Banner Advertise

Thursday, September 10, 2009

[chottala.com] Microcredit reassessed



Microcredit reassessed

Increased cost of providing loans

The Independent – September 11, 2009

Professor Yunus received the Nobel Prize for his microcredit venture. Recently he has received the highest US civilian honour. In presenting the medal Obama said, "with his belief in the self-reliance of all people, Prof Yunus has altered the face of finance and entrepreneurship. In so doing, he has unleashed new avenues of creativity and inspired millions worldwide to imagine their own potential." All this may be very pleasing to us but microcredit was never intended to be just throwing a lifeline to a drowning man and now that the cost of providing small loans has increased, things are changing. Providing small loans at low interest is no longer viable.

The rate of interest charged by the Grameen Bank and others is in the vicinity of 28 per cent, already too high, compared to much lower rates charged by normal banks. As most home-based enterprises have folded within a year, the premise on which microcredit is based, has become suspect. The general inability of the average poor woman to expand her business and create jobs has turned out to be the biggest impediment to success because her lack of knowledge of market requirements kept her firmly bound to a limited number of unsophisticated buyers.


Loans could not serve intended purpose


Therefore if the Grameen Bank and others of its kind are to operate, they must change tactics. Many of the small loans disbursed among poor women could not serve the intended purpose because of non-cooperation by husbands. When men became the de facto clientele of the Grameen Bank and other such organisations, it was at the expense of the women who continued to carry the burden of debt. Fortunately this became known to the dispensers of microcredit and today, no loan is given unless underwritten by the husband.

http://www.theindependent-bd.com/details.php?nid=141690

 

 



__._,_.___


[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [chottala.com] Why did India help in 1971? Goodreading ....



It was a good real reading and we are practically feeling now why India helped liberating Bangladesh. Turning Bangladesh into a big barren desert land by blocking natural water flows and our pimp and traitor politicians are saying that India is doing good to us because now we are having more land caused by drying rivers. What a pity!!

--- On Tue, 9/8/09, dina khan <dina30_khan@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: dina khan <dina30_khan@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [chottala.com] Why did India help in 1971? Goodreading ....
To: chottala@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2009, 4:24 AM

 
India helped Bangladesh in 1971 not for liberation of Bangladesh but for separation Bangladesh (Then East Pakistan) from Pakistan to breaking & weaking Pakistan for its own political economical & geographical interest.
After separation Bangladesh from Pakistan all mill Industry of then East Pakistan are closed & destroyed. Bangladesh now has  become the market of Indian goods & the top political leaders of Bangladesh  are now the agents of Indian.They are working for the interest of India not for the Interest  to the people of Bangladesh. 

--- On Thu, 3/9/09, Enayet Ullah <enayet_2000@ yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Enayet Ullah <enayet_2000@ yahoo.com>
Subject: [chottala.com] Why did India help in 1971? Goodreading ....
To: "Dhaka Mails" <dhakamails@yahoogro ups.com>, khabor@yahoogroups. com, "alochona" <alochona@yahoogroup s.com>, "chottala" <chottala@yahoogroup s.com>, "odhora" <odhora@yahoogroups. com>, "dahuk dahuk" <dahuk@yahoogroups. com>
Cc: enayet_2000@ yahoo.com
Received: Thursday, 3 September, 2009, 2:06 AM

 
 
Please read ....

 
Why did India help in 1971?
 
By Shah Mohammed Saifuddin

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

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

Strategic point of view

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

•They could weaken Pakistan and reduce the threat level.

•Recapture the Pakistani portion of Kashmir

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

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

Economic point of view

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

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

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

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

Political point of view

Former Indian foreign secretary Mr. Dixit said, "We helped in the liberation of Bangladesh in mutual interest, it was not a favour,"

His statement is clear evidence that India did not help Bangladesh on humanitarian ground. India had a long-term strategic plan to dismember Pakistan for its own gain. India had cultivated deep political relation with the disgruntled elements within the erstwhile East Pakistan. [1] As per a senior RAW intelligence officer, â€Å"Bangladesh was the result of a 10 year long promotion of dissatisfaction against the rulers of Pakistan�..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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



Email slow, clunky, unreliable? Switch to Yahoo!Xtra Mail, New Zealand's new email address.



__._,_.___


[* Moderator�s Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___