The New Nation - Internet Edition

Congressional briefing on Bangladesh

Dr. Richard L. Benkin

If the Bangladeshi representatives to the recent Congressional briefing on Bangladesh were listening closely, they would have noted that the session contained two distinct but related messages for them and the leadership in Dhaka.

The first is that of growing momentum in Washington to link tens of millions of dollars in US aid with progress on issues of human rights; that's concrete actions and not merely words. The Bangladeshi leadership has often provided the United States with effusive assurances that it was ending the admittedly false persecution of journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, putting a halt to the oppression of minorities, and taking action on other human rights issues; only to fail miserably in going beyond their words. Mere words no longer mollify an increasingly frustrated United States.

The second message in the briefing was that there is real opportunity for Bangladeshi leaders to make what had heretofore been elusive progress on trade, aid, and other issues with the United States-but only if they recognized that their opportunities exist only if they take action and forego their reliance on the duplicity of the past.

Tina Ramirez, Foreign Policy Advisor to Republican Congressman Trent Franks from Arizona, organized the briefing, which was held in the Rayburn House Office Building directly across from where House Foreign Relations Committee meets on Capitol Hill.

She and I discussed the pitfalls of these sessions in the weeks leading up to it. We both were determined to prevent this one from becoming little more than a bash-Bangladesh session; although we wanted it to be clear about American concerns regarding the Shoaib Choudhury case, persecution of religious minorities, and the question of elections. The question of linkage between aid and human rights arose early and often. Richard Sacks, of the Bangladesh Desk of the US State Department, offered a litany of the many US aid programs that funnel millions into Bangladesh then explained that US policy was based on "the three D's: Democracy, Development, and the Denial of space to terrorists." He also stated the US position that democratic elections should take place before the end of 2008, noting that America and Bangladesh have had continuous discussions about the matter; adding, "The Bangladeshi government has provided the US with assurances that the elections will be held by the end of December."

"Wow!" I responded. "All those programs. That's really impressive. And as an American taxpayer, I feel like I'm participating in them. But tell me, Mr. Sacks," who mentioned that we had spoken previously, "in exchange for all of that, what have we demanded, especially in the area of human rights, in exchange for all of my hard-earned tax dollars? And, Mr. Sacks, what have we gotten in return for all of that-not in assurances, but in concrete action, especially in the area of human rights?"

Then State Department's man replied by re-stating the US position, its "three D's" and "assurances."

"Ah," I then said. "Do we ever make aid contingent on specific actions?"

Sacks looked down and responded, "No," at which point the program moved on; but the point had been made. And in my subsequent discussions with specific Congressional offices that day, it was clear that the idea is gaining traction among lawmakers. Too often, however, Bangladeshi officials have reacted hostilely to that, suggesting that the US is "meddling in Bangladesh's internal affairs." Those who do, however, miss the point-which begins with this. The US imports nearly 70 percent of Bangladeshi ready-made garments. Like anyone else, Americans have a choice with whom they can trade. There is no obligation to give business to any particular individual or nation. It is also significant that those trade dollars have been dropping of late; and not incidentally because of the government's continued refusal to take action on human rights or to drop it's admittedly false prosecution of journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury. Economies are getting tighter, and it will become ever more difficult to justify imports from Bangladesh while other nations (such as India and China) can offer lower prices because of their size; and while good from other nations (such as Guatemala and Honduras) do nor carry the tariffs that Bangladeshi goods still do because of the Choudhury case. Similarly, those aid programs that Richard Sacks detailed all come from the hard-earned dollars of US taxpayers like me. We have an absolute right to question how that money is spent; and we will not like to see it go to a nation that refuses to act against Islamist radicals whose ideology envisions a defeated and dependent United States.

There is precedent for that, too. In 1959, when Fidel Castro declared Cuba communist, the US stopped all trade. Castro responded by going to the Soviet Union for aid and support; and the people of Cuba have suffered for it. The nation lags behind the rest of the Western Hemisphere in a variety of measures. The nation has survived; its choice, but also its consequences.

Similarly, the US cut off the junta in Myanmar. Those leaders then aligned itself with China and has done without US aid or trade.

Do Bangladeshi leaders aspire for their people to live under the same conditions as the Burmese? Neither of those two nations complained. Their people simply bore the brunt of their leaders' reactions. On the other hand, we have the spectacle of the Palestinian Arab's Hamas government. There, too, the Palestinians chose to elect a government with a history of terrorist acts against innocent civilians, that refuses to renounce those acts or pledge to abandon them in the future, and has as its stated purpose the eradication of Israel. Yet, instead of accepting the consequences of its positions, Hamas cries and complains because Israel will not lay its neck on the chopping block for it; that the US will not give it aid. How could I countenance supporting that anti-Semitic and terrorist organization with my tax dollars? But whether the consequences are accepted as the price for one's position (ala Cuba) or are the subject of a perpetual international whine (ala Hamas); there is precedent for the actions applying to Bangladesh.

In fact, between Richard Sacks and me, there were four other speakers. Selig Harrison, a journalist with long term involvement with Bangladesh spoke of the "basis for democracy built in Bangladesh," but wondered if its current leaders were following the "Musarraf model," which suppressed democracy for years. Maneeza Hossain, Senior Fellow at the well-respected think tank, the Hudson Institute also addressed the elections issue. "Democracy is not a gift that the military can at some time bestow on the Bangladeshis, but a right." She also pointed out the fact that while the restriction on political assemblies remains, radical Islamist groups alone can defy it with impunity.

"All the Islamists have to do is take off their political hats and put on their religious hats" to hold what amount to political rallies. Others brought reports of minority oppression. At one point, Bridget Kustin of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) and Bangladesh expert asked why we do not make aid contingent progress on human rights. Because, I said, "sometimes we Americans confuse assurances of progress with actual progress." If we believe that our enemies are wrong and that we stand for some sort of moral leadership in this world, then we cannot treat lightly those moral principles that we say are important to us;

"and accepting words when actions are needed is abandoning those moral principle."

It was frustrating, I said, "seeing the same people shaking the same ineffective fists at the same governments, whether they are BNP, Awami, or the current military-backed leaders…Has the ethnic cleansing of Bangladeshi Hindus stopped? Is the racist Vested Property Act still in force?

Has the oppression of minorities slowed? And is not Bangladesh still one of the most dangerous countries on earth for journalist?" That is the only measure of effectiveness we can use; and by that measure, we fall short. But I added that there is some hope. At the most recent court appearance for Shoaib Choudhury, the assistant public prosecutor frustrated the judge's attempt to start the trial even though to have done so would have violated Bangladeshi law.

Contrasting previous collusion between the judge and prosecution, suggests some movement away from an admittedly false prosecution designed-again admittedly-only to appease Islamist radical. It is important, I noted, to recognize that there are some "very good people in the Bangladeshi government" as well as "a lot of mendacious and frustrating ones." If we recognize "the opportunities" that the former group offers and similarly do not accept the false assurances of the second group, then real progress is possible, as is increased prosperity for the people of Bangladesh.

(Source: Human Rights Forum, 24/A, Joar Shahara (Olipara) Dhaka-1229)

MBI Munshi's 'India Doctrine’

S A Hannan

In India Doctrine, the writer Mr. Munshi has tried to lay emphasis on the point that India from the very beginning has been pursuing a policy of establishing hegemony in the region.Mr. Munshi through evidences, arguments and her practices has tried to prove that the intentions of India are nothing short of this. To materialize India's objective the EU and the USA have also joined hands with her. The USA has concluded a treaty for cooperation in the nuclear field with India although it (USA) propagates non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.This nuclear agreement she did to contain the Chinese influence in the South Asian region. This is a direct threat to peace in the region. Besides the propaganda onslaught against Bangladesh and other countries here through some persons and media is on. The visit of Shaikh Hasina to India in 2003 and again in 2005, were of considerable significance.

The 2007 election was also important for them since it was the desire of India that Awami League should come into power. The insurgency in Chittagong Hill Tracts was creation of India. In brief India has been instrumental in destabilizing situation in Bangladesh as well as in other countries of the South Asian region like Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka etc.The book says India was partitioned in 1947 but India followed the undeclared policy of re-unification or Akhand Bharat since then. The skirmishes along the borders, the unabated killing of innocent civilians of Bangladesh, insurgencies in Nepal, Pakistan (Baluchistan) Sri Lanka are pointer towards this.India does not believe in two nation theory since they consider that there are other common cultural, ethnic grounds for forming a nation. India viewed emergence of Bangladesh as an independent state which negates the division on the basis of religion.Nehru's ideology centred round non-partition of India or the Akhand Bharat as detailed in his book, "The discovery of India" (1947). And this policy has been followed subsequently even after partition in 1947. Nehru/ruled from 1947 to 1964 and his successors were no different from him. The situation of Sikkim in 1973-75 was similar to that of Nepal's in 2006. In both cases the rulers were over thrown.

The former became a constituent part of India while the latter (Nepal) began to be ruled by the persons of choice of India.As regard Pakistan, Indira Gandhi at a public meeting on Nov, 30, 1970 observed, "India has never reconciled with the existence of Pakistan, Indian leaders always believed that Pakistan should not have been created and that Pakistan nation has no right exist".The book says that, keeping the above in view it could be said that India's role in 1971 war to help Bangladesh was according to her own policy consideration of Akhand Bharat. The later events like looting and taking away of military equipments after Pakistanis were defeated, unequal distribution of Farraka water, killing of Bangladeshis at the borders, inciting insurgencies within Bangladesh territories, indirect interference in shaping Bangladesh foreign policy, creating problem for garment industries etc. loudly speak of the Indian intentions.

The book says that, Henry Kissinger, the then National Security Advisor and Secretary of State thought that India's help for the then East Pakistanis in their struggle for liberation was purely motivated by self-interest guided by the dream of claiming of all territories ruled by the former British colonial power. J. N. Dixit, the vet-ran diplomat in his book, "Liberation and beyond", gives the impression that it was Pakistan which wanted to break India and created condition in the former East Pakistan to make a cause to attack India.

This is an absurd proposition for it was India which impeded the return of refugees when a political settlement was in the offing in the later part of 1971. Further, after 9/11, there were sufficient reasons to believe that India instigated insurgences through JMB out-fit as the confessional statement of its deceased leader proved. This was done to tarnish the image of Bangladesh as a terrorist state.After liberation of Bangladesh in 1971, India started propaganda offensive both within and out side India against Bangladesh. Noted left leaning writers are on their pay rolls in Bangladesh.

This is done to materialize their goal of Akhand Bharat. Hence it is felt necessary that against their propaganda offensive, RAW's clandestine activities, counter offensive both through media measures and active intelligence surveillance are must.The book says that the six points became a great plea for going into a tougher movement.

Had that been accepted, it was presumed that Pakistan would not have broken and nor independent Bangladesh emerged in 1971. After 1971, India became more active to make the newly emerged state its part. For this she appointed Chittarangan Sutar as Shaikh Saheb's representative in India. Sutar had direct access to Indian Prime Minister and other high officials there. His plans however failed following assassination of Shaikh Saheb in August 1975.India entered into a 7 point agreement with the then Bangladesh government in exile (located in Calcutta) which contained provisions like no standing army for Bangladesh, Joint forces for Bangladesh with the command lying with the Indian Army Chief, identical foreign policy etc.

The defeat of Pakistani army and its surrender to the Indian General, (Sans Bangladesh Army Chief) and the terms having never been shown to Bangladesh, apparently spoke that virtually Bangladesh belonged to India since India won the war with Pakistan and took its soldiers captive.

The Mujib Bahini, the Rakhi Bahini etc. were created to seek their assistance in consolidating the Indian Government's authority in Bangladesh and also to use them when the appropriate time had come as thought by India.

Their authority was further strengthened by the 25 years treaty of friendship which also fortified the 7 point agreement made by the government in exile.

As said before the plan of subordinating Bangladesh failed following assassination of Shaikh Saheb. India could have walked over but restrained itself for fear of international condemnation etc. It however continued its effort to destabilize it and others by harboring insurgencies through RAW and other agencies in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka Nepal and Pakistan.

The insurgencies in Chittagong Hill Tracts are worth mentioning.The book has been further enriched by the valuable contributions from the eminent writers of both home and abroad. Professor Khodeja Begum in her article laid emphasis on the India's concept of Akhand Bharat or united India quoting authentic references like the 7 point agreement made between Indian government and Bangladesh government in exile. She also quoted the Ananda Bazar Patrika's observation following 1991 election.

The Patrika said that the people in Bangladesh should raise their voice for merger with India. Brig Gen (Retd) Shakhawat laid emphasis on geopolitical condition of Bangladesh and suggested for careful move for making relationship with USA, China and more importantly India.Other Nepalese and Sri Lanka writers have also blamed India for inciting insurgencies and instability in the neighboring countries. Maoists in Nepal and LTTE in Sri Lanka are the beneficiaries of the Indian government

Twenty-twenty

Barkha Dutt

IN BETWEEN lapping up the sixers and drooling over Shah Rukh Khan stomping about in the stands, what do you feel when you see the bevy of barely clad, big-breasted blondes wiggling their bottoms at a billion people? As they swirl and twirl their little red skirts and flash their wide, gummy smiles - draping their white skin around some two-bit toy boy from Bombay - do they 'cheer' you up or make you mildly sick?

One of these evenings, as our imported cheer-givers rose in a collective whoop of manufactured joy, my 85-year-old uncle - otherwise staunchly liberal - frowned in faint disapproval. "What are these cheerleaders," he asked scornfully, "do they think we live in an Archie comic?"

I thought that was a pretty astute reading of why some of us (I, for one) may find the spectacle of choreographed sexuality crass and, frankly, trashy. Somehow it evokes images of fat men and giggly girls in the baseball fields of middle America.

It makes you wonder: when you have already got the uniquely Indian mix of cinema and cricket, why on earth would you need to infuse this heady cocktail with some strange, foreign ingredient? Before you call me xenophobic, hang on a minute. This isn't a moral plea for the so-called preservation of 'Indian culture'. We all know how much hypocrisy underlines that awful and overused phrase. But yes, there is something about cricket's new calendar girls that makes me wonder why a self-confident nation needs to play copycat to some air-headed ritual from the American heartland.

But even if I think that the cheerleaders are (there's no polite way to say this) essentially trashy, I find the attempt by sundry politicians to ban them - or dress them up in clothes that cover their knees - farcical and indefensible.

Not for the first time, the furious debate over IPL's cheerleaders is a conundrum for all liberal thinkers. We do not want to endorse the Indian politician's propensity to ban anything that invokes public debate. In principle, we won't allow the government to mediate our morality.

We know it's ludicrous that 'vulgarity' was first debated in a city whose major industry is defined by young women who pout, strip, thrust and twist for hungry, lingering cameras, as their over-ambitious mothers befriend lecherous film producers.

Bipasha Basu's 'Billo Rani' is more aggressively sexual than the faceless bimbettes from America; Kareena Kapoor's sultry, swinging walk in the recent promos of Tashan has her wearing as short a skirt as the women with the wiggling bottoms; and 'item number' has now become an acceptable, even necessary, pass grade for any woman who wants to be measured on the oomph scale in Bollywood. Who we are to moan and groan about so-called vulgarity?

Have we looked at ourselves recently? So, other than the fact that the cheerleaders are to Indian item girls what Kentucky Fried Chicken may be to Haldirams (we like our own masala better than some American, fast-food chain), we can hardly protest the pom-pom girls on grounds of 'obscenity'. If we find their boogie-woogies offensive, by definition, we have to be as appalled by our homespun sexual athletes and their strutting performances.

We can't be a country that holds up Rakhi Sawant as an icon of womanhood (she has endorsements of approval from no less than Shobhaa De and Karan Johar) for fearlessly parading her sexuality as a means of social mobility, and then whine about some inconsequential troupe of babes called the Washington Redskins. If steamy, sexy, sultry have become perfectly acceptable adjectives, even compliments in modern Indian syntax, how can we get so worked up over a bunch of girls in short red skirts?

Indian sexuality - in films, advertisements, magazines, public discourse - is today as unapologetically raunchy as anywhere else in the world. And maybe that's what's at the heart of the cheerleaders debate - and it's a point that we have all entirely missed. Is manufactured sexuality really a mark of liberation for women? Or have we just internalised all the worst clichés of post- feminist clap-trap in the name of emancipation?

In our attempt to break Indian women free from the conventional orthodoxy of right-wing moralists, have we just replaced one kind of stereotype with another? And with one that is as oppressive and unforgiving?

While our sense of selves cannot be defined by a culture that seeks to imprison female sexuality, must our sense of modernity be borrowed from a country that still debates whether women should have the right to abortion?

In her book, Female Chauvinist Pigs, American writer Ariel Levy first chronicled what she described as "women and the rise of raunch culture". Here's what her book describes as an average evening of American television. "I would turn on the television and find strippers in G-strings explaining how best to lap-dance a man to orgasm; I would flip the channel and see babes in tight tiny uniforms bouncing up and down on trampolines. Britney Spears was becoming increasingly popular and increasingly unclothed, and her undulating body became so familiar to me, I felt like we used to go out".

Is Rakhi Sawant not India's version of Britney Spears? Could this soon be how an evening of Indian television will look like? And will we then say: you've come a long way, baby. Or will we just have turned full circle - to end up exactly where we started?

(Source: Khaleej Times Online Barkha Dutt is Managing Editor of NDTV. She can be reached at barkha@ndtv.com)