Banner Advertise

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

[chottala.com] Re: BAL's brute fascism



Propaganda about Bangabandhu's Declaration of Independence: Who is qualified to write this history?
Abid Bahar

Who is qualified to write history. Is it the trained historians, propagandists or the High Court judges? The article (see the link) raises some valid questions.
Link: history?http://www.storyofbangladesh.com/blog/tmhussain/48-baseless-tainting-of-historical-facts.html

First, who writes history? History is written by trained historians through providing relevant sources/ facts. In the Hasina's contemporary Awami League rule, history is being written and given its seal of validity by judges appointed by the political party.

To me if history is written by judges or propagandists, it means the party in power creates selective information to its preferences. It is not constructing knowledge (truth) through critical thinking. Judges writing history is not new in history. Hasina's judges writing history is a confirmation that Hasina turned Bangladesh simply into a fascist state.


On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Abid Bahar <abid.bahar@gmail.com> wrote:
Zia is Remembered but his ideas were forgotten in the BNP:

It is true, except for a few leaders, every one in the BNP leadership lost touch with creative ideas for the Party. Most importantly they lost everything of what Zia stood for:
(1) Zia welcomed new ideas
(2) He was personally honest.
(3) He lived a simple life
(4) He was driven by patriotism to work for the country
(5) He was not a demagogue but was a hard working person.
(6) He was being proud of Bangladesh and its citizens
(7) He believed that after the independence we are all Bangladeshis and everybody should be given chance to work hard for Bangladesh, irrespective of ethnicity, culture, religion and political or ideological orientation. With this he united the nation as Bangladeshis. Most important of all Zia was open to new ideas, allowed competent people to work for the country. Khalida's first term in office was as if the continuation of the short lived Zia's rule. Starting from her second term in office, we see opportunist and corrupt people in the party and there is hardly any difference between the BNP and the Awami League except one is anti Indian and the other one is pro-Indian. 
 It says a fish starts rotting from the head, our two national leaders and the associates are careless, callous and helping Bangladesh to wither from a disease in the head. It is so bad that you can't even criticize the leaders! The fascist followers in both parties would see it as being destructive. They are so insecure that they get very upset not realizing that constructive criticism can bring change from within for a brighter future of the party and the country.
 
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 8:19 PM, MBI Munshi <mbimunshi@gmail.com> wrote:
This has always been the problem with the BNP. The same issue is also there with Jamaat. They do not easily accept ideas from non-Jamaati sources. Both the BNO and Jamaat are copying ideas from my book The India Doctrine but will never admit it. This is the level of their arrogance and this why they will always be behind the AL. 

Regards

MBI Munshi




On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Jalal Uddin Khan <jukhan@gmail.com> wrote:
1. The tyranny of BAL majority earned by Indian sacks of money has reached such an intolerable state that they did not allow BNP meeting over Shafik Rehman's book launching ceremony in Hotel Ruposhi Bangla (Intercontinental) this evening to go ahead. This is BAL-BAKSAL-RakkhiBahini terrorism.
 
2. BAL leaders say BNP/Ershad tried to distort and wipe out "their' history. Their grudge is of course on BNP, not on Ershad who is now their strange but sweet bedfellow. But don't BAL see that it is they who are wiping out true history because during their time they never , he is vilified. What a betrayal, what a treachery!!! The true fact is that BNP never forgot Sheikh Mujib. On all national occasions, BNP did not mind to mention Sheikh Mujib.   
 
3. BAL's love of India is more passionate than the love of any two young lovers. Look, this morning they honored Tripura chief minister Manik Sarkar as one of those who contributed to Bdesh liberation war. But it was alleged that it was a highly controversial honor since Manik Sarkar had hardly any contribution. Even politicians of his state do not agree that he deserves this honor. Don't forget Tripura University has recently awarded honorary doctorate to Sheikh Hasina. 
 
4. It is to be regretted that we, who belong to anti-BAL camp with pronounced sympathy with BNP, never get any feedback/comments/observations from pro-BNP G9 or Mr Shafik Rehman or Mr Shaukat Mahmud or Dhaner Sheesh, who are close to BNP leadership and who I originally started to include in our group. It seems people like them do not care for PR; it seems they do not care to connect with the like-minded fellows home and abroad. If so, how can they conribute to anti-BAL agenda? Many of us suggested many nice ideas from time to time but never we got any response from these BNP leaders whose email contact we have. Even the office of the US president replies if one sends a  letter to him. Some time ago I suggested that why can't we float the idea of Zia as "Hazar Bochorer Shrestha Bangladeshi" or that BNP launch yet another party organ called Jatiyotabadi Gram Bangla Dal, to counter BAL's recent similar new organ called Trinomul BAL. But we never got any response, even out of courtesy, from any close to BNP high command.
 
5. As we know, Mr Shafik Rehman hosts the Art Show Lal Golap on B Vision. He did program on "hair" (chul), "Jutu (shoes), etc. A few months back, I offered two
provide him with two highly readable lucid informative introductory historical illustrated articles on "umbrella" and "The Game of Chess" from a certain source with the intention of furnishing some materials for his show. And asked him if he would like to have the articles. He never cared to reply back. What a prejudice!! How prejudiced are we? Don't we deserve even a simple two word "Thank you" note? 



--
MBI Munshi

Facebook ID - Mohammad Munshi




__._,_.___


[* 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: Column in Daily Prothom Alo



Propaganda about Bangabandhu's Declaration of Independence: Who is qualified to write this history?
Abid Bahar

Who is qualified to write history. Is it the trained historians, propagandists or the High Court judges? The article (see the link) raises some valid questions.
Link: history?http://www.storyofbangladesh.com/blog/tmhussain/48-baseless-tainting-of-historical-facts.html

First, who writes history? History is written by trained historians through providing relevant sources/ facts. In the Hasina's contemporary Awami League rule, history is being written and given its seal of validity by judges appointed by the political party.

To me if history is written by judges or propagandists, it means the party in power creates selective information to its preferences. It is not constructing knowledge (truth) through critical thinking. Judges writing history is not new in history. Hasina's judges writing history is a confirmation that Hasina turned Bangladesh simply into a fascist state.

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Helal Ahmed <huahmed@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

Dear Mannan Sir.
Assalamualaikum. Thank you for your constructive article on Student politics. Some of us still think that you should take the lead role to start a movement on banning our so called today's student politics. Sir, I understand your sentiment towards 50's and 60's student politics. But I'm sure you are informed enough to distinguish pre Bangladesh and post Bangladesh student politics outcome in our country.
Thank You.
Helal

From: Abdul Mannan <abman1971@gmail.com>
To: KMS Alam <kms_alam@yahoo.com>; Alak Roy <terra-roy@hotmail.com>; nizam ahmed <nizam.reuters@gmail.com>; M. Sayeed Alam <sbl.dhk@gmail.com>; Akhtar Ahmed <kishoreahmed@hotmail.com>; Ferhat Anwar <syed.ferhat.anwar@gmail.com>; Amwar Sayed <anwarscu2000@yahoo.com>; alapon@yahoogroups.com; Moyeenul Alam <moyeenulalam@hotmail.com>; Mohammad Behroz Jalil <mbjalil@gmail.com>; "Badrul Khan, Ph.D." <badrulkhan2003@yahoo.com>; manoj barua <mmbarua@gmail.com>; Milan Kumar Bhattacharjee <milan.kumar@ulab.edu.bd>; biroy@uni-bremen.de; Engr. Shafiq Bhuiyan <srbanunz@gmail.com>; norbert mendes <benmendes@gmail.com>; Mahfuzul Chowdhury <mhc652442@gmail.com>; gschowdhury@gmail.com; chottala@yahoogroups.com; sultan chowdhury <chottalasultan@yahoo.com>; Duncan Chowdhury <duncanchowdhury@yahoo.com>; Asrar Chowdhury <asrarul@gmail.com>; Sayed Chowdhury <sayedchowdhury@hotmail.com>; Liton Chakraborty <litonc@gmail.com>; qaiyum chowdhury <qaiyum_cipl@hotmail.com>; diagnose <Diagnose@yahoogroups.com>; Dr. Golam Faruqui <drfaruqui@yahoo.com>; Iftekhar Hussain <dalim@sbcglobal.net>; Ajoy Dasgupta <dasguptaajoy@hotmail.com>; DILIP DE <drdilipde@gmail.com>; Das Rajib Lochan <dasrl@yahoo.com>; errol gomes <errol_alsiraj54@hotmail.com>; Engr. M Ali Ashraf <ashraf@globalctg.net>; Farhad Mansur <farhad_mansur55@yahoo.com>; Farid Uddin Ahamed <fuahamed@soc.sau.ac.in>; Farhana Rashid <rashid.farhana@gmail.com>; Firdaus Ali <firdaus.ali@hotmail.com>; Farid Islam <Faridul.Islam@uvu.edu>; Riaheen Farzana <rfarzana28@gmail.com>; Farzana Ahmed <farzana.ahmed48@yahoo.com>; Flora Ghosh Andersen <fghosh@webspeed.dk>; Gaulbert Randolph <gaulbertrandolph@hotmail.com>; Jahirul Haque <jahir_na@yahoo.com>; iqbal hasnu <ihasnu@hotmail.com>; M Hashem <hashemmd@gmail.com>; Shamsul Huda <shuda@xula.edu>; Shamsul Hossain <shossain_hrds@yahoo.com>; Hasnat Mohammad Ofiul <ohasnat@ulapland.fi>; Helal Ahmed <huahmed@yahoo.com>; Hasnain Sabih Nayak <hasnain_toi@yahoo.com>; M. Nazrul Islam <nazrul@gmx.at>; Tamim Islam <tamimi@gmail.com>; Miro Jangi <mjangi@yahoo.com>; javed.hossain@ulab.edu.bd; Mohammed A Jahed <jahedm@gmail.com>; Subehuddin Khan <subehkhan@yahoo.co.uk>; khabor@yahoogroups.com; Moslehuddin Khaled <mmckhaled@gmail.com>; Alamgir Kabir <kabir456@hotmail.com>; Kazi Quddusi <khasru74@yahoo.com>; Anis A. Khan <anis@mutualtrustbank.com>; Prof. Lutfor Rahman <lutfor@agni.com>; shahid mahmud <shahid6609@yahoo.com>; Shalim Uddin <msuddin6813@gmail.com>; Nuran Nabi <nurannabi@gmail.com>; Nurun Nabi <nabi@iconcollege.com>; Prof. Nurun Nabi <nabiicon@yahoo.co.uk>; Quazi Rahman <naveeddhaka@gmail.com>; userajuddin@worldbank.org; ohruhin@yahoo.com; MuhammadMahboob Ali <pipulbd@gmail.com>; Shafiqur Rahman <rahman_shafiqur@yahoo.com>; "Rahman,Shahed" <shrahman@pvamu.edu>; Moshahidur Rahman <rahman36@hotmail.com>; mehdi RAJEB <mehdirajeb@gmail.com>; Rumana Subhan <rumana_subhan@yahoo.com>; Sushil <trafinacorp@gmail.com>; Akmal Mustafa Tipu <tipu_121biz@yahoo.com>; Abu Taher <abutaher@gmail.com>; Urmi Rahman <urmirahman@live.co.uk>; Nasir Uddin Ahmed Chowdhury <nasir9563@yahoo.com>; valerio shaha <valerioshaha@hotmail.com>; Bidesh Kumar <yogsutra@gmail.com>; Badi Zaman <badiuzzaman.bd@gmail.com>; Maleka Ahmed <singer.71@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 10:42 PM
Subject: Column in Daily Prothom Alo

Link to my column appearing today in the Daily Prothom Alo. It is on Chittagong University and student politics.

Warm wishes.

Have a nice day.

Mannan

http://www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2012-03-15/news/232648

--
_________________________________
Abdul Mannan
Educator-Researcher-Writer-Analyst
Dhaka
Bangladesh






__._,_.___


[* 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: Six-Points Programme or Independence? Bhashani

It is interesting that credit is being given to Bhashani for his 9th March speech..well did Sheikh Mujib not SAY on his 7th March Speech as I remmeber....correct me if I am wrong..."EBARER SHONGRAM MUKTIR SHONGRAM, EBARER SHONGRAM SHADNINATAR SONGRAM...."does'nt the word SHANDINATA mean INDEPENDENCE...by the way I think BHASHANI was never elected in any election he contested in any of the constituency he ran from in any that is election before the war and after wards..well that is how much for Bhashanis popularity..

I think more interesting thing is as I was reminded one of AWAMI LEAGUES 6 Point that is CHOI DOFA andolon...was CONTROL OF MILITARY. I think that may not have been acceptable to PAKISTAN ARMY or some wing of BENGALI OFFICERS & their followers with in ARMY of those days.

I think issue of Separation of Bangldesh & Pakistan despite Pakistanis willing to depict it as they wish INDIAS ploy..was rooted in Two Major issues one is 21 February Issue..I think it started with in protest against JINNHA..well he is a SACRED COW...in those days and still in some segement..he divided INDIA on the basis of what is called DIJATI TOTTO..a LAND for Moslems...he did not expect BENGALI Spirit..of not being ruled by Minoroty Speking language..

I also suspect there was some kind of implicit understanding between JINNHA & GANDHI.. well he is also revered for his NON VIOLENCE stance.
The this is JINNHA...BHUTTO..& GANDHI are all British Tied as two are Barristers, and other is also a Lawyer from South Africa to getting red carpet reception in Great Britain and etc on his trip..though he started his Political Carrer opposing mostly ANGLICAN as British are is then South African well some part of British establishment held him in high regards too..

Too name of few from their susbsequent activity...ARMY guys that were not happy with Control of MILITARY..as stated in CHOI DAFA..those would put ZIA, C.R DUTTA..and others and may be OSMANI..that may be one of the reason why, Sheikh Mujib did not assign ZIA Cheif of Staff over SHAFIULLHA as it was calimed ZIA was senior then SHAFIULLHA..well no doubt they were all Freedom Fighters in their own rights..but I think issue is deep rooted WHY ZIA"s succeded for so LONG that is HOW INDIA was divided ISLAMIC/ SPIRIT or MOSLEM BROTERHOOD..which ran a undercurrent to add juice to much of MACHO MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT...I think others were in minority in Military.

C. R dutta and their allies had a long list Grudge against Sheikh Mujib of their own for many reason for some of decisoins Sheikh Mujib made..I was mantioned or read some where SHEIKH MUJIB as diss respectfull to Military..well their may be many reason why Sheikh Mujib shuffled his cabinet and formed BAKSAL..well his BAKSAL prime minister was a Retd Captain MANSOOR ALI..may have beens senior then most...there may have been reason for demoting TAJUDDIN..well they did not spare him either...it is interesting it was TAJUDDINS wife who played significant role in reviving AWAMI LEAGUE under first ZIA administratio..

Part of the issue goes deep rooted as Sheikh Mujib who I think studied in INDIA may be ALI GHAR a Moslem University..was definitely Muslim as some questioned it..then the thing is JINNHA & BHUTTO were both were AGAKHANI & SHEIKH MUJIB was SUNNI...JINNHA and GANDI both were GUJRATI too...

I think C.R Dutta and his fraction of allies goes beyond that..that is alliance of JINNHA & GANDHI..as it is 50/50 spilt..

As the song goes...CHATGAEYA JOWAN AERA HINDU MUSHUMMAN...I think JOWAN despite menaing YOUNG man is also a MILITARY rank in soilders. what else to fervor patriotic spirit..

There may be something NATHURAM understood..who I was told was a HINDU extremist, who killed GANDHI..I think he was killed some where y another INDIA Wealthy's BIRALA BHAVAN..

Just connecting Dots..

Well Come further comments
--- In chottala@yahoogroups.com, Abid Bahar <abid.bahar@...> wrote:
>
> 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@...> 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]
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chottala/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chottala/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
chottala-digest@yahoogroups.com
chottala-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
chottala-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[chottala.com] Lucky Winner for March 2012 - Mr. Abedur Rashid,from Woodbridge,Virginia



 
If you are unable to view this page properly, please CLICK HERE
Win a free ticket, get cheapest tickets on weflyDHAKA.com for Bangladesh




Forward email

This email was sent to hirakhan@transamtravel.com by sales@weflydhaka.com |  

WeFlyDhaka.com | 37-21 72nd Street, | Suite #202 | Jackson Heights | NY | 11372



__._,_.___


[* 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

__,_._,___