The New Nation - Internet Edition

Navigability of water routes

THE major river routes in the southern region have lost navigability at many points of the rivers which are vital for carrying thousands of passengers and hundreds of tons of commodities every day to and from the capital city. Emergence of innumerable shoals and fall in water levels of most of the major rivers very often cause river vessels to run aground, particularly in the winter season, disrupting communication rather frequently. Navigability problem due to lack of routine dredging of river routes has now become acute. The state-owned Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Authority (BIWTA) is to 'maintain' the water routes across the country, but it has inadequate equipment, save seven age-old dredgers, and funds for the purpose.

Uncertainty and day-to-day problems have turned serious to all concerned with water transport business and the people in general as the administration is not addressing those at the required pace. Consequently, river communication of twenty-one districts in the south and western regions including Barisal and Khulna with the capital and the port city of Chittagong is beset with problems. Operators of water transports blame successive governments for turning a blind eye to the vital issue of river communication for decades.

Many of the mighty rivers that once used to flow with full natural might

have lost navigability and this is causing obstacles to the river vessels. Large category of river vessels require at least 14-foot deep water, the second category vessels 8-foot deep water flow and the third category of small river vessels, even boats require at least 5-foot deep water to ply safely. But as rivers lose navigability dredging work of the BIWTA is facing setback in the absence of what is called 'a master plan' needed for maintaining country's vital river routes.

Social action against dowry

AMONG some ill practices in the Bangladesh society, specially disturbing is the practice of taking of dowry by the bridegroom from the bride's family. Frequently, the media reports on dowry-related cruelties perpetrated on innocent young maidens and their parents. Failure to give pledged amounts of dowries invite physical torture and verbal abuse on young brides in the homes of their husbands. In some cases, even after full receipt of committed dowry amounts, the bridegroom and his family is seen putting physical and mental pressures on the bride and her family for more payments. Dowries are crushing economic burdens and sources of constant mental torment for the parents of the bride. Financially disadvantaged families sell precious lands and other assets and turn poorer to meet the dowry demand.

Thus, it is very important to have this scourge removed from the society. A press report some time ago stated that 40 dowry-free marriages were solemnised at Chapainawabganj. But reports about a few cases of dowry-free marriages do not mean that the giving and taking of dowry is on the wane. Far greater numbers of marriages are taking place with dowries than without them. Therefore, the civil society and the media should concert their activities and start a social movement against dowry.

Some people are of the view that harsh laws against dowry will be effective. But they miss the point that the laws can be sidetracked and dowries given without proof by those who would wish to cling to the practice. Thus, the main deterrent to dowry can be no other than large scale social condemnation and admonition of those who engage in this practice.

Everyone should unite to uproot terrorism

Ripan Kumar Biswas

Whoever kills an innocent soul, it is as if he killed the whole of mankind, and whoever saves one, it is as if he saved the whole of mankind [The Quran, 5:32]." Such is the value of a single human life, that the Qur'an equates the taking of even one human life unjustly, with killing all of humanity.

Either they are wrong who released pigeons symbolizing peace and light candles in memory of those who were killed, or the ten gunmen who have the deviant beliefs and misleading ideologies. People were taking autographs and congratulating them as the commandos ended a three-day rampage in Mumbai on Saturday, November 29, 2008, but not the militants who killed nearly 200 people in a strike on India's financial heart. Even the little Muslim boy, who carried a placard with the slogan "Don't destroy the beautiful place of Allah" during a rally in the western Indian city of Ahmedabad against the Mumbai attacks, also carried a message against the obscurantists that they are wrong in every sense.

In a sensational disclosure made by Ajmal Amir Kasab, the jihadi nabbed alive by Mumbai cops, his fellow colleagues had been motivated enough to kill innocents indiscriminately. "Please don't keep me alive. Kill me. I have come to die," he begged. They targeted ten different places which are always crowded for different public services. Cama Hospital, a hospital for women and children, was also in their target list. Very obviously these people had come on a suicide mission - to kill as long as they lived. Is it one of many ways to beat them-the infidels, the gentiles, the heathens, or the pagans! In their blogs, websites, and by different ways, some Islamic extremists praised the Mumbai attacks, including the targeting of Jews, the Americans, the Britons, and other foreigners saying that it's all right for Muslims to set them castles on fire, drown them with water and take some of them as prisoners, whether young or old, women or men, child or adult, strong or disable. But a handful of the beguilers bring the entire faith into disrepute and besmirching the religion. "Anyone who slaughters people and screams `Allahu Akbar' (God is Great) is sick and ignorant," said Kazim al-Muqdadi, a political science lecturer at Baghdad University. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad referred to the attacks as terrorism while the authority of Saudi Arabia said that no civilized nation can allow killings of innocents and civilians.

So far they denied any responsibility of killing more than two hundred, mostly civilians including a Mumbai Police Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) chief Hemant Karkare, but the Indian Government has accused the Pakistan-based group Lashkar-e-Taiba, according to the many sources the authority said including the clue given by Ajmal, only alive jihadi. Giving reason, government pointed out that India had terrorist attacks before, but this attack was different as it was an attack by highly trained and well-armed terrorists targeting the largest city. They came with the explicit aim of killing large numbers of innocent civilians, including foreign visitors and destroying some of the best known symbols in India. About 30 foreigners were killed including five Americans, two French, two Australians, and two Canadians and also nationals from Germans, Israelis, Britain, Italy, Japan, China, Thailand, and Singapore.

Earlier at the beginning of attack on Thursday, November 27, 2008, a previously unknown group calling itself the Deccan Mujahideen, which e-mailed news organizations, claimed that it had carried out the attacks. The group, however, may be connected with (or even an alias of) the Indian Mujahedin, which claimed responsibility for several terrorist strikes earlier this year. According to the Indian terrorism experts, both are likely to have connections to, or simply be renamed versions of Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Toiba or the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI).

Mumbai has frequently been targeted in terror attacks, including a series of blasts in July 2006 that killed 187 people. The city has been hit repeatedly by attacks since March 1993, when Muslim underworld figures tied to Pakistani militants allegedly carried out a series of bombings on Mumbai's stock exchange, trains, hotels, and gas stations. Authorities say those attacks, which killed 257 people and wounded more than 1,100, were carried out to revenge the deaths of hundreds of Muslims in religious riots which had swept India. Ten years later, in 2003, 52 people were killed in Mumbai bombings blamed on Muslim militants and in July 2006 a series of seven blasts ripped through railway trains and commuter rail stations. At least 187 died in those attacks.

The human beings in this world who want to live in peace and prosperity are a majority. The terrorists are a puny and sickly minority. When people are shooting at civilians, throwing grenades, attacking hotels and hospitals, it doesn't really matter what their grievances are. They have forfeited their right for peaceful change and when they attack innocent people, they are terrorists, pure and simple. Religion is Love. Treat a human with respect and love. Never forget what we do to others will return to us. Terrorism has not helped anyone and it doesn't have any religion.

There is no justification of killing innocent people. In simple words the act is terrorism, without any debate. The point in light is this that why these common people become terrorists? What force them to leave their families and loved ones? What transforms them to be such a brutal? What are the causes? Unless and until we don't address such issues that we will be facing such incidents and blame game will continue for ever.

On the other hand, the terrorist organizations use religion frequently every time that it feels that religion justifies their stand and action. Whatever they are doing is permitted to them by religion. This very concept of these organizations rattles everyone and arise questions to these terror outfits. Does God allow killing of innocent people? What arguments do the militants have to justify their acts of terrorism and violence? Or the misinterpretation by Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, the leader of the Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorist organization "Democracy is part of the system we are fighting against and it is not possible to work within a democracy and establish an Islamic system" is right?

Every religion considers all life forms as sacred. However, the sanctity of human life is accorded a special place. The first and the foremost basic right of a human being is the right to live. The fact is that these terrorists have no religion and they are trying to create fear and tension in the world for some unclear reasons. There are good and not so good people in all religions. Negative has no meaning. Islam is no better or worse than Christianity or Hinduism. Each proclaims it is the best. Obviously, this is not so. In the face of such an enemy, we believe it is vital that democratic political forces in all countries unite. We need a global movement of solidarity linking together communities threatened by terror.

Blaming each other or resigning from the posts as what the interior minister of India Shivraj Patil did taking the "moral responsibility" due to the attack, is not the ultimate solution. The latest Mumbai attack should spur everyone on to redouble the efforts to unite communities against terror, from India to Pakistan, Middle-east to Western, or Asia to Europe.

Tear down this wall!

Aijaz Zaka Syed

The inimitable Bernard Shaw would describe the US-UK relationship as 'two countries divided by a common language.' In the case of India and Pakistan, language has not exactly been a source of conflict. There are more serious issues that unite and divide them.

Perhaps no two countries on the planet share a more complex relationship as these neighbours do. They have gone to three devastating wars and have for a decade lived under the cloud of nuclear conflagration. They obsess over each other and their entire military strategies and budgets are planned and executed keeping each other in sight.

At the same time, they also bond like no two other nations do. This might sound like a paradox to the uninitiated. But that's how the Indians and Pakistanis are. We are like that only! And it's not easy explaining this enigmatic equation to others. It's a little more complicated than, say, the edgy relationship between the British and Australians, or the English and Scots or even Americans and British etc.

Pakistan President Asif Zardari tried and largely managed to sum up this unique relationship when he told a distinguished gathering in New Delhi that "there's a bit of India in every Pakistani and a little bit of Pakistan in every India."

One has never been a huge fan of Zardari. And that rather nice punchline was not very original either. He had borrowed the quote from his more talented and charismatic wife, the late Benazir Bhutto. And given the incredible chaos he's been presiding over for the past few months, one's apprehensions about him have only been strengthened. But one couldn't help admire Zardari's uncharacteristically disaster-free handling of the live videoconference with the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit in New Delhi this week.

You could see that the Pakistan president had already bowled over his top-notch audience in Delhi and viewers around the world watching the event live with his warmth and talk of peace, change and reconciliation between the neighbours.

While the credit for the remarkable progress in Indo-Pak relations in recent times should go to former president Pervez Musharraf - ironically a military dictator known for the Kargil surprise - and former Indian Prime Minister AB Vajpayee, Zardari has become the first Pakistani leader to promise no-first-use of nukes and waive the so-called deterrent option against India. Going against precedents, Zardari did not harp on Kashmir. In fact, he did not for once utter the 'K' word during the Q&A session.

The man, who was never a grassroots politician and accidentally inherited power from his assassinated wife, refused to be drawn into a verbal duel with his audience on Kashmir. When quizzed about the ownership of the troubled Valley over which India and Pakistan have been squabbling since the Partition in 1947, Zardari quipped: "Kashmir belongs to Kashmiri people".

What's going on people? When did this tectonic shift come about in South Asia? Clearly, the world was too busy fighting the chaos unleashed by the new world order over the past few years to notice the change. But signs of change have been there for some time. Only we are waking up to them now.

In his first interview after taking over from Musharraf, Zardari told Wall Street Journal that he did not believe India was a threat to Pakistan surprising the establishment forces on both sides of the border. "India has never been a threat to Pakistan. We are not scared of Indian influence abroad," asserted the new leader.

Zardari also outraged pro-Pakistan separatist parties in Kashmir and his critics at home by describing Kashmiri militants as "terrorists" in his chat with the Journal's foreign affairs columnist Bret Stephens in October this year.

I have no idea what led to this dramatic transformation in Pakistan's policy on India and Kashmir in particular. Even though the PPP was always seen as a secular and moderate party amenable to 'friendly' relations with India, it never crossed certain red lines on Kashmir and equation with New Delhi.

Pakistan's all-powerful army has long defined India as an existential threat to the Islamic republic.

In fact, India has long been the centre and focal point of the Pak military's whole defence strategy (and vice versa). And the "liberation of Kashmir" has been the cornerstone of Pakistan's India policy. This is something no political or military leader has ever dared to defy or question.

Which is why I think in offering 'no first use of nukes' against India and accepting Delhi's standard line on Kashmir -- building confidence before talking Kashmir -- and by seeking trade, rather than war, with the eastern neighbour, Zardari has broken away from his country's military and political establishment. He has turned Pakistan's foreign policy on its head. This is a watershed change, to say the least.

Whatever Zardari's past and his political credentials, in offering genuine friendship and peace to India and a better future for the people of South Asia, he has gone where no Pakistani or Indian leader has dared to go before. I am not sure if he has the Generals' backing in this remarkable change of course. But as a democratically elected president, he enjoys people's blessings in his initiatives. India must not let this rare opportunity for lasting peace in the region slip away. It must reciprocate and respond positively to these overtures from across the border. Because Zardari was speaking for hundreds of millions of Indians, Pakistanis -- and Kashmiris of course -- when he called for stronger people-to-people ties and economic relations and hassle-free travel between the two countries.

For far too long, politicians on both sides have punished and exploited their people by keeping them from each other. Even today for Indians and Pakistanis, getting a visa to the other side is almost as difficult as getting a US green card. And to think until not long ago, they were part of a single, undivided country! You could travel from Peshawar to Calcutta to Dhaka, without any documents and without any check posts anywhere. Today even journalists can't freely move in the sub-continent without pulling some strings here and there. Why don't we bring down this border, this meaningless line that divides people, separates families and has given us nothing but war, bloodshed and thousands of wasted lives? The so-called Line of Control in Kashmir has literally torn apart millions of families. How long will India and Pakistan remain handcuffed to history?

By doing away with the border -- especially in Kashmir -- and allowing their people to move freely in this beautiful land a la European Union, India and Pakistan could unleash the immense potential of their nations and gift them a more peaceful and prosperous tomorrow.

By rubbing away the line drawn in haste in the last gasps of the British empire by Sir Cyril Radcliffe, the South Asians could resolve the Kashmir question for good. God knows the Kashmiris have suffered enough for owning the paradise on earth