‘India should be divided into 20 to 30 sovereign states’

INDIAN academics are up in arms over what they regard as provocative incitement of the country's demise by a Chinese essayist."China can dismember the so-called 'Indian Union' with one little move!" 

claimed the essay posted last week on China International Strategy Net, a patriotic website focused on strategic issues. The writer, under the pseudonym Zhanlue (strategy in Chinese), argued that India's sense of national unity was weak and Beijing's best option to remove an emerging rival and security threat would be to support separatist forces, like those in Assam, to bring about a collapse of the Indian federal state.

"There cannot be two suns in the sky," wrote Zhanlue. "China and India cannot really deal with each other harmoniously." The article suggested that India should be divided into 20 to 30 sovereign states.Such was the outcry about the article that the Indian government issued a statement reassuring the country that relations with China were calm.

"The article in question appears to be an expression of individual opinion and does not accord with the officially stated position of China on India-China relations conveyed to us on several occasions, including at the highest level, most recently by State Councillor Dai Bingguo during his visit to India last week," the foreign ministry in New Delhi said in a statement, referring to mutual pledges to respect territorial integrity and sovereignty.

The publication of the article coincided with talks between Beijing and New Delhi over disputed Himalayan border areas. Earlier this year, China held up funding for an Asian Development Bank (ADB) project in Arunachal Pradesh, an Indian state claimed by China as "south Tibet". India has also banned some Chinese imports as it tries to protect its economy from the global downturn.


Officials in Beijing and Delhi hew to rival visions of the future, each seeing themselves as pursuing the more durable political and social model of development. The presumption in New Delhi is that China's unified, one-party state is bound to break down.


DS Rajan, director of the Chennai Centre for China Studies, brought the essay to his countrymen's attention. "It has generally been seen that China is speaking in two voices," he said. "Its diplomatic interlocutors have always shown understanding during their dealings with their Indian counterparts, but its selected media is pouring venom on India in their reporting."


China International Strategy Net is run by Kang Lingyi, who took part in hacking into US government websites in 1999 following US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Sites such as his are part of the Communist party's strategy to allow nationalism to grow to strengthen its political legitimacy. (FT Syndication Service)


An earlier IANS analysis adds: Written in Chinese, the article, 'If China takes a little action, the so-called Great Indian Federation can be broken up,' is published in the new edition of the website of the China International Institute for Strategic Studies (CIISS), an influential think tank that advises Beijing on global and strategic issues.According to D.S. Rajan, director of the Chennai Centre for China Studies, Chennai, Zhan Lue, the author of the article, argues that the 'so-called' Indian nation cannot be considered as one having existed in history as it relies primarily on Hindu religion for unity.


The article says that India could only be termed a 'Hindu religious state' that is based on caste exploitation and which is coming in the way of modernisation.


The writer goes on to argue that with these caste cleavages in mind, China in its own interest and the progress of whole of Asia should join forces with 'different nationalities' like Assamese, Tamils and Kashmiris and support them in establishing independent nation states of their own.


In particular, the article asks Beijing to support the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), a militant separatist group in the Indian northeast, to it achieve independence for Assam from India.


Furthermore, the article suggests that China can give political support to Bangladesh to encourage ethnic Bengalis in India get rid of 'Indian control' and unite with Bangladesh as one Bengali nation.If this is not possible, the creation of at least another free Bengali nation state as a friendly neighbour of Bangladesh would be desirable for the purpose of weakening India's expansion and threat aimed at forming a 'unified South Asia', the article argues.


The article contends that if the consciousness of 'nationalities' in India could be aroused, social reforms in South Asia can be achieved, the caste system can be eradicated and the region can march towards prosperity.The Chinese strategist suggests that to split India, China can seek support of friendly countries including Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan.


China should encourage Bangladesh to give a push to the independence of West Bengal and recover the 90,000 sq km territory in Arunachal Pradesh, which China calls Southern Tibet, says Rajan who has analysed the article for the Chennai-based think tank.'The write-up could not have been published without the permission of the Chinese authorities, but it is sure that Beijing will wash its hands out of this if the matter is taken up by New Delhi,' says Rajan.


'It has generally been seen that China is speaking in two voices - its diplomatic interlocutors have always shown understanding in their dealings with their Indian counterparts, but its media is pouring venom on India,' says Rajan.

Which one to believe is a question confronting the public opinion and even policy makers in India, Rajan says, adding that ignoring such an article will 'prove to be costly' for India.

Source :

 

Farakka's Vicious Aggression

Add caption

1. Farakka Barrage project looked innocent:

Farakka is a hangover project not seriously taken up earlier until by independent India since 1949 , that is immediately after Indian partition and Pakistan founded in two parts, the West in northern British India and East in East Bengal. Though the founding of the new innovative state of Pakistan was founded through popular votes of the people and in consensus agreement of the three main parties then involved active in Indian politics- the British, the Congress and the Muslim League- the powerful actors the British colonialist and the caste ridden elitist Brahmanist Congress had set their targets very much at the beginning to dismember Pakistan and eat that up at some opportune moment. The first target being East Bengal for many vulnerable reasons against East Bengal, such as, its geographical location almost encircled by big India and economic over dependence on West Bengal and bigger Indian merchants and businessmen. The set hidden target being so, India’s Farakka Barrage Project just 11 miles up from the agreed international land border across the mighty river Ganges/ Padma must have had the additional hidden agenda for hegemony and throttle East Bengal in the down stream flowing through East Bengal ( East Bengal/East Pakistan) to the Bay of Bengal. Apparently the project for control and diversion into the river Bhagirathi to flash out and keep fit for deeper draught vessel into the Haldia river port near Calcutta looked innocent and of big utility to India.

2. Pakistan kept on objecting then off:

Although Pakistan since almost the beginning in mid August 1947 had leadership crisis, India had both experienced and more efficient leadership and continuity of old colonial administration obtained almost intact, Pakistan had kept on objecting to erecting the Barrage across river Ganges in upstream for that was taken to affect adversely the water flow along the Padma in the down stream through East Bengal to the Bay of Bengal. That is why almost no substantial progress of the work was made in nearly two decades. But as soon as East Pakistan was in political turmoil in late 1960 s the project got a quick accomplishment. Whether there was any close connection between the Jalao Porao or put on arson and burn- of East Pakistan mainly engineered by Sheikh Mujib’s six point ‘ autonomy’ formula launched in mid 1966 need be looked into depth. Soon in midst of the anarchy and chaos, civil war in 1971 , secession and independence of East Pakistan naturally left Bangladesh on its own in all matters and so the Farakka matter, as well.

3. Advantage taken by India and Delhi:

The friendly governments of Delhi and Calcutta took the best advantage of the period of turmoil of Bangladesh and completed the Farakka Barrage construction left only to just begin its operation. Even so, they could not do so unilaterally because the Ganges/Padma happened to be not only India’s river but also of sovereign Bangladesh’s that made it a serious matter for water sharing subject to rules, regulations and norms of international river waters under several statutes. However, India took another advantage of close friendship with Dhaka to get the barrage operation for diverting and withdrawal of water at the upstream. They had little difficulty in making Dhaka agree to their programs that they did in May 1975. Even so, the operation was meant for ‘40 experimental days’ and to get things viewed for adverse effects in the down stream. Unfortunately the top leader’s fall from power in mid August 1975 that kept things ahead not only in uncertainly but also hardening of Delhi’s attitude to Dhaka on all matters.4. Prelude to 1977 water treaty:

Bangladesh was no match in anything with bigger India. The changes of government in Dhaka through army coup and counter coup one after another, the national army being in the driving position and General Zia to the top, was unpalatable to India that made things very difficult for Dhaka to move ahead. But the people were united and so were the people for the due share of water down the Farakka Barrage. On 16 May 1976 the oldest and the most experienced politician and mass leader Maolana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani organized and led a road march of hundreds of thousands of people towards the Indian border nearest to the Farakka point. Obviously the procession was stopped at the border by Indian security forces. He addressed the rally there and asked India to give our share of water or face serious other consequences. The threat on behalf of the huge mass of people gathered there produced some result that made the 1977 water sharing agreement for five years possible with minimum guarantee clause of 34 ,500 cusecs of water to be released at the Farakka point for Bangladesh’s needs.

5. President Zia killed in May 1981:

Once President General Zia was killed, many alleged the killing by Indian Intelligence R&AW operatives and under Indian PM Indira Gandhi’s direct planning and order, the water sharing for three years set had passed. The renewal of the agreement was not made. Bangladesh suffered for loss of everything of life and economy due to lower quantum of flow. There was nothing except a MOU made in 1982 , India arrogantly refused to make any agreement to enjoy scope to withdraw water unilaterally at will until the 1996 treaty that in fact unfortunately flouted rules and norms of international water sharing bodies like Helsinki Rules or treaty conditions that existed for other river waters elsewhere like the Nile, Danube, Indus Water between India and Pakistan, etc.

6. Hasina made an agreement in December 1996 for 30 years with no guarantee clause:

Shaikh Hasina on assuming the position of PM in 1996 for the first time through indecent and immoral league with the Jamaat and the Jatiya Party leader imprisoned Ershad for high degree corruption, made a high sounding agreement for 30 years. The additional suicidal clue was ‘ dependent on availability of water’ at the Farakka point, being other mass withdrawn at points still up in the stream caring nothing much less taking consent of Bangladesh. It sounded high but having no clause for minimum guarantee for the down stream flow during the leanest season (April-May) it remained suicidal for Bangladesh for all encompassing adverse effects due to non availability of water for basic sustenance of lives, economy and environment. For thirteen years India has been even more aggressive not only in matters of Farakka but also in matters of Teesta, its seven tributaries, and now newly started Tipaimukh Barrage in the upstream of Surma and Kusiara that flow down to the Meghna another big river of Bangladesh. This is certain to have ill fate of Farrakka’s adverse effects on one fourth of the country in the south west region just as one third of Bangladesh in the south east of Bangladesh due to the Tipaimukh Multi- purpose Barrage. Hasina says as also her own men in top administration that the Tipaimukh would be so done and operated that it would do no ‘ harm’ to Bangladesh That was what the assurance she has got from Indian PM Monmohon Singh, but unfortunately nothing in written much less in document of treaty. Pity for Hasina for the harsh reality is that they cared little for written documents possibly for their bigness and bigger muscle power, how could Delhi be trusted for verbal sweet words!


7. Questions to ponder and to rise:

On the Farakka March’s 34 th anniversary this year on the 16 th May some pertinent questions have been raised by some quarters. The points are- (1) whether Bangladesh must raise the issue at the United Nations for arbitration for the quantum of water; (2) whether Bangladesh must seek for compensation to India for the huge loss incurred during the lat 35 years of the barrage operation at the upstream against lives, economy and environment; (3) whether Bangladesh must make enumeration of losses incurred in terms of money ( I made a calculation of loss in 2008 March that came to a figure of 49 lakhs crores, in May 2010 it might rise further 3 lakhs crores making the total as of now at 52 lakhs crore Taka that comes to US$ 7 , 400 billion at the current exchange rate) and seek the amount for the compensation from India; (4) whether comprehensive plans for joint development of river water sources in the Himalayan region for augmenting water flows through construction of dams in the upper region and for water management sharing with other neighboring countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and India be pursued for the total river basin as a unit in a cooperative approach, (5) whether, in case all the above four options unrealized satisfactorily, Bangladesh must opt for military option, the brief and the most likely would be bombing by our Air Force at the Farakka installations proper and so ensure natural flow of water in the downstream to Bangladesh.


8. Strength of the spine:

Bangladesh has no strong spine to take up the 5 th option against mighty India. But a sniper action should not be ruled out. The Padua/Roumary battle in 2001 had been a good lesson for India. One would point out though that since the 25-26 February massacre of the 57 commissioned army officers in matter of hours in the capital city Dhaka in the well secured BDR HQ must have taught the army that how much deeply helpless they could be in face of India sponsored massacres meekly eaten up here for weaker spine and personal lust for power hungriness and as such any probable air attack on the Farakka Barrage installations could be countered with mightier attacks. The further issue that caused worry is that they have gained additional moral strength by dismissing at some one’s will many other senior army officers in addition to those faced the judicial murder of five in late January 2010 due only to vengeance and hardly for upholding rule of law that have had additionally chilled the spines of Bangladesh army. Otherwise India would have had chilled her spines, I can confidently guess. 9. Pakistan’s instance:

India played havoc with Pakistan in the initial years and soon after the Kashmir war in October 1947 in that India had stopped all canals in the upstream in order for Pakistan to get lost in the lifeline for agriculture through irrigation in the Pakistan part of the Punjab that developed long before the British period, loss of drinking water supply and huge damage to environment. But Pakistan’s spine though relatively weaker then even so India got to the table and made 10 years treaty permitting Pakistan exclusive rights of full three rivers’ waters- Sind, Jehlum and Chenab, and India secured similar rights of another three – Ravi, Beas and Sutlej for her. On expiry of the ten year period the treaty was renewed forever that runs till today. The World Bank though made the mediation Pakistan’s spine was an important factor to force India to sit down across the negotiating table and their leaders Ayub and Nehru in September 1960 did the formal signing. Again Pakistan had the Army General with stronger spine in leadership and Nehru the founding leader of independent India and top boss of the Congress party. We experienced President General Zia had a stronger spine that made the 1977 treaty with guarantee clause for minimum flow during lean season for five months (January to May) at 34 ,500 cusecs.

10. 1996 treaty clauses flouted consistently by India:

The treaty made by Dhaka in 1996 with weaker spine facing Delhi’s stronger one and cunning sweet words obviously fell flat and Bangladesh has not in the last 13 years got the due share agreed then unfairly though agreed for Bangladesh in the agreement. It is very much clear that unless the spine is made stronger there is in store all sufferings, misfortune and misery continuing for 35 years of water aggression now against Bangladesh not only for the Indian Farakka Barrage but also for the Teesta’s Gazaldoba, Tipaimukh Dam etc, that is, in all 53 common rivers unfortunately Bangladesh geographically positioned in the down stream of the Indian location being in the upstream that must bring along in future many other for the country due mainly to spineless rulers running the country. May I say at the end that unless one is deeply aware of the aggressive and hegemonic attitude of the Indian rulers against the smaller countries in the region one must fail to understand the common river waters downstream flows and sharing in its proper perspective.

India Backed Shanti Bahini, Burmese Rebels: Book

Indira Gandhi was voted out of power in 1977, just when India's external intelligence organisation, R&AW, was preparing to substantially step up its backing for the Shanti Bahini, says Subir Bhaumik in his just-released book "Troubled Periphery:Crisis of India's Northeast".

Bhaumik, a journalist and academic researcher for three decades, has provided graphic details of the R&AW's involvement in the Chittagong Hill Tracts and Burma's Kachin Hills in his latest book. But he makes it clear the "orders came right from the top" and were not operations generated by the agency.

"The immediate provocation for the Indian sponsorship of the Shanti Bahini guerrillas .. was the military coup that killed Sheikh Mujibur Rehman and many members of his family. To Indira gandhi, this coup was a political defiance of India .

"Within a week of the coup, senior R&AW leaders arrived in Tripura's capital Agartala with a clear brief for their subordinates: Get
those Chakma leaders who want to fight Bangladesh."

Bhaumik's findings is based on detailed interviews of Shanti Bahini guerrilla commanders and R&AW officials and the book is replete with such references.

One Shanti Bahini leader tells Bhaumik about the quality of Indian training.

"The Indian training was intensive and tough as the instructors had served with military units in Nagaland and Mizoram. The leadership element of the course was gruelling and involved war games and dummy attacks.

"The instructors would observe how we went about the attack and whether we had absorbed the theoretical lessons. They would severely admonish us if we were found lacking. They always reminded us of the maxim that you bleed less in war if you train well in peace."

Indira Gandhi's election defeat in 1977 saved Bangladesh, then grappling with mutinies and domestic unrest, from huge trouble, suggests Bhaumik.

"Just when the Shanti Bahini were told to prepare for the big push forward and that India would support a strength of 15000 guerrillas came the news of Mrs Gandhi's election debacle and the Congress defeat...

"It is not clear how far Mrs Gandhi wanted to go and it is possible that, after the liberation of Bangladesh, she could see the value of a successful foreign campaign could boost her dropping popularity back home.

"But her defeat changed the course of events . The R&AW plans to intensify the guerrilla war in Chittagong Hill
Tracts were put on hold when Morarji Desai took over as Prime Minister. The R&AW topbrass were categorically told to lay off from CHT."

Bhaumik's book says the support to Shanti Bahini was resumed when Mrs Gandhi came back to power--but by then, the Bahini was in the throes of a fratricidal war that led to the assasination of its chief M N Larma.

It says that R&AW's Agartala station chief at that time, Parimal Ghosh even resolved this fratricidal conflict by drafting an agreement between the two Shanti Bahini factions.

Ghosh in 1971 was close to General (then Major) Ziaur Rahman and operated under his pseudonym Captain Hossain Ali.

As a BSF officer, he fought at the Shuvapur bridge with the Mukti Fauj.

Bhaumik also details how the R&AW won over the Kachin Independence Army (KIA) and started giving them weapons -- just to ensure they would not back any Northeast Indian rebel groups anymore.

The man instrumental in this operation was one of the most successful R&AW operatives , B.B.Nandi, who had also served as their station chief in Dhaka.

During Nandi's tenure as station chief at Bangkok, he developed close links with the Burmese underground groups, specially the Kachins.

Bhaumik says that Nandi even planted a R&AW communications team at the KIA headquarters in the early 1990s, from where they monitored the China-bound movements of the northeast Indian rebels .

After retirement, Nandi became a fierce critic of the R&AW and the Indian government when Delhi started befriending Burma's military junta and the BNP-Jamaat combine in Dhaka.

Bhaumik's book , published by Sage, details the major issues of conflict in northeast India -- land,language, leadership, ethnicity, ideology , religion -- and offers a policy framework for resolving the crisis.

It says the region suffers from severe "democracy and development deficit" and argues that a secular and democratic Bangladesh and a truly federal and democratic Burma is crucial to the stability of India's Northeast. 

Source :

Ulfa Arrests : Whither Sovereignty???

With the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) already in place ensuring people's access to information from public authorities as a right guaranteeing transparency and comprehensibility, the incumbent government agencies and operatives including some ministers seem to obscure and obfuscate vital matters concerning national sovereignty in contravention of the RTI Act's affirmed legal provisions.


When info or disclosure is held back, it spawns wild conjectures leading to labyrinthine enigma of confusion --- much to the nation's chagrin, and even peril. Contravening the RTI Act the government's smokescreen over the issue of the recent arrests and handing over of the clandestine terror outfit members of the 'seven sisters' states of India is being viewed as a great faux pas.


Recently the Indian media have credited the Bangladesh law enforcing agencies regarding the arrest of no less than three major leaders of the separatist United Liberation Front of Asom ( ULFA), including its chief Arabinda Rajkhowa, since November 1.


The Detective Branch ( DB) of Bangladesh police arrested Arabinda in the capital on December 1.


The DB also arrested the chairman of the National Liberation Front of Tripura, Biswamohan Debbarma, along the border at Kamalganj, some 160 km northeast of Dhaka.


These four persons were handed over to the Indian authorities, according to the Indian media report. Reportedly, some high officials of the Bangladesh law enforcement agency in question have confirmed the arrests and subsequent handover, but the government has swung between silence and total denial, which engendered hearsay and speculation, thus making people concerned as well as disturbed.


What is more, there is no extradition treaty between the two countries. Extradition denotes delivery of a person, suspected or convicted of a crime, by the state where he has taken refuge to the state that asserts jurisdiction over him. Its purpose is to prevent criminals who flee a country from escaping punishment.


However, international law does not recognise extradition as an obligation in the absence of a treaty. Whilst the Indian media broke the news of the arrests of the ULFA leaders in Bangladesh and subsequent handover to the Indian authority, Dhaka remained tight-lipped over the subject. The foreign minister evaded reporters' question relating to Rajkhowa's arrest. As expected, the government's secretiveness at that time caused doubt as to whether it was involved in covert operations.


Afterwards the home minister, Sahara Khatun, stated that the ULFA chief "was not arrested in Bangladesh" and the news given in the Indian media report was incorrect.


Khatun's statements intend to imply that the Bangladesh law enforcement authorities have not made the arrests. Now, will it not be cogent for the body politic to deduce that the Indian law enforcement agencies were involved in their arrest on Bangladesh soil? Undeniably, it is tantamount to impingement on the country's sovereignty.

What is more, if the Indian media reports of the arrests and handover to New Delhi are true, then is the Bangladesh government doing the Indian government's bidding by obeying diktat of a foreign country?


In the absence of an extradition treaty between Dhaka and Delhi -- which will require India to reciprocate by extraditing several hundred Bangladeshi most wanted underworld lords hiding in India for years --- this is not legally or ethically acceptable. Since 1979 India's north-eastern region has been the hotbed of insurgency and fierce armed conflict killing a large number of people.


Over the years about 20 ,000 people have died in Christian-dominated Nagaland alone. The Indian media reports tend to suggest that the Bangladesh government may have already taken a side in the conflict, favouring the Indian government and against the northeast Indian people. In that terrifying decades old strife it will be most dangerous for Bangladesh take any side.


Hence Dhaka must not allow herself to be caught up in the turmoil [in which various parties from Maoists to ISI are said to be the stakeholders] because such an involvement can unavoidably incite and provoke the rebels to open a battlefront targeting Bangladesh and endangering her security. More importantly, the government must not forget the most vital concept of our nationhood -- - sovereignty. The onus is on the government to clarify in detail if it has not compromised the country's sovereignty.

Manipuri Activist Interviewed

With the planned Tipaimukh Dam putting 70 million people "at risk" in northeast India and Bangladesh, people of the region must co-ordinate efforts to safeguard sustainable development in the face of such projects, says veteran Indian campaigner Anastasia Cristalina Pinto. Pinto, executive director of the Centre for Organisation Research and Education (CORE) in Manipur, told bdnews24.com, during a recent visit to Dhaka, the contentious dam also threatens to heighten existing tensions between the Indian government and ethnic groups in Manipur. The CORE focuses on policy research and advocacy on the rights of the indigenous and tribal communities.


Environmental pressure groups in both Bangladesh and Manipur state have been voicing strong concern over the potential impact of the planned Indian dam in downstream areas. The people of Manipur, and other northeastern states, are "justifiably unhappy" with the Indian government's development approach in the region, says Pinto, who has been working for the past two decades throughout India, including the northeast, on the vital role of local communities in sustainable development. India says the dam would not withhold water from Bangladesh as it is part of a power generation project and not intended for irrigation purposes. Pinto said, there were more than 70 million people "at risk" from the project. "Not only in the northeast, but if you take the adjacent regions into consideration." "Where is the international community? Where are the human rights groups, environmentalists and development activists, where are the donors? What are they doing?" She called on the international community to help in "preventative action", not to wait until it was "too late".


 Cumulative impact "Because we are not talking about only one dam; we are talking about the cumulative impact of several such interventions," said Pinto. She mentioned "future dams" along with "proposed uranium mines, the Trans-Asia highways and railways ... to be built in one of the most ecologically and seismically sensitive zones in the world." "There is very little assessment of cumulative future impacts. That is my concern," said the Manipur-based activist. She said the Indian government has estimated just 1300 families will be displaced for the Tipaimukh dam. "But then you calculate the displacement cost of the pan-Asian highway, railway, proposed mines and all the support and ancillary infrastructure that has to come up in order to support these." "Now let's talk about how many people are being displaced." "Let us look at the larger picture, what are the implications of such large scale displacement and reconstruction of environment and physical geography of such a sensitive zone on the outline areas. Nobody has calculated that," says Pinto.


"This is a disaster prone region already, now we are going to multiply that many times. For the last 30 years, this region, from the Bay of Bengal to the Himalayas, has also been experiencing growing impact of climate change. Now we are going to throw all this in to that basket." 'Bangladesh should join us' "I think Bangladesh should try and cooperate with some of us to actually find the way of assessing what is the cumulative impact of this entire development programme taken together. Because nothing less than that is needed." She suggested a co-operative non-government, scientific, bilateral board from northeast India and Bangladesh to assess the cumulative impact of "an entire range of projects" in the region over the next ten to fifteen years.


 "Local people do not want this dam. They have been forced to deal with it. At some point the feat of the government of India becomes like an act of God, which we cannot protest. It is beyond our capacity to do anything more. Because we are a small population already suffering from ... consequences of conflict. I am not saying anything very revolutionary; we have made complaints in this regard to various UN agencies and the human rights mechanism." But, said Pinto, in the last few years international support for the northeast has decreased. "We are not asking the people to make a decision or assessment, we are asking for people to make a truly scientific investigation into the impact of these projects cumulatively taken together on a zone such as the northeast and its outlying areas," said Pintu. 'Heightened tensions' Pinto's concern is also for Manipur's long-standing issues, including armed insurgency by separatist groups and inter-ethnic conflict that have recently come to the fore with protests against the Tipaimukh Dam project. The dam will heighten existing tensions between the central government and ethnic groups in the northeast state, she says. "Of course it will accelerate conflicts. It's not something unique in the northeast where resources become appropriated by corporations or by large projects. Conflicts are escalating and proliferating. In the northeast we already have 106 or 108 armed groups," she told bdnews24.com. Long-simmering tensions exist between the Indian government and people of the remote northeastern states of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Manipur, and Nagaland, known collectively as the 'seven sisters'. Much of the region, connected to the rest of India by a narrow strip of land known as the Siliguri Corridor, is ethnically and culturally different from the rest of India. The states have long accused New Delhi of ignoring the issues that concern them, plundering resources and doing little to improve their lives. "Conflict is going to increase unless the government of India completely reverses its approach," said the development activist. "Conflict between armed groups in India, conflict between armed groups with each other, all these are going to intensify and multiply due to the kind of development pathways ... being adopted by the Indian government and in collaboration with others governments in the region who are not prepared to say no," she said.

Handing Over Indian Citizens And Some Questions

With historical commonality since the days of yore, geographical affinity and familiar cultural traits, India remains our closest neighbour. In 1971 Pakistan Army's genocide and other brutalities caused the worst mass exodus from Bangladesh --- close to 99 hundred thousand --- to neighbouring India. In Tripura, refugees outnumbered local inhabitants. An enormous influx of such a scale had naturally been a colossal burden on the Indian economy and took India some months to provide refugees shelter in improvised refugee camps. More importantly, our youths were trained to join resistance as Freedom Fighters. These are all historical facts acknowledged by us. Thus during the Liberation War, India was our greatest friend in need which we always remember with gratitude.

But after independence India could not keep it up in so far as bilateral relations with her closest neighbour Bangladesh are concerned. The developments that unfolded since the early seventies regarding the big neighbour's attitude were not pleasant. The issues are many beginning from depriving co-riparian Bangladesh of the legitimate share of the Ganges water, maritime boundary demarcation, greater plan to divert waters of the 54 common rivers, the Tipaimukh dam threat, frequent shooting down of Bangladeshis by the BSF, a sustained media campaign against this country and so on.

Over the years India has been accusing that dozens of fugitive insurgents from Assam and adjoining states were hiding in this country. Recently two insurgents have been captured. India's The Hindu, in a story datelined Guwahati, November 7, reported that two top leaders of the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) - Sashadhar Choudhury and Chitraban Hazarika --- were produced before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, by the Special Operation Unit of the Assam police. India and Bangladesh do not have any extradition treaty; hence the process of handing over each other's wanted criminals had always been cumbersome. The ULFA general secretary Anup Chetia, arrested in 1997 in Dhaka, is yet to be handed over to India due to legal complications.

Home minister Sahara Khatun indirectly admitted the action saying strong collaboration among the South Asian courtiers should be forged to root out the causes of militancy. "Our countries must engage in regional cooperation to counter terrorism," she told a workshop of South Asian Task Force on anti-terrorism held in Dhaka. The gesture is appreciable as insurgents are causing trouble to the Indian authorities. But beneath the surface---as they claim---are long stories of injustice done to the people of that region. Leaders of these outfits have reportedly appealed to the Bangladesh government and the people explaining their struggle while reminding that they had extended support to the Bangladesh people when they were on the run from the Pakistani occupation forces during 1971 liberation war. They said, they are now going through the same ordeal and look upon the Bangladesh government and its people to extend similar support to their leaders.

Now the question has been raised here whether or not the Indian detectives or undercover agents arrested the two ULFA terrorists and took them away to Assam. A BBC report later confirmed they were pushed back under the cover of an understanding. But the question is how could it happen in the absence of an extradition treaty between the two countries?

And what about the Bangladeshi gangland lords in India who have caused great damage to us? Have they been handed over to Bangladesh government? According to police records, from 2003 to 2007, as many as 18,994 people were murdered in four years alone and those gangsters now in India are said to be responsible for those murders through their followers in Bangladesh for failing to pay ransom or other demands.

In sum, a good neighbour is a great blessing. There is no doubt that as a neighbour Bangladesh certainly and definitely cherishes lasting friendly relations with India based on understanding and cooperation for mutual benefit. But the way the two ULFA rebels were allowed to be nabbed in Dhaka and smuggled out to India gives rise to a lot of questions that call for answers. .

Deadly Games With Nations Fate: Virtual Corridor To India

It’s like watching a movie already seen twice. Or, it could be the recurrence of a hellish nightmare? The reasons that had compelled the last BNP-led Government not to approve the proposed Asian Highway in December 2005 remain alive, but the AL-led regime has agreed in principle to approve the three different routes, only to turn the entire country into a virtual corridor of India.

The Communication Ministry on May 21 made the decision following a meeting in which roads and railway secretary ASM Ali Kabir and senior officials from the foreign, defence, home and finance ministries, ERD, roads and highways and railway departments were present. Following the meeting, Communication Minister Abul Hossain, as well as a spokesperson of the ministry, confirmed that the Government had approved the scheme in principle. It’s a deadly game with nation’s fate.

Whither Asian Highway from Japan to Turkey?

The decision is dangerous both on counts of its historicity and the cost and benefit calculations. Since the proposal for the Asian Highway was mooted first in 1959, some 15 countries, including Pakistan, became founding members by signing the agreement. Bangladesh too is considered a founding member by virtue of its integration with Pakistan until 1971. Then, following decades of vacillation and bargaining, the United Nations Economic and Social Council for Asia Pacific (UNESCAP) managed to draft an Intergovernmental Agreement for the 1,41,000 kilometers-long roadways that would crisscross many Asian countries from Japan to Turkey, to reach the shores of the Atlantic Ocean and the continent of Europe.

Connectivity with India

As the move intensified with the tempest of globalization whipping the world in the last decade, a total of 27 nations ratified their participation (32 had signed so far) by 2004 while the deadline for Bangladesh expired in December 2005 following the BNP-led alliance Government’s negation to accept the proposed route on ground that it would compromise country’s national security by turning Bangladesh a virtual transit and corridor of India.

The economic and infrastructural viabilities too did not favour a positive decision from Dhaka. For, of the three routes proposed by the UNSECAP for Bangladesh - AH1, AH2 and AH 41 – two of them serve solely Indian interests at the cost of harming economic and geopolitical interests of Bangladesh.

Being surrounded by India from all sides excepting the Sea to the south and the limited outlet with the Myanmar, the BNP-led alliance regime decided instead to pursue aggressively to linking Bangladesh with Myanmar in order to reach the Far Eastern countries as part of a comprehensive Look East policy.

Sources say that decision was based on three major factors: First, various bilateral deals have already made connectivity with India easier over the preceding decades, without yielding better economic opportunities for Bangladesh. Secondly: Dhaka’s main concern was how to connect landlocked Nepal, Bhutan and the Indian North East with Chittagong and Mongla ports to integrate those economies with the regional mainstream. Third: Bangladesh could reach the Asian mainland only via Myanmar, not via India.

Economics and geopolitics

Added to those concerns were the perspectives of sovereignty, economics and geopolitics. As the three proposed routes are slated only to facilitate transportations of Indian goods from the Indian mainland to the Indian North East via Bangladesh - and impose unbearable pressure on the two ports of the country —- Chittagong and Mongla —- which can barely cope with our own needs at the present - the BNP-led regime insisted on choosing the third route (AH-41). The other two routes (AH-1 and AH-2) being both economically and geopolitically non-viable, and, having serious implications for the nation’s sovereignty, the deadline in December 2005 was quietly allowed to pass by.

How can such a decision be faulted —- and reversed without considering its implications—- when the 495 kilometers long AH -1 will connect Tamabil, Sylhet, Kachpur, Dhaka, Jessore with Benapole; only to render Bangladesh into an Indian corridor by facilitating connectivity between the Indian states of Tripura and Manipur on one side, with Assam and the West Bengal on the other, by using the territory of another sovereign nation? The same is true of the 805 kilometers long AH- 2 which will connect Banglabandha of Panchagarh, Hati-Kamrul of Sirajganj, Dhaka, Kachpur and reach Tamabil again, only to re-enter India across the Sylhet frontier.

Although the third route, 752-kilometer AH- 41, too will serve to carry goods for India from the Mongla port by connecting Bagerhat via Jessore (and thence to Benapole), it seemed comparatively harmless as it will traverse past Dhaka before proceeding toward Teknaf and Cox’s Bazar to eventually connect Myanmar.

An Indian Highway

That is how the connectivity scheme the Government decided to approve will allow construction of an Indian Highway, not an Asian one, given that none of those routes will connect Bangladesh with other Asian nations who are part of the scheme. Barring Myanmar, with which Bangladesh has already arranged bilateral land connectivity, the two other points of connectivity with India neither allow Bangladesh to reach the Tokyo to Ankara Highway (as the Asian Highway is meant to be) nor the other nations who are part of it (Japan, South Korea, (India excepted), Indonesia, Pakistan, Nepal, the Philippines, China, Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Bhutan, Georgia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Laos and Malaysia).

Besides, there are allegations of Indian influence- peddling in choosing and doggedly pursuing the implementation of the proposed routes. Sources say the AH-1 route will enter Bangladesh from India via the western Benapole frontier and will exit again to India through northeastern Tamabil of Sylhet. That seems to be an Indian Highway stretching from West Bengal to Tripura and Assam.

Likewise, the AH-2 will enter Bangladesh from northwestern Banglabandha frontier and will reach again Tamabil. The two routes entering from and exiting to India are meant to facilitate the huge volume of traffic to and from Indian North Eastern states. Only the third route being an internal (or sub-regional) link to connect southeastern Mongla port with Teknaf near the Myanmar frontier, the previous government wanted the third one to be the main route to bolster our ‘Look East Policy’ that aimed at fostering economic cooperation with Myanmar, China, Cambodia and Vietnam.

Nepal, Bhutan left adrift

 

Who’s behind this highway game and why did it resurrect once again? Sources say India having enormous influence over the UN and its affiliated bodies, Delhi choose to intensify the ‘politics of highway’ since 2004 after Bangladesh commissioned a land port at Banglabandha ( in Panchagargh district) to facilitate exports to Nepal, Bhutan and the Indian North East. The port was expected to increase trading with these nations via the 61 km corridor (between Bangladesh and Nepal) and the 68 km corridor (between Bangladesh and Bhutan).

Following this move from Dhaka, India choose to impose upon Bangladesh, via the UNESCAP, the proposed routes for Asian Highway; two of which (AH-1 and AH-2) were designed to enter Bangladesh only to re-enter India. Only the third route (then known as AH-3) was left to connect Myanmar to allow Bangladesh’s exit to the Far East.

Analysts say it was an Indian ploy to obtain corridor through other means. And, coming as it did following Dhaka’s negation to export gas to India, Delhi’s stance could be summarized as very stubborn: ‘my way or highway.’

However, the lack of Delhi’s empathy was too visible to ignore. After all, Dhaka’s decision to commission the Banglabandha port came amidst repeated Nepalese insistence to open the land port due to a Nepal-India bilateral agreement preventing Nepalese trucks from directly entering Bangladesh and vice a versa. Those inconveniences were compounded further by the necessity to off load everything from trucks inside India for custom and security inspections.

Not only that. Despite repeated requests to facilitate Nepal-Bangladesh, Bangladesh-Bhutan and Bangladesh — Indian North East connectivity via those corridors, India persistently pursued the UNESCAP to impose on Bangladesh the two routes to serve its own geopolitical and economic interests at the cost of disadvantaging Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan.

Reliable sources claim that the previous BNP-led regime’s negation to comply with the Indian demand for gas, transit, corridor, and, finally, the Asian Highway have had much to do with what followed in Bangladesh since October 2007.

Policy of subservience

That being the backdrop and the reality, the AL-led Government’s decision to approve the routes is tantamount to ‘selling out’ our vital national interests, as it testifies to the Government’s lack of independence and the magnitude of helplessness borne out of being beholden by something unknown to the public. Fact is:

India wants to use Bangladesh territory to connect its mainland with its North East, and, to use Bangladesh’s ports for the economic wellbeing of the landlocked North Eastern states. Above everything, India wants to overcome its military handicap in the insurgency-infested North East by using this connectivity.

Hence, for Bangladesh, the decision making mechanism in allowing such a scheme shall be the one used in recent past by both nations. For example, after the devastation of hurricane Sidr, Indian High Commissioner said in response to Bangladesh’s demand for rice: “We can not sell rice to Bangladesh keeping our people starved. “Well said. Likewise, amidst unprecedented pressure - even by using senior US diplomats - to obtain gas from Bangladesh in 2003, Dhaka made a realistic assessment of its gas reserve and spare-able capacity and said no to India. That decision too was wise. Six years on, Bangladesh doesn’t have enough gas to keep its own industries and electricity generation facilities functional.

Structural inhibitions

Being aware that India’s main intent is to serve the entire land-locked North Eastern region comprising seven large states (known as seven sisters) by using the proposed Highway, Bangladesh must calculate the premium involved with respect to traffic-related-logistics and infrastructural repairs, which, cumulatively, will outweigh any expected material gain it may hope for from the venture. Added to the danger to be posed by inadequate capacity of our ports, the future of this project could be suicidal.

Country’s main port in Chittagong is overburdened and ageing. It also handles almost eighty-five percent of the country’s sea-borne trade. Established in the 15th century, this moth-eaten establishment gained its full potential only after the creation of Bangladesh in 1971. Of its 15 operational jetties, only 13 are equipped with shore cranes, each having a lifting capacity of only about 1.5 tons. Since 1991, its only floating crane (used for lifting heavier cargos) remained out of order, until recently.

Besides, the river-moorings have no shore cranes and ships berthed at the moorings still use their own derricks or cranes for unloading or loading cargoes. Despite the construction of - or conversion into - few container berths in recent years, the capacity of the port is as yet not sufficient enough to meet our national needs, let alone serve foreign nations. The sinking of a small ship on the entry to the jetty had left the port crippled for weeks over a month ago, further testifying its limitations.

Mongla is incapable

On the other hand, Mongla is not a full-fledged sea port as yet. Even last week the main dock of the port got submerged by the tidal waves caused by the latest hurricane in the Bay. The port is virtually an anchorage to allow ships load and unload their cargoes into barges and coastal ships moored in the middle of the Pussur River. And, the draft of the river being shallow, navigation of large ship remains unsafe as yet, although few new berths built over the years allow light draft vessels to berth at the jetties.

Coupled with the chronic instability caused by an unruly bunch of highly politicized labour force, Mongla port can hardly be trusted to serve foreign interests involving international commitments of a powerful, bellicose neighbour and the consequences of potentially reneging on any binding commitment could prove unmanageable. Besides, the limitations for further modification of the port are compounded by surrounding private properties and stationing of naval ships and naval activities all around.

Based on such realities, any decision by the Government to allow the proposed highways to enter from and exit to India via Bangladesh can lead to devastating consequences, involving serious national security implications. Such a decision may also impact adversely the existing relationships between the two close neighbours to the extent of provoking hostile moves by either side. Whether the Government agrees or not, this is certainly not the highway to heaven. Rather the very opposite of it.

India Is Bangladesh's Major Source Of Illicit Drug : UNITED NATIONS REPORT

The United Nations narcotics report said that India is the source of illicit drugs and rising of drug abuse in its neighbouring countries including Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal and Maldives.

Meanwhile during recent years huge quantity of illicit drugs produced in India have been recovered from Bangladesh and Bhutan, the report said. Not only that India has also become a supplying ground of clandestine shipment of illicit drugs through Internet trade, those products are going even to North America and Europe.

Narcotics abuse

The Vienna-based, United Nations narcotics watchdog, International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) released its report on February 24, 2010 further stated that India is the primary source of injectable drugs such as Pethedine and Morphine, which are widely abused in the neighbouring countries including Bangladesh. In fact, more and more addicts in South Asian countries including Bangladesh are shifting to inject able narcotics abuse.

"The widespread abuse of pharmaceutical preparations containing narcotic drugs such as Codeine is an ongoing problem in Bangladesh. Such preparations are smuggled into that country from India," reports the INCB.

The INCB report also gives details of seizure made in these countries. In 2008, drug enforcement agencies in Bangladesh seized 53,239 bottles containing codeine-based syrup and 226 ampoules containing Pethidine and Morphine. The same year, agencies seized 554 tablets containing codeine. But this was far less than the huge seizure of 70,000 tablets made in 2007.

A record seizure of Buprenorphine, a widely abused inject able drug, of 14,782 ampoules, was made by law enforcement authorities in that country in 2008. These too were smuggled into Bangladesh from India.

Pharmaceutical preparations containing Benzodiazepines are among the drugs most widely abused in Bhutan. More than 1,060 tablets containing Chlordiazepoxide and 240 strips of tablets containing Nitrazepam were seized in 2007 in Bhutan and the trend continued in 2008. The suspected origin of the seized drugs was India, according to the INCB report.

Besides smuggling drugs to neighbouring countries, the report says, India has become one of the main sources of drugs sold through illegal internet pharmacies. Orders placed with such pharmacies are often dispatched to buyers in other countries through courier or postal services.

The UN agency asked India to increase its vigilance in detecting the misuse of courier and postal services to smuggle controlled substances out of the country. It said the majority of clandestine shipments of controlled substances detected in India were destined for Australia and countries in North America and Europe.

The report on narcotics trafficking for the year further stated that 2009 couriers and postal services have got a boost on account of the recent trends in globalisation.

Crackdown on culprits

A report of "My News.In" stated that India, responding to this has said that its Narcotic Control Bureau in cooperation with the state government is busy cracking down on the culprits. The problem with India is that it is located in the midst of the Golden Triangle and Golden Quadrilateral.

The Indian minister for social justice, Mukul Wasnik said: "Drug abuse is a complex issue. Since long we had put in places strategies to tackle the situation. The INCB data does not provide much insight. It may be used as an input. It says that in India 72.2 million people have drug addiction. We are commissioning a survey through National Survey Organisation (NSSO) to arrive at a right figure. The NSSO has begun its work in Manipur, Punjab and Maharshtra."

However, different reports criticized that the INCB in its report has made critical references to the developing world and has been mild on the developed world. Whatever may be the present scenario as per the report, the origin and the history of the illegal drug trade hold the colonial rulers responsible for the situation. However, the South Asia representative of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNDOC), Cristina Albertin said that the INCB report was unbiased.

According to the INCB report seizures of amphetamine-type stimulants show that trafficking in these substances are increasing in South Asia. The region has also become a location for their manufacture. A number of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories have been discovered in India in recent years.

Cannabis trafficking

Trafficking in cannabis remains widespread throughout the region. In 2008, Indian authorities seized 103 tonnes cannabis herb and 4.1 tonnes cannabis resin. In Bangladesh, 2.3 tonne cannabis herb were seized, in Nepal more than seven tonnes and in Sri Lanka more than 37 tonnes. The widespread abuse of pharmaceutical preparations containing narcotics, namely codeine is an ongoing problem in Bangladesh.

However, the Indian authorities claim an increasing proportion of heroin seized in the country originated in Afghanistan, which indicates that India is being used as a transit area.

The smuggling of heroin into the Maldives is an ongoing problem and has contributed to a rise in drug abuse. Pharmaceutical preparations containing benzodiazepines are among the most widely abused in Bhutan. The sources of origin of these preparations are suspected to be in India.

Bangladesh is vulnerable to ATS and pharmaceutical preparations and source for preparations containing Pseudoephedrme trafficking. In Nepal there is trafficking of cannabis. Afghanistan remains by far the largest illicit producer of heroin and other opiates and is becoming a major producer of cannabis.

The INCB report also said that after tremendous progress in the past, countries in the east and south-east Asia faced setbacks in reducing illicit opium poppy cultivation in 2008, with a 3.3 per cent increase compared to the preceding year. Trafficking in methamphetamine and the illicit manufacture of MDMA (ecstasy) also increased. For the first time in recent years, the illicit manufacture of gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) was reported.

India Should Leave Its Neighbours Alone

India being a large country with a big economy has got a greater responsibility to keep peace with its neighbours and help promote development in the South Asian Region.

India expects that the neighbouring countries should be sensitive to India's security concerns and should not allow their territories to be used against India. Similarly, India should also be sensitive and refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of its neighbours, said Professor Prakash A Raj, Vice-President of the Nepal Council of World Affairs.

He was in Dhaka last week to attend a regional conference on peace and development in South Asia. "There are many changes here in Bangladesh", Professor Rai said while recalling his earlier visit as a member of the Royal entourage of late Kind Birendra thirty years ago.

In an exclusive interview with the Holiday, Professor Prakash A. Rai pointed out that India had brokered peace agreement in Nepal bringing together the Maoists and the alliance of seven political parties of the country to sign an accord in New Delhi in November 2005, although it was for the Nepalese people to decide their own political course.

Apparently by brokering the accord with the Maoists in Nepal, the Indian government had hoped that the Naxalite insurgents active in several Indian states would also give up arms and follow the example of Nepalese Moists, Profesor Rai said adding that Naxalite insurgency in Andra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Orissa and Bihar and armed rebels in the north-eastern provinces of India are the major security problem for India.

Referring to the current political crisis in Nepal, Professor Rai said that if the Maoists believe in democracy, they must not return to jungle. The trouble began in Kathmandu with the Maoists demanding induction of the rebels in the regular army. Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal, chief of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) resigned early this month to protest the president's rejection of the Nepalese government's sacking of the army chief. The army chief had been resisting the integration of the former rebel fighters into the military as required under the India brokered 2006 peace agreement. The former combatants of Maoists' Peoples' Liberation Army (PLA) continue to remain in cantonments and are being monitored by the UN mission.

"In the process of political development, Indian Ambassador to Nepal held meeting with Dahal and requested him not to remove the Army chief, which was a clear interference into Nepal's internal affair," Professor Rai observed.

Meanwhile, an alliance of 22 political parties claimed to have enough support to form a new coalition government in Nepal and called for a vote to elect its candidate as the new prime minister.

Alliance leaders say a government without the Maoists would be difficult to run and have tried to convince them to join a new coalition. However, the Maoists have insisted on the army chief's removal before any negotiation.

The former rebels have also threatened to continue disrupting parliament with protests by their lawmakers inside the assembly hall.

Professor Rai understands that a new coalition government without the Maoists' participation might create instability in Nepal and also disrupt the democratic politics escalating insecurity in the region.
Referring to India's foreign policy failures, the Professor said "Indian Peacekeeping force in Sri Lanka failed in its objectives and was forced to withdraw indicating a major policy failure".

On other front, according to professor Prakash Raj, when Bangladesh wants Nepal to be involved in the augmentation of Ganges water, India opposes it on the plea of its being "a bilateral issue" between India and Bangladesh knowing fully well that major river systems of the region have their origin in Nepal.

The just concluded election in India with the Congress giving another chance to rule would make the India "more assertive" in pursuing their policies in respect towards its neighbours, Professor Raj said.

He observed that the increased presence of the US forces in South Asia and the strategic partnership between India and the US have given rise to new dynamics in the peace and development process in the region. The South Asian nations should keep in mind that the US would not be here for long and the problems facing the region must be faced by the countries themselves in their own soil, he asserted.

Govt Tight - Lipped, Though Indian Media Unfolds ULFA Leaders Handover Drama

The incumbent Awami League (AL) government has handed over to India at least 30 citizens of the neighbouring country including top ten leaders of the banned outfits United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) and National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB) since Sheikh Hasina's visit to India in January last.

The ULFA leaders, who were deported to the Indian authorities by Bangladeshi agencies at an outpost on the border in Meghalaya, are chairman of the banned outfit Arabinda Rajkhowa, his wife Kaberi Kachari and their two sons deputy chief Raju Barua and Rajkhowa's bodyguard Raju Borah, Barua's wife and son, and wife and daughter of ULFA's self-styled foreign secretary Sashadhar Choudhury.

Two other top ULFA leaders, Chitrabon Hazarika and Sasha Choudhury, were detained in Bangladesh and subsequently handed over to India.

While the Bangladesh government maintained secrecy about handover of Arabinda Rajkhowa, the Indian media reported that at least ten top ULFA and NDFB 'terrorists' were handed over by Dhaka.

Moreover, according to Indian media reports, two other rebel leaders, chairman of the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB) Ranjan Daimary and chairman of the National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT) Biswamohan Debbarma, were also handed over to India. Add to the list the two suspected members of the India-based militant outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), who were also deported by Bangladesh.

In return, what Bangladesh gained is a big zero. India has not handed over any of the most-wanted criminals to Bangladesh.

Though the Indian media quoted the Indian authority as claiming that they had deported over at least 20 criminals to the Bangladesh government, Dhaka did not confirm it. The human rights organisations also found them missing from custody.

Police sources said Shahdat, Khandakar Tanvir Islam Joy, Dacoit Shahid, Montu, Haji Decon, Halim, Rony, Mohammad Ali, Jeshin, Ashik, Nabi, Mosarraf, Chanchal and Shahin are among the 42 top terrors reportedly hiding in India. They are learnt to have been hiding in India in close contact with the law enforcement agencies.

Recently the most-wanted terrorist from Bangladesh, Shahdat, told reporters on telephone that he helped the Indian law-enforcement agencies arrest Halim, Haji Decon, Ashik, Ali and many other Bangladeshi criminals in Kolkata.

Indian authority claimed they sent back Rony, Montu, Piyal, Halim, Haji Decon, Ashik and Nobi, who were reportedly brought back home, but they were reported missing from custody, sources said.

Meanwhile, New Delhi wants Bangladesh to return Indian mafia don Dawood Ibrahim's close aide Abdul Rouf Dawood Merchant, who was arrested by the law enforcers in Bangladesh last year.

Indian foreign ministry has sent a letter to the Bangladesh ministry of foreign affairs for returning Abdul Rouf Dawood Merchant, who is accused of killing Mumbai music baron Gulshan Kumar.

Knowledgeable sources told the Holiday recently that according to the agreement on exchange of prisoners between Bangladesh and India, Bangladesh handed over more than 20 persons including the ten leaders of ULFA, NDBF and NLFT.

The Indian authority told Bangladesh that they would send back 20 criminals soon, the sources added.

Meanwhile, Home Minister Sahara Khatun denied media reports that the chairman of the Indian separatist group ULFA, Rajkhowa, had been arrested in Bangladesh and later pushed back to India.

"Since we did not even arrest him, how come the question of pushing him back arises?" the home minister said.

While Sahara Khatun denied the widespread media reports, the Indian daily Hindustan Times reports that the ULFA chief was pushed back by the Bangladesh authorities into Tripura and later flown to New Delhi.

Earlier BBC News and Indian media reported that the ULFA chairman had been taken to Delhi from Tripura.

ULFA general secretary Anup Chetia has been remaining in a Bangladesh jail since 1998.

However, at least 500 Bangladeshis are perishing in different Indian jails, said a human rights organisation of the India.

The Bangladesh government is yet to bring back anyone officially after the agreement was signed on exchange of prisoners.

Meanwhile, The Assam Tribune reported from Guwahati on May 5 that Bangladesh Rifles and other security forces in Bangladesh have stepped up vigil along the border and a number of operations have been launched in the bases of the ultras in the bordering areas.

Assam Tribune claims that the militants were forced to wind up the camps in the Chota and Bara Gajni areas in the face of operations by the BDR and other security forces and most of them reportedly shifted to the Bangladesh-Myanmar border areas.

The relation between BSF and BDR also improved considerably barring the Jayantia Hills area where some trouble cropped up from time to time, particularly in the adverse possession areas along Sylhet borders, the daily said.

The Assam daily also reported that in the darkness on May 04, two cadres of Manipur based militant group PLA along with a woman cadre of the RPF were nabbed by the BSF men when they tried to sneak into India from Bangladesh through the international border in Dowki in Meghalaya.

Tipaimukh : Another Double - Edged Sword

Seeing the obvious hazard lurking perilously to devastate impoverish and almost decimate over a fourth of the populace in Bangladesh and feigning that nothing much is visible is blatant repudiation of truth. This we say apropos of another life-and-death issue for us--- the Tipaimukh dam on the Barak river being built in the upstream by India --- over which the Awami League Government has chosen to talk less, and even if it does it is nonchalant and indifferent. While the Water Resources Minister makes a very astonishing comment that the Government would see to it after the completion of the dam, commerce minister Faruk Khan said that the Government “will not oppose Tipaimukh dam construction by India in Manipur if Bangladesh gets benefits… I think those who are talking too much against construction of the dam, are talking without knowing anything …”

As if the permanent grievous damage perpetrated by Delhi through the commissioning of the Farakka Barrage during the lifetime of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was not enough --- which has severely affected a vast area covering as many as 16 districts of Bangladesh since 1974 --- India is going to harm Bangladesh again by constructing Tipaimukh multi-purpose dam. The ministers are disregarding water experts, economists and environmentalists who said the twin dams — one at Tipaimukh and another at Phulertal, on the cross-boundary river Barak — would dry up the rivers and the water bodies in the north-eastern districts of downstream Bangladesh, upsetting the ecological balance and destabilising the livelihood of the millions of people here.

Indeed the Tipaimukh Dam is double-edged sword. A former member of the Joint Rivers Commission (JRC) of the two countries, Tauhidul Anwar opines that interference with the natural flow of rivers is bound to have adverse impacts — sociological, hydrological and morphological — on the downstream country. Construction of the high dam in a geologically very sensitive zone could cause frequent and major earthquakes, inviting major tsunami-like disaster and endangering the lives, land and forests of both India and Bangladesh, so said the Dhaka Declaration, adopted at the International Tipaimukh Dam Conference (ITDC) in 2005 in Dhaka with participants from both India and Bangladesh expressing deep concern.

Having come to power offering an inviting manifesto pledging in sweetened words that aspirations of the masses would be fulfilled towards building a golden Bangladesh, the incumbent Awami League Government headed by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina continues to ignore and sort of bamboozle the nation in that it is blatantly ignoring public opinion in respect of this another Farakka problem --- the Tipaimukh dam issue, although Sheikh Hasina herself stated at her first media conference that she would not treat the Oppostion on the basis of its numerical strength. But the picture is now altogether different, and often the Parliament witnesses rude and un-parliamentary words laced in brash sarcasm hurled at Opposition leader Khaleda Zia who has repeatedly urged the Government to act.

It is advisable that the incumbents comprehend that tyranny in democracy is in other words majoritarianism that always raises the possibility of awful outcomes, figure out the broad pros and cons of the life threatening issue that is sure to adversely affect the sheer survival of over 5 (five) crore people of Bangladesh, see reason and vehemently oppose the sinisterly menacing Indian move through all forums at home and abroad. The Government must always remember that Bangladesh’s friendly gesture towards Delhi is welcome, but India --- however big and mighty she is --- must be reminded of the fact that amity has to be reciprocated, and that friendship cannot be one-sided. Last but not least, it will be nice of Delhi to remember that it is niggardliness to show off strength to a small and relatively weak neighbour. By any definition such attitude or mindset negates all civilised and humane norms. Having seen Delhi’s rude action on the closest neighbour Bangladesh, whose people have enough goodwill and friendly feelings, Mahatma Gandhi, symbol of peace and pacifism, and his soul must have been feeling restless, as he had made supreme sacrifice embracing martyrdom for the cause of love and affection for all people irrespective of caste and creed. Let us hope India would honour its founding father.

Time To Redraw Nation's Defence Strategy : INDO - CHINA RIVALRY INTENSIFIES

A number of glaring testimonies of looming military danger make it incumbent upon our defence policy makers to update the nation's war book, or re-write a new one altogether in light of the intensified Indo-Chinese rivalry and the Indian distinctive strategic alliance with the USA.

The security ambiance of the region plunged deeper into a danger zone lately with reports in the US and the Indian media of Islamabad's handing over of the Gilgit-Baltistan region of the Pakistan-administered Kashmir to China and China's deployment of 11,000 troops in that region.

Coupled with other recent geopolitical developments, these reports indicate the re-shaping of the regional strategic landscape and of Delhi's dogged determination to challenge Beijing's pre-eminence in regional and global politics, with help from Bangladesh.

Besides, the intensified Indo-Chinese tension seriously undercuts efforts by people of India, China and Russia for greater regional collaborations; despite the foreign ministers of the three nations slated to meet in Bangalore on October 26-27.

Denial unheeded
Reacting to the reports that started to make headlines in late August, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Jiang Yu said on September 2, "We believe these attempts of some people to fabricate stories to provoke China-Pakistan or China-India relations are doomed to fail."

Pakistan too issued similar rebuttal. A Pakistani Foreign Office spokesman, Abdul Basit, strongly denied the news being circulated in the American and Indian media and said on August 31, "The Chinese were working on landslide, flood hit areas and on the destroyed Korakoram Highway with the permission of Pakistani Government."

All such denials did little, however, to assuage Indian concerns. India's ambassador to China, S. Jaishankar, met with the Chinese vice Minister for Foreign Affairs, Zhang Zhijun, on September 3 in Beijing and conveyed New Delhi's concern over the presence of Chinese troops in Gilgit-Baltistan. India also further reinforced its military capability along the 2,521 mile China-India borders.

Historical animosity
Although a recent New York Time report had linked the Chinese military presence in Kashmir to China's plans to gain a "grip on the strategic area to ensure unfettered road and rail access to the Gulf through Pakistan," the animosity is rooted in historic claims and counter claims made by the two nuclear armed neighbours on each other's territories.

 The New York Times report said there were two important new developments in Gilgit-Baltistan; a simmering rebellion against the Pakistani rule and the influx of an estimated 7,000 to 11,000 soldiers of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) in the area.

In reality, these reports are tied with recent Indian war preparation and entrenchment of military capability along mutual borders on which the two nations had fought a brief but bloody war in 1962.

The border dispute dates back to 1914 when the colonial Britain hosted a conference with the Chinese and the Tibetan governments to demarcate the Tibetan border along the so called McMahon line. China never recognised the McMahon Line and claims 90,000 sq km, nearly all of what India now calls Arunachal Pradesh (about 2000 sq kms), its own territory. Besides, India accuses China of occupying 8,000 sq km of its territory in Kashmir.

The latest spark also emanated from Delhi's upping the ante on August 26 following Beijing's refusal to grant a visa to Indian army's Northern Command Chief, Lt. Gen. BS Jaswal, to visit Beijing as an Indian military delegation member, saying the officer oversees Jammu and Kashmir which 'is a disputed area.'

The incident left Delhi snubbed, insulted and injured; more so when Beijing asked to replace Lt. Gen. Jaswal, something India refused to comply and ordered instead a demarche by cancelling a scheduled visit by a Chinese military delegation to India's National Defence College. Delhi also ordered cancellation of another scheduled visit by Indian military officials to China.

Offensive postures 
The ongoing rivalry may end up with another war, according to many analysts. Since 2007,India has been aggressively racing to match China for regional and global power, building and bolstering airstrips and army outposts along the common borders and rebuilding run-down roads and infrastructures. In June 2009, it started building a tunnel to bypass the virtually impassable Rohtang Pass to ensure all-weather access to Ladakh, which abuts the Tibetan Plateau.   Coupled with recent procurement of huge state-of-the-art military hardware and Delhi's strategic alliance with the USA, these moves kept Beijing busy in shoring up its own deficiencies, tactically and strategically, while Delhi replaced its 'cold start' strategy with an aggressive doctrine to confront both China and Pakistan simultaneously.

These bellicose postures are heading toward the outbreak of another major war among the two regional giants.   Besides defending the sovereignty of the Arunachal Pradesh, Delhi wants to recover the Chinese-administered Aksai Chin, which India claims as part of its territory. Along the Kashmir frontier, north of Ladakh stands the disputed Siachen Glacier, an ice-capped river basin that had provoked both India and Pakistan to claiming and fighting over, almost frequently since the 1980s. Both India and Pakistan maintain military outposts on the 20,000 feet high altitude of the Siachen's glacier- capped ranges.

Bangladesh's concern 
Having lost Tibet to China in 1959, India took over Sikkim's sovereignty in 1975, but the predicament posed by the Siliguri Corridor in West Bengal, with an average width of 21 km to 40 km only, in connecting the north eastern region with the Indian mainland could not be reconciled as yet.

That is what makes Bangladesh an integral part of the Indian and the Chinese defence priorities and makes it extremely difficult for Dhaka to maintain either a neutral stance, or align militarily with either of the protagonists.

It also gives birth to a cliché, if not a strategic doctrine, that "He who controls Bangladesh will control north east India," making Bangladesh susceptible to pre-emptive military invasion by either of the protagonists.

Geopolitically, China has two major claims over territories that India claims to be its own. The claim in the western sector involves Aksai Chin in the northeastern Ladakh District in Jammu and Kashmir.

The eastern sector claim involves the territory belonging to the British era North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA) abutting Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Myanmar; including the Tibetan-Naga-inhabited Arunachal Prades which Delhi has turned into its 24th state on 20th February, 1987.

These lands were fought over before. During the 1962 Indo-China war, the well-trained and well-armed PLA troops overpowered the ill-equipped Indian troops, who found themselves not properly acclimatized to fight at high altitudes.

Following initial setbacks, Indian troops desperately sought to regroup and the Indian army strengthened its defensive positions in the NEFA and Ladakh to repulse possible Chinese attacks through Sikkim and Bhutan.

The Indian attempt failed and the war reached close to Bangladesh frontiers (then East Pakistan), despite many Indian army units having moved from Calcutta, Bihar, Nagaland, and Punjab to guard the northern frontiers of West Bengal and Assam. The western NEFA witnessed deployment of three Indian brigades while two other brigades were deployed in Sikkim and the West Bengal border with Bhutan.

Light Stuart tanks were drawn from the Eastern Command headquarters at Calcutta to bolster such deployments.

Yet, an unrelenting Chinese onslaught wiped out virtually all Indian resistance in Kameng and, by November 18, the PLA had penetrated close to the outskirts of Tezpur, Assam, a major frontier town within the artillery range from Bangladesh and barely 50 kilometres from the Assam-NEFA border. Sensing Indian helplessness, China declared a unilateral ceasefire on November 21.

 Beijing also respected the McMahan line and withdrew troops beyond what it regards as 'unaccepted' Line of Actual Control (LoAC).

The big picture 
There are those who blame the USA for the latest escalation in tension and military preparedness in Asia.

They say the US department of defence annual report's claim that 'the pace and scope of China's military modernisation have increased over the past decade' has scared Delhi. The report cautioned that 'extreme secrecy is increasingly difficult to reconcile with China's role in the integrated global economy, which depends on transparency.'

That is perhaps part of the story. Beijing's quest for access to the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf regions for much needed energy resources lay at the centre of its alliance making in the region, although the Indian story is rooted more in geopolitical quest for land.

Although other intelligence reports indicate Beijing is constructing over 22 tunnel and a rail link between Pakistan administered Kashmir and China, and further extending the Karakoram Highway that connects China's Muslim predominant Xinjiang province with Pakistan, the tunnel construction is related to a projected gas pipeline from Iran to China that would cross the Karakorams through Gilgit. India, however, fears they could be also used for missiles storage sites.

They plausibly could, but such Indian fear is grossly misplaced. Given that Beijing has financed the construction of Pakistani naval bases at Gawadar, Pasni and Ormara in Balochistan, such connectivity aims mainly at transporting cargo and oil from the Persian Gulf to eastern China within 48 hours.   While those could be least of our concerns, Bangladesh must prepare not to get overrun by any of the contending armies of the region in the instance push come to shove. That is why it must devise a full spectrum defence capability of its own as a sovereign nation state of 150 million strong.