Parties inflicted by ?son stroke? politics - livemint

Parties inflicted by ?son stroke? politics - livemint

Parties inflicted by ‘son stroke’ politics

Karunanidhi has sacrificed Dayanidhi Maran, communications and information technology minister in the Manmohan Singh government, at the altar of family politics

By GVL Narsimha Rao

M.Karunanidhi is regarded as one of the best scriptwriters of Tamil cinema. These days, he is preparing his most important script ever—a political script—to install his son Stalin as the next chief minister, son Azhagiri in a crucial party position and daughter Kanimozhi as a Union minister and the party’s voice in Delhi.

Karunanidhi has three wives, four sons and two daughters and can make an entire cabinet out of his own family. Given his advancing age and failing health, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) patriarch is in a hurry to clear the way for installing his sons and daughter in key positions.

In the process, Karunanidhi has sacrificed Dayanidhi Maran, communications and information technology minister in the Manmohan Singh government, at the altar of family politics, as Maran was getting too ambitious. No doubt, Maran himself owes his position to familial connections with Karunanidhi, his granduncle. Yet, he proved to be one of the few techno and media savvy, suave and relatively successful ministers of the current government at the Centre.

People of Tamil Nadu are also appreciative of Dayanidhi Maran’s performance as a minister as a lot of telecom investments have ended up in that state. The sudden turn of events leading to Maran’s ouster has led to considerable sympathy for him.

Karunanidhi’s government is already past its honeymoon phase although it has been in office for just over a year. Poor control over administration, corruption and ineffective implementation of its election promises such as cheap rice are causing heart burn and people have already begun to talk fondly of former chief minister Jayalalithaa, who is credited for her strong administration.

Karunanidhi’s obsession to promote his family is costing him dear politically. Only two months ago, Karunanidhi used public money and position to promote a Tamil cultural festival, “Chennai Sangamam”, hosted by Kanimozhi whom he declared his literary heir. This has evoked sharp criticism from the public. Now, the ongoing family feud is fuelling public anger and this may lead to an inexorable decline in the party’s political fortunes.

The DMK state government is a minority government dependent on the Congress, the PMK and the Left parties for its survival. In other words, if these parties decide to withdraw their support—which may happen in case of reworking of alliances at the national level—it will be curtains for the Karunanidhi government. However, as long as Karunanidhi is at the helm, it is unlikely to happen especially since his MPs also prop up the central government.

Recent events show that the DMK is clearly in the ‘self-destruction’ mode and may lose its pre-eminent position in Dravidian politics, as many rivals—cine idol Vijaykant, ‘Vaiko’ Gopalaswamy and now Maran—are waiting to emerge as an alternative to the Jayalalithaa-led AIADMK.

The current developments in Tamil Nadu also have major national implications. The support of the state’s parties has been crucial in running coalition governments at the Centre since 1996.

As a result, they have enjoyed considerable influence over the governments led by Deve Gowda, I.K. Gujral, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and now Singh. There is a possibility that Maran—who is considered to be close to the Congress leadership—may forge a non-DMK, non-AIADMK third alternative with the help of the Congress in Tamil Nadu in the next Lok Sabha polls.

The ongoing political developments in Tamil Nadu and Maran’s summary dismissal also give rise to larger questions. Why is dynastic succession so rampant in our politics? And, is dynastic politics bad per se?

The Congress party at the national level and a plethora of regional parties treat political parties as their private property and run them as family-owned private companies. There is no internal democracy and transparency in their functioning. The leader and his (or her) family are considered supreme. All crucial positions in the parties are appointed by the leader and rarely, if ever, elections are held to key, decision-making positions in the parties.

The Congress has the dubious distinction of being the original party in promoting dynastic politics. But, today all political parties seem to follow this trend. Parties which have been seriously afflicted by ‘son stroke’, apart from the DMK, are the Janata Dal (Secular) in Karnataka, Shiv Sena in Maharastra and the Congress at the national level. Prakash Singh Badal-led Akali Dal in Punjab and Omprakash Chautala-led INLD in Haryana are also grooming their sons to take over their political mantles.

Dynastic politics per se is not bad. Naveen Patnaik’s is a case in point. Naveen owes his position entirely to his father Biju Patnaik’s legacy. However, once in the saddle, the younger Patnaik—only known as a socialite in Delhi circles—has proved to be a mature, responsible and popular politician. Today, it may not be an exaggeration to say that Naveen is more popular than his illustrious father.

Still, thank your stars that every politician does not have three wives and many children like Karunanidhi.

G.V.L. Narasimha Rao is a political analyst and managing director of Development & Research Services, a research and consulting firm. Your comments are welcome at thebottomline@livemint.com.

Rebuttal of Prof. Azizah Hibri's views on Afghanistan by Kaukab Siddique( A Jamati View)

Rebuttal of Prof. Azizah Hibri's views on Afghanistan by Kaukab Siddique

Taliban's Liquidation of Statues
Islamic response to Cultural Imperialism
Rebuttal of Prof. Azizah Hibri's views on Afghanistan
by Kaukab Siddique, Ph.D

On March 12, 2001 someone named Azizah Hibri, a professor at University of Richmond, issued a FATWA against the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan's demolition of Budhha monuments. Her views reflect the position of an important segment of pro-U.S.-government Muslim organizations in America. As she herself states, she was "asked by concerned American and Canadian Muslim organizations" to comment on the Taliban's position. Thus an entire group of Muslim organizations considered Prof. Hibri their worthy spokesperson.

The entire structure of Prof. Hibri's views is very shaky and one wonders how she can possibly be taken seriously by anyone who knows of the war being waged against Islam by the western powers, particularly the Zionist lobby in USA.

Her very first paragraph indicates that she is out of touch with reality because she bases her views on a statement published in The Washington Post. Not that the Post is always wrong on Islamic issues (even a stopped clock is correct twice in 24 hours) but to base a supposedly Islamic Fatwa on a news item in the Washington Post indicates the mindset of the person who gave the Fatwa.

In Paragraph two Prof. Hibri claims that she relies "primarily on the Qur'an and Sunnah." But her statements in the same paragraph belie this possibility for she writes "in matters of jurisprudence I rely heavily on a fatwa issued earlier by Dr. Taha Jaber al-Alwani on a related matter" and that "in matters of Islamic history and world religions, I rely on statements made by Professor Seyyed Hussain Nasr on this and other occasions." Dr. al-Alwani is the same gentleman who supported the pro-government organizations' (CAIR, AMC, AMA etc) bid to get the Muslim community stuck in the swamp of U.S. presidential politics. The extent of Dr. Alwani's pro-U.S. government leanings can be guaged from the fact that he legitimized voting in a kafir power-structure for a kafir candidate and thus permitted the waste of massive Muslim resources urgently needed by Muslims in America and around the world. Alwani's Fatwa went against the Qur'an, the authentic hadith and the consensus of Muslim scholars for 1400 years. It went against Syed Qutb (who preferred death to acceptance of a secular government even though it was Muslim in name), against Maudoodi (who would not accept voting and elections even in an Islamic country, Pakistan, if the country did not formally accept Allah as soveriegn) and Dr. Omar 'Abdel Rahman (who does not compromise with this oppressive power even though he is in solitary confinement in a cell in Rochester, Minnesota). Thus in jurisprudence, Prof. Hibri has taken a source which is of no Islamic value.

As for Prof. Nasr, the less said the better. Whatever exalted heights of sufiism he might live on, there is no denying the fact that he did not support the Islamic revolution in his home country led by the illustrious Imam Khomeini.

Let us look at Prof. Hibri's methodology. She is giving a Fatwa about the Buddhist monuments but she begins by commenting on the Taliban's "oppressive limitations on Muslim women's rights." Other than the Washington Post, she has not given a source for her views on the Taliban. If she had read other views, she would have found that women are quite safe in Afghanistan and the Taliban are re-building the entire educational structure. Inspite of the ravages of war, 36,000 women are back to school in Kabul alone. Thus Prof. Hibri's pontification about the right to education etc of women (para.5) (in her attempt to discredit the Taliban) only indicates her lack of real information about Afghanistan. Impartial accounts, both Muslim and non-Muslim, indicate that women are active in every sphere of life in Afghanistan. Only the westernized, pro-Communist women in Kabul were subjected to restrictions after the city was taken by storm by the Taliban. As compared to the history of other conquered cities (the Americans in Nuremburg, the Russians in Berlin, the Americans in Vietnam), the Taliban's treatment of the conquered people was humane.

In her academic zeal, Prof. Hibri forgot the entire context of the situation in Afghanistan. Here is a country which was ravaged by Russian occupation and gave 1.5 million martyrs. I wonder if Prof. Hibri ever took the help of the organizations she supports to visit the women and children of Afghanistan when the Jihad was on in every Afghan village.

At this time the issue is that of children starving in Afghanistan,(although 95% of Afghanistan has achieved peace and unity under the Taliban.) Islam makes it incumbent on every Muslim to help the children of Afghanistan by BREAKING THE U.S. EMBARGO. The real issue is not that of the statues, but of the children. The Qur'an is very clear: THE BELIEVERS ARE NONE OTHER THAN ONE BROTHERHOOD/SISTERHOOD.

If Prof. Hibri is following the Qur'an, then she must speak and write against the sanctions and take emergency help to the children of Afghanistan.

Prof. Hibri has entirely misunderstood the Taliban's position on the statues. They have demolished the statues NOT BECAUSE ANYONE IS WORSHIPPING THEM. In fact the Taliban have assured the few Hindus in Afghanistan that their statues are quite safe.

The action against the statues has nothing to do with any antagonism towards Buddhism either. There are no Buddhists in Afghanistan and the Buddhists in other countries have no claims on Afghanistan and in fact were totally unaware of any such statues till the Zionist media raised a hue and cry about them.

The Taliban acted against the statues when they found that the UNITED NATIONS (the tool of U.S. imperialism) was acting as if it is custodian of the statues. The same UNO which sanctioned US embargo on Iraq resulting in the death of 750,000 children and has okayed US sanctions on Afghanistan, is interested in the safety of the statues!

It was the issue of children versus statues.

Mullah Umar, who knows at least as much Qur'an and Hadith as Prof. Hibri and Dr. Alwani, struck a blow at the unbelievers which made them stand naked in front of the whole world for the great wrongs they have done not only to Afghanistan but to every Muslim country. As the Prophet (pbuh) has taught: WAR IS DECEPTION. That is strike at the enemy in a way which he least expected.

READ MULLAH UMAR's HISTORIC ANSWER TO the SHAIKH OF AZHAR AND YUSUF QARADAWI: Why don't you go to Babri masjid?

That, dear Muslims, is the key question: Did these azhari shaikhs go to Babri masjid? Why are they accepting U.S. pressure to go to Afghanistan to teach Islam to mullah Umar (mujahid, Mu'min). Mullah Umar's blow has uncovered the worldwide oppression against Islam. Muslims are talking as never before about:

1. Mosques destroyed in Palestine.
2. Mosques destroyed in Chechnia
3. Mosques destroyed in Kashmir
4. Mosques destroyed in India
5. Mosques destroyed in Iraq
6. Mosques destroyed in Afghanistan (during Soviet occupation and then by 25 U.S.missiles during monica-gate.)
7. Mosques destroyed in Bosnia
8. Mosques destroyed in Kosova
9. Mosques destroyed in Macedonia
10. Mosques destroyed in various parts of ex-USSR
11. Use of beautiful Turkish mosques by pro-US generals for making dollars off tourists.

BEAUTIFUL ARTIFACTS IN IRAQ, perhaps the oldest civilization in the world, have been damaged and put in serious jeopardy by annual bombing raids by the British and US airforces and by the U.S. of uranium-tipped ammunition during the assault on Iraq.

Prof. Hibri and Alwani, etc also show their very narrow pro-US bias by ignoring the great wrongs done to artifacts of other nations.

1. Beautiful German churches and museums destroyed in Dresden, Hamburg and 35 German cities during area bombing by US/British air forces (WWII).

2. Destruction of Buddhist temples in Tokyo fire raids, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

3. Hindu army's invasion and desecration of the Sikh Temple in Amritsar.

Islam is not the name of a narrow pro-US tilt against a tiny Muslim country being targeted because it has given refuge to an Arabian mujahid. Islam must safeguard first the mosque of al-Aqsa and rebuild all the mosques which have been destroyed. Today even Makka and Madinah are under the shadow of the USA naval armadas.

Justice is not an academic exercise. It involves a wholeness of view. A fragmented vision which is blind to the tremendous evil of the sanctions against Iraq, Afganistan and Sudan should not presume to give fatwas about the destruction of historic relics. ONE AFGHANI CHILD IS MORE PRECIOUS THAN ALL THE STATUES OF BYGONE AGES. (To paraphrase the Prophet Muhammad, pbuh: the honor of the Muslim is more precious than the Ka'aba itself.

Martyred Intellectuals' Day Special - Profies off Martyered intellecturals of BD

Martyred Intellectuals' Day Special

Profiles of martyred intellectuals Zahir Raihan Famous filmmaker and writer, born on 19 August 1935 in a village in Feni district. Zahir Raihan passed his Matriculation in 1950 from Amirabad High School and was the admitted to Dhaka College, from where he passed ISc examination. He obtained BA (Hons) in Bangla from the University of Dhaka. In his early years, he was attracted by the communist movement. When the Communist Party was banned and the leaders of the party went underground, he worked as a messenger to carry letters and messages. He got the name Raihan from underground leaders and thus his original name Zahirullah was changed to Zahir Raihan. In his student life, Zahir devoted himself to literature. His first book Surya Grahan, a collection of stories, was published in 1362 BS 1995. Other books written by him are Shesh Bikeler Meye, Hajar Bachhar Dhare, Arek Falgun, Baraf Gala Nadi and Ar Kata Din. He was one of the initiators in publishing the English weekly Express in 1970. In 1952, Zahir went to Calcutta to learn photography and was admitted to Pramatesh Burua Memorial Photography School. He entered the film world in 1956. Kakhono Asheni, the first film directed by him, was released in 1961. Then came, one after another, Kajal, Kancher Deyal, Behula, Jiban Theke Neya, Anwara, Sangam and Bahana. Jiban Theke Neya depicted the autocratic rule of Pakistan and inspired the people to protest against the Pakistani rulers. He started making an English film Let There Be Light, which he could not finish. After 25 March 1971, he went to Calcutta and produced a documentary film Stop Genocide highlighting the massacre done by the Pakistani Army. In December 1971, some members of the notorious Al-Badr took away Zahir's elder brother Shahidullah Kaiser, an eminent writer, from his residence at the University of Dhaka. Within days, on 30 December 1971, someone informed Zahir about an address, somewhere at Mirpur, where he might find his brother. Accordingly, Zahir left home to get his brother back. Alas, he never returned. Shahidullah Kaiser Journalist and novelist, born on 16 February 1927 in Mazupur village of Feni. His original name was Abu Nayeem Mohammad Shahidullah. After completing Honours in economics from Presidency College in 1946, Shahidullah Kaiser enrolled for the Master of Arts in economics at Calcutta University, but could not sit for the final examination. As a student, he participated in various social, cultural and political movements. He was a member of the provincial Communist Party of East Pakistan and also played an important role in the Language Movement in 1952. As a consequence, he suffered imprisonment several times. Shahidullah Kaiser started his career in journalism in 1949 with the weekly Ittefaq in Dhaka. In 1958, he was appointed associate editor of the Sangbad, and continued to work there until his death. Shahidullah Kaiser was also a novelist of note. He came into the limelight with Sareng Bau (The Captain's Wife, 1962). Later, a film was made based on this book. His other novels include Sangshaptak (The Indomitable Soldiers, 1965), which was later made into a highly acclaimed television serial, Krishnachura Megh (Krishnachura Clouds), Timir Balay (The Circle of Darkness), Digante Phuler Agun (The Flaming Horizon), Samudra O Trisna (Sea and Thirst), Chandrabhaner Kanya (Chandrabhan's Daughter), Sangsaptak and the unfinished novel, Kabe Pohabe Bibhabari (When Will It Dawn). Shahidullah was the recipient of the Adamjee Literary Award (1962) and the Bangla Academy Award (1962). He was picked up by the Al-Badr on 14 December 1971 and never returned. Santosh Chandra Bhattacharyya A teacher and a scholar. Born on 30 August, 1915 in Nawabganj upazila of Dhaka district, Santosh Chandra Bhattacharyya graduated from Dhaka University in 1937 with Honours in History and obtained MA degree in 1938 from the same institution occupying first position in the first class in both the examinations. He started his academic career as a lecturer in Jagannath College in 1939 and worked there until 1949, when he joined the History Department of Dhaka University as a Senior Lecturer. A scholar in Sanskrit literature and ancient history of Bengal and India, Bhattacharyya served Dhaka University as a devoted teacher and a scholar until his tragic death (14 December, 1971) in the hands of the cohorts of the Pakistan army. Prof. Munier Choudhury Born in 1925 at Manikganj, Dhaka. Hailed from Noakhali. Joined the department of Bangla as a lecturer in 1955, before that he was a part time teacher in the English department. He was an M.A. in English, but while he was interned at Dhaka Central Jail (1953-54) during the Language Movement he did his M. A. (first in first class) in Bangla. He became Reader in 1962 and Professor in 1970 and the Dean of the faculty of arts in 1971. After the army crackdown in the university area from which he luckily escaped like many, he moved to his parents' house, near Hatirpool. He became a totally dejected and broken man. Many of his student-like well-wishers requested him to come to the liberated areas. But unfortunately Munier Choudhury couldn't mentally adjust to the idea of fleeing from his beloved motherland. He preferred to stay back and surrendered to his 'fate'. His notable literary works include Raktakta Prantar, Kabar, Dandakaranya, Mir Manash, Palashi Barrack o Annanya, Bangla Gadyariti. He denounced the title 'Sitar- I- Imtiaz' awarded to him by the Pakistan government (1966) during the non-cooperation movement (1971). The members of the Al-Badr picked him from his residence at Hatirpul and subsequently killed him at the dawn of our liberation. His dead body could not be identified. Mofazzal Haidar Chaudhury Mofazzal Haidar Chaudhury, born in Noakhali in 1926, joined the department of Bangla of Dhaka University in 1955. He studied at London University for a couple of years in linguistics. He was awarded 'Sahitya Bharati' by the Viswa Bharati University, Santiniketan. He became Reader in Bengali in 1970. His famous writings include Bangla Banan o Lipi Sanskar, Rabi Parikrama, Colloquial Bengali, Bhasa o Sanskriti, Sahityer Nava Rupayan etc. He was picked up and killed by the Al-Badr on December 14, 1971. Rashidul Hasan Rashidul Hasan, born in 1932 in Bhirbhum district of West Bengal, migrated to this part of the subcontinent then under Pakistani rule in 1949. He obtained BA(Hons.) and MA in English from DU in 1957 and 1958 respectively. He taught at various colleges including Narsingdi, Pabna Edward College and Krishna Chandra College of Bhirbhum in West Bengal. Finally, he joined the English Department, DU, as a lecturer in 1967. He was a liberal democrat and a life long fighter against fundamentalism and communalism. A close friend of Anwar Pasha, Rashidul Hasan was picked up together with his friend Anwar from the same flat within the DU campus. The two families were then living together in a flat in Isa Khan Road area. Anwar Pasha Born on 15 April 1928 at Dabkai village in Murshidabad, India. After passing the High Madrassah examination in 1946, Anwar Pasha went on to do his BA and then his MA in Bangla from Calcutta University in 1953. He started his teaching career as superintendent of Manikchak High Madrasah and later on taught at Bhabta Azizia High Madrasah (1954) and Sadikhan Diar Bohumukhi Higher Secondary School (1957). In 1958 he joined Pabna Edward College and then, in 1966, the Department of Bangla, Dhaka University. Anwar Pasha made his debut as a writer with Hasnahena, a collection of literary essays. During the next two decades, he published novels, essays, poems, and short stories. He also edited four ancient and medieval Bangla poems. His writings were published in many journals, including the quarterly Kabita, published from Kolkata and edited by Buddhadev Bose. His notable writings include Nadi Nihshesita Hale (1963), Nid Sandhani (1968), Nishuti Rater Gatha (1968), Nirupay Harini (1970), Rabindra Chhotagalpa Samiksa (Vol. I 1963, Vol. II 1973), Sahityashilpi Abul Fazal (1968). Anwar Pasha was picked up from his university flat and brutally killed with other intellectuals. He was posthumously honoured with the Bangla Academy Award for his literary achievements. Jyotirmoy Guhathakurta DU teacher, killed by the Pakistani Army on the night of 25 March 1971. He was born in Mymensingh town on 10 July 1920. His father, Kumudchandra Guhathakurta, of Banaripara, Barisal, and his mother, Srimati Sumati, were school teachers. Guhathakurta matriculated from Mymensingh Zila School In 1936. He then studied at Presidency College in Kolkata for a year, but an attack of typhoid prevented him from taking the final examination. Later he took admission in Ananda Mohan College Mymensingh, and in 1939 passed IA. He took admission in Dhaka University and graduated with honours in English in 1942, standing first in the first class. His academic success earned him the Pope Memorial Gold Medal. The following year he completed his MA. Guhathakurta taught in a number of colleges from 1944 to 1949, such as, AM College, Mymensingh, Gurudayal College, Kishoreganj, and Jagannath College, Dhaka. In 1949 he joined Dhaka University as lecturer in English. In 1963 he went to King's College, London University, on a British Council scholarship to do doctoral work on 'Classical Myths in the Plays of Swinburne, Bridges, Sturges, Moore and Eliot'. In 1967, Guhathakurta returned to Dhaka University and was promoted to Reader, a position he held till his death. A highly successful teacher, Guhathakurta instilled in his students a love for good literature and the humanist ideals that he cherished all his life. The Pakistan Army raided the Dhaka University campus on 25 March 1971, Guhathakurta's flat was broken into and he was shot. He succumbed to his wounds at the DMCH on March 30. Dr. MAM Faizul Mahi Born in 1939 at Feni, Dr. Faizul Mahi was known to his friends as a progressive personality. He was not vocal compared to many of his colleagues in the university but very much dedicated to the cause of war of liberation that was going on from March to December, helping the freedom fighters from within keeping a low profile, a very difficult job indeed. But he could not keep secret his real identity from the watchful eyes of the collaborators some of whom happend to be his colleagues within IER. Mahi joined the Institute of Education and Research in 1968 after obtaining Ed. D (doctorate in education) and then soon became Senior Lecturer. He was a dedicated teacher. The beastly Al Badr group picked him up on 14 December from his home. Sirajul Haque Khan Dr. Sirajul Haque Khan was born in 1924 in the district of Noakhali. He graduated in Education in 1949 and then he obtained M. Ed degree from IER, DU, in 1965. Later on he obtained Ed. D from the State College of Colorado, USA in 1967 after which he joined IER, DU as a senior lecturer. A group of Al -Badr members took him forcibly in a bus in the morning of 14 December, 1971 to an unknown destination from where he never returned to his beloved family. The brutal collaborators killed him. Ghyasuddin Ahmed Ghyasuddin Ahmed was born in Narsingdi in 1935. He passed matriculation from St. Gregory High School, Dhaka in 1950 and I.A. from Notre Dame College in 1952. He passed B.A. (Hons) and M.A. in History from Dhaka University in 1957. He joined Jagannath College in the History department as lecturer and later joined Dhaka University in 1958. He went to the UK with Commonwealth Scholarship in 1964 and obtained Honours degree in World History from London School of Economics. Accused of helping in the liberation war of Bangladesh he was taken to Dhaka Cantonment for questioning. He was released after a few days. Then again on 14 December 1971 he was picked up from Mohsin Hall by the Al Badar forces. On 4 January 1972 his clothes and mutilated body were identified in Mirpur area. Mohammad Fazle Rabbi Dr. Mohammad Fazle Rabbi was born in Pabna in 1932. He was a brilliant student from childhood. He passed matriculation from Pabna Zilla School in 1948 and I.Sc from Dhaka College in 1950. He was an activist during the Language Movement in 1952. He passed MBBS from Dhaka Medical College in 1955. He received gold medal for securing top position in MBBS examination. He joined Dhaka Medical College and Hospital as assistant surgeon in 1956. In 1959-60 he was promoted to the post of registrar in medicine. He obtained MRCP in cardiology from Edinborough in England and worked at various hospitals in that country to acquire experience. In 1962 he obtained MRCP in general medicine from England. He came back to the country in 1963 and joined Dhaka Medical College and Hospital as associate professor of medicine. In 1968 he worked as professor of medicine and professor of cardiology at the same time. He was known as a progressive political personality and social worker. He was first to talk about the concept of people-oriented health care system in 1969. Besides teaching he used to do research also. His research-based articles have been published in British Medical Journal and Lancet. He had started to write a book on medicine but could not finish it. Dr. Fazle Rabbi married in 1957. He became a proud father of a son and a daughter. Regarding his death his wife Dr. Jahanara Rabbi has to say the following: On 15 December the curfew was relaxed for two hours. Despite his wife's objection he had gone to see a non-Bengali patient in the old part of Dhaka. He had bought plenty of vegetables on his way back. Though his wife requested him repeatedly to move out from the house at 75, Shiddeshwari, he did not agree. On that fateful day he took some rest after lunch. In the afternoon, members of Pakistan army, Al Badar and Rajakars circled his house. They came in a microbus and a jeep. About six soldiers took him towards the jeep. As his wife came out running they pointed a gun at her and stopped her from advancing any farther. Dr. Rabbi walked towards the jeep with his head held high. It was known that on 15 December midnight Dr. Rabbi along with some other intellectuals were taken in a truck from the Lalmatia Physical Training Institute to the Rayerbazar brickfield and murdered in a brutal manner. His dead body was identified on 18 December. Selina Parvin Selina Parvin was born in Noakhali in 1931. She was a poet and a journalist. She had her primary education in Feni. She became an avid reader of Bengali literature. She took a job at weekly 'Lalana.' Then she started her own literary magazine 'Shilalipi.' She also began to write poems, short stories and essays. On 14 December 1971, she was murdered by Al Badar. Gobinda Chandra Dev Gobinda Chandra Dev was born in Sylhet in 1907. He was a philosopher and an educationist. He passed entrance examination in first division from Biani Bazar High English School in 1925 and I.A from Ripon College, Calcutta in 1927. He passed B.A honours and M.A in philosophy from Calcutta University in 1939. He was placed in the first class first position in both the examinations. He received Ph.D degree from the same university for his thesis on 'Reason, intuition and reality.' Later he got involved in research and worked as teacher in Calcutta and Dinajpur. He joined Dhaka University as a professor of philosophy in 1953 and was later promoted as chairman of the department of philosophy in 1970. He taught in a college in Pensyvania, USA as a visiting professor. It was at this time that his admirers founded “The Gobinda Dev Foundation for World Brotherhood.” On return to Dhaka he founded the Philosophy Bhaban in 1971. Among his publications are: A new defence and a new application; Aspiration of the common man; The philosophy of Bibekananda and the future of man; Amar Jibon Darshan; Tattabidyashar; Buddha, the humanist. A life-long bachelor, Dr. G.C. Dev was brutally murdered by the Pakistani forces on the night of 25 March 1971 in his campus quarters. Nizamuddin Ahmed Nizamuddin Ahmed was born in Munshiganj in 1929. He was a journalist. He passed B.A (Hons) and M.A in Economics from Dhaka University in 1959. Later he joined Pakistan Press International. He became the editor of PPI in 1969 and was promoted to the rank of general manager. Nizamuddin Ahmed was an ardent supporter of the liberation war of Bangladesh. He used to send news items on the atrocities of the Pakistani forces to various foreign news media. He had taken New York Times journalist McBrown to a guerrilla camp to collect authentic news. He provided BBC with authentic news under strict censorship. For this reason he was taken to General Rao Forman Ali's office on two occasions. On 12 December 1971, Nizamuddin was taking his lunch when members of Al Badar picked him up from his residence. His body was never found. Kaminikumar Ghosh Kaminikumar Ghosh was born in Chittagong in 1888. In Chittagong he was known as Rai Shaheb Kaminikumar Ghosh. He passed all examinations under the Calcutta University with scholarship. He served Chittagong District Board as member for 28 years and as its vice chairman for seven years. He was also actively involved with the local schools and colleges. He served as chairman of Kanchana Union Board for 25 years. He set up many cooperatives in Satkania. He also set up Satkania College and served as its first principal. He worked as a lawyer for 50 years. On 25 April 1971, Pakistani soldiers brutally killed him. Meherunnesa Meherunnesa was born in 1946 in West Bengal, India. She migrated to the then East Pakistan with her family as refugee and settled in Mirpur, Dhaka. She worked in various newspapers as proofreader and wrote short stories and poems. Her first poem 'Chashi' was printed on Khelaghor page of the Daily Sangbad in 1952. On 25 March 1971, she was killed by some non-Bengali people in Mirpur. Syed Nazmul Haque Syed Nazmul Haque was born in Khulna in 1941. He was a journalist. He passed B.A. (Hons) and M.A. in Political Science from Dhaka university in 1963 and 1964 respectively. He took active part in the anti-martial law movement in 1962. He was arrested for disrupting the convocation programme on the DU campus in 1964 where the then governor of East Pakistan Abdul Monem Khan was present. He passed the superior service examination in 1967 and was selected for the information service. But because of the police case against him for disrupting the convocation he was not allowed to join the service. He later took up journalism as a fulltime profession. He became the chief reporter of Pakistan Press International and Dhaka correspondent of Columbia Broadcasting Service. He prepared a full report on the proceedings of Agartala Conspiracy Case. He sent news items on the atrocities carried out by the Pakistani forces during the liberation war of Bangladesh. On 6 August 1971 he was arrested in Dhaka and sent to a prison in West Pakistan. He was given pressure to testify against Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in a secret trial. On getting release in November 1971 he came back to Dhaka. On 11 December 1971, he was picked up from his Purana Paltan house by the members of Al Badar. His dead body was never found.

Saifur Rahman Acknowledges 4-party govt's 'mistakes'

The Daily Star Web Edition Vol. 5 Num 1047



Saifur for end to 'dynastic' politics
Acknowledges 4-party govt's 'mistakes'
Staff Correspondent

Senior BNP leader M Saifur Rahman yesterday called for an end to 'dynastic' politics and said a number of mistakes committed by the last BNP-led four-party government brought on the present situation.

During an interview on private television channel ntv, the former finance and planning minister said the extension of the judges' retirement age and the appointment of the president as the head of the caretaker government were the reasons which brought on the present situation.

"There should be an immediate end to family-centric politics," Saifur said.

He said the extension of the judges' retirement age put the elections under question and this decision started a chain of events that led to the current situation. "Making President Iajuddin Ahmed the head of the caretaker government was another reason," he said, adding, "A number of us in the BNP Standing Committee had opposed this move."

"We asked why should the president be made the head of the caretaker government, why can not Justice Mahmudul Amin Chowdhury become caretaker chief?" he said.

He said the current situation could have been avoided if these decisions were not made.

Saifur also criticised BNP Secretary General Abdul Mannan Bhuiyan for not giving "proper" guidance to the party and for not staying in touch with BNP Chairperson Khaleda Zia.

He criticised Khaleda's younger brother Major (retd) Saeed Iskandar's appointment as BNP vice-president.

He said, "I am with BNP, it would be good if a new party is formed." He, however, said he would not participate in any future parliamentary elections.

Earlier, Dhaka City Corporation Mayor Sadeque Hossain Khoka had suggested reducing his party chairperson's power to take unilateral decisions. Khoka had also identified extension of the judges' retirement age and BNP leaders' interference in Prof Iajuddin Ahmed's government as main reasons for the current situation.

Juddhaparadh O ganahatya 71 - Akhonoo jebhabe bichar sambhab

pk20070420b.pdf (application/pdf Object)

Juddhaparadhi - Ghatak - Dalal - Rajakar

pk20070420a.pdf (application/pdf Object)

Editorial: The history our children must know - By Syed Badrul Ahsan, Editor, Current Affairs, The Daily Star

Daily Star, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Wednesday, April 18, 2007

EDITORIAL


A nation that teaches false history to its young is a society condemned to perdition, or worse. In Bangladesh, especially since the coups d'etat of 1975, a palpable distortion of history has been going on with, of course, a slight intermission during the period of Awami League government between 1996 and 2001.

The general run of things, however, has been to inform the young at school and college that Bangladesh's history is not what it really has been. That was a criminal act to indulge in, and successive governments after 1975 remain guilty of perpetrating that falsehood.

In the last known attempt to inject a large degree of adulteration into our national history, the four-party Bangladesh Nationalist Party-led government of Begum Khaleda Zia sought, to our sheer outrage, to tear out the Proclamation of Independence in the constitution and replace it with a document that would have General Ziaur Rahman emerge as the prime mover behind the struggle for a sovereign Bangladesh.

There would be hardly any point recapitulating all the misdeeds that have been committed in the interest of partisan politics in the country. Even so, there are facts that the people of Bangladesh, particularly those who came of age in the post-1971 period, need to be acquainted with, where the matter is one of a mutilation of national history.

The first assault on historical truth came in the minutes immediately after the assassination of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in August 1975, through the swift, sinister replacement of the liberation war cry of Joi Bangla with the un-Bengali Bangladesh Zindabad. That shock came along with another, when Bangladesh Betar was quickly pushed back into being Radio Bangladesh.

The first, tentative steps toward a formalisation of historical mutilation came when the journalist Khondokar Abdul Hamid told a surprised Ekushey crowd at the Bangla Academy in February 1976 (the country had conveniently been placed under a state of martial law) that "Bangladeshi nationalism" would serve as the underpinning of the state. The only brave soul at that gathering was Professor Kabir Chowdhury. It was he who spoke, however briefly, of the role of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in Bangladesh's history.

Beginning in early 1976, therefore, things began to fall into a pattern. These days you will hear a good number of people extolling Zia over the reality that he never claimed, as his political successors were to do so unabashedly in later years, to have declared Bangladesh's independence in March 1971.

Of course Zia did not make any such claim. How could he? He had, after all, in a 1972 article in the weekly Bichitra, loudly proclaimed his participation in the War of Liberation through the inspiration of the Father of the Nation, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.

But if Zia did not try to superimpose himself on national history, he certainly made sure that Bangabandhu was reduced to being a non-person in the five years of his military administration.

None of the observances of national historical importance in the electronic and print media remembered the seminal contributions of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman to the story of Bangladesh. The Zia years were effectively spent airbrushing Mujib out of Bengali history.

His political loyalists, in the years after his murder, pretended that the autonomy movement of the 1960s and the war of 1971 occurred without any political guidelines. The biggest shame of the Zia years was the anointing of Bangabandhu's assassins as the country's diplomats abroad. It was not our finest hour.

When, today, the caretaker administration speaks of a correction of history in school textbooks, these and other disturbing aspects of our politics must be taken into account. It is not merely a matter of placing the right individuals in their proper places. It ought to be a far more serious issue of restoring history as it was forged in 1971 before being riddled with scandal after 1975.

History is never an act of striking a balance between individuals or events. Which is why any move to correct Bangladesh's national history must steer clear of the chances of trying to make everyone happy in light of recent political happenings. The facts matter.

And the biggest fact is that Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, through his lifelong dedication to the national cause, remains the founding father of the country. Once you acknowledge this truism, you need to move on to another, in this case the role of the Mujibnagar government during the War of Liberation.

Our young have never had the opportunity, not even during the two phases of Awami League government, to know that the government led by Prime Minister Tajuddin Ahmed rests on a high pedestal of history not merely because it was the very first government shaped and run by Bengalis but also because of the intellectual brilliance and pragmatism it brought into its conduct of the independence movement. When you do not enlighten the young about Tajuddin Ahmed and his wartime associates, you run a long knife of premeditated falsehood through the truth.

There is then the matter of the roles other political individuals have played in guiding Bengalis down the road to freedom. Despite his periodic bouts of adventurism, Moulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani has remained a powerful, poignant symbol of Bengali protest. He deserves a special place in the pantheon of national leaders.

But when, in the interest of historical balance, it is suggested that men like Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy and Sher-e-Bangla A.K. Fazlul Huq be given pride of place in the Bengali hall of fame, you tend to get perturbed.

Suhrawardy and Huq were both brilliant, if somewhat controversial (in the case of the former) and erratic (in the case of the latter) men. Their politics was focused on the All India Muslim League's program of Muslim nationalism. Even in the post-partition years, for all their leadership of such forces as the United Front, Suhrawardy and Huq continued to link their role in politics to their acceptance of the Pakistan ideology.

To suggest, therefore, that these formidable individuals need to be given places as dreamers of a free Bangladesh would be tantamount to undermining their original politics, as well as sowing confusion in the minds of Bengalis who remember only too well the course that the movements for autonomy and independence took between the 1960s and early 1970s. It would be stretching the truth, with all its uncomfortable ramifications.

Political partisanship does not create history. It subverts it. Pundits can analyse historical happenings in their diverse ways, but they do not ever try turning established facts on their heads. The most grievous of blows for us has been the role a handful of individuals have regularly arrogated to themselves every time a need to deal with history has arisen.

General Zia's attempt to supplant Bengali nationalism with "Bangladeshi nationalism" has done incalculable damage to national unity. General Ershad's ugly move to strip away at secularism pushed us into a deep pit.

It is these truths, and others, that need to enter the books, and the minds of the young. And do not forget that these young, and their children to come ages hence, must learn too about the foreign soldiers who pillaged and killed in their country, of their local collaborators who assisted in the murder of brave Bengali men and in the humiliation of helpless yet courageous Bengali women.

If it is history we are looking for, we will search far and wide until we have retrieved it for ourselves and our children. We will not go half way. And our minds will not be influenced by thoughts of a need for balance. Compromise is alien to history.

Why Sheikh Mujibur Rahman deserves to be the Father of Nation of Bangladesh: A factual Review - By Khurshed Alam Choudhury

April 7, 2007

The very old adage: 'Truth never can be masked by the lie' has once again come true. After almost 25 years of relentless distortion of Bangalis glorious history of independence by the anti-liberation force, the truth has re-surfaced burying the utter lies generated about the history of independence. At last, the Bangladesh Army Chief, Lt General Moeen U Ahmed has voluntarily uttered the much needed truth by saying: "after 36 years of independence we still have not been able to honour the Father of the Nation." Entire nation cheerfully commended his courageous statement and urge the caretaker government to bury our distorted history forever and give Banglais National leaders their due places in the glorious history of Bangladesh.

No sane person can deny the historical fact that it was Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman who transformed the ever oppressed, quarrelsome, directionless, and divided but politically conscious Bengalis into a united mighty force in the entire history of Bangali nation. Bangabandhu was the very nucleus of Bangalis independence movement and it was his towering popularity having super charismatic leadership under whose magnificent shadow Bangali fought and earned a sovereign country in 1971.

Just one authentic historical citation from the world-known news daily will surely establish my assertion as incontrovertible truth about the Bangalis independence. Below is the direct quote from The New York Times, March 15, 1971. In an international news feature with the Main heading: "Hero of the East Pakistanis" the reporter Mr. Tillman Durdins wrote: "Sheikh Mujibur Rahman�the Bengali nationalist who has emerged in recent months as the undisputed leader of the people of East Pakistan. Sheikh Mujib's position of leadership at the age of 50 is the culmination of almost a lifetime political struggle, rising wave of popularity amounting to mass worship by the Bangali patriots. His words have literally become the law of the land."

Honorable readers, I am sure you will agree with me that after reading this 37 year old news piece from the world famous news paper published 12 thousand miles away from the then East Pakistan should be enough to remove all confusion and controversy created by some ungrateful politically misguided Bangalis! But unfortunately that is not the case with Bangali Nation at all. Time and again some ungrateful Bangalees brought various unjust and laughable allegations against Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founding father of the sovereign Bangladesh. Their intention of making false allegations is only to malign Bangabandhu's glorious role behind the creation of independent Bangladesh.

My essay will deal with some general lame excuses commonly used by the anti-Mujib ungrateful Bangalees to create unnecessary smoke's screen only to distort the glorious history of 1971. Out of many false allegations against Bangabandhu let me discuss only the following:

(1) Major Zia gave declaration of the independence!

Declaration of independence of Bangladesh? Sheikh Mujib's 7^th March speech was the actual declaration of independence. After the historical 7 ^th March meeting�erstwhile East Pakistan was basically ruled by Sheikh Mujib. War of independence was in everybody's mind, war was inevitable, and preparations were going on, in somewhat unorganized way. Bangalees throughout various places of the country were engaged in clashes with Pakistani army and Biharies. Those tumultuous days, everybody knew that, talk between Sheikh Mujib and Yahya khan was sure to fail. Besides, on the night of 25^th March, prior to his arrest, Sheikh Mujib actually made his final declaration of independence which was heard by Pakistani Junta from the Kurmitola Cantonment.

In an interview when Mr. Musa Sadik asked Tikka Khan (then Governor of East Pakiatan) why he had to arrest Sheikh Mujib from his Dhanmondi residence, Tikka Khan replied, " My COD (Co-ordination Officer) brought to me a three band Radio and told me to listen to the broadcast which said that Sheikh Mujib Saheb given a call for independence. Personally, I heard Sheikh Saheb declaring independence, for I know his voice so well. That declaration was the reason and so, I as the then supreme authority of East Pakistan, I had to arrest him, and there being no other alternative."

Fact of the matter is, same declaration was read repeatedly on 26^th March by Awami league MP Mr. Hannan from the Kalurghat Radio station. Some followers of Mr. Hannan told him that, some Bangalee (defectors) soldiers are waiting nearby Radio station. Mr. Hannan got an idea; he thought if a senior army officer could read the same declaration, then it might give encouragement to our Bangalee defector soldiers and police who were unorganized at that very critical time. Accordingly, Mr. Hannan invited Bangalee soldiers to the Radio Station and asked the senior most Bangalee officer Major Zia to read this declaration. This declaration was read on 27 ^th of March and was heard only from Southern part of Bangladesh. On 27^th of March I myself (I was in Daoudkandi, Comilla) heard this declaration from the then Major Zia's voice and this was read as, "I Major Zia declare independence of Bangladesh on behalf of our great leader Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman���.". I do not undervalue or deny the beefing effects of Bangalees' morale (by Maj. Zia's reading of declaration) at that crucial period of the nation. But I do not consider that, declaration of independence was really or absolutely essential at that time when Yahya's brutal Army cracked down on unarmed Bangalees on 25th March, 1971. Country was already at war with Pakistani junta. Declaration was good but was not necessary and this declaration from Kalurghat was not heard by the entire nation at all. Even without Zia's announcement, the nation would have automatically engaged in this unavoidable war. Leader of the nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman already gave his instruction to go to India and to form a Government in exile and it was exactly what was done by Sheikh Mujib's associates. Nobody was waiting for any "official" declaration coming out of Kalurghat!

Let us hear from General Zia himself. On the occasion of 26th March, 1974�General Zia wrote an essay titled: " A birth of a nation" which was published in the Weekly Bichitra. In that essay General Zia wrote: "Bangabandhu's historical 7^th March speech was a green signal to us, and we began to prepare morally and very secretly." In another place General Zia said , "From the 1^st of March, entire Nation was in total non-cooperation with the Pakistani Army by the order of the Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman." It is to be noted here that, in his lifetime, General Zia never claimed that he declared independence of Bangladesh. In 1977, in an interview with the renowned reporter Mr. Ataus Samad, General Zia commented about Sheikh Mujib. General Zia said, "Sheikh Mujib was a great leader of Bangalee Nation and there will be nobody who can take his place in the history of Bangladesh ."

What would happen if there was no Declaration from the Kalurghat Radio station?

Was declaration at all needed? What would happen if there were no declaration at all? Would Bangalee surrender to Pakistani junta and sit idle at home? Who was supposed to declare independence? How can somebody claim that Major Zia has declared independence of Bangladesh? On what capacity Major Zia can declare independence of Bangladesh? Was Major Zia a supreme leader of the nation in 1971? If somebody else other than major Zia was the senior most Bangalee army officer at Chittagong, and Major Zia was stationed in Bogra cantonment, who would possibly read the declaration? Would Mr. Hannan send somebody to Bagra to bring Major Zia to read the declaration? It was obvious that, whoever was present in Chittagong would have read the declaration. I do not understand, why some unscrupulous Bangalees started to give this credit of declaration after the death of General Zia? Yes, one can claim that, Maj Zia by virtue of his presence in the right place at the right time read the declaration of independence of Bangladesh on behalf the undisputed leader of independence. Truth is, if declaration was really crucial during those tumultuous days, there were at least one dozen big and famous leaders (Tujuddin, Syed Nazrul Islam et al.) left behind by Sheikh Mujib who could have very well read such declaration from any established Radio Station. Can anybody deny that?

Some valuable and historical Quotes from the international Press in 1971:

Immediately after the barbaric crack down by the marauding Pakistani junta, throughout the entire March of 1971 various world famous international presses continuously published news and feature articles on the episodes of then erstwhile East Pakistan which is now Bangladesh. Let me quote some of the news, which I have collected from various Bangladeshi newspapers and books.

a) The Guardian- March 27, 1971: "The independence war has begun in East Pakistan. Pakistani soldiers started to crush Bangalee's independence movement under the leadership of Sheikh Mujib. President Yahya Khan declared Sheikh Mujib the traitor of Pakistan. The declaration of the independent Bangladesh, in the name of Sheikh Mujib, came from a radio station named: "Voice of Bangladesh". The radio also has issues an order to all Bangalees to follow orders only from the Sheikh Mujib, the leader of the independence."

b) The Times of London, March 27, 1971: "The leader of independence Sheikh Mujib has declared independence of Bangladesh and severe battle is in progress in the eastern part of Pakistan. President Yahya Khan has banned Awami League political party, declared Sheikh Mujib as the traitor of Pakistan and vowed to punish Sheikh Mujib for his crime. "

c) The Evening News, March 26, 1971: Headline news- "The rebel leader Sheikh Mujib arrested." The paper also added�"The radio Pakistan has declared that, Sheikh Mujib was arrested from his residence, within one hour after he declared the independence of Bangladesh."

In the April issue of the same Evening News published it's cover story on Bangladesh in which it mentioned Sheikh Mujib as "the poet of politics and the undisputed supreme leader of Bangalee nation."

d) United News of India (UNI), March 26, 1971: "Today Sheikh Mujib has declared birth of Bangladesh from the 'Shadhin Bangla Betar Kendro'. After that, on the night of 26^th March, 1971, PTI, NDP, TSA, and BBC broadcast simultaneous news: "Broadcasting tonight from a clandestine radio station identified as 'Voice of independent Bangladesh ' "The Sheikh has declared the seventy five million people of East Pakistan as of the sovereign independent Bangladesh." After that this, the same news was echoed again and again all over the world. I challenge all Bangalees if they can give just one line of same news from any news media about the then obscure Major Zia!

2) Bangabundhu ended his 7^th March '71 speech with "Joy Bangla, Jiey Pakistan"!

This allegation is totally fabricated and a blatant lie from the anti-liberation defamers of Bangabandhu. I myself was physically present in the ' Ramna Race Course Maidan' on March 7, 1971 along with almost one million Bangalees and still remember vividly every details of that great historical meeting. And I can swear that, Bangabandhu never uttered "jiey Pakistan". He ended his speech by saying, "Joy Bangla". Next day (8^th March, 1971) same speech was broadcast from Radio Pakistan which I have recorded in my newly purchased Grundig tape recorder (with large spool tape) which I still have it with me. In that, recorded speech there was no such thing "Jiey Pakistan". This is simply absurd and a total fabrication of the historical fact. Besides, this historical speech had been recorded by millions of freedom loving Bangalees, published in various news papers, in books, in the national archive etc. Nowhere, nobody could have ever claimed such a lie, at least I never heard. By the time (March '71), when entire nation was tumultuously preparing and demanding "Independent Bangladesh"---the question of uttering such an unwelcome word by a undisputed leader of the independence was not only impractical but was simply impossible. From the beginning of March, 1971, entire Bangladesh was having Bangladeshi flags hoisted everywhere, except cantonment and Bihari colonies. Hundreds of thousands of Bangalees in the Race Course Maidan were carrying Bangladeshi flags in their hands. In that overwhelming situation no fool will dare to utter "Jiey Pakistan" without being attacked by the mob!

(3) Bangabandhu had no dream of Independent Bangladesh!

Here I can write pages after pages (but I have little scope today in this essay) to describe how Bangabandhu indeed dreamed Bangladesh as an independent nation. Of course, Bangabandhu was not the only dreamer of independent Bangladesh. Many other leaders such as Maulana Bhasani used to talk about (in public meetings only) independent Bangladesh, without any plan or follow-up. But no other leaders except Sheikh Mujib had any systematic plan to achieve independence . Had there been no Bangabandhu, there could be no Bangladesh today, period. From the inception of Pakistan, i.e., right from 1949, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman did almost anything and everything which simply was seen and considered by every Pakistani Presidents/Prime ministers as the anti-Pakistani acts. He was the only Pakistani leader who spent more than 14 years in the jail during the period of 24 years of Pakistani era. He was a political headache for every Pakistani Presidents/Governors during the entire period of 24 years. Almost every ruler of Pakistan immediately after coming to power put Sheikh Mujib in jail for his so called anti-state activities.

Let me put a few historical incidents in support of my claim. In 1993, Oxford University has published a book called " Zulfiqar Bhutto of Pakistan" written by Professor Stanley Wolpert of the University of California, which was the life story of Zulifiqar Ali Bhutto. In this book Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto wrote in his personal diary: "Before '70's general election, Sheikh Mujib said to his very nearest associates, 'My only ambition is to achieve a free Bangladesh. After the general election, I will demolish the Legal Framework Order (LFO) of Yahya.' Mr. Bhutto also wrote in his dairy: "Had there been no action taken by Pakistani Army on 25^th of March, 1971, Sheikh Mujib would have declared Independence next day (26^th March,'71)." Professor Wolpert also mentioned referring Bhutto's diary, that Sheikh Mujib has declared Independence on midnight, 25^th of March '71, possibly through a wireless station.

(4) Bangabandhu wanted to negotiate with Yahya Khan and Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto!

Bangabandhu never negotiated with Pakistani junta. He never compromised with Yahya or any other Pakistani leaders and was not willing to be sold out for his self interest. He always kept the National interest over everything. Yahya Khan had to agree with Bangabandhu's demand for holding elections on the basis of "one man one vote". Bangabandhu's bold decision (against the opinion of all other parties) to participate 1970's general election was very crucial for gaining the electoral mandate from the people of the then East Pakistan. It is only an ignorant or wishful mad leader can declare independence of a region of a sovereign country by standing at the middle of an open stage of the public meeting. Had Sheikh Mujib declared independence of Bangladesh on 7^th March,1971 meeting, million people would have been killed by Tikka's Army. I remember very well, at that time of meeting�army helicopters were frequently flying over our heads. It was Bangabandhu's matured leadership and far-sightedness that, he ended this meeting by declaring: "Eve-r-er Sangram Amader Muktir Sangram, Eve-r-er Sangram Sadinoter Sangram, Joy Bangla". This historic 7^th March's speech was basically the actual declaration of independence. After this speech, entire Bangladesh (except cantonments) was ruled by Bangbandhu himself. Ashohojog Andolonn (Non-cooperation movement) itself was so effectively followed by the entire nation that, Pakistani junta actually lost their governing authority over Bangalees until mid-night, 25^th March, 1971 when Yahya ordered his soldiers to crack down.

Historical "Six-Point program" was the Magna Carta for realizing legitimate rights for self-determination of Bangalees. Bangabandhu was never a power monger and stubbornly refused to compromise his demands for full autonomy based on historical "Six-point Program", even in lieu of Premiership of Pakistan. Yahya wanted to offer him both money and Premiership at the expense of Six-point Program. But Sheikh Mujib never agreed even to make a small dent to his Six-point-program. That's why he declared in his 7^th March speech�"Ami Pradhan Montrytta Chai na, Ami aidesh-er manusher Mukti chai". Actually, this famous "Six-point Program" was the main 'bottle-neck' because of which there could be no negotiation at the Yahya-Bhutto-Bangabandhu meetings at Dhaka. According to the renowned journalist/writer Mr. Anisur Rahman, Bangabandhu told his faithful co-leaders, "my six-points will lead to one point�that is independence." It is only unfaithful Banglalees or those who do not like Bangladesh can claim that, Bangabandhu had no dream for independent Bangladesh. Question is, if Bangabandhu himself did not dream for Bangladesh, then could we know who else did dream for independent Bangladesh and how?

No other leader but the charismatic leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman had consistently championed Banngalees' right for self-determination. It was no other political party but the Awami League under the leadership of Bangabandhu which had consistently and persistently spearheaded the rights for Bangalees' self-determination. Who can deny the truth that, it was Sheikh Mujib's monumentally charismatic leadership which had prepared, step by step, all Banglees to wage a war of independence? Who can deny the historical fact that, in 1966 almost all political parties of the then Pakistan had vehemently opposed Bangabandhu's 'Six-point Program"? Who can deny the fact that, General Ayub Khan had threatened to speak in the language of weapon? Who has the audacity to deny that, Ayub Shahi with the collaboration of "Shara Banglar Lajja"�Monem khan, the then infamous Governor of East Pakistan had publicly threatened to put Bangabandhu and his associates in constant "chains" and duly lodged the historical "AGARTALA CONSPIRACY CASE" to destroy Bangalees' demands once for all? Why General Ayub Khan did everything possible to subdue/crush only Bangabandhu and not others? Answer of the above questions will reveal the truth.

In the world history, Bangladesh independence war of 1971 was the only national war fought and won in the (by using name of the leader who was absent) name of a single leader, named--Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. There are not too many instances where any other nation fought a war by using the name of a single leader. It was in this war, people wrote and sung various popular songs and poetries in the name of their undisputed leader and it was in this war�peoples' as well as, all those valiant freedom fighters' (Muktijoddha) common and popular slogans were�"Joy Bangla, Joy Bangabandhu". Is there anybody who can deny this?

Let me narrate a true story of my life. Immediately after the freedom of Bangladesh, i.e., in the middle of 1973, I went to Prague, Czechoslovakia with a post-doc fellowship. There, one day one Czech gentleman asked me what my native country was. When I answered, I was from Bangladesh�the guy looked at me as if he never heard the name "Bangladesh". Then he asked me, what is Bangladesh? I replied, this is a new country near Eastern India�which was erstwhile East Pakistan. Then he (making his eyes big) loudly said, "Oh, Sheikh Mujib, Sheikh Mujib, I know Sheikh Mujib�he is a great leader". By saying this he embraced me with profound respect for Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. My dear readers please tell me, what kind of leader becomes bigger and more famous than his (own) country? Why in every library and archives throughout the world�one can find the name of "Sheikh Mujibur Rahman" attached (as founding leader) with the history of Bangladesh? Was it because Sheikh Mujib never dreamed Bangladesh? How can we separate Bangabandhu from Bangladesh? It is an open challenge to all those wishful history distorters and anti- liberation goons�please go try to erase Sheikh Mujib's glorious name from the recorded history carefully archived in the libraries of every country of the whole world. Please give us just one nation on earth where the name of that obscure major Zia has been recorded as the leader of the Bangladesh Independence. This is a challenge to you all.

(5) Why Sheikh Mujib did not flee from his residence on the night of 25^th March and why he surrendered to Pakistan Army!

Yes, it was against the normal behavior of most revolutionary leader like Sheikh Mujib who could flee from his home on that fateful night of 25^th March, 1971. May be it was his miscalculation, but obviously it was his personal quality which was quite unique and different from any revolutionary leader of independence movement, and we should judge him from historical perspectives.

Was there a single incident during his long political life when Sheikh Mujib fled or attempted to elude his obvious arrest? History tells us that, Sheikh Mujib never fled, hid, or surrendered to anybody in his entire life. Only a liar or an ignorant can claim that, Sheikh Mujib surrendered. Sheikh Mujib was a lion-hearted Bangalee who never knew how to hide himself from anybody, he never got out of his home through the back door, not even at the crucial moment when assassins armed with Stan-guns entered (August 1975) his home to annihilate not only him but his entire family members who were with him on that fateful night. During his 24-year long political ordeal throughout East Pakistani days, he never fled/hid for his life. Let me quote here from the interview of Gen. Tikka Khan (which was posted in 'News From Bangladesh' on march 28, 2000) by Musa Sadik, which took place in 1976 when Gen. Tikka Khan was the then Governor of Punjab. When Mr Musa Sadik asked, if Sheikh Mujib had gone to India along with Mr. Tajuddin what you would have done sir? Gen. Tikka Khan replied, "I knew very well that a leader of his stature would never go away leaving behind his countrymen. I would have made a thorough search in every house and road in Dhaka to find out Sheikh Mujib. I had no intention to arrest leaders like Tajuddin and others. That is why they could leave Dhaka so easily." Then Tikka Khan said more in a very firm voice, "in case we failed to arrest Sheik Mujib on that very night, my force would have inflicted a mortal blow at each home in Dhaka and elsewhere in Bangladesh. We probably would have killed crores of Bangalees in revenge on that night alone."

History was the witness that Sheikh Mujib had saved his people from a big catastrophe. Should anybody still blame Sheikh Mujib for not fleeing from his Dhanmondi home?

(6) Sheikh Mujib and his party looted and plundered the wealth of newly born Independent Bangladesh!

I wish I write a separate essay on this issue. However, I will try to make a very brief account of this issue here. We all know that Bangladesh was liberated from the erstwhile Pakistan through a bloody war of 9 months. It was a country, which was separated from the mainland Pakistan 1100 miles away. Pakistani Military junta was defeated and fled from Bangladesh (Erstwhile East Pakistan) leaving an empty nation with no share of common wealth. As a result Bangladesh was a new independent nation with virtually no wealth inherited from Pakistan. Therefore, it was a newly born nation with an interim revolutionary government residing inside India. This new nation had�no police, no army, no naval force, no air force, no civil aviation and apparently no infrastructure of a competent civil government. There was broken, damaged train system, There was no transport department, no central bank, no money, no nothing etc. etc.. It was a country having 75 millions mouths to feed, with no source of wealth. Country started from a big zero. Entire nation was broke with war damages everywhere. 10 millions refugees back from Indian camp and needed immediate rehabilitation, hundreds of roads and bridges broken etc. etc.. Bangabandhu got very little financial help from international community since Western world including USA and entire Middle Eastern oil-rich nations were unfriendly with newly independent Bangladesh. Only monetary help the country got was from World Bank and some Eastern European communist nations. That financial help was a small drop against the need of huge financial necessity to build war-torn impoverished nation of Bangladesh.

Now, what was the source of money and other wealth that Awami league and Bangabandhu looted during the period of 1972 to mid-'75? I do admit that there were some corruptions going on in the newly formed ministerial level which was quite normal in any government, especially when it was formed in a hurry. But that corruption was bound to be very minimal because source of wealth to be looted was very minimal in that newly independent Bangladesh. Besides, after the brutal killing of Bangabandhu and his nearest leaders, how much money was recovered from their bank accounts? Was there any foreign bank account in the name of Bangabandhu or his associates in which Bangalees recovered millions of dollars? ANSWER IS A BIG NO! So where were those wealth that Bangabandhu and his family looted? Answer is, it was a total propaganda only to finish Bangabandhu and his Bangladesh. Yes, it was done very successfully and efficiently with the collaboration of both internal and external propaganda conspiracies.

Just please consider, if Tarek Zia (the king of corruption) could steal at least 20 thousand crores of Bangalis hard-earned Taka simply by sitting in his comfortable throne in the infamous Hawa Baban, then why in the world the eldest son of the Bangladesh President Sheikh Mujib needed to commit dacoity (rubbery) in the Bangladesh bank? This only tells us how much false propaganda was waged against Bangabandhu by those anti- liberation Paki-agents!

As per newspapers of then Bangladesh, we have learned that they had found 12 thousands Bangladeshi Taka in the personal bank account of Bangabandhu. We have not heard any other wealth that anybody has discovered anywhere in the whole world in the name of Sheikh Mujib or his family members. We have not heard any Swiss bank account having millions of dollars for any of those 4 or five nearest leaders of Bangabandhu either. Genuine question to be asked: Where went all the wealth that Bangabandhu and his family looted?

(7) Sheikh Mujib a failed Administrator!

Bangabandhu was not any superhuman to handle the monumental problems he faced in the new born and war-torn nation like Bangladesh. No founding father of any nation on earth could achieve what Sheikh Mujib achieved within three years of independence. I urge the readers to give me just one example from the whole world, where the founding father did better improvement of his newly created nation than what Sheikh Mujib was able to do within such a short period!

Anti-liberation force of Zia generation utterly failed to see the great achievement of Bangabandhu within short time in a new born country having virtually zero capital for the war-torn nation. New born Bangladesh was not full of gold or oil fields, and in fact, this new nation had nothing except massive devastations everywhere plus 75 millions impoverished people to feed.

After his triumphant return from Pakistani prison on January 10, 1972, Bangabandhu quickly formed a full fledged Govt. for the newly born nation, virtually from zero status.

Within a year Bangabandhu managed to rehabilitate 10 million Bangali refugees returned from India, quickly disarmed 200,000 plus freedom fighters , rehabilitated 250,000 raped victims, repaired thousands of broken/destroyed bridges and roads, repaired tens of thousands of broken offices, schools and colleges, and most importantly, he offered a best constitution for the new born nation within a year. It was only because of a most popular and charismatic leader like Sheikh Mujib�hundred thousands strong mighty Indian army left independent Bangladesh within a short period of time. There is no instance in the modern history where a "liberator" or "occupational army" is withdrawn so quickly. Second World War ended sixty years ago. The American army bases in Germany and Japan still exist. It took many years for US army to leave the Philippines. What about Iraq and Afghanistan? When the American army is planning to quit? The strange twist of history is if Mujib was subservient to Indians, the Indian army would not be leaving Bangladesh so soon. And the Paki inspired coup plotters would not dare to do such a dastardly act on the fateful night of August, 1975.

During the early critical period of '72-75, Anti-liberation forces were busy making all sorts of false propaganda to undermine Bangabandhu's popularity so that they could eliminate him by assassination. Entire Muslim world and United States of America did not recognize this new born nation and were engaged in conspiracy with Pakistan to remove sheikh Mujib from the power. Sheikh Mujib wanted to kick out the Russian fleet, which was "cleaning" the mines from Chittagong Port. In fact the Sheikh wanted to get help from the United Nations. After failing to get the necessary help from America, he had to give in to Russian "request". Mujib wanted to build up an independent entity of Bangladesh with the backdrop of Indian Soviet help in the birth of the nation. He went to join the OIC conference in Pakistan, which the Indians did not condone.

His forming BAKSAL was necessary to establish a temporary emergency period to save the new-born nation from the hands of JSD's gonobahini terrorists and conspiratorial Pakistani agents who attempted to destroy the country's economy in the name of the so called scientific socialism. Thousands of Paki-lover Bangalee Govt. officers of newly born nation along with all the Razakars were secretly engaged in total conspiracy and false propaganda to malign this infant government of Bangabandhu.

The 1975 coup plotters are talking about restoring democracy. That is totally nonsense. They actually established a martial democracy in Bangladesh. They paved the path of total anarchy by JSD's gonobahini and made a military dictator Ziaur Rahman the ultimate beneficiary of the August coup. If Zia was not assassinated later, he would be still the President of Bangladesh. And the Pakistanization process would have been completed. He collected all the Paki minded parasites from dustbin to form his administration. He paved the way of Islamization of Bangladesh. After the end of Sheikh Mujib era Bangladesh fell in the hands of international mollahs.

Please consider this imaginary episode:

Let me ask my honorable readers to consider this scenario�say in 1971, freedom-loving Bangalees did not get any help from their neighbors, i.e., India. Say India was a good friendly country of Pakistan just like China, and did not like to interfere with the internal affairs of Pakistan. And as a result, India did not shelter or allow a single Bangalee to enter into India. Therefore, finding no help from its only big neighbor�Bangalees were helpless having no weapons, no shelter from any neighbors, scattered into many pockets of rebellious Bangalees with little or no weapons. Within a few weeks or months, the mighty Pakistani military junta with the kind help of local RAZAKARS and AL-BADARS have crushed the Bangalee rebels and saved Pakistan from splitting into two. Most of the Awami leaders including Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (Yahea's big bird) and, most of the rebellious Bangalees (muktijoddhas) who survived had also been caught. Now, President Yahya Khan gave a national conciliatory/victory speech for the nation saying "Almighty Allah saved Pakistan", and ordered Governor Tikka Khan to punish the rebellious leader only by martial law court. President Yahya told Tikka Khan that, he (Tikka) can hang only one rebel and let every body else go free by amnesty. Now, my dear readers, please tell me (honestly) which of the "Bangalee rebel" would have been hanged by the Butcher General Tikka Khan? Would not it (definitely) be that "Yahya's big bird" the most unfortunate Bangalee named: Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman?

Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was the most popular Bangalee leader of all time. During the tumultuous days of nine months of 1971, many ordinary Bangalee fasted and prayed for the wellness of the leader in Pakistani jail. Mujib was a person with magnetic personality. I do not consider that Bangabandhu really needs any propaganda or defense from me or from anybody else.

The glorious history of Bangladesh independence is now totally murky. The defeated force of 1971 (Fundamentalists and Razakars), along with those pro-Pakistani neo-Muslim league (BNP) was relentlessly trying to undermine the glorious role of Bangabandhu only to confuse the young generation of Bangladesh. It is only those Bangalees who never learned true history of the birth of independent Bangladesh (due to relentless distortion of the history of freedom struggle) or, those defeated anti-liberation force will still continue their ill-campaign of defaming Bangabandhu.

Conclusion:

No amount of false and baseless propaganda will be able to tarnish the epic image of the founding father of Bangladesh. Desperate quest of history distortion did not last for ever and as always, truth has come true by burying all utter lies. Or, the most popular saying: "you can fool some people for sometimes, but you can never fool all people all the times"�is standing tall again.

For most valid and incontrovertible reasons (I have cited above) and historical facts, Bangabandhu obviously deserves to be the undisputed 'Father of Nation' of Bangali nation. We are fortunate that the much needed statement has finally come out not from the mouth of any Awami-supporter, or Bangabandhu appeaser; rather it has voluntarily and instantly come out from the mouth of a neutral and sincere Army chief who perhaps was silently and painfully watching all the dirty games of history distortion for the last 25 years. Now is the good time to have the Bangladesh history of independence corrected and established for good.

Time has come to discard all the past dirty job of history distortion and put the glorious history back in correct and true format. While this honest and sincere Army chief is still the power house behind this present Bangladesh Caretaker Government�nation should get its undisputed 'Father of Nation' established in the constitution once for all. Let all other secondary leaders like Tajuddin Ahmed, Syed Nazrul Islam et al get their due position in the history. Let General Ziaur Rahman and all other sector commanders get their due respect and position (as the valiant freedom fighters) in the glorious history of independence. This honest and heroic task of neutral caretaker government, if implemented, will definitely unite the divided nation again as proud people to concentrate fully on the task of nation building.