India` Security Endangered as Bangladesh Nationality Is

[Neo]

India` Security Endangered as Bangladesh Nationality Is

Friday December 29 2006

Palash Biswas, India

This is niether Pakistan nor China, we are talking about. In recent times, another neighbour has swiftly emerged as a major security concern for India. Bangladesh Poll scenerio has taken a very dangerous U turn with Awami League-Bangladesh Khilafat Majlis election deal to St the pace of minoririty persecution and refugee influx to India.Key points of the 5-point MoU include enacting new laws to allow certain clerics issue fatwas (religious decrees), recognise Qaumi madrasa certificates, bar on enacting any law that contradicts Quranic values and punish blasphemy. Bangladesh secular forces and the intellegentia are protesting the move and mobilising public opinion as the media is also playing a very positive role there.

Now it is dark all over for Bangla Nationality

Mind you, since partition the Government of India has no policy line regarding the Eastern part of Bengal. Thus, the refugee influx and illegal migrants pose such threats to Indian nation state. We have a blind eye towards development in Bangladesh and continuous minority persecution does not attract any attention despite voicing the resistance of secular people at least two exiled Bangladeshi prominent writers Taslima Nasrin and Salam Azad reside in India nowadays.

Intellectuals like Shamsur Rehman and shahariar Kabir were attacked. Humayoon Azad murdered and number of artists, writers, poets and journalist have been targeted by fundamentalists so many times.It is unfortunate that India intervened and helped Bangladesh Muktijuddha defying US threat and international obligations and that Bangladesh has become an epicentre of anti India interests.

The Bangladesh fallout is often expressed by pro Pak terrorist activities.It is quite an irony that Bangladesh is becoming the greatest threat to India`s security as both the ruling allainces are being dictated by Pro Pak Rezakar forces. Thishas been always a trend neglected by New Delhi .Increasing infiltration across the border tells well the story. Terrorists sneaking into India. Regular skirmishes with men in uniform on the other sidehas become a routine.

It is most dangeraous that Islamic parties in Bangladesh are making headway in transforming the country into an Islamic state with the help of a memorandum of understanding it recently signed with the two major political forces -- the Awami League-led 14-party alliance and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party-led 4-party alliance -- ahead of national elections in January.

AWami League-BKM 5-point deal

Certified Alems (Islamic clerics) will have the right to issue fatwas (Islamic religious edicts) if the grand electoral alliance comes to power.

A bar on enacting any law that goes against Quranic values, Initiation of steps for proper implementation of the initiative for government recognition of degrees awarded by Qaumi Madrasas.

A ban on criticisms of Prophet Muhammad.

Those who do not believe in the assertion that the Prophet of Islam is the last messenger of Allah would forfeit their right to be known as a Muslim, an oblique reference to the Ahmadiyya community.

Bangladesh was created with the emergence of a soveriegn and free nationality based on language, not on religion amidst unprecedented bloodbath in south asia causing death to more than three million peole and an undescribeable chain of rapes, tortures and violation of human rights by colonial Pak army.

The spirit of the nation and its nationality are best expressed in these following lines:

Fundamentalists, whether Jamaat-i-Islami in Bangladesh and Pakistan, Siva Sena or Viswa Hindu Parishad in India, or Islami Salvation Army in Algeria of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or Asia, are threats to peace, progress and stability.

Prof. KabirChowdhury

1996

If we really want to root out communalism from the soil of Bangladesh, we must support and be involved in the movement for realizing the rights and ensuring the dignity of the helpless, repressed, exploited and ill-fated religious and ethnic minorities of our country.

Shahriar Kabir, 2001

We were deeply concerned at the resurgence of fundamentalism in Bangladesh and felt that unless communal and fundamentalist forces were effectively dealt with, the country would head towards disaster.

Jahanara Imam

1994.

India has to watchvery closely Awami League President Sheikh Hasina’s rainbow coalition for the January 22 general election wherein she has joined hands with Bangladesh Khelafat-e-Majlish (BKM), the ultra-orthodox Islamist group. However, Bangladesh's Awami League faces trouble from its secular allies after tying up with an Islamist party promising to punish anyone criticising Prophet Mohammed -- if it wins elections next month.The pact signed by Awami League's Abdul Jalil and Bangladesh Khelafat Majlish - leader Maulana Azizul Haq also promises that all laws in the country would be in line with 'Islamic values'.Predictably, the Awami League has run into serious trouble with its allies for forging the separate agreement with the Islamist group. The allies, including communists, have told Awami League chief and former prime minister Sheikh Hasina Hasina that this was a negation of the secular values they cherished.

As of now, New Delhi’s single-point concern is whether the apparent dangerous alliance is a mere electoral tactic by Ms Sheikh Hasina or does it represent a major policy shift for the Awami League (AL)?The stunning thing about the AL’s largest-ever alliance of December 18 is its controversial five-point deal with the BKM.The question of fatwa is fraught with dangers as it means that certain ulemas will be placed above the law of the land.

The signing took place in the Azimpur residence of BKM Chairman Allama Azizul Haque on December 23 in a sequel to an AL attempt to bring BKM into the fold of the grand alliance.

Even a large majority of AL central and grassroots members are opposed to the deal with BKM and see it as a sureshot political harakiri. JSD President Hasanul Haq Inu has gone on record saying that his party would not accept the deal “under any circumstances”.

However, from New Delhi’s point of view, the AL’s grand alliance may just be an attempt to keep arch-rival Begum Khaleda Zia from winning the election. The AL is trying to downplay the MoU .

Incidentally, Sheikh Hasina had joined hands with Jamat-e-Islami party of Bangladesh in the 1996 elections. Significantly, less than 24 hours after the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding, Sheikh Hasina sought the 'blessings' of all to build Bangladesh as a 'secular democratic' country.

But if the deal represents a policy shift for the AL, then it is a serious matter for India as it will be caught between the devil and the deep sea in that scenario. From AL’s international perspective, the handshake with radical Islamic parties will be nothing short of having supper with the devil.

Apart from the longstanding worry of over massive illegal migration from Bangladesh, the main Indian concerns include:

Rebels from northeast Indian states who operate with impunity from Bangladeshi territory

The growing influence and activities of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence and Al Qaeda in Dhaka.

Rapidly rising fundamentalism and anti-India sentiment in Bangladesh

Increasing cross-border traffic in drugs, arms, women, children, and cattle

The mushrooming madrassas springing up along the border, many funded by Pakistani and Saudi Arabian 'charities'

Repeated skirmishes between India's Border Security Force and the Bangladesh Rifles over disputed territory and the latter's attempts to stop the fencing work being undertaken by India

Dhaka's perpetual refusal to grant transit rights and permission to Indian companies like Tata to set up shop there.

Dhaka meets all these charges with staunch denial. In turn, it accuses India of bullying its smaller neighbour, interfering in its internal affairs, starving it of water and sheltering Bangladeshi criminals.

Leaders of the alliance Saturday confronted her with an ultimatum, warning that the alliance could split if she continued with her seat sharing arrangements with BKM.There was opposition from within the Awami League as well. The party first denied any agreement and then sought to explain it away by claiming it was merely an understanding, media reports said Monday.

The Awami League has in the past also hobnobbed with Islamist groups out of electoral expediency while espousing secular values.

Islamist groups were part of the broad front in the movement against former military ruler H.M. Ershad in 1990. That alliance included both the Awami League and Khaleda Zia's Bangladesh Nationalist Party -.Subsequently, they forged themselves into an Islami Oikya Jote - and have been part of the Zia-led BNP alliance and members of her government during 2001-06.

Mahfuz Anam writes rightly in his article `AL shoots itself in the foot’:

`What a tribute the Awami League has paid to the martyrs of the Liberation War in the very month of our victory. There was perhaps no better way to 'honour' the intellectuals who were brutally killed on 13th of December, 1971 for a modern, scientific and secular Bangladesh than by signing a deal with Islamic extremists and pledging to permit fatwa, introduce shariah laws, and basically to lay the foundation for a religious state in the future.

We have known for a while that our politics had become unprincipled, opportunistic and devoid of all ethical considerations. BNP and its allies shocked and surprised us during the last five years. Now AL has shown that it is equally capable of a betrayal of values and ethics in politics. We knew that 'anything to gain power' was the most favourite game of our leaders. We saw with our heads bowed in shame the tussle between Khaleda Zia and Shiekh Hasina to get the man, who was singularly responsible for taking us down the unbridled corruption route, on their side. Earlier, in 2001 we had seen how the party formed by our war hero Ziaur Rahman, who had fought side by side with freedom fighters to liberate Bangladesh from the clutches of Pakistani occupiers and collaborators of Jamaat, embraces those very collaborators and take as partners in government. (Imagine if the war had gone the other way, wouldn't this very Jamaat have rejoiced to see Ziaur Rahman swing from the gallows on charge of "treason" against Pakistan?)

As if from a sense of having fallen behind in the game of deceit, chicanery and opportunism the party that led us during the Liberation War buried the central values of our independence struggle and signed a dangerous deal with the most conservative and extremist fringe of the so-called Islamic parties, which, in effect, lays the foundation for a future religious state. It is as if the Awami League has sold its soul for a few votes.

How could the AL agree, if elected to power, to "enact laws allowing certified Hakkani Alems to issue fatwas"? Why do we need a law declaring Prophet

Mohammad (pbh) as the ultimate and the greatest of prophets? To every Muslim he has been and will be the Greatest Prophet, no law can glorify him more, and no lack of law reduces an iota of the glory that Allah has bestowed upon him. Now that there is no such law, are we honouring our Prophet any less?

The real purpose here is not to respect the Prophet but to get a cover of legality to oppress people who are termed as different. The undeclared message here is that such a law will make it possible to declare the Ahmedias (a distinct group within the Muslims) as non-Muslims. Then there is a pledge to enact a law that will ban criticisms of the Prophet and his disciples. Good Muslims never criticise the Prophet. But why should we ban any discussion about the activities of his disciples? This is nothing but a camouflaged attempt to enact a blasphemy law.

Then there is the pledge to implement the BNP-alliance government's decision to recognise the degrees awarded by the Qwami madrasas. To her credit Khaleda Zia resisted this pressure for the better part of her tenure and conceded to it at the very end much to the dismay of academics, educationists and modernists in general. The decision was neither well thought out, nor was it the product of any research as to its impact on education in general. The AL could have easily agreed to examine the proposal without pledging to implement something that nobody knows the impact of. This is a good example of how policy pledges are made without either any knowledge of their substance or assessment of their impact. ‘

Protests on against AL deal with bigots

Different socio-cultural, professional and student organisations yesterday continued to condemn the deal signed between Awami League (AL) and Bangladesh Khelafat Majlish (BKM).

They urged AL to scrap the deal as it is against the spirit of Liberation War and against the spirit of a secular, democratic and welfare state.11-Party, an alliance of left political parties, held a press conference and feared that if the deal were implemented, it would destroy democracy, the spirit of Liberation War and the constitution.

"The agreement will fuel and strengthen the country's conservative and reactionary forces to launch a broader movement for introducing blasphemy laws," Bimol Biswas, convenor of the 11-Party alliance, said. He urged AL to cancel the agreement for the sake of democracy and secularism because this agreement, instead of helping, would harm AL in the next general election. "It will frighten the country's religious minority as well as the progressive and liberal forces."

Samajik Pratirodh Committee in a press release said the whole nation is stunned at the news of such a suicidal agreement.

All progressive women organisations and intellectuals had welcomed the High Court's verdict banning fatwas in 2001 after many women were killed and hundreds fell prey to fatwas by Islamic fundamentalists during the last two decades, the press release added.

Hena Das, Ayesha Khanam, Advocate Sultana Kamal, Shirin Akhter, Advocate Salma Ali, Shaheen Anam, Rasheda K Chowdhury Sharif A Kafi, Jakir Hossain, Rokeya Kabir, Khushi Kabir and other members of the Samajik Pratirodh Committee signed the press release.

AL General Secretary Abdul Jalil Saturday signed a five-point memorandum of understanding (MoU) with BKM promising to implement it if the grand electoral alliance is voted to power in the upcoming election.

In another press release, Jatiya Mukti Council said the deal intends to destroy the country's democratic and progressive spirit and will encourage fatwas and militancy.

Bangladesh Mahila Parishad and Bangladesh Chhatra Federation also issued statements protesting and condemning the controversial agreement.

Forty-eight scholars, intellectuals and eminent citizens of Rajshahi in a statement yesterday expressed their dismay over the agreement between AL and BKM and demanded its immediate cancellation, our RU correspondent reports.The statement said, "We were astounded, saddened and distressed at signing of the five-point charter (between AL and BKM)".

They said, while AL under the leadership of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman had played a pioneering role to build a progressive and secular nation, they now signed a contract joining hands with the evil forces that were against the War of Independence. This will inspire religious fanatics to abuse religion for gains as well as violate freedom of speech and civil rights with fatwas and thus establish a theocratic state, the statement added. The statement further said, "We look forward to seeing AL cancel the suicidal contract immediately and make it public.... We find no stronger way to condemn the act as it was a surrender of AL to the fanatic forces."

The signatories of the statement were Hasan Azizul Haque, Sanat Kumar Saha, Julfiquar Matin, Moloy Bhoumik, SM Abu Baker, AKM Abdul Majid, Ananda Kumar Saha, Goolam Kabir, Mohammad Naser, Mahendranath Adhikari, Khandaker Serajul Haque, Amritalal Bala, Shamsuddin Ilias, Mizanur Rahman Khan, Harunor Rashid and others.

Media reports said Hasina was also facing seat-sharing problems with allies, besides the new entrant Ershad-led Jatiya Party.

But Abdul Jalil, general secretary of Awami League, said the aim of the deal was to muster strength to defeat Hasina's main rivals, immediate past prime minister Begum Khaleda Zia's Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and its ally Jamaat-e-Islami.

Also entering the race with Hasina are the Jatiya Party of former military ruler Hossain Mohammad Ershad and the Liberal Democratic Party made up of BNP dissidents.

But analysts and some Hasina supporters said Khelafat Majlis, who unsuccessfully lobbied the BNP for a berth ahead of the Jan. 22 poll, was a much more radical group.

The country's Election Commission had extended the deadline for candidate nominations until Tuesday in an effort to lure the Awami League, whose decision to enter the election race raised hopes of a respite from the impoverished South Asian nation's long running political impasse.

Resurgence of Fundamentalism in Bangladesh

Shahriar Kabir

The recent rise of fundamentalism in Bangladesh is not separate from similar developments in other parts of the world, but it has some of its own characteristics. Some of our social scientists and historians prefer to call it the use/abuse of religion’ in politics or “religion-based politics” instead of fundamentalism. It is argued that only those who follow the fundamental tenets of religions may called fundamentalist; and it is not a negative term since it does not cause any harm to the development of society. But those lumped together as fundamentalists are not really following the tenets of Islam. On the contrary, they are using a twisted version of religion for political purpose.

Western researchers have dubbed the Iranian revolution led by Ayatullah Khomeini a fundamentalist one because he had implemented Islamic (Sharia) laws in all spheres of life and thus created a great hindrance to the socio-political development of Iran, and since then the word fundamentalism became current in political vocabulary. For the purpose of this discussion we will consider the incidents in Iran as fundamentalist, although there are difference between the one in Iran and that of Bangladesh.

Islam was introduced some 1200 years ago in the Indian sub-continent, coinciding with the beginning of Muslim rule. The Muslim rulers preached Islam without generally forcing it on others. Many low caste Hindus became Muslims, because of the caste system, although some from the high castes embraced Islam to gain favours from the Muslim rulers. This conversion did not create any social or cultural upheaval and some of these rulers patronised and adopted local culture and rituals. This farsighted attitude of the Muslim rulers contributed to their long rule despite being outsiders. Also, despite the conversions, the Muslims remained one-third of the sub-continent's population.

Just after the 1857 soldier-people uprising against the rule of the East India Company of Great Britain in India for the first time we were introduced to the use of religion in politics. In this uprising Muslims and Hindus fought against the Company rule shoulder-to-shoulder. Although they lost eventually, but were able to end company’s rule and bring in direct British governance to the region. The British rulers with the experience of the 1857 upheaval shrewdly played with great success their "divide and rule policy" among the two communities to ensure that such an incident would not repeat. Above all, this policy introduced communalism in the sub-continent along with the patronization of fundamentalist forces.

In 1885, Indian National Congress, the first political party made its debut after a section of the young intelligentsia took legal steps to voice their protest against different repressive British laws. There were good number of Muslims in the Congress, but still the British were able to convince them that this party would not be able to serve their interest and thus the Muslims must have a separate group of the their own. Thus, mainly from this propaganda the All India Muslim League was born in 1906 to safeguard the interest of Muslims.

One year before (1905) the British had partitioned Bengal, which was welcomed by the Muslim League, but the educated Bengali middle class went against it. Rabindranath Tagore even composed poems championing the cause of Bengali nationalism and communal harmony. The Congress too criticized the move, which the British explained to Muslims was a step to save minority Muslims in East Bengal from the bad influence of Calcutta as well as it would ensure justice for them. Besides, different administrative measures also contributed to the deterioration of relations between the two communities.

Since the Muslim League's birth, a large section of the higher and middle class Muslims were imbued with religious nationalist ideas and were soon followed by Hindus, both forgetting that the sub-continent was land of varied religion and culture.

English historians also played an important role in sowing the seeds of discontent among the two religious faiths by describing ancient times as “Hindu period,” the middle age that of “Muslim period” and the one after the arrival of the Britishers as the “modern period.” They described the ancient times as a period of enlightenment for the human civilization, while Afghan, Turkish and Mughal rulers were described as looters and predators.

In the twenties several Muslim fundamentalist groups like Tanzim, Tableeg made their debut, while in 1917 a political party by the name of Hindu Mahashabha was born to protect the interest of the faith. Communal clashes erupted killing many innocent people following the demand for rule of Koran of one hand and Vedic rule on the other.

The support of the Congress to Muslim League's Khilafat Movement and the creation of the Swaraj Party by secular Congress members failed to restore communal harmony. Thus the British policy created communal divide.

Communalism became so strong among both the Muslims and Hindus under the British rule that solution had to be found to religious division by the creation of a state called Pakistan. A.K.Fazlul Huq, the chief minister of Bengal, Muslim League's 1940 conference in Lahore, proposed the creation of a separate state where the Muslims were a majority.

'It is the considered view of this Session of All India Muslim League that no constitutional plan would be workable in this country or acceptable to the Muslims unless it is designed on the following basic principles, viz., that geographically contiguous units are demarcated into retains which should be so constituted with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the North Western and Eastern zones of India, should be grouped to constitute Independent States in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.’ (Zaidi A. M. “The Demand for Pakistan,” New Delhi, 1978 pp 215).

In his presidential address Chief of the Muslim League Mohammad Ali Jinnah said, 'The Musalmans are a nation by any defination.'

Western educated founder of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, during his last days surprisingly wanted to see a secular Muslim League and Pakistan, but conservative members of the party declared the country an Islamic republic after his death. They also started being lenient towards fundamentalists.

Jinnah while seeking a democratic Pakistan, in fact signed its death warrant when he ignored Bengali--the language spoken by the majority in the then East Pakistan. West Pakistanis also from the very start too had a negative attitude towards Bengalis and tried to dominate them economically as well as in employment, business, education and development.

II

From the 1952 Bengali Language Movement to the 1971 independence war anti-fundamentalist factor was an important part of the whole campaign because of its democratic content. Communal and fundamentalist groups like the Muslim League, Jamaat-e-Islami, Nezame Islami and Jamiate Olamaye Islami, who stood against the Bangladesh campaign, were losing their political influence slowly, but it grew considerably socially.

In 1966 the Awami League under Sheikh Mujibur Rahman announced the popular six-point demands which include total autonomy of East Bengal. The party won an absolute majority in the 1970 elections to the national assembly, but the Pakistan government fearing secession was reluctant to hand over power. Before the elections Moulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani, the eminent peasant leader, and several left-wing groups had also demanded independent people's Republic of East Bengal.

This caused fury in East Pakistan, where people violently protested the dilly-dallying tactics of military ruler general Yahya Khan and eventually the campaign for autonomy turned into the one for independence.

President Yahya Khan's military Junta unleashed an unbelievable genocide on the Bengalis on the night of March 25, 1971, in a bid to crush the aspirations of the people of East Pakistan. Tanks rolled out into the city and troops indiscriminately killed hundreds in one night. Although, before the crackdown Bengali officers and troops in different cantonment barracks were disarmed, arrested or killed as the genocide continued for nine months.

Since the 1952 language movement the Pakistani rulers always tried to suppress the Bengali inspiration for equal rights saying such actions were a threat to Islam. They used to call the freedom fighters during the 1971 independence war “miscreants,” “Kafirs” (Non-believes) and "Indian agents."

When Pakistan tried to misrepresent the events saying both Islam and Pakistan were threatened by the campaign, the fundamentalist groups like Jamaat-e-Islami took a similar stand. Jamaat leader Golam Azam said “Supporters of the so-called Bangladesh movement were enemies of Islam, Pakistan and Muslims” and “Islam will cease to exist if Pakistan was wiped out from the world map.” Matiur Rahman Nizami, another Jamaat leader, had said “All of us have to work as soldiers of an Islamic state and .... will have to kill those people who are fighting an armed struggle against Pakistan and Islam.”

Not only by collaborating with the Pakistani regime, but by creating their own militia gangs like Razakars, Al-Badr and Al-Shams the Jamaat followers are responsible for killing three million Bengalis, raping of about 300,000 women, killing of the intelligentsia, destroying of infrastructure and forcing of thousands to flee their homes fearing persecution. This genocide and the independence war came to an end with the surrender of 93.000 Pakistani troops to the joint Bangladesh freedom fighters and Indian command on December 16, 1971.

The Bangladesh government in exile returned home soon. The founder of the nation Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, on release from Pakistani prison, flew back to Dhaka on January 10,1972.

Sheikh Mujib told the American Broadcasting Corporation of the trial of war criminals “I will definitely put them on trial. Can any country free those who have killed three million people?” More than 37,000 people were arrested for the atrocities after the country's independence and most belonged to the fundamentalist groups like the Jamaat and Muslim League. Although the Bangladesh Collaborators (Special Tribunal) Act, 1972 was enacted on January 24, 1972, but it was not satisfactory for the trial of war criminals during the next 18 months and only about 3,000 cases were resolved, 350 were sentenced to different prison terms. The Awami League government announced a general amnesty to the war criminals under pressure from relatives of those arrested, pressure from Moslem countries and from the urge to bring back home safely those Bengalis stranded in Pakistan. Even though Sheikh Mujib had called upon those released to accept the reality of Bangladesh and work for its good in the coming days, the activities of these people in later times proved they could never accept that fact.

One of the main principles of the original Bangladeshi constitution written in 1972 was secularism, and religion-based parties were banned, which was an outcome of the genocide carried out during the war in the name of religion. But such parties continued to work clandestinely.

With the independence of Bangladesh, for which India not only undertook the burden of 10 million refugees but also its Prime Minister Indira Gandhi undertook international campaign, Marwari traders found this newly independent country’s market a gold mine for their low-quality goods. Smuggled Indian goods flooded the country and people became disoriented. The banned political parties exploited this situation to foment anti-Indian sentiments like the Pakistanis, which the government or secular parties failed to tackle.

Despite being the Champions of Bengali nationalism, many members of the Awami League were not free from Pakistani communal ideas and even did not like the country being a secular one. For this Sheikh Mujib had to explain that “secularism did not mean atheism” and his government to prove that by several actions like setting up of religious schools (madrasas), the Islamic Foundation and joining the Jeddah-based Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) as the second largest Muslim nation.

The Pakistani government seized the property of those Hindus who fled to India and named the “enemy property,” and the post-independence government renamed it just “Vested property,” keeping rest of the Pakistani policy intact. The Hindus realised from then that they were a minority in Bangladesh and later the situation worsened.

III

In 1975, some junior army officers in collusion with pro-Pakistani and communal leaders staged a bloody coup on August 15 killing Sheikh Mujib along with most of his family members. Pro-Pakistani Awami League leader Khandaker Mushtaque Ahmed was made the new president and he immediately took an anti-Indian stand and got the support of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Ahmed also immediately issued a decree for wearing caps and tried to make Bangladesh an Islamic Republic, but failed as after about three months army General Ziaur Rahman made himself the Chief Martial Law Administrator after toppling the new president.

To strengthen his grip on state power, Ziaur Rahman, despite being a commander during the independence war, from the very beginning felt the necessity to counter Awami League's Bengali nationalism. He knew people of Bangladesh were very religious and he followed the path of the Pakistani regimes, which usually justified its different moves in the name of religion. Zia lifted the ban on religion-based political parties and inserted “Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim” (In the name of Allah, the most beneficent and merciful) and replaced the word secularism with “Absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah shall be the basis of all actions.” (Article 8 (1a), order No. 1, 1977). It opened the floodgate of opportunity for fundamentalist or religion-based groups to reorganize themselves again and Zia himself formed his own political party taking in opportunists from left, right and centrist groups who were mostly anti-Awami League and pro-Pakistani. He appointed a well-known collaborator of 71 war and a Muslim League leader, Shah Azizur Rahman, his prime minister and inducted several other collaborators in his cabinet.

Zia replaced Awami League's Bengali Nationalism with Bangladeshi nationalism through which ended language-based nationalism and came religion-based nationalism like that of Pakistan. Islamic education and programmes on state-run television and radio got wide patronage.

Instead of punishing the leaders of coup that killed Sheikh Mujib he rewarded them with prize postings and took steps against those army personnel who fought in the independence war, while those pro-Pakistani officers were put in powerful positions. He hanged colonel Abu Taher, a valiant freedom fighter, who lost one of his legs in the war, on charges of treason. The military was also quickly expanded in size and capabilities.

During his time, Golam Azam, leader of one of the main fundamentalist and anti-Bangladeshi groups Jamaat-e-Islami, and a Pakistani national entered Bangladesh with three months visa and ever since stayed on, and started conspiring to turn Bangladesh into another Pakistan.

http://www.bangladesh-web.com/news/...&hidType=OPT&hidRecord=0000000000000000144497

 

[Contrarian]

I think its HIGH time, we start intervening in Bangladesh. We should foster Bangladesh as an ally, not as another state which has fundamentalists ruling the country with no law and order.

 

[eastbengal]

I think its HIGH time, we start intervening in Bangladesh. We should foster Bangladesh as an ally, not as another state which has fundamentalists ruling the country with no law and order.

what a idea

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

A 2007 dated thread reopened

 

[Veeru]

A 4 year old thread