DeshCalling

The heart of India is under attack

2009-10-31T10:28:00.002+07:00

To justify enforcing a corporate land grab, the state needs an enemy – and it has chosen the Maoists

Arundhati Roy

guardian.co.uk, - 30 October 2009

The low, flat-topped hills of south Orissa have been home to the Dongria Kondh long before there was a country called India or a state called Orissa. The hills watched over the Kondh. The Kondh watched over the hills and worshipped them as living deities. Now these hills have been sold for the bauxite they contain. For the Kondh it's as though god had been sold. They ask how much god would go for if the god were Ram or Allah or Jesus Christ.

Perhaps the Kondh are supposed to be grateful that their Niyamgiri hill, home to their Niyam Raja, God of Universal Law, has been sold to a company with a name like Vedanta (the branch of Hindu philosophy that teaches the Ultimate Nature of Knowledge). It's one of the biggest mining corporations in the world and is owned by Anil Agarwal, the Indian billionaire who lives in London in a mansion that once belonged to the Shah of Iran. Vedanta is only one of the many multinational corporations closing in on Orissa.

If the flat-topped hills are destroyed, the forests that clothe them will be destroyed, too. So will the rivers and streams that flow out of them and irrigate the plains below. So will the Dongria Kondh. So will the hundreds of thousands of tribal people who live in the forested heart of India, and whose homeland is similarly under attack.

In our smoky, crowded cities, some people say, "So what? Someone has to pay the price of progress." Some even say, "Let's face it, these are people whose time has come. Look at any developed country – Europe, the US, Australia – they all have a 'past'." Indeed they do. So why shouldn't "we"?

In keeping with this line of thought, the government has announced Operation Green Hunt, a war purportedly against the "Maoist" rebels headquartered in the jungles of central India. Of course, the Maoists are by no means the only ones rebelling. There is a whole spectrum of struggles all over the country that people are engaged in–the landless, the Dalits, the homeless, workers, peasants, weavers. They're pitted against a juggernaut of injustices, including policies that allow a wholesale corporate takeover of people's land and resources. However, it is the Maoists that the government has singled out as being the biggest threat.

Two years ago, when things were nowhere near as bad as they are now, the prime minister described the Maoists as the "single largest internal security threat" to the country. This will probably go down as the most popular and often repeated thing he ever said. For some reason, the comment he made on 6 January, 2009, at a meeting of state chief ministers, when he described the Maoists as having only "modest capabilities", doesn't seem to have had the same raw appeal. He revealed his government's real concern on 18 June, 2009, when he told parliament: "If left-wing extremism continues to flourish in parts which have natural resources of minerals, the climate for investment would certainly be affected."

Who are the Maoists? They are members of the banned Communist party of India (Maoist) – CPI (Maoist) – one of the several descendants of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist), which led the 1969 Naxalite uprising and was subsequently liquidated by the Indian government. The Maoists believe that the innate, structural inequality of Indian society can only be redressed by the violent overthrow of the Indian state. In its earlier avatars as the Maoist Communist Centre (MCC) in Jharkhand and Bihar, and the People's War Group (PWG) in Andhra Pradesh, the Maoists had tremendous popular support. (When the ban on them was briefly lifted in 2004, 1.5 million people attended their rally in Warangal.)

But eventually their intercession in Andhra Pradesh ended badly. They left a violent legacy that turned some of their staunchest supporters into harsh critics. After a paroxysm of killing and counter-killing by the Andhra police as well as the Maoists, the PWG was decimated. Those who managed to survive fled Andhra Pradesh into neighbouring Chhattisgarh. There, deep in the heart of the forest, they joined colleagues who had already been working there for decades.

Not many "outsiders" have any first-hand experience of the real nature of the Maoist movement in the forest. A recent interview with one of its top leaders, Comrade Ganapathy, in Open magazine, didn't do much to change the minds of those who view the Maoists as a party with an unforgiving, totalitarian vision, which countenances no dissent whatsoever. Comrade Ganapathy said nothing that would persuade people that, were the Maoists ever to come to power, they would be equipped to properly address the almost insane diversity of India's caste-ridden society. His casual approval of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) of Sri Lanka was enough to send a shiver down even the most sympathetic of spines, not just because of the brutal ways in which the LTTE chose to wage its war, but also because of the cataclysmic tragedy that has befallen the Tamil people of Sri Lanka, who it claimed to represent, and for whom it surely must take some responsibility.

Right now in central India, the Maoists' guerrilla army is made up almost entirely of desperately poor tribal people living in conditions of such chronic hunger that it verges on famine of the kind we only associate with sub-Saharan Africa. They are people who, even after 60 years of India's so-called independence, have not had access to education, healthcare or legal redress. They are people who have been mercilessly exploited for decades, consistently cheated by small businessmen and moneylenders, the women raped as a matter of right by police and forest department personnel. Their journey back to a semblance of dignity is due in large part to the Maoist cadre who have lived and worked and fought by their side for decades.

If the tribals have taken up arms, they have done so because a government which has given them nothing but violence and neglect now wants to snatch away the last thing they have – their land. Clearly, they do not believe the government when it says it only wants to "develop" their region. Clearly, they do not believe that the roads as wide and flat as aircraft runways that are being built through their forests in Dantewada by the National Mineral Development Corporation are being built for them to walk their children to school on. They believe that if they do not fight for their land, they will be annihilated. That is why they have taken up arms.

Even if the ideologues of the Maoist movement are fighting to eventually overthrow the Indian state, right now even they know that their ragged, malnutritioned army, the bulk of whose soldiers have never seen a train or a bus or even a small town, are fighting only for survival.

In 2008, an expert group appointed by the Planning Commission submitted a report called "Development Challenges in Extremist-Affected Areas". It said, "the Naxalite (Maoist) movement has to be recognised as a political movement with a strong base among the landless and poor peasantry and adivasis. Its emergence and growth need to be contextualised in the social conditions and experience of people who form a part of it. The huge gap between state policy and performance is a feature of these conditions. Though its professed long-term ideology is capturing state power by force, in its day-to-day manifestation, it is to be looked upon as basically a fight for social justice, equality, protection, security and local development." A very far cry from the "single-largest internal security threat".

Since the Maoist rebellion is the flavour of the week, everybody, from the sleekest fat cat to the most cynical editor of the most sold-out newspaper in this country, seems to be suddenly ready to concede that it is decades of accumulated injustice that lies at the root of the problem. But instead of addressing that problem, which would mean putting the brakes on this 21st-century gold rush, they are trying to head the debate off in a completely different direction, with a noisy outburst of pious outrage about Maoist "terrorism". But they're only speaking to themselves.

The people who have taken to arms are not spending all their time watching (or performing for) TV, or reading the papers, or conducting SMS polls for the Moral Science question of the day: Is Violence Good or Bad? SMS your reply to ... They're out there. They're fighting. They believe they have the right to defend their homes and their land. They believe that they deserve justice.

In order to keep its better-off citizens absolutely safe from these dangerous people, the government has declared war on them. A war, which it tells us, may take between three and five years to win. Odd, isn't it, that even after the Mumbai attacks of 26/11, the government was prepared to talk with Pakistan? It's prepared to talk to China. But when it comes to waging war against the poor, it's playing hard.

It's not enough that special police with totemic names like Greyhounds, Cobras and Scorpions are scouring the forests with a licence to kill. It's not enough that the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), the Border Security Force (BSF) and the notorious Naga Battalion have already wreaked havoc and committed unconscionable atrocities in remote forest villages. It's not enough that the government supports and arms the Salwa Judum, the "people's militia" that has killed and raped and burned its way through the forests of Dantewada leaving 300,000 people homeless or on the run. Now the government is going to deploy the Indo-Tibetan border police and tens of thousands of paramilitary troops. It plans to set up a brigade headquarters in Bilaspur (which will displace nine villages) and an air base in Rajnandgaon (which will displace seven). Obviously, these decisions were taken a while ago. Surveys have been done, sites chosen. Interesting. War has been in the offing for a while. And now the helicopters of the Indian air force have been given the right to fire in "self-defence", the very right that the government denies its poorest citizens.

Fire at whom? How will the security forces be able to distinguish a Maoist from an ordinary person who is running terrified through the jungle? Will adivasis carrying the bows and arrows they have carried for centuries now count as Maoists too? Are non-combatant Maoist sympathisers valid targets? When I was in Dantewada, the superintendent of police showed me pictures of 19 "Maoists" that "his boys" had killed. I asked him how I was supposed to tell they were Maoists. He said, "See Ma'am, they have malaria medicines, Dettol bottles, all these things from outside."

What kind of war is Operation Green Hunt going to be? Will we ever know? Not much news comes out of the forests. Lalgarh in West Bengal has been cordoned off. Those who try to go in are being beaten and arrested. And called Maoists, of course. In Dantewada, the Vanvasi Chetana Ashram, a Gandhian ashram run by Himanshu Kumar, was bulldozed in a few hours. It was the last neutral outpost before the war zone begins, a place where journalists, activists, researchers and fact-finding teams could stay while they worked in the area.

Meanwhile, the Indian establishment has unleashed its most potent weapon. Almost overnight, our embedded media has substituted its steady supply of planted, unsubstantiated, hysterical stories about "Islamist terrorism" with planted, unsubstantiated, hysterical stories about "Red terrorism". In the midst of this racket, at ground zero, the cordon of silence is being inexorably tightened. The "Sri Lanka solution" could very well be on the cards. It's not for nothing that the Indian government blocked a European move in the UN asking for an international probe into war crimes committed by the government of Sri Lanka in its recent offensive against the Tamil Tigers.

The first move in that direction is the concerted campaign that has been orchestrated to shoehorn the myriad forms of resistance taking place in this country into a simple George Bush binary: If you are not with us, you are with the Maoists. The deliberate exaggeration of the Maoist "threat" helps the state justify militarisation. (And surely does no harm to the Maoists. Which political party would be unhappy to be singled out for such attention?) While all the oxygen is being used up by this new doppelganger of the "war on terror", the state will use the opportunity to mop up the hundreds of other resistance movements in the sweep of its military operation, calling them all Maoist sympathisers.

I use the future tense, but this process is well under way. The West Bengal government tried to do this in Nandigram and Singur but failed. Right now in Lalgarh, the Pulishi Santrash Birodhi Janasadharaner Committee or the People's Committee Against Police Atrocities – which is a people's movement that is separate from, though sympathetic to, the Maoists – is routinely referred to as an overground wing of the CPI (Maoist). Its leader, Chhatradhar Mahato, now arrested and being held without bail, is always called a "Maoist leader". We all know the story of Dr Binayak Sen, a medical doctor and a civil liberties activist, who spent two years in jail on the absolutely facile charge of being a courier for the Maoists. While the light shines brightly on Operation Green Hunt, in other parts of India, away from the theatre of war, the assault on the rights of the poor, of workers, of the landless, of those whose lands the government wishes to acquire for "public purpose", will pick up pace. Their suffering will deepen and it will be that much harder for them to get a hearing.

Once the war begins, like all wars, it will develop a momentum, a logic and an economics of its own. It will become a way of life, almost impossible to reverse. The police will be expected to behave like an army, a ruthless killing machine. The paramilitary will be expected to become like the police, a corrupt, bloated administrative force. We've seen it happen in Nagaland, Manipur and Kashmir. The only difference in the "heartland" will be that it'll become obvious very quickly to the security forces that they're only a little less wretched than the people they're fighting. In time, the divide between the people and the law enforcers will become porous. Guns and ammunition will be bought and sold. In fact, it's already happening. Whether it's the security forces or the Maoists or noncombatant civilians, the poorest people will die in this rich people's war. However, if anybody believes that this war will leave them unaffected, they should think again. The resources it'll consume will cripple the economy of this country.

Last week, civil liberties groups from all over the country organised a series of meetings in Delhi to discuss what could be done to turn the tide and stop the war. The absence of Dr Balagopal, one of the best-known civil rights activists of Andhra Pradesh, who died two weeks ago, closed around us like a physical pain. He was one of the bravest, wisest political thinkers of our time and left us just when we needed him most. Still, I'm sure he would have been reassured to hear speaker after speaker displaying the vision, the depth, the experience, the wisdom, the political acuity and, above all, the real humanity of the community of activists, academics, lawyers, judges and a range of other people who make up the civil liberties community in India. Their presence in the capital signalled that outside the arclights of our TV studios and beyond the drumbeat of media hysteria, even among India's middle classes, a humane heart still beats. Small wonder then that these are the people who the Union home minister recently accused of creating an "intellectual climate" that was conducive to "terrorism". If that charge was meant to frighten people, it had the opposite effect.

The speakers represented a range of opinion from the liberal to the radical left. Though none of those who spoke would describe themselves as Maoist, few were opposed in principle to the idea that people have a right to defend themselves against state violence. Many were uncomfortable about Maoist violence, about the "people's courts" that delivered summary justice, about the authoritarianism that was bound to permeate an armed struggle and marginalise those who did not have arms. But even as they expressed their discomfort, they knew that people's courts only existed because India's courts are out of the reach of ordinary people and that the armed struggle that has broken out in the heartland is not the first, but the very last option of a desperate people pushed to the very brink of existence. The speakers were aware of the dangers of trying to extract a simple morality out of individual incidents of heinous violence, in a situation that had already begun to look very much like war. Everybody had graduated long ago from equating the structural violence of the state with the violence of the armed resistance. In fact, retired Justice PB Sawant went so far as to thank the Maoists for forcing the establishment of this country to pay attention to the egregious injustice of the system. Hargopal from Andhra Pradesh spoke of his experience as a civil rights activist through the years of the Maoist interlude in his state. He mentioned in passing the fact that in a few days in Gujarat in 2002, Hindu mobs led by the Bajrang Dal and the VHP had killed more people than the Maoists ever had even in their bloodiest days in Andhra Pradesh.

People who had come from the war zones, from Lalgarh, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Orissa, described the police repression, the arrests, the torture, the killing, the corruption, and the fact that they sometimes seemed to take orders directly from the officials who worked for the mining companies. People described the often dubious, malign role being played by certain NGOs funded by aid agencies wholly devoted to furthering corporate prospects. Again and again they spoke of how in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh activists as well as ordinary people – anyone who was seen to be a dissenter – were being branded Maoists and imprisoned. They said that this, more than anything else, was pushing people to take up arms and join the Maoists. They asked how a government that professed its inability to resettle even a fraction of the 50 million people who had been displaced by "development" projects was suddenly able to identify 1,40,000 hectares of prime land to give to industrialists for more than 300 Special Economic Zones, India's onshore tax havens for the rich. They asked what brand of justice the supreme court was practising when it refused to review the meaning of "public purpose" in the land acquisition act even when it knew that the government was forcibly acquiring land in the name of "public purpose" to give to private corporations. They asked why when the government says that "the writ of the state must run", it seems to only mean that police stations must be put in place. Not schools or clinics or housing, or clean water, or a fair price for forest produce, or even being left alone and free from the fear of the police – anything that would make people's lives a little easier. They asked why the "writ of the state" could never be taken to mean justice.

There was a time, perhaps 10 years ago, when in meetings like these, people were still debating the model of "development" that was being thrust on them by the New Economic Policy. Now the rejection of that model is complete. It is absolute. Everyone from the Gandhians to the Maoists agree on that. The only question now is, what is the most effective way to dismantle it?

An old college friend of a friend, a big noise in the corporate world, had come along for one of the meetings out of morbid curiosity about a world he knew very little about. Even though he had disguised himself in a Fabindia kurta, he couldn't help looking (and smelling) expensive. At one point, he leaned across to me and said, "Someone should tell them not to bother. They won't win this one. They have no idea what they're up against. With the kind of money that's involved here, these companies can buy ministers and media barons and policy wonks, they can run their own NGOs, their own militias, they can buy whole governments. They'll even buy the Maoists. These good people here should save their breath and find something better to do."

When people are being brutalised, what "better" thing is there for them to do than to fight back? It's not as though anyone's offering them a choice, unless it's to commit suicide, like some of the farmers caught in a spiral of debt have done. (Am I the only one who gets the feeling that the Indian establishment and its representatives in the media are far more comfortable with the idea of poor people killing themselves in despair than with the idea of them fighting back?)

For several years, people in Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Jharkhand and West Bengal – some of them Maoists, many not – have managed to hold off the big corporations. The question now is, how will Operation Green Hunt change the nature of their struggle? What exactly are the fighting people up against?

It's true that, historically, mining companies have often won their battles against local people. Of all corporations, leaving aside the ones that make weapons, they probably have the most merciless past. They are cynical, battle-hardened campaigners and when people say, "Jaan denge par jameen nahin denge" (We'll give away our lives, but never our land), it probably bounces off them like a light drizzle on a bomb shelter. They've heard it before, in a thousand different languages, in a hundred different countries.

Right now in India, many of them are still in the first class arrivals lounge, ordering cocktails, blinking slowly like lazy predators, waiting for the Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) they have signed – some as far back as 2005 – to materialise into real money. But four years in a first class lounge is enough to test the patience of even the truly tolerant: the elaborate, if increasingly empty, rituals of democratic practice: the (sometimes rigged) public hearings, the (sometimes fake) environmental impact assessments, the (often purchased) clearances from various ministries, the long drawn-out court cases. Even phony democracy is time-consuming. And time is money.

So what kind of money are we talking about? In their seminal, soon-to-be-published work, Out of This Earth: East India Adivasis and the Aluminum Cartel, Samarendra Das and Felix Padel say that the financial value of the bauxite deposits of Orissa alone is $2.27 trillion (more than twice India's GDP). That was at 2004 prices. At today's prices it would be about $4 trillion.

Of this, officially the government gets a royalty of less than 7%. Quite often, if the mining company is a known and recognised one, the chances are that, even though the ore is still in the mountain, it will have already been traded on the futures market. So, while for the adivasis the mountain is still a living deity, the fountainhead of life and faith, the keystone of the ecological health of the region, for the corporation, it's just a cheap storage facility. Goods in storage have to be accessible. From the corporation's point of view, the bauxite will have to come out of the mountain. Such are the pressures and the exigencies of the free market.

That's just the story of the bauxite in Orissa. Expand the $4 trillion to include the value of the millions of tonnes of high-quality iron ore in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand and the 28 other precious mineral resources, including uranium, limestone, dolomite, coal, tin, granite, marble, copper, diamond, gold, quartzite, corundum, beryl, alexandrite, silica, fluorite and garnet. Add to that the power plants, the dams, the highways, the steel and cement factories, the aluminium smelters, and all the other infrastructure projects that are part of the hundreds of MoUs (more than 90 in Jharkhand alone) that have been signed. That gives us a rough outline of the scale of the operation and the desperation of the stakeholders.

The forest once known as the Dandakaranya, which stretches from West Bengal through Jharkhand, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, parts of Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, is home to millions of India's tribal people. The media has taken to calling it the Red corridor or the Maoist corridor. It could just as accurately be called the MoUist corridor. It doesn't seem to matter at all that the fifth schedule of the constitution provides protection to adivasi people and disallows the alienation of their land. It looks as though the clause is there only to make the constitution look good – a bit of window-dressing, a slash of make-up. Scores of corporations, from relatively unknown ones to the biggest mining companies and steel manufacturers in the world, are in the fray to appropriate adivasi homelands – the Mittals, Jindals, Tata, Essar, Posco, Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton and, of course, Vedanta.

There's an MoU on every mountain, river and forest glade. We're talking about social and environmental engineering on an unimaginable scale. And most of this is secret. It's not in the public domain. Somehow I don't think that the plans afoot that would destroy one of the world's most pristine forests and ecosystems, as well as the people who live in it, will be discussed at the climate change conference in Copenhagen. Our 24-hour news channels that are so busy hunting for macabre stories of Maoist violence – and making them up when they run out of the real thing – seem to have no interest at all in this side of the story. I wonder why?

Perhaps it's because the development lobby to which they are so much in thrall says the mining industry will ratchet up the rate of GDP growth dramatically and provide employment to the people it displaces. This does not take into account the catastrophic costs of environmental damage. But even on its own narrow terms, it is simply untrue. Most of the money goes into the bank accounts of the mining corporations. Less than 10% comes to the public exchequer. A very tiny percentage of the displaced people get jobs, and those who do, earn slave-wages to do humiliating, backbreaking work. By caving in to this paroxysm of greed, we are bolstering other countries' economies with our ecology.

When the scale of money involved is what it is, the stakeholders are not always easy to identify. Between the CEOs in their private jets and the wretched tribal special police officers in the "people's" militias – who for a couple of thousand rupees a month fight their own people, rape, kill and burn down whole villages in an effort to clear the ground for mining to begin – there is an entire universe of primary, secondary and tertiary stakeholders.

These people don't have to declare their interests, but they're allowed to use their positions and good offices to further them. How will we ever know which political party, which ministers, which MPs, which politicians, which judges, which NGOs, which expert consultants, which police officers, have a direct or indirect stake in the booty? How will we know which newspapers reporting the latest Maoist "atrocity", which TV channels "reporting directly from ground zero" – or, more accurately, making it a point not to report from ground zero, or even more accurately, lying blatantly from ground zero – are stakeholders?

What is the provenance of the billions of dollars (several times more than India's GDP) secretly stashed away by Indian citizens in Swiss bank accounts? Where did the $2bn spent on the last general elections come from? Where do the hundreds of millions of rupees that politicians and parties pay the media for the "high-end", "low-end" and "live" pre-election "coverage packages" that P Sainath recently wrote about come from? (The next time you see a TV anchor haranguing a numb studio guest, shouting, "Why don't the Maoists stand for elections? Why don't they come in to the mainstream?", do SMS the channel saying, "Because they can't afford your rates.")

Too many questions about conflicts of interest and cronyism remain unanswered. What are we to make of the fact that the Union home minister, P Chidambaram, the chief of Operation Green Hunt, has, in his career as a corporate lawyer, represented several mining corporations? What are we to make of the fact that he was a non-executive director of Vedanta – a position from which he resigned the day he became finance minister in 2004? What are we to make of the fact that, when he became finance minister, one of the first clearances he gave for FDI was to Twinstar Holdings, a Mauritius-based company, to buy shares in Sterlite, a part of the Vedanta group?

What are we to make of the fact that, when activists from Orissa filed a case against Vedanta in the supreme court, citing its violations of government guidelines and pointing out that the Norwegian Pension Fund had withdrawn its investment from the company alleging gross environmental damage and human rights violations committed by the company, Justice Kapadia suggested that Vedanta be substituted with Sterlite, a sister company of the same group? He then blithely announced in an open court that he, too, had shares in Sterlite. He gave forest clearance to Sterlite to go ahead with the mining, despite the fact that the supreme court's own expert committee had explicitly said that permission should be denied and that mining would ruin the forests, water sources, environment and the lives and livelihoods of the thousands of tribals living there. Justice Kapadia gave this clearance without rebutting the report of the supreme court's own committee.

What are we to make of the fact that the Salwa Judum, the brutal ground-clearing operation disguised as a "spontaneous" people's militia in Dantewada, was formally inaugurated in 2005, just days after the MoU with the Tatas was signed? And that the Jungle Warfare Training School in Bastar was set up just around then?

What are we to make of the fact that two weeks ago, on 12 October, the mandatory public hearing for Tata Steel's steel project in Lohandiguda, Dantewada, was held in a small hall inside the collectorate, cordoned off with massive security, with an audience of 50 tribal people brought in from two Bastar villages in a convoy of government jeeps? (The public hearing was declared a success and the district collector congratulated the people of Bastar for their co-operation.)

What are we to make of the fact that just around the time the prime minister began to call the Maoists the "single largest internal security threat" (which was a signal that the government was getting ready to go after them), the share prices of many of the mining companies in the region skyrocketed?

The mining companies desperately need this "war". They will be the beneficiaries if the impact of the violence drives out the people who have so far managed to resist the attempts that have been made to evict them. Whether this will indeed be the outcome, or whether it'll simply swell the ranks of the Maoists remains to be seen.

Reversing this argument, Dr Ashok Mitra, former finance minister of West Bengal, in an article called "The Phantom Enemy", argues that the "grisly serial murders" that the Maoists are committing are a classic tactic, learned from guerrilla warfare textbooks. He suggests that they have built and trained a guerrilla army that is now ready to take on the Indian state, and that the Maoist "rampage" is a deliberate attempt on their part to invite the wrath of a blundering, angry Indian state which the Maoists hope will commit acts of cruelty that will enrage the adivasis. That rage, Dr Mitra says, is what the Maoists hope can be harvested and transformed into an insurrection.

This, of course, is the charge of "adventurism" that several currents of the left have always levelled at the Maoists. It suggests that Maoist ideologues are not above inviting destruction on the very people they claim to represent in order to bring about a revolution that will bring them to power. Ashok Mitra is an old Communist who had a ringside seat during the Naxalite uprising of the 60s and 70s in West Bengal. His views cannot be summarily dismissed. But it's worth keeping in mind that the adivasi people have a long and courageous history of resistance that predates the birth of Maoism. To look upon them as brainless puppets being manipulated by a few middle-class Maoist ideologues is to do them a disservice.

Presumably Dr Mitra is talking about the situation in Lalgarh where, up to now, there has been no talk of mineral wealth. (Lest we forget – the current uprising in Lalgarh was sparked off over the chief minister's visit to inaugurate a Jindal Steel factory. And where there's a steel factory, can the iron ore be very far away?) The people's anger has to do with their desperate poverty, and the decades of suffering at the hands of the police and the Harmads, the armed militia of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) that has ruled West Bengal for more than 30 years.

Even if, for argument's sake, we don't ask what tens of thousands of police and paramilitary troops are doing in Lalgarh, and we accept the theory of Maoist "adventurism", it would still be only a very small part of the picture.

The real problem is that the flagship of India's miraculous "growth" story has run aground. It came at a huge social and environmental cost. And now, as the rivers dry up and forests disappear, as the water table recedes and as people realise what is being done to them, the chickens are coming home to roost. All over the country, there's unrest, there are protests by people refusing to give up their land and their access to resources, refusing to believe false promises any more. Suddenly, it's beginning to look as though the 10% growth rate and democracy are mutually incompatible.

To get the bauxite out of the flat-topped hills, to get iron ore out from under the forest floor, to get 85% of India's people off their land and into the cities (which is what Chidambaram says he'd like to see), India has to become a police state. The government has to militarise. To justify that militarisation, it needs an enemy. The Maoists are that enemy. They are to corporate fundamentalists what the Muslims are to Hindu fundamentalists. (Is there a fraternity of fundamentalists? Is that why the RSS has expressed open admiration for Chidambaram?)

It would be a grave mistake to imagine that the paramilitary troops, the Rajnandgaon air base, the Bilaspur brigade headquarters, the unlawful activities act, the Chhattisgarh special public security act and Operation Green Hunt are all being put in place just to flush out a few thousand Maoists from the forests. In all the talk of Operation Green Hunt, whether or not Chidambaram goes ahead and "presses the button", I detect the kernel of a coming state of emergency. (Here's a maths question: If it takes 600,000 soldiers to hold down the tiny valley of Kashmir, how many will it take to contain the mounting rage of hundreds of millions of people?)

Instead of narco-analysing Kobad Ghandy, the recently arrested Maoist leader, it might be a better idea to talk to him.

In the meanwhile, will someone who's going to the climate change conference in Copenhagen later this year please ask the only question worth asking: Can we leave the bauxite in the mountain?

Govt appeasing India by granting transit

2009-10-30T10:37:00.001+07:00

Faisal Rahim

HOLIDAY – October 30, 2009

The Government's move to grant India transit and corridor facility will bring the country's 'economy and security' under serious threat for no tangible benefits to the nation, except repaying the debt to Delhi by the Awami League-led grand coalition government for bringing it to power.

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina is planning to visit Delhi shortly, but notably after about one year since takeover of power -- and analysts here say that one of the reasons of delaying the visit is that the Indian government wants to see a substantive progress in the transit issue before welcoming her to the Indian capital.

So Hasina went on a visit to Saudi Arabia after taking over of power, most conspicuously avoiding such a visit to her next-door strategic ally. Bangladesh foreign minister Dr Dipu Moni similarly paid more than a dozen visits to European capitals and the USA before preparing a schedule for a visit to Delhi only in September last.

Sheikh Hasina also went on a visit to Sweden and Qatar last week, in addition to a visit to the USA in September, to attend the UN General Assembly session. But her day for the long anticipated visit to Delhi is yet to come.

Except a few statements by key ministers and policy makers on the 'great benefit' of becoming a transit nation, the Government is tight-lipped on what type of agreement it is working out on the transit issue, in the name of its consent to the Asian Highway routes.

Insiders say, both sides are now working on several agreements, which may come up for signing during the Bangladesh Prime Minister's visit to Delhi. And Sheikh Hasina appears adamant to ignore any domestic opposition that may come on the way to offering transit through Bangladesh to India's northeast. The nation is now clearly divided on the issue to ultimately bring the battle to the ground. Analysts apprehend, Bangladesh may be heading towards a terrible time, when India-sponsored saboteurs may come out to blast the issue.

Moreover, Sheikh Hasina is working on yet another agreement with Delhi, a newspaper report said, covering common security issues in line with that of Nepal has in place with Delhi to subvert the domestic opposition to the Indian interest.

In line with this strategy Sheikh Hasina government is now working on different fronts to set the country's institutions and infrastructure supportive of Indian business and strategic interest in Bangladesh.

Some commentators here say, she wants to project her now as a catalyst of change, not only to reshape domestic politics destroying the opposition, but also in the regional context to prove her mettle by building a new South Asia as her father had created Bangladesh. Her visit to Stockholm may be part of such an international image building drive, as she has so many honorary doctorate degrees, which now total more than a dozen, they say.

Padma bridge in India's interest

Only last week, functionaries of a civil society organisation raised question on justification of adding a railway track to the proposed Padma bridge. At a press conference in the city on the PRSP issues, they said the loan that the Government would take for the bridge inclusive of the railway track would ultimately increase the nation's per capita debt to 205 dollars from 149 dollars at present.

Some experts say a direct railway track from Jessore to Dhaka crossing the Padma bridge will give India a shortcut transport corridor for movement of goods and passengers to its northeastern region and Delhi wants so. They say India is not interested in using the existing railway on the Jamuna Bridge as it takes a long time for moving onward to Sylhet and Akhaura through Dhaka.

So the Government is hastily adding a railway track to the Padma bridge, while donor agencies like ADB and World Bank are also putting pressure, though informally, on the Government to support the Indian strategy, if it wants to get loans and also quick delivery of the loans to finish the project before next election. A rail-line on the Padma bridge was never talked about any time before.

Since it is an election pledge, Awami League is serious about its early implementation and ready to take any step in this regard.

Speaking about the security aspects of transit, experts say military installations and cantonments at different places on the highways may expose the army secrets leaving the force vulnerable to Indian watch and strategic intervention. The secret behind the BDR carnage at Peelkhana gives a stark reminder that such an incident may occur any time anywhere in this country with vulnerability of defence installations elsewhere.

Local sources at Sylhet told this scribe recently that the Government was already planning to build a new highway from Sylhet eastern bypass to the northeast through crop land to link it with Tamabil highway, about 10 km away from Bateswar, leaving behind the Jalalabad cantonment on the highway.

But the question is: who will pay the bill and why should Bangladesh Government spend taxpayers' money or take foreign loans to create the facility for movement of Indian goods and passengers through its heartland?

Cantonments, highways

Not only Jalalabad cantonment in Sylhet, but also cantonments at Jessore, Comilla, Savar and many such army and BDR installations may become vulnerable with their security at stake forcing the Government to build new highways, relocate cantonments or agree to compromise the country security.

The Government is working yet on another front. According to press reports, the government is taking steps to carry out dredging of major rivers to increase their navigability. Only last week the authorities have signed an agreement to buy three dredgers to start intensive dredging of the rivers.

The Government is claiming that the project is aimed at enhancing the depth of rivers to stop erosion of their banks as river erosion leaves thousands of people homeless. But analysts say the real focus of the project lies elsewhere.
They say as the Government has already agreed to offer Ashuganj as a port of call to the Indians as part of a transit plan to help move their goods and passengers to Agartola through Akhaura using the railway and road transport system, dredging of rivers has assumed a new significance. The government has, therefore, taken a master plan for dredging the rivers. It points to the river-bank erosion only to justify the plan, which amounts to deceiving the people.

Experts say the Government is not only strengthening the river training and dredging system, it will also use Indian expertise and equipment to keep the water routes navigable at its own cost.

No study on transit's benefit

An ADB study on the regional connectivity said all such loans and public expenditure, required to develop the infrastructures in Bangladesh, would be the Government's liability, be it World Bank or ADB loans or funds from domestic sources.

Moreover, experts say the country's soil structure is not strong enough to support any vehicle carrying a load of more than 10 tonnes and as this region has low-lying areas. Construction cost of roads and bridges is also higher here compared to the global standard and the Bangladesh Government has to bear all such expenses from its own coffer.
There has not been a single study on the benefit of transit so far by the World Bank (WB) or Asian Development Bank or any such other donor, let alone Bangladesh government, to figure out what financial benefits the country would get from allowing the transit.

India is not ready to enter into any such joint study either, and the Awami League government is only putting misleading figures without having any expert report in place. What is the cost-benefit of the transit project? What is the rate of economic returns? All these are yet to be answered at a time, when Sheikh Hasina is eager to sign the deal.
There is another concern that the fish population in major rivers may slowly disappear due to water pollution because of disposal of fuel waste from ships or such other disturbances. But unfortunately there is no such ecological study.

India's tariff barriers

Bangladesh may also be losing its market in India's northeast, experts say, at a time when Delhi is using tariff and non-tariff barriers on Bangladesh to slow down access of Bangladeshi goods to its vast western market. The northeast Indian market, mainly fed by informal trade, will slowly disappear for Bangladeshi exporters, as India will supply low-cost products with opening of the transit route from the mainland.

Since waterways are becoming the most viable transit route for supplying low-cost products, the Government is turning to dredging of the major rivers. But to keep the waterways navigable round the year, the rivers should have adequate and uninterrupted flow of water.

But India is denying such uninterrupted flow. It is not only blocking Bangladesh's due share of water from the river Tista, but also planning to build a dam now at Tipaimukh threatening insufficient flow of water in the Meghna river, which may hinder Indian cargo ships' movement to Ashuganj port and beyond to Karimganj in the Indian state of Assam.

Then how Bangladesh will maintain the major waterways is now a big question, particularly when the water level will fall and even hit the bottom of the rivers. A situation may arise in the process, when, an analyst says, Bangladesh may find it rather easier and less costly to hand over everything, from river training to dredging, to the Indians to maintain the waterways and run their ships.

It may happen that Bangladesh may come under increasing pressure to fulfill its contractual obligation, when the country would be unable with its limited resources and political support to maintain proper navigability of the waterways.

Many political observers here now tend to believe that Sheikh Hasina is wooing Delhi like a protective umbrella on her power base in Dhaka. It becomes clear when she says every time that Delhi has assured that it will do nothing that can cause embarrassment to Hasina's government here.

However, utmost caution should be maintained in steering the statecraft forward.

Bordering on Danger

2009-10-17T10:27:00.006+07:00

A Sino-Indian boundary dispute risks flaring up.

By MOHAN MALIK

It has often been taken for granted that China and India will rise simultaneously and peacefully in the 21st century. But a recent flare-up challenges that view. Thirty-seven years after the two countries fought a border war and 28 years since they opened settlement negotiations, the entire frontier from Kashmir to Burma remains in question. It would be dangerous to ignore this festering sore any longer.

The dispute stretches back to the British Raj, when colonial official Sir Henry McMahon drew the boundary between India and Tibet at the Shimla Convention in 1913. China has never recognized the McMahon Line, and regards the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh as part of its Tibetan Autonomous Region.

Lately the border has been arousing more fervent passions than usual. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited the state of Arunachal Pradesh earlier this month, irking Beijing and prompting New Delhi to assert "Arunachal Pradesh is an integral part of India." Earlier this year, Beijing attempted to block a $1.3 billion loan to India by the Asian Development Bank, part of which was meant for a watershed project in Arunachal Pradesh. The war of words is likely to escalate as the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama plans to visit Arunachal Pradesh next month. Beijing is pressuring India via diplomatic protests and a media campaign to make the Dalai Lama abandon his planned trip.

The causes for the recent deterioration in relations are complex. China perceives India as the weakest link in an evolving anti-China coalition of democratic and maritime powers (the United States, Japan, Australia and India). Viewing India as a pawn in Western designs to encircle and contain China, Chinese leaders worry about the ramifications of India's power particularly in Tibet, a concern fanned by the March 2008 uprisings there. A common theme in state media this year is the desire to capture the lost lands and crush India for daring to compete with China.

Meanwhile, Beijing's influence in Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Burma and Sri Lanka—all of whom have relationships with India that range from strained to downright hostile—fuels Indian anxieties. Beijing's opposition to India's membership in regional institutions like the East Asia Community and international forums like the United Nations Security Council; China's attempts to scuttle the U.S.-India nuclear deal at the Nuclear Suppliers Group; and Chinese naval forays into the Indian Ocean region all have reinforced Indian suspicions that China seeks to deny India its proper place in the international system.

As a result of these rising tensions the potential for armed skirmishes, if not conflict, on disputed borders remains high. Since 2006, Chinese strategic experts, bloggers, retired diplomats and think tanks linked to the People's Liberation Army have been discussing the possibility of a "partial border war" to "teach India a lesson." Parallels are being drawn to the pre-1962 situation, when Beijing blamed India for Tibetan uprising and New Delhi provoked China with its "Forward Policy" on the border. China has referred to India's current troop movements as a "New Forward Policy." The Indian media, always wary of China, have chimed in by sensationalizing alleged border incursions and by hyping "the China threat." India's military has bolstered its presence in areas bordering Tibet. The military forces of both sides are once again pushing into remote and previously (for the most part) unoccupied mountainous frontier regions.

Adding fuel to this fire is mounting confidence on the Chinese side that China would win any conflict and reap broader strategic rewards from doing so. PLA generals believe India's military remains inferior in combat, logistics and war-fighting capability. Should the PLA succeed in occupying Tawang, a town near the border, and giving India's military a bloody nose, the Chinese thinking goes, Indian leaders would be much more deferential in dealing with China. A short and swift victory would underscore the need for other countries in Asia, especially U.S. friends and allies, to accommodate China's growing power by aligning with, rather than against, Beijing.

Though India is no match for China in force-on-force posture, it is no pushover militarily. Unlike the PLA, which has not seen combat since the Vietnam War of 1979, India's military today is battle-hardened and experienced. If Beijing is determined to gain the lost territory in Arunachal Pradesh, India is equally determined not to see a replay of the 1962 war by losing large chunks of territory. With India embarking upon a massive military modernization plan, a punitive war may well be too costly and its outcome unpredictable.

However, all this misses the fact that China and India are both nuclear-armed nations with enormous stakes in maintaining peace. Burgeoning trade ties and collaboration on issues like climate change have shown both capitals the benefits of cooperation even as border tensions rise. For Beijing, a hardline approach to India could backfire and drive India and its other Asian neighbors into stronger opposition to China and deeper alignment with Washington and Tokyo. The pursuit of aggressive foreign adventures would destroy the benign "peaceful rise" image that China is so assiduously striving to achieve. A conflict will cost India dearly in terms of economic developmental objectives and political ambition of emerging as a great power in a multipolar Asia.

Other countries, particularly the U.S., can play a vital role in preventing escalation. Washington enjoys close ties with both China and India and could exert diplomatic pressure on both sides to reach a settlement. But ultimately this is a border dispute between two large countries, and they alone have it in their combined power to resolve their differences peacefully. It's in both their interests to do so.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Week at War: China Rules the Waves

BY ROBERT HADDICK

Foreign Policy - OCTOBER 16, 2009

On Sept. 22, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) released a report, China's Arrival: A Strategic Framework for a Global Relationship. Journalist and CNAS senior fellow Robert Kaplan, wrote a chapter in the report called "China's Two-Ocean Strategy" (see page 45).

Kaplan asserts, "China is in the midst of a shipbuilding and acquisition craze that will result in the People's Liberation Army Navy having more ships than the U.S. Navy sometime in the next decade." Since 1945, U.S. diplomatic and political strategies in Asia have been predicated on U.S. naval domination in the western Pacific and Indian oceans. The U.S. Navy's control of seagoing lines of commerce from the Middle East to all points in Asia has been a major component of America's alliance system in the region and its relations with potential adversaries. Kaplan's essay reminds us that over the next decade or so, the rise of China's naval power will scrap the assumptions underlying the United States' Asian diplomacy.

According to Kaplan, the collapse of the Soviet Army in the 1990s removed China's most significant land-based threat. With its territorial security established, China's leaders could afford to spend money on naval forces. This shift coincided with the massive expansion of China's international trade. Kaplan reminds us that China's energy imports from the Middle East -- which travel across the Indian Ocean, through the Strait of Malacca, and up the western Pacific -- will double over the next decade or two. China's ocean-going commerce currently receives protection from the U.S. Navy and its allies in the region. But as an arriving global power, China's leaders are not likely to tolerate this vulnerability to potential U.S. leverage. China's naval shipbuilding program indicates China's response.

According to Kaplan, by 2015 China will surpass South Korea and Japan to become the world's most prolific shipbuilder. China will achieve this position because its growing shipbuilding expertise will combine with its labor and capital cost advantages to make it the preferred shipbuilding vendor. China's cost advantages in "metal-bending" industries will compare very favorably against U.S. naval shipbuilders who are best known for gross cost overruns, long delays, and problem-ridden deliveries. U.S. military acquisition officials have hoped that U.S. technological advantages will offset an adversary's numbers. But such a focus on technology might be part of the problem, rather than the solution. Looking out over the next two decades, military shipbuilding trends do not favor the United States.

The solution is expanded diplomacy. Kaplan discusses how the United States and China will find common interests protecting shipping from piracy, terrorism, and natural disasters. In addition, China and the United States share an interest in keeping open the ocean's lines of communication -- both countries are highly dependent on trade and energy imports from the Middle East. With many common interests, China's arrival as a naval power need not result in conflict.

But will the United States be able to maintain its Asian alliance system if its naval hegemony comes under challenge? Will America's friends in Asia drift into China's orbit if the U.S. military cannot maintain its investment in naval power? This decade's land wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have absorbed huge sums that might have otherwise gone into naval recapitalization. The looming fragility in America's position in the western Pacific might be the best reason for it to wind up its affairs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/10/16/this_week_at_war_china_rules_the_waves?page=full

De-Dollarisation: A Financial Revolution In The Making

2009-10-09T10:02:00.004+07:00

By Robert Fisk

08 October, 2009

The Independent

The plan to de-dollarise the oil market, discussed both in public and in secret for at least two years and widely denied yesterday by the usual suspects – Saudi Arabia being, as expected, the first among them – reflects a growing resentment in the Middle East, Europe and in China at America's decades-long political as well as economic world dominance.

Nowhere has this more symbolic importance than in the Middle East, where the United Arab Emirates alone holds $900bn (£566bn) of dollar reserves and where Saudi Arabia has been quietly co-ordinating its defence, armaments and oil policies with the Russians since 2007.

This does not indicate a trade war with America – not yet – but Arab Gulf regimes have been growing increasingly restive at their economic as well as political dependence on Washington for many years. Of the $7.2 trillion in international reserves, $2.1trn is held by Arab countries – China holds about $2.3trn – and the nations interested in moving away from dollar-trading in oil are believed to hold over 80 per cent of international dollar reserves.

Saudi Arabia's denials of any such ambitions were regarded by Arab bankers as a normal part of Gulf politics. The Saudis, of course, managed to deny that Iraq had invaded Kuwait in 1990 – even when Saddam Hussein's legions stood along the Saudi frontier, until the US broadcast the news of Iraq's aggression to the world.

Saudi bankers are well aware that in nine years' time – the current timeframe for a transition away from the dollar in oil trading to Japanese and Chinese currencies, the euro, gold and a possible new Gulf currency – China will have doubled its national income to $10trn (assuming a growth rate of 7 per cent), at which point the US might hold no more than 20 per cent of the world's gross income.

Such massive financial movements, encouraged by the de-dollarisation of oil, will have enormous political effects in the Middle East, especially if economic superpower rivalry between America and China comes to dominate the Arab world. Will American economic support for Israel remain as loyal in nine years' time if China and the Arabs are setting the pace in global financial markets? Indeed – perhaps with this in mind – some Israeli financiers have been expressing interest over the past two years in non-dollar Arab bank investments. Whenever a change of this magnitude takes place over a number of years, it has to be commenced in secrecy.

Nor can it be denied that the very project to take oil trading away from the dollar market has deep political roots. The collapse of the Soviet Union has allowed the US to dominate the Middle East more than any other world region, and the Arabs – who can no longer contemplate an oil boycott of the kind they imposed on the West after the 1973 Middle East war – are still anxious to prove that they can flex their economic power to bring about change.

Saudi Arabia's pan-Arab offer to recognise Israel and its security in return for an Israeli withdrawal from occupied Arab land is not – according to the Saudis themselves – indefinite. If they are ignored or rebuffed, then they can search for other allies through new financial institutions to force a new Middle East peace. China will be happy to help.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debunking the Dumping-the-Dollar Conspiracy

On Monday, the Independent reported that a number of countries are conspiring to dump the dollar as the primary oil trade currency, spelling disaster for the U.S. economy. But the United States wouldn't need to fear -- even if it were true.

BY DEAN BAKER

Foreign Policy - OCTOBER 7, 2009

For at least the last decade, a persistent, recurring conspiracy theory has held that major oil exporters will stop pricing oil in dollars, which will then lead to a collapse in the U.S. economy as the dollar becomes worthless. According to some accounts, Iraq's decision to price its oil in euros rather than dollars precipitated the U.S. overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and Iran's threats to move away from the dollar is the real reason the U.S. government is raising the alarm over the country's nuclear program.

The latest item in this tradition was an article by Robert Fisk, a longtime Middle East correspondent, in the London-based Independent. The article warns of a grand conspiracy between the Arab oil states, China, Japan, Russia, and France to stop pricing oil in dollars by 2018. When this happens, Fisk says, the dollar will suffer a severe blow to its international standing and the United States might struggle to pay for its oil. The article apparently caused a shudder in the currency markets yesterday, as panicked investors unloaded dollars in reaction to the terrifying prospect of this alleged international oil conspiracy.

But they really shouldn't be concerned. Fisk's theory would make a good plot for a Hollywood movie, but it doesn't make much sense as economics. It is true that oil is priced in dollars and that most oil is traded in dollars, but these facts make relatively little difference for the status of the dollar as an international currency or the economic well-being of the United States.

With the United States' ascendancy as the pre-eminent economic power after World War II, the dollar became the world's reserve currency: Most countries held dollars in reserve in the event that they suddenly needed an asset other than their own currency to pay for imports, or to support their own currency. Much international trade, including trade not involving the United States, was carried through in dollars. In addition, most internationally traded commodities became priced in dollars on exchanges. However, the dollar was never universally used to carry through trade (even trade in oil), and the pricing of commodities in dollars is primarily just a convention.

Any market -- a stock market, a wheat market, or the oil market -- requires a unit of measure. The importance of the U.S. economy made the dollar the obvious choice for most markets. But there would be no real difference if the euro, the yen, or even bushels of wheat were selected as the unit of account for the oil market. It's simply an accounting issue.

Suppose that prices in the oil market were quoted in yen or bushels of wheat. Currently, oil is priced at about $70 a barrel. A dollar today is worth about 90 yen. A bushel of wheat sells for about $3.50. If oil were priced in yen, then the current price of a barrel of oil in yen would 6,300 yen. If oil were priced in wheat, then the price of a barrel of oil would be 20 bushels. If oil were priced in either yen or wheat it would have no direct consequence for the dollar. If the dollar were still the preferred asset among oil sellers, then they would ask for the dollar equivalents of the yen or wheat price of oil. The calculation would take a billionth of a second on modern computers, and business would proceed exactly as it does today.

It does matter slightly that the trade typically takes place in dollars. This means that those wishing to buy oil must acquire dollars to buy the oil, which increases the demand for dollars in world financial markets. However, the impact of the oil trade is likely to be a very small factor affecting the value of the dollar. Even today, not all oil is sold for dollars. Oil producers are free to construct whatever terms they wish for selling their oil, and many often agree to payment in other currencies. There is absolutely nothing to prevent Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, or any other oil producer -- whether a member of OPEC or not -- from signing contracts selling their oil for whatever currency is convenient for them to acquire.

Even if all oil were sold for dollars, it would be a very small factor in the international demand for dollars, as can be seen with a bit of simple arithmetic. World oil production is a bit under 90 million barrels a day. If two-thirds of this oil is sold across national borders, then it implies a daily oil trade of 60 million barrels. If all of this oil is sold in dollars, then it means that oil consumers would have to collectively hold $4.2 billion to cover their daily oil tab.

By comparison, China alone holds more than $1 trillion in currency reserves, more than 200 times the transaction demand for oil. In other words, if China reduced its holdings of dollars by just 0.5 percent, it would have more impact on the demand for dollars than if all oil exporters suddenly stopped accepting dollars for their oil.

This raises a more serious issue affecting the demand for dollars, which is the dollar's status as an international reserve currency. Currently the dollar is by far the preferred currency, but others, notably the euro, are gaining ground. A switch away from the dollar will lower its value, but this is hardly anything to fear: In actuality, it was and is an official policy goal of both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.

Both administrations are on record complaining about China's "manipulation" of its currency. China does this by buying up vast amounts of dollars to hold as foreign reserves, suppressing the value of the yuan against the dollar. This, in turn, makes Chinese goods cheaper in the United States and bolsters China's exports.

If China stopped buying up huge amounts of dollars, as the United States wishes, then the dollar would fall in value against the yuan, thereby making Chinese imports more expensive. The result would be that the United States would buy fewer imports from China, improving its trade balance. Not too many people would be frightened by this prospect.

To summarize, the dollars needed to finance the international oil trade are trivial compared with other sources of demand for dollars. The currency chosen for foreign reserve holdings can have an impact on demand for dollars, but this has nothing to do with the currency chosen to conduct the oil trade. If Saudi Arabia wanted to hold euros rather than dollars, it could almost instantly offload as many dollars as it desired. Plus, the White House wants the dollar to decline anyway because it would improve the United States' trade balance.

Thus, the conspiracy theory Fisk resurrected might have spooked the markets, but the reality is that there is nothing to fear. The dollar's value will likely fall over time (as it has been doing against the euro for the last nine years). But there is nothing in the cards to suggest a collapse, even if Saudi Arabia starts selling its oil for euros or yuan.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/10/07/debunking_the_dumping_the_dollar_conspiracy?page=0,1

PEELKHANA CONSPIRACY

2009-09-16T18:13:00.002+07:00

The opinions and statements made in the following article are not that of the owner of DeshCalling and all questions and inquiries should be directed to ahmadashiqulhamid@yahoo.com

DeshCalling disclaims all responsibility for the contents of the following article the facts of which are unknown to its owner. The article reached the owner by email with the following caveat –

From: shotto prokash <shotto.prokash@gmail.com>Subject: BDR Tragedy, True FindingsTo: Date: Monday, September 7, 2009, 1:59 PM
Dear Reader

If you are an active member/supporter/collaborator of BNP/AL/Jamaat, or any other political party of Bangladesh, then this mail is not for you. You may well delete this. This mail is for people with open and unbiased mind. And for the people who have at least a drop of love for Bangladesh stored deep inside their heart.

The attached document "Peelkhana Conspiracy" contains nearly 14,000 words. So, you should think before you decide to read or study it. It will take a lot of time. The article is a teamwork, involving about 23 persons. The team includes general people, businessmen, custom officials, members of armed forces, members of law enforcement agencies, and a few courageous investigative journalists.

This email DOES NOT request you to believe whatever appear in the attached document. You are to use your own intellect and sense of judgment to reach to a conclusion. Please believe what your conscience says, and not what we have tried to say. If accidentally your thoughts and ours favorably coincide, please do whatever your conscience dictates.

Thank You

PEELKHANA CONSPIRACY

PROLOGUE

Entire Bangladesh is convinced that “Peelkhana massacre was the outcome of a long and deep-rooted conspiracy.” But there is a mystery shrouding the background of Peelkhana carnage. Somehow or the other, people of Bangladesh do not still know the entire truth. This article endeavors to un-shroud the hidden truth. Purpose is not to vindicate anyone, the pure purpose is to erase the lies and bring the truth to the open. You are not required to believe whatever follows. It is totally up to your judgment. If you believe, you may pass it on to persons who may try to spread the message so that justice, the rarest phenomenon on planet earth, may see light in Bangladesh—today, tomorrow or year after. If you don’t believe this article, utter a curse and just put this article into trash and forget it.

SOME STIRRING THOUGHTS

· On 24th February between 10pm and 11pm Mr Ataur, the owner of a filling station at Jhikatola, gave a call to DG BDR Shakil over mobile and said, “Sir, apnakey kalkey Peelkhanay mere felbe. Apni kalker onushthaney jaben na.” The recorded conversation was spotted by RAB Headquarter and Mr Ataur was immediately taken into custody. This information was disclosed to the TFI cell members by Colonel Rezanur himself. Later Mr Ataur was released and nowhere his statement has been included in the inquiries.

· On 25th February at about 8:45 am, PM was informed by NSI that after a few minutes the Peelkhana mutiny would begin. The same information also reached CAS Moeen simultaneously. PM just digested the information and didn’t react. CAS Moeen also kept mum.

· DG BDR Shakil died at around 10:30 am and Indian channel (24 hours) first reported his death along with his wife at 11:00 am in the scrolls. NDTV showed the news in its scroll at 12pm and the death of DG and his wife was telecast at 12:15 pm in NDTV news bulletin. And the whole Bangladesh knew nothing about the death of the DG until 26th evening! Drama it was!!

· Colonel Aftab was killed on 25th night after the departure of Sahara Khatun from Peelkhana as he came out from hiding to look for his wife and daughter whom he knew to be in the officers’ mess. But they were by then taken to the quarter guard. Colonel Reza was killed after 3 am on 26th February. When held captive with other officers, he managed to keep with him the mobile of Colonel Gulzar for some time. Colonel Elahi was also killed after the departure of Sahara from Peelkhana on 25th night. He came out from his hiding inside manhole after he thought that some negotiation had been finalized. Major Mosaddek died from over-bleeding at about 5:30 pm on 25th February. His frantic calls for help were responded with hope initially, which was later proved to be bogus. A lot of other officers died much later after the meeting of the killers with PM. Still the entire nation is convinced that most officers were killed by 11 am on 25th February. This story has been carefully implanted into the nation by Lieutenant Colonel Shams, also a collaborator of the massacre.

· IG Police desperately wanted to get inside Peelkhana to rescue his daughter, and for that he requested Sahara Khatun time and again. But she refused. When IGP said that he would go alone, then Sahara was forced to enter to stage the drama of family rescue and arms surrender. She only visited the building “Otoshi”. She rescued wife of Lieutenant Colonel Quamruzzaman (another collaborator), the daughter of IGP and Mrs Akbar. She never went above 1st floor of Otoshi. Quamruzzaman, the communication officer of BDR Headquarters, survived the carnage as did all officers under him, his personal car was also not burnt! Then he staged a beautiful drama at Senakunj in front of PM, just to bluff the nation about his collaboration.

· There might be a question—why so many courageous and talented army officers inside darbar hall could not plan some counter action? There were a few Army Commando officers amongst them including the veteran Colonel Emdad, sector commander Rajshahi. Why didn’t they organize into small groups, confuse the BDR killers, snatch a few SMGs and ammunition, and try to fight back in small scale and then die? The answer is simple. They saw that immediately after the initial incident with a single BDR soldier, the DG talked to PM, CAS, DG DGFI; Colonel Gulzar talked to RAB, CGS, DMO and others. Colonel Gulzar asked CO RAB 2 Liutenant Colonel Zaman to send only FIVE soldiers! All were hopeful that some help would arrive. More so, the confident DG ordered Colonel Mujib (Dhaka sector commander), Lieutenant Colonel Enayet and other Peelkhana officers to go to their units and motivate the troops. Almost all officers inside darbar hall had long experience under the military leadership. They had tremendous faith in the leaders and the guardians of the country. They thought that definitely some help was on the way since PM and CAS had been informed and they assured of help. That is why they had full faith in the government that people so overwhelmingly elected and in the CAS who appeared to them as a tough military leader. But alas! Oh poor sons of the soil!! They could never dream that they would be betrayed so miserably by the guardian of the nation and also, more criminally, by the CAS. They could never imagine that the 2nd Palassey was about to be staged at Dhaka again. A number of wives of officers staying inside Peelkhana tried to call Begum Naznin Moeen, the wife of CAS Moeen, to seek help. Unfortunately and shamefully enough, she did not receive any call coming in from the endangered families.

· Why Gate no 5 of Peelkhana was left unguarded on 25th and 26th February? The officers of RAB 10, after arriving near Gate no 5 at 10:30am, saw the obvious choice of deploying near Gate 5 and along the low-height outer perimeter wall separating Peelkhana from the civilian area. They were certain that the area could be the most suitable stretch of place for storming into Peelkhana and also for a quick extrication. But at around 11:30am, the Additional DG of RAB Colonel Rezanur (cousin of Bahauddin Nasim) ordered RAB 10 through the CO to move away to Beribadh Area about 3km from Peelkhana. Bewildered and confused with this order, RAB 10 had to move out leaving Gate 5 and moved to Beribadh area for assuming the role of sitting pregnant ducks. That was how Colonel Rezanur, one of the elder siblings of Mir Zafor Ali khan of Palassey, ensured that BDR killers had a free run through that area after they completed their crime against humanity. It also ensured that the looted arms and ammunitions could be easily sent to the house of ward commissioner Torab Ali for onward distribution to BCL cadres. Other than RAB 10, RAB 2 and 3 were also near Peelkhana by 10:30am on 25th February.

· The bodies of Colonel Mujib and Lieutenant Colonel Enayet were found and recovered from the sewerage at 2:30pm on 25th February. The team of 14 BDR men went to the residence of PM at 3:30pm. And after discussion that lasted about 150 minutes, the PM declared general amnesty to all killers ignoring the fact that dead bodies of two officers were already found. During the entire period of discussion, PM didn’t ask a single time about the fate of other officers. Nobody also told about the fate of the officers. The PM wanted peaceful negotiation. The government concluded that it was a peaceful and politically solved mutiny. Well, that means the lives of 57 officers have no value! Their value lay only in monetary grant, state funeral and flats and cheques from banks. What a treacherous traitor! How can a PM of a nation be such a traitor!! To those intellectuals of the country and of India who think that a military action would have caused a ‘civil war’ or could have caused more lives, it can be said that a military action starting at around 11:30 am would have ended within two hours maximum. You blind intellectuals, please search the history of the entire mankind. You will find that whenever there was no “right cause” of a mutiny, it ended immediately on being intervened militarily. That is how Major General Matin, the then GOC 9 Infantry Division, quickly solved the Ansar revolt at Shafipur within 30 minutes. Did Indian government solve the Mumbai attack politically? Why not? Only civilians were kept hostage in Mumbai. If army moved in, the BDR troops, who were not well organized at 11:30, would have surrendered and some of them would have fled. Instead, the PM declared a general amnesty, knowing fully well that officers were killed, thus giving a free chit to kill and torture. PM was time and again informed that the families were being tortured. She was unmoved. CAS was informed by the national monitoring cell of the conversation between BDR troops and outsiders. The BDR troops were narrating how they were killing officers and torturing their families. CAS asked the officer at the monitoring cell “not to be emotional.” We hope Moeen’s wife and daughter are tortured to death when he is alive, just to see his emotional state.

· Mirza Azam ensured brutal murder of Colonel Gulzar, avenging the death of his criminal relative Shykh Abdur Rahman. He was frequently talking to his BDR contacts inside Peelkhana over cell phone on 25th February. He instructed the killers to gouge out the eyes of Gulzar and break his spinal cord.

· Colonel Emdad, sector commander Khulna, was alive in the toilet of darbar hall at least up to 1:30pm. He offered his zohr prayer and talked to his wife. Colonel Aftab, sector commander Rangpur, sent 3 sms to his senior colleagues (one brigadier and two colonels) at 4:30pm stating “I am alive in darbar hall, pls rescue us”. And still in the parliament the PM keeps lying that all the officers were killed by 10:30am. And still the AL and their entire team of foot-lickers swear by God that all killings ended by 11 am.

· On 25th February night about 7 to 9 white speed boats were used to let the fleeing BDR killers cross Buriganga. Haji Selim coordinated the entire effort. Local civilians were asked to move away from the scene by the associates of Haji Selim. If you kindly recall a news coverage at 1:00 am on 25th night where some local eyewitnesses were interviewed. They told that they had seen a few speed boats plying across the river, but they were forced out of the place by some political workers. Please also recall that this news was never broadcasted by any other channel, that news just vanished from the media.

· None of the officers of the of the officers of the revolting 44 Rifle Battalion was killed: Lieutenant Colonel Shams, Major Mahbub, Major Ishtiaq. All offices of officers were ransacked except 44 Rifle Battalion. At about 10:45am, a few minutes after the mutiny had begun, Shams was seen briefing a large number of BDR troops near gate no 5. A few civilians from outside crowd shouted, “Officer ra shoinik thekey alada hoye jaan.” Immediately thereafter Shams finished the briefing hurriedly and went away. As a reward for being part of the conspiracy, Shams was released to join SSF. The core of the mutineers was from 44 Rifle battalion. As such, in military terms, it was a fatal failure of Shams, CO 44 Battalion, to stop the mutiny of such a horrific magnitude. For that the CO must have been sacked immediately and taken into custody for further inquiry. Instead, he became a media hero of AL by changing his statements and fabricating the truth. Please note that when BDR killers were being interrogated at RAB headquarters, some of them confessed of the killing. But they insisted that Lieutenant Colonel Shams be asked about the planning as they didn’t know the planning in details. Army inquiry team asked statement of Lieutenant Colonel Shams and wanted to question him. But it was refused from PM office. None of the officers of the communication unit of BDR, headed under Lieutenant Colonel Quamruzzaman, was also killed!

· On 26th February morning Nanak and Mirza Azam threatened the just rescued wives/families of officers, “Do not talk to media because your husbands are still inside.” Nanak and Mirza wanted to ensure that (1) the country didn’t come to know immediately about the torture that went inside Peelkhana, and (2) no interference was there as the coordinated obliteration of evidence and dead bodies was about to end that evening . Interesting to note that a few hundred looted weapons and ammunitions, specially pistols, were handed over to BCL cadres through the team of Torab Ali.

· Entire media and the nation know that Taposh was not allowed to enter Peelkhana on 25th and 26th February by the BDR troops. This is also a blunt lie. He entered into Peelkhana a number of times on 25th Febraury. He was the person who declared DAD Touhid as the new DG of BDR, which appeared in the scrolls of TV channels. This was the signal of letting all BDR battalions across the country to know that Peelkhana operation was successful. Then onward mutiny started spreading all over the country.

· On 27th February when the second mass grave was discovered, Nanak proposed to Brigadier General Mamun Khaled to handover the mutilated and decomposed bodies to their families immediately without media coverage and a mass state funeral. An officer of engineering corps got furious and went to hit Nanak, but he was restrained by other on duty army officers. Nanak and Mamun Khaled were sitting nearby. And as the mutilated bodies of martyred officers were being removed from the mass grave, Mr Joy was handing over payment to a few foreign and a few BDR killers in Dubai.

· Some inane intellectuals of the country think that there could be civil war if army stormed into Peelkhana on 25th. They argue that army’s rescue mission into Peelkhana could trigger mutiny in all BDR units nationwide thereby starting a civil war. Respected intellectuals, do you have any idea what is a civil war? All BDR troops revolting around the country could be called a civil war? Then what could the nationwide unrest and brutal killing on 28 October 2006 be called? What do you call the nationwide killing, torture and unrest in educational institutions by BCL after January 2009? What do you think? Could the BDR attack army cantonments? Really? The total BDR troops is about 45,000, of which 10,000 were in Dhaka on 25th, leaving about 35,000 countrywide. The army has about 155,000 troops, of which about 25,000 at Dhaka and the rest 130,000 outside Dhaka. That leaves the ratio of about 1:4 between BDR and army, leaving aside the inferiority of armament of BDR compared to that of the army. Some intellectuals have opined that BDR could have started killing civilian population all around the country. People are also arguing that civilians around Peelkhana could have been killed. It appears that all intellectuals are retired army officers, knowing fully well how army operations are conducted. Dear myopic intellectuals, army knows how to operate in an area like Peelkhana and its surroundings. Fighting in Built Up Area (FIBUA) is a subject of utmost importance in military training. Never mind readers! In Bangladesh, there are more opinion givers than there are workers.

· Major General Moinul Hossain was a captain in the infantry battalion which took part in the killing of President Zia. He somehow escaped trial. On 27th February, the same Moinul Hossain assembled a group of officer and discussed the Peelkhana issue. He convinced the officers with logic that the government and CAS Moeen had failed to handle Peelkhana incident resulting to the death of so many officers and humiliation of the families. He then told them to type down their points of grievances and submit to him. Then he took those to Lieutenant General Aminul Karim and told him (General Amin) to discuss these with the CAS Moeen. Moinul Hossain also instructed the officers to give those points in an organized way during CAS address at Senakunj on 28th February. All officers shouted against traitor Moeen at Senkunj. Moeen urinated on his chair at Senakunj and was severely panicked. He had to be assisted to walk away by “Army Security Unit” officers as he fearfully left the venue. He had to change his dress to attend the namaz-e-janaza scheduled immediately after the address. Later Lieutenant General Aminul Karim was charged for instigating the officers against government and failing to exercise proper command. He was immediately sacked. Oh! What an irony of fate!! The then Brigadier General Moinul Hossain ensured that one anti-Indian Lieutenant General exited the army without any fault. And that Mr Moinul is now trying to reshape BDR with the help of India as the new DG BDR, who every other day gets innocent Bangladeshis shot down by BSF. Now our enemy will dictate how our defense against him will be reshaped and reorganized! Everything is possible in Bangladesh.

· After reversing his projected role in 1/11, the real face of RAW agent Moeen started emerging. His first step was to remove Lieutenant General Masud Uddin Chowdhury, a man known well for his courage and patriotism. Moeen’s family corruption with brothers Iftekhar U Ahmed and Belal U Ahmed became known in the entire country. In 2008, Moeen visited India for negotiation. After he was back to the country, 67 chassis of Indian ‘covered van’ trucks were brought in through Benapole by one of his brothers who is engaged in transport business. Those were brought without any tax/clearance of customs. All the chassis were seized in the border by BDR battalion as they didn’t know to whom those chassis belonged. Rest of the story was simple. The sector commander and battalion commander were about to lose their jobs and those chassis were given a free run to Dhaka. One of his brothers owns a diagnostic center at Banani, which made a monopolistic business by forcing all Libya going labors to have their medical test after 1/11. Another brother of Moeen, Iftekhar Ahmed Tipu, increased his land property at Ashulia from 20 bighas to 50+ bighas between 1/11 and November 2008. How many books CAS Moeen has written? One, two or three? A series of encyclopedia can be written about the corruption of CAS Moeen. [i]He ensured that young officers and soldiers of Bangladesh Army had worked likes bulls and dogs during the emergency period. Leave of officers were curtailed. Officers were kept detached from their families for months together. Officers were forced to execute whatever he wanted, surreptitiously hiding his evil intention. Meanwhile he, along with his accomplices both in army and outside, amassed millions both in cash and kind. And now the blame comes to the entire army, and the young, innocent and the patriotic officers of the army are being tagged as corrupted “army officers”. Nation eagerly awaits General Moeen’s open trial in future. The face of this criminal of the new millennium must surface to the nation.

· What was the drama unfolding in DGFI and RAB headquarters, TFI cell and CID? Immediately after the Peelkhana incident, young officers of RAB found out all the clues of the conspiracy linking AL leaders, including the call record of 204 minutes between Nanak and DAD towhid on 24th February. However, all such call records have been deleted by this time and as a reward of the patriotism and truthfulness of those RAB and DGFI officers, they were immediately ousted from RAB and DGFI to different corners of the country. About 100+ officers have already been prematurely ousted from Dhaka. DG DGFI Mollah Fazle Akbar, in a briefing, asked the officers of DGFI headquarters to lead the inquiry out of AL connections. A few murmurings by junior officers against such a treacherous proposal by the DG saw immediate posting out of those officers from DGFI. Now, Brigadier General Mamun Khaled of DGFI has been tasked to prepare the list of officers who voiced against CAS and the traitors so that they can be gradually sacked from the army. The list would include about 50 officers. In retaliation to the noble and sincere, though failed, attempt to force a military intervention at Peelkhana and later on for proper investigation, quite a few officers have been sacked silently. The plan is to at first put the officers in different peripheral units of the army, and then gradually sack them on different grounds, not linked to Peelkhana. DGFI teams started working in all TV channels from 2nd March, just to ensure that truth was not leaked out. Major Atik, the beloved intelligence RAB officer of Colonel Gulzar, has been tasked to establish link between Peelkhana conspiracy and JMB, BNP or any other militant organization. Colonel Gulzar liked him very much and that is why, violating all the rules, Major Atik were kept in RAB intelligence for 5 years at a stretch. What a return he is now giving to the martyred soul of Colonel Gulzar!! Major Azim, a close relative of Sheikh Helal was posted as Acting Director of RAB Intelligence. He was permanently superseded for promotion to the next rank, but this time AL will surely reward him for helping AL as a traitor to the nation. He is now working whole-hearted to wipe out all evidence against AL connection. The initial findings against AL were firmly established by Lieutenant Colonel Majid and Major Hamid. Both of them have been re-assigned and the evidence linking to AL has been sent into trash by Major Azim. Why IG Police was not selected as an active member of any inquiry team? Was it because that he would whole-heartedly try to find out the truth about the killing of his slain son-in-law and the molesters of his daughter? CID, with its professional looking yellow jackets and AC microbus, would do everything to ensure that a fair trial is not staged and AL culprits are never brought to justice.

· Nanak had to be involved as he fled to India and has the reputation of possessing the cool-blooded murderer’s instinct. He was the person involved in the burning of a BRTC bus near Sheraton hotel using gun powder for the first time in the history of Bangladesh, which killed 11 innocent people. Mirza Azam was his partner. This job was given to Jubo League by Sheikh Hasina with a view “rajpoth dhorey rakhtey hobey.” The entire confession by Sheikh Selim about the murder is now available in youtube as an audio clip (search “Sheikh Selim confesses of setting fire on bus Part 1 and 2”). One of the courteous interrogators of Sheikh Selim was Colonel Gulzar, who was trying to do justice for those 11 innocent Bangladeshis burnt alive inside the bus. Sheikh Selim and entire AL have taken revenge by sending Gulzar to a horrible death. Joy could have been a choice for future leadership of AL. But Joy, due to his immature talks and poor verbal communication skill, and also due to his long stay in US, was not the most obvious choice. Instead, Taj is the son of the widely accepted personality and the first prime minister of Bangladesh Tajuddin Ahmed, and thus rightly could be chosen to be a top AL leader. Same was the issue of Barrister Fazle Noor Taposh, son of Sheikh Moni. They would ensure that the family leadership in AL is maintained in future and the legacy of killing and arson continued. However, the criminals like Tofail, Suranjit Sen and the likes would not sit tight and vanish into oblivion.

· Please also note that the military team of inquiry, specially Brigadier General Hasan Nasir, proposed to interrogate Nanak to know his whereabouts on 25th night while Sahara was staging the drama of arms surrender inside Peelkahna. Immediately following this demand, Brigadier General Hasan Nasir was replaced by a new member of the team of inquiry[ii]. Nanak suddenly developed chest pain and was rushed to Labaid Hospital. Later, to avoid the inquiry, he was sent to Singapore on 1st of April for fake treatment. Within a few days following the visit of Indian foreign secretary on 12th April and his meetings with PM and CAS Moeen, Nanak came back from Singapore. The military inquiry was a mockery as the terms of reference did not allow an inquiry in the truest sense. Lieutenant General Jahangir Alam Chowdhury, known for his honesty and integrity, faltered and succumbed to the government pressure. He should have resigned from the presidency of the board of inquiry, which surely would bring an end to his military career. What else the general is left to achieve in his career? Could he not be courageous to prove his integrity to the nation? It is almost needless to comment on minister Ashraful Islam denouncing military inquiry report as it couldn’t find out any connection of JMB or anti-liberation force. Doesn’t it denote the government was trying to influence the inquiry boards to establish JMB and BNP-Jamaat link with the murders forcefully? Judge yourself.

· Lieutenant Colonel Abdul Mukim Sarkar (CO 25 Rifle battalion Panchagar) was with the BDR killers at Peelkhana on 25th Feb 09. The killers were addressing him as “sir”, and at the same time they called other officers “Kuttar bachcha” and killed them, bayoneted them, burnt them, gouged their eyes out, broke their backbone. Following is the extract of Mukim’s conversation on 25th February at 9:30pm with his subedar major: “Amader nirdesh holo sainikder jatey kono khoti na hoy. Jara paliye geche to geche…apnara DAD shaheb k niya valo thaken. Aar kono bahini jatey vitorey dhuktey na parey. DAD shaheb ke enader sathey kotha boltey bolben…” This is the crux of the conversation. His voice was calm and stable at 9:30pm on 25th February! Note that he said “amader nirdesh holo”, meaning Mukim was directly involved in the mutiny. Who is “amader”? What did he mean by “Aar kono bahini jatey vitorey dhuktey na parey”? The answer is left to your judgment.

· After Faruk Khan declared that some Muslim terrorists were involved, suddenly Moulana Sobhan was taken into safe custody and put in a RAB safe house. It was a plan to make a false statement by Mr Sobhan about the involvement of Islamic militants with the BDR massacre. But a daily newspaper reported immediately after his secret hiding under RAB custody that no Islamic militants were involved. The report was published with a lot of facts and figures. That report was stunningly true. This forced the AL to abandon the idea of making a false Islamic militant link to the massacre. Mr Sobhan was then allowed to leave the safe custody. After a few days he, along with his few other party members, met PM expressing their solidarity with the government.

· How can a disciplined organization like Army, BDR or Police stage a mutiny to put forward their demands? Is it a jungle they are working in? There are set procedures in all these organizations to project individual and collective grievances. That was truly done by the BDR leadership, as projected by DG Shakil during an interview in Channel I two days before his death. Realization of the demands was being delayed by the ministry of home affairs, not by BDR. Police had similar demands about their ration. That’s why, within 3 days of Peelkhana massacre, we saw in the scrolls of TV channels that government had decided to give 100% ration to police. It was a hasty and face saving move by the snail-paced ministry.

WHY PEELKHANA?

The seed of Peelkhana massacre was sown right at Roumari in April 2001, where 150 BSF personnel were killed inside Bangladesh territory. They came in to raid and capture a Bangladesh BDR camp, but the local Bangladeshi civilians informed the BDR about the intrusion. Following that, four army officers (one major and 3 captains) led the BDR troops and ran havoc on BSF. 128 bodies were handed over to BSF right there and the rest 22 bodies were handed over from Dhaka, which was telecast by ETV, covered by Shupon Roy. Sheikh Hasina, the then PM, said “sorry” to her Indian counterpart innumerable times over telephone. The then DG BDR ALM Fazlur Rahman was immediately removed from command. PM Sheikh Hasina accused that it was DG BDR who alone took the decision about Roumari and Padua cases. Actually General Fazlu took the steps keeping the Home Minister (Nasim) and PM in full picture. So the PM, Home Minister and Foreign Minister fooled the entire nation and also the Indian government by lying bluntly. This put the entire BDR, led by army officers, in a very awkward position as the command of BDR was betrayed by the government itself. Apart from Roumari, 15 BSF personnel died in Padua a few days before in the same month, which was the initiation of the total issue. Padua, an area of about 500 acres at the border in Sylhet, was used as a Muktibahini training camp where Indian Army organized training in 1971. When the Muktibahinis were called to deposit their arms at Sylhet stadium after 16th December 1971, they vacated Padua camp. Immediately thereafter, the Indian BSF took over Padua from Indian Army and continued to hold that place until recaptured by BDR in 2001. Padua was under Indian control for 30 years! Many a times BSF agreed to handover Padua in the flag meetings, but continued to hold that area illegally. Let the people of Bangladesh know that Padua was captured by BDR in 2001 and BSF of Padua Camp were disarmed, captivated and handed over to BSF authority. About 15 BSF personnel died as they opened fire and was fired back by BDR forces led by army officers. Roumari capture was planned by BSF as retaliation to Padua. Roumari was planned to be used as a bargaining chip to get back Padua. But as BSF sustained heavy casualty at Roumari and lost miserably, the government of AL came under tremendous Indian pressure. Finally, Bangladesh government handed Padua back to India in the same month (April 2001)!! The handing over ceremony was covered by ZE Mamun of the then ETV. Please note that at that time the GSO-1 of Operations of BDR was Lieutenant Colonel Rezanur (now Colonel and Additional DG of RAB). He is the cousin of Bahauddin Nasim of AL. He tried to victimize the officers who took part in Roumari operation, but was prevented from doing so by the DG. In 2009, he led the TFI interrogation and desperately tried to eliminate all external links to Peelkhana conspiracy. Interesting to note that Rezanur was posted to RAB to replace ADG Operation Colonel Gulzar. Colonel Gulzar thought to make a thorough briefing and orientation for Rezanur for a period of about a month because Gulzar was in full picture of RAB operations and crime scenario of the netire country. But unfortunately, Rezanur gave a cold shoulder to him and indirectly forced him to leave RAB immediately to join BDR. A normal orientation for Rezanur by Gulzar would not have allowed Gulzar to be in BDR uniform on 25th February. Gulzar was actually forced into the death trap by his colleague Colonel Rezanur.

Interestingly enough, whenever BDR is ambushed or attacked by BSF or Shanti Bahini in Hill Tracts in the absence of army officers, they even some time leave their weapon and run away. On the contrary, the same BDR men fight and win against BSF in every single encounter when led by army officers. To verify this phenomenon, you may inquire with the elderly mature population living in the peripheral areas of our border with India. So, it was always BSF versus army officers, never BSF versus BDR. Since BSF could not operate inside Bangladesh to avenge their continuous defeats, it was RAW[iii] which came in naturally. There are hundreds of RAW agents within our government machineries that even include a few army officers. Many of them are intellectually corrupt and as such work as unpaid agents of RAW. A good number of intellectuals, educationists and columnists are agents of RAW. Neutral and intelligent Bangladeshis can easily spot them without any hesitation.

After Sheikh Hasina assumed the leadership of AL in 1981, she attended a tea party at Bush house in London. She was introduced to the editors, journalists and directors of BBC by Serajur Rahman, a renowned journalist and columnist who also introduced Sheikh Mujib, Father of the Nation, to the world media in 1969. In Bush house that day, while giving an interview, Sheikh Hasina said that she hated politics, but she was in politics only to avenge the assassination of her father Sheikh Mujib. The interviewer immediately stopped recording the conversation and made her understand what could go wrong terribly if her statement of revenge was publicized in Bangladesh. (Daily Naya Diganta, 24 March 2009, page 6)

Now, if you connect the BSF+RAW with the mindset of Hasina, can you reach a reasonable conclusion that the aim of RAW and AL coincided somewhere?

RAW, ECONOMICS AND BDR

Many noted economists argue that India has nothing to do with the economy of Bangladesh because Indian economy is much resilient and India is heading for the place of a super power on the globe. Unfortunately, they are too myopic and insane in thinking like that. Indian economy is not as healthy as it looks outwardly. In 2008 alone, 1500 peasants committed suicide only in Chattishgarh after being unable to repay bank and lenders loan. How many similar suicides take place in Bangladesh? Bangladesh provides a market of not less than 150 million people, most of which is ready to consume low-cost low-quality products of India. India illegally pushes about 167 items into Bangladesh, a few of which are sugar, powder milk, Yaba tablet, Phensidyl and clothing items. Most of these items are, surely enough, custom-produced for Bangladesh. This is no secret. And none can deny accepting this fact. Lieutenant General Jahangir Alam Chowdhury, an ex DG BDR successfully brought down this number to 35 in connivance with the government. If you kindly recall the coverage in a national daily in March 2009, present AL government decided to urge India to stop the Phensidyl factories along the Indian border west of Bangladesh. Another such product is powder milk. Please recall the media coverage on fresh milk vendors spilling out thousands of kg of cow milk on the road as the regular big buyers were either not buying their fresh milk, or offering very low price. The media coverage was on 9th and 10th April 2009. This was because the giant milk producers were getting low-cost powder milk from India as border was open for Indian goods after AL came into power. There are thousands of other examples that may be quoted. Before 25 February 2009, one bottle of Phensidyl was being sold at Dhaka at Tk 1000/=. After 26 February the price came down to Tk 100/= and the media gives the proof of capture of thousands of Phensidyl bottles all around Bangladesh, indicating a clear run of Indian deadly goods into our land beginning early 2009. You may please note that the production cost of a bottle of Phensidyl produced for Bangladesh, inclusive fixed overheads, stands somewhere between 6 and 8.50 rupees. India also has different powerful tools to influence the economy of Bangladesh. Atta is selling at about Rs 7 in India and Tk 18 in Bangladesh, Flour at about Rs 9 in India and Tk 24-30 in Bangladesh. US ‘Red Heart Winter Wheat’ selling at USD 132 per ton in India, why not in Bangladesh? Whenever their would be and anti-Indian psyche in power in Bangladesh, she will play her evil moves with these facts and figures, artfully assisted by the Marwari investors working at Old Dhaka with billions. Soon Bangladesh will observe how her spinning mills, poultry and diary industry, re-rolling mills—all go down into trash due to Indian game assisted by Bangladeshi traitors.

RAW knows that anti-AL parties of Bangladesh, who know the deep-rooted evil intention of India, would never allow a transit of 700km for India through Bangladesh. India is not also ready to give only 40km transit to Bangladesh for Nepal and China. India hates “transit to Nepal and China” subject so much that she never allowed it to be in the agenda of any bi-lateral or SAARC meetings. The recent declaration of making Chittagong an international port is nothing but to serve the Indian interest. Who could use this port other than Bangladesh? Obviously Nepal and China could be the beneficiaries in addition to India. But for Nepal and China, use of this port without a transit through India was of no value. As such, Chittagong can serve the interest of India by becoming international. You will observe sanction of loan from ADB or other organization/country for renovation/reconstruction of Dhaka-Chittagong highway soon enough. Though this was a long awaited requirement of the nation, but the relatively unimportant roads entering into Bangladesh from the west of North Bengal (Rajshahi Division) received more importance. This was to allow, when needed, quick entry of Indian Army into Bangladesh with tanks and large artillery pieces with a quicker access to the capital. Otherwise, the first national highway that should have become multi-driveway and multi-lane was Dhaka-Chittagong highway, the lifeline of the economy. Now that India is about to fetch the benefit of “International port” from Chittagong, the road leading to the port city would also get prime attention.

The 700km transit to India through Bangladesh would bring down the cost of transporting one truck load from Kolkata to Assam/Tripura from Rs 34,000/36,000 to Rs 7,000/8,000. The time taken for transporting the goods would also reduce by 70%. And if India uses Chittagong Port to transport goods to Assam, the cost would be as low as Rs 500 per ton! But, in return, India is not ready to even discuss the issues of Nepal and China’s transit into Bangladesh, which could help Bangladesh import goods from China at much lower cost and export to China at a price lucrative for the Chinese. If India gets only the port facilities at Chittagong and not the 700km transit, it will still be highly cost-effective for her for shipment of goods to the seven sisters. Unfortunately enough, still intellectuals of Bangladesh will go to India to lick their foot and bring back laurels, and spend hours in the “talk shows” in TV explaining why we must immediately give transit to India citing examples of EU and North America (NAFTA). Is the backdrop of creating EU and the political situation in North and Central America similar to this sub-continent?

Poor Bangladesh always possesses the potentials of a reasonably large market for illegal drugs, the median age being much lower with more younger and impoverished people than most of the countries on the planet. The population of Bangladesh is more than Russia and equal to the total population combining UK, France and Italy. In a bid to earn money and to keep India free from drugs, India tries to re-route all drugs coming in from north-north-west and south of India into Bangladesh at high cost, thus acting as middleman. Drugs arriving from Golden Triangle are also routed through Tripura into Bangladesh. Joynal Hazari is one of the beneficiaries of such trades.

Other issues related to sharing of Ganges water, natural gas, joint task force, islands in the south-east etc have not been included, just not to make this article more boring. The barrage on Barak River at Tipai Mukh is also coming up as another stab into the soul of our economy, flora and fauna. Do we know that on the issue of Ganges water sharing, the first memorandum of understanding included the term of a “third country” to mediate between Bangladesh and India if the issue of water sharing could not be bilaterally solved? What about the new memorandum signed in 1996? The clause of “third country” was removed to allow India a free run. The main Indian agenda will be realized soon without the present Bangladeshi government making any effort to serve the interest of the nation. On 19th May alone, two Bangladeshis were killed near Roumari border by BSF and another two on the same day at Bholahat border. At least 15 innocent Bangladeshis have been murdered by BSF in our own land between January-June 2009. Absolutely no reaction from the government of Bangladesh! In addition, the government is actively considering taking help from India to reorganize BDR! Our enemy will help us to reorganize a force which will always guard us against the same enemy. What a farce! What a circus!! AL will also tarnish the image of the nation in dealing with the 10-truck arms haul case pressured by India. The country’s prestige will lie naked. People with some sense know very well what was the case and how should it be dealt with. But AL will never care what happens to the nation of which they claim to be the sole liberators. And through this case, the army officers who have been purposefully USED and EXPLOITED by the government from time-to-time, would project a wrong picture about the entire army. Suffice to say that India can’t fulfill her evil desires without the help of AL. That is why all her efforts would be to make AL survive in the helm of power as long as possible. And it will be possible if the army is subdued, politicized and other political parties are weakened.

Let’s come back to BDR. As long as army officers were in BDR, all evil intentions of India to cripple the economy of Bangladesh and make her an open market for dumping trash would remain at bay.

If you have any relative who served in RAB before 2009, please ask him about the source of arms that were recovered from criminals. It was India. Ask them the source of JMB explosives, detonators, gun powder, and dice for ammunition that were/are recovered or used inside Bangladesh. All undoubtedly made in India. Please rewind and watch the close-ups of TV channel coverage on explosives captured recently from suspected JMB operatives. Which country’s name was printed on the explosive packs? India. Ask them the source of heroin and marijuana seized inside Bangladesh. It is also obviously India. Ask them the source of low-quality white sugar that was pouring into Bangladesh at the rate of 35 ton a day. India. On the contrary, India is taking away fertilizer, diesel, petrol and gold—all valuable goods—from Bangladesh through smuggling. So, who is the loser? Judge yourself. India takes away “life” from us and, in return, offers us “death”. With the barbed wire fencing all along the border, it is India’s choice to decide what would go inside Bangladesh and vice versa. It is also India’s sweet will to shoot down any innocent Bangladeshi peasant or shepherd working near the border on their own land inside Bangladesh.

If you kindly recall, the father of the nation, Sheikh Mujib, never trusted the army. Perhaps he saw what Indian Army did to us in exchange of fulfilling her evil desire in 1971 under the shadow of liberating Bangladesh. We could have won a decisive victory alone, may be it would have taken us 18/27/36 months. Vietnam experience of US proved it later. Anyway, the mistrust of Sheikh Mujib created Jatiya Rakhkhi Bahini (JRB) as a parallel organization against army. The wrath of army and the nation came down on him when Sheikh Kamal picked up the wife of Major Dalim and molested her. It was the terminal event that concluded the other crimes that were destroying the country keeping Sheikh Mujib in an apparent darkness by his associates. The country also experienced the worst famine in 1974. On 15 August 1975, Mr Tofail Ahmed was in-charge of JRB. If you kindly recall, the name of Tofail came in the front page of Daily Ittefaq as one of the accused in Sheikh Mujib murder case once the case was initiated by AL government for the first time. It was because under his leadership, JRB failed to react against the mutiny and surrendered without firing a single bullet at the Second Capital (Agargaon). Tofail changed his face immediately after the killing. He was also accused of walking over the dead body of Mujib in an apparent attempt to show his loyalty to the mutineers and thereby saving his own life. However, for mysterious reasons, the name of Tofail later disappeared from the list of accused. His same face of betrayal emerged again after 1/11, when he voiced out anti-AL comments in the national media against Sheikh Hasina to save himself from Joutho Bahini. Unfortunately AL has failed to assess this traitor, and has taken him back in the election 2008.

If army officers could be thrown out of BDR and BCS officers could be taken in, then BDR could become another Rakhkhi Bahini for AL. Please recall the cabinet meeting on 25th February 2009. It was discussed that 27th BCS and another Special BCS would be taken into BDR. Can you guess who made the proposal? None but Mr Tofail Ahmed! Would you please believe that a list of about 200-300 BCS cadres was prepared for induction into BDR as Special BCS? One day God will definitely let this truth see light. We have to wait and see how BDR is reorganized in the long run by AL. However, so far, under the pressure of army officers, AL is yet to work out inclusion of BCS officers in reshaped BDR.

It must be mentioned that AL eyed BDR for conversion into Rakhkhi Bahini quite a few years ago. A lot of BDR troops are dismissed from service every year for corruption. Only real culprits and offenders are sent home, because the trial in BDR is not political. Unlike the armymen, BDR troops have the right to appeal in civil court. As in Bangladesh, whether the dismissed BDR troops would get back their job depends on the political government in power. Out of such about 1100 appeals during the BNP regime between 1991 and 95, less than 25 sacked BDR troops got back their jobs. Conversely, between 1996 and 2001, AL reinstated about 2000+ sacked BDR troops. To whom these criminals would remain indebted for the rest of their lives? Definitely AL. So, it was not surprising that the disciples of those reinstated troops shouted “Joy Bangla” on 25th February at Peelkhana. But, if asked now, none of the officers who were forced to take the decision of reinstating the sacked BDR troops in the face of AL pressure would admit their part in giving back job to the sacked criminals of BDR.

BDR troops were being deprived too much of illegal money since 2002 as talented army officers started to join BDR. Newly promoted colonels, considered to be the most promising future leaders of the army, started to join BDR on their promotion. Colonels Reza, Gulzar, Imam, Emdad, Nakib, Aftab were such promising talented officers known in the entire army. Following this trend, the earning from share of smuggling in BDR came down sharply. The ADs and DADs of BDR, who rise from the ranks of sepoy, were the worst sufferers. It was easy for them to make the young BDR troops compare the past with the present and future. The past was full of money, the present offered very little illegal money, and the future was bleak if army officers continued to lead them. They desperately needed a change. A change that could take out army officers from BDR. An obvious choice was BCS officers to replace the armymen. BCS officers are not psycho-physically and emotionally trained to lead a para-military organization like BDR. It would also be difficult for them to lead BDR during border skirmishes where physical fitness and knowledge on military tactics and weapon handling are vital. Recall the experience during Ershad regime when he tried to train newly recruited ASPs for 1 year in Bangladesh Military Academy. The aim was to build a strong police force. But even the police officers could not sustain the psycho-physical hardship of BMA due to age and other factors and the idea had to be abandoned under tremendous uproar. The ADs, DADs and the AL thought that if the BCS officers were taken from AL cadres, then it could be an orgy of cross-border corruption and illegal money, as a bonus to the re-creation of Rakhkhi Bahini.

ALL AIMS CONVERGED INTO PEELKHANA

All the aims of RAW, AL, corrupt BDR troops and anti-army psyche converged wonderfully to a single aim—destroy BDR and army. It was a complex strategy to cause Bangladesh to “collapse within”. Unthinkable corruption by Tareq Zia and his associates, including his black money investment of thousands of crore taka in Malaysia and elsewhere, added additional advantage to usher in the collapse. Followings were to ensure it:

Creation of 1/11. It would cause destruction of the capitalism that was about to usher in rapid industrialization[iv] in Bangladesh. In addition, uprooting the small entrepreneurs from the roadsides and villages would cause alienation of the army from the general people who otherwise adore and love Bangladesh Army. Who all were the owners of small tea-stalls and vendor shops along the road sides in entire Bangladesh? They were the poor people who were left unattended by the government to survive at their own. The poor people occupied small pieces of khas land to erect little shops investing from as low as a few thousand takas to 50000 or above. They were the self-employed people, a vital economic force at the grass root level. Why on earth it was a major part of the agenda of the caretaker government to destroy these harmless entrepreneurs? They were keeping many “have nots” employed and contributed to the national GDP. Their destruction was to create poverty and crime. Still, the foolhardy caretaker government concentrated in their destruction instead of focusing on some other issues, like collection of revenue that was overdue from the large entrepreneurs amounting thousands of crore taka. Making black money white could also ensure normalization of the dark market and could make a new beginning. But 1/11 was aimed to ensure “collapse within”.

Destruction of BDR and its reconstruction suiting to the need of BSF.

Destruction of the army, breaking the backbone of morale of the army officers.

Peelkhana came as the obvious choice after 1/11. General Moeen U Ahmed[v], surely a RAW agent[vi], forced the emergency following the decision taken during Manikganj Conspiracy in early January. AL and BNP were in quagmire as their naked faces were being publicized to the entire world. Fortunately for them, US withdrew her back-up on Indian plea, as part of the total plan, and asked Moeen to reverse his effort. Moeen had only one choice: bring AL to power or face a disgraceful exit and trial for corruption. It was then that the Peelkhana was chosen for revenge by RAW. If you kindly recall, Jahangir Kabir Nanak fled to India and remained there until it was safe to come back in late 2008. He was the contact of AL with RAW for the entire planning. That is why he came to the forefront of negotiation on 25th February despite having no relation with BDR, army or Home Ministry. After all, who knew better than him about the entire plan? And who else in the AL was closer to DAD Towhid?
The campaign for Peelkhana massacre began in November 2008 at the hands of Mr Sajeeb Wajed Joy, the schizophrenic son of PM. His article with co-author Carl Siovacco in US accused Bangladesh army and other military and para-military organizations of recruiting thousands of Muslim fundamentalist terrorists. For this type of comment in India prior to an election, the party would have lost peoples’ mandate. Indians would not have tolerated such an anti-nation lie told by the son of the party leader. But for Bangladesh it is always different. It should be, because a single political party considers itself to be the sole proprietor of Liberation War 1971. Joy reiterated that these organizations needed to be revamped in order to rescue the nation. The campaign gained momentum after AL was elected. A group of intellectuals started criticizing army in the TV channels. The discussion against army was at the peak at the Parliament on 24th February. The campaign was given a new color by the para-military organizations and media as suddenly JMB operatives were being captured countrywide in February. The voice of Joy was echoed by the commerce minister Lieutenant Colonel Faruk Khan immediately after the Peelkhana episode was over. The whole country knows about the pregnancy incident of Mukta, the kept of Faruk Khan. Now he is the custodian of investigations! He murdered about 15 innocent civilians in the mid 70s in Rangpur. His wife was teased in a cinema hall. Later he came back with a few soldiers and sprayed bullet on the cinema hall, killing innocent people. Later Sheikh Mujib, the father of the nation, had to go to Rangpur to diffuse the situation.

Unfortunate for Bangladesh, almost nobody knows that 6 young army officers (one major, 3 captains and 2 lieutenants) were martyred fighting against Shanti Bahini in Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT). Do the intellectuals of Bangladesh know how did they die and what are the dates of their death? Do they know 7 JCOs were also martyred? Do they know 312 soldiers gave their lives in CHT? Does the nation know anything about their heroic sacrifice for the nation? Does any university student know how their brothers were dying in the treacherous hills trying to save a beautiful piece of land called CHT? Was their ever a lead news in all the national dailies about the martyred officers, JCOs or soldiers? Does the nation know that one Bir Uttam (posthumous), 16 Bir Bikrams, 69 Bir Protiks and 85 CAS Commendations were awarded to the courageous officers and soldiers of Bangladesh Army for outstanding achievements in CHT? Does the nation ever try to remember the martyrs of CHT on their death anniversaries? Does the nation know that more than one-third of the 1600km road in CHT has been constructed by Bangladesh Army? Do you know each battalion deployed for UN mission earns more than USD 2 million for the government itself, excluding what is earned by the individuals as pay and allowances? All answers are negative. But why? Why the nation doesn’t know all these real-life stories? Why the politicians also don’t know these? Because, it is the political parties who keep the army alienated from the people of Bangladesh. The politicians are afraid that the existing love of the general people for the army would multiply if the people know that army doesn’t only provide them VGF service, disaster relief and rehabilitation, emergency water supply, traffic service at Dhaka and so on and so forth, the army people are also sacrificing their lives both in CHT and in UN missions. That could make a deadly combination of the people and the army. Together they could any time eliminate all betrayer politicians from our soil and give birth to a safer and more prosperous nation.

What do you call this ignorance of facts about supreme sacrifices? If patriotism is the precondition to become a political leader, wouldn’t you call this ignorance a crime against the nation?

By the way, dear readers, do you know who were harboring and nourishing and still harboring the insurgents in CHT? India. Just along the reverse U border on the tip of Khagrachari, there are 23 Shanti Bahini training camps, leaving aside the rest of the border of CHT. Kindly note that the worst failure of RAW in its entire history of Bangladesh chapter was its inability to annex CHT with Tripura. If somehow India could let the Shanti Bahini win autonomy from us, then it would be a piece of cake to gradually capture CHT. You don’t need to capture a piece of land physically if you have free access to all the resources and economy of that area.

And India would never dare to militarily capture and hold Bangladesh under her control. It is not because we are militarily superior for our alliance with China. It is because if India makes Bangladesh her part, she has to feed 160 million ill-fed mouths and take care of the large percentage of unemployment. Instead, India can capture the economy of Bangladesh by installing government of her liking (like Sikkim) and fetching more benefit than if Bangladesh were part of India physically. A street vendor would understand this. But if you ask the Indian-foot-licking people of Bangladesh, they would raise their eyebrows in astonishment and say, “For God’s sake, how on earth people are insane enough to say something so obnoxious against mother India?” Ungrateful intellectuals indeed!! Just wait and see. India’s effort worth billions of rupees for more than two decades in CHT seemingly went futile due to interest of AL. However, the peace accord was just the end of Part 1, just a travesty. Bangladesh is yet so see what is India and RAW. Surely enough, within a decade or two, Bangladesh will witness with horror the resurrection of Shanti Bahini with a new get up and with greater prowess. Nevertheless, if AL stays in power for long, India may not outwardly revamp Shanti Bahini, instead will adopt indirect approach to suck everything out of Bangladesh. We have not forgotten what Indian Army took away after our liberation. They didn’t even spare the regulators of ceiling fans from cantonment barracks to be looted, and also took away shit-pot (bodna) from barrack toilets!!

Anyway, having understood the interest of the stakeholders of Peelkhana massacre, let us now see how the carnage was artfully planned.

THE PLAN

You might know that the BDR Week 2009 was postponed initially. Then it was decided that it would take place under the new DG BDR. Brigadier General Moinul Hossain was informed of his coming assignment as DG BDR. He was then in the National Defense College. Later, the BDR Week was given a go from Home Ministry for reasons unknown, but known now.

The plan was aimed at achieving the following short-term objectives, the long-terms yet to be unearthed:

To make BDR politicized and ineffective in the borders and at the same time making it a parallel force against the army. Thereby:

i) Reinstate the illegal Indian cross-border trade worth approximately USD 6 billion a year, with the surety of yearly expansion. That includes arms, drugs, weapons, explosives and low-quality goods that are custom-made for the poor, innocent and simple Bangladeshis.
ii) Keep a constant psychological rivalry between army and BDR and let a particular political party fish in the murky water.
iii) To take a two-way revenge for 15th August 1975 assassination and Roumari-Podua deaths of BSF. (May call it Alindia Conspiracy! Alindia=AL + India)
iv) To ensure India’s avenge of her primary failure to annex CHT with Tripura through Shanti Bahini’s attempt of winning autonomy. (The grudge is against Bangladesh Army.)
v) To teach Bangladesh Army a frightening lesson for its actions during and after 1/11.
vi) To destroy the morale and faith in command of the junior officers of Bangladesh Army by simply not allowing any military action on 25th February.

The plan had 2 parts. Let’s name them Plan A and Plan B.

Plan A. This was an overt plan. It was decided that there would be a hostage situation in BDR Darbar Hall on 25th February. The angry BDR troops would make all officers attending the darbar hostage and put forward their demand of ration, pay, UN mission etc, a total of 22 points. PM would then send CAS, Sahara and Nanak to negotiate. The demands of BDR would be met, making all negotiators heroes. It was quite obvious that DG BDR himself knew part of this plan. He had no choice but to accept the risk. Otherwise he had to face trial for his wife’s failed attempt to leave the country with Tk 6 Crore (or more) in late 2008. The wife of General Moeen rescued her and Major Mahbub (later Mahbub left the job and went to UK). There was an obvious share of CAS Moeen in that money. The tricky part of the plan, not known to DG BDR, was that he and DDG may be shot in the legs if the points were not met immediately. Plan A was known to CAS, new DG DGFI Mollah Fazle Akbar, DG NSI Monir, army CGS Sina, Lieutenant Colonels Quamruzzaman (communication in-charge BDR), Shams CO 44 Rifles, Mukim, Salam (Paramilitary wing DGFI). Plan A was a decoy. This plan was also known to most BDR troops stationed at Peelkhana. They were ready to force the hostage situation, demand withdrawal of army officers from BDR and realization of other 21 demands. Their false grievances against army officers were framed on a piece of paper that was to be faxed on 25th February to CAS Moeen’s secretariat, DG DGFI office and PM office and other important offices and media by Lieutenant Colonel Mukim.

What is the proof that DG BDR knew something was coming? The leaflet[vii] of BDR reached the hands of Commanding Officer RSU (Rifles Security Unit) Lieutenant Colonel Enshad Ibn Amin (martyred) on 21st February morning. He immediately rushed to DG BDR Shakil with a copy of the leaflet. General Shakil told him to make a counter leaflet and circulate immediately. On 23rd February, it was found out that three sub-machine guns were missing from the armory (kote) at Peelkhana. Following that discovery, officers were put on duty in the armory. And still the PM visited Peelkhana on 24th February!!! You know SSF ensures that the firing pins of all weapons on duty are removed when PM visits a military or para-military outfit. Even officers posted as guard commanders for PM are not allowed to have a weapon that can be fired. Only PGR and SSF officers carry usable weapons with ammunition. If this is the level of security for a PM visit, how come the PM visited Peelkhana on 24th February, where 3 machine guns were already reported missing? Officers are never given duty in the armory unless the situation is grave. Knowing what was about to unfold, the PM cancelled her planned dinner on 26th night at Peelkhana.

Plan B. This was an exclusive covert plan of the big evil brains and the masterminds. It was the pure and raw RAW. About 15 foreign gunmen were hired. They entered Bangladesh not on 11 January as reported in some dailies, but after 19 February 2009. A few of them entered through the Benapole border on 21st February when it was open for 5 hours for people of both sides willing to exchange greetings. They carried 16000 sweets to Dhaka out of the 1 lac sweets offered by the West Bengal government on the occasion of Ekushey February. The plan was deadly but simple. The gunmen would get their BDR uniform tailored by a civilian tailor (the tailor shop and person were traced by RAB during the initial investigation). As the BDR troops would execute Plan A, these hired killers would suddenly move in and kill about half of the red-tapers (Colonel and above). Then they would force other mutineers (Plan A party) to join them in the killing spree. They were to use a Bedford truck and enter through Gate 4. Another pick up was used to take in the arms and ammunition they were to use. These arms and ammunition were purchased by Haji Selim in mid February. This was spotted by a Prothom Alo journalist, who in turn went to NSI and informed that something was cooking up against Peelkhana involving BDR and politicians. But NSI warned him not to talk to anyone else. NSI itself also kept mum from the open forum. Frequent meetings took place involving BDR and Mirza Azam, Haji Selim, Nanak, Taposh and Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir. Torab Ali acted as a link between the BDR troops and Taposh, Nanak, Mirza Azam and Sohel Taj. The initiation of involvement of Taposh was during his election campaign. About 5000 BDR voters are registered under Dhaka-12 constituency of Taposh. BDR troops contacted Taposh via Torab Ali, AL president of Ward-48 under Dhaka-12. They assured Taposh that “Boat” would win at Dhaka-12 and all BDR voters would vote for him. At that point, 5000 votes meant a hell of a number. In return, BDR wanted their demands to be met. Taposh agreed and while the planning for the Peelkhana was being finalized, Taposh agreed that somehow he would assist BDR so that they were safely through with the mutiny and their demands realized. In the election, however, Taposh won by a big margin (126,780 to 69,494); which he could otherwise have won without BDR support. But his aim was not only to win the election, he had different motive as a member of the Sheikh family, which you can guess logically. The last meeting before the massacre was held at the place of Torab Ali in the evening on 24th February. Final oath of about 24 BDR key killers was taken at the Dhanmondi residence of Fazle Noor Taposh on the same day at night. Torab Ali and his son leather liton acted as the administrative support and safe house for the planners. There was a little problem with leather liton as he was apprehended by RAB on 10 January 2009 on a lot of criminal charges. Fortunately Taposh and other AL leaders could ensure his safe release by the end of January 2009. Sohel Taj was given the responsibility to ensure safe return of the killers to Middle-east, London and USA. It was decided that BG flight 049 would be used, if require it will be delayed to ensure safe exit of the foreign killers. A series of meetings were held at the residences of Taposh, Nanak and Mirza Azam with the key group of BDR killers lead by the DADs. One of such meetings was held at the Banani residence of Sheikh Selim on 13th February. Sohel Taj, also a resident of Banani, joined the meeting. After finalizing some issues and his duties overseas, Sohel Taj reportedly left for USA on 18th February. But we are confirm that Taj didn’t go to USA, rather he first visited India. As known by the entire nation, Taj was in USA during 25th-26th February. This is a blunt lie and bluff. He was at Dhaka at that time. On 28th February he was flown to Sylhet by an Army Aviation Helicopter in the evening and the same night he left for abroad by plane from Osmani Airport. Make a guess who was one of the pilots of that helicopter… It was Lieutenant Colonel Shahid, the unfortunate pilot who later died in the chopper crash with Major General Rafiqul Islam, GOC 55 Infantry Division. Do you accept the death of Lieutenant Colonel Shahid as a coincidence? It’s up to you. The final meeting of the hired killers was held at hotel Bab-Al-Shams in Dubai sometime on or near 19th of February. The meeting was attended by a Russian don Lazar Shybazan and a host of other Indians. The main focus of the meeting was to finalize the action and payment plan for Peelkhana massacre. Another meeting of the financiers was held at International Club (IC), Gulshan at Dhaka in early January, where the younger brother of Sohel Taaj attended. Plan B was known to the PM, Sheikh Selim (who was not available in his house on 25th and 26th February), Nanak, Taposh, Sohel Taj, Mirza Azam, Haji Selim, Abdul jalil, Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir and a few others. Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir, Jahangir Kabir Nanak and Mirza Azam were in favor of total annihilation of officers at Peelkhana. As they approached PM, she initially was hesitant about the mass killing. However, PM herself gave the final nod for eliminating DG, his wife and Colonel Mujib before one week of the deadly mutiny (this piece of information was extracted by the young officers of RAB at TFI cell on the night of 12th April during interrogation of key BDR killers). However, CAS was told not to be emotional if DG and his wife were shot dead accidentally. His silence denoted his acceptance and approval. It was a good option for CAS because it would eliminate his partners of crime in the failed attempt to smuggle out Tk 6 crore (or much more). Nobody could then link CAS Moeen and his wife to that attempt. Plan B was also known to the key BDR personnel including DAD towhid, DAD jalil, DAD habib. Reportedly RAW pumped in about Rs 60 crore for the entire operation. It was Nanak’s responsibility to ensure the complete annihilation of army officers inside Peelkhana and it was the responsibility of Taposh, the local MP, to ensure the escape of BDR killers through Hazaribagh and Jhigatola area. Nanak was also responsible, along with local MP Taposh, to ensure safe exit of the hired killers by ambulance on 25th night, and the escape of the entire Peelkhana killers by 26th February. That is he instructed through miking that all residents of that area to keep out of 3km radius of Peelkhana. The ambulances to be used for the extrication of the hired killers were from Red Crescent hospital, led by an AL sympathizer, and from the clinic of the personal physician of the PM. On their way to the airport, the killers would be shifted to microbus (the number plates are with RAB. Probably fake plates were used). Hindu BDR men were carefully chosen and given duty in a way so that they could take part in burning the bodies of the officers to eliminate evidence (Monoranjan was such a BDR man). Success of Plan B totally depended on the ability of the government in preventing army to go in for a military solution and obliterating maximum evidence of murder from Peelkhana. That is why Nanak was given the responsibility to assume command inside Peelkhana. He is the person who ensured that the Darbar Hall was cleaned by BDR sweepers and maximum bodies were buried into mass graves during the darkened night of 25th and 26th February. All these he ensured by deliberately switching off the power line inside Peelkhana. Logically it seems that there was a contingency to meet any army action inside Peelkhana. CAS would be immediately sacked and all BDR sectors would be asked to kill the army officers. Then government would declare a vague ‘civil war’ situation and Indian Army would get in by air. To generate sympathy of world media in favor of the mutiny, Joy told world media on 26th February (Al Jazeera) that BDR mutiny was due to the corruption of army officers. Traitor son of a traitor mother indeed!!

To keep the BDR troops in good humor and in full faith about Tk 15-17 crore was distributed in Peelkhana between early and late February. Tk 4 lac was fixed per officer’s head and the total money was redistributed. The killer group of BDR, who were fixed before, had a much larger payment. The killers who joined later enthusiastically didn’t receive any additional payment during or after the massacre. The distribution of money for Plan A participants was mainly through the connections of Fazle Noor Taposh, and the payment for the DADs and the main killer group was handled by Nanak. Payment for the hired killers was arranged by Sohel Taj and Joy, some advance made in Hotel Bab-Al-Shams in Dubai earlier.

Contingencies. You know that always there has to be a contingency to every plan. It means what to do when a plan goes wrong, which normally does. So, what was the contingency for Peelkhana massacre plan? Here we consider only two of the contingencies:

If the Nation Knows about AL Involvement in Peelkhana Massacre, what to do?

A totalitarian effort involving newly-posted foot-licking officers of RAB, DGFI and Police would be used to create a fake link with JMB, Jamaat and BNP or any mafia group to the massacre. In addition to that, astonishing it may seem, appointment of Sahara Khatun was an artful deception by AL to meet this unforeseen situation. But why? A part of the buildup was under her inexperienced eyes. When BDR troops were contacting Nanak, Taposh, Taj and Mirza Azam with their demands and when they were getting their leaflets approved from them, the PM was approached and she instructed her partymen to send the BDR troops to discuss the issue with their Home Minister Sahara Khatun. As they approached Sahara Khatun with their points, she gave them a hearing and said that the points would be seen later. Unfortunately for Sahara, her culprit brother got entangled in the issue and allowed secret meetings of BDR and the AL leaders in his Hotel Imperial. The trap was complete. If ever the nation comes to know about the link of AL with the killers, Sahara would be linked to that and removed from her ministry, and actual Home Minister would replace her. So, in effect, Sahara Khatun is a decoy of AL. What if Nanak and others are also indicted in the Peelkhana massacre by the media and peoples’ opinion of Bangladesh (since investigations will surely spare them)? That was planned to be tackled by the art of gambit in chess. Sending Nanak to Singapore for a fake chest-pain treatment on 1st April from Labaid hospital was just the beginning of many gambits that the nation would witness.

What if the army retaliates on 25th and storms into Peelkhana to rescue their comrades and families? What answer AL would give to India for spending so much Indian money and brain of RAW for planning the massacre?

If army retaliated against 25th February massacre, Indian army, with the help of Indian air force was to get inside Bangladesh as an assisting force to the SOS call of PM (this was declared at a press conference by Indian foreign minister). This, together with the mutiny in all BDR units, would destabilize the entire country. This situation had been destined to be termed as “civil war” by the government, seeking foreign assistance. Indian Air Force was ready at Jorat Air Base in Assam with heavy lift and medium lift aircraft and 30,000 troops (statement of Indian newspapers known to all). More so, if at all army stormed in violating the government’s illegal order of not to do so, CAS Moeen would be sacked immediately along with other generals and officers involved in the supposed military intervention. Following that CAS Moeen would be put before trial for violating the PM’s order and also for the crimes he committed during the national emergency. This wonderful contingency silenced criminal CAS Moeen from even thinking about a military intervention to solve the mutiny issue swiftly. Moreover, in the event of a military intervention, BDR killers would be killed and captured. Then the government would have invested another Tk 5 Crore into the pockets of a few “yellow journalists” and propagate the message to the nation that the intervention was done without the PM’s consent and that some “innocent” BDRs were killed for their “right cause”...just what AL did after Padua and Roumari. The rest of the contingency plan could not be unearthed as yet. We have to wait and see what AL offers to the nation as the contingencies, if at all required.

Plan A and Plan B combined made the entire plan of Peelkhana massacre. This plan, executed with ruthless and cruel betrayal, became the worst possible single-event carnage of military officers in the entire history of mankind. Bangladesh may not hold any world record for outstanding achievements, but surely she will painfully shoulder this agony—the agony of a fratricide synonymous to social cannibalism.

EPILOGUE

Peelkhana massacre is not the end in itself. There are far-reaching plans and objectives, the beginning of which was on 25th February. However, that part has been kept out of the purview of this article.

No link with Nanak, Mirza Azam, Taposh, Sohel Taj, Haji Selim, Mohiudding Khan Alamgir and Abdul Jalil has been found in the inquiries so far and CID inquiry would produce the same. They will remain out of justice despite being the masterminds and traitors to the nation. All evidences against them have been destroyed. That is one of the many reasons for delaying submission day of investigation reports. The aim was simple: destroy actual evidence and create new evidence; block evidences from military investigation. After all, creating new evidence would take more time than the time required to destroy actual evidence, isn’t it? Only AL activist linked to Peelkhana would be the ward commissioner Torab Ali, who will be jailed for a few years for being part of the conspiracy. He may also be eliminated to conceal all AL connection with Peelkhana for good. But truth can never be destroyed. Truth shall prevail.

A few BDR killers will be hanged, but most of the killers will be jailed. This will be done deliberately as the impotent Kahhar Akhand has been brought back from LPR and given the job, despite of the fact that he contested in the last election for the post of an MP!! 24 types of crimes were committed in Peelkhana. No witness will bear the humiliation at the court for proving one kind of crime.

If situation worsens beyond the control of AL, the collaborators would slip into India. The aim will be to save Sheikh Hasina and Awami League, not the nation or the face of justice. Else, a few of AL lawmakers would be removed from their minister-ship on charges of failing to handle the mutiny correctly. Surely, one such scapegoat for AL will be Sahara Khatun.

It is most likely that AL, in collaboration with RAW, will stage bomb attacks or similar anarchies all over the country, panicking the general mass about JMB and creating hatred against Islam in the country. This will also be a diversion for taking peoples’ minds away from Peelkhana trial. AL surely has chalked out other plans of diversion in coordination with RAW. The nation will be fooled again.

The present AL government is outrageously overconfident in dealing with the nation. It is already clear how AL is bringing down the price of rice by accelerated import from India and at the same time putting our poor farmers into financial peril by not taking care of the buying price of the Boro production. AL is also desperate enough to bring in India if threatened by internal situation. Pronob of India already said, “India will not tolerate any attempt to touch the hair of Sheikh Hasina.” So, it is no more India, it is India+AL against Bangladesh. Indian foreign secretary came discreetly to Bangladesh on 12th April, which was kept secret from the press initially. But the smart press people broke in. The secretary met PM, Foreign Minister, Home Minister, CAS Moeen and others. The purpose was simple: coordinate the future plan and discuss the latest instructions of RAW. And still the intellectuals of Bangladesh will praise AL government and lick the foot of their Indian parents. AL is about to reward the garments workers by providing them rice on OMS. This is in gratitude of the help they provided to AL during the pre-1/11 period by carrying out destruction and creating unrest at Dhaka.

It is nothing new for AL. Awami League was the introducer of “burning people alive” in Bangladesh. A bus full of passengers was set afire near Syedabad in 1995-96. Before that incident, such crimes were found in Assam, but never in Bangladesh. Sheikh Hasina is the leader of AL, the party who sent abroad Century Manik to avoid trial after he came into the media limelight. If you kindly recall, Manik openly celebrated his 100th rape of Jahangirnagar University girls by cutting cake in a party with his accomplices. Rape is not uncommon in society, but it is regarded as a crime even under warring conditions. We would request the entire learned community of Bangladesh to find out one example from the history of mankind where “100 girls of a university are raped by a single political activist over a long period of time, and he celebrated it openly with his accomplices like a birthday. Later, as a reward for creating such a history, that rapist is sent abroad by the head of the government of that country.” We have something more to add about the killing psyche of AL. Dr Afsarul Amin, a minister of present AL government, and his accomplice Dr Bakhtiar, were responsible for the killing of the daughters of the Principal of Chittagong Medical College in late 1970s. They were the President and GS of student body of CMCH. They tried to kill the Principal as he was the only bar for their completion of MBBS. But unfortunately, when they tried to shoot the Principal in his residence, the daughters of the Principal were killed. Afsarul Amin and Bakhtiar were sentenced to death and the sentence was upheld by Supreme Court. However, later President Abdus Sattar granted them President’s mercy in the early 1980s. That convicted killer Mr Afsarul Amin is now a minister of Bangladesh! Dr Bakhtiar was working in the Middle East in the administration of a hospital, lately he joined in a memorial hospital in Chittagong. As such, it is not surprising that AL will kill and rape the nation a

nd sell the wrecked country to India in a way that would not be felt by the innocent mass of Bangladesh, who will feel contented with rice at Tk 16 per kg.

What about BNP and Jamaat and other parties? Don’t worry! BNP took the level and magnitude of financial corruption to a new incomprehensible height in Bangladesh led by Tareq Zia and his associates. BNP sucks out money and ensures murder of the nation by politicization of government machineries; and AL kills people and ensures molestation of the nation by politicization of the entire government and non-government machineries. Most of the politicians of the country are self-seeking animals; they give a damn to what happens to the nation and the people who elect them. No party is patriotic in Bangladesh. Only the degree of betrayal with the nation varies from party to party. More so, the nation will not be surprised if BNP and AL strike a compromise keeping Peelkhana issue in one side and the other issues against BNP and its allies, including the house at Moinul road, on the other. God only knows when Bangladesh would have a truly patriotic political party, where the percentage of betrayal would be almost zero. We are, some time, forced to think that AL and BNP have an underhand liaison to destroy the entire nation and make their fortune.

Please note that AL will want another internal clash in the army that would separate the officers and troops. India, along with US, would eagerly await an opportunity to enter militarily into Bangladesh for a brief period in the guise of Multi-national Force. Surely enough, bewildered Bangladeshis will observe with horror the emergence of AL as another Rajakar force in that situation.

And finally, CAS Moeen might be rewarded with the ambassadorship to USA or UN. If so, he will become the most corrupted Bangladeshi culprit-cum-criminal ever to represent our beloved land on foreign soil.

So, justice remains at the discretion of the people of Bangladesh, and of course, the ultimate justice is surely with the Omnipotent Creator. Shall we never be lucky enough to see justice on our piece of beautiful land?

What we shall do? How long we shall have to keep saying, “Bangladeshey jonmoi amar ajonmo paap!”?

Thank you very much for your time.

Research Team. 1st June 2009.

Is there any courageous patriotic media-person who could translate this article into Bangla and publish it in any newspaper with a disclaimer saying, “The opinions and information expressed in this article are not of the editor or any other correspondent of this paper”…

[i] As the GOC 24 Infantry Division, Moeen managed 75% of the expenditure of his daughter’s marriage from army fund! Each brigade and unit was tasked to provide goats, cows, chicken, rice, and decoration from private funds. East Bengal Regimental Centre was tasked to organize the marriage ceremony. And this man gives speeches about anti-corruption and dishonesty!
[ii] Lately DGFI has circulated anonymous letter to many army officers defaming Brigadier General Nasir. Probably he will be ruthlessly sorted out by the present government.
[iii] Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) is the prime Indian intelligence agency working abroad. Other agencies operating inside Bangladesh are Intelligence Bureau (IB, which trains and harbors terrorists), Special Security Bureau (SSB, which operates on behalf of RAW), Special Frontier Force (SFF, which carries out special subversive missions) etc. One of the meeting places for RAW operatives in Bangladesh is the Indian Cultural Centre at Mohammadpur, Dhaka.
[iv] Creation of 1/11 was a RAW job in connivance with USA and Israel. It needs broad elaboration, which we hope to circulate later. However, the truly learned persons know for sure that 1/11 was indeed an Indo-US-Jew creation.
[v] General Moeen, in collaboration with Major General ATM Amin ex DG DGFI, orchestrated an election in 2008 to bring AL in power. Ballot boxes filled in with pre-sealed AL ballots were handed over by DGFI in some crucial seats of the country. That’s why ATM Amin was pardoned from the inquiry against him as he had 2 Sub-machine Guns in his jeep when he attended the BDR Parade reviewed by PM. The nation also knows about the pre-casting of 30% votes in collaboration with the polling officers in many centers all over the country.
[vi] You need not to “swear in” to become a RAW agent. By actions you would be unknowingly working for RAW. That’s the beauty of RAW strategy.
[vii] First published in Amader Shomoy, a daily financed and partly sponsored by DGFI.

The Next Osama

2009-09-11T12:01:00.005+07:00

On the eighth anniversary of 9/11, it's time to finally confront al Qaeda's scary move toward modernization -- and the charismatic sheikh who is leading the way.

BY JARRET BRACHMAN |

SEPTEMBER 10, 2009

Eight years after the September 11 attacks -- years that have seen many precious lives lost and an overwhelming expenditure of effort and money -- the battle against al Qaeda still continues, and it is still not clear whether America is winning or not. As I give talks on this topic to everyone from undergraduate students to counterterrorism practitioners to community groups, I am invariably asked whether there is a winner in the war on terrorism. Questioners are almost always dissatisfied with my answer: "It depends."

But this is the only answer I can give, because the terms of the question are out of date. If you're asking whether the United States has defeated al Qaeda, you also have to ask: Which al Qaeda are we talking about? The senior leaders operating somewhere in the tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan? The al Qaeda franchises around the world, most notably in Iraq, Algeria, and Yemen? Or the global ideological following, sparked by al Qaeda, calling itself al Qaeda, but not technically affiliated with al Qaeda? If you ask about winning, you have to also ask whether winning means killing the organization or just handicapping it. Does it refer to destroying al Qaeda's military capabilities, or to mitigating al Qaeda's ability to win hearts and minds around the world?

As these questions suggest, over the last eight years al Qaeda has undergone a metamorphosis. It has transformed from a global terrorist group into a global terrorist movement, one with its own founding fathers, well-codified doctrine, substantial and accessible corpus of literature, and deep bench of young, bright, and ambitious commanders. Attacks still matter to them, but in an era of increased counterterrorism pressure, al Qaeda is beginning to realize that it is a lot more effective at being a movement, an ideology, even a worldview. It is starting to see that terrorism is only one of many tools in its arsenal and that changing minds matters more than changing policies.

In other words, the al Qaeda that we are fighting in 2009 is not the same al Qaeda that we went to war with in 2001. Unfortunately, however, our own mindset has remained mostly unchanged.

Much of al Qaeda's evolution over the last eight years is embodied in one man, Sheikh Abu Yahya al-Libi, director of al Qaeda's jurisprudence committee and a likely successor to Osama bin Laden. Young, media-savvy, ideologically extreme, and masterful at justifying savage acts of terrorism with esoteric religious arguments, Abu Yahya offers the global al Qaeda movement everything that its old guard cannot.

Details about Abu Yahya's life are sparse, but a basic timeline can be pieced together from al Qaeda's published interviews with him as well as the published insights offered by his current and former colleagues. Growing up in Libya, Abu Yahya (whose real name is Muhammad Hasan Qaid but who is also known as Yunus al-Sahrawi) was a bright and affable young man. For at least a period of time, he attended Sebha University in Libya, majoring in chemistry. At some point during the late 1980s or in 1990, Abu Yahya left his home country and traveled to Afghanistan, where he settled in Logar province. During that time, he joined the nascent Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), a faction of Libyans who had fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan and were hellbent on violently overthrowing Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi. Abu Yahya's older brother was a senior LIFG leader.

Abu Yahya must have shown promise because, around March 1992, LIFG's leadership dispatched him to Mauritania, where he was instructed to pursue advanced religious studies under some of the country's most prominent clerics. After several years of intensive religious study, Abu Yahya returned to Afghanistan, likely around mid-1996, where he saw combat near the eastern city of Jalalabad and became a well-known religious voice within the LIFG organization. At some point between 2001 and 2002, he took up a position in Karachi, Pakistan, as a webmaster for the Taliban's Al-Imarah al-Islamiyah Web site, a job that offered him important insights into the power of new media for reaching out to young people.

He was arrested by Pakistani intelligence on May 28, 2002, and was eventually transferred to Bagram prison in Afghanistan, where he passed time by intimately studying his American captors as they aimlessly surfed the Internet or complained to him about their dysfunctional childhoods. In a June 2006 interview with al Qaeda's media outlet, As-Sahab, he said that he found American soldiers to be "cowardly," "lost and alienated," and a "mix of doctrinal, behavioral, moral, and ideological deviation." He also used the time to learn the security protocols of the prison.

On July 10, 2005, Abu Yahya and three of his fellow detainees stuffed their beds with sheets and changed out of their bright orange prison outfits into less conspicuous blue prison garb that they had hidden in their cells. The group picked the lock of their cell door and then escaped, at one point walking through the Bagram base posing as U.S. soldiers carrying furniture. Shimmying under the perimeter's concertina-wire barrier, they then journeyed for days through the Afghan countryside until finally making contact with the Taliban.

Almost immediately, Abu Yahya hit the media circuit, using his dramatic escape as a means to gain fame and infamy. His releases have included countless feature-length videos, multiple extended monographs, numerous articles, and even a published photo shoot. In many ways, al Qaeda "rolled out" Abu Yahya as a marketing firm might do a new product. And he has been welcomed with open arms by the global terrorist movement.

Whether he's shown traipsing through valleys, target shooting with his buddies, reciting poetry on a mountaintop, or breaking bread with his students, Abu Yahya seems to have made al Qaeda "cool" for a younger generation. His formal religious training has allowed him to credibly and aggressively defend al Qaeda's attacks and assail his enemies in a way that bin Laden and his deputy, the former medical doctor Ayman al-Zawahiri, don't always have the theological background to do.

There is no doubt that when bin Laden and Zawahiri die or are captured, al Qaeda's global movement will look to Abu Yahya to seize the reins. He has become the obvious heir apparent. But with Abu Yahya at its helm, al Qaeda is certain to become a far more frightening enemy.

Al Qaeda's primarily Egyptian senior leadership founded and built the group on principles of elitism and secrecy. The leaders saw themselves as the vanguard, the tip of Islam's last and only spear. Their doctrine was restrictive and exclusionary. Their bureaucratic structure was stifling and micromanaging. They saw themselves as terrorists' terrorists, and acted the part.

A lifelong student with an easy smile and a gift for gab, Abu Yahya sees the world quite differently. For him, al Qaeda's fight is not just about unseating Arab governments or pushing U.S. troops out of the Middle East. In this paradigm, al Qaeda is first and foremost an intellectual and religio-ideological insurgency -- not just a terrorist group. Its goal is to capture the imagination of Muslims worldwide. Abu Yahya is not just trying to make Muslims love al Qaeda (like bin Laden tries to do) or make the "Zionist Crusaders" fear al Qaeda (like Zawahiri does). Abu Yahya's goal is nothing short of remaking Islam from the inside out, and he does so in a candid, compelling, and inherently populist fashion. In other words, what we know about how al Qaeda does business is about to completely change.

Despite the qualitatively different threat that Abu Yahya poses, however, he remains a virtual unknown outside a small circle of counterterrorism professionals in the United States. Of those who do know him, most view him as just another target. Abu Yahya's obscurity to senior policymakers -- and the similar obscurity of al Qaeda's other young guns who are modeling themselves after Abu Yahya -- is more than an oversight. It reflects a continued and pervasive ignorance across the U.S. government about the kind of war in which the United States is engaged. This is a fight in which ideas have become the new center of gravity.

If America is serious about defeating al Qaeda, U.S. government agencies will need to expand and prioritize the translation and study of strategic and ideological communiqués, which often hold the most insightful nuggets about al Qaeda's strengths and vulnerabilities. Government agencies have not been pushed to think "great thoughts," in large part because they lack the staffs and the budgets, and due to the operational necessities of their missions. This is precisely why the Barack Obama administration would be well-advised to invest serious time and money into expanding current efforts. We must combat Abu Yahya's al Qaeda today before it takes us by surprise tomorrow.

Tibetan Area a Tinderbox for China-India Tensions

2009-09-04T12:58:00.005+07:00

The New York Times – September 4, 2009

TAWANG, India — This is perhaps the most militarized Buddhist enclave in the world.

Perched above 10,000 feet in the icy reaches of the eastern Himalayas, the town of Tawang is not only home to one of Tibetan Buddhism’s most sacred monasteries, but is also the site of a huge Indian military buildup. Convoys of army trucks haul howitzers along rutted mountain roads. Soldiers drill in muddy fields. Military bases appear every half-mile in the countryside, with watchtowers rising behind concertina wire.

A road sign on the northern edge of town helps explain the reason for all the fear and the fury: the border with China is just 23 miles away; Lhasa, the Tibetan capital, 316 miles; and Beijing, 2,676 miles.

“The Chinese Army has a big deployment at the border, at Bumla,” said Madan Singh, a junior commissioned officer who sat with a half-dozen soldiers one afternoon sipping tea beside a fog-cloaked road. “That’s why we’re here.”

Though little known to the outside world, Tawang is the biggest tinderbox in relations between the world’s two most populous nations. It is the focus of China’s most delicate land-border dispute, a conflict rooted in Chinese claims of sovereignty over all of historical Tibet.

In recent months, both countries have stepped up efforts to secure their rights over this rugged patch of land. China tried to block a $2.9 billion loan to India from the Asian Development Bank on the grounds that part of the loan was destined for water projects in Arunachal Pradesh, the state that includes Tawang. It was the first time China had sought to influence the territorial dispute through a multilateral institution. Then the governor of Arunachal Pradesh announced that the Indian military was deploying extra troops and fighter jets in the area.

The growing belligerence has soured relations between the two Asian giants and has prompted one Indian military leader to declare that China has replaced Pakistan as India’s biggest threat.

Economic progress might be expected to bring the countries closer. China and India did $52 billion worth of trade last year, a 34 percent increase over 2007. But businesspeople say border tensions have infused business deals with official interference, damping the willingness of Chinese and Indian companies to invest in each other’s countries.

“Officials start taking more time, scrutinizing things more carefully, and all that means more delays and ultimately more denials, “ said Ravi Bhoothalingam, a former president of the Oberoi Group, the luxury hotel chain, and a member of the Institute of Chinese Studies in New Delhi. “That’s not good for business.”

The roots of the conflict go back to China’s territorial claims to Tibet, an enduring source of friction between China and many foreign nations. China insists that this section of northeast India has historically been part of Tibet, and should be part of China.
Tawang is a thickly forested area of white stupas and steep, terraced hillsides that is home to the Monpa people, who practice Tibetan Buddhism, speak a language similar to Tibetan and once paid tribute to rulers in Lhasa. The Sixth Dalai Lama was born here in the 17th century. The Chinese Army occupied Tawang briefly in 1962, during a war with India fought over this and other territories along the 2,521-mile border.

More than 3,100 Indian soldiers and 700 Chinese soldiers were killed and thousands wounded in the border war. Memorials here highlighting Chinese aggression in Tawang are big draws for Indian tourists.

“The entire border is disputed,” said Ma Jiali, an India scholar at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, a government-supported research group in Beijing. “This problem hasn’t been solved, and it’s a huge barrier to China-India relations.”

In some ways, Tawang has become a proxy battleground, too, between China and the Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader of the Tibetans, who passed through this valley when he fled into exile in 1959. From his home in the distant Indian hill town of Dharamsala, he wields enormous influence over Tawang. He appoints the abbot of the powerful monastery and gives financial support to institutions throughout the area. Last year, the Dalai Lama announced for the first time that Tawang is a part of India, bolstering the India’s territorial claims and infuriating China.

Traditional Tibetan culture runs strong in Tawang. One morning in June, the monastery held a religious festival that drew hundreds from the nearby villages. As red-robed monks chanted sutras, blew horns and swung incense braziers in the monastery courtyard, the villagers jostled each other to be blessed by the senior lamas.

At the monastery, an important center of Tibetan learning, monks express rage over Chinese rule in Tibet, which the Chinese Army seized in 1951.

“I hate the Chinese government,” said Gombu Tsering, 70, a senior monk who watches over the monastery’s museum. “Tibet wasn’t even a part of China. Lhasa wasn’t a part of China.”

Few expect China to try to annex Tawang by force, but military skirmishes are a real danger, analysts say. The Indian military recorded 270 border violations and nearly 2,300 instances of “aggressive border patrolling” by Chinese soldiers last year, said Brahma Chellaney, a professor of strategic studies at the Center for Policy Research, a research organization in New Delhi. Mr. Chellaney has advised the Indian government’s National Security Council.

“The India-China frontier has become more ‘hot’ than the India-Pakistan border,” he said in an e-mail message.

Two years ago, Chinese soldiers demolished a Buddhist statue that Indians had erected at Bumla, the main border pass above Tawang, a member of the Indian Parliament, Nabam Rebia, said in a session of Parliament.

Tawang became part of modern India when Tibetan leaders signed a treaty with British officials in 1914 that established a border called the McMahon Line between Tibet and British-run India. Tawang fell south of the line. The treaty, the Simla Convention, is not recognized by China.

“We recognize it because we agreed to it,” said Samdhong Rinpoche, prime minister of the Tibetan government-in-exile. “If China agreed to it now, it would be a recognition of the power of the Tibet government at that time.”

China has grown increasingly hostile to the Dalai Lama after severe ethnic unrest in Tibet in 2008. This year, it turned its diplomatic guns on India over the Tawang issue. China moved in March to block a $2.9 billion loan to India from the Asian Development Bank, a multination group based in Manila that has China on its board, because $60 million of the loan had been earmarked for flood-control projects in Arunachal Pradesh. The loan was approved in mid-June over China’s heated objections.
“China expresses strong dissatisfaction to the move, which can neither change the existence of immense territorial disputes between China and India, nor China’s fundamental position on its border issues with India,” Qin Gang, the Foreign Ministry spokesman, said in a written statement.

In May, weeks after China first tried to block the loan, the chief of the Indian Air Force, Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi, now retired, told a prominent Indian newspaper that China posed a greater threat than Pakistan.

Another official, J. J. Singh, the governor of Arunachal Pradesh and a retired chief of the Indian Army, said the next month that the Indian military was adding two divisions of troops, totaling 50,000 to 60,000 soldiers, to the border region over the next several years. Four Sukhoi fighter jets were immediately deployed to a nearby air base.

Since 2005, when Prime Minister Wen Jiabao of China visited India, the two countries have gone through 13 rounds of bilateral negotiations over the issue. A round was held just last month, with no results.

“The China-India border has got to be one of the most continuously negotiated borders in modern history,” said M. Taylor Fravel, an associate professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is a leading expert on China’s borders. “That shows how intractable this dispute is.”

Five Important Revelations from the CIA Inspector General Report

2009-08-25T09:19:00.002+07:00

Michael Scherer

TIME - August 24, 2009

After years of delay, the CIA declassified a raft of documents Monday, with lots of detail about the Bush Administration's harsh treatment of detainees following the September 11 attacks. The biggest document, with the most new detail, is a 2004 report by the CIA Inspector General (CIA IG) that is highly critical of the CIA's enhanced interrogation program. Here are five new things you need to know about the disclosures:

1. The CIA IG concluded that the public had been misled about the interrogation program. While the report stops short of accusing any public official of lying, it makes clear that the public statements that the U.S. Government made about its conduct differed from what was actually happening, creating a liability for the CIA if the information ever got out. “The EITs [Enhanced Interrogation Techniques] used by the Agency under the CTC [Counterterrorist Center] Program are inconsistent with the public policy positions that the United States has taken regarding human rights,” the report reads. In particular, the IG notes that President Bush on June of 2003 issued a statement in observance of the “United Nations International Day In Support Of Victims of Torture.” The report quotes Bush's statement at length, including this assertion: “The United States is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight be example.” Later in the report, the IG writes: “Although the current detention and interrogation Program has been subject to DoJ [Department of Justice] legal review and Administration political approval, it diverges sharply from previous Agency policy and practice, rules that govern interrogations by U.S. military and law enforcement officers, statements of U.S. policy by the Department of State, and public statements by very senior U.S. officials, including the President.”

2. The CIA IG found that the CIA used waterboarding in a way that had not been approved by the Justice Department, calling into question the legality of the technique. In one passage, the IG notes that the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel had approved the waterboarding of detainees based on the assumption that the waterboarding would be similar to the practice used in a U.S. military training program. The IG quotes medical experts at the CIA asserting that the “the [U.S. military] waterboard experience is so different from the subsequent Agency use as to make it almost irrelevant.” An interrogator/psychologist who had designed the program admitted the difference, saying the CIA use of waterboarding was “for real.” The differences included duration, frequency, the amount of water used, and the way air passages were obstructed.

3. The CIA IG repeatedly brought what it viewed as abuses or violations of law to the attention of Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Justice Department, without any positive result. After a review of the program determined that one detainee had been waterboarded “in a manner inconsistent with” the description of the technique in military training and in the Justice Department legal guidance, the matter is brought directly to Ashcroft by the CIA general counsel. According to the report, Ashcroft disagreed with the CIA IG assessment. Ashcroft responded by telling the CIA that he saw no problem with waterboarding one detainee 119 times, deciding that the “CIA is well wintin the scope of the DoJ opinion and the authority given to CIA by that opinion.” This is not the only difference of opinion between the Justice Department and the CIA IG. At another point, the IG reports to prosecutors that one CIA employee had threatened a detainee with a powerdrill and a handgun, both unauthorized techniques for which he did not seek approval. The Justice Department announced its decision not to prosecute this CIA employee on September 11, 2003, exactly two years after the attacks on New York and Washington D.C.

4. The CIA IG concluded that while high-value detainees did produce valuable intelligence, the measurement of the effectiveness of harsh interrogation techniques “is a more subjective process and not without some concern.” The CIA lists four reasons for this muddled view. First, “the Agency cannot determine with any certainty the totality of the intelligence the detainee actually possesses.” Second, “each detainee has different fears of and tolerence for” harsh techniques. Third, “the application of the same” harsh technique “by different interrogators may have different results.” The fourth reason that the CIA IG found the effectiveness of harsh techniques could not be known objectively remains classified, and was redacted on the released document.

5. The initial harsh interrogation program, begun in 2002, was poorly managed, some interrogators were poorly trained and informed, and they used techniques that were substantially harsher than what had been approved by the White House and the Justice Department. “[T]he Agency—especially in the early months of the Program—failed to provide adequate staffing, guidance, and support to those involved with the detention and interrogation of detainees,” the report states. There were a number of episodes when people working for the CIA behaved outside of approved techniques. Perhaps the most serious case involved an Afghan citizen, who had been implicated in rocket attacks on U.S. military bases. Once captured, in June of 2003, the suspect was held at a military base. “During the four days the individual was detained, an Agency independent contractor, who was a paramilitary officer, is alleged to have severely beaten the detainee with a large metal flashlight and kicked him during interrogation sessions.” The detainee died in custody. The contractor, who had not been trained or authorized to conduct interrogations, received a relatively light punishment. He did not have his contract renewed by the CIA.

RAW involvement in East Pakistan

2009-08-24T19:13:00.003+07:00

Written by David Miller Smith

Pakistan Daily – August 24, 2009

US report details direct RAW involvement in East Pakistan secession

A sensational American report has confirmed the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), India’s most powerful intelligence agency, was directly involved in the secession of East Pakistan into Bangladesh, and is currently engaged in similar activities. RAW has a long history of activity in Bangladesh supporting both secular forces and the area’s Hindu minority, masterminding the break up of Pakistan in 1971, says the report made available The report has been prepared by the innocent sounding Federation of American Scientists (FAS), a group which is however engaged in analysis and advocacy on science, technology and public policy concerning global security, especially about countries which have nuclear capability.

It is a privately funded non-profit policy organisation, whose Board of Sponsors includes 55 American Nobel laureates. FAS was originally founded as the Federation of Atomic Scientists in 1945 by members of the Manhattan Project, who produced the first atomic bomb. RAW is extensively engaged in disinformation campaigns, espionage, sabotage and terrorism against Pakistan and other neighboring countries, reveals the sensational secret report. It also gives details of the truly alarming involvement of RAW in terrorist activities in Pakistan. The report reveals the involvement of RAW in Bangladesh dating from the 1960s, when it promoted dissatisfaction against Pakistan in the then East Pakistan, including funding Mujibur Rahman’s general election in 1970 and providing training and arming to the Mukti Bahini. The report claims an estimated 35,000 RAW agents have entered Pakistan at various times between 1983-99, with 12,000 having worked in the past or working presently in Sindh, 10,000 in Punjab 8,000 in North West Frontier Province and 5,000 in Balochistan. “As many as 40 terrorist camps are currently operating at Rajasthan, East Punjab, [occupied] Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh and other parts of India and are run by RAW’s Special Service Bureau [SSB],” the report reveals. The report further confirms that throughout the Afghan War, RAW was responsible for the planning and execution of terrorist activities in Pakistan to deter Islamabad from supporting the Afghan liberation movement against India’s ally, the Soviet Union.

“The assistance provided to RAW by the KGB enabled RAW to arrange terrorist attacks in Pakistani cities throughout the Afghan War,” the report says. “The defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan did not end the role of RAW in Pakistan, as it established training camps in East Punjab, [occupied] Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan where agents are trained for terrorist activities,” it reveals.

It further says that RAW has become “an effective instrument of India’s national power, and has assumed a significant role in formulating India’s domestic and foreign policies.” RAW, according to the report, has enjoyed the backing of successive Indian governments in these efforts.

Working directly under the Prime Minister, the structure rank, pay and perks of the Research and Analysis Wing are kept secret from parliament.

“Current policy debates in India have generally failed to focus on the relative priority given by RAW to activities directed against India’s neighbours versus attention to domestic affairs to safeguard India’s security and territorial integrity,” the report says. It points out that RAW has had limited success in dealing with separatist movements in Manipur and Tripura in the northeast, Tamil Nadu in the south and Punjab and Kashmir in the northwestern part of the country.

RAW, it adds, has failed to neutralise freedom fighters in Kashmir and similar indigenous movements in Kerala, Karnataka and other places, along with economic and industrial espionage activities in New Delhi and Bombay. Giving a background of the intelligence agency, the American report says RAW was set up in 1968 “specifically targeted on Pakistan”.

Pakistan, the report says, has accused RAW of sponsoring sabotage in its Punjab province, where it has been supporting the Seraiki movement, “providing financial support to promote its activities in Pakistan and organising an International Seraiki Conference in Delhi in November December 1993″. It adds: “RAW has an extensive network of agents and anti-government elements within Pakistan, including dissident elements from various sectarian and ethnic groups of Sindh and Punjab.”

According to it, India is funding the current upsurge of terrorism in Pakistan “and has been behind the sectarian violence between Shias and Sunnis, which has resulted in thousands of deaths in the last few years.” Terrorist activities in Pakistan attributed to the clandestine activities of RAW in the report include:

A car bomb explosion in the Saddar area of Peshawar on 21 December 1995, which caused the death of 37 persons and injured over 50 others.

An explosion at Shaukat Khanum Hospital on 14 April 1996, claiming the lives of seven persons and injuries to over 34 others.

A bus traveling from Lahore to Sahiwal was blown up at Bhai Pheru on 28 April 1996, causing the deaths of 44 persons on the spot and injuring 30 others.

An explosion in a bus near the Sheikhupura Hospital killed nine persons and injured 29 others on 08 May 1996.

An explosion near Alam Chowk, Gujranwala on 10 June 1996 which killed three persons and injured 11 others.

A bomb exploded on a bus on GT Road near Kharian on 10 June 1996, killing 2 persons and injuring 10 others.

On 27 June 1996, an explosion opposite Madrassah Faizul Islam, Faizabad, Rawalpindi, killed 5 persons and injured over 50 others.

A bomb explosion in the Faisalabad Railway Station passenger lounge on 8 July 1996 killed 3 persons and injured 20 others.

Another startling claim made by the American report is that it was RAW that was behind the hijacking of an Indian airliner to Lahore in 1971, “attributed to the Kashmiris, to give a terrorist dimension to the Kashmiri national movement”.

The report continues: “During the course of its investigation the Jain Commission received testimony on the official Indian support to the various Sri Lankan Tamil armed groups in Tamil Nadu,” the report reveals. From 1981, RAW and the Intelligence Bureau, according to the report, established a network of as many as 30 training bases for these groups in India. Centres were also established at the high-security military installation of Chakrata, near Dehra Dun, and in the Ramakrishna Puram area of New Delhi.

The report says that RAW and the Ministry of External Affairs are provided Rs. 250 million annually as “discretionary grants” for foreign influence operations. “These funds have supported organisations fighting Sikh and Kashmiri separatists in the UK, Canada and the US,” it says.
It further reveals: “An Extensive network of Indian operatives is controlled by the Indian Embassy in Washington, DC whose covert activities include the infiltration of US long distance telephone carriers by Indian operatives, with access to all kinds of information, to blackmail relatives of US residents living in India”. Citing an example, it says that in 1996, an Indian diplomat was implicated in a scandal over illegal funding of political candidates in the US. Under US law foreign nationals are prohibited from contributing to federal elections.The US District Court in Baltimore sentenced Lalit H. Gadhia, a naturalised US citizen of Indian origin, to three months imprisonment. Gadhia had confessed that he worked as a conduit between the Indian Embassy and various Indian-American organisations for funnelling campaign contributions to influence US lawmakers. Over US $46,000 from the Indian Embassy was distributed among 20 Congressional candidates. The source of the cash used by Gadhia was Devendra Singh, a RAW official assigned to the Indian Embassy in Washington, the report says. It adds that illicit campaign money received in 1995 went to Democratic candidates including US Senators Charles S Robb (D-VA), Paul S. Sarbanes (D-MD) and US Representatives Benjamin L Cardin (D-MD) and Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD) — (May 24, 1998).

A $9 Trillion Question: Did the World Get Muhammad Yunus Wrong?

2009-08-19T15:19:00.002+07:00

As Yunus receives the Medal of Freedom and Nobel rumors swirl around Hernando de Soto, it is time to give these two poverty-fighting visionaries another look.

BY PETER SCHAEFER AUGUST 18, 2009

In the development world, Muhammad Yunus and Hernando de Soto are considered saints.
In 2006, Yunus and the Bangladeshi microbank he founded, Grameen, won the Nobel Peace Prize for their pioneering work in microfinance -- a means of providing small loans to the very poor. Last week, U.S. President Barack Obama awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the country's highest civilian honor, commending him for "[unleashing] new avenues of creativity and [inspiring] millions worldwide to imagine their own potential."

In the 1990s, de Soto played a key role in the World Bank's remaking of Peru's economy; today, he serves as the head of Lima's Institute for Liberty and Democracy. He is an intellectual of global importance, perennially on the Nobel shortlist for his advocacy of property rights for the impoverished.

But the brilliant ideas advanced by Yunus and de Soto have had limited real-world impact, and in practical terms, neither of their economic notions has the capacity to remake the world, as is often claimed. Sadly, the honors they have received often hide this hard truth, limiting vital criticism of their work. But, by looking critically at de Soto and Yunus, a way to combine the best of their ideas and solve a multitrillion-dollar poverty problem suggests itself.

De Soto's widely heralded 1986 book The Other Path describes the poor as small entrepreneurs, stuck in a poverty trap because their wealth is informal. In The Mystery of Capital, published in 2000, he estimated that the world's poor held roughly $9 trillion in frozen savings, locked up in unregistered assets, such as homes and businesses.

De Soto's proposed solution was to formalize these untitled homes and other assets. But this policy prescription requires a strong central government, substantial public funding, an efficient apolitical bureaucracy, and major legal changes. In virtually all poor countries -- perhaps except China, with its command economy and centralized government -- this would create opposition from business and government elites that would derail the program, even if such changes were in their long-term interest.

For his part, Yunus has shown that the poor benefit from and can learn how to use credit. Most importantly, he and Grameen Bank demonstrated that the poor do repay their loans. But his ideas have not proven easy to implement -- at least with the massive scale that would be required for them to make more than a symbolic difference for the world's poor.
As of 2004, loans provided by microfinance organizations amounted to just $17 billion worldwide. This is a pittance compared with the potential credit requirements of de Soto's 4 billion poor, most of whom are small-scale entrepreneurs. All capitalists need capital -- but the current system will never provide an adequate amount.

Moreover, most of the existing microfinance credit is subsidized. Very little comes from private, profit-seeking capital markets (as of 2004, just $2.7 billion, or about 60 cents per poor person per year). This is because development banks do not really require collateral for their microloans. They often use subsidized credit, as they generally aren't profit-seeking. But banks backed by private capital markets require collateral. This means that their loans are too expensive for most of the long-term needs of the poor.

For instance, the private Mexican microbank Compartamos charges 100 percent annualized interest -- which, to be fair, reflects the real risk of providing an unsecured loan. But such long-term interest rates cannot encourage capital investment in projects that need time to gestate. And though shorter-term loans with 25 or 50 percent annualized rates beat the street rate, such debt cannot be carried for any length of time. As a result, the pool of global capital is largely inaccessible to poor people. And the solutions proposed by Yunus and de Soto for formalizing the economy of the poor and thus lifting them from poverty prove only marginal.

But there is viable market-based approach that would create a deep pool of capital the poor could tap: the provision of micromortgages, or secured, long-term, low-interest rate microloans. Such loans would not require governments to change their civil codes. They would only have to make narrowly focused legal and regulatory changes; then, they would have to establish registries, licensing private firms to prepare applications for the registration of informal property. In this way, the micromortgage process could become self-funding, helping grow the pool of credit.

How would it work? Let's consider a poor individual living in a house without a title or even an address in Mexico. He hopes to formalize his house. So, he visits a local bank to apply to register his property. To the bank, he represents potential demand for credit -- the bank has incentive to research his claim, help him map his land, assess any improvements, and submit his information to the registry. The bank would do this in return for his loan business and a fee to cover costs.

The bank would then submit the individual's information to the government, ready for entry into an official national digital registry. Were the application accepted for processing, he could take out a form of title insurance from the bank, which could then safely extend credit to the applicant. The modest application fee would be added to his loan principal, allowing him to immediately use the balance for, say, a long-term micromortgage to finance a business.

De Soto estimates that the poor in Mexico already hold well over $300 billion in frozen savings. Modern registries would facilitate micromortgages and so prove to be an enormous economic boon to both businesses and the poor -- all at no great risk or cost for poor governments. Yunus and de Soto offer us real insights into how the poor can, finally, work themselves out of poverty: Yunus shows they need credit and de Soto shows they need to join the formal economy. But we must build on their ideas and combine them in order to develop a more viable way to realize their inherent promise. If the world's poor can gain access to private capital via their formal titles, then we will have a real solution to a $9 trillion problem.

US unfurls Bangladesh minutes: Aug 15: Untold story

2009-08-17T08:58:00.001+07:00

Hasanuzzaman Khan

The New Nation – August 17, 2009

After killing of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on August 15, 1975 Khandoker Mushtaque Ahmed government was worried about possible Indian military intervention in Bangladesh. David Corn US Consul General posted in Calcutta was instructed by US secretary of state Dr. Henry Kissinger to keep watch on General Jacob, the chief of the Indian Eastern Command. US Ambassador in Dhaka Davis Booster said, US Calcutta-based Consul General David Corn was adequately briefed in this regard.

The minutes of the US staff meeting on Bangladesh situation released recently said, the coup in Bangladesh had met a very little resistance. There is no sign of counter rebellion in any part of the country. The US had obtained the information from their separate network which was run by the aid workers. Booster said, it was imperative to let India know that Bangladesh was not declared Islamic republic as it was earlier presumed. Seventy-nine years-old Corn is now leading a retired life in Washington.

The just-released Bangladesh minutes of the US Foreign Ministry revealed that in a meeting in Calcutta on August 16, 1975 Gen Jacob asked US Consul Corn what more he had on the Bangladesh situation? Corn said, coup in Bangladesh was successful. Gen Jacob retorted, he had information that there were some disturbances outside Dhaka. Jacob said, Bangladesh had least chance of attaining stability adding there was still a possibility of counter-coup. He expressed his concern over declaration of Bangladesh as Islamic republic. When Gen Jacob was asked whether there was exodus of minority Hindus from Bangladesh, he parried the question and said they were watching the situation. David Corn said, he again met Jacob on August 24 at Fort William, the headquarter of Eastern Command.Jacob said, the Bangladesh situation appears to be peaceful. But he hastened to add that he had no source other than the media. When asked about movement of Indian troops around Bangladesh border he said, they were not regular troops. They are border security forces, he said. India has no concern on internal situation in Dhaka. India will be concerned if communal divide persists in Dhaka and there was fresh exodus of Hindus from Bangladesh. He ruled out any military intervention in Dhaka unless there was exodus of minority people from Bangladesh.Jacob told Corn that then President of Bangladesh Khandoker Mushtaque was known in India as pro-Pakistani and pro-Chinese.

William B Saxby, a former US senator and US ambassador in India, in his letter said, the situation in Bangladesh in any way should not be construed as a flick. Indian Press was barred from printing editorial on Bangladesh situation. Ninety three years old Saxby is living in Washington. Saxby wanted to know Indian stand on Bangladesh. Indian reply to Saxby's query was that Mushtaque wanted to have some sort of adjustment with Pakistan during the liberation war. Now he will undoubtedly try to improve relation with Pakistan, the Indian reply said.

US said, the foreign policy of Bangladesh will remain mostly unchanged. India, Bangladesh and Pakistan can collectively contribute to restore peace in the sub-continent.Earlier India had apprehension that there would be a coup in Bangladesh. Even an Indian diplomat tried to ascertain that it could have been in August. He named a group of 'disgruntled' politicians led by Mushtaque behind the plot. He also named a sacked military official who could be Major Dalim behind the conspiracy.Dr Kamal Hossain, former foreign minister of Bangabandhu's cabinet, in a recent TV interview said, the Bangabandhu was alerted by the Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on the sideline of NAM summit in Jamaica that there might have been destabilisation move in Dhaka and he may be the target. He brushed off the idea and said there was none in Dhaka who can kill him.

A minute of US staff meeting led by Kissinger revealed the US was aware of the plot to kill Mujib. They also alerted Mujib against the sinister move. Atherton, US Assistant Secretary said, the US had lot of indications in March that some quarters were plotting to kill Mujib. But he was little concerned about it. Kissinger remarked he was one of the world's prize fools.

Atherton naming new Bangladesh leaders said, they are less pro-Indian unlike their predecessors. They did not change the name of Bangladesh as Islamic republic. But they had dropped securalism as state pillar.

Indian foreign minister Y B Chavan had a meeting with US secretary of state Kissinger on October 6 in 1975. Chavan told Kissinger that they were worried about the anti-Indian posture of Bangladesh. Kissinger wanted to know whether Bangladesh Army is anti-Indian. Chavan said, there was some anti-Indians in Bangladesh Army. India expressed her concern that China which had recognised Bangladesh for the first time after killing of Mujib may exploit the new situation in its favour. Chavan sought Kissinger's good offices to put the thing on right tract. India also told Kissinger that they don't want to have any exclusive relation with Bangladesh. But they will oppose a move to give Bangladesh an Islamic twist.Henry Byroad, the US Ambassador in Pakistan, in his update to Washington said, Pakistan seems to be over-enthusiastic in recognising the new government in Bangladesh. It was Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto who quickly secured Pakistani and Chinese recognition for the new government of Bangladesh.

US Ambassador Booster said, Mujib was getting isolated from the people very fast. People's euphoria with the great leader seemed to be over. His telegrams to the State Deptt appear to have been carefully planned so that the course of events of the August 15 coup was not obstructed. Mujib's regime began to suffer from despotic symptoms. Dynastic reasons were also attributed to his fall.

‘India should be divided into 20 to 30 sovereign states’

2009-08-16T09:19:00.002+07:00

The Financial Express – August 16, 2009

INDIAN academics are up in arms over what they regard as provocative incitement of the country's demise by a Chinese essayist."China can dismember the so-called 'Indian Union' with one little move!" claimed the essay posted last week on China International Strategy Net, a patriotic website focused on strategic issues. The writer, under the pseudonym Zhanlue (strategy in Chinese), argued that India's sense of national unity was weak and Beijing's best option to remove an emerging rival and security threat would be to support separatist forces, like those in Assam, to bring about a collapse of the Indian federal state.

"There cannot be two suns in the sky," wrote Zhanlue. "China and India cannot really deal with each other harmoniously." The article suggested that India should be divided into 20 to 30 sovereign states.Such was the outcry about the article that the Indian government issued a statement reassuring the country that relations with China were calm.

"The article in question appears to be an expression of individual opinion and does not accord with the officially stated position of China on India-China relations conveyed to us on several occasions, including at the highest level, most recently by State Councillor Dai Bingguo during his visit to India last week," the foreign ministry in New Delhi said in a statement, referring to mutual pledges to respect territorial integrity and sovereignty.

The publication of the article coincided with talks between Beijing and New Delhi over disputed Himalayan border areas. Earlier this year, China held up funding for an Asian Development Bank (ADB) project in Arunachal Pradesh, an Indian state claimed by China as "south Tibet". India has also banned some Chinese imports as it tries to protect its economy from the global downturn.

Officials in Beijing and Delhi hew to rival visions of the future, each seeing themselves as pursuing the more durable political and social model of development. The presumption in New Delhi is that China's unified, one-party state is bound to break down.

DS Rajan, director of the Chennai Centre for China Studies, brought the essay to his countrymen's attention. "It has generally been seen that China is speaking in two voices," he said. "Its diplomatic interlocutors have always shown understanding during their dealings with their Indian counterparts, but its selected media is pouring venom on India in their reporting."
China International Strategy Net is run by Kang Lingyi, who took part in hacking into US government websites in 1999 following US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Sites such as his are part of the Communist party's strategy to allow nationalism to grow to strengthen its political legitimacy. (FT Syndication Service)

An earlier IANS analysis adds: Written in Chinese, the article, 'If China takes a little action, the so-called Great Indian Federation can be broken up,' is published in the new edition of the website of the China International Institute for Strategic Studies (CIISS), an influential think tank that advises Beijing on global and strategic issues.According to D.S. Rajan, director of the Chennai Centre for China Studies, Chennai, Zhan Lue, the author of the article, argues that the 'so-called' Indian nation cannot be considered as one having existed in history as it relies primarily on Hindu religion for unity.

The article says that India could only be termed a 'Hindu religious state' that is based on caste exploitation and which is coming in the way of modernisation.

The writer goes on to argue that with these caste cleavages in mind, China in its own interest and the progress of whole of Asia should join forces with 'different nationalities' like Assamese, Tamils and Kashmiris and support them in establishing independent nation states of their own.
In particular, the article asks Beijing to support the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), a militant separatist group in the Indian northeast, to it achieve independence for Assam from India.

Furthermore, the article suggests that China can give political support to Bangladesh to encourage ethnic Bengalis in India get rid of 'Indian control' and unite with Bangladesh as one Bengali nation.If this is not possible, the creation of at least another free Bengali nation state as a friendly neighbour of Bangladesh would be desirable for the purpose of weakening India's expansion and threat aimed at forming a 'unified South Asia', the article argues.

The article contends that if the consciousness of 'nationalities' in India could be aroused, social reforms in South Asia can be achieved, the caste system can be eradicated and the region can march towards prosperity.The Chinese strategist suggests that to split India, China can seek support of friendly countries including Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan.

China should encourage Bangladesh to give a push to the independence of West Bengal and recover the 90,000 sq km territory in Arunachal Pradesh, which China calls Southern Tibet, says Rajan who has analysed the article for the Chennai-based think tank.'The write-up could not have been published without the permission of the Chinese authorities, but it is sure that Beijing will wash its hands out of this if the matter is taken up by New Delhi,' says Rajan.

'It has generally been seen that China is speaking in two voices - its diplomatic interlocutors have always shown understanding in their dealings with their Indian counterparts, but its media is pouring venom on India,' says Rajan.

Which one to believe is a question confronting the public opinion and even policy makers in India, Rajan says, adding that ignoring such an article will 'prove to be costly' for India.

India secretly hands over Tipai project to state-owned entity

2009-08-06T21:50:00.002+07:00

Moinuddin Naser

Just prior to the visit of the Bangladesh parliamentary team to India to discuss the Tipaimukh dam issue, India's state-owned hydro-electric entity National Hydel Power Company (NHPC) completed a deal on takeover of the 1,500 mw Tipaimukh hydel project involving Rs 9,000 crore in Manipur from the North Eastern Electric Power Corporation (NEEPCO).

The NHPC also initiated a joint venture, Loktak Downstream Project, with the Manipur state government to construct a barrage for withdrawal of water for irrigation purpose. The hydel project with a barrage component will definitely turn Bangladesh's north-eastern part into a dry region. It is feared that the Bangladesh parliamentary team was not allowed to land at Tipaimukh as the barrage component of the project could be exposed. Though India cares a little about Bangladesh's endorsement regarding the project, they do not want to give the chance of raising a hue and cry on this issue. The NHPC has also entered into talks with the Nepali government for taking up new hydro-electric projects there, which will obstruct the normal flow of the Himalayan rivers enormously.

According to knowledgeable sources, this development in implementing the Tipaimukh Project has made the whole exercise of negotiation between India and Bangladesh over the Tipaimukh project a kind of hoax. India is more than adamant in implementing the project by giving a damn to the demand and the necessity of Bangladesh.

According to a report published in the Indian Economic Times on July 22, 2009 NHPC chairman and managing director Mr S K Garg confirmed the developments relating to implementing the Tipaimukh Dam and said: "The project Tipaimukh will now be developed jointly by NHPC, SJVL (a joint venture) and the Manipur government. This project's foundation stone was laid in 2006 but nothing else has happened since then. This forced the state government to hand it over to NHPC."

"The Manipur government has decided to hand over the project to NHPC. We will hold 69 per cent stake in the company, while SJVL will be holding another 26 per cent. The Manipur government, on the other hand, will hold the remaining 5 per cent stake in the new JV," he added.

The project is estimated to cost about Rs 9,000 crore and NEEPCO, which had originally conceived the idea of the hydel plant, already invested about Rs 5-6 crore in preparing the detailed project report, which has also been approved.

Incidentally, the NHPC has recently formed the other 74:26 JV, Loktak Downstream Project, with the Manipur government for a 66mw project.

Interestingly, the Economic Times report added: The hydel power company has firmed up investments of Rs 70,000 crore till 2020 to emerge a 20,000 mw power company. During the current Five-Year Plan period, NHPC has firmed up plans of investing about Rs 21,000 crore in 11 projects totalling 4,622 mw. During the 12th Plan period, it will take up 16 new projects totalling 14,000 mw, which will require a total investment of Rs 70,000 crore.

However, completion of these 16 projects is likely to linger to the 13th Plan period. "During the 12th Plan period, we will spend about Rs 30,000 crore, of which 70 percent will come from debt, while the rest will be in the form of equity."

"The Centre has allowed the NHPC to divest maximum 24 per cent stake. Next month, when the IPO hits the market, the government's holding will come down to 86.3 per cent. The rest of 10 per cent will be done as and when we require additional funds for our projects," said Mr Garg.

Water resources expert and Adjunct Professor of the Department of Physical and Environmental Sciences, University of Toronto, Dr M Monirul Quader Mirza, said that prior to allowing India to implement the projects certain issues must be resolved. He stressed the need for calling a meeting of the Joint River Commission (JRC) immediately to discuss the issue of Tipaimukh. He said there is no need of any new proposal for a joint study of the Tipaimukh Project, or there is no time to waste for Bangladesh government, rather the problems might be resolved if the JRC could be activated. The decision that was taken in the 14th JRC meeting should be implemented to resolve the issue.

He also said that Bangladesh should enter into an agreement with India on the Fulertal Barrage, water sharing. The water sharing should not be less than the ecological water requirements.

Monipur HPC

The Hmar People's Convention (D) of Monipur in a press release issued on July 28 last said the proposed Tipaimukh Multipurpose Hydroelectric Project is a war imposed on the indigenous Hmar people and various other communities, who share the river downstream as well as upstream.

The power-hungry governments and dam builders in India, who were driven by capitalist interests, in their blind pursuit for profit-making and securing energy in a distant foreign land, are poised to cross into indigenous people's territory to dam the two rivers, Tuiruong and Tuivai, their lifeline. They don't have the approval and consent of the people, in whose land the dam is proposed. We are closely watching their every move, it said.

The HPC (D) shall never tolerate and allow their efforts to bear any fruit, it added. The statement said: The rivers that nursed and fed our honoured generations before shall continue to flow for all the generations to come. We cannot allow the rivers to be disturbed and are obligated to see that no outsiders, their forces and might will dam, destroy or disturb the natural flow of the rivers of life.

It also appealed to the visiting Bangladeshi parliamentary delegates to steadfastly share the concern to save the rivers Tuiruong and Tuivai for all purposes; to work together for collective good; to save the rivers from irreparable damage. The HPC(D) earlier was also responsible for destroying NEEPCO's drilling machine in 2008, said a release from Lalthutlung Hmar, northern command of the Hmar Peoples Convention (Democratic).

Rally in the US

Meanwhile, the Human Rights and Development for Bangladesh held a massive demonstration on July 17 after Jumma prayer in front of the United Nations to protest the Tipaimukh Dam. More than 600 people from New York participated. Among others, the demonstration was addressed by community activists Badrunnahar Mita, Mahtab Uddin Ahmed, Mir Masum Ali, Abdul Hasib Chowdhury, Abu Samiha Md Sirajyul Islam, Professor Nurul Islam, Abdul Kadir Khan, Barrister Golam Mostafa, Mahmudur Rahman, Moulana Delwar Hossen and others.

A memorandum was also handed over to the United Nations on behalf of the demonstrators afterwards.

Meanwhile, another activist, Khondaker Abu Sufiyan organised a seminar in association with the International Centre for Advancement of Bangladesh (ICAB) and another organisation floated by a section of Bangladeshi engineers living in the USA on July 26 last at the Jewish Community Centre in Jackson Heights of New York.

Pushing South Asia Toward the Brink

2009-07-29T10:05:00.001+07:00

by Zia Mian

The contradictions and confusions in U.S. policy in South Asia were on full display during Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's recent visit to India. U.S. support for India, which centers on making money, selling weapons, and turning a blind eye to the country's nuclear weapons, is fatally at odds with U.S. policy and concerns about Pakistan.

By enabling an India-Pakistan arms race, rather than focusing on resolving the conflict and helping them make peace, the United States is driving Pakistan toward the very collapse it fears.

America's New India

In an op-ed in The Times of India just before the start of her visit, Clinton laid out U.S. interests in India. The first item on Clinton's list was "the 300 million members of India's burgeoning middle class," that she identified as "a vast new market and opportunity."

The emerging Indian middle class is large - for comparison, the current total U.S. population is also about 300 million - and greedy for a more American lifestyle. But the focus on India as fundamentally a market for U.S. goods and services, and a source of cheap labor for U.S. corporations, marks a remarkable shift. The United States and other western countries have traditionally seen India as the home of the desperately poor, deserving charity and needing development. But no more. Clinton's article made no mention of India's poor, which the World Bank recently estimated as including over 450 million people living on less than $1.25 a day.

India is also seen as a new emerging power of the 21st century, one that can be an ally of the United States and help it balance and contain the rise of China. Under the Bush Administration, in 2004, the U.S. and India signed an agreement called the "Next Steps in Strategic Partnership." To make India a fitting strategic partner, a senior State Department official later explained the U.S."goal is to help India become a major world power in the 21st century," and left no doubt what this meant, saying "we understand fully the implications, including military implications, of that statement."

India is seeking both to modernize and expand its military forces. It has dramatically increased its military budget, up over 34% alone this year. India now has the 10th-highest military spending in the world. It's becoming a major market for U.S. arms sales. U.S. weapons makers Lockheed Martin and Boeing have already racked up deals worth billions of dollars. But the real bonanza is still to come. India is said to be planning to spend as much $55 billion on weapons over the next five years.

But the big news of the Clinton visit was the announcement of an India-U.S. Strategic Dialogue. This will include an annual formal meeting of key officials, co-chaired by the secretary of State and India's external affairs minister, and including on the U.S. side the secretaries of Agriculture, Trade, Energy, Education, Finance, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and others. But given the difference in the power and range of interests of the two states, this will be no dialogue of equals. The process is intended to align Indian interests and policies in a wide range of areas with those of the United States.

Nuclear India

In her press conference with India's minister of external affairs, Clinton said, "We discussed our common vision of a world without nuclear weapons and the practical steps that our countries can take to strengthen the goal of nonproliferation." But there was no mention here of India's nuclear buildup, or of the United States asking India to slow down or to end its program. In fact, one would never guess from Clinton's remarks that India even had a nuclear weapons program. She seemed interested only in the prospect of U.S. sales of nuclear reactors to India worth $10 billion or more.

India is one of perhaps only three countries still making material for new nuclear weapons. The others are Pakistan and Israel (with North Korea threatening to resume production). India is building a fast-breeder reactor that is expected to begin operation in 2010 and is outside International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. It could increase three- to five-fold India's current capacity to make plutonium for nuclear weapons.

India seeks to become a major nuclear power. On July 26, it launched its first nuclear-powered submarine. India plans to deploy several of these submarines. Last year, it carried out its first successful underwater launch of a 700 kilometer-range ballistic missile, Sagarika, intended for the submarine. India joins the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China in the club of those owning such nuclear-armed, nuclear-powered submarines. Israel is believed to have nuclear-armed cruise missiles on diesel powered submarines.

India is also developing an array of land-based missiles. In May 2008, it tested the 3,500 kilometer-range Agni-III missile, which was subsequently reported to have been approved for deployment with the army, and is working on a missile with a range of over 5,000 kilometer. In November 2008, India also tested a 600 kilometer-range silo-based missile, Shourya. In 2009, India carried out several tests of its cruise missile, Brahmos, which the army and navy are inducting into service.

The U.S. silence on India's nuclear weapons and missile programs is all the more telling, given that it was the Clinton administration that proposed United Nations Security Council resolution 1172. In 1998, this unanimous Security Council resolution called on India and Pakistan to "immediately stop their nuclear weapon development programs, to refrain from the deployment of nuclear weapons, to cease development of ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, and any further production of fissile material for nuclear weapons." The Bush administration ignored it. It seems the Obama administration will too.

Pakistan v. India

Pakistan was noticeable for its near absence from Clinton's agenda in India. It came up only in the context of the need to fight terrorism. Forgotten was the brute fact that India and Pakistan are straining harder than ever in their nuclear and conventional arms race. A Pakistani diplomat responded to the Clinton visit to India by telling The Washington Post that "What Hillary is doing there is probably again going to start an arms race." This race drives Pakistan toward collapse, the very thing the United States fears.

Pakistan is buying U.S. weapons as fast as it can, some paid for with U.S. military aid, with arms sales agreements worth over $6 billion since 2001, including for new F-16 jet-fighters. China, an old ally, is also supplying the country with jet fighters and other weapons. Pakistan is also boosting its nuclear program. It's building two new reactors to make plutonium for nuclear weapons. It continues to test both ballistic missiles and cruise missiles to carry nuclear weapons.

The principal U.S. concern about Pakistan, aside from the country falling apart and its nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Islamists, is the war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and in the border areas of Pakistan. It has been telling Pakistan to focus its military forces and strategic concerns on this battle, which requires moving more soldiers away from the border with India. The generals who command Pakistan's army were bound to resist such a redeployment. They worry about the new U.S.-India strategic relationship, and what it may mean for them when the war on the Taliban is over and the United States no longer needs Pakistan.

The Pakistani army, which rules the country even when civilians are in office, will not easily shift its view of India. The army and those who lead it see the threat from India as their very reason for being. The army has grown in size, influence, and power, to the point where it dwarfs all other institutions in society and would lose much if there was peace with India. But there is a personal dimension as well. The partition of the subcontinent 62 years ago that created Pakistan is in the living memory of many who make decisions in Pakistan. General Pervez Musharraf, who was chief of army staff before he seized power in 1999 and ruled for nine years, was born in India before partition. General Musharraf, along with the current chief of army staff, General Kayani, and others in Pakistan's high command, fought as young officers in the 1971 war against India. The war ended with Pakistan itself partitioned, as East Pakistan became the independent state of Bangladesh, with India's help, and 90,000 Pakistani soldiers captured by India as prisoners of war.

As Graham Usher notes in the new issue of the Middle East Report, before becoming president, Barack Obama seemed to understand that resolving the conflict between India and Pakistan was critical to dealing with the problems in Afghanistan and with the Taliban. In 2007, Obama claimed "I will encourage dialogue between Pakistan and India to work toward resolving their dispute over Kashmir and between Afghanistan and Pakistan to resolve their historic differences and develop the Pashtun border region. If Pakistan can look toward the east with greater confidence, it will be less likely to believe that its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban." There is little evidence that this view has yet informed U.S. policy.

The Reality of Pakistan

In their rush to make money and to preserve American power in the world by crafting an alliance with India, U.S. policymakers seem to have averted their eyes from the reality that stares them in the face in Pakistan. In March 2009, the Director of National Intelligence summed up the situation in Pakistan:

The government is losing authority in parts of the North-West Frontier Province and has less control of its semi-autonomous tribal areas: even in the more developed parts of the country, mounting economic hardships and frustration over poor governance have given rise to greater radicalization...Economic hardships are intense, and the country is now facing a major balance of payments challenge. Islamabad needs to make painful reforms to improve overall macroeconomic stability. Pakistan's law-and-order situation is dismal, affecting even Pakistani elites, and violence between various sectarian, ethnic, and political groups threatens to escalate. Pakistan's population is growing rapidly at a rate of about 2 percent a year, and roughly half of the country's 172 million residents are illiterate, under the age of 20, and live near or below the poverty line.

Things have worsened since then. The Taliban is now seeking to escape U.S. drone attacks and major assaults by the Pakistan army in the Tribal Areas by taking refuge in the cities. There are already no-go areas in Karachi, Pakistan's largest city, where the Taliban controls the streets. Meanwhile electricity riots have exploded in cities across the country, with mobs attacking public buildings, blocking highways, and damaging trains and buses. Each day seems to bring news of some new failure of the state to provide basic social services.

The Obama administration believes that an increase in U.S. aid to Pakistan can help solve the problem. The Kerry-Lugar bill (the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act) approved by the Senate in June would triple economic aid to Pakistan to $1.5 billion a year for five years. But as the Congressional Research Service noted in its recent report on Pakistan, the United States has given Pakistan about $16.5 billion in "direct, overt U.S. aid" up to 2007. More of the same offers little hope for change.

A basic reordering of U.S. priorities in South Asia is long overdue. The first principle of U.S. policy in the region should be to do no more harm. This means it has to stop feeding the fire between India and Pakistan. Only an end to the South Asian arms race can begin to undo the structures of fear, hostility, and violence that have sustained the conflict in the subcontinent for so long. The search for peace may then have at least a chance of success.

Sound the Alarm

2009-07-25T09:25:00.004+07:00

How to stop Burma from getting nukes.

BY CATHERINE COLLINS

Foreign Policy - JULY 24, 2009

When senior Chinese officials arrive in Washington on Monday for bilateral talks on strategy and the economy, they will find a new item near the top of the agenda: U.S. concerns that North Korea is supplying nuclear weapons technology to Burma. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned of this possibility speaking at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations forum this week in Thailand -- a threat she said the United States takes "very seriously." So seriously, in fact, that Clinton will raise the topic when she meets with her Chinese counterpart, State Councilor Dai Bingguo, on Monday, according to officials at the State Department and in Congress. As one official involved in preparations told me, "Burma is very much on the agenda."

The evidence of malfeasance so far is slight: a North Korean ship bound for Burma that turned back when shadowed by the U.S. Navy, photos of tunnels being excavated near the new Burmese capital, and a handful of suspicious export cases. But the motive is there, a government official who monitors the country told me. "Burma's leaders are paranoid and it makes sense that they might look for security in a nuclear weapon," he said. And if the history of proliferation teaches us anything, it is that the best way to stop a covert nuclear program is by ringing the alarm bells early and often.

Indeed, the early stages of what might be Burmese nuclear attempts look eerily familiar. The first leaks about Israel's nuclear program in the late 1950s, which involved several dubious explanations for a suspicious construction site in the desert, were ignored -- and Israel eventually developed the bomb. The same story held true for both India and Pakistan, where results might have been different had the international community reacted to suspicious procurement activities. Then, of course, there is Iran, where the desire for a nuclear weapon dates back to the mid-70s and now it may be too late to stop them. Signs that the present rulers of Iran were buying nuclear technology on the black market in the late 1980s were dismissed because U.S. intelligence thought a bomb was beyond Iran's capabilities.

Today in Burma, some of the basic elements for a nuclear program are, in fact, already in place. After several years of discussions, Russia signed a deal in 2007 to provide Burma with a light-water nuclear reactor, facilities for processing and storing nuclear waste, and training for 300 to 350 Burmese scientists set to work there. While the proposed reactor is not suitable for a weapons program, the deal is still a foot in the nuclear door for one of the world's most repressive and reclusive regimes. Rosatom, Russia atomic agency, told the Associated Press recently that there has been no progress on the deal.

But it's Burma's relationship with North Korea that is causing heartburn now. North Korea has been selling conventional weapons like artillery and small arms to Burma for years; the Burmese tend to pay in badly needed rice. But worries that the relationship moved into the nuclear arena surfaced two years ago after North Koreans were spotted unloading large crates and heavy construction equipment near the site for the planned Russian reactor. Concerns increased in June when photographs and videos appeared in the press showing that North Korean helped dig hundreds of vast tunnels in Burma between 2003 and 2006, in an operation codenamed "Tortoise Shells." The purpose of the tunnels, which were built outside the new Burmese capital of Nay Pyi Taw, remains unknown.

It all might seem like thin gruel for accusing the two countries of embarking on a nuclear weapons program, no matter how obliquely Clinton leveled the charge. And there is very little chance that Burma is anywhere near having the bomb. But if these tiny clues add up to nuclear ambitions, there is indeed cause for alarm -- not least because the world is simply not well-organized to contain nuclear weapons. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty provides no punishment for signatories who are caught, and U.N. resolutions do not carry sufficient force to deter would-be proliferators. Iran is Exhibit A for the failure of the NPT and U.N. sanctions. The International Atomic Energy Agency? It's hardly equipped to deal with smuggling activities and procurement networks. Smuggling by Pakistan's rogue scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, eluded the IAEA for nearly three decades, during which time he helped his own country, North Korea, Iran, and Libya all obtain nuclear material.

So given the gaps in the international system, cooperation among key countries, particularly nuclear-weapons states, is essential for deterring nuclear aspirants. In this case, the United States and China are the lucky ones who will have to sort out how to keep North Korea from giving Burma nukes.

Fortunately, no country has more leverage with North Korea than China, which supplies much of the food and oil that keep the regime in Pyongyang afloat. So far, China has been reluctant to exercise its influence because Beijing fears that destabilizing North Korea will send a massive wave of refugees streaming across the border. But Clinton will try to persuade China that the time for diplomatic timidity is over. Kim JongI Il, the ailing North Korean dictator, needs to understand that helping Burma's military junta obtain nuclear weapons technology is a step too far. The two countries should share intelligence between them and with the IAEA. Tough sanctions and interdiction should be on the table to punish and isolate the transgressors.

There is reason to be hopeful that early efforts can do the trick. Past attempts to stop proliferation have been successful when the United States and others have acted on the first intelligence warnings about nuclear aspirations in Taiwan, South Korea and Ukraine. "None of these countries completed the programs it began; all were quietly nipped in the bud," Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center and a former Pentagon counter-proliferation official, wrote in 2004 in The Weekly Standard. Quiet U.S. diplomacy and threats of exposure helped prevent those threats from ever materializing.

For the Obama administration, early success with Burma would have another silver lining, on top of keeping Burma nuke-free: The effort could serve as an example for what might happen to Iran should it fail to turn back from its own nuclear ambitions. And while a nuclear weapon may be merely a mirage in Burma, it is a tangible possibility for Iran. That makes the test case all the more urgent.

Why Fears Of A Muslim Takeover Are All Wrong

2009-07-17T00:18:00.001+07:00

Analyzing the forecasts of an emerging 'Eurabia,' hostile to America and western values.

William Underhill

NEWSWEEK

From the magazine issue dated Jul 20, 2009

To listen to Europe's far right, it would be easy to conclude that the continent is poised for another round of bitter conflict with a centuries-old adversary. "The first Islamic invasion of Europe was stopped at [the battle of] Poitiers in 732. The second was halted at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Now we have to stop the current stealth invasion," argues Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom, which claims that Islamic doctrine encourages terrorism.

It's rabble-rousing stuff. But underlying Wilders's polemic is an argument shared by many more mainstream right-leaning thinkers on both sides of the Atlantic. Europe, its will sapped by secularism and anything-goes tolerance, has allowed decades of mass immigration without serious challenge. Too feeble to defend their own values, governments have been ready to appease Muslim opinion and must expect the worst. The argument has been gaining ground for some time—fed by alarmist and highly speculative projections from writers like the Canadian Mark Steyn, author of the bestselling America Alone—that immigration and high birthrates could mean that Muslims will make up 40 percent of Europe's population by 2025. Similar and very public warnings have come from American diplomat Timothy Savage, who claimed that forecasts of a Muslim majority in Western Europe by midcentury "may not be far off the mark" if present trends continue, which would heighten the risk of conflict. The British historian Niall Ferguson has written that "a youthful Muslim society to the south and east of the Mediterranean is poised to colonize—the term is not too strong—a sene-scent Europe." And the American journalist Christopher Caldwell forecasts that an "anchored" and "confident" Islam looks likely to impose its will on an "insecure" and "relativistic" European culture. The gloomiest commentators, including Steyn and the conservative Ameri-can writer Tony Blankley, talk of an emerging "Eurabia" hostile to American interests and in thrall to Islam.

These warnings chime with public fears that Europe has already become an incubator for worldwide terrorism. After all, the September 11 hijackers plotted in Germany, and homegrown terrorists were involved in the Madrid and London attacks. Concern is growing that a swelling immigrant population resistant to assimilation or integration will steal jobs and strain public services. Last year a Pew poll found that about half of respondents in Spain and Germany held negative views of Muslims. In Spain the figure had climbed 15 points, to 52 percent, since 2004. In the June elections to the European Parliament, Wilders's party won 17 percent of the national vote in the Netherlands. The anti-immigrant British National Party, which warned of the "creeping Islamification" of British society, won its first two seats. In Austria the right-wing Freedom Party almost doubled its share of the vote, at 13 percent.

Alert to the public mood, European governments, which are now almost entirely center-right, have been slamming doors to further immigration from Muslim countries and elsewhere, and have reinforced the message that Muslim Turkey is not welcome in the European Union. Italy is now in the process of approving a bill that will jail landlords for leasing properties to undocumented immigrants. Last month French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared the burqa to be "a sign of subservience" that "would not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic."

But all this obscures a simple fact: the rise of a Eurabia is predicated on limited and dubious evidence. A much-cited 2004 study from the U.S. National Intelligence Council outlines a number of possible scenarios. Its most aggressive is that the number of Muslims in Europe could increase from roughly 20 million today—about 5 percent of the population—to 38 million by 2025. But that projection turns out to be attributed to "diplomatic and media reporting as well as government, academic, and other sources." In other words, it's all speculation based on speculation—and even if it's accurate, it would still mean the number of Muslims will represent just 8 percent of the European population, estimated by the EU to be 470 million in 2025. Indeed, if there is a surge ahead, its scale looks overstated. "There is a quite deliberate exaggeration, as has often been pointed out—but the figures are still being cited," says Jytte Klausen, an authority on Islam in Europe at Boston's Brandeis University.

Coming up with a reasonable estimate for the percentage of Muslims now living in Europe, let alone making projections for the future, is a virtually impossible task. The number of illegal immigrants is unknown and, in a sign of the sensitivity of the issue, many countries including France and Germany do not even tally census data on the religion of legal residents. It is true that the Muslim minority is destined to grow steadily in Europe, especially given the youthful profile of today's immigrants. Fertility rates remain higher among Muslim immigrants than among other Europeans, and Muslims may continue to arrive in Europe in large numbers. But the alarmists assume that past patterns are sure to hold. "The worst of the scaremongering is based on the assumption that current behavior will continue," says Grace Davie, an expert on Europe and Islam at the University of Exeter in Britain.

For the number of Muslims to outnumber non-Muslims by midcentury, it would require either breeding on a scale rarely seen in history or for immigration to continue at a pace that's now politically unacceptable. More likely, new controls will slow Muslim immigration. The birthrate for Muslim immigrants is also likely to continue to decline, as it has tended to do, with greater affluence and better health care. There is no Europewide data available, but one study says fertility rates among Turkish-born women in the Netherlands fell from 3.2 in 1990 to 1.9 in 2005, barely above the figure for native-born Dutch. Over the same period, the equivalent figure for Moroccan-born women in the Netherlands dropped from 4.9 to 2.9. Also, fertility rates are edging upward in some Northern European countries, which would offset some of the Muslim growth. Bottom line: given the number of variables, demographers are loath to make predictions about the number of Muslims in Europe in the years to come. "You would almost have to make it up," says Carl Haub, the senior demographer at the Population Reference Bureau in Washington. And the idea of a Muslim majority any time soon? "Absolutely absurd."

Moreover, the myth of Eurabia implies the existence of a united Islam, a bloc capable of collective and potentially dangerous action. The truth is that there are no powerful Muslim political movements in Europe, either continentwide or at the national level, and the divisions that separate Muslims worldwide, most obviously between Sunnis and Shiites, are apparent in Europe as well. Each major nation in Europe has drawn Muslim immigrants from distinct regions of the Islamic world, often former colonies, with different traditions and outlooks. A British Muslim from Pakistan would struggle to communicate with a French Muslim from Algeria. A second-generation Muslim from Turkey living in Germany will have little in common with a newly arrived Moroccan across the border in Belgium. Sharp differences exist even within national frontiers. In Germany, more than one in 10 Muslims are Alawites, who aren't even recognized as coreligionists by the more orthodox.

In areas of personal morality, attitudes vary markedly, too. One recent Gallup poll found that more than 30 percent of French Muslims were ready to accept homosexuality, compared with zero in Britain. Almost half of French Muslims believed sex between unmarried people was morally acceptable, compared with 27 percent of German Muslims. And violent zealotry is for the tiny minority: polls repeatedly reaffirm that Muslims overwhelmingly disapprove of terrorism. In some countries, the mood is broadly secular. "The majority of Muslims in France are, in fact, decoupled from their religion. They just blend into an amorphous mass of brown or black people," says Ali Allawi, the former Iraqi defense minister and author of the The Crisis of Islamic Civilization. Jochen Hippler, a German political scientist at the University of Duisburg-Essen, says he has had young Turks come up to him to ask what Islam is all about. "They have lost any connection with the religion of their parents and grandparents," he says. A recent government survey showed that 40 percent of Iranians living in Germany identified themselves as having no religion, as did 23 percent of North Africans. In the Netherlands, the proportion of Muslims who regularly attend the mosque—27 percent—is lower than the proportion of Protestants who go to church.

For that matter, there's little evidence that Muslims themselves see any contradiction between allegiance to the state and their religious faith. An overwhelming majority of Muslims in France and Germany told Gallup's pollsters that they believed Muslims were loyal to their country. British and German Muslims were more likely than their countrymen to say they were confident of the judicial system and financial institutions and the honesty of elections. It seems that if Europe is in the throes of revolution, many of the supposed combatants appear strangely content with the established order.

Nation enters dangerous crossroads

2009-07-11T07:46:00.000+07:00

M. Shahidul Islam

Bangladesh now stands at a very critical juncture of history amidst gradually-built anti-Indian feelings reaching the extreme point, while the Government's passive, meek and subservient attitudes towards 'Indian wish lists' are making things even worse.

Not only policies must be changed to save the nation from an impending spasm, the evolving geopolitical snapshots must be viewed from historical perspectives to unearth the plausible reasons of why so much of Indian influence is pervading into our national affairs.

As Delhi strives desperately to anchor its destiny on geographic hegemony, gaining an upper hand on water resources is the course India is set to pursue to optimize its gains. The Tipaimukh dam construction project is one of such major steps.

In the ancient world, water despotism was established in the fertile river valleys of Egypt, China, and Mesopotamia. In China, during the so-called Warring- States- Era, the Qin State created the Chengkuo Canal for geopolitical advantage over its local rivals. In Eurasia, successor state hegemonies were established in the Middle East by using the Sea -- successively or simultaneously -- by the Greek, Persian and Ottoman powers.

Later, Portugal, Spain, France, and Britain established their hegemonic centres around the Atlantic Ocean to shape global history and civilization by controlling geography.

Yet, despite geography having determined the long and short term objectives of hegemony since time immemorial, collective human spirit managed to overcome subservience and brought end to such dominations of one particular nation or group by the other. The demise of ancient China's Pax Sinica and Europe's Pax Romana are no different than the termination of Pax Britania and Pax Americana in modern times.

Regionally, the power wielded by the Mongol Empire and Japan's Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere too ended tragically.

Like human beings, all hegemony is mortal and transient.

Hegemony and subservience

One of the most discernible symptoms of hegemony is the naked subservience of the sub-cultural entities, or their representatives. It is, therefore, is of little surprise that our Water Resources Minister, Ramesh Chandra Sen, said on July 6 that the 'Tipaimukh Dam will be beneficial for Bangladesh.' Surprising it may not, but it does provoke our angst and makes us more concerned about the nation's present and future.

Ironically, during the same briefing, the concerned Minister said he did not see the information reportedly handed over to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by Indian authorities. That too he need not; none knows better than him that it's a fait accompli.

Power hungry nations do not abide by law, more often than not. For decades, Delhi had pursued a nuclear policy without showing any regard for international conventions relating to the matter. Likewise, defying international laws has become official Indian policies in many fields.

For example, in a letter on February 1, 2001, (Letter No.2/WCD/2001/DT (PR) Vol.-III) prepared by Indian Water Resource Ministry in response to the final report of the World Commission on Dams (WCD), the Ministry informed the WCD, "The guidelines for development suggested by WCD in the Final report are wholly incompatible with our development imperatives. Having made impressive strides since independence in developing our water resources, India proposes to continue with its programme of dam construction."

Order from without

That is why we feel disgusted that the sycophancy of Awami League (AL) government's Water Resource Minister Ramesh Sen has dwarfed the puppetry of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, or his cabinet colleagues. Even the fractured Afghan nation and its puppet regime do not dare to vouch for the USA as doggedly as did Bangladesh's Water Resource Minister Sen for India. For politicians, public interest is what matters.

Interestingly, not only did the Water Resource Minister fail to study the technical papers and information to reach at such a definitive conclusion about the impact of the Tipaimukh Dam on our people, he has also blatantly gathered audacity to pull the heavy Indian cart by saying in public that the Dam will be beneficial for Bangladesh. This proves that our ministers have no qualm left for what in politics is known as 'concern for vote bank.'

Police attack

It's not also a coincidence that the minister's comments came within hours of a grisly attack on peaceful demonstrators in front of the Indian High Commission. There is intense synchronization of actions in many fronts to render such an assertion invalid. Had that not been the case, why then, in that peaceful student demonstration of July 5, our own police force unleashed one of the most ferocious attacks on them and injured dozens.

Lest one thinks that was an act to preempt any perceived malign intent of the students against foreign diplomats, it was not.

The true intent of our police force got exposed when two Indian High Commission officials lurched themselves out of the mission's compound onto the street, called police officials on duty, and ordered them in the Hindi language to disperse the protestors immediately by any means.

Thus the second phase of the attack started, at the behest of Indian officials, which led to over 100 injuries -- 5 seriously -- and two arrests. Worst still, the concerned judge refused to grant bail to the detainees.

Heightened concerns

These developments prove few things incontrovertibly while our concerns intensify further due to such occurrences transcending the border of tolerance and civility; both at the diplomatic and human levels.

Our first concern is about our own Minister speaking for India, not for us. Not an expert of hydrology or seismology by any account - or of any other allied disciplines - the water resource Minister should not make definitive assertion about the Tipaimukh Dam being good for our country; that to, by his own admission, without bothering to study with minute detail the technical data provided by the Indian authorities, let alone after having them examined scrupulously by experts who should have briefed him on the matter in a competent and professional manner before his, so to speak, pronunciation of public support for India.

Our second concern is about police taking orders from Indian officials. The demonstrators were at safe distance from the diplomatic premise; did not cause any untowardly or embarrassing incidents by throwing stones at the embassy; did not carry any weapons or weapon-like substances to provoke any security alarm. Yet, they were beaten once by our police to affect dispersion, and, a brutal offensive was conducted against them for the second time at the behest of Indian High Commission officials.

Orders from diplomats

While we must empathize that our police have a responsibility to protect diplomats, their missions and materials - which they have been doing well so far - we must also be mindful that they have no mandate whatsoever to take orders from foreign diplomats.

In the same vein, our Ministers are oath-bound to protect and preserve our national interests. Yet, defying a myriad of expert opinions -- including opinions from Indian experts -- our own Minister shall not venture into vouching for India; that too without even being familiar first with whatever technical data have reportedly been provided by the Indian Government to our foreign office mandarins.

Our third concern is about the lack of coordination between various organs of the Government. If the Foreign Ministry had received technical data from the Indian Government on the Tipaimukh project -- which Foreign Minister Dipu Moni claimed to have received over four weeks ago -- why copy of that has not yet reached the Water Resource Ministry and the other concerned segments of the state apparatuses?

Gone wild?

Now look at things from a different prism which is comparable to a bull entering a china shop. Indian High Commissioner Pinak Ranjan Chakroborty has been behaving in quite an unruly manner in recent weeks.

On July 3, he had disparagingly termed Bangladeshi water resources specialists as "so-called experts" at a seminar on regional connectivity in which our Foreign Minister ensconced herself on the stage beside the Indian envoy. We wonder what took our Foreign Minister three long weeks to say, "Maybe the Indian High Commissioner crossed the diplomatic limits."

Before that, while addressing the issue of Bangladesh's concern over the Tipaimukh dam construction, Indian Water Resource Minister said in late May, "After Construction of the dam, we will decide what to do." All these indicate Delhi gives a damn to Bangladesh's concerns.

Choice for people

Now that we know India would not stop building the Tipaimukh dam unless legal actions are initiated sooner, Dhaka has little time to act. And, coming following the BDR rebellion and the consequent fallout within the national security establishments of the nation, all these dangers are posing like hungry vultures over the sovereignty of our nation.

That is why our main concern is about the priority of the Government with respect to the issues in hand. A content analysis of various cabinet meetings indicates those priorities being in the spheres of personal agenda, not the national and regional exigencies per se.

Qaradawi's Revisions

2009-07-10T11:38:00.001+07:00

Yusuf al-Qaradawi, probably the single most influential living Sunni Islamist figure, has just written a major book entitled Fiqh al-Jihad (The Jurisprudence of Jihad) which decisively repudiates al Qaeda's conception of jihad as a "mad declaration of war upon the world." At the same time, he strongly rejects what he calls efforts to remove jihad completely from Islam, and strongly reaffirms the duty of jihad in resisting the occupation of Muslim lands, specifically mentioning Israel as the arena of legitimate resistance. Qaradawi's intervention has thus far received no attention at all in the English-language media. It should, because of his vast influence and his long track record as an accurate barometer of mainstream Arab views.

His book, described by the Egyptian newspaper al-Masry al-Youm last week in a seven part series, is far more important than the much-discussed "recantations" and "revisions" of former jihadist intellectuals such as Dr. Fadl (Sayid Imam) and the leaders of the Gama'a Islamiya. The internal revisions by ex-jihadists (which Qaradawi praises) may influence that tiny group of extremists, and demonstrate cracks in their intellectual foundations. But for the most part, the mass Arab public has never heard of and doesn't care about them. And unlike the Gamaa leaders or Dr. Fadl, Qaradawi did not produce his revisions from an Egyptian prison cell (hence Ayman Zawahiri's cutting rejoinder to Dr. Fadl, that Egyptian prisons hadn't had fax machines back in his day).

Qaradawi is different. Qaradawi, an intensely controversial figure in the West, appears on a weekly al-Jazeera program and is probably the single most influential Sunni Islamist figure in the Arab world. The Egyptian-born Qaradawi is closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood (he reportedly turned down an invitation to become its Supreme Guide because he felt he had more influence from his base in Doha). He is a populist whose views generally reflect widespread attitudes in the region -- he strongly endorses democracy, for instance, while also supporting Hamas attacks against Israelis. Whether he leads or follows popular opinion is a difficult and fascinating question -- but either way, he is quite a useful barometer.

His criticism of al Qaeda is not new -- he condemned 9/11 and has engaged in a number of public polemics with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and with the leaders of al Qaeda. But the timing of this book merits attention. His views generally closely mirror trends within wider mass public opinion will reach a far wider swathe of the Arab mainstream and will likely have far greater impact than did the internal revisions which received such attention in the West. His intervention strengthens the impression that al Qaeda's extreme form of salafi-jihadism is on the wane in the Arab world, but political Islam and the spirit of muqawama (resistance) remains strong.

Qaradawi's text deserves lengthy discussion, but a brief summary here will have to suffice. Fiqh al-Jihad stakes out the centrist (wasatiyya) ground where Qaradawi has always comfortably resided (he has authored dozens of books about wasatiyya concept). He rejects two trends: those who seek to eliminate jihad completely from the Muslim world, stripping it of its power and its ability to resist (which is how he sees the project of much of so-called moderate Islam or secularists); and those who apply it indiscriminately in a mad campaign of killing of all with whom they disagree (like al-Qaeda). Straw men, yes. But very effectively allowing Qaradawi to distinguish between al Qaeda's excesses and the legitimacy of resistance to occupation and to Israel.

Qaradawi also offers an intriguing broadening of the concept of jihad, away from violence to the realm of ideas, media, and communication -- which he calls the "jihad of the age." The weapons of this jihad should be TV, the internet, email and the like rather than guns. Persuading Muslims of the message of Islam and the importance of this jihad in the path of God should be the first priority, he argues: "the jihad of the age, a great jihad, and a long jihad." He also goes into great detail about the different forms of jihad, the need for pragmatism, and the diverse nature of possible relations between Muslims and non-Muslims.

There is much more to Qaradawi's text worth discussing, including his views on international law (he deploys Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib to depressing effect), his form of argumentation, his categories of jihad, his conceptions of Muslim relations with non-Muslims, and much more. Parts of it are deeply problematic, others are surprisingly forthcoming. But for now, I mainly want to signal the appearance of this important text, which deserves close attention from all those interested in such matters.

How to Deal with America's Empire of Bases

2009-07-03T00:17:00.001+07:00

A Modest Proposal for Garrisoned Lands

By Chalmers Johnson

The U.S. Empire of Bases -- at $102 billion a year already the world's costliest military enterprise -- just got a good deal more expensive. As a start, on May 27th, we learned that the State Department will build a new "embassy" in Islamabad, Pakistan, which at $736 million will be the second priciest ever constructed, only $4 million less, if cost overruns don't occur, than the Vatican-City-sized one the Bush administration put up in Baghdad. The State Department was also reportedly planning to buy the five-star Pearl Continental Hotel (complete with pool) in Peshawar, near the border with Afghanistan, to use as a consulate and living quarters for its staff there.

Unfortunately for such plans, on June 9th Pakistani militants rammed a truck filled with explosives into the hotel, killing 18 occupants, wounding at least 55, and collapsing one entire wing of the structure. There has been no news since about whether the State Department is still going ahead with the purchase.

Whatever the costs turn out to be, they will not be included in our already bloated military budget, even though none of these structures is designed to be a true embassy -- a place, that is, where local people come for visas and American officials represent the commercial and diplomatic interests of their country. Instead these so-called embassies will actually be walled compounds, akin to medieval fortresses, where American spies, soldiers, intelligence officials, and diplomats try to keep an eye on hostile populations in a region at war. One can predict with certainty that they will house a large contingent of Marines and include roof-top helicopter pads for quick get-aways.

While it may be comforting for State Department employees working in dangerous places to know that they have some physical protection, it must also be obvious to them, as well as the people in the countries where they serve, that they will now be visibly part of an in-your-face American imperial presence. We shouldn't be surprised when militants attacking the U.S. find one of our base-like embassies, however heavily guarded, an easier target than a large military base.

And what is being done about those military bases anyway -- now close to 800 of them dotted across the globe in other people's countries? Even as Congress and the Obama administration wrangle over the cost of bank bailouts, a new health plan, pollution controls, and other much needed domestic expenditures, no one suggests that closing some of these unpopular, expensive imperial enclaves might be a good way to save some money.

Instead, they are evidently about to become even more expensive. On June 23rd, we learned that Kyrgyzstan, the former Central Asian Soviet Republic which, back in February 2009, announced that it was going to kick the U.S. military out of Manas Air Base (used since 2001 as a staging area for the Afghan War), has been persuaded to let us stay. But here's the catch: In return for doing us that favor, the annual rent Washington pays for use of the base will more than triple from $17.4 million to $60 million, with millions more to go into promised improvements in airport facilities and other financial sweeteners. All this because the Obama administration, having committed itself to a widening war in the region, is convinced it needs this base to store and trans-ship supplies to Afghanistan.

I suspect this development will not go unnoticed in other countries where Americans are also unpopular occupiers. For example, the Ecuadorians have told us to leave Manta Air Base by this November. Of course, they have their pride to consider, not to speak of the fact that they don't like American soldiers mucking about in Colombia and Peru. Nonetheless, they could probably use a spot more money.

And what about the Japanese who, for more than 57 years, have been paying big bucks to host American bases on their soil? Recently, they reached a deal with Washington to move some American Marines from bases on Okinawa to the U.S. territory of Guam. In the process, however, they were forced to shell out not only for the cost of the Marines' removal, but also to build new facilities on Guam for their arrival. Is it possible that they will now take a cue from the government of Kyrgyzstan and just tell the Americans to get out and pay for it themselves? Or might they at least stop funding the same American military personnel who regularly rape Japanese women (at the rate of about two per month) and make life miserable for whoever lives near the 38 U.S. bases on Okinawa. This is certainly what the Okinawans have been hoping and praying for ever since we arrived in 1945.

In fact, I have a suggestion for other countries that are getting a bit weary of the American military presence on their soil: cash in now, before it's too late. Either up the ante or tell the Americans to go home. I encourage this behavior because I'm convinced that the U.S. Empire of Bases will soon enough bankrupt our country, and so -- on the analogy of a financial bubble or a pyramid scheme -- if you're an investor, it's better to get your money out while you still can.

This is, of course, something that has occurred to the Chinese and other financiers of the American national debt. Only they're cashing in quietly and slowly in order not to tank the dollar while they're still holding onto such a bundle of them. Make no mistake, though: whether we're being bled rapidly or slowly, we are bleeding; and hanging onto our military empire and all the bases that go with it will ultimately spell the end of the United States as we know it.

Count on this, future generations of Americans traveling abroad decades from now won't find the landscape dotted with near-billion-dollar "embassies."

Chalmers Johnson is the author of The Blowback Trilogy -- Blowback (2000), The Sorrows of Empire (2004), and Nemesis (2006), all published by Metropolitan Books.

Among the ruins of Henry Ford's America

2009-06-26T10:26:00.001+07:00

In the 1920s the auto titan strove to export his empire to the Amazon rain forest. Have you read a parable lately?

By Greg Grandin

Jun. 26, 2009 |

The empire ends with a pullout. Not, as many supposed, a few years ago, from Iraq. But from Detroit.

Of course, the real evacuation of the Motor City began decades ago, when Ford, General Motors and Chrysler started to move more of their operations to harder-to-unionize rural areas and suburbs, and, finally, overseas. Even as the economy boomed in the 1950s and 1960s, nearly 50 Detroit residents a day were packing up and leaving their city. By the time the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, Detroit could count tens of thousands of empty lots and over 15,000 abandoned homes. Stunning Beaux Arts and modernist buildings were left deserted to return to nature, their floors and roofs covered by switch grass. They now serve as ornate birdhouses.

Still, in mythological terms, Detroit remains the ancestral birthplace of American capitalism. In years to come, the sudden disintegration of the Big Three will be seen as a blow to American power comparable to the end of the Raj, Britain's loss of India, that jewel in the imperial crown, in 1948. Forget the possession of a colony or the bomb, in the second half of the 20th century, the real marker of a world power was the ability to make a precision V-8.

There have been many dissections of what went wrong with the U.S. auto industry, as well as fond reminiscences about Detroit's salad days, about outsize tailfins and double-barrel carburetors. Last year, the iconic Clint Eastwood put the iconic white autoworker to rest in "Gran Torino." But few of these postmortems have conveyed how crucial Detroit was to U.S. foreign policy -- not just as the anchor of America's high-tech, high-profit export economy, but as confirmation of ourselves as the world's premier power. (In linking Detroit's demise to the blowback from President Nixon's illegal war in Laos, Eastwood came closer than most).

Detroit supplied a continual stream of symbols of America's cultural power. It also offered the organizational know-how to run a vast industrial enterprise like a car company -- or an empire. Pundits love to quote G.M. president "Engine" Charlie Wilson, who once famously said that what was good for America "was good for General Motors, and vice versa." It's rarely noted that Wilson made his remark at his Senate confirmation hearings to be Dwight D. Eisenhower's secretary of defense. At the Pentagon, Wilson would impose G.M.'s corporate bureaucratic model on the armed forces, modernizing them to fight the Cold War.

After G.M., it was Ford's turn to take the reins. John F. Kennedy tapped Ford president Robert McNamara and his "whiz kids" to ready American troops for a "long twilight struggle, year in and year out." McNamara used Ford's integrated "systems management" approach to wage "mechanized, dehumanizing slaughter," as historian Gabriel Kolko once put it, from the skies over Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

Perhaps, then, we should think of the ruins of Detroit as our Roman Forum. Just as Rome's triumphal arches still remind us of its bygone imperial victories in Mesopotamia, Persia and elsewhere, so Motown's dilapidated buildings invoke America's slipping supremacy.

Among the most imposing is Henry Ford's Highland Park factory, shuttered since the late 1950s. Dubbed the Crystal Palace for its floor-to-ceiling glass walls, it was here that Ford perfected assembly-line production, building up to 9,000 Model Ts a day -- a million by 1915 -- catapulting the United States light-years ahead of industrial Europe.

It was also here that Ford first paid his workers $5 a day, creating one of the most prosperous working-class neighborhoods in America, filled with fine arts-and-crafts style homes. Today Highland Park looks like a war zone, its streets covered with shattered glass and lined with burned-out houses. More than 30 percent of its population lives in poverty and you don't want to know the unemployment numbers (more than 20 percent) or the median yearly income (less than $20,000). There is one reminder it wasn't always so. A small plaque outside the Ford factory reads: "Mass production soon moved from here to all phases of American industry and set the pattern of abundance for 20th Century living."

To grasp how far America has fallen from the heights of industrial grandeur -- and to understand how that grandeur led to stupendous acts of folly -- you could tour another set of ruins. But these ruins don't lie in the Rust Belt but in the deep Brazilian Amazon rain forest. There, overrun by tropical vines, sits Henry Ford's testament to the belief that the American Way of Life could easily be exported, even to one of the wildest places on the planet.

Ford owned forests in Michigan and mines in Kentucky and West Virginia. He had control over every natural resource needed to make a car except rubber. In 1927, he obtained an Amazonian land grant the size of a small American state. Ford could have set up a purchasing office and bought rubber from local producers, as other rubber exporters did. But he had more grandiose ideas. He felt compelled to cultivate "rubber but the rubber gatherers as well." He set out to overlay Americana on Amazonia. He had his managers build Cape Cod-style shingled houses for the Brazilian workforce. He urged them to tend flower and vegetable gardens and eat whole wheat bread, unpolished rice, canned Michigan peaches and oatmeal. With suitable pride, he dubbed his jungle town "Fordlandia."

It was the 1920s and his managers enforced alcohol prohibition, or at least tried to, even though it wasn't a Brazilian law. On weekends, the company organized square dances and recitations of the poetry of Henry Longfellow. The hospital offered free healthcare for workers and visitors alike. It was designed by Albert Kahn, the renowned architect who built a number of Detroit's most famous buildings, including the Crystal Palace. Fordlandia had a central square, sidewalks, indoor plumbing, manicured lawns, a movie theater, shoe stores, ice cream and perfume shops, swimming pools, tennis courts, a golf course and, of course, Model Ts rolling down its paved streets.

The clash between Henry Ford -- the industrial giant who produced identical products, the first indistinguishable from the millionth -- and the Amazon, the world's most complex and diverse ecosystem, was Chaplinesque in its absurdity, producing a parade of mishaps straight out of a Hollywood movie. Think "Modern Times" meets "Fitzcarraldo." Brazilian workers rebelled against Ford's Puritanism and nature rebelled against his industrial regimentation. Run by incompetent managers who knew little about rubber planting, much less social engineering, Fordlandia was plagued by vice, knife fights and riots. The place seemed less "Our Town" than Deadwood, as brothels and bars sprawled around its edges.

Ford managed to wrest control over his namesake fiefdom. But because he insisted his managers plant rubber trees in tight rows -- back in his Detroit factories, Ford famously crowded machines close together to reduce movement -- he created conditions for the explosive growth of bugs and blight that feed off rubber, which laid waste to the plantation. Over the course of nearly two decades, Ford sank millions into making his jungle utopia work the American way, yet not one drop of Fordlandia latex made its way into a Ford car.

Today, the ruins of Fordlandia look like those in Highland Park and other Rust Belt towns, where life centered on a factory has been abandoned to weeds. There is an eerie resemblance between Fordlandia's rusting water tower, broken-glassed sawmill, and empty power plant and the husks of the same structures in Iron Mountain, a depressed industrial city on Michigan's Upper Peninsula, which also used to be a Ford town.

In the Amazon, Kahn's hospital has collapsed and the jungle has reclaimed the golf course and tennis courts. Bats have taken up residence in houses where American managers once lived, covering their plaster walls with a glaze of guano. No commemorative plaque marks its place in history, but Fordlandia, no less than the wreck of Detroit, is a monument to the titans of American capital -- none more titanic than Ford -- who believed the United States offered a universal model for humanity.

It would be easy to read the story of Fordlandia as a parable of arrogance. With a surety of purpose and incuriosity about the world that seems all too familiar, Ford rejected expert advice and set out to turn the Amazon into the Midwest of his imagination. The more the project failed on its own terms -- to grow rubber -- the more Ford company officials defended it as a civilizational mission. Yet Fordlandia cuts deeper into the marrow of the American experience.

Over 50 years ago, Harvard historian Perry Miller gave a famous lecture titled "Errand Into the Wilderness." He tried to explain why English Puritans lit out for the New World, as opposed to, say, Holland. They went, Miller suggested, not just to escape the corruptions of the Church of England, but to complete the Protestant reformation of Christendom that had stalled in Europe. The Puritans sought to give the faithful back in England a "working model" of a purer community. Put another way, central to American expansion was "deep disquietude," a feeling that "something had gone wrong" at home. With the Massachusetts Bay Colony just a few decades old, a dissatisfied Cotton Mather began to learn Spanish, thinking that a better "New Jerusalem" could be raised in Mexico.

The founding of Fordlandia was driven by a similar restlessness, a chafing sense, even in the best of times, that "something had gone wrong" in America. When Ford embarked on his Amazon adventure, he had already spent the greater part of two decades, and a large part of his enormous fortune, trying to reform American society. His frustrations and discontents with domestic politics and culture were legion. War, unions, Wall Street, energy monopolies, Jews, modern dance, cow's milk, both Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, cigarettes and alcohol were among his many targets and complaints. Yet churning beneath all these imagined annoyances was the fact that the force of industrial capitalism that he had helped unleash was undermining the world he hoped to restore.

Ford preached with a pastor's confidence his one true idea: Ever-increasing productivity combined with ever-increasing pay would relieve human drudgery and create prosperous working-class communities, with corporate profits rising on the continual expansion of consumer demand. "High wages," as Ford put it, to create "large markets." By the late 1920s, Fordism -- as this idea came to be called -- was synonymous with Americanism, and was envied the world over for having apparently humanized industrial capitalism.

But Fordism contained the seeds of its own undoing. Breaking down the assembly process into smaller and smaller tasks, combined with rapid advances in transportation and communication, made it easier for manufacturers to break out of the dependent relationship established by Ford between high wages and large markets. Goods could be made in one place and sold somewhere else, removing the incentive employers had to pay workers enough to buy the products they made.

Ford sensed this unraveling and tried to slow it in ever more eccentric ways. He established a series of decentralized "village-industries" in Michigan. The villages were designed to balance farm and factory work and rescue small-town America. Yet his pastoral communes were no match for the raw power of the changes he had played such a large part in engendering. So he turned to the Amazon to raise his City on a Hill, or in this case, a city in a tropical river valley, pulling together the many strains of his utopianism in one last desperate bid for success.

Nearly a century ago, journalist Walter Lippmann remarked that Henry Ford's drive to make the world anew represented a common strain of "primitive Americanism," reinforced by a confidence born of unparalleled achievement. Lippmann followed with a question meant to be sarcastic, but was, in fact, all too prophetic: "Why shouldn't success in Detroit assure success in front of Baghdad?" We have seen the ruination that befell Detroit. Whither Baghdad? Whither America?