Foreign Minister Dipu Moni yesterday said Indian High Commissioner Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty might have violated diplomatic norms through his comments on controversial Tipaimukh dam and Bangladeshi water experts.

This comes after Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty has said, over the last two years, as he has graced our humble land with his beatific presence:

• Tipaimukh Dam is being opposed by “so-called” Bangladeshi experts on water-management.
• Bangladesh will not be affected by the Tipaimukh Dam.
• India will exercise sole control over all water flowing through the Tipaimulh Dam.
• Most Bangladeshi expers opposing the Tipaimukh Dam are misinformed.
• No international law can stop India from constructing the Tipaimukh Dam.
• BNP is opposing the Tipaimukh Dam solely to get political mileage.
• Any accusation that India is depriving Bangladesh of its due share of water is just empty political solgan.
• Anyone who says that India has not consulted Bangladesh over Tipaimukh Dam is lying.
• Those opposing the Tipaimukh Dam are only trying to poison the minds of friendly people of Bangladesh against India.
• There would be no problems holding the December 2008 parliamentary election under Emergency Law.

And, my personal favorite:

• India will not starve its own citizens just to send help to Bangladesh.

The recent exchange between Abdul Jalil, Awami League General Secretary, and Dr. Alaluddin Ahmed, Adviser to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, had laid bare some of the key rifts currently plaguing our ruling party. The Awami League (AL) currently has about four-fifths of the seats in our parliament; they also won about 49% of the vote in the last election held in December 29, 2008. Extrapolating back from this result, if elections would have been held on January 22, 2007, AL would have still had a similar majority. However, what has changed in the past two years are the individuals who would have been the key actors in an AL government.

In any government formed after AL won 2007 elections, Abdul Jalil, as General Secretary of AL, the most popular AL leader from North Bengal, and a key mastermind of the anti-BNP government tactics, would have been one of the senior ministers. The behemoth LGRD ministry, traditionally reserved for the number-twos of the party in power, would have become his personal fiefdom. He would have added his name to the illustrious list of former LGRD kingpins such as Barrister Abdus Salam Talukdar, (now President) Zillur Rahman, and Abdul Mannan Bhuiyan, with a large budget, infrastructure spanning the length of Bangladesh, and a gargantuan patronage network, at his disposal.

The 2007 cabinet would also include heavyweights such as Tofael Ahmed, Abdur Razzaq, and Amir Hossain Amu, leaders with long decades of service to AL, serving in their second or third cabinet, experienced in the ways of the bureaucracy, and capable of implementing their own agenda. Sheikh Hasina would come close to, as close to as possible in our current personality-driven politics, being the primus inter pares, the first among equals in her council of ministers.

Instead, the current AL cabinet, much like the current Zimbabwe under-19 team, wears a forlorn look. Motia Chowdhury, who in those fiery days of her youth reputedly used to desire her wish to flay Sheikh Mujibur Rahman alive in no uncertain terms, is the senior minister from AL. Two of the five-most senior ministers are imports from General Ershad’s Jatiyo Party, another, Barrister Shafique Ahmed, is here in his capacity as the Prime Minister’s personal lawyer during the last two years. Both the Home Minister and the Foreign Minister are first-time MPs. Most of the other ministers and state ministers have never served in any ministry previously. The cabinet also contains, alongside several former Communist leaders, possibly Bangladesh’s first serving Communist cabinet minister, making it a matter of time before the we start hearing about the Awami League-Communist government.

Missing are Jalil, Tofael, Razzaq, Amu, Suranjit Sengupta, Dr. Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir, Sheikh Selim, and the entire starting bench of AL leaders. When making this decision, Sheikh Hasina has also had to give up experience and government-savvy. As a result, the current cabinet’s newbies are still learning how to move files through their ministry’s bureaucracy, how to get project allocations for their desired projects, and how to keep DOs from dying in the bowels of their respective ministries.

As a counterweight, Hasina has hired six unelected advisers, with the rank of cabinet ministers, to shortcircuit the cabinet, report directly to her in the PMO, and keep the machinery running. As a result, this government is the most centralized administration ever to run our country. Most of the cabinet members do not have Hasina’s trust – when she had to go to Senakunjo to face down the distraught army officers, she only took Motia Chowdhury with her. The PM is having to do all the heavy-lifting by herself in quite a number of issues. While things go right, most of the cabinet will not mind going along this arrangement. But when things go wrong, as they did in February 25, PM will have to take on the blame solo. And she may find there are those within the party more than happy to point their fingers at her.

Jalil’s recent outburst, calling the current arrangement unconstitutional, is but the tip of the iceberg. The real strife between those six to eight individuals who would have been at the top of a 2007 AL cabinet, and the six to eight individuals who are at the top of the current cabinet, is just starting. Those who have been left out include those who were taken to the jail and tortured by the Caretaker Government after being identified as being personally loyal to Sheikh Hasina, and those who were used to try and oust Hasina from her party position. It will be interesting to see if they are able to make common cause, and how long it takes them to do so.

It is indeed ironic that the leader of a 230-plus member parliamentary party finds herself lonely in government. Hasina would do well to remember that strengh, at least in a democracy, lies in numbers. The alternative may not be to her liking.

On reading the special editorialwritten by Matiur Rahman, Prothom Alo editor, the day his masterMoeen U. Ahmed retired as Army Chief, a number of questions came up. Actually, what came up first was disgust at the incredible level of smugness that was on display as Matiur Rahman pretended that the change of government that took place on January 11, 2007 did not happen with his direct knowledge and collusion. But eventually, on a second and third reading, some questions did come up.

The intial point that struck me was the sheer disregard of journalistic ethos that Mr. Rahman puts on display here. If any of us bloggers had written this piece, our inboxes would be flooded by now with demands that we either back up what we wrote as facts or admit that they are baseless innuendo. I do not see why the standard should be any different for the editor of Bangladesh’s most widely-circulated Bangla newspaper. In his article, Matiur Rahman states:

• After last year’s election, a powerful portion of the Army wanted Moeen’s tenure as Army Chief extended by another year.
• Presumably the same part of the Army wanted Moeen to become either Defense Minister or the “Joint Chief of Staff.”
• After the Pilkhana massacre, Army officers openly criticized Moeen, inside and outside the Army, for not being able to save the lives of his men.
• The Government would still like to reward Moeen.
• Diplomatic sources say that Moeen may be made the Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York.

Let us take these points one by one. After Moeen toppled the caretaker government in 2007 and promoted himself to General, he spent a great deal of time and energy putting his men in as many key army positions as he could, and sending army officers who refused to countenance his authority into forced retirement. Thus, it is probably not a surprise that Moeen still has a constituency left in the Army, even though, ideally, the entire Army should be his constituency.

That there were ever any suggestions of Moeen being made Defense Minister or Joint Chief of Staff is quiet sensational news. If Motiur Rahman knew about this previously but did not inform us, his readers, he has done us a great disservice. As far as I know, Bangladesh has never had a Defense Minister, with the Prime Minister not being able to trust anyone else (unwisely, in my opinion) with this portfolio. For a very brief period of time, Khandoqar Mushtaq’s government did set up a Combined Chief of Staff, but that was more to keep Maj. Gen. Ziaur Rahman, as Army Chief, from having any real power, than anything else. Moeen has already permanently distorted our defense establishment by promoting himself to General rank, giving nations around the world one more reason to titter at us behind our back. Appointing the same man to one of the posts described above would have been a momentous step; one we deserved to hear about ahead of time.

The Pilkhana massacre laid bare the full extent of the damage that Moeen had done to the very institution he was supposed to protect and safeguard: the Bangladesh Army. Barely two years after he had stormed into Bongobhaban, the Presidential Palace, and forced President Iajuddin Ahmed to retire as Chief Advisor, a democratic government barely two months old could scarcely trust him to again lead an operation in the heart of Dhaka. And so it was they fifty-plus of our officers were tortured and killed, while the government sat and dithered before, first allowing enough armour units to enter Dhaka, and then letting them approach Pilkhana. Moeen has undone the work of thousands of honest and dedicated officers who obeyed the constitutional dictate that our armed forces stay subservient to the civilian government, through his coup in 2007 and the torture he inflicted on a broad swathe of politicians from all across the political spectrum the next two years. Going forward, it will take years to mend the damage he has wrought.

Therefore, we do not see how Matiur Rahman can now claim that Army officers have criticized and blamed Moeen for the loss of lives in Pilkhana. Why was Matiur Rahman silent when the government instituted an Army-probe into this massacre under the same person who was blamed for letting it happen? How could such a probe have any credibility with members of our armed forces, let alone the general public?

Even after making these incredible allegations, Matiur Rahman then turns around and claims that even after the Pilkhana massacre, the government would like to still reward Moeen. The question begs to be asked, what is the government rewarding Moeen for? Providing the incompetent leadership that allowed so many of his men to be killed? Indirectly causing the mutiny – by green-lighting the BDR into Operation DalBhaat? Or, as Matiur Rahman hints near the end, because of the election held in 29 December, 2008? Do we really want to become a nation that remains in thrall to its Army Chief for allowing elections to go through?

And do we really want our United Nations representative to be a wannabe military strongman? Asif Ali Zardari and Pervez Musharraf made a far more explicit pact after the Pakistani election. But even Musharraf did not have the gumption of trying to claim diplomatic immunity and representing our country in the world stage.

Of course, if Moeen ever leaves Bangladesh, we can rest assured he will never return again. His underling Brig. Fazlul Bari had the right idea when he decided he liked America too much. One can confidently expect Moeen to follow suit; he has already made his liking for the balmy climate of Florida well-known. Perhaps, once they are united there, advance accommodations could be arranged for Gen. Masud as well.

Fighting the rearguard battle to justify his own support for the overthrow of the CTG in 2007, Matiur Rahman claims that the new regime had “massive support” from the people. Yet, in the very next sentence, he is forced to acknowledge that Awami League only supported this move initially, until the true nature of the regime that followed became clear and Sheikh Hasina was herself thrown into jail after she spoke out against military intervention, through DGFI, in politics. BNP, of course, never supported the regime. Then how does Matiur Rahman find broad support for a regime which is not supported by BNP and AL, which together represent about 260 of the 300 seats in both the current as well as the former parliament?

The job of a newspaper editor is different from that of a gossip columnist. It is really different from that of a sycophant. Unfortunately, Mr. Matiur Rahman seems unclear about both these distinctions. The activities of our last regime left behind enough tar to cover most of its proponents and supporters. With this piece, Matiur Rahman just slapped some more tar firmly on his face.

I hear… of your recent saying that both the Army and the Government needed a Dictator. Only those generals who gain success can set up military dictatorships. What I now ask of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship.”

- Abraham Lincoln, message to General Joseph Hooker, Army of the Potomac

May 30 is the 28th anniversary of President Ziaur Rahman’s death. It came approximately 10 years and 2 months after he gave a radio announcement, from Chittagong, declaring the Independence of Bangladesh on behalf of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, then in the custody of the Pakistani Army.

During our Independence War, he was Sector Commander over much of today’s Chittagong Division, and commander of Bangladesh Army’s ‘Z” brigade. At the end of the war, with Pakistani forces crumbling before the assault of joint Indo-Bangladeshi forces and surrendering on 16 December 1971, he was awarded the Bir Uttom.

At the onset of independence, Zia became one of the senior-most officers of the Bangladesh Army. His performance during the nine-month war and his radio announcement at the onset of the war marked him as different from his fellow officers. He was made Brigade Commander of Comilla, close to where his force had done most of the fighting during the war.

The Government brought him to Dhaka in June 1972 and made him Deputy Chief of Staff, under Major General Shafiullah, who commanded the “S” Brigade during the Independence War. It is as Deputy CoS that he moved into the 6 Shahid Moinul Road residence, where he would live the rest of his life. It is from this post that he observed the imposition of one-party dictatorship in Bangladesh when Sheikh Mujib, by a constitutional amendment, made Bangladesh a one-party state, banned all other political parties, all but four newspapers, and named himself President.

After the brutal assassination of Sheikh Mujib and most of the members of his family by a group of army officers, Zia was elevated to Chief of Staff but placed under Major General Khalilur Rahman, who was made Chief of Defense Staff. The regime, after killing Mujib’s four most-trusted political lieutenants, heroes in their own right, planned to send Zia abroad, as it sent Shafiullah. However, before that could transpire, the murderers were toppled by a counter-coup led by Brig. Khaled Musharraf, Chief of General Staff, one the most valiant leaders in our Independence War. Zia was placed under house-arrest. He was then freed by a counter-counter-coup by Col. (rt) Abu Taher, fellow Sector Commander, and leader of the banned Jatiyo Samajtrantik Dal (National Socialist Party). The counter-coup also tragically resulted in Brig. Mosharraf’s death.

Shafiullah, Zia, Mosharrah, and Taher were all awarded the Bir Uttom, the highest gallantry decoration awarded to living participants. Under normal circumstances, they should, by all right, have been able to look forward to long careers in our defense forces, promotions to command rank, and eventual retirement with the whole-hearted blessings of a grateful nation. Instead, Shafiullah was abroad, Mosharraf was dead, and Taher advoced a left-leaning revolutionary state. With the adoption of one-party statehood by the Parliament, the Awami League, until then Bangladesh’s pre-eminent political party, had also been disbanded. Zia found himself with no credible political establishment to hand over power to, a faction-ridden armed forces that was more dangerous to Bangladeshis than to foreign enemies, and an economy on the brink of collapse.

His subsequent actions, becoming Chief Martial Law Administrator, founding BNP (Bangladesh Nationalist Party), introducing multi-party democracy, allowing the publication of newspapers, holding parliamentary elections (in which Awami League became the largest opposition party in parliament), trying to revitalize the country’s industrial sector, and adopting a muscular foreign policy, were the attempts of an imperfect man to try and make the best of an imperfect situation. He survived eighteen coup attempts, before being killed by the nineteenth one, in his beloved Chittagong, the scene of his life’s greatest hour, where he had come to resolve inter-party factions in his young BNP. Bangladehis from all walks of life poured into his funeral prayer service, making it the single largest such gathering in Bangladesh’s history.

I can not know, but I imagine he must have been a little tired by the end of his life. If the last thought that flashed through his mind was his young widow and the two little boys he left behind; maybe, after death, he found the peace he had been denied in life. The generation which should have together led Bangladesh, together turn old and hale and watched their children grow up in a free country as free men and women, and in the twilight of their lives accepted our accolades as Bangladesh’s greatest generation, had together torn each other apart. His would be the last life to be lost in that decade-long bloodbath, but by the sacrifice of his own life, he would bring the killing to an end; all subsequent transfers of power in our country would be bloodless, if not voluntary.

Testimony is paid to Zia, throughout the year, by Awami League leaders who slander and villify him every chance they get. They try to tear down the man who allowed them to re-form, and graciously accepted their leader’s return from exile in India. His statues are broken down, and bridges leading to his memorial in Dhaka, beside the National Parliament, are mysteriously removed under the cover of night. All debates about the fate of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, his great predecessor, inevitably contain someone viciously belittling him.

Yet, the idea of Zia remains. Our only head of state to have actively fought the Pakistanis in a field of battle, today he sleeps the well-deserved sleep of those who have fought the good fight. It remains to us to do our best in the imperfect world he left for us.

Barack Obama stood out in a crowded field of contenders by opposing the War in Iraq, and speaking out boldly and forcefully for rule of law. In a country that prides itself on being “a nation of laws, not men,” this was an effective way for a freshmen senator with little political organization to stand out in a contest that was supposed to be a cakewalk for Hillary Clinton. And while his victory in November seemed almost preordained, this rhetoric kept him afloat at a time when his candidacy seemed very much a long-shot, an exploratory run for 2012, or 2016.

Signaling his intent to change the way things were under George W. Bush, Obama gave the Justice Department the lead in the handling of those imprisoned by the United States in Guantanamo during the last eight years. The Department of Justice (DOJ) is America’s equivalent of the Home Ministry and Law Ministry put together; and under a good leader, it is enormously powerful. Particularly heartening was Attorney General Eric Holder’s straightforward acknowledgement that waterboarding, along with other techniques used by the Bush administration, were indeed torture.

The nation’s attention was wrenched back to torture when the Justice Department released a set of memos written by the Office of Legal Counsel in 2002 that made it legal for American officials to torture those held in American custody. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) an office in the DOJ that interprets the law for the rest of the executive branch; effectively, if the OLC says that something is legal, then it is legal. The memo was authored by Jay Bybee, then Assistant Attorney General at the OLC, and John Yoo, his deputy. The memos effectively make a host of torture legal; including attention grasp, walling, waterboarding, and being put in a coffin-like space with insects.

Ann Coulter reacted: “This is what Muslims do to each other on first dates.”

CIA and the FBI’s professional interrogators have long made clear their disdain of torture, maintaining that a person will make any confession under torture that will make the pain stop. One of the individuals tortured, Abu Zubaydah, was later revealed to be insane. Even though the Bush administration maintained that torture was only used to prevent an imminent terrorist attack on the United States, allegations have arisen that torture was used to get any information linking Saddam Hossein’s regime to Al Qaeda that could have been used to justify President Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003.

While releasing the memos, Obama made clear that he was neither going to prosecute Bybee and Yoo, the lawyers who authored the memo, nor the CIA personnel who actually carried out the torture. However, it was soon recognized that Obama had spoken prematurely, since in any matter involving potential criminal prosecution, the DOJ is able, independent of the more politicized White House, to press ahead on its own.

The question has now become, should torture be prosecuted and punished?

Torture is illegal in the United States. The Convention Against Torture was signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1988 and ratified by the US Senate in 1994. Under Article VI of the United States Constitution, it is the supreme law of the land, in par with laws passed by the Congress. Under this treaty, the United States is obligated to investigate any occurrences of torture. If it does not do so, another country has the authority to carry out these investigations. Spain has already indicted six individuals, including Bybee, Yoo, and Bush’s Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, in its own investigation of torture. The prosecution of lawyers for their legal advice has impeccable precedents in law: lawyers and judges for Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Reich were tried and sentenced by the Allied Powers after World War Two.

Bybee was appointed to the Federal Appeals Court, essentially our High Court, by Bush; where he serves for life unless Congress impeaches him. Yoo is now a professor at the elite Boalt Hall School of Law at UC Berkeley. Prosecuting either will not be painless, just like the self-examination that the Democrats must go through now will not be painless. Just like any good Washington scandal, this trouble is bipartisan: key democratic leaders, including then House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, were briefed by the CIA regarding the torture. She knew about the torture, and chose to keep silent.

This scandal has come at a time when Pelosi, now Speaker of the House, is at the height of her power. Commanding solid Democratic majorities in both chambers of the Congress, shepherding to passage a new President’s legislative agenda, and boosting impeccable liberal credentials, America’s first female Speaker was well-set to begin a reign of power unmatched since Sam Rayburn held the gavel, and his protégé, Lyndon Johnson, sat a heartbeat away from the Oval Office. An already-iconic figure amongst the liberals, she is despised by America’s conservatives. Her daughter Alexandra Pelosi, making a documentary for HBO, followed John McCain around the country during his presidential campaign. Describing Republican political rallies, she noted during an interview:

[T]he warm-up speakers that were criticizing the Democrats in Washington, would give these incredibly offensive speeches that all ended with the punch line of something really derogatory with the name Pelosi next to it. It really got the crowds worked up. And I had to call my father during the campaign and say to him, “Dad, did you know how hated you are in America? Did you know that your last name has become a symbol of just like every four-letter word?”

However, this scandal has already cast doubts on Pelosi’s political future. Her district, California-8, covers the liberal bastion of San Francisco; a seat held by Democrats since 1949, which has returned Pelosi eleven times with over 75% of the vote. Her constituents will not take easily to their own Member acting as an enabler for the Bush administration’s torture.

It would be unfair to characterize the outrage as coming only from the left. Fox News Host Shepard Smith, during a debate with his colleagues, responded to the argument made by many of his colleagues about the utility of torture in preventing future threats to America, when he banged his fist on his desk, and bawled out: “We are America! I don’t give a rat’s ass if it helps! We do not f****** torture! And the moment that is not the case, I want off the train.”

The current debate regarding torture prosecution have raised questions about ignoring violations of the law when it serves a purported greater good, and the extent to which former government officials should be prosecuted for breaking the law. Societies around the world have to grapple with these questions; and the answers they choose have grave consequences about their future trajectory.

After the ill-fated 1/11 coup, many cheerleaders of that misadventure engaged in a rather sexist and simplistic rhetoric to the effect that all our problems are due to two quarrelsome ladies. Like much else about the post-1/11 rhetoric, this allegation had a kernel of truth that was embellished to ridiculous proportion. The truth is that our political divisions have many complex causes, and replacing the two party chiefs with other individuals wouldn’t have solved them. And in any case, fortunately the coup has failed, so minus-2 1/11-styles is now a thing of the past.

However, it is also an unfortunate truth that the two party chiefs — Mrs Hasina Wajed and Mrs Khaleda Zia — did have a less than civil or cordial personal relationships, and that lack of civility has affected our politics over the past two decades.

This bitter relationship probably started with the AL chief’s infamous TV speech in February 1991, where she launched a vicious ad hominem attack on the husband of the BNP chief. It definitely increased when the BNP chief chose to celebrate her birthday on 15 August, a day of irreparable personal loss for her rival. It saw a new dimension when assassination attempts on the AL chief was ridiculed as ’stage managed’ by senior BNP leaders in the presence of their leader. This bitterness was visible on 21 Nov 2006, when the two leaders sat within yards of each other, and refused to make eye contacts. One cannot but help feel that had they been on speaking terms then, 1/11 might have been avoided.

One also hoped the election of Dec 2008 would have ended that bitterness. Sadly, that hasn’t been the case. No, this is not about the rhetorics of Paltan meetings — that kind of language ‘you presided over unprecedented corruption’ vs ‘you are a failure’ is part and parcel of politics. This is about the government’s attempt to force Mrs Zia out of her house, an attempt that started with a partisan intellectual suggesting it in a very uncivil language in the presence of the AL chief.

The AL chief suffered a personal tragedy on 9 May. Within hours, the BNP chief was by her side, embracing and consoling her. Perhaps the BNP chief remembered that Dr Wazed stood by her in a time of personal need years before either of the ladies joined politics. Perhaps it was a realisation on the BNP chief’s part that this personal bitterness doesn’t help anyone other than the enemies of democracy — after all, it was their joint action that foiled 1/11.

Whatever it is, let’s hope that this is a new beginning. Let’s hope that the AL chief reciprocates by stopping the eviction procedures against her rival. And independent of that, let’s hope that the BNP chief marks her birthday this August not with an outlandish cake, but with a milad mehfil where all our national tragedies, from the martyrs of various movements to the Sheikh family’s brutal assassination to the Pilkhana massacre, are mourned.

There is no shortage of things that the two leaders can throw at each other. High prices, corruption, misuse of power, militancy — failures of the last BNP government is huge. Law and order, electricity, Pilkhana — AL’s failures are already rising. The leaders can use these issues, they don’t need to be nasty to each other.

PM declares war on terror . This is how The daily Star highlights the opening remarks of the newly elected Prime minister of Bangladesh. This is definitely a move to please/ payback the benefactors of PM’s government that include neighborhood powerhouse India and global powerhouse USA. However in USA, per an AFP report, the newly elected President Obama ‘declared end’ to war on terror.

Thu, Jan 29th, 2009 12:12 am BdST
bdnews24.com correspondent

Dhaka, Jan 28 (bdnews24.com) – The Election Commission has requested banks and other institutions not to make national identity cards mandatory for their services, as an estimated 15 million eligible citizens are yet to get their cards, an EC official said on Wednesday.

“The EC has already written to the Cabinet Division, Bangladesh Bank, secretary to the President’s office, all ministries, divisions and relevant organisations not to make the national ID card compulsory for opening bank accounts, getting credit and other services,” EC secretary Humayun Kabir told bdnews24.com.

“The Commission took the decision because ID cards have not reached all and a gazette notification by the government is also still awaited.

“Some 20-30 percent of eligible citizens, or 15 million people, have yet to receive their cards for reasons ranging from failing to register as voters or non-collection of cards issued.”

At least 20 percent of more than 80 million registered voters have not collected their cards, he said.

“Mistakes in the cards already issued are another problem,” he said.

“Moreover, the government hasn’t yet issued a gazette notification making the cards ‘mandatory’,” said Kabir.

The National Identity Authorities Ordinance 2008 requires the government to issue the gazette to make the ID cards compulsory.

Director of the National Identity Card Project, Brig Gen Shahadat Hossain Chowdhury, told bdnews24.com, “The project will start updating the voter list with photos and distributing the national ID cards afresh, if the government asks.”

“Pilot programmes will be undertaken before updating the voter list and national ID card project. The first such pilots will be done in places around Dhaka,” said Kabir.

According to the Voter List Ordinance, updating should be done annually during the month of January.

“But because of the national and Upazila polls, the Election Commission could not do the job within the timeframe this year,” said the EC secretary.

The fresh updating will start after the City Corporation elections in Dhaka and Chittagong and subsequent municipal elections, starting in April, he said.

**********************************************
That what about the claim that this Godsent voter list prevented 15 million fake voters?

Come friday, come the ugly TV footage of fist fight, kicking, shoe fight between two groups of people during the friday sermon at the national mosque. This has now become a regular feature of Friday. Even TV news this friday was dominated by one group of people mercileslsy beating another group of people with heavy wooden box meant to keep shoes, shoes or simply with impure kicking, slapping, beardpulling or boxing.

If you watch the videos and listen to the news carefully, the group of Mullahs at the receiving end of all these deshi martial arts are the skinny bearded protesters against the new Khatib. The new Khatib shehib must have some very physically strong supporters and definitely a jehadi force to protect him. ( Of note, during todays sermon, he relied more on his personal force of bodyguards than police).

Looking at the video carefully and reading at different news, it is learnt that a portion of those chasing those skinny protesting mullahs are undercover policemen. This part is clearly understood. But who are the rest of people, described as ‘Khatib supporting Musallis’ in newspapers who will resort to merciless beating, shoebox banging on human heads and violent contact sports with these protesting mullahs? When those protesting mullahs were resorting to a non-violence and rather civilized protest ( recite Innalillah… at the commencement of Khutba and leave the mosque), Khatib’s supporters, locking the gate from all sides, came on them with brutest force.

Exactly who is this Khatib? And what is going on in national Mosque?

[ Today is 73rd Birth Anniversary of Late President Ziaur Rahman. When he took over the helm of Bangladesh, he was only 39 years old. This post commemorates President Zia.]

What is Ziaur Rahman’s biggest contribution to Bangladesh?

Ziaur Rahman gave our nation a clear identity. After independence, our national identity was declared as ‘Bangali’ and expectedly this created a lot of confusion. This identity ignored the non-Bangali citizens including the indigenous people of different part of Bangladesh as well as the urdu speaking citizens. Ziaur Rahman first coined the word ‘Bangladeshi’ as our national identity and successive government since then has maintained this identity. He also presented his vision of Bangladeshi nationalism and sutured together the geographic, historic, religious, cultural and political components of our nationhood. He based his politics on nationalism at a time when nationalism has not yet become a pan-global craze. In this context he can be called the father of Bangladeshi nationalism or father of our current national identity.

What was Zia’s role in our war of independence?

Ziaur Rahman is one of the most prominent, if not the most prominent general of our war of Independence. He was the leader of Z-Force and was the commander of a sector where many of the most fierce battles of 1971 took place. But we will be doing injustice to history if we try to portray him merely as another sector commander. His contribution was much much greater. His declaration of independence on behalf of the civilian leadership i.e. Bangabandhu, is the formal declaration of our war of independence. And this declaration sealed the fate of our nation. His mutiny was echoed in military garrisons all over occupied Bangladesh and Bengali military officers started revolting against the military chain of command and took up arms against Pakistani forces. This massive defection in regular military forces withing 24-48 hours of initiation of an invasion and launching of a full scale guerrilla war within weeks is unprecedented in human history. Similarly this phenomenon ( of this mass mutiny in military ranks) was beyond imagination of the planners of the West Pakistani military campaign and the west Pakistan forces never could recover from this miscalculation. Hence Bangladesh won her independence in record short nine months time.

Wasn’t Zia a military dictator and the killer of democracy and was indirectly involved in Mujib killing?

Absolutely bogus. Zia never imposed a martial law in Bangladesh and neither he conducted a coup. At a time when the total chain of command in Bangladesh armed forces was in shambles and there were coups and counter coups in a regular interval, Zia was deemed to be only general acceptable to all parties concerned to bring back chain of command in Bangladesh armed forces and lead Bangladesh. After 7th November coup by Maoist forces in Bangladesh Army, Zia was released from house arrest and asked to take over the responsibility of bringing the country back from collapse. And when Zia took over, Bangladesh was already under martial law imposed by Khandakar Mostaque and in a one party rule as a result of 4th amendment of the constitution. In sharp contrast to all the allegations regularly labeled against him by the so called progressives, Zia in fact brought multiparty democracy back to Bangladesh and withdrew martial law and get rid of his military uniform ASAP ( less than two years). When Bangabandhu died, Zia was totally powerless Deputy Army Chief. The rank, now obsolete, was totally a clout less ceremonial position. He did not have the resources to help conduct a coup. Those people who could have made a difference in this coup were the then army chief Gen Shafiullah and then Rakhkhi bahini chief Mr. Tofael Ahmed. But they did not do anything. To be frank, by their inaction, they facilitated Mujib killing. ironically, both of these two are senior Awami League leaders now.

Hasn’t Zia kill secularism and brought Bismillah to constitution?

Zia initiated changes the second paragraph of the preamble of our constitution. He inserted, “Pledging that the high ideals of absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah, nationalism, democracy and socialism meaning economic and social justice, which inspired our heroic people to dedicate themselves to, and our brave martyrs to sacrifice their lives in the war for national independence, shall be fundamental principles of the Constitution;” He based this on US national motto, In God We Trust. Although, to many (including me), it was backward step away from progressive secularism, this one single step helped Zia seal the largest ever political coalition in Bangladesh. In retrospect, I see this as pragmatism to its best. One example will prove it. Since Zia’s death, no one ever has attempted removing changes brought in By Zia. Awami League is the bastion of left-center left politics in Bangladesh. Even Awami League has never made it a priority. Awami League now has absolute majority in parliament and they easily can scratch out Zia’s inclusion of Bismillah and In Allah We trust. But I seriously doubt they will go that path. And this will seal Zia’s role as pragmatic political visionary in Bangladesh reality. If Awami League do not scratch Bismillah from constitution, will there be any ideological difference between AL and BNP and more importantly, will AL ever be able look down upon Zia as killer of secularism?

Did Zia rehabilitate Anti-Liberation Forces:

Zia opened up politics and resumed multi-party democracy. Under this program, all political parties including Awami League, NAP, Communist Party, Muslim League, Nezam e Islami party etc got reestablished and registered. Jamaat also utilized that pathway, and democratically there was little government could do to prevent it. It holds true for now. Will Awami League disband Jamaat? And politically, after 72-75 rule, there was little appetite as well as pressure for action against collaborators. The national consensus at that time was for a forward looking national reunification.
In military, those officers who could join the war got 2 years seniority plus at least two promotions. Additionally they were getting all posting in infantry or other vital sectors. Officers, most were really efficient and patriotic, who were stranded in Pakistan and could not flee, found themselves way down in their career. It created an environment not conducive to a professional army. Zia, although a freedom fighter himself, tried to unify the forces into a professional force. He did that ultimately, although at the cost of his own life.
Yes Zia worked with some razakars in his cabinet. Shah Azizur Rahman was prime example. But he brought all of them with special purpose. Shah Aziz was picked to handle the parliament. Maolana Mannan was included to keep a close watch-control over Madrassas. This was sign of an extreme foresight. In post HUJI- JMB period, we now know how vital/wise move it was on Zia’s part to keep a close eye on Madrassas. And if working with Razakars is a crime, then how Mr. A K Khondokar become the leader pro liberation values? For years, Mr Khondokar sat beside Maolana Mannan and Salahuddin Kader Chowdhury as minister of Ershad.

As a leader and ruler of Bangladesh, how did Zia do?

If one respects objectivity, nobody should have any problem with the statement that, since Independence the five years of Zia’s rule is the best period in Bangladesh history. In terms of works done, A far distant second place may go to the 1996-2001 Awami League government. Lets bullet some highlights of Zia rule,

Zia involved rural Bangladesh into his developmental politics. While Bangladesh political culture meant arranging public meetings spending crores of taka, Zia successfully changed that culture. He involved people from all walks of life in voluntary canal digging and political rallies turned into festive canal digging programs. No politician understood the importance rural Bangladesh better than Zia. He spent most of his tenure as ruler of Bangladesh walking from village to village.

……..To Be Continued.

[ Late President Ziaur Rahman is the most important thing that happened to our politics since independence. Yet Zia is the most misunderstood man in this country. There has been a serious lack of understanding of Zia's policies. As a result of a pathetic failure to explain Zia by two BNP governments, abject failure of Khaleda Zia and Zia's sons to live up to Zia's ideals and a constant barrage of negative campaign against Ziaur Rahman by a very powerful progressive force, Young Bangladeshis of today do not know anything good about Zia. This is my humble effort to start telling the story of Ziaur Rahman. I start this on 73rd birthday of Zia when Zia's legacy is in its worst shape in history. I promise to continue telling this story, infrequently, irregularly, but honestly and passionately. ]