Banner Advertise

Friday, September 11, 2009

[chottala.com] Re: Homeopathy not a cure, says World Health Organization - BBC News

All advisers and executives of World Health Organization are allopathic doctors. Everybody knows that WHO is an allopathic organization. So all of it's statements should be considered as an allopathic view point.


Allopathy, I mean so called modern medicine is a pseudo-science but homeopathy is a pure science. Homeopathy is not only science but its an applied science. As the human body and mind are the most critical creation of God, so the homeopathic healing science is also hypercritical. And that's why, it is very much difficult to specialize in homeopathy. And when a guy fail to expertise in homeopathy, then he ridicules that it is not science. As like as fox who after his failure to pick grapes, satisfy himself telling that grapes are sour.

You may prove that allopathy is science. But I will say it is not beneficial science, rather harmful sciencs. As like as neuclear bomb is pure scientific invention and even though it is not a blessing for mankind.

Homeopathy teaches us that the (causes of) diseases remain in the energy level (which is called vital force) and so the medicines must be energy to actually cure the diseases. What we see in our body & mind are not diseases ; they are the result of diseases.

Only the homeopathic medicines are energy medicines because they are made by trituration & succussion. As this techniques are applied million times during potentizing homeopathic medicines, so they turn to energy and loses their material quality. In this regards, allopathic & other medicines are material & crude medicine, not energy medicine.

That's why, allopathic & other medicines can suppress the diseases, can remove the symptoms but cann't remove the causes of diseases, cann't touch the vital force, cann't affect the energy level. They just change the diseases by driving them from one organ to another.

Homeopathy also teaches us that the invasion of germs, creation of tumours, formation of stones etc are caused by our body stimulated by the misguided vital force. When homeopathic (energy) medicines back vital force to the track, then our body can start a reverse process (removes germs, absorbs tumours, dissolve stones etc).

Probably you know that it is two hundred years ago when Samuel Hahnemann invented Homeopathy, about 90% allopathic physician rejected this (for its apparently mystic & anti-allopathic theory). At the same all allopathic journals also boycotted homeopathy. Still there was many worldwide recognized homeopathic journal during first one hundred years of homeopathy. But the last one hundred years was the fall of homeopathy.

Because the allopathic doctors (who were/are majority) were united to destroy homeopathy & they achieve success by using their govt. (administrative) power. Homeopathy was almost reduced to zero and now homeopathy is again emerging as a medical science of future for the real truths it bears (and also for the failure of allopathy to solve the current vital health problems).

Homeopathy has invented effective cure for TB and malaria more than hundreds years before allopathy. What allopathy does in the name of curing TB and malaria is nothing but damaging patients health permanently by overdosing harmful chemical drugs. Allopathy has no success in the cure of HIV/ aids. But homeopathy can easily cure HIV/ aids if it is not complicated with other veneral diseases and if the patient's immune system were not damaged by overdosing allopathic harmful chemical drugs.


warm regards
Dr. Bashir Mahmud Ellias

--- In chottala@yahoogroups.com, Syed Aslam <Syed.Aslam3@...> wrote:
>
> [Related Bangla article by Ibne Golam Samad:
> http://www.bangladeshnews24.com/nayadiganta/newspaper/2009/08/31/news0356.php
> publihed in NayaDiganta dated Augut 31, 2009 ] Homeopathy not a cure, says
> WHO - BBC News
> [image: Homeopathic pills] Homeopathic remedies often contain few or no
> active ingredients
>
> *People with conditions such as HIV, TB and malaria should not rely on
> homeopathic treatments, the World Health Organization has warned.*
>
> It was responding to calls from young researchers who fear the promotion of
> homeopathy in the developing world could put people's lives at risk.
>
> The group Voice of Young Science Network has written to health ministers to
> set out the WHO view.
>
> However practitioners said there were areas where homeopathy could help.
>
> *There is no objective evidence that homeopathy has any effect on these
> infections*
> Dr Nick Beeching, Royal Liverpool University Hospital
>
> In a letter to the WHO in June, the medics from the UK and Africa said: "We
> are calling on the WHO to condemn the promotion of homeopathy for treating
> TB, infant diarrhoea, influenza, malaria and HIV.
>
> "Homeopathy does not protect people from, or treat, these diseases.
>
> "Those of us working with the most rural and impoverished people of the
> world already struggle to deliver the medical help that is needed.
>
> "When homeopathy stands in place of effective treatment, lives are lost."
>
> Dr Robert Hagan is a researcher in biomolecular science at the University of
> St Andrews and a member of Voice of Young Science Network, which is part of
> the charity Sense About Science campaigning for "evidence-based" care.
>
> He said: "We need governments around the world to recognise the dangers of
> promoting homeopathy for life-threatening illnesses.
>
> "We hope that by raising awareness of the WHO's position on homeopathy we
> will be supporting those people who are taking a stand against these
> potentially disastrous practices."
>
> *'No evidence'*
>
> Dr Mario Raviglione, director of the Stop TB department at the WHO, said:
> "Our evidence-based WHO TB treatment/management guidelines, as well as the
> International Standards of Tuberculosis Care do not recommend use of
> homeopathy."
>
> *This is just another poorly wrapped attempt to discredit homeopathy*
> Paula Ross, Society of Homeopaths
>
> The doctors had also complained that homeopathy was being promoted as a
> treatment for diarrhoea in children.
>
> But a spokesman for the WHO department of child and adolescent health and
> development said: "We have found no evidence to date that homeopathy would
> bring any benefit.
>
> "Homeopathy does not focus on the treatment and prevention of dehydration -
> in total contradiction with the scientific basis and our recommendations for
> the management of diarrhoea."
>
> Dr Nick Beeching, a specialist in infectious diseases at the Royal Liverpool
> University Hospital, said: "Infections such as malaria, HIV and tuberculosis
> all have a high mortality rate but can usually be controlled or cured by a
> variety of proven treatments, for which there is ample experience and
> scientific trial data.
>
> "There is no objective evidence that homeopathy has any effect on these
> infections, and I think it is irresponsible for a healthcare worker to
> promote the use of homeopathy in place of proven treatment for any
> life-threatening illness."
>
> *Homework*
>
> However Paula Ross, chief executive of the Society of Homeopaths, said it
> was right to raise concerns about promotion of homeopathy as a cure for TB,
> malaria or HIV and Aids.
>
> But she added: "This is just another poorly wrapped attempt to discredit
> homeopathy by Sense About Science.
>
> "The irony is that in their efforts to promote evidence in medicine, they
> have failed to do their own homework.
>
> "There is a strong and growing evidence base for homeopathy and most
> notably, this also includes childhood diarrhoea."
>
> The UK's Faculty of Homeopathy added that there was also evidence homeopathy
> could help people with seasonal flu.
>
> Dr Sara Eames, president of the faculty, said people should not be deprived
> of effective conventional medicines for serious disease.
>
> But she added: "Millions die each year as those affected have no access to
> these drugs.
>
> "It therefore seems reasonable to consider what beneficial role homeopathy
> could play. What is needed is further research and investment into
> homeopathy."
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8211925.stm
>
> Related:
>
> Comments from the WHO:
>
> *Dr Mario Raviglione, Director, Stop TB Department, WHO: *"Our
> evidence-based WHO TB treatment/management guidelines, as well as the
> International Standards of Tuberculosis Care (ISTC) do not recommend use of
> homeopathy."
>
> *Dr Mukund Uplekar, TB Strategy and Health Systems, WHO: *"WHO's
> evidence-based guidelines on treatment of tuberculosis…have no place for
> homeopathic medicines."
>
> *Dr Teguest Guerma, Director Ad Interim, HIV/AIDS Department, WHO: *"The WHO
> Dept. of HIV/AIDS invests considerable human and financial resources [...]
> to ensure access to evidence-based medical information and to clinically
> proven, efficacious, and safe treatment for HIV… Let me end by
> congratulating the young clinicians and researchers of Sense About Science
> for their efforts to ensure evidence-based approaches to treating and caring
> for people living with HIV."
>
> *Dr Sergio Spinaci, Associate Director, Global Malaria Programme, WHO: *"Thanks
> for the amazing documentation and for whistle blowing on this issue… The
> Global Malaria programme recommends that malaria is treated following the
> WHO Guidelines for the Treatment of Malaria."
>
> *Joe Martines, on behalf of Dr Elizabeth Mason, Director, Department of
> Child and Adolescent Health and Development, WHO:* "We have found no
> evidence to date that homeopathy would bring any benefit to the treatment of
> diarrhoea in children…Homeopathy does not focus on the treatment and
> prevention of dehydration - in total contradiction with the scientific basis
> and our recommendations for the management of diarrhoea."
> Media Coverage
>
> *BBC online* Homeopathy not a cure, says
> WHO<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8211925.stm>
>
> *BMJ* WHO warns against using homoeopathy to treat serious
> diseases<http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/339/aug24_2/b3447>
>
> *The Independent* Steve Connor: Lack of waves causes ripples of
> excitement<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/steve-connor-lack-of-waves-causes-ripples-of-excitement-1776801.html>
>
> *Kaiser Family Foundation* WHO Recommends Against Using Homeopathic
> Treatments For HIV, TB, Malaria, Influenza, Infant
> Diarrhea<http://globalhealth.kff.org/Daily-Reports/2009/August/21/GH-082109-Homeopathy.aspx>
>
> *USA Today* WHO warns against homeopathy
> treatments<http://content.usatoday.com/topics/article/Organizations/International+Agencies,+Alliances,+Cartels/World+Health+Organization/0d9S49V6ALdy6/1>
>
> *Rocket News* WHO warns against homeopathy
> use<http://www.rocketnews.com/2009/08/who-warns-against-homeopathy-use/>
>
> *Digital Journal* Medics Condemn Homeopathic
> Treatments<http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/277979>
>
> *Newser* WHO Sounds Alarm on
> Homeopathy<http://www.newser.com/story/67422/who-sounds-alarm-on-homeopathy.html>
>
> *World News Network* WHO warns against homeopathy
> use<http://article.wn.com/view/2009/08/21/WHO_warns_against_homeopathy_use/>
>
> *Drugs and Diseases* Homeopathy not a cure, says
> WHO<http://www.druganddisease.com/homeopathy-not-a-cure-says-who/>
>
> *NetDoctor* Homeopathy `not a cure' for
> disease<http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/interactive/news/theme_news_detail.php?id=19324397&tab_id=116>
>
> *The Millenium Project* WHO does not recommend the use of homeopathy for
> HIV, malaria, TB, influenza and infant
> diarrhoea<http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/homeopathywho.htm>
>
> *hc2d.co.uk* Homeopathy not recommended by
> WHO<http://www.hc2d.co.uk/content.php?contentId=12462>
>
> *PharmiWeb.com* Homeopathy: No Science, No Proof, No
> Cure<http://www.pharmiweb.com/>
>
> *Ghana Broadcasting Corporation* WHO warns against homeopathy
> use<http://gbcghana.com/news/27617detail.html>
>
> *Kenya Broadcasting Corporation* WHO warns against homeopathy
> use<http://www.kbc.co.ke/story.asp?ID=59379>
>
> *El Pais, Spain* La OMS desaconseja el uso de la homeopatia para el
> tratamiento del sida o la
> malaria<http://www.elpais.com/articulo/sociedad/OMS/desaconseja/uso/homeopatia/tratamiento/sida/malaria/elpepusoc/20090820elpepusoc_12/Tes>
>
> *L'Express, France* Faut-il se mefier de
> l'homeopathie?<http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/sciences/sante/faut-il-se-mefier-de-l-homeopathie_781985.html>
>
> *NU.nl, Netherlands* WHO waarschuwt voor
> homeopathie<http://www.nu.nl/algemeen/2065496/who-waarschuwt-voor-homeopathie.html>
>
> *Eesti Paevaleht, Estonia* WHO hoiatab HIVi ja malaaria homoopaatilise ravi
> eest <http://www.epl.ee/artikkel/476074>
>
> *Helsingin Sanomat, Finland* WHO varoittaa homeopaattisista
> hoidoista<http://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/artikkeli/WHO+varoittaa+homeopaattisista+hoidoista/1135248695441>
>
> *Corriere della Sera, Italy* Oms: preoccupazione per la diffusione
> dell'omeopatia nel terzo
> mondo<http://www.corriere.it/salute/09_agosto_21/oms_stop_oemopatia_paesi_poveri_20b7385c-8e4d-11de-ba00-00144f02aabc.shtml>
>
> *Delfi, Lithuania* Pasauline sveikatos organizacija ispeja del homeopatijos
> naudojimo<http://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/Health/pasauline-sveikatos-organizacija-ispeja-del-homeopatijos-naudojimo.d?id=23674596>
>
> *Polskie Radio, Poland* WHO ostrzega przed
> homeopatia<http://www.polskieradio.pl/nauka/strumiendanych/artykul110456.html>
>
> *Journal of Turkish Weekly* WHO warns against homeopathy
> use<http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/87413/-who-warns-against-homeopathy-use-.html>
>
> *The Times of India* Homeopathy doesn’t help in HIV, TB,
> malaria<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/health/Homeopathy-doesnt-help-in-HIV-TB-malaria/articleshow/4918285.cms>
>
> *Thaindian News, Thailand* People with HIV, TB, malaria should not rely on
> homeopathy, says
> WHO<http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/people-with-hiv-tb-malaria-should-not-rely-on-homeopathy-says-who_100235684.html>
>
> *The News, Pakistan* WHO warns against homeopathy
> treatments<http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=85436>
>
> *Estadao.com.br <http://estadao.com.br/>, Brazil* OMS alerta para risco de
> homeopatia contra Aids e
> malaria<http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,oms-alerta-para-risco-de-homeopatia-contra-aids-e-malaria,422451,0.htm>
>
> *Excelsior, Mexico* Desaconseja OMS homeopatia para sida, tuberculosis o
> malaria<http://www.exonline.com.mx/diario/noticia/global/especiales/desaconseja_oms_homeopatia_para_sida,_tuberculosis_o_malaria/698561>
>
> *SurySur, Argentina* El imposible caso del Dr. House
> homeopata<http://www.surysur.net/?q=node/11307>
>
> *Le Mauricien, Mauritius* Dangerous
> homeopathy<http://lemauricien.com/mauricien/090827/FO.HTM#5>
>
> *Radio Netherlands Worldwide* Sceptics want homeopathy banned in Africa,
> RADIO INTERVIEW <http://www.rnw.nl/nl/node/19512>
>


------------------------------------

[* 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]
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chottala/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chottala/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:chottala-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:chottala-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
chottala-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[chottala.com] A Tale Of A Two Star General



By Shah Mohammed Saifuddin

 

At a time when the BDR incident is still being investigated, the political blame game is still on, the people are still being haunted by the barbaric gruesome murder of the army officers, and the heart-wrenching mourning of relatives of the  slain officers is still being heard, a report carrying a picture of the BDR and BSF joint patrol at Agartala border point  was published on Aug 5 in one of the Bengali news dailies. The news report raised a few eyebrows and many questioned the necessity of a joint border patrol with the Indian border security force at a time when objections are being expressed by many security experts to possible Indian involvement in the reorganization process of the Bangladesh Rifles. Against the backdrop of all this, the DG of the Bangladesh Rifles gave an interview to the Bengali daily to refute the allegations that he ordered the Bangladesh Rifles to participate in the joint patrol with the Indian border security force and to express his views on border management, in general and border crossings, border killings, and geographical and economic threats, in particular. I, as a citizen of Bangladesh, have found his views on the above mentioned issues not only shallow and incompatible with reality, but also disheartening for the fact that such deleterious views on national interest exist among some of the top brass of the Bangladesh Rifles. I, therefore, would like to contradict his views and discuss the issues from a realistic perspective so that the ordinary citizens of Bangladesh know the flaws in the BDR DGs views and get a vivid picture of the consequences of such ill-informed, unrealistic, absurd, and narrow views for the people of Bangladesh residing in the border areas.  

 

Economic threat vs Geographical threat

 

While the BDR DG acknowledged the existence of economic threats, he summarily dismissed the existence of geographical threats from other nations and implied that we should be more flexible and open-minded about India.

 

I neither agree that Bangladesh is facing an economic threat from any particular nation nor approve his complacent views that geographical threats have diminished in the current global geopolitical situation. True, we are at fault for the huge trade imbalance that the nation has been incurring since the early 90s with India as not only did our the then finance ministry fail to conduct a thorough impact analysis of the consequences for local small and medium scale industries of opening market to a much larger and more powerful neighbor, they didn't even see that without a negotiated deal India would not be morally or legally obligated to compensate for the losses that Bangladesh would sustain because of trade imbalance through soft loans, investments, and duty-free access for our products to Indian market. Had they only analyzed the U.S.-Canada trade relation, they would have seen that Canada is making 81.6%[1] of its total export earnings from the U.S.A alone because of smart application of free trade principles  to extract maximum economic benefits from a larger economy. Unfortunately, the then finance ministry could neither show the foresight nor the prudence to realize the risks of creating a lopsided trade relation with India by opening up our market without extracting similar privileges from India on a reciprocal basis. But the trade imbalance with India does not constitute an economic threat for Bangladesh yet as we have diversified our import source by opening up market to the Chinese,[2] achieved trade surplus with many other nations and had a unique opportunity to act as a land bridge to enhance regional economic interactions between SAARC and ASEAN and to transform ourselves into a regional commercial hub to achieve formidable economic growth and to cancel out the negative impact of mammoth trade imbalance with India before it could escalate into an economic threat.   

 

 

I also vehemently reject major general Moinul Islam's views that the days of geographical aggression against  weaker countries are over and major powers such as Russia and the U.S.A are working together on various global issues dissolving their past bitter rivalries because such sugar-coated empty words are often uttered by gullible people who do not keep abreast themselves of current world affairs and by  those who are unaware of the growing rivalries between Russia, China and the U.S.A for establishing supremacy in East Europe, Central Asia, and Asia-Pacific to achieve their respective energy, political, and military objectives. After the end of the WWII we have seen the world to get united under the umbrella of the United Nations to promote peace, stability, and tranquility throughout the world by engaging in constructive dialogue with the member countries to reduce the risks of conflicts and to foster cooperation, confidence, and friendship.[2] But because of the desire of global domination, the strategic rivalry among big powers never ceased to stop and we have seen fierce competition between the erstwhile Soviet Union, China and the U.S.A in Korean peninsula, Vietnam, the Asia-Pacific, Europe and the Middle East  throughout the cold war. At the end of the cold war, the world breathed a sigh of relief and hoped for peace and stability across the world because with the demise of erstwhile Soviet Union, the root cause of instability was gone forever, at least the world had thought so. But the soaring hopes and aspirations were soon dashed with the start of the first gulf war and the subsequent mass militarization of the Middle Eastern countries. The world could hardly manage to recuperate from the scars of the first gulf war, when a deadly terrorist attack upon the U.S.A shook the whole world and plunged it into deep instability and confusion. The subsequent reckless invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and mindless killings of innocent civilians by the Western powers in the name of war against terrorism did nothing to improve the situation filled with fear, uncertainty, and insecurity. Russia has been highly critical of the U.S. unilateral actions worldwide to impose its will on other nations and deplores the U.S. move to establish anti ballistic missile defense shield in East Europe and Central Asia, rejects the U.S. action against Iran, regrets the U.S. criticism against lack democracy in Russia, and opposes the U.S. policy in the Balkans.[3] Under this circumstance, Major General Moinul Islam's remark that both Russia and the U.S.A are working together in international issues is naive at best and ignorant at worst. In fact, Russia has formed strategic partnership alliance with China to counter the U.S.A in Central Asia,[4] flexed its energy muscle to make the European nations dependent on Russia,[5] and sold arms to anti U.S. nations like Iran and Venezuela to expand its own sphere of influence.[6]  

 

In South Asia we have witnessed similar strategic game plan between regional powers that resulted in four Indo-Pak wars in 1948, 1965, 1971, and 1999 respectively that changed the map as well as the strategic landscape of the region. Despite being peaceful nations and having nothing to do with competition for regional supremacy, Bangladesh and Sri-lanka became the worst victims of proxy war sponsored by India in the Chittagong Hill Tracts and Jaffna and had to fight a full-blooded guerrilla war against Shanti Bahini[7] and Tamil Tigers for more than two decades before some sort of peace was established in their respective insurgency infested regions. Because of strategic geographical location, Bangladesh cannot rule out the threat of a physical aggression against her either directly or through a proxy so long as India continues with its exploitative policy in the North East to alienate the indigenous people and fails to make China agree to abide by the McMahon Line to relinquish its claim over Arunachal Pradesh.  

 

Economic relation vs Patriotism

 

The BDR DG accused the people of fake patriotism who, on the one hand, protest against BSF's excesses in the border and on the other hand, buys Indian products in the market. It occurred to me that major general Moinul Islam is unable to distinguish between economic and security relations and has no idea about how nations around the world are cooperating with each other on the economic front while acting against one another on the strategic front. China, on the one hand, is sending ship load of products to the U.S.A to make $337 billion a year from the U.S. market[8] and on the other hand, is forming strategic partnership with Russia to counter-weight the U.S. influence in East Europe, Central Asia, and the Asia Pacific. The U.S.A is playing the same strategic game with China and working closely with Japan, Australia, and India to contain the rising Chinese influence in the Asia Pacific while importing cheap Chinese products worth of $71.5 billion for its own economic interest.[9] The same mismatch of economic and strategic interests in the relationship between India and China also exists. China considers economic progress vital to its goal of achieving domestic stability, and therefore it is making vigorous effort to promote its economic interests overseas. The trade between China and India has reached the $20 billion mark and is likely to hit the $50 billion mark by the year 2010.[10] But the booming trade between the two Asian giants should not be construed as strategic rapprochement between the two countries who fought a bloody war in 1962. China is busy cultivating deep military relations with countries near the Indian Ocean as part of its 'string of pearl' strategy, making massive military preparation in Tibet and Xinjiang Autonomous Regions, and refusing to honor the so called McMahon Line, which India views as a direct threat to its national security.[11] In response to Chinese strategy, India has already signed a strategic agreement with the U.S.A to acquire the most modern nuclear technology and military hardware to augment its own deterrent power, and has initiated talks with Maldives for a permanent Indian naval base to counter Chinese 'string of pearl' strategy.[12] So like others, Bangladeshis can remain alert about their strategic interests while doing business with India and there is absolutely nothing unpatriotic about it at all. Major general Moinul Islam's comments prove his narrow views, paucity of knowledge, and lack of understanding about world affairs.        

 

Border crossing vs DG's outburst

 

The BDR DG, major general Moinul Islam, attributed the indiscriminate border killings by BSF to illegal border crossings by Bangladeshis at night time, defended Indian actions at the border, and made it clear that he cannot help stop such mindless killings by BSF because of jurisdictional ambiguities meaning all of the killings occur inside the Indian territory and he has no power to exercise his authority beyond the border of Bangladesh.  It is obvious that he narrated the Indian version of the border situation and tactfully ignored the fact that most of the time it is the BSF that enters into Bangladesh territory to kill, abduct, and destroy the properties of Bangladeshis residing near the border. Let me quote a statement by one of the Humanitarian organizations in Bangladesh for the readers to know how the Indian border security force trespass into Bangladesh territory to commit grisly crimes against innocent villagers. Human rights watchdog Odhikar said in its survey report, "A humanitarian crisis has been created on the border in the wake of unrelenting intrusion by the BSF troops and Indian hoodlums into Bangladesh territory, who are shooting down or kidnapping innocent civilians and plundering their property."[13] The same organization reported this year that BSF killed 700 people and injured 800 more between January 1, 2000 and January 31, 2009.[14] Let me also quote from a prestigious Indian news daily to show how BSF intrude into Bangladesh territory to kill innocent villagers at night time: "The BDR officials of Pachagarh 25 Battalion said at least eight to 10 drunken BSF personnel from the Nayabari camp in India entered Maynaguri village near the Majhipara border, at least 500 metres inside Bangladesh, after 10 p.m. on Sunday and ransacked several houses.......When the villagers protested, the intruders entered the house of one Shahidul Islam and fired indiscriminately, leaving three people killed and one injured."[15] Now as a citizen of Bangladesh I would like to know the reason why our own BDR chief narrated the untrue Indian version in the media, blamed his own people for the extra-judicial killings by BSF, and conveniently escaped his responsibility of protecting the lives and properties of the citizens of Bangladesh. I think he owes an explanation to the nation. 

 

 

Accidental death vs Border killing

 

The primary duty of government is to use its state machinery to improve the living condition of its citizens regardless of their racial and religious background, to provide security, to maintain internal stability, and to promote social harmony through alleviating poverty, deprivation, exploitation, and racism. Being one of the most important state organs, the BDR is entrusted with the responsibility of protecting the lives and properties of the unarmed, innocent people living in the border areas from external state or non-state aggression. But to my utmost disappointment, the BDR DG showing complete disregard to the government's and his own responsibility of protecting the citizens of Bangladesh from external aggression, equated the deaths of Bangladeshis at the hands of the Indian border security forces with the deaths of Bangladeshis in road accidents. I was also dumbfounded by his comments that the government has no responsibility for victims of BSF's atrocities if they have more than two children violating the state's policy of two-child family. This was utter insensitive, irresponsible, uneducated, and outrageous comments from a two star general who happens to be the DG of Bangladesh Rifles. Hypothetically speaking, if we go by his absurd logic, shouldn't we disconnect the three-child families of the armed forces and the politicians from all state privileges that a two-child family enjoys? 

 

Geo-politics vs Unknown enemy      

 

While I was writing this piece, the BDR DG came up with another gem of information and was magnanimous enough to share it with the jawans and the journalists present at the BDR darbar hall  on Aug 18 that under the current global geopolitical situation each country has enemies working against its sovereignty[16], which may I humbly say, contradicts his own previous assertion that in today's world barring  economic threats, there exist no geographical threats. Then he talked about some 'unknown enemies' of the country who are there to harm the national interest of Bangladesh, and without naming them he made an oblique reference to forces that were against our independence in 1971 to blame for the carnage at the BDR headquarters. If he had good grasp of the geopolitical interests of Bangladesh then he would not have too much difficulty in figuring out the nation(s) whose geopolitical objectives are contradictory to our own geopolitical interests. Our geopolitical interests are to use geographical advantages to create relationships with other nations on the basis of equality and mutual interdependence, to maintain balance of power, and to promote multilateralism to foster regional and global cooperation among the nations with common interests. Now, any nations that aspire to acquire disproportionately more power than their neighbors to create asymmetry in balance of power, to impose bilateralism in conflict resolution, and to use bilateral treaty agreements in their favor to substantially diminish the other contracting parties' power to exercise their sovereign rights to establish relations with and to seek assistance from third parties to enhance their bargaining power in various regional and global issues should be considered a force inimical to our sovereignty. Now without naming such nation(s) and going deep into this geopolitical mumbo jumbo because it's well beyond the scope of this article, I would like to leave it up to the people of Bangladesh to decide whose geopolitical objectives are contradictory to our national interest. Lastly, I would like to draw people's attention to major general Moinul Islam's contradictory comments on geopolitics in connection with the killings of ordinary Bangladeshi citizens by BSF and the gruesome murders of the army officers at the BDR headquarters by some 'unknown enemies'.      

 

Concluding observations  

 

Internal stability, economic development, social harmony, and proper functioning of the government are directly dependent upon proactive border security strategies to manage and control human trafficking, illegal arms and drug trading, smuggling, terrorism, and illegal trespassing of foreign troops to loot and plunder the citizens of Bangladesh along the long and porous borders with neighboring states. Laxity in border security, negligence in responsibility, and complacency in border management may have catastrophic consequences for national security and stability. We should take lesson from the history of the mighty Roman empire which was brought down to its knees by the barbarian tribes through repeatedly attacking and destabilizing the border. The last thing we want is the BDR DG playing the role of Nero while scores of innocent Bangladeshi citizens are being killed by the border security forces of neighboring states.               

 

References  

 

1. Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada

http://www.international.gc.ca/canadexport/articles/385251.aspx

2. China tops import source for Bangladesh

http://english.people.com.cn/200602/20/eng20060220_244154.html

3. United Nations

http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/index.shtml

4. Putin arms threat may steal headlines at G8 summit

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL0519220820070605

5. China and Russia counterweigh US influence in Eurasia

http://www.thedailystar.net/strategic/2006/07/01/strategic.htm

6. Vladimir Putin threatens Europe over energy supply

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL0519220820070605

7. Russia ratchets up US tensions with arms sales to Iran and Venezuela

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4781027.ece

8. Bangladeshi Insurgents Say India Is Supporting Them

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/11/world/bangladeshi-insurgents-say-india-is-supporting-them.html

9. The U.S.-China Business Council

http://www.uschina.org/statistics/tradetable.html

10. ibid

11. China, India trade to hit US$20b this year

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-11/22/content_739381.htm

12. Govt aware of China developing infrastructure on border

http://www.zeenews.com/news551209.html

13. Navy eyes Maldives- Counter to China's `string of pearls' plan

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090820/jsp/frontpage/story_11385890.jsp

14. BSF's spree of killing continues, Newagebd, 12, Aug, 2006

15. BSF kills 700, wounds 800 in 9 years

http://www.newagebd.com/2009/feb/10/home.html

16. BSF regrets killing of civilians, says BDR

http://www.hindu.com/2008/11/19/stories/2008111956831400.htm

17. Foreign enemies got benefited

http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=101882



__._,_.___


[* 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

__,_._,___

[chottala.com] Brig. Khaled wanted Kh. Moshtaque to continue as President



Brig. Khaled wanted Kh. Moshtaque to continue as President

 

HOLIDAY – September 11, 2009

 

The US Ambassador Boster in his primary assessment report on the incident that happened during first week of November, 1975, stated that there were three different governments in Bangladesh until November 7, but they had no evidence that either of them was pro-Indian or pro-Soviet or anti-American. The report stated that Brigadier Khaled Mosharraf, the Chief of the Army General Staff, had personal rivalry with Major General Ziaur Rahman who was promoted to Chief of Army Staff after the coup of "August 15, 1975."


Not only that, Khaled Mosharraf even wanted that Moshtaque Ahmed should continue as President of the country. In a contradictory remark, the report mentioned that "there was possibility of Indian intervention, which could be avoided by the narrowest margin, it stated that they had no evidence that India was involved in any one of the incidents of November 1975. The report further revealed that Mosharraf was unaware about the jail killing, when (he) was negotiating with Khodoker Moshtaque Ahmed conceding the departure of the army Majors, who were in control of the governmental affairs after the August 15, coup. The report which was sent from Dhaka on November 10, 1975 has recently been released by the office of the Historian of the Department of State.

The then US ambassador to Dhaka Mr Boster sent the report (Subject: Last Week in Bangladesh in Retrospect) through telegram No 5470 from Embassy of Dhaka to Washington D.C and that was simultaneously sent to American Embassy in Bangkok, Colombo, Islamabad, Kabul, Kathmandu, Moscow, New Delhi, Rangoon, Peking, American Consul office in Calcutta and US Commander in Chief of Pacific Command (CINCPAC) for Political Adviser.


Though the whole document was released, still many issues like (a) how the Indian intervention could be avoided; (b) who were the army majors, who had total grip on Mushtaque government; (c) the name of the army officers who were killed along with their wives; (d) who were the army officers, who did not like Mosharraf and (e) what was the function of the Chief Martial Law Administrator Justice A S M Sayem remained unanswered.


The content of the telegram report is being published for the Holiday readers verbatim:

"1. It may be useful to offer a capsule summary of the chaotic events of last week in Bangladesh which saw three different governments, much killing and the avoidance of civil war, with attendant possibility of Indian intervention, by the narrowest margins. This account is based on the best information available to the embassy from all sources.


Brig. Khaled's ambition


2. The confrontation between Brigadier Mosharraf, Chief of the Army General Staff, who had been embittered by his failure to share in the promotion, received by some of his colleagues after the assassination of President Mujib by the Majors in August 15 and who was also believed to be on a list of army officers to be investigated -- which had recently been drawn up by the Majors, began in the early hours of Monday Morning, November 3. We don't know positively whether Mosharraf was the architect of the confrontation, as many contend, or whether, as one good source has told us, he simply went along with subordinates who were determined to end the special role of the Majors in the Moshtaque Government, a role which resulted among other things in the harassment of some of the military officers. This source also held that one of Mosharraf's objectives- although he was undoubtedly mindful of the personal glory that might await him-was to take control of his subordinates' plans in such a way as to avoid major bloodshed.


3. Brig. Mosharraf and his allies quickly took control, early Monday morning of the cantonment as well as most of the city of Dhaka and pressed their confrontation with the Moshtaque government by flying a Mig fighter and armed helicopter over the city in a show of strength which was also intended to intimidate the tank crews loyal to the government.


Against this background, Brig. Mosharraf placed four demands on Moshtaque: (1) That Mosharraf replace Major General Ziaur Rahman, his personal rival, as Chief of Staff (2) That the majors be returned to regular army discipline; (3) That the tank forces loyal to the government be disarmed; and (4) That Moshtaque remain in office. Outgunned and apparently intend above all on avoiding bloodshed, which would also have invited Indian intervention, Moshtaque eventually yielded after negotiating during the course of a long day for compromise with Brig. Mosharraf by which the majors and some of their colleagues, to whom Moshtaque was indebted for his presidency, were permitted to depart Bangladesh.


Before this compromise had been reached, the Moshtaque Government had called on the army forces at Comilla to come to its aid but had been refused on the ground that the Comilla Commander would only respond to the orders of the Chief of Army Staff (who was then under arrest) or the Chief of the General Staff (Mosharraf).


Brig. Khaled and Majors' departure


4. The confrontation brought another bloody result which, we have good reason to believe, had been part of an earlier contingency plan to be carried out in the event that Moshatque were to be killed, i.e. the murder of his former colleagues in the Awami League Party leadership who were now his political enemies--former Prime Minister Monsoor Ali, former Vice President Syed Nazrul Islam, former Prime Minister, Finanace Minister and Indophile Tajuddin Ahmed, and former Industries Minister Kamruzzaman. These leaders were killed, evidently by order of one or more of the Majors, early Monday morning at Dacca Central Jail. The event added a note of mystery to Brig. Khaled Mosharraf's acquiescence to the departure of the Majors later in the day, one version having it that Mosharraf did not yet know when the plane left Dhaka at midnight Monday. Many observers also noted that one effect of the murders was to remove the logical leadership of any pro-Indian Government.

5. With the explosive situation defused to a degree by the departure of the majors, negotiations between Moshtaque and Mosharraf continued on Tuesday and Wednesday, resulting in Mosharraf's designation as Chief of Staff late Tuesday night, and eventually in Moshtaque's resignation early Thursday morning with the simultaneous announcement that a non-political figure, Chief Justice A.S.M Sayem, would be appointed President. Sayem was sworn in on Thursday and promptly dissolved the parliament. Reports, which we accept, were rife that the cabinet had already resigned in protest against the murder of the former government leaders.


Brig. Mosharraf ousted


6. But it now become clear that Brig. Mosharraf's assumption of power in the army was unpalatable to most of his fellow officers and enlisted ranks, both because General Zia evidently held a much wider popular following among them but also, and very importantly, because Mosharraf was widely seen, whether accurately or not, as an instrument of Indian policy. This perception was buttressed by the pro-Mujib procession on Tuesday and Wednesday's hartal to protest the killings at Dacca jail. The lower ranks revolt in the early hours of Friday morning, quickly overthrowing Mosharraf's forces and, according to virtually all accounts, killing Mosharraf.


Extensive firing went throughout the city all night and all during the day Friday, most of it celebratory after Brig. Mosharraf was ousted. One authoritative source has told us that only about 30 were killed in the overthrow; other reports reached us which put the figure in the hundreds.


Revolt and new problem


7. The successful revolt of the lower ranks now brought a new problem, the rampant indiscipline of the enlisted men, many of whom now turned on officers against whom they might have grudges and others began presenting demands on the army leadership for a better deal in their future treatment. Widespread reports were current throughout the weekend that large numbers of military officers had fled or were at least staying away from the cantonment out of fear of the rampaging sepoys and several reports reached us of the murder of military officers and of their wives.


8. Meanwhile the post-Mosharraf government took shape in a meeting early Friday morning between General Zia, Moshtaque and presumably other principal aides. Moshtaque was offered the presidency anew but declined on the ground that, in the still explosive situation, the country required a non-political, non controversial President. Consequently the decision was reached to keep Justice Sayem in the presidency and to turn over to him as well the functions of Chief Martial Law Administrator, a role which had been filled briefly by General Zia. We were pointedly assured that these arrangements enjoyed full support both within the military and within the political leadership so that the way was now clear for the restoration of stability in the country.

9. As of Monday morning, November 10, the situation had returned to an apparent normalcy, with international air service resumed on Sunday, but the general uneasiness was still being fed by reports of continued killings among the military and of possible Indian actions along the border. The prospect was for, at best, a continued state of tension and uncertainty.


Anti-Indian overtones


10. Comment. Three conclusions implicit in the above account should be underlined. The first is that the actions of the main participants in the coup and counter-coup appear to have been non-political, except in the sense that Mosharraf had the additional disadvantage of appearing to be pro-Indian. The army forces which overthrew Moshtaque and the majors, appear to have acted primarily out of a sense of grievance against the Majors. The counter -coup was the work of lower ranks who far preferred Zia to Mosharraf and who were also concerned where Mosharraf's loyalty might lie. We have no reason to believe that the regime of the past week was anti- American, pro- Indian or pro-Soviet in character.


11. The second is that we have no evidence that India was responsible for any of the week's actions.


12. The third is the confirmation of how strongly and pervasively anti-Indian antipathies are felt here -- from the top of the leadership to the lowest groups of society, although we have no evidence that Brig. Khaled Mosharraf was pro-Indian, and some say that he was not; he was widely identified as such and the wild celebration here of his overthrow carried distinctly anti- Indian overtones. Boster."

 

http://www.weeklyholiday.net/front.html#06

 

(I don't think the Americans were entirely right. Khaled Musharaf was probably an Indian stooge like Gen. Moin U Ahmad and as far as I know the Jail Killings were not carried out by the same people who did the 15th August coup – MBI Munshi)



__._,_.___


[* 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

__,_._,___