

In 1971, people who collaborated with the Pakistani oppressors were called razakars. In post-1971 Bangladesh, Pakistan has become almost irrelevant. I have not met anybody expressing a desire to re-integrate with Pakistan. Bangladesh now has its new international enemies and neo-colonial masters. One enemy is obviously India, a country that helped Bangladesh become independent. However, although collaboration with foreign powers against the interest of the country is very much true today as it was in 1971, the neo-collaborators comfortably escape any derogatory terms like razakars. The neo-collaborators frequently use the term razakar to describe the erstwhile pro-Pakistani collaborators and to conceal their continuous anti-Bangladesh activities. I call this kind of people post-modern razakars. We should identify the following categories of people and associate them with the hated term razakar:

1) Those who keep quiet when the Indian BSF regularly kills Bangladeshis in the border region.

2) Those who keep quiet when Indian and Western diplomats in Dhaka interfere in our national politics.

3) Those who disregard the public and seek the help of foreign missions in Dhaka to go to power.

4) Those who keep quiet when India goes ahead with building the Tipai dam that will have disastrous consequences for the people of Bangladesh.

5) Those who keep quiet when Indian government and media give Bangladesh a bad name in the international arena.

6) Those who earn money in Bangladesh and spend it in India and other foreign countries.

7) Those who get their children educated at foreign universities and do not show any concern about the continuous degradation of education culture at the universities in Bangladesh.

Those who regularly visit Indian high commission to enjoy �free� wine and remain silent about the trade imbalances and other unequal relations between Bangladesh and India.

9) Those who switch off Bangladeshi TV channels and spend their time watching Indian channels.

10) Those who are negligent about their duties in public offices and universities.

11) Those who take bribe and steal public money.

While collaboration with Pakistani army is a matter of the past which may not harm the national interest of Bangladesh any more, current collaboration with foreign powers is a reality and is destroying our motherland at an alarming rate. We should identify the post-modern razakars, isolate them and stop their anti-Bangladesh activities. Dear readers, you may know very well that post-modern razakars pronounce the term razakar more often, and that to conceal their anti-Bangladesh activities and divert out attention from down-to-earth issues. Chorer mar boro gola!

Author: Shimul Chaudhury
Canada

In Memoriam 28 October 2006

People who were behind the broad-day-light killings of nearly a dozen unarmed men on the streets of Dhaka on 28 October 2006 are in political power in Bangladesh now. For this very reason, perhaps, not many newspapers will write any feature on the cruelty and crude brutality of the occurrence. There is another more obvious reason why many people especially the so-called intellectuals in Bangladesh and abroad will remain oblivious to that tragic day: the people who were murdered on the streets of Dhaka on that day were ‘Islamic’ belonging to a religious group. Nowadays, such murders do not seem to draw much pity or make big headlines.

Some credit goes to two former world leaders (?) – George Bush and Tonny Blair – who began the twenty-first century with unlawful killings in hundreds of thousands. These days killing the Muslims globally and the people belonging to Islamic parties in Muslim lands locally are taken-for-granted matters. Even in non-Muslim countries that have a better law and order situation, killing a Muslim does not seem to stir much public furor. Few months ago, in the city of Dresden in Germany a Muslim woman of Egyptian descent was first teased, harassed and then killed at broad day light. The Western media including the secular ones in Muslim countries did not give adequate focus on that unlawful killing. Apparently, the blood of the Muslims is considered cheaper than that of their fellow human beings.

On the eve of the handover of power from the BNP-Jamaat ruling alliance to the caretaker government, like other political parties, Jamaat organized a big rally in Dhaka to celebrate peacefully the successful power handover. Jamaat’s rally was at the north gate of Baitul Mukarram masjid while Awami League gathered at Paltan for a different purpose, and in a different manner. The latter wanted to defy the outgoing BNP-Jamaat alliance and demonstrate its brawn power. Many newspapers used words like clashes between the activists of the outgoing ruling alliance and the opposition.” But actually what happened should not be described in such simple terms.

Awami League chairperson who is the Prime Minister of Bangladesh now told her party men to bring ‘logi-boitha’ (pole-oar) to their rally on that day. Her party men brought – together with loggi-boitha – fire arms, knives and other lethal weapons for purposes the people of Bangladesh did not understand until they actually saw Sheikh Hasina’s men in action. Without any provocation whatsoever, her party men first attacked Jamaat-Shibir people who were caught on their way to the Jamaat rally. The whole world saw how the professional Awami hooligans beat up to death about ten Jamaat-Shibir people on the streets of Dhaka on broad day light. Then they attacked the Jamaat-Shibir rally and tried to kill its senior leaders. Such killings were unprecedented on the streets of Dhaka for decades. For the post-1971 generation, those killings worked as a vindication of what their parents told them about the lawlessness and ruthless murders committed by the Raksi Bahini during the BAKSAL regime after the independence of Bangladesh in 1971.

The killings of 28 October 2006 had its digitalized Awami flavor. As usual, Awami League tried to put the blame of the killings on the scapegoat Jamaat in two ways. First, they hired few local reprobate father figures who in a dispassionate and frosty fashion claimed some of the dead bodies of their own sons’. When this did not work, Awami League went for the digital option. They simulated some pictures in computer and printed big posters which they pasted on the walls of Dhaka and exerted a futile exercise of scapegoating. Thus Awami League did not spare the bereaved families whose grief was still permeated by shock and disbelief.

On 28 October 2006 I was in Dhaka, as I went to Bangladesh for spending few weeks with my family members. I met many so-called intellectuals and Dhaka University professors who claim to be the moral authority in the country and are usually loud in claiming their share in the independence of the country in 1971. Unfortunately, I did not find any of them at least regretting for what happened on the streets of Dhaka on 28 October 2006. Some other secular intellectuals who took note of it dismissed it as political clashes. However, had the casualties belonged to a secular party and the killers been ˜Islamic people, the media coverage, the international ruckus and the reaction of the secular intellectuals in Dhaka would have been completely different. Who knows, it could incite another military adventure as in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I believe condoning such killings as Awami League perpetrated on that day makes none of us safer. Such exercise of muscular power is contagious and may turn to anybody within or without the Awami League. I am not a member of any political party in Bangladesh. I have written this piece, as I still carry the traumatic memory of the brutalities in Dhaka on 28 October 2006. The question of justice may seem irrelevant, as Sheikh Hasina – who told her party men to bring ‘logi-boitha’ (pole-oar) – is the Prime Minister of Bangladesh now.. I pity Bangladesh!

Author: Shimul Chaudhury

Killer Siddique: Witness Oriana Fallaci

On the 16th March one honorable M.P. and Minister Siddique of the Awami League government in the floor of the Parliament was reported to have bashed the wholesale BNP as the KHUNI or killer. The bashing was not new but it was in the floor for the first time by the particular M.P. and the Minister. The term was coined initially by Hasina decades ago, and now being used and repeated on and on by her over zealous sycophants. Such show up of overzealousness by repeating the term picking up from Hasina’s lips serves at least two purposes. One, so being happy Hasina would shower blessings of continued position as Minister or so and two, offer perks of one kind in cash or the other.

Unfortunately, in huge gaps of information about killing and counter killing in 1971 and after, the present generation certainly remained misguided. The minister’s brother, other Siddique leader of another political party, is by this time on record of some relevant international agencies as a killer of 1971 and at other time, all done at his pleasure for killing not in real combat or war engagements!

The Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia has one insertion like this. “the mass killing of Biharies by Kader Siddique and Mukti Bahini {10} before or after victory of Bangladesh Liberation War in Bangladesh between 1971 and 1972”…The reference 10 cited was from Italian renowned journalist Oriana Fallaci (expired in 2006 at the age of 77).

It may be mentioned here that such killing did not remain limited to the Biharies alone but of many unaccounted Bengalis as well who distanced from the secessionist war of 1971 and instead stood one way or the other for the unity and integrity of one Pakistan.

Oriana Fallaci, apart from her earlier journalistic visit to Bangladesh, came back again after Mujib’s return on the 10th January 1972 from Pakistan custody for taking an interview of Mujib. Fallaci had unfortunately unfinished interview with Mujib though extended for two sessions on two days, as she had been threatened repeatedly for asking Mujib about killing specifically by Kader Siddique of some young men in open public view at the Dhaka Stadium that she had witnessed. Having had odd experience, she had to flee Dhaka immediately afterwards or else had to face other music by Mujib’s bullies.

About Siddique’s killing game, in particular, her on the spot eye witness experience was, in her verbatim, in front of Mujib was that he ‘lynched’ the presumed ‘Razakars’ with bayonets while their hands and legs remained fastened with ropes. He had bullets loaded in his guns, he could have had shoot them to death; on hearing that Mujib shouted at her as being the ‘liar’ about the matter. Even so, she kept on not only insisting about the cruel act of Siddique but also retorted that he must not ‘repeat’ the word ‘liar’ for her (See, M.Rahman/Naeem Hasan, Iron Bars of Freedom, London, 1980, PP. 248-57: report by Oriana Fallaci originally published in the L’Europeo, Rome, 24 February 1972).

Detail of the interview is not relevant here. What is closely relevant is that the brother of the M.P. and Minster was a proved Killer or KHUNI not only as Oriana Fallaci had stated but also photographs of Siddique’s lynching to kill there at the Dhaka Stadium on the 18th December 1971 with bayonets are available in many places inside and outside the country.
That Siddique killed some others during fight in Tangail area and against the Bangladesh Army having had sanctuary in India after the fall of Muijb in 1975 are other killing spree remained recorded in his credit, I have no exact figure at my hand but certainly in record of the government of President Zia.

Thus pin pointing fingers at others as KHUNI or killer will in no way clear the blood stained hands of other political leaders including Siddique. In fact, the politicians of Bangladesh are not angels but with rare exceptions are rogues and killers/ KHUNI.

Author: B K Din