The Assam clashes are about land and livelihood, not religion

Bertil Lintner

AS BERTIL LINTNER mentions in the introduction of Great Game East, the expression “Great Game” was originally used to denote the struggle between two western powers to wrest control of energy-rich Central Asia. Across the Himalayas, in the east, another great game has been on for some time now between the two Asian giants — India and China. The fight began over Tibet and now includes Northeast India, Myanmar, Bangladesh and the Indian Ocean. Lintner has even devoted one chapter to Indo-Bangladesh relations in his book. Here, he talks to Kunal Majumder about the ongoing violence in Assam and how the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), once a nationalist movement, ended up becoming a pawn in the great game.

EXCERPTS FROM AN INTERVIEW

Your book has an entire chapter on the relationship between Assam and Bangladesh. What is your reading of the ongoing situation in Assam?

TEHELKA described it quite well. It’s not religious. It’s not Muslims versus Hindus. It’s a struggle for land. There is a lot of pressure on land both because of increase in internal population and massive migration from Bangladesh. Naturally, people from Bangladesh are Muslims and that adds that dimension to it.

But certain interests in India are calling it a grand design to Islamise Assam. Do you find any credibility in such assumptions?

It is possible. But I’m not sure if it is the main reason people are moving from Bangladesh into India. Certainly, Islamic groups will want to take advantage of the situation. Migration to India, first from East Pakistan, and then Bangladesh has always been there. One reason this happens in Assam is votebank politics. If you look back at the Assam Agitation, it was a movement against the so-called foreigners moving into Assam. Not only Bangladeshis, Nepalis too were being evicted. It is not about religion, it is about land and livelihood.

Isn’t it ironical that the ULFA based its politics on an anti-Bangladeshi immigrant stance but eventually accepted Dhaka’s help to fight India?

The ultimate irony is that the movement began as an anti-foreigner movement — less Nepal, more Bangladesh — and they have been exiled in Bangladesh. Assamese militants I met in Bangladesh were not happy to be there but they thought they had no choice. They were being used by Bangladesh intelligence services to create trouble in India. The Directorate General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI) and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), more than the Awami League, were behind this policy. Things shifted in Bangladesh depending on who was in power. If the Awami League was in power, the ULFA was sent to Thailand. When Sheikh Hasina came to power for the first time in the 1990s, the entire leadership arrived in Bangkok save Paresh Barua, who was too useful for the Bangladeshi security establishment. He was close to Pakistan’s ISI as well.

The ULFA has now split. Almost everyone in the top leadership is negotiating with the Government of India. Where does Paresh Barua’s future lie?

I first met Barua in 1985 in a Naga camp in northwestern Burma. The Burmese army attacked the camp. He was an excellent fighter, much better than any other Naga. Unlike Arabinda Rajkhowa, who was more intellectually motivated, Barua was the most militant of all ULFA leaders and more politically motivated. The second time I met Barua was in Bangkok. He had come from Singapore, where he revealed that the ISI were encouraging the ULFA to increase their activities in Assam because troops were being withdrawn from the Northeast for Kashmir. It was in Pakistan’s interest to reignite some kind of unrest in the region so that India could move its troops back from Kashmir. This was quite telling. I was quite surprised he was ready to tell me that. I met him for the third time in a safe house in Dhaka, escorted by two Bangladeshi intelligence officers, who were not particularly happy to see me around. Whether you sympathise with them or not but from being a nationalist movement, the ULFA became a pawn in the hands of the establishment of all countries.

Source :

Bangladesh 'fixes' Grameen

Laboni Vhoumiks lingerie manufacturing unit in the Gopai village of Noakhali district, about 180 kilometers outside Dhaka, is a forceful argument in favor of the Grameen Bank microcredit model that fosters female entrepreneurship and relies on it. But the Grameen Bank is itself under threat of creeping government control that has kicked up a storm of protests by entities ranging from women's rights groups to the State Department of the United States.

Vhoumik, 36, started out in 2003 with nothing to commend her except tailoring skills. Today, she runs a production unit that employs 12 women and supplies quality undergarments to several major retailers in Noakhali and the adjacent districts.

Joining a local non-government organization (NGO), Noakhali Rural Development Services (NRDS), helped Vhoumik to borrow taka 4000 (then about US$45) to buy her first sewing machine.

"We counsel and offer free training to promote such small entrepreneurships. The idea is to ensure that the borrowed money is properly utilized," Mohammad Kaiser Alam, NRDS microcredit programme coordinator, told IPS.

Vhoumik now earns about US$238 a month, which is considered handsome in her village. She also has large savings and recently paid for some major repairing of her home. Her group of 65 members discusses social and family problems as well as members progress with their business or problems or outstanding loans.

Members rarely default as the group is responsible as guarantor for the loans. But this simple business model that has worked to lift thousands of Bangladeshi women out of poverty is now under threat because one of its pioneers, the Grameen Bank, is undergoing changes at the helm that will allow greater government control.

The government owns 3% of Grameen Bank, but by changing the Grameen Bank Ordinance a state-appointed chairman will be able to appoint its chief executive officer.

This represents a de facto imposition of government control of the bank; in other words, the poor women, who are also its owners, are being deprived of their right to manage their own bank and are being made powerless, says a statement issued by 60 of Bangladesh's leading civil society representatives.

Grameen Bank is unique in the world for being owned by impoverished women. Representatives of the 8.4 million women borrowers sit on the board of the bank and have participated over the years in its decision making, unlike any other bank in the world, the statement said.

Shireen Huq, one of the signatories to the statement, told IPS there is no reason to believe that the changes (to Grameen Bank) are being made with good intent.

Huq, a leading women's rights activist and founder of the NGO Naripokkho, said the proposed amendment to the Grameen Bank's constitution gives the chairman of the board the authority to form a three-member selection committee. In other words, the majority board members will in effect be disenfranchised.

The government's appointment of a person known for his animosity towards the bank's founder, Muhammad Yunus, as the chairman did not bode well for the institution, Huq told IPS.

A press statement on August 5 by Patrick Ventrell, acting deputy US State Department spokesman, said Washington was deeply concerned about recent actions the government of Bangladesh has taken to give the government-appointed chairman of the Grameen Bank board control over the selection of the bank's new managing director.

This move would diminish the role the largely female borrower-shareholders play in shaping the direction of an institution that has made a difference to millions of impoverished women in Bangladesh, and indeed around the world, the statement said.

"We are concerned that the latest actions by the government could threaten the future of the bank which was founded by Nobel peace prize laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus," Ventrell said.
The plan by the government to increase its role in Grameen Bank has sparked a furious debate in Bangladesh that has pitted economists who favor microcredit as a development tool against those who believe that it is not effective enough.

Professor Abul Barakat, who heads the economics department at Dhaka University, told IPS that microcredit reaches only a small portion of the poor people. "Hardcore poor who need most attention remain out of the reach of such services and are considered as having no potential of repaying loans."

Out of Bangladesh's 150 million population, 98.9 million are poor, 47 million are middle class and 4.1 million are rich people. Microcredit only reaches the upper 50% of the poor who are the potential target group of the NGOs," the economist said.

According to Barakat, economically the upper half of the poor (49.4 million) who get microcredit facilities "bounce in their own orbit" and they "neither come out of poverty nor slide down to the hardcore poor group."

Qazi Kholiquzzaman Ahmad, another noted economist, told IPS that he has rarely seen poor people getting significant benefit from microcredit programs. "One of my own studies shows only 7% of the borrowers actually coming out of poverty from microcredit."

Ahmad, who chairs the Palli Karma-Sahayak Foundation (PKSF), said his 2008 study showed that fewer than 10% of the total 23 million borrowers in the country actually came out of poverty. This means that microcredit program are not always sustainable in poverty alleviation.

The PKSF itself was launched by the government in 1990 to build on the success of private players and now has over 250 partner organizations (small NGOs) and has 8.6 million borrowers.

Mohammad Hasan Ali, founder and executive director of Pally Bikash Kendra, an NGO that operates microcredit programmes in the northwestern districts, told IPS that the steady growth in borrowing and repayments showed the robustness of the model.

"Surely the poor are borrowing because they are getting some benefit in one way or another", Ali said.

What is important, most economists agree, is that the small borrowings made through NGOs have eliminated traditional village moneylenders who charged usuriously high rates of interest and increased the debt burden of the poor.

The real success of microcredit, economists say, lies in the fact that it integrates other programs involving health and hygiene, education, water and sanitation, social safety, legal aid, human rights and other basic issues with the lending process.

S M Ali Aslam, executive director of ADAMS, an NGO operating in the southwestern districts, told IPS, "There is no doubt that the NGOs took the leadership in providing financial security to the poor when the state failed to offer any secure economic program."

Aslam added that that foreign donors continue to support microcredit programmes in Bangladesh because they work. 

Source :

 

Tears for Humayun Ahmed: The Shakespeare of Bangladesh

Professor Humayun Ahmed, who earned a PhD in chemistry from North Dakota State University, and who was a scientist, writer, and a filmmaker, died aged 64 in the United States, after a nearly year-long battle against colon cancer. Every Bengali heart has grown heavier and heavier since his death.

Humayun was a custodian of the Bangladeshi literary culture whose contribution single-handedly shifted the capital of Bengali literature from Kolkata to Dhaka without any war or revolution. One of the remarkable things about Humayun's long and distinguished literary career is his influence. His writing is so influential that people not only get psychological pleasure from reading his books, but usually end up becoming fans of his fictional characters, such as Himu, Misir Ali, and Baker Bhai. His creations generate the smells, sounds, and vibrations of feelings and moods, which are more powerful than all the unused hydrogen bombs in the United States. However, in death, Humayun's celebrity status seems likely to exceed his popularity, even at the height of his fame. His funeral, which was held in Dhaka, became a Super Bowl-like event: millions of Bengalis from all walks of life flocked to the Central Shaheed Minar to say "Hasta la vista, Humayun Sir."

Humayun's death has proven that the tragic and completely unexpected passing of an icon familiar to millions can create an emotionally unifying experience for a nation. Bangladesh does not have oil, coal, or fossil fuel, but it's still more united than many countries, such as Pakistan, because it had Humayun Ahmed-whose influence was strong enough to unite all Bangladeshis with each other emotionally. What, then, is our assessment of Humayun's importance in world literature?

Humayun, who was known for his depiction of the tribulations of ordinary middle-class Bangladeshi life, reached the peak of his fame with the publication of Nondito Noroke (In Blissful Hell) in 1972, which remains one of his most famous works, winning admiration from literary critics, including Dr. Ahmed Sarif. He wrote over 200 fiction and non-fiction books-all of which were bestsellers in Bangladesh. This is something unheard of.

Furthermore, Humayun made a huge contribution to the field of fine arts, especially in film. He is hailed as one of the most influential architects of television drama of all time, authoring landmark sitcoms, such as Ei Shob Din Ratri, Bohubrihi, Ayomoy, and Kothao Keu Nei, which featured a fictional character named Baker Bhai, who was wrongly convicted and executed. Baker Bhai became such a popular character that before the last episode was aired, thousands of people across the country urged Humayun to change the script just to save his life, the life of a fictional character. This made Humayun a household name, which allowed him a great deal of autonomy for his future projects, motion pictures. His films have covered many themes and genres-addressing such topics as the Bangladesh Liberation War, the middle class crisis, and socio-economic issues. His first film, Aguner Parashmoni, based on the history of the Bangladesh Liberation War, was a huge success-winning National Film Awards in eight categories, including Best Picture and Best Director. His film, Shyamal Chhaya, was submitted by Bangladesh as an Oscar nomination for Best Foreign Language Film. As with Satyajit Ray, Zahir Raihan, or Tareque Masud, it is difficult to calculate the full effect Humayun had on Bangla film. But he was indisputably the most talented Bengali filmmaker, more so than his three famous predecessors. In fact, I cannot name any other Bengali filmmaker who better illustrated the history of the country's independence through film the way Humayun did; he was ahead of his times. Had Humayun done nothing else, the creation of such films alone would have entitled him to be one of the greatest Bengalis of all time.

It is true that Bengali literature would have remained piteously incomplete, and even imperfect, without the works of Humayun. However, it is also quite apparent that without the works of Tagore or Nazrul, Bengali literature would have broken up into mutually unintelligible dialects. Hence, it is fair to place Humayun after Tagore and Nazrul. However, Humayun never compared himself to Shakespeare, and not even to Tagore and Nazrul. He did not regard himself as a great writer.

In fact, I am sure that if anyone conducted a survey to list the five greatest writers of Bengali literature, Humayun would be third, if not first or second. Furthermore, one should consider what other great people have said about Humayun. Several years ago, I asked Muhammad Yunus how he assessed Humayun's overall impact, and he replied, "Humayun's works are the most profound and most fruitful that literature has experienced since the time of Tagore and Nazrul." Al Mahmud, the poet laureate of Bangladesh, told me something similar: "One golden age of Bengali literature ended with Tagore and Nazrul and another began with Humayun." Fiction writer Imdadul Haq Milon considered him to be the almighty lord of his Bengali literature, controlling all their actions and thoughts. If so, he is a generous lord, who is great because he created immortal characters, such as Misir Ali and Himu, and they, on entering our memory, become more alive than the living. Misir Ali is basically a rational psychologist committed to unraveling the mysteries around him through logic. On the other hand, Himu, who works with anti-logic, appears to possess strong intuitive power, though he dismisses his intuitions that come true as mere coincidence. Misir Ali forces us to realize that logic is above emotion, and Himu forces us to understand within ourselves that the better side of our nature should always struggle for dominance with our subtle dark side.

Although Humayun created literary fever through his works, which spread all around Bangladesh, unfortunately he still remained one of the great unsung heroes of human progress to those who live outside of the Indian subcontinent. With that said, literature, of course, is not all about recognition. Still, the fact that Stockholm did not ultimately embrace Humayun Ahmed-a Nobel Prize, why not?-is unfortunate, as it probably would have meant a lot to him. In a time when hardly any of the roles (including Hasina, who is playing the role of Prime Minister) are being played correctly in Bangladesh, Humayun played the role that was assigned to him well: writer and filmmaker. As a result, his name has become synonymous with the greatness of Bengali literature. Hence, to a Bangladeshi, his loss is manifold. He made young people-especially students who had been bred to political passion-understand that there was something that is more important than politics: reading books, and appreciating the fine arts.

Rashidul Bari, a biographer of Muhammad Yunus, most recently authored the Grameen Social Business Model: A Manifesto for Proletariat Revolution.

Souece :

 

Transparency International politically dirtied in Bangladesh

Internationally known anti-graft organization Transparency International has been accused of being fully influenced and polarized by members and activists of anti-West left wing political parties in Bangladesh. According to information, activities of Transparency International [TI] in Bangladesh continues under the cover of an organization named "Swacheton Nagorik Committee" [Conscious Citizen's Committee], which operates 45 branches of its working for TI through 45 committees throughout Bangladesh. Out of 625 members of these 45 committees, 314 directly belong to Bangladesh Awami League [which believes in socialist political method and opposes free market economy as well as the West] while rest belong to left-wing political parties and fronts such as Communist Party of Bangladesh, Bangladesh Socialist Party, Workers Party, Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal [National Socialist Party], Bangladesh Samajtantrik Dal [Bangladesh Socialist Party] etc. There are 5 members of these committees who belong to Jatiyo Party, which is led by former military dictator Hussain Muhammad Ershad and which believes in establishment of Sharia law in Bangladesh. 

Many of these 314 members of the "Swacheton Nagorik Committee" [Conscious Citizen's Committee] are actively involved in politics and are holding posts in various committees of Bangladesh Awami League.

There are also members of other political parties in the "Swacheton Nagorik Committee" [Conscious Citizen's Committee]. According to information, there are 44 members in "Swacheton Nagorik Committee", who belong to Bangladesh Nationalist Party or Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami as well as some of its Islamist alliances.

Most of the members of the Trustee Board of Transparency International in Bangladesh either are direct members of Bangladesh Awami League or had vehement supporter of this political party. Because of such situation, Transparency International in Bangladesh has been totally unable in providing accurate information to its global headquarters on the current state of high-profile corruption as well as spread of corruption in every sector in Bangladesh during current rule of Bangladesh Awami League led left alliance government. It may be mentioned here that, World Bank cancelled its earlier plan of financing Padma Bridge [the largest proposed bridge in Bangladesh] due to massive corruption during the preparatory stage. Following such strong allegation supported by evidences and documents, the communication minister in Bangladesh had to finally quit from his post in order to give opportunity to the ruling party is re-persuading the loan issue with the World Bank. 

Source :

 

THE MURDER OF ARAFAT : How the Israeli quintet indicted itself

“We have to get rid of Arafat”

 

~Israeli defense Minister Shaul Mofaz to Prime Minister Sharon caught on an open mic

Source: Daily Haaretz, Tel Aviv (Hebrew)

 

“We operated against Ahmed Yassin and Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi [two Palestinian leaders extra judicially assassinated by Israel] when we thought the time was suitable. On the matter of Arafat we’ll operate in the same way, when we find the convenient and suitable time. One needs to find the time and to do what has to be done.”

 

- Israeli Prime Minister Sharon to Ma’ariv newspaper

 

Source: The Guardian

 

Yasser Arafat may be dead, but for all intents and purposes he lives on and continues to be a thorn in Israel’s side. Earlier this month a Swiss doctor announced that high levels of toxic polonium-210 were found on some of Arafat’s belongings. Polonium-210 is a highly radioactive substance, one that would require a nuclear reactor and expertise to produce and handle. Israel, being a nuclear power and having publicly expressed a motive for Arafat’s “elimination,” fits the description.

 

Swiss doctor Francois Bochud, director of the Institute of Radiation Physics in Lausanne, Switzerland, was quoted in the report on a nine-month investigation by Al Jazeera that “We have evidence there is too much polonium, but we also have hints from the medical records that this may not be the case. The only way to resolve this anomaly would be by testing the body.”

 

If exhumation and examination of Arafat’s body (currently reposing in its tomb, located a  half a kilometre from my home) seven years after his death reveals the presence of polonium-210, the question demanding an answer will be: who killed him and why?

 

It may seem a futile task to focus on a single person’s death when the region is engulfed in wholesale killing, until, that is, you realize that the killing of Arafat was meant to be an accelerator in the process of bringing about the wholesale demise of an entire indigenous people.

 

A Palestinian attorney in the Galilee has pointed the finger at those he believes are most likely responsible for the murder of former Palestinian president Yasser Arafat. The accused are named and their histories cited; their own words indict them, and their acts of sustained violence speak volumes.

The charge sheet incriminates five of Israel’s top brass:

 

1.    Ariel Sharon, in his capacity as Prime Minister of the Government of Israel, 2001-2006 (currently reported as being clinically dead);

 

2.    Avi Dichter, as head of the Shin Bet (Israeli internal security), 2000-2005 (Member of Knesset for Kadima Party);

 

3.    Shaul Mofaz, in his capacity as Israeli Minister of Defense, 2003-2006 (now leader of the Kadima Party);

 

4.    Moshe Ya’alon, in his capacity as Chief of Staff of the Israeli army, 2003-2005 (now a Deputy Prime Minister of Israel);

 

5.    Meir Dagan, as Director of the Mossad from 2002 to 2011 (currently a leader of a movement called “Yesh Sikkui”).

 

The person who has made these accusations is Palestinian-Arab Israeli writer and lawyer, Sabri Jiryis, a graduate of the Hebrew University law faculty and a prominent Palestinian activist with Arafat’s political party, Fatah. For a long time, Mr. Jiryis served as Arafat’s adviser on Israeli affairs as well as serving as the director of the Palestine Research Centre in Lebanon and later in Cyprus. He was one of Arafat’s confidants for decades, until Arafat’s death.

 

Mr. Jiryis has just posted on his website a revealing analysis of the historic context leading up to Arafat’s assassination, entitled: Arafat’s Murder – The Crime and its Ramifications. The essay was posted in Arabic which may limit the non-Arabic-speaking world’s benefit from this insider’s exposé.

 

Bottom line: Mr. Jiryis meticulously assembles and presents hard evidence demonstrating why these five Israeli leaders, in particular, should be brought before a court of justice. His analysis offers no words of rage or revenge but rather a cold, clinical review of a systematic series of actions and statements by each of these Israeli leaders which would logically bring any objective observer to the conclusion that, if justice is to be served, these five persons should be charged with Arafat’s murder and put on trial.

 

Following the Al-Jazeera airing of their documentary concluding that Arafat may have been poisoned by radioactive polonium, Mahmoud Abbas, Arafat’s successor, ordered an investigation into Arafat’s death. In reply, in Cairo, on July 17, 2012, the Arab League set up an independent committee to probe the death of the iconic former Palestinian leader.

 

As the independent investigation committee embarks on its mandate, Mr. Jiryis’ analysis can make an important contribution by putting Arafat’s murder into historical context. Israeli leaders have employed murder, assassination and mass slaughter ever since Israel’s founding, and before. The reins of power in Israel remain in the hands of those who seek to murder the Palestinian struggle for freedom and independence. 

 

Meantime, when Arafat’s turn finally came, the trail of evidence left behind was so glaring that it would be an insult to humanity if those responsible are not brought to justice.

 

Whatever happens with this renewed effort to determine how Arafat died and who was behind his death, the Palestinian struggle for emancipation from 65 years of dispossession and 45 years of military occupation will not end. The idea that Palestinians are going to wake up one morning and decide to enjoy life under Israeli military occupation or as refugees is simply hallucinatory, as any thoughtful reading of world history would indicate.

 

Historic twists of fate are unpredictable, with many ironic overtones. Maybe, just maybe, the analysis by an Israeli-trained Palestinian attorney together with the clues to be found in Arafat’s dead body will usher in a long-overdue era of Israeli accountability for crimes against the Palestinian people.

 

Sam Bahour is a Palestinian-American business development consultant. He frequently provides independent commentary on Palestine and serves as a policy advisor of Al-Shabaka, the Palestinian Policy Network. He blogs at 

 

Source :