Banner Advertise

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Re: [chottala.com] BD concedes Transit Corridor to India?



Sheikh Mujib in the Calcutta Riot
 
Abid Bahar
The West Bengali government lately eracted a statue of Mujib in the Baker Hostel of West Bengal to show respect to Mujib who known to the historians had a sea change from a being a communal-minded Hindu hater Suhrowarthy follower into a Hindu-and India lover Bangabandhu. But when and how did that happene? 
  
History
Suhrowarthy, the mentor of Mujib was a populist leader of British Bengal remained controversial for his role in Bengal's communal politics. Unlike in Bangladesh, Suhrowarthy is generally seen in West Bengal and in India in general as a communal-minded Muslim League leader triggered the infamous Calcutta riot that caused the death of thousands and permanently created misunderstanding between the two Bengali souls.
 
This trend began especially when Suhrowarthy as the Chief Minister of Bengal elected from the Muslim League obliged Jinnah's call for direct Action day,triggering the Calcutta riot. Mujib previously recruited by Suhrowarthy as a body guard when Mujib was still a High School student in the Faridpur Missionary High School.
 
 Where was Mujib at this time?
He was in the baker hostel of Calcutta helping Suhrowarthy. For his controversial role in the Direct Action day Suhrowarthy was targetted couple of times to be assasinated by the Hindu groups. One time an assasin even entered inside his bedroom but found his awake then escaped. Mujib worked as a mussalman for the populist leader Suhrowarthy. Books written by West Bengali writers shows Mujib was directly involved in the Suhrowarthy led Calcutta riot between Muslims and the Hindus.
 
But Mujib was going to change when Suhrowarthy launched his failed mission to unite Hindus and Muslims for an independent United Bengal.Suhrowarthy came with this plan by forming an alliance with Sharat Bose. However,the plan didn't suceed for Suhrowarthy's involvement in the riot and particularly in Nehru and Jinnah's powerful tug of war to divide Bengal but Suhrowarthy's initiative to unite Bengal surprisingly led to the beginning of a cooperation between West Bengali and East Bengali politicians;not surprisingly West Bengalis with a fake Indian heart. The nonintellectual Mujib was caught up in this meeting of the West Bengali Indian so-called progressive Bengali and the East Bengali India lover heart.

 
 
 
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Ataul Karim <ataulkarim49@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

Dear Andrew/Turkman
For your information Pakistan was born on the basis of two nation theory and later it has been accepted by Sheik Mujibur Rahman by his action.
After Mujib's return from Pakistan he brought Kazi Nazrul Islam to Bangladesh not Jyoti Basu (born in Shonargaon) to Bangladesh. Our great poet was not born in East Bengal but he was brought because he was a Muslim. If Mujib believed in secular  Bangladesh he should have invited all the bengalis who migrated to India back to their country of birth or origin.

Ataul Karim
(free thinker) 


From: S Turkman <turkman@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Thu, March 17, 2011 10:19:50 AM
Subject: [chottala.com] BD concedes Transit Corridor to India?

 

Oh please forgive me. I had no idea we are at war with Kaafir India just like Pakistan has been since 1948 and had no idea that BD should not have any kind of dealings with our Enemy India. How could I be so treasonous?
Lets talk with Pakistan and declare war at India simultaneously to conquer it ...!


From: Khoka Mia <akhoka786@yahoo.com>



Mr. Turkman, why it is always that you are fanatically in support of India's interest? Are you an India promoter? What is your share in this deal, will you tell us? If you are brave enough why don't you list all the unsettled issues between Bangladesh and India; and don't forget to add on the list the diversion of all surface water by India, building dams on transboundary rivers.
All the issues brought to light by Zoglul Husain is absolutely correct. These are legitimate concern and poses threat to the existence of Bangladesh as an independent and sovereign nation.
What Bangladesh is getting except the perpetuity assurance of the present government? The present government is buying perpetuity to a tutelage government under India by selling the interest of Bangladesh.
 
-Bangladeshi 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "S Turkman" <turkman@sbcglobal.net>


   


Look at Iran ...!
* She is at fault in making money through Bandar Abbas port also because it is providing Transit Corridor to Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and all Central Asian States 2 decades ago.
Iran is so stupid that 2 decades ago, she spent billions to build a Highway connecting that port of Ashkhabad, Turkmenistan and also built a Railway Line going through whole length of the country from that port to connect with old USSR Railway System northeast of her.
What a stupid country ...!
* And then, there is a stupid country, Germany that conceded Transit to Soviet Natural Gas Pipe Line in 1970's to let her Gas be sold to almost all countries in Continental Europe despite US Opposition.
USA is a stupid country. She had also conceded transit of Natural Gas Pipe line to Canada going through whole north-south length of it going to Mexico.
* Pakistan is another example of such stupid concession. She has conceded transit to Iranian Gas Pipe Line despite US Opposition, going to India and our stupid Enemy, India has conceded Transit of that Pipe line to BD after it reaches her. 
What can we do?
This world is full of stupid countries like BD.
.
S U Turkman

--- In reform-bd@yahoogroups.com, Zoglul Husain <zoglul@...> wrote:
>
>
> Equipment from India arrives
>
> http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=177610

> Comment: We are totally opposed to transit/corridor agreement with India under the present circumstances. Roads constructed for these purposes will almost certainly be used for India's military purposes, which may even be from the very first consignment of smaller items, scheduled from 20 March. (Please see: ODC shipment begins March 20 http://www.bdnews24.com/details.php?cid=2&id=189840 ). This is not only a security risk, it is occupation of our infrastructure, an attempt to subjugate us, which may also drag us between warring parties. 

> I don't know if there would be demos, barricades, etc., but the govt is making a grievous betrayal of the country. They know we were denied transit from/to Nepal, Bhutan, etc. They know the problems between the two countries have not been resolved. The very serious problems of river water, border killings, smuggling in India's favour, enclaves, trade policies, conspiracy and hegemony, military and security, etc., etc. are in the way of developing friendly relations between the two countries. The govt is still behaving like lackeys mesmerised under the spell of a hegemonic power.

> It's all an utter betrayal of national interest and sovereignty. We condemn the govt on Hasina's MoU's with India, in which our national interests have been sold out and our sovereignty surrendered. We must unite to resist these.

   





__._,_.___


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

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




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

__,_._,___

Re: [chottala.com] Re: Sarmila Bose’s “Research” Exposed by Mashuqur Rahman



Secular Mullah
Indeed, Ms. Bose's book came out with numerous holes. This is especially when she praises the killers and the drunken Yahya and Niazi. But it was a good thing that she was allowed to speak about her findings even with biases; atleast now we know what are her biases. In this if we blindly followed Dr. Nurun Nabi we would all have become some fanatic"secular mullahs."



On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 5:54 PM, abid bahar <abid.bahar@gmail.com> wrote:
Bhasani's Ethics in Politics and the 1972-75 Awami League Rule
Abid Bahar
 Bhasani was a selfless leader. Bhasani's understanding of good society is based on his Sufi understanding of one being honest. Mujib was Bhasani's deputy for many years fighting together for democracy and social justice. After Mujib came to power and installation the BKSAL one party dictatorship and his cadres were systematically ruinning the economy, Bhasani finally came to the realization that the remedy for social ill was through change in the character. This is his prescription of how to get rid of the Nafsányiat (destruction of the ego) of rulers, which is according to Sufi doctrine, a progressive, and long process that is never really completed. Thus "nafsani"implies a progressive purification, a process, rather than revolution or imposition of "Islamic rule" from the above through "Islamic Law"..  Bhasani expressed his dismay at the Mujib government actions.[1] In a pamphlet in January 1974 he wrote:
I have said several times to the Prime Minister and his ministers through the newspapers that most of you are my former associates. Neutral observers will be compelled to say that what is happening in today's Bangladesh with Mujib Bahini,(Mujib's paramilitary force) Rakhi Bahini(the paramilitary defense force), Volunteer Bahini (the volunteer force),M. P.'s, party leaders, there is much more oppression, injustice, corruption, nepotism, and anti-state and anti-social activities than in the former governments of Pakistan. Those who preached honesty in politics are now practicing the opposite. You are absorbed in making money and abusing power. …[2]
While Bhasani's call was for destruction of the ego? It is because the AL government glorified its leader, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman to the status of a king. People were asked to submit to his wishes and any criticism was harshly dealt with.Like Mussolini in Italian fascism the AL asked Bengalis to imitate the dress code of Mujib and only praise Mujib. In the style of fascism the government of Mujib also activated its different brigades of para military forces. They became active to keep the opposition under control.
 There were:
1. Already Mujib Bahini, led by Mujib's nephew, Sheikh Moni.
2. Later Lal Bahini under Abdul Mannan,
3. and for Mujib's personal security, Rakkhi Bahini, headed by the Indian army came into existence.
Government banned most newspapers, except Ittifaq and few others, which were government controlled. 
4. Bengali nationalism was declared as one of the most important goals of the nation to be promoted triggering unrest in the Chittagong Hill Tracts.
5. During the state of emergency, the police and court system were also made obsolete. In its place, the AL and its forces started to rule the country by the order of its leaders and their use of force.
Opposition leadership was crushed by random arrests. [3]
6. Finally there was the 1974 famine
Truly, Mujib laid down extra-ordinary paradoxes and contradictions behind his rhetoric of Mujibbad.
Bhasani organized a public meeting on April 14th 1974 at the Polton ground. At the meeting he said with a sad voice:
I do not wish to live anymore. Most of my friends and colleagues have passed away. I am alive to see the suffering of human beings, Ashraful Mominin (the best creature of God). Now I want to see that Bengali Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian will have happiness. …[4] Bhasani was referring to the famine and the continuous suffering it caused. He was sad at the suffering of human beings, the creations of God. Bhasani recommended to Mujib that:
It is not possible for you alone to face …the problem we have in front of us, Mujib, release all the political prisoners. Withdraw all the warrants. Sit with the leaders of the opposition. Put all your energy into saving human beings….[5]
Bhasani with his rubúbiyah vision seem to be progressive in his thinking to preach the welfare of all people. He was ready to sit with the government to find a solution to the famine problem. Maksud says that, unlike the other famines in Bengal, this was not the result of a food shortage. There was plenty of food in stock. [6] Steve Ramer of National Geographic reported that even during the time of the famine in Bangladesh there was 40 hundred thousand tons of rice in store which was one third of a year's requirement.[7]
It is important to note that within three years of Bangladesh's independence, it had received aid valued at two hundred crores from foreign countries, but Bangladeshis died of starvation. The government characterized it as a temporary problem. As soon as foreign aid arrived it was smuggled out to interested quarters. This was blamed on widespread smuggling and hoarding by AL leaders and their host Indian merchant class.[8] Government tried to take some measures. It opened 5,662 temporary kitchens to help the poor. They did not solve the problem and the unrest continued. [9] Mujib cadres were sinning against the nation's most sacred possession, honesty in politics, the source of the Bangladesh nation's vitality.
What is happening today in Bangladesh by the 14 Party Mohajot led by Hasina , the repressive measures against the opposition, widespread corruption, the price hike, cadre politics, India-love is similar to the BKSALITE one party rule during Sk. Mujib's regime from 1972-75.
Bhasani was the founder of the AL party. He was the founder of the weekly Ittafaq, He was the chairman of the Al Party Language Action Committee in 1952, He led the mass uprising of 1969 that helped Mujib released from Agartala Conspiracy case, he declared the independence on his 9th March speech at Polton ground, he was the Chairman of the Bangladesh Government in exile, and before his death led the Marakka environmental crusade against Indian water aggression. He was a selfless politician and the opposition leader at the time from 1972-75. Bhasani helped Mujib to get elected in 1974 so that he can help built the nation but Mujib was increasingly becoming an authoritarian ruler. From 1974 onward, Bhasani would say that he was going to retire from party politics because his understanding of good society came in sharp contrast with Mujib in power.
The power hungry Mujib was the wrong person to be the father of the nation. Mujib was the absentee leader during the liberation period who became an abusive and unethical leader of Bangladesh after the war and the AL wronly made him as the father of the nation.
Endnotes
[1] Syed Abul Maksud, Mawlana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhasani, op. cit., p. 483.
 [2] Ibid., pp. 472-473.
[3] Ibid., pp. 464-467. (Emphasis added)
[4] Ibid., p. 473.
[5] Ibid, p. 473. (Emphasis added)
[6] Stave Ramer, "Bangladesh reports" in the National Geographic, July 1975.
[7]  Maksud, Mawlana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhasani, op. cit., p. 473.
[8] Maksud, Mawlana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhasani, op. cit., pp. 464-467.
[9] Ibid.


On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 2:05 AM, Ataul Karim <ataulkarim49@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

Dear All
 
I think the father of Bangladesh should be Moulana Abdul Hamid Bhashani not Mujib because it was Bhashani
who first thought of the idea of independent Bangladesh and later hijacked by Mujib. If you declare him as the father
of Bangladesh i think the controversy over father of the nation would be over for good.
 
Ataul Karim
(free thinker)

 


From: abid bahar <abid.bahar@gmail.com>
To: Syed_Aslam3 <syed.aslam3@gmail.com>
Cc: Khobor <khabor@yahoogroups.com>; notun Bangladesh <notun_bangladesh@yahoogroups.com>; chottala@yahoogroups.com; Ovimot@yahoogroups.com; Gazi Zakir Hossain <binte04@rogers.com>; Zoglul Husain <zoglul@hotmail.co.uk>; abid bahar <abid.bahar@gmail.com>; Helal Ahmed <huahmed@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sun, March 13, 2011 12:47:48 PM
Subject: [chottala.com] Re: Sarmila Bose's "Research" Exposed by Mashuqur Rahman

 

People's Freedom Struggle vs the AL Confusion Continues
Abid Bahar

"Bangladesh's freedom struggle continues" is a line repeated by Mawlana Bhasani one of the great leaders of Bangladesh. True, the life of an emerging nation or an independent nation is as if like the continued survival of the fittest among other nations because to keep a nation sovereign, freedom struggle continues.

1971 war vs the cold war
------------------------------------
Often some people blinded by emotion think it is a one time issue, not in dynamic terms.From this perspective we call the 1971 struggle as the war against Pakistan.Now we truly have a cold war going on with India which is closing rivers one after another, using its puppets in Bangladesh it is building its infrastructure within Bangladesh by Bangladesh's 1 billion borrowed money, fencing the border with its Brahmin Wall and killing our people while we facilitate them transit.

Pakistani razakars vs Indian razakars
------------------------------------------------------
 During the 1971 war we had Pakistan as the agressor and there were the razakars. Now that we have war going on with India, the collaborators like Hasina, Razzak, Faroque, Moinul, Suranjit becomes the prominant Indian razakars. That the devoted AL leaders/ members tend to excuse India for killing and raping our women. The death tool from the new aggression by the BSF is now a thousand and continues to go up. These Indian razakars speak loudly only when it comes to the Pakistani atrocities. True, some AL freedom fighters lack this true spirit of the freedom fighter, Helal Uddin wrote that both Pakistani and now Indian aggressors are condemnable. It seems to me a result of a generation gap. He further wrote: "Your generation saw Pakistan as oppressor and you spoke loud about it as that was the right thing to do. Our generation is seeing India as the oppressor, and we are speaking about it. I do not have any hurt feeling towards the Indian people but the Indian authority who is humiliating us periodically."

Muji's own Confusion Continues in the AL
-----------------------------------------------------------
The confusion is also due to a difference between made in Awami League history of Bangladesh vs. made in scholars' history of Bangladesh. The further remifications are in those areas: (a) AL claim of death in 1971 has been 3 million and the others including historians local and foreign claim is that it is from three hundred thousand to maximun one million.This discripency is a result of the lack of any survey done on it. In some cases according to the Bihari claims that some Bihari dead bodies were shown as Bengali genocide dead bodies.

It is unfortunate that like many confusions Sheikh Mujibur Rahman created (a) for not declaring the independence  due to his signiture in the LFD (b) staying the entire liberation war time in Pakistan, and (c)after his return to put Bangladesh in the world map as the bottomless basket case (d) perhaps he was not good at mathematics or intellectually not so bright to say "three lac as three million", but AL found him as the father of the nation and the best Bengali in thousand years.

People's History vs. the AL history
-------------------------------------------------
In all these the source of contradictions is not  methodological, nor of memory but it has been due to the fascist tendency in the Awami League's hero-worshipping, based on propaganda devoted to make its own ownership history about Mujib and Bangladesh; In the end Bangladesh has the AL's Bangladesh history of how they owned it but the unfortunate Bangladesh does not have its own people's history about the freedom struggle of 1971.


On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Syed_Aslam3 <syed.aslam3@gmail.com> wrote:

Sarmila Bose's "Research" Exposed

[Hat tip to Robin Khundkar]

Recently I wrote about Sarmila Bose's apologia for the Pakistan army that was published last September in Economic and Political Weekly. In this week's issue of EPW, two critical comments were published that take to task Ms. Bose's "research". The first comment is from Mr. Akhtaruzzaman Mandal, a freedom fighter whose first-person account of finding Bengali rape victims being held by Pakistani soldiers was disputed by Ms. Bose. The second comment is from Dr. Nayanika Mookherjee, lecturer in the Department of Sociology at Lancaster University. Ms. Bose had cited one of Dr. Mookherjee's articles to try to cast doubt on the rapes committed by the Pakistan army in their campaign of genocide in 1971.

Mr. Mandal exposes Ms. Bose's "research" with the authority of one who has lived history. Below are some excerpts from Mr. Mandal's comment:

Since Bose knew nothing about this humble freedom fighter and the pride we all bear, she could casually describe me as a muktijoddha accompanying the Indian army. Such description also served her purpose, as she tried to portray me as someone who had no prior knowledge about the land and people of Bhurungamari/Nageshwari, about their suffering and destitution. As guerrilla fighters we were active in the region all through monitoring the day to day developments. We were like the fish in the water, as the saying goes. That is why in my book, not known to Bose, I have also written about few other specific cases of how women had to suffer. But that is another story, quite a long one, let me concentrate here on the accusation made by Bose.  

While doing her "research", Bose never tried to contact me. On the other hand her search for truth took her to Pakistan and she interviewed Lt Col Saleem Zia of 8 Punjab who was stationed in that area and cross-checked my information with this partisan source of hers. Quoting my account Bose writes, "According to Mandal, Bhurungamari seemed like a ghost town. He claims 60 East Pakistan Civil Armed Force (EPCAF) members and 30-40 Pakistani soldiers were captured â€" they had run out of ammunition. He also claims that 40-50 Pakistani soldiers were killed in this battle." Then quoting her Pakistani source she writes, "Brigadier Zia found 30 injured men, who were evacuated, and 36 able-bodied ones. The rest were dead or dispersed and four or five, by his estimate, were captured." The anomaly in the description provided by members from two contending side is not new in any battle account. It is the researcher's job to dig for the truth. But according to our researcher here Akhtaruzzaman Mandal "claims" whereas brigadier Zia "found" and that shows where she is standing as a dispassionate independent scholar. Even in her account about the number of deaths she has not said anything about the EPCAF, who were raw recruits from the villages of West Pakistan and were put into forward position to work as a shield to the Pakistan army.

Now let us take the case of captain Ataullah Khan, the human devil. Bose has been successful in collecting laudable quotes about Ataullah and in her attempt to whitewash the devil's deeds made a jugglery of the location of Bhurungamari and Nageswari depicting them as two sites completely separated from each other. She writes, "According to this fellow (Pakistani) officer, Captain Ataullah had not been in Bhurungamari before and he was based at Nageswari. He had barely got there when he faced the Indian attack." Her research or lack of research has led her to greatly differentiate between Nageswari and Bhurungamari and if only she was interested to know more she could have found out that the distance between the two place is only 15 km and at that time, even with a ferry crossing, it took only 30 minutes for a commanding officer to cover the distance by his jeep. The Pakistani captain being based at Nageswari was a frequent visitor to the forward position at Bhurungamari and he was no stranger there.

Bose never asked any woman, any common man of Nageswari and Bhurungamari, about Ataullah Khan but quoted her Pakistani source at length and writes, "This fellow officer of 25 Punjab described (not claimed: AM) Captain Ataullah as a six-foot plus Pathan officer known for being 'humane'. He further stated that he saw people in Nageswari weep upon hearing the Ataullah's death. According to him, when the Pakistanis were POW's in India after the war, a senior Indian officer had expressed his respect, soldier-to-soldier, to the officers of 25 Punjab and mentioned by name Ataullah, who had become a 'shaheed' (martyr)." In the footnote Bose mentions that, "this inclusion of evidence from the Indian side in the future would be of great value in assessing this and many other aspect of 1971 war". I am happy that she noted the importance of the Indian source which she never tried to use and would request her to look for members of 6 Mountain Division with whom we fought side by side. After 36 long years I cannot remember all of them or their full names, but how can I forget Major General Thappa, Brigadier Josie, Major Chatowal Singh, Captain Shambu, Captain Mitra, Captain Bannerje, Major Bala Reddy, as well as fellow fighters from the 78 Battalion of the BSF and others. Instead of interviewing only the perpetrators of genocide, rape and crimes against humanity she should also try to get evidences from the Indian side.  

As Bose has gathered most of her information from highly dubious one-sided Pakistani sources following atrocious and unbelievable lines, "The picture painted of captain Ataullah by his fellow officer, who knew him, completely contradicts the one given by Mandal, who appears to have only seen his dead body. Clearly, if captain Ataullah had been based in Nageswari and only gone up to Bhurungamari the day the Indian attack started, he could not have been responsible for whatever might have been going on in Bhurungamari. Mandal offers no corroborating evidence for his character assassination of an officer who had died defending his country, and therefore, cannot speak in his own defence."

As a freedom fighter operating in the area we came to know about many of the atrocious acts of Ataullah and this human-devil was not unknown to us. Our informers also brought many news and on that auspicious day we knew very well about the bunker he took shelter in and that is why the Indian army could pinpoint their artillery attack. I have seen his dead body at the bunker and could immediately know that this was the man who brought so much suffering to our people, to the poor civilians and villagers of the area. Ataullah Khan was no soldier defending his country, he was part of a killing machine, doing heinous acts against an unarmed civil population which no professional soldier can ever think of. Such acts can in no way be equated with defending one's country. In that case all the Nazi war criminals will get acquitted as they were "defending" their own country.  

[Read the entire article here]

Dr. Mookherjee, in her comment, discusses Ms. Bose's flawed methodology and bias. Below are some excerpts:

To any student of social science methodology and memory studies, the article reveals how the pursuit of "facts" alone disallows any analytical, sociological, historical and interpretative perspective. That it was published in EPW is a surprise indeed.

It is not clear from the article the extent of the research in Bangladesh, how many survivors the author met, particularly women, what was her position towards these women, i e, her reflexive position. It is clear that she talked to Pakistani military authorities and accepts everything they say to be true but considers all Bangladeshi accounts as predominantly fabricated.

The article accepts every account of Pakistani military authorities as truth while that of Bangladeshis as false and "shrill cries". Particularly if the accounts are of "illiterate" Bangladeshis they can only be false â€" so the space for any "subalterns" is clearly absent, while those within the military paraphernalia provide legitimate authoritative accounts according to the author. Particularly the role of Bangladeshi women either as witnesses or as raped: like the sweeper Rabeya Khatoon or the sculptor Firdousy Priyobhashini is always of suspect to Bose. Also while mentioning the Hamdoodur Rehman commission of the Pakistani government the author does not mention the instances of rapes and the role of General Niazi as cited in the document.

The article cites the case of Ferdousy Priyobhashini who as a single woman had to look after her widowed mother and young siblings and continued to work during the war and becomes the focus of sexual violence by various Pakistani officers as well as Bengali collaborators.

The article interrogates Priyobhashini's account questioning why she stayed back during the war and whether her rape was as a result of coercion or a voluntary sexual act by stating that she "willingly fraternised". By that argument is the article suggesting that Priyobhashini brought the rape upon her since she stayed back? This is extremely problematic and parallels the biases within various rape laws which seem to suggest that women must have brought the rape upon them in different instances.  

By this argument the sociologically nuanced analysis of how single women and their sexuality are always suspect, is never addressed and instead Priyobhashini's experience is highlighted by the derisive comment that she "makes much of her threats". The complexity of war time violence and the various threatening compulsive situations is well articulated in the work of Cynthia Enloe, Veena Das, Urvashi Butalia, Ritu Menon and Kamla Bhasin. Primo Levi's work on the holocaust also shows the complex negotiations made by survivors.

The article also states the account of Champa from one of my articles [Mookherjee 2003] and tries to infer that no rapes happened during the Bangladesh war. My article was exploring how the trauma of rape is understood in independent Bangladesh and in the process I explore how scholars of memory make sense of the process of forgetting. The nuanced arguments I make about Champa is hinged on long-term fieldwork, cross-checking of hospital files and documents and finding the social workers who found her and brought her to the hospital. These are the "evidences" of Champa's war-time violent encounter of rape. I have also worked with and written about other women who encountered rape during the Bangladesh war. This was done by means of over a year's fieldwork as well as cross-checking interviews, and examining archival, official documents, etc.

[Read the entire article here]

Related: Research on Bangladesh War by Akhtaruzzaman Mondol

http://www.epw.org.in/uploads/articles/11334.pdf

 

 

Link: http://www.docstrangelove.com/2007/12/20/sarmila-boses-research-exposed/

© 2007 Mashuqur Rahman | Category: Bangladesh, Bangladesh Liberation War | 16 comments | 3,908 views | Subscribe to the comments of this post
 
 






__._,_.___


[* 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: [Alapon] Arnold Zeitlin's comments: samila bose's book on the 1971 war



Indeed, Ms. Bose's book came out with numerous holes. This is especially when she praises the killers, drunken Yahya and Niazi. But it was a good thing that she was allowed to speak about her findings even with biases; atleast we know what are her biases.

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Hemayet Ullah <ullah1@verizon.net> wrote:
 

SWISS CHEESE SCHOLARSHIP!!!! Right description of Ms. Bose's book With numerous holes)


Mar 23, 2011 04:40:56 PM, azeitlin@hotmail.com wrote:

 the brief burst of applause from the bangladeshis in the audience after i finished speaking at the woodrow wilson center for international scholars in washington DC was the only demonstration of the day despite a controversial subject for discussion. the occasion was the launching of a book, dead reckoning: memories of the 1971 bangladesh war , by sarmila bose. the wilson center described the book as reconstructing the conflict through interviews in Bangladesh and Pakistan, news reports, documents published and unpublished and other sources and "challenging assumptions about the nature of the conflict...". the center concluded: "for better or worse, her new book is being described as a definitive study of the 1971 bangladesh war."      many bangladeshis believe her book not only denies the oppression they felt from west pakistan and the killings and rapes by the pakistan army in 1971 but is an apology for the army and blames the conflict on the bengalis. one bangladeshi called her "a dedicated advocate for a genocidal regime." before the program, the wilson center and i were bombarded by protest messages from bangladeshis demanding either the session be cancelled or they be allowed to speak their side of the issue.  my bangladeshi friends complained that the wilson center would not give exposure to a book denying the nazi holocaust. they felt the same way about dead reckoning.
     after ms. bose, a research scholar at oxford university and a former journalist, delivered a 30-minute chapter-by-chapter description of her book.  i commented for a few minutes beyond my allotted 10 minutes (there was so much to say) in my role as a reporter who covered the period in what then was east pakistan (I was associated press bureau chief in pakistan at the time).
      for those who are gluttons for punishment, the wilson center says it is posting the 90-minute proceedings on its website at www.wilson center.org.
      i anticipated a more demonstrative audience. A friend, bill milam, a wilson scholar and former ambassador to both pakistan and bangladesh who has collaborated with ms. bose on an article about pakistan, said he had already witnessed bitter, noisy exchanges between outraged bangladeshis and ms. bose over articles she had written on the issue.  one cabinet-level friend in dhaka wrote me that he knew sarmila and her distinguished calcutta family, adding " like her brothers I have kept distance from her because of her very vitriolic and partisan advocacy in the garb of scholarship. She is not taken seriously by scholars."
      i anticipated a free-for-all at the staid wilson center. however, robert hathaway, director of wilson's asia program, served as moderator and ruled the discussion with an iron hand -- he allowed no one in the audience to speak more than three minutes, an interdiction that stifled passion.
      in her introduction to her book, ms. bose says the aim of her study was to "humanize the war" through a series of interviews with survivors in bangladesh and in pakistan as well as cut through the myths that had grown up around it over the 40 years since 1971. in addition to the extensive interviews, she studied memoirs, official and unofficial documents, published and unpublished, and news media reports to create what she believes is a basis for "non-partisan analysis" of the struggle. .
      i said in my comment at the wilson center that her work was a service to history, putting a human face on the tragedy as well as providing raw material for the day if and when a comprehensive and objective account of that conflict is produced. such an account has yet to appear in bangladesh or pakistan. years ago, i wrote an article for the now-defunct far eastern economic review , bemoaning the fact that bangladesh had produced no reliable history of its independenc struggle, partly because so many bangladeshis had so much to hide about their behavior in that affair.
      i read dead reckoning  from an electronic proof that was sent to me by the publisher in london. copies are now just appearing in the united states.
      the book disappointed, if not astonished me. need for a revised look at the events certainly exists. although bose's interviews and anecdotal reporting adds significantly to the literature, dead reckoning doesn't satisfy the need. ms. bose seems still too distressed by the awami league propaganda she said she heard while a pre-teen in calcutta (she was 12 years old in 1971) to provide a dispassionate and thorough examination of the period. her book is so full of holes, i can describe her work only as swiss cheese scholarship, with the same excess of bias that exists in so many other books of the period (i brought a batch of books about the conflict from my library to pile up at the session to illustrate my belief that dead reckoningt was just one more book for the pile).  what we need is a genuine revision. what we got was, i said, not so much revision as just another biased version, a distortion of history.
       for those who have read this far, you may wish to peel off, now that i have revealed my opinion of the work. i hope in the following paragraphs to substantiate my opinion at length if not ad nauseum.  
       ms. bose says she started her project sympathetic to the cause of the east pakistani bengalis. she says out of her probing of memories, often conflicting, emerged a story that was at odds with the conventional story of the war and its emphasis on east pakistani suffering and grievances. faced with a challenge of what she said was "seeking the right balance between detachment and involvement", she now appears to see the story of that conflict more through the lens of the losers than the victors. the single best word to describe her reaction at best is "ingenuous," as in naive and artless, or even at worse the more harsher "disingenuous.". 
       for example, she is distressed that bengali propaganda of the time demonized general yahya khan, the pakistan military ruler of that time. this is  her description of him:
 
       "As General Yahya Khan was...the person responsible for the decision to launch a military action to crush the Bengali rebellion, it is only to be expected that he would be the prime symbol for 'demonization' by the rebels. Yet it is supremely ironic, as indicated in earlier chapters, as General Yahya personally seems to have neither harboured nor brooked prejudice againt Bengalis. On the contrary, he accepted their economic grievances as legitimate, took steps to redress the imbalance in Bengali representation in the Army and civil service, replaced the 'parity principle' with elections based on 'on person one vote' which ensured the more numerous Bengalis an advantage in democratic politics, and seemed to be prepared to make a deal with Sheik Mujib, the winner, whom he referred to publicly as the 'future prime minister of Pakistan.
 
        As for sheik mujib, he led, according to her, a "political agitation" and was among the political leaders inciting the public in march 1971, using fatal clashes between the military and the public "to strengthen his bargaining position to become the prime minister of all pakistan." 
        mujib, she said at the center, played "a double game."
        her book focusses on the killing and rapes and whom to blame, obscuring the major intent of the conflict which was not about killing but about a struggle for self determination. much of her interview research does create a balance between the propaganda of the time and the reality. her distress at the exaggerated numbers of rapes and killings in the propaganda of all sides warps her balance. if one bengali woman was raped, if one bengali professor or bihari motor mechanic was slain randomly...in each case, it was already one too many. her bookkeeping of death otherwise does  little to change the forces that led to the conflict. 
        she sees the conflict this way: "what matters is the nature of the conflict, which was fundamentally a complex and violent struggle for power among several different parties with a terrible human toll...." no kidding, colonel qaddafi. what struggle isn't?
        for example, here's a comment from brigadier a.r. siddiqi, the senior pakistan army spokesman in those days. in a book published long after the fray, he echoed ms. bose's power view in writing about the efforts of martial law ruler, general yahya, to manipulate domestic politics:
        "this then was the thinner edge of the wedge leading  to the deepening involvement of his regime in the insane power game..."
        as for a double game, take it from one who was on the scene at the time, all sides, yahya, mujib, zulfiqar ali bhutto, and almost everyone else,  were playing double games. these were flawed human beings grappling with an issue that was, perhaps, beyond their powers to solve.
        a case can be made that yahya had a darker side that affected his decision making. i saw him drunk the day in 1970 he arrived in east pakistan from china (where he was secretly helping henry kissinger arrange nixon's meeting with mao), presumeably to boost the province's morale after a cyclone and tsunami that took more than 300,000 lives. he was drunk the night of 22 november 71 when indian troops moved aggressively into east pakistan. at a reception that evening at the intercontinental hotel in rawalpindi, i stepped out to question him.  he drunkenly shouted, "i know you! i know you!' and tottered off without an answer. brigadier f.b. ali, now retired from the pakistan army and who as much as any single person contributed to the ouster of yahya as pakistan's leader in december 1971, sent this message after i sent him ms. bose's description of the general:
 
        "by 1970/71 he was an alcoholic who spent most of his time in a drunken haze and didn't really direct or control policy. this was made by others around him, and OKd by him. these people had no intentioin of letting east pakistan rule or separate. the 'deal with mujib' that she talks about was...just camouflage to give the army time to prepare for the crackdown...."
 
         having raised the example of yahya's beneficence, ms. bose had an obligation in the name of balance to flesh out her picture of the general.
         as for mujib. a case can also be made that he searched desperately for a resolution that would make him either the prime minister of all pakistan or at least the supreme leader in east pakistan. he repeatedly tried to hold off the radical, younger elements in his awami league pressing him to declare independence. he showed his reluctance in his famous 7 march 71 speech to hundreds of thousands who had gathered in the belief he would declare independence. he did not.
         i saw a sign of his desperation after i reported in february 1971 that bhutto (in a drunken interview with me during a february midnight in peshawar) had suggested two prime ministers for pakistan. he had made the same suggestion in a previous, little-noticed interview with times of london reporter peter hazelhurst. few realized it at the time but bhutto sensed already that the people of pakistan had voted in 1970 for separation.
         mujib summoned me to his home on road 16 in dhanmondi in dhaka. he and i sat alone in his living room (an unusual occurance in a house that was always overrun with followers). he asked me to describe what bhutto told me.
        "if that is what he wants," mujib said with opening his hands, palms up, in a hopeless gesture and a sigh, "i agree."
        i trotted off to send a story that a basis for agreement existed between the country's two top political leaders.
        mujib promptly denied it. he told me i had misquoted him. i told him he damn well knew i didn't. "that story will hurt me in west paksitsn," he said finally, referring to other west pakistani politicians who detested bhutto and wanted to deal with mujib.
        an agreement that might have saved thousands of lives never got off the ground.
        in her portrayal of mujib as a cunning, if not hypocritical leader (a view unsourced by her and speculative), ms. bose had an obligation to give her readers a more balanced picture of the man.
        ms. bose's interviews often substantiate her thesis that the bengalis in east pakistan were sinners in violence in killing non-bengalis and hindus as well as they were sinned against by the pakistan army. she tends to treat this information as a revelation; but it is hardly fresh news.
        in my first visit to dhaka in  december 1969, three months after i arrived in pakistan as AP bureau chief, i found myself in the midst of a state of emergency ordered by the military governor, admiral ahsan, bengalis and biharis, urdu-speaking people who had moved into east pakistan during the  bloody 1947 paritition of india, were killing each other. having just arrived after three years of covering the biafra civil war in nigeria, in which the eastern province of the country had tried to secede, i was impressed. in my first dispatch, i wrote that east pakistan was going to be the next biafra.
        ben bassett, the ap's foreign editor in new york, responded. he asked, with one thousand miles of india separating the two wings of pakistan, how were they going to get at each other?
        "i don't know," i answered. "but they will find a way." fifteen months later, they did.
        if i, a rank outsider, could see immediately the hatred that led to further killings and rapes less than two years later, imagine what the insiders knew.
        in this chronicle of hatred, ms. bose had an obligation to tell the story behind that hatred. she doesn't. i imagine a reader with slim knowledge of the founding of pakistan wondering why these people hated so deeply. we can go back at least a half century to pakistan founder mohammed ali jinnah and his insistence that urdu be the language of a united pakistan, despite the fact that more than half the population spoke bengali. we can go back to ayub khan's published distaste for bengalis and the widespread belief of the west pakistani establishment and army that somehow bengali culture in east pakistan was hindu and that bengalis were not real moslems (an attitude that made it a lot easier for westerners to kill easterners). ms. bose provides little context for the violence that ensured in 1971.
        while supporting the contention that bengalis committed atrocious killings and rapes as did their enemies, she graphically describes through interviews, the random killings by the pakistan army at dhaka university the nights of 25-26 march 71, when the army moved to crack down on the awami league. she provides a chilling portrayal of random killings of hindus in a village by a pakistan army platoon. she concludes:
        "for by the massacre of unarmed and helpless hindu refugees at chuknagar, a band of 25 to 30 men brought lasting disgrace to an entire army and a while nation." 
        a case can be made in the name of balance that this operation was not out of the ordinary, as she suggests in what amounts to an apology, but represented incidents that the army repeated throughout east pakistan.
        according to brigadier f.b. ali:
        "on the general issue of atrocities....they were commited by both sides. unfortunately, in an insurgency which develops in to a guerilla war, they happen quite often. my view is that the pakistan army, being a professional military force, should be held to a higher standard than the 'rebels,' and are thus more culpable. also, because the scale of their actions was considerably more than those of the otherside. totally criminal were the actions of certain commanders who ordered atrocities to be committed....
        "...the soldiers and younger officers fought well in EP....the mid-level officers performance was a mixed bag, some good, some bad, most average. the senior officers (brig and above) performed poorly, with some exceptions. many of the generals behaved terribly and should have been shot for cowardice and the war crimes they committed by directing or allowing their troops to commit atrocities against the civilian population."
        this view was worth considering; ms. bose fails to explore this side of the issue, dismissing complaints as bengali nationalist propaganda. instead, she is enthusiastic in her admiration for the commanding general of the pakistan forces in east pakistan, lt. general amir abdullah khan niazi, whom she describes as having a "distinguished past and a tragic fate." because he surrendered to the indians in december 1971, niazi became the fall guy for pakistanis. i'll turn again to f.b. ali for a different view of the man:
 
         "'tiger' niazi was a disgrace to the uniform....he was a fraud, a lecher and a coward. when he was GOC (general officer commanding) 10 division, it was well known in the garrison (i was there) that his staff car would often be found standing in heera mandi (lahore's red light district). as GOC EP he used to go around visiting troops and asking JCOs: how many bengalis women have you raped? when discussing his surrender with the indian general, he tried to ingratiate himself by telling dirty jokes..."
 
          ms. bose contends that the bengali insurgency was wiped out within weeks after niazi took command in east pakistan. to support her contention, she quotes mort rosenblum, then a correspondent for the associated press and one of the first five foreign newsmen allowed into east pakistan after the march crackdown. by the way, brigadier siddiqi recalls that when niazi met the reporters, he shot off a steam of dirty jokes. mort joined the group because the pakistan authorities would not let me back in east pakistan then; presumeably i knew too much. after a guided tour of east pakistaan with the group, mort wrote, as quoted by ms. bose, that the bengalis were in a state of "submissive inactivity."
          when i recently jogged mort's memory of that occasion, he wrote to me:
 
          "the passion for independence was just sparking to a full flame. wondered what would have happened if they had FB (facebook) and twitter."
 
          there is much more to say. ms. bose went on inordinately in her book and at the wilson center meeting about the fact that bengalis hurled nasty names at the pakistan army  ("sticks and stones.....etc"). she placed significance that in her interviews, many rural bengalis in particular praised 'beluch" soldiers for their kindnesses. she took this as remarkable insomuch as there were few, if any soldiers in east pakistan from baluchistan, a western province of the west wing (although two of the pakistan army regiments in east pakistan at the time were labeled the 20 and 22 baluch, mostly staffed by punjabi or pathan personnel). rather than considering the "beluch" label a mis-identification by ignorant and usually illiterate bengali peasants, ms. bose speculates that these "beluch" did not exist but were only in the "ethnic imagination of bengali nationalists." to what end, she never makes clear.
          throughout her book, she rails against otherwise unidentified "bengali nationslists" or such vague targets as "bengali nationalist narrative" or "bengali liberation literature," giving the reader no examples or references. much of her discontent is with exaggerated propaganda. common to all sides and dismissed as inconsequential by sophisticated observers.
          she takes on in the book a numbers game questioning the support of sheikh and his awami league, which in 1971 convincingly won 160 of 162 seats in east pakistan and none in west pakistan in the 1970 election. his seat total was enough to give the party a majority in a national assembly that was never convened, hence mujib's designation as the future prime minister of pakistan.
          but wait, says ms. bose. although the awami league received 75 percent of the east pakistan vote, just 56 percent of the eligible electorate turned out. that figure was less than the turnout in the west pakistan punjab (66 percent) or sind (58 percent). it was higher than in baluchistan (39 percent) or the northwest frontier (47 percent). so? she concludes, on the basis of no evidence, "that 44 percent of the east pakistan electorate was too disinterested in the issues of the election to vote, or else had some disincentive to get out to vote." maybe some people were sick or had to work the farm or were among the province's many poor and homeless, too interested in finding a daily meal than in politics. is she suggesting that sheikh mujib and party really had no popular mandate, which so many of us foolishly believed 40 years ago? we don't know. neither does ms. bose. in the course of her research, she certainly did not ask anyone who either voted or not at that time.
          not only that, she says, doing the math, 75 percent of the 56 percent turnout, mean that only 42 percent of eligible citizens voted for the awami league. in an outburst of pure speculation, she argues, "this who voted...may have been expressing their alienation from the existing regime, in favor of change, redress of perceived discrimination and greater autonomy." but she really doesn't know does she? i wish i had done the math, too, in time for our discussion.  i would have asked her this: since she is so proud of the interviews which demonstrated that bengalis killed people, too, why did she not interview voters and non-voters to find out what was on their minds at election time?  such is an example of her scholarship and research.
          robert hathaway kindly gave me the last word in our discussion. i tried to raise the level of discourse to embrace the present. rather than idle away time and energy in the past, why not look to the present and, possibly the future? the violence outlined in the book continues  -- just look at the murderous cultures today both in pakistan with its sunni-shite clashes, its suicide bombers and assassinations and in bangladesh, with its political and student murders and crossfire killings. whatever lessons dead reckoning offers remain to be learned. 
          regards all, az                         






__._,_.___


[* 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] YES!!!!,RAFFLE DRAW AIRLINE TICKET WASHINGTON- DHAKA- WASHINGTON‏‏‏



9 th Street South,Columbia Pike,Arlington,Va-22204

__._,_.___


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

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




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

__,_._,___

Re: [chottala.com] Re: [KHABOR] Verdict of Col. Taher Case.



Hasina Fooling People with the Rule of Law
Abid Bahar
Professor Mannan is a very enlightened person but at the same time I read him in his work that he is an overly enthuasistic pro AL person as well. He is an honorable person. I don't think I am qualified to say anything to increase his enlightenment about Bangladesh politics but I want to say one thing to help him understand about his enthuasism that with the AL appointed judges some of whom were vendals and one was a murder accused, the judgement about Taher who was the killer of many innocent army offices for implimenting his vision of a the then Chinese style sepoy army, Hasina's is clearly politically motivated. In this judgement there is nothing to celebrate unless you are a hardcore Awami Leaguer enthusiast.
Additionally, it says what is legal is not always moral. Example: If the fascist leader Sadam made laws, or Gaddafi or Mujib with their one party rule, made laws, in Mujib's case when the elected Mujib denying the people's mandate made laws to supress the opposition installed one party rule, killing the opposition with his High Court laws, or killing Siraj Sikdar without laws and boosting about it,  it was simply a betrayal with the people who voted him to power. In the end such leaders as was Saddam with his two children were killed by the invasion forces, Mujib with his two children were killed by Bangladesh army and another dictator Gadafi calling himself as a revolutionary stays in power for decades now killing his countryman with the same fascist rule of law and who knows what awaits for him as well.  
In Hasina's case keeping Mahmudur Rahman, the editor of a newspaper in jail by Hasina's court was legal but abusing power through courts was neither democratic nor moral. True, politicians and their enthuasiasts are fooling and ruling people with the excuse of rule of law- is a village headman style politics brought to the city to convince some already enlightened people fighting against dictators and fascist regimes worldwide.

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Helal Ahmed <huahmed@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

Dear Manna Sir:

Assalamualaikum. Thanks for sharing your comment on High courts verdict on Taher killing.

Sir, in the last few weeks there were many email circling around regarding this matter. I also posted a thread few days back. I would be honored to hear your feedback in regards of my below statement:

"Assalamua'laikum. Ok, for the sake of argument, I accept your notion that Ziaur Rahman was a cold blooded murderer for killing Col Taher. Then, do you also accept that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was also a cold blooded murderer for killing Siraj Sikdar! I hope you must read or remember when Bongbondhu proclaimed, where is Siraj Sikdar after he was assassinated."

I'm really looking fwd to have a knowledgeable discussion with you regarding the hypocrisy in our today's society when it comes to discussing Mujib/Zia, India/Pakistan, Tarek/Joy, and so on.

Sir, I can assume how busy your life is however, your response is much appreciated.

Helal


--- On Tue, 3/22/11, Abdul Mannan <abman1971@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Abdul Mannan <abman1971@gmail.com>
Subject: [KHABOR] Verdict of Col. Taher Case.
To: khabor@yahoogroups.com, alapon@yahoogroups.com, chottala@yahoogroups.com, "Miro Jangi" <mjangi@yahoo.com>, Diagnose@yahoogroups.com, "shahid mahmud" <shahid6609@yahoo.com>, "sultan chowdhury" <chottalasultan@yahoo.com>, "Saad Andaleeb" <saadandaleeb@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2011, 3:21 AM


 
High Court has given a verdict that the hanging of Col. Taher by Gen. Zia was a cold blooded murder and the lone person responsible for it was General Zia. The Court also ruled that Zia was also directly  involved in the killing of Bangabandhu Sk. Mujib.

Mannan

--





__._,_.___


[* 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] On Sarmila Bose's book by Arnold Zeitlin, AP Bureau Chief in Dhaka 1971)




Subject:Sarmila Bose's book BY Arnold Zeitlin
 
The brief burst of applause from the bangladeshis in the audience after i finished speaking at the woodrow wilson center for international scholars in washington DC was the only demonstration of the day despite a controversial subject for discussion. the occasion was the launching of a book, dead reckoning: memories of the 1971 bangladesh war , by sarmila bose. the wilson center described the book as reconstructing the conflict through interviews in Bangladesh and Pakistan, news reports, documents published and unpublished and other sources and "challenging assumptions about the nature of the conflict...". the center concluded: "for better or worse, her new book is being described as a definitive study of the 1971 bangladesh war."      many bangladeshis believe her book not only denies the oppression they felt from west pakistan and the killings and rapes by the pakistan army in 1971 but is an apology for the army and blames the conflict on the bengalis. one bangladeshi called her "a dedicated advocate for a genocidal regime." before the program, the wilson center and i were bombarded by protest messages from bangladeshis demanding either the session be cancelled or they be allowed to speak their side of the issue.  my bangladeshi friends complained that the wilson center would not give exposure to a book denying the nazi holocaust. they felt the same way about dead reckoning.
     after ms. bose, a research scholar at oxford university and a former journalist, delivered a 30-minute chapter-by-chapter description of her book.  i commented for a few minutes beyond my allotted 10 minutes (there was so much to say) in my role as a reporter who covered the period in what then was east pakistan (I was associated press bureau chief in pakistan at the time).
      for those who are gluttons for punishment, the wilson center says it is posting the 90-minute proceedings on its website at www.wilson center.org.
      i anticipated a more demonstrative audience. A friend, bill milam, a wilson scholar and former ambassador to both pakistan and bangladesh who has collaborated with ms. bose on an article about pakistan, said he had already witnessed bitter, noisy exchanges between outraged bangladeshis and ms. bose over articles she had written on the issue.  one cabinet-level friend in dhaka wrote me that he knew sarmila and her distinguished calcutta family, adding " like her brothers I have kept distance from her because of her very vitriolic and partisan advocacy in the garb of scholarship. She is not taken seriously by scholars."
      i anticipated a free-for-all at the staid wilson center. however, robert hathaway, director of wilson's asia program, served as moderator and ruled the discussion with an iron hand -- he allowed no one in the audience to speak more than three minutes, an interdiction that stifled passion.
      in her introduction to her book, ms. bose says the aim of her study was to "humanize the war" through a series of interviews with survivors in bangladesh and in pakistan as well as cut through the myths that had grown up around it over the 40 years since 1971. in addition to the extensive interviews, she studied memoirs, official and unofficial documents, published and unpublished, and news media reports to create what she believes is a basis for "non-partisan analysis" of the struggle. .
      i said in my comment at the wilson center that her work was a service to history, putting a human face on the tragedy as well as providing raw material for the day if and when a comprehensive and objective account of that conflict is produced. such an account has yet to appear in bangladesh or pakistan. years ago, i wrote an article for the now-defunct far eastern economic review , bemoaning the fact that bangladesh had produced no reliable history of its independenc struggle, partly because so many bangladeshis had so much to hide about their behavior in that affair.
      i read dead reckoning  from an electronic proof that was sent to me by the publisher in london. copies are now just appearing in the united states.
      the book disappointed, if not astonished me. need for a revised look at the events certainly exists. although bose's interviews and anecdotal reporting adds significantly to the literature, dead reckoning doesn't satisfy the need. ms. bose seems still too distressed by the awami league propaganda she said she heard while a pre-teen in calcutta (she was 12 years old in 1971) to provide a dispassionate and thorough examination of the period. her book is so full of holes, i can describe her work only as swiss cheese scholarship, with the same excess of bias that exists in so many other books of the period (i brought a batch of books about the conflict from my library to pile up at the session to illustrate my belief that dead reckoningt was just one more book for the pile).  what we need is a genuine revision. what we got was, i said, not so much revision as just another biased version, a distortion of history.
       for those who have read this far, you may wish to peel off, now that i have revealed my opinion of the work. i hope in the following paragraphs to substantiate my opinion at length if not ad nauseum.  
       ms. bose says she started her project sympathetic to the cause of the east pakistani bengalis. she says out of her probing of memories, often conflicting, emerged a story that was at odds with the conventional story of the war and its emphasis on east pakistani suffering and grievances. faced with a challenge of what she said was "seeking the right balance between detachment and involvement", she now appears to see the story of that conflict more through the lens of the losers than the victors. the single best word to describe her reaction at best is "ingenuous," as in naive and artless, or even at worse the more harsher "disingenuous.". 
       for example, she is distressed that bengali propaganda of the time demonized general yahya khan, the pakistan military ruler of that time. this is  her description of him:
 
       "As General Yahya Khan was...the person responsible for the decision to launch a military action to crush the Bengali rebellion, it is only to be expected that he would be the prime symbol for 'demonization' by the rebels. Yet it is supremely ironic, as indicated in earlier chapters, as General Yahya personally seems to have neither harboured nor brooked prejudice againt Bengalis. On the contrary, he accepted their economic grievances as legitimate, took steps to redress the imbalance in Bengali representation in the Army and civil service, replaced the 'parity principle' with elections based on 'on person one vote' which ensured the more numerous Bengalis an advantage in democratic politics, and seemed to be prepared to make a deal with Sheik Mujib, the winner, whom he referred to publicly as the 'future prime minister of Pakistan.
 
        As for sheik mujib, he led, according to her, a "political agitation" and was among the political leaders inciting the public in march 1971, using fatal clashes between the military and the public "to strengthen his bargaining position to become the prime minister of all pakistan." 
        mujib, she said at the center, played "a double game."
        her book focusses on the killing and rapes and whom to blame, obscuring the major intent of the conflict which was not about killing but about a struggle for self determination. much of her interview research does create a balance between the propaganda of the time and the reality. her distress at the exaggerated numbers of rapes and killings in the propaganda of all sides warps her balance. if one bengali woman was raped, if one bengali professor or bihari motor mechanic was slain randomly...in each case, it was already one too many. her bookkeeping of death otherwise does  little to change the forces that led to the conflict. 
        she sees the conflict this way: "what matters is the nature of the conflict, which was fundamentally a complex and violent struggle for power among several different parties with a terrible human toll...." no kidding, colonel qaddafi. what struggle isn't?
        for example, here's a comment from brigadier a.r. siddiqi, the senior pakistan army spokesman in those days. in a book published long after the fray, he echoed ms. bose's power view in writing about the efforts of martial law ruler, general yahya, to manipulate domestic politics:
        "this then was the thinner edge of the wedge leading  to the deepening involvement of his regime in the insane power game..."
        as for a double game, take it from one who was on the scene at the time, all sides, yahya, mujib, zulfiqar ali bhutto, and almost everyone else,  were playing double games. these were flawed human beings grappling with an issue that was, perhaps, beyond their powers to solve.
        a case can be made that yahya had a darker side that affected his decision making. i saw him drunk the day in 1970 he arrived in east pakistan from china (where he was secretly helping henry kissinger arrange nixon's meeting with mao), presumeably to boost the province's morale after a cyclone and tsunami that took more than 300,000 lives. he was drunk the night of 22 november 71 when indian troops moved aggressively into east pakistan. at a reception that evening at the intercontinental hotel in rawalpindi, i stepped out to question him.  he drunkenly shouted, "i know you! i know you!' and tottered off without an answer. brigadier f.b. ali, now retired from the pakistan army and who as much as any single person contributed to the ouster of yahya as pakistan's leader in december 1971, sent this message after i sent him ms. bose's description of the general:
 
        "by 1970/71 he was an alcoholic who spent most of his time in a drunken haze and didn't really direct or control policy. this was made by others around him, and OKd by him. these people had no intentioin of letting east pakistan rule or separate. the 'deal with mujib' that she talks about was...just camouflage to give the army time to prepare for the crackdown...."
 
         having raised the example of yahya's beneficence, ms. bose had an obligation in the name of balance to flesh out her picture of the general.
         as for mujib. a case can also be made that he searched desperately for a resolution that would make him either the prime minister of all pakistan or at least the supreme leader in east pakistan. he repeatedly tried to hold off the radical, younger elements in his awami league pressing him to declare independence. he showed his reluctance in his famous 7 march 71 speech to hundreds of thousands who had gathered in the belief he would declare independence. he did not.
         i saw a sign of his desperation after i reported in february 1971 that bhutto (in a drunken interview with me during a february midnight in peshawar) had suggested two prime ministers for pakistan. he had made the same suggestion in a previous, little-noticed interview with times of london reporter peter hazelhurst. few realized it at the time but bhutto sensed already that the people of pakistan had voted in 1970 for separation.
         mujib summoned me to his home on road 16 in dhanmondi in dhaka. he and i sat alone in his living room (an unusual occurance in a house that was always overrun with followers). he asked me to describe what bhutto told me.
        "if that is what he wants," mujib said with opening his hands, palms up, in a hopeless gesture and a sigh, "i agree."
        i trotted off to send a story that a basis for agreement existed between the country's two top political leaders.
        mujib promptly denied it. he told me i had misquoted him. i told him he damn well knew i didn't. "that story will hurt me in west paksitsn," he said finally, referring to other west pakistani politicians who detested bhutto and wanted to deal with mujib.
        an agreement that might have saved thousands of lives never got off the ground.
        in her portrayal of mujib as a cunning, if not hypocritical leader (a view unsourced by her and speculative), ms. bose had an obligation to give her readers a more balanced picture of the man.
        ms. bose's interviews often substantiate her thesis that the bengalis in east pakistan were sinners in violence in killing non-bengalis and hindus as well as they were sinned against by the pakistan army. she tends to treat this information as a revelation; but it is hardly fresh news.
        in my first visit to dhaka in  december 1969, three months after i arrived in pakistan as AP bureau chief, i found myself in the midst of a state of emergency ordered by the military governor, admiral ahsan, bengalis and biharis, urdu-speaking people who had moved into east pakistan during the  bloody 1947 paritition of india, were killing each other. having just arrived after three years of covering the biafra civil war in nigeria, in which the eastern province of the country had tried to secede, i was impressed. in my first dispatch, i wrote that east pakistan was going to be the next biafra.
        ben bassett, the ap's foreign editor in new york, responded. he asked, with one thousand miles of india separating the two wings of pakistan, how were they going to get at each other?
        "i don't know," i answered. "but they will find a way." fifteen months later, they did.
        if i, a rank outsider, could see immediately the hatred that led to further killings and rapes less than two years later, imagine what the insiders knew.
        in this chronicle of hatred, ms. bose had an obligation to tell the story behind that hatred. she doesn't. i imagine a reader with slim knowledge of the founding of pakistan wondering why these people hated so deeply. we can go back at least a half century to pakistan founder mohammed ali jinnah and his insistence that urdu be the language of a united pakistan, despite the fact that more than half the population spoke bengali. we can go back to ayub khan's published distaste for bengalis and the widespread belief of the west pakistani establishment and army that somehow bengali culture in east pakistan was hindu and that bengalis were not real moslems (an attitude that made it a lot easier for westerners to kill easterners). ms. bose provides little context for the violence that ensured in 1971.
        while supporting the contention that bengalis committed atrocious killings and rapes as did their enemies, she graphically describes through interviews, the random killings by the pakistan army at dhaka university the nights of 25-26 march 71, when the army moved to crack down on the awami league. she provides a chilling portrayal of random killings of hindus in a village by a pakistan army platoon. she concludes:
        "for by the massacre of unarmed and helpless hindu refugees at chuknagar, a band of 25 to 30 men brought lasting disgrace to an entire army and a while nation." 
        a case can be made in the name of balance that this operation was not out of the ordinary, as she suggests in what amounts to an apology, but represented incidents that the army repeated throughout east pakistan.
        according to brigadier f.b. ali:
        "on the general issue of atrocities....they were commited by both sides. unfortunately, in an insurgency which develops in to a guerilla war, they happen quite often. my view is that the pakistan army, being a professional military force, should be held to a higher standard than the 'rebels,' and are thus more culpable. also, because the scale of their actions was considerably more than those of the otherside. totally criminal were the actions of certain commanders who ordered atrocities to be committed....
        "...the soldiers and younger officers fought well in EP....the mid-level officers performance was a mixed bag, some good, some bad, most average. the senior officers (brig and above) performed poorly, with some exceptions. many of the generals behaved terribly and should have been shot for cowardice and the war crimes they committed by directing or allowing their troops to commit atrocities against the civilian population."
        this view was worth considering; ms. bose fails to explore this side of the issue, dismissing complaints as bengali nationalist propaganda. instead, she is enthusiastic in her admiration for the commanding general of the pakistan forces in east pakistan, lt. general amir abdullah khan niazi, whom she describes as having a "distinguished past and a tragic fate." because he surrendered to the indians in december 1971, niazi became the fall guy for pakistanis. i'll turn again to f.b. ali for a different view of the man:
 
         "'tiger' niazi was a disgrace to the uniform....he was a fraud, a lecher and a coward. when he was GOC (general officer commanding) 10 division, it was well known in the garrison (i was there) that his staff car would often be found standing in heera mandi (lahore's red light district). as GOC EP he used to go around visiting troops and asking JCOs: how many bengalis women have you raped? when discussing his surrender with the indian general, he tried to ingratiate himself by telling dirty jokes..."
 
          ms. bose contends that the bengali insurgency was wiped out within weeks after niazi took command in east pakistan. to support her contention, she quotes mort rosenblum, then a correspondent for the associated press and one of the first five foreign newsmen allowed into east pakistan after the march crackdown. by the way, brigadier siddiqi recalls that when niazi met the reporters, he shot off a steam of dirty jokes. mort joined the group because the pakistan authorities would not let me back in east pakistan then; presumeably i knew too much. after a guided tour of east pakistaan with the group, mort wrote, as quoted by ms. bose, that the bengalis were in a state of "submissive inactivity."
          when i recently jogged mort's memory of that occasion, he wrote to me:
 
          "the passion for independence was just sparking to a full flame. wondered what would have happened if they had FB (facebook) and twitter."
 
          there is much more to say. ms. bose went on inordinately in her book and at the wilson center meeting about the fact that bengalis hurled nasty names at the pakistan army  ("sticks and stones.....etc"). she placed significance that in her interviews, many rural bengalis in particular praised 'beluch" soldiers for their kindnesses. she took this as remarkable insomuch as there were few, if any soldiers in east pakistan from baluchistan, a western province of the west wing (although two of the pakistan army regiments in east pakistan at the time were labeled the 20 and 22 baluch, mostly staffed by punjabi or pathan personnel). rather than considering the "beluch" label a mis-identification by ignorant and usually illiterate bengali peasants, ms. bose speculates that these "beluch" did not exist but were only in the "ethnic imagination of bengali nationalists." to what end, she never makes clear.
          throughout her book, she rails against otherwise unidentified "bengali nationslists" or such vague targets as "bengali nationalist narrative" or "bengali liberation literature," giving the reader no examples or references. much of her discontent is with exaggerated propaganda. common to all sides and dismissed as inconsequential by sophisticated observers.
          she takes on in the book a numbers game questioning the support of sheikh and his awami league, which in 1971 convincingly won 160 of 162 seats in east pakistan and none in west pakistan in the 1970 election. his seat total was enough to give the party a majority in a national assembly that was never convened, hence mujib's designation as the future prime minister of pakistan.
          but wait, says ms. bose. although the awami league received 75 percent of the east pakistan vote, just 56 percent of the eligible electorate turned out. that figure was less than the turnout in the west pakistan punjab (66 percent) or sind (58 percent). it was higher than in baluchistan (39 percent) or the northwest frontier (47 percent). so? she concludes, on the basis of no evidence, "that 44 percent of the east pakistan electorate was too disinterested in the issues of the election to vote, or else had some disincentive to get out to vote." maybe some people were sick or had to work the farm or were among the province's many poor and homeless, too interested in finding a daily meal than in politics. is she suggesting that sheikh mujib and party really had no popular mandate, which so many of us foolishly believed 40 years ago? we don't know. neither does ms. bose. in the course of her research, she certainly did not ask anyone who either voted or not at that time.
          not only that, she says, doing the math, 75 percent of the 56 percent turnout, mean that only 42 percent of eligible citizens voted for the awami league. in an outburst of pure speculation, she argues, "this who voted...may have been expressing their alienation from the existing regime, in favor of change, redress of perceived discrimination and greater autonomy." but she really doesn't know does she? i wish i had done the math, too, in time for our discussion.  i would have asked her this: since she is so proud of the interviews which demonstrated that bengalis killed people, too, why did she not interview voters and non-voters to find out what was on their minds at election time?  such is an example of her scholarship and research.
          robert hathaway kindly gave me the last word in our discussion. i tried to raise the level of discourse to embrace the present. rather than idle away time and energy in the past, why not look to the present and, possibly the future? the violence outlined in the book continues  -- just look at the murderous cultures today both in pakistan with its sunni-shite clashes, its suicide bombers and assassinations and in bangladesh, with its political and student murders and crossfire killings. whatever lessons dead reckoning offers remain to be learned. 
          regards all, az                         


-----------------------------------------------
Arnold Zeitlin
Visiting Professor
C/O International Office
Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
Guangzhou, China 510 420
Telephone: 86 20 8618 2601
azeitlin@hotmail.com
-0-
Managing Director
Editorial Research & Reporting Associates (ERRA)
13828 Coleman Court
Centreville, Virginia 20120, U.S.A.
Telephone: 1 703 802 0888
Fax: 1 703 802 8668
www.newerra.com
azeitlin@hotmail.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

__,_._,___