Banner Advertise

Monday, March 14, 2011

Re: [chottala.com] Heart Burning, Dr. Yunus and Legend Hunting



How did the contributor overhear the telecon between Hilari and Hasina?

--- On Fri, 3/11/11, abid bahar <abid.bahar@gmail.com> wrote:

From: abid bahar <abid.bahar@gmail.com>
Subject: [chottala.com] Heart Burning, Dr. Yunus and Legend Hunting
To: "notun Bangladesh" <notun_bangladesh@yahoogroups.com>, chottala@yahoogroups.com, "abid bahar" <abid.bahar@gmail.com>, Ovimot@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, March 11, 2011, 12:37 AM

 

Heart Burning, Dr. Yunus and Legend Hunting

 
Abdul Quader Chowdhury
  One of the street gossips around the world today is that the politicians are corrupts. It is obviously the case in Bangladesh also. Idealist honest qualified politicians are cornered or side-lined. Like many others, the only Nobel Laureate of Bangladesh professor Mohammed Yunus echoed the same fact about Bengali politicians on the other day. It might hurt a few who purposefully took it personally. Consequently, the A-L government- the very personally Sk Hasina, served removal notice to Yunus from his directorate post of Grameen Bank. Madame prime minister later also personally shockingly blasted to Professor Yunus in the parliament in an uncultured manner. 
  One does not have to be a rocket–scientist to grasp the total dynamics of this conundrum. 
To see the picture of it more clear, here are a few components to follow, such as- Nobel prize, Yunus , world image, Bongobondhu, Hasina, 1997 Ctg hill tracks treaties, Clinton family, so-called minus-Two idea, global fame, ill motives, ego, personality clash etc.
  The case is now under judicial process so making any insight comment on would be unwarranted. Whether the micro-credit practices by the Grameen are motivated by the 'blood sucking' formula would be pure topics of world capitalism and our national Constitution. But we could at least try understanding ruling party's moves from the view-points of Bangladeshology, political culture, decencies, patriotism, national image, or even of the so-called Deenbodol theory.
  All human knowledge and behavior are developed in a dialectical but rationalize process in civilized society where arguments, opposition, debate are normal. Let's take a few examples from the neighbors whom we know well. RabindraNath Tthakur was honored with the Nobel Prize in 1913. The total money of it the poet invested in his agricultural micro-credit business for profit in his Zamindary (feudal estate) at Patyshar, Sirajgong with a fixed interest rate for borrowers.  In this connection, his estate had eventually become involved in court cases against poor and suffering peasants; by the way, of whom mostly were Muslim. Left- communist, extreme-Showdeshy including other criticized Roby Tthakur saying he was pro-imperialists, loyalist etc. Then so what? He is still alive in the history book. Excessive was the case of scientist-professor Nobel Laurate Abdus Salam of Pakistan who was a Qadiany Muslim, and was mistreated by the military rulers represented the majority Sunnis. The reason was mainly religious fanaticism. Fallen dictator Hossni Muberak of Egypt also mistreated his native Nobel Laureate El-Barradei who went back home, apparently with political ambition; but later was forced back to exile. Reasons were the fear of his global- personality cult and political factors. A bit nice-looking case is the official treatment with dignity and respects of the Indian authorities to another Indian-Bengali Laureate Dr. Amertya Sen, a professor of left-socialist pro-China mind-set, and to whom our Hasina usually takes all possible chances to showcase herself as Dr. Sen's fan or friend. It's nice. But color changes when Yunus is there.
 Its ugly sides appears when the PM vents her recent wrath against Dr. Yunus which is very personal, heinous, politically motivated, uncivilized.  Plus, another police assault came down on the prof Sirajul Islam Chowdhury who is now under conditional bail out of the court, in the connection Arial beel, Manikganj blockade by locals, remind us the days of Ayub Khan era. All these are shame to our nation, damaging to our national image, and unhealthy to our foreign relation and our society.
 Naked surprise is that the prime minister forces our Nobel Laureate to go to the various courts with the case of socalled "irregularities" while she makes efforts to wash Ershad off his graft cases- one by one-; despite the objection of the recently lamed ACC.
 Bengalis were hardly known to the world in pre-1970 eras. The 1970 Cyclone in the Bay- areas and the 1971 Liberation war flashed out the face of BD to the world. Floods and frequent military coups in the 80s opened up new dimension of our identity. The 90s BD made further inroad into the world with ideas/efforts of micro-credit, cult of feminism, garments exports, peace mission in war zones, and the democracy. But the 2006, long after the glorious 16th Dec1971, Bangladesh beamed electrifying itself out to the planet by winning the Nobel Prize. The man, the hero who made us all Bengalis cheers and tears together out of glory, pride and joy was that very Chattagaonian Yunus. Those once-in our life-time- feelings re-produced our scenes of patriotism, national unity, unity of Bangalee souls, re-discover of own self, strength and guide to move forward as a nation. The nation owes to this Man a lot, by far. 
A prudent political leader thinks twice before take any expensive step. Our honorable prime minister of such merit, I am wondering, how come took such a Grameen-bashing step making so much mess. On this occasion, it has leaked out, thanks to internet services and specifically to the Wikileaks etc, many under-publicized stories about our current government in Dhaka.
Clinton-family's well-wishes on Dr. Yunus are an open-secret. In the late January 2011, USA secretary of State Hillary Clinton phoned Sk Hasina in Dhaka to know clearly about the Grameen-ordeal right from the mouth of the horse. At one point of that cool-conversation, our PM tried to make her respond little formal by saying that, "Grameen is our internal issue and it is under investigation and judicial process."  Secretary H. Clinton, being covertly up-set, then politely but in her steady tone reminded Sk. Hasina that how she had helped with the "internal" affairs of Hasina by managing the former Fakhruddin government, on the request of India, to convince the previous CTG offer all possible cooperation to her party (A_L) in the 2008 election to win. Then Hasina's tone reportedly became down and softened, and that 12 – 13 minutes phone conversation ended at un-ease for both.
 By the way, this is one of the main bad habits of our leaders.  As a sovereign nation, we feel shame when such leaders beg for private or secret help from the western powers to capture the power at home. It is unethical, undemocratic, dishonesty; and thus a violation against the sovereign State if proved as true.
 Her political servicemen- of the BCL- stunningly but stupidly demanded that the court should seize the Nobel Prize from Yunus and award it to Sk. Hasina. Such heart burning of a few persons on this item is how severe is manifested in many ways. Prime Minister Sk. Hasina had inked the Chittagong Hill tracts peace Accord in 1997. Referring to it, since then huge amount of dollars were reportedly wasted for unsuccessfully lobbying for the Nobel Prize for Hasina through her then bureaucrats and some pro-A-L NRBs living in the western cities. But, later the prize went to Yunus. Bangalish personal ego and jealousy might perhaps silently ignite then and there, in certain tiny quarter.  
 Strongly believable that PM has enough merit of judgment to identify "bad advices" of her colleagues, and has own power to drive in balance her government forward. She better be more cautious of ex-proMoscow leftist coteries in the A-L and selfish advisers. They might fill lots of vogue speculations in her ears to make her take step in wrong direction regarding Yunus. Hasina should not be scared of her father-Bongobondhu's future status in the history when the Nobel Laurate Yunus's personality has been thriving in the world stage. One's personal status is not going to coincide or over-shadow the same of others- as they both belong to different fields and the eras. Mujib is our great hero while Yunus is our unique legendary. Further, Hasina was perhaps made up to believe that Yunus was the mastermind behind the process of negating top two leaders of two major parties taken by then Fakhruddin government. If Yunus is found that he was substantially responsible for such an initiative, in a democratic ethics, he was wrong and it was his foul. But as a citizen, he had right to float a party, though he gave up later to do so.
The biggest factor is that the Grameen system today, without elaborating in detail, is configured within the world capitalist system where the riches and the poor can have better communication for mutual co-existence in a society. Putting hands of BD government into the Grameen Head quarter to control without having thorough prior understanding is a sort of danger. Hasina should be cautious of whether she is going to lose the game or may have any counter-result.
Lobbying for an appointment of Hasina's 20-25 minutes unofficial meeting intended in this May with president Obama, like she got one at the last minute with UK prime minister in last February with the sole help of a private Bangali lobby living in London, is apparently withheld, and most probably cancelled.  At the end, losses may incur greater than gains in Hasina's account- if or should she fails to find a nice solution peacefully. Though, the enormous dents to national image in the world are done already.
If there should not be any dignified compromise between both parties, the west may ultimately make up the case like what had been for Nobel Laureate Une Suu Kye of Burma, or the Nobel Laureate Andre Schakharov in the former Soviet Union of late the 80s much depending on the result of the soon up-coming meeting between Yunus and Western lobbyists specifically Hillary Clinton, and the situation in Bangladesh at time.
 Obviously, it is an orchestrated assault on Yunus in a common scene.  When rivers, hills, beaches, canals, roads, urban mansions, state-assets, fly over-bridges-airport contracts are being swallowed by party cronies, and digested by misusing/abusing the state apparatuses such as the Courts, other administrations, the police, the parliament which make everyday headlines, there are no actions against such crimes, but to go warring against Grameen in a flimsy manner is ridiculous. I afraid, if Hasina does not back off tactically, like she did in Arial-beel case, the Grameen issue is about to become a hot-button issue in national arena and foreign relation of the A-L government.
 The contributor is a free-lance columnist based in Montreal, Canada. sulaqc55@aol.com



__._,_.___


[* 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] Re: Sarmila Bose denies any rape by Pakistan military in 1971.by Prof. ABM Nasir



From Civil War to Liberation War:

Mijib's 7th March Speech to a Civil War and Zia's 28th March Speech to the War of Liberation

Abid Bahar

 

(Ref: Sarmila Bose, an apologist for atrocities in 1971 and a denier of rape by Pakistani military, returns

ABM Nasir)

ABM Nasir is a distortionist himself. In a recent article he termed Sk. Mujibur Rahman as democrat for installing the BKSAL party. 

ABM Nasir is also wrong in his analysis about Bose and Mohaiemen when he says (see below):   

"Bose and Mohaiemen termed the 1971 crisis in East Pakistan as the 'civil war' although the 1971 crisis is most commonly referred in Bangladesh as either Liberation War (or Mukti Juddho) or Independence War (Shadinotar Juddho).
It is true that when Mujib signed the LFD with Yahya Khan, his 7th March Speech in 1971 had to be an "if speech" only. The speech was a warnig not a clear declaration of independence. It helped to create a civil war.In addition, Mujib's subsequent negotiations with the military Generals undermined his support for tacit  support for independence but the speech had also repercations in two other directions,  (1) Bengali reaction: while the speech was not a clear declaration of independence it confused some Bengalis who were not sure about what should be done and they still remained committed to Pakistan and the speech angered the other Bengalis who resorted to attack their escapegoat Bihari settlements. Thus Mujib's major contribution hrough was to cause a civil war. (2) The speech while helped in the path to our liberation war, it also angered the Pakistani military to begin preparation for attack on the Bengalis for a genocide but not until the 26th morning. From this scenerio beginning from the 7th March upto 25th March we can deduce that Mujib's speech greatly contributed to start a civil war but not a liberation war. 
Mujib not joinning the rebels but surrendering was not helpful either. In this vaccum, some ALs found it important to approach Ziaur Rahman to formally declared the liberation war of Bangladesh.  Mijib's 7th March Speech  from Racecourse led to a Civil War and Zia's Speech from Kalurghat led to the formal War of Liberation.
---------------
 
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Syed_Aslam3 <syed.aslam3@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Sarmila Bose, an apologist for atrocities in 1971 and a denier of rape by Pakistani military, returns

ABM Nasir

March 11, 2011

Sarmila Bose, a denier of rape committed by Pakistani military in 1971 and an apologist for Pakistani atrocities in East Pakistan in 1971, returns with (perhaps with more distortion) her new book "Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War" scheduled to be discussed at a book event at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington D.C., on March 15, 2011. Around 2005-06, she was widely rebutted for her distorted views on Liberation War in an article "Anatomy of Violence: Analysis of Civil War in East Pakistan in 1971" published at the October 8, 2005 issue of the Economic and Political Weekly.[i] In the article, while Sarmila Bose rightly pointed out that "there has been little systematic study of the violent conflicts during the nine-month long civil war," she and other (see, e.g. Bose, 2005; and Mohaiemen, 2008[ii]) so called 'self-righteous' truth seekers like her appears to be filling the vacuum in rewriting, revising, and, even, twisting the history of Liberation War on their own volitions, based largely on selective references, report published by Pakistan government in 1971, and the eye-witness accounts of the Pakistani military officials.  For example, both Bose and Mohaiemen termed the 1971 crisis in East Pakistan as the 'civil war' although the 1971 crisis is most commonly referred in Bangladesh as either Liberation War (or Mukti Juddho) or Independence War (Shadinotar Juddho). The use of the term 'civil war' to address the 1971 war in East Pakistan is an attempt to "deflect the attention from its genocidal connotation" as argued by Mookherjee (2006) in a rebuttal to Sarmila Bose's article. [iii] Indeed, instead of referring such analyses as being "a systematic analysis of the context and nature of violence in the conflict of 1971," as Sarmila Bose claimed, one must reject such articles as systematic attempt to discount the severity of the brutal assault of Pakistani military on Bengali people.

What are the main arguments in Sarmila Bose's Article?

In her article she claimed that

(a) "The civil war was not merely between the two wings of Pakistan, but also within the territory of East Pakistan, between Bengalis and non-Bengalis, and Bengalis themselves, who were bitterly divided between those who favored independence for Bangladesh and those who supported the unity and integrity of Pakistan,"

(b) the atrocity in East Pakistan was provoked by the resistance of the Bengali nationalists,

(c) violence committed by both sides with Bengalis attacking Biharis at the beginning of the war, provoking Pakistani military and Bihari reprisals during the war followed by Bengali retribution against Biharis toward the end of and after the War,

and

(d) no evidence of rape of Bengali women by Pakistani Military could be found. Her prevarication reflected in her: constant and deliberate attempt to depict Pakistani military officials as compassionate individuals, apparently, to deflect the severity of genocidal act committed by Pakistani military on the Bengali populace; heavy emphasis on Bengali atrocities on Biharis; deliberate and frequent use of the word 'male' to discount the violence against women; use of the phrase "collective punishment" to justify mass killings of Pakistani atrocities; frequent terming the 'freedom fighters' as 'Bengali nationalist rebels' to deflect attention from the broader historical cultural, social, political, and economic context of west Pakistani discrimination behind the Liberation War; and, the use of specific example based on selective references, reports published by west Pakistani regime, and interviews of former Pakistani military commanders to deny the broader perspective of the west Pakistani military atrocities.

 

The review of only one study, by Beachler (2007), containing an objective analysis of the Liberation War, would expose her distorted views and undoubtedly prompt one to throw the 16-page long contorted analysis of the Liberation War in historical recycle bin. [iv]  

 

Why deniers deny?

Sarmila Bose's contorted views of the Liberation War remind this author of the denials by a group of academia of the major genocides in the world history including the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide. Why deniers deny? Charny (2001), a leading scholar on Genocide studies, stated in this article, that "… deniers are not necessarily rabid anti-some people, like anti-Semites and haters of Armenians, but may more simply be out for their personal gain, economic advantage, or even more simply career advantage -- research grants imply a combination both of financial resources as well as opportunities to engage in research in desired settings." [v]

In another article, Charny and Fromer (1990, 1998) presented five "conceptual characteristics of 'innocent denial." Among the five, one referred to as 'Innocence-and-Self-Righteousness' appears to fit the profile of Sarmila Bose. According to this feature of denial "The respondents claim that they only intend to ascertain the truth. Moreover, they do not believe that human beings could have been so evil as the descriptions of the genocide imply (as reflected in Sarmila Bose's defense for Pakistani military officials). Furthermore, even if many deaths took place a long time ago, it is important to put them aside now and forgive and forget (similarly, Sarmila Bose proposed, in the last sentence of her article, "efforts towards reconciliation, rather than the recrimination that has so far been its hallmark .").[vi]

Sarmila Bose derives her credibility from her being affiliated with multitudes of renowned organizations, being a Hindu of Indian origin, and being a Harvard graduate. However, her apparent objectivity, true intentions, and wisdom are exposed in her passion defense for Pakistani cause reflected in a coauthored article published in Christian Science Monitor on April 11, 2005.[vii] In the article, not only she defended the U.S. sale of F-16 to Pakistan, but she referred Pakistan as a stable Muslim democracy and praised former military ruler General Musharraf as a modernizer.


[i] Bose, Sarmila (2005). "Anatomy of Violence: Analysis of Civil War in East Pakistan in 1971." EPW, October 8.

[ii] Mohaiemen, Naeem (2008). "Accelerated Media and the 1971 Civil War in Bangladesh," EPW, January 26.

[iii] Mookherjee, Nayanika  (2006). "Skewing the history of rape in 1971 A prescription for reconciliation?" EPW, Vol. 41 No 36: 3901-3903.

[iv] Beachler, Donald (2007). "The politics of genocide scholarship: the case of Bangladesh," Patterns of Prejudice (2007). Beachler also indicated that "No book-length study of the genocide in Bangladesh has been published in the United States; essays about it have appeared in some collections on genocide not in others." Beachler also referred to only one article "Atrocities against humanity during the liberation war in Bangladesh" by Akmam, Wadratul (2002) appeared in the Journal of Genocide Research.

[v] Charny, Israel W. (2001). "The Psychological Satisfaction of Denials of the Holocaust or Other Genocides by Non-Extremists or Bigots, and Even by Known Scholars," The IDEA Journal, July 17.

[vi] Charny, Israel W. and Fromer, Daphna (1998). "Denying the Armenian Genocide: Patterns of thinking as defence-mechanisms," Patterns of Prejudice, 39-49.

[vii] Milam, William B. and Sarmila Bose (2005). "The right stuff: F-16s to Pakistan is wise decision." Christian Science Monitor, April 11.



 
ABM Nasir, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Economics
School of Business
North Carolina Central University
Durham, NC 27707.
Phone: (919) 530-7372
Fax: (919) 530-6163






__._,_.___


[* 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] Bangabandhu Killing : Zia passively involved




Bangabandhu Killing
Zia passively involved
Lifschultz tells HC, submits written statement on Taher killing
Ashutosh Sarkar

Lawrence Lifschultz
Gen Ziaur Rahman was passively involved in the assassination of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, US journalist and writer Lawrence Lifschultz yesterday told the High Court.

Clik here to read Lifschultz's statement

This has become clear from the conversations with Col Farooq Rahman and Col Abdur Rashid, convicted killers of Bangabandhu, and from the book Bangladesh: A Legacy of Blood written by Anthony Mascarenhas, he said.

He said Ziaur Rahman was in the shadow of the whole episode of August 15, 1975 because he was very much one of the main players of the game.

In reply to a question from the HC, Lifschultz said Ziaur Rahman could have stopped the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman because he (Zia) knew the plot.

Zia was a complicated man and was the main beneficiary of the assassination, he said, adding, Zia was responsible for killing many freedom fighters including army official Khaled Mosharaf.

The Pulitzer Prize winner who had covered the trial of Col Abu Taher in 1976 placed his statement before the HC bench of Justice AHM Shamsuddin Chowdhury Manik and Justice Sheikh Md Zakir Hossain.

The bench is hearing a writ petition that challenged the martial law regulation under which the military tribunal was formed and Taher was sentenced to death.

Earlier on January 20, the HC bench requested Lifschultz to appear before it to place a statement on the trial and execution of Taher.

Lifschultz on January 31 sent a written statement to the HC bench through the Attorney General's Office saying that Gen Ziaur Rahman made the decision of Col Abu Taher's execution before formation of the military tribunal that gave the execution order.

Gen Manzur, then high-ranked military officer, knew with absolute certainty that Zia had decided to have Taher hanged before the "so-called trial" began, Lifschultz said in the statement.

"Subsequently, this fact was also confirmed to me by two high-ranking military officers, who were close to Zia at that time," he said in his January 31 statement, which was placed before the HC bench on February 3.

Lifschultz yesterday appeared before the same HC bench around 2:30pm and placed a written and a verbal statement before it.

He said the trial of Col Taher was not even a show-trial since it had no projection or demonstration.

There existed a "Special Military Tribunal No 1" which convened at the Dhaka Central Jail. "I was there. I stood outside the prison. I watched men, like Colonel Yusuf Haider, the so-called Tribunal's chairman, walk through the prison gates," he said in the written statement.

It was a premeditated assassination of which Ziaur Rahman was the assailant, Lawrence Lifschultz who arrived in Dhaka on March 12 told the court.

Although Zia had convened a meeting of the generals returned from Pakistan as Moudud Ahmed stated in a book, the decision to kill Taher was taken exclusively by Zia, he said, adding that he (Zia) had convened that meeting only to pretend that those generals had involvement in killing Taher.

"Moudud Ahmed claimed that Ziaur Rahman had convened a gathering of 46 "repatriated" officers to discuss the sentence that should be passed on Taher. It was well known that not a single officer who had participated in the Liberation War was willing to serve on Special Military Tribunal No 1. But General Zia's special convocation of repatriates appears to have ended with unanimous decision. They wanted Taher to hang," his written statement said.

"Moudud claims his source for this story was General Zia himself. In this respect, Moudud's version of events tallies with what General Manzur claimed to me regarding General Zia having personally taken the decision on what the verdict would be. One man, Ziaur Rahman, decided, on his own, to take another's life. He then asked a group of about fifty officers to endorse his decision," he stated.

The US journalist said he had tried to go inside the so-called court but was not allowed.

"I had tried to meet Ziaur Rahman many times for taking an interview from him, but he did not allow me to do so," he said, adding that he was expelled from Bangladesh at that time.

Replying to another question from the HC, Lifschultz said he could not term it as anything other than assassination, as Syed Badrul Ahsan, a journalist of The Daily Star, stated in 2006 that it was purely and simply a murder.

"Syed Badrul Ahsan has called the Taher case 'murder pure and simple'. In an article published in July 2006, Ahsan writes: 'When he (Lifschultz) speaks of Colonel Taher and the macabre manner of his murder (it was murder pure and simple) in July 1976, he revives within our souls all the pains we have either carefully pushed under the rug all these years or have been allowed to feel through the long march of untruth in this country,' according to the statement.

Zia decided to kill Taher as he wanted to appease the army officers repatriated from Pakistan and also consolidate the grief on power.

Taher wanted to return democracy in the country, but Zia wanted to rule the country as a dictator, he said.

Lifschultz said it was one of the saddest human rights violations in the whole of Asia.

He said he had been trying to get the whole truth for so many years and he was happy that he was now in a position to disclose whatever information he had before the HC.

The court will resume the hearing today.

Attorney General Mahbubey Alam and Additional Attorney General also appeared before the court.
 

 
কর্নেল তাহেরকে বিচারের নামে হত্যা করা হয়েছে

জিয়াই ছিলেন এই পরিকল্পনার নায়ক

আদালতে মার্কিন সাংবাদিক লিফশুলজ

০০ ইত্তেফাক রিপোর্ট

সামরিক আদালতে কর্নেল (অব.) তাহেরের বিচার প্রসঙ্গে প্রখ্যাত মার্কিন সাংবাদিক লরেন্স লিফশুলজ বলেছেন, ওটা কোন বিচার ছিলো না। তথাকথিত বিচারের নামে মুক্তিযুদ্ধের অন্যতম সেক্টর কমান্ডার কর্নেল (অব.) আবু তাহের বীর উত্তমকে পূর্ব-পরিকল্পিতভাবে হত্যা করা হয়েছে। আর এই পরিকল্পনার নায়ক ছিলেন তৎকালীন সেনা শাসক মেজর জেনারেল জিয়াউর রহমান। তিনি আরো বলেন, জিয়া মনে করতেন কর্নেল তাহের তার পথে বড় বাধা। এ কারণে তাকে তথাকথিত বিচারের নামে ফাঁসিতে ঝুলানো হয়। কর্নেল তাহেরের গোপন বিচারের বৈধতা চ্যালেঞ্জ করে দায়ের করা রিট আবেদনের শুনানিতে তিনি এ কথা বলেন। বিচারপতি এ এইচ এম শামসুদ্দিন চৌধুরী ও বিচারপতি শেখ মো. জাকির হোসেনকে নিয়ে গঠিত হাইকোর্টের ডিভিশন বেঞ্চে তিনি গতকাল সোমবার দীর্ঘক্ষণ বক্তব্য রাখেন। আদালত তাকে বিভিন্ন বিষয়ে জিজ্ঞাসা করলে তার উত্তর দেন লিফশুলজ।

লরেন্স লিফশুলজ পেশায় লেখক ও সাংবাদিক। বর্তমানে তিনি যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের কানেকটিকাটে বসবাস করছেন। ১৯৭৬ সালে তিনি ফার ইস্টার্ন ইকনোমিক রিভিউ পত্রিকার দক্ষিণ এশীয় প্রতিনিধি ছিলেন। ১৯৭৬ সালে গোপন সামরিক আদালতে কর্নেল তাহের ও তার সঙ্গীদের বিচার হয়। ওই বছরের ১৭ জুলাই দেয়া রায়ে কর্নেল তাহেরের ফাঁসি ও অন্য ১৭ জনকে বিভিন্ন মেয়াদে সাজা হয়। ২১ জুলাই কর্নেল তাহেরের ফাঁসি কার্যকর করা হয়। ওই বিচার চলাকালে পেশাগত দায়িত্ব পালনে বাংলাদেশে এসেছিলেন লরেন্স লিফশুলজ। কিন্তু তিনি বিচারকাজ প্রত্যক্ষ করতে পারেননি। ঢাকা কেন্দ্রীয় কারাগারের সামনে থেকে তাকে আটক করা হয় এবং পরে বাংলাদেশ থেকে বহিষ্কার করা হয়। পরবতর্ীকালে 'কর্নেল তাহের : অসমাপ্ত বিপস্নব' -এ শিরোনামে তার একটি গ্রন্থ রয়েছে যা বাংলাদেশ ও যুক্তরাষ্ট্র থেকে একযোগে প্রকাশিত হয়েছে।

তাহেরের গোপন বিচারের বৈধতা নিয়ে তার সহোদর ঢাকা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ের শিক্ষক অধ্যাপক ড. আনোয়ার হোসেন, তাহেরের স্ত্রী লুৎফা তাহের গত বছরের ২৩ আগাস্ট হাইকোর্টে রিট আবেদন দায়ের করেন। এ নিয়ে হাইকোর্ট রুল জারি করেছিল। গত ২০ জানুয়ারি ওই রিটের শুনানিকালে হাইকোর্ট লরেন্স লিফশুলজকে হাজির হয়ে বক্তব্য দেয়ার অনুরোধ জানায়। তবে দুর্ঘটনায় সন্তান আহত হওয়ার কারণে লিফশুলজ বাংলাদেশে আসতে পারেননি। তিনি তার লিখিত বক্তব্য ই-মেইলের মাধ্যমে পাঠান। সেই বক্তব্য আদালতে দাখিল করা হয়। গতকাল স্বেচ্ছায় আদালতে হাজির হয়ে ওই বক্তব্যের ধারাবাহিকতায় তিনি আরো একটি লিখিত জবানবন্দি আদালতে উপস্থাপন করেন। এ সময় তার সঙ্গে ছিলেন এটর্নি জেনারেল এডভোকেট মাহবুবে আলম, অতিরিক্ত এটর্নি জেনারেল এডভোকেট এম কে রহমান প্রমুখ।

জবানবন্দিতে লরেন্স লিফশুলজ বলেন, এ দিনটির জন্য আমি দীর্ঘ ৩৫ বছর অপেক্ষায় করেছি। গত সপ্তাহে তাহেরের মেয়ে জয়া আমাকে বলেছে, ' এই মুহূর্তটির জন্য আমি আমার সারা জীবন অপেক্ষা করেছি।'

তার বাবা যখন মারা যান, তখন জয়ার বয়স ছিল পাঁচ বছর। লিফশুলজ আদালতকে উদ্দেশ করে বলেন, আপনি দেখতেই পাচ্ছেন, সারা জীবন অপেক্ষার পর অনেকেই আপনার কাছে আসছেন বিচারের জন্য।

লিফশুলজ বলেন, আমি বিশ্বাস করি না যা ঘটেছে তাকে 'বিচার' বলা যায়। এমনকি এটা 'লোক দেখানো বিচারও' নয়। কারণ সামরিক সরকার এটা দেখানোরও পক্ষপাতী ছিল না। আমি আমার আগের এফিডেভিটে বর্ণনা করেছি, আমি কিভাবে তৎকালীন চিফ অফ জেনারেল স্টাফ জেনারেল মঞ্জুরের সঙ্গে দেখা করেছি। স্পেশাল ট্রাইবু্যনাল গঠনের এক মাস আগে আমি তার অফিসে তার সঙ্গে দেখা করি। অনেক বছর আগ থেকে আমি মঞ্জুরকে চিনতাম। আমি ব্যাখ্যা করেছি কিভাবে জেনারেল মঞ্জুর তাহেরের কথিত বিচারের বিরোধিতা করেছিলেন। কর্নেল তাহেরের ফাঁসি কার্যকর করার পর জেনারেল মঞ্জুর ব্রিটেনে লোক পাঠিয়েছিলেন আমার সঙ্গে দেখা করার জন্য। তিনি আমাকে জানাতে চেয়েছিলেন জেনারেল জিয়া ব্যক্তিগতভাবে তাহেরের ফাঁসি কার্যকর করার সিদ্ধান্ত নিয়েছিলেন। বিএনপির বর্তমান স্থায়ী কমিটির সদস্য ব্যারিস্টার মওদুদ আহমদের একটি লেখা প্রসঙ্গেও কথা বলেন লরেন্স লিফশুলজ। তিনি বলেন, "মওদুদ আহমদকে আমি তরুণ মানবাধিকার আইনজীবী হিসাবে চিনতাম। কিন্তু তিনি আদর্শ থেকে অনেকদূর সরে গেছেন। ক্ষমতার যাত্রাপথে এটা কোন বিরল ঘটনা নয়। মওদুদ আহমদ দাবি করেছেন, 'তাহেরের সাজার ব্যাপারে জিয়াউর রহমান ৪৬ জন সেনা কর্মকর্তার মতামত নিয়েছিলেন।' এটা সবারই জানা, একজন মুক্তিযোদ্ধা অফিসারও ওই ট্রাইবু্যনালের সঙ্গে যুক্ত ছিলেন না। মওদুদ আহমদ দাবি করেছেন, 'তার এ বক্তব্যের সূত্র জিয়া নিজে।' তবে জেনারেল মঞ্জুর আমাকে বলেছেন, জিয়া ব্যক্তিগতভাবেই সিদ্ধান্ত নিয়েছিলেন তাহেরের বিচারের রায়ের ব্যাপারে। জিয়াউর রহমান নিজেই সিদ্ধান্ত নিয়েছিলেন, আরেক জনের জীবন কেড়ে নেয়ার। এটা সম্পর্কে আমরা কি বলতে পারি? এটাকে কি আইনি পন্থা বলা যায়? সামরিক শাসকরা নিজেরাই নিজেদের আইন লেখেন।'

লরেন্স লিফশুলজ বলেন, ১৯৭৬ সালে গোপন বিচারের নামে কারা অভ্যন্তরে যা ঘটেছে তা জিয়াউর রহমানের পরিকল্পনা অনুযায়ীই ঘটেছে। তিনি বলেন, 'সিদ্ধান্ত ছিল জিয়ার নিজেরই। এর সঙ্গে সেনাবাহিনীর কেউ জড়িত ছিলেন- এমনটি আমি মনে করি না।' লিফশুলজ বলেন, 'সেটা কোন বিচার ছিলো না। যদি এটা বিচার হতো তবে কেন তা কোর্টে হলো না। কেন এটা কারা অভ্যন্তরে হলো? কোন ধরনের বিচার কারাগারে হয়? সেক্ষেত্রে আমার উত্তর হচ্ছে, যে বিচার কোন বিচার নয়, সেটাই কারাগারে হয়।' তিনি আরো বলেন, 'তাহেরের সঙ্গে যাদের বিচার করা হয়েছে তাদেরকেও পযর্াপ্ত আইনি অধিকার থেকে বঞ্চিত করা হয়েছে। বাংলাদেশের সংবিধান অনুযায়ী তাদের মৌলিক অধিকার লংঘিত হয়েছে। বিচারটি অবৈধ উপায়ে হয়েছে এবং অবৈধ উপায়ে অত্যন্ত গোপনীয়তার সঙ্গে তা সম্পন্ন হয়েছে। সে বিচারের কোন আইনগত ভিত্তি ছিলো না। এটি হয়েছে কারাগারের অভ্যন্তরে। যেখানে সংবাদ মাধ্যমকে বাইরে রাখা হয়েছে। যাতে এই অবিচারের কারণে জনগণের ক্ষোভ প্রকাশিত না হয়। সাংবাদিকদের হুমকি দেয়া এবং দেশের বাইরে পাঠিয়ে দেয়া হয়েছে।'

লিফশুলজ বলেন, 'কর্নেল তাহেরের মেয়ে জয়া তার পিতার হত্যাকাণ্ডকে বর্ণনা করেছে গুপ্তহত্যা হিসাবে। বিশেষ ট্রাইবু্যনাল-১ ছিল কলাকৌশল (ম্যাকানিজম) যার মাধ্যমে গুপ্ত হত্যা কার্যকর করা হয়। বদরুল হায়দার তার লেখায় তাহেরের বিচারকে বর্ণনা করেছেন 'হত্যাকাণ্ড' হিসাবে। ২০০৬ সালের ওই লেখায় তিনি মিথ্যার দীর্ঘযাত্রা সম্পর্কে বলেছেন, 'পাঁচ বছর আগের রাষ্ট্রব্যবস্থা সম্পর্কে তার বক্তব্য সঠিক ছিল।' যদিও এখন নতুন যুগের উন্মোচন ঘটেছে। সুপ্রিম কোর্ট পঞ্চম ও সপ্তম সংশোধনীকে অবৈধ ঘোষণা করেছে। আদালত এ সমাজের অবিচ্ছেদ্য অংশ এবং এটা পরিবর্তনের উপাদান।'

তিনি আরো বলেন, 'সুপ্রিম কোর্টের জন্য এটা চ্যালেঞ্জ যে, এ ব্যাপারে সিদ্ধান্ত নেয়া বিশেষ ট্রাইবু্যনাল-১ এর কার্যক্রমের কোন আইনি বৈধতা ছিল কি না? কারণ ওই ট্রাইবু্যনাল গঠনের পূর্বেই তাহেরকে ফাঁসিতে ঝোলানোর সিদ্ধান্ত নেয়া হয়। বিচারের নামে জোরপূর্বক এক সাজানো নাটক মঞ্চায়ন করা হয়। কারণ বিশেষ ট্রাইবু্যনাল-১ একবারই গঠিত হয়েছিলো। তারা আর কোন বিচার কার্যক্রম পরিচালনা করেনি। বাস্তবে এই ট্রাইবু্যনাল ছিলো অবৈধ ও অসাংবিধানিক একটি আদালত। যার উদ্দেশ্য ছিলো বিচারের নামে হত্যাকাণ্ড ঘটানো।

তিনি বলেন, 'দশ দিন পূর্বে তাহেরের কন্যা জয়া আমাকে লিখেছে, সে এখন তীব্রভাবে রায়ের জন্য অপেক্ষা করছে। যদিও এ রায় তার (জয়া) বাবাকে ফিরিয়ে দেবে না। কিন্তু এটা এ ধরনের হত্যাকাণ্ডের সমাপ্তির ঘটনা, যা তার এবং তার দুই ভাইয়ের কাছ থেকে এত কম বয়সে তার বাবাকে কেড়ে নিয়েছিল। হাইকোর্টের রায় কর্নেল তাহেরের শুভাকাঙ্ক্ষীদের মনে কিছুটা প্রশান্তি দেবে।'

লিখিত বক্তব্যশেষে আদালতের বিভিন্ন প্রশ্নের জবাব দেন লরেন্স লিফশুলজ। তিনি বলেন, রাজনৈতিক উপাদান থাকাতেই তাহের মামলার সংবাদ সংগ্রহে আগ্রহী হয়েছিলেন তিনি। জিয়াউর রহমানের পূর্ব পরিকল্পনাতেই কর্নেল তাহেরের ফাঁসি হয়। এ হত্যাকাণ্ডের জন্য দায়ী একজনের নাম বলতে হলে জিয়াউর রহমানের নামই বলবেন তিনি। বিচারের আগেই তিনি তাহেরের ফাঁসি কার্যকর করার সিদ্ধান্ত নিয়েছিলেন। তবে বঙ্গবন্ধু হত্যাকাণ্ডে জিয়াউর রহমান প্রত্যক্ষ বা পরোক্ষভাবে জড়িত ছিলেন কি না-এমন প্রশ্নের স্পষ্ট কোন জবাব দেননি তিনি।

৭৫'র পরবতর্ী ঘটনার নেপথ্যে

ছিলেন জিয়া ঃ লিফশুলজ

বেলা ১১টার দিকে অতিরিক্ত এটর্নি জেনারেল এডভোকেট এম কে রহমানের কক্ষে সাংবাদিকদের সঙ্গে আলাপকালে লরেন্স লিফশুলজ বলেন, ১৯৭৫ সালে বঙ্গবন্ধুকে সপরিবারে হত্যার পরবর্তী ঘটনার নেপথ্যে ছিলেন জিয়াউর রহমান। ক্ষমতা কুক্ষিগত করা এবং স্বৈরতান্ত্রিক শাসন প্রক্রিয়ায় তিনি কর্নেল তাহেরকে ফাঁসি দেয়ার মতো ঘটনাও ঘটান। তিনি বলেন, জিয়ার সঙ্গে মোশতাক, ফারুক ও রশীদ গংদের যোগসূত্র ছিল। তবে জিয়া কখনো পাদপ্রদীপের আলোয় আসেননি। তিনি বলেন, লন্ডনে আমাকে দেয়া এক সাক্ষাৎ্কারে রশীদ বলেছিলেন, ১৫ আগস্ট হত্যাকাণ্ডের আগে জিয়ার সঙ্গে তাঁদের যোগাযোগ ছিল। নেপথ্যে থেকেই তিনি তাদের সমর্থন যোগাচ্ছিলেন। এমনকি সেনাবাহিনী যাতে তা প্রতিরোধ করতে এগিয়ে না আসে, সে ব্যাপারেও তৎপর ছিলেন তিনি। এরপর জিয়া ৭ নভেম্বর স্বরূপে আবির্ভূত হন। তিনি বলেন, কর্নেল তাহেরের গোপন বিচার নিয়ে করা মামলাটি ঐতিহাসিক। নতুন প্রজন্মের এ বিষয়ে জানার আগ্রহ আছে। আমার প্রশ্ন, দীর্ঘ ৩৫ বছর ধরে কেন এ ঘটনার বিচার হলো না?

সাংবাদিকদের সঙ্গে আলাপের এক পযর্ায়ে লিফশুলজের সঙ্গে দেখা করতে আসেন জাসদ সভাপতি হাসানুল হক ইনু এমপি, ড. আনোয়ার হোসেন, লুৎফা তাহের প্রমুখ। দুপুর সোয়া দুইটায় লরেন্স লিফশুলজকে নিয়ে হাইকোর্টের সংশিস্নষ্ট বেঞ্চে হাজির হন এটর্নি জেনারেল এডভোকেট মাহবুবে আলম ও অতিরিক্ত এটর্নি জেনারেল এডভোকেট এম কে রহমান।
 
 Janakantha:

 

 Samakal:
 
YouTube videos:
 
Conspirators in Mujib Killing:
 
 
 
 




__._,_.___


[* 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] Sarmila Bose denies any rape by Pakistan military in 1971.by Prof. ABM Nasir



 

Sarmila Bose, an apologist for atrocities in 1971 and a denier of rape by Pakistani military, returns

ABM Nasir

March 11, 2011

Sarmila Bose, a denier of rape committed by Pakistani military in 1971 and an apologist for Pakistani atrocities in East Pakistan in 1971, returns with (perhaps with more distortion) her new book "Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War" scheduled to be discussed at a book event at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington D.C., on March 15, 2011. Around 2005-06, she was widely rebutted for her distorted views on Liberation War in an article "Anatomy of Violence: Analysis of Civil War in East Pakistan in 1971" published at the October 8, 2005 issue of the Economic and Political Weekly.[i] In the article, while Sarmila Bose rightly pointed out that "there has been little systematic study of the violent conflicts during the nine-month long civil war," she and other (see, e.g. Bose, 2005; and Mohaiemen, 2008[ii]) so called 'self-righteous' truth seekers like her appears to be filling the vacuum in rewriting, revising, and, even, twisting the history of Liberation War on their own volitions, based largely on selective references, report published by Pakistan government in 1971, and the eye-witness accounts of the Pakistani military officials.  For example, both Bose and Mohaiemen termed the 1971 crisis in East Pakistan as the 'civil war' although the 1971 crisis is most commonly referred in Bangladesh as either Liberation War (or Mukti Juddho) or Independence War (Shadinotar Juddho). The use of the term 'civil war' to address the 1971 war in East Pakistan is an attempt to "deflect the attention from its genocidal connotation" as argued by Mookherjee (2006) in a rebuttal to Sarmila Bose's article. [iii] Indeed, instead of referring such analyses as being "a systematic analysis of the context and nature of violence in the conflict of 1971," as Sarmila Bose claimed, one must reject such articles as systematic attempt to discount the severity of the brutal assault of Pakistani military on Bengali people.

What are the main arguments in Sarmila Bose's Article?

In her article she claimed that

(a) "The civil war was not merely between the two wings of Pakistan, but also within the territory of East Pakistan, between Bengalis and non-Bengalis, and Bengalis themselves, who were bitterly divided between those who favored independence for Bangladesh and those who supported the unity and integrity of Pakistan,"

(b) the atrocity in East Pakistan was provoked by the resistance of the Bengali nationalists,

(c) violence committed by both sides with Bengalis attacking Biharis at the beginning of the war, provoking Pakistani military and Bihari reprisals during the war followed by Bengali retribution against Biharis toward the end of and after the War,

and

(d) no evidence of rape of Bengali women by Pakistani Military could be found. Her prevarication reflected in her: constant and deliberate attempt to depict Pakistani military officials as compassionate individuals, apparently, to deflect the severity of genocidal act committed by Pakistani military on the Bengali populace; heavy emphasis on Bengali atrocities on Biharis; deliberate and frequent use of the word 'male' to discount the violence against women; use of the phrase "collective punishment" to justify mass killings of Pakistani atrocities; frequent terming the 'freedom fighters' as 'Bengali nationalist rebels' to deflect attention from the broader historical cultural, social, political, and economic context of west Pakistani discrimination behind the Liberation War; and, the use of specific example based on selective references, reports published by west Pakistani regime, and interviews of former Pakistani military commanders to deny the broader perspective of the west Pakistani military atrocities.

 

The review of only one study, by Beachler (2007), containing an objective analysis of the Liberation War, would expose her distorted views and undoubtedly prompt one to throw the 16-page long contorted analysis of the Liberation War in historical recycle bin. [iv]  

 

Why deniers deny?

Sarmila Bose's contorted views of the Liberation War remind this author of the denials by a group of academia of the major genocides in the world history including the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide. Why deniers deny? Charny (2001), a leading scholar on Genocide studies, stated in this article, that "… deniers are not necessarily rabid anti-some people, like anti-Semites and haters of Armenians, but may more simply be out for their personal gain, economic advantage, or even more simply career advantage -- research grants imply a combination both of financial resources as well as opportunities to engage in research in desired settings." [v]

In another article, Charny and Fromer (1990, 1998) presented five "conceptual characteristics of 'innocent denial." Among the five, one referred to as 'Innocence-and-Self-Righteousness' appears to fit the profile of Sarmila Bose. According to this feature of denial "The respondents claim that they only intend to ascertain the truth. Moreover, they do not believe that human beings could have been so evil as the descriptions of the genocide imply (as reflected in Sarmila Bose's defense for Pakistani military officials). Furthermore, even if many deaths took place a long time ago, it is important to put them aside now and forgive and forget (similarly, Sarmila Bose proposed, in the last sentence of her article, "efforts towards reconciliation, rather than the recrimination that has so far been its hallmark .").[vi]

Sarmila Bose derives her credibility from her being affiliated with multitudes of renowned organizations, being a Hindu of Indian origin, and being a Harvard graduate. However, her apparent objectivity, true intentions, and wisdom are exposed in her passion defense for Pakistani cause reflected in a coauthored article published in Christian Science Monitor on April 11, 2005.[vii] In the article, not only she defended the U.S. sale of F-16 to Pakistan, but she referred Pakistan as a stable Muslim democracy and praised former military ruler General Musharraf as a modernizer.


[i] Bose, Sarmila (2005). "Anatomy of Violence: Analysis of Civil War in East Pakistan in 1971." EPW, October 8.

[ii] Mohaiemen, Naeem (2008). "Accelerated Media and the 1971 Civil War in Bangladesh," EPW, January 26.

[iii] Mookherjee, Nayanika  (2006). "Skewing the history of rape in 1971 A prescription for reconciliation?" EPW, Vol. 41 No 36: 3901-3903.

[iv] Beachler, Donald (2007). "The politics of genocide scholarship: the case of Bangladesh," Patterns of Prejudice (2007). Beachler also indicated that "No book-length study of the genocide in Bangladesh has been published in the United States; essays about it have appeared in some collections on genocide not in others." Beachler also referred to only one article "Atrocities against humanity during the liberation war in Bangladesh" by Akmam, Wadratul (2002) appeared in the Journal of Genocide Research.

[v] Charny, Israel W. (2001). "The Psychological Satisfaction of Denials of the Holocaust or Other Genocides by Non-Extremists or Bigots, and Even by Known Scholars," The IDEA Journal, July 17.

[vi] Charny, Israel W. and Fromer, Daphna (1998). "Denying the Armenian Genocide: Patterns of thinking as defence-mechanisms," Patterns of Prejudice, 39-49.

[vii] Milam, William B. and Sarmila Bose (2005). "The right stuff: F-16s to Pakistan is wise decision." Christian Science Monitor, April 11.



 
ABM Nasir, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Economics
School of Business
North Carolina Central University
Durham, NC 27707.
Phone: (919) 530-7372
Fax: (919) 530-6163





__._,_.___


[* 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)