Tribute : The Bangladeshis Killed in 9/11

M. Tawsif Salam
11 September, 2009, Dhaka

Clockwise: Mohammed Salahuddin Chowdhury, Mohammad Shahjahan, Nurul Haque Miah, Abul Kashem Chowdhury, Shakila Yasmin and Shabbir Ahmed.

Immediately after the horrible 9/11 attacks, the perception about Bangladeshi fatalities was that at least 50 of our countrymen have been missing in the rubles, dead or else. Watching the twin towers of the World Trade Center emitting smokes almost like two sky-scrapping chimneys, initially very few people overseas were concerned about knowing how much people of what nationalities have been victims, apart from those who knowingly had family members, coworkers or friends working in New York’s Lower Manhattan that day.

People of approximately 60 nationalities were among the victims. The initial perception of around 50 Bangladeshis killed was later corrected as there were 12 Bangladeshi victims documented. Now this information too ain’t assuring as there were talks that there could be some Bangladeshis working around but ‘not documented’, might have been in terms of legal measures. This means disappointment, that the actual number of how many Bangladeshis were killed in 11 September 2001 attacks won’t be known ever.

For someone looking for stuffs about the Bangladeshi victims of 9/11, the initial disgust will be offered by the authority of Bangladesh, that’s our government. Throughout a staggering hunt for information about brothers & sisters we lost that day, one will completely fail to get something that can be thought is given or provided by any agencies or departments of Bangladesh government. It’s understandable that during the attack the administration at home was to execute a general election of nearly 70 million voters, so it couldn’t respond at once. But not only years passed rather it’s being almost a decade after a number of Bangladeshi deaths overseas, we rarely found any of our government people to pronounce a word about it or to provide at least some statistics. It can be that we ain’t keen enough to get them so they ain’t keen enough to provide.

Among 12 confirmed Bangladeshis who were killed on September 11, 2001 there are Mohammad Sadeque Ali, Shabbir Ahmed, Nurul Haque Miah, Nurul’s wife Shakila Yasmin, Mohammad Shahjahan, Mohammed Salahuddin Chowdhury, Abul Kashem Chowdhury, Navid Hossain, Osman Ghani and Ashfaq Ahmed. As the Bangladesh High Commission at United States has a confirmation of 12 victims, definitely there are two more names those I’ve failed to mention here. However all the mentioned 10 were the citizens of United States of America and except Ashfaq Ahmed, Navid Hossain & Osman Ghani, I can provide at least something about seven others.

Mohammad Sadeque Ali

Mohammad Sadeque Ali, 62, according to a former Bangladeshi diplomat Syed Muazzem Ali, was a newspaper vendor. He lived in New York’s Jackson Heights with his wife Mumtaz. During the attack Ali was at Lower Manhattan presumably somewhere too-close-to or inside the World Trade Center and was later never found.

Shabbir Ahmed

Shabbir Ahmed

Shabbir Ahmed, 47, worked in the famous ‘Windows on The World’ restaurant on the 106th floor of the WTC North Tower. Migrated to US from Bangladesh in 1981, he loved the job he had in ‘Windows on The World’ and he stayed there for 11 years. Ahmed was married to Jeba and the couple had three children. Ahmed became able to meet his dream of sending all of them for college education. At the time of Ahmed’s death, a son named Tanvir was 16-year old and a daughter that went to Brooklyn College were 19-year old. The family’s home is at Marine Park, Brooklyn, New York. At the time a plane penetrated the tower, Ahmed was at work in his beloved workplace with 89 other coworkers including Mohammed Salahuddin Chowdhury, another Bangladeshi employee in there, reportedly were serving 76 guests; none of the people survived.

Mohammad Shahjahan

Mohammad Shahjahan

Mohammad Shahjahan, 41, lived with his wife Mansura at Spring Valley, a neighborhood at the border of towns Ramapo and Clarkstown at Rockland County, New York. He was a Computer Administrator in the professional service provider & insurance brokerage farm Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC)., which held offices between floors 93 & 100, the ultimate impact zone of the attack. 295 employees including Shahjahan and two other Bangladeshis, Nurul Haque Miah & Shakila Yasmin, were working at MMC at the time of attack; among them nobody survived.

Abul Kashem Chowdhury

Abul Kashem Chowdhury

Abul Kashem Chowdhury, 30, was 2nd generation Bangladeshi-American, child of a former Bangladeshi diplomat. He resided in New York with his family of his wife, parents, a brother and two sisters. A College of Staten Island graduate, Chowdhury was about to pursue a career on computer expertise, which even he had one at financial services farm Cantor Fitzgerald L.P. as a Senior Assistant Analyst. His brother Abul Qaiser Chowdhury said that he and his brother worked to support their family; have been like two arms to their loved ones. During the attack Chowdhury was on the 103rd floor, who even called his brother after the plane made the hit and he was approaching to come down, but the communication was tragically brief and everything was finished in hours. Months before the attack Chowdhury got married to Young Kim, a 2nd generation Korean-American. Kim, remarking his husband as a ‘devoted moviegoer’, was about to go to movies with him after work on the fateful day.

Mohammed Salahuddin Chowdhury

Mohammad Salahuddin Chowdhury

Mohammed Salahuddin Chowdhury, 38, was a Queens, New York resident where he lived with his wife Baraheen Ashrafi. Salahuddin, a Dhaka University physics graduate, migrated to US in 1987. In US he studied real-estate and also obtained a diploma in Computer Science. Initially he worked in Baltimore but later came to New York for something better would come up. He decided to stay in New York in anyways so he started working in the famous ‘Windows on The World’ restaurant as a waiter. Salahuddin & Baraheen had a 6-year old boy. In the time of attacks Baraheen was pregnant and was due to operate at late hours of the fateful date. In fact Salahuddin usually attended the work in evening hours but that day chose to serve in the morning so that he could stay with his wife to the operation. Farqad Chowdhury, born 48-hours after deadly attack took away his father with 88 other coworkers, has been perhaps one of the first 9/11 orphans to be born. HBO’s 9/11 documentary “In Memoriam: New York City, 9/11/01” has covered the tragic fate of Salahuddin’s family.

Nurul Haque Miah

Nurul Haque Miah

Nurul Haque Miah, 35, was born in Bangladesh to an immensely pious family in 1966. A mid-80s immigrant to US, Nurul started working for Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., (MMC) in 1986. In 1999 he married Shakila Yasmin; an early-90s immigrant whom he met in a friend’s wedding in 1995 & dated for 5 years. Nurul had a very good reputation at work & was awarded as recognition of merit in MMC. Nurul studied and had a degree in audiovisual technology, as the final position he had in MMC was an Audiovisual Technologist where he worked for 15 years. Nurul’s workplace was on the 93rd floor. But during the attack he was in a meeting on the 99th floor, while his wife Shakila, also an MMC employee, was on the 97th floor; MMC was a tenant holding 8 floors from 93rd to 100th. To mention, all these floors got the worst impact after the plane made hit especially the floors 93th-99th through where the plane actually penetrated, let as assume Nurul and his wife to be two of the very initial victims of the deadly attack.

Shakila Yasmin

Shakila Yasmin

Shakila Yasmin, 26, wife of Nurul Haque Miah, went to US with her parents Sharif A. Chowdhury and Shawkat Ara Sharif when she was 16. She did her S.S.C in Bangladesh and in US got admitted in Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. Obtaining US citizenship in the sixth year of stay, she graduated from Virginia Commonwealth University in 1999 with a degree of Management Information Systems. As told before, she was married to Nurul Haque Miah in 1999, joined her husband’s workplace MMC as a Computer Assistant one year prior to the deadly attack. She was on the 93rd floor when the first plane penetrated the building.

Renaming Brooklyn Streets after Shakila and Nurul

Shakila Yasmin and Nurul Haque Miah

Nurul and Shakila lived in Brooklyn, New York and they had a very good relationship with the neighbors. One of their neighbors Diane Hunt, touched by her neighbors’ tragic deaths, took an initiative to propose renaming of the street in Brooklyn in names of Shakila and Nurul, took the matter to the city council. At her proposition and consent from the fellow councilors, the Mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg (world’s 8th richest man, the Republican politician who owns Bloomberg L.P) passed a bill 746-A on 29 December, 2005 that renamed a total 67 streets of New York, including the Evington Avenue and the Third Avenue in Brooklyn those got the new name “Shakila Yasmin & Nurul Haque Miah 9-11 Memorial Way”. Mayor Bloomberg, fellow New Yorker Hunt and others who consented in paying respect to our fallen countrymen are yet to receive gratitude officially from Bangladesh. You know we have a lot of real works to do than just go thanking people like recently dead Senator Ted Kennedy who was singled out in US Senate just for talking for Bangladesh in 1971, or the Jewish NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg who honored Bangladesh by naming streets whereas he could choose from people of 59 other nationalities.

When Media Turns to A Bad Weapon

Prothom Alo and Daily Star. I actually don’t blame myself while being highly skeptical about two most notable newspapers of our country, because they practically were correlated to my association with blogging in past. I remember the role that Prothom Alo and Daily Star played amid the 1/11 misrule in fact when I started active blogging, where I and many other bloggers can quite rightfully state based upon facts that they were becoming the engineers to establish the public support for the 1/11 regime which appeared to have been having ill-motives against Bangladesh. Whenever we had a confusion about what the then ‘Lord of the Rings’ Gen. Moeen U. Ahmed were trying to say or do, we were used to read Prothom Alo or Daily Star editorials or others’ write-ups inside them. In fact their articles or news reports at that time were written in such way that Gen. Moeen and his conmen were being quite well explained.

Prothom Alo and Daily Star, have been subjected to several controversies.

Prothom Alo and Daily Star claim themselves to have the highest circulation among those of their competitors, which I don’t deny. And considering them as two leading newspapers of Bangladesh, they have so far faced handful of allegations which I believe no other leading newspaper in Bangladesh did and in most of the countries are too much rare to face. The series of allegations include with, being weapons to knock down their owner’s business rivals, being an unofficial media body to provide subsequent explications of an undemocratic and unlawful government’s series of ill-motivated steps etc. Deeds they did to viciously support the undemocratic 1/11 government should be enough to completely discourage number of people who could have respect on them as honest journalists.

The Gulshan Avenue house which was raided by perpetrators with sign-board saying “Owner of This Land is ATN Bangla – এই জমি ক্রয়সূত্রে মালিক এটিএন বাংলা”

What Salman F. Rahman today has told, I consider it to be his right to defend himself if someone throws dirt to him. We remember that after the unlawful grab attempt of a Gulshan Avenue residential building by group of people claiming themselves to be conmen of Mahfuzur Rahman holding a signboard which says “This Property Belongs to ATN Bangla”, Salman F. Rahman being a relative to the actual owner of the building got involved in the case to support his family member, and that was the beginning of a series of ATN Bangla reports against both Salman F. Rahman and BEXIMCO. As similar sort of allegations have come forward about Prothom Alo and Daily Star for a number of times before, we cannot mark someone to be completely without logic if he says a same affair might have taken place between Salman F. Rahman and Prothom Alo & Daily Star. More importantly, according to Daily Star editor Mahfuz Anam’s claim that they are committed to present substantial news to their readers, Prothom Alo and Daily Star were supposed to carry out at least a follow-up of the Gulshan Avenue flap, which they eventually didn’t do. So Prothom Alo and Daily Star’s general claim having ‘social responsibilities’ eventually becomes arguable.

As a reader and subscriber of both Prothom Alo and Daily Star which I was two years back, I will strongly support if someone claims that Prothom Alo and Daily Star both have been a party to the previous 1/11 regime to help them build their public support, as Salman F. Rahman.

I just can put a shortlist of their assistances. Incidentally and now I feel it was most unfortunate that it were Prothom Alo and Daily Star who gave me the first details of the 1/11 coup d’état. However as the 1/11 regime accommodate some tasks in their plans those where necessary for the harmonious run of a state, distinctive parts of their plans can be marked as they were not completely malicious. These not-malicious plans are often chosen to state that “1/11 also did some good things”. These ‘good things’ were given good coverage by Prothom Alo and Daily Star which I don’t think to be disappointing, and to some extent I was not suspecting about their roles or any of its appeared-to-be-association with the 1/11 government till those moments. But after the 1/11 government was on its political plans like minus-1/2, gagging major parties, creating king’s factions in name of reformists, forcing media to filter presentations, torturing journalists, politicians, teachers, students etc., I attentively noticed that Prothom Alo and Daily Star were being at very effective assistance where number of stories were being made to help the government have a convinced group of people and an apparent public support to their position completely against the ongoing political system. Following this notice, my delivery boy was told that no Prothom Alo and Daily Star should be seen in my house any further. Yes, I subscribed both and I unsubscribed both.

A screenshot from Daily Star website. ATN Bangla and Daily Star seem to have collaboration.

Now, one can ask if I have made detached from two newspapers. Well I haven’t been detached. When any important issue takes place and becomes attention of the majority media, I become curious about what role Prothom Alo & Daily Star are playing and I get in touch with their online edition. In fact their apparent apathy on the grab attempt on that Gulshan Avenue residential building came by my eyes when I specially checked that what’ve been their remark about allegation on their partial media partner (as ATN Bangla and Daily Star works together online in some cases) ATN Bangla in that illegal operation.

Anyways, about the beginning of 1/11, their reports really gave me and most of their readers an idea that the 10 January late night at Bangabhaban was really a scene full of merriness where D. Iajuddin Ahmed laterally handed over the state-running scepter to hands of the then military chief Gen. Moeen U. Ahmed. In fact the book written by Gen. Moeen U. Ahmed almost echoed what was reported by those newspapers on January 11, 2007. These ‘truths’ started being differed after other officials of Bangabhaban who were present during the overthrow and who were notable ‘non-military’, started to open mouths. Claims of the then Press Secretary of the President hint that Bangabhaban that night was an exact stereotype of how a presidential palace becomes amid a coup d’état; military officials in every rooms, regular house officials with faces like they were looking at ghosts, raiding military officials threatening Bangabhaban officials, officials getting to the President with prepared papers and having them signed etc. As the topic Press Secretary has come, I must mention that Syed Fahim Munaim, who was chosen as the Press Secretary to Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed, was a Daily Star official prior to his appointment to the Chief Advisor’s office.

For sake of better acceptability of the claims Salman F. Rahman has made, I will suggest that the matter should be taken to the court as soon as possible so that there can be set an exemplary judicial action against Prothom Alo and Daily Star, if Rahman’s claims are found evident.

Incidentally the political targets of the 1/11 regime have been interesting matches with Prothom Alo and Daily Star targets to be defamed with series reports, substantial or insubstantial. Now those newspapers can defend this that the matches have been coincidental or they were simply doing the duties of ideal journalists. But we, the people who read those (at least once have read) newspapers, have opportunities of their analysis and do know that there exists a term called ‘yellow journalism’, won’t like to be fed and satisfied with these fancy ‘social responsibility’ explanations. People will play with the facts. And the claim that Prothom Alo and Daily Star were party to the promotion of unconstitutional and unlawful regime does have facts to back.

At least this has to be appreciated that Salman F. Rahman stood vocal against Prothom Alo and Daily Star despite many of their targets simply had things forgone or dealt by other means. I will expect that the information that Rahman provided have been substantial. For sake of better acceptability of the claims Salman F. Rahman has made, I will suggest that the matter should be taken to the court as soon as possible so that there can be set an exemplary judicial action against Prothom Alo and Daily Star, if Rahman’s claims are found evident. I also wish courage to the honorable judges that before ensuring justice against the practice of any illegitimate journalism, they will overcome the uneasiness of possibilities that they also can become suitable targets of Prothom Alo and Daily Star.

The Reward Explains Everything

From left: Gen. Moeen U. Ahmed, Brig-Gen. Fazlul Bari, Maj-Gen. A.T.M Amin, Lt-Gen. Masud Uddin Chowdhury

Although Gen. Moeen U. Ahmed claimed his 11 January, 2007 unlawful intervention to be something other than a typical coup d’état, the significance of his acts have been too crudely typical. Almost all of the initiatives he took were typical; saving the nation from a nearing ‘civil war’, proposition of all out political reformation, crackdown over corruption etc. Actually there don’t remain a lot more cover-ups that a military ruler can use to defend his outspoken unlawfulness. So the mentioned lollypops were the instruments Gen. Moeen used to form up a façade of his unconstitutional and unlawful regime, suspending the fundamental rights those the people of an independent sovereign state can expect to have.

I’ve heard many people to claim the events of early January 2007 could have triggered a civil war in Bangladesh. It’s highly arguable that whether crying out the imminence of a civil war was really a substantial speculation or was just an excuse to overthrow a uniform government. Such excuses can eventually leave us skeptical because although adversary political activists took the streets no matter whatever ratio they had, no parts of the belligerents were recognized to have ‘military’ wings to drive through a ‘civil war’. At least Gen. Moeen U. Ahmed surely was not a Patton or a Monty to ‘give a chop’ to everything within a night that could have instrumented a countrywide civil war. So probably it was just an excuse to be used to form the public image of the setup that Moeen U. Ahmed with his errand men appeared to have done.

Moeen, however, had to be at good terms with the Indian authority. To mention, his relationship with India has been considerably better than any other military leaders of Bangladesh, becoming the only Bangladesh Army Chief of Staff to be befriended by India's far-right political masterminds.

Now for sake of arguments, I can be looked for to be asked, should Moeen have waited for the civil war getting truly imminent? Well I like to rule out the issue of a civil war, because for a country like Bangladesh which took less than 20 years from her birth to take the track of a consistent democracy, which in fact has had democracy smoothly and praiseworthily running for 16 long years, a civil war just for two conflicting political parties happens to be too fictitious. In fact as a country recognized to have moderate political and religious views, the civil war issue should have been taken as an insult to Bangladesh.

It’s arguable that whether the sudden intervention, or let me say the 1/11 coup d’état can be justified considering the then situation. Some or many people haven’t been disappointed after completely unlawful and unconstitutional sudden intervention of a man and suspension of people’s fundamental rights for indefinite period of time. People haven’t been disappointed at once because they were confused that whether they had lived better in past couple of months in the then atmosphere. Series of street agitations and two party’s being distant everyday turned Bangladeshi politics to severe disarray. Senior leaders of both the parties were set to negotiate and work a solution out but they could give nothing but smiles after they met. So the series of violence and an almost stalemate of Bangladesh, they have been failure of politicians, not politics. But after taking over the state machine what Gen. Moeen U. Ahmed was after has not been just politicians, he was after politics along with all the apparatuses he could have had a control over, legitimately or else.

We often see commentators among us who appear to have allergies of a system other than democracy, especially if it comes as a subject to military takeover of the state machine. Certain class of people now suddenly appear to be looking for rooms to thank Gen. Moeen at for least something he did. After considerably a protracted quest, its told that whatsoever Moeen U. Ahmed once initiated, have come to an end by resuming the democratic process, so he is to be thanked. In fact a military ruler who overthrew a uniform authority which was a party to state’s democratic process, if can be that fortunate ending up by resuming the democratic process, righteously can be considered as something better than just money lending, thus deserves a Novel Peace Prize.

However the Sheikh Hasina government does contain some of Awami League personalities who will like to give these kingpins real hard time.

But the immediate next democratic government of Moeen’s 1/11 rule didn’t act in the way that of a Novel Peace Prize contender should have acted. Ordinances the 1/11 cabinet once passed, the democratic government turned them into laws. Breaching of the constitutions the 1/11 regime frequently did, the democratic government desperately avoids to sue those matters. Not only has this, a cabinet member at the government of Moeen’s ‘resumed’ democracy, stated that Moeen U. Ahmed has been an Abraham Lincoln in the context of Bangladesh. It’s merely unbelievable that how a person under whose command politicians were tortured, university teachers were jailed and tortured, under whose command the fundamental rights of people were suspended, under whose command journalist was beaten half to death for criticizing him, can be compared with Abraham Lincoln. And it appears things won’t remain up to just comparison with great statesmen. Instead of dealing with the allegations, instead of suing for ousting democracy and hundred more criminal offenses at least attributed to have been done, there have been authoritative talks that there can be rewards for. And eventually this reward part, though haven’t taken place yet, explains everything.

*****

This post has also been published in The Weekly Economic Times, 21 June, 2009 issue.

We must call to stop building Tipaimukh dam to protect Bangladesh from being a Desert!!!

Originally Published on: Onnesha.TK

Tipaimukh Dam. It is clear that it will put it's adverse effect on Surma and Kushiara as well as other rivers of Bangladesh too.

The Indians are going ahead with the construction of the massive Tipaimukh barrage-this events collectively impinge on us in more than one ways but the one which directly affects our very ability to survive is the issue of water-sharing of some 53 common rivers between India and Bangladesh. By constructing Tipaimukh and other barrages, India is depriving us of life-giving waters, drastically reducing our ability to survive and therefore this is the issue needing immediate and continued public attention and the subject of this commentary. India has resumed construction of the Tipaimukh barrage on the Barack river just a kilometer north of Jakiganj in Sylhet; the construction work was stalled in March 2007 in the face of protests within and outside India. The barrage when completed in 2012 is supposed to provide 1500 megawatts of hydel power to the Indian state of Assam but in return its going to bring about a major disaster for Bangladesh, practically contributing to drying up of 350 km long Surma and 110 km long Kushiara rivers which water most of the north-eastern regions of Bangladesh. The Tipaimukh barrage is going to seriously affect not only agriculture in large portions of Bangladesh, particularly in winter, but is also going to bring about negative ecological, climatic and environmental changes of vast areas in both Bangladesh and India.

Indian government is constructing the dam without consultation with Bangladesh government, which is violation of International River Law. Three crores people of the northern and eastern parts of the country would be vulnerable seriously when the construction of the dam would be completed by 2012.

It’s not just this one Indian barrage that is a source of considerable concern and trepidation in Bangladesh; in 1976 India put into operation the Farraka Barrage which more or less destroyed the Ganges-Brahamaputra Basin, most of which lies in the deltaic plains of Bangladesh and in 1990 India also constructed a barrage along the Teesta river thereby virtually making ineffective much of the Teesta barrage project constructed down-stream in Bangladesh to support irrigation and agriculture in the north-west region of the country. What is even more worrying is that India has evolved plans to divert waters, from the north of the country to its drought-prone southern and eastern states, of some 53 river which flow from India to Bangladesh.

Bangladesh shares a common border with India in the west, north and east and with Myanmar in the southeast. These borders cut across 57 rivers which discharge through Bangladesh into the Bay of Bengal in the south. The upstream courses of these rivers traverse India, China, Nepal and Bhutan. Trans-boundary flows, which enter Bangladesh from remote catchments extending short distance to thousands of kilometers upstream, are the important source of water resources.

Bangladesh gets 7 to 8 percent of its total water from the Barak in India’s northeastern states. Millions of people are dependent on hundreds of water bodies, fed by the Barak, in the Sylhet region for fishing and agricultural activities.

Environmentalists in Bangladesh have held many talks on the adverse impact of the proposed dam. They say the dam would dry up the river and the water bodies in the downstream, leaving millions jobless and upsetting the ecological balance.

Among the trans-boundary rivers, the ones most affected by Indian barrages and their related systems of canals, reservoirs and irrigation schemes are Ganges, Brahmaputra, Meghna and Teesta. Although the Indian and Bangladeshi governments have a water sharing agreement for the Ganges, there are none for the other 53 rivers that cross the border. With the Tipaimukh barrage now underway, India seems to be going ahead with its mega-project of diverting river waters from its north to its south and east, thereby putting Bangladesh’s very survival at stake.India is taking unilateral decisions about matters which affect Bangladesh’s core interests and if these cannot be resolved bilaterally, Bangladesh must look at options of going to multilateral forums such as the UN to get its right not only recognized but also implemented. International laws dealing with water-sharing of common rivers and sources are ambiguous, unclear and contentious and so, Bangladesh ought to vigorously pursue these matters, perhaps even garner international support for a change in those laws dealing with water-sharing – this international dimension is a crucial factor affecting the management of the trans-boundary river systems. There is thus, no scope for Bangladesh to be deflected from this core issue of water-sharing notwithstanding Indian deceitful and diversionary insistence and propaganda on “terrorists and transit”.

The Indian high commissioner has admitted that a dam will be built on the proposed Tipaimukh hydropower project over the cross-boundary river Barak but said it will not harm Bangladesh. (But I don’t know how? You will put a barrage in the river and it will not affect the nature???)

The Tipaimukh hydropower project was not like the Farakka irrigation project. A little amount of water will be diverted to produce hydroelectricity and the water will be released soon, Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty said. (So he agreed that Farakka Barrage is a problem for Bangladesh. And saying that Tipaimukh will not be like that! But how Bangladesh would beleive it? India previously said many thing abouthis Farakka Barrage. But ultimately Bangladesh is suffering from it. So how will we beleive that you are talking truth? And one barrage must put it’s adverse effect on nature. And the position of the Barrage clearly indicates that Bangladesh will offcourse suffer with this project. It will be a destructive project for Bangladesh. We must protest it now!)

Bangladesh should not be wary of the project, he told.

He said bilateral discussions have long been on-going on the project. Indian government has invited Bangladesh to see the dam site and its design, Chakravarty said. A Bangladeshi organisation, International Farakka Committee, demanded suspension of ‘construction of Tipaimukh barrage’ and rightful share of the Indian river Ganges.

The organisation called upon the United Nations to form a regional river commission involving China, Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh.

Government of Bangladesh and people of Bangladesh must be aware of this project from now and must have to protest. It will come as a destructive project for Bangladesh. bangladesh will become desert if the project is completed. India is using their power to complete this destructive project. They are trying to giving wrong ideas to Bangladesh as they given at the time of constructing Farakka Barrage. They are doing the same thing here. We all now that how Bangladesh is suffering because of this Farakka Project. How our Bangladesh is affected by the Farakka Barrage. We don’t want to see more destruction in bangladeshi economy and nature. We must protest. And it is the time. Bangladeshis must be aware of this from now and this is the only way to safe our beautiful country Bangladesh.

BDR Revolt : A Deadly Strategic Game Plan

Shah Mohammed Saifuddin

Since the independence, Bangladesh Rifles, the first line of defense, have been combating smuggling, human trafficking, drug trafficking and other illegal activities along the border and have made supreme sacrifices to protect the lives and properties of the people from enemy invasion with great courage and valor. Bangladesh Rifles have earned worldwide recognition for its determination, patriotism, and professionalism when they successfully repelled a large invasion by Indian border security force at Roumari point in 2001.

Despite its performance and patriotism, the members of Bangladesh Rifles got little attention from successive governments to alleviate the problem of poor pay and benefit structures allowed for them. Nevertheless, they continued to discharge their duties with utmost sincerity and took part in all nation building activities maintaining professionalism and discipline.

On 25th Feb, 2009, the nation was shocked at the news that some BDR members had revolted and killed many officers who were on deputation from Bangladesh army to protest against poor pay and benefit structures and alleged corruption by the late Director General.

The mutineers asked the government to implement a set of demands on a priority basis to address the problems of the members of Bangladesh Rifles. Some of these demands are as follows:

1. withdrawing army officers from all command posts of BDR and recruiting new officers from BCS cadres
2. allowing full rationing for BDR members
3. sending BDR personnel to U.N. peacekeeping missions
4. revamping salary structures and promotion procedures
5. allowing defense allowances for BDR members
6. procuring more transportation vehicles to guard the long porous border with India and Myanmar
7. increasing the quality of food and
8. improving educational and medical facilities for the family members of soldiers

Because of defense strategy and lack of manpower, it will not be possible to withdraw army officers from the command posts of BDR, but the rest of the demands deserve due consideration because these are logical and should have been given to the BDR members a long time ago for they put their lives in danger to safeguard the frontiers of the country. It is, therefore, hoped that the government will take appropriate measures to remove the grievances of BDR members to stop the occurrences of similar incidents in the future.

Now, let us examine whether there are any political motivations behind this unfortunate incident that shocked the entire nation.

The revolt: actors involved, motivations and methods employed

The relationship between Awami League and the defense forces of the country has never been cordial because of latter’s security outlook that anticipates no security threat from India and considers defense expenditures needless. A few clauses of the 25 year friendship treaty that virtually eliminated Bangladesh’s sovereign right to seek assistance from other friendly nations to expand and modernize its armed forces and the subsequent step motherly attitude of the government and the formation of Rakkhi Bahini had cerated widespread resentment among the army officers. Instead of taking appropriate measures to remove the legitimate grievances of the army officers, the then government continued with their suppressive and discriminatory policies to neglect, humiliate and alienate the armed forces, which ultimately led to the assassination of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman along with most of his family members at the hands of a few young army officers.

Awami League has never forgotten the incident nor forgiven the armed forces for the assassination of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and left no stone unturned to avenge the incident in 1975 by creating divisions in the armed forces through various political machinations.

The comments of LGRD minister after the BDR mutiny is a testament to the fact that his party still holds grudges against the army for the death of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and other four prominent leaders of Awami League in 1975 at the hands of a section of army officers. He said, “If the trial of Bangabandhu and four national leaders killing cases were held in time and the offender were brought into justice, the Pilkhana tragedy was not take place” (Feb, 28, 2009, The Daily Star). Does it not show the deep resentment of the current government against the army for the incidents in 1975?

After the political change in 1/11, the military backed government had thrown many Awami League leaders into jail for their alleged involvement in financial scandal and abuse of power, which, many believe, has caused further deterioration in the relationship between the armed forces and Awami League. After the elections, Awami League’s virulent verbal attack on the army for its role in 1/11 is a testament to the fact that they wanted to weaken the army so that the latter could never repeat a 1/11 like situation to bring about political changes in the country.

India has its own agenda to diminish our defense capability because it needs a subservient military in Bangladesh to easily establish total domination on 4096 km Indo-Bangla border and use our defense and intelligence resources to its advantage to quell ongoing insurgencies in its North East region. India’s abortive misadventure inside Bangladesh territory in 2001 forced them to reorganize their security policy vis a vis Bangladesh and emphasize the need to search for new avenues to play larger role in the matters related to defense of Bangladesh and neutralize Chinese influence on our defense forces. But this could only be accomplished through active cooperation from a friendly government in Bangladesh to create tension within our defense forces to break their morale and make it imperative for Bangladesh to seek Indian help in reorganizing the defense system.

So, the BDR mutiny may be the case of a teamwork between a foreign external intelligence agency and some political elements within the country to set the stage for the departure of the army officers from Bangladesh Rifles to weaken it and to tarnish the image of the army before the whole nation to break their morale.

The assertion that some local political elements and India are working together to weaken the security systems of Bangladesh may be true because the government’s quick decision to grant general amnesty to all rebellious members of Bangladesh Rifles without assessing the ground reality and to not allow any military action to quell the rebellion, which gave the mutineers enough time to put forth a set of demands and flee in groups from the BDR headquarters seems to be a preplanned strategy to instigate a rebellion, break the chain of command, kill large number of officers, and to ensure safe exit for the mutineers.

If the local and foreign conspirators who planned, directed, and implemented the rebellion are not identified and the rebellious members of BDR who broke the chain command are not brought to justice such occurrences of rebellion may be repeated in other security forces to destabilize the entire nation and create a situation for external powers to intervene in the name of peacekeeping.

Findings of the army report

The army formed its own 20 member probe committee on 2nd March, led by Lt. General Jahangir Alam Chowdhury, to investigate into the gruesome murder of army officers by the rebels at BDR headquarters on 25th Feb, 2009 and this probe committee acted separately from the committee formed by the government to investigate into the same matter. After investigating for more than two months, the committee has made the summary of their report public for the sake of transparency of their work. The army report published in various newspapers identified the following reasons for the BDR mutiny:

1. Wrong impression about the facilities of the army
2. Lack of transparency in establishing and running BDR shops
3. Delay in payment of duty allowances for the 2008 national elections
4. Misunderstanding about lease and contracts of different works in the BDR headquarters
5. Wrong impression about the BDR’s director general Shakil Ahmed, and his wife Nazneen Shakil and Dhaka sector commander Mujibul Haque’s alleged in irregularities
6. Delay made by the Home and Finance ministries in resolving BDR problems

The army report on BDR mutiny did not find any convincing evidence of any direct or indirect militant links simply because of the fact that the extremists did not have the elaborate network and manpower to plan and execute a mission deep inside the military establishment of Bangladesh with a pinpoint accuracy to kill almost 15% officers of Bangladesh army within the space of 24 hours as the previous democratically elected government had already dismantled the countrywide terror network of JMB, the most powerful extremist group in the country and executed its top masterminds as part of continuous effort to fight terrorists for which Bangladesh has partnered with international community and received high praise from across the world.

Criticism of the army report

In investigating such a complex and dangerous incident that paralyzed the entire defense system of the country, the investigators should have proper authority to contact, interrogate, and collect information from people who had direct or indirect contacts with the rebels before and after the mutiny to explore local and external linkages. They also should have followed a similar structured method described below to accomplish the investigation process:

1. Identifying and defining the scope of the problem
2. Setting and determining the scope of the investigation objectives
3. Assembling adequate manpower with appropriate skills and experience to form a committee
4. Identifying target population for interrogation/questioning
5. Verifying and confirming collected information for accuracy
6. Submitting the findings and recommendations to the government

But the military investigators had to narrow down their scope of investigation to exclude exploring the possibility of political and external connections because of lack of proper government authorizations to contact and interrogate certain people. Many believe, the restrictions on the investigators may have been imposed to protect the local and external conspirators who had teamed up to play havoc with the defense system of the country.

Even though the army report did not find any convincing links of politicians and external powers to this sad episode that shook the entire defense system of the country, the involvement of some elements within the government and some foreign intelligence agencies should not be ruled out because, as per the report, the government imposed restrictions on investigators to limit their power to collect necessary evidence, verify obtained information, and confirm information sources to identify, investigate, establish and confirm involvement of political and foreign elements in the mindless killing of the officers at the BDR headquarters.

The events in the BDR headquarters were meticulously planned by some powerful quarters to use BDR against army to kill as many officers as possible to leave no able hands to lead this force in order to achieve the goals of destroying the border defense system of the country, avenging the incident in Roumari in 2001, proving BDR as an indisciplined force to create a situation to make it imperative to reorganize it with the help of a certain neighbor and creating a permanent mistrust and suspicion between the two forces entrusted with the responsibilities of protecting national security..

The political connections to the incident are visible from a series of events, including a section of politicians and media launched a vituperative attack on the army for its role in the events on and after 1/11 to instigate anti army sentiment across the country; the government did not order 350 RAB personnel, who reached the gate of BDR headquarters at 10:10 am, for an action against the mutineers, who were yet to be organized and set up heavy arms at the gates of the headquarters; the government ordered the 46th brigade of Bangladesh army, who reached the gates of the BDR headquarters at 10:50 am, to go out of sight from the headquarters which gave the rebels enough time to organize themselves to kill and torture more people in the BDR complex; the mutineers were given a chance to contact the media to propagate unfounded accusations against Bangladesh army; and a list was prepared in advance to torture and kill the wives of the army officers.

Even though the army report attributed the failure of Juba League’s president Jahangir Kabir Nanak and general secretary Mirza Azam in the negotiation with the rebels to surrender arms and release the hostages to lack of professionalism, the thing that is still bugging a lot of people is the reason why the prime minister chose these two fellows who had no prior experience in crisis management and had a criminal record of killing 11 Innocent civilians by setting fire to a double decker bus near Sheraton hotel in 2004. Let me quote the passage from the report published in a newspaper( The New Nation, Jun, 3, 2007), where one of the top Awami League leaders, Mr. Sheikh Selim, disclosed the cold blooded murder of innocent civilians by Nanak and Azam:

“He also disclosed that AL’s front organisation Juba League’s president Jahangir Kabir Nanak and general secretary Mirza Azam were involved in killing 11 people by setting fire to a double-decker BRTC bus near Dhaka Sheraton Hotel in 2004. Both Nanak and Azam held a meeting at Juba League office in the evening on that day and made a plan to commit the arson. “I protested the incident to our party chief and told her the politics cannot be done in such a way,” the investigators said quoted Selim as saying.”

Although the investigators were able to confirm the involvement of a local Awami League leader, Torab Ali, in the mutiny, they, however, were unable to establish a link between him and his partners in the political circle due to absence of government authorizations to contact and question the top ruling party leaders. This, many believe, may have been done to conceal the political connections to the mutiny and the subsequent murder of scores of brilliant army officers.

It is astounding that the military investigators did not even try to explore external connections to the mutiny because such an impeccable operation to carryout large scale killings of army officers was not the work of a bunch of youngsters, but rather the work of a professional organization who had inside information to plan and execute such a flawless military mission at the heart of the nation’s defense establishment to take out all the intended targets and ensure safe exit for all those who took part in it.

There is a growing fear of Indian involvement in the BDR revolt and the mass killing of the army officers at the BDR headquarters because of the comments of Mr. Pranab Mukharjee who said, “I had to go out of my way to issue a stern warning to those trying to destabilise the Sheikh Hasina government in Bangladesh that if they continued with their attempts, then India would not sit idle.” (OUTLOOK india.com, Mar, 16, 2009) , which is another way of saying that India would have approved a direct military intervention if developments in Bangladesh had gone against their strategic interest.

The same report also said, “New Delhi had conveyed it was willing to take counter-measures in Dhaka, direct intervention included.” Now the question is why did the Indian minister issue such a warning to Bangladesh? Did he not believe the people and the security forces of Bangladesh are capable enough to protect their own prime minister? Or did he want to conceal India’s own involvement in the mutiny through intimidation? Whatever the case may be, India’s over enthusiasm in our internal affairs has raised some serious suspicions about its intentions with regard to our national security.

The order to put Indian air force on a stand by mode (Samachar.com, mar, 2, 2009) and deploy para commandos from Agra to West Bengal (The Times of India, Mar, 4, 2009) to deal with emergency situations can also be construed as Indian attempts to interfere in our internal affairs using the tensions created after the mutiny, and if we combine this with the comments of Mr. Pranab Mukharjee then a strategic scenario emerges where Bangladesh is being destabilized with the intent to force herself into a long term bilateral security arrangements to pave the way for India to play greater roles in the matters of Bangladesh’s security and defense. And the proof of it can be found in a report in The Telegraph, a Calcutta based newspaper, where India offered to send a peace mission to give security to the Calcutta-Dhaka-Calcutta Moitree express and termed it as the first international bilateral peace mission by India after its peace mission in Sri-Lanka (The Telegraph, Feb, 27, 2009).

Another report from the same newspaper that said “Details of the talks were not immediately available but the US has been keen that India plays a stabilising role in the South Asian region. It is in this context that the Indian effort to send a peace mission, not only for the security of the train service between Dhaka and Calcutta, but also in a larger context, preferably on an appeal from Dhaka, will be internationally acceptable to Washington.”(The Telegraph, Feb, 28, 2009) is detrimental to our national security because it proves, in light of recently concluded Indo-U.S. Strategic agreement, there is ample international support for India to play larger role in South Asia, in general, and Bangladesh, in particular. This is what many have been saying for a while that the bilateral task force, military exercise between Bangladesh and Indian armed forces and the revolt by the BDR members are all part of a grand design to make the security forces of Bangladesh subservient to the strategic and political interests of India and Awami League.

External linkages to the BDR revolt can also be found by the seizure of various fire arms, equipment and other military gadgets at the BDR headquarters that are not used by any security agencies in the country (The Daily Star, Mar, 3, 2009). Experts believe such sophisticated military gadgets were supplied by external sources to perform the killings of the army officers in the BDR headquarters complex.

Concluding observations

With the growing suspicion of involvement of some elements within the government in the well orchestrated revolt at BDR headquarters firstly, to rid BDR of army officers for the purpose of weakening our border security and secondly, to kill the brightest army officers with an ultimate plan to destroy our defense system, the government is feeling the heat from both the army and the people of the country.

Sensing the impending danger of being exposed, a certain quarter has revived the old arms smuggling case and is frantically trying to associate the opposition parties, the intelligence agencies, and even Pakistan and its external spy agency, ISI, with ULFA to convince the public of the existence of a nexus among the nationalistic forces and defense establishment of the country, Pakistan and United Liberation Front of Assam with a sole purpose of falsely accuse them of sponsoring terrorism and masterminding the carnage at the BDR headquarters. In order to make their case more convincing and deal a heavy blow to our national defense, they even dragged China, the largest arms supplier and trusted defense partner of Bangladesh, into this complex scenario.

Gruesome murder of the army officers, prompt announcement of general amnesty by the prime minister without properly understanding the ground reality, unabated media propaganda to humiliate the army, reluctance of the government to order for a military action against the rebels, decision to send Jahangir Kabir Nanak and Mirza Azam, who have criminal records of killing 11 innocent civilians, as negotiators, stern warning by Indian minister Pranab Mukherjee of military intervention against Bangladesh, and the subsequent deployment of Indian troops along the border suggest the involvement of powerful local and external elements in the BDR revolt to accomplish a diabolical plan to inflict enormous damage upon the defense system of Bangladesh.

The army investigators should have done an exhaustive investigation into the possibility of involvement of political and foreign elements in the BDR revolt to expose the real conspirators for the sake of our national security, but unfortunately the army report made no attempts to do so probably because it had no mandate to explore political and foreign connections, or the Indian threat of military intervention might have forced them to confine their investigation to only a small area just to identify the BDR jawans who were involved in the killings of the officers and bring charges against them.

Lastly, the defense forces of the country should know that similar attempts to incite rebellions in other security forces will be attempted in future if the real culprits are not exposed and punished with iron fist.

* * * * *

Shah Mohammed Saifuddin is a contributor to News From Bangladesh and is founder of Bangladesh Strategic and Development Forum

Terrorism, Islamic Phenomenon and Russia

Sergei Lavrov
Moscow, Russia

One of the most dangerous provocations of international terrorism is the attempt to cover it with “religious banners”. Terrorism has no religious or ethnic nature. Its practice and ideology, based on defying fundamental human values, human life being the first among them, are equally alien to all world confessions, nations, and cultures. Terrorism feeds on political, social and economic problems, which have grown more acute – particularly regarding the preservation of the cultural and civilisation diversity of the modern world – as the result of globalisation and corresponding imbalances in world development.

This understanding underlies Russia’s consistent course towards combating terrorism and its ideology by way of uniting the efforts of states and state institutions with the possibilities of civil society, including religious institutions and organisations.

In this connection, let me remind you that Russia is a unique example of peaceful coexistence and cooperation among more than 160 nationalities. There are 23 thousand religious organisations in our country, representing nearly 50 confessions. Respect to other people’s faith, lifestyle, customs and traditions have created conditions for civilian peace and helped ensure stability. Along with other traditional confessions in Russia, Islam has been making its contribution into efforts towards preventing extremism and intolerance and maintaining an atmosphere of tolerance.

Today, furthering the mutually respectful and constructive communication among different confessions is one of the unconditional priorities of Russia’s policy. The inter-religious dialogue is going on very actively within the country, including the Inter-Religion Council of Russia, which unites leaders of the main traditional confessions. We support all international initiatives aimed at promoting inter-religious concord. The Strategic Vision Group “Russia – Islamic World” and the World Social Forum “Dialogue of Civilisations” have been created upon our initiative, and we keep promoting the idea of establishing the Consultative Council of Religions under the auspices of the UN.

We firmly and decisively condemn terrorism in all its forms. Like many countries, Russia has suffered from terrorism. However, in fighting it, Russia has gained a successful experience of complex anti-terrorism efforts that combine military and law enforcement measures with informational, educational, and socio-economic work. Our tangible achievement is the significant reduction of the terrorist threat in Russia, including the North Caucasus, in which international terrorism had been pumping significant funds and efforts.

Russia is among the leading members of global anti-terrorism cooperation that mostly goes in the format of the UN, which has the central coordinating role in this area, and in regional structures. We have also created an efficient bilateral mechanism of anti-terrorism cooperation with more than 30 states, including Islamic ones. These mechanisms are intended for solving practical tasks in the sphere of anti-terrorism.

We also advocate the active improvement of international anti-terrorism instruments. So far, 13 international anti-terrorism conventions have been signed under the auspice of the UN, but those efforts must be continued. Our obvious reserve is the strengthening of the international contractual basis to combat the use of latest technologies, including the Internet, for terrorist purposes. Russia, among others, has stepped forward with relevant initiatives in this area.

* * * * *

The content above has been delivered by Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, in response to a question asked by Aftab Hussain, Islamabad, Pakistan. The question was: What is Russia’s official policy about terrorism? Does Russia also see terrorism as an Islamic phenomenon, as it is being perceived by the West?

South Asia Under Fire

M. Tawsif Salam
Dhaka

It appears that the nuclear deal between India and United States has been followed by numerous violent events in adjacent countries of India. Pakistan has seen a fresh phase of anarchies that includes a tremendous escalation of terrorism in both frontier and deep inside the territory. Terrorist organizations those had their actions mostly based in frontier regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan are being seen tending to converge deep inside Pakistani, specially the Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP). Series escalation of terrorism those are spreading furiously in urban Pakistan has also become the most concerning to date.

Violence in Pakistan that is only in Pakistan still could be considered as internal matters of a country. But observing commotions in other South Asian countries have urged the observers to note it that this might be something bigger than internal matters of a single state. Series of unexpected incidents in both Bangladesh and Sri Lanka is leading South Asia to be an endangered region. The carnage took place in Bangladesh’s border guard headquarters that left an almost hundred slain military officers, has been a major notification in South Asia that peace is at a vulnerable position. The whole matter around Pilkhana has been immensely fishy where the government of Bangladesh has been found to be more conservative that they should have been. Initially the senior members of the government tried to create a political division over the matter by blaming their political rival for the carnage. An unexpected and fruitless political blame-game was triggered that was leaving a lot of cloud for the investigators. So far the governmental bodies cannot be kept out of suspicion because a many questions still remain unanswered. The federal investigating committee has been largely politicized by putting government ministers and ruling party leaders to lead the committee. Keeping the fact in mind that the perpetrators caused an irreparable damage to the defence apparatus of the country, the perpetrators appear to receive a number of advantages for bewildering decisions of the government. Hence the biggest attack to the date on Bangladeshi defence apparatus has been made.

Events taking place in Bangladesh those chronically have followed the medieval carnage at Pilkhana, could be a part of the efforts where the overall peace of South Asia is being bullied. An army officer was found stabbed to death in a Dhaka hotel in the same week of the carnage. Three other army officers were killed in an event which appears to be a helicopter crash, including a two-star General. Another two-star general and a single-star general were killed in Pilkhana. Series of hits on the people who are deeply associated with the national security structure of Bangladesh are not at all scattered incidents. Initially Bangladesh security analysts told the border guards carnage could be a retaliation of an incident of 2001 where a wave of Indian raiders were valiantly pushed away by Bangladesh border guards, leaving a death toll of 21 Indian soldiers, 3 Bangladeshi soldiers and hundred more casualties.

Another incident in this second Friday of March 2009 has escalated the security tensions of Bangladesh up to a concerning height. A fire outbreak in the biggest shopping mall of Bangladesh, the Bashundhara City can appear as a powerful hit over Bangladesh economy. The economy of Bangladesh already has become a victim of global economical shrinking and massive curtailment at global job market. Still no formula has been found out that the Bashundhara incident indeed has been a hit, but our intelligence apparatus has to work it out. There has to be found that whether this has been part of the effort which is gradually breaching the peace of South Asia, after the powerful alliance of two malicious giants of world diplomacy. We have to learn if this has been a part of the process that has been initiated in order to bring changes in the map of South Asia. If all the mishaps taking place in recent times are all related, these will no more be considered as attacks on certain sectors rather than it will be considered as attack on the sovereignty and independence of Bangladesh.

The Untargeted Chief of All Devils

M. Tawsif Salam
Suffolk, UK

In all of the political discussions, the question that inevitably is asked to the political analysts of strategists is, what improvements in politics have been done as result of what happened in 11 January, 2007. None of the people who ask this question try to realize that there has been done nothing to make our politicians feel that they need to be more serious and more ardent to commit better things to the people. Everyone feels comfortable to misunderstand the 1/11 event something like the whole classroom has been kept under detention as many of the students became rowdy. The 1/11 was nothing like that and whoever came forward to punish the classroom did not have prosperous agendas to commit so. Thus it will be our own faults if we think the politics of Bangladesh have received enough lessons to deliver all the divines henceforth.

It is quite amazing to hear we are having the population more than the superpower Russian Federation does have. It’s amazing to be the 7th on the list whereas Russia is 9th, UK is 22nd and Canada, France, Italy, Germany all are below our rank. And beside the amazement it is out utmost failure of noticing and our imprudence that this population has made ourselves a bowl which never fills. It is the increasing population of Bangladesh which has presented us the fate where may be we won’t see the day when our empty bowls of demands will be pouring. A tremendously tight count of resources with a population increasing without any controlled and positively expected rate, are on the way to take us to a valley where all of the formulas of prosperity will se failures to bail us out of the disaster. The disaster is up ahead. And the disaster is simple to explain. It’s just a situation where we got an immense count of population but not even a fraction of necessary resources and nobody delivering words to provide us with them. It’s so simple like a family having all ways of incomes crucially closed, a family with numbers of members to feed, a family with no friends or relatives ready to borrow or charity or something, a family having no definite way other than to be on streets begging to be fed.

I remember that the population was a prime issue of social and technical studies when we were at school. For a country like Bangladesh, population has always been the prime concern. As far as we are not to maintain the luxury of beating superpowers like Russia, United Kingdom or France having the population of 159 millions of people, we are also not to afford to overlook this vital concern of ours which can turn all of our earnings in coming days into useless. We don’t have a definite food plan to deal with what the population will be ten or twenty years later. We don’t have a definite power plan to provide with electricity and fuel to what the population will be ten or twenty years later. And all these things which we are ought to do in coming days will have to be done by who we will be voting for a week later. But did you see manifestos of them? Did you find what are they thinking about the increasing population in any of their manifestos? One of the party heads has dedicated the manifesto to all those will cast vote for the first time. But there is no definite declaration of what to be done to ensure their effort to keep on their lineages hundreds of years later. On of the party heads has promised to his constituency voters that rice and lentils as regular meals will be made free for all. A proverb goes in North-eastern Europe, the only way to get cheese and to not pay is raiding rat holes; rat holes are only place from where free foods used to come. So there is commitment of delivering foods from rat holes but there is no commitment on how to deal with some more millions of people who will be added in coming years.

The absence of population issue in the political manifestos has been noticed crudely. Some of the political analysts and strategists have mentioned the manifestos as advertisement leaflets of the parties to have the people casting their votes for the particular parties. As the population issue is quite old to do marketing jobs with, most of the manifestos have dropped it out. This is disappointing. There is no permanent result at the end of a shortcut. Every developments, every prosperities, every agenda have to be implemented in an ongoing process with immense patience. And politicians of a country are to be set on those ongoing processes. And their so vicious overlook of a so important issue like the increasing population will urge the people of Bangladesh to reconsider their choice of handing over the ruling-sceptre of the nation.

This post has also been published in Weekly Economic Times

Toward The Election with a Biased Media

M. Tawsif Salam
Suffolk, UK

It’s not necessary to have the political history of hundreds of years to contain political events of multiple dimensions. Bangladesh in her history of not a lot more than 37 years has seen quite a lot of kinds of elections; elections under military rule, elections under democratic governments, election under constitutionally explicable caretaker governments etc. But this time Bangladesh is going to experience such a situation were we are to vote under authority of such a government, which is neither a direct military rule, nor a constitutional caretaker government.

This has completely been a newer way of rupture to the constitution, made of some party-loving people like to do reunion kind of thing at Tommy Mia’s Gulshan kitchen or something. The situation is virtually different from what it has been seen before. The present authority which has an outspoken renown as the “1/11 government”, is going to handover the power to another government, which they say to be elected by public polls. Or by the other kind of saying, or it makes sense if we say what really will be going on in fact, the handover will be done to a group of people who are not really disappointed with the rupture of the constitution. In fact we have these interested groups who have expressed their will to “ratify” all the constitution-breaches. And things obviously look like the stage and all other surroundings have been set to have that group of illicitly interested people winning the upcoming election.

I was really stunned to hear Munni Saha of ATN Bangla saying Akbar Hussain was called “Ekbar Hussain (এক বার হোসেন)” in Comilla because he used to go to Comilla not very often. Many politicians in many of the localities are called in different sorts of names and some of them are pretty abusive. But this does not mean a nation-wide television channel will have their reporters hailing those names. Sedgefield (Durham, UK) politician Jonathan Cockburn in 2005 has several times given names to Tony Blair and other Labour Party seniors. Cockburn had pretty large number of supporters at Sedgefield. But we definitely would have to think about the neutrality and sense of decency of Sky News if one of their reporters would call Blair a wacko while reviewing pre-election air in Durham; so we’ve done and all of Bangladeshi should do, everybody awaited for a fair election should take the concern of whether ATN Bangla with their fellow comrades in the front line are neutral or just working with the target of bailing a party as winner out of the election, a party which has leaders of it expressing their impudence for getting to the power, saying “we will ratify everything every violators in this government did with anybody”.

Many of Awami League leaders have been tremendously upset about having their rivals and Jamaat-e-Islami running together. Well, actually they don’t think about there can be someone looking back to their track they have left behind. The photo given here is for the evaluation of those who have shown their immense patience by reading this of my posts down to this bottom of it.

Mumbai: The Uneducable Indian

Ajai Sahni
Delhi.

A long derided Union Home Minister, Shivraj Patil has been forced out; Maharashtra State Home Minister, R.R. Patil has succumbed to public and media pressure and resigned after a crass comment that “such things keep happening in big cities”; the Maharashtra Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh, is tottering on the verge of resignation after engaging in some heedless ‘disaster tourism’ at the devastated Taj Mahal Hotel; other heads are poised to roll. Has the latest Mumbai carnage pushed India beyond the ‘tipping point’ in its responses to terrorism? Is it now possible to expect a radical break with past patterns, where each major incident has been followed – to borrow a phrase applied to the Left parties during the nuclear debate, but which accurately describes the entire political class in this country – by some “running around like headless chickens”, to lapse quickly into a habitual torpor? And can India’s polarized and unprincipled political parties come to a consensual understanding and strategy on counter-terrorism, instead of subordinating the national interest to partisan electoral calculations and the politics of ‘vote banks’?

Regrettably, there are already too many signs that it is going to be ‘business as usual’ in India.

At the height of the confrontation in Mumbai, L.K. Advani, the Leader of the Opposition and the man projected as the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) Prime Ministerial candidate in the coming elections next year, kindled a spark of hope, calling for an all-party consensus on counter-terrorism, and declaring, “at this juncture, the country needs to fight the terrorist menace resolutely and stand together”. However, even before the fighting had ended, partisan political sniping had commenced on the round-the-clock television coverage and debates, and this has escalated to a point of viciousness even while the debris of the attacks is being cleared out. Crucially, when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh convened an all-party meeting at Delhi on December 1, 2008, Advani and BJP President, Rajnath Singh, chose to absent themselves, though V.K. Malhotra, Deputy Leader of the BJP Parliamentary Party, did attend.

Governmental responses, moreover, show little sign of coming to terms with the enormity of the issue. The Prime Minister has chosen to emphasise amendments to the prevailing laws on terrorism – currently a set of toothless provisions inserted in 2005 into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – and the mirage of a Federal Investigation Agency that is intended to make all terrorism in the country miraculously vanish, simply because it pretends to imitate the American Federal Bureau of Investigation in nomenclature and intent. Neither of these initiatives, however, has any potential whatsoever to contain the rampage of terrorism across a country that remains pitifully under-policed, with a paper thin intelligence cover concentrated in a few urban centres and strategic locations.

There has also been a reiteration of assurances that ‘maritime security’ will be beefed up, with more power and resources to the Coast Guard and Coastal Police Stations, and better coordination between these Forces, and with the Navy. But this is all tired old stuff and has been articulated ad nauseum, since 2001, with little evidence of change in capacities on the ground. Indeed, the critical capacities – those for policing – are actually undergoing continuing erosion, with the latest National Crime Records Bureau Report indicating that the police – population ratio for the country at large actually declined from an abysmal 126/100,000 in 2006 to 125/100,000 in 2007.

Of course, a few random sanctions for augmentation of capacities have been announced in the wake of past attacks – including the sanction of 6,000 additional personnel for the Intelligence Bureau (IB), immediately after the serial blasts in Delhi on September 13, 2008. Given the country’s turgid and obstructive bureaucracy, however, there are no signs of these sanctions resulting in an augmentation of capacities on the ground any time soon. The very idea of responding on a war footing, cutting through red tape and existing institutional limitations, does not appear to exist in any aspect of the country’s counter-terrorism responses.

And then, of course, there is a question of response to the very obvious role of Pakistan – and this is a palpable dead end. Even preliminary investigations have thrown up overwhelming evidence that every string of control in the multiple terrorist strikes in Mumbai leads back to Pakistan and to the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) – an organization that, under its new identity as the Jamaat-ud-Dawa continues to enjoy direct state support in Pakistan. In a rare outburst, Prime Minister Singh warned unnamed “neighbours” that “the use of their territory for launching attacks on us will not be tolerated, and that there would be a cost if suitable measures are not taken by them.” His Government is now reportedly “under pressure” to act against Pakistan, and a range of hair-brained responses are doing the rounds in official circles, including massive troop mobilization along the border, mimicking the purposeless massing of troops under Operation Parakram, launched on December 16, 2001, after the terrorist attack on India’s Parliament. 680 soldiers were killed, without a single shot being fired, by the time Operation Parakram was, inexplicably, called off on October 16, 2002, with the unsupported claim that its undefined “objectives” had been achieved. If this worthless and counter-productive exercise is the model to be replicated in the present case, it would be no less than tragic. If, on the other hand, it is not, then there is little capacity – at this juncture – to design effective alternatives, in the foreseeable future, to impose any “cost” on Pakistan, and such capacities can only be constructed, gradually and systematically, over time, and with a clear strategy in mind – and there is little evidence of the latter at this juncture.

Indeed, the overwhelming focus of the Indian response to Pakistan’s role – either as the source of these attacks, or more direct involvement of the state’s agencies in engineering or facilitating them – appears to be concentrated on diplomatic efforts to bring international pressure to bear on Pakistan. This has been an apparently successful initiative, with world leaders coming out with some of the most unambiguous condemnations of the incident and commitments to support India’s efforts to address the problem in all its dimensions. Crucially, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is to arrive at Delhi on December 3, on a visit that many expect (or, more likely, hope) will produce more than just a very strong ‘message’ to Islamabad. While all this will certainly make the powers that be in Pakistan squirm a bit, there is little reason to believe that the dynamic that has protected them in past and even greater transgressions, both in the region and well beyond, will not, once again, reassert itself. The truth is, it is not just India that is powerless to impose any unbearable pain on the basket case that is Pakistan – the ‘international community’, particularly including USA – are no better positioned. It is useful to recall, here, that US intelligence agencies concurred with Afghan and Indian agencies, that Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) had engineered the terrorist bombing of the Indian Embassy on July 7, 2008, and there had been great expectations, at that juncture as well, that this would result in stronger action against Islamabad. Pakistan, however, has weathered many such storms and its diplomats and proxies are quick to range across the world peddling their theories of root causes and Muslim grievance to ever-willing audiences in the West and, indeed, even in victim countries such as India.

In the meanwhile, the attack in Mumbai has done what may well be irreparable damage to the “shining” image of the “emerging global power”. The utter incapacity and incompetence of India’s security apparatus has been incontrovertibly demonstrated in what may be an audacious attack by as few as 10 terrorists (nine have been confirmed killed and one is currently in custody, singing like a canary). It is crucial, here, to notice the exemplary courage, exemplary leadership and exemplary dedication to duty, among those who responded from the security forces, who were given virtually nothing to fight with, and who still put everything they had into the fight, with many losing their lives. Their personal commitment and attainment notwithstanding, the reality of the institutional and structural responses is disgraceful. While a detailed analysis of the counter-terrorism (CT) operation must wait till far more information is available, a few aspects are already evident.The most significant of these is the sheer tardiness and inadequacy of response. The first shots in the multiple attacks in Mumbai were fired at about 21:40 in the evening of November 26, and the incident was already on national television by 22:00 (all timings are approximate and based on available open source reportage). Local Police contingents – including the Anti-terrorism Squad (ATS) headed by Hemant Karkare, who lost his life in the encounter – responded fairly quickly, but, lacking protective equipment, firepower and even the most rudimentary CT training, with tragic consequences, losing top line Police leaders in the very first engagements. After that, the world witnessed the most astonishing paralysis, as the locations of attack were loosely cordoned off by variously armed Police contingents, but no forces appeared equipped or willing to enter and engage for hours following. It was evident that even the most basic of response protocols had not been established, and the word repeatedly occurring in every live report in these long initial hours was “chaotic”. As one commentator in the New York Times noted, “The grainy television imagery suggested not so much a terrorist attack as the shapeless, omnidirectional chaos of Iraq.” Local contingents of the Army – arriving at about 02:50, more than five hours after the incident commenced – brought some semblance of order to the incident environments, but still did not enter the major sites of ongoing terrorist carnage.The first ’special response team’ to arrive was a small group of Marine Commandos (Marcos), who actually sought engagement with the terrorists – but their own accounts suggest that they were not able to neutralize a singly terrorist before they were pulled out. Eventually, a 200-strong contingent of the ‘elite’ National Security Guard (NSG) was deployed at 08:05, in the morning of November 27, and this is the point at which the terrorists can seriously be considered to have been engaged. But the NSG went into the locations blind – with no maps of the Taj Mahal Hotel and the Oberoi-Trident complex initially available – and were extraordinarily tentative, unsure weather they were dealing with a hostage situation, and transfixed by their fear of inflicting civilian casualties – the reality eventually disclosed was that the massacres in the three principal sites, the two hotels and Nariman House, where a Jewish family was trapped, were over long before the NSG engaged. The result was a stand-off that lasted all of 62 hours.

There is also, of course, the long succession of intelligence warnings that were given to the State Government, and that were also passed on to the security establishments of the hotels under threat, but even the limited security measures that were implemented by both local Police and the hotel security apparatus were, as Praveen Swami notes, “lifted a week before the attacks, after businesses and residents complained of inconvenience.” Swami, quotes an unnamed Police source, further, as stating, “We also removed additional security… because our manpower was stretched to the limit and the personnel we had did not, in any case, have the specially-trained personnel needed to avert a suicide-squad attack.”

The Maharashtra State Government has tried to package this operation as a grand success, arguing that the terrorists had “come to kill 5,000 people” and to “blow up the Taj” (both pieces of unmitigated nonsense), and that, consequently, the eventual loss of life and damage to various structure, was not ‘as high as it could have been’. The reality, however, is that the multiple attacks – at 11 different locations – by a tiny contingent of terrorists, inflicting 195 fatalities (the figure is tentative, with numbers still rising, and pending official confirmation) and leaving over 300 injured, and virtually devastating two major locations (the Taj and the Oberoi-Trident), fully achieved their attainable potential and were complete successes from the point of view of their planners. They cannot, consequently, be thought of as anything but comprehensive failures from the point of view of India’s security establishment. Indeed, the Mumbai carnage shows every mark of a botched operation from the security point of view. If anything, security forces’ (SF) action appears to have trapped the terrorists in the locations, blocking off their avenues of planned escape – even as it gave them significant freedom of operation within them – instead of quickly neutralizing them, and protracting the carnage for an incredible 62 hours.

Despite the extraordinary courage and evident commitment of SF personnel and leaders, the reality is that there was a comprehensive structural failure in Mumbai. Any terrorist operation can only be contained, in terms of its potential, in the first few minutes. Which means that the “first responders” – invariably the local Police – have to be equipped, trained and capable of, if not neutralising, then, at least, containing the terrorists. If the first batches of Police personnel had arrived in sufficient strength at each of the locations of terrorist attack in Mumbai, with appropriate weaponry, communications, transport and other technological force multipliers (such as, for instance, night vision goggles and thermal imaging systems for the major standoffs in the Taj, Oberoi-Trident and Nariman House) and immediately engaged with the terrorists, they probably would have been able, in at least these three locations, to isolate the terrorists in small corners of the target structures and would have been able to minimise the loss of life, the material damage, and the operational time.

Many journalists ask the routine question after each of the increasingly frequent major terrorist strikes across India: why did this happen again? The more rational question, given India’s capacities for intelligence, enforcement and CT response, is: why does this not happen more often?

Imitative mantras, such as “strong laws” and “federal agency” will not diminish the threat of terrorism that confronts India. It is only the hard slog of building effective capacities – not incrementally, in terms of what we already have, but radically, in terms of what we need – on a war footing, that will help diminish the enveloping and, progressively, crippling, threat of terrorism confronting India. Only this can help the Government recover from the loss of public confidence and of international prestige that this devastating attack has inflicted on the nation. Regrettably, a national leadership – across party lines – that has repeatedly betrayed the national security interest for partisan political gains, does not demonstrate the necessary capacities for learning that can create defences within any time frame that could be immediately relevant to the trajectory of terrorism in the country.

* * * * *

Ajay Sahni is the editor of South Asian Intelligence Review (SAIR) andExecutive Director of Institute for Conflict Management