Implementation of Indian river-linking project and concerns for Bangladesh

The Indian Supreme Court’s (SC) recent verdict to implement the Interlinking of Rivers Project (ILRP) has added an additional element to the list of unresolved issues between India and Bangladesh with regards to water resources management in shared rivers. The people of Bangladesh have expressed their disappointment in various news media over the proposed Tipaimukh dam, lack of Teesta water sharing treaty, and the failure to implement the Ganges Treaty in the last 15 years.

This new development (or re-surfacing of the old concept from 2002) on Inter-linking of River Project (ILRP) in India is a matter of concern. This project, if implemented, will have far reaching and long-term impacts on Bangladesh, yet there is no reaction from any major political parties and the government. Recently, the Advisor Mr. Gawher Rizvi declined to make any comment on potential impact of the Indian Supreme Court’s recent verdict to implement the ILRP on Bangladesh until he sees the full text of the verdict. However, based on what is already known from Indian news media, the government could express concern over this unfortunate development and could demand more information from Indian authority.

It is not clear if the GoB has officially asked for additional information from Indian government. It is worth mentioning here that, when the ILRP issue was at the peak of discussion in the news media in 2004-05, the then Foreign Minister of Bangladesh Mr. M. Morshed Khan said “India has agreed on regional co-operation in water sharing management, apparently a major shift in Delhi’s policy to common rivers between the two countries. India assured that it wouldn’t implement its proposed river-link project without consulting the regional countries concerned” (The Daily Star, August 2, 2004), and then Water Resources Minister of India Mr Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi said ” the Congress led coalition government will not implement river linking projects in the Eastern Zone to avoid any dent in relationship with Bangladesh” (The Daily Star, September 3, 2005). Hopefully, the current Indian government will honour the promise made by the concerned authorities in the past.

Recently, Mr. Ramaswami Iyer, the former Secretary of the Indian Ministry of Water Resources and one of the prominent experts on water resources, expressed his reaction to the SC’s verdict in an article posted on Waterwatch@yahoogroups.com. His response is well reasoned. He criticized the validity of this verdict by the court by saying that, “There are two problems here. First, assuming that there is a serious water scarcity problem, it is not the business of the Supreme Court to deal with it; there is an Executive Government to deal with such matters.” He is also of the opinion that, before issuing the verdict, the Supreme Court should have considered all view points on the ILRP issue as there are books written on the subject.

The issue of ILRP involves managing water resources on many international rivers that are shared by more than one country, namely China, Nepal, Bhutan, India, and Bangladesh. In this regard, the judges acted completely outside of their jurisdiction by saying that “Besides … benefits to the country, it will help the countries like Nepal etc, uplifting India’s international role (The Hindu, February 27, 2012).” It is not clear as to how the Indian judges can decide on a matter that involves Nepal. If the judges felt the responsibility to help Nepal, then they could have addressed the need of Bangladesh as well.

Bangladesh is a major stakeholder in the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna basin, and her interests need to be considered in all decision making process involving water resources management. However, like the judges, Mr. Iyer also neglected to address the interest of Bangladesh in his article. It is understandable that the Indian environmentalists have to be more concerned about their own issues and interests; however, the ILRP is an issue that requires an understanding the hydrology, ecology, environment, and socio-political ramification for all stakeholders in the G-B-M basin.

A three-day long conference titled “International Conference on Regional Cooperation on Trans-boundary Rivers (ICRCTR)” was held on December 17-19, 2004. The conference was attended by academicians, environmental activists, politicians, diplomats, and general public representing Bangladesh, India, Nepal, China, Japan, and the US. Over 500 people participated in the three-day long conference. The then Indian High Commissioner to Bangladesh Ms. Veena Sikri also spoke on the occasion. There were over 40 papers presented by experts, out of which about 20 were from India. All of the presented papers were published in a proceeding volume. As one of the editors of the proceedings I had an opportunity to read all papers in the document. The proceedings of the conference can serve as the baseline of knowledge about the ILRP for future reference.

To the best of my knowledge, the proceedings of the conference serve as the most authentic knowledge based on the issue of ILRP. The conference was attended by several hundred participants representing Nepal, Indian, Bangladesh, Japan, and the US. Among others were present many dignitaries from India, including Ramaswami Iyer, Medha Patkar, Sudirindir Sharma , Sudhir Vombatkere, S. Rao, S. Sinha, S. Gaguly, J. Bandophadhay, Bigsam Gujja, and Vergeese.

It is hoped that the judges will consider holding off the implementation of the verdict and will have a fresh hearing on the issue. The government of Bangladesh should pay a close attention to this development and stay engaged in the issue. Any party interested in learning all aspects of the ILRP issue should consider consulting the proceedings of the ICRCTR conference in making decision on managing water resources in the G-B-M basin in the future.

For interested readers, I am also including links to a few of my own write ups on the topic and would like to refer to the ICRCTR proceedings for other publications on ILRP.

http://www.lhup.edu/mkhalequ/research/Water-diversion-The%20New%20Age051304.pdf

http://www.lhup.edu/mkhalequ/research/Indian%20River-linking%20Project_WatershedContext.pdf

http://www.lhup.edu/mkhalequ/research/Historic%20Perspectives%20on%20the%20Indian%20River%20Linkin

BY :  Md. Khalequzzaman.

Dhaka should take water, border disputes to UN

Bangladesh has been going through its worst spell of misery in March since 1971. The weather is becoming hot prematurely, accompanied by frequent load-shedding of electric supply. The heat of double digit inflationary pressure continues to pauperise ordinary people.

In the land borders of the nation-state, Indian BSF boastingly continues to perpetrate its trigger-happy extrajudicial killings, kidnappings and random acts of terror and torture. The spineless leaders of the government of grand alliance under Sheikh Hasina run to Delhi for consolation and remain content with verbal assurances of Indian government leaders at the top that the shoot-at-sight practice of BSF will stop, only to be contradicted by BSF authorities on the ground that the practice will continue.

Delhi leaders have already reneged on their promise of signing a Teesta water-sharing treaty, scheduled for January this year, and also broke their words on keeping the Tipaimukh mega dam project in abeyance until its adverse impacts on Surma-Kushiyara-Meghna basin in Bangladesh were taken into account to modify or abandon the project. Delhi has not only unilaterally gone ahead with the work of the Tipaimukh dam (simply to fill up that dam initially will require 3 years of continuous deprivation of Surma-Kushiyara flows), but also under Indian Supreme Court order revived its river-linking project to divert the water of Brahamputra and Ganges and their tributaries to South India. That is a deadly scheme bound to result in desertification of the whole of Bangladesh, the morbid south-western delta, which is already suffering extinction of many distributory streams on account of Farakka barrage, and other upstream diversions of Ganges and other common rivers by Indian structural intervention. 

Of late, a hue and cry has been raised in the West Bengal state of India, asking Delhi for further unilateral blockage of Bangladesh’s share even under the unequal Ganges Water-sharing treaty. The excuse is that Bangladesh is benefiting from Farakka seepage and breaches in the Farakka structure under natural sea-ward drive of the river.

 

Ordeals of electricity failures and worries over boro-irrigation apart, this March has also witnessed a crime wave of enormous proportions haunting civic life. In and around Dhaka city itself there are daily incidents of dead bodies found, often cut to pieces. Contract killings have gone up throughout the country. Kidnappings and extrajudicial murders are often being ascribed to plainclothesmen and men-in uniform alike of the law-enforcing agencies, some of whom have been found implicated in acts of extortion and robbery. Then there was the case of mysterious double murder, in their own bedroom in a secure apartment, of a journalist-couple who were doing investigative stories on corruption in high places. On-line news and blogs suggested that the police identified and interrogated the mastermind of the felony and let him go under verbal advice from the top. 

 

Another sensational murder of a Saudi diplomat followed suit. The mystery is still unsolved. Although Saudi authorities have expressly been calm pending investigation by Bangladeshi detectives and their own detective team, Bangladeshi expatriates are worrying about possible repercussions affecting their entry and livelihood in Saudi Arabia.

 

The overwhelming sense of insecurity amongst the public has been further heightened by political confrontations in the second week of March. There has been mass arrest of opposition activists throughout the country and seizure of their vehicles on one pretext or another to prevent a march-to-Dhaka programme of the BNP-led opposition alliance and its grand rally on March 12. What took the public by surprise and caused enormous distress and dislocation countrywide was the virtual siege of Dhaka by armed police and ruling party picketers with sticks in hand, who in the name of security precautions kept inter-district public transports including trucks and vans off-the-roads for over two days prior to March 12 BNP rally, searched and delayed all private transports requisitioning some of them for fake government duty, and off-loaded all passengers suspected to be heading to the Dhaka rally, arresting many of them. On March 12 itself, the government virtually imposed an undeclared ‘hartal’ in Dhaka city, taking BRTC buses off-the-road and coercing the private bus-owners to do the same, discouraging private traffic by snapping cases of traffic rule violation without reason and at random on private cars and auto-rickshaws. 

 

Rickshaw pullers were subjected police extortion at every turn on pain of arrest on false charges. Thus Dhaka streets were empty. At all entry points leading to the city by road or by river, ruling party goons and police patrols stopped people from entering Dhaka, often beating them up. Within the city also, at different strategic points police and ruling party pickets took position to stop groups of pedestrians to proceed towards the Naya Paltan site of the grand rally. Some clashes occurred. Nevertheless, daring all handicaps a human sea gathered to hear the parliamentary Leader of the Opposition declare government a total failure calling upon it to resign. The Leader of the Opposition served a notice on the government with a 3 months’ ultimatum to restore the caretaker system for transmission of power through free and fair general elections, presumably within six months from that date. 

 

The government had disallowed microphone from most parts of the gathering excepting the central area, and had also prevented TV teams from life coverage of grand rally. But the ordeals of the public and the enthusiasm of the participants in the rally were covered in TV news. Already a sense of panic had spread throughout the country as a result of the government-imposed siege of Dhaka. The Awami League leaders while in opposition had imposed violent marches, sit-ins and sieges of Dhaka and the Bangabhaban leading to the emergency and military backed extended caretaker administration in 2007. Now in government, they have again resorted to siege tactics to prevent the opposition from peaceful assembly. Are they themselves making room for another emergency to prevent the opposition from election to power? Such doubts have been growing in inquisitive minds for another reason. 

 

Of late, on-line news and blogs have been circulating credible documents and stories about a number of advisers and ministers of the present government involved in dubious businesses and rackets at home, and purchasing properties abroad in the names of their wives and children. One such story shows an Adviser’s wife had set up a company with a front man, and without Bangladesh Bank clearance or government permission, has been sending large sums of black money to U.K. to procure immigration rights for the front man as investor and to buy properties in U.K. Similar stories are in circulation about ministers developing private properties and businesses in Canada, seeking immigration rights as investors. A sneaking suspicion is inevitable that some people in power are busy preparing to flee the country. 

 

In the backdrop of this grim picture, the silver lining of a good news has also showed up. It is from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Although the Tribunal has not accepted fully Bangladeshi position that the naturally formative landmass of the active delta parts of Bangladesh gives us equitable rights in the outer continental shelf, i.e. beyond 200 nautical miles of our coastline, the judges rejected Myanmar’s (by implication India’s as well) claim of “equidistance” principle for fixing maritime boundary and allowed Bangladesh exclusive rights over its continental shelf and waters up to 200 nautical miles, and rights on a mixture of equidistance principle and environmental considerations beyond.  

 

The tribunal’s judgment will certainly help us dealing with more complicated marine boundary settlement with our tricky neighbour India. Following that success, Bangladesh should also take the case of BSF “killing field” in our borders, and our water disputes with India to the United Nations.

 

BY :  Sadeq Khan.

 

Mamata’s power and Dhaka’s failure

It is a pity that the present Government has to contend with Mamata Banarjee who has emerged as the proverbial party spoiler for the Awami League Government. When Sheikh Hasina could have been basking in glory for taking Bangladesh-India relations by the scruff from the doldrums of stagnancy to a paradigm shift to  mutually beneficial relations, she has been left high and dry having given India major concessions on security and land transit without receiving the expected concessions from India. Failure to get an agreement on Teesta and delay in executing the enclaves exchange deal, both on account of Mamata Banarjee, has put Sheikh Hasina in a very soft spot politically. 

 

In 1996, the government of Sheikh Hasina had been able to get then West Bengal’s support for a water deal more important and more complicated than the Teesta. The Ganges Water Agreement was reached within six months of Sheikh Hasina assuming office in 1996. Successful negotiations with Deve Gowde who was then Prime Minister paved the Centre’s approval to the deal. However it was Delhi that had then told Bangladesh that a Ganges water deal would need approval of West Bengal and that Bangladesh would need to take WB Chief Minister Jyoti Basu on board.

Bangladesh did just that. Then Foreign Minister Abdus Samad Azad visited Kolkata and met the Chief Minister who also came on an official visit to Dhaka. At that time, New Delhi, Dhaka and Kolkata were on same wave length. Things were all over board. However, at that time Devi Gowde was a weak Prime Minister and Jyoti Basu was a powerful Chief Minister whose party’s influence was also important for Delhi. Importantly, the government in New Delhi was not even a Congress Government and Bangladesh at that time had made no major or minor concessions to India.

 

This time, it is the Congress in power in New Delhi that returned to office for a second consecutive term more or less at the same time as the Awami League.  Both parties were given major support by the people in the respective countries. Historically, due to factors embedded in the events of 1971, the affinity between the Congress and the Awami League is deep.  On top of it, this time Sheikh Hasina made the first moves with concessions to India that were fulfilment of Indian dreams.

 

Messing up

It is such a positive setting that has been messed up. Two politicians made major accusations against the Advisers who have led the Bangladesh negotiations for the mess up. Former President HM Ershad and Rashed Khan Menon have blamed the Prime Minister’s Advisers, using very harsh language.  Rashed Khan Menon said that the Advisers have acted as Advisers to the Indian Prime Minister rather than to Sheikh Hasina.  HM Ershad has said that the Advisers are “in favour of India”. While the accusations are unfortunate and extreme, such views nevertheless highlight the fact that the India factor has  become a very major political issue in Bangladesh’s politics as the parties enter into the final stretch leading to the next general elections in about 2 years’ time.

 

President Ershad is the veritable weather cock of Bangladesh’s politics and his remark about the Advisers has a lot of political meaning.  He has already led marches to benefit from people’s frustrations with India on Teesta, Tippaimukh and recently on the Feni River. In fact, he is playing the “India card” more strongly than the BNP while being a partner of the ruling coalition that underlines the fact that the ruling party is politically in a very tight corner with the poor way it has negotiated with India thus far.

 

The Advisers’ role notwithstanding, the real accusing finger is being pointed both by New Delhi and Dhaka at Mamata Banarjee for the failure of India to deliver on the promises it made after accepting the Bangladesh concessions. . When Mamata Banarjee led her party Trinamool to victory in Paschim Bangla in May last year, she was fondly projected in the Bangladesh media as an ally to our efforts to get India to agree to our legitimate interests and rights from India. In fact, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina also called her on phone to congratulate her on her victory. She was taken for granted so much so that no one on our side cared that at about the time of the Indian Prime Minister’s visit to Dhaka, she was facing the electorate in the Teesta area in Paschim Bangla. If anyone had done so, it would have emerged as daylight that there was no way for her to offer Bangladesh 50% of the share of Teesta water because, first, India had never agreed in the past to give Bangladesh more than 28% share, and second, the people using Teesta waters had urged Mamata Banarjee not to enter in to any deal that could affect them adversely.

 

Facts about how and why she has today turned out to be the major block in Bangladesh’s efforts are now emerging. Former Foreign Affairs Adviser Dr. Iftikhar Ahmed Chowdhury who now is a Senior Research Fellow at Institute of South Asian Studies at the University of Singapore has just written a research article on Mamata Banarjee. The article has given insight to the questions our side should have asked instead of taking MB for granted. Then there are issues of history, culture, etc that Dr. Chowdhury have brilliantly brought into his analysis leaving readers wondering if our negotiators even knew a little bit about Mamata Banarjee or had cared to know about her. If they had, they would have saved themselves from wasting Sheikh Hasina’s vision and courage because as the cliché goes, “forewarned is forearmed.”

 

MB taken for granted

There are some ominous facts that Dr. Chowdhury has revealed in his paper that our negotiators must read for a grip on reality instead of fondly hoping some power will emerge from the heavens and turn Mamata and Manmohon into angels for making Bangladesh smile. Mamata Banarjee is no ordinary lady or any run of the mill politicians. She has not just taken on Manmohon Singh and making him dance to her tunes; she is simultaneously fighting two of India’s most powerful politicians simultaneously and so far, winning.

 

In choosing her Cabinet, she spurned Pranab Mukherjee by declining to give a post to his son. Instead, she offered him a lowly bureaucratic post of Chairman of the State’s Industrial Development Corporation. Most recently, she teamed up with a few other Chief Ministers and torpedoed a pet project of the other most powerful politician in New Delhi, Home Minister P. Chidambaram. They shot down the establishment of the National Counter Terrorism Centres on the plea that the matter of law and order is a state subject and not a central one. The major source of MB’s power base is the 19 seats that her party Trinamool contributes to the Congress led UPA coalition of Prime Minister Manmohon Singh. The seats are simply put, crucial to the Congress’s survival.

 

That power of MB was palpably visible when Indian Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai mentioned categorically on the evening of 5th September last year that as Mamata Banarjee had objected to the Teesta deal, it was being taken off the table for Prime Minister Manmohon Singh’s talks the next day in Dhaka with Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. The Indian Foreign Secretary flagged for us the power of MB that we should have known weeks and months earlier instead of being led up the garden path totally unaware of the perils ahead. In fact, even after Ranjan Mathai’s statement, our side was still hoping an agreement would be signed the following day!

 

Mamata Banarjee has now said that any agreement of Teesta must wait till she knows for certain on how much water would be available in the river for sharing with Bangladesh.  It is just not the 50/50 sharing that is the only contentious issue. She is also insisting that the water available on the Bangladesh side where there is barrage must also be calculated before the sharing formula is agreed upon. Clearly, the Teesta agreement is caught in the quicksand and with it, our hopes for a just share of its waters anytime soon.

 

The Bangladesh card

Mamata Banarjee has also set her sights at the exchange of enclaves and has objected to the agreement. 

 

Recently, our Home Minister has returned from New Delhi with the assurance that the issue would be placed in the next session of the Indian parliament for ratification. In fact, she has submitted it to the cabinet that it is the 1974 Indira-Mujib Agreement that would be placed for ratification 37 years after it was signed! The way she put it made it appear like that the ratification would be done easily. She failed to ask the Indians what they proposed to do with MB’s objection to the exchanges.  Her party’s support would be crucial for the 2/3rd majority in both houses of the India parliament that would be required to ratify the agreement on the exchange of enclaves.

 

Mamata Banarjee has clearly chosen to use the “Bangladesh card” in the political game she is playing with New Delhi. With BJP also opposed to the exchange of enclaves, one must wonder what it is that has led our Home Minister to be convinced that India would ratify the 1974 Indira-Mujib Agreement. One element of the Agreement gave Bangladesh “lease in perpetuity” over the Teen Bigha corridor. Is that going to happen instead of the 24hours’ access to the Dahagram-Angorpota enclaves? Either this is a fond wish of our negotiators or someone has got the issues mixed up! 

 

The Congress had expected that elections in the five Indian states, including UP, would give it some leverage over Mamata Banarjee. In particular, the Congress was hoping that a good show in UP where Rahul Gandhi staked his claim to be the next Prime Minister of India in the line would send a message to Mamata Banarjee that the popularity of the Congress is on an upswing. Unfortunately, the news from UP is not good. Congress fared very badly although it did gain some seats and did not do its national image any good. Mayabati’s Bahujan Samajbadi Dal has lost badly but the swing has gone to Mulayam Singh Yadav’s Samajbadi Dal where his son Akhilesh Yadav has captured the nation’s attention as the face of the new generation well ahead of Rahul Gandhi. 

 

The state elections are thus not expected to lessen Mamata Banarjee’s political value to the Centre as no helping hand is expected to come to the Congress from the state elections. Clearly, the leverage to come out of the predicament in which Bangladesh finds itself is not with us.  Mamata Banarjee is holding the whip in hand. We have lost our handle on influencing events in the way we did our diplomacy with India. Bangladesh would now be left watching how much and to what extent Mamata Banarjee plays the “Bangladesh card”.

 

Nevertheless, in diplomacy there is never a lost case and the scenes quickly change as they do in a drama. For our own interest, we need to know more about Mamata Banarjee and take lessons from past mistakes following the merit in another cliché, better late than never. In this context, those negotiating should on a priority basis read Dr. Iftekhar Chowdhury’s article. Better still, they should take his advice for future course of action on how to deal with Mamata Banarjee. 

BY :  M. Serajul Islam.

Pakistan Journalist Vanishes: Is the ISI Involved?

Add caption

Email-ID  1644311
Date	2011-06-01 15:50:16
From	burton@stratfor.com
To	sean.noonan@stratfor.com, hoor.jangda@stratfor.com, secure@stratfor.com

The most interesting aspect is the killing of a journalist. Fine line
between an investigative journalist and spy. When you rattle around
topics nobody wants aired, you pay the price. Truth tellers always get
shot. Its much easier to lie or make up stories.

On 6/1/2011 8:46 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

http://www.amazon.com/Bloodmoney-Novel-Espionage-David-Ignatius/dp/0393078116/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1306935919&sr=8-1

i don't think we're going anywhere with this SSS thing, though it is
interesting.
On 6/1/11 8:41 AM, Fred Burton wrote:

The poor bastard went down the rabbit hole and was neutralized.

ISI is fully infiltrated by sympathizers and operatives. So, he was
killed by ISI. Will we find a smoking gun? No. Will anybody care
about this dude? Not really. The Agency lost an asset. Life goes
on. There is a reason the CIA set up unilateral operations in
Pakistan.

Suggest everyone read David Ignatius new book on CIA NOC and front
company operations in Pakistan. Once again, he has gotten dead
right.

On 6/1/2011 8:06 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

the question, though, is still who did it.

It means very different things if it is the ISI, the traditional
military, or the jihadists. Then a question of who within those
groups can also mean different things. Not saying we can answer that
very easily, but who specifically killed who (with the support of
who) would explain if there is an issue or not. Operating between
the intelligence services and jihadists is a very, very dangerous
place- so it's not all that surprising that these deaths occur. And
as tensions go up, so will those deaths. But we would have to know
the same people were involved in the deaths to really know what 'the
issue' actually is.
On 6/1/11 7:59 AM, Kamran Bokhari wrote:

The issue is not the man himself (though I am personally spooked
out because I knew him and we met not too long ago and he wrote on
my fb wall a day before he went missing). Instead the issue is the
growing number of deaths of people who have been supportive of
jihadists. Recall KK and Col Imam and now Triple-S. The other
thing is that each of these 3 people were with the ISI at one
point. A former army chief confirmed to me that SSS was at one
point on the payroll. Each of these guys had a falling out with
the official ISI but maintained links deep within the service.
These guys have also had ties to jihadists of one type while
pissing off other more radical types.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Fred Burton
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 07:51:53 -0500 (CDT)
To: Sean Noonan
Cc: Secure List
Subject: Re: Pakistan Journalist Vanishes: Is the ISI Involved?
http://www.plutobooks.com/display.asp?K=9780745331010&

Note his May 20 book release.

He was living on borrowed time operating in the belly of the
beast. His last interview is telling. Regardless, he's dead.
Life on the edge.

On 6/1/2011 6:34 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

Did y'all read his most recent story?
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/ME27Df06.html

These three stories are pretty good on his death and what was
going on:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-31/syed-saleem-shahzad-suspicions-fall-on-pakistans-isi-in-journalists-death/#
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/leading-journalist-murdered-by-pakistani-security-service-2291604.html
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2074800,00.html#ixzz1NxHaX4xA
Just throwing ideas out here. This is such a clusterfuck I
don't know what to think.

His next was to be "Next: Recruitment and training of militants
" So who was doing the recruitment and training, huh?
If it's anything like the first half, it sounds like he's going
to accuse someone in the Pakistani military. Maybe they wanted
to stop that?

Excerpt of new book on AQ and friends. Says the Mumbai plan was
ISI's and a dude under Kashmiri at LeT carried it out:
http://www.syedsaleemshahzad.com/2011/05/who-masterminded-mumbai-attack/

It seems just as likely jihadists could go after him for
exposing their location (or that they thought he exposed it).
The reports I've read through of 'torture' were really just that
he had been hit in the face. That's probably pretty typical of
any militant or criminal outfit, and while the other reports of
his ISI meetings were more peaceful, it wouldn't be that
difficult for them to go that far either.

Here's his email to the HRW:
http://asiancorrespondent.com/56321/saleem-shahzad-dead-another-one-bites-the-dust/

For future reference:

Meeting details as on October 17, 2010 at the ISI headquarters
Islamabad between DG Media Wing ISI, Rear Admiral Adnan Nazir
and Syed Saleem Shahzad, the Bureau Chief Pakistan for Asia
Times Online (Hong Kong). Commodore Khalid Pervaiz, the Deputy
Director General of Media Wing ISI was also present during the
conversation.

Agenda of the meeting: discussion on Asia Times Online story
published on October 15, 2010, titled Pakistan frees Taliban
commander (see
http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LJ16Df02.html).

The meeting discussed the following issues.

1-Syed Saleem Shahzad told Rear Admiral Adnan that an
intelligence channel leaked the story. However, he added that
story was published only after a confirmation from the most
credible Taliban source. Syed also explained that DG ISPR was
sent a text message about the story, but he did not respond.

2- Rear Admiral Adnan Nazir had the view that story caused a lot
of embracement for the country but observed that issuing a
denial from the government side is no solution. He suggested
Syed Saleem Shahzad should write a denial of the story.

3- Syed Shahzad refused to comply with demand and termed it
impractical.

4-Rear Admiral Adnan was curious to know the source of the story
as it is a shame that information would leak from the office of
a high profile intelligence service.

5- Syed Shahzad called it an intelligence leak but did not
specify the source.

6-The conversation was held in an extremely polite and friendly
atmosphere and there was no mince word in the room at any stage.
Rear Admiral Adnan Nazir also offered Syed Saleem Shahzad a
favor in following words.

"I must give you a favor. We have recently arrested a terrorist
and have recovered a lot of data, dairies and other material
during the interrogation. The terrorist had a hit list with him.
If I find your name in the list, I will certainly let you know,"

(end of email)

On 5/31/11 7:56 PM, burton@stratfor.com wrote:

I'm sure the ISI extracted a confession of his CIA work before
he died. There will be a leaked story about his double agent
work and the Pakis rub the CIA's nose in it. Its what intel
agencies do. Tit for tat. The world will soon forget him.
Price one pays for playing the game.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Kamran Bokhari"
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 19:36:07 -0500 (CDT)
To: Reva Bhalla; Kamran
Bokhari
ReplyTo: bokhari@stratfor.com
Cc: Secure List; Fred
Burton
Subject: Re: Pakistan Journalist Vanishes: Is the ISI
Involved?
Pretty big one. Domestic and int'l media shit-storm about how
ISI brutally killed a journalist who uncovered ties between
navy and aQ. The big thing now is aQ penetration of ISI.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Reva Bhalla
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 19:29:03 -0500 (CDT)
To:
Cc: Secure List; Fred
Burton
Subject: Re: Pakistan Journalist Vanishes: Is the ISI
Involved?
is it that much of a crisis?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Kamran Bokhari"
To: "Fred Burton" , "Kamran Bokhari"

Cc: "Secure List"
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 7:28:02 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Pakistan Journalist Vanishes: Is the ISI
Involved?

Yes, he is dead. But the question is why create this new
crisis when there are no shortages of crises.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Fred Burton
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 19:18:28 -0500 (CDT)
To: Kamran Bokhari
Cc: Secure List
Subject: Re: Fwd: Pakistan Journalist Vanishes: Is the ISI
Involved?
I'm not surprised. Have we confirmed he's dead?

On 5/31/2011 7:16 PM, Kamran Bokhari wrote:

Heard that the ISI agents who were "interrogating" him
didn't realize he had a heart condition and when they began
the thrashing the guy had a heart attack and died.
On 5/31/2011 2:17 PM, Fred Burton wrote:

A reasonable man would conclude that the chap was on the
CIA dole, but you did not hear that from me. Payback is a
bitch.

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Pakistan Journalist Vanishes: Is the ISI
Involved?
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 13:15:00 -0500
From: Fred Burton
To: OS

Fears are growing for the safety of a well-known Pakistani journalist
who has been missing for 39 hours now and, according to an international
advocacy group, is believed to be in the custody of Pakistan's
controversial Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Human
Rights Watch declared that Syed Saleem Shahzad, a reporter working for
the Hong Kong-based Asia Times Online and Adnkronos International, the
Italian news agency, could be subject to mistreatment and even torture
while in custody.

UPDATE: Pakistan's main news channels are reporting that Shahzad's dead
body has been found. One news channel broadcast what appeared to be a
black and white image of Shahzad's face. There were visible signs of
torture..

Read more:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2074800,00.html#ixzz1NxHaX4xA


--

Sean Noonan

Tactical Analyst

Office: +1 512-279-9479

Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

www.stratfor.com

--

Sean Noonan

Tactical Analyst

Office: +1 512-279-9479

Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

www.stratfor.com

--

Sean Noonan

Tactical Analyst

Office: +1 512-279-9479

Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

www.stratfor.com

Source :

Pointer to growing displeasure with govt’s India policy

THE comments made recently by two key figures of the Awami League-led ruling alliance — Workers’ Party of Bangladesh president Rashed Khan Menon and Jatiya Party chairman HM Ershad — about the actions and attitudes of the advisers to the prime minister vis-à-vis Bangladesh’s dealings with India, uncannily identical as they are, bring into focus, yet again, the question of these advisers’ accountability in particular and the government’s India policy in general. On Sunday, according to a report published in New Age on Monday, when addressing the House, Menon said the ‘way the advisers talk’ seemed to suggest that ‘they are no advisers to the [Bangladesh] prime minister; rather, they are advisers to the Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh. The very next day, according to a report published in New Age on Tuesday, when addressing a street rally as part of his party’s long march from Dhaka to Feni, Ershad, a key ally of the AL-led government, said that ‘these advisers are not for Bangladesh, they are people of India’ and that ‘they do not talk for Bangladesh, they talk for India’, adding that ‘there is no need to have such advisers.’ The statements of Menon and Ershad seem to encapsulate increasing public displeasure with the advisers on the one hand and the government’s dealings with India on the other.

Notably, on more occasions than one in the past three years or so, the international affairs adviser, Gowher Rizvi, and the economic adviser, Mashiur Rahman, have made statements on issues related to the Bangladesh-India relations that have not gone down well with the people at large, especially the politically conscious sections of society. For example, at the height of the controversy over transit to India, Mashiur said in March 2011 imposing charges for shipment of Indian goods through Bangladesh would be ‘uncivilised’. 

Similarly, in the midst of intense public anger over India’s decision to go ahead with the construction of the Tipaimukh Dam on the trans-boundary river Barak, which, according to experts and environmentalists in both Bangladesh and India, would wreak havoc on the life and livelihood of the people on either side of the border, Rizvi commented that Bangladesh could benefit from the hydroelectric project. Such conclusions have naturally raised questions as to where the allegiance of these advisers lies.

Most importantly, such identical conclusions from ideologically and politically disparate sources within the ruling alliance should be an eye-opener for the incumbents as to how the people in general view its India policy and how unhappy they have become. Hence, besides reining in the advisers, the incumbents need to seriously rethink its policy towards India.

Source :