nationalist khan

শুক্রবার, ১০ ডিসেম্বর, ২০১০

search

Is awamileague engazed with BDR mutiny?

PROLOGUE

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

SOME STIRRING THOUGHTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· Please also note that the military team of inquiry, specially Brigadier General Hasan Nasir, proposed to interrogate Nanak to know his whereabouts on 25th night while Sahara was staging the drama of arms surrender inside Peelkahna. Immediately following this demand, Brigadier General Hasan Nasir was replaced by a new member of the team of inquiry[2]. Nanak suddenly developed chest pain and was rushed to Labaid Hospital. Later, to avoid the inquiry, he was sent to Singapore on 1st of April for fake treatment. Within a few days following the visit of Indian foreign secretary on 12th April and his meetings with PM and CAS Moeen, Nanak came back from Singapore. The military inquiry was a mockery as the terms of reference did not allow an inquiry in the truest sense. Lieutenant General Jahangir Alam Chowdhury, known for his honesty and integrity, faltered and succumbed to the government pressure. He should have resigned from the presidency of the board of inquiry, which surely would bring an end to his military career. What else the general is left to achieve in his career? Could he not be courageous to prove his integrity to the nation? It is almost needless to comment on minister Ashraful Islam denouncing military inquiry report as it couldn’t find out any connection of JMB or anti-liberation force. Doesn’t it denote the government was trying to influence the inquiry boards to establish JMB and BNP-Jamaat link with the murders forcefully? Judge yourself.

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

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

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

[1] As the GOC 24 Infantry Division, Moeen managed 75% of the expenditure of his daughter’s marriage from army fund! Each brigade and unit was tasked to provide goats, cows, chicken, rice, and decoration from private funds. East Bengal Regimental Centre was tasked to organize the marriage ceremony. And this man gives speeches about anti-corruption and dishonesty!

[2] Lately DGFI has circulated anonymous letter to many army officers defaming Brigadier General Nasir. Probably he will be ruthlessly sorted out by the present government

Bangladesh: Ruling party’s fear in allowing Court Martial to BDR Massacre case

Pro-Awami League lawyer Advocate Anisul Huq (who is also the chief counsel in Bangabandhu murder case), told vernacular daily Amader Shomoy that, trial into the massacre, murder, rape and lootings inside the Bangladesh Riffles (BDR) headquarters cannot be held under Court Martial.

He said, under Military Act or BDR Act, there is no room for holding trial of the massacre, while under the International Criminal Tribunal Act of 1973, the trial into this particular case is not possible.

The detailed interview of this pro-ruling party lawyer was prominent carried as the lead news in the vernacular daily just before few days of releasing the investigation report. It is well apprehended that a large number of politicians belonging to the ruling party are going to be named as accused and co-accused in this notorious massacre. Anticipating this, possibly some influential leaders in the ruling party have become active in mobilizing various forces in at least saving their fate from facing Court Martial.

Meanwhile, once again, the question Human Rights Watch (HRW) has issued a statement expressing its concern for the BDR soldiers, who are under scrutiny for obvious reason inside the headquarters by various intelligence agencies. Till date, a few hundred BDR men are already identified to be directly or indirectly involved behind this heinous crime or murder, rape, brutality etc. I wrote another piece few days back on the activities of HRW titled ‘Leaving crocodile tears for the killers in Bangladesh’.

HRW in its latest statement said, “The government of Bangladesh should take urgent steps to ensure that those detained in connection with the massacre of 74 people at the Dhaka headquarters of the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR), the country's paramilitary border guards, on February 25, 2009, are not subjected to retribution, including extrajudicial killings, torture, and other mistreatment.”

It said, “An apparent mutiny by members of the border guards against their army officers left 55 senior army officers and 19 others dead, including the director general of the border guards and his wife. The government, police, and army have begun parallel investigations into the incident. As of March 24, 693 border guard personnel had been taken into custody.

“Human Rights Watch urged the government to conduct a transparent and swift enquiry to identify those responsible for the killings and to prosecute them in civilian courts.

“An apparent mutiny by members of the border guards against their army officers left 55 senior army officers and 19 others dead, including the director general of the border guards and his wife. The government, police, and army have begun parallel investigations into the incident. As of March 24, 693 border guard personnel had been taken into custody.

“Human Rights Watch urged the government to conduct a transparent and swift enquiry to identify those responsible for the killings and to prosecute them in civilian courts.”

Here is the beginning of my comments. Human Rights Watch is continuing to demand trial in ‘civilian courts’, while the pro-ruling party lawyer also made a similar opinion. More importantly, his opinion was published in a very prominent manner. Why? At whose instruction? What is the reason behind such over-enthusiasm?

In the same newspaper, a commentary in Indian newspaper The Statesman was prominently published at the front page.

Manash Ghosh, Editor of The Statesman in this editorial opinion put several points. But, let us just bring here only a few points, which will give a scope to my readers to think about the reason behind such editorial as well as its re-publication in Bangladeshi press.

Mr. Ghosh wrote, “THE purpose behind "mutinous" Bangladesh Rifles' jawans killing 55 army officers at their Dhaka headquarters in Pilkhana on 25 February was to invite severe armed retaliation from the military. This sinister, well-planned move -- a product of deep-rooted political conspiracy -- had the potential of provoking a countrywide armed conflict between the 68,000-strong BDR paramilitary and 150,000-strong army. Such a conflict might not only have plunged the country into bloody civil war but also ensured the ouster of Sheikh Hasina's democratically elected secular left-of-centre government and even her assassination.”

Here is my comment! Mr. Ghosh almost discovered a conspiracy theory behind the Massacre thus showing green-card to the ruling government by giving it the certificate of innocence. How and wherefrom he got all such conspiracy details? He wanted to justify that Sheikh Hasina or her government is not behind this brutal massacre. In this case, my first question to him is, why the PM was wasting time in allowing Bangladesh army to storm in to the Bangladesh Riffles headquarters, which would have saved several lives and dignities of women?

Then Mr. Ghosh continues to say, “actually, the original plan of the pro-Pakistan conspirators, according to the latest official findings, was to kill the Prime Minister at a special dinner on 24 February at BDR headquarters, to which Hasina had been invited by the paramilitary's director general, Major General Shakeel Ahmed. But she had a providential escape as her "heavy workload" kept her away from the function. This led the conspirators to opt for an alternate plan -- to embark on a killing spree of army officers serving the BDR the next morning so as to create the "desired impact and inflict maximum damage". The 25 February massacre was executed jointly by a small band of “with direct links with Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the Jamat-e-Islami who had been smuggled into Pilkhana in a grey SUV that morning and a select group of young BDR recruits, inducted during the last years of Khaleda-Jamat rule.”

Here is my second question. Wherefrom the Statesman editor obtained official findings? From talkative minister Lt. Col. Faruk Khan? Mr. Ghosh also gave a false information. Sheikh Hasina was already in the BDR headquarters on February 24, 2009 and she was not having any dinner invitation for that evening. This is again false information. The dinner invitation was for February 26, 2009 where Hasina Wajed decided not to attend due to prior intelligence warning.

Mr. Ghosh also wanted to say that, the BDR men had nothing to do with the murder and brutality but some ‘imported elements’ in grey color pickup were behind this! What a shameful lie by the editor of a prominent daily!

Now, let us see another portion of his comments, where he said, “The BNP-Jamat masterminds so successfully camouflaged their political agenda by highlighting the genuine grievances of the jawans against their officers that initially ordinary people and even the media overwhelmingly supported the mutineers' "just cause". Processions were even taken out in old Dhaka hailing the mutiny as "Sipahi janata bhai bhai" to garner popular support.”

Wao, what brilliant lie! Does the editor of Statesman know that the procession was brought out by none by leaders of Bangladesh Awami League and the activists of the ruling Grand Alliance? Meanwhile, Awami League leader Torab Ali and his son are already arrested by the law enforcing agencies for their direct involvement behind the massacre and for bringing out procession.

It may also be mentioned here that, Barrister Fazle Noor Taposh, a lawmaker from the ruling party asked his workers to make announcements from mosques urging local residents to move into 2-3 kilometer distance. This was done by this man with the goal of allowing the BDR men to flee from the spot of massacre. By now, investigators are already sure of this fact.

Statesman editor then wrote, “How well planned the conspiracy was can be gauged from the fact that the killings took place within an hour of the "mutiny".”

This is also false information. According facts, murders took place inside the BDR headquarters in several phases. This was already disclosed by several BDR men as well as those rescued army officers.

Now is the most interesting point by Mr. Ghosh. He wrote, “Such brutality sent shock waves through Bangladesh. But these sadistic acts were soon to convince even ordinary Bangladeshis that this was no spur-of-the-moment outburst by mutineers but a pre-meditated, well-calculated move to inflame the military, the goal being to force the army to launch retaliatory strikes on Pilkhana and 48 small and big BDR camps located close to the border with India and the numerous BDR border outposts.”

Here the editor rejected any pre-planned conspiracy. But, we remember what he said at the beginning of the article. How the editor already missed what he wrote before?

The Statesman said, “Khaleda Zia and Jamat leaders wanted an all out military offensive on Pilkhana and other BDR camps even if this meant declaration of a full-fledged war against the paramilitary.”

Yes, if Khaleda Zia or anyone else was looking for offensives to combat militancy then it was very correct decision. Where did the editor of Statesman find anything wrong? Does he remember how our Indian army stormed into various places of mutiny including the Golden Temple or Hazrat Bal Mosque?

Manash Ghosh then wrote, “She was heckled and abused by a section of army officers, some of whom even bayed for her blood. They blamed Awami League leaders for the massacre. Their anti-army speeches in parliament, according them, had provoked the killing. Not a word was said against the BNP and the Jamat, although their leaders had said far worse things against the military top brass, especially the army chief.”

The way of expression of the editor is to provoke Sheikh Hasina Wajed in punishing those army officers for their abusive attitude and for paying Hasina’s blood. He also said, none of the army men uttered single word about BNP’s members of parliament saying bad thing about army inside the parliament. How does he know the entire proceedings inside the closed-door meeting room inside Dhaka Cantonment that took place between Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed and army officers? Who handed over the details to him? Anyone from Awami League?

In reality, according to YouTube released contents of the meeting, the army officers expressed anger against all politicians. Not only against Awami League.

And then, Mr. Ghosh said, “At the funeral of the slain officers, a section of army officers abused and actually turned away senior Awami League ministers and leaders whereas those from the BNP and Jamat were allowed to take part. Army chief General Moin was also abused and pushed around by junior officers, which amounted to gross indiscipline and violation of the army code.”

This is possibly put with the intention of instigating the army chief in drawing disciplinary actions against those angry army officers, who were heavy with shock at the brutal murder of their colleague brothers.

And here is the most interesting portion of Mr. Ghosh’s article. He wrote, “The Padua killings put Hasina's government in such a tight spot that before she air-dashed to Delhi she telephoned then Prime Minister AB Vajpayee to apologise and express "deep regret" over the incident. According to one former Awami League minister who was present during Hasina's telephone call to Vajpayee, she said "sorry" 12 times.”

Sheikh Hasina Wajed should now investigate who might be that former minister, who leaked secret conversation between the heads of state to a journalist.

Bangladeshi intelligence, while investigating the BDR massacre issue, should also check the mystery behind Statesman’s editorial and its special re-publication by a section of local press.

'Minus' formula never works

Since political changes in Bangladesh, media is continuing to speculate the 'minus' formula anticipating exclusion of two of the former Prime Ministers from politics, who headed two largest political parties namely Bangladesh Awami League and Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Military backed interim government in Dhaka (capital of Bangladesh), are possibly taking steps with the ultimate dream of seeing both Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Bangladesh Awami League being completely eliminated from politics or at least grabbing the command of these parties with some picked up 'leaders' such as Major (Retired) Hafiz Uddin or Suranjit Sen Gupta. In very recent step, the interim government has also expanded its thuggish attitude towards Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh by arresting its leader Moulana Matiur Rahman Nizami. Now political pundits in Dhaka are even seeing minus three or even more predictions of minuses.

Minus two Formula is the so-called ongoing political attempt in Bangladesh to banish the former prime ministers Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina from politics forever. Khaleda Zia, the widow of former President of Bangladesh Ziaur Rahman, is the Chairperson of his old party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. She was the Prime Minister of Bangladesh from 1991 to 1996, and then again from 2001 to 2006. Sheikh Hasina, the President of the Awami League since 1981, was the Prime Minister of Bangladesh from 1996 to 2001. She is the eldest of five children of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the nationalist leader and the first president of Bangladesh. For the past 15 years the two ladies successively enjoyed the "power" or headed the opposition party in Bangladesh. While both have some popularity, they themselves are very hostile to each other. Although they both played key roles in the downfall of dictator Hossain Mohammad Ershad in 1990 to restore democracy in Bangladesh, they have not been in unanimity in any issue whatsoever ever since. The one in the opposition has rather routinely called for strikes and shutdowns causing destruction to the economy and hampering normal life.

Since 1990, with ouster of military dictator Hussain Muhammed Ershad, who is known as the founding father of corruption in the country, Bangladesh has seen gradual failure of democracy, continued spiralling of corruption, awe-inspiring political violence, that have become only worse with time. A common belief is that both the ladies have failed as leaders; the nation should find their replacement - a better leader. Khaleda Zia's 2001-2006 term was particularly plagued by rising religious militancy, terrorism, rampant corruption (including successive dismal reports by Transparency International), a rise in alleged attacks on minority groups (such as Hindus and Ahmadiyas as documented by the US State Department and Amnesty International) and an increasingly explosive political environment. An election was scheduled for the end of 2006, however it did not take place. The caretaker government was accused of BNP bias by Hasina, who fomented nationwide protests and shutdowns. The bitter rivalry of Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Awami League was pushing the country towards a civil war. The head of the caretaker government stepped down, many believe under pressure from the military and Fakhruddin Ahmed was selected to replace him. Emergency law has been declared and a massive campaign to crack down on corruption ensued. The election is postponed indefinitely, probably at least a year as better voter lists are being generated.

Both Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina hold absolute power over the internal decision making process of their respective political parties. They have so far not encouraged the practice of democracy within the party although they are very vocal about establishing democratic practices for the country. Sheikh Hasina tried to instigate reform measures by retiring everyone over 60 in her party. This would have effectively banned her in the process, but many interpreted this as a reason to bring her son, Sajeeb Wazed to the throne.

Interim government's chief executive, Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed's administration, amid some domestic and international protestations, is now giving signals that it will end the ultimate authority of Hasina and Zia over their parties at any cost. It believes that true democracy cannot be established in Bangladesh if these two major political parties of the country are not run democratically. With this end in view, the government is going forward very tactfully without being explicit. This very political attempt goes by the name of Minus two Formula.

Both Sheikh Hasina and Khaled Zia have intended to continue dynasty politics. Khadeda's son, Tarique Rahman was set to become the next leader of BNP. Tarique Rahman was the joint-secretary of BNP during Khaleda's last term. But he was only second in line when it came to political power.

Similarly Sheikh Hasina invited her son, Sajeeb Wazed to visit Bangladesh on numerous occasions. He plays an active political role in Awami League and was believed to replace Sheikh Hasina as the next leader of Awami League despite some reservations within the party.

The Minus 2 Formula was intended to abolish these dynasties and in the process split up the BNP and Awami League parties so that these divided parties would care more about the contributors rather than the ideological figureheads their biological successors. As a result Tarique Rahman (son of Khaleda Zia) is now in jail while BNP is effectively fractured and is continuing without him.

Due to waning popularity in the party (as a result of Sheikh Hasin'a arrest), Sajeeb Wazed (son of Sheikh Hasina) opts to stay in the US and lead a 'worldwide revolution', while Awami League members are restructuring without his input.

The 2006–2008 Bangladeshi political crisis began in October 2006 when a caretaker government — designated by the constitution to oversee the vote — assumed power without exhausting the provisions of selection of Chief of Caretaker government at the end of October. Its purpose was to steer the country through the scheduled parliamentary elections. However, on 3 January 2007, the Awami League made its predicted announcement that it (and the 18 smaller parties attached to it) would boycott the general election scheduled to be held on 22 January 2007, questioning its fairness and the non-availability of an accurate voters list. This announcement led to widespread violence and political rioting. This on-going political crisis has stemmed largely from an apparent politicalisation of the civil administration, election commission and defense force that was perceived to be skewing the election process towards a pre-determined result. This follows on from almost 2 decades of bitter rivalry between the Awami League and Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). The BNP-led government stepped down in October at the end of their term. Although the caretaker government was appointed immediately afterwards, Awami League and its allies maintained their position regarding the fairness of the upcoming election.

Violence erupted throughout the country, killing more than 40 people. According to Bangladesh's unique electoral system, a caretaker government is entrusted to oversee the national parliamentary elections, which must be held within ninety days of dissolving a parliament. The constitution stipulates that the last retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court lead this caretaker government as its Chief Advisor (with status of Prime Minister) and would appoint a maximum of ten advisors (with status of ministers) to assist him. The caretaker government runs all the state's affairs during these ninety days, including conducting the nationwide parliamentary elections. However, during this time, the Defense Ministry's charge is transferred to the country's President, who assumes the role of Commander-in-Chief.

At the end of BNP's 2001-2006 term, Awami League accused BNP of politicising the top levels of civil government as well as the election commission, judiciary and the command of the Army, claiming that a free and fair poll would not be possible unless mass changes were brought about in the administration. They also questioned the immediate past Chief Justice's neutrality and accused him of being biased towards BNP.

Amid protests and violence led by Awami League right after the term of BNP ended in October 2006, the former Chief Justice K M Hasan declined to take the job of Chief Advisor (CA). As a final option in the constitution, President Iajuddin Ahmed himself took the role, in addition to his own responsibilities, and appointed an advisory council.

Awami League, although wary of Iajuddin as the CA, agreed to take part in the elections but also demanded that he bring mass changes in the administration to free it from BNP's politicisation. They also demanded that a new and accurate voter list be compiled. The allegation that the Voter list was flawed has been somewhat supported by EU's election observers. Awami League also accused Iajuddin of being a puppet of BNP and on January 3, 2007 finally declared that they would boycott the election and violence broke out across the country.

On January 11, 2007, the United Nations and the European Union suspended their election monitoring operations because they felt that conditions for a credible vote did not exist. In a statement, the EU said, "The European Commission has decided to suspend its Election Observation Mission (EOM) to Bangladesh covering the parliamentary elections on 22nd January. The European Commission has called back the long-term observers already on the ground, and will not deploy the other phases of its observation mission, which was due to be led by MEP Alexander Graf Lambsdorff." A spokesperson for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated that "The political crisis in Bangladesh has severely jeopardized the legitimacy of the electoral process. The announced cancellation of numerous international observation missions is regrettable. The United Nations has had to suspend all technical support to the electoral process, including by closing its International Coordination Office for Election Observers in Dhaka.

On the same day as the UN and EU withdrawal from the election procedures, chief advisor of the caretaker government Iajuddin Ahmed (the current president) announced a state of emergency in Bangladesh after weeks of political crisis over the upcoming elections, implementing a late night to early morning (11 p.m. to 5 a.m.) curfew. It has been suggested that that was in fact a form of coup. Within hours of the state of emergency declaration, President Ahmed announced his resignation as chief advisor, as well as the postponement of the scheduled election. Prior to his own resignation, he accepted those of nine of the ten advisors of the caretaker government. The remaining advisor on the board Fazlul Haque was then appointed by President Ahmed as the interim chief advisor. "It is fairly apparent that it was done under pressure from the army because of the threat that the country could lose its peacekeeping role," said analyst Zafar Sobhan, a columnist for an English language newspaper in Dhaka. On January 12, 2007, the former Bangladesh Bank governor Fakhruddin Ahmed was sworn in as the new chief advisor. Mr. Ahmed appointed five advisors on January 13 to form the new interim government. The curfew was lifted once the police received reports of Fakruddin Ahmed being named the head of the caretaker government. The state of emergency, however, continues to be in effect until further notice, and it suspends some basic rights provided by the constitution, such as the freedom of movement, assembly, and speech.

The most important part of the ongoing drive of the present military backed interim government in Bangladesh against corruption is, althought it claims of cleansing country's politics from corruption, muscle power and black money, the founding father of corruption in Bangladeshi politics, former military dictator Hussain Muhammed Ershad or members of his team (some have already left Ershad's company) like Shah Moazzem Hussain, Major General (Retired) Mahmudul Hassan (known as thief of Baghdad), Ziauddin Ahmed Bablu, Ruhul Amin Howlader, Kazi Zafar Ahmed (known as Sugar Zafar), Shwafiqul Ghani Swapan, Fakhrul Islam Munshi, Momota Wahab, Jinat Musharraf (Ershad's concubine) and many others are surprisingly left out of such anti corruption drive.

Main figure from Bangladesh army, who is also the second man in country's national committee for combating corruption is Lieutenant General Masud Uddin Chowdhury. Although he showed merciless attitude towards many, he spared his own brother-in-law, Major (Sacked) Sayeed Iskander, who is the brother of Khaleda Zia and the most corrupt man in Bangladesh. With the help of Masud Uddin, it is reported that, Iskander was allowed to leave Bangladesh silently with members of his family. Similarly, Barrister Aminul Huq, who is one of the top corrupts in BNP government fled the country with the help of his own brother, who is a Major General. There are many such instances, such as the case of Major (Retired) Kamrul Islam, a corrupt minister in BNP cabinet, who is yet to come under proper actions, despite the fact that Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) served a notice on him asking statement of wealth. There are rumors in Dhaka that, members of ACC are becoming rich by using their present position, as many in the country are considering this organization as most notorious.

Everything, whatever the present military backed government in Bangladesh is doing is aimed at ultimately minusing top figures in major political parties, and replacing those posts with army loyalists, in order to ensure a kind of unique martial law in the country for years.

Similar formula was adopted by Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf as well as military junta in Thailand. But, finally neither Musharraf nor the junta in Bangkok could finally accomplish their goals. People voted those politicians back to power. Pakistan is already slipping out of Musharraf's grip. Thaksin Shinawatra is back to Thailand as a hero. Who knows what will happen in Bangladesh. Return of the Begums or midnight abscond of the members in the government and its back ground forces in the country?

Experts are smelling blood and flesh in Bangladeshi politics soon with the growing assumption of no election during next couple of years. Someone say, there will be a military takeover, while other say, mass revolution. What fate awaits this South Asian nation, possibly time will say. But, one thing the present rulers in Dhaka need to know, minus formula never works!

Propaganda of the Bangladesh Hindu-Buddhist-Christian Unity Council

It is very unfortunate that a rootless and signboard-oriented organisation named Bangladesh Hindu-Buddhist-Christian Unity Council (BHBCUC), is engaged in subversive acts of defaming Bangladesh at home and abroad. BHBCUC acts as a tool of neighbouring countries of Bangladesh to implement its ulterior design. One of the burning examples of its notorious activities, are the letters sent to the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and to Bill Clinton's Global Institute.

The letters were identical in their contents, views and objectives. Both of them repeated the same fabricated and baseless allegations that were used earlier thousands of times since the ruling alliance government assumed power in Bangladesh in 2001. BHBCUC has immediate and far-reaching objectives. Its short-term objective is to launch slanderous allegation against the government and Muslims who are liberal democrats and comprise about 90 per cent of the total population of Bangladesh.

The main objective of the present write-up is to disprove the allegation that BHBCUC and its mentor propagate in home and abroad through their different channels. The letter written to Kofi Annan itself proves for whose interest BHBCUC works. It makes same allegation what India makes. It wants to damage the image of Bangladesh , which also India does and wants. BHBCUC also invited foreign intervention in Bangladesh, which is also an Indian agenda. But India cannot officially suggest UN Secretary General to prohibit the presence of Bangladesh Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia and cancel her address to the UN General Assembly. India used BHBCUC to write letter to Kofi Annan with the request that Bangladesh Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia should not be allowed to address the General Assembly because of the following reasons.

Her government is engaged in killing and torturing the opposition elements. This allegation is totally untrue. It is the agenda of pro-India political party in Bangladesh. No innocent activist belonging to opposition parties was killed so far. It is known to all that many terrorists to avoid the harassment and arrest outwardly join political parties to use them as shield. These terrorists created a reign of terror in the country since the present government came to power. Law enforcers naturally nabbed some of these terrorists and a few of them were killed in cross-firing. When they were taken to recover arms from the hideouts, their accomplices opened fire at the law enforcers and at times terrorists were killed. BHBCUC in its letter branded cross-firing as extra-judicial killing. The most wanted terrorists were killed by shootings of their accomplice, but BHBCUC and its mentors hold the government responsible for it. These types of killings are vogue in India, and elsewhere in the world. India eliminated hundreds of thousands of freedom fighters in Kashmir, Punjab and Northeast Indian states during the last 58 years. Besides, several lakhs of Muslims, Buddhists, Christians and Untouchable Hindus were killed in India in communal and caste violence and rioting. But none ever suggested that the Indian Prime Minister should be barred from addressing any session of UN. Making such request, BHBCUC virtually stood against Bangladesh, its independence and sovereignty. BHBCUC elements frequently make such irresponsible and treasonous comments and demands. If the government was really communal, no BHBCUC element could have stayed in the country.

Another allegation of BHBCUC is that the members of the minority communities are the victims of rape, murder, torture and arson. This is also an allegation propagated by India. To justify their claims, agents were let loose to make fabricated stories in home and abroad. But after investigation, it was found that none of the reports were genuine. On several occasions, police arrested some Hindus when they were making video footage to send them abroad. Even some Indian nationals of West Bengal were branded as Bangladeshis and they narrated fake stories of torture, rape, murder and arson to Indian and pro-Indian journalists, who circulated them in print and electronic media. India also hired some foreign journalists to make believable the fake stories of human rights violation in Bangladesh.

The allegation of BHBCUC about the closure of ETV proves what type of falsity it can propagate. It mentioned in the letter that the government of Khaleda Zia illegally and intentionally closed down the ETV Channel. The reality is that the then government illegally allowed privately owned ETV to use the property and other facilities of state-owned national TV, Bangladesh Television. Some leading personalities of Bangladesh took the shelter of the High Court and the Court declared the process of handing over public property to the privately-managed ETV illegal. In this way it was closed down. Government had nothing to do with the verdict of the Court.

It is to be mentioned that the foreigners are not duly informed of the happenings in Bangladesh. Availing of this situation, India, and her Bangladesh tentacles launch slanderous media campaign against Bangladesh. BHBCUC also spoke in favour of an NGO, named Proshika, saying that the government curbed its activities. . Proshika is infamous for its pro-India tilt. It was found involved in organizing, beyond its legal capacity, an anti-government sit-in programme clandestinely, called by a pro-India political party. Naturally government had to react, when its existence faced from an NGO, which was supposed to work for social welfare, not to implement other's political agenda. It is found that BHBCUC supports those fake issues, which are backed by India and her Bangladeshi allies.

Another fake allegation that BHBCUC made in the letter is the "rise of the warlords and terrorist groups" under the present government. It named Jagrato Muslim Janata Bangladesh, Bangla Bhai, Jamatul Mujahideen Bangladesh, etc. that were backed, in its (BHBBCU) language, by the government to surface. But the reality is something otherwise. The arrestees after the serial blast confessed that the bombs, their materials and technology were brought from India through different border routes. It was repeatedly flashed in the print media that ring leaders of JMB used to visit India without visa and legal documents on regular basis and held rounds of talks with the Indian secret services.

It is to be mentioned that India since Sheikh Hasina's regime (1996-2001) tried to make it believe to the Western world that Bangladesh is den of the Muslim extremists. India-financed dailies in Bangladesh tuning to Indian line published hundreds of fake news saying that the Muslim extremists were being trained in Chittagong Hill Tracts, Sundarbans and even in some institutions like madrashs and other religious sites. Police and other agencies of Bangladesh rushed to the spots as mentioned in the dailies. But after thorough investigation law enforcers found nothing. Several Western counties also investigated the fabricated reports and allegations made by India and the press, and found nothing. This made USA to repeatedly claim that there is no Islamic militancy in Bangladesh and it is a liberal Muslim democratic country. So it has become an imperative for India to justify her claim and allegation against Bangladesh. After US-led war on terror, India became more serious to brand Bangladesh as home of the terrorists. Her policymakers came to this conclusion to recruit agents from amongst those who are, at least, outwardly in favour of Islamic rule in Bangladesh. India used its own Muslim religious personalities to recruit and instigate their disciples to work for so-called Islamic revolution in Bangladesh . In this way, India succeeded in floating Muslim extremist outfits in Bangladesh to justify her claim before the international community.

Bangladeshi Muslims do not believe in extremism, as Islam does not allow it. The government drive, to net the criminals of August 17 bomb attacks, was hailed by all people irrespective of their ideological and political affiliation. If the government had any link with terrorist groups, they would not have disturbed the government under any circumstances. It is the adversaries of the present government that let loose its agents in the name of Islam, apprehending that their allies would not come to power in the next election if the present government is allowed to work smoothly and peacefully.

To isolate the government from the people, the adversaries used their 'trump card,' of serial bombings. It is as like as a horns of dilemma for the government. If the government nabs the people having beard in their face and caps on their head, it will naturally hurt the feelings of some Muslims who are not aware of the real reason of arrest. So they will go against the government. On the other hand, if the government does not arrest these persons apprehending people's resentment, it will prove that the government protects the terrorists. As a result, India and Western countries will find an excuse to invade Bangladesh, or at least squeeze it by imposing trade embargo, which India already threatened to do.

To incite the Western powers, BHBCUC did not forget to mention in the letter about child labour in Bangladesh, which prevails in all the third world counties, including India . Child labour and all the problems, including bombing also prevailed during the regime of Sheikh Hasina, but BHBCUC never spoke against them.

It is clear for whom BHBCUC works. BHBCUC and its mentors want to install a puppet government in Bangladesh. They know that if the four-party alliance remains intact and run for election jointly, pro-Indian elements will face a debacle. So their immediate target is to breach the unity of the alliance. For this reason, pro-Indian elements launched campaign against Jammat-e-Islam, in absence of which BNP may not be able to return to power. BHBCUC letters are directed to defame the Bangladesh government in the UN. BHBCUC mercenaries may also create more incidents of terror to throw the government to more awkward situation. Western countries, including UN should realise the games of India and its agents in Bangladesh like BHBCUC. India's long-term goal is to grab Bangladesh or make it a vassal state, if occupation is not possible.

Reports repeatedly published in the print media that Indian intelligence agencies train the Bangladeshi terrorists in Indian cities and military cantonments. Terrorists and armed cadres of the immediate-past government fled to India just after the general election of 2001. They were given guerrilla training by RAW. Besides, to disturb and disintegrate Bangladesh RAW raised several organisations, including 'Bangasena,' 'Bangladesh Udbastu Kollyan Samity,' 'Shaktisena,' etc., using those Indian nationals who or whose ancestors migrated voluntarily to India prior to or after the partition of the subcontinent in 1947. These oranisations, are believed to be involved in the subversive activities in the country.

Above all, the BHBCUC - a RAW-controlled group, comprise mainly with the Hindus, do not believe in the existence of Bangladesh. BHBCUC leaders, including Chitta Ranjan Datta, Nim Chandra Bhoumik, often make slanderous, and insulting comments against the country and its Muslim citizens in order to hurt and agitate them, so that communal riots could break out in the country. Government for unknown reason does not take stern action against the most treacherous anti-state communal comments of BHBCUC. Local socio-political parties, even the print media, are totally indifferent of the anti-state comments and activities of BHBCUC. Seminars, symposium and particularly TV-talk shows should be arranged in the national and private TV channels to unmask such activities. Whenever BHBCUC leaders make any objectionable and irresponsible comments they should be interrogated instantly and formal cases should be lodged against them on behalf of the patriotic citizens of the country. Due to the passive mood of the government and the common citizens, international community may think the comments of BHBCUC leaders as true and genuine. On the other hand BHBCUC leaders think that they are unchangeable and none can face them. Common citizens also started to think like this. So time has come to take action against them. Those who are using the name of BHBCUC in order to launch anti-Bangladesh propaganda in American and European counties should also be brought before the Court. Cases should be filed against them for their fake and irresponsible propaganda.

Besides, the illegal Indians, whose number exceeds one lakh, who are engaged in several professions from shopkeepers to business executives, might have linked with the terrorist activities inside Bangladesh. These illegal Indians should immediately be identified and legal action must be taken against them on an emergency basis. Otherwise the security and existence of the country will face serious debacle in future. These illegal Indians may be used to install a pro-Indian government in Bangladesh. All the private enterprises should immediately be asked to remove the Indian nationals from their organisations, otherwise legal actions should also be taken against them.*

RAW destroying Bangladesh

Most of the members of the forums know that RAW’s nefarious activities in subcontinent in general and in Bangladesh in particular has become menacing.Many of You might be knowing that journalist and researcher Mohammad Zainal Abedin has written a revealing book:”RAW and Bangladesh”. Two Pakistani writers have highly spoke of this book:
“RAW AND BANGLADESH” By Zainal Abedin Published by :Fatema shahab
7. Fakirapool,Inner Circular Road Motijheel, Dhaka, Bangladesh, First Edition: November, 1995
Cover Design : Zobayer Alam

Dedicated To Those Fighters Who Shall Protect Our Independence, Sovereignty And

Religious Identity From Generation To Generation. Printing:Madina Printers.
38/2. Banglabazar Dhaka-llOO. Bangladesh. Distributor: Madina Publications 38/2, Banglabazar Dhaka-I 100. Bangladesh All Rights Reserved by the Author Price: Taka-125 US $ -5

PREFACE

The eventful days of 1971 remain ever fresh in my memory despite the passage of long 25 years. As I ponder over the events, one particular incident chastises me the most. It happened during April 1971. Although the operation of Pakistan Army had started in Dhaka on the night of 25 March but my home district Noakhali was still out of its purview. I, along with some other leaders was busy in organising resistance forces in our area. Volunteers from far off villages and shoals had assembled in large numbers in the district headquarters. They carried assortment of weapons, some even carried bamboo sticks, spears, arrows, javelins etc. They were determined to fight for realization of the just rights of the Bengalis.

I, as a student leader had played significant role in popularising 6- points in my area. I had many admirers and political supporters. My most staunch supporter and admirer was a neighbour. He was a middle-aged, ‘mature and sober person. He had stood by m)’! during difficult days of Ayub regime. In fact, without his assistance and support, it would not have been possible for me to become a front rank student leader.

I had immense respect and regard for him. I was thrilled when I spotted him in the make shift camp set up for the resistance forces. I greeted him warmly. But he remained cold and unmoved. His eyes were dazed and he seemed lost. I thought that he was concerned about Pakistan Army’s imminent advance to our area and its consequences for us.He got hold of my hand and took me to a nearby restaurant. As we sipped tea, he started narrating the history of pre-1947 Bengal. He mentioned gory details of how the Hindus used to treat the Muslims and explained the reasons for creation of Pakistan. He said that struggling for one’s right is different from break up of the country. He stated that India would first weaken us by breaking our unity and then exploit us. He added that his life time experiences had told him that India would never be sincere to Muslims. With tears in his eyes and hands trembling with emotions he quipped, “Are you again going to make us the slaves of the Hindus?”.

I must admit that I did not give any serious thought to his urging. I was too young and emotional. Besides, I was so involved with my cause that I had little time or scope to think about future. In fact, had I not known his background, I would have dismissed him as a ‘ collaborator’ .

However, the said question now haunts me often. The realization of what lay in store for us had started soon after I crossed over to India where I was assigned to elite Mujib Bahini. The attitude of our Indian handlers and trainers indicated that they treated us (the Freedom Fighters) not as friends but as agents. However, the real Indian face lay bare after the surrender of Pakistani forces, when I saw the large scale loot and plunder by the Indian Army personnel.

The Indian soldiers appeared to be the modern edition of the Maratha Cavalry who is notorious in history for plundering Bengal during the middle age. The Indian soldiers swooped on everything they found and carried them away to India. Their haste for plunder made our people believe that they had been waiting for such I an opportunity for centuries and they were not ready to waste even a single moment when the cherished opportunity arrived. Indian soldiers imposed curfew on our towns, industrial bases, ports, cantonments, commercial centres and even residential areas to make the looting easier. They lifted every thing from ceiling fan to military equipment, utensils to water taps. Thousands of Army vehicles were used to carry looted goods to India.

History has recorded few such cruel and henious plunders. Such a large scale plunder could not have been possible without connivance of higher Indian authorities. Otherwise how could the soldiers have dared to commit such a pillage?It was evident from the conduct of the Indian Army that they treated Bangladesh as a colony. That was the time when the question asked by my neighbour seriously surfaced in my mind. Since then I have been pondering but am unable to give any definite answer. I only pray that history proves his .apprehensions wrong.Frequently I face question from some quarters how I write about Indian misdoings while I am myself a freedom fighter, who had got training, shelter and help from Indians during liberation war. My answer to them is that I do what a real freedom fighter ought to do. I cannot remain quiet about excesses committed against my motherland irrespective of who is the’ perpetrator of the excesses. If India had given a fair deal to Bangladesh,nobody would say anything against her. But India through her notorious deeds has proved time and again that she is not our friend but an arch roguish foe. India has posed a grave threat to our independence and sovereignty.

Thus the duty and responsibility of a genuine freedom fighter calls upon me to stand up to the enemy of Bangladesh in whatever manner I can.It is now evident that India had helped the creation of Bangladesh with the aim that it would be a step forward towards the reunification of India. Soon after creation of Bangladesh, India let loose all forces at her command to cripple the newly born country. Their aim was to precipitate its collapse and eventual merger with India to realize part of the Brahmanic dream about ‘Akhand Bharat’.

The most significant player of this henious game is India’s notorious intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing commonly known as RAW.Since its inception in 1968 RAW has been an unobtrusive instrument for achieving Indian foreign policy objectives. RAW had worked assiduously in the erstwhile East Pakistan and had succeeded in establishing an elaborate network of spies and subversive elements. After establishment of Bangladesh the said network was further expanded as there was no check or obstacle in her way in the new country. RAW has spread her tentacles in almost all spheres of Bangladesh. Its network is growing like a cancer.

However, except for occasional news and features in some newspapers, no detailed account of RAW’s activities has been documented. During 1994-95, I wrote a series of articles about RAW’s nefarious activities in Bangladesh in the Weekly Muslim Jahan. Having read the same a large number of my readers and friends goaded me to publish a comprehensive book on the subject. The result is in your hands in form of this book.

Here I would like to dispel the impression that RAW is an insurmountable or a super organisation. In fact, contrary to that it has stagnated into an unwieldy and sluggish organisation. Its strong point is its vast resources. But there is no reason to be over-awed by it. Certainly the RAW’s onslaught can be effectively countered as has been proved time and again by patriotic Bangladeshis.

Through this book I want to send a clear message to RAW in particular and Indian rulers in general that Bangladesh is not a country which will bend down in the face of their covert and overt intrigues. Let RAW and its toadies understand that the nation that achieved her independence through tears and blood will foil their designs. There will never be any compromise with the enemies. Therefore, intrigues RAW has been indulging in during the last quarter century must end. We may live in hardship and misery, yet we value our independence and sovereignty. Bangladesh may be a small and a weak country, yet it is our pride, our identity. We believe in Tipu Sultan’s dictum, ” One day life of a lion is better than hundred years life of a jackal”.

I may add that some well wishers had advised me due to concern for my security, not to antagonise RAW, a ruthless organisation. My answer to them was that as a true Muslim and patriot I cannot keep quiet when my motherland is being trampled. For me life is not more precious than the sanctity of my mother land. Moreover, I could have been killed in 1971 war. This life is a bonus. I am not afraid of sacrificing anything for my country.

The publication of this book could not have been possible without support and encouragement from the Editor of the Weekly Muslim Jahan, Mr. Mutafa Moinuddin Khan. I am also grateful to Moulana Mohiuddin Khan, a renowned intellectual, for his invaluable help and suggestions. Besides I am indebted to large number of my readers and friends who after reading series of my articles in the Weekly Muslim Jahan encouraged and persuaded me to compile this book. I am also thankful to of those dailies, weeklies, periodicals and authors of the books from whom I took help and also quoted in the book

The original book was in Bengali. But later I decided to publish an English version as well for greater awareness about RAW’s nefarious activities particularly by the international community. For obvious reasons the English version is not a literal translation. Besides, some portions have been revised and updated. Hence some variance may be found by readers of the two versions.My head bows down before Almighty Allah in all humility to thank him as He gave me strength to undertake this arduous and sensitive work and enable me to present it to my readers. All glory and praise be toAllah. Errors, omissions and limitations, if any, are mine. I must frankly admit that it is not an all encompassing work. Full exposure of RAW’s machinations requires hundreds of volumes. I urge all patriotic writers and researchers to come forward and help in unveiling the ugly face of this treacherous organisation which is eating into the vitals of Bangladesh. May Allah help us

India-Bangladesh Conflicts

Origions
India and Bangladesh share a 4096 km-long border. Of this, 180 kms lies along the river line. The delimitation of the Indo-Bangladesh border is not complete as a 6.5km stretch near Comilla on the Tripura border is yet to be demarcated. A dispute exists between the two countries along various sections of the border. Consequently, unprovoked firing along the border continues, and escalates occasionally to draw the attention of higher administrative levels.

Issues in contention:
The major bone of contention is the adverse location of enclaves. There are 111 Indian enclaves (locally known as Chits) in Bangladesh territory covering 17,258.24 acres. And there are 51 Bangladesh enclaves in Indian territory, measuring 7,083.72 acres. Of these disputed enclaves, 65 are along the West Bengal-Bangladesh border (35 Indian enclaves in Bangladesh territory and 31 in reverse).

The border between Bangladesh and India is defined along fixed lines. In some cases, they pass through the middle of common rivers. It is a misconception that if the river shifts, then the line separating the two countries will also move, conforming to the centerline of the common river. Thus, if the river erodes on the Indian side, people living on the Bangladesh side think that they have the right to occupy and use the newly accreted land contiguous to Bangladesh. In fact, this land belongs to India. Consequently, conflicts break out between border communities living on both sides of these shifting common rivers. Examples of this type of dispute are found when the Ganges river shifts its course in a random manner leading to disputes about the newly formed island (locally called a Char).

Similarly, a river eroding on the Bangladesh side leaves a part of Bangladeshi land contiguous to India and leads to a dispute. The Kusiyara river (a branch of the Barak river in India) erosion case is an example of this type of problem. Disputes of this nature include Ichamati, Gumti, Feni, Muhuri rivers etc.

Another problem is that some areas on the Indian side, when studied demographically, are revealed as actually belonging to Bangladesh. For example there are same football grounds along the border where one goalpost is on the Indian side and the other on the Bangladesh side.

The residents of the disputed enclaves suffer from a serious identity problem. Neither country acknowledges these residents as nationals nor do they bestow upon them voting and other rights. These people are therefore stateless.
History
The problem of enclaves is a legacy of the dissipated life styles of the rulers of two former princely states – Cooch Behar in North Bengal and Rongpur in South Bengal (present day Bangladesh). The Rajas of the two princely states routinely staked pieces of their estates over a game of cards, and thus came to acquire pockets of land in each other’s territory. The lands were pledged on a piece of paper known as ‘chits’ and hence, these lands are still called ‘chits’. The ownership of these enclaves devolved upon India and East Pakistan after partition in 1947. Sir Cyril Radcliffe drew the dividing line as the parties involved failed to arrive at any agreed border. He was concerned with not disturbing the ‘railway communications and river systems’ rather than the issue of enclaves.
This issue was not resolved till 1971, when East Pakistan became Bangladesh, and inherited the problem. The residents of these enclaves were initially free to move to their respective mainland. But an increase in tensions between India and Pakistan led to this movement being restricted, and problems arising in trade and transit. There has been no administration in these enclaves for the last 50 years. Hence, no police, no revenue, no taxation, and no government services are available. Over the years, the Bengali Muslims in the enclaves in India have migrated to other parts of the state (West Bengal), and the Hindus in the Indian enclaves inside Bangladesh have migrated to India.

Indira Mujib Treaty of 1974

The Indira Mujib Treaty was signed between Indira Gandhi and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in 1974, to ensure a comprehensive settlement of outstanding border issues like Bangladeshi citizens’ access to an enclave through a corridor called Tinbigha, transfer of enclaves, demarcation of six and a half kilometers of land boundary (mainly at Muhirchar), and sea and maritime boundaries and ‘adverse possession’. It has been agreed by both sides that no construction can be done within 30 yards of the no man's land or 150 yards from the zero line of the boundary.

India's Perception:
India believes that the porous border with Bangladesh has an adverse impact on internal security. It became more visible since the 1980s with growing foreign support to insurgencies in north-eastern India. Easy passage across the border has facilitated guerilla tactics of the armed outfits which have their camps in foreign territory. Of equal concern to the security of the nation is the problem of massive influx of illegal migrants. Even a cursory look at official statistics reveals that India is facing the brunt of the demographic explosion taking place in the world’s most densely populated country – Bangladesh. The impact in the north-east has already assumed alarming proportions. The threat to internal security from the unabated immigration can hardly be exaggerated. Various districts have undergone considerable changes in terms of demographic composition. Such shifts in the local demographic balance poses an increased risk of violent conflicts between communities, and its probability is even higher in the north eastern region where resources are scarce.
Bangladesh’s Perception:
Bangladesh has been demanding a number of measures from India to mitigate the border problem. They are:

• Ensure free movement of enclave people;
• Permit exchange of enclave people;
• Undertake necessary measures for demarcation of the border line;
• Refrain from pushing Bengali speaking Indian nationals into Bangladesh territory;
• Adopt methods to check violation of the border by Indian civilians and BSF members;
• Ban smuggling of Phensidyl (an intoxicating chemical) and drugs;
• India should ratify the Indira-Mujib Agreement (1974) to facilitate the demarcation of the remaining part of the border.
CURRENT STATUS:
Indian and Bangladeshi border troops, known as Border Security Force (BSF) and Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) respectively, have exchanged fire a number of times in the past. Those incidents centred on Muhurichar Island further to the south. Conflicting claims to ownership of this river island provoked gunfire in 1975, 1979 and 1985.
However, the clashes that broke out in the April of 2001 were by far the most serious in the history of Indian-Bangladeshi relations.

According to the Bangladesh government, ever since Indian military intervention during the 1971 war with Pakistan, Indian forces have occupied a small sliver of land along the border near the village of Pyrdiwah. On April 18 2001, BDR troops occupied the disputed village. In the fighting that followed, 15 members of India's BSF were killed, along with several of the attacking soldiers. Indian forces responded and retook the village. Between 10,000 and 20,000 villagers living in the area fled the fighting, with at least 17 suffering wounds. The combat remained limited to the border troops of the respective nations, though mortars were used in addition to automatic weapons fire. Several villages were destroyed or heavily damaged in the fighting.
The demarcation of the unmarked 6.5kms of the border has been pending because of the concerns of the Hindu population living in the lands likely to go to Bangladesh after demarcation. Land will have to be found to resettle them before the final demarcation. Since West Bengal, Assam and Tripura (the three states having a common border with Bangladesh) have no surplus land, this is difficult to resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of the parties concerned.

The Bangladeshi officials maintain that the absence of ratification of the 1974 treaty by India is the root cause of the disputes along the 4096 km-long border between India and Bangladesh. While Bangladesh claims that it is prepared to complete the demarcation work, India has kept this dispute alive under various pretexts. India has not ratified the agreement on the plea that the demarcation of the border had not yet been completed.

The Ganges River Dispute

Origion
The Ganges River originates in People's Republic of China, passing through Nepal and India, forms a boundary of 128 km between India and Bangladesh, then flows 112 km in Bangladesh taking the name Badhma, before joining the Jamuna-Brahmaputra. Afterwards it joins the Meghna River before the combined flows empty into the Bay of Bengal.
For nearly a quarter century, the sluices of the barrage at Farakka, close to the India-Bangladesh border, have been one of South Asia's trickiest diplomatic disputes.

The river divides into two main streams at Farakka, one flowing southwards to the eastern Indian port of Calcutta and the other eastward to Bangladesh. The barrage aims to ensure enough water in the south flowing tributary to keep one of India's main foreign trade ports navigable during the dry pre-monsoon months.

Despite an agreement on sharing the dry season flows at Farakka, India and Bangladesh continue to squabble over what many consider to be the region's richest natural resource.

The surrounding countryside is covered with lush green paddy farms and water bodies teeming with fish. The Ganges and its Himalayan tributaries have blessed the plains of north India and Bangladesh with farm abundance, giving huge profits to landlords, agribusiness corporations and major food exporters.
This is why years of diplomatic negotiations and various accords on sharing the river water have failed to fully satisfy Bangladesh where the Farakka barrage fires political passions.
The dispute centres on differing views about the negative effect of the barrage on farming, fisheries and industry in Bangladesh and ways of boosting the lean season flow of the Ganges at Farakka.

Farakka typifies the deepening water crisis in South Asia which can worsen hunger and cause widespread economic loss in the region unless riparian governments show greater maturity in tackling differences over water sharing, say experts.

History

Timeline
29 Oct 1951	Pakistan first calls Indian attention to reports of Indian plans to build a barrage at Farakka to divert Ganges water to Calcutta Bay. India responds that the project was only under preliminary investigation.
28 June 1960	Meetings commence at level of "expert" between Pakistan and India to exchange data on regional projects.
1960-1968	Experts level meetings continue; there are five in all, most focusing on data issues.
30 Jan 1961	India informs Pakistan that construction had begun on the Farakka Barrage.
1968-1970	Five meetings continue at the level of secretary. Fundamental disagreements over approaches to Ganges development and the data required to make policy decisions.
1970	India completes construction of Farakka Barrage.
1971	Bangladesh comes into being, replacing eastern Pakistan.
Mar 1972	India and Bangladesh establish Indo-Bangladesh Joint Rivers Commission, specifically excluding issues of Ganges development.
16 May 1974	Prime ministers of India and Bangladesh sign a declaration agreeing to find a mutually acceptable solution to Ganges development, and to turn the question of the best way of supplementing Ganges flow over to the Joint Rivers Commission.
16 Apr 1975	The two sides agree to a limited trial operation of the Farakka Barrage. India continues to divert Ganges water after the trial run, without renewing or negotiating a new agreement with Bangladesh.
June 1975-June 1976	Meetings continue, with little result.
Jan 1976	Bangladesh lodges a formal protest against India with the United Nations, which adopts a consensus statement encouraging the parties to meet urgently, at the level of minister, to arrive at a settlement.
5 Nov 1977	Ganges Waters Agreement signed, covering allocation of Ganges water between the two riparians for a period of five years. No long-term solution was found within that time frame.
Oct 1982	Joint communiqué issued, pledging to resolve Ganges issues within 18 months, a task not accomplished.
22 Nov 1985	Memorandum of understanding issued, on the sharing of Ganges dry season flow through 1988. When accord lapses, no new agreement is signed.

Attempts at Conflict Management:
When India announced in 1951 that it planned to build the Farakka Dam, Pakistan protested its construction. Pakistan, at the same time, offered that the planning of the utilization of the "shared resources" be made by a UN body and that the subject matter be examined by the experts of both countries. These proposals were not accepted by India and the construction of the Farakka Dam started in 1961 and was completed in 1970. The matter of the allocation of the transboundary waters was negotiated between India and Pakistan until Bangladesh gained its independence in 1971.

By March 1972, the governments of India and Bangladesh had agreed to establish the Indo-Bangladesh Joint Rivers Commission, "to develop the waters of the rivers common to the two countries on a cooperative basis." The question of the Ganges, however, was specifically excluded, and was to be handled only between the two prime ministers.

The prime ministers of India and Bangladesh met in New Delhi on 12-16 May 1974 and, in a declaration on 16 May 1974, they:

• observed that during the periods of minimum flow in the Ganges, there may not be enough water for both an Indian diversion and Bangladeshi needs;
• agreed that during low flow months, the Ganges would have to be augmented to meet the requirements of the two countries;
• agreed that determining the optimum method of augmenting Ganges flow should be turned over to the Joint Rivers Commission;
• expressed their determination that a mutually acceptable allocation of the water available during the periods of minimum flow in the Ganges would be determined before the Farakka project is commissioned.
In a series of five Commission meetings between June 1974 and January 1975, and one minister-level meeting in April 1975, the positions of the two sides coalesced into the following:
Bangladesh Position:
• There is adequate storage potential of monsoon flow in the Ganges Basin for Indian needs;
• There is additional storage along the headwaters of the Ganges tributaries in Nepal, and that country might be approached for participation;
• A feeder canal from the Brahmaputra to the Ganges is both unnecessary and would have detrimental effects within Bangladesh, not least of which would be massive population resettlement;
• Indian needs would be better met through amending the pattern of diversion of Ganges water into the Bhagirathi-Hooghly, and constructing a navigation link from Calcutta to the sea via Sunderban.

India Position:

• Additional storage possibilities in India are limited, and not sufficient to meet Indian development needs;
• The most viable option both to supplement the low flow of the Ganges, and for regional development, is a link canal and storage facilities on the Brahmaputra, to be developed in stages for mutual benefit;
• Approaching Nepal or other third countries is beyond the scope of the Commission, as is discussing amending the pattern of diversion into the Bhagirathi-Hooghly;
• Constructing a separate navigation canal is not connected to the question of optimum development of water resources in the region.
In January 1976, Bangladesh lodged a formal protest against India with the General Assembly of the United Nations which, on 26 November 1976, adopted a consensus statement encouraging the parties to meet urgently at the ministerial level for negotiations, "with a view to arriving at a fair and expeditious settlement." Spurred by international consensus, negotiations re-commenced on 16 December 1976. At a 18 April 1977 meeting, an understanding was reached on fundamental issues, which culminated in the signing of the Ganges Waters Agreement on 5 November 1977.
The Ganges Water Agreement 1977:
In principle, the Ganges Water Agreement covers:

1. Sharing the waters of the Ganges at Farakka, and,
2. Finding a long term solution for augmentation of the dry season flows of the Ganges.

Specific provisions, described as not establishing any general principles of law or precedent, include (paraphrased):

Art. I. The quantum of waters agreed to be released would be at Farakka.
Art. II. The dry season availability of the historical flows was established from the recorded flows of the Ganges from 1948 to 1973 on the basis of 75% availabilities. The shares of India and Bangladesh of the Ganges flows at 10-day periods are fixed, the shares in the last 10-day period of April (the leanest) being 20,500 and 34,500 cusec respectively out of 55,000 cusec availability at that period. In order to ensure Bangladesh's share in the event of any lower availability at Farakka, Bangladesh's share should not fall below 80% of the stated share in a particular period shown in a schedule annexed to the agreement.
Art. III. Only minimum water would be withdrawn between Farakka and the Bangladesh border.
Art. IV-VI. Provision was made for a Joint Committee to supervise the sharing of water, provide data to the two governments, and submit an annual report.
Art. VII. Provisions were made for the process of conflict resolution: The Joint Committee would be responsible for examining any difficulty arising out of the implementation of the arrangements of the Agreement. Any dispute not resolved by the Committee would be referred to a panel of an equal number of Indian and Bangladeshi experts nominated by the two governments. If the dispute is still not resolved, it would be referred to the two Governments which would, "meet urgently at the appropriate level to resolve it by mutual discussion and failing that by such other arrangements as they may mutually agree upon."
Outcome:

By the end of the five year life of the agreement, no solution had been worked out.

In the years that followed, both sides and, more recently, Nepal, have had years of greater and less success at reaching towards agreement. Since the 1977 accord:
• A joint communiqué was issued in October 1982, in which both sides agreed not to extend the 1977 agreement, but would rather initiate fresh attempts to achieve a solution within 18 months -- a task not accomplished.
• An Indo-Bangladesh Memorandum of Understanding was signed on 22 November 1985, on the sharing of the Ganges dry season flow through 1988, and establishing a Joint Committee of Experts to help resolve development issues. India's proposals focused on linking the Brahmaputra with the Ganges, while Bangladesh's centered on a series of dams along the Ganges headwaters in Nepal.
• Although both the Joint Committee of Experts and the Joint Rivers Commission met regularly throughout 1986, and although Nepal was approached for possible cooperation, the work ended inconclusively.
• The prime ministers of Bangladesh and India discussed the issue of river water-sharing on the Ganges and other rivers in May, 1992, in New Delhi. Each directed their ministers to renew their efforts to achieve a long-term agreement on the Ganges, with particular attention to low flows during the dry season. Subsequent to that meeting, there has been one minister-level and one secretary-level meeting, at which little progress was reportedly made.
The Ganges River Treaty 1996:

The Ganges River Treaty has as its principal objective the determination of the amount of water to be released by India to Bangladesh at the Farraka Barrage for a period of 30 years. It fills the gap left when the 1977 agreement lapsed and is based generally on the 1985 accord.
The 1996 treaty establishes a new formula for sharing the Ganges waters at Farraka in the dry season (1 January to 31 May), providing also that below Farakka the waters are not to be reduced further except for "reasonable use" in a limited amount. The new arrangement is as follows:
if the Ganges flow at Farraka is 70,000 cubic feet per second (cusecs) or less, both countries are to receive 50%; with a flow of between 70,000 and 75,000 cusecs Bangladesh receives 35,000 cusecs and India receives the rest; with a flow of more than 75,000 cusecs or more India receives 40,000 cusecs and Bangladesh receives the balance.
Further provision is made for the situation where the flow falls below 50,000 cusecs. The sharing arrangements are to be reviewed every five years and if no agreement can be reached on adjustments, India is to release at least 90% of Bangladesh's share.
The Bangladesh-India Treaty makes reference to a number of guiding principles. It aims to make "optimum utilisation" of the waters of the region, bringing a "fair and just" solution to the Farraka waters problem but without establishing "any general principles of law or precedent". It provides for application of the principles of "equity, fair play and no harm to either party" to emergency situations, future adjustments of the Treaty, and the conclusion of agreements for other rivers.

Current Status
Under a mammoth river-linking scheme, India plans to connect 37 rivers, including the Ganges and Brahmaputra, by digging canals to divert major common river waters to its drought-prone states. Bangladesh's Water Resources ministry says the scheme will severely hit Bangladesh, which depends on the two major rivers for 85 per cent of its surface water supplies during the dry season.
For a long time, Bangladesh has expressed a desire to be involved in every phase of the inter-linking project, so that it is not lumped with the consequences – consequences that it claims will severely hit its water-flow, environment and agriculture.
Marking a significant breakthrough in relations between the two countries, the Joint River Commission (JRC) talks between India and Bangladesh were held in September 2003, whereby India agreed to involve its neighbour in future discussions on the US $200 billion controversial river-linking project.
The ministerial-level meeting, held after a gap of three years, also focused on Dhaka’s demand for a breakthroughs in talks over water-sharing arrangements on seven trans-boundary rivers in the region, along the lines of the Ganges Water Sharing Treaty signed by the two countries in 1996.
India said such treaties require expert-level investigations, but it agreed to inform Bangladesh in advance about the diversion of water flow of common rivers from northeastern India to water-deficient areas in the southwest.