Only Option Available To Modi

Hari Ram Pandey
There has been a debate on the respective leadership qualities of Shri Narendra Modi, Chief Minister of Gujarat, and Shri Rahul Gandhi of the Congress (I) in the wake of two recent developments. An objective of the debate is to assess which one of them stands a better chance of becoming the Prime Minister after the next elections to the Lok Sabha, which are scheduled to be held in 2014---unless the Congress (I) facing a series of political crises decides to go for an earlier poll or is forced to do so due to a re-alignment of the coalition headed by it.

The first development is a report dated September 1,2011, released by the USA’s Congressional Research Service (CRS) on India titled “India: Domestic Issues, Strategic Dynamics, and U.S. Relations”.The report discusses in detail on the basis of media reports India’s external relations---including ties with the US--- and the domestic political developments for the information of Congress members.

Three aspects of the discussion on the domestic political situation in the report are significant:

(a). Of the Indian political leaders discussed by name, only Shri Modi and Shri Nitish Kumar, Chief Minister of Bihar, come for positive mention. The references to Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and Shri Rahul Gandhi are negative. The ineffective management style of Dr. Manmohan Singh and the faltering political image of Shri Rahul Gandhi are underlined. As against this, the report looks positively at the leadership styles of Shri Modi and Shri Nitish Kumar.

( b). The report has been impressed not only by the remarkable economic progress made by Gujarat under the decade-long Chief Ministership of Shri Modi, but also by his efforts to reduce corruption and red tape in the governance of the State. It says of Shri Modi: “Controversial Chief Minister Narendra Modi has streamlined economic processes, removing red tape and curtailing corruption in ways that have made the state a key driver of national economic growth.” In contrast, the references to Dr. Manmohan Singh’s role in the fight against corruption are negative. A perusal of the entire report would indicate the extent of the concern in the minds of the CRS researchers who drafted the report over the large-scale corruption in India as revealed by recent scandals. In this connection, the fact that Shri Modi has been judged positively and Dr. Manmohan Singh negatively could have a significant impact not only on Congressional opinion, but also on policy-makers in the Executive.

( c ).While judging Shri Modi positively for his post-2002 governance, the report continues to look upon him as a controversial political leader because of allegations of his inaction during the 2002 anti-Muslim riots in the State. While it has taken note of Shri Modi’s Prime Ministerial aspirations, it feels that the continuing allegations regarding his 2002 role might stand in the way of a concretisation of his aspirations. In one of its explanatory notes based on two articles written by Indian columnists, it says: “Modi continues to be haunted by the 2002 Ahmadabad riots, a topic he has never fully addressed in public. Although he is a safe bet to win a third term in 2012 state elections, his aspirations to be the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate face significant obstacles, not least the likelihood that Muslims and liberal-minded Hindus would represent an anti-Modi bloc at the national level, and the BJP’s key ally in Bihar, Nitish Kumar’s Janata Dal (United), could be expected to abandon the alliance in protest.”

The report thus draws the attention of Congress members to the post-2002 positive image of Shri Modi as well as to the lingering allegations about his negative role in 2002. Shri Modi is seen as a positively evolving leader with a negative historical background. Unless he is able to rid himself of the negative memories evoked by the ant-Muslim riots of 2002, any exercise mounted by his followers and party to rehabilitate his image abroad will be problematic.

In the short and medium terms, the CRS report could have two fall-outs in respect of US policy. Firstly, a dilution of the decision of the US State Department in 2005 not to issue a visa to Shri Modi and, secondly, a greater readiness on the part of the US diplomats posted in India to interact with Shri Modi, his ministers and officials. Some of the WikiLeaks documents already indicated a developing view in the State Department that the policy of avoidance of interactions with them could prove inadvisable. This view is likely to be strengthened in the months to come and before the next elections. Whether the US likes Shri Modi or not, he is there to stay. Better take cognisance of him.

The second development is the order passed by the Supreme Court of India in a case in which it had been monitoring investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into allegations in a petition regarding Shri Modi’s role in the 2002 riots. The petition alleges wilful inaction by the administration headed by Shri Modi. The SIT investigation has not been able to find any substantive evidence in support of the allegations. At the same time, non-Governmental activists carrying on a decade-long campaign against Shri Modi on this issue have not been able to produce any concrete evidence in proof of their allegations. Thus, Shri Modi stands in a position where he can neither be proved guilty or established to be innocent.

The Supreme Court has decided to discontinue the monitoring of the investigation in view of the completion of it and has referred the results of the investigation made so far to a trial court for further action as warranted in accordance with the law. It is doubtful whether the court will be able to come to definitive conclusions. The claims made by the supporters of Shri Modi and his party that he has been vindicated are premature.

If Shri Modi wants to pursue his Prime Ministerial aspirations, the only option available to him is to make public and sincere amends to the victims of the anti-Muslim riots and persuade them to forget and forgive. His continuing reluctance to do so is evident from his subsequent comments and actions. He and his supporters seem to believe that if they continue to stonewall the allegations against him, public memory would fade away. This may not happen as we had seen in the case of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in Delhi under the rule of the Congress.

INDIAN MUJAHIDEEN: What is my opinion

Hari Ram Pandey
Indian Mujahideen (IM) a home grown terror organisation had sent five E-mail messages to sections of the media between November 2007 and September 13,2008.

The first message was sent a few minutes before the serial blasts in three towns of Uttar Pradesh on November 23, 2007.
The second was sent after the blasts in Jaipur in May, 2008.
The third was sent before the blasts in Ahmedabad on July 26, 2008. The fourth was sent after the press conference held by the Gujarat Police in August, 2008, in which they claimed to have solved the case relating to the Ahmedabad and Jaipur blasts, identified the perpetrators and arrested many of them.
According to the Gujarat police version, it was the Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), which was operating as the IM.
The firfth message was sent before the blasts in New Delhi on September 13, 2008.

The first, second, third and fifth messages claimed responsibility for the blasts and the fourth debunked the claims of the Gujarat Police of having solved the case and tried to convey the impression that the arrested persons had nothing to do with the blasts. Surprisingly, the IM did not send any E-mail message claiming responsibility for the serial blasts in Bangalore on July 25, 2008.

Intriguingly, the IM described its E-mail message on the New Delhi blasts of September,2008, as "our third consecutive E-mail ". It said: "The INDIAN MUJAHIDEEN accepts the sole responsibility of Delhi serial blasts, and we claim this, through our third consecutive email, which is, unfortunately, still a mystery for you. It is very sad to see the bad condition of your cyber forensics who have still failed to find out our technique of sending the “Message of Death”."

Why did the IM, after the Delhi blasts, talk of only three E-mail messages, when the media had received five , all purporting to be from the IM?

A study of the five E-mail messages made by me in September,2008, indicated the following:

(a).While the first two E-mail messages were virulent in their content, they were not obnoxiously abusive in their language. The last three messages were not only virulent in their content, but also obnoxious in their language. In the message about the Ahmedabad blasts, they had used the word bastard which normally Al Qaeda and pro-Al Qaeda organisations are not known to use. The message on the New Delhi blasts was even more abusive than the two messages regarding the blasts in Ahmedabad. P. C. Pandey, the DG of Police of Gujarat, was called a rascal, a bastard, a corrupt old hag, a base-born criminal and a filthy loyal dog of Narendra Modi. As pointed out by me at that time, such abuses were typical of the Mafia underworld of Mumbai and Gujarat.

(b).The Gujarat Police and the Rajasthan Police and their Police chiefs were severely condemned and a specific threat of terrorist attack was also held out against A.K.Jain of the Rajasthan Police. But, significantly, there was no criticism of the Karnataka Police and its chief. There was not even a reference to the investigation by the Bangalore Police, whereas the investigations by the Ahmedabad and Jaipur police were debunked and their claims of having solved the cases were questioned. Similarly, there was no reference to the UP Police investigation of the blasts of November 2007.

(c ).The language used in the third and fourth messages about the Ahmedabad blasts and the fifth message about the New Delhi blasts, which were very abusive, differed from the language used in the first message about the UP blasts and the second about the Jaipur blasts.

I had commented as follows in my assessment of these messages : “Why such discrepancies ( in language)? It is important to find answers to them before we come to definitive conclusions about the IM. Just as the proof of the pudding is in the eating, the proof of the terrorist is in the catching. Unless and until we are able to identify and neutralise or arrest the right persons, who are the brains behind the IM, we will have more surprises. We have arrested many perpetrators of individual blasts, but I am not sure we have arrested the brains. By thinking and prematurely projecting that we have identified and arrested the brains, we will make ourselves liable for more surprises, which could damage the credibility of the police in the eyes of the public.”

In the message after the Delhi blasts of September,2008, many State Governments were criticised for their alleged harassment of the Muslims, but the main brunt of the criticism was against Maharashtra and the Mumbai Police.

I had then assessed as follows: “ From these messages, it is apparent that the IM does not as yet have a strategic objective such as the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate or the "liberation" of the Muslims of India. Its objective till now is purely tactical to wreak vengeance on the Hindutva organisations and the various State Governments accused of harassing the Muslims. New Delhi seemed to have been targeted not only to exhibit their capability for action in the capital, but also to wreak vengeance on the Government of India for its failure to prevent the demolition of the Babri Masjid in December, 1992. The message says: "Babri Masjid was and will remain to be our glorious self esteem and Inshallah, we will prove it to you a hornet’s nest in which you have immersed your bare hand, unaware of the pain to come. If you are prepared to suffer the results of this issue, then by the will of Allah, verily! We will make you face it, and if you feel you are wise enough, then here we announce our ultimatum: Vacate the land of Babri as soon as you can."

The Mumbai Police announced on October 6,2008, the arrest of 20 suspected members of the IM, who had played a role in the serial blasts in Ahmedabad on July 26,2008, in the abortive attempt to organise similar blasts in Surat the next day and in the serial blasts in New Delhi on September 13,2008.

Among those arrested were four IT-savvy members of the IM, who had played a role in sending the E-mail messages in the name of the IM before and after the Ahmedabad blasts and before the New Delhi blasts by hacking into Wi-fi networks in Mumbai and Navin Mumbai. These were :

Mohammed Mansoor Asgar Peerbhoy aka Munawar aka Mannu. A 31-year-old resident of Pune, who was reportedly working for Yahoo, India, on an annual salary of Rs. 19 lakhs (US $ 45,000).

Mubin Kadar Shaikh, a 24-year-old graduate of computer science from Pune.

Asif Bashir Shaikh, a 22-year-old mechanical engineer from Pune. In addition to helping in sending the E-mail messages, he also reportedly played a role in planting 18 Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) in Surat, all of which failed to explode.

Mohammed Ismail Chaudhary, a 28-year-old computer mechanic, who was also suspected to have helped in planting the IEDs in Surat.

After these arrests in Mumbai, the IM stopped disseminating messages. There were no more terrorist stikes in which its involvement was established .There was almost total silence by the IM.

The IM started messaging again on September 19,2010, after a silence of nearly two years after the Delhi blasts of September,2008. A statement purported to have been issued by the IM was disseminated by E-mail on September 19,2010. It referred to certain anti-Muslim incidents which allegedly took place in Ratlam in Madhya Pradesh on the day of Eid (September 11). It also referred to the day when the total number of people allegedly killed by the security forces in Jammu & Kashmir during 2010 crossed 100 (September 17).

The statement was in good English with very few grammar or typing mistakes and had few of the kind of obnoxious abuses seen in the messages of 2007-08. It had been drafted by one well-versed in the Holy Koran.

Many of the religious allusions in the message had been taken from some past messages of Osama bin Laden, but bin Laden was not mentioned anywhere by name. The last para of the message had been borrowed almost word for word from a message against Gen. Pervez Musharraf and the Pakistani Army issued by bin Laden in September 2007 calling for the wrath of Allah on them for the raid into the Lal Masjid of Islamabad in July, 2007. It read: "O,Allah, deface them, break their backs and heads, split them up and destroy their unity; O, Allah, afflict them with the loss of their near and dear ones as they have afflicted us with the loss of our near and dear ones; O, Allah, we seek refuge in You from their evilness and we place You at their throats; O,Allah, make their plotting their destruction; O,Allah, suffice for us against them with whatever You wish; O,Allah, destroy them for they cannot escape You; O, Allah, count them, kill them and leave not even one of them. " There were only two minor changes. bin Laden had not said "deface them". He had also not said "and heads". One did not know wherefrom bin Laden had originally taken his curse against Musharraf and the Pakistani Army. bin Laden's curse against them was converted by the IM into a curse against the Indian people and officials.

The statement did not directly claim responsibility on behalf of the IM for the attack in Delhi on September 19,2010, in which two Taiwanese tourists were injured by motor-cycle-borne individuals. However, it indirectly hinted at IM’s responsibility by saying: "In the name of Allah we dedicate this attack of retribution...."

In a reference to the Commonwealth Games, it said: "On the one hand Muslim blood is flowing like water, while on the other hand you are preparing for the festival of games. This is surely not a Child's play. Mind you this is the initiative from the Lions of Allah and we warn you to host the Commonwealth Games if you have a grain of salt. We know that the preparations for the Games are at its peak. Beware we too are preparing in full swing for a Great Surprise. The participants will be solely responsible for the outcome as our bands of Mujahideens love death more than you love life."

It had highlighted in red ink the following words: "Our bands of Mujahideens love death more than you love life." While over 75 per cent of the statement was about alleged atrocities against Muslims in Jammu & Kashmir, there were also condemnatory references to the death of two IM suspects during a raid by the Delhi police on September 19,2008, to the arrests of some alleged members of the IM by the Anti-Terrorism Squad of the Maharashtra Police in connection with the Pune Bakery blast of February 13 2010 and some alleged anti-Muslim incidents in Ratlam in Madhya Pradesh on Eid day. The IM was not able to carry out its threat against the Commonwealth Games.

A message dated December 6, 2010, purporting to be from the IM indirectly claiming responsibility for the explosion in Varanasi on December 7,2010, was received by the media outlets to which it was addressed after the explosion had taken place. It differed from the message of the IM sent on September 19, 2010, in one significant aspect. It avoided any allusions to the messages of Osama bin Laden and was free of bin Laden like language and rhetoric. It had not borrowed from the past messages of bin Laden. It sought to project the IM as a purely indigenous movement, but needing the support of the Islamic world.

It warned the Hindus of continued attacks on Hindu holy places till all Masjids (mosques) belonging to the Muslims were restored to them. It was critical of the Indian criminal justice system, which was projected as anti-Muslim. This has been a recurring theme of all IM messages disseminated since the explosions in Uttar Pradesh in November, 2007. It warned moderate Indian Muslim leaders not to barter away the rights of the Muslims on the Babri Masjid issue. The salient points in this IM message, which was quite detailed, were as follows:

Criticism of the Judiciary: "The Supreme Court, the high courts, the lower courts and all the Commissions have utterly failed to play an impartial role regarding Muslim issues. Narendra Modi who presided over the 2002 massacres of Muslims in Gujarat is given a clean chit whereas the victims still run from pillar to post for justice. Even the 92 Mumbai culprits roam freely and enjoy Government security. All the anti-Muslim pre-planned riots, arson, rapes, losses of lives and properties are still awaiting justice. The list is endless!"

Criticism of the Congress (I): "It needs no mention that time and again the Congress party with its hidden agenda has shown its true colors. Be it the inaction over the planting of the idol in 1949 or the shilanyaas, the ground-breaking ceremony of 1989 and finally the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992. For all practical reasons the Masjid site has since been transformed into a Mandir (temple), thanks to the Supreme Court order to maintain Status-quo."

Warning of More Attacks on Hindu Holy Places: "Our memories are still fresh and our hearts still bleeding over every Muslim brother and sister who was hacked to death after the demolition of Babri masjid. Indian history is decorated with countless state-sponsored terror and state-managed riots. Indeed every martyr enlivens the ummah. We will not budge until every inch of the Masjid is regained and lives of our martyrs avenged. We will strike terror in the hearts and minds of these idol worshippers until the mountain of injustice is undone. We will leave no stone unturned come what may till the anger of believer’s hearts is removed and a Magnificent Masjid is built at the same spot. We are fully aware of your preparations at the Babri Masjid site for the construction of a ‘grand temple’ over the corpses of our martyrs all over the country. The Indian Mujahideen warn these filthy Hindu zealots that even if a Grand Temple of Gold is built over the Babri Masjid we will destroy it at all costs. Remember! It was a Masjid, It is a Masjid and It will always remain a Masjid. At this juncture Muslims are silent due to their state of affairs. We hereby invite all our Muslim brethren to never be weak-hearted over the designs of these idolators and urge them to strengthen their faith in Allah and unite for the cause of Islam. Surely, victory is awaiting us. Be assured that Indian Mujahideen, the sons of Mahmud Ghazni, Muhammad Ghori, Qutb-ud-din Aibak, Firuz Shah Tughlaq and Aurangzeb have resolved that none of your Mandirs will remain safe until and unless all our occupied Masjids throughout India are returned back to the Muslims with honour. "

Caution to Indian Muslim Leaders: "Neither the All India Muslim Personal Law Board nor the Babri Masjid Action Committee nor the Sunni Waqf Board nor any litigant has any right to alter or compromise on any of these aspects whatsoever regarding the Babri Masjid. All sorts of bartering and bargaining is totally unacceptable to Allah and thus to the Muslims. We urge those ulema to behave sensibly, change their attitude towards this Holy Cause, fear Allah alone, come forward, inspire and motivate the people and thus appease none but Allah alone. We hereby declare that even if all the ulema, scholars and Muslim leaders collectively deviate from or refuse Allah and Prophet’s Verdict, their decision will be right beneath our feet."

The Kashmir Issue: "The manhandling and heckling of Kashmiri leadership in Indian cities is not at all a minor issue. These insane and cowardly Saffron Hindus on the behest of the IB (Intelligence Bureau) and the administration pounce upon weak people. As usual we are going through minute details of the matter and have obtained vital clues of the mischief which we presume to be inappropriate to be divulged at this point of time. Meanwhile we request the respected Syed Ali Shah Geelani Saheb and the Mirwaiz to maintain their self-respect and dignity. These sons of monkeys and snakes will never heed to sensible arguments and historical facts. Please don’t waste your time with these lowly creatures as they will never understand!"

Appeal to the Islamic World to Support Indian Muslims: "We appeal to all the Muslim countries to voice their concerns regarding oppression and injustice done by India upon their fellow brethren. It is their duty to pressurize this ‘Empire of Falsehood and Tyranny’ regarding the longstanding Kashmir issue where world’s largest concentration of armed forces in an occupied territory stands. This ‘Hollow superpower’, needs to be told loudly and clearly that it should get over its obsession with Muslims in India and that the Global Muslim Ummah is seriously concerned about the issues like Babri Masjid and Kashmir."

From this, it is apparent that the IM does not as yet have a strategic objective. It is still an organisation of tactical, reprisal terrorism determined to avenge the destruction of the Babri Masjid, the alleged atrocities against Muslims in different parts of India, including J&K, and what it sees as the unfair attitude of the judiciary towards Muslims.

I have not covered in this note the latest messages purporting to be from the IM received after the blast outside the Delhi High Court on September 7,2011, since their authenticity has not yet been established.

Hate Factor In Blast

-Hari Ram Pandey
Before today indian mujahideen, an affiliate of Al Quida, served threat against Judiciary
Today Harkatul jehad al Islami(Huji), a Pakistani terror organisation took responsibility of a bomb blast at the gate number 5 of the Delhi High Court, in which 13 persons killed and several injured.
Here it is an effort to explain the act of Islamic extremist organisations.
It is the first part of the article in which past threat of Indian Mujahideen to judiciary is detailed.
Please read it in connection with the today’s blast.
Thirteen persons were killed in seven well-synchronised explosions near court premises in three cities of Uttar Pradesh---Lucknow, Varanasi and Faizabad---on the afternoon of November 23, 2007.

The explosions came in the wake of the judgements delivered in respect of the Mumbai serial blasts of March 1993 and the Coimbatore serial blasts of February,1998. In both the cases, a number of jihadi terrorists had been found guilty and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.

The explosions also came after the arrest of three suspected members of the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM) in UP, who were alleged to have planned to kidnap a dignitary in order to secure the release of Afzal Guru, who has been sentenced to death for his role in the attack on the Indian Parliament in December, 2001. The arrested JEM terrorists were alleged to have been beaten up by some lawyers when they were brought to court. The local lawyers had also reportedly refused to defend terrorists in future.

An E-mail message purported to be from "Indian Mujahideen" received by some TV channels before the explosions indicated that these explosions were about to take place.

The message referred to the severe penalties awarded to the accused in the Mumbai blasts of March, 1993, and the lack of action against Hindu police officers, who committed atrocities on Muslims. It also referred to the Gujarat riots of 2002 and the assault on arrested JEM suspects by some lawyers. The message which the sender sought to convey was that the Indian criminal justice system treated the Muslims severely, but was lenient to the Hindus.

Last year, there were two messages purported to have been issued by the Indian Mujahideen (IM) warning of its plans to carry out terrorist strikes.

The first message was disseminated by E-mail on September 19, 2010. It was shown as having been signed by one Al Arbi the same day. It referred to certain anti-Muslim incidents which allegedly took place in Ratlam in Madhya Pradesh on the day of Eid (September 11). It also referred to the day (September 17) when the total number of people allegedly killed by the security forces in Jammu & Kashmir crossed 100.

Many of the religious allusions in the message had been taken from some past messages of Osama bin Laden, but bin Laden was not mentioned by name.

The statement did not directly claim responsibility on behalf of the IM for the attack in Delhi on September 19 in which two Taiwanese tourists were injured. However, it indirectly hinted at its responsibility by saying: "In the name of Allah we dedicate this attack of retribution...."

While over 75 per cent of the statement was about alleged atrocities against Muslims in Jammu & Kashmir, there were also condemnatory references to the death of two IM suspects during a raid by the Delhi police on September 19, 2008, to the arrests of some alleged members of the IM by the Anti-Terrorism Squad of the Maharashtra Police in connection with the Pune Bakery blast of February 13 last and some alleged anti-Muslim incidents in Ratlam in Madhya Pradesh on Eid day.
A message dated December 6, 2010, purporting to be from the IM indirectly claiming responsibility for the explosion in Varanasi on December 7, 2010, was received by some media outlets to which it was addressed after the explosion had taken place. It avoided any allusions to the messages of Osama bin Laden and was free of bin Laden like language and rhetoric. It had not borrowed from the past messages of bin Laden.

It projected the IM as a purely indigenous movement, but needing the support of the Islamic world. It warned the Hindus of continued attacks on Hindu holy places till all Masjids (mosques) belonging to the Muslims were restored to them. It was critical of the Indian criminal justice system, which was projected as anti-Muslim.
It criticised the Judiciary as follows: "The Supreme Court, the high courts, the lower courts and all the Commissions have utterly failed to play an impartial role regarding Muslim issues. Narendra Modi who presided over the 2002 massacres of Muslims in Gujarat is given a clean chit whereas the victims still run from pillar to post for justice. Even the 92 Mumbai culprits roam freely and enjoy Government security. All the anti-Muslim pre-planned riots, arson, rapes, losses of lives and properties are still awaiting justice. The list is endless!"

Dynastic Politics in PACHIM BANGA

Hari Ram Pandey
4 sept.2011
For decades, the political culture of West Bengal remained different from the rest of India. Money power, big-league corruption and dynastic politics were conspicuously absent. No longer.

Terror and violence have become endemic in the state. At least ten skeletons of Trinamool Congress workers murdered by CPI-M henchmen have been recovered from West Midnapore district, and more bodies may be discovered soon. Money power is growing.

But the new and most disturbing trend is the upsurge in dynastic politics. Mamata Bannerjee is projecting her nephew, Pranab Mukherjee has positioned his son, and they are setting the wrong sort of example for others to follow.

Political families were not absent earlier. But they were different. Ajoy and Bishwanath Mukherjee lived in the same house, but scarcely assisted one another.

Ajoybabu twice became chief minister for short periods in the late '60s after quitting the Congress. Bishwanath Mukherjee, on the other hand, topped as state CPI chief, revered by younger leaders like Gurudas Dasgupta and Nandogopal Bhattacharya. His wife, Geeta Mukherjee, was a prominent MP, but in her own right.

Sarat and Subhash Chandra Bose were brothers as well. Sarat Bose could have risen in the Congress after Independence but resigned from the AICC protesting the attempt to partition Bengal on sectarian lines.

Sarat and Shaheed Suhrawardy worked for a united but independent Bengal and received no support from the Congress or Muslim League. After Independence, Bose lead his brother's Forward Bloc, formed the Socialist Republican Party, and advocated a socialist system for Bengal and India.

There are others from the Subhash Bose family that have come into politics. Sisir Bose, son of Sarat, is in the Congress. Another son of Sarat, Subrata, is in the Forward Bloc. And Sisir's wife, Krishna, joined the Trinamool. But they are not heavyweight leaders, although they have been chosen for their powerful family name.

Somnath Chatterjee, the speaker of the last Lok Sabha, had a redoubtable political father, N.C.Chatterjee. But while the father was from Hindu Mahasabha, the son was a prominent CPI-M leader till his expulsion. Somnath did not get any political advantage because of his father.

That has changed since the '90s. The late A.B.A.Ghani Khan Chowdhury did more than anyone to propagate dynastic politics. Entering the Lok Sabha in 1980, he remained undefeated till his death.

Ghani Khan brought his brother, Abu Hashem Khan Chowdhury, and sister, the late Rubi Noor, into politics. Succeeding his brother, Hashem Khan won from Maldah Lok Sabha constituency.

And after her demise, Rabi Noor's daughter, Mousam Noor, entered the Bengal assembly and won the Maldah Uttar Lok Sabha constituency after bifurcation. A second brother of Ghani Khan, Abu Naser, has become minister in the Mamata Bannerjee-led government.

Ghani Khan Chowdury's support base was largely Muslim. But his reach extended to non-Muslim voters. His family has cashed in on his success.

Shishir Adhikari in East Midnapore district has followed in Ghani Khan's footsteps. He broke from the Congress and joined Trinamool Congress at inception, and is now a Central minister.

Shishir led the Nandigram movement benefiting his son, Suvendu, who joined the Lok Sabha from Tamluk. His brother, Dibyendu, is the Kanthi Dakshin MLA. The Adhikaris have overcome the CPI-M's East Midnapore muscleman, Lakshman Seth, whose wife, Tamalika, was an MLA from 2006-11.

Another Trinamool leader and Union minister, Mukul Roy, got his son, Subhrangshu, elected in the last assembly polls. Subhrangshu has a chequered history of assaulting an election commission officer.

Then there is the rise of couples in politics. Ill and absent, Priya Ranjan Dashmunshi has seen his wife, Deepa, step in for him, win from his Lok Sabha constituency, and become an important state Congress leader.

Sudip Bandopadhyay, a Trinamool minister in the Centre, also brought in his wife, but she has not clicked. Bengal's high-profile communist leader, Subhash Chakrabarty, was always ably assisted by his wife, Ramala. But after his death, she failed to win his assembly constituency.

Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar, an MP from Trinamool Congress, has, however, succeeded to send her husband, Sudarshan, to the assembly. The late Ajit Panja's daughter-in-law, Sashi Panja, a doctor by profession, has also entered the assembly,

Family politics has not spared the communist parties either. The firebrand Forward Bloc leader from Cooch Behar, Kamal Guha's son, Udayan, has become numero uno in the party and its MLA from Dinhata. The trend has not left Pranab Mukherjee immune, who brought his son, Abhijit, into politics, having him resign his SAIL job.

Twenty years ago, Geeta Mukherjee or Binoy Konar did not owe their prominence to their husband or elder brother. The famous physician, Ranjit Panja, did not become an MP courtesy his brother, Ajit. And Amit Mitra is the finance minister since he is a first rate economist, not because he is related to the Netaji family.

But his boss, Mamata, is propping up her nephew, Abhishek, and the chief-ministership could be his in some years. Bengal has finally accepted dynastic politics, and it cannot give happy results. The CPI-M is not wholly tainted in that respect. But its murderous reign should keep Mamata Bannerjee comfortably going for this term and beyond.

Bangladesh-India relations at a historical crossroads

Hari Ram Pandey
3 sept 2011
Despite India’s extraordinary support to the cause of Bangladeshi independence in 1971, relations between the two countries quickly soured after Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s assassination in August 1975. Indeed, Indian assessments of successive regimes in Bangladesh grew steadily more pessimistic, with some commentators (inaccurately) characterizing the country as the “next Afghanistan”, as trends in radicalization and terrorism escalated, and Bangladeshi state institutions became more and more embroiled in the wider enterprise of Islamist extremism, even as relationships with Pakistan’s disruptive external intelligence and military establishment deepened.

All this has, however, changed dramatically, and vastly beyond most expectations, since Sheikh Hasina Wajed’s sweeping electoral victory and the establishment of a majority Awami League (AL) regime at Dhaka in January 2009. With remarkable transformations in the domestic scenario, Dhaka has also sought to repair relations with Delhi, and the two countries have launched a number of initiatives that may herald a new era of mutual cooperation to address a wide range of outstanding issues, including terrorism, illegal immigration, border disputes, water sharing, transit and energy resources. There have been numerous exchanges, negotiations and meetings of high officials between the two countries since early 2010, now culminating in the official visit of Indian Prime Minister (PM) Manmohan Singh to Bangladesh, scheduled for September 6-7, 2011. Significantly, Manmohan Singh will be the first Indian PM to visit Bangladesh in 12 years, after then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee visited Dhaka in 1999.

Terrorism has been a point of major friction in Indo-Bangladesh relations over the past years. Since 2010, however, Bangladesh has recognized that Pakistan-based Islamist terrorist outfits had formed a strong nexus with extremists operating in Bangladesh, and were acting across the border in India, even as they came to constitute a major threat to internal security in Bangladesh as well. Moreover, a large number of indigenous militant organizations operating in India’s troubled Northeast had long secured safe haven on Bangladeshi (and, even earlier, East Pakistani) soil, keeping a number of insurgencies artificially alive in this troubled region. In combination, these linkages had contributed to a large measure of extremist violence in India, traces of which still persist. For instance, the emergence of Abdullah Khan and Jalaluddin Mullah alias Babu Bhai of the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami Bangladesh (HuJI-B), as key suspects in the Mumbai serial blasts of July 13, 2011 (13/7), underlines the threat of extremism that abides within the two countries.

Nevertheless, things have changed tremendously for the better since the AL-led Government took charge on January 6, 2009. Prime Minister Wajed’s commitment to wipe out all patterns of terrorism and militancy in Bangladesh has resulted in the decimation of the Islamist extremist terrorist leadership within the country , even as a majority of top militant leaders of the outfits operating in India’s Northeast have been arrested and handed over to Indian authorities. On January 11, 2010, Prime Minister Wajed, during a visit to India, had discussed ways in which the two countries could cooperate to check the menace of terrorism, and an Agreement on Combating International Terrorism was signed by Prime Ministers Wajed and Manmohan Singh. It was noted that security remained a priority for both countries, as terrorists, insurgents and criminals respected no boundaries, and both leaders reiterated the assurance that the territory of either country would not be allowed for activities inimical to the other, and that their respective territory would not be used for training, sanctuary and other operations by domestic or foreign terrorist, militant and insurgent organizations and their operatives.

More recently, in the run-up to Manmohan Singh’s proposed Dhaka visit, Hasina Wajed declared, on August 10, 2011: “My Government is always against terrorism. We won't allow any space to the terrorists, we won't allow an inch of land of the country to be used for terrorism. Terrorists have no borders they are the problems of the whole world. We all have to fight against terrorism in a united form as it is not possible to eradicate this problem by solo effort.” On July 30, 2011, Indian Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram, acknowledging Bangladeshi cooperation in combating terrorism, declared, during his visit to Dhaka, "I have on record on numerous occasions appreciated the splendid cooperation of Bangladesh to combat terrorism.”

While the effort to combat terrorism has secured much attention, Indo-Bangladesh cooperation on a wide range of other outstanding issues has also quietly expanded. With regard to border management, P. Chidambaram laid the foundation of a INR 1.72 Billion integrated check post along the border (in West Bengal) on August 27, 2011, which would boost trade between India and Bangladesh. Chidambaram and his Bangladeshi counterpart Sahara Khatun had earlier signed a Comprehensive Border Management deal on July 30. The deal constitutes a major initiative in the transformation of the India-Bangladesh border from a 4,156 kilometer long zone of conflict, terrorism, crime, smuggling and human trafficking, into a peaceful barrier punctuated by numerous trade corridors.

Dhaka and New Delhi have also initialized the process of demarcation of enclaves. According to official records, there are 111 Indian enclaves, covering some 17,000 acres, inside Bangladesh; while Bangladesh has 51 enclaves, covering about 7,000 acres in India. With regard to the ‘adverse possession’ of these enclaves, the big call that will have to be taken by politicians on both sides of the border is the future of the 30,000-40,000 inhabitants of these territories. Significantly, it is expected that a series of border-related agreements will be finalized during PM Manmohan Singh’s Dhaka visit in September.

The fractious security interface between India and Bangladesh was also historically worsened by a wide range of other contentious issues. Among the most urgent of these, particularly from the Bangladesh perspective, has been water sharing. The unevenness of economic, political, and military power, and the lack of economic incentives, have allowed India to neglect the issue of water sharing, even while the problem of water resources has remained sensitive and politically charged in Bangladesh. The crisis in Bangladesh has been compounded by a frequent recurrence of drought years, causing environmental and socio-economic problems, as well as a growing sense of helplessness and anger, all of which have hardened public opinion in Bangladesh. The plan to sign a treaty on the sharing of Teesta River waters during PM Manmohan Singh’s scheduled visit to Dhaka will be a concrete step forward, even as the sharing of waters of a number of other rivers comes under active and accelerated discussion.

On the other hand, India’s desire for the economic development of its insurgency-afflicted Northeast region is inextricably linked with the issue of transit through Bangladesh. Previous regimes in Bangladesh have blocked India’s requests for transit facilities on the grounds that India may abuse these for military purposes, in case of a war with China, dragging Bangladesh into such future hostilities; that transit was the only ‘leverage’ Dhaka had against its gigantic neighbor, and this should be exploited as a bargaining chip; and, further, that Bangladesh should seek to hold India’s Northeast as a captive market for its own goods, rather than providing the Indian mainland’s producers access to this region. While these arguments have had significant resonance in Dhaka in the past, they have little grounds in rational policy or Bangladeshi interests of state. Thus, Indian External Affairs Minister S .M. Krishna, on July 8, 2011, clarified, “There is nothing to be feared by giving this transit. Transit is only for peaceful purposes”. Moreover, far from damaging the Bangladesh economy, transit arrangements would enormously augment the country’s infrastructure, even as they opened out possibilities of trade on both sides of the Bangladesh border, both with the Indian Northeast and the mainland. Accepting the enormous mutual potential benefits of a transit agreement, Dhaka, on July 7, 2011, agreed in principle to the idea of a wider Asian Highway, after signing the Business and Investment Promotion Agreement with India.

Another area of potential cooperation that will go a long way towards smoothening and deepening relations between the two countries is the energy sector. Bangladesh’s demand for natural gas and electricity has already outstripped available supplies. Agreements with India can open up energy trade and facilitate new investments in the energy sector for Bangladesh. On July 26, 2010, for instance, the two countries signed a 35-year landmark Electricity Transmission Deal under which India will eventually export up to 250 MW of power to Bangladesh from the end of 2012. In addition, a proposed 1320 MW power plant will transfer back the excess power generated to India through transmission links to be set up by the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited. Ongoing bilateral talks indicate the willingness of the two countries to secure enduring relations in the energy sector. However, effective implementation and sustained cooperation at the regional level is also required to ensure long term energy security.

A much wider range of cooperative agreements is currently under discussion, and these have the potential of cementing relations between Dhaka and New Delhi, with inevitable and positive impact on the internal security in both countries. For Prime Minister Wajed and her Government, however, the related decisions have not been easy, and will remain fraught with political risk, with strident criticism from the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP)-led Opposition. There have been repeated accusations of a ‘sell out’ to the ‘regional hegemon’. The BNP Chairman and opposition leader Khaleda Zia, on October 26, 2010, hinted at the growing and allegedly deleterious Indian role in the country, stating, “Frequency of movement by vultures has increased in Bangladesh and this movement must be stopped and vultures must be resisted unitedly.” Zia also claimed that Bangladesh had received no benefits from various agreements with India, and that the present Government was compromising national interests: “Our lands are taken away, innocent people are killed along the borders, but the present Government is afraid to protest.” On August 14, 2011, she demanded that the Government must make public all deals to be signed with India during Manmohan Singh's visit to Bangladesh, asserting, further, that her alliance would back the deals only “if they go in favour of Bangladesh. Otherwise, we will wage a tough movement to protest…. taking people with us."

Developments since 2009 have brought Bangladesh-India relations to a historical crossroads, and much of the bitterness of the past could easily be removed through a measure of generosity, flexibility and pragmatism on both sides. It remains to be seen if Prime Minister Singh’s visit to Dhaka will fulfill the broadening promise and expectations of the past two years.

Waiting for India-Bangla Embrace

Hari Ram Pandey
Whether appropriate or not, I have deliberately used the word “embrace” for the much anticipated visit of Prime Minister Dr. Manmohn Singh’s visit to Bangladesh (September 06-07) which some media time keepers have timed for 30 hours duration. Given that Prime Minister Singh works 18 hours a day, this will leave him 26 hours for work. Ministers and officials from both sides have worked out most of the agreements, MoUs and intents. And there will be no jet-lag in a two hours 30 minutes flight. The thirty hours will pass in a blink, but this blink will go on to pages of media reports, analysis of commentators, radio and television talk shows.

The expectations on both sides of the border are high, that the September meeting of Prime Minister of India and Bangladesh will be a game changer eventually for South Asia and its eastwards march. Usually in India major foreign policy initiatives have proponents, opponents and balanced critiques. The Bangladesh case is, however, unique. There are no opponents or even restraining critics. It is a consensus view of all Indians that Bangladesh can only be a friend, and past problems were irritants, best left to pages of history. But that is a dismay. Why cannot the entire people of Bangladesh reciprocate similarly? That is why the word “embrace”. India, a huge country, may embrace with warmth. Bangladesh, a smaller country, would certainly have sections which question if this embrace is of real warmth or a tight hug of a gorilla that can eventually crush Bangladesh? This is understandable. But a chorus of one section seeing India as ghost in every issue, and projecting India as the one and only enemy of Bangladesh is retrograde.

Going by the Bangladeshi media, most writings on Dr. Manmohn Singh’s visit is highly positive. It was gratifying to note BNP acting Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir formally stating his party’s views (August 15 ) in the following words “we welcome Indian Prime Minister to our country. We want to build relations with the close neighbor on the basis of equal relations”. Alamgir also hoped problems with India would be resolved during the visits and Bangladesh will get due share of Teesta and Ganges waters, and the construction of the Tipaimukh dam will be stopped. A day after the BNP threatened to enforce hartal during Dr. Singh’s visit, it was withdrawn. But there are rumours that the BNP may resort to some protest demonstrations during the visit.

The above suggests there are leaders in the BNP who are looking at India with greater maturity and realism. Although the BNP was formed only in 1978 by former Army Chief and President Zia-ur-Rehman. The composition of the disparate leadership suggest the party took over baggages from 1947, 1952, 1971, 1975, each landmark events from partition of India, the language movement, liberation war and the assassination of the founding father of the nation, Sk. Mujibur Rahman. The communist movement in Bangladesh split, much like that in India, into pro-Moscow and pro-Beijing factors. The pro-Beijing leftists, some of whom joined the BNP and the others who formed their splinter groups, remained ideologically anti-India. Unfortunately, Zia revived the Jamaat-e-Islami and their Razakars, Al Badrs and Al Shams the pro-Pak elements who either joined the BNP or formed their own parties. It was a masterful strategy of the anti-liberation elements which even Zia may have missed.

The confraternal politics will remain in Bangladesh. They have only to look at their neighbour, India. But there is also a difference that the opposition in Bangladesh must learn. The parliamentary debates in the Indian parliament on the Indo-US nuclear issue could have toppled the UPA government. But at the end of it all the political polemics, while reserving their differences, agreed on the positives of the deal.

Of course, there will be India baiters in Bangladesh who are sworn to this ideology. Separatist Hurriyat Conference leader Prof. Geelani in Kashmir, India, had once said Pakistan was written on his heart. One has to live with such people, and in course of time they will mellow or dissipate. What matters is the view of the overwhelming majority of the people of Bangladesh, and the Bangladeshi opposition parties may like to take a cue from it.

Old die hard, ideologically rigid politicians must realize that they are becoming dinosaurs. The younger cadres of the Jamaat and its youth wing, the Islamic Chhatra Shibir (ICS) are already disillusioned with their old leaders with Razakar colours. BNP also has somewhat similar problems.

The time has come for the old obscurantist leaders to realize that the youth are no longer enamoured with ideology and war on empty stomach. The world has become a global village. The only thing that matters to the youth is stability, education and development which in turn will address their aspirations for jobs and a better life. Nationalism is no longer visceral antagonism, but building the nation and prosperity. This is the reason the Awami League swept the polls in December, 2008.

The BNP and the Jamaat, and their acolytes must revisit their recent history and introspect on their actions honestly. Do they still think that their rule (2001-2006), that was tornado of unbridled corruption, promotion of terrorism and political assassinations had the approval of the young Bangladeshis who aspire for a better future, and are sick of retrogressive politics which almost convinced the international community to label Bangladesh as a country sponsoring terrorism?

This writer is not of the mode of supercilious pontification. Size and population may have restricted Bangladesh in some ways, which has led to economic migration. But the country is growing at 7 per cent. Bangladesh’s main asset is human resource, that is, a highly intellectual brain bank. They are second to none in the world. If instability is removed, it can become a second Singapore eventually. But all these depends upon the politics in the country – retrogressive politics will only take the country down.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit will not be a one time elixir. This will be just a start and a huge amount of work from both sides will have to follow to make their bilateral initiative a sustainable reality.

The government of Bangladesh requires support on the India initiative from other political parties. The BNP has given qualified support, which in itself is encouraging. On the other hand, India has a lot to do, too. First and foremost, the Indian bureaucrats cannot deal with Bangladesh just as any other country. True, after Sk. Mujib’s assassination in August 1975 in which India did not intervene (as it should have according to a lot of people including in Bangladesh), the Indian government went on a hands off policy. Under prime ministers Inder Gujral, A.B. Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh, India reached out but was rebutted. There was also some short sightedness in India’s foreign policy.

All that must be consigned to the past. This is a new beginning. India must deal with Bangladesh as a special country with an understanding of regional and geopolitical reality. Acting with alacrity on pledges by Indians ministers visiting Bangladesh is a must. Special provisions must be made for Bangladesh in trade and economic interactions if India is to carry Bangladesh with it in economic development.

Notwithstanding the fact that India has not directly interfered in Bangladesh’s internal affairs, there are issues that India cannot ignore any longer. Terrorism foremost. India cannot just standby and ignore when elements and personages in Bangladesh’s government support and provide Indian separatists, and terrorists with the wherewithal. This happened during the BNP-JEI alliance government and everything is in the open in Bangladesh courts now. Nor can India tolerate assassination of top Bangladeshi political leader as that will also impact India. On other issues, Bangladesh is a sovereign country and has to deal with its own internal problems.

India is grateful to Bangladesh, especially Prime Minister Sk. Hasina, for her pro-active policy to counter terrorism. This has helped India in countering Pakistan sponsored terrorism from Bangladesh’s soil. It cannot be denied, but applauded that Sk. Hasina’s foreign policy is not partisan. Each side has pursued its own foreign policy interests without coming into conflict. This is an ideal bilateral relations formula which neither seeks interference nor alliances.

On the horizon is a huge opportunity for India and Bangladesh to create a new broad band of economic and trade corridor from Central Asia to the outreaches of South East Asia. If Dhaka agrees to give the land corridor to India through Bangladesh to North East India, it would accelerate Nepal and Bhutan trade not only through Chittagong and Mongla ports of Bangladesh but even to north-east India. This, indeed can be merged with the already existing BIMSTEC, and revive the December 2000 Ganga-Mekong Cooperation (GMC) to promote trade and cultural relation between India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. If Pakistan cooperates, this corridor can be extended through Pakistan to Afghanistan and then to Central Asia. This will not be a revival of a “silk road” but a Asian Broad Band of trade, tourism, cultural exchanges and shared development.

The jewel in the crown will be Bangladesh, as it will be the natural hub, given its well located sea ports. The question is of vision. If narrow interest, which have no future, dominates, such a vision will never materialize. But a workable start can be envisaged.

We are not only looking at a new India-Bangladesh start, but one which has a huge future. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Dhaka, if really successful holds up a great new sugar cone.