Untold Facts

Corruption Control sans Political Will

In a seminar held in Dhaka on the 14th March, the ACC chairman has despaired that unless there is ‘political will’ at the topmost level, nothing could be done for arresting corruption in Bangladesh. The lamentation was given wide coverage in some dailies of the 15th March.
It seems that he has taken some courage not to hide the real truth to speak from his experience about the hard facts in the matter he had in mind. The matter is not unknown to anybody of average common sense who is aware about the realities of Bangladesh political scene and massive corruption.

Politics was an ideal profession for selflessness, sacrifice towards welfare and greater good of the common people as we saw the great men and women until early to mid 20th century during the long struggle for independence from the foreign colonial power. Individually they inherited wealth and properties from ancestors. They were themselves professionals of high level and so earned their wages in clean jobs. The pattern of nobility unfortunately changed since about the mid of the 20th century after the foreign rulers had left and ours own men took over. Rare exceptions only proved the rule or general trend.

Politics is a lucrative trade now for earning material fortune in quick fix, hardly of self sacrifice. The pattern is almost common in poverty ridden developing countries like Bangladesh. But Bangladesh being one of the poorest countries in the world having nearly 50% or about 80 million living below poverty line of its own standards having their daily wage on average one US dollar day, trend of corruption is both obvious and almost unrestrained in midst of millions of ignorant and hungry people almost in each constituency of 300 directly elected parliament members. The latest of government decision to give 150 million to each M.P.s is symptomatic of encouragement of corruption, because, they are elected to make laws not for spending money in their own constituency for some other works for ‘development’. In fact, such grants in all likely are to go on in spend thrift distribution of favors cash or kind among some party supporters possibly flouting legal expenditure codes and rules for spending public money. That is how they are given OGL (Open General License) to earn fortune and create in the evil process some vested interests for the next term election to win through immoral distribution of favors for about next four years of the term left. A unique innovation in corruption mode is thus added. Whether the block grant to the M.P.s signal the 60 or so proposed BKSAL governors in early 1975 by Mujib and then ended in fiasco on the 15th August revolution remains to be seen. Keeping the overall psyche of Hasina in serious view the ACC chairman’s lament thus could be taken not only as absence of ‘political will’ but also misuse of her absolute ‘will’ for further spread of corruption.

Well, there is political will but in the negative and crudest sense against common good of the people. On one hand, she has gone on to distribute huge money for encouraging and spreading corruption and yet asking the ACC to contain corruption understandably for hoodwinking the people! What a conspicuous hypocrisy, indeed.

The ACC chairman has prayed for integrity, fairness and neutrality of the judiciary in dealing in corruption cases. He was very much right in so appealing. I am sure that dismissal of one case after another for corruption against the government party leaders and of the P.M., in particular, at the High Court might have frustrated him more.

The PM Hasina had 13 cases of corruption, five already dismissed, and other eight to go off the book in the same fashion in not too long but soon. I recall that her father had 14 corruption cases against him, just one more than she had. It is also fact that the 14 cases had a tragic end in the 1969 JALAO PORAO movement. Not only this, in about two years after he emerged not only as the most powerful hero of Bangladesh but also promoted to the position of national ‘father‘! It as such comes to logic that Hasina too soon to get rid off all the cases of corruption and emerge then as the new goddess of Bangladesh.

It is already known that the ACC is toothless and clawless organization not because, it made it so by itself but by interference by political masters from above. By this time people knew well that the superior courts with rare exceptions of few judges are manned by spineless lots for the same reason of total interference by the top boss. There is as such no scope for any optimism for containment of widespread corruption by court verdicts for naked interference by the ruling masters of the country. However, scapegoats of opposition parties and some others not well connected with the ruling clique may have some hard time both at the ACC and in the court, once again for the same reason of collusive executive political interference. These are all only frustrating scenario ahead of the nation. Even so, the conscientious people would not forget about their corruptions, neither of her father nor of those in her credit.

It is already an established fact that the Finance Minister of the present government promised to let open for public knowledge the properties and assets of the government M.P.s, Ministers and their close relations. He first committed for making public the assets soon after his oath taking in early January was by February of 2009. That time had elapsed one year ago. Now he made a fresh promise to do the job before the next budget in June 2010. People must wait to see if he would keep his word in the matter this time. There may be a good beginning if at all political will is there in Hasina’s first openly declaring her assets and properties in the country and outside. His son Joy’s and sister Rehana’s properties may as well be declared for public information. That would not lower their prestige down but I am sure would enhance their own political benefit in the next election.

Common people like us were elated to know that the Bangladesh Bank Governor in his interview with the BBC Bengali Service on the 15th March hinted at that the government is soon to identify and bring back money laundered from Bangladesh. But we wish to be sure if such cases would not be for political witch hunting or be done irrespective of political party affiliations, including the Awami League ones, if there would be any. Unfortunately when the conspicuous evil feature of Hasina’s administration is manifested by vengeance and vengeance alone- encompassing administration, police, judiciary, ACC, etc, you may name any- people find little hope for anything for welfare out her ego of vengeance, a psychic case of ‘wrong headed’ indeed; if anything for material benefit she does would not be for common people but for the particular genre of rogues and HUQQA HUAS or loyal sycophants of her own party..

Corruption as it is manifested anywhere is a matter of human selfish mind, greed for material possession and of extremely self-centered human psyche. The opposites are selflessness, sacrificing attitude and above all a willing mind for helping needy others. In Islamic norm it is a practice of self-restraint in belief for fear of Allah, the most Powerful Creator who shall punish human being for extreme greed and selfishness. In essence, belief in Islam has set the goal of human life in this world primarily for attaining self-restraint or TAQWA. Short of attaining self-restraint none can become Muslim just as the Holy Al Quran has provided- Laallakum Tattaqun- so that you may attain self restrain in mind and psyche. None of ‘Secularist Muslim’ can attain this quality, I am afraid.

Even so, let us expect that the political will lacking in the corruption control area as also in other social welfare areas would have a positive start.

Author: BK Din

Test on patriotism

In Bangladeshi culture since the liberation war of 1971, there has not been any dearth of public display of patriotism. On different national days, political leaders and intellectuals compete with each others in critiquing an erstwhile villain, Pakistan. However, Pakistani rule and the disparity between East Pakistan and West Pakistan are maters of the past Unfortunately, now we have a new enemy which is no one other than the country that helped us achieve liberation.

Bangladeshis are regularly being killed in the border regions by the people in uniform of that country. Recently, they entered Bangladesh, dug dozens of bunkers inside our country, set up border posts in our territory and wounded many of our compatriots in the Sylhet border areas by firing indiscriminately.

Despite regular atrocities by the BSFs and the illegal intrusion into our country and the continuous threats and intimidation by the Indian forces, we do not hear our ’self-made patriots’ say any strong words against India. No political rallies against India’s wrongdoings, no statements by political analysts or by university professors! Nor do we see any media campaign against India’s hegemony. Many newspapers try to keep people of the country in the dark about India’s hostilities. All keep quiet, as if nothing has been happening. Instead, they try to distract our attention from the real problem of India by continuously telling us about what Pakistan had done nearly half a century ago. Hypocrisy has a limit Theirs’ has gone beyond all limits. Their loyalty is not to Bangladesh, but to another country. They are not patriots; they are traitors. People of Bangladesh are gradually wising up to this fact

Author: Shimul Chaudhury

Morally Bankrupt Awamis

There are published authentic reports, not hear say, that the Awami students group, in particular, have endlessly been perpetrating all forms of unethical and immoral activities anywhere and everywhere they could have laid their hands on. Tender snatching, rent seeking, admission quota trade, beating, torturing and killing opponents even of the same group for personal mundane gains (the latest one student league leader killed in same side firing in Jessore on the 14th March) have been the daily affairs since the day one of the Awami League Hasina Government in 2009. The latest of their immoral acts, as some Dhaka dailies reported on the 14 March, astonishingly about forcing some college-university girl students to make trade in sex just as the call girls do elsewhere. Presuming that the news may be somewhat exaggerated one, it must remind many others that there had been news earlier of ‘century made’ in such immoral acts by some of the genre. Even so, I did not know about anything then and until now about forcing some young girl student to sell one’s body for sex.

It may not be out of place to refer to some other relevant facts. All was told some time earlier that the top boss Hasina has distanced from their immoral, illegal and unethical acts. She, it was said, had withdrawn herself from the student league position she hold before. But as things did not change anything even after the stated ‘moral pressure’, on enquiry, it was curiously known that the Ministers, M.Ps and other level party leaders have been keeping the student league members in usual mood and amusement, possibly, assuring them that the top boss would only at times do some verbal bashing and nothing else in reality! So they being assured the youths and the future generation has rather been prompted to go ahead unrestrained for making all sorts of fortune immorally down to the sinful sex act that in our Muslim society still seriously despised and all tend to object to.

Sex is natural urge. Not only this. Youthful days are very prone to more sex attraction. In the advanced non Muslim societies, sex is made open and isolated recently from age old religious morality. Young boys and girls of age 16 and above, not below, can go open and have partner for sex. Parents have nothing to do, much less object to having sex partner. On the contrary, parents feel worried if they see that their son or daughter of the age16 and above has no boy/girl friend. Many may have such friend even before reaching sixteen. That is why girls below sixteen becoming unwed mother quite many though in breach of law at that age in those societies. Becoming unwed mother even below 16 is no offence either in law or in moral sense .Religious sex morality has been isolated and separated from sex acts not only between heterosexuals but also between homosexuals, as well. That now encompasses their revised and extended defined area of secularism. Even though sex morality was taken out of religious control sphere, control of religious norms in other ethical and moral areas in personal and social relations have still been maintaining in those advanced societies.

Such idea of secularism in case of sexuality isolated from traditional religious values entrenching into family matters has devastatingly made widespread broken families in those secular modern advanced societies. Broken families have other evils of multiplier effects in child raring difficulties in single parent family, school truancy, drug addition, adolescent delinquency, loneliness at home, old age helplessness, etc.

Sex out of wedlock, homosexuality and promiscuity have not only made family units disturbed but also brought adverse social impact on health services cost maintenance, productivity loss due to mortal sexual disease patients like the HIV/AIDs. Isolation of religious morality from sex matters made all these nuisances by now menacing.

Islam is a full code of life covering each and every sphere of human relations in personal, social and political lives including norms for sexuality. Sex is permitted only inside wedlock between two adult male and female, not beyond. Raising offspring is praiseworthily encouraged for keeping human species until the end. This is also for natural strengthening of family bondage in love, affection and compassion. Other major religions had the same teaching, but of late after the industrial revolution things started to change under the influential shadow of secularism and separation of sex from morality just as separation of church from the state.

Anti-Islamic attitude by the Awamis is a common matter. The menace of secularism first made its marked appearance soon after this party took administration in January 1972. In fact, they misunderstood secularism as being non-religious and no need to adhere to norms of right and wrong except to earn fortune at any cost and flouting all legal yardstick and religion based social values. In post Bangladesh period beginning in January1972 the Awamis earned huge illegal and immoral fortunes through grabbing properties of other vulnerable people. Illegal and Immoral earning through all possible sorts of corruption was rather their norm. Thus Bangladesh had serious moral breakdown then almost similar to what were seen widespread once gain during the first term of P.M. Hasina during1996-2001 so much so that the Transparency International (TI) found through scientific authentic studies in 2000 A.D. that Bangladesh came in the first position in the list of corruption index among nearly 200 countries in the world, the total amount of corruption in one year stood at nearly 17,000 crore Taka.. In fascist trend –both illegal and immoral- she went so much to hell that she declared openly that her cadres must be ferocious enough to ‘kill ten instead of one’ of their own someone if killed by opponents. The post 1971 government of Mujib had similar rash orders to his police and India organized - controlled Rakhsmi Bahini: NAXAL DEKHLE GULI KORO- shoot at the sight of Naxal, LAL GHORA DABRIYE DEBO- I shall crush all under feet of red horse, and KOTHAY AJ SERAJ SIKDER- where is Seraj Sikder today ( shouting by the top leader in the floor of the Parliament on the 2nd January 1975 after Sikder had been killed in police custody by special police squad engaged for the murderous act by the leader), - all had been open incitement to make extrajudicial killings of all imaginary opponents caring nothing for due process of law. Such extra judicial murders figured near about 40,000 in three and a half years of the secular Mujib rule during 1972- mid 1975. In clear continuation of the same rash behavior, MPs and Ministers have now taken on even opposition M.P.s as DHAR SHALARE (March 2010 session) - catch hold of brother in law in abusive sense- in the floor of the Parliament possibly failing to contest with arguments and reasons, and a Minister sent gunmen to pick up forcibly a poor bank manager for punishment on March 13 (2010) for he refused to reemploy dismissed former employee who happened to be the minister’s own party man. They did so clearly rashly and would not restrain in future for they had no restrain of Islamic norm or TAQWA that infuses in human psyche high standard of morality and patience but instead are driven by non-religious secularist’s ego centric unpolished whims. Other parties in government also were not immune from those illegal and immoral acts and vices but they all learned and got courage to go for vices (not certainly forcing young girl students to trade in sex) from the Awamis sham secularism particularly of 1972-75 and of 1996-2001.

Bangladesh is a seriously sex conservative society for the overwhelming majority people are Muslims. Other minority religious people too are equally strict in this matter. That the Awami rising cadres have gone too much ahead for immoral sex trade that the people must resist. And for any such effective resistance falling back to religious morality, I believe, would be the first step forward needed to shun the western idea of so-called secularism. Whether the already morally bankrupt Awamis would at all seriously take up the matter in their agenda ahead remains to be seen.

Author: HB Khair

1975 change: Legality-Illegality Issue

An Awami League Minister in a meeting in a rural area on the 12th March (09), as a report published the next day Dhaka daily, has blasted the legality of the Seventy Five Change of the Government in Bangladesh. Skeptics, however, pointed out that such baseless observation has only spoken about their guilty conscience about the 27-28 January hasty executions of the five patriotic heroes of the 15th August change, despite worldwide dissent and opposition against the heinous act of judicial murder.

It is not unlikely but quite reasonable that he, as well as the Hasina led Government, got the courage to make such opinion following the open secret politically motivated and executively interfered verdicts passed by spineless judges of historic Kangaroo Courts.

Leaving aside the quality of relevant verdicts, we may deal with the political and historical aspects of the change that remained not only brilliantly historic, deeply patriotic but also glorious for freedom, liberty and sovereign dignity of Bangladesh.

The 75 change though remained extended for weeks the main and crucial subject matter was the 15th August successful mutiny. The subsequent changes leading up to the 5th Amendment of the Constitution made in April 1979 passed through phases of action programs- nothing of the pro-active issues would surface had there been no 15th August change, the glorious historic event marked by many as the Great Day of Deliverance or NAJAT DIBOSH. The successful coup by itself provided not only legitimacy of succession but also indemnity. The legitimacy provided then kept Bangladesh alive and on surface until today on the 2010.

Based on the power inherent in the change and immediately after the 15th August, the notorious lone party dictatorship of the BKSAL rescinded that opened scope for multiparty democracy, the unconstitutional Killer Raskhsmi Bahini disbanded that strengthened the national army for guarding sovereignty, newspapers freed from absolute BKSAL Government control for freedom of opinion and free flow of information as guarantee of basic human rights. Externally, all civilized countries like Britain, etc almost immediately recognized the post coup new government led by President Khondoker Moustaque Ahmad. The great China recognized Bangladesh and the new government who declined to recognize the post 1971 government and also Bangladesh as an independent country for over three and half years due to over lordship of Delhi on Bangladesh. The most powerful Muslim country Saudi Arabia who refrained from recognizing Bangladesh and the secular-socialist Mujib Government for over three and half years as well came forward to recognize and establish normal relations, having had hints that the new government would be akin to Muslim identity and Islamic ideals in state policies. Some other Muslim countries too followed the Saudi initiative.

Let us now presume that the legitimacy of the August 75 change was invalid after the two verdicts hinted at above. If that would be so, must not then Bangladesh by now reverted back to the 4th Amendment of the Constitution and to the BKSAL government of pre-75 change? The Law Minister, however, stated that they would not go back to BKSAL but to the 1972 Constitution. Well, they could do so. They may take recourse to the constitutional process for amendment. They have the majority they need for amendment and revert back to the 1972 Constitution. Even so, for continued legitimacy for the period from August 75 to the day they would revert back to 1972 constitution certainly need be legalized in the Parliament. That in a way would keep everything done in the period in between for nearly three and half decades as legal for what one judge stated as ‘past and closed’. And so also the August 75 occurrence legal and not illegal for that the very occurrence and power of eventful change rescinded the BKSAL, disbanded the Rakhsmi Bahini, freed the news papers and also opened doors for multi-party politics that remained and would not be abandoned by the 1972 Constitution, if that could at all be reverted back to.

There must remain still other snags. The 1972 Constitution had Socialism as one of the four basic principles. The idea is almost dead by the time elapsed not only in Bangladesh economic context but also almost worldwide. What do the 1972 proponents would do in this matter? Even the issue of Secularism of the 72 India sponsored brand must face threat in some accounts. One, it was not there in the 17th April 1971 Declaration, and two, as a historic Muslim majority nation Islamic basic principles just as some were there in the 1979 amended Constitution can not fully be evaded for such venture would hurt popular sentiment of the 90% people of the country. Even a referendum would be ineffectual.

The seventy five accumulative changes further provided gates for openness and freedom that opened quite logically avenues for forming religious based parties just as are there in almost all democratic countries, not excepting India. Can the reversal back to the 72 Constitution put any bar in such party formation and operation?

If one raises the question of legitimacy, one has to look back to historical facts. Bangladesh as a geographical entity and national identity had the only legitimacy in 1947. Legitimacy at other subsequent stages of the independent entity rested on much weaker foundation. Soon after the 1971 war, despite enormous sacrifices made, the sovereignty remained mortgaged to Delhi. The seventy five changes mended the fence and firmed up sovereignty.

Well, there may have some contrary possibilities that could make the seventy five changes completely illegal. One, re-introduction of the 4th Amendment of January-February 1975 for BKSAL once again abandoning of the multi-party government, two, re-imposition of the Killer Rakhsmi Bahini just only to serve the top leader along with simultaneous plan for phasing out the regular Bangladesh army leaving the country’s international border at the mercy of ‘friendly’ army ready in the region for the GREAT GAME, three, proscribe all forms of electronic media except the government controlled BTV and ban all newspapers except, say, four just as Hasina’s father did in mid 1975, and four, forcibly makes all groups/ professionals full time members of the lone party BKSAL. Once these anti-national action programs fully accomplished, the seventy five changes could then be confirmed as illegal, not otherwise. One must wait for some time to see if all these issues for complete destruction of the sovereignty of independent Bangladesh are realized that would certainly confirm the seventy five changes as illegal.

Author: B K Din

Judicial Murder of other Scapegoats by Hasina: Second Phase?

Faraoh-Yazid- Hitler have had been kept on record for their notoriety as deeply despised rulers in the past history of mankind. We have at this age of 21st century democracy, human rights, rule of law and all such high sounding cliché but not only internally being abused and misused but also externally by undue interference by notorious rulers ending at times only in ego-satisfying judicial murder. Hasina did the worst one through Political Trial (See, The Economist, 27 November 2009) and execution of Judicial murder verdict on the blackest night of 27-28 January 2010 in the Central Dhaka Prison. She had the spineless pliant judges who provided her the scope she had been after to avenge the blood of her father, despite the fact that the whole civilized world stood against the worst judicial murder verdict and execution.

Emboldened in the execution of the five successful mutineers of the 15th August 1975 change of government in Dhaka otherwise having had full right of indemnity but flouted by arbitrary power of interference of the P.M., Hasina has now taken on to put the controversial ‘war criminals’ to similar Kangaroo trial and execution. How much the political trial now on like the other one would serve Bangladesh’s interest or the interest of Indian hegemony? If further isolation of Bangladesh be made?

The apparent subject for war crimes trial undoubtedly sounds catchy one. But there are many gaps, tricky snags, loopholes and delicate issues likely to be bypassed for the lone objective of vengeance to attain. The main objective so far as known and there was a two column headline news in a Dhaka daily on the 11th March is to ‘uproot’ ( NIRMUL) certain political parties from Bangladesh. In any democratic society, is such uprooting at all civil? Or is clearly fascist aim of Faraoh, Yazid, Hitler etc.?

Leaving aside the question of democracy and fascism, let us take the issue of war crime and war criminals trial.

The Hasina government has taken on to put into trial of all those who had been involved in any such crime in 1971 war. Let us not make any confusion in the matter that the critical point is the war of 1971. In other words, it is crucially important to define the specifics of the war, its extent and limit, and real combative involvement in encounter of engagements.
Well, there had been fighting. The fighting involved two opposing parties. One was for Bangladesh and the other for Pakistan.

As the war involved two opposite fighting sides, just as any war obviously is, both sides attacked, repressed, killed the opposite side whenever whichever party was advantageously stronger and so overpowered the other. Thus it is only possible that both sides did excess whenever one had advantages over the other. Now if the question of trial comes up, both side rogues must be taken onto the dock. In fact, the UN took the same stand putting facts that in Sri Lanka war of 25 years and also in Gaza war last year for three weeks, it was not only one side but war crimes had been committed by both fighting sides. How could then the Hasina government set to try ‘criminals’ of the vanquished side alone and keep the other victorious side untouched as if they had been angels in the bloodletting game?

Apart, there is another crucial issue. The ‘195 war criminal’ listed earlier, forgetting the authenticity of the list making, all Pakistani Army personnel had not only been let go free by the top boss of the then Bangladesh in 1974, boasting in public to ‘forgive and forget’ immediately after signing tri-partite agreement between Bangladesh India and Pakistan not without good many reasons but also for rebuilding better relations in future. How come the forgetfulness and picking up quarrel afresh and new acrimony digging up the issue from the grave made 36 years ago? Would that serve any positive good to Bangladesh? There is already a clamor in the free and Muslim countries, in particular, that the January judicial murders of five Muslim nationalist brilliant army men have by this time isolated Bangladesh from many friendly countries. The war crimes trial for witch hunting in reality would certainly isolate Bangladesh further.

The January trial verdict and quick executions have further established the fact that the spineless judges of the pliant judiciary would act nothing differently in compliance of the vengeful wish of the top boss in the razzmatazz of the war crimes trial now being processed just as they did create ‘Climate of fear and intimidation’ in the other case mentioned above.

Coming back to the basic question of the actual war dependent on the legitimacy of the declaration of independence in March 1971, Major Zia’s announcement on the 26th/27th March in English and Bengali translation repeated by his junior colleague Shamsher Mobin (See, eye witness and on the spot account in Kalurghat of Rafiqul Islam Bhuyan, an Engineer then working in PWD there published in the special issue of monthly Karigar December 2009) remains recorded on authentic documents in many places and many witnesses are still alive as the one mentioned here. But the snag of Zia’s declaration was that it was more an army rebellion or mutiny than authorized legal declaration. Although he modified his first declaration second time by invoking Mujib’s name, there was no basis or any proof whatsoever that he had been so asked to do by the elected leader Mujib, because, there was no scope or possibility of any prior acquaintance between the two, one Pakistan army unknown Major and the other the top political leader of East Pakistan. Even though people responded to the call of Zia and put up resistance against the federal army in midst of appalling frustration was a different matter.

So far as the declaration on the 10th/17th April made in Calcutta/ Mujibnagar by some 76 out of 219, minority not majority, elected MNAs and Provincial M.P.s were concerned the insufficiency was that they had no nod whatsoever from Mujib. The closely related snag was that they had not been elected under the LFO (Legal Framework Order) to do anything the sort they did except framing a Constitution of the united federal Pakistan in 120 days after the election result would be published. In fact they election result fell flat automatically for failure to frame the Constitution in stipulated time that again the President cancelled later on.

Thus the declaration by Zia and so also by the Mujibnagar government had no legitimacy of the announcement of independent Bangladesh. Even so fights went on between the pro Bangladesh and pro Pakistan elements that virtually began from the 1st of March when the Army President Yahya cancelled the National Assembly Session scheduled to meet on the 3rd March. The 25th March senseless army crackdown was rather a vain attempt to restore order in the country. Apparent calm followed sporadic fights, followed by terrorist attacks here and there, countrywide civil war (Mark the term civil war Mujib used in conversation with US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger as late after about three years of independence of Bangladesh on the 30th October 1974 in Dhaka, as that was documented in the14th February declassified US State Department document published in the weekly Holiday, Dhaka, 6 March 2009).

All international authentic documents termed the 1971 episode of Bangladesh, except the period of India- Pakistan direct war engagement for 13 days in December 1971, as the civil war and not as independence war. Civil war means war between two opposing groups of the same country citizens. That also meant that both had rogues for repression, torture and murder of the opponents. This is a matter of simple common sense. So I have mentioned already above that the UN has taken the clear stand for Sri Lanka and Gaza wars that both sides made excesses and so there must have indictable offenders on both sides, not of one side alone. How could it be fair to try alone the vanquished pro-Pakistan side? Could UN accept it as fair and neutral?

Mujib’s returning back from detention in Pakistan (West) on the 10th January 1972 and then taking over Bangladesh administration did not automatically make everything legitimate with retrospective effect. In strictly legal norm retrospective effect of any legal measure is unlawful in the eye of legal jurisprudence. He had to wait for full legitimacy of his taking over until the recognition by Pakistan in early 1974.

Well, romantics, egoists, dictators and the like utterly irrational ones could abuse state power as a game of sadist pleasure by putting scapegoats to the dock and to the gallows. It’s almost impossible to restrain such top bosses just as Hasina happens to be one. Only appeal to her conscience would do no work at all. But one thing must be told to her. The 1971 war and the war criminal issue must include Sheikh Mujib’s name as well for he had both suicidal commissions in asking on the 7th March rhetoric the wild mass with crude local arms to face in war the federal army equipped with modern arsenals in the verbatim, ‘GHARE GHARE DURGO GARHE TOLO, TOMADER JAR JA ACHE TAI NIYE SHATRUR MOKABELA KORO’- make your homes fortress and face the enemy with those arms. His grievous omission was that he did not give much expected Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) except most ambiguous rhetoric meaning in essence nothing, ‘AMADER SANGRAM SWADHINATAR SNGRAM EBARER SANGRAM MUKTIR SANGRAM’- our struggle is for freedom, struggle for our emancipation- and then amazingly voluntarily surrendered to the federal army on the 25th March. That led to the war obviously in total confusion and excesses made on both sides. I would feel that his name in the list must come on the top or number one war criminal of 1971.

The other fact that should not be lost sight of was that the leader was for the post of P.M. of Pakistan ‘even for one hour’ keeping General Yahya there as the President, the understanding he had developed since early 1969 even before the General took over toppling Ayub Khan (See, Sarder M Choudhry, The Ultimate Crime, 1999, Lahore, PP. 98-99). There was as such no point for him to declare UDI, and so the episode of 1971 went on not only having gap of legitimization but also in utter confusion of civil war and not any independence war, much less liberation war. Thus it comes to reason and logic that the whole burden of the war and of ‘crimes’ must be reposed, first, on Mujib.

If Mujib’s name is not there in the list of 1971 war criminals, it would only be Hasina’s sadistic pleasure in witch hunting for brutally making yet another set of judicial murders.

It’s true that there are some organizations and countries do speak openly in protest about extrajudicial killings. The US Annual Report on Human Rights Violation in Bangladesh published on the 12th March 2010 protested about increase in extra judicial killings and political murders in Bangladesh. But it’s a pity none openly say anything of their concern about judicial murders that had gone on in Bangladesh and to follow in the same way some more soon in the one sided 1971 war criminal trial issue.

Author: B K Din

Mossad goes to US

In the face of worldwide condemnation (except from the White House and US Congress), the PMAJO backs any brutal murder commited by the Israeli secret police anywhere in the world and at anytime. The recent assassination of Hamas leader Mahmoud Mabhouh in Dubai is a case in point The PMAJO has defended all of Mossad’s criminal actions leading up to the murder, including extensive identity theft and the stealing or falsification of passports from several European countries.

Among the Mossad agents who entered Dubai to kill Mabhouh, 12 agents used stolen or forged British passports, three Australian, three French, one German and six Irish. These agents assumed the identity of European citizens in order to commit murder in a sovereign nation.

Once again the PMAJO demonstrates that its first loyalty is to Israel even when it violate the sovereignty of major US allies. No doubt the PMAJO would readily support the Mossad, even if it had used US documents to assassinate Mabhouh. In fact, two of the 26 Israeli assassins, carrying fake Irish and fake British passports, are known to have entered the US after the killing and may still be here.

The position adopted by the DA and the PMAJO in defence of Israel’s international terrorist act followed several lines of atack.

These include:

Blaming the victim

Claiming that extra-judicial, extra territorial murders are legal

Minimising the murder of ‘one’ individual

Deflecting atention from the Zionists by blaming other Arabs

Discrediting the Dubai police investigators rather than the Israeli perpetrators.

Articles have appeared in the op-ed pages of several US, UK, Canadian and Israeli newspapers, as well as in magazines like Forbes and Commentary. The mainline Zionist propaganda technique is to avoid any discussion of Israel’s egregious crimes against sovereignty, due process, international law and the personal security of individuals. In doing so, the Daily Alert adopts the propaganda techniques common to all totalitarian regimes practising state terrorism.

On February 22, the DA headlined two articles, which were entitled: “Killed Hamas Official betrayed by Associates says Dubai Police Chief” and “Hamas: Assassinated Operative put Himself at Risk”.

The DA forgot to mention that Israeli secret police had been tracking their prey for over a month. Needless to say, if we were to accept the American Zionists’ argument that any leading opponent of Israel, who travels without an army of bodyguards, is “puting himself at risk”, then we must acknowledge that ours is a lawless world where Israeli hit squads are free to commit murder anywhere, any time.

If Israel’s murder of an adversary in Dubai is legal, why not assassinate opponents in the US, Canada, England or any other country where they might travel, live, work or write? What if the critics and opponents of Israel decided that it was now “legal” to murder Israel’s supporters wherever they lived citing the DA’s definition of legality? We would then find ourselves in a lawless world of “legal” murder and totalitarian cross-border surveillance.

The February 22, 24, and 25 issues of the DA deflect atention from the Mossad murder by making comparison to the hundreds of Afghan civilians killed by US drone atacks. The claim is that “targeting individuals” is less a crime than mass killings. The problem with this argument is that for decades Mossad has “targeted” scores of opponents overseas and killed thousands of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Moreover, this argument linking Israel’s extra judicial assassinations with US colonial killing of Afghans is hardly a defence of either. By implicating the US in its defence of state terror, Israel is holding up the worst aspects of US imperialism as a standard for its own political behaviour. One state’s crimes are no justification for another’s.

In other words, all the forged or stolen European passports of Israeli dual citizens, and the Dubai security videos of Mossad operatives in various costumes was in reality ‘Arab tricks’. This crude propaganda ploy reveals their own descent into a fantasy land of self-delusion, possible only in the closed world of US Zionist politics.

The DA published several articles praising the technical details of the Mossad assassination in Dubai, an aspect of the operation, with which few Israel security experts would agree. The February 24 DA article entitled, “Assassination Shows Skilful Planning” chastises Israel’s critics for not recognising the ‘high quality’ of the killings and recommends its “lessons for all intelligence services around the world”. Like sociopaths and serial killers, US Zionists openly promote Israeli death squad techniques to all fellow state terrorists.

The DA on February 25 cited a long and tendentious atack on the Dubai police, published in Forbes, which ridiculed their meticulous investigations uncovering Mossad’s roles in the murder. In the article, the Dubai authorities were condemned for uncovering Israeli involvement while not investigating the source of the murder victim’s Iraqi passport! The US Zionist propaganda campaign in defence of Israeli state terror and, specifically, murder of the Hamas leader, relies on lies, evasions and specious legal arguments.

This “defence” violates all precepts of a civilised society as well as the most recent US federal laws prohibiting all forms of support for international terrorism. The PMAJO can pursue its defence of Mossad’s acts of terrorism with impunity in the US because of its power over the US Congress, the White House and the US media.

This ensures that only its version of events, its definition of legality and its lies will be heard by legislators, echoed by Zionist activists and embellished by its solemn defenders in academic and journalistic circles. To counter the Zionist defence of Israel’s practice of executions by the Mossad, we need American writers and academics to step forward. It is time to expose their flimsy arguments, bold-faced lies and immorality.

It is time to speak out against their impunity, before another Israeli secret police murder takes place, possibly inside the US itself and with the shameless complicity of Zionist accomplices.

The authorities in Dubai have found clear evidence that the Mossad assassination team received support from European Zionists. The hotels, air tickets and expenses were paid with credit cards issued in the US. Two of the killers may be in the US now. Will a time come when American Zionists cross the line between propaganda for the deed to become accomplices of the deed? The robust American Zionist defence of Mossad’s overseas assassinations does not augur well for the security of Americans in the face of Israel’s willing US accomplices.

James Petras is a Bartle Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York. He is the author of 64 books published in 29 languages. For comments, write to opinion@khaleejtimes.com

Recalling Cars and Listening Posts at home Nasir Mahmood (At Home)

6 March 2010 All major car companies, it seems, are recalling some of their top brands these days. I too, am going to ‘recall’ cars, albeit in a different perspective.

Over the years, many things that were once an inseparable part and parcel of one’s life here in the UAE, have given way to new innovations. What I recalled the other day was just how fast one adapts to a new lifestyle, adjusting to new realities - almost as if that thing in the past did not exist at all!

Of a plethora of such changes, two phenomena simply stand out for me. One is the cars. Some 10 to 15 years back, and both hurtling on the horizon were huge and long cars (in length and width-wise), mainly American gas guzzlers, such as Chevrolet Caprice, Buick, Cadillac, Plymouth, Dodge and Camaros, not to forget the German BMWs and Mercedes that ruled the roost (sorry roads) in the UAE.

As time rolled by, the increase in population and shrinking income gave way to Japanese Corollas and Nissans, and most recently, the much smaller and fuel-efficient versions-Yaris and Tiidas.

General Motors, which once made giant cars, has also shifted to making shorter versions, the fairy-like Sparks and people have lapped up these smaller versions for easy commuting. Though SUVs as-big-as-a-room-like Armadas, Sequoias and Ford’s Flex continue to flex their muscles on the roads, the cars that really rule the roads these days are the smaller ones. But just 15 years ?back, it was almost unthinkable for anyone to go for small cars. For, the ‘giants’ were affordable. Weren’t they? Now, in the presence of cars like Picantos (by Kia), such giants as well as those considered to be classic cars have taken a back seat

The second major change that leaves me dumbstruck is the phone. How a man flits from one technology to another is evident from the changes ?witnessed in this small gadget that man cannot do without Before the onslaught of cell phones in the UAE, the common medium for expatriates to ?get in touch with someone back home was the telephone booths, which are now largely abandoned, merely collecting dust But think of yesteryears ?when the mere sight of a free telephone booth on the corner of a street would fill one’s heart with joy, because that was the easiest-available means to talk to your near and dear ones. Now, these booths wear a forlorn look and are used mainly by people for pasting advertisements.

Hardly would you find any booths these days that have not been plastered with ‘bed-room-space’ or ‘car-lift available’, ads. The invasion of the cell phones have moved a large chunk of expatriate and local population away from these once much-loved ‘listening posts’.

Remember those Fridays? How people would form long queues, waiting for their turn at the phone. This was a common sight on holidays. An insignificant chunk of the population still relies on these listening posts. These booths have remained part and parcel of one’s life for so long that they have given way to many interesting anecdotes. Much has changed around Dubai and the UAE. Modernisation and development at a break-neck speed has left the common man, especially the expatriates, in a world of their own - recalling all those days in nostalgia. God knows what the future beckons for them?

Author: Prof James Petras
Source: Internet

Hasina’s Foolishness Making Mujib a Liar

A report published in a Dhaka daily on the 8th March quoted Hasina that she knew about her father Mujib’s plotting to secede East Pakistan even in 1969. She claimed to have listen to Mujib’s conversation with some close associates in London Hasina visited her father there coming down from Italy where she had been staying with her newly wed husband.

It’s true that there had been secessionist forces in East Pakistan, though an insignificant group among the well known NEHRU AIDED PARTY since the day one of the 14th August 1947, the day Pakistan was founded. They were those who did not reconcile to East Bengal with capital Dhaka to develop and move forward on its own outside the domination of Calcutta elite and also the vested interest groups particularly fattened during the British colonial period being their puppets. Some self styled communists as well joined them who despised Muslim nationhood of the Muslim League and yet curiously had all love for caste ridden Indian Hindu nationalism in the KAUTILYA-CHANAKYAS frame. But Mujib was hardly with them but due to his low IQ got used at times, for example, Jyoti Sen Gupta, an Indian Intelligence operative stationed in East Bengal in1950s as the PTI reporter in his book Freedom Movement of Bangladesh (1973) had some facts about Mujib being used by them. That did in no way make him any hero of secession of East Pakistan.

Suhrawardy had been Mujib’s sustainer in Calcutta with paltry payment of dole money. Sohrawardy was a 100% Pakistani and never in his life thought of secession of East Pakistan. On the contrary he seriously objected and very strongly took on any who would even utter anything about the secession.

Suhrawardy had poor opinion about Mujib not about patriotism of Pakistan but about his innate capability or low perception level. That is why he, at times in close circle, introduced Mujib as the ‘ILLITERATE GRADUATE’. He would further hold the clear opinion about Mujib’s useful role as a party worker and never ever in his life time as top party leader. I may recall here one incident. I had from Barisal an Accountant friend now dead few years ago in London. Once in 1956 when Sohrawrady was the Prime Minister of Pakistan, came to Dhaka and staying at the Abdul Ghani Road Old Circuit House, he went for a visit with the P.M. as they were known in Calcutta days in early 1940s. Soon Mujib arrived there. On Mujib’s sight, Azizul Haq exclaimed, ‘Here is the leader Sheikh Mujib to follow your footstep at your exit.’ Suhrawardy retorted spontaneously, ‘If he (Mujib) becomes the leader of the country any time, he will first destroy the country and then he will destroy himself, as well’. I had this comment in London and wrote a long article about the comment published in 1989 in different media at home and abroad, and the item was included in my book Patriot Traitor Question: Bangladesh Syndrome (2005), now out of stock but available in a London based website (WWW.firozmahboobkamal.com).
Keen observers must notice that how Mujib becoming the leader of Bangladesh through both foolish commissions and careless omissions had had not only took the country to the brink of destruction but also so much so that his own decorated freedom fighters of the highest order took arms on the 15th August 1975 to topple him from the power and saved the country from the octopus of total Indian hegemony and Soviet Socialist Imperialism ( See, Holiday’s founding Editor, AZM Enayetullah Khan’s article in post mortem of Mujib’s fall in August 1975: Bangladesh Bahattor Theke Pochattor - Collection of published items, Jatiya Mudran, Dhaka, 1980, PP.678-86). It may be useless to repeat the well known facts that Mujib in three and a half years of his absolute rule of Bangladesh killed open or multi-party democracy, imposed lone party BKSAL having no clear consent of the people, made Bangladesh the haven for his party hoodlums and looters to earn quick fortune through all encompassing corruption and misappropriation of people’s properties, unleashed reign of terror of the police and special but unconstitutional Rakhsmi Bahini raising as parallel of the regular armed force by planning to phase out the regular army, torturing, maiming and killing of the imaginary opponents of the top leader and of the party Awami League/BKSAL. That was why the then unknown Cols and Majors of the successful coup were profusely welcomed by the people. All government organs as well laid their allegiance and support for the coup and the subsequent government of Khondoker Moustaque. At the international level none condemned the coup; India tried to exert some pressure but not for anything else except that the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC declaration by the coup operators be abandoned and revert back to the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh. President Moustaque yielded to this pressure not voluntarily but for fear of all out attack in land, Air and Sea by the Indian Army under Indira Gandhi, the Indian P.M. and the 1971 war hero. The immediate recognition of the coup, the new government by the big world powers including China and Saudi Arabia got things go ahead more or less smoothly. The counter coup attempt of Khaled Mosharraf, in particular, made after about seven weeks, was foiled easily by the army and people because the whole people were for the 15th August change. Anyway these were after developments, and nothing to do with secession but fall out of secession that Suhrawardy and Mujib did not wish to have for the people of East Pakistan for self dignity, honor and prestige (See, Suhrawardy’s letter written to President General Ayub Khan in 1962 during his confinement in the Karachi prison in M.H R. Talukder, Memoirs of Huseyn Shahid Suhrawardy, UPL, Dhaka, 1987, PP.217-24). Mujib as well as a loyal devotee of Sohrawardy did not intend to have secession but autonomy under the framework of 6 Point formula. If he had at all talked about secession that had nothing been serious about but by the by. The proofs are many.

Had Mujib wished to have secession, the 7th March 1971 had been the best opportunity for him. He had then lakhs of people attending the Suhrawardy Uddyan (then Ramna Race Course) meeting ready to march towards the Governor House and Dhaka Cantonment to get the secession realized that day. But Mujib ended his 15 minutes or so fiery speech there with all fury and fires but signifying nothing for secession and independence, amazingly declaring there in some fury EBARER SANGRAM AMADER SWADHINATAR SANGRAM EBARER SANGRAM AMADER MUKTIR SANGRAM. Nothing of UDI came out of his mouth. Instead he ended his fiery speech abruptly voicing JOY BANGLA along with JIE PAKISTAN. He had certainly then in mind that he had prior understanding with Pakistani Army General President Yahya for power sharing with him, he remaining as the President and himself the ‘Future Prime Minister of Pakistan’ just as Yahya had promised in open and Mujib got pleased. That prior understanding Mujib developed in various channels not only after Yahya took over from Ayub Khan in March 1969 but also before (See, Sarder M. Choudhry, The Ultimate Crime, Lahore, 1999, P. 98) was not anything secret. What made the failure at the last moment and the Amy brutal action on the 25th March midnight in Dhaka followed by Mujib’s voluntary surrender to the army remained a mystery as yet having had no single opinion but different explanations here and there.

During the farcical trial of Mujib for treason in 1971, Mujib had all along through his eminent lawyer A K Brohi stood by his commitment for the unity and integrity of Pakistan. During the 1971 war of India-Pakistan Mujib offered through same Brohi seeking a favor from Yahya Khan to appeal through Pakistan media to the people of East Pakistan against Indian aggression (See, Impact International, London, September 25, 1987, p.19).

Mujib denied his being secessionist. Instead he rebuked all retorting seriously that ‘majorities’ (East Pakistanis) can not be secessionist. He ridiculed the Agartala Conspiracy Case in this respect as the Islamabad Conspiracy.

Let one not forget that in independent Bangladesh he was put to a position of fait accompli. He had nothing to do what happened in 9 months, according to Mujib, of ‘civil war’, much less, again in his term, of ‘Indian aggression’ was concerned. That is why he got the Indian P.M. Indira taken by surprise in putting pressure to withdraw Indian troops from Bangladesh in March 1972. Otherwise she had no intention to withdraw her occupation army quite late until how long difficult to say now.

If one would look into the detailed discussion of Mujib with US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger held at Dhaka on the 30th October 1974, after about three years of Bangladesh’s independence and two and a half years of Indian army withdrawal, he repeatedly tried to impress on Henry Kissinger about India’s aggressive and hegemonic role against Bangladesh since, in his terms, sending in the ‘Aggression Army’ in the ‘Civil War’ (See, weekly Holiday, Dhaka, March 6, 2009 lifted from the 14th February 2009 declassified US State Department document).

Mujib distanced gradually in independent Bangladesh from the Exile Government’s Prime Minister Tajuddin Ahmad since the day one after his return on the 10th January 1972 from Pakistan’s detention in 1971. Mujib rebuked Tajuddin for dismemberment of Pakistan, ‘TAJUDDIN SHESH PARJNTYA TOMRA PAKISTAN BHENGHE DILE’- Tajuddin, at last, you all have dismembered Pakistan, just was kept on record in verbatim at the Tegaon Airport Tarmac on the 10th January while leaning on shoulders of Tajuddin and Moustaque he was coming out towards exit, the verbatim picked up so by the then student leader also innovator of JOY BANGLA slogan in late 1960s Aftab Ahmad, assassinated a few years ago in his DU Professor’s flat. I came to know him first in London in early 1980s where he was doing his Ph.D. In independent Bangladesh he joined the politics of JSD as opposition to the Awami League government and edited the daily GONOKANTHO. I had contact with him until his tragic passing away.

Tajuddin soon not only met sack from the ministry but also ended up in imprisonment by Mujib. The displeasure of Mujib had two main reasons, one, defiance of Mujib’s wish and going for secession, and two, his over enthusiasm for Soviet Socialism. His brother Minister Afsar Uddin met displeasure of Hasina in the 1996-2001 term of her P.M. Lately Tajuddin’s son Sohel met the same tragic fate and has been living in the USA, more or less as a self exile M.P. of the party.
If one would go back to the 25th March 1971, Mujib not only refused to go underground with Tajuddin despite serious request by him to do so to lead the freedom movement but asked him the last man Tajuddin who left that night at about 11 P.M. to keep the 27th March Hartal enforced. He surrendered voluntarily to the federal army for probable two reasons, one, he was not any revolutionary believing in underground work, and two, he had prior understanding with Yahya as recently the octogenarian journalist Serajur Rahman had mentioned to size up the ‘hot headed’ few of the party and I also knew the same matter from a 1971 Malek Government Minister later on for him to be able to run Pakistan as the P.M. with ease and Yahya as the continuing President.

Mujib before his release from Pakistan custody on the 8th January 1972 promised to President Bhutto for a confederation of Bangladesh and Pakistan (See, Stanley Wolpert, Zulfi Bhutto of Pakistan, 1993, OUP, Delhi, P.175). On his chat at the London Claridges Hotel the same evening or early next morning he hinted at to the British Journalist Anthony Mascarenhas for the same confederation. On the 9th Morning he hinted at the same proposition to BBC journalist Serajur Rahman who disagreed with him as he wrote in a recent article.

On arriving Dhaka and addressing the huge gathering on the 10th January evening he, at one point, paused a question, ‘BHUTTO SAHEB BOLLEN AMADER EKTA SHAMPARKO THAKTE HOBE’- Bhutto told me that we should have a relation. He stopped for a moment. The audience shouted ‘NO NO’. He then continued, ‘NA BHUTTO SAHEB NA’- no Mr. Bhutto, no. Why did he mention the question there in the public meeting? Psychologists must inquire into depth about the intents and wishes of the speaker.

Shall I mention at the end about a curious issue not probed in depth so far. Mujib not only humiliated and punished Tajuddin in all forms, the prime architect of independence war of 1971, but also never cared to visit the capital of the 1971 Exile Government of Tajuddin Mujibnagar just about 300 KM north west of the capital in thee and half years of his stay in power! Why?

The facts mentioned in brief above, if studied in consonance of his past close association with Suhrawardy and the Calcutta days in 1940s there is every possibility to conclude that he had never wished to have secession, much less planned for independence of Bangladesh from the Pakistan framework. His joining in the OIC in Lahore in early 1974 despite Indira’s open displeasure may be a point additional in this issue for useful investigation.

Hasina has to deliberate dispassionately, if she has at all ability and mental power, on these points before labeling Mujib as the secessionist, not to speak of anything Mujib had done in declaring independence of Bangladesh at any time in 1971 in any form - verbal, signal or written. Or else, she would only be telling white lies projecting Mujib as well as a liar, her father she loves or pretends to love so much.

One may however argue that lying is nothing uncommon nature of politicians. For liars like Hasina as many renowned intellectuals like Badruddin Umar, Serajur Rahman, Emajuddin Ahmd, etc. have proved in various print media lately, the matter is very much usual as long as such falsehood suits her personal whims and ego for Machiavellian immoral power game and also of her mentors like intelligence organizations of India, the R&AW and of Israel, the MOSSAD.

May I end the item here just making a simple reference of Hasina’s sort of habitual white lying that the former Chief Justice and the Acting President Shahabuddin Ahmad, in a rejoinder to a harsh statement Hasina openly made terming that rather very soberly as ‘irresponsible remarks’ published under four column broad headline soon after her party’s defeat Hasina blamed on the Acting President in the 2001 October election, published on the 5th January 2002 in the Dhaka daily Independent that read in extended words, “Downright lies and baseless charges”.. The details are not important as the intelligent ones must grasp the essence from the headline.

Author: HB Khair

Sheikh Mujib’s March 7, 1971 Speech

On March 7, 1971, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman gave his 17-minute landmark speech at the Suhrawardy Uddyan where he said, among other things, “Ebarer sangram amader muktir sagram, ebarer sangram amader swadhinatar sangram…….(our struggle this time is for our emancipation, our fight this time is for our independence).”

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina said in a discussion on the day that her father did not make the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) on that day because it would have then been considered a ‘separationist’ move and the world would reject it. In a talk show Awami League (AL) stalwart Tofail Ahmed expounded similar philosophy, further adding that Sheikh Mujib used to tell him and others in private in those days, “You go ahead with your preparations for the independence war while I am playing a wait-and-see game with the Pakistani leaders.” Recalling the day, elderly journalist ABM Musa said on the same talk show that one could measure the depth of ocean but not the depth of wisdom and understanding of Bangabandhu. There perhaps were plenty such eulogy sessions on the occasion; I did not have the opportunity to read, hear or watch them all. Let us walk back the memory lane and study a little of the scenario prevailing at that time.

After Sheikh Mujib’s AL won victory in the December 1970 elections, it was expected that an East Pakistani leader would form the government in Islamabad. Bengalis of East Pakistan were looking forward for redemption of their sufferings and deprivation of the preceeding 24 years under West Pakistani rulers. However, that was not to be. The parliamentary session to be held in Dhaka on March 3, 1971 was cancelled on March 1, thanks to power hungry Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and a conniving military junta. AL immediately called an all out hartal (strike) in East Pakistan. A rally was called at Suhrawardy Uddyan on March 7. Student leaders and radical factions of the AL put pressure on Mujib to declare the UDI as East Pakistan could no longer stay united with Pakistan. In the AL parliamentary meeting on March 6, most members including Tajuddin Ahmed, the Secretary General of the party, demanded an immediate UDI, further warning that the Bengalis would have to pay a heavy price later otherwise. However, the final decision was left to Mujib. The general expectation was that Mujib would make the UDI on March 7. Accordingly, people in hundreds and thousands thronged at the Suhrawardy Uddyan next day with sticks in hand to symbolize the start of the war of independence.

According to “Wintness to Surrender” by Siddiq Salek, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman sent two emissaries around midnight on March 6 to Major General Khadem Hossain Raja, the General Officer Commanding in Dhaka, requesting to be taken to custody as he was finding difficulty to contain the party hardliners demanding an immediate UDI. General Raja dismissed the idea straightway. By arresting Mujib at that point of time, he did not want to make a martyr of him and open fresh floodgate of violence in East Pakistan. The same source also revealed that in the morning on March 7, Mujib had a telephone talk with the US Ambassador Joseph Farland who advised not to count on the US if Mujib did the much expected UDI.

At the Suhrawardy Uddyan, Mujib came in a hurry, delivered his 17-minute speech in which he made a 4-point demand and ended it with “Joy Bangla, Joy Pakistan.” He left the podium in equal haste, without answering questions from the press and leaving the audience utterly disappointed and in total confusion.

Tofail and many other Awami pundits theorized that if Mujib made the UDI on that day, Pakistanis would have killed lacs of people on the spot by air strafing. Such an attack was militarily untenable. With the available air capability in East Pakistan at that time, such wholesale air attack was impracticable and illigical. Limited or symbolic strafing could have caused some casualties but that loss would have been much fewer than what Pakistanis did on March 25. Besides, Pakistan would not dare to commit a Jalianwala Bagh type massacre in Dhaka on that day to signal the end of Pakistan then and there. They were not militarily strong enough to face the wrath of the Bengalis as a consequence. So the theory of air or ground attack on Bengalis following an UDI on March 7 does not hold good. The reality was that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was not willing to make an UDI, for whatever reasons. He had been fighting for the autonomy of East Pakistan on the basis of his 6 points and was working with the Pakistani junta to be the next Prime Minister of Pakistan.

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman with aides went on to negotiate with Pakistani leaders on March 15-24 to decide the future constitution and leadership of Pakistan. What about his declaration of “Ebarer sangram swadhinatar sangram……etc then?” According to Tofail, Mujib was playing a waiting game with the Pakistanis during those days. Are you kidding? How? By allowing the junta to amass military power in East Pakistan on a daily basis aimed at conducting an obvious genocide? Why did Mujib not demand the junta during talks for an immediate halt to militarizing East Pakistan? He was rather giving daily press briefings until March 25 that the talks were ‘fruitful.’ Is that the depth of Mujb’s political wisdom and understanding? Please visit the newspaper archives for details.

Sheikh Hasina said that Mujib was waiting for the right moment to declare the UDI. In other words, Sheikh Mujib waited for the Pakistanis to attack first so that he could sell his independence of Bangladesh to external world. It also implied that Mujib allowed Pakistanis to bring in enough troops and armaments to East Pakistan so that they made their killings and he could seek external assistance on those millions of dead. What a leader! What wisdom!

Author: Obaid Chowdhury
NY, USA

So When Are You Going To Make War On Israel, Mr. Brown?

There could not be a more graphic illustration of the double-standard that drives Western foreign policy and has prevented a resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict than Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s explanation to the Chilcot Inquiry on why he, when he was Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer and wrote the cheques for it, backed the war on Iraq.

He said, “It was the right decision for the right reasons.”

What were they?

Not 9/11 or the WMD assertions.

In an effort to distance himself from America’s neo-cons and their soul-mate in London, Prime Minister (at the time) Tony Blair, Brown said: “I never subscribed to what you might call the neo-conservative proposition, that somehow, at the barrel of a gun, overnight liberty or democracy could be conjured up. What I believed was that the case for intervention was that international law had to be observed.”

Putting some flesh on that bone, Brown said his view was that if the international community could not act together over Iraq, he feared that “the new world order we were trying to create would be put at risk.”

Meaning?

“Aggressor states that refuse to obey the laws of the international community” have to be confronted. Iraq was a “serial violator of the rules of the international community.”

There is, of course, some truth in that, but not nearly as much truth as in the statement that for 62 years the Zionist state of Israel has been, and continues to be, the biggest single violator of international law. No state on Planet Earth has been allowed to get away with defying UN resolutions for so long. And, I say, no state poses a bigger threat to the peace of the region and the world than Israel on its present course.

As I have previously written, the double-standard which allows Israel to behave as it likes with impunity was effectively put into place when the major powers, all of them, refused to condemn Israel as the aggressor in 1967 and demand that it withdraw from occupied territories without preconditions.

If Mr. Brown means what he says, and if by chance he remains prime minister after Britain’s imminent election, logic suggests that he will take the lead with President Obama in putting together a coalition to require Israel, by war if necessary, to comply with “the rules of the international community.”

Of course he won’t because logic, like truth and reality, has no place in politics, domestic or international.

Footnote:

A book by Karl Rove, once described as President “Dubya” Bush’s brains, is about to be published. The memoir is titled Courage and Consequence: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight. In it Rove says he doubts that Bush would have invaded Iraq and taken Britain into a disastrous war if he had known that intelligence on weapons of mass destruction was simply wrong. “The Bush administration itself would probably have sought other ways to constrain Saddam.”

If Rove is right (and is being something other than self-serving), what would Prime Minister Tony Blair’s position have been? He is firmly on the BBC’s record as saying that he probably would have moved ahead with removing Saddam Hussein from power even had he known that the narrative about weapons of mass destruction was fictional by finding different ways to justify it. As I have previously written, I never saw Blair as Bush’s puppet. I think he was and is a neo-con in spirit. And I think it’s more likely than not that he was firmly in the camp of those pressing Bush to go to war. So if Rove had done what he now seems to be saying he should have done – played a part of exposing the intelligence on WMD for the nonsense it was, Blair might not have got the war he and apparently Gordon Brown wanted.

Author: Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent.
Source: Web

India Challenges Pakistan, on New Turfs

Last week witnessed profound changes to the complex and delicate South Asian strategic calculus, which despite the diplomatic niceties being exchanged between the foreign secretaries of New Delhi and Islamabad, clearly reflect the alarming direction of Indian strategic ambitions and warrant a thoughtful and thorough review of Pakistan’s national security doctrine.

Firstly, in an unprecedented high-level effort to discover a common ground in Afghanistan with Saudi Arabia, Manmohan Singh paid a historic visit to Saudi Arabia and in return for isolating Pakistan in the hectic multi-lateral diplomatic efforts currently afoot, offered Riyadh large-scale Indian investment and oil contracts. Commenting audaciously on the first visit by an Indian prime minister to the Saudi Kingdom in 28 years, Shashi Tharoor, the Indian Minister of State for External affairs, publicly suggested that India should ask Saudi Arabia to pressurise Pakistan regarding its Afghan policy.

Secondly, despite both overt and covert US prodding, the recent foreign secretary level Indo-Pak talks yielded only an unequivocal Indian refusal to restart the stalled composite dialogue and were conspicuous by the absence of both desire and effort on either side to go beyond reiteration of their historical positions.

In addition, already the fourth largest military spender in the world, India raised its defence budget to an unprecedented level of 32 billion dollars, within a day of Pakistani Foreign Secretary’s criticism of Indian ambitious military modernisation programme as a threat to the stability of a ‘nuclearized South Asia’.

Whilst the Indian Foreign Secretary was entertaining the Pakistani delegation at the Hyderabad House, the Indian Air Force was busy conducting a massive firepower demonstration (FPD) ahead of the ‘Vayu Shakti-2010′ at the Chandan Air-to-Air Range at Pokhran in Rajasthan, only miles away from the Pak-India border. One wonders if the Indo-Pak peace talks are anything to go by, who are these large-scale military deployments and exercises, held so close to the Pakistani border, aimed at.

From the Pakistani perspective, a very interesting and significant component of these Indian Air Force exercises were the IAF’s Special Forces Para-drop operations, aimed at neutralising a terrorist camp inside enemy territory, watched by no less than 30 defence attaches of different countries, minus of course Pakistan and China. Other targets included mock radar sites, tanks, marshalling yards, terrorist camps, runways, infantry fighting vehicles, blast pens and convoys.

This high-tech exercise constitutes day and night operations of the IAF frontline fighters, such as the Su-30 MK1, Mirage-2000, Jaguar, Mig-29 and Mig-21; the transport aircraft include AN-32, Embraer and IL-76, while Mi-17 and Mi-35 attack helicopters represent the rotary wing ingredient. Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) is also deployed to monitor these exercises and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) provide a live stream of video images of the target identification, engagement and destruction.

During his recent Indian visit, the Pakistani foreign secretary wisely took the opportunity to warn India that “New war doctrines, a tremendous boost to defence spending and the induction of new sophisticated weapons systems, are prejudicial to regional security and stability.” However, the world also needs to realise that Indian defence policy and mammoth military spending, do not add up with peaceful objectives and betray the ambitions of a regional hegemony, which is determined to waste the wealth of its poor majority not on their welfare but towards browbeating its smaller neighbours. Meanwhile, New Delhi is also forging close strategic ties with Washington and Riyadh, two of Islamabad’s vital allies, apparently at Pakistan’s expense.

It seems that in the absence of a clear threat or provocation from any neighbouring state, Indian coercive diplomatic posturing, aggressive doctrinal orientation and large scale conventional and strategic military muscle flexing will force Pakistan to depart from its policy of ‘minimum credible deterrence’ towards developing a robust second strike capability, in the form of an elaborate triad of nuclear delivery systems, to foreclose all Indian conventional and strategic options. Moreover, Islamabad should use the forums of UN and SCO to consolidate its diplomatic position over Afghanistan. Pakistan desires a peaceful neighbourhood but if India understands only the language of power politics, then so be it. In the interest of regional peace and security, Pakistan must and will make it understand just that.

Author: Syed Muhammad Ali