Govt. should involve UN to stop killing of Bangladeshis by BSF

AMM Shahabuddin

It was heartening to hear from the BSF director-general at the end of the three-day conference of the chiefs of two border forces, in Dhaka last week, that there would be no more killing of "innocent" Bangladeshis on the Indo-Bangladesh borders. But in the same breath, he said that "85 per cent of killings take place at midnight", apparently hinting that most of those killed by BSF boys were "culprits" or "criminals", as the Indian High Commissioner in Dhaka had earlier observed. Incidentally, on the eve of the Dhaka meeting of the BSF-BDR chiefs, two Bangladeshi farmers, (and not 'cattle smugglers'!) were shot dead by the BSF soldiers - one at Dinajpur and the other at Chuadanga. They were killed in the morning while working in their respective fields. So much for the BSF DG's explanation!
   In reality our Indian 'friends' across the border enter the Bangladesh territory, attack the villagers and after killing them they drag the dead bodies on to the Indian side of the border to prove that they were 'intruders' and therefore 'criminals'.
   
   Our blood-stained border!
   Our border history, say of last one decade or so, is filled with blood of innocent farmers and other workers who had been the regular targets of our neighbour's border guards. Such killings were rather whimsical. And those who are killed as 'cattle traders' or 'cattle smugglers' are a different history written in different colour.
   In fact, exact number of such ruthless killings is not available, although some non-government human rights organisations had been trying to assemble some facts and figures for all concerned. According to one report prepared by Odhikar, says that in 2001 alone, BSF had killed some 300 Bangladeshis, injured several hundreds, besides kidnapping and abducting over 400 people, including women. Many ofthose women were raped by the BSF men. Besides, the Indian "goons" had often entered Bangladesh under the protection of the BSF for looting the Bangladeshi farmers.
   
   BSF killed 743 in 9 years
   According to another Odhikar report, BSF had killed 743 Bangladeshis and injured 806 others and abducted 886 during last nine years between January 1, 2000 and January 31, 2009. During the first six months this year (2009), about 50 such innocent people had been shot dead. And one of the worst adventures committed by the BSF men after entering into Bangladesh was the killing of three BDR jawans on Bangladesh soil in mid-July last year (2008) at Chapainawabganj. The Indian border guards came in a motor-boat, entered into our territory and then started shooting the BDR jawans who were literally caught unaware, and two of the jawans died on the spot and the third one died later. When the intruding BSF killers were chased by the BDR men they took to the land route to flee across the border leaving their speedboat behind. As they say, the criminals always leave some clues behind to identify them later. The government later sent a "strong protest", as usual, against the intrusion and killing of three BDR jawans by the BSF guards.
   Unfortunately, the Indian government didn't even care to "regret" the incident!
   
   Why this dead silence?
   And the tragedy of the whole bloody affairs is the silence on the part of most of our leaders, both political and socio-economic and intellectuals, belonging to numerous NGOs and civil society organisations of the country. There was seldom any protest rally, or formation of a human chain against such inhuman behaviour of a neighbouring country. It is a healthy sign that recently a number of them had come out on the streets to raise their voice against killings by BSF.
   
   Why not try smugglers?
   It is a pity that our government had never asked the BSF authorities, whether India had any law in existence to arrest the 'intruders' or 'smugglers' and try them in an Indian court of law instead of shooting them down to show their efficiency. Not a single 'cattle trader' or 'cattle smuggler' has ever been heard of being tried in a court of law in India. And the most strange thing about the shooting of the 'cattle traders' is that when the so-called traders' illegally intrude into Indian territory, then meet their counterpart to settle the price of the cattle for their purchase, the BSF men seem to be looking the other way or sleeping! They only get up when the cattle traders with their purchased (not stolen) cattle are on their way back towards Bangladesh and the BSF start shooting them dead. But by playing such a game, the BSF men seem to be in collusion with Indian 'cattle traders', kill two birds with one stone. How? They kill the Bangladeshi cattle traders, take back the cattle to sell to another party and thus get double payment. And what the BDR men do, they send a 'strong protest note' asking the BSF to return the dead bodies and hold a flag meeting. The process of sending such 'protest notes' has become such a routine that it seems as if the 'note' is already there for signature on hearing the death news of the Bangladeshis across the border! It is indeed the proper time for the present government, which is about to make a radical reform of the BDR, to put it on the right track to face such a situation. Enough is enough.
   
   We need an honourable approach
   So where do we stand now? We are just at the crossing. Now the time has come to decide which way to turn: to the old path or into a new vista to open a new horizon? In the past, we had the bitterest experience of holding of routine conferences, passing of resolution and making high- sounding speeches. But all ended in smoke. But things have not moved an inch forward with a better prospect. No nation with the least sense of honour could have tolerated the humiliation that Bangladesh had to bear during the last one decade or so, when we had to wait eagerly to get back the dead body of a Bangladeshi shot dead by the BSF Jawans as 'criminals' or smugglers' one or two days back. Now it is for our new government to take an honourable course to settle the issue altogether so that the border criminality ends forever.
   The government should also think of involving the UN to find ways and means to stop the border killings of innocent Bangladeshi farmers and others. The world body has already been involved in many such cases in its member states. So it knows what to do and how. If the main 'disease' is not healed, mere rubbing of 'ointment' wouldn't work. If necessary, the government should think of approaching the World Court at the Hague for justice.
   The author is a retired UN official

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

Clinton delivers unwanted tidings
to New Delhi

M K Bhadrakumar

United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton landed in the western Indian city of Mumbai on a Friday earlier this month for the Barak Obama administration's first high-level political consultation with India since assuming office in January.
   Clinton had no pressing engagements in Mumbai, but she took time to reach out to Delhi on Sunday. She underscored that the Obama administration looks forward to a broad-based relationship with India that goes beyond the highly militarized "strategic partnership" that the George W Bush administration sought and Delhi got used to.
   Obama seeks a "greening" of the US-India partnership, whereas Indian strategists are schooled in the eight-year cherished belief that the future of the US-India partnership lay in the two countries striding "shoulder-to-shoulder" in terms of a shared "vision".
   From the Indian end, the "vision" meant that the US recognized India's primacy as the number one military power in the Indian Ocean region and built it up as an Asian counterweight to China. The "vision" had a dream run during the Bush era. India has held something like 50 military exercises with the US during the past five-year period.
   But Obama's priorities lie elsewhere. The America he inherited has different priorities. The world, too, has changed following the global downturn. Clinton is on a formidable diplomatic mission as the harbinger of startling tidings to Delhi. Rhetoric has been completely lacking in her repertoire.
   Her irrepressible predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, would have seized the moment, with her school girlish enthusiasm and brilliant smile, to insist that her messianic mission was aimed at making India a world-class power. Indians anxiously scoured the weekend papers and sorely missed the Ricean turns of phrase.
   The US-India relationship is a bit like a marriage where one partner simply needs some space. For the US, the centrality of Pakistan in its regional policies in Central Asia and the Persian Gulf in the coming period is a compelling reality. Therefore, Clinton chose to give an interview to the Pakistani media (even ahead of any Indian media interaction) so that Islamabad did not need to fear the outcome of her India visit. Clinton said: Well, I think if you go back and look at the history between the United States and Pakistan, we were not always as sensitive or understanding of the needs of the Pakistani people. We were not always constant in our support and our friendship for Pakistan ... So it's been, I would argue, a relationship that hasn't been as constant and as effective as we would want it to be ... I mean, we are just human beings; we know that. But we want to be as honest in admitting them as possible, learning from them, and then trying to move forward ... Our goal is to be there as a constant friend and a country that Pakistan ... can rely on to build up more trust and understanding between us, and to be of assistance when asked by Pakistan.
   
   Intriguing problem
   Yet, she proceeded to India first. The Indians are intrigued. They were hoping to present Clinton with a list of convincing reasons why the US and India should collaborate as partners in pressuring Pakistan to amend its record of breeding international terrorism and proliferating nuclear technology. But Clinton made it clear that Washington is pretty pleased with Pakistan's performance in the "war on terror" and that the Pakistani nuclear inventory was securely fastened, no matter Islamabad's past behaviour - and that's all that mattered today.
   Indians will be wrong to take this amiss. The heart of the matter is that the US cannot allow any third party to interrupt the crucially important business of its close collaboration with Islamabad to stabilize Afghanistan through dialogue with the Taliban
   Furthermore, as the great game accelerates in Central Asia and if the situation around Iran assumes criticality, Pakistan is becoming a key partner. Pakistan's brusque integration into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is self-evident. Indians, unfortunately, missed the plot. Up until last year, strategists in Delhi even fancied notions of an Indian military deployment in Afghanistan.
   The Indians' deeply entrenched suspicion about Chinese intentions corrodes their judgment and prevents them from connecting the dots that separate the Hindu Kush and the Pamirs and the Silk Road. They fail to comprehend the great game. Over the weekend, a prominent Indian commentator showed incredible naivety to argue New Delhi should use its influence with northern Afghan tribes - Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras - to muddy Uyghur ethnic tension in Xinjiang.
   What perturbs Indian strategists, haunted by the spectre of Kashmir, is how Pakistan might take advantage of the US. Clinton came dangerously close when the Pakistani interviewer probed her. "I think that the disputes between India and Pakistan, which are historical and long-standing, should be looked at with fresh eyes ... The United States stands ready to support the steps ... but it's not just the government, but the people ... Well, it [Kashmir] certainly should be on the agenda of discussion between India and Pakistan." (Emphasis added.)
   On balance, however, India's testiness as it awaited Clinton was of its own making. Its regional policy is touching a low point today and its regional influence in Central Asia is almost negligible. The top items on Clinton's agenda are to secure an investment protection agreement and an end-use monitoring deal with Delhi that accords with US legislation making sure sales of military equipment are used for the purpose stated.
   
   The irony
   The irony is that New Delhi has done all it could in recent years to harmonize its regional policies with those of the US. Its response to the new cold war has been to keep a calibrated distance from its traditional ally, Russia. Its response to the US-Iran standoff over Tehran's nuclear program has been to atrophy India's close and friendly ties with Iran. Its response to the US's containment strategy toward China has been to identify with the strange idea of a quadripartite alliance with the US, Japan and Australia.
   In comparison, Pakistan zeroed in on the potentials of US intervention in Afghanistan and the implications of the great game in Central Asia for the US's geo-strategy - especially the role of Islamist elements. An extremely rewarding relationship has followed since 2001, as naturally as daybreak. For a while, Pakistan got worked up that George W Bush might be tilting toward India when he signed a nuclear deal for the civilian use of nuclear power. But as Clinton's visit shows, the nuclear deal has become controversial.
   The Obama adminis-tration is determined to bring the nuclear deal within an overall architecture of global nuclear non-proliferation. As a first step, the US got its Group of Eight partners at the recent summit meeting in Italy to accept that countries such as India that reject the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), ought to be denied all ENR (enrichment and reprocessing) technology. Where Delhi estimated that the nuclear deal amounted to a tacit US acceptance of its nuclear-weapon status, the opposite seems to be happening - a tightening of screws. While India hoped that the massive business opportunities in the Indian nuclear market would prompt avaricious Americans to jettison their non-proliferation agenda, Washington will have it both ways - lucrative business as well as a reinvigorated NPT regime. Clinton sought fresh Indian reassurances to import US nuclear reactors worth billions of dollars in the near term. The Indians sound self-righteous by claiming the US is rolling back the nuclear deal. Actually, the Bush administration was transparent that the US hoped to bring India into the nuclear non-proliferation regime. But Indian discourses almost uniformly pillory Obama as the villain of peace.
   New Delhi has few options and less inclination to shift from its US-centric foreign policy. India's political class, especially the ruling Congress party's "GenNext", is largely "pro-US". The main opposition Hindu nationalist party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, and its affiliates too are "pro-US". The left parties, which clamoured for an "independent foreign policy", are yet to recover from their huge defeat in the recent parliamentary poll. The Indian corporate media and the middle class root for "Amrika".
   En route to Delhi, Clinton thoughtfully interacted with Indian corporate czars in Mumbai who keenly await the end-user deal to break into weapons production in collaboration with the US military-industrial complex. No doubt, Washington knows a thing or two about how India's political economy works.
   Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

The gift of being credible

Nasrine R. Karim

Some of the most soul stirring speeches have been made by the Greats in history. In recent times it has been the words of US President Barack Obama. Ever wonder who writes those moving, sensational speeches for President Obama?
   "He looks like he's in college and everybody calls him Favs, so you're like, 'This guy can't be for real, right?'" said Ben Rhodes, another Obama speechwriter. "But it doesn't take long to realize that he's totally synced up with Obama... He has access to everything and everybody. There's a lot weighing on his shoulders."
   His name is Jon Favreau. He is 27 and is probably the youngest chief speechwriter for President Obama's office. People have watched him when he needed to write a draft for the President-elect. Fav used to settle into a wooden chair at a busy Starbucks in the centre of Penn Quarter. Favreau and would work on the most memorable speech for the Presidential Inaugural Ceremony and possibly the most important speech of Barack Obama's life.
   Favreau and the rest of Obama's young staffers have really have had a life change. Favreau lived in a group house with six friends in Chicago, where he rarely shaved, never cooked and sometimes stayed up to play video games until early morning like all young people of this era.
   As a minor celebrity with a Dupont Circle condo he has transformed into a political force in Washington.
   Favreau inaugural address for the President was spellbinding. Like lots of young people he cannot sit still and moves while he writes to avoid becoming stale. However from the Starbucks, to his windowless transition office, to his new, one-bedroom condo, is quite stunning. He sometimes writes until 2 or 3 a.m., fuelled by double espresso shots and Red Bull. When deadline nears he works 16-hour days and forgets to call home, do his laundry or pay his bills. He calls it "crashing."
   Favreau's, "this moment that we're in, and the idea that America was founded on certain ideals that we need to take back" has ignited the imagination of the most seasoned sceptics of the world that were fatigued by the previous administration's disastrous global warpath.
   Favs had listened to recordings of past inaugural addresses and met with Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan's speechwriter, to seek advice. One of Favreau's assistants even researched other periods in history when the United States faced crises; another interviewed historians such as David McCullough. And then, the speech was written for the President to vet.
   "If you start thinking about what's at stake, it can get paralyzing," Favreau said. Obama sometimes jokes that Favreau is not so much a speechwriter as a mind reader. He carries Obama's 1995 autobiography, "Dreams from My Father," with him almost everywhere He has mastered Obama's writing style his short, elegant sentences and internalized his tendency toward reflection and ideological balance. Favs even memorized most of Obama's famous keynote speech from the 2004 Democratic National Convention that left me breathless. (I watched from New York when President described himself as the 'skinny kid from Kenya")
   It seems that in the few years together, Obama and Favreau have perfected their writing process. Before most speeches, Obama meets with Favreau for an hour to explain what he wants to say. Favreau types notes on his laptop and takes a crack at the first draft. Obama edits and rewrites portions himself (he is the better writer, Favreau insists). Obama sometimes reassures him when stressed: "Don't worry. I'm a writer, too, and I know that sometimes the muse hits you and sometimes it doesn't. We'll figure it out together." - A great partnership.
   Our politicians have a lot to learn from this. Reaching out to the people does not mean promising the earth, which they know they cannot deliver. Making a credible speech is an art which defines the Greats. The emphasis is on the word "credible".
   
   Tipaimukh dam
   Tipaimukh dam was discussed during the in 2003 and 2005 at the 35th and 36th meetings of Joint River Commission (JRC). However, it seems our politicians and civil servants were sleeping. The blame game now is not going to be credible. One should have recorded their discontent then loud and clear.
   If the adversity to our livelihoods were recognized then why was there no hue and cry by our "leaders" on both sides? Today India will do what India requires, if it creates economic and social crisis and numerous environmental disasters and displaces population already under great pressure, for starters, who is to blame but all of them, who call themselves 'leaders'? No use of pointing fingers now.
   In Bangladesh, most talked about subject is the construction of Tipaimukh Dam. The facts are that this subject was on the negotiating table for many years. However, what we have seen repeatedly is that after every "democratic" election, the incumbent opposition does not turn up in the Parliament for any discussion on national issues, (the main reason for participating in becoming 'leaders'). However, we forgive them very quickly and elect them again. So the main subjects concerning future generations of the country get sorely left out. Only when it is FAR too late do we start making noises. It is all quite pathetic.
   The Tipaimukh Hydroelectric Project is being constructed near the confluence of Barak and Tuivai rivers, in Manipur, India and within 100km of Bangladesh border. Costing Rs 6,351 crore ($1.35 billion) the 164 meter high dam will have a firm generation capacity of 401.25MW of electricity.
   Barak-Surma-Kushyara as per UN Convention, should have equitable sharing of water with Bangladesh, according to our entitlement as a lower riparian of the international river. According to experts, the scarcity of water caused by the dam and the micro-diversity of climate will deposit huge silt on river beds. When high rainfall will occur in the catchments area of the dam, substantial quantity of sediment-laden flood water is expected to be released which will cause intense flooding in areas surrounding the rivers Surma and Kushyara. Consequently, all river beds including Meghna which is combined with the Surma and Kushyara will face depleted water flow due to high sedimentation and consequently severe flooding. This includes the Megha-Padma basin.
   Poor Sylhet! Always the butt of vandalism by various governments. Either it is to do with its gas and condensate like Haripur, or it is made into a hub for extremists, aided and abetted by lawmakers, or now the transformation of the potential "dry" state of Bangladesh. Sylhet's lush rainforests, tea gardens and lakes will die its natural death, while being shaken potentially by recurring earthquakes.
   Why blame foreigners? The Indians will do what is right for them - we, on the other hand have been too busy with trivia to look at the future. The negligence and ineptitude of leaders and authorities take my breath away!
   Today we lack adequate electricity, water, roads, communication and sewage is a mess at all levels even after thirty-eight years. And we are hoping for a "digital" Bangladesh? The Parliament has been made useless by the politicians who wait for 'invitation' or seating arrangements to attend. (They however collect their allowances, nevertheless). Real leaders serve their nation sitting in a barn if necessary but not ours, they need gilded thrones.
   Tipaimukh, since we cannot stop the dam, could we not have at least offered to become partners to avail of the much-needed cheap electricity? But that would have required foresight, which we severely lack.
   The country needs strong negotiators. As with other issues, we have laymen with little knowledge in posts that demand educated initiatives. As usual, complaints will be volleyed AFTER the effect. Bangladesh has always pursued the "curative" policy not the "preventive".
   "It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat." : Theodore Roosevelt in a "Citizenship Republic" Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910
   Whether in the treasury bench or in the opposition, being asleep or blind towards important national issues does not tantamount to "leadership" does it? It is too late to call "wolf." Shame!

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE