Banner Advertise

Monday, March 26, 2012

[chottala.com] Re: Six-Points Programme or Independence?



Mujib's Confusing Leadership after 7th March and the Liberation War of Bangladesh
Abid Bahar

Sheikh Mujib's six point programme was truly asking for confederation, it was asking for a very loose form of confederation. In the name of autonomy it asked for two separate currencies. From the Pakistani military's position, through Mujib it was an Indian ploy hatched for the disintegration of Pakistan. Strangely though, even after Mujib's 7th March speech, when the Pakistani military accumulating army in East Pakistan, but overtly showing its intention for a negotiated settlement,Mujib joined the negotiation table for a six point demand but not independence.

During this time, there were other players in this game, one prominent among them was Bhasani. Bhasani repeatedly warned Mujib that Pakistanis wouldn't be fair with the Bengalis. Bhasani urged him to make preparations and declare independence. To actualize his one point Pogramme and on 9th March Bhasani declared the independence of the country. From this point onward he instructed his leftist followers to work on the independence through armed struggle.

Strangely, Mujib after the 7th March speech while continued negotiation with the military but repeated that nothing could be changed in the six point programme. This resulted in the Pakistan army's further lose of trust on him and it had hardened their position further. These maneuvers both by the Pakistan army hiding their real intentions, and Mujib still demanding for 6six point based a loose confederation (by now March 25, whereas people asking for independence) made people confused. US classified document showed that Mujib until the last movement of his arrest wanted confederation.

The net result of Mujib's lack of leadership at those crucial moments led some East Bengalis to continue their allegiance to the Pakistani cause and the others losing their allegiance to Pakistan. The present author changed his allegiance from Pakistan to Bangladesh on the 3rd of March when he witnessed many Bengalis were killed and he himself burred some dead bodies with his SL colleagues.

While there was already crackdown from Pakistani army, but until the 27th March no clear declaration was made by Mujib or by the AL leadership about Bengali's future intentions. In absence of such a document, understandably to boost the morale of the people AL leadership approached Zia to make the declaration. 

Moments before the crackdown began on March 26 followed by Mujib's arrest, Kamal Hossain and Mujib were still waiting for a phone call from the Pakistani Generals for an acceptance of the six points and a possible sitting for negotiation on the 28th. The phone call never came. Mujib surrendered to the invading army and also obtained a grantee for the safety of his family members but not his people. Awami League members knowing what was going to happen left for safety. In the morning of the 26th what came  for the ordinary people was unthinkable, it was death for people who remained unguarded, uninformed of their fate and misled by Mujib that he is still waiting for the acceptance of the six points but some of the unfortunate people died in their sleep which event we call the genocide of 1971. Mujib's such indecision to wait for a confederation demand was a wrong move at this crucial juncture of history and he failed to lead the nation. Abul Mansur Ahamed narrates: "Sheikh Mujib surrendered without resistance. He did not try to escape nor hide himself."Mansur Ahmad questioned "Is this the way the leader of a people fight against opposition?" Mujib remained absent throughout the liberation period when released from Pakistani jail he thought East Bengal achieved its confederation status. It was reported by Serajur Rahman of BBC.

Civil war to the Liberation War

Some Mujib biographers appreciating Mujib as a cleaver politician who (to them) made the right moves successfully leading the people up to the independence of Bangladesh ignores this crucial point that Mujib's six point in the name of autonomy was asking for a very loose confederation. We don't know why after the 7th March speech Mujib attended the negotiation table but not for any change in the six point. It angered the army that led to Pakistani army committing genocide in 1971 which action led further to a civil war. Bangladeshi people in Mujib's absence subsequently united together for an armed struggle to achieve the independence of Bangladesh.

Further Readings:
The Bloody Month of March 1971: From the End of a United Pakistan to the Beginning of Bangladesh
http://voiceofbangladesh.info/details_all.php?id=95&table_name=essays&writer_id=0

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:
Six-Points Programme or Independence?

It is widely believed by a large number of people of all political
persuasions that the Six-Points Programme was a demand for autonomy of
East Pakistan in a conventional sense within a federation of two
regions of East and West Pakistan.

However, the details of the programme, when elaborated, turn out to be
very radically different from autonomy of East Pakistan within a
federation as generally understood. The programme postulated that the
only subjects which would fall within the purview of the federal
government would be defence and foreign affairs. The tariffs on and
regulations of foreign trade, the monetary and banking policies and
institutions, fiscal policy (including revenues and public
expenditures) and foreign exchange resources would be under the
control of each region. There should take place no flight of capital
or transfer of resources from one region to the other even though
there could be one currency. Even the subject of transport and
communications of all kinds which linked East and West Pakistan would
be under the purview of the two regional governments.

From the above, it was obvious that the Six-Points Programme did not
provide for a customs union or a monetary union. Each region would
have different levels and structure of import taxes/regulations.
Although free movement of domestic goods was to be allowed between the
regions, re-export of foreign goods imported by one region to another
region was not to be allowed. This is because re-export from the low
tariff region to the high tariff region would not only entail a loss
of revenue for the latter but also nullify or negate any protection
provided to its domestic industries. Moreover, the access of the
domestic products of one region to another region can be subverted by
the latter region allowing the imports of cheaper goods from the third
countries. Also, in case one region was to protect its infant
industries against competition from the established industries of the
other region, it could subsidise either the inputs/outputs of its own
industries as if each region was an independent country. Thus, each
region could effectively insulate whatever sector of the economy it
chose from access to or competition from the activities of the other
region.

To ensure that foreign exchange resources earned by each region should
be under its ownership and control, the surplus/deficit in the balance
of payments between the regions was to be met in foreign exchange.
Otherwise, if the deficit region was to pay in common currency, it
would imply a transfer of resources from the surplus to the deficit
region. Such a transfer of resources was explicitly ruled out in the
Six-Points Programme.

Similarly, with one common currency but with different monetary and
interest rate policies in different regions, the residents in the high
interest region could not be allowed to borrow in the low interest
region and thus to subvert the restrictive interest/monetary policies
of their region. Accordingly, each region would be required to
maintain, and monitor a detailed balance of payments accounts,
including not only trade in goods and services but also all kinds of
financial transfers, foreign as well as interregional, such as
transfers to different enterprises or branches of the same enterprises
located in different regions. Under the above circumstances, one
currency becomes operationally meaningless, except in name. That the
maintenance of no currency had no practical significance was also
apparent from the fact that in case one region had deficit in its
external balance of payments while the other region had no deficit or
had even surplus so that different regions would need to have
different exchange rates. This would result in the breakdown of the
one-currency arrangement since each region could not have
independent/separate exchange rate. The current crisis in the Euro
zone, with a common currency and monetary policy but different fiscal
policies in member countries, abundantly illustrates this untenable
situation.

There are two other aspects of the Six-Points Programme, which
aggravated the weaknesses and endangered the viability of the federal
government. One was the arrangement for the financing of the
expenditures of the federal government; the other related to the
creation of regional paramilitary forces. The federal government would
not have any independent sources of revenue and would have to rely on
the financial contributions of the two regions in such proportions as
would be incorporated in the constitution by mutual agreement.

However, there was a loophole in the arrangement. What would have
happened if East wanted to opt out and defaulted on its contributions?
The federal government did not have the capability of enforcing the
constitutional provision and to keep the regions together if one
region wanted to break away. This was due to several and not
frequently noted features of the Six-Points Programme.

First, the institutions of the federal government (both legislative
and executive) were to have regional representation on the basis of
population and, therefore, decision-making authority would be
dominated by East Pakistan with its majority. This would not only
imply that East Pakistan would have a major share -- if not a dominant
share to start with -- in the participation in the armed forces but
also dominate the decisions to determine the size, the composition and
strength of the army as well as its use/employment in particular
circumstances. Thus, they could prevent any possible employment of the
military force, let us say, against East Pakistan in caseit wanted to
break away. Second, East Pakistan was to have its own militia or
paramilitary force of a size, composition, and strength determined
exclusively by it and would be in a position to resist an eventuality
of federal intervention.

Thus, seen from whatever angle -- economic, political, or strategic --
the Six-Points Programme, basically proposed a loose confederation of
two sovereign states with links between them so tenuous that they
could be snapped by a region if it wanted to.

In popular perception and in a broad sense, the Six-Points Programme
was a programme for autonomy of East Pakistan to allow a control over
its foreign trade and exchange earnings, as well as over the
government revenues and expenditures. The operational details and
implications of its economic provisions, as elaborated above, were
highly technical and were not and could not be so easily
apparent/obvious to the non-experts that they meant in fact a very
small step from independence.

The task of elaboration of the principal implications of the
Six-Points Programme which Bangabandu wanted to be incorporated in the
post-1971 Constitution of Pakistan was assigned to me by him, in
association with a few of my colleagues. With a few of his close
associates, he was very actively involved in approving the practical
policy and institutional implications of the Six-Points Programme,
which coincided with his objective of creating an easy to dissolve
confederation of almost independent states.

On the other hand, the Pakistan military and civilian leaderships,
aided by their experts, fully understood, right from the beginning,
what the programme was for in reality, i.e. one country in name but a
very small step for independence of East Pakistan. That is why when
the Six-Points Programme was announced by Bangabandu in 1966, Ayub,
the President of Pakistan, declared in response that he would meet the
Six-Points Programme with one point, i.e. at gun point. Thus, having
made up their mind to suppress East Pakistan, the Pakistani leaders
were making military preparations following the election of 1970 until
March 1971 for the crackdown on East Pakistan under the facade of
so-called negotiations for a political settlement.

The writer is a former Deputy Chairman, First Planning Commission
(1972-75), and Research Fellow Emeritus, International Food Policy
Research Institute, Washington D.C.

http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=227686



__._,_.___


[* 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] Screening of "ISLAMIC ART:MIRROR OF THE INVISIBLE WORLD" April 8, 2012 [1 Attachment]

[Attachment(s) from sultan chowdhury included below]

   You are coordially invited to screening of the documentary film, Islamic Art: Mirror of the Invisible World," on April 8 2012 at the MCC, Silver Spring, MD.
   It would a delightful movie to watch; admission is FREE.
   Regards,
             Sultan Chowdhury
 
 

Attachment(s) from sultan chowdhury

1 of 1 File(s)


__._,_.___


[* 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] RONGTULI CELEBRATES পহেলা বৈশাখ ,৫ই মে শনিবার দুপুর ১ টা হইতে বিকাল ৬ টা


Dear Community Members,

                              Wish you all a very happy Pohela Boishakh 1419. Rongtuli invites you to join the celebration of this Bengali New Year in a very special way, through fun filled cultural show including dance performances, drama, recitals at the Mason District Park, 6622 Columbia Pike, Annandale, VA 22203 on 5th May, 2012.

We hope to see you all there.

 

Thanks

Rongtuli team

[chottala.com] Re: [Sonar Bangladesh] Fw: Former ISI Chief's Interview with Naya Diga nta



Mr. Aslam,
Let Hasina administration investigate the matter even with foreign  experts, nothing will  be found, I can challenge.
Hasina will defintely stop accusing Khaleda Zia for receiving so called ISI money sooner than expected because
now she undestands that,  she was misled by her friends from RAW. Otherwise Hasina may face charges and has to defend
herself in the court to prove her allegation with evidence. How long her obedint Judges will protect her remains to be seen.
Truth will always prevail.
Thanks.
 
 


---------- Original Message ----------
From: Muhammad Ali <manik195709@yahoo.com>
To: undisclosed recipients: ;
Subject: [Sonar Bangladesh] Fw: Former ISI Chief's Interview with Naya Diganta
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:44:44 -0700 (PDT)

 

 
 
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: SyedAslam <syed.aslam3@gmail.com>
To: Khobor <khabor@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: Former ISI Chief's Interview with Naya Diganta

Mr. Mohiuddin Anwar
 
What do you think. 
General Asad Durrani will disclose the closely guarded
state-secret that ISI has preserved for last 21 years ...?
 
please read:
http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/khabor/message/44748
 
BTW, who is this মনির আহমেদ    ? What is his profession in Pakistan?
Did ever write a column in NoyaDiganta ?... If so, give the link...
 
I wonder how did he get easy-pass to talk to General Durrani ?
Who arranged this prompt interview drama ???? 
 
Obviously, ISI establishment had Green-​light to stage the
interview drama !!!!
 
Syed Aslam
 

2012/3/22 Mohiuddin Anwar <mohiuddin@netzero.net>




 
http://www.dailynayadiganta.com/details/36570
 

নয়া দিগন্তকে সাবেক আইএসআই প্রধান জেনারেল আসাদ দুররানি

বাংলাদেশ বা বিএনপি প্রসঙ্গে কোনো কথা ছিল না সাক্ষ্যে

মনির আহমেদ পাকিস্তান থেকে
 
পাকিস্তানের গোয়েন্দা সংস'া ইন্টার সার্ভিস ইন্টেলিজেন্সের (আইএসআই) সাবেক প্রধান লেফটেন্যান্ট জেনারেল (অব:) মোহাম্মদ আসাদ দুররানি বলেছেন, বাংলাদেশের অন্যতম প্রধান রাজনৈতিক দল বিএনপিকে আইএসআই’র পক্ষ থেকে অর্থ দেয়ার ‘খবর’ সম্পূর্ণ কাল্পনিক। এই কাহিনী বানোয়াট ও ভিত্তিহীন। আমি আদালত কেন, অন্য কোথাও এ ধরনের কোনো কথা বলিনি। আমাকে কেউ এ ধরনের কথা জিজ্ঞাসাও করেনি। এ নিয়ে যে প্রচারণা চলছে তা সম্পূর্ণ বানোয়াট।
গতকাল নয়া দিগন্তের সাথে এক সাক্ষাৎকারে জেনারেল দুররানি এ কথা বলেন। ইসলামাবাদে তিনি এই সাক্ষাৎকার দেন। বর্তমানে তিনি অবসর জীবনযাপন করছেন। ৭১ বছর বয়সী জেনারেল দুররানির জন্ম পাকিস্তানের গ্যারিসন শহর রাওয়ালপিন্ডিতে। সেনাবাহিনীর গুরুত্বপূর্ণ দায়িত্ব পালন ছাড়াও তিনি জার্মানি ও সৌদি আরবে পাকিস্তানের রাষ্ট্রদূত হিসেবেও দায়িত্ব পালন করেন। স্বীকৃতিস্বরূপ পাকিস্তানের রাষ্ট্রীয় খেতাব ‘হিলাল-ই-জুরাত’ ও ‘হিলাল-ই-ইমতিয়াজ’ প্রাপ্ত হন তিনি। জেনারেল দুররানি পাকিস্তান সেনাবাহিনীর অ্যাডভোকেট জেনারেল ও বিচারক ছিলেন। তার সাক্ষাৎকারটি নিচে তুলে ধরা হলো :
নয়া দিগন্ত : বাংলাদেশে আপনার একটি বক্তব্য নিয়ে তুমুল হই চই চলছে। আপনি সুপ্রিম কোর্টে বলেছেন, ১৯৯১ সালে বাংলাদেশের অন্যতম প্রধান রাজনৈতিক দল বিএনপিকে পাঁচ কোটি রুপি দিয়েছিলেন। বিষয়টি খোলাসা করে বলবেন কি?
জেনারেল দুররানি : দেখুন, বিষয়টি আমিও শুনেছি। বিভিন্নভাবে আমার কাছে খবরটি এসেছে। এ খবরের মধ্যে কোনো সত্যতা নেই। এটি একটি সম্পূর্ণ বানোয়াট ও ভিত্তিহীন প্রচারণা। এর সাথে সত্যের কোনো সম্পর্ক নেই।
নয়া দিগন্ত : কিন' সংযুক্ত আরব আমিরাতের দৈনিক খালিজ টাইমস পত্রিকা আপনাকে উদ্ধৃত করে সর্বপ্রথম এ তথ্য প্রকাশ করে। সেখানে বলা হয়েছে, আপনি সুপ্রিম কোর্টে এই টাকা দেয়ার কথা বলেছেন।
জেনারেল দুররানি : আমি স্পষ্ট ভাষায় বলছি, আমি কোথাও এ কথা বলিনি। আর খালিজ টাইমসের কোনো সাংবাদিক আমার সাথে কখনো যোগাযোগও করেনি। তারা কী লিখেছেন, সেটা তাদের ব্যাপার। আমাকে কিছু জিজ্ঞেস না করেই তারা এই প্রতিবেদন ছেপেছে। তাদের ওই প্রতিবেদন অসত্য। আমি এই প্রতিবেদনের বিষয় শুনেছি। তা ছাড়া খবরটি কিন' পাকিস্তান থেকে কেউ দেননি। বাইরে থেকে গল্প রচনা করা হয়েছে।
নয়া দিগন্ত : তাহলে আপনি বলতে চাচ্ছেন, খালিজ টাইমস অসত্য প্রতিবেদন ছেপেছে?
জেনারেল দুররানি : ঠিক তাই। আর আদালতে বাংলাদেশ প্রসঙ্গ আসবে কেন? বিচার্য বিষয় তো ছিল পাকিস্তানের অভ্যন্তরীণ প্রসঙ্গ।
নয়া দিগন্ত : তাহলে বিষয়টি আসলে কী ছিল? আরো খোলাসা করে বলবেন কি?
জেনারেল দুররানি : দেখুন, আমি স্পষ্ট করেই বলছি। বাংলাদেশের কোনো রাজনৈতিক দল কিংবা সরকারের সাথে আইএসআই’র কোনো প্রকারের আর্থিক লেনদেন হয়নি। আমরা তা করতে যাবো কেন? উদ্দেশ্যমূলক এই অপপ্রচার করা হচ্ছে। এর উদ্দেশ্য এটা হতে পারে, বাংলাদেশের সাথে পাকিস্তানের সম্পর্ক ক্ষতিগ্রস্ত করা কিংবা এর পেছনে অন্য কোনো মতলবও থাকতে পারে। আমি আবারো বলছি, আমার বক্তব্যের কোথাও বাংলাদেশের কোনো কথাই নেই। আদালতে কী বক্তব্য দেয়া হয়েছে তার রেকর্ড তো সংরক্ষিত থাকে। কোর্টে কিছু বলা হলে সেটি সব মিডিয়ায় প্রকাশ হওয়ার কথা। সেটি তো হয়নি।
উল্লেখ্য, খালিজ টাইমসে গত ৩ মার্চ আসাদ দুররানির উদ্ধৃতি দিয়ে আইএসআই বিএনপিকে পাঁচ কোটি রুপি দিয়েছে বলে রিপোর্টটি ছাপা হয়। এর পর দিন ৪ মার্চ একই রিপোর্ট ঢাকার দৈনিক প্রথম আলো ছাপে। পরে ডেইলি মেইলের ভারতীয় অনলাইন সংস্করণ, সাপ্তাহিক ইন্ডিয়া টুডে এবং বাংলাদেশের রাষ্ট্রীয় বার্তা সংস'া বাংলাদেশ সংবাদ সংস'াও রিপোর্টটি প্রকাশ করে।
ভারতীয় সাংবাদিক দীপাঞ্জন রায় ডেইলি মেইল ও ইন্ডিয়া টুডেতে রিপোর্টটি করেন। দীপাঞ্জন রায় ঢাকার দৈনিক প্রথম আলোর নয়াদিল্লি প্রতিনিধি। ইনডিয়া টুডেতেও তিনি বাংলাদেশ বিষয়ে লিখে থাকেন। বাংলাদেশ সরকারের নিয়ন্ত্রণাধীন বাসস ইন্ডিয়া টুডের ওই রিপোর্টটি হুবহু প্রচার করেছে। তবে এ বিষয়ে পাকিস্তান বা ভারতের অন্য কোনো পত্রিকায় এই রিপোর্টটি প্রকাশ করা হয়নি। নয়া দিগন্তের সাথে আসাদ দুররানির সাক্ষাৎকারের মধ্য দিয়ে ঘটনার সাথে সরাসরি সংশ্লিষ্ট ব্যক্তি তার বক্তব্য ও অবস'ান স্পষ্ট করলেন।

This should answer the lies of all those who are trying to muddy the water.

Wassalam

Numan


 
 
 


______________________________​​_____________________________​_
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
consumerproducts.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

__,_._,___