Ref: http://www.mathaba.net/0_mail. shtml?x=620518
I was not aware of this video but am not too surprised with the content. Like many Libertarians Russo suspected conspiracy - pointing out serious flaws with the 9/11-industry of lies and deceptions, as he and others have put it. In this video however he was able to name Nicholas Rockefeller of the Rockefeller dynasty. Nick is a very powerful man who works behind the scene and is in advisory board of many think tanks like the CFR.
Here are some info about Russo from the internet:
Russo was born in Brooklyn in 1943 and raised in Long Island . He began promoting rock and roll shows at a local theater while still in high school and boosted the careers of some of the most successful rock acts of the 1960s, including Janis Joplin and The Grateful Dead. He was also manager of fusion band The Manhattan Transfer. Longtime movie producer and 2004 Libertarian presidential candidate Aaron Russo died at age 64, having succumbed to cancer in August of 2007.
The Hollywood veteran made his name with popular films such as "Trading Places," starring Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd, and Bette Midler's "The Rose." In later years, his interests and energies=2 0turned to political activism.
Russo joined the Libertarian Party after losing the Nevada GOP gubernatorial primary to Kenny Guinn in 1998. Russo picked up 26 percent of the vote in a four-way race and planned to run an independent campaign in 2002, but was forced to pull out to concentrate on overcoming bladder cancer, which, in 2003, he said he had done.
Russo came back in 2003, launching a bid for the presidency, first as an independent and later as a Libertarian. "I want to do what Ross Perot did, what Jesse Ventura did, and I want to come out and speak the truth – be plain-spoken, tell it like it is, and bring America back to its Constitution and Bill of Rights," Russo said in 2003.
Russo will be best remembered for “ America : Freedom to Fascism..” It is one dynamite documentary, in which Russo embarks on a “Roger & Me” search for the law – any law – that legitimatizes the U.S. government's ability to tax a working-man's wages. Haunting the halls of Congress, the Department of the Treasury, and the Federal Reserve, Aaron Russo found any legitimate requirement for Americans to pay tax on their wages as elusive as Michael Moore found former General Motors chairman Roger Smith to be. It was “somewhere,” but nobody could say where.
In the process he met any number of characters, from tax protesters to Libertarians (presidential candidate and Texas congressman Ron Paul, and Idaho's own Rep. Phil Hart are interviewed) to some gutsy former IRS agents proclaiming the whole U.S. income tax scheme a sham, a fraud. But nowhere, nowhere, could anybody cite an actual law that gave the United States government any claim on income from wages.
Monday, June 8, 2009
From Farakka to Tipaimukh – the Dams that Kill
In recent days, Bangladesh seems to have woken up to the danger posed by construction of the Tipaimukh Dam in the neighboring Manipur state of India. There are some in Bangladesh who have a habit of translating national issues of this kind into deplorable partisanship thereby fostering disunity when national unity is needed. In so doing they commit acts of treason.
In what follows before delving into the Tipaimukh project I would like to share some facts surrounding the Farakka Barrage. Although the construction of the Farakka Barrage was completed during the Mujib rule in 1974-5, the decision to build this dam can be traced back to 1951. In those days, hydroelectric dams were popular methods to generating electric power. India, Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan planned on building hundreds of hydropower dams from rivers that flowed down from the Himalayas. The Farakka dam was built to divert water from the Ganges River into the Hooghly River during the dry season (January to June), in order to flush out the accumulating silt which in the 1950s and 1960s was a problem at the major port of Kolkata on the Hooghly River. A series of negotiations between the Pakistani and Indian governments failed to persuade India into abandoning the Farakka project. The World Bank, the I.M.F and other international financial institutions financed the project. So, one wonders how could Sk. Mujib be blamed for the Farakka Barrage!
After Bangladesh’s independence the Indo-Bangladesh Joint Rivers Commission met over 90 times to discuss the Farakka Barrage issue, but without any results. The Bangladesh team was headed by Mr. B. M. Abbas. In April 1975, Bangladesh agreed to a trial operation of the Farakka Barrage for a period of 41 days from April 21 to May 31, 1975 to divert 11,000-16,000 cfs (cusecs) with the understanding that India will not operate feeder canal until a final agreement was reached between India and Bangladesh on the sharing of Ganges water. Bangladesh was assured of getting 40,000 cusecs during the dry season.
Unfortunately, soon after Sk. Mujib’s assassination in August 15, 1975, taking advantage of the political change in Bangladesh, India violated the agreement (MOU) by cheating and diverting the full capacity of 40,000 cusecs unilaterally. The matter was brought to the attention of U.N. General Assembly, which on November 26, 1976 adopted a consensus statement directing the parties to arrive at a fair and expeditious settlement. On November 5, 1977 the Ganges Waters Agreement was signed, assuring 34,500 cusecs for Bangladesh. The five-year treaty expired in 1982 and after several shorter extensions lapsed entirely in 1989. The JRC statistics shows very clearly that Bangladesh did not get her due share during all those years (1977-91). There was no improvement of the situation during the first Khaleda Zia Administration (1991-96) with average water share reduced to 10,000 to 12,000 cusecs, with one extreme event of only 9,000 cusecs, during the dry season.
After Sk. Hasina was elected Prime Minister, she visited India and signed a treaty with her counterpart Deve Gowda on Dec. 12, 1996. The Treaty addressed the heart of the conflict: water allocation (35,000 cusecs) during the five months of the dry season (January-May – see the Table below). During the rest of the year, there is sufficient water that India can operate the Farakka diversion without creating problems for Bangladesh. The treaty stipulated that below a certain flow rate, India and Bangladesh will each share half of the water. Above a certain limit, Bangladesh will be guaranteed a certain minimum level, and if the water flow exceeds a given limit, India will withdraw a given amount, and the balance will be received by Bangladesh (which will be more than 50%).
Period Average India's Share BD's Share
flow (cusecs) (cusecs)
1949-1988
(cusecs)
Jan
1-10 107,516 40,000 67,516
11-20 97,673 40,000 57,673
21-31 90,154 40,000 50,154
Feb
1-10 86,323 40,000 46,323
11-20 82,839 40,000 42,839
21-30 79,106 40,000 39,106
March
1-10 74,419 39,419 35,000
11-20 68,931 33,931 35,000
21-31 64,688 35,000 29,688
April
1-10 63,180 28,180 35,000
11-20 62,633 35,000 27,633
21-30 60,992 25,992 35,000
May
1-10 67,251 35,000 32,351
11-20 73,590 38,590 35,000
21-31 81,834 40,000 41,854
The statement of Mr. I.K. Gujral, External Affairs Minister in the Rajya Sabha on December 12, 1996 on the visit of Prime Minister of the People's Republic of Bangladesh to India and the signing of the treaty on the sharing of Ganges water at Farakka reads: “[D]uring the critical period within the lean season, i.e. from March 1 to May 10, India and Bangladesh each shall receive a guaranteed flow of 35,000 cusecs of water in an alternating sequence of three 10-day periods each. This is aimed at meeting the fundamental requirements of both our countries through a just and reasonable sharing of the burden of shortage. The Treaty also has the merit of being a long-term arrangement combined with scope for reviews at shorter intervals to study the impact of the sharing formula and to make needed adjustments. While the Treaty will be for 30 years and renewable on mutual consent, there is a provision of mandatory reviews at the end of 5 years and even earlier after 2 years with provisions for adjustments as required. Pending a fresh understanding after the review stage, Bangladesh would continue to receive 90% of its share in accordance with the new formula. We would thus avoid a situation where there is no agreement on the sharing of the Ganga waters between India and Bangladesh… As the House would recall, we have already taken initiatives in the commercial sphere by extending tariff concessions to Bangladesh on a range of products of export interest to them. We propose to extend commercial credits of Rs. 1 billion to enhance trade relations further.”
In the light of the above facts, it is difficult to sustain accusations that the 1996 Treaty went against the interest of Bangladesh, becoming a fait accompli. I have never heard an intelligent person say that a treaty signed with the aim of getting fair and equitable share is worse than not having one. Was the 1977-treaty silly, too? More outrageous is the implied assertion by some that the AL government that had ruled only five years in the post-Mujib era of 34 years is solely to be blamed for all the maladies facing Bangladesh today, including the Tipaimukh Dam, soon to be constructed by India.
It is true though that India had not kept her side of the bargain since signing of the treaty. The Joint River Commission (JRC) statistics, as quoted by Syful Islam in the New Nation, March 9, 2009, shows that in 1999 Bangladesh got 1,033 cusecs of water at Teesta barrage point against its normal requirements of 10,000 cusecs of water. After JRC meeting in 2000 the water flow rose to 4,530 cusecs, in January 2001 it reduced to 1406 cusecs, in January 2002 to 1,000 cusecs, in January 2003 to 1,100 cusecs, in November 2006 to 950 cusecs, in January 2007 to 525 cusecs and in January 2008 to 1,500 cusecs.
India’s behavior mimics those of Israel in dishonoring every treaty that the rogue state had signed with the Palestinian Authority. Should not she be ashamed of her iniquity?
Let’s now look at the disastrous effect of the Farakka Barrage on Bangladesh. The immediate effects have been (1) reduction in agricultural products due to insufficient water for irrigation; (2) reduction in aquatic population; (3) river transportation problems during dry season; (4) increased salinity threatening crops, animal life drinking water, and industrial activities in southwest Bangladesh. The long term effects, which are already being felt, include: (a) one fourth of the fertile agricultural land will become wasteland due to a shortage of water; (b) thirty million lives are affected through environmental and economical ruin; (c) an estimated annual economic loss of over half a billion dollars in agricultural, fisheries, navigation and industries; (d) frequent flooding due to environmental imbalance and changes in the natural flow of the Ganges. A BSS report of 2004 stated that over 80 rivers of the country dried up during last three decades due to the construction of the Farakka barrage on the Indian side of the river Ganges.
Bridge and Husain, researchers in Kansas, USA, have identified Farakka as the root cause behind arsenic poisoning with groundwater in Bangladesh and West Bengal State of India.
As to its impact in India, the South Asian Network on Dams, Rivers and People (SANDRP), report (Nov. 1999) to the World Commission on Dams is quite revealing. It says, “Farakka Barrage Project taken up for the resuscitation of the navigational status of the Port of Calcutta has resulted in massive devastation in Malda on its upstream and Murshidabad on its downstream in West Bengal. Huge sedimentation, increasing flood intensity and increasing tendency of bank failure are some of its impacts. Erosion has swept away large areas of these two districts causing large scale population displacement, border disputes with Bihar and Bangladesh, pauperization and marginalisation of the rural communities living by the river and creation of neo-refugees on the chars.”
So, it is clear that even the supposed beneficiary - the state of West Bengal - did not benefit from the project. Farakka Barrage has rightly been termed by some environmentalists as the greatest man-made eco-disaster of our time. If we had imagined Farakka was the last of such criminal calamities imposed on Bangladesh, we are wrong.
Syful Islam mentions about a study conducted by the “International Rivers”, a U.S.-based NGO that protects rivers and defends the rights of communities, which revealed that India had already built 74 dams, Nepal 15, Pakistan 6 and Bhutan 5 in the Himalayan region in the recent years. It also found that 37 Indian, 7 Pakistani and 2 Nepalese dams were under construction in that area. The study also identified that India had planned to build 318 dams, Nepal 37, Pakistan 35 and Bhutan 16 to add over 1,50,000 MW of additional electricity capacity in the next 20 years. With 4,300 large dams already constructed and many more in the pipeline, India is one of the world's most prolific dam-builders. India is committed to building more than 100 dams in eight states of the north-east corner alone.
If these numbers are true, it is important that the current government issues a white paper disclosing actions taken, if any, by past and present governments to stop India from such projects that are going to be built on international rivers harming Bangladesh.
Let’s now look at Tipaimukh. Manipur needs about 140 MW of power to fulfill the unrestricted demand at the peak hours (1700 hrs to 2200 hrs). The total availability of power from all the Central Sector plants located in Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland and Tripura comes to around 105 MW. The Tipaimukh Dam plan, built on the river Barak, which bifurcates into two streams as it enters Bangladesh as the rivers Surma and Kushiara, has been on the drawing board for nearly 40 years. According to the implementing agency, North Eastern Electric Power Corporation (NEEPCO), this 390-meter-long, 163-meterhigh dam would have an installed capacity of 1,500 MW. As a multipurpose project, the dam also aims at flood moderation, improving navigation, irrigation and aquaculture in the region. Efforts were made in the past to get the World Bank or JBIC (a Japanese development bank) to back the project, but their involvement is still elusive. It is costing India Rs. 6,800 crore — an escalation from the earlier estimated expenditure of Rs 5,163 crore. The foundation stone of the Tipaimukh project was laid by India’s Union minister for industries and Cachar’s representative in the Lok Sabha, Sontosh Mohan Dev, along with other central ministers, on December 16, 2006. According to a NEEPCO source there, the work in January of 2007 mainly dealt with underground drilling at the reservoir site of the project. The Brahmaputra Board, a wing of the Union water resources ministry, drilled those sites in 1997.
The proposed dam is unpopular in the Manipur State where it is being constructed. Experts there have rightly termed it a geo-tectonic blunder of international dimensions. The Indian government's decision to construct the Tipaimukh Dam in the North-east India is not only arrogant it is criminal to the core. It will have lasting devastating impact in the entire region. It will adversely affect millions of Bangladeshis living down south in the north-east corner of the country, weakening their means of livelihood, forcing them to become internally displaced people, and thereby worsening Bangladesh's overall economy. It will harm bilateral relationship between the two neighboring countries. Bangladeshi people have already suffered miserably from the Farakka Barrage and cannot afford to see another one built to threaten them.
Our experience in the past fifty years has also taught us that humanity has brought more harm than good by challenging the natural course of rivers. Man-made systems like hydroelectric dams have failed to wipe out famine and hunger. More people have become poor than rich, which often time is concentrated amongst the very few that are involved with construction project. As Arundhati Roy has once said about dams, “They're a guaranteed way of taking a farmer's wisdom away from him. They're a brazen means of taking water, land and irrigation away from the poor and gifting it to the rich. Their reservoirs displace huge populations of people, leaving them homeless and destitute. Ecologically, they're in the doghouse. They lay the earth to waste. They cause floods, water-logging, salinity, they spread disease. There is mounting evidence that links Big Dams to earthquakes.”
What really concerned me most is the stupidity of the Indian government decision to go ahead with hydroelectric dams to meet her electric demand. This decision seems too short-sighted, too irresponsible, and can only antagonize people on either sides of the border. If India cares about meeting energy needs in the north-eastern corner she would better serve the interest of her people by choosing the nuclear alternative. India has several nuclear power plants that are operating in various parts of India. It is inconceivable that she cannot afford to build one extra plant in the north-east corner of the country to meet her energy demand.
Again, I want to know: what did the previous administrations in Bangladesh do about this dam? How is the new government planning to deal with this issue? What can conscientious human beings of our planet do to stop India from building dams that kill people?
As hinted earlier, the very people targeted for drawing the benefits of the Tipaimukh dam living in the Manipur State had long been fighting a losing battle to stop this project. It is highly unlikely that demonstrations and protests inside Bangladesh would push India to abandon the project now, esp. after spending hundreds of crores of Rupees in front end loading (FEL) activities.
While we are critical of Indian government’s decision to construct dams that produce devastating results affecting tens of millions of people, we have to be self-critical of our own failure to bring world attention to the gargantuan harm that India’s Farakka has already brought upon Bangladesh. If we had succeeded in that endeavor, India today wouldn’t be building the Tipaimukh dam. Whether we like it or not, we must realize that self-interest rules the day. In our world, there are no permanent friends or enemies. We are continuously reminded that what is permanent is self-interest and that has to be pursued vigorously. That says a lot about moral bankruptcy of a world that we live in and share with our neighbors in which might is increasingly becoming right, and the powerless has no effective means to fight against powerful enemies and nations that prey upon them.
At this stage, what actions and programs are meaningful for Bangladesh? Can India be persuaded to abandon dam projects on international rivers in favor of alternative options for energy need? Given India’s long history of dishonoring her agreements on Farakka with Bangladesh, can she be trusted for keeping any new promise? Are the UN and/or the ICJ only options Bangladesh has to redress her grievances?
Ref:
http://www.cyberbangladesh.org/disaster.html
http://www.cyberbangladesh.org/disaster.html
http://rezwanul.blogspot.com/2007/04/farakka-lost-battle-for-bangladesh.html
http://www.geocities.com/athens/academy/5772/treaty.html
http://rezwanul.blogspot.com/2007/04/farakka-lost-battle-for-bangladesh.html
http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/Foreign_Policy/ganga.htm
http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2009/03/09/news0711.htm
http://www.cyberbangladesh.org/disaster.html
http://www.waterconserve.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=30378
http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/arsenic/references/Bridge+Husain.htm
http://www.sandrp.in/dams/impct_frka_wcd.pdf
http://www.sos-arsenic.net/english/groundwater/waterbattle.html
http://internationalrivers.org/en/south-asia/india
http://internationalrivers.org/files/WRR.V20.N2.pdf
http://www.e-pao.net/epSubPageExtractor.asp?src=news_section.opinions.Opinion_on_Building_of_Tipaimukh_Dam.Q_A_Tipaimukh_Hydro-electric_Project_1
http://www.sos-arsenic.net/english/groundwater/waterbattle.html
http://internationalrivers.org/files/WRR.V20.N2.pdf
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070102/asp/northeast/story_7208477.asp
http://www.kanglaonline.com/index.php?
template=kshow&kid=691
http://www.narmada.org/gcg/gcg.html
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf53.html
http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/india/nuclearpowerplants.htm
http://www.sos-arsenic.net/english/groundwater/respond.html; Barrister Harun ur Rashid, The Daily Star, January 05, 2005.
See this author’s article offering an alternative recommendation for India: http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/62938
In what follows before delving into the Tipaimukh project I would like to share some facts surrounding the Farakka Barrage. Although the construction of the Farakka Barrage was completed during the Mujib rule in 1974-5, the decision to build this dam can be traced back to 1951. In those days, hydroelectric dams were popular methods to generating electric power. India, Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan planned on building hundreds of hydropower dams from rivers that flowed down from the Himalayas. The Farakka dam was built to divert water from the Ganges River into the Hooghly River during the dry season (January to June), in order to flush out the accumulating silt which in the 1950s and 1960s was a problem at the major port of Kolkata on the Hooghly River. A series of negotiations between the Pakistani and Indian governments failed to persuade India into abandoning the Farakka project. The World Bank, the I.M.F and other international financial institutions financed the project. So, one wonders how could Sk. Mujib be blamed for the Farakka Barrage!
After Bangladesh’s independence the Indo-Bangladesh Joint Rivers Commission met over 90 times to discuss the Farakka Barrage issue, but without any results. The Bangladesh team was headed by Mr. B. M. Abbas. In April 1975, Bangladesh agreed to a trial operation of the Farakka Barrage for a period of 41 days from April 21 to May 31, 1975 to divert 11,000-16,000 cfs (cusecs) with the understanding that India will not operate feeder canal until a final agreement was reached between India and Bangladesh on the sharing of Ganges water. Bangladesh was assured of getting 40,000 cusecs during the dry season.
Unfortunately, soon after Sk. Mujib’s assassination in August 15, 1975, taking advantage of the political change in Bangladesh, India violated the agreement (MOU) by cheating and diverting the full capacity of 40,000 cusecs unilaterally. The matter was brought to the attention of U.N. General Assembly, which on November 26, 1976 adopted a consensus statement directing the parties to arrive at a fair and expeditious settlement. On November 5, 1977 the Ganges Waters Agreement was signed, assuring 34,500 cusecs for Bangladesh. The five-year treaty expired in 1982 and after several shorter extensions lapsed entirely in 1989. The JRC statistics shows very clearly that Bangladesh did not get her due share during all those years (1977-91). There was no improvement of the situation during the first Khaleda Zia Administration (1991-96) with average water share reduced to 10,000 to 12,000 cusecs, with one extreme event of only 9,000 cusecs, during the dry season.
After Sk. Hasina was elected Prime Minister, she visited India and signed a treaty with her counterpart Deve Gowda on Dec. 12, 1996. The Treaty addressed the heart of the conflict: water allocation (35,000 cusecs) during the five months of the dry season (January-May – see the Table below). During the rest of the year, there is sufficient water that India can operate the Farakka diversion without creating problems for Bangladesh. The treaty stipulated that below a certain flow rate, India and Bangladesh will each share half of the water. Above a certain limit, Bangladesh will be guaranteed a certain minimum level, and if the water flow exceeds a given limit, India will withdraw a given amount, and the balance will be received by Bangladesh (which will be more than 50%).
Period Average India's Share BD's Share
flow (cusecs) (cusecs)
1949-1988
(cusecs)
Jan
1-10 107,516 40,000 67,516
11-20 97,673 40,000 57,673
21-31 90,154 40,000 50,154
Feb
1-10 86,323 40,000 46,323
11-20 82,839 40,000 42,839
21-30 79,106 40,000 39,106
March
1-10 74,419 39,419 35,000
11-20 68,931 33,931 35,000
21-31 64,688 35,000 29,688
April
1-10 63,180 28,180 35,000
11-20 62,633 35,000 27,633
21-30 60,992 25,992 35,000
May
1-10 67,251 35,000 32,351
11-20 73,590 38,590 35,000
21-31 81,834 40,000 41,854
The statement of Mr. I.K. Gujral, External Affairs Minister in the Rajya Sabha on December 12, 1996 on the visit of Prime Minister of the People's Republic of Bangladesh to India and the signing of the treaty on the sharing of Ganges water at Farakka reads: “[D]uring the critical period within the lean season, i.e. from March 1 to May 10, India and Bangladesh each shall receive a guaranteed flow of 35,000 cusecs of water in an alternating sequence of three 10-day periods each. This is aimed at meeting the fundamental requirements of both our countries through a just and reasonable sharing of the burden of shortage. The Treaty also has the merit of being a long-term arrangement combined with scope for reviews at shorter intervals to study the impact of the sharing formula and to make needed adjustments. While the Treaty will be for 30 years and renewable on mutual consent, there is a provision of mandatory reviews at the end of 5 years and even earlier after 2 years with provisions for adjustments as required. Pending a fresh understanding after the review stage, Bangladesh would continue to receive 90% of its share in accordance with the new formula. We would thus avoid a situation where there is no agreement on the sharing of the Ganga waters between India and Bangladesh… As the House would recall, we have already taken initiatives in the commercial sphere by extending tariff concessions to Bangladesh on a range of products of export interest to them. We propose to extend commercial credits of Rs. 1 billion to enhance trade relations further.”
In the light of the above facts, it is difficult to sustain accusations that the 1996 Treaty went against the interest of Bangladesh, becoming a fait accompli. I have never heard an intelligent person say that a treaty signed with the aim of getting fair and equitable share is worse than not having one. Was the 1977-treaty silly, too? More outrageous is the implied assertion by some that the AL government that had ruled only five years in the post-Mujib era of 34 years is solely to be blamed for all the maladies facing Bangladesh today, including the Tipaimukh Dam, soon to be constructed by India.
It is true though that India had not kept her side of the bargain since signing of the treaty. The Joint River Commission (JRC) statistics, as quoted by Syful Islam in the New Nation, March 9, 2009, shows that in 1999 Bangladesh got 1,033 cusecs of water at Teesta barrage point against its normal requirements of 10,000 cusecs of water. After JRC meeting in 2000 the water flow rose to 4,530 cusecs, in January 2001 it reduced to 1406 cusecs, in January 2002 to 1,000 cusecs, in January 2003 to 1,100 cusecs, in November 2006 to 950 cusecs, in January 2007 to 525 cusecs and in January 2008 to 1,500 cusecs.
India’s behavior mimics those of Israel in dishonoring every treaty that the rogue state had signed with the Palestinian Authority. Should not she be ashamed of her iniquity?
Let’s now look at the disastrous effect of the Farakka Barrage on Bangladesh. The immediate effects have been (1) reduction in agricultural products due to insufficient water for irrigation; (2) reduction in aquatic population; (3) river transportation problems during dry season; (4) increased salinity threatening crops, animal life drinking water, and industrial activities in southwest Bangladesh. The long term effects, which are already being felt, include: (a) one fourth of the fertile agricultural land will become wasteland due to a shortage of water; (b) thirty million lives are affected through environmental and economical ruin; (c) an estimated annual economic loss of over half a billion dollars in agricultural, fisheries, navigation and industries; (d) frequent flooding due to environmental imbalance and changes in the natural flow of the Ganges. A BSS report of 2004 stated that over 80 rivers of the country dried up during last three decades due to the construction of the Farakka barrage on the Indian side of the river Ganges.
Bridge and Husain, researchers in Kansas, USA, have identified Farakka as the root cause behind arsenic poisoning with groundwater in Bangladesh and West Bengal State of India.
As to its impact in India, the South Asian Network on Dams, Rivers and People (SANDRP), report (Nov. 1999) to the World Commission on Dams is quite revealing. It says, “Farakka Barrage Project taken up for the resuscitation of the navigational status of the Port of Calcutta has resulted in massive devastation in Malda on its upstream and Murshidabad on its downstream in West Bengal. Huge sedimentation, increasing flood intensity and increasing tendency of bank failure are some of its impacts. Erosion has swept away large areas of these two districts causing large scale population displacement, border disputes with Bihar and Bangladesh, pauperization and marginalisation of the rural communities living by the river and creation of neo-refugees on the chars.”
So, it is clear that even the supposed beneficiary - the state of West Bengal - did not benefit from the project. Farakka Barrage has rightly been termed by some environmentalists as the greatest man-made eco-disaster of our time. If we had imagined Farakka was the last of such criminal calamities imposed on Bangladesh, we are wrong.
Syful Islam mentions about a study conducted by the “International Rivers”, a U.S.-based NGO that protects rivers and defends the rights of communities, which revealed that India had already built 74 dams, Nepal 15, Pakistan 6 and Bhutan 5 in the Himalayan region in the recent years. It also found that 37 Indian, 7 Pakistani and 2 Nepalese dams were under construction in that area. The study also identified that India had planned to build 318 dams, Nepal 37, Pakistan 35 and Bhutan 16 to add over 1,50,000 MW of additional electricity capacity in the next 20 years. With 4,300 large dams already constructed and many more in the pipeline, India is one of the world's most prolific dam-builders. India is committed to building more than 100 dams in eight states of the north-east corner alone.
If these numbers are true, it is important that the current government issues a white paper disclosing actions taken, if any, by past and present governments to stop India from such projects that are going to be built on international rivers harming Bangladesh.
Let’s now look at Tipaimukh. Manipur needs about 140 MW of power to fulfill the unrestricted demand at the peak hours (1700 hrs to 2200 hrs). The total availability of power from all the Central Sector plants located in Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland and Tripura comes to around 105 MW. The Tipaimukh Dam plan, built on the river Barak, which bifurcates into two streams as it enters Bangladesh as the rivers Surma and Kushiara, has been on the drawing board for nearly 40 years. According to the implementing agency, North Eastern Electric Power Corporation (NEEPCO), this 390-meter-long, 163-meterhigh dam would have an installed capacity of 1,500 MW. As a multipurpose project, the dam also aims at flood moderation, improving navigation, irrigation and aquaculture in the region. Efforts were made in the past to get the World Bank or JBIC (a Japanese development bank) to back the project, but their involvement is still elusive. It is costing India Rs. 6,800 crore — an escalation from the earlier estimated expenditure of Rs 5,163 crore. The foundation stone of the Tipaimukh project was laid by India’s Union minister for industries and Cachar’s representative in the Lok Sabha, Sontosh Mohan Dev, along with other central ministers, on December 16, 2006. According to a NEEPCO source there, the work in January of 2007 mainly dealt with underground drilling at the reservoir site of the project. The Brahmaputra Board, a wing of the Union water resources ministry, drilled those sites in 1997.
The proposed dam is unpopular in the Manipur State where it is being constructed. Experts there have rightly termed it a geo-tectonic blunder of international dimensions. The Indian government's decision to construct the Tipaimukh Dam in the North-east India is not only arrogant it is criminal to the core. It will have lasting devastating impact in the entire region. It will adversely affect millions of Bangladeshis living down south in the north-east corner of the country, weakening their means of livelihood, forcing them to become internally displaced people, and thereby worsening Bangladesh's overall economy. It will harm bilateral relationship between the two neighboring countries. Bangladeshi people have already suffered miserably from the Farakka Barrage and cannot afford to see another one built to threaten them.
Our experience in the past fifty years has also taught us that humanity has brought more harm than good by challenging the natural course of rivers. Man-made systems like hydroelectric dams have failed to wipe out famine and hunger. More people have become poor than rich, which often time is concentrated amongst the very few that are involved with construction project. As Arundhati Roy has once said about dams, “They're a guaranteed way of taking a farmer's wisdom away from him. They're a brazen means of taking water, land and irrigation away from the poor and gifting it to the rich. Their reservoirs displace huge populations of people, leaving them homeless and destitute. Ecologically, they're in the doghouse. They lay the earth to waste. They cause floods, water-logging, salinity, they spread disease. There is mounting evidence that links Big Dams to earthquakes.”
What really concerned me most is the stupidity of the Indian government decision to go ahead with hydroelectric dams to meet her electric demand. This decision seems too short-sighted, too irresponsible, and can only antagonize people on either sides of the border. If India cares about meeting energy needs in the north-eastern corner she would better serve the interest of her people by choosing the nuclear alternative. India has several nuclear power plants that are operating in various parts of India. It is inconceivable that she cannot afford to build one extra plant in the north-east corner of the country to meet her energy demand.
Again, I want to know: what did the previous administrations in Bangladesh do about this dam? How is the new government planning to deal with this issue? What can conscientious human beings of our planet do to stop India from building dams that kill people?
As hinted earlier, the very people targeted for drawing the benefits of the Tipaimukh dam living in the Manipur State had long been fighting a losing battle to stop this project. It is highly unlikely that demonstrations and protests inside Bangladesh would push India to abandon the project now, esp. after spending hundreds of crores of Rupees in front end loading (FEL) activities.
While we are critical of Indian government’s decision to construct dams that produce devastating results affecting tens of millions of people, we have to be self-critical of our own failure to bring world attention to the gargantuan harm that India’s Farakka has already brought upon Bangladesh. If we had succeeded in that endeavor, India today wouldn’t be building the Tipaimukh dam. Whether we like it or not, we must realize that self-interest rules the day. In our world, there are no permanent friends or enemies. We are continuously reminded that what is permanent is self-interest and that has to be pursued vigorously. That says a lot about moral bankruptcy of a world that we live in and share with our neighbors in which might is increasingly becoming right, and the powerless has no effective means to fight against powerful enemies and nations that prey upon them.
At this stage, what actions and programs are meaningful for Bangladesh? Can India be persuaded to abandon dam projects on international rivers in favor of alternative options for energy need? Given India’s long history of dishonoring her agreements on Farakka with Bangladesh, can she be trusted for keeping any new promise? Are the UN and/or the ICJ only options Bangladesh has to redress her grievances?
Ref:
http://www.cyberbangladesh.org/disaster.html
http://www.cyberbangladesh.org/disaster.html
http://rezwanul.blogspot.com/2007/04/farakka-lost-battle-for-bangladesh.html
http://www.geocities.com/athens/academy/5772/treaty.html
http://rezwanul.blogspot.com/2007/04/farakka-lost-battle-for-bangladesh.html
http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/Foreign_Policy/ganga.htm
http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2009/03/09/news0711.htm
http://www.cyberbangladesh.org/disaster.html
http://www.waterconserve.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=30378
http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/arsenic/references/Bridge+Husain.htm
http://www.sandrp.in/dams/impct_frka_wcd.pdf
http://www.sos-arsenic.net/english/groundwater/waterbattle.html
http://internationalrivers.org/en/south-asia/india
http://internationalrivers.org/files/WRR.V20.N2.pdf
http://www.e-pao.net/epSubPageExtractor.asp?src=news_section.opinions.Opinion_on_Building_of_Tipaimukh_Dam.Q_A_Tipaimukh_Hydro-electric_Project_1
http://www.sos-arsenic.net/english/groundwater/waterbattle.html
http://internationalrivers.org/files/WRR.V20.N2.pdf
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070102/asp/northeast/story_7208477.asp
http://www.kanglaonline.com/index.php?
template=kshow&kid=691
http://www.narmada.org/gcg/gcg.html
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf53.html
http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/india/nuclearpowerplants.htm
http://www.sos-arsenic.net/english/groundwater/respond.html; Barrister Harun ur Rashid, The Daily Star, January 05, 2005.
See this author’s article offering an alternative recommendation for India: http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/62938
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Indian Government’s intention to construct the Tipaimukh Dam is criminal
Anyone who has visited a hydroelectric power facility knows that there is tremendous ecological impact felt on either side of the dam. One side gets flooded while the other side only sees trickling water flowing downstream, unless sluice gates are opened periodically to release and control water flow. If the flow of water is managed solely by a hostile government such can create a devastating effect on the surrounding territories, especially those living in the downstream of the river. Such a unilateral decision to construct a dam is criminal when the river is international with its water flowing through multiple countries, i.e., not limited to the country of origin.
In the 1940s and '50s many hydroelectric dams were built in the western world to produce cheap electricity. However, with time many developed countries have abandoned the process altogether and moved into more safer and environment-friendly alternatives. Nuclear technology has become one such alternative to address growing energy demand.
Unfortunately, as with almost any new technology these days, the western world has a monopoly in the nuclear technology also. Thus, while these countries know about the devastating effect of fossil fuels to our atmosphere and the grave ecological impact of hydroelectric power generation plants, they are not willing to transfer the much-needed environment-friendly nuclear technology to technologically weaker countries. Not only that as we have seen even when a developing country like Iran likes to pursue this technology to meet its growing energy needs, let alone ensuring a cleaner atmosphere, they are barred entry into the caste-ridden nuclear club. [See this author's article on "Letter from America - Obama, Israel and Iran" or "Will Obama Capitulate to Netanyahu" - for a discussion on why the USA, in particular, is against Iran's pursuit of nuclear energy.]
Suspicion runs so deep among these paranoid nuclear-Brahmins that they think that one day the untouchable nomo-Sudras will take revenge upon them, let alone demand the same Brahmin status. And this they can't allow by hook or crook. As a result of this tug of war, there has not been much progress to either technology transfer or lowering of the green-house effect. Consequently, more vulnerable countries like Bangladesh are forced to deal with devastating effect of global climate change. To these low lying countries, natural calamites like the Sidr and the Aila are now becoming regular yearly features to deal with! Experts tell us that by the middle of this century, Bangladesh will have 30 million people that will be uprooted from their homes in the coastal areas requiring relocation elsewhere. They will add to the misery of the country.
In the last several years, populous countries like India and China that have already joined the nuclear club, and yet feel that they are looked down as the nomo-Sudras by the traditional blue-eyed, white nuclear-Brahmins, have tried to extract some advantage in the form of technology transfer by promising reduction in carbon emission; but not always successfully. And as far as the real untouchables are concerned - countries that have failed to join the nuclear-club yet - there is not much that they can bargain for. They are simply ignored. And worse yet, their worst nightmares are the former nomo-Sudras like India.
Indian government's desire to construct the Tipaimukh Dam in the North-east India is not only arrogant it is criminal to the core. It will have lasting devastating impact in the entire region. It will adversely affect millions of Bangladeshis living down south in the north-east corner of the country, weakening their means of livelihood, forcing them to become internally displaced people, and thereby worsening Bangladesh's overall economy. It will harm bilateral relationship between the two neighboring countries. Bangladeshi people have already suffered miserably from the Farrakah Barrage and cannot afford to see another one built to threaten them. The proposed dam is also unpopular in the Manipur State where it is being constructed. Experts there have rightly termed it a geo-tectonic blunder of international dimensions.
The Indian government decision seems too short-sighted and can only antagonize people on either sides of the border. If India cares about meeting energy needs in the north-eastern corner she would better serve the interest of her people by choosing the nuclear alternative.
India has several nuclear power plants that are operating in various parts of India. It is inconceivable that she cannot afford to build one extra plant in the north-east corner of the country to meet her energy demand.
References:
Ref: http://www.newagebd.com/2009/jun/04/nat.html
http://www.kanglaonline.com/index.php?template=kshow&kid=691
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf53.html; http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/india/nuclearpowerplants.htm
In the 1940s and '50s many hydroelectric dams were built in the western world to produce cheap electricity. However, with time many developed countries have abandoned the process altogether and moved into more safer and environment-friendly alternatives. Nuclear technology has become one such alternative to address growing energy demand.
Unfortunately, as with almost any new technology these days, the western world has a monopoly in the nuclear technology also. Thus, while these countries know about the devastating effect of fossil fuels to our atmosphere and the grave ecological impact of hydroelectric power generation plants, they are not willing to transfer the much-needed environment-friendly nuclear technology to technologically weaker countries. Not only that as we have seen even when a developing country like Iran likes to pursue this technology to meet its growing energy needs, let alone ensuring a cleaner atmosphere, they are barred entry into the caste-ridden nuclear club. [See this author's article on "Letter from America - Obama, Israel and Iran" or "Will Obama Capitulate to Netanyahu" - for a discussion on why the USA, in particular, is against Iran's pursuit of nuclear energy.]
Suspicion runs so deep among these paranoid nuclear-Brahmins that they think that one day the untouchable nomo-Sudras will take revenge upon them, let alone demand the same Brahmin status. And this they can't allow by hook or crook. As a result of this tug of war, there has not been much progress to either technology transfer or lowering of the green-house effect. Consequently, more vulnerable countries like Bangladesh are forced to deal with devastating effect of global climate change. To these low lying countries, natural calamites like the Sidr and the Aila are now becoming regular yearly features to deal with! Experts tell us that by the middle of this century, Bangladesh will have 30 million people that will be uprooted from their homes in the coastal areas requiring relocation elsewhere. They will add to the misery of the country.
In the last several years, populous countries like India and China that have already joined the nuclear club, and yet feel that they are looked down as the nomo-Sudras by the traditional blue-eyed, white nuclear-Brahmins, have tried to extract some advantage in the form of technology transfer by promising reduction in carbon emission; but not always successfully. And as far as the real untouchables are concerned - countries that have failed to join the nuclear-club yet - there is not much that they can bargain for. They are simply ignored. And worse yet, their worst nightmares are the former nomo-Sudras like India.
Indian government's desire to construct the Tipaimukh Dam in the North-east India is not only arrogant it is criminal to the core. It will have lasting devastating impact in the entire region. It will adversely affect millions of Bangladeshis living down south in the north-east corner of the country, weakening their means of livelihood, forcing them to become internally displaced people, and thereby worsening Bangladesh's overall economy. It will harm bilateral relationship between the two neighboring countries. Bangladeshi people have already suffered miserably from the Farrakah Barrage and cannot afford to see another one built to threaten them. The proposed dam is also unpopular in the Manipur State where it is being constructed. Experts there have rightly termed it a geo-tectonic blunder of international dimensions.
The Indian government decision seems too short-sighted and can only antagonize people on either sides of the border. If India cares about meeting energy needs in the north-eastern corner she would better serve the interest of her people by choosing the nuclear alternative.
India has several nuclear power plants that are operating in various parts of India. It is inconceivable that she cannot afford to build one extra plant in the north-east corner of the country to meet her energy demand.
References:
Ref: http://www.newagebd.com/2009/jun/04/nat.html
http://www.kanglaonline.com/index.php?template=kshow&kid=691
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf53.html; http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/india/nuclearpowerplants.htm
Crime and Policing in Bangladesh - Comments on Swiss Ambassador's Concern
Ref: http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=91134
Crimes are on the rise everywhere and not just limited to the cities in Bangladesh. On June 4, the Mirror of UK reported how two Brits - Nigel Farmer and and Dano Sonnex had knifed two French students Laurent Bonomo and Gabriel Ferez at least 244 times during an horrific three-hour torture ordeal last June. Here in my backyard in Philadelphia on an average some 500 people are murdered every year by criminals. And as to mugging, the Swiss diplomat ought to visit any U.S. big city downtown area to get a flavor of that crime, especially after the sunset. Theft is also quite common. Just last week, daughter of my in-law lost her new bike which was stolen from her front yard in a secured complex in a well-affluent part of West Chester, Pennsylvania. While living in Los Angeles, I also lost two cars and a bike. A comparative study would show that there is less crime in Bangladesh compared to most western countries.
Having said that these observations do not absolve the government in Bangladesh in its failure to fight crime effectively. It ought to do everything that is in its capacity to stop crime of any sort ensuring safety and security of everyone from ordinary citizens to our guest diplomats and their family members. The police force is too small and paid too little, which encourages corruption. Interestingly though, it is less corrupt than our civil administration. For this, the credit goes to the top cadre of the Police Administration setting personal examples of honesty. For example, the current IGP - Mr. Nur Mohammad is a person of untarnished image and integrity that every Bangladeshi can feel proud of. There are many honest officers within the Police force that have never taken bribe.
In the USA, for every 10,000 citizens, there are 38 police staffs. The comparable number in Bangladesh is only 8.5. On a per capita basis, Bangladesh spends only Tk. 115 - a very small fraction on policing compared to any western country (the comparable figure in the USA is $385). The Bangladesh Police force is poorly trained and ill-equipped to combat crimes of the 21st century. It suffers from serious budgetary constraints; the working condition is simply miserable. Because of the century-old tradition the force is vulnerable to political pressure and have been exploited in the past by some government administrations as political weapon to violate human rights.
In the past some retired police officers have made suggestions for an overhaul of the entire police administration requiring administrative and legal reforms plus introduction of community policing. Unfortunately, the previous administrations paid little attention to such recommendations. The civil bureaucracy have always worked against desired reform of the Bangladesh Police Force. And this must change for greater good of our people. The non-police civilian staff are also highly corrupt that won't, e.g., pay off the necessary voucher or travel allowance of an on-duty police officer unless bribed. Because of its adherence to antiquated Police Act, the Bangladesh Police Force is constrained on several grounds, e.g., to be operationally neutral, organizationally autonomous, functionally specialized, institutionally accountable and socially service-oriented.
In his M.Sc. dissertation on Criminal Justice and Police Management, submitted to the Department of Criminology, University of Leicester, UK, in 2008, SP Mohammad Abdullahel Baki has thoroughly covered a plethora of problems facing Bangladesh Police and offered practical solutions for improvement. The Home Ministry of Bangladesh Government may do well to carry out the recommendations made therein to improve the health of security in the country.
Useful Ref: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/06/04/inside-the-horror-flat-where-two-french-students-were-tortured-and-murdered-115875-21415137/
Crimes are on the rise everywhere and not just limited to the cities in Bangladesh. On June 4, the Mirror of UK reported how two Brits - Nigel Farmer and and Dano Sonnex had knifed two French students Laurent Bonomo and Gabriel Ferez at least 244 times during an horrific three-hour torture ordeal last June. Here in my backyard in Philadelphia on an average some 500 people are murdered every year by criminals. And as to mugging, the Swiss diplomat ought to visit any U.S. big city downtown area to get a flavor of that crime, especially after the sunset. Theft is also quite common. Just last week, daughter of my in-law lost her new bike which was stolen from her front yard in a secured complex in a well-affluent part of West Chester, Pennsylvania. While living in Los Angeles, I also lost two cars and a bike. A comparative study would show that there is less crime in Bangladesh compared to most western countries.
Having said that these observations do not absolve the government in Bangladesh in its failure to fight crime effectively. It ought to do everything that is in its capacity to stop crime of any sort ensuring safety and security of everyone from ordinary citizens to our guest diplomats and their family members. The police force is too small and paid too little, which encourages corruption. Interestingly though, it is less corrupt than our civil administration. For this, the credit goes to the top cadre of the Police Administration setting personal examples of honesty. For example, the current IGP - Mr. Nur Mohammad is a person of untarnished image and integrity that every Bangladeshi can feel proud of. There are many honest officers within the Police force that have never taken bribe.
In the USA, for every 10,000 citizens, there are 38 police staffs. The comparable number in Bangladesh is only 8.5. On a per capita basis, Bangladesh spends only Tk. 115 - a very small fraction on policing compared to any western country (the comparable figure in the USA is $385). The Bangladesh Police force is poorly trained and ill-equipped to combat crimes of the 21st century. It suffers from serious budgetary constraints; the working condition is simply miserable. Because of the century-old tradition the force is vulnerable to political pressure and have been exploited in the past by some government administrations as political weapon to violate human rights.
In the past some retired police officers have made suggestions for an overhaul of the entire police administration requiring administrative and legal reforms plus introduction of community policing. Unfortunately, the previous administrations paid little attention to such recommendations. The civil bureaucracy have always worked against desired reform of the Bangladesh Police Force. And this must change for greater good of our people. The non-police civilian staff are also highly corrupt that won't, e.g., pay off the necessary voucher or travel allowance of an on-duty police officer unless bribed. Because of its adherence to antiquated Police Act, the Bangladesh Police Force is constrained on several grounds, e.g., to be operationally neutral, organizationally autonomous, functionally specialized, institutionally accountable and socially service-oriented.
In his M.Sc. dissertation on Criminal Justice and Police Management, submitted to the Department of Criminology, University of Leicester, UK, in 2008, SP Mohammad Abdullahel Baki has thoroughly covered a plethora of problems facing Bangladesh Police and offered practical solutions for improvement. The Home Ministry of Bangladesh Government may do well to carry out the recommendations made therein to improve the health of security in the country.
Useful Ref: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/06/04/inside-the-horror-flat-where-two-french-students-were-tortured-and-murdered-115875-21415137/
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
More on so-called Peelkhana Government Inquiry Report
Ref: http://www.newsfrombangladesh.net/view.php?hidRecord=267125
[Interestingly, the above write-up from Ms. Ranu Chowdhury (from San Jose, CA) in the NFB is a carbon copy of a letter posted earlier in the bd-mailer by Mr. A. O. Chowdhury (from NY). The response below is for the original post by Mr. Chowdhury in the bd-mailer.]
It is good to hear the views of Mr. A.O. Chowdhury on the so-called inquiry document, which was only 50-page long and not some 300 pages that was reportedly submitted by Mr. Anisuzzaman Khan. I am intrigued by Mr. Chowdhury's statement that "a subaltern of the military could perhaps produce a better and more objective one [report]." The jury is out on such bloated claims of military officers against civilian bureaucrats!
As we all know the BDR-inquiry took much longer than originally anticipated, some underlying reasons are even stated within the body of the text. Being a 9/11-like episode in Bangladesh there was no shortage of analysis and speculations - for and against from all quarters, including all-knowing caricatures like Sunita Paul. So, I am not surprised to learn from Mr. Chowdhury that he had not learned anything new. If he was looking for a smoking gun, obviously, he was disappointed. If BNP die-hards were looking for RAW-involvement, the report failed to please them. If an AL die-hard (including minister Col. Faruq) was looking for involvement of the ISI and Islamic militants, the report is a slap to its wishes. The report had failed to find the real culprits who had planned the tragedy. Hopefully, with the arrest of some politicians that had helped the rebels to flee, one day we shall know that part of the missing truth. Let's keep our fingers crossed on that! [But again, knowing the polarized environment we live in, I won't be surprised if such a truth will be dumped as a tampered one when it goes against one's whims and desires!]
Mr. Chowdhury accuses that a "controversial" person by the name of Mr. A.K. Akhand, a retd. CID officer, was chosen by the Home Ministry to derail the inquiry. Sadly, I am yet to find a single government official who can escape from such branding. Akhand's activities were to be overseen by Mr. Abdullahel Baki, Special SP, Special Branch, Police HQ. Baki is a very intelligent officer, known for good problem-solving skills, with an engineering degree from the BUET. He had served in international peace-keeping missions in the 1990s. He submitted his M.Sc. dissertation on criminal justice and police management at the University of Leichester, UK last year. Like many who had known him, I was very happy to see that he would supervise the inquiry of Mr. Akhand, the retired Police officer. He had all the skills required for an honest, fact-finding inquiry into the BDR carnage.
Unfortunately, within days of Baki's appointment, some Bengali newspapers started printing that he was a "controversial" officer since he was in Chittagong, serving as the DC-North, when the arms-haul took place in 2004. He allegedly had protected the government interest by letting the arms-smugglers hide! It is difficult to imagine that he had done anything illegal other than follow orders from the chain of command that might have reached all the way up to the BNP-run Home Ministry. However, that issue became such a hot topic that almost all the newspapers started saying that if Baki was kept in the BDR inquiry, the truth on the criminals responsible for the crime and mutiny might be compromised.
Interestingly, according to newspapers reports, such information on Baki's alleged involvement on the Arms-haul case was leaked out by some "un-named" sources within the CID. Was it professional jealousy or nasty partisan politics to victimize someone because he had served under the BNP-government in the port area of Chittagong when the arms-haul took place? Subsequently, Mr. Baki was replaced by Mr. Arif to oversee the inquiry. I can only pray and hope that the latter is as capable as Mr. Baki.
Having known Mr. Baki personally, I was very disappointed with the announcement. I strongly feel that if the media were more discriminating against printing views from unknown sources we could have been spared of this fuss with "controversial" character, and our country would have been better served by the superior skills of an experienced, investigative and neutral officer. Mr. Baki was even painted as a partisan officer who had benefited from the BNP rule, while he did not. I remember when the goons of BNP had started treating Bangladesh as their father's properties through their monumental abuse of power, and unfathomed crime and corruption (making Bangladesh a laughing stock of the entire world for its unenviable corruption ranking), Baki had the guts to stand out against BNP political Dons like Salauddin Q. Chowdhury in some land-grabbing cases in Chittagong. For his boldness to fight crime and rescue victims, he was promptly transferred in 2005 to Mymensingh. And not only that, he was sued by the same land-grabbing syndicate of SaQa on false charges that in his recommendation for police action against the land-grabbing syndicate he had crossed or over-exercised his normal line of duty. And yet, thanks to the print media, this same person, was painted as a "controversial" person in February of 2009, when he was appointed by the AL Home Ministry. Was there a conspiracy to remove him from overseeing Akhand's inquiry? Interestingly, the same media that had ensured his replacement now cries foul with the inquiry findings! Blame if you do and blame if you don't!
I am sure with a highly nasty partisan outlook we have in all matters Bangladeshi, we shall not see any reduction of this line of accusation of who is "controversial". I am, therefore, not too surprised that some BNP partisans are now all agog to find faults with the inquiry report of Anisuzzaman, and all others ones by various government agencies. In our political culture, unless something is to their exact liking, our spin masters will continue to muddy the water of the Bay of Bengal to find the rare fish even when it is not there!
Having said that I am not oblivious of the fact that Bangladesh deserves better and can do a better job if we put our heads together, shun narrow partisanship and do things in a civilized, matured way. Will that day ever come for Bangladesh?
Regards,
Habib Siddiqui
[Interestingly, the above write-up from Ms. Ranu Chowdhury (from San Jose, CA) in the NFB is a carbon copy of a letter posted earlier in the bd-mailer by Mr. A. O. Chowdhury (from NY). The response below is for the original post by Mr. Chowdhury in the bd-mailer.]
It is good to hear the views of Mr. A.O. Chowdhury on the so-called inquiry document, which was only 50-page long and not some 300 pages that was reportedly submitted by Mr. Anisuzzaman Khan. I am intrigued by Mr. Chowdhury's statement that "a subaltern of the military could perhaps produce a better and more objective one [report]." The jury is out on such bloated claims of military officers against civilian bureaucrats!
As we all know the BDR-inquiry took much longer than originally anticipated, some underlying reasons are even stated within the body of the text. Being a 9/11-like episode in Bangladesh there was no shortage of analysis and speculations - for and against from all quarters, including all-knowing caricatures like Sunita Paul. So, I am not surprised to learn from Mr. Chowdhury that he had not learned anything new. If he was looking for a smoking gun, obviously, he was disappointed. If BNP die-hards were looking for RAW-involvement, the report failed to please them. If an AL die-hard (including minister Col. Faruq) was looking for involvement of the ISI and Islamic militants, the report is a slap to its wishes. The report had failed to find the real culprits who had planned the tragedy. Hopefully, with the arrest of some politicians that had helped the rebels to flee, one day we shall know that part of the missing truth. Let's keep our fingers crossed on that! [But again, knowing the polarized environment we live in, I won't be surprised if such a truth will be dumped as a tampered one when it goes against one's whims and desires!]
Mr. Chowdhury accuses that a "controversial" person by the name of Mr. A.K. Akhand, a retd. CID officer, was chosen by the Home Ministry to derail the inquiry. Sadly, I am yet to find a single government official who can escape from such branding. Akhand's activities were to be overseen by Mr. Abdullahel Baki, Special SP, Special Branch, Police HQ. Baki is a very intelligent officer, known for good problem-solving skills, with an engineering degree from the BUET. He had served in international peace-keeping missions in the 1990s. He submitted his M.Sc. dissertation on criminal justice and police management at the University of Leichester, UK last year. Like many who had known him, I was very happy to see that he would supervise the inquiry of Mr. Akhand, the retired Police officer. He had all the skills required for an honest, fact-finding inquiry into the BDR carnage.
Unfortunately, within days of Baki's appointment, some Bengali newspapers started printing that he was a "controversial" officer since he was in Chittagong, serving as the DC-North, when the arms-haul took place in 2004. He allegedly had protected the government interest by letting the arms-smugglers hide! It is difficult to imagine that he had done anything illegal other than follow orders from the chain of command that might have reached all the way up to the BNP-run Home Ministry. However, that issue became such a hot topic that almost all the newspapers started saying that if Baki was kept in the BDR inquiry, the truth on the criminals responsible for the crime and mutiny might be compromised.
Interestingly, according to newspapers reports, such information on Baki's alleged involvement on the Arms-haul case was leaked out by some "un-named" sources within the CID. Was it professional jealousy or nasty partisan politics to victimize someone because he had served under the BNP-government in the port area of Chittagong when the arms-haul took place? Subsequently, Mr. Baki was replaced by Mr. Arif to oversee the inquiry. I can only pray and hope that the latter is as capable as Mr. Baki.
Having known Mr. Baki personally, I was very disappointed with the announcement. I strongly feel that if the media were more discriminating against printing views from unknown sources we could have been spared of this fuss with "controversial" character, and our country would have been better served by the superior skills of an experienced, investigative and neutral officer. Mr. Baki was even painted as a partisan officer who had benefited from the BNP rule, while he did not. I remember when the goons of BNP had started treating Bangladesh as their father's properties through their monumental abuse of power, and unfathomed crime and corruption (making Bangladesh a laughing stock of the entire world for its unenviable corruption ranking), Baki had the guts to stand out against BNP political Dons like Salauddin Q. Chowdhury in some land-grabbing cases in Chittagong. For his boldness to fight crime and rescue victims, he was promptly transferred in 2005 to Mymensingh. And not only that, he was sued by the same land-grabbing syndicate of SaQa on false charges that in his recommendation for police action against the land-grabbing syndicate he had crossed or over-exercised his normal line of duty. And yet, thanks to the print media, this same person, was painted as a "controversial" person in February of 2009, when he was appointed by the AL Home Ministry. Was there a conspiracy to remove him from overseeing Akhand's inquiry? Interestingly, the same media that had ensured his replacement now cries foul with the inquiry findings! Blame if you do and blame if you don't!
I am sure with a highly nasty partisan outlook we have in all matters Bangladeshi, we shall not see any reduction of this line of accusation of who is "controversial". I am, therefore, not too surprised that some BNP partisans are now all agog to find faults with the inquiry report of Anisuzzaman, and all others ones by various government agencies. In our political culture, unless something is to their exact liking, our spin masters will continue to muddy the water of the Bay of Bengal to find the rare fish even when it is not there!
Having said that I am not oblivious of the fact that Bangladesh deserves better and can do a better job if we put our heads together, shun narrow partisanship and do things in a civilized, matured way. Will that day ever come for Bangladesh?
Regards,
Habib Siddiqui
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Will Obama Capitulate to Netanyahu?
Recently Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu visited the White House but offered little support to Obama’s commitment to a two-state solution. It is highly unlikely that he will honor Obama’s wish without receiving a supplemental guarantee from the White House that it will do Israel’s dirty war against Iran.
Netanyahu has Dennis Ross, Obama’s “point man for Iran” on his side. Ross’s ties to hawkish pro-Israel groups in the U.S. and to Israel itself are well-known. He parrots the Israeli position to punish Iran. He is the co-founder of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and former chair of the Jerusalem-based Jewish People Policy Planning Institute (a non-profit created by the Israeli government-funded Jewish Agency). He had received $421,775 in speaking fees in 2008 of which more than a half, $220,000, came from Israeli and Jewish political and religious organizations, including $40,000 from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). His provocative public statements on Iran and his association in pro-Israel think-tanks make him unfit for mending fences with the Islamic world. But with so much pro-Israeli control with all matters dealing with foreign affairs and defense policy, it is unlikely that Ross will be replaced by a more neutral diplomat.
Israel and her drumbeaters for war have been making much noise in the media about how close Iran is to explode a nuclear bomb that can obliterate the rogue state of Israel. Conveniently forgotten are IAEA’s own findings that dispute such claims. The Islamic leadership in Iran has long maintained that the use of nuclear weapons is un-Islamic. Its supreme leader Ayatullah Khamenei said in Oct. 2003, “The Islamic Republic of Iran, based on its fundamental religious and legal beliefs, would never resort to the use of weapons of mass destruction.” He reiterated, “In contrast to the propaganda of our enemies, fundamentally we are against any production of weapons of mass destruction in any form.” Grand Ayatollah Yusef Saanei, one of the highest-ranking clerics in Iran, said in an interview: “There is complete consensus on this issue. It is self- evident in Islam that it is prohibited to have nuclear bombs. It is eternal law, because the basic function of these weapons is to kill innocent people. This cannot be reversed.”
Such views are not isolated ones heard inside Iran. As Saanei had said clerical authorities have expressed opposition to the development of WMDs for many years, and he described it as the reason that Iran never retaliated with chemical weapons when Saddam Hussein used them to kill Iranian troops and Iran-backed Kurds during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.
So, why all these fuss about Iran’s nuclear program? The answer is provided by a young Jewish-American professor Noah Feldman who is touted as an expert on Islam and Shariah. He helped to draft the Iraqi constitution. In his 2006 NYT essay “Islam, Terror and the Second Nuclear Age” Feldman wrote, “If we do not want Islamic states — or anyone else for that matter — to have a nuclear capability, it is not necessarily because we consider them especially likely to bring on their own destruction by using it. It is, rather, that we do not want to cede some substantial chunk of our own global power to them.” We should have guessed: the USA wants to maintain its monopoly on nuclear technology! Where was such a rationale when Israel developed her nuclear program?
So, there has to be more convincing argument as to why America objects to Iran’s nuclear program, irrespective of whether or not it is for peaceful purpose. Again we turn to Feldman who provides the answer. He says, “The United States therefore has strong reason to block its enemy Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons — not simply because Iran will seek to become a greater regional power, as any nation might do, but because the Islamic Republic of Iran as currently constituted is definitionally anti-American. There need not be a direct threat of Iranian first use against either the United States or Israel for this reason to weigh heavily. A nuclear Iran will be a stronger and more effective enemy in pursuing anti-American policies under the banner of Islam. That will not change until the Iranian state abandons either its Islamic identity or its association between Islam and anti-Americanism. Iran’s eagerness to acquire nuclear capacity need not be a result of a particularly Islamic motivation, but if and when Iran does have the bomb, its enhanced power and prestige will certainly be lent to policies that it conceives as promoting the Islamic interest.”
This is quite revealing in that for Iran to get the necessary blessings from both the USA and Israel, she has to virtually abandon Islam, since according to this Jewish scholar who had advised the Bush Administration Iran’s supposed “anti-Americanism” is linked with Islam. That is, abandoning anti-Americanism alone is not sufficient. Since Iran cannot abandon Islam, what choice there is left for her? Are we pushed by design of pro-Israeli advisers to justify another war? Such an uncompromising attitude from an “expert” advising the past American Administration is highly problematic and only reinvigorates the Muslim suspicion that America is at war with the world of Islam.
In his address on April 6 at the Turkish parliament, President Obama assured that his country “is not and will never be at war with Islam.” Only time will prove whether he can resist the pressure from Netanyahu, the Zionist hawks and pro-Israeli “experts” in his administration to go to war!
Netanyahu has Dennis Ross, Obama’s “point man for Iran” on his side. Ross’s ties to hawkish pro-Israel groups in the U.S. and to Israel itself are well-known. He parrots the Israeli position to punish Iran. He is the co-founder of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and former chair of the Jerusalem-based Jewish People Policy Planning Institute (a non-profit created by the Israeli government-funded Jewish Agency). He had received $421,775 in speaking fees in 2008 of which more than a half, $220,000, came from Israeli and Jewish political and religious organizations, including $40,000 from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). His provocative public statements on Iran and his association in pro-Israel think-tanks make him unfit for mending fences with the Islamic world. But with so much pro-Israeli control with all matters dealing with foreign affairs and defense policy, it is unlikely that Ross will be replaced by a more neutral diplomat.
Israel and her drumbeaters for war have been making much noise in the media about how close Iran is to explode a nuclear bomb that can obliterate the rogue state of Israel. Conveniently forgotten are IAEA’s own findings that dispute such claims. The Islamic leadership in Iran has long maintained that the use of nuclear weapons is un-Islamic. Its supreme leader Ayatullah Khamenei said in Oct. 2003, “The Islamic Republic of Iran, based on its fundamental religious and legal beliefs, would never resort to the use of weapons of mass destruction.” He reiterated, “In contrast to the propaganda of our enemies, fundamentally we are against any production of weapons of mass destruction in any form.” Grand Ayatollah Yusef Saanei, one of the highest-ranking clerics in Iran, said in an interview: “There is complete consensus on this issue. It is self- evident in Islam that it is prohibited to have nuclear bombs. It is eternal law, because the basic function of these weapons is to kill innocent people. This cannot be reversed.”
Such views are not isolated ones heard inside Iran. As Saanei had said clerical authorities have expressed opposition to the development of WMDs for many years, and he described it as the reason that Iran never retaliated with chemical weapons when Saddam Hussein used them to kill Iranian troops and Iran-backed Kurds during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.
So, why all these fuss about Iran’s nuclear program? The answer is provided by a young Jewish-American professor Noah Feldman who is touted as an expert on Islam and Shariah. He helped to draft the Iraqi constitution. In his 2006 NYT essay “Islam, Terror and the Second Nuclear Age” Feldman wrote, “If we do not want Islamic states — or anyone else for that matter — to have a nuclear capability, it is not necessarily because we consider them especially likely to bring on their own destruction by using it. It is, rather, that we do not want to cede some substantial chunk of our own global power to them.” We should have guessed: the USA wants to maintain its monopoly on nuclear technology! Where was such a rationale when Israel developed her nuclear program?
So, there has to be more convincing argument as to why America objects to Iran’s nuclear program, irrespective of whether or not it is for peaceful purpose. Again we turn to Feldman who provides the answer. He says, “The United States therefore has strong reason to block its enemy Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons — not simply because Iran will seek to become a greater regional power, as any nation might do, but because the Islamic Republic of Iran as currently constituted is definitionally anti-American. There need not be a direct threat of Iranian first use against either the United States or Israel for this reason to weigh heavily. A nuclear Iran will be a stronger and more effective enemy in pursuing anti-American policies under the banner of Islam. That will not change until the Iranian state abandons either its Islamic identity or its association between Islam and anti-Americanism. Iran’s eagerness to acquire nuclear capacity need not be a result of a particularly Islamic motivation, but if and when Iran does have the bomb, its enhanced power and prestige will certainly be lent to policies that it conceives as promoting the Islamic interest.”
This is quite revealing in that for Iran to get the necessary blessings from both the USA and Israel, she has to virtually abandon Islam, since according to this Jewish scholar who had advised the Bush Administration Iran’s supposed “anti-Americanism” is linked with Islam. That is, abandoning anti-Americanism alone is not sufficient. Since Iran cannot abandon Islam, what choice there is left for her? Are we pushed by design of pro-Israeli advisers to justify another war? Such an uncompromising attitude from an “expert” advising the past American Administration is highly problematic and only reinvigorates the Muslim suspicion that America is at war with the world of Islam.
In his address on April 6 at the Turkish parliament, President Obama assured that his country “is not and will never be at war with Islam.” Only time will prove whether he can resist the pressure from Netanyahu, the Zionist hawks and pro-Israeli “experts” in his administration to go to war!
Comments on the so-called Inquiry Ducument of the BDR Carnage
I just reviewed the 50-page report, touted as being from the government investigation team of Mr. Anisuzzaman Khan: http://www.newsfrombangladesh.net/dbimages/266858-0-BDR%20Draft%20Cover%20Up%20Document%20June%2002.pdf
The highlighted colored passages are presumably marked by the link provider who seems to be on a mission to prove government cover-up on the inquiry. Obviously in our political culture such an attitude is not uncommon with every die-hard partisan finger pointing the other guy as the bad guy and attempting to blow things out of proportion when such may not be relevant or warranted.
Here below is my synopsis of major findings:
(1) Major Intelligence units like the DGFI and SB did not know about the BDR leaflet, which was widely distributed since 21 Feb. amongst the BDR-jawans in the Peelkhana HQ (Section 6.2). The NSI came to learn about it on Feb. 23, two days before the tragedy. That really paints a very damning picture about the health of our national security. No wonder how all the coups succeed in our country! Interestingly, here in the BDR mutiny, some BDR members of its own intelligence (the RSU) had participated in the conspiracy (Section 9.1). Not only that the NSI failed to inform the government. It informed Maj. Mahmud of RSU. The NSI, DGFI and SB had no in-house sources within the BDR to track conspiracy, while the BDR's own RSU was involved in the mutiny. Its chief security officer was Lt. Col. Shams, who was from the 44th Rifles. The same unit was responsible in the planning of the mutiny. He survived the mutiny and was not killed. Nor were other Army officers from the 44th unit (Section 10.4). Is it possible that he was party to the conspiracy? How about Maj. Mahmud? The behavior of Major Mahmudul Hasan, when informed by the NSI, is not very clear whether he paid enough importance to the matter and informed his higher officers on the nature of the leaflet, esp. its provocative, threatening language. Some thorough investigation on the involvement, if any, of some Army officers like Lt. Col. Shams is necessary for greater good of our national security. In the failure of such an inquiry, whether we like it or not, Lt. Col. Shams and other officers who had managed to survive may always be viewed in a different light with some suspicion hanging over their heads. If they are not party to the conspiracy, such must also be stated clearly.
Another thing that is clear from the report is that the PM had not been participating in Darbar Hall (DH) meetings since at least 1996. So the claim that Hasina had deliberately missed the event knowing a priori that something this bad was in the making seems far-fetched and preposterous.
(2) I have some problem with timing of the incidents. We learn that first rebel to enter the Hall with an SMG was at 926 hours and then he was promptly subdued by the officers. As pre-planned by the rebels, with the firing of the blank shot, all the Jawans left the Darbar Hall. (This view confirms what I personally learned during my visit to Bangladesh in Feb. from a brother of a JCO who had come from outside to join the meeting.) Then the officers were in full control of the DH and some of them went out to call the BDR Jawans to return to the Darbar Hall. Even a Subedar, later shot, was one such person who had called for return of the Jawans into the DH. Apparently with all the shots fired, some live ones, too, no BDR Jawan returned to the Hall except the rebel leaders who surrounded it. If the BDR-DG Maj. Gen. Shaqil had sent the SMS around 930 hours saying that he and other officers were in trouble (Section 7.2) all those things happened very fast (which is not improbable though). Otherwise, timing may not have been rightly recorded.
(3) A group of rebels had already broken into the arms storage area of the 44th Rifle Battalion and had procured deadly weapons by 830 hours after disarming its officer in charge Major Reazul Karim, nearly half an hour before the DH meeting even started.
(4) An ash-colored pickup van (presumably) from the 44th unit supplied live ammunitions to the rebels outside around 930 hours. The leaders must had the live ammos by 830 hours.
(5) Following up on requests from the hostage officers, by 1015 hours some units of the RAB h ad taken position around gate numbers 3-5 of the HQ. The presence of the Air Force helicopters over the rebel held area and the RAB created tremendous commotion, agitating the rebels who shot fires randomly, killing some civilians.
(6) Around 1030 hours the rebel leaders ordered the officers to come out from the DH in a single column. Then they brush fired, killing most of the officers including DG Shaqil. Between 930 and 1030 hours the rebels had entered the home of the DG and killed the family members including guests and servants. This incident reportedly happened in parallel while the officers were held hostages in the DH.
(7) Rebels set fire to private cars owned by some officers around 1100 hours coinciding with the presence of an Army unit nearby in Dhanmondi. They even fired shots aiming at a helicopter that was circling the HQ. Six shots hit the helicopter around 1215 hours.
(8) It is also clear that the rebels were able to confuse the govt. negotiation team by hiding facts and providing false, misleading information. This once again shows that Bangladesh government does not have adequate preparation to deal with emergency crisis of this nature. [They need Risk Analysis for Prevention, esp. the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) to better handle such crises!!!]
If the timing is noted right, it is difficult to accept the claims made by some conspiracy theorists that if the RAB and the Army had stormed into the HQ they could have stopped the bloodshed. My gut feeling is that, when provoked, these rebels would have wasted no time into promptly killing all officers (unless they were co-conspirators), even if they were alive at the time and rampantly killed many hujuge Bangalis watching the national tamasha from outside the gates. But worse still, there would have been killings of officers in all the BDR camps and posts.
I personally, therefore, endorse the softer negotiation tactics to ease out the tension. I am nonetheless critical of the fact that government has shown its immaturity and incompetence in dealing with crisis of this magnitude and nature. It ought to seriously develop such groups that can handle this kind of tasks more effectively and efficiently. Those who advised Hasina and those who negotiated with the rebels definitely were not the best ones chosen to deal with such a crisis.
I don't doubt that the prolonged negotiations had given the rebel leaders enough time to escape and commit some other nefarious activities in the dead of the night. Some would argue that if Army been asked to deal with the matter such extra lives (which may have been lost in that night) or physical harassment or abuse, if any, could have been avoided. But one should not forget that important decisions are often taken keeping in mind greater good of the people, risks entailed, priorities available and opportunities offered. Even if Bangladesh might have lost some souls in that night, such losses were probably lesser of the misery endured compared to what could have happened if strong arms tactics had been invoked to quell the mutiny. Of course, the jury is divided on this important matter. As one who witnessed the event in Bangladesh, at least, this is my honest view which I share with you. And Allah knows the best what could have happened!
If the motives, identified by the Commission in Section 11.3, to harm Bangladesh's image are true, the planners of the mutiny had partially succeeded, and may try again. It is, therefore, necessary that the govt. sets another committee up to close some gaps in the inquiry so that we know who actually were behind the planning of this sad event.
Overall, I think Anisuzzaman Khan Inquiry Commission did a good job. Although like many, I wish it had completed this task much sooner, which would have helped to arrest the spread of unnecessary and unfounded rumors by some groups with their hideous agenda.
The highlighted colored passages are presumably marked by the link provider who seems to be on a mission to prove government cover-up on the inquiry. Obviously in our political culture such an attitude is not uncommon with every die-hard partisan finger pointing the other guy as the bad guy and attempting to blow things out of proportion when such may not be relevant or warranted.
Here below is my synopsis of major findings:
(1) Major Intelligence units like the DGFI and SB did not know about the BDR leaflet, which was widely distributed since 21 Feb. amongst the BDR-jawans in the Peelkhana HQ (Section 6.2). The NSI came to learn about it on Feb. 23, two days before the tragedy. That really paints a very damning picture about the health of our national security. No wonder how all the coups succeed in our country! Interestingly, here in the BDR mutiny, some BDR members of its own intelligence (the RSU) had participated in the conspiracy (Section 9.1). Not only that the NSI failed to inform the government. It informed Maj. Mahmud of RSU. The NSI, DGFI and SB had no in-house sources within the BDR to track conspiracy, while the BDR's own RSU was involved in the mutiny. Its chief security officer was Lt. Col. Shams, who was from the 44th Rifles. The same unit was responsible in the planning of the mutiny. He survived the mutiny and was not killed. Nor were other Army officers from the 44th unit (Section 10.4). Is it possible that he was party to the conspiracy? How about Maj. Mahmud? The behavior of Major Mahmudul Hasan, when informed by the NSI, is not very clear whether he paid enough importance to the matter and informed his higher officers on the nature of the leaflet, esp. its provocative, threatening language. Some thorough investigation on the involvement, if any, of some Army officers like Lt. Col. Shams is necessary for greater good of our national security. In the failure of such an inquiry, whether we like it or not, Lt. Col. Shams and other officers who had managed to survive may always be viewed in a different light with some suspicion hanging over their heads. If they are not party to the conspiracy, such must also be stated clearly.
Another thing that is clear from the report is that the PM had not been participating in Darbar Hall (DH) meetings since at least 1996. So the claim that Hasina had deliberately missed the event knowing a priori that something this bad was in the making seems far-fetched and preposterous.
(2) I have some problem with timing of the incidents. We learn that first rebel to enter the Hall with an SMG was at 926 hours and then he was promptly subdued by the officers. As pre-planned by the rebels, with the firing of the blank shot, all the Jawans left the Darbar Hall. (This view confirms what I personally learned during my visit to Bangladesh in Feb. from a brother of a JCO who had come from outside to join the meeting.) Then the officers were in full control of the DH and some of them went out to call the BDR Jawans to return to the Darbar Hall. Even a Subedar, later shot, was one such person who had called for return of the Jawans into the DH. Apparently with all the shots fired, some live ones, too, no BDR Jawan returned to the Hall except the rebel leaders who surrounded it. If the BDR-DG Maj. Gen. Shaqil had sent the SMS around 930 hours saying that he and other officers were in trouble (Section 7.2) all those things happened very fast (which is not improbable though). Otherwise, timing may not have been rightly recorded.
(3) A group of rebels had already broken into the arms storage area of the 44th Rifle Battalion and had procured deadly weapons by 830 hours after disarming its officer in charge Major Reazul Karim, nearly half an hour before the DH meeting even started.
(4) An ash-colored pickup van (presumably) from the 44th unit supplied live ammunitions to the rebels outside around 930 hours. The leaders must had the live ammos by 830 hours.
(5) Following up on requests from the hostage officers, by 1015 hours some units of the RAB h ad taken position around gate numbers 3-5 of the HQ. The presence of the Air Force helicopters over the rebel held area and the RAB created tremendous commotion, agitating the rebels who shot fires randomly, killing some civilians.
(6) Around 1030 hours the rebel leaders ordered the officers to come out from the DH in a single column. Then they brush fired, killing most of the officers including DG Shaqil. Between 930 and 1030 hours the rebels had entered the home of the DG and killed the family members including guests and servants. This incident reportedly happened in parallel while the officers were held hostages in the DH.
(7) Rebels set fire to private cars owned by some officers around 1100 hours coinciding with the presence of an Army unit nearby in Dhanmondi. They even fired shots aiming at a helicopter that was circling the HQ. Six shots hit the helicopter around 1215 hours.
(8) It is also clear that the rebels were able to confuse the govt. negotiation team by hiding facts and providing false, misleading information. This once again shows that Bangladesh government does not have adequate preparation to deal with emergency crisis of this nature. [They need Risk Analysis for Prevention, esp. the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) to better handle such crises!!!]
If the timing is noted right, it is difficult to accept the claims made by some conspiracy theorists that if the RAB and the Army had stormed into the HQ they could have stopped the bloodshed. My gut feeling is that, when provoked, these rebels would have wasted no time into promptly killing all officers (unless they were co-conspirators), even if they were alive at the time and rampantly killed many hujuge Bangalis watching the national tamasha from outside the gates. But worse still, there would have been killings of officers in all the BDR camps and posts.
I personally, therefore, endorse the softer negotiation tactics to ease out the tension. I am nonetheless critical of the fact that government has shown its immaturity and incompetence in dealing with crisis of this magnitude and nature. It ought to seriously develop such groups that can handle this kind of tasks more effectively and efficiently. Those who advised Hasina and those who negotiated with the rebels definitely were not the best ones chosen to deal with such a crisis.
I don't doubt that the prolonged negotiations had given the rebel leaders enough time to escape and commit some other nefarious activities in the dead of the night. Some would argue that if Army been asked to deal with the matter such extra lives (which may have been lost in that night) or physical harassment or abuse, if any, could have been avoided. But one should not forget that important decisions are often taken keeping in mind greater good of the people, risks entailed, priorities available and opportunities offered. Even if Bangladesh might have lost some souls in that night, such losses were probably lesser of the misery endured compared to what could have happened if strong arms tactics had been invoked to quell the mutiny. Of course, the jury is divided on this important matter. As one who witnessed the event in Bangladesh, at least, this is my honest view which I share with you. And Allah knows the best what could have happened!
If the motives, identified by the Commission in Section 11.3, to harm Bangladesh's image are true, the planners of the mutiny had partially succeeded, and may try again. It is, therefore, necessary that the govt. sets another committee up to close some gaps in the inquiry so that we know who actually were behind the planning of this sad event.
Overall, I think Anisuzzaman Khan Inquiry Commission did a good job. Although like many, I wish it had completed this task much sooner, which would have helped to arrest the spread of unnecessary and unfounded rumors by some groups with their hideous agenda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)