& 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

Bangladesh in a section of the Indian press

Any dispassionate watcher of Bangladesh and India would have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that events in Bangladesh by no stretch of imagination could have anything near to a destabilising effect on India, the world's largest democracy. By all accounts, this fear is unfounded.

ABDUR RAZZAQ
FOLLOWING August 21, a section of the Indian press has been busy maligning Bangladesh. It began with two editorials in The Statesman under the headings "Khaleda's game plan: Kill Hasina and banish democracy" and "Right move by Hasina: Khaleda trying to deflect the real issue." The Hindu also published an article by C Rajah Mohan. About the same time, The Outlook interviewed Ambassador Cofer Black, the US State Departments Coordinator for Counter-terrorism and also published and article: "The Venom of Terror: Islamic fundamentalism is fast spreading its tentacles across the subcontinent." Earlier, on August 26, one Mr Anand Kumar working in the Institute for Conflict Management in New Delhi wrote for the Bangladesh Observer under the heading "Democracy in Terror." And lastly, but maybe not finally, Mr Bibhuti Bhusan Nandy has contributed two articles on September 7 and 8 in The Statesman on "Bangladesh Terror."
Let us take The Statesman first. How could The Statesman, which has been in print for the last 129 years, and has a reputation of being responsible, openly come out with the suggestion that the Prime Minister wanted to kill Hasina and banish democracy (See The Daily Star editorial on September 2, 2004:
Statesman editorial: Lacking acumen let alone "statesmanship"). The Prime Minister's offer of talking to the Leader of the Opposition has been universally acclaimed. But The Statesman has found serious fault with that and has even gone to
the extent of criticising the US ambassador for subscribing to that view. The Statesman has come out openly against Jamaat, a partner of the coalition government, saying that "Jamaat's cadres, according to circumstantial evidence, are responsible for the attack" when The Statesman has not even made
an attempt to identify its own version of circumstantial evidence.
The Outlook's interview with Mr. Black, began with two loaded questions: "What's the American assessment of terrorism in Bangladesh?" and "India keeps on saying that terrorist camps in Bangladesh are inimical to the stability of the region, is this true?"
It appears that according to The Outlook, it is an established fact that there are terrorist camps in Bangladesh whereas India has failed to establish the existence of any such terrorist camps in Bangladesh.
One cannot but admit that both the past government of Sheikh Hasina and the present government of Khaleda Zia has failed to nab the perpetrators of bomb attacks. This failure is indefensible. Following the attack on the British High Commissioner in Sylhet, Scotland Yard's help was taken; but it did not take us any further in terms of identifying the terrorists. However Mr Nandy has no doubts as to who carried the attack on Sheikh Hasina in Kotalipara in 2000 and in Dhaka on 21 August, 2004. It was the work of the "Islamic terrorist" -- Hikmatul Jihad, Harkatul Jehad, you name them.
He went further. According to him, the Afghan trained Bengali Talebans who came into contact with Hizbul Islam, Al Qaeda, Laskar-e-Toiba,
Jaish-e-Mohammed and above all Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan have now "organised a host of terrorist outfits ... with the aim to establish a Talebanized transnational state comprising Bangladesh, Assam, Tripura, Muslim majority districts of West Bengal and the Rohingya Muslim dominated Arakan Hills of Myanmar." He wants us to believe that these neoTalebans, failing to defend Afghanistan have become so powerful that they are planning to redraw the map of South Asia involving at least three countries which includes a regional big power.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, political maps have been changed by European colonial powers and in the 20th century by the two World Wars. Our friends in India want us to believe that "Bengali Talebans" wield similar powers and are capable of changing the map of South Asia. Amid real fears, Mr Nandy concludes "the effective frontier of Bangladesh is thus pushing forward deeper in to Indian territory, bringing the Islamic terrorists' dream of a transnational Islamic state in the region closer to reality."
In 1831, German soldier philosopher Carl Von Clausewitz wrote Von Kriege (On War), and speaking about information in war, he said: "Great part of information obtained in War is contradictory, a still greater
part in false, and by far the greatest part is of a doubtful character." India and Bangladesh are friendly countries and certainly not at war, but it is difficult to understand people like Mr Nandy's motive behind this disinformation.
Mr Nandy deeply disliked the "mushrooming of mosques, maktabs and madrassas in every nook and corner of the country" because of his fear of "political Islam." But he should know that mosques and minarets and prayer places are mushrooming throughout the Western world. The Greek city of Athens which hosted this year's Olympic, built one for the Muslim visitors, and to his great surprise, Mr Nandy will also find a small one in John F Kennedy airport in New York, the gateway to America. This is because Islam is the fastest growing religion in the West.
Bangladesh is a democracy under a written constitution. We have many problems: social, political, economic: our law and order situation is far from satisfactory and above all our politics is violent. But these problems are nothing new in a nascent democracy. When hundreds even thousands of innocent men, women, and children were killed in Gujarat, only because they were Muslims, when houses were burnt, properties looted, women raped, and even Members of Parlia-
ment and High Court judges were intimidated, Bangladesh remained surprisingly calm. When Babri Mosque was razed to the ground, the Hindu temples in Bangladesh were safe. They hardly needed any police protection. This is because 140 million Bangladeshis, 85 per cent of which are Muslims are tolerant. Mr Nandy's version is, of course, different.
Both The Statesman and Rajah Mohan in The Hindu made open invitation to India to intervene in Bangladesh. "Delhi's continuing indifference to events, has made Begum Zia's coalition more daring. It is time for Delhi to act firmly" (The Statesman). "Non-intervention in the internal affairs of the neighbouring countries is indeed a sensible proposition. Yet given the deepening crisis in the region, India might have no option but to develop a pro-active policy to encourage internal political change. India will have to develop both the instruments of persuasion as well as define the limits of its use of force in the region." (The Hindu).
Mr Nandy was however a little bit diplomatic, perhaps because of his training in RAW. "From all accounts, the disrupted and dysfunctional state of Bangladesh is set to become a monolithic Islamic state and a breeding ground of Islamic terror. The destabilising impact of such an eventuality will be incalculably disastrous for India and the rest of the South Asian region." Any dispassionate watcher of Bangladesh and India would have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that events in Bangladesh by no stretch of imagination could have anything near to a destabilising effect on India, the world's largest democracy. By all accounts, this fear is unfounded. Nothing but an expansionist mind can justify such invitations.
Bangladesh and India are two friendly nations. But unfortunately, there is mistrust and misunderstanding about India in Bangladesh. As a matter of fact, there is Indo-phobia not only in Bangladesh but in this region as well. The position of India in the SAARC region could have been like that of United States in North America and Europe. For understandable reasons, this did not happen, and perhaps will not happen. This is a historic failure of India's national leadership.
Bangladesh is a peaceful nation. In the past, people of this region have untidily faced many calamities, catastrophes, and conspiracies. They are capable of doing so now.
The author is a Barrister.