WAR 1971

[bhramos]

1971 India Pakistan war (Western front)

Holding action in the west while Bangladesh got liberated in 16 days.

 

[bhramos]

Indian Air Force attacks on Tezgaon Air Field 4th Dec 71

Dramatic film shot during the opening day of the Indo-Pakistan war in December . This has become available in London - three months after it was shot.

 

[bhramos]

Indian Navy at war 1971 east

 

[bhramos]

Indian Navy at war 1971 - West

 

[bhramos]

Russian vs. Americans in Bengal Bay, 1971. Ударная Сила.

This video is about the Russian role in 1971 y. Indo-Pakistani conflict and about the Soviet-American opposition in Indian Ocean. It's a part of the Russian TV program 'Strike Force'. The translation is mine.

In 1971, December, 3 the World has become an attestor to a new war between India and Pakistan. At afternoon the Pakistani aviation has strike the Indian cities and airstrips. The Indian PM Indira Gandhi put the country in emergency state and gave the order to nip the aggression. Hard clashes were started on the ground in the air, and at the sea.

Historic document: "Confident. December, 10, 1971. Moscow. For the DM Marshal Andrey Grechko. According to the information from our attaché in Delhi in the first day of conflict the Indian destroyer 'Rajput' has sunk a Pakistani submarine by depth charges. In December, 4 and 9, the Indian fast boats have destroyed and damaged 10 Pakistani battle ships and vessels by the P-15 missiles. In addition 12 oil storages was burned in flame. The Commander of the Military Intelligence Service Gen. Pyotr Ivashutin".

In the same day the Soviet Intelligence has reported that the British Naval group with the leadership of 'Eagle' carrier went closer to the territorial waters of India. The Soviet Government immediately sent a unit of battle ships under the leadership of counter-admiral Vladimir Kruglyakov for helping to the fraternal country.

Vladimir Kruglyakov, the former (1970-1975) Commander of the 10th Operative Battle Group (Pacific Fleet) remembers:

"I received the order from the Chief Commander 'To not allow access of the American Navy to the Indian military objects'.

- On the way of American Navy stood the Soviet cruisers, destroyers and atomic submarines equipped with anti-ship missiles.

Vladimir Kruglyakov, the former (1970-1975) Commander of the 10th Operative Battle Group (Pacific Fleet) remembers:

"We encircled them and I have targeted the 'Enterprise' by missiles. I have blocked them and didnt allow enclosing to Karachi, nor to Chittagong or Dhaka".

On the Soviet ships then were only the missiles with limited to 300 km range. Thus, to be sure the rival is under the hindsight the Russian commanders have had to take the risk of maximal enclosing to the American fleet.

Vladimir Kruglyakov, the former (1970-1975) Commander of the 10th Operative Battle Group (Pacific Fleet) remembers:

"The Chief Commander has order me: 'Lift the subs when they (the Americans) appear!' It was done to demonstrate, there are all the needed in Indian Ocean, including the nuclear submarines. I have lifted them, and they recognized it. Then, we intercepted the American communication. The commander of the Carrier Battle Group was then the counter-admiral Dimon Gordon. He sent the report to the 7th American Fleet Commander: 'Sir, we are too late. There are the Russian atomic submarines here, and a big collection of the battleships'.

The war was then two weeks long, and it has finished by Pakistani forces surrendering.

 

[A.V.]

NEW DELHI: The history of the 1971 India-Pakistan war will never be fully written. Most of the official records of the war that led to the liberation of Bangladesh have been destroyed.

The destroyed files include those on the creation of the Mukti Bahini — the Bangladesh freedom fighters — all appreciation and assessments made by the army during the war period, the orders issued to fighting formations, and other sensitive operational details.

Authoritative army sources said all records of the period, held at the Eastern Command in Kolkota, were destroyed immediately after the 1971 war. This has remained secret until now.

According to at least two former chiefs of the Eastern Command and other senior army officers TOI spoke to, the destruction may have been deliberate.

They say the destruction may have happened when Lt General Jagjit Singh Aurora, the Indian army's commanding officer on the eastern front, headed the Eastern Command. If true, this would be at odds with Aurora's image as the hero who led his men to victory and the Pakistan army's surrender in Dhaka.

The sensational fact that the files were missing became known only recently when the Eastern Command was searching for details of the Mukti Bahini camps in order to organize a reception for Bangladeshi veterans.

The Indian Army had housed the freedom fighters in different camps across India, where army instructors trained them in warfare. Later, Mukti Bahini fighters were part of the operations led by the eastern command.

A senior army source told TOI, "We were looking for the details of Mukti Bahini camps. We wanted to know where all were the camps, who were in charge etc. When those files were not available, the eastern army command launched a hunt for the records of the war. That is when we realized that the entire records are missing.''

Lt Gen (retd) JFR Jacob, who was chief of staff of the eastern command during the war and later its head, admitted the records were missing, when asked if this were true. ''When I took over as Eastern Army commander in August 1974 I asked to see the records. I was told that they have been shredded,'' he told TOI. He refused to discuss who ordered the destruction of the records.

The army headquarters and various units of the army may have some records of the war, a senior army officer said.

But the picture will never be complete, he said, adding that military records maintained at the nerve center of operations are crucial if one is ever to construct the full picture.
The details are significant as this operation is one of the great success stories of Indian intelligence and the army.


http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...angladesh-war-missing/articleshow/5907855.cms

 

[nandu]

'Files would have revealed Army's role'

KOLKATA: Senior army officials, serving and retired, are not surprised that official records of the 1971 war have been destroyed, particularly those related to the creation of Mukti Bahini. The records would have revealed the involvement of the Indian Army in then East Pakistan much before the war had been officially declared in December 1971.

"I am not aware that the records have been destroyed, I was just a captain then. But if it has been done, it must have been under instruction from the government,'' says a retired lieutenant-general who has held a senior staff position in the Eastern Command headquarters. ''It is an open secret that the Indian Army had gone inside Bangladesh much before the war had started officially. There is no reason for the army to preserve such records."

A retired colonel of the artillery whose regiment was in Kanchrapara when the war broke out, too, says preservation of such records would have been an evidence of involvement of the Indian Army in organising Mukti Bahini even before official declaration of the war. "I was inside Bangladesh much before the war had started," he admits.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...e-revealed-Armys-role/articleshow/5911093.cms

 

[nandu]

Destruction of 1971 files criminal act, says CIC

NEW DELHI: The government should move proactively to declassify documents to avoid the kind of disaster -- the destruction of the 1971 war records in the Kolkata-based Eastern Army Command -- that TOI reported on Sunday, said chief information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah.

Reacting to the TOI report that the entire records of the 1971 war with Eastern Army Command were destroyed, Habibullah said the "law is quite clear" that all records "older than 20 years must be disclosed, except under specific circumstances". The destruction of records, unless it was permitted under law, was a criminal act, he pointed out. "There are rules allowing for destruction," but then details of those destructions must be available with the government, he said.

Army sources said there were no written details specifying authorization for destroying the 1971 files.

Kuldip Nayar, veteran journalist who is fighting an ongoing battle for disclosure of the Henderson Brooks report on India's debacle in the 1962 war with China, said a probe must be held into the entire episode. "We must know why were they destroyed, and for what purpose," he said.

Nayar also suggested that the government must immediately seek Dhaka's assistance to reconstruct the entire story, and also draw on the records of veterans of the 1971 war. "It is a very important story," Nayar said.

He said the government must also proactively disclose whatever records are available of the battles fought by India since 1947. "The government is unnecessarily sitting over papers, be it 1948, 1962, 1965 or the 1971 war," Nayar said. "Even the transfer of power (in 1947) papers are not available with the National Archives," he pointed out.

Just the Prime Minister's Office alone is holding almost 30,000 files in its custody, many of them as old as India itself. Government departments across the board are reluctant to declassify files and move them to the archives.

Excessive secrecy also helps vested interests within the departments to selectively destroy or distort files. The case of the 1971 war records in Kolkata may not be very different, many sources within the military are beginning to speculate.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...criminal-act-says-CIC/articleshow/5914770.cms

 

[nandu]

Now, no record of Navy sinking Pakistani submarine in 1971

NEW DELHI: The sinking of Pakistani submarine Ghazi in the 1971 Indo-Pak war may have been one of the high points of India's first-ever emphatic military victory but there are no records available with naval authorities on how the much-celebrated feat was pulled off.

As a debate rages over a TOI report on the destruction of all records of the 1971 Bangladesh war at the Eastern Army Command headquarters in Kolkata, it transpires that naval authorities also destroyed records of the sinking of Ghazi.

The troubling finding has been thrown up by a trail of communications among the naval brass. Pakistani submarine PNS Ghazi, regarded as a major threat to India's plans to use its naval superiority, sank around midnight of December 3, 1971 off Visakhapatnam, killing all 92 on board in the initial days of the war between India and Pakistan. Indian Navy claims the submarine was destroyed by depth charges fired by its ship INS Rajput. Pakistani authorities say the submarine sank because of either an internal explosion or accidental blast of mines that the submarine itself was laying around Vizag harbour.

According to a set of naval communications made available to TOI by sources familiar with the Ghazi sinking, senior officers and those writing the official history of Navy exchanged a host of letters admitting to the fact that crucial documents of Ghazi were missing.

Immediately after Ghazi sank, Indian naval sailors had recovered several crucial documents and other items from the submarine, wreckage of which is still lying underwater off Vizag.

On June 22, 1998, Rear Admiral K Mohanrao, then chief of staff of Visakhapatnam-based Eastern Naval Command, told Vice Admiral G M Hiranandani, who was writing the official history of Navy, "All-out efforts were made to locate historical artifacts of Ghazi from various offices and organizations of this headquarters. However, regretfully, I was unable to lay my hands on many of the documents that I personally saw during my previous tenure."

Mohanrao went on to tell Hiranandani, "We are still continuing to search for old files and as and when they are located, I will send appropriate documents for your project." Mohanrao also refers to their inquiries with Commodore P S Bawa (retd), who worked with the Maritime Historical Society, to find out about the artifacts. Here also they drew a blank.

What Mohanrao's letter does not disclose is the letter written by Bawa himself in 1980. On December 20, 1980, Bawa, then a commander with the Maritime Historical Society, said, "In Virbahu, to my horror I found that all Gazi papers and signals were destroyed this year. Nothing is now available there." He was writing after a visit to Virbahu, the submarine centre at Vizag, where the documents, signals and other artifacts recovered from Ghazi were stored. His letter (MHS/23) was addressed to Vice Admiral M P Awati, the then chief of personnel at the naval headquarters.

Over the years, in the 1990s, as Vice Admiral Hiranandani sat down to write the official history of Navy, he made several efforts to get the Ghazi documents, records show. In one of his letters to the then chief of eastern naval command, Vice Admiral P S Das, he sought the track chart of the Ghazi, the official report of the diving operations on the Ghazi from December 1971 onwards and any other papers related to Ghazi. But none of it was available for the official historian of the Navy.

A retired Navy officer who saw action in 1971 said the destruction of the Ghazi papers and those of Army in Kolkata are all fitting into a larger trend, many of them suspected about Indian war history, of deliberate falsification in many instances. It is high time the real history of those past actions were revealed. "We have enough heroes," he said. "In the fog of war, many myths and false heroes may have been created and many honest ones left unsung," he admitted.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ani-submarine-in-1971/articleshow/5919209.cms

 

[Oracle]

Why does India want to hide its war documents?

India was not involved in genocide in Bangladesh for it to shred the papers related to the 1971 war. Their release could have been controlled, even delayed, but to destroy it was a crime, writes Mahesh Vijapurkar.

It was the 1975-76 sports season and the Indian Army chief, Sam Manekshaw was down in Hyderabad to address a press conference on a sporting event. As a sports reporter, I was there at the Fatehmaidan Club in the Lal Bahadur Shastri Stadium.

At lunch, when Sam Bahadur started circulating, with a shandy in his hand, I approached him for a brief conversation. I asked him how did the Bangladesh war go, and what the Mukti Bahini was and where did the Radio Betaarkendra operate from.

He minced no words and in seven terse words, explained the extent of Indian involvement with the Mukti Bahini. The radio was operating, he said, out of a ship on the river Hoogly. Immediately after, he added for good measure, "You print that and I shall come after you; you'll be dead!"

That was his way of saying it was off the record, I assumed. Several such off the record conversations take place between journalists and sources of information. He wanted to keep it that way but before I could have it clarified, I was elbowed out by another journalist who wanted to shoot the breeze with the hero.

My impression at that moment was that Manekshaw did not want another ruckus in Parliament like the one he had triggered by an interview to a student-journalist of a New Delhi journalism school's tabloid laboratory paper. He had told the reporter that if he'd been the Pakistani general during the wars with Pakistan, Pakistan would have won. It was his way of explaining to the aspiring journalist that a thinking general with a strategy can win a war and that Pakistan had made some mistakes.

That caught the fancy of newswires around the world for the United News of India picked up the story and spread it. The student became a celebrity but Manekshaw was in trouble.

The MPs had taken it amiss and thought that India could be defeated, forgetting that Chinese had had the better of India earlier. They were appalled at the gall of an Indian general saying he could defeat India! That was why the assumption that he wanted to keep the conversation with me off the record.

However, I managed a moment with Mankeshaw and asked him why he wanted it off the record. Didn't the Pakistanis know? He said, "They may know, but we just don't want to confirm it, do we?"

Now all that becomes clear. The destruction of all war-related records on the Eastern border points to the fact that India was deeply involved in helping the Bangladeshis even before the war had actually started and the country was liberated. The freedom fighters there, in coloured lungis, had fought valiantly but they apparently had substantial help beyond the training camps.

Those seven words, in the context of the revelations that documents were shred points to that. Not that the Pakistanis did not know what had happened. Perhaps the shredding of the documents was to ensure that there was no paper trail.

Those seven terse words of the field marshal indicated that Indian help to Bangladesh was not confined merely to running training camps for the freedom fighters but went much beyond that. The dismemberment of Pakistan in that war was done with care, with lot of details worked out, a lot of preparatory work even before the first shot was fired on the Eastern Sector.

Obviously, the field marshal was scarce inclined to put anything on record then. But history cannot be starved of facts relating to turning points in the sub-continent.

Of course, there is the feeling in academic circles that Indian establishment is parsimonious with information even if relates to historic events and that valuable records are kept away from public scrutiny which would enable a country have a well-fleshed, documented history.

Going by the media reports emanating from New Delhi, it points to a deliberate plan to starve even the archives of the documents. It was not as if India was involved in genocide in Bangladesh for it to have wanting to shred the papers. Their release could have been controlled, even delayed, but to destroy was a crime.

And why should India fight shy of letting the world know its role in the sub-continent?

Mahesh Vijapurkar

http://news.rediff.com/column/2010/may/12/why-does-india-want-to-hide-its-war-documents.htm

 

[ejazr]

http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=161560

As Foreign Minister Dipu Moni lays the foundation of a memorial in a verdant park of Tripura, it opens a new chapter in tributes to Indian soldiers and Mukti Joddhas martyred in the Liberation War, 1971.

The 20-hectare park at Chottakhola, a border village in South Tripura district, is dotted with seven hillocks and a serpentine lake overlooking Noakhali, Feni and Comilla.

Dipu Moni is scheduled to place the foundation stone on Wednesday during a two-day visit to the Indian State.

The Tripura forest department is building the park in memory of those who sacrificed their lives to liberate Bangladesh, according to Jiten Chowdhury, forest minister of the state.

The park will house a statue of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and a museum to preserve arms and ammunition used in the Liberation War, and many old photographs, literature and newspapers of those days.

Jiten Chowdhury said a 52-foot tower would be built in the park from where parts of Noakhali and Feni districts could be seen. The entire project costs Rs 2.3 crore.

The park is just on the border and near Trishna Wild Life Sanctuary and can be a great attraction for tourists from India as well as Bangladesh, he added.

A very significant part of the 1971 war history links Tripura.

Chottakhola was one of the base camps of Mukti Joddhas (freedom fighters) from where they launched guerrilla attacks against Pakistani army in Noakhali, Feni and parts of Comilla.

Many Indian troops and Mukti Joddhas were buried in the park.

Satyabrata Chakraborty, a veteran journalist who covered the liberation war for The Statesman newspaper, said Tripura was the war headquarters of Bangladesh and had sheltered more than 1.5 million refugees from the then East Pakistan. The number exceeds the population of the state in 1971.

The first Bangladesh government in exile was formed in Agartala and they also set up radio office there, Satyabrata recalled. With Bangladesh Tripura shares 856km border, which constitutes 85 percent of total border of the state. In 1971, many Indian youths had joined the Liberation War.

"During the Liberation War, the excitement was tremendous. Like many youths, I had also joined the Mukti Fauj [liberation force], took a short military training and fought against the Pakistani army in Comilla sector," reminisced former deputy speaker of Tripura Assembly and a senior leader of the state's ruling CPI-M, Subal Rudra.

Former Congress minister Jawahar Saha said he too was a member of Mukti Fauz when the Indian army was fighting the Pakistani troops. "Our duty was to attack the razakars [collaborators]."

 

[ejazr]

http://arabnews.com/world/article187146.ece

AGARTALA, India: Bangladesh cannot forget the sacrifices made by Indians to help it gain independence in 1971 and the two countries need to work together to resolve issues, visiting Bangladeshi Foreign Minister Dipu Moni said in Tripura Thursday.

"The history and culture of both India and Bangladesh have been guiding us to go together, work together and solve all issues mutually," said Moni, accompanied by Tripura Chief Minister Manik Sarkar after laying the foundation stone of the India-Bangladesh Maitri Uddan in south Tripura.

She arrived in Tripura Wednesday.

"We cannot forget India and its people who also sacrificed their lives and property for the 1971 liberation war of Bangladesh," Moni said amid applause from thousands of men, women and children.

Located near the international border, the India-Bangladesh Maitri Uddan is a park being built in southern Tripura's Chottakhola as a tribute to Indian soldiers and Bangladeshi freedom fighters who sacrificed their lives during the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war.

"During the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war, a training camp of the Mukti Bahini of freedom fighters was set up in the bordering village where the remains of bunkers, trenches and graveyards can still be found," Tripura Finance Minister Badal Chowdhury said.

The Uddan is being developed by the Tripura government on a 20-hectare plot adjacent to the Trichna wildlife sanctuary and a 500-year-old mosque, bordering Bangladesh.

A museum exhibiting arms and ammunition, war materials, rare photographs and war literature would also be set up in the area, which has already turned into a memorial-cum-ecological conservation zone, about 130 km south of Agartala.

It would also have a statue of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who was the architect of Bangladesh.

"The building of this memorial park was a long cherished demand of the people of Tripura as they were actively involved in the 1971 liberation war by providing all-out support to freedom fighters and sheltered around 1.6 million people, which was larger than the total population of Tripura," Tripura Forest Minister Jitendra Chaudhury told IANS.

"The memorial would help future generations know the history of liberation of Bangladesh and of bonds of the people of two friendly neighbors and of how they helped each other for the independence."

The commemorative park, which is to have a big tower from which parts of Noakhali and Feni districts of Bangladesh would be visible, would cost Rs.2.30 crore and would be funded by the state government.

"There were 11 war fronts in Tripura in 1971 and Chottakhola was one of them. A large number of freedom fighters were trained in Chottakhola, from which they later sneaked into Bangladesh to fight the Pakistani soldiers," said Badal Choudhury, who did his primary education in what was then East Pakistan and is now Bangladesh.

 

[Neil]

The Indian Air Force will celebrate its victory in the battle of Longewala in 1971 — where its fighter jets destroyed a large number of intruding Pakistani Patton tanks by organising a ceremony on December 5 in which a host of heroes of the war will be felicitated.

Fighter jets like Mirage 2000, MiGs and attack helicopters like M-17 and an acrobatics team from the Akash Ganga are expected to participate in an air show organised as part of the ceremony. IAF sources said that the celebrations would begin from December 4 but the Longewala celebration will be organised at Air Force Station at Jaislamer near the Longewala battleground. Retired officers like Air Marshal M S Baba and others will share the memories of the war at the event.

Fighters and helicopter gunships will display their fire-power with the fighters destroying dummy targets showcasing its capability of all round defence. As part of the celebrations, the entire war would be recreated as the Pakistani forces intruded into the Indian territory with Patton tanks and how the IAF destroyed all their armoury before vanquishing the enemy.

The IAF has enlisted 21 officers and soldiers till date who will be felicitated during the occasion while the Army is also trying to locate the ex-warriors who were the part of the victorious army. Among senior officers, IAF south western AOC-in-C Air Marshal P S Bhangu and Army's southern command GOC-in-C, Lt Gen Khanna have confirmed their participation. The Pakistani army intruded into the Indian side on December 4 before the full-fledged war started and since then December 16 is commemorated as victory day by the defence ministry.

http://idrw.org/?p=1305

 

[ejazr]

Testimony to a friendship

Tripura, which shares an 856-km border with Bangladesh, is building a huge war memorial and friendship park to memorialise the heroes of the Bangladesh Liberation War. Work on the Bharat-Bangladesh Moitree Udyan in a border hamlet in southern Tripura was inaugurated by Bangladesh Foreign Minister Dipu Moni on November 11.

The "friendship park" in Chottakhola has been planned in memory of the freedom fighters and Indian soldiers who died 39 years ago in the course of the struggle for Bangladesh's independence from Pakistan. The freedom fighters had their fortified base camps and launched guerrilla attacks on the Pakistan Army from Chottakhola.

The memorial project, for which the Tripura government deserves full marks, will cost an estimated Rs. 2.3 crore. Situated about 130 km from the State capital of Agartala, it will have a statue of Bangladesh's Founding Father, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Set in a verdant 20-hectare area dotted by seven hillocks and a serpentine lake, the Moitree Udayan will have a 52-foot-tall tower that will be visible from some parts of Bangladesh. It will have a museum and a library to preserve documents from those historic days when Bangladesh and India stood in unison to defend a just cause.

In many ways, the Foreign Minister's visit marked a unique occasion. The maiden trip by Ms Moni to the State was meant not only to recall the historic events but also to try and boost cross-border trade with the northeastern States.

Picturesque Agartala served as the virtual 'war headquarters' of the 1971 Liberation War that led to the birth of independent Bangladesh, the former East Pakistan. For over 1.5 million refugees, Tripura was a dear sanctuary during that phase. Ms Moni's visit to Agartala, where Bangladesh's government-in-exile was formed on April 10, 1971, came some 39 years after the war. The Mujibnagar government led the war. The government-in-exile was formally sworn in at Meherpur on April 17, 1971.

Tripura was then the desperate destination of thousands of men, women and children, all of whom fled their homes as genocidal elements of the Pakistan Army and local goons carried out mass rape, large-scale murder and arson. Tripura sheltered over 1.5 million Bangladesh refugees, a number that exceeded its own population. Tripura, therefore, occupies a special place for Bangladesh.

Bangladeshi refugees entered West Bengal, Meghalaya and Assam in thousands throughout the nine-month-long war. The hapless people who wanted their lives saved and their women and girls protected from the marauders, were all over Tripura in particular, straining the State's infrastructure and resources. From Belonia to Sabroom to Dharmanagar, it was a sea of distressed humanity. This writer was a witness to it: there was not a single school, college or government or semi-government office which was not filled with refugees.

The 1971 war for Independence was essentially a national war. Relentless lightning actions of the guerrilla fighters eroded the moral and physical strength of the Pakistani Army. While India played a significant role in supporting the war, the Indian Army directly intervened only after an India-Bangladesh Joint Command was formed in the first week of December 1971 as Pakistan launched an attack on the western front. India lost an estimated 17,000 servicemen.

The war culminated in a shared war against a common enemy that had disregarded democratic ideals, perpetrated mass murder and indiscriminate violations upon unarmed civilians.

The "friendship park" in Chottakhola should be seen as a testament of historic ties. It will tell future generations the truth: that the two countries stood in unison in the time of need to defend justice and humanity. The Tripura government led by Chief Minister Manik Sarkar deserves laurels for making the unique project a reality. It is going to be a gift to the future generations of both the countries.

Ms Moni's trip to Tripura served also to further Bangladesh's trade and commerce with the northeastern States, many of which share borders with Bangladesh. Bangladesh and the northeastern Indian region are contiguous geographically, but the potential for trans-border trade remains under-utilised.

During some phases, India-Bangladesh relations have not been as smooth as would have been logically expected. Colonial mindsets and the ghosts of 1947 continued to bedevil the growth. Only recently has a major change occurred: the two neighbours have agreed to cooperate on many vital issues, and taken up major initiatives.

In March 2010, Dhaka and New Delhi reached a deal to allow Indian goods to be transshipped to Tripura and other northeastern States. Dhaka has allowed India to use the Chittagong port. It has granted access to its Mongla and Ashuganj ports also to ferry heavy machinery and other goods from the rest of India to the northeastern States.

Transit is an issue that has been debated over the years. However, given the political dimensions involved, a breakthrough remained elusive until recently. Taking a bold step, the Sheikh Hasina government acted in a positive manner. Dhaka took into account some basic factors in making up its mind. Bangladesh cannot remain an island, and it stands to benefit immensely from extending facilities to India. According to the Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD), an independent think-tank, Bangladesh will stand to gain $2.3 billion over a period of 30 years by extending transit facilities to India, Nepal and Bhutan.

The two countries have some longstanding issues that deserve early solutions. It is to be hoped that Dhaka and New Delhi will utilise the prevailing goodwill to carry the spirit of mutual trust forward.

The two countries recently agreed to exchange their enclaves and territories that are in adverse possession. This was a longstanding irritant. People in the 111 Indian enclaves inside Bangladesh and 51 Bangladeshi enclaves in India have suffered much since 1947. There is also a need to mend differences over sharing of river waters and to demarcate the entire land boundary.

For the Sheikh Hasina government, any greater level of cooperation and connect with India, particularly in the matter of transit facilities, is a politically sensitive issue. There are formidable opponents waiting to cash in on such issues politically. The main Opposition, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, and its allies, including the fundamentalist Jamaat-e-Islami, have demanded the scrapping of all deals signed recently with India, including those relating to transit facilities. They allege that the government is only serving India's interests. The vociferous reactions from Khaleda Zia, the Opposition boss, against the transit deals reflect an old political mindset.

Ms Zia's insistence on scrapping the deals with India might have amply reflected her party's own agenda, but it will do little to promote bilateral cooperation. And many people believe that linking the country's sovereignty and independence with the issue of transit is to stretch the political rhetoric to an unacceptable degree.

Street politics is on the boil again. Bangladesh witnessed a violence-marred, nationwide hartal sponsored by the Opposition parties on November 14. The BNP called the hartal after Ms Zia was made to vacate her house in Dhaka's cantonment area on November 13 following a court order. She alleged that she was evicted forcibly by the government. However, the authorities have strongly refuted the charge. The house was leased to her by the military authorities, in addition to another government house in a posh area, in Gulshan, after her husband, General Ziaur Rahman, was killed in 1981.

However, the ruling party, which has a massive parliamentary strength, believes that the street agitation is a motivated one mainly aimed to achieve three objectives: to destabilise the government, frustrate the ongoing trial of the war criminals, and create obstacles to the deals signed with India recently. And it is bracing to cope with the challenge.

(Haroon Habib, based in Dhaka, can be reached at [email protected])

 

[Ray]

Political uproar awaits Bangladesh

Mahfuz R. Chowdhury

The contentious actions being taken by the government and the opposition's reaction to them would lead one to believe that another political turmoil is looming in Bangladesh.

Since 1991, Bangladesh politics and governance have been controlled by two dynastic families, who have for all practical purposes remained each other's sworn enemy. One family is led by the current Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed, the daughter of the leader of the liberation movement of 1971 Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. The other is led by the current opposition leader Begum Khaleda Zia, the widow of renowned freedom fighter Gen. Ziaur Rahman.

Both Mujib and Zia ruled Bangladesh, but their iron-fisted rules were surrounded by many controversies and ended in their assassination while in office. The power vacuums following their assassinations prompted their die-hard followers to help establish the present dynastic rule by elevating the two women, the leaders' heirs apparent, to lead their respective parties -- Awami League and Bangladesh Nationalist Party. The ladies have eventually assumed autocratic rule within their parties.

The two ladies have been head of government alternatively, and both administrations were marked by huge irregularities. They tolerated massive corruption and injustices by their party members and supporters. Their human rights violations were equally appalling. According to Amnesty International, the special police force Rapid Action Battalion (Rab), established in 2004, has been implicated in the killing of at least 700 people despite repeated pledges by both ladies to end extrajudicial killings.

With equal grass root support or popularity, both parties in the past enlisted the support of the Jamaat e Islami Party. When Khaleda Zia was last in power, she maneuvered things to put down the opposition and bolster her own re-election prospects. The opposition led by Sheikh Hasina resorted to agitation, leading to political turmoil in 2006. What followed was an army-backed dispensation that lasted for two years.

The army backed caretaker government enjoyed rare popular support at the time, and it also initiated vital democratic reforms in the regulation of political parties, election, power decentralisation and judicial independence. But such valiant efforts all ended in utter failure. It handed over power to Sheikh Hasina after holding an election.

The opposition rejected the election result on ground of manipulation by India. An article in The Economist has backed this claim. The argument that Sheikh Hasina made secret deals with India gained traction after the article detailed India's benefits from its cozy relation with Bangladesh. In rebuffing the gain that Bangladesh could also expect in exchange for the transit facilities for India, the opposition uses the argument of water sharing fiasco that India created for Bangladesh.

Sheikh Hasina seems more interested in using her current parliamentary mandate to find a way to extend her rule by suppressing the opposition than addressing the critical problems facing the nation, such as runaway prices of staple foods, acute gas and electricity shortages, crises with regard to infrastructure, unemployment, rising crime rates, police brutality, campus riots, rampant corruption, and an ongoing stock market scandal.

To ensure her firm grip on power and to prevent any kind of dissent in her own party, Sheikh Hasina surrounded herself with loyalists by eliminating the moderate and independent party stalwarts from decision making. All vital decisions must now meet with her approval.

To reduce the power of her nemesis, Khaleda Zia, corruption charges were filed against her. Her two sons were indicted earlier on similar grounds by the Hasina administration. The charges against them may well be true, but they are not sitting well with the BNP supporters.

An amendment to the constitution to do away with the earlier agreed-upon system of caretaker administrations to oversee elections was enacted unilaterally by the Hasina administration. But no one expects the opposition to accept such a unilateral change to the constitution for fear of election manipulation.

Sheikh Hasina stripped Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus from his position in the Grameen Bank, which he had founded to promote microcredit among the rural poor, by using trumped-up charges and his age. His crime was that he was becoming too popular, and at the same time a potential rival in future elections.

These actions epitomise Bangladeshi politics, where personal vendetta has time and again overtaken national interests! As personal vengeance has now become more fierce and intense, the situation is getting even more precarious day by day.

Currently, there are four major players in Bangladesh politics, and each holds substantial power. They are: the two parties that the two ladies control, the Islamist group of which Jamaat e Islami Party is a part of, and finally the army. Given the intensity and scope of the present conflict, the ensuing power struggle is thus likely to turn ugly.

The actions of Hasina's administration are on collision course, and the response by the aggressive opposition, led by Khaleda Zia, is equally stern. The Islamist group, a formidable force, demonstrated its strength in 2005 by exploding over 400 bombs in 300 locations and killing judges, lawyers and policemen. It has been implicated in the notorious grenade attack in 2004 on a rally of the then opposition leader Sheikh Hasina, which took the lives of 22 people.

Democracy never got a chance to flourish in Bangladesh. Its system of governance was always centered and built on individual leadership cult, which has now given birth to the dual dynastic rule.

If the country's past violent history and the present realities of the Middle East are any guide, the dynastic rules in Bangladesh will only bring more chaos and confusion where neither democracy nor economy would get a chance to prosper. As none of the key players seems to be prepared to give in, the world must wait for the next political turmoil in Bangladesh.


Political uproar awaits Bangladesh

The truth is that Bangladesh has never stabilised even though it was liberated and it became an independent country.

The chaotic legacy of Pakistan to include the military assuming that they are the saviours of the nation seems to have been ingrained in their psyche.

Though India liberated Bangladesh, it appears that the democratic traditions of India with political stability, notwithstanding coalition politics that have come to stay, does not seem to have washed off on Bangladesh, though it has to be admitted that after Liberation, India played no role as Bangladesh moved towards political chaos and turbulence.

Mujib, though was a great Helmsman for Bangladesh, did attempt to become all to powerful. Whether that was a right step or not, only Bangladeshis, themselves, can say. Could it be that Mujib, being a child of Pakistani politics where the military has been predominant for stability, was influenced into believing that only an iron hand and centralised power alone was the answer for a stable Bangladesh?

After the assassination of Mujib by military conspirator and a taste of military power, in true Pakistani style, Bangladesh went into a spiral, though they did have bouts of democracy, which only galvanised greater chaos since the war was between the legacy of the military represented by Khaleda Zia and the 'liberation heroes' led by Sheik Hasina. Thus, two power centres of Bangladesh politics emerged and soon, more than politics, each only furthered their own families interest spurring regimes of corruption, nepotism and shortsighted policies.

Khaleda Zia, is India born, but being the wife of Zia ur Rehman, is steeped in Pakistani military ethos, which in turn is steeped in Islam! Therefore, her being averse to India is understandable and hence she has fostered anti Indian politics as also played footsie with the Islamists. Hasina, on the other hand, does have some gratitude toward India owing to the part India played to liberate Bangladesh which her father spearheaded.

Apart from the bouts of military dictatorships, Bangladesh politics have been a messy squabble between these two women who decide the fate of Bangladesh.

During Khaleda's rule, Hasina caused issues and brought her govt down and now it is the turn of Khaleda to bring Bangladesh to its knees.

Therefore, the scenario suggests the Bangladesh is in the line to implode.

The article indicates the explosive scenario erupting in Bangladesh!

 

[Iamanidiot]

What ever it is I do not want the filth to cross the Indian border.The most ungrateful scum one can think of

 

[Bangalorean]

What ever it is I do not want the filth to cross the Indian border.The most ungrateful scum one can think of

+1 to that.

After reading the views of Bangladesh and Bangladeshis, I realize that they are just mini-Pakis. They hate India and Indians more than even the original Pakis do. Nothing can be done with them, and there is no "cooperation and friendship" possible with that nation.

Let us cement our relations with Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and let BD and Pak go to the dogs. Let us bolster the Siliguri corridor and not have anything to do with that nation called BD - we don't need to depend on them for transit to the N-E.

 

[Ray]

So Bangladeshi are mere Jhantus?

 

[Daredevil]

Both Hasina and Khaleda might be bad for bangladesh but Hasina is our best bet for Indian interests in Bangladesh. Khaleda and her razakar cohorts are more dangerous to India as they were actively involved in supporting anti-India elements. We cannot always work with a hands-off approach, we have to work with the best that is available there and in the case of BD, it is Hasina. India has to do everything in its power to help her rule the BD.

On to the topic, I don't think BD has reached to a point that it will implode like Pakistan. Its economy is better and steadily improving and so are social indicators. Still there are some secular forces in the country and rapid spread of islamization should be stopped by Hasina if she wish to rule BD for long as the Islamic elements favor pro-pakistani Khaleda.

I read an article about Islamization (or rather wahabbization) that is happening in BD is due to generous funding of Saudis to the religious fundamentalists and the street-corner mullahs for establishing new mosques and madrasas. And in these places there is active wahabization is going on among the general poor populace. How it will be stopped is a big question. If this is not stopped, BD will go the Pakistan way and eventually fall into the hands of islamists and create another problem for India in the neighborhood.

Here is a post of BDeshi on another forum about Saudi influence

As a Muslim from Bangladesh, I have witnessed the change from our traditional Khuda-Hafeez to more recent Allah-Hafeez, a tell tale example of increasing Arab influence over sub-continental Muslim societies in the past few decades. While Arabs invested most of their oil wealth to their patron and protector, the West, they did throw a small portion of it to subcontinental and other Sunni Muslim socities around the world, possibly as an insurance policy for the future.

Saudi led OIC has an Engineering University near Dhaka:

Islamic University of Technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is an interview of a Political scientist on the influence of Saudis in Bangladesh

"Muslim, but religiously liberal"

Bangladesh is a poor nation defined by religion and language. The culture is quite tolerant, but many Bangladeshis believe that Saudi Arabia is supporting right-wing Muslim outfits in their country. Hans Dembowski discussed the matter with Mahfuzul H. Chowdhury, a political scientist.


Interview with Mahfuzul H. Chowdhury

How is Saudi influence felt in Bangladesh?
Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh have a long history of cultural and economic relations. Bengal was under Muslim rule for more than five hundred years beginning in the early thirteenth century and ending in 1757. Nowadays, many Bangladeshis are working in Saudi Arabia, and their remittances are of high economic relevance. The Saudi government, more*over, provides aid to Bangladesh, for instance by funding infrastructure projects. A third important factor is the Hajj – the pilgrimage to Mecca. This is one of the pillars of Islam, and hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshi Muslims perform it every year. Finally, it is widely believed that the Saudis fund religious parties, non-governmental organisations and educational institutions – the madrasas – in Bangladesh. The madrasas teach thousands of students, most of whom do not have opportunities to attend normal schools. The madrasas also provide them with shelter and food. A significant number of people are employed as teachers and support staff, so the madrasas are really quite important.

Who is susceptible to religious fundamentalism?
The most susceptible groups are the madrasa teachers and students as well as some university and college students and teachers who allegedly get Saudi money too. Poor, unemployed people are susceptible too.

What exactly is the Saudi influence on madrasas in Bangladesh?
That is impossible to tell. It is believed that the Saudis donate large amounts of money. But these funds are not regulated by the government. There is no transparency, no kind of public record. In recent years, people have come to believe that the growth of right-wing forces, religious "fundamentalism" and related violent activities is rooted in some madrasas.

Are the madrasas a substitute for dysfunctional state-run schools?
No, they are not. It makes more sense to consider them the homes of children of religiously oriented people as well as economically marginalised groups. One group of madrasa students belongs to the wealthy strata of society, and the other belongs to the economically deprived section of the society who cannot afford to go to the normal schools. The second group constitutes the overwhelming majority of the madrasa students. It is important to note, however, that there are now two kinds of madrasas. The first is funded and controlled by the government, whereas the second is independent and not regulated by the government. The latter are said to get Saudi funds, and they are the ones in which most of the poor students are enrolled because they are free of cost and offer boarding and food.

Religion and language are the two issues that historically have defined the borders and the nation of Bangladesh. To what extent does that give religious fundamentalists a foothold?
Yes, the territory called Bangladesh today became a part of Pakistan in 1947, when India was partitioned along religious lines after British colonial rule. Predominantly Muslim eastern Bengal became East Pakistan. Predominantly Hindu West Bengal is an Indian state. In 1971, Bangladesh split from Pakistan in a bloody war of independence, and Bengali linguistic nationalism replaced Pakistan's religious nation*alism. The majority of Bangladeshis is Muslim, but religiously liberal. Five to eight percent of electorate, however, vote for religious fundamentalist parties like the Bangladesh Jamati Islami.

How do the two major political parties, the Awami League (AL) and the Bangladesh National Party (BNP), deal with religion?
They handle religious issues with enormous sensitivity and care. Neither of the two is very conservative in religious terms, but both their members and voters tend to be religiously oriented believers. Both parties are careful not to hurt religious sentiments. However, the AL is a secular party. It ran Bangladesh's first government and was responsible for the first constitution, which emphasised secularism. After 1975, various military governments enacted some religious amendments, which the AL did not reverse after coming back into power. However, after coming to power this time, the AL government has formed a parliamentary committee to consider changes in the constitution to re-establish the fundamental prin*ciples of the 1972 constitution – secularism, demo*cracy, socialism, and Bengali nationalism – in the light of a Supreme Court verdict. Recently, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh ruled that the constitutional amendments made by the military governments after the coups in 1975 and 1982 were unconstitutional. The BNP was founded by a military ruler turned politician, General Ziaur Rahman. He mixed religion with politics, and the BNP has formed alliances with the Bangladesh Jamati Islami. Basically, the AL is more likely to stress linguistic nationalism, and the BNP more likely to stress religious nationalism. But neither of these two parties are fundamentalist, and both are prone to try to increase their share of the vote by catering to common people's religious sentiments.

How do they do so?
Both major parties want to mobilise religious forces from their respective political positions. Both parties have their support groups among madrasa-educated people. The BNP is closer to religious oriented parties and their ideologies, but the AL too, though in a moderate way, uses the religious groups to counter the BNP. The BNP mobilises religious support by taking stands against India. The AL, on the other hand, speaks of secularism, yet it has not taken decisions to repeal the religious provisions inserted into the Bangladesh constitution by the regimes who came to power after the coup of 1975.

Are there fundamentalist leanings in the military today?
It seems that there is a small section of military officers who are religiously oriented and may have some links to right-wing religious groups as well as to Saudi Arabia. But it is difficult to determine their numerical strength or significance. There was a military coup under the cover of emergency rule in early 2007, but the military-backed caretaker government did not pursue a religious agenda. Rather, it tried to re-establish democratic governance after a perceived crisis of corruption.

Bangladesh is home to many NGOs that famously promote microfinance with a particular focus on women. How do organisations like the Grameen Bank, BRAC and others relate to religious fundamentalists?
The Grameen Bank and BRAC do not have connections with the fundamentalist groups; rather they are subjected to criticism from the religious fundamentalist groups. In rural areas, their offices and workers are even occasionally attacked by violent fundamentalists. But there is an unknown number of Islamic NGOs working in Bangladesh who are believed to receive funds from the Saudis and other Islamic sources, and as I said before, their madrasas serve an important social role.


Mahfuzul H. Chowdhury
is professor of political science at the University of Chittagong.

 

[Iamanidiot]

So Bangladeshi are mere Jhantus?

No sir they are worser than that.Sorry if I hurt your feelings but these guys are one of a kind scum