The Separatists' Quest for Independence in North-East India vis-a-vis B'desh
asad...@my-deja.com
Bangladesh and the Separatists quest across the border
M. Rashiduzzaman
Not yet a catastrophic display of separatist bloodletting, but the
roiling of the new Kamatpur (Koch-Rajbongshis) Liberation Organisation
(KLO) and the nearly forgotten Gorkha movement are sending tremors in
the Indian Northeast, and beyond. The Kamatpuris want a separate state
consisting of six districts — Malda, North Dinajpur, South Dinajpur,
Darjheeling, Jalpaiguri and Cooch Behar in West Bengal. Their militant
front, the KLO, promised to "fight for independence of the Kamatpuri
people". The police arrested about 200 Kamatpuri activists in the last
few weeks; several people were killed followed by rallies and strikes.
But they were not the only full-throated advocates for separate
homeland. The Gorkha Liberation Organisation (GIO), nearly lying low
for years, recently stepped up its activities.
So far, the clouds of confusion hang over what actually the Kamatpuris
and Gorkhas want. The Kamatpuris are the Koch people who came to be
known as the Rajbongshis in the 19th century and they lived in the
districts of Dinajpur, Jalpaiguri and the Cooch Behar Princely State in
British India. On the one hand, the dissident voices sound like an
independence demand. But on the other, they appear to be the vibrations
for two more states in West Bengal’s north much like the seven states
carved out of the former provinces in the region. However, West Bengal
would not like its vivisection losing the tea producing and other
resource-rich districts on the periphery of the Indian insurgency-prone
states, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan. No matter if those are merely
demands for states as part of India or a radical campaign for separate
and sovereign states. Both are strategic omens for Bangladesh for more
than one reason, which the leaders in Dhaka cannot ignore, no matter
what stripes divide them politically.
About 100 people were killed in Assam alone during the last several
weeks and as of this writing, a large number of Hindi-speaking people
were actually leaving Assam. There were also reports that the local
Hindi-speakers were planning to fight back at the ULFAs and other
separatists. In some way, it was reminiscent of the massacres of the
1990’s when the prime target were the industrialists, tea garden
executives and the educated elite. The ULFA leaders denied that they
were behind such selectively targeted carnage; they blamed the partisan
rivalries between the Congress and other parties for such murders. Few
in India would believe them but the ULFA, the supporters for Assam’s
independence, were very much alive while New Delhi had exaggerated
their death not long ago. It was recently reported that in the third
week of December 11 people were killed, most of whom were Bhutanese
shopkeepers. The increased ULFA and Bodoland activities that started
earlier this year led the Indian government to impose night curfews
along the Siliguri borders (the "chicken neck" that connects the
Northeast with the rest of India) with Bhutan and Bangladesh.
The Indian police and army hoped to stop the clandestine support to the
separatists in the north of West Bengal, and to restrict the comings
and goings of the rejuvenated ULFA and other secessionists in the area.
Indeed, the recent assassination of 10 close relatives of the ULFA
leaders by unknown assailants has raised the specter of killings and
counter killings — the rebels accused that the Indian intelligence was
behind such murders of the ULFA kins.
Whatever happens in the north of West Bengal or in the Northeastern
states of India spills over in the neighbouring countries and whatever
insurgency occurs on the other side of the border propel Bangladesh
into strategically dangerous territories and New Delhi’s diplomatic
pressure cooker. Meanwhile, the spin of the Indian media and Indian
leaders are summed in the following paragraphs:
(a) India squarely blames the Pakistan’s ISI operatives who allegedly
ran their activities from Bangladesh that the authorities in Dhaka deny;
(b) The ULFA activists are presumably well entrenched in Bangladesh,
and the banned organisation supported the creation of separate states
in West Bengal’s northern districts that might give them future
logistical support; and
(c) India also blames the Bangladeshi Islamic forces, which presumably
wanted to foment trouble on the entire Indian side of the border.
The brewing troubles in the northern West Bengal make Bangladesh even a
more useful landscape for India’s security interests. In the eyes of
the Indian security analysts, Bangladesh is vital for New Delhi (a) to
contain its Northeastern guerrilla war, (b) to stem the "illegal
immigrants of Bangladesh" and (c) to keep China or any other outside
(big) power at bay. Those well-known objectives have also been
stretched for India to buy natural gas from Bangladesh and get transit
facility to its Northeast. But the Indian urging to deny shelter to
such independence-seeking rebels put enormous pressure on Bangladesh to
control its porous border with West Bengal and with the northeastern
states already plagued by other problems. Ostensibly under New Delhi’s
sway, Bangladesh rushed into the CHT peace accord with the
Shantibahini, which gives India more leverage against those guerrilla
fighters who reportedly take shelter in the CHT forests when chased by
the Indian soldiers.
Ironically, Bangladesh government got little help from India in
fighting its own separatists in the CHT until the peace accord was
signed. Even now factions of the (CHT) separatists and their leaders
allegedly enjoy shelter in India.
For the last couple of years, Bangladesh has found itself in the
quagmire of domestic terror, armed confrontation, violent crimes and
lawlessness. The weapons smuggling and illegal drug trafficking are
often linked with the militants on the Indian (to a less extent
Myanmar) side of the borders. Large-scale smuggling of illegal
merchandise and consumer goods also constitutes a security concern for
Bangladesh. Earlier this year, a high Bangladeshi official observed
appropriately that Bangladesh was a victim of the insurgency in India’s
Northeast. But, on the contrary, New Delhi routinely accuses Bangladesh
(more recently also Bhutan) for becoming a hidden rendezvous for the
separatists — it is believed that the Pakistan’s covert support to the
Indian dissidents are smuggled through Bangladesh, an allegation that
the GOB has denied more than once.
India reportedly banned new madrassas near the (Indian side) of the
India-Bangladesh border — they are suspected as the cover for the ISI-
connected anti-Indian elements. It was reported that the Indian police
carried out several undeclared raids on the Bangladesh side of the
border, which embarrassed the otherwise friendly Awami League
government.
More frequently than others, the chief ministers of Assam and Tripura
accused Bangladesh for sheltering the resurrected ULFA and the National
Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFD) activists. It is feared that their
suspected "copy cats" now raised heads in West Bengal. The public
perceptions on this matter are even more accusatory and many Indians in
the northeastern states believe that the ULFAs operated from under
cover in Bangladesh. A few years back Anup Chetia, the ULFA leader, was
arrested in Dhaka, and he is still in jail, but not extradited to India
that New Delhi wanted very much. In the past, the ULFA campaign was
directed against the "outsiders" of Bangladeshi origin as a contrast to
the recent campaign against the Hindi-speaking settlers in Assam. It is
not inconceivable that the feared anti-Bengali campaign could result in
large-scale refugees fleeing the insurgency-prone Northeast, and seek
shelter in Bangladesh.
Not long ago, there was an interesting news from a town in Tripura,
India: as a protest to the tribal attacks on them and to draw attention
to the authorities’ inability to protect them, the Bengali residents
there had hoisted the Bangladeshi flag, sought Bangladeshi
intervention, and they announced that they wanted to go back to their
original homeland in Bangladesh, where they originally came from.
Symbolic though such protests are, it is a nightmare for the
Bangladeshis even to think about such eventuality! More recently, the
Bangladesh border police were on extra alert since it was feared the
separatists in the Tripura state — chased by the Indian armed forces —
might take shelter in Bangladeshi territory.
By its own admission, the Awami League government, since 1996, did not
provide any safe haven to India’s guerrilla fighters in the Northeast.
Most recently, following a rumour that he was killed in a factional
strife in Bangladesh, the ULFA leader Paresh Barua told the BBC that
his organisation had no base in Bangladesh. But it’s not clear what
would the authorities in Dhaka do if the militant infiltrators still
slip inside the Bangladesh border, and hide among people in different
areas including the cities. Depending on the escalation of the
Kamatapuri independence movement, it is quite possible that the
Rajbongshis-Kochs might take shelter in Rangpur and Dinajpur in
Bangladesh from where many Kochs migrated, and some of them stayed back
since 1947. New Delhi is still waiting for the much-hoped-for strategic
lifeline for effectively fighting the separatists in the Northeast—a
proposal vehemently opposed by many in Bangladesh.
Notwithstanding the Indian charges, it is not in Bangladesh’s security
interests to succumb to all that New Delhi wants from Dhaka. Indeed,
combing operation against the supposedly hidden insurgents in
Bangladesh could be counterproductive — the militants could retaliate
by hitting targets in Bangladesh, and open a Pandora’s box for the
whole nation. If Bangladesh fails to close such suspected sanctuaries
within its border, will India intervene to take out such secret
locations of the separatist outfits?
Bangladesh may be heading for the pounding demands for a greater
autonomy/secession of its own tribal people in the hill districts and
in other parts of the country — the tribal leaders in the CHT have
recently called for a mobilisation of all Bangladeshis of tribal
ancestries. It may not be too far when the tribal leaders in the CHT
extrapolate their present peace accord, and ask for statehood, familiar
with what is happening on the other side of the border. It is no secret
that a group of leaders from India have periodically proposed to carve
out a "Hindu-majority state" in a few districts in Bangladesh — a
preposterous idea, but some people have been talking about it with
impunity.
Divided Indian Northeast and West Bengal stand. New Delhi has the
military, administrative and political resources to contain its
separatists — but they constitute security threats to the neighbours.
_____________________
M. Rashiduzzaman teaches Political Science at Rowan University,
Glassboro, New Jersey, USA
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
A.H. Jaffor Ullah
an 'old hat' known sympathizer of Pakistan. His anti-Indian stance is
understandable knowing his allegiance to his old country. Do you know that
he didn't support the cause for the independence of Bangladesh in 1971? How
funny it is that now he is a big champion of Bangladesh. To know more about
him, please visit the following web site. There are tons of materials in
this web site including two debates proceedings (Jinnah Debate of NFB and
Intellectual Collaborator Debates of 1997 and 1998). There is also an
article written by him, which would expose his viewpoint.
http://communities.msn.com/IntellectualCollaboratorDebateof199798
<asad...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:94nu5k$8i3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Holiday, January 12, 2001
>
> Bangladesh and the Separatists quest across the border
>
> M. Rashiduzzaman
>
> Not yet a catastrophic display of separatist bloodletting, but the
> roiling of the new Kamatpur (Koch-Rajbongshis) Liberation Organisation
> (KLO) and the nearly forgotten Gorkha movement are sending tremors in
> the Indian Northeast, and beyond. The Kamatpuris want a separate state
> consisting of six districts - Malda, North Dinajpur, South Dinajpur,
> counter killings - the rebels accused that the Indian intelligence was
> separatists - it is believed that the Pakistan's covert support to the
> Indian dissidents are smuggled through Bangladesh, an allegation that
> the GOB has denied more than once.
>
>
> India reportedly banned new madrassas near the (Indian side) of the
> India-Bangladesh border - they are suspected as the cover for the ISI-
> separatists in the Tripura state - chased by the Indian armed forces -
> might take shelter in Bangladeshi territory.
>
>
> By its own admission, the Awami League government, since 1996, did not
> provide any safe haven to India's guerrilla fighters in the Northeast.
> Most recently, following a rumour that he was killed in a factional
> strife in Bangladesh, the ULFA leader Paresh Barua told the BBC that
> his organisation had no base in Bangladesh. But it's not clear what
> would the authorities in Dhaka do if the militant infiltrators still
> slip inside the Bangladesh border, and hide among people in different
> areas including the cities. Depending on the escalation of the
> Kamatapuri independence movement, it is quite possible that the
> Rajbongshis-Kochs might take shelter in Rangpur and Dinajpur in
> Bangladesh from where many Kochs migrated, and some of them stayed back
> since 1947. New Delhi is still waiting for the much-hoped-for strategic
> lifeline for effectively fighting the separatists in the Northeast-a
> proposal vehemently opposed by many in Bangladesh.
>
>
> Notwithstanding the Indian charges, it is not in Bangladesh's security
> interests to succumb to all that New Delhi wants from Dhaka. Indeed,
> combing operation against the supposedly hidden insurgents in
> Bangladesh could be counterproductive - the militants could retaliate
> by hitting targets in Bangladesh, and open a Pandora's box for the
> whole nation. If Bangladesh fails to close such suspected sanctuaries
> within its border, will India intervene to take out such secret
> locations of the separatist outfits?
>
>
> Bangladesh may be heading for the pounding demands for a greater
> autonomy/secession of its own tribal people in the hill districts and
> in other parts of the country - the tribal leaders in the CHT have
> recently called for a mobilisation of all Bangladeshis of tribal
> ancestries. It may not be too far when the tribal leaders in the CHT
> extrapolate their present peace accord, and ask for statehood, familiar
> with what is happening on the other side of the border. It is no secret
> that a group of leaders from India have periodically proposed to carve
> out a "Hindu-majority state" in a few districts in Bangladesh - a
> preposterous idea, but some people have been talking about it with
> impunity.
>
> Divided Indian Northeast and West Bengal stand. New Delhi has the
> military, administrative and political resources to contain its
> separatists - but they constitute security threats to the neighbours.
vigil...@my-deja.com
We have heard it before, now we are seeing it in practice - old habits
die hard. You can not forget the wound self-inflicted by you to
yourself in your futile attempt of debate with him. Everybody remembers
the debate with Prof. Rashiduzzaman. He is a talented and bright person
of which the country feels proud of. We also remember the result of the
debate. Without being able to defend your turf and not being objective
as usual, you simply resorted to the character assasination of Dr.
Zaman. You are doing the same things again although you are supposedly
more matured (older by 3/4 years). It is really sad that being an aged
adult person, you are not capable of acting with dignity. Dr. Zaman has
been very objective, academic and honest during all his discourse in
all these years. He is entitled to his own opinion, that does not
change his stature. He is widely respected and recognized worldwide. He
is considered a trusted authority on Bangladesh affairs. The fact that
you always stoop down to personal level attacks show that you are
outside of the court, and lost on the arguments.
-Shamim Ahmed (Jhontu)
In article <kCOb6.517$GU6.1...@news1.mco>,
jaf...@my-deja.com
bill of health for Prof. Rashiduzzaman. He is quite capable of
defending his good name. I am not out of bounds to point out his
perspective. About his love for Bangladesh? Come on now! Visit the
debate site at MSN and see for yourself what the professor had to say
regarding his stance on emerging nation of Bangladesh in 1971. Even on
post-1971 days he had nothing but disdains for Bangladesh. Read his
earlier writings to see how bitter was he to see his nation (read
Pakistan) dismantled into two pieces. Please also read his article
entitled "Islam, Muslim identity, and nationalism in Bangladesh"
(http://communities.msn.com/IntellectualCollaboratorDebateof199798&naven
tryid=111) to get a glimpse of his viewpoint.
Mr. Shamim Ahmed, are you the arbiter of Rashiduzzaman debate? Why did
you take the onus of this painful job? If Rashiduzzaman can pen essays
to put forth his pet view, he should be quite capable of defending his
good name. Over the year people do change. Sometimes we become
remorseful for our past misdeeds. But Rashiduzzaman is yet to say that
he is sorry for not extending his helping hand for the cause of
Bangladesh. Diabolically, now he seems to be the protectorate of a
sovereign Bangladesh. He single-handedly waged a Jihad against Indian
hegemony when there weren’t any. My question to him and you is --
where was he during the tumultuous days of 1971? Judge a man by not
what he says, but by his deeds. Have a good day.
In article <94ogai$n5h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>The rest of Rashiduzzaman's article deleted for brevity<
asad...@my-deja.com
Asad Khan’s Response to A.H. JafforUllah: Let’s Condemn Mir Jafforian
Style Self-Promotion
I am not a self-declared writer like Mr. A.H. Jaffor Ullah. Nor am I a
prolific poster (or abuser) like Mr. Jaffor. But I read various things
in the Internet editions of newspapers from Bangladesh. I also read
SCBs and NFB. So I know Mir. Jaffor’s style of writings. I am also
familiar with Jaffor ullah’s Bangladesh-bashing. However, I have
recently learnt to post in SCBs through Deja.com. But I am not expert
in posting in SCB. So I might have to take help in future from some
other posters. I intend to post articles whichever I find interesting
and worth sharing. I have posted several articles in SCB. I may not be
in 100% agreement with the contents or conclusions of an article but
sharing that with readers is a good idea. People should have an open
mind. However, they have every right to agree or disagree with the
observations or analysis of a writer. From that point of view, I found
Mr. M. Rashiduzzaman’s article worth sharing with the readers. I read
Rashiduzzaman’s articles on regular basis. Even my father likes
Rashiduzzaman’s books and articles. I also find his writings on
Bangladesh politics very balanced and full of analysis and insights.
Mr. Jaffor is not going to like this information. He might start
calling me a Razakar or a collaborator or everything else. He may be
engaged in examining my writing style and then call me a pedagogue or a
graduate student. He will request his buddies to find out my URL number
to call me something. He may even fondly call Rashiduzzaman’ brother
because I decided to challenge his way bashing people with whom he has
disagreement. He might call me Asif Hasan, Shakil Sarwar or Tariq Ali
or CIA Siddiqui etc. A.H. Jaffor Ullah, the creator of Fatemollah,
Kamran Mirza, and ABUL HASANATH, is no one to question the genuineness
of any poster’s identity. I can't let Jaffor Ullah's mockery go
unchallenged, not this time.
I know truth deeply really hurts Jaffor Ullah. However, Mr. Jaffor has
every right to agree or disagree with me or any other author. .I never
expect him to agree with Professor Rashiduzzaman’s views. As a
reader, I would have enjoyed reading Mr. Jaffor’s comments on the
strengths and weaknesses of Professor Rashiduzzaman’s article. Instead
of commenting on the CONTENTS of Dr. Rashiduzzaman’s artiicle, Jaffor
Ullah once again started personal attack on the author.
A.H. Jaffor Ullah wrote: “Prof. Rashiduzzaman is not a newcomer to Indo-
Pak-Bangla geopolitics. He is an 'old hat' known sympathizer of
Pakistan. His anti-Indian stance is understandable knowing his
allegiance to his old country. Do you know that he didn't support the
cause for the independence of Bangladesh in 1971? How funny it is that
now he is a big champion of Bangladesh. To know more about him, please
visit the following web site. There are tons of materials in this web
site including two debates proceedings (Jinnah Debate of NFB and
Intellectual Collaborator Debates of 1997 and 1998). There is also an
article written by him, which would expose his viewpoint.”
Let the readers judge for themselves how unconnected and defamatory are
A.H. Jaffor Ullah’s slanderous comments are. In another post, he even
questioned Dr. Rashiduzzaman’s patriotism. These shameless and
irrelevant comments were posted by A.H. Jaffor Ullah without any
provocation from me or the author of the article. On the same day, I
also posted several articles in the SCBs. He did not care about those
articles because those were not written by the same author. My only
fault is that I posted Rashiduzzaman’s article. I had no idea that A.H
Jaffor Ullah will use my posting as an excuse to insult a gentleman for
expressing his views in a published article (it was already published
in HOLIDAY, January 12, 2001). I had no idea that I needed A.H. Jaffor
Ullah’s permission to post this article in SCBs. I decided not to let
Jaffor Ullah’s Baidmaishi go unchallenged.
Instead of refuting or confronting the author’s contention, A.H. Jaffor
Ullah has preferred to spread rumors against the author. Often A.
Jaffor Ullah will profess that “Don’t attack the MESSANGER” but attack
the message.” But it is this very A.H. Jaffor Ullah who is fond of
attacking the authors instead of challenging the messages of many
authors. He has demonstrated his indecency through spreading
unsubstantiated allegations against the author. This Jaffor ullah even
dares to question Rashiduzzaman’s loyalty to Bangladesh. What a shame.
Unfortunately, A.H. Jaffor Ullah is shameless. It is very hard to shame
the shameless.
I find Jaffor Ullah’s comments offensive and totally irrelevant to the
present context. Who can deny that India has a serious problem in
dealing with various issues including “separatism” in the Northern
Eastern states? Without agreeing or disagreeing with Rashiduzzaman’s
conclusions, no objective reader can deny that Bangladesh is in a
serious dilemma in dealing with the problems of separatist movements in
Indian North Eastern states. ULFA leader is still in Bangladesh jail
even though Indian government has been arm-twisting a friendlier
Bangladesh Government. Quite frequently, Bangladesh is accused of, by
Indian Government, sponsoring separatist movements in North Eastern
States. There is no harm in discussing these contemporary issues.
I think M. Rashiduzzaman correctly observed: “Notwithstanding the
Indian charges, it is not in Bangladesh's security interests to succumb
to all that New Delhi wants from Dhaka. Indeed, combing operation
against the supposedly hidden insurgents in Bangladesh could be
counterproductive - the militants could retaliate by hitting targets in
Bangladesh, and open a Pandora's box for the whole nation. If
Bangladesh fails to close such suspected sanctuaries within its border,
will India intervene to take out such secret locations of the
separatist outfits?”
I find nothing anti-Indian in Dr. Rashduzzaman’s concluding remarks:”
Bangladesh may be heading for the pounding demands for a greater
autonomy/secession of its own tribal people in the hill districts and
in other parts of the country - the tribal leaders in the CHT have
recently called for a mobilisation of all Bangladeshis of tribal
ancestries. It may not be too far when the tribal leaders in the CHT
extrapolate their present peace accord, and ask for statehood, familiar
with what is happening on the other side of the border. It is no secret
that a group of leaders from India have periodically proposed to carve
out a "Hindu-majority state" in a few districts in Bangladesh – a
preposterous idea, but some people have been talking about it with
impunity. Divided Indian Northeast and West Bengal stand. New Delhi
has the military, administrative and political resources to contain its
separatists --- but they constitute security threats to the neighbours.”
Although Mr. Jaffor Ullah may not have time or patience to read
(because he always remains ver busy with dictionaries and encyclopedias
for ‘writing” articles on or for his motherland), the Indian newspapers
and weeklies (in India, print media has traditionally enjoyed more
freedom of press and expression than in Bangladesh or Pakistan) are
replete with articles on these issues including SEPARATISM in NORTH
EASTERN INDIAN STATES. Jaffor Ullah now smells “anti-Indianism” because
M. Rashiduzzaman has written a readable and useful article for HOLIDAY
(January 12, 2001).
Dr. A.H. Jaffor Ullah has also played a double standard when he smelled
“anti-India” bias in M. Rashiduzzaman’s article even though he himself
recommended (using a FALSE NAME ABUL HASANATH) for the break-up of
North-Indian States and formation of a CONFEDARATION (I don’t think
A.H. Jaffor Ullah has any clear idea of the concepts of Confederation
or Federation—dictionaries can’t take him too far) along with
Bangladesh. The following quotes from A.H. Jaffor Ullah alias ABUL
HASANATH (anyone can easily retrieve this masterpiece from the SCB
archives if you just type Abul Hasanath and indicate “past” or “all”
and then push search button) will expose the real color of the
hypocrisies of this self-appreciating writer:
“News From Bangladesh” (NFB)
June 5, 2000 [also posted in SCBs during that time]
“Editorial and Commentary”
A radical regional reorganization: Are we ready for this?
By Abul Hasanath [the assumed name of A.H. Jaffor Ullah]
“In this article, a proposal for a massive reorganization of the entire
region of the Northeast India is put forth for discussion. A radically
different idea is proposed here that calls for a drastic reorganization
of eight northeastern states of India along with now sovereign
Bangladesh. This idea was inspired by the formation of European
Commission through which the member countries will benefit enormously
in pure economic term, of course.”
“Why should one propose this radical reorganization of the states and
nation in the Northeast? Please read on. Perhaps after reading this
modest proposal, you may agree that there is no harm if we engage in
critical thinking about the future of our people of the Northeast.
After all, there is so much commonality among the people of this
region, notwithstanding the religious and some minor cultural
differences. The status quo of abject living condition of masses in
this region is not acceptable for two reasons: India as a political
entity is too big for equitable distribution of national wealth to the
citizens of smaller states and Bangladesh, territorially speaking, is
too small of a country to derive benefits of globalization going
forward. However, there is a solution in sight. If, the Seven Sister
States and West Bengal break away from India and conjoin with
Bangladesh in a loose confederation, then this new entity of about 250
million people living in a space of 189,733 square mile may prosper
economically through much enhanced inter-trading among the nine states,
which is not happening at this time.”
The following was A.H. Jaffor Ullah’s useless conclusion of his absurd
proposal: “The proposed confederacy of nine separate states (nations)
to form a union in the Northeast a la European Commission may serve as
a prototype for similar confederacies in rest of India. Bigger is not
necessarily better when not managed efficiently. Over half a century's
experimentation with democracy and centralized economic planning, India
did not deliver what it promised to the general folks -- alleviation of
poverty and a bare minimum standard of living for the poorest of the
poor. It is about the time that Northeast India should critically think
about their future and economic well-being. Let the impoverished
Northeast India do things differently. What do they have to lose?”
----------------------------------------
‘Mr. Abul Hasanath [Dr. A.H. Jaffor Ullah] writes from America.
Comments could be directed to his e-mail address - chay...@hotmail.com
I found A.H. Jaffor Ullah’s ramblings preposterous. His recommendations
are full of absurdities. While Mir Jaffors of Bangladesh might find any
pro-Bangladesh statements or postures even in an objective and
scholarly discourse, there is nothing wrong in truthfully spelling out
Bangladesh’s dilemma in dealing with the insurgency movements in
several North-Eastern states of India. In fact, insurgency movements
across the borders may be considered as threats Bangladesh’s
sovereignty. I don’t think anyone from Bangladesh or India needs Mir
Jafforian mode of distorted perspective or Mir Jafforian tool of
analysis to discuss or deal with serious problems that demand broader
international and regional approach.
Thanks for your time. Asad_Khan
In article <94phoq$hs1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
naray...@my-deja.com
The Rashiuzzaman's garbiticle (garbage + article) that was published in
Mr. Enayetullah Khan's stenchy mouth piece of Jan 12, 2001 issue
surprised none.
Remember the dogs of the famous Hounds of Baskerville? That the dogs
did not bark when it should have helped to resolve the case. Here too,
only the street dogs did not bark in the fateful days of 1971. What
more convincing
evidence is wanted of them? A Mahmud Ali or a "Raja" Tridib Roy have
at least the guts to admit that they did and still do lick the Masters'
boots.
I believe Mr. Zaman has earned at least a Doctoral degree somehow and
have learned the mastery of licking Masters' boots without being easily
recognized. When it becomes obvious, he adopts the tactics of soiling
the throwing pie at the nemesis of masters'. Thus, anything Indian is
his target. He can paint Indian landscape with only one brush - that of
F.M. Sam Maneckshaw and Gen. Aurara who assisted the thugs away with
heads bend up to knees. He is the same analyst, in his quest to be a
Kuldip Nayar or a M. J. Akbar, tried to scuttle the CHT Peace treaty
and the Water Treaty with India. He announced that these treaties were
the result of intense "Goading" by the big brother India. Any proof for
such assertion? What proof, has he not heard the rumor at the Gandaria
neighborhood?
Now in his latest thoughtful analysis, no better than the write-ups of
Khoir Khans and Nayeb Alis, asserted that the eastern region of India
will disintegrate and there is a security risk of Bangladesh itself.
Thus "WATCH OUT." Get armed, make alliance with the pariah Islamic
republics like Pakistan and the Talibanis. Result? Consolidation of
reactionary forces of the young Bangladesh. Chase out outspoken writers
and journalists, blast bombs at rallies of secular parties, spread
rumors and sow disaffection among various religious and ethnic groups
who are fairly well dealt by the present administration.
Dr. Zaman et al are busy in telling the Bangladeshi readers about the
Rajbangshis, Nepalis, Nagas, Tripuris and other groups' dissatisfaction
against the Indian and regional governments. He would have us believe
that their liberation is near imminent and that there are some cards in
Dhaka's hand only if the Gang of Four had a chance! Alas, Dr. Zaman,
Dilli Dur Ast.
It is true that the struggle of indigenous people of India had begun a
thousand years ago. They have been kicked by almost everybody, Sens,
Pals, Mughals, Pathans, Brits and even Habshis included. Only after
1947 they are receiving some attention though not proportional to the
amount they deserve.
The struggle will go on; the path is thorny but progress will
definitely be made sooner than later. How do all these can be a ground
of pleasure for Dr. Zaman and Mr. Enayetullah Khan? The same Khan who
did not hesitate to serve under a dictator only the other day? Have
the spots disappeared so soon?
Talking of the Kamtapuri/Rajbangshis of North Bengal, any
anthropologist will agree that they are no less Bengali than a
Kaliganji like Dr. Zaman - just in case. Rajbangshi dialect is far
more understandable in streets of Jessore or Howrah than that of guy
from Chittagong. Where outside of Chittagong will understand the
phrase, "I coinn no fairoom." or "Puatto Chiaiee Dibek"?
The real sufferer of a destabilization of the region will be the people
of the entire North East India and Bangladesh and may be even some
states of Myanmar.
Another exercise of mass scale population movement will benefit none.
Imagine, Kamtapuris sending back the Kishorganjis, the Ahoms sending
back the Mymensinghas, the Tripuris push back the Comillaites and
Sylhetis, Saidpuris kick back the folks who arrived from Murshidabad
and Kolkata. Who on earth can handle such a massive cross-exodus that
invariably will be associated with large scale bloodletting?
In our country, farmers would put a restrain on the mouth of their
calves until he learns the protocol of grazing. Can we not have
something of that sort for the pens of erratic pen pushers? Amen.
In article <94nu5k$8i3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
asad...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Holiday, January 12, 2001
>
> Bangladesh and the Separatists quest across the border
>
> M. Rashiduzzaman
>
> Not yet a catastrophic display of separatist bloodletting, but the
> roiling of the new Kamatpur (Koch-Rajbongshis) Liberation Organisation
> (KLO) and the nearly forgotten Gorkha movement are sending tremors in
> the Indian Northeast, and beyond. The Kamatpuris want a separate state
> consisting of six districts — Malda, North Dinajpur, South Dinajpur,
> Darjheeling, Jalpaiguri and Cooch Behar in West Bengal. Their militant
> front, the KLO, promised to "fight for independence of the Kamatpuri
> people". The police arrested about 200 Kamatpuri activists in the last
> few weeks; several people were killed followed by rallies and strikes.
> But they were not the only full-throated advocates for separate
> homeland. The Gorkha Liberation Organisation (GIO), nearly lying low
> for years, recently stepped up its activities.
>> Rest of it deleted for brevity<<
mhz...@my-deja.com
He is
> an 'old hat' known sympathizer of Pakistan. His anti-Indian stance is
> understandable knowing his allegiance to his old country. Do you know
that
> he didn't support the cause for the independence of Bangladesh in
1971? How
> funny it is that now he is a big champion of Bangladesh. To know more
about
> him, please visit the following web site. There are tons of materials
in
> this web site including two debates proceedings (Jinnah Debate of NFB
and
> Intellectual Collaborator Debates of 1997 and 1998). There is also an
> article written by him, which would expose his viewpoint.
Dr. Jaffor Ullah, many times in the past, you advised nettors to "attack
the message, not the messenger." Aren't you contradicting your own
advice by attacking Dr. Rashiduzzaman's background and character,
rather than the content of his article? Best wishes.
M. Harun uz Zaman
Columbus, Ohio
--
M. Harun uz Zaman, Ph.D.
The Ohio State University
A.H. Jaffor Ullah
articles for quite sometime. You are not a newcomer to this newsgroup. You
probably know the perspective of Dr. Rashiduzzaman. But what about those new
readers? Dr. Rashiduzzaman's angle from the very beginning had been
anti-Indian. He is telling for a long long time that India is the proverbial
Nine Hundred Pound Gorilla that we should watch out.
Here in the case of Dr. Rashiduzzaman, the message and messenger's psyche is
interwoven. You cannot separate one from the other. In 1960s, he was
selling Ayub Khan through his ardor for Basic Democracy. During 1971, he
did not support our struggle for an independent Bangladesh. To add insult to
the injury, in the post-independence period, Dr. Rashiduzzaman wrote quite a
few popular articles and some also in peer-reviewed journal maligning the
leading political party of the new republic. This political scientist has
not buzzed one inch from his stance since then. He wrote in one place that
Jamaat and other Islamists would give Awami League (Read Sheikh Mujib) run
for their life. But that didn't happen. After the passage of CHT treaty, he
again became active. This time the message was slightly different. But the
big word was Indian hegemony. And now in the year 2000 and 2001, again the
old message is reappearing. To be honest with you, Dr. Rashiduzzaman of 2001
is the same person of 1960s. Therefore, it is imperative that we know the
man first before we are reacquainted with his old wine neatly packaged in
the new bottle.
I still think that we would be better-off discussing his message. But Dr.
Rashiduzzaman's message is the same. You are entitled to have your opinion
about him. You may even like his message. But is that the objective reality?
India is Bangladesh's neighbor. What we write in this forum or in any other
forum would not change the political geography of South Asia in the near
term. The best recourse for us (Bangladesh's perspective) would be to live
harmoniously with our giant neighbor. If there are some problems with border
or bilateral trade, we can settle these without having to globalize the
issues (read bringing Pakistan's ISI into the picture). Now let us look at
the silent messages of Prof. Rashiduzzaman. He is bent on making India the
devil we are supposed to abhor. To that I say enough is enough.
<mhz...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:94sf05$4nh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <kCOb6.517$GU6.1...@news1.mco>,
> "A.H. Jaffor Ullah" <Jaf...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > Prof. Rashiduzzaman is not a newcomer to Indo-Pak-Bangla geopolitics.
> He is
> > an 'old hat' known sympathizer of Pakistan. His anti-Indian stance is
> > understandable knowing his allegiance to his old country. Do you know
> that
> > he didn't support the cause for the independence of Bangladesh in
> 1971? How
> > funny it is that now he is a big champion of Bangladesh. To know more
> about
> > him, please visit the following web site. There are tons of materials
> in
> > this web site including two debates proceedings (Jinnah Debate of NFB
> and
> > Intellectual Collaborator Debates of 1997 and 1998). There is also an
> > article written by him, which would expose his viewpoint.
>
> Dr. Jaffor Ullah, many times in the past, you advised nettors to "attack
> the message, not the messenger." Aren't you contradicting your own
> advice by attacking Dr. Rashiduzzaman's background and character,
> rather than the content of his article? Best wishes.
>
> M. Harun uz Zaman
> Columbus, Ohio
<< The rest deleted for the sake of brevity>>
mhz...@my-deja.com
"A.H. Jaffor Ullah" <Jaf...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Dear Dr. Harun-uz Zaman, Dr. Rashiduzzaman had been writing similar
> articles for quite sometime. You are not a newcomer to this newsgroup.
You
> probably know the perspective of Dr. Rashiduzzaman. But what about
those new
> readers? Dr. Rashiduzzaman's angle from the very beginning had been
> anti-Indian. He is telling for a long long time that India is the
proverbial
> Nine Hundred Pound Gorilla that we should watch out.
All of the above may be true. Dr. Rashiduzzaman does not certainly have
a friendly posture toward India. But you could criticize THAT
perspective of his within the framework of criticizing the SUBSTANCE
of his article, without bringing in his background and character.
> Here in the case of Dr. Rashiduzzaman, the message and messenger's
psyche is
> interwoven.
They (the message and the messenger)always are. It is true about you,
and it is true about me. Alerting the readers about his "questionable"
background (from your perspective) and his character (e.g., his
patriotism) does not contribute to substantive criticism of his views.
This is the equivalent of alerting readers that you are "pro-Indian" or
"less than patriotic" while discusssing one of your articles that
support a friendly posture toward India (this happens quite often,
does'nt it?). The true merits (or demerits) of your argument (that a
friendly posture toward India are in the best interests of Bangladesh)
are lost when people are alerted to your alleged "pro-Indian" or
"anti-Bangladeshi" bias.
You cannot separate one from the other.
You certainly can separate one from the other when you are debating an
issue. You have to take motives into consideration only when you are
engaged in warfare or a strategic game, and in those situations you
certainly should not separate the two. Newsgroups are not the best fora
to conduct strategic games or warfare.
Alternatively, if you consider newsgroups as platforms or theaters for
warfare, the whole point of having an argument is lost when you try
to predispose loyalists and opponents of a certain point of view by
alerting the audience about the biases of your opponent and "exposing"
his "true" character. The causalties are the intrinsic merits of an
argument. So, no matter whether it is in the best interests of
Bangladesh to be friendly with India, the merits of this position will
be lost if someone predisposes and distracts the readership into viewing
you as an "Indian agent."
In 1960s, he was
> selling Ayub Khan through his ardor for Basic Democracy.
I know that he wrote a book on Basic Democracy. As an academic, he was
entitled write a book on any political system. The question is, was that
an analytical book, or an advocacy pamphlet? I have not read the book.
So, I do not know. Did you read the book?
Writing a book on the Iranian revolution does not make one a Islamic
Fundamentalist, unless the book directly and clearly supports the
revolution, even if the author says a few good things (and also bad
things). Or if the author talks about its operational effectiveness, as
opposed to its moral desirabilty, that does not also make the author an
Islamic Fundamentalist.
During 1971,
he
> did not support our struggle for an independent Bangladesh.
I did write about this issue before. He was fully entitled to whatever
political stance he took in 1971. He would have committed a crime if he
participated in, assisted or endorsed the human rights crimes
perpetrated by the Pakistani army. To the best of my knowledge, he did
not do that.
To add
insult to
> the injury, in the post-independence period, Dr. Rashiduzzaman wrote
quite a
> few popular articles and some also in peer-reviewed journal maligning
the
> leading political party of the new republic.
Maligning the leading political party right after independence was
something that was done by many people, including former MuktiJodhdhas,
such as Serajul Alam Khan, Major Jalil, Mr. A.S.M. Abdur Rab, and
Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani. I do not see why that would be such a
a terrible crime.
This political scientist
has
> not buzzed one inch from his stance since then. He wrote in one place
that
> Jamaat and other Islamists would give Awami League (Read Sheikh Mujib)
run
> for their life. But that didn't happen. After the passage of CHT
treaty, he
> again became active. This time the message was slightly different. But
the
> big word was Indian hegemony. And now in the year 2000 and 2001, again
the
> old message is reappearing. To be honest with you, Dr. Rashiduzzaman
of 2001
> is the same person of 1960s. Therefore, it is imperative that we know
the
> man first before we are reacquainted with his old wine neatly packaged
in
> the new bottle.
Please see above.
> I still think that we would be better-off discussing his message.
I am glad you agree with me.
But
Dr.
> Rashiduzzaman's message is the same. You are entitled to have your
opinion
> about him. You may even like his message.
I do not like his message any better than I like your message. I believe
that both of you should be able to express your views without having
your motives impugned, and have those views judged on their own merits
rather than on preconceived notions about your respective biases.
I have my own perspective about things that does not agree with the
mainstream opinions and political polarities. For example, I do not
necessarily advocate either a hostile or friendly posture toward India.
I believe that we should arrive at a rational strategy that is in the
best interest of Bangladesh, and if the merits of opposing choices are
close, I (by my own mental constitution) prefer the friendlier
alternative. To resolve a conflict, I would always try a friendly option
first, and if it fails, then move into a more hostile strategy.
But is that the objective
reality?
> India is Bangladesh's neighbor. What we write in this forum or in any
other
> forum would not change the political geography of South Asia in the
near
> term.
Then, why are you (or Dr. Rashiduzzaman) doing it?
The best recourse for us (Bangladesh's perspective) would be to
live
> harmoniously with our giant neighbor. If there are some problems with
border
> or bilateral trade, we can settle these without having to globalize
the
> issues (read bringing Pakistan's ISI into the picture). Now let us
look at
> the silent messages of Prof. Rashiduzzaman. He is bent on making India
the
> devil we are supposed to abhor. To that I say enough is enough.
Please see my views in the preceding paragraph.
Best wishes.
--
asad...@my-deja.com
MY Response to Narayan Gupta alias Fatemollah: Let’s Shun the
Intellectual Hoodlums
By Asad-Khan
Introduction
I had no idea when I posted several articles in SCBs that I will be
busy in “writing” articles (as the intellectual frauds claim) for
“helping” our homeland. Since I am a novice in this business, I have
been reading many posts from SCB archives to understand the nature and
extent of Mir Jafforian propaganda against some of the SCB posters or
writers of articles. I found gold mines in SCB archives. Don’t be
surprised if I even re-post some of those rejoinders, especially those
which have been selectively and mischievously doctored or left out from
the Mir Jafforian Web site. At an appropriate time, I will also freely
borrow facts (even vocabularies) from the SCB ARCHIVES. It goes
without saying that I am not in competition with any bogus
intellectual. I am also in the process of collecting some relevant
information on couple of slanderers to depict their hypocrisies.
Two Intellectual Hoodlums, Narayan Gupta and Mir Jaffor Ullah, are
waiting for a response from me. They love to be engaged in “DEBATE.”
They have substitute name-calling and slandering others for “debate.”
They are dedicated to the salvation of our motherland by writing
“articles” for saving our motherland. They want me to take part in
this. Both of them have flooded SCBs with their “important articles”
for rescuing our motherland from the imaginary enemies of our
motherland. For them, spreading rumors and lies about individuals for
expressing opinions is going to help Bangladesh. For them, slandering
individual human beings for holding different views is crucial to
develop Bangladesh. For them, attacking personal sentiments and
religious beliefs will transform them into neo-secularists. Bashing is
their business—may be their only pre-occupation is with bashing
something: they are engaged in Bangladesh-Bashing, Rashiduzzaman-
Bashing, Muslim-Bashing, Islam-Bashing.
EXCHANGE: (according to Mir Jafforian version, this is a Debate)
M. Rashiduzzaman, the author of “Bangladesh and the Separatists Quest
Across the Border (Holiday, January 12, 2001) is once again under
slanderous attack from Narayan Guptas and Mir Jaffor Ullahs. These
bogus secularists get very sensitive if Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman writes an
article on any topic related to Indian pressures on Bangladesh.
Narayan Gupta alias Fatemollah, a celebrated self-serving secularist,
started his response with the following dirt: (Reference: Narayan
Gupta, “My Gut Reaction to Rashiduzzamn’s Holiday article," SCB,
January 26, 2001) : “The Rashiuzzaman's garbiticle (garbage + article)
that was published in Mr. Enayetullah Khan's stenchy mouth piece of Jan
12, 2001 issue surprised none. Remember the dogs of the famous Hounds
of Baskerville? That the dogs did not bark when it should have helped
to resolve the case. Here too, only the street dogs did not bark in the
fateful days of 1971. What more convincing evidence is wanted of them?
A Mahmud Ali or a "Raja" Tridib Roy have at least the guts to admit
that they did and still do lick the Masters' boots.”
My Response: Any reader can easily note from the opening indecent words
of Narayan Gupta that he is engaged in all kinds of name-calling even
though Mir Jaffor Ullah calls “it” an “analysis” of Rashiduzzaman’s
article. In stead of writing a rebuttal to Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman’s
article, Narayan Gupta (may be with some MIR Jafforian editorial
assistance) characterized the article as Garbage. Having tasted that
“Garbage,” Narayan Gupta is now accusing both the author of the article
and the Editor of Holiday . he caled them “some kind of street dogs.”
It seems that Narayan Gupta has a fancy for garbage. He loves to smell
and lick “garbage.” So he is now looking for street dogs.
It is very clear from Narayan Gupta’s name-calling and name-dropping
that he has essentially nothing substantive to refute Rashiduzzaman’s
observations. If Narayan Gupta-cum Fatemollah had any decency left in
his character then he would have tried to refute the observations of
the author. Given the fact that the author of the said article had
relied, I assume, on many national Indian Dailies and Weeklies, I would
like to conclude that neither Narayan Gupta nor Mir Jaffor ullah has
stomach for digesting the truth
Any reader can look for Indian dailies or weeklies like Statesman or
Outlook etc to substantiate what Rashiduzzaman has narrated in refined
English. Narayan Gupta’s agenda driven name-calling will take him
nowhere. Mir Jafforian diffusion of blatant falsehoods about a single
individual can’t give any ounce of credibility to MIR JAFFORIAN lies.
Having lost his mind, Narayan Gupta, known for his Bangladesh-bashing,
kept on name-calling and name dropping without adding any concrete
comment on the content of the article. This is nothing but an act of
desperation. Having followed the Mir Jafforian dictum, if you can’t
repudiate the MESSAGE, try to REPUDIATE the MESSANGER, Narayan Gupta-
cum Fatemollah tried to assassinate the author’s character with the
following lies: “I believe Mr. Zaman has earned at least a Doctoral
degree somehow and have learned the mastery of licking Masters' boots
without being easily recognized. When it becomes obvious, he adopts the
tactics of soiling the throwing pie at the nemesis of masters'. Thus,
anything Indian is his target. He can paint Indian landscape with only
one brush - that of F.M. Sam Maneckshaw and Gen. Aurara who assisted
the thugs away with heads bend up to knees. He is the same analyst, in
his quest to be a Kuldip Nayar or a M. J. Akbar, tried to scuttle the
CHT Peace treaty and the Water Treaty with India. He announced that
these treaties were the result of intense "Goading" by the big brother
India. Any proof for such assertion? What proof, has he not heard the
rumor at the Gandaria neighborhood?”
My Response: I found Narayan Gupta’s reckless comments totally
irrelevant to the contents of the article. It is below dignity to
comment on Gupta’s shameless behavior in public forum. However,
suffice it to say that only a bootlicker with Narayan Gupta’s tainted
past can characterize a scholar of good standing or any another
ordinary human being for expressing his opinions in signed article in a
reputed weekly like HOLIDAY. It is an open secret that “Bangladesh
Government” was “goaded” by India for reaching a CHT Treaty. We don’t
need Rashiduzzaman to tell us about this. There is a consensus among
most of the observers of Bangladesh politics about the fact that India
pressured Bangladesh before, during and after the signing of CHT
treaty. I read several of his articles on CHT treaty including the one
published in the Asian Survey. Since I am a die-hard supporter of CHT
treaty, I found Rashiduzzaman’s observations on CHT treaty stipulations
more critical. But I found nothing anti-Indian or unpatriotic in
Rashiduzzaman’s articles on CHT treaty. In fact, he seems to be much
more balanced than most of the critics of CHT treaty. Shame on Narayan
Gupta and Mir Jaffor Ullah for distorting facts.
Bangladesh’s Water Treaty with India is a sham—it is a mockery. The way
the Indian Government has treated various Governments of Bangladesh
over the years is less than fair. Neither Mir Jaffor Ullah nor Narayan
Gupta will concede that the Awami League Government has persistently
expressed frustration for India’s non-compliance of the stipulations of
the Water treaty. The present Government of Bangladesh intensely
dislikes India’s maneuverings and pressures for demanding a linkage
between transit facility and water treaty. All of the newspapers have
been critical about India’s pressures on Bangladesh for opening up
transit facilities in exchange of normal flow if international ways
through Farrakka. I don’t know if Rashiduzzaman has authored any
article on Farraka issue. Truth is stranger than fiction. It is
tragic that in stead of writing rebuttals, Narayan Guptas or Mir Jaffor
Ullahs have taken the cheap path for disseminating slanderous
propaganda against the author. Shame on Narayan Gupta.
Having nurtured a sense of hatred against anything to do with Muslim or
Islamic identity, NARAYAN GUPTA alias Fatemollah wrote: “Now in his
latest thoughtful analysis, no better than the write-ups of Khoir Khans
and Nayeb Alis, asserted that the eastern region of India will
disintegrate and there is a security risk of Bangladesh itself. Thus
"WATCH OUT." Get armed, make alliance with the pariah Islamic republics
like Pakistan and the Talibanis. Result? Consolidation of reactionary
forces of the young Bangladesh. Chase out outspoken writers and
journalists, blast bombs at rallies of secular parties, spread rumors
and sow disaffection among various religious and ethnic groups who are
fairly well dealt by the present administration.”
My Response: I re-read the entire article of Dr. Rashiduzzaman more
than once. The author clearly underscored Bangladesh’s persistent
problems in dealing with spillover effects of insurgency movements in
several North Eastern States of India. No one, excepting some anti-
Bangladeshi elements like Narayan Gupta and his Bangladeshi
collaborator Mir Jaffor Ullah can deny this predicament of Bangladesh.
It is a travesty of truth to suggest that the article suggested for
Bangladesh to build alliance with “talibans.” That’s pure nonsense.
Such distortion is the fruit of collusive collaboration between Narayan
Gupta and Mir Jaffor Ullah.
I think Mir Jaffor Ullahs and Narayan Guptas also got really upset when
they found out that Rashiduzzaman truthfully observed the following:
“So far, the clouds of confusion hang over what actually the Kamatpuris
and Gorkhas want. The Kamatpuris are the Koch people who came to be
known as the Rajbongshis in the 19th century and they lived in the
districts of Dinajpur, Jalpaiguri and the Cooch Behar Princely State in
British India. On the one hand, the dissident voices sound like an
independence demand. But on the other, they appear to be the vibrations
for two more states in West Bengal's north much like the seven states
carved out of the former provinces in the region. However, West Bengal
would not like its vivisection losing the tea producing and other
resource-rich districts on the periphery of the Indian insurgency-prone
states, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan. No matter if those are merely
demands for states as part of India or a radical campaign for separate
and sovereign states. Both are strategic omens for Bangladesh for more
than one reason, which the leaders in Dhaka cannot ignore, no matter
what stripes divide them politically
Dr. Rashiduzzaman also observed: “More frequently than others, the
chief ministers of Assam and Tripura accused Bangladesh for sheltering
the resurrected ULFA and the National Democratic Front of Bodoland
(NDFD) activists. It is feared that their suspected "copy cats" now
raised heads in West Bengal. The public perceptions on this matter are
even more accusatory and many Indians in the northeastern states
believe that the ULFAs operated from undercover in Bangladesh. A few
years back Anup Chetia, the ULFA leader, was arrested in Dhaka, and he
is still in jail, but not extradited to India that New Delhi wanted
very much. In the past, the ULFA campaign was directed against the
"outsiders" of Bangladeshi origin as a contrast to the recent campaign
against the Hindi-speaking settlers in Assam. It is not inconceivable
that the feared anti-Bengali campaign could result in large-scale
refugees fleeing the insurgency-prone Northeast, and seek shelter in
Bangladesh.”
Let the readers judge for themselves.
Dr. Rashiduzzaman also observed: “Whatever happens in the north of
West Bengal or in the Northeastern states of India spills over in the
neighbouring countries and whatever insurgency occurs on the other side
of the border propel Bangladesh into strategically dangerous
territories and New Delhi's diplomatic pressure cooker. Meanwhile, the
spin of the Indian media and Indian leaders are summed in the following
paragraphs: (a) India squarely blames the Pakistan's ISI operatives who
allegedly ran their activities from Bangladesh that the authorities in
Dhaka deny; (b) The ULFA activists are presumably well entrenched in
Bangladesh, and the banned organisation supported the creation of
separate states in West Bengal's northern districts that might give
them future logistical support; and (c) India also blames the
Bangladeshi Islamic forces, which presumably wanted to foment trouble
on the entire Indian side of the border.”
I find nothing illegitimate or provocative in Rashiduzzaman’s
observations.
Narayan Gupta and his collaborators have failed to refute the following
observations of Dr. Rashiduzzaman: “For the last couple of years,
Bangladesh has found itself in the quagmire of domestic terror, armed
confrontation, violent crimes and lawlessness. The weapons smuggling
and illegal drug trafficking are often linked with the militants on the
Indian (to a less extent Myanmar) side of the borders. Large-scale
smuggling of illegal merchandise and consumer goods also constitutes a
security concern for Bangladesh. Earlier this year, a high Bangladeshi
official observed appropriately that Bangladesh was a victim of the
insurgency in India's Northeast. But, on the contrary, New Delhi
routinely accuses Bangladesh (more recently also Bhutan) for becoming a
hidden rendezvous for the separatists - it is believed that the
Pakistan's covert support to the Indian dissidents are smuggled through
Bangladesh, an allegation that the GOB has denied more than once.”
In his name-calling campaign against Dr. Rashiduzzaman, Narayan Gupta
also wrote: “Dr. Zaman et al are busy in telling the Bangladeshi
have something of that sort for the pens of erratic pen pushers? Amen. “
My response: Let Narayan Gupta go to hell. Narayan Gupta jumps from one
theme to another without completing a thought or a sentence. All along
he writes incoherently without any reference to the topic under
discussion. Narayan Gupta has totally distorted whatever Dr.
Rashiduzzaman wrote about Koch-Rajbongshis in his article. Several
Indian weeklies and dailies have recently published that the
“Kamtapuris” in the northern districts of West Bengal are getting
assertive in demanding independence. This is a new development in the
context of pre-existing separatist movements in several North-Eastern
states of India. It is a matter of fact that Bangladesh has to be very
careful in dealing with separatist movements across its border.
Narayan Gupta does not like the idea that Rashiduzzaman has decided to
write an article on the issue of separatism. If Kamtapuris/Rajbonshis
regard themselves as Bangalees, then are they demanding independence?
Whether or not they are Bangalees is not the topic of the article. The
author just narrated that is a separatist movement in northern
districts of West Bengal. Rashiduzzaman observed: “Not yet a
catastrophic display of separatist bloodletting, but the roiling of the
new Kamatpur (Koch-Rajbongshis) Liberation Organisation (KLO) and the
nearly forgotten Gorkha movement are sending tremors in the Indian
Northeast, and beyond. The Kamatpuris want a separate state consisting
of six districts - Malda, North Dinajpur, South Dinajpur, Darjheeling,
Jalpaiguri and Cooch Behar in West Bengal. Their militant front, the
KLO, promised to "fight for independence of the Kamatpuri people". The
police arrested about 200 Kamatpuri activists in the last few weeks;
several people were killed followed by rallies and strikes. But they
were not the only full-throated advocates for separate homeland. The
Gorkha Liberation Organisation (GIO), nearly lying low for years,
recently stepped up its activities.”
Conclusion
It clearly shows that Narayan Gupta does not disagree with the facts
the author just narrated. The only thing is that he does not “approve”
of the fact Rashiduzzaman is the author of the article. Narayan Gupta’s
communally motivated comments on Rashiduzzaman clearly demonstrates
that his goal is to attack the author. He is desperate to see Dr.
Rashiduzzaman’s voice being silenced. Any decent individual can
understand that Narayan Gupta’s sole intent in SCB or NFB is to
continue to spread blatant lies about Rashiduzzaman. Both Mir jaffor
Ullah and Narayan Gupta alias Fatemollah are engaged in maligning and
defaming Dr. Rashiduzzaman. They have already earned “reputation” for
their indecencies. For me, neither Narayan Gupta nor Mir JafforUllah
is “intellectual” of any kind. However, they want recognition—
especially Mir Jaffor Ullah desperately wants recognition. He does not
mind even mind if I call him a “bogus” intellectual. As long as I call
Mir Jaffor Ullah an “INTELLECTUAL,” he doe not object if I call him a
“bankrupt Intellectual.” Therefore, I would like to characterize
Narayan Gupta and Mir Jaffor Ullah as “intellectual hoodlums”
Thanks for your time. Asad Khan
jaf...@my-deja.com
Khan. Then he unknowingly mutated his name to Asad-Khan. This Asad
Khan/Asad-Khan is none other than Wahiduzzaman Manik, the younger
brother of Rashiduzzaman, the controversial political science professor
who used to be a teacher at DU in the sixties and who now teaches at
Rowan College in New Jersey.
Manik Mia (Wahiduzzaman) has the nasty habit of distorting people's
name and that is not all; he frequently misidentifies folks in the
newsgroup creating a hell of a confusion.
This time for some weird reason only known to him, he is calling the
veteran writer Narayan Gupta to be the same person as Fatemolla who is
about twenty years younger than the former. Fatemolla specializes on
Hadiths. Whereas, Narayan Gupta's expertise is in writing on Hindu-
Muslim Bibhad (mistrust and division). He often draws conclusion from
his own experiences even from the pre-1947 days. Profession-wise,
these two scribers are different. Narayan Gupta is a civil engineer
working in Maryland. Fatemolla is a biochemist now working in the
healthcare industry in Toronto. I am not making this up. As one of the
editors of NFB I get their submission for editorial review. These two
writers are honest as most folks are. Also, I don't become involved in
misinformation campaign, which is the hallmark of Wahiduzzaman. There
are other participants in this forum who will be eager beaver to
testify on my behalf to set the record straight that Manik Mia’s
postings, which are often lengthy, contain diatribe and are laced with
innuendoes.
When I checked the diction of Manik Mia from his voluminous posting
that he did in 1998 as an unsophisticated clodhopper, it turned out to
be the same as he his doing now. Time has changed but Manik Mia
remained the same – a loyal and trusted younger brother. He hardly
could see the intellectual deception among anything like Enayetullah
Khan and Rashiduzzaman. These two elders from Bangladesh are the birds
of same feather.
Don’t give into the deception of Manik Mia. They say cat has seven
lives. We will see how many reincarnations Manik Mia would have in
this forum.
Therefore, the readers, Caveat Emptor!
In article <950ob7$cq2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
asad...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <94qt4e$r0j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> naray...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > My gut reaction to Rashiduzzaman’s article in Holiday
>
> MY Response to Narayan Gupta alias Fatemollah: Let’s Shun the
> Intellectual Hoodlums
>
> By Asad-Khan
>
> Introduction
>
> I had no idea when I posted several articles in SCBs that I will be
> busy in “writing” articles (as the intellectual frauds claim) for
> “helping” our homeland. Since I am a novice in this business, I have
> been reading many posts from SCB archives to understand the nature and
> extent of Mir Jafforian propaganda against some of the SCB posters or
> writers of articles. I found gold mines in SCB archives. Don’t be
> surprised if I even re-post some of those rejoinders, especially those
> which have been selectively and mischievously doctored or left out
from
> the Mir Jafforian Web site. At an appropriate time, I will also
freely
> borrow facts (even vocabularies) from the SCB ARCHIVES. It goes
> without saying that I am not in competition with any bogus
> intellectual. I am also in the process of collecting some relevant
> information on couple of slanderers to depict their hypocrisies.
The rest of this prolix diatribe-laced article penned by Asad-Khan was
deleted for brevity
asad...@my-deja.com
In article <951mk1$1vk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
jaf...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Readers, please be aware of this writer whom first called him Asad
> Khan. Then he unknowingly mutated his name to Asad-Khan. This Asad
> Khan/Asad-Khan is none other than Wahiduzzaman Manik, the younger
> brother of Rashiduzzaman, the controversial political science
professor
> who used to be a teacher at DU in the sixties and who now teaches at
> Rowan College in New Jersey.
Why Manik mia has to write under disguise? That's job of FATEMOLLAH OR
ABUL HASANATH. Asad Khan is listed as Asad_khan in sCB. How do you
assume that I don't know Waheeduzzaman Manik? Waheeduzaman is younger
brother of Rashiduzzaman. So What? Can Mir Jaffor Ullah tell us what's
his point? To the best of my knowledge, Dr. Rashiduzzaman was one of
the distinguished political scientists in Dhaka. He now teaches at
Rowan University. Again, mir Jaffor Ullah, what's wrong with that
information. I don't suffer from Rashiduzzaman or waheeduzzaman
syndrome.
> Manik Mia (Wahiduzzaman) has the nasty habit of distorting people's
> name and that is not all; he frequently misidentifies folks in the
> newsgroup creating a hell of a confusion.
I don't think Manik mia has time for abusing or confusing others. He
writes articles, not dirt. Anyone can check the record. Can mir jaffor
ullah blame anyone if that person decides to unmask his treachery? It
is nasty to demean and malign people.
> This time for some weird reason only known to him, he is calling the
> veteran writer Narayan Gupta to be the same person as Fatemolla who is
> about twenty years younger than the former. Fatemolla specializes on
> Hadiths. Whereas, Narayan Gupta's expertise is in writing on Hindu-
> Muslim Bibhad (mistrust and division). He often draws conclusion from
> his own experiences even from the pre-1947 days. Profession-wise,
> these two scribers are different. Narayan Gupta is a civil engineer
> working in Maryland. Fatemolla is a biochemist now working in the
> healthcare industry in Toronto. I am not making this up. As one of
the
> editors of NFB I get their submission for editorial review. These two
> writers are honest as most folks are. Also, I don't become involved
in
> misinformation campaign, which is the hallmark of Wahiduzzaman. There
> are other participants in this forum who will be eager beaver to
> testify on my behalf to set the record straight that Manik Mia’s
> postings, which are often lengthy, contain diatribe and are laced with
> innuendoes.
Narayan Gupta is Narayan Gupta.That's not the point. But he uses his
assumed name FATEMOLLA to abuse or distort anything to do with the
religious beliefs of Muslim. It was proved reasonable doubt in NFB that
Fatemollah is the fake name of NARAYAN GUPTA. It is a blatant lie on
Mir Jaffor's part to attest that Fatemollah is a different abuser other
than Narayan Gupta. Mir Jaffor is making it up that imaginary fatemolla
is a chemist. As a close collaborator of Narayan Gupta, Mir Jaffor
lacks credibilty to give a character certificate to Fatemolla. I have
heard from reliable sources that Mir Jaffor ullah has nothing to do
with editing of materials which are published in NFB. The Editor of
the NFB is smart enough to select articles or letters for NFB.
Articles and letters are NOt referred to A.H. Jaffor Ullah before these
are published. Why? because he wants to be the ONLY article writer and
also the only LETTER writer. However, Mir Jaffor Ullah does one thing:
He constantly bothers the editor of NFB not to publish articles of some
writers who are not in agreement with them.
Also, it is A.H. Jaffor ullah who is "involved in misinformation
campaign against Rashiduzzaman and others. Dissemination of falsehoods
against others is "the hallmark" of Mir Jaffor Ullah. Hate-mongering
is his passion.
> When I checked the diction of Manik Mia from his voluminous posting
> that he did in 1998 as an unsophisticated clodhopper, it turned out to
> be the same as he his doing now. Time has changed but Manik Mia
> remained the same – a loyal and trusted younger brother. He hardly
> could see the intellectual deception among anything like Enayetullah
> Khan and Rashiduzzaman. These two elders from Bangladesh are the
birds
> of same feather.
>
> Don’t give into the deception of Manik Mia. They say cat has seven
> lives. We will see how many reincarnations Manik Mia would have in
> this forum.
Mir Jaffor Ullah has neither training nor background about
understanding "DICTION." Neither Manik mia nor Asad khan is engaged in
any deception. Manik mia can write in his own name. Only the Fakemollas
and fakeullahs are engaged in Mir Jafforian treachery and deception.
> Therefore, the readers, Caveat Emptor!
I am sure Jaffor Ullah got the last two words from a DICTIONARY. May be
he has no idea what the words "CAVEAT EMPTOR" means. He uses such words
or quotation just to cover up his ignorance. Thanks for your time. asad
khan
My Response to Mir Jafforian Discovery:
Mir Jaffor Ullah alias Abul Hasanath, a known collaborator of Narayan
Gupta alias Fatemollah, has ONCE AGAIN discovered something-- manik mia
is Asad khan. This is a discovery as if Manik Mia can't write. Manik
mia reserves the right to defend himself against personal attack.
However, I don't think Manik mia needs my assistance or my name. He
does not have to hide under my name. Name-duplication is copyrighted to
A.H. JAFFOR ULLAH of NEW ORLEANS. Mir Jafforian discovery can't change
the basic fact that A.H. Jaffor ullah is involved in maligning and
demeaning other individual human beings.
If Narayan Gupta alias Fatemollah can be offered some "Mirjafforian
editorial assistance," is there any restriction to seek real assistance
in dealing with some uncouthe and imploite posters who are involved in
character assasination? Mir Jafforian policy has been very dirty from
the beginning--- If you can't refute somethng, trash the writer. This
tactic won't work this time, Mir A.H. Jaffor ullah. This is the same
A.H. Jaffor ullah who had even charcterized Manik as the "clone' of his
brother. He even alluded to the idea that Rashiduzzaman wrote on behalf
of his brother. These are nothing but Mirjafforan diversionary tactics
for creating dust so that he can contnue his "bashing" business.
The creator of Fatemollah and Abul Hasanath lacks credibility. Readers
know him too well. If you can refute whatever has been said by Asad
Khan, go ahead. Don't even imagine that I will not seek assistance from
your detractors. There are even people who are willing to "editorial"
assistance for exposing the real character of Mir jaffor ullahs. Unlike
Jaffor I don't read dictionaries and books of quotations for preparing
response. Mir Jaffor ullah claims to have some expertise to find out
fake names. Since he himself duplicates names, he looks for other name
duplicators. It was clearly exposed in NFB that it was NARAYAN GUPTA
who had been bashing ISLAM and Muslim indentities under the fake name
of FATEMOLLAH. While he is worried about ASAD KHAN's identity, he did
not hesitate even for a second to certify that FATEMOLLAH really
exists-- he lives in CANADA. Nothing could be farther from TRUTH. Fate
Mollah is Narayan Gupta and Narayan Gupta is FATEMOLLAH. A.H. Jaffor
Ullah lacks credential or credibility to refute this basic fact.
He tells us that DR. Rashiduzzaman is not bright. rashiduzzaman's
brother manik mia is not bright. Who is then bright? It is A.H. Jaffor
ullah who is bright. He is so bright that he is "writing" articles
through the use of "Name-calling" and "name-dropping." He is so bright
that he writes: "Manik Mia aka Asad Khan or Asad-Khan was exposed too
early in this game of cloak-and-dagger!!!" I am just thrilled to see
his brilliance. The problem is that his brilliance is so skewed in
favor of falsehoods that he is not willing to discuss the merits and
demerits of Rashiduzzaman's article. His brilliance is so biased that
he fails to understand that I don't need anyone to characterize the
character assassins as intellectual hoodlums. Manik also called these
abusers intellectual vandals.
A.H. Jaffor Ullah does not know that I have information about his
Islamic CHatra Shangha back ground while he was a student in
Mymensingh. Someone told me that his SECULARIST FACADE is of recent
origin. If he wants me to dig further, I am willing to do that. There
are plenty of people who are willing to offer assistance to expose the
Mir Jafforian character. However, our focus should concentrate on the
contents of an article to generate intellectual debate. Unfortunately,
Mifforian champions of rumour-mongering are not interested in
intellectual discourse. They are interested in bashing and trashing
others who have disagreements with them. Mir Jaffor ullah forgets one
thing that if some one volunteers (there is no dearth of volunteers)to
host a homepage or website on "MIRJAFFORIAN HATEMONGERING," it will
attract a host of readers. I dont know if Mirjafforian books of
quotations ever reminded that "if you live by sword, you die by sword."
Web-site is not copyrighted to any single individual.
Dictionaries and encyclopedias might provide some assistance in quoting
some archaic sentences and useless quotes. But these can of limited use
or assistance in preparing substantive rebuttals and in building
informed arguments or judgments. No bogus quotations can subsitute for
solid knowledge. If Mir Jaffor ullah is really interested in
generating intellectual debate, he has to read good stuffs which will
improve his intellect. He and his collaborators also need to get out of
"Rashiduzzaman syndrome" and shun the meanspirited business of trashing
and demeaning other human beings. Thanks for your time. Asad Khan
j_h...@my-deja.com
[deleted for brevity]
jaf...@my-deja.com wrote:
> This time for some weird reason only known to him, he is calling the
> veteran writer Narayan Gupta to be the same person as Fatemolla who is
> about twenty years younger than the former. Fatemolla specializes on
> Hadiths. Whereas, Narayan Gupta's expertise is in writing on Hindu-
> Muslim Bibhad (mistrust and division). He often draws conclusion from
> his own experiences even from the pre-1947 days. Profession-wise,
> these two scribers are different. Narayan Gupta is a civil engineer
> working in Maryland. Fatemolla is a biochemist now working in the
> healthcare industry in Toronto.
=======================================================================
SOME RECENT POSTINGS FROM SECULARISLAM SITE:
I was never a Muslim, but I have been
reading these posts from since the beginning. I have never posted to
this group before.
My daughter is doing a high-school
report on "female circumcision." We live in an upper-middle-class area
of Southern California. My daughter and her friends have never heard of
this subject nor any of its horrors (well, my daughter now has heard a
small bit since she has asked me about it).
I have helped her find some web pages on
the subject. I wonder if anyone on this list would consider contributing
a personal story. I don't wish for anybody to re-live any pain they
would rather forget. I only wish to help my daughter educate her peers
in 12th grade Sociology.
Thank you,
A Secular Mother
Secula...@hotmail.com
## ## ## ## ##
FGM.
By-fatemolla.
This is in response to a Mom, whose
daughter and her friends have asked about a personal experience about
female-circumcision. I always had it in mind to write on it in details,
but not in such a rush. I will make it short. She only asked it before 2
days. Let me quote from a very famous lady who came up from an extremely
poor family: -
"And since the prevailing wisdom.... is
that there are bad things between a girl's legs, a woman is considered
dirty...unless those parts...Are removed. Then the wound is stitched
shut, leaving only a small opening...a practice called infibulations....
Without it the daughter will not make it onto the marriage market.
The night before my circumcision, my
family made a special fuss over me and I got extra food at dinner. Mama
told me not to drink too much water or milk. I lay awake with
excitement, until suddenly she was standing over me, monitoring. The sky
was still dark. I grabbed my little blanket and sleepily stumbled along
after her. We walked out into the brush. " We will wait here", Mama
said, and we sat on the cold ground. The day was growing lighter.
Soon I heard the click-click of the gypsy woman's sandals. ...
"Sit over there", she motioned towards a flat rock ...Mama
positioned me..... sat behind me and pulled my head against her
chest, I circled my arms around her thighs. She placed a root from
an old tree between my teeth..... I was frozen with fear.. The
gypsy....fished out a broken razor blade. I saw dried blood on it,
....she spit on it and wiped it on her dress....Mama tied a
blindfold over my eyes. The next thing I felt was my flesh being cut
away. I heard the blade sawing back and forth through my skin.
The feeling was indescribable...... unfortunately my legs began to
quiver and shake uncontrollably. ..Soon it was, I passed out.
When I woke up, ...I saw the gypsy woman
had piled a stack of thorns from an acacia tree..She used these to
puncture holes in my skin, then poked a strong white thread through the
holes to sew me up. ...the pain....was so intense that I wished I would
die...until I opened my eyes and the woman was gone. My legs had been
tied together...I could not move the rock..was drenched with blood as if
an animal had been slaughtered there. Pieces of my flesh lay on the top,
drying in the sun...my mother and older sister Aman dragged me into the
shade of a bush. ..a little hut was prepared under a tree, where I would
rest...alone for the next few weeks.
After hours of waiting, I was dying to
relieve myself.....the first drop stung as if my skin was being eaten by
acid....the only opening left....was a minuscule hole ( of) the diameter
of a matchstick...As \the days dragged on ..I became infected
and ran a high fever.....faded in and out of consciousness...Mama
brought me foods and water for the next two weeks....I was lucky. Many
girls die from bleeding to death, shock, infection or tetanus... Besides
the health problems I still struggle with ( from that incident), I will
never know the pleasure of sex. "
That was from Waris Direi ( also known
as "Iman") one of fashion-world's most stunning women in Europe and
North America, as Reader's Digest ( August 1999) records. Now she
works as a special ambassador with FGM ( Female Genital
Mutilation) , a section of World Health Organization. FGM says, "
This practice has been performed on as many as 130 million girls
and women worldwide. At least 2 million girls are at risk of being
the next victim, that's 6000 a day". Iman says "Friends have
expressed concern that a fanatic will try to kill me, since many
fundamentalists consider FGM a holy practice demanded by the
Koran." The book "Naaree" of Dr. Hymaun Azad, refers to (Draw Naoal
1980: 33-43 and Miles 1988: 88-89 ) the "Kalema" uttered during FGM as "
Allah is Glorious, Muhammad is His Prophet. Let Allah keep us away from
all sins".
All Muslims know that this in nowhere in
the Qur'aan and Hadis. But even after knowing this, there was/is no
visible effort from the Muslims or the rich Middle-Eastern countries to
stop it, for publicity against it, or anything. This again shows the
vacuum and hollowness in the concept in World-Muslim-Brotherhood. No.
May be I am wrong. May be it is there. But there is absolutely no
concept or word of "Muslim-Sisterhood", not in the world, not in
my village.
To make it short, it is a cultural
curse, which like many other curses on women took/takes its life-force
in the name of religion.
Other documents show that in far past
this practice was there in Europe, and then travelled to Africa latter.
You can get other information and even join FGM at www.who.int.
It is high time the snake is killed.
Thanks from fatemolla.
mwz...@my-deja.com
[Mr. Narayan Gupta, I thought I share the following article "COPY-CAT
TERROR' with the readers which I reprinted from the OUTLOOK, an
outstanding Indian Weekly. Mr. N. Gupta, I double checked with Dr.
Mohammad Rashiduzzaman if NITIN A. GOKHALE is his assumed name. I also
asked him point blank if he is the actual author of the following
article on Kamtapuris' separatist quest under the an assumed name. His
answer was in the negative. I also asked him if he had drawn any
information, as indicated by Asad Khan,for his comments on Kamtapuris
in his ( by now much maligned at your behest) article in HOLIDAY,
January 11, 2001. He answered affirmately. What do you say, Mr. Narayan
Gupta? Is Nitin A. Gokhale from Siliguri a collaborator or an anti-
Indian journalist? What about OUTLOOK? Is it an anti-Indian Weekly
Magazine? What about the EDITOR of OUTLOOK? Is he or she an anti-Indian
or reactionary journalist? What do you say, Mr. Narayan Gupta?
Respectfully, W.Zaman Manik, January 31, 2001]
[Reprinted from OUTLOOK, December 11, 2001]
Copy-Cat Terror
Militants in the state borrow tactics, training and arms from other
outfits in surrounding areas.
Nitin A. Gokhale In Siliguri
Tea planters in North Bengal are a worried lot today—scared for their
lives. For about a decade now they have been helplessly watching their
counterparts in neighbouring Assam waging a seemingly losing battle
with various militant outfits. But now trouble is knocking at their
doors too.
The year 2000 has brought them face to face with a new reality—at least
two new militant outfits have emerged in the state in the recent past
and they are adopting the same terror tactics as those employed by
insurgents in Assam and the rest of the northeast. Not surprisingly,
the ‘chicken's neck', the narrow corridor linking north Bengal and the
northeast, is fast turning into a hot-bed of militancy, sending panic
waves in the corridors of power in West Bengal and Sikkim.
A worried Buddhadev Bhattacharyya has decided to personally visit
North Bengal to take stock of the law and order situation, a crucial
task given that elections are just six months away.
And there are enough reasons for this panic. Consider this: l The
Kamatapur Liberation Organisation (klo), a fledgling outfit which wants
a separate Kamatapur state carved out of Bengal, has targeted tea
garden owners and rich businessmen for their massive extortion drives.
l The decade-old Gorkha Liberation Organisation (glo), which was lying
low till now, has become proactive and has enlisted the help of Naga
militants to train its cadres.
Two banned outfits based in Assam, the United Liberation Front of Asom
(ulfa) and the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (ndfb), under
pressure from security forces there, are increasingly using Siliguri in
West Bengal to travel in and out of Bhutan where they have several
hideouts.
l Intelligence reports suggest that isi-backed Islamic militant groups
see North Bengal as a region where they can potentially foment trouble.
The reports are damning, if not scary. According to intelligence
sources, at least 60 klo cadres have been trained in ulfa camps in the
Kalikhola area of neighbouring Bhutan. Indeed, the klo has upped its
ante to make its presence felt. At the same time, organisations like
the Kamatapur People's Party (kpp) whose militant arm is the klo, and
the All Kamatapur Students Union (aksu) have launched an agitation for
a separate Kamatapur homeland, adding to the chaos. Says an
intelligence official: "The situation in North Bengal is becoming
critical with each passing day and it is likely to worsen in the months
to come." On November 28, for instance, two kpp activists were killed
when police opened fire to break a siege by a mob resisting a security
raid and the arrest of a teenage girl. Police had raided a village in
Siliguri sub-division in search of kpp activists. Four people were
arrested and sent to the police station in Phasidewa. One of them was
16-year-old Sujala Singha, who was picked up for resisting her
brother's arrest. Although those arrested were not klo activists,
police say that there is no difference between kpp and klo. Says
Darjeeling district SP Sanjoy Chander: "Evidence suggests that the
dividing line between the kpp, the aksu and the klo has become very
thin. They are one and the same organisation."
Those demanding a separate state have already identified the districts
to be carved out from North Bengal. These include: Cooch Behar,
Jalpaiguri, Malda, North and South Dinapur and the plains of Darjeeling
district. And their three main demands are: creation of a separate
state, inclusion of Kamatapuri language in the Eighth Schedule of the
Constitution and propagation of Kamatapuri language and culture through
All India Radio and Doordarshan.
In fact, the kpp movement for a separate state has gained momentum in
the past three years. {Reprinted from OUTLOOK/India. Com]
In article <94qt4e$r0j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
naray...@my-deja.com wrote:
jaf...@my-deja.com
published in Holiday dealing with North Bengali dissidents and the
separatist movement that is now engulfing the entire NEI. Is the main
thesis of the article of Prof. Rashiduzzaman – watch out Bangladesh
government, the CHT folks of Bangladesh would soon follow the demands
of Kamatapuris, BoDos, ULFA’s and ask our government to take a hike
declaring an independent enclave in the Southeast of Bangladesh.
Giving our Chakma folks freedom is not going to solve the separatist
movement in Bangladesh. Inspired by the success of CHT folks our own
Sylheti people might ask for a separate country call Jalalabad. There
won’t be any end to this game of fragmenting smaller country such as
Bangladesh into tiny parcels of independent entities. These would-be
tiny land-locked enclaves will be a sure formula for disaster for their
own people. To avert all these problems what we need is regional-based
economic bloc following the model of European Community.
Come to think of it, the emergence of Bangladesh in 1971 had planted
the very seed of separatist movement in Assam and neighboring Seven
Hill Sister states. Is the chicken now coming home to roost?
naray...@my-deja.com
Sub: The Kamtapuri Issue
Let me start with some of personal experience I had with some Rajbanshi
persons. One time I worked under a Civil Engineer. He died of cancer
years ago. His name was Satyendra Nath Roy - a graduate of Bengal
Engineering College 1951 graduate. Some of his colleagues may still be
alive in Dhaka. He hailed from Jalpaiguri Area. His father was an
elected member of the Bengal legislature, he was a member of the Muslim
League Ministry (possibly under Mr. Khawaja Nazimuddin or Mr. A.K.
Fazlul Huq). All the above information is verifiable.
Satyenda was an extremely good friend of mine. During four or five
years I spent with him, often sharing the same dorm, he used to tell
old time stories. The story about how comfortable his father would felt
as a member of the ML led ministry. Never for a day I heard from him
the Rajbanshi, let alone Kamtapuri, pride or of separate entity. He had
a volume of Bangla and English literature. Among his record
collections, Chitrangada was played over and over. Early morning,
wearing just an underwear and a Charminar cigarette in his hand, he
would sing Rabindra Sangeet. No Palligeeti or even a Bhatiyali. His
most favorite songs were: "Ajikey Shokal Belatey, Bosehey Aachi Gaane’r
Shurti Melate’y......." and "He Ksonike’r Othiti Ele Shokaley Jhora
Shefali’r Potho Bahiya......" Remember those songs?
The only language he knew was clear and standard Calcutta Bangla. He
would often chide me, "Narayan, can you not polish your Mymensingh
accent?" He was referring my inability to say Keno (Why) or Prothom
(First) properly. I have noticed him talking with Rajbangshi people -
they used the same dialect he used with all others. I am not aware if
there is any other script that is used was ever used by the Rajbangshi
people. I am sure the village folks of North Bengal speak several
different dialects. One such is what is the Kamtapuri Liberation Army
call Kamtapuri language. You will also notice in North Bengal certain
villages are entirely inhabited by people from Kishreganj. You will be
startled to overhear phrases like, Hogley Aisoss? Law Zaiga. Like
wise there are Santhali and Nepali Villages speaking their tongues.
If over the years, the Rajbangsi people feel alienated - there must be
sufficient reason behind this. Such neglect did not start yesterday.
The neglect of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe people of India is a
matter of shame. No one more than I have witnessed the Himalayan
negligence by the plain people towards them. Even today, in North
Bengal, as reported in OUTLOOK, the separatists are inhumanely treated
by the state police and the federal army. The record of Indian
administration, led by the plains people, in this regard is dismal.
There are many books telling their stories. I can write a thousand page
essays on the subject - solely based on my own experience. There will
b a Chapter on my experience on the plight of the CHT people of
Bangladesh. Every Chapter will have stories of physical assault,
confiscation of land, gang rape, cheating, using them as slave, denying
their basic human rights. Often they are treated no better than
animals. One need not read Gokhle to cry for the crimes we all are
committing against them day and night. Only the blind or a liar can
plead ignorance about the inhuman treatment they are meted out every
day everywhere - in ALL the pieces of the Raj. Who can stand up and
deny this?
Many of you may be smiling, "See, he has admitted all this......they
are all like this"
Not so fast, Bondhugon. The three-point demand made out by the KLA is
nothing revolutionary nor these are anti-national or even close to
cessation. Same applies to the demands of the Gurkha population and
the Santhals' desire to merge with the new Jharkhand State. I even
would go as far as actively supporting such demands - especially their
demands for maintaining their cultural aspirations.
But the real concern is this: When you look at the pages of history of
the Subcontinent or any other Large nation, you will find, with few
exception, that the separation comes in a package that includes mass
expulsion, one or two way exodus, looting, raping and fratricidal
killings. Shall I name a few instances to refresh the memory for those
who were born yesterday: Pak_India, E.Pak_Pak, Tamil-Sinhalese, Biafra,
CHT-Bangla, Bosnia-Serbia, N. Ireland, Kurdistan, Palestine-Israel,
Viet Nam (Hoa-Viet Nam people), Afghanistan (Shia-Sunni-Uzbek-Afghan-
Hazara, etc.), Kashmir (Muslim-Hindu), Indonesia, The Philippines, The
Sudan, Tutsi-Hutu in Central Africa, Armenia-Muslim, Shia-Sunni-Drewz-
Christain in Lebanon on and on. Majority of these are
Ethnicity/language based rift and some are a complex mix of both
ethnicity and religion.
Please open up the old issues (1958-1969) of Doinak Azad, Millat,
Morning News, Ittefaq, Ittehad, Songbad, etc. The pages are filled with
reports of FORCIBLE expulsion of Mymensinghis and Sylhetis illegally or
legally deported to the villages their parents or grand parents arrived
from. They were all legal citizens. Still the separatist Ahom cadres,
often the local police with sympathy with them, participated in such
acts. These are facts of life. Who will come in the jungles of East
India to enforce the Basic Human Rights? Will any one of dare to be
there to enforce the UN Charter? Who among us would welcome a process
that will invariably include the expulsion of millions of
Hindu and Muslim Bangla speaking people? Should that happen it will be
mostly one way exodus or at best a 10:1 flow.
Can you imagine that 30- 40 million people of East Bengal origin can be
economically rehabilitated in 55,000 square miles of Bangladesh. This
will be worst calamity the world has ever witnessed. Also bear in mind
that of 55,000 square miles about 60% of the land belongs to the flood
plain. And in next 100 years the sea level will rise by 1 meter,
thereby flooding another 10 to 20% of the land area.
So, why start a process that can and certainly will go out of hand.
Once started it may be even too late to seek forgiveness from any of
the go and it may be too late to even to seek forgiveness from any of
the gods we have in the market.
If you want a repetition of 1946-1971 misery in a Titanic scale, go for
it. Please do not ask for my support.
On Anti-Indian or Anti-Bangladeshi or Reactionary issue: There is no
such thing as Purely Ant-Indian or Anti-Bangladeshi. I myself do not
know who, if anyone, amongst the Indian Journals or reporters are Anti-
India. However, I can list some papers who are reactionary. Want a few
names? These are: Panchjanya, The Organizer, Doinak Anandabazar (on
again off again), The Statesman (on again and off again), etc. The
list will be too long. I have spoken my mind. Mr. Zaman will you
yours? Let me hear from you and your friend, which magazines/dailies
you consider Reactionary? Well, forget it. I do not want to embarrass
a good friend of my in a public forum.
Summary: Stop atrocities on the underclass, minority, aboriginal and
underprivileged classes. Accept all the demands based on economic
injustices. De-link religion from politics. Take affirmative actions
in favor of the weaker sections of the society. Let the people of
India, Pakistan and Bangladesh unite to fight the common evil -
thousand years old superstition and religious and other forms of
bigotry. Fight against oppression against women and minorities that
are taking place under the sanction of some g-r-r-e-a-t religions
imported from the West.
In article <95a16h$510$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
mwz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> [Mr. Narayan Gupta, I thought I share the following article "COPY-CAT
> TERROR' with the readers which I reprinted from the OUTLOOK, an
> outstanding Indian Weekly. Mr. N. Gupta, I double checked with Dr.
> Mohammad Rashiduzzaman if NITIN A. GOKHALE is his assumed name. I also
> asked him point blank if he is the actual author of the following
> article on Kamtapuris' separatist quest under the an assumed name. His
> answer was in the negative. I also asked him if he had drawn any
> information, as indicated by Asad Khan,for his comments on Kamtapuris
> in his ( by now much maligned at your behest) article in HOLIDAY,
> January 11, 2001. He answered affirmately. What do you say, Mr.
Narayan
> Gupta? Is Nitin A. Gokhale from Siliguri a collaborator or an anti-
> Indian journalist? What about OUTLOOK? Is it an anti-Indian Weekly
> Magazine? What about the EDITOR of OUTLOOK? Is he or she an anti-
Indian
> or reactionary journalist? What do you say, Mr. Narayan Gupta?
> Respectfully, W.Zaman Manik, January 31, 2001]
>
> [Reprinted from OUTLOOK, December 11, 2001]
>Deleted for brevity>
mwz...@my-deja.com
jaf...@my-deja.com wrote:
Dr. A.H. Jaffor Ullah Wrote: “Dear Dr. Wahiduzzaman,]I use ee instead
of I in spelling my name. That’s o.k.]. I read Prof. Rashiduzzaman’s
article the one published in Holiday dealing with North Bengali
dissidents and the separatist movement that is now engulfing the entire
NEI. Is the main thesis of the article of Prof. Rashiduzzaman – watch
out Bangladesh government, the CHT folks of Bangladesh would soon
follow the demands of Kamatapuris, BoDos, ULFA’s and ask our government
to take a hike declaring an independent enclave in the Southeast of
Bangladesh. Giving our Chakma folks freedom is not going to solve the
separatist movement in Bangladesh. Inspired by the success of CHT folks
our own Sylheti people might ask for a separate country call Jalalabad.
There won’t be any end to this game of fragmenting smaller country such
as Bangladesh into tiny parcels of independent entities. These would-be
tiny land-locked enclaves will be a sure formula for disaster for their
own people. To avert all these problems what we need is regional-based
economic bloc following the model of European Community.
Come to think of it, the emergence of Bangladesh in 1971 had planted
the very seed of separatist movement in Assam and neighboring Seven
Hill Sister states. Is the chicken now coming home to roost?”
My Response to Dr. A.H. Jaffor Ullah
Dr. A.H. Jaffor Ullah, I thank you very much for commenting on the
substance of Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman’s article (Holiday, January 12, 2001)
on separatism in North Eastern India (NEI). If you write on something,
that “something” should be the focus of discussion, not the writer.
This can be the guideline or acceptable norm for initiating, and then,
sustaining a debate on an issue if the debaters’ intent is to score
points with the readers. As you yourself professed many times that the
“MESSAGE” should be the focus of discussion, not the message. You saw
what kind of name-calling has surfaced in SCBs, and even in NFB. It is
the riskiest thing to use one’s own name in open forum simply because
the same motivated “individual” can start dropping filth under
different names. It has happened to all of us including you and I. And
I am willing share my part of the blame even though I try to avoid
provocations or taunting. Yet, as normal human being, it is sometimes
hard to avoid extreme provocation. My puzzle is this: why you, being
the major contributor to NFB, have to start abusing some particular
“individuals” or individual for expressing views in a signed article (I
am fully aware that you were also attacked by others for expressing
your views). If you don’t like the content of an article, ignore it.
Should you decide to express your views, refute the validity of the
contents of the article in the harshest possible language without
demeaning or mis-characterizing the author of the article. In that
instance, I am even willing to join the crusade against the spoilers of
the genuine exchange of views. In the process, readers will learn
something. In fact, harsh criticism or heated exchange is acceptable
even in academic debate. However, innuendoes should not substitute for
solid evidence for assassinating an individual’s character or
reputation. For example, Mr. Narayan Gupta in an NFB article in 1999
made some erroneous or stereotype observations about Maulana Abdul Khan
Bhasani. Instead of getting involved in writing letters in NFB Reader’s
column, I wrote a full-fledged rebuttal in the form of an article.
Literally speaking, I refuted whatever was said about Maulana Bhasani
by Narayan Gupta. One thing Mr. Narayan Gupta did not know that I have
extensively studied most of the written works including pamphlets on
Maulana Bhasani (these are in my personal collection over many years).
Instead of lingering unnecessary fight or testing me further, Mr.
Narayan Gupta congratulated me through e-mails for writing an
exhaustive and documented rebuttal to his comments. That should be
spirit inteelectual debate. (Later, I published that piece in
Independent on the death anniversary of Maulana Bhasani. (November 17,
1999). Notwithstanding our serious differences of opinions, we, the
posters in SCB or NFB should, and can, avoid character assassination
for creating a conducive environment for initiating debate on serious
issues pertaining to Bangladesh’s past, present, and future concerns.
Although I am yet to refute some of the distortions you have floated,
Dr. A.H. Jaffor Ullah, I thank you once again for coming back to the
point on this thread.
Having said this, let me add few words on substantives issues. The
contents of Rashiduzzaman’s article have already been widely
disseminated. It is useless on my part to repeat or defend his
observations. That depends on the readers. I am not in a position to
defend the validity of the author’s observations. The article should
speak for itself. Like any other reader, I have read this article
before Asad Khan (yes, this person recently contacted me through e-
mails, completely on his own) had posted it in SCB (Mr. Jaffor Ullah,
you alluded to the wild idea that I don’t want to post Rashiduzzaman’s
article under my name. That’s not true at all. I feel most honored to
post Dr. Rashiduzzaman’s article. He exclusively asked me NOT to post
his article in SCB since last summer. Sometimes I did listen to him,
sometimes I did not listen to him. But he insisted me in recent months
not to post in SCB. Please don’t speculate on something about which you
are not sure about ).
Suffice it to point out that the separatist movements in several NEI
states have created serious dilemma for Bangladesh. So far I am
concerned, that’s the central theme of Dr. Rashiduzzaman’s article. He
is not the only one who writes on this issue. There are scores of
writers (journalists, political scientists as well as historians etc)
who have been writing on “separatism” in NEI vis-à-vis Bangladesh’s
predicament. The issue should not be kept on the closet. This issue
should be discussed with an open mind. Yes, many writers might have
reflected their own biases. That goes with the territory. In
comparison with some other pieces including books on CHT Treaty vis-à-
vis India’s invisible hand, I found Rashiduzzaman’s commentary more
balanced.
You wrote: “Is the main thesis of the article of Prof. Rashiduzzaman –
watch out Bangladesh government, the CHT folks of Bangladesh would soon
follow the demands of Kamatapuris, BoDos, ULFA’s and ask our government
to take a hike declaring an independent enclave in the Southeast of
Bangladesh.” As I already said that I am not the writer of the
article. As a reader, I can at best say that this is not the theme of
the article. Rather, Dr. Rashiduzzaman described the state of
separatism of NEI (including the latest development in northern West
Bengal), and then he tried to analyze the impact and implications of
those insurgencies on Bangladesh. The article is short, and
deliberately written, in concise and unambiguous prose. The spill over
effects of insurgency movements of Bodos, Ulfa and Kamatpuri can lead
to a serious international problems for Bangladesh. That’s the theme of
the article. As noted by Rashiduzzaman, “Notwithstanding the Indian
charges, it is not in Bangladesh's security interests to succumb to all
that New Delhi wants from Dhaka. Indeed, combing operation against the
supposedly hidden insurgents in Bangladesh could be counterproductive -
the militants could retaliate by hitting targets in Bangladesh, and
open a Pandora's box for the whole nation. If Bangladesh fails to close
such suspected sanctuaries within its border, will India intervene to
take out such secret locations of the separatist outfits?”
You said: “Giving our Chakma folks freedom is not going to solve the
separatist movement in Bangladesh.” I partially agree with your
statement.” I strongly subscribe to the idea that the CHT agreement was
a good thing for both the Government of Bangladesh and the CHT
insurgents. The CHT Treaty stipulations at least recognize the
distinctiveness and legitimate rights of the indigenous people of CHT.
Yet, the CHT treaty might backfire on Bangladesh if CHT people decide
to wage once again for full independence. Yes, there are observers who
clearly asserted that the CHT Accord is a first step toward demanding
more freedom vis-à-vis the Central Government of Bangladesh. As
Rashiduzzaman observed: “Bangladesh may be heading for the pounding
demands for a greater autonomy/secession of its own tribal people in
the hill districts and in other parts of the country - the tribal
leaders in the CHT have recently called for a mobilisation of all
Bangladeshis of tribal ancestries. It may not be too far when the
tribal leaders in the CHT extrapolate their present peace accord, and
ask for statehood, familiar with what is happening on the other side of
the border.”
There is no doubt that there exists regionalism in Bangladesh
especially in Chittagong and Sylhet. Yet, I am not willing to equate
that kind of regionalism of Bangladesh with the rise of “separatism”
within the North Eastern States of India. These parochial feelings or
posturing in Bangladesh excepting Chittagong Hill Tracks can at best
be characterized as “districtism.” The Central Government of Bangladesh
is strong enough to deal with timid form of regionalism within
Bangladesh.
You said, “Come to think of it, the emergence of Bangladesh in 1971 had
planted the very seed of separatist movement in Assam and neighboring
Seven Hill Sister states. Is the chicken now coming home to roost?”
Yes, the creation of Bangladesh might have generated some kind of
enthusiasm for the separatists in NEI states to demand for more
freedom. But the separatist movements in NEI predates the liberation
war of Bangladesh in 1971. However, the violence in the separatist
movement intensified only in recent years. I don’t see an imminent
danger to the integrity of Indian Union. The Indian Federal Government
will successfully thwart the separatists’ demand for independence. As
Dr. Rashiduzzaman correctly pointed out: “Divided Indian Northeast and
West Bengal stand. New Delhi has the military, administrative and
political resources to contain its separatists -- but they constitute
security threats to the neighbours.”
You said, “To avert all these problems what we need is regional-based
economic bloc following the model of European Community.” This is a
good idea to have a Regional Community or Regional Block on the model
of European Community. Since European Community is Not an example of a
CONFEDERATION, I think that you are no more proposing a CONFEDERATION
for NEI. Rather, you are in favor of forming an “Economic Union” on the
basis of sub-regional Cooperation in NEI. Please correct me, if I am
wrong. Good luck with your endeavor. With Regards, W.Zaman Manik
February 1, 2001)
naray...@my-deja.com
Re: Aboriginal People of North East India and Bangladesh
I am sending few quick comments, based not on any ideology but on
direct personal experiences.
I have seen Tripuri young men with barely loin clothes lined up, tied
in long ropes in a file of twenty or thirty, brought in from Belonia,
Lembuchara, Ranibazar, Puran Agartala and other areas to Agartala
jail. They were members of the insurgent groups led by Dasarath Dev
Burman - later elected as a member of Parliament. Indian forces also
bombed villages in Nagaland and Mizoram to subdue the Naga and Mizo
insurgency.
In regard to Tripura, the original Tripuris who were (in 1949) 4:1
majority now reduced to 1:10 minority in Tripura. Their economic power
is not even 2%. Suddenly, Bangla-lovers must not forget that it was
Tripura that had BANGLA as the official language many years before West
Bengal and East Pakistan. The hill people do not understand the
intricacies of Jinnah’s Two-nation Theory or "Jo Hi Allah Woh Hi Ram."
What they have noticed was invasion of Bangla speaking destitutes
ruining their land, farms, and lifestyle. They are reduced to no
better than slaves. Yes, slaves. Please spend a week in the hills area
and tell me if I am wrong. I, having lost one my oldest friend named
Jogabrata Chakraborty while in captivity of the Tripuri insurgents, can
dare say that the Tripuris did not receive a fair deal. The fate of
the Chakmas and Garos may be slightly worse.
The tale of Santhals is no better. I had the opportunity to go to
schools in both East Pakistan and India. In that long period, I came
across just one Tripuri, one Khasi student. Not one Santhal or Garo or
Chakma.
To the tribal people, notwithstanding all the good intentions and
rhetoric, the plain people - Hindu or Muslim - are no different. It is
like a choice between rock and the hard place. Rather Vulture or
Condor.
The history of the Nagas, Mizos, Khasis, Manipuris, Nepalis, Santhals,
Tripuris, Chakmas, Garos and Hajongs will testify what I said. My dear
Hindus, Muslims and Agnostic friends, before viewing for high marks,
kindly talk to just one or two aboriginal persons. They will surely
tell you what they think about you.
In article <95amta$nnd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
naray...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Bondhugon:
>
> Sub: The Kamtapuri Issue
> Deleted for Brevity>