Sunday, September 9, 2012

Assassination of Begum Khaleda Zia has planned

According to Wikipedia Ziaur Rahman, was a Bangladeshi politician, the seventh President of Bangladesh and an army officer, who read the Declaration of Independence of Bangladesh. During Liberation War of Bangladesh in 1971, he was first a sector commander before being promoted to one of three brigade commanders of the Bangladesh Forces; his brigade was called the Z Force, after his first initial. A highly decorated and accomplished military officer, he became a Bir Uttom, the highest gallantry award for a living officer for his wartime services, and retired from the Bangladesh Army as a Lieutenant General.He later became the seventh President of Bangladesh from 1977 until 1981. During his administration, he founded the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), one of the two largest political parties in the country. He is popularly known as Shaheed President Zia, meaning “martyred Zia,” in reference to his 1981 assassination. His role during the assassination of Sheikh Mujib in 1975 and subsequent military coups have made him a controversial figure in Bangladesh (

I have been informed by credible intelligence sources that the recent change in high level of Bangladesh Army by promoting three Brigadier Generals to the rank of Major General is a minor change of a major plan suggested by India’s foreign intelligence agency Research and Analysis Wing [R&AW].

Intelligence sources also shared that the one of the three new Maj Gens, Sheikh Mohammad Aman Hasan has been made the Director General of the Special Security Force (SSF), as suggested by R&AW. The suggestion was made to bring changes in high level of SSF to insure the security of Prime Minister Sekih Hasina.

The intelligence sources also informed that DGFI and NSI was instructed before to submit an extensive report on newly promoted high army officials. The newly promoted officials were reported as pro Awami League and one the officer’s relative is a politician of Bangladesh Awami League (BAL).  

Intelligence sources has informed that R&AW has informed Sheikh Hasina that a group of Islamic terrorists who had attempted to kill her on August 21, 2004, the allies of same forces are planning to kill Hasina again.

According to the sources R&AW had claimed to Hasina that they have helped here by giving credible information of probable assassination attempt at least 5 times in last years.

Sheikh Hasina has been suggested that to win in the next parliamentary election will be really hard due to bad performance of her government and strong position of the opposition parties. 

R&AW has suggested Hasina to make notable change in top, middle and lower level in Army, police and executive level of the government. A high level official of R&AW is working on that with different attachment of DGFI and officials of NSI and different policy makers.

Hasina has suggested to bring more amendment in the constitution before the election, the draft of the amendment is on process guided by R&AW.

R&AW highly recommend assassinating Begum Khaleda Zia, who is widow of the President and former army Chief Ziaur Rahman, who was assassinated in 1981.

Begum Khaleda Zia, the longest-serving Prime Minister of Bangladesh Since the country’s independence in 1971. R&AW has trained a group of young men to kill Khaleda Zia.

The group has been trained in India and also trained by different level by Bangladesh army.

Intelligence sources have informed that they have setup people within BNP and they are keeping close eye of Khaleda Zia.The group has attempted one time  in last month to assassinate Khaleda Zia but they had failed due to wrong information.

Sheikh Hasina shared with R&Aw that she will fully cooperate with them to make sure the assassination of Begum Zia. She wants to make sure the revenge of her father’s killing by killing Begum Zia.


Delhi worries on Hasina’s popularity slide

The Times of India published an article entitled ‘India’s worries could mount with Khaleda Zia’a expected return to power in Bangladesh’ on August 29, 2012. It said that the India intelligence agencies were very worried at the rapid decline in popularity of the incumbent Awami League government and the expected return to power by BNP.

The article mentions: “New Delhi has got unprecedented cooperation from the Hasina regime in busting the havens of Indian insurgent groups in her country as well as in the investigation of terror incidents with Bangladeshi linkages. However, as the popularity of the Awami League regime under Hasina dips, ceding ground to rival BNP, the agencies fear that the gains of the last few years may be reversed if Khaleda regains power.”

It added: “Obviously, the Indian security establishment is keen to arrest the slide in Awami League’s popularity. Though there is little it can do to reverse the incumbency disadvantage, a positive development on the Teesta water-sharing pact, financial assistance for the Padma Bridge project and exchange of enclaves may go a long way in correcting the negative perception in Bangladesh that Hasina has not managed any major concessions from India. However, these will be possible only after UPA’s troublesome ally, the Trinamool Congress, is convinced to drop its reservations on Teesta and the enclaves…..Even as efforts will intensify over the next year to recover lost ground for Hasina, senior intelligence officials here claimed that Khaleda’s BNP alliance, saddled by corruption cases and expected conviction of its leaders by war crimes tribunals, could see a reversal in its growing popular perception closer to the polls, expected sometime in February 2014.”

Uncharitable, obscene
This article is followed by more than four hundred comments from the readers, an overwhelming majority of whom are Indians. The language used by the Indians to demean the Bangladeshis is mostly uncharitable and obscene. It is obvious that most of them think that Bangladesh is still a ‘basket case’ and is dependent on Indian charity for its survival. The poor Indians seem to be oblivious of the fact that Bangladesh has surpassed India in almost all social and economic indices and in fact this year has left India behind in GDP growth rate. Industrial growth in India is plummeting while it is fast rising in Bangladesh.

Indians know nothing about the tremendous progress Bangladesh has made in the recent years. They treat Bangladesh as a poor cousin of Eastern India which in turn is treated as a poor cousin of Western India. While India as a whole is communal, Eastern India is even more communal. It is common in this region for those who are considered to be of low cast to be submissive to the upper class Brahmins to be punished or even be killed. Thus like the lower caste Hindus, Bangladeshis have no business to be prosperous or successful and this may give rise to the anger and envy they feel towards Bangladesh.

India will most definitely try their best to hold on to their assets in Bangladesh by influencing the public opinion whichever way they can. Ruthless persecution of the opposition parties seems to be high on their “to do” list. But this is unlikely to deliver the desired result as people tend to forget that what happened more than five years ago and are more likely to be influenced by the government’s inaction on a number of corruption and law and order issues that is plaguing the country today.

The only option left for India is to impress upon the western countries to allow the holding of the next general elections under the present Awami League government. This is the only way that Awami League can hold on to power. On the other hand, losing the next elections is not an option for this party. The Awami League is exactly in the same boat as the Caretaker Government of Fakhruddin and Moinuddin, a BNP victory in the 2014 General Elections will be very unhealthy for all the beneficiaries of the current government, exactly as a BNP victory in 2008 would have been to the last Caretaker Government. A defeat in the next elections is not an option for the Awami League and with its growing isolation, it will have to be more dependent on Indian support.

India’s NE strategy
India on the other hand has not been able to extract the desired tangible advantages that it wanted of Bangladesh. The Indian intelligence report clearly exposes their need for Bangladesh support to hold on to their remote north eastern territories. It is ridiculous to claim that insurgents there need Bangladesh support to fight Indian control there. If the Maoists in central India can effectively fight the powerful Indian army without any external support, it is most unlikely that the much better organised, far more experienced insurgents fighting in some of the most inhospitable terrains in Asia will need the support of Bangladesh.

On the contrary, the Indian army, whose recruits are mostly from the plains, do need easy access to these hilly battlegrounds which only Bangladesh can provide. India needs transit through Bangladesh for quick, and more importantly, cheap transport of weapons and personnel to their remote north-eastern battlegrounds.

Certain developments in India have not been advantageous for the Awami League. The departure of “Kakababu” Pranab Mukherjee from the Indian central cabinet and the rise to power by Mamata Banerjee has left Awami League with no powerful friends in New Delhi. This means that India will not be able to oblige Bangladesh with anything that would be seen as a friendly gesture, i.e., Teesta Barrage waters or the exchange of enclaves. This would mean that India would be pressing for long term concessions from the Awami League without giving anything in return. The way things are in the country now, the Awami League may have to do just that if it wishes to stay in power.

River Erosion Along India–Bangladesh Border: Source Of Violent Conflict – Analysis

River erosion along the border often triggers violent conflicts between India and Bangladesh. These two countries share an international border of about 4098 km, 180km of which runs through the middle of shared rivers. When these rivers erode their banks on one side, sediments are deposited slowly onto the other, causing new land to build up. Both countries will then engage in military action in order to take over the new land.

Bangladesh, being the lower riparian state, faces a greater bank erosion risk on its side. The construction of various protective works on the bank of rivers on the Indian side drives the river wave to Bangladesh and causes river erosion. Therefore, Bangladesh loses its geographical territory to India in most cases. According to government accounts, Bangladesh has already lost more than 15,000 hectares of land due to such erosion, the result of 10 common rivers with India, as well as one with Myanmar. On the other side, the state of Assam in India has been worst hit with massive erosion by two major trans-boundary rivers – the Brahmaputra and the Barak near the Bangladesh border. This has resulted in not only territorial loss, but the destruction of housing, crops and arable land as well.

The serious threat of river bank erosion is that it gradually changes the river boundary which separates India and Bangladesh. Although the two countries share 54 trans-boundary rivers, border guidelines have only been framed for the boundary status of the Muhuri and Fenny rivers. Article 1 (5) of the 1974 Indo-Bangladesh Land Boundary Agreement states, “The boundary in this area should be demarcated along the mid-stream of the course of Muhuri River at the time of demarcation. This boundary will be a fixed boundary. The two governments should raise embankments on their respective sides with a view to stabilizing the river in its present course.” The same rule has been followed to set the boundary of Fenny River. For other common rivers, both countries treat the middle of a river as a borderline in the spirit of aforementioned 1974 Land Boundary Agreement.

However, the agreement neglects to touch down on whether natural changes in the course of these rivers should affect the location of the boundary between two states. In the absence of such a provision, the border guidelines are misinterpreted by both sides that if river changes its course due to erosion or flood, then the mid-stream boundary line will also shift. Thus, a river eroding its banks on the Bangladesh side adds new alluvial land (locally known as char) to adjacent Indian territory and leads to disputes when civilians living on both sides claim this char land as their own. This type of dispute has been prevalent in 17 common rivers at the very least.

Disputes over shifting rivers and ownership of newly accreted land often spark violent armed conflicts between the Bangladesh Border Guard (BGB) and the Indian Border Security Force (BSF). For example, in the Sylhet-Assam border areas alone, the two frontier troops have confronted each other 77 times over the last 37 years to grab the new patches of landmass that have emerged from the Barak-Surma-Kushiara, clashes which resulted in the loss of more than 55 lives. It should be pointed out here that the border areas of India and Bangladesh are heavily populated and extremely poor. The livelihoods of people in these areas are inextricably linked to agriculture. So when new land materializes from a shift in the course of river, people on the both sides move in under cover of their border troops to occupy and cultivate it. The famous Belonia border conflict started when Indian farmers, under the protection of the BSF, attempted to harvest crops on nearly 50 acres of newly surfaced land on the river Muhuri on the Belonia sector, a border area between eastern Bangladesh and the northwestern Indian state of Tripura.

Fighting also breaks out on the border if any side makes attempts at embankment protection against erosion. Each side accuses the other of building various defensive structures include groins, spurs, weirs, and sluices along the banks of common rivers, which in turn leads to accelerated erosion, and therefore, loss of territory. Both sides claim their own erosion control measures are temporary while accusing the other of erecting permanent embankments.

In fact, conflicts over alluvial riverine islands and raising embankments have strained India-Bangladesh relations for decades. A surplus of suspicion and mistrust between two countries has made these conflicts very complex. As a result, livelihoods in the border areas of both sides are becoming increasingly vulnerable, uncertain and insecure. Many of the past border skirmishes have ultimately led to the deaths of innocent civilians.

In recent years, the issue of bank erosion was highlighted in several India-Bangladesh minister level meetings that ended without any positive outcome. The path to prevention of these border conflicts lies in the amendment of the 1974 Land Boundary Agreement in order to insert a provision that in any case of erosion and deposit (natural or artificial), the river boundaries of the two countries remains the fixed. This type of agreement settled the boundary dispute of Bangladesh with Myanmar over Naf River in 1966. There is also need to transform the India-Bangladesh animosity, distrust and suspicion that have grown up over the years into a new relationship that is based on mutual trust and cooperation. It is hoped that such approaches will allow people on both sides of the international river border to live in peace and prosperity.