Banner Advertise

Monday, September 21, 2009

RE: [chottala.com] Asian Highway: Map Talks




Hello
 We must understand no regional powers such as India is in the business of short cuts or charity, it is just protecting its own interest by trying to expand markets in Bhutan, Bangladesh and Myanmar and more importantly trying to stop Chinese access to Chittagong port (which from security perspective not the greatest thing to have), in one swoop. In other words what India is doing is what any regional bully will do to preserve its own interest against another regional bully, either we can keep whining about it or play the game according to their standards but still protect our own interest, e.g. let the Asian highway be according to India's proposal and at the same time open up Ctg port for chinese trade (we already have Korean epz) so that China builds the short cut thru Myanmar, beautiful balancing act that will be a win win situation for BD. Chances are India will immediately ditch the proposal for its own version of the highway. When life gives us lemon we must learn to make lemonade.
Regards
Rana





To: chottala@yahoogroups.com; dahuk@yahoogroups.com; dhakamails@yahoogroups.com; Diagnose@yahoogroups.com; khabor@yahoogroups.com; mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com; notun_bangladesh@yahoogroups.com; odhora@yahoogroups.com; shetubondhon@yahoogroups.com
From: udarakash08@yahoo.com
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:17:02 -0700
Subject: [chottala.com] Asian Highway: Map Talks

 
An exclusive article on Asian Highway, it is easy to understand if you read it:
 
 
Regards,
NK


Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now!



Bing™ brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. Try it now.

__._,_.___


[* 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] Attention Mr No Body...Why did India help in 1971? Goodreading ....



Mr No body at one point you are right. 
That Indian & Pakistani political leaders are working for their own Interest. Bangladeshi Political leaders are working not for interest of Bangladesh but  for interest own pocket either in favour of Pakistan we call them Rajakar or in favour of India we call them Raw Agent both are enemy people to the people of Bangladesh.


--- On Mon, 21/9/09, 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: chottala@yahoogroups.com
Received: Monday, 21 September, 2009, 11:53 PM

 
Mr Nobody:
 
Please have a longer memory than 40 years. Read the history of civilization, emperializm and colonialism and then come back - we will talk!
 
Opposing India does not mean supporting Pakistan. Bangladesh has a different geographical location than India or Pakistan. We oppose hegemony of any kind, either militarily, economically, cultarily or trading. Pakistanis might have harmed Bangladesh, India even hurting more and its going ton everyday! Do you remember the river Padma? Its a history now, thank you Indira Gandhi & Farakka!
 
Do you know the current trade deficit between India and Bangladesh? Billions of dollars, ask our Prime Minister, our beloved Hasina?
 
No matter what party you support, our country first, and for your information, its name is Bangldesh, not India.

--- On Sat, 9/19/09, Nobody <> wrote:

From: Nobody <>
Subject: Re: [chottala.com] Why did India help in 1971? Goodreading ....
To: chottala@yahoogroup s.com
Date: Saturday, September 19, 2009, 9:53 AM

 
Dear Mr. Saifuddin, Mr. Enayetullah, and Ms. Khan,

All your analyses may be right, may be wrong, may be partially right, may be partially wrong, what do they matter to current perspective of Bangladesh? Is it always that someoene else is wrong and us are always right?

Is it what these writers want to convey that Pakistan was right in the perspective and only India made the separation happen? Means: India broke Pakistan for India's interest only and East Pakistanies has no problems and had no grievances whatsoever, and Pakistan was totally innocent and had nothing to do with the separation of East Pakistan?

Parhaps you guys live in another planet!!!!!

Simply appears to be a band, shunned with vested own personal interst !!!!

Please open eyes and try see and understand the truths around. Selfishness does not always help in everything. Thanks, not to blindness, but definitely to openness and truthfulness.

--- In chottala@yahoogroup s.com, dina khan <dina30_khan@ ...> wrote:
>
> 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@ ...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Enayet Ullah <enayet_2000@ ...>
> 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@ ...
> 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
>
> http://bangladesh- web.com/view. php?hidRecord= 173793
>



Need mail bonding? Bring all your contacts to Yahoo!Xtra with TrueSwitch

__._,_.___


[* 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] Why did India help in 1971? Goodreading ....



Mr Nobody:
 
Please have a longer memory than 40 years. Read the history of civilization, emperializm and colonialism and then come back - we will talk!
 
Opposing India does not mean supporting Pakistan. Bangladesh has a different geographical location than India or Pakistan. We oppose hegemony of any kind, either militarily, economically, cultarily or trading. Pakistanis might have harmed Bangladesh, India even hurting more and its going ton everyday! Do you remember the river Padma? Its a history now, thank you Indira Gandhi & Farakka!
 
Do you know the current trade deficit between India and Bangladesh? Billions of dollars, ask our Prime Minister, our beloved Hasina?
 
No matter what party you support, our country first, and for your information, its name is Bangldesh, not India.

--- On Sat, 9/19/09, Nobody <> wrote:

From: Nobody <>
Subject: Re: [chottala.com] Why did India help in 1971? Goodreading ....
To: chottala@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, September 19, 2009, 9:53 AM

 
Dear Mr. Saifuddin, Mr. Enayetullah, and Ms. Khan,

All your analyses may be right, may be wrong, may be partially right, may be partially wrong, what do they matter to current perspective of Bangladesh? Is it always that someoene else is wrong and us are always right?

Is it what these writers want to convey that Pakistan was right in the perspective and only India made the separation happen? Means: India broke Pakistan for India's interest only and East Pakistanies has no problems and had no grievances whatsoever, and Pakistan was totally innocent and had nothing to do with the separation of East Pakistan?

Parhaps you guys live in another planet!!!!!

Simply appears to be a band, shunned with vested own personal interst !!!!

Please open eyes and try see and understand the truths around. Selfishness does not always help in everything. Thanks, not to blindness, but definitely to openness and truthfulness.

--- In chottala@yahoogroup s.com, dina khan <dina30_khan@ ...> wrote:
>
> 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@ ...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Enayet Ullah <enayet_2000@ ...>
> 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@ ...
> 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
>
> http://bangladesh- web.com/view. php?hidRecord= 173793
>




__._,_.___


[* 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] Asian Highway: Map Talks



An exclusive article on Asian Highway, it is easy to understand if you read it:
 
 
Regards,
NK

Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now!



__._,_.___


[* 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] US general warns of Afghan failure



US general warns of Afghan failure
General Stanley McChrystal (R) said the overall effort in Afghanistan is 'deteriorating' [AFP]

The most senior US and Nato commander in Afghanistan has said the war against the Taliban "will likely result in failure" if more troops are not sent and a new strategy developed.

General Stanley McChrystal said in a leaked report obtained by the Washington Post that, despite some progress, "many indicators suggest the overall effort is deteriorating".

Inability to provide adequate resources "also risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs, and ultimately, a critical loss of political support" he said, according to the Post report published on Monday.

"Any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure."

'Government corruption'

His said in his assessment that Taliban fighters controlled entire sections of the country.

He also criticised the Afghan government for failing the public and said it was riddled by corruption.

"The weakness of state institutions, malign actions of power-brokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials, and Isaf's own errors, have given Afghans little reason to support their government," McChrystal wrote.

He called for an "urgent need for significant change in our strategy" in Afghanistan, saying the US needs to interact better with the Afghan people and better organise its efforts with Nato. 

"Our objective must be the population. The objective is the will of the people, our conventional warfare culture is part of the problem, the Afghans must ultimately defeat the insurgency," he wrote.

Waning support

The 66-page report, which was confirmed as being genuine by McChrystal's spokesman in Kabul, was sent to Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, in August, and is being reviewed by US President Barack Obama.

McChrystal is expected to ask for a troop increase in the coming weeks, with reports he may request up to 30,000 new combat troops and trainers.

But a request for extra soldiers faces resistance from within Obama's Democratic party and some Republicans, while opinion polls also show public support for the war is waning.

A recent CNN/Opinion Research poll showed about 58 per cent of Americans oppose the Afghan war, while 39 per cent support it.

The number of US troops in Afghanistan has almost doubled this year from 32,000 to 62,000 and is expected to grow by another 6,000 by the end of 2009.

 
Related:

Report: US general calls for more troops in Afghanistan

CNN - ‎3 hours ago‎
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- America's top commander in Afghanistan warns that more troops are needed there within the next year or the nearly 8-year-old war "will likely result in failure," according to a copy of a 66-page document obtained by The Washington ...
 
More troops or 'failure': US commander in Afghanistan Christian Science Monitor
Times Online - The Associated Press - guardian.co.uk - CBS News
 

Obama 'skeptical' about more troops

Politico - Josh Gerstein - ‎Sep 20, 2009‎
President Barack Obama is warning US commanders that he's "skeptical" about whether more troops will make a ...
 

Obama, Vietnam and Afghanistan

Atlanta Journal Constitution - ‎27 minutes ago‎
One trait in a good leader is the ability to change course on the basis of new information. President Obama seems in the midst of just such a re-adjustment ...

Changes Have Obama Rethinking War Strategy

CBS News - Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Karen DeYoung - ‎1 hour ago‎
The implicit recommendation of General McChrystal in his latest assessment of the situation in Afghanistan is that the United States and its NATO partners ...

The Afghanistan problem gets more difficult

Atlanta Journal Constitution - ‎1 hour ago‎
From the beginning eight years ago, the United States has failed to commit the resources and attention needed in Afghanistan. Barack Obama campaigned on ...
All 228 related articles from United States »

Analysis: the flaws in General McChrystal's strategy

Times Online - Jerome Starkey - ‎2 hours ago‎
More troops might stop Nato failing in Afghanistan, but they certainly won't guarantee victory. General Stanley McChrystal's new counterinsurgency plan relies on seizing the initiative and reversing "insurgent momentum," which has seen violence spread ...


__._,_.___


[* 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

__,_._,___
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)