Banner Advertise

Thursday, January 13, 2011

[chottala.com] No wrong in detention of Accused war criminals says US ambassador-at-large for war crimes



Friday, January 14, 2011 

No wrong in detention

US ambassador-at-large for war crimes says pre-charge detention no violation of int'l standards

Stephen J Rapp
Staff Correspondent

Accused war criminals can be detained before bringing charges against them as long as their prolonged detention is judicially reviewed, Stephen J Rapp, US ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues, has said.

"Different countries follow different process and different courts have different procedures," he said yesterday, adding, "Pre-charging detention is not automatically a violation of international standards."

Speaking at a press conference at American Recreation Association in the capital, he stressed that accused should be tried for their activities, and not for their association with any organisation.

"Individuals are judged not by what association they are part of but what they did. Even then one's membership is not enough to convict an individual, it has to be on what the person did," he said.

Rapp observed that the people of Bangladesh want to see justice to war crimes; especially the young people, who want to know the truth and what happened to their uncles, aunts and grandparents in 1971.

"It creates an expectation and sends a message that crimes like these are not going to be tolerated; that perhaps not in a week after the crime, but even 40 years after the crime" said Rapp, a former prosecutor of Special Court for Sierra Leone in 2007.

The court tried former Liberian president Charles Taylor for his crimes during the country's civil war.

"The individuals that chose to target innocent people for their political or whatever gain, and chose to kill innocent will face consequences," he noted.

He thinks that the trial can be held under the law formulated in 1973 provided that the crimes are recognised under international humanitarian law. The constitution of Bangladesh also accepts such laws, he added.

He, however, suggested some changes to the International Crimes Tribunal Act, 1973 for ensuring a transparent trial.

The law should include definitions set by International Criminal Court (ICC) and other international tribunals on genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, he observed.

He will send a letter to the law minister next week suggesting issues that might be raised by defence lawyers or international organisations during the trial.

On the overall trial process, he said it should maintain international standards.

"It is important that these cases happen in national level, close to the communities that were affected, close to the victims, close to the families of the people who were accused who can visit and watch and learn for themselves. This is an opportunity for a process that can be developed as a model," Rapp said.
 
 

No wrong in detention


The Daily Star - 4 hours ago
Accused war criminals can be detained before bringing charges against them as long as their prolonged detention is judicially reviewed, Stephen J Rapp, ...
  • WAR CRIMES TRIAL US expert due Monday


    Bangladesh News 24 hours - 4 days ago
    Dhaka, Jan 09 (bdnews24.com) — As the government is poised to start the trial of war criminals, US ambassador for war crimes Stephen J Rapp arrives in Dhaka ...
  • US to assist in war crimes trial: Shafique


    Bangladesh News 24 hours - 2 days ago
    The assurance came when US war crimes affairs ambassador-at-large Stephen J Rapp, along with US ambassador to Bangladesh James F Moriarty, ...

    US to assist war crimes trial: law minister - The Daily Star
    US to assist B''desh in war crimes trial: Law Minister - MSN India
    US pledges to help conduct fair trial - The Daily Star

    Related:

  • War crimes probe agency reconstituted

     Tuesday, January 11, 2011

    Star Online Report

    The government on Tuesday co-opted two into the probe agency formed last year to investigate crimes against humanity during the Liberation War.

    The government, however, excluded a member of the committee -- Khasrur Haque, a home ministry circular said.

    The new members are: M Sanaul Haque, former inspector general of police, and Md Abdul Hannan Khan, former additional deputy inspector general of police.

    Inclusion of the two raises the number of probe agency members to 20.

    Related News

    The Daily Star

     Bangla:
     
    MananZamin -
     
    Samakal:
     
    Sangram:
     
    Janakantha:
     
    Ittefaq:
     
     
     

    __._,_.___


    [* 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] Noor Inayat Khan: British SOE Agents executed by Germans during WWII



     On or around 13 October 1943 Inayat Khan was arrested and interrogated at the SD Headquarters at 84 Avenue Foch in Paris. Though SOE trainers had expressed doubts about Inayat Khan's gentle and unworldly character, on her arrest she fought so fiercely that SD officers were afraid of her. She was thenceforth treated as an extremely dangerous prisoner. There is no evidence of her being tortured, but her interrogation lasted over a month. During that time, she attempted escape twice. Hans Kieffer, the former head of Gestapo in Paris, testified after the war that she didn't give the Gestapo a single piece of information, but lied consistently........... [  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noor_Inayat_Khan ]
     

    Noor Inayat Khan
     

    Churchill's Asian spy princess comes out of the shadows

    Noor Inayat Khan Britain's Asian spy Noor Inayat Khan was shot by the Nazis in 1944 after being betrayed

    "Liberte!" - That was the last word spoken by the heroine of Churchill's elite spy network before being executed by her Nazi captors.

    On 13 September 1944, the glamorous British agent, code named "Madeline," was shot dead at Dachau concentration camp.

    Despite being tortured by the Gestapo during 10 months of imprisonment, she had revealed nothing of use to her interrogators.

    Noor Inayat Khan, died aged just 30, but her story has gone down in history.

    " She was an incredibly brave woman and I think it is important that her bravery is permanently recognised in this country"

    -  Shrabani Basu Noor Inayat Khan Memorial Trust

    She joined Winston Churchill's sabotage force, the Special Operations Executive (SOE), and became the first female radio operator sent into France in 1943, with the famous instruction to "set Europe ablaze".

    The role was so dangerous that she arrived in Paris with a life expectancy of just six weeks.

    Gestapo arrests

    Noor became the last essential link with London after mass arrests by the Gestapo had destroyed the SOE's spy network in Paris.

    As her spy circuit collapsed, her commanders urged her to return, but she refused to abandon what had become the principal and most dangerous post in France because she did not want to leave her French comrades without communications.

    For three months, she single-handedly ran a cell of spies across Paris, frequently changing her appearance and alias until she was eventually captured.

    Despite having a full description of her and deploying considerable forces in their effort to break the last remaining link with London, it was only her betrayal by a French woman that led to Noor's capture by the Gestapo.

    Noor's decision to stay in Paris to fight Nazism was a decision that cost her her life.

    Despite carrying a passport of an imperial subject she had no innate loyalty to Britain.

    Winston Churchill Winston Churchill sent SOE agents to France in 1943 with the instruction to "set Europe ablaze"

    Born in Moscow to an Indian father and an American mother, she was a direct descendant of Tipu Sultan, the renowned Tiger of Mysore, who refused to submit to British rule and was killed in battle in 1799.

    Her father was a Sufi Muslim who moved his family first to London and then to Paris, where Noor was educated.

    But when war broke out in 1939, Noor and one of her brothers, Vilayat, decided they had to travel to London, dedicating themselves against what they saw as the evil of Nazi Germany.

    Her fluent French, quiet dedication and training in radio transmitting were quickly spotted by SOE officers.

    Highest sacrifice

    Noor's bravery has long been recognised in France, where there are two memorials and a ceremony held each year to mark her death.

    However, in Britain, although Noor was posthumously awarded the George Cross in 1949, her courage has since been allowed to fade in history.

    That is about to change with the launch of a campaign to raise £100,000 to install a bronze bust of her in London, close to her former home.

    It would be the first memorial in Britain to either a Muslim or an Asian woman.

    Shrabani Basu, who spent eight years researching Noor's history in official archives and family records, said: "I feel it is very important that what she did should not be allowed to fade from memory.

    ''Noor died for this country. She made the highest sacrifice. She didn't need to do it. She felt it was a crime to stand back.

    ''She was an incredibly brave woman and I think it is important that her bravery is permanently recognised in this country.''

    The project, which has the backing of 34 MPs and prominent British Asians, including human rights campaigner Shami Chakrabarti and film director Gurinder Chadha, is being led by Noor's biographer, Shrabani Basu who wrote The Spy Princess in 2006.

    Around £25,000 of the cost of the bust has been raised and permission granted to install the sculpture on land owned by the University of London in Gordon Square, close to the Bloomsbury house where Noor lived as a child in 1914, and where she returned while training for the SOE during World War II.

    The memorial is scheduled to be completed and installed by early 2012.

    Noor Inayat Khan's story will be featured on Asian Network Reports on Tuesday 11 January at 1230 and 1800 GMT and afterwards on BBC iPlayer

    More on This Story

     
    Noor's memorial plaque at the Dachau Memorial Hall



    __._,_.___


    [* 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] Call for Nominations for IDB Prize in Islamic Economics, Banking & Finance



    What is Islamic Economics?
    Its just a copy of normal Economics. Only Interest is called Profit.


    From: Wohid <bidrohee@yahoo.com>

     

    Attached. Wohid



    __._,_.___


    [* 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] JINNAH'S ANTI-BANGALEE DESIGN ....................



    You people really believe Humans and Empires run this world. God had wanted to free Hindu from thousand year old rule of Moslims so, created Pakistan.
    Ask me more, why was there WW I and WWII ..!
    Why Ottoman and Moguls were raised?
    Why He made Genghis, Taimoor build Mounds of cut heads of Moslims in Baghdad?
    Why He raised QraamTaiyn to sack Baghdad in 898 A.D. and demolish Kaabaa in 923 A.D.?
    God runs this world, not Humans though it looks like Humans do.


    From: dina khan <dina30_khan@yahoo.com>


     

    Actually pakistan is created to make grave yard specially for stupid Muslms.Jinnah is inspired by enemy of humanity which destroyed humanity in this subcontnent.

    --- On Sun, 9/1/11, Syed_Aslam3 <Syed.Aslam3@gmail.com> wrote:


     
    Mr. Amin Chaudhury
     
    Jinnah did not create Pakistan ..... He worked on behalf of the British
    (behind the scene) in their grand "Diivide and Rule" scheme  During nineteen forties
    it was obvious that Britain's colonial chain that spread across the globe is falling
    apart .... Obviously,  British gave a "homeland" for the muslims of India [the other
    homeland is Israel where the Arabs were kicked out from their ancestorial land
    of Palestine).
     
    Muslim League's movement was Pakistan movement, not reallly an independence
    movement ....I, on 14th August 1947 Jinnah became the Governor General of Pakistan,
    represnting the Queen of England and died as such .......
     
    Mr. Amin, your personalized comments are out of context and are results of your
    shallow and superficial understanding of the historical processes. The history's path is
    zikzak, but the net direction is always forward: The history corrects itself in it's own
    unique way: The emmegence of Bangladesh through our liberation war is a march farward
    in the correct direction and a direct proof of  failure of the doctrine espoused by Jinnah
    that "muslims of India constitute one nation"

    The video "Partition of India was a blunder"  expresses the feeling of the Mohazirs of
    Pakistan (the muslims who migrated from India) about how fraustrated they are even
    if they made great sacrifices for Pakistan......in return they got nothing .....
    It  is essentially a menifestation of the failure of religion based two nation theory.
     
    You said "You are propagating akhand India" ......where did you find that ....?.
    You have uttered quite a few bull-shits and personal attacks ......A true freedom
    fighter never uses obscene words and slangs in discussions and analysis of history.
     
    To start with Mr. Waheeduzzaman Manik's article "THE IMPACT OF
    JINNAH'S ANTI-BANGALEE DESIGN ON THE  POLITICAL SCENE OF
    BANGLADESH IN THE EARLY YEARS OF PAKISTAN: AN ASSESSMENT  "
    is one such historical analyis. If you disagree give your counter points.
    Jamaat's role came into the discussion, when a Jamaati intellectual asserted
    Mr. Waheeduzzaman's analysis of Jinnah's Anti-Bangali design as malicious
    propaganda.
     You have said "If there would not be Pakistan there would not be Independent
    Bangladesh." By the same token, if there is no British colinial rule of India, there
    would be no Pakistan per se. and consequently there would be no Bangladesh
    as we see today. You should thank British and appreciate traitor Mir Jafor Ali Khan 
    who betrayed nation for his personal opportunism and gave British foothold in Bengal.
    Just like you are appreciating Jinnah now.
     
    What you are in your personal life and background is irrelevant in the current discussion.
    I am not against any religion. I am against use of religion in politics, be it Islam, Hindutva,
    Christianity, Judaism or any other religion. I also think that  two nation theory promated by
    Jinnah has failed the test of time: To you, this  may "amounts to treason".
    [Shera Bangla AK Fazlul Haque, Maulana Bhashani, Sheikh Mujib all were called
    traitors by pro-Jinnah vested establishment of Pakistan at different times]
     
    You are at liberty to think in your way ...... In historical sequence of events, Akhand
    Pakistan preceeds the Liberation of occupied Bangladesh ...... that does not absolve
    Jinnah who perpetuated his anti-Bangalee design with the help of his cronies like
    Nazimudin, Nurul Amin et el .... Our nation, currently Bangladsesh became subjugated
    by the ruling junta  of Pakistan.  Have trust in the people of our land, Bangladesh has
    happened and it's a reality ..... Bangladesh would have happen, no matter what path it
    would have taken ...... Suhrawarddyy's idea of Sovereign  Republic of Bengal was a viable option in 1946-47 was reasonable option and would have been lot less costly
    (loss of life and uprooting of people wise) than Jinnah's path that had a initial success,
    but failed the test of time .... We got Bangladesh in a very hard way through a very torturous
    path [Liberation war in one side mass-rape genocide by Pak Army and it's collaborators
    on the other] 
     
    Syed Aslam
     
     
    On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 10:53 AM, amin chaudhury <amin_chaudhury@yahoo.com> wrote:

    The only good about Quaid E Azam is that he created Pakistan which allowed us to gain independence.

    I wonder how could you be at times appearing so good in argument, so learned ! Now I understand those were your camouflage.

    If there would remain your dream homeland Akhond Bharat Bangladesh would never be independent. You who still today say Partition of India was a blunder you accept that it was not wise to gain independence of Bangladesh. You are propagating akhand India. I am a freedom fighter. If someday I get you close that will be your very bad day. Find home in India. Look at West Bengal, still dying under Hindi. If it would be in India the mother language would be Hindi. There would never be any language movement, leave aside independence.

    I see ! Now you are speaking the language of Jamat, the Razakars. Are you and your friends mothers were concubines of Jamatis. I don’t think so. Only the concubines of jamat Razakar say that Partition of India was a blunder. ! What do you think, we freedom fighters are all dead !
    What if Jamat did not want Pakistan ? It matters to you not me. If there would not be Pakistan there would not be Independent Bangladesh.
    Dare to say in front of public that it was better to be under India than gain independent Bangladesh ?

    Mr. Aslam, come to sense. I lost my 23 family members in Liberation war, 9 of them by the Pakistani army while attacking our village. Their only fault was the camp of Muktijoddhas was in our house. The rest died in front fight.

    When you say Partition of India was a blunder you deny independent Bangladesh. This amounts to treason.

     

    --- On Fri, 1/7/11, Syed_Aslam3 <Syed.Aslam3@gmail.com> wrote:
    From: Syed_Aslam3 <Syed.Aslam3@gmail.com>
    Subject: [notun_bangladesh] Re:[KHABOR] JINNAH'S ANTI-BANGALEE DESIGN -..... ..
    Date: Friday, January 7, 2011, 5:56 AM

     
    What so good about your Quaide Azam ?
    Did Jamaat support Jinnah and rolled behind him when he was leading Pakistan movement in Nineteen Forties?
     
    Jamaatis are now calling the wine-shipping, pork-eating Jinnah the "greatest muslim leader of twentieth century in the subcontinent" !
    Did Maulana Maududi recognize that in his life-time????
    In any case, what you are trying to justfy with your propaganda jargon?
    There was no malicious intent in Waheeduzzaman Manik's article.
    It was an objective analysis from Bangladesh's national point of view. 
    The historical processes are not as Black and White as you try to portray through your innuendoes...... During Ninteen Forties, the Musulmans of eastern part of India (Bengal & Assam ) supported the creation of Pakistan with great hopes, The Sylhet Referendum held in July 1947 is a direct proof of mass support for Pakistan among the Musulmans in favor of joining Pakistan.
     
    Albeit, a very persistent illusion about the "Muslim homeland"  overwhelmed the minds of the of the ordinary Musulmans in 1946-1947..... Soon after the Partition of India, many people on the both sides of border got uprooted from their ancestorial homes ..
    ..
    Gradually, the people started getting disillusioned,  through various historical events and processes that culminated in the Liberation of Bangladesh.
    Sheikh Mujibur Rahman could not have been an exception. He was a part
    of the process .... He was always with the masses: national  crisis produces
    leaders who are able to lead the people in their struggle against injustice and
    deprrivation ..... The mind of a true leader of the masses reflects the minds
    of the people: Sheikh Mujib is the only such leader in our history ...
    The people did not support and joined the liberation war just by hearing someone's
    radio announcement in English ...... the people became ready to fight against
    the occupation through a historical process of which Mujib was part and percel....
    and at the end he was holding the helm .. Sheikh Mujib was always with
    the people of our land, he learned from the masses then led the masses ....
    in their struggle for autonomy which eventually turned into our liberation war.
    . 
    The same people that supported the creation of Pakistan in 1947 ......gave
    their blood for the liberation of Bangladesh from the yoke of Pakistan in 1971.
    Just think, how your Quaide Azam's two nation theory failed to withstand the
    test of time ........!!!!!!!!!!!
     
    Syed Aslam
     
    Related:
     
     
     

     Partition of India was a Blunder in the history of mankind

      Thumbnail

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOHnvR6ywS0

       The nation of Pakistan was never meant to be an "Islamic" state by Jinnah, as per all his speehes pre and post partition, Yes it was made for Muslims but not an Islamic one, and to equate the two is utterly rubbish.

       Describing the complexity of Jinnah's personality, one journalist observed that

      "General Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq (Pakistan's dictator from 1977 to 1988) must be a very relieved man that Jinnah the "father of Pakistan  is not alive today --- or he would have to be flogged publicly for his personal habits . Mr. Jinnah not only chain smoked Cravan-A cigarettes but also liked his whisky and was not averse to pork. His was a life of upper-class liberal --- which indeed Jinnah was for most of his life both private and public  ..."

      On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:04 PM, S A Hannah <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com> wrote:
      Even Sheikh Mujibur Rahman sahib was respectful of Mr Jinnah.Sheikh sahib used to call him Quaide Azam.When he was member of National Assembly of Pakistan in 1957-58 he said, in his speech in Parliament on the transfer capital  from Karachi to Islamabad.
      Sheikh  sahib said  we will not allow any body to transfer capital from Karachi as Karachi was made capital by Quaide Azam.
      Please read Independence of Bangladesh Documents, volume 2, published by GOB . See the entries under 1957-58, also see the proceedings of National Assembly of Pakistan.
      Shah Abdul Hannan

      From: khabor@yahoogroups.com [mailto:khabor@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Syed_Aslam3
      Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 7:56 AM
      To: notun Bangladesh; Khobor; chottala@yahoogroups.com; Sonar Bangladesh
      Subject: [KHABOR] JINNAH'S ANTI-BANGALEE DESIGN ON THE POLITICAL SCENE OF BANGLADESH IN THE EARLY YEARS OF PAKISTAN: AN ASSESSMENT......
       
       
      Mr. Amin Chaudhury
       
      Does it hurt you when Jinnah is exposed ?
      How come you omitted Suhrawarddy's name? , Suhrawarddy was the main proponent of United Bengal Movement. Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawarddy, the then Premier of the province of Bengal, formally launched his idea of a sovereign state
      for undivided Bengal. Almost simultaneously Sarat Chandra Bose came forward with his proposal for a Sovereign Socialist Republic of Bengal. On the eve of the 1947
      partition Suhrawardy envisioned the establishment of a independent state in Eastern India comprising the whole of Bengal and Assam and the adjoining districts of Bihar.
       
      Sarat Bose visualised Bengal to be a sovereign socialist republic within the Indian union. Suhrawarddy and Sarat Bose both vehemently protested the move for the
      partition of Bengal, initiated by most Congress and Hindu Mahasabha leaders of the province.
       
      On the other hand many Hindu and Muslim leaders of Bengal supported Suhrawardy and Sarat Bose in their move. Prominent among them were Kiran Shankar Roy
      (Leader of the Congress Parliamentary Party in Bengal Assembly), Satya Ranjan Bakshi (Sarat Bose's Secretary), Abul Hashim (Secretary of the Bengal Provincial
      Muslim League), Fazlur Rahman (Revenue Minister of the Province, father of Beximco's Salman F Rahman), Mohammad Ali Chowdhury (Finance Minister in Suhrawardy's cabinet) and others. Khawja Nazimuddin ( then an influential
      member of the working committee of Bengal as well as of All India Muslim league)
      and Maulana Mohammad Akram Khan (President of Bengal Muslim League) were the exponents of the partition of Bengal on communal basis..
       
      Jinnah never supported sovereign state for undivided Bengal (Greater Independent Bengal) He wanted Bengal and Assam as part of Akhand Pakistan. Where do you find Moulana Bhashani worked for sovereign independent Bengal ?
      He was elected as member of Assam provincial Assembly and wanted the Assam to be a part of Pakistan along with Bengal.
      [with all due respect to Maulana Bhashani]
       
      At the time when Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawarddy,launched his idea of a sovereign Bengal, Sheikh Mujib, then a student leader (Nikhil Bharat Muslim Chhatra
      Federation ) was one of his associates in the student front. [Please read Amar Jibon by Badruddin Umar. Incidently, Badruddin Umar is a son of  Abul Hashim mentioned by you. Abul Hashim was the Secretary of the Bengal Provincial Muslim League]. Abul Hashim also participated in the United Bengal Movement in 1947, a movement which was opposed by his party the Muslim League. FYI, Abul Hashim
      never used the word "Allama" in front of his name.[ He was never a self-proclaimed Allama like Saidee et. el]
       
      You are right the establishment of Independent Sovereign undivided Bengal would Bengal would have been "the most progressive and prosperous country with Hindu and Muslims living together."  
       
      There were opposition to the Suhrawarddy's & Sarat Bose's United Bengal Movement  on the both side of the communal aisle. Deep inside, the Hindu communalism is no different from that of parochialism within muslim
      community. The apparent antagonists help each other in practice.
       
      The communalists anong the Hindus and narrow parochialists and extreemists that exists wiithin Muslim community are two opposites of the same fecal matter (shit/dung). They just wear different cloaks (lebash).
       
      Thanks
       
      Syed Aslam
       
      Please Read:

      Amara Jibana: 1931-1950
      by Badruddin Umar
      Hardcover, Sahityika, ISBN 9848391355 (984-8391-35-5)
      Also read:
       
      [amarpita.jpg] The book is replete with things anecdotal. Abul Hashim’s assessment of Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy is not exactly flattering to the latter. It was his belief that when Suhrawardy, almost in the manner of the dramatic, argued for an independent, united Bengal in the run-up to partition, he did so out of the fear that in Pakistan he would have no place in politics. At the Delhi session of the Muslim League in April 1946, Mohammad Ali Jinnah presented a proposal for the creation of a single Pakistan state, a position that contravened the Lahore Resolution of March 1940 where the concept of independent states (meaning two) for India’s Muslims had been enunciated. When Hashim drew Jinnah’s attention to ‘states’ rather than ‘state’, the future father of Pakistan suggested that the absence of the letter ‘s’ had been a printing error. Hashim then asked Liaquat Ali Khan to read out the 1940 resolution. It was soon revealed that the resolution had actually spoken of ‘states’ instead of the single ‘state’ Jinnah was now harping on. In the end, though, it was Jinnah who called the shots. A single Pakistan was established. The results could not but be disastrous. [Syed Badrul Ahsan]
      On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 1:10 PM, amin chaudhury <amin_chaudhury@yahoo.com> wrote:
      Why suppress the fact that Allama Abul Hashim, Moulana Bhashani, Sarat Bose (Brother of Netaji Shubhash Chandra Bose raised Independent Bengal proposition. Gandhi, Jwaherlal Patel and other Hindu leaders opposed it tooth and nail. Jinnah gave it a green signal. But he knew that the Hindus will not accept the proposition. Had the Hindus accepted it Bengal would be the most progressive and prosperous country with Hindu and Muslims living together. Hindus are the real Anti _bangalee people. Look at West Bengal, still a slave of India. It is India's anti- banglaee position that did not accept Jyoti Bose as PM of India. Bangla as a language is gradually waning under the ruthless onslaught of Hindi. If Bangladesh (the then East Bengal)  would remain under India would India accept its independence ? Look at the seven sister states, people are fighting for independence but getting bullets in stead. Is not that atrocity ? Is not that genocide ?



      --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Syed_Aslam3 <Syed.Aslam3@gmail.com> wrote

      THE IMPACT OF JINNAH'S ANTI-BANGALEE DESIGN ON THE  POLITICAL SCENE OF BANGLADESH IN THE EARLY YEARS OF PAKISTAN: AN ASSESSMENT

      By M. Waheeduzzaman Manik

      Dr. M. Waheeduzzaman Manik writes from Tennessee, USA. His email address is: MWzaman@Aol.Com
      The movement for a separate homeland for the Muslims of Indian subcontinent  had reached its pinnacle with the emergence of Pakistan as an independent nation-state on August 14, 1947.  Mohammad Ali Jinnah was the greatest exponent of Two-Nation Theory and the most articulate champion of Pakistan movement. He was called the Quai-I-Azam (the Great Leader) for his pivotal role in the creation of Pakistan.  Jinnah's relentless efforts for carving out a separate Muslim homeland made him the sole spokesman of the Indian Muslims in mid-1940s. He has been called both the "Creator" and "Founder" of Pakistan.  The Muslim League, under Jinnah's leadership, had successfully mobilized and enlisted Bangalee Muslim masses throughout the province of Bengal in favor of Pakistan movement.  It is a verified fact that out of 100 million Muslim populations in British-India, 33 million were from Bengal province.  The leaders of Bengal Provincial Muslim League (BPML) were among the vanguards that had spearheaded the Pakistan Movement.
      Although the overwhelming number of Muslim population in Bengal had supported the Muslim League's demand for Pakistan, the central leadership of All-India Muslim League (AIML) was disproportionately skewed in favor of non-Bengali leaders of different provinces.   Jinnah had effectively used most of the popular leaders of Bengal for the purpose mobilizing support in favor of his "Two-Nation Theory" and the demand for separate homeland for the Muslims of India.
      Yet, Jinnah had preferred to promote and project the non-Bengali loyalists, rightists and collaborationists in the leadership roles at both AIML and Bengal Provincial Muslim League (BPML).  It was by his deliberate anti-Bengali design that most of the celebrated and popular Muslim League leaders of Bengal were either banished or marginalized immediately before or
      after the creation of Pakistan. Instead of fostering and nurturing charismatic and independent-minded Bengali leaders, Jinnah handpicked those leaders of Bengal to assume the leadership roles in East Bengal (now Bangladesh) who were certified as anti-Bangalee and spineless loyalists or collaborationists. Thus the dice of Pakistan's anti-Bengali design was cast even before Pakistan's independence was achieved.

      The seed of colonial mode of governance in East Bengal (East Pakistan) was planted by Jinnah, the Founder of Pakistan. The genesis of the disintegration of Pakistan and Bangalees' relentless struggle first for maximum autonomy and later for complete independence were, to a great extent, conditioned by Jinnah's quest for installing anti-Bangalee collaborationist and rightist Muslim Leaguers in both the party apparatus and Governmental structure of East Bengal (throughout this commentary, I have used East Pakistan and East Bengal interchangeably or synonymously with reference to the geographic area that emerged as Bangladesh on December 16, 1971).
      Lest it be thought that this writer is overstating the fact!  Yet, the following verifiable facts will lend credence to my generalizations on Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the Founding Father of Pakistan.
      After the passage of the Lahore Resolution (known as Pakistan Resolution) on March 23, 1940, the moribund Bengal Provincial Muslim League (BPML) started emerging as the mass organization for the first time.  With the popularity of Pakistan Movement, Jinnah's grip over AIML and BPML was also getting tighter. There are some scholars who have attributed the popularity of Pakistan movement in Bengal to Jinnah's "personal popularity" and "organization skills." There are observers who have asserted that "religious zeal" had prompted the millions of people to support Pakistan Movement. There are also writers who have singled out the alleged or perceived  "Congress mis-rule" to be the determining factor that forced the Bengali Muslims to support the demand for Pakistan. There is no doubt that these explanations might sound intuitively pleasing or plausible. However, such claims might sound fantastic but not realistic at all.
      Yet, these superfluous claims or assertions lack credibility.  Although there was religious fervor in Pakistan movement from the beginning to the end, the magnitude and extent of "Islamic solidarity" of Bengali Muslims differed substantially from the Muslims of North and North-Western provinces of India. There is no doubt that religion had played a clear role in the process of creating or developing a sense of "Islamic Creed" or "Muslim Solidarity" among the Bangalee Muslims during the movement for Pakistan.  However, there is no reason to subscribe to the idea that "Islam" was the "only" factor or consideration that united the Muslims in Bengal behind Pakistan movement.  In fact, there were dominant factors other than "religion" that motivated the Bangalee Muslims to lend their overwhelming support to Muslim League's demand for Pakistan.  The Muslims in Bengal were more pragmatists or a rationalists than religionists. The truth of the matter is that after the adoption of Lahore Resolution on March 23, 1940, the Muslim masses started to believe genuinely that they might achieve an independent Muslim nation-state provided they vigorously support the movement for the establishment of Pakistan. The rising Muslim middle class found the demand for Pakistan more attractive or prospective option for their own personal and professional growth.  Their dreams of securing jobs in both public and private sectors, and their strong desires for succeeding in business enterprises in an independent Muslim State, were more relevant to them than religious consideration. The Muslim masses in Bengal had found the demand for Pakistan to be a pragmatic way to rid themselves of the bondage of socio-economic stagnation. For common Bengali Muslims, the establishment of Pakistan would create limitless opportunities for their own social mobility.
      Khalid Bin Syeed, one of the most distinguished scholars on Pakistan Movement, succinctly refuted the myth about Jinnah's organizational capabilities and perceptions of alleged mal-administration of congress: "It was only after the Lahore Resolution was passed and the demand for a Muslim state came to the forefront that Muslims in their thousands flocked to the Muslim League.  Thus, neither Jinnah's organizing ability nor the alleged Congress misrule by themselves could have transformed the [Muslim] League into a mighty force.  The demand for Pakistan…., this stimulant which put life and vigor into the Muslim League" Khalid Bin Syeed, Pakistan: The Formative Years, London: Oxford University press, 1968,  p. 179).
      The most relevant question that needs to be raised is this:  who were the chief messengers of Muslim League's demand for Pakistan in Bengal?  The messengers of Pakistan movement to Bengali middle classes and masses in 1940s were A.K. Fazlul Huq, Shaheed Suhrawardy and Abul Hashim, the most celebrated and trusted Bengali leaders of that era. Although they had championed the cause of Pakistan movement, they were not willing to be anti-Bangalee collaborationists or die-hard Jinnah loyalists. Doubtless, they might have sincerely believed that the establishment of Pakistan would emancipate the Bengali Muslims from the economic and social miseries. Yet, they were not willing to compromise the interests of Bangalees.  Jinnah had used them to popularize his Two-Nation Theory and Demand for Pakistan. Yet, he had neutralized or banished  these doyens of Bengal politics at an appropriate time so that no one from East Bengal (East Pakistan) could effectively challenge his authoritarian mode of governance.
      Sher-e-Bangla A.K. Fazlul Hoque, the mover of 1940 Lahore Resolution for Muslim homeland, was expelled from the All-India Muslim League in 1941.  It needs to be noted that Fazlul Huq, the most charismatic leader of Bengal, with more popularity and name recognition throughout India than M.A. Jinnah at least till mid-'30s, had joined the Muslim League in 1937 after forming the Krishak Praja Party (KPP)- Muslim League coalition Government in Bengal. He held leadership roles in both All-India Congress and All-India Muslim League.  Fazlul Huq was also involved in the formation of Muslim League in 1906 (he was 33 years old in 1906! Nawab Salimullah had personally commended his extraordinary brilliance and talent).  He was the chief of Krishak Praja Party, the party that won more Muslim seats in Bengal Provincial Legislature in 1937 election than Muslim League. He was already a legendary figure in Bengal politics before he formally joined the Muslim League in 1937.  His role as the Premier of Bengal was a catalyst in attracting the Muslim middle class and peasantry to the Muslim League.  His accomplishments as the Premier of Bengal were beneficial and relevant to Bengali Muslim middle class and peasantry.  Doubtless, the rising tide of Muslim nationalism and demand for Pakistan had gained an impetus with Sher-e- Bangla A.K. Fazlul Huq's joing the Muslim League.
      Although his support for Pakistan Movement was genuine, Fazlul Huq did not tolerate Jinnah's unfair interference in Bengal politics. Instead of taking dictates from Jinnah or Liaquat Ali Khan, Fazlul Huq had resigned from the Muslim League for which he had to be in political exile for more than 10 years.  Aimed at the collapse of Huq's Ministry in Bengal, Jinnah, with his ruthless brilliance, personally saw to it that Muslim League support is withdrawn from KPP-Muslim League coalition Government. The collapse of KPP-ML coalition Ministry had devastating effect on the Bengali Muslims. Fazlul Huq was forced to form a coalition Government with Shyma Prashad Mukherji (known as Shayma-Huq Ministry). Yet, M.A. Jinnah could care less. His sole goal was to send Fazlul Huq to political wilderness in an era when the demand for Pakistan caught up the imagination of 33 million Bengali Muslims. Jinnah was personally involved in  spreading blatant falsehoods and inaccuracies about Fazlul Huq throughout Bengal. He was called "traitor."  It is interesting to note that Fazlul Huq had been vilified by both progressive faction (led by Shaheed Suhrawardy and Abul Hashim) and rightist faction (led by Maulana Akram Khan and Nazimuddin) of Bengal Provincial Muslim League! Aimed at demeaning and discrediting Fazlul Huq, the leaders of Bengal Muslim League had addressed several hundred public meetings in most of the districts in Bengal. Nothwithstanding his enormous popularity, Sher-e-Bangla was not invincible. Muslim League's  defamatory propaganda had worked. Fazlul Huq's Ministry had collapsed in 1943.
      With Jinnah's blessing, Nazimuddim had formed the Ministry in Bengal in 1943. For all practical purposes, Jinnah, indeed, had succeeded in dismantling Sher-e-Bangla's stronghold in Bengal politics. (I have a plan to elaborate on Jinnah's anti-Huq crusade in a separate article. Therefore, suffice it at this time to point out that Fazlul Huq did not regain his popularity among the Bangalee masses till he formed the United Front with Maulana Bhasani and Suhrawardy during the historic election in 1954.  He felt elated and to some extent vindicated when he found out that the United Front literally routed out the ruling Muslim League from East Pakistan).     
      It was Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy who had emerged as the most dynamic leader of Bengal Muslim League.  His role as the General Secretary of BPML till 1943 was crucial in the process of recruiting dedicated and capable party workers. He was personally instrumental in the formation of Muslim National Guards.  He was the most energetic Minister in Fazlul Huq's cabinet in charge of Labor Ministry.  He personally cultivated support from industrial workers in favor of Pakistan movement.  He was also the most active member in Nazimuddin Cabinet that was formed after the collapse of Shayma-Huq cabinet in 1943.  His popularity among the students had motivated many from younger generation to be the most vocal supporters of Pakistan movement.  As the Chief Minister of Bengal in 1946, he shouldered the responsibility of lending logistic support to Pakistan Movement.  His role during Direct Action Day in 1946 was pivotal towards hastening the achievement of Pakistan (even though his action or inaction on that fateful day in the history of Bengal had tarnished his image among Hindu community).  Suhrawardy had also moved the amendment to the original 1940 Lahore Resolution in the Delhi convention of Muslim League Legislators in 1946 even though he himself was a staunch supporter of an independent United Bengal.   
      Abul Hashim, another progressive leader with tremendous organizational skills, had succeeded Suhrawardy as the General Secretary of BPML in 1943.  Thousands of people had joined Muslim League in most of Bengal districts during his tenure as the General Secretary of the party.  With the help of dedicated Muslim students, Hashim could bring Bangalee Muslims en masse under the fold of the Muslim League. The numerical and organizational strength of the party in Bengal was reflected in the landslide victory of Muslim League candidates in 1945-'46 elections.  Yet, Abul Hashim's wings of power or influence in East Bengal political scene were clipped by Jinnah and his sycophants both before and after Pakistan was achieved. 
      Both Suhrawardy and Hashim tremendously contributed in the process of transforming the Bengal Provincial Muslim League into a viable mass organization that was capable of leading Pakistan Movement.  Their dynamic leadership had liberated BPML from the domination of the non-Bengali Nawabs of Dacca and the upper-class leadership.  For the first time, pro-Bengali, progressive and middle class leaders dominated the leadership of Bengal Muslim League. However, Muslim League in Bengal was divided into two distinct factions:  the progressive group was led by Suhrawardy and Hashim whereas the rightwing conservative faction was affiliated to Khawaja Nazimuddin and Maulana Akram Khan.
      The most relevant fact is that M. A. Jinnah had decided to nurture and sponsor the conservative elements in the party.  Aimed at packing the East Pakistan Muslim League with Jinnah loyalists, it was the deliberate policy of Jinnah to either ignore or malign the progressive members of the Bengal Muslim League.  For example, the followers of both Suhrawardy and Hashim were taunted or humiliated by Jinnah loyalists and collaborationists even before the establishment of Pakistan. Instead of recognizing Shaheed Suhrawardhy's popularity, organizational skills and crucial contribution to Pakistan movement at a critical juncture, the centralized All-India Muslim League leadership had consciously lent its support to Khawaja Nazimuddin's bid to become the leader of Muslim League legislators in Bengal on August 5, 1947 (only 9 days before Pakistan was born!).  With the selection of a reactionary, conservative and discredited leader of BPML for assuming the role of Chief Minister of East Bengal (East Pakistan) over a progressive and dynamic leader of Suhrawardy's caliber and stature, M.A. Jinnah had in effect sealed off the political fate of H.S. Suhrawardy and his followers in East Bengal (East Pakistan). 
      While Suhrawardy and Hashim were stalwarts in pre-partition Bengal Muslim League, Maulana Bhasani was the legendary figure in Assam Muslim League.  As the President of Assam Provincial Muslim League, he had spearheaded the Pakistan movement in Assam.  Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhasani was discredited and maligned immediately after his return to East Bengal from Assam.  Nazimuddin-Akram Khan clique quickly forgot his crucial contribution in favor of Pakistan during referendum in Sylhet.  Maulana Bhasani had won a seat in East Bengal Provincial Legislative Assembly (EBLA) from South Tangail constituency. However, the Muslim League clique against Maulana Bhasani with an aim to dislodge him from the Provincial Assembly hatched a conspiracy out. His election to the Assembly was declared null and void on flimsy ground.  Above all, he was declared disqualified by the provincial Governor to run for election for holding any public office!
      Once the establishment of Pakistan became a reality on August 14, 1947, the Punjabi and other non-Bengali Muslim League leaders started consolidating their positions in the Governments of both at the Center and provinces. Choudhury Khaliquzzaman was elected as the Chief Organizer of the Muslim League when Jinnah had assumed the office of Governor General of Pakistan.  Jinnah also became the President of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. The self-appointed Governor General and President of the Constituent Assembly had handpicked Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan to be the Prime Minister of Pakistan. The actual decision-making authority of Pakistan in the initial year after independence was centralized in the offices of the Governor General and Prime Minister.  Both Jinnah ana Liaquat Ali Khan decided to employ Muslim League under the leadership of Choudhury Khaliquzzaman as an instrument of subjugating and controlling the East Bengal political scene.
      The ruling coterie of Pakistan had realized it quite early that the die-hard loyalists needed to be promoted and installed in East Bengal Muslim League establishment.   Aimed at humiliating and demonizing the most popular and celebrated Muslim League leaders of East Bengal (East Pakistan), the ruling coterie of Pakistan adopted a deliberate policy of filling the East Bengal (East Pakistan) Branch of Muslim League with the collaborationist, reactionary and anti-Bangalee leaders.  At the behest of both Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan, Choudury Khaliquzzaman, the Chief of Organizer of the All-Pakistan Muslim League, had literally leased the party in East Bengal to Khawaja Nazimuddin and Maulana Akram Khan. They, in turn, sponsored those Bengali leaders who were loyal to them. Neither Nazimuddin nor Akram Khan had any mass support or charisma. Nor did they have any extraordinary organizational capabilities.
      As the Chief Minister of East Bengal, Khwaja Nazimuddin also saw to it that neither Suhrwardy nor his followers have any prominent role in East Bengal politics.  He lost no time to characterize Suhrawardy as the "Indian agent" and an "enemy of Pakistan."  Nazimuddin had misused his official position for the purpose of relieving H.S. Suhrawardy from the membership of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. As if that was not enough of an insult for the one of the most dynamic contributors to Pakistan Movement in Bengal! It is a fact that the East Bengal Government of Khawaja Nazimuddin prohibited Suhrawardy from entering or addressing public meetings in any place of East Bengal. It was on July 13, 1948 when Liaquat Ali Khan, Jinnah's handpicked Prime Minister of Pakistan, informed Suhrawardy that the action of expulsion from East Bengal taken against him was a "matter entirely for the Provincial Government and he (Liaquat Ali Khan) can't interfere in their administration."
      One of the professed goals of Nazimuddin and Akram Khan coterie was to keep the doors of the Muslim League closed to the most progressive and dynamic members of Bengal Provincial Muslim League. The progressive forces were systematically eliminated from positions of importance by the right wing forces of the party.  The followers of both Suhrawardy and Hashim were specifically singled out to be excluded even from the primary membership of the Muslim League. Both Maulana Bhasani and Suhrawardy protested this exclusionary policy of the East Bengal Muslim League. A deputation of dissatisfied East Bengal Muslim Leaguers under the leadership of Ataur Rahman Khan had visited Choudhury Khaliquzzaman, the Chief Organizer of the Pakistan Muslim League. The East Bengal delegates requested that Maulana Akram Khan  "be immediately directed to make the membership of the party available to the dissident groups."  However, neither representation nor pressure from the dissidents did open the door of the Muslim League for those whose views were at variance with the ruling coterie.
      The policy of exclusion had devastating effect on the efficacy of the Muslim League in the changing political climate of East Bengal.  Notwithstanding the many limitations of Muslim League, over the years since 1937 this party had become inclusive of the mainstream linguistic, souci-economic and regional groups of people. Yet, the rightwing grip over both the party and the Government of East Bengal seriously eroded the mass support for Muslim League.  The ruling Muslim League regime in East Bengal had miserably failed to redress the genuine grievances of East Bengal.  The governmental policies and procedures of suppression and persecution of the dissident groups in East Bengal had effectively alienated the mainstream Banglee population of East Bengal.
      Both Jinnah and Liaquat totally ignored the fact that fifty six percent of the total population of Pakistan were from East Bengal. The discriminatory policy of the Central Government of Pakistan against East Bengal started manifesting only after few months of independence. To the chagrin of East Bengal, the Central Government of Pakistan had become the exclusive domain of West Pakistanis. The representation of Bangalees in various services including Military and Civil Service under the Central Government was negligible. West Pakistanis deputed from the Central Government had filled most of the crucial administrative positions including the position of Chief Secretary in the Government of East Bengal.  The exports and imports were central subjects to be dominated by West Pakistanis. The trade, commerce, banking, industries and other public or private sector enterprises were totally controlled by West Pakistanis.  The allocation of annual expenditures for development of East Bengal was negligible in comparison with West Pakistan even though East Bengal was assessed for greater amount of revenues. Most of the foreign earnings were generated from East Pakistan exports.  Yet, foreign exchange allocation for East Bengal government was almost nil. Since the Federal capital was located in Karachi, the federal expenditures had no beneficial effects on the economy of East Bengal.
      The Bengalis started resenting the discriminatory policies of the Central Government.  The progressive Bengali leaders (in some instances even conservative Muslim Leaguers) had started protesting this kind of blatant and unfair policies and programs of the ruling elite of Pakistan Government. For example, one Bangalee member of Pakistan's Constituent Assembly pointed out as early as February, 1948 that a "feeling is growing among the East Pakistanis that Eastern Pakistan is being neglected and treated nearly as a 'colony' of West Pakistan."  It was obvious that the Central Government was not willing to redress the genuine grievances of Bangalees. Instead of redressing pressing problems of East Bengal, Pakistan's ruling elite kept on sermonizing Bangalees to be more of Pakistanis. The typical anti-Bangalee attitude of Jinnah and Liaquat Government was manifested in Prime Minister Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan's arrogant response to a Bangalee leader's question on Provincial autonomy for East Bengal (at the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on March 2, 1948):  "Today in Pakistan there is no difference between the Central Government and Provincial Government.  The central Government is composed of the provinces. …. We must kill this provincialism for all times."  
      The beginning of the end of Pakistan in East Bengal had started as early as in 1948 when the Muslim League Government at both the Center and East Bengal were pushing for Urdu to be the "only" State Language of Pakistan.. The language issue started mobilizing the people of East Bengal even before the year 1947 was out.  Neither Jinnah nor Liaquat Ali Khan was willing to recognize that Urdu, an alien language to Bangalees, could never be imposed on East Bengal.  They never recognized the fact that the then Chief Minister of East Bengal, Khawaza Nazimuddin, was aggravating and alienating the Bangalee population when he started aggressive campaign in favor of Urdu to be the State language of Pakistan. Jinnah's "Urdu, and Urdu alone shall be the State Language of Pakistan" speeches  in Dacca (on March 21, 1948 at Race Course Maidan, and on March 24, 1948 at the Special Convocation Ceremony of Dacca University) had been instantly criticized by the most articulate segments of Bangalees. 
      In a Radio Address to East Pakistanis before his departure from East Pakistan on March 28, 1948, Jinnah had harshly rebuked the critics of his language policy.  He characterized the opponents of Urdu language as the "opponents" of Pakistan.  He said that the supporters of Bengali as a state language are nothing but the "paid agents" of foreign countries.  Aimed at castigating those who had the guts to demand Bengali to be one of the State languages of Pakistan, an imbecile Jinnah had labeled the champions of Bengali language as "communists,"  "enemies of Pakistan," "breakers of integrity of Pakistan," "defeated and frustrated hate-mongers,"   "champions of provincialism," " breakers of peace and tranquility," "political assassins and political opportunists," "traitors," " inhabitants of fools' paradise," and "self-serving, fifth columnists" etc. He commended the Chief Minister Khawaja Nazimuddin for using various forms of repressive and aggressive measures against the supporters of Bengali language. Jinnah had repeatedly reminded the proponents of Bangla language that the Central Government of Pakistan "is determined to take appropriate stern actions" against these evil forces.  
      Jinnah's shameless advocacy for Urdu to be the only State language of Pakistan clearly demonstrated his contempt for Bangalees and utter disregard for democratic principle of majority rule. In fact, his outlandish anti-Bengali language speeches in Dacca had sparked the first phase of language movement in 1948.  Following his footprints, Liaquat Ali Khan, Nazimuddin and Nurul Amin made concerted efforts to impose Urdu as the only State language of Pakistan. The historic 1952 Language Movement withstood the naked and brute  aggression against Bengali, the mother tongue of Bangalees.  Instead of being silenced or browbeaten by the renegades, reactionary, rightist and collaborationist forces of Pakistan, Bangalees had continued their fight for establishing Bengali as one of the State languages of Pakistan.
      The ruling Muslim League coterie took it for granted that East Bengal would forever remain subservient to the Central Government of Pakistan.  Although the Muslim League started loosing public support in East Bengal even within the first year after independence, Jinnah's personal charisma and his authoritarian style of leadership kept the party together. Obviously, the Muslim League had remained relatively a viable political party as long as Jinnah was alive. The ruling coterie also took it for granted that public support will remain constant for the party that "fought for and achieved Pakistan."  The real crack in the popularity of the party started manifesting after Jinnah's sudden death on September 11, 1948. (Khawaja Nazimuddin's anti-Bangalee policies and programs had accrued handsome dividends for him.  The ruling coterie of Pakistan under Liaquat Ali Khan's leadership had chosen him to succeed Jinnah as the Governor General of Pakistan. Nurul Amin, another Jinnah loyalist, had succeeded Khawaja Nazimuddin as the Chief Minister of East Bengal).
      It is obvious that the political development in East Bengal (East Pakistan) was very much conditioned by the policies of both the Central and provincial Governments.  The main intent of the Central ruling elite was to perpetuate their colonial policy in East Pakistan through the use of the loyalist and collaborationist Muslim League Government.  Both Nazimuddin and Nurul Amin regimes in East Bengal had implemented various repressive and discretionary measures.   Instead of remaining subjugated by the ruling elite of Pakistan, the dissident Muslim Leaguers  (mainly from Suhrawardy-Hashim  faction of pre-independent Bengal Muslim League) had joined hands with other progressive forces of East Bengal (East Pakistan) to mobilize and organize themselves. Their sole objective was to oppose the oppressive, repressive and discriminatory policies and programs of both the Central Government of Pakistan and the Government of East Pakistan (East Bengal). They also felt the acute need for a political party to ventilate and articulate the genuine grievances of East Bengal.
      The emergence of East Pakistan Awami Muslim League (EPAML) on June 23, 1949 as the first opposition party in East Bengal filled such a need.  The student community and intelligentsia of East Bengal were also the vanguards in building resistance movements in the early years of Pakistan. The students had provided the leadership of the language movements both in 1948 and 1952. The relentless struggle of Bangalees for freedom and self-determination continued till they achieved complete independence through a liberation war in 1971.
       

       



      __._,_.___


      [* 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

      __,_._,___