& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

TO THE EDITOR

Revamping SAARC
The 12th SAARC summit was held in Islamabad. SAFTA, a long cherished goal, has been prioritised in this summit. If SAARC can kick off SAFTA in South Asia, it will be a bonanza to minimise poverty, boost national economies and halt informal trade in the region. South Asia has been a potential zone since the exploration era. But sadly, maximum people live here under poverty line. There are a lot of natural assets, but unutilised.
SAARC is merely a showpiece, not a dynamic catalyst to energise the economies of South Asia. It should be revamped for the welfare of all the South Asian nations.
I hope SAARC leaders will be more pragmatic for better outputs from the seven-nation bloc.
Molla Mohammad Shaheen
Dept. of English Dhaka University
Bangabandhu and Shaheed Zia
I refer to the letter titled "Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Shaheed Zia" by Mr. OH Kabir which appeared in the DS , Jan 3, 2004.
I regret my inability to agree with Mr. Kabir's acceptance of the requirement to bow down our heads and pay homage to either of the two leaders mentioned above, which both the AL and the BNP would like us to do.
George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are well known
figures in American history and students in school there are taught about their contributions to building of the country that America is today. But nobody in America is expected to pay homage to these leaders. Nelson Mandela is loved and respected by the whole world. But nobody in South Africa is expected to bow and chant "Hail Mandela" when he appears in public.
There are certain things in history which should be recollected to have a better understanding of it. As Gorbachev was assigned the task of dismembering the Soviet Union, so was Bhutto given the task of dismembering Pakistan. It is true, though many of us may not like it, that the decision that any eventual Pakistan should be split up was taken by the Indian
Congress in 1946; ref: Badruddin Umar's recent writings in the Holiday on the events leading to partition of India .That East Bengal, eventually Bangladesh, was to become a captive market was decided then, and there was nothing that the Muslim leadership could do about it, they were totally outmanoeuvred by the Congress and outflanked by the events of time.
The Pakistani bureaucracy, dominated by immigrants from India and Punjabis, took a decision to split Pakistan at an appropriate time. Therefore it was only necessary to continue to loot the then East Pakistan until this happened. It is indeed very surprising that the Bengalis did not know or understand this.
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman loved the land that produced him and nurtured him to manhood, and he did try his best. Above all, he was the pivot round whom the Bengali nation rallied in its hour of greatest need. Ziaur Rahman gained the admiration of the whole nation. Massive was the outpouring of public grief at his death. What we need to understand, above all else, is the common factor in the two deaths: they were killed because they both were patriots who loved this land and tried desperately to do something for it. This of course was not part of the grand plan of the powers that be and therefore could not be permitted. Thus exited both Mujib and Zia.
It is most unfortunate that the present AL and BNP are only using the names of these two patriots to
further their own interests, for neither the AL nor the BNP is taking any further interest in the welfare of the people. Perhaps, I am being too harsh in my judgement; perhaps what they are really guilty of is apathy, of resigning themselves to what they consider to be inevitable. Perhaps, the problem lies with idealists like me who wishfully believe that something was yet possible in spite of the severe limitations within which our leaders need to work. But I do not believe that I am being unjust when I accuse our political leaders of both the parties of cowardice, and cowardice is a grave sin.
Both these leaders deserve our respect but not to the point where such respect crosses over to veneration verging on worship as demanded by the two political
parties, for only the Almighty is so worthy.
A Rahman
Dhanmondi, Dhaka
Strike and our politi-
cal culture
Politics is a word which is very much related to development. But in case of Bangladesh it has reached a stalemate with little hope to move forward. Albeit Bangladesh achieved independence some thirty years ago, democracy was restored in 1990, nearly 14 years ago. But the political process is not strengthened with due pace. When one party remains in power, it is dead against strike while the opposition favours it. But once the table turns,
the same ruling party opts for the destructive option i.e. strike and the opposition goes the same way. In 1990, we voted the BNP to power. It pledged many things but fulfilled a few. Being fed up, we elected the AL. But the AL, instead of eliminating the mess, created further mess.
We again voted for the BNP to save ourselves from AL oppression, but exactly the same things are going on with impunity. Things are not changing. The political parties are behaving in the same way, unfortunately though.
Aminul Islam
4th Year, Economics
Dhaka University