---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Abdul Mannan Azad <mannanazad@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:02 PM
Subject: [bangla-vision] Must Read:Delhi's cultural expansionism /Human Rights Watch report/
-- From: Abdul Mannan Azad <mannanazad@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:02 PM
Subject: [bangla-vision] Must Read:Delhi's cultural expansionism /Human Rights Watch report/
Two news:
1. Dr. Zakir Naik was not allowed by our government to visit Dhaka and give Dawa of Islam. (30 Nov 2010)
2. Shahrukh Khan, Rani Mujkherjee, Isha Kopikar, Arjun Rampal & co. was allowed to give Dawa of Shamelessness and Saitan. (10 Dec 2010)
Not only that Dawa of Saitan was allowed but also ARMY personnel was used to provide traffic support around the program area.
Surely ALLAH has every right to punish us for our silence and cowardliness.
-----
Delhi's cultural expansionism
NewsfromBangladesh.com Friday December 10 2010 19:49:34 PM BDT1. Dr. Zakir Naik was not allowed by our government to visit Dhaka and give Dawa of Islam. (30 Nov 2010)
2. Shahrukh Khan, Rani Mujkherjee, Isha Kopikar, Arjun Rampal & co. was allowed to give Dawa of Shamelessness and Saitan. (10 Dec 2010)
Not only that Dawa of Saitan was allowed but also ARMY personnel was used to provide traffic support around the program area.
Surely ALLAH has every right to punish us for our silence and cowardliness.
-----
Delhi's cultural expansionism
By Mehnab Khan, Bangladesh
Each time, when Awami League comes in power, a section of so-called event management companies and program organizers become over active in organizing various cultural functions with Indian artistes. The same thing happened in 1996, when Awami League came in power, and it is no exception now.
The most talked about cultural event of 2010 is, Shahrukh Khan Night organized in Dhaka by Antar Showbiz. Just imagine! Who is the owner of this company is. Yes, Swapan Chowdhury, who is a former leader of the youth front of Bangladesh Nationalist Party!
How Swapan Chowdhury manages to organize such huge event? Who are the people behind him?
According to various sources, Antar Showbiz paid US$ 200,000 only to Shahrukh Khan for his few hour performances on December 10, 2010. On the other hand, Rani Mujkherjee has been paid US$ 50,000; Isha Kopikar US$ 25,000; Arjun Rampal US$ 15,000 etc.
The entire amount of remuneration, paid to Indian artistes was smuggled out of Bangladesh through illegal channel. Antar Showbiz never sought any permission from Bangladesh Bank for such huge remittance of foreign currency.
It is also learnt that, Antar Showbiz has cashed US$ 1.5 million from the sales proceeds of tickets, while it has received at least US$ 200,000 from the sponsors. And most surprisingly, Bangladeshi government did not receive even a fraction of the accrued amusement tax and Value Added Tax from the sale of tickets.
And here is the worst part of the story! Antar Showbiz's owner Swapan Chowdhury sold "private time" with Rani Mukherjee at the rate of US$ 20,000 per 30 minutes. According to information, more than 27 local elites have purchased such "private time" with Rani.
On the other hand, "private time" with Isha Kopikar is sold for US$ 10,000 per 30 minutes. There is also no less rush for spending private time with this sexiest Bollywood star.
Is it not dirty enough? How a local event management company has been allowed to sell such "private time" of foreign artistes almost openly? Shall I call it a high profile pimping service?
And now the unknown story of the main media partner of this controversial event! Fraudulent multi-level marketing company Destiny, as shield of salvaging their skin from public wrath invested significant amount of money in buying a private television channel named Boishakhi TV. This channel has though paid a formidable amount of money to Antar Showbiz for buying exclusive broadcast right, it is continuing to play Indian film songs since December 8, 2010 almost on a regular basis, in the name of running campaign of Shahrukh Khan Night. How such audacious behavior of this TV channel was allowed to be continued during the month of liberation of Bangladesh? Are they willing to place Bangladeshi independence under the feet of their lords in Delhi?
Patriotic people in Bangladesh and media should investigate the entire episode of this question Shahrukh Khan Night. And the entire team of these Bollywood artistes should be properly questioned by Bangladeshi intelligence during their stay to determine, as to how they received such huge amount of foreign currency illegally.
The matter of selling private time of Rani Mukherjee and Isha Kopikar should also be investigated.
We have enough tolerated the cultural expansionism of Delhi. And it is our turn to react. New Delhi should immediately allow Bangladeshi TV channels to be shown in their households. Otherwise, we need to snatch off Indian channels from Bangladesh. As an independent nation, we have our pride. And we have no reason to pledge our dignity, sovereignty and pride to the followers of Chanakya doctrine.
--
Mehnab Khan
Dhaka - 1207, Bangladesh
E Mail : mehnabkhan@gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most talked about cultural event of 2010 is, Shahrukh Khan Night organized in Dhaka by Antar Showbiz. Just imagine! Who is the owner of this company is. Yes, Swapan Chowdhury, who is a former leader of the youth front of Bangladesh Nationalist Party!
How Swapan Chowdhury manages to organize such huge event? Who are the people behind him?
According to various sources, Antar Showbiz paid US$ 200,000 only to Shahrukh Khan for his few hour performances on December 10, 2010. On the other hand, Rani Mujkherjee has been paid US$ 50,000; Isha Kopikar US$ 25,000; Arjun Rampal US$ 15,000 etc.
The entire amount of remuneration, paid to Indian artistes was smuggled out of Bangladesh through illegal channel. Antar Showbiz never sought any permission from Bangladesh Bank for such huge remittance of foreign currency.
It is also learnt that, Antar Showbiz has cashed US$ 1.5 million from the sales proceeds of tickets, while it has received at least US$ 200,000 from the sponsors. And most surprisingly, Bangladeshi government did not receive even a fraction of the accrued amusement tax and Value Added Tax from the sale of tickets.
And here is the worst part of the story! Antar Showbiz's owner Swapan Chowdhury sold "private time" with Rani Mukherjee at the rate of US$ 20,000 per 30 minutes. According to information, more than 27 local elites have purchased such "private time" with Rani.
On the other hand, "private time" with Isha Kopikar is sold for US$ 10,000 per 30 minutes. There is also no less rush for spending private time with this sexiest Bollywood star.
Is it not dirty enough? How a local event management company has been allowed to sell such "private time" of foreign artistes almost openly? Shall I call it a high profile pimping service?
And now the unknown story of the main media partner of this controversial event! Fraudulent multi-level marketing company Destiny, as shield of salvaging their skin from public wrath invested significant amount of money in buying a private television channel named Boishakhi TV. This channel has though paid a formidable amount of money to Antar Showbiz for buying exclusive broadcast right, it is continuing to play Indian film songs since December 8, 2010 almost on a regular basis, in the name of running campaign of Shahrukh Khan Night. How such audacious behavior of this TV channel was allowed to be continued during the month of liberation of Bangladesh? Are they willing to place Bangladeshi independence under the feet of their lords in Delhi?
Patriotic people in Bangladesh and media should investigate the entire episode of this question Shahrukh Khan Night. And the entire team of these Bollywood artistes should be properly questioned by Bangladeshi intelligence during their stay to determine, as to how they received such huge amount of foreign currency illegally.
The matter of selling private time of Rani Mukherjee and Isha Kopikar should also be investigated.
We have enough tolerated the cultural expansionism of Delhi. And it is our turn to react. New Delhi should immediately allow Bangladeshi TV channels to be shown in their households. Otherwise, we need to snatch off Indian channels from Bangladesh. As an independent nation, we have our pride. And we have no reason to pledge our dignity, sovereignty and pride to the followers of Chanakya doctrine.
--
Mehnab Khan
Dhaka - 1207, Bangladesh
E Mail : mehnabkhan@gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following is the article from Srilanka Guardian News Paper:
Delhi's cultural expansionism
http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2010/12/delhis-cultural-expansionism.html
(December 10, Dhaka, Sri Lanka Guardian) Each time, when Awami League comes in power, a section of so-called event management companies and program organizers become over active in organizing various cultural functions with Indian artistes. The same thing happened in 1996, when Awami League came in power, and it is no exception now.
The most talked about cultural event of 2010 is, Shahrukh Khan Night organized in Dhaka by Antar Showbiz. Just imagine! Who is the owner of this company is. Yes, Swapan Chowdhury, who is a former leader of the youth front of Bangladesh Nationalist Party!
How Swapan Chowdhury manages to organize such huge event? Who are the people behind him?
According to various sources, Antar Showbiz paid US$ 200,000 only to Shahrukh Khan for his few hour performances on December 10, 2010. On the other hand, Rani Mujkherjee has been paid US$ 50,000; Isha Kopikar US$ 25,000; Arjun Rampal US$ 15,000 etc.
The entire amount of remuneration, paid to Indian artistes was smuggled out of Bangladesh through illegal channel. Antar Showbiz never sought any permission from Bangladesh Bank for such huge remittance of foreign currency.
It is also learnt that, Antar Showbiz has cashed US$ 1.5 million from the sales proceeds of tickets, while it has received at least US$ 200,000 from the sponsors. And most surprisingly, Bangladeshi government did not receive even a fraction of the accrued amusement tax and Value Added Tax from the sale of tickets.
And here is the worst part of the story! Antar Showbiz's owner Swapan Chowdhury sold "private time" with Rani Mukherjee at the rate of US$ 20,000 per 30 minutes. According to information, more than 27 local elites have purchased such "private time" with Rani.
On the other hand, "private time" with Isha Kopikar is sold for US$ 10,000 per 30 minutes. There is also no less rush for spending private time with this sexiest Bollywood star.
Is it not dirty enough? How a local event management company has been allowed to sell such "private time" of foreign artistes almost openly? Shall I call it a high profile pimping service?
And now the unknown story of the main media partner of this controversial event! Fraudulent multi-level marketing company Destiny, as shield of salvaging their skin from public wrath invested significant amount of money in buying a private television channel named Boishakhi TV. This channel has though paid a formidable amount of money to Antar Showbiz for buying exclusive broadcast right, it is continuing to play Indian film songs since December 8, 2010 almost on a regular basis, in the name of running campaign of Shahrukh Khan Night. How such audacious behavior of this TV channel was allowed to be continued during the month of liberation of Bangladesh? Are they willing to place Bangladeshi independence under the feet of their lords in Delhi?
Patriotic people in Bangladesh and media should investigate the entire episode of this question Shahrukh Khan Night. And the entire team of these Bollywood artistes should be properly questioned by Bangladeshi intelligence during their stay to determine, as to how they received such huge amount of foreign currency illegally.
The matter of selling private time of Rani Mukherjee and Isha Kopikar should also be investigated.
We have enough tolerated the cultural expansionism of Delhi. And it is our turn to react. New Delhi should immediately allow Bangladeshi TV channels to be shown in their households. Otherwise, we need to snatch off Indian channels from Bangladesh. As an independent nation, we have our pride. And we have no reason to pledge our dignity, sovereignty and pride to the followers of Chanakya doctrine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read this. Finally this issue has caught international attention it deserves.
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH has released an 81-page report that documents the situation on the border region, where both Bangladesh and India have deployed border guards to prevent infiltration, trafficking, and smuggling. They found numerous cases of indiscriminate use of force, arbitrary detention, torture, and killings by the security force, without adequate investigation or punishment. The report is based on over 100 interviews with victims, witnesses, human rights defenders, journalists, and Border Security Force and Bangladesh Rifles' (BDR) members. You can read the report here and download it here (.pdf). Given below are the report summary and recommendations.
Summary
This report documents a pattern of grave abuses by India's Border Security Force (BSF) against both Bangladeshi and Indian nationals in the border area along India's 2,000 kilometer long international fontier with Bangladesh in West Bengal state. The abuses include cases of indiscriminate killing and torture.
Most of the abuses documented in this report are related to efforts by the Indian government to deal with cross-border smuggling, particularly cattle-rustling. However, as this report shows, the abusive methods used by the BSF are disproportionate to the problems that the Indian government faces on its eastern border. Numerous ordinary Indian and Bangladeshi citizens resident in the border area end up as the victims of BSF abuses, which range from verbal abuse and intimidation to torture, beatings, and killings. Furthermore, because of the near total absence of effective accountability mechanisms for abuses carried out by members of the BSF, even the most serious abuses by border guards go unpunished. This sends a clear message that the Indian government finds such abuses acceptable.
The border area between India and Bangladesh is heavily populated and acutely poor. Many farmers on both sides of the border have also lost their farms and livelihoods to river erosion. Illegal cross-border activities, such as cattle-rustling, and trafficking in persons and narcotics, have flourished. In several of the cases documented in this report, victims were beaten up or killed while smuggling cattle across the border at night. Others were tortured or killed merely on suspicion of being involved in cattle-rustling. Children, reportedly employed by smugglers to reduce the risk of detection, are among the victims whose cases are documented below.
Several survivors and eyewitnesses of attacks allege that the BSF engaged in indiscriminate shooting without warning. Seventeen-year-old Bangladeshi Shyamol Karmokar sneaked into India to visit relatives. On January 26, 2010, he decided to return to Bangladesh with the assistance of cattle-rustlers. Mohammad Zahid, who had agreed to bring Shyamol back to Bangladesh, said that they were detected by the BSF close to the border. Instead of attempting to arrest them, BSF officers immediately opened fire. Shyamol was killed.
Torture is also rife. On January 25, 2010, Motiar Rahman, a Bangladeshi national strayed across the border while cutting grass, a common mistake since there are no clear markers. According to Motiar Rahman, he was captured by two BSF soldiers:
They blindfolded me and took me to the BSF camp. I thought that the BSF were going to kill me. After reaching the camp, the BSF personnel removed the blindfold and tied me to a tree. They left me there for over 15 hours, until 11 p.m. at night. Then they gave me some food.But once I had had finished my meal, the BSF started torturing me. I was beaten severely with a bamboo stick on my back and feet by the same soldier who brought me the food. I was kicked several times and as a result started bleeding from my penis. Another soldier started beating me on my head with a bamboo stick. This went on for at least 45 minutes… The BSF men jumped on my chest, and kicked me on my head and face with their boots.
Indian villagers residing in the border areas also accuse the BSF of not just indiscriminate shooting, but unprovoked beatings. Indian national Halima Bibi said her 12-year-old daughter was slapped and beaten by three BSF personnel on September 5, 2009 outside their home close to the border with Bangladesh. When Halima Bibi protested, she was verbally abused with sexual insults.
Nirsingha Mondal, from India's Murshidabad district, said that on May 10, 2009, he had gone out as usual in the morning to collect firewood for cooking. He was dragged into a nearby BSF camp by two soldiers, who beat him up and accused him of stealing flowers from their garden.
The Indian government says it is seeking to contain the smuggling and mass economic migration from Bangladesh. In recent years, India has also alleged that separatist militants in its northeastern states find sanctuary in Bangladesh and cross into India to perpetrate terrorist attacks. However few of those killed by the BSF have ever been shown to have been involved in terrorism. In an effort to secure the border the Indian government is constructing a large 3,200 kilometer fence. But in densely populated areas of the border, where land is cultivated right up to the international boundary, the border fence is already exacerbating the problems faced by residents of the border areas.
The BSF justifies the killing of suspected smugglers by claiming that they were evading arrest, or that its personnel had to fire in self-defense. But suspicion of a crime or evasion of arrest cannot alone justify the use of lethal force. In fact, even India's domestic laws which allow "all means necessary" in case a person attempts to use force to resist arrest, specifically forbid causing the death of a person who is not accused of an offense punishable by death or a life term.
In all the cases we investigated, the alleged criminals were either unarmed or armed with only sickles, sticks, and knives, which suggest that in shooting victims, the border guards are likely to have used excessive force. In a number of cases, the victims were shot in the back, suggesting that they were running away. In others, injuries indicate the person was shot at close range, with witnesses often alleging that the person was tortured and killed in BSF custody. Other victims appear to have fallen victim to bullets because they were too close to the border.
When someone is killed during a BSF operation, the BSF is required to file a report with the police. In such cases the BSF usually justifies the killing by accusing the victim of obstructing a public servant while performing his duties, unlawful assembly, or attempted murder. In none of the cases investigated by Human Rights Watch did the BSF show that it had recovered lethal weapons or explosives that could pose an imminent threat of death or serious injury that might justify killings in self-defense.
The Bangladeshi authorities have repeatedly complained about the rampant killing of its nationals by the BSF, as have human rights groups in both countries. Odhikar has documented cases of nearly a 1000 Bangladeshi nationals that have been killed by BSF over the last decade. Describing the BSF as "trigger happy," Bangladesh Home Minister, Sahara Khatun, said in May 2010 that she would again ask New Delhi to stop these incidents.
Despite these strong comments from Khatun, the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR), which is responsible for guarding the border from the Bangladeshi side and reports to the Bangladeshi Home Ministry, often fails to defend the rights of Bangladeshi citizens. The BDR is deployed to contain the smuggling of weapons, explosives, and narcotic substances including Phensedyl, a cough syrup that is banned in Bangladesh, but commonly used as a recreational drug. However, the Indian border authorities complain that their Bangladeshi counterparts do not do enough to prevent illegal cross-border smuggling.
In researching this report, the Bangladeshi human rights organization Odhikar and Human Rights Watch interviewed several BDR officials about Bangladeshi victims. In most cases, if the BSF presented evidence of smuggling, the BDR did not complain about Bangladeshi nationals being killed. For instance, with respect to the killing of Shyamol Karmokar, the BDR Camp Commander at Wahedpur border, Subedar Sirajul Islam, said that while his death was "unfortunate and sad," the BSF had opened fire believing him to be a cattle trader because he was with a group of rustlers. "Thus there was nothing wrong with the fact that the BSF has shot him."
In March 2010, BDR chief Maj. Gen. Mainul Islam, explaining that there was a history of "people and cattle trafficking during darkness," said of the killings: "We should not be worried about such incidents…. We have discussed the matter and will ensure that no innocent people will be killed." During an official visit to Bangladesh in September 2010, Raman Srivastava, Director General of the BSF, responded to Bandgladesh's complaints that the BSF were killing "innocent, unarmed" Bangladeshi civilians by saying: "We fire at criminals who violate the border norms. The deaths have occurred in Indian territory and mostly during night, so how can they be innocent?"
These comments suggest that officials of both governments believe that it is legal to use lethal force against those suspected of being engaged in smuggling or other illegal activities. This amounts to a de facto shoot-to-kill policy for smugglers, and violates both national and international standards on the right to life and the presumption of innocence which are applicable in India and Bangladesh.
The BDR raises serious concerns with the BSF only when cases of indiscriminate firing lead to the death of villagers not involved in smuggling. For instance, on March 13, 2009, a BSF trooper got into an argument with a boy fishing in a lake, barely 20 meters from the international border. According to eyewitnesses, when the altercation became heated, the soldier opened fire, hitting two boys who were grazing their buffaloes nearby. Thirteen-year-old Abdur Rakib was shot in the chest and died instantly. Mohammad Omar Faruq, 15, was injured and later described the indiscriminate firing. A flag meeting was held between the BDR and the BSF the next day to discuss the incident. The BSF initially tried to insist that the victims were illegal cattle traders, but the BDR personnel presented witness accounts countering this version. Some villagers who were present during the flag meeting said that the BSF eventually apologized and promised that the soldier responsible would be punished. It is not clear if any disciplinary action was taken.
Members of the BSF are described by local residents as unsympathetic, aggressive, and violent. This may be explained by the fact that many are deployed to the region after difficult and tense tours of duty on the India-Pakistan border in Kashmir. Human Rights Watch researchers witnessed BSF troopers shouting at villagers, calling them names, and often making them wait for hours as each person was searched and signed as they crossed BSF outposts, to reach their fields or homes which adjoin the border.
To prevent the accidental shooting of villagers, an informal curfew is imposed on both sides of the border at night. But the restriction of movement after dark causes numerous difficulties. In India, the BSF patrols are deployed in posts a few kilometers inside Indian territory. They restrict access to areas beyond the outposts, effectively cutting people off from their farms or markets. To prevent infiltration by Bangladeshi nationals, the BSF require residents to surrender their identity or citizenship cards when they cross the border outposts and to claim them on return. Mithoo Sheikh, a young man in Murshidabad, said that there are long queues as the BSF checks each identity:
Sometimes by the time we get to the field it is noon. And we have stop work by 4 p.m. because they stop us from returning after dark. The BSF does not understand cultivation problems. We cannot water our fields at noon. Sometimes we only get water at night, but they will not let us remain in the field. If we disobey, we get beatings or they file false charges… We are treated as outsiders in our country.
The police are unwilling to lodge complaints against the BSF. When Tutan Sheikh, an Indian national, complained to the police that he and his brothers were subjected to unprovoked beatings by the BSF, he was told by the police officer on duty that the BSF trooper had committed no crime since the BSF was there to "beat the people." In another case, after Indian national Noor Hossain was killed by the BSF, police told family members who wanted to lodge a complaint: "Why do you bother? What will happen to the BSF? Nothing can happen to the BSF. The BSF will say that the … border area is under their control."
The Indian NGO Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM), one of Human Rights Watch's partners in researching this report, has repeatedly approached the courts, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the National Minorities Commission, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as well as the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, to hold abusers accountable. None of the cases raised have been brought to a satisfactory conclusion. According to Kirity Roy, who heads MASUM, "As the de facto complainant, we were never summoned to appear or depose before any inquiry conducted by the BSF. However, we are aware that in some cases, family members or victims did appear before the BSF court of inquiry." No verdicts were made public.
According to the Bangladeshi authorities, India has never provided details of any BSF personnel who have been prosecuted for human rights violations. Until India ends its legal protection of security forces and civilian officials implicated in criminal offenses, a culture of impunity will prevail and abuses will continue.
The BSF, which has a long record of severe human rights abuses and members of India's other security forces, are exempt from criminal prosecution unless specific approval is granted by the Indian government to undertake a prosecution in a particular case. This legally sanctioned impunity is even included in a new bill to prohibit torture under consideration in the Indian parliament. The bill, as presently drafted, will require approval from the central or a state government for a court to have jurisdiction over an offense committed by a public servant.
BSF personnel are in theory liable to be produced before an internal court for making false accusations, or for "disgraceful conduct of a cruel, indecent or unnatural kind." Although the BSF claims that these courts are routinely used to prosecute those that commit crimes or violate the Border Security Force Act, there are no publicly known cases in which a BSF member was convicted of a crime for a human rights abuse at the India-Bangladesh border. It is time for the Indian government, which claims to follow the rule of law and respect basic rights, to take strong steps to end abuses and hold those responsible to account.
Key Recommendations
The Indian government should publicly order the Border Security Force (BSF) and other security forces to abide by the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. This requires officials to apply, as far as possible, non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms. Even in self-defense, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life. International law also requires security forces to give a clear warning of their intent to use firearms, and sufficient time to surrender.
Given the continuing failure of the BSF's internal justice system to prosecute its own members for human rights abuses, personnel of all ranks implicated in serious rights abuses should be investigated by civilian authorities and prosecuted in civilian courts. In cases of abuses against Indian and Bangladeshi nationals, the police must register complaints filed against the BSF. Guidelines as laid down by the National Human Rights Commission to investigate all cases of deaths in armed encounters should be applied to the BSF.
The Indian government should establish an independent and impartial commission of inquiry into serious violations of international human rights law by the BSF. The government should invite both Indian and Bangladeshi nationals to submit evidence and bring complaints to such a commission. The inquiry should be time bound and transparent, and should have the ability to provide protection to witnesses.
The Indian government should repeal all legal provisions that require approval of the executive branch for prosecutions against members of the security forces to proceed, including in article 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Similar provisions in the Indian Prevention of Torture Bill currently in front of the Indian parliament should be deleted. Such provisions provide effective immunity to the security forces and violate the principles of equality under the law enshrined in both the Indian Constitution and international law.
The UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations should inform the Indian government that those BSF personnel responsible for human rights violations should be excluded from peacekeeping duties.
The Government of India and Bangladesh should agree upon the request of the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, and arbitrary executions to visit the country, pending since 2000 for India and since 2006 for Bangladesh. The Special Rapporteur should also include in his program, visits the border areas between India and Bangladesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
China warns of 'fragile' India relationship
Delhi's cultural expansionism
http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2010/12/delhis-cultural-expansionism.html
(December 10, Dhaka, Sri Lanka Guardian) Each time, when Awami League comes in power, a section of so-called event management companies and program organizers become over active in organizing various cultural functions with Indian artistes. The same thing happened in 1996, when Awami League came in power, and it is no exception now.
The most talked about cultural event of 2010 is, Shahrukh Khan Night organized in Dhaka by Antar Showbiz. Just imagine! Who is the owner of this company is. Yes, Swapan Chowdhury, who is a former leader of the youth front of Bangladesh Nationalist Party!
How Swapan Chowdhury manages to organize such huge event? Who are the people behind him?
According to various sources, Antar Showbiz paid US$ 200,000 only to Shahrukh Khan for his few hour performances on December 10, 2010. On the other hand, Rani Mujkherjee has been paid US$ 50,000; Isha Kopikar US$ 25,000; Arjun Rampal US$ 15,000 etc.
The entire amount of remuneration, paid to Indian artistes was smuggled out of Bangladesh through illegal channel. Antar Showbiz never sought any permission from Bangladesh Bank for such huge remittance of foreign currency.
It is also learnt that, Antar Showbiz has cashed US$ 1.5 million from the sales proceeds of tickets, while it has received at least US$ 200,000 from the sponsors. And most surprisingly, Bangladeshi government did not receive even a fraction of the accrued amusement tax and Value Added Tax from the sale of tickets.
And here is the worst part of the story! Antar Showbiz's owner Swapan Chowdhury sold "private time" with Rani Mukherjee at the rate of US$ 20,000 per 30 minutes. According to information, more than 27 local elites have purchased such "private time" with Rani.
On the other hand, "private time" with Isha Kopikar is sold for US$ 10,000 per 30 minutes. There is also no less rush for spending private time with this sexiest Bollywood star.
Is it not dirty enough? How a local event management company has been allowed to sell such "private time" of foreign artistes almost openly? Shall I call it a high profile pimping service?
And now the unknown story of the main media partner of this controversial event! Fraudulent multi-level marketing company Destiny, as shield of salvaging their skin from public wrath invested significant amount of money in buying a private television channel named Boishakhi TV. This channel has though paid a formidable amount of money to Antar Showbiz for buying exclusive broadcast right, it is continuing to play Indian film songs since December 8, 2010 almost on a regular basis, in the name of running campaign of Shahrukh Khan Night. How such audacious behavior of this TV channel was allowed to be continued during the month of liberation of Bangladesh? Are they willing to place Bangladeshi independence under the feet of their lords in Delhi?
Patriotic people in Bangladesh and media should investigate the entire episode of this question Shahrukh Khan Night. And the entire team of these Bollywood artistes should be properly questioned by Bangladeshi intelligence during their stay to determine, as to how they received such huge amount of foreign currency illegally.
The matter of selling private time of Rani Mukherjee and Isha Kopikar should also be investigated.
We have enough tolerated the cultural expansionism of Delhi. And it is our turn to react. New Delhi should immediately allow Bangladeshi TV channels to be shown in their households. Otherwise, we need to snatch off Indian channels from Bangladesh. As an independent nation, we have our pride. And we have no reason to pledge our dignity, sovereignty and pride to the followers of Chanakya doctrine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read this. Finally this issue has caught international attention it deserves.
Of course the government is meek on this one. As I always maintained, good neighbourliness is not something that just be demanded or commanded, it has to be earned. Relentless killing of harmless civilians does nothin to build much needed confidence.
What is even more bizzare is that you do not hear BSF killings along its border with Pakistan or China although these two countries are declared sources of security threats for our big neighbour and Bangladesh is supposed to be an "automatic" freindly country.
Subject: Human Rights Watch report What is even more bizzare is that you do not hear BSF killings along its border with Pakistan or China although these two countries are declared sources of security threats for our big neighbour and Bangladesh is supposed to be an "automatic" freindly country.
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH has released an 81-page report that documents the situation on the border region, where both Bangladesh and India have deployed border guards to prevent infiltration, trafficking, and smuggling. They found numerous cases of indiscriminate use of force, arbitrary detention, torture, and killings by the security force, without adequate investigation or punishment. The report is based on over 100 interviews with victims, witnesses, human rights defenders, journalists, and Border Security Force and Bangladesh Rifles' (BDR) members. You can read the report here and download it here (.pdf). Given below are the report summary and recommendations.
Summary
This report documents a pattern of grave abuses by India's Border Security Force (BSF) against both Bangladeshi and Indian nationals in the border area along India's 2,000 kilometer long international fontier with Bangladesh in West Bengal state. The abuses include cases of indiscriminate killing and torture.
Most of the abuses documented in this report are related to efforts by the Indian government to deal with cross-border smuggling, particularly cattle-rustling. However, as this report shows, the abusive methods used by the BSF are disproportionate to the problems that the Indian government faces on its eastern border. Numerous ordinary Indian and Bangladeshi citizens resident in the border area end up as the victims of BSF abuses, which range from verbal abuse and intimidation to torture, beatings, and killings. Furthermore, because of the near total absence of effective accountability mechanisms for abuses carried out by members of the BSF, even the most serious abuses by border guards go unpunished. This sends a clear message that the Indian government finds such abuses acceptable.
The border area between India and Bangladesh is heavily populated and acutely poor. Many farmers on both sides of the border have also lost their farms and livelihoods to river erosion. Illegal cross-border activities, such as cattle-rustling, and trafficking in persons and narcotics, have flourished. In several of the cases documented in this report, victims were beaten up or killed while smuggling cattle across the border at night. Others were tortured or killed merely on suspicion of being involved in cattle-rustling. Children, reportedly employed by smugglers to reduce the risk of detection, are among the victims whose cases are documented below.
Several survivors and eyewitnesses of attacks allege that the BSF engaged in indiscriminate shooting without warning. Seventeen-year-old Bangladeshi Shyamol Karmokar sneaked into India to visit relatives. On January 26, 2010, he decided to return to Bangladesh with the assistance of cattle-rustlers. Mohammad Zahid, who had agreed to bring Shyamol back to Bangladesh, said that they were detected by the BSF close to the border. Instead of attempting to arrest them, BSF officers immediately opened fire. Shyamol was killed.
Torture is also rife. On January 25, 2010, Motiar Rahman, a Bangladeshi national strayed across the border while cutting grass, a common mistake since there are no clear markers. According to Motiar Rahman, he was captured by two BSF soldiers:
They blindfolded me and took me to the BSF camp. I thought that the BSF were going to kill me. After reaching the camp, the BSF personnel removed the blindfold and tied me to a tree. They left me there for over 15 hours, until 11 p.m. at night. Then they gave me some food.But once I had had finished my meal, the BSF started torturing me. I was beaten severely with a bamboo stick on my back and feet by the same soldier who brought me the food. I was kicked several times and as a result started bleeding from my penis. Another soldier started beating me on my head with a bamboo stick. This went on for at least 45 minutes… The BSF men jumped on my chest, and kicked me on my head and face with their boots.
Indian villagers residing in the border areas also accuse the BSF of not just indiscriminate shooting, but unprovoked beatings. Indian national Halima Bibi said her 12-year-old daughter was slapped and beaten by three BSF personnel on September 5, 2009 outside their home close to the border with Bangladesh. When Halima Bibi protested, she was verbally abused with sexual insults.
Nirsingha Mondal, from India's Murshidabad district, said that on May 10, 2009, he had gone out as usual in the morning to collect firewood for cooking. He was dragged into a nearby BSF camp by two soldiers, who beat him up and accused him of stealing flowers from their garden.
The Indian government says it is seeking to contain the smuggling and mass economic migration from Bangladesh. In recent years, India has also alleged that separatist militants in its northeastern states find sanctuary in Bangladesh and cross into India to perpetrate terrorist attacks. However few of those killed by the BSF have ever been shown to have been involved in terrorism. In an effort to secure the border the Indian government is constructing a large 3,200 kilometer fence. But in densely populated areas of the border, where land is cultivated right up to the international boundary, the border fence is already exacerbating the problems faced by residents of the border areas.
The BSF justifies the killing of suspected smugglers by claiming that they were evading arrest, or that its personnel had to fire in self-defense. But suspicion of a crime or evasion of arrest cannot alone justify the use of lethal force. In fact, even India's domestic laws which allow "all means necessary" in case a person attempts to use force to resist arrest, specifically forbid causing the death of a person who is not accused of an offense punishable by death or a life term.
In all the cases we investigated, the alleged criminals were either unarmed or armed with only sickles, sticks, and knives, which suggest that in shooting victims, the border guards are likely to have used excessive force. In a number of cases, the victims were shot in the back, suggesting that they were running away. In others, injuries indicate the person was shot at close range, with witnesses often alleging that the person was tortured and killed in BSF custody. Other victims appear to have fallen victim to bullets because they were too close to the border.
When someone is killed during a BSF operation, the BSF is required to file a report with the police. In such cases the BSF usually justifies the killing by accusing the victim of obstructing a public servant while performing his duties, unlawful assembly, or attempted murder. In none of the cases investigated by Human Rights Watch did the BSF show that it had recovered lethal weapons or explosives that could pose an imminent threat of death or serious injury that might justify killings in self-defense.
The Bangladeshi authorities have repeatedly complained about the rampant killing of its nationals by the BSF, as have human rights groups in both countries. Odhikar has documented cases of nearly a 1000 Bangladeshi nationals that have been killed by BSF over the last decade. Describing the BSF as "trigger happy," Bangladesh Home Minister, Sahara Khatun, said in May 2010 that she would again ask New Delhi to stop these incidents.
Despite these strong comments from Khatun, the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR), which is responsible for guarding the border from the Bangladeshi side and reports to the Bangladeshi Home Ministry, often fails to defend the rights of Bangladeshi citizens. The BDR is deployed to contain the smuggling of weapons, explosives, and narcotic substances including Phensedyl, a cough syrup that is banned in Bangladesh, but commonly used as a recreational drug. However, the Indian border authorities complain that their Bangladeshi counterparts do not do enough to prevent illegal cross-border smuggling.
In researching this report, the Bangladeshi human rights organization Odhikar and Human Rights Watch interviewed several BDR officials about Bangladeshi victims. In most cases, if the BSF presented evidence of smuggling, the BDR did not complain about Bangladeshi nationals being killed. For instance, with respect to the killing of Shyamol Karmokar, the BDR Camp Commander at Wahedpur border, Subedar Sirajul Islam, said that while his death was "unfortunate and sad," the BSF had opened fire believing him to be a cattle trader because he was with a group of rustlers. "Thus there was nothing wrong with the fact that the BSF has shot him."
In March 2010, BDR chief Maj. Gen. Mainul Islam, explaining that there was a history of "people and cattle trafficking during darkness," said of the killings: "We should not be worried about such incidents…. We have discussed the matter and will ensure that no innocent people will be killed." During an official visit to Bangladesh in September 2010, Raman Srivastava, Director General of the BSF, responded to Bandgladesh's complaints that the BSF were killing "innocent, unarmed" Bangladeshi civilians by saying: "We fire at criminals who violate the border norms. The deaths have occurred in Indian territory and mostly during night, so how can they be innocent?"
These comments suggest that officials of both governments believe that it is legal to use lethal force against those suspected of being engaged in smuggling or other illegal activities. This amounts to a de facto shoot-to-kill policy for smugglers, and violates both national and international standards on the right to life and the presumption of innocence which are applicable in India and Bangladesh.
The BDR raises serious concerns with the BSF only when cases of indiscriminate firing lead to the death of villagers not involved in smuggling. For instance, on March 13, 2009, a BSF trooper got into an argument with a boy fishing in a lake, barely 20 meters from the international border. According to eyewitnesses, when the altercation became heated, the soldier opened fire, hitting two boys who were grazing their buffaloes nearby. Thirteen-year-old Abdur Rakib was shot in the chest and died instantly. Mohammad Omar Faruq, 15, was injured and later described the indiscriminate firing. A flag meeting was held between the BDR and the BSF the next day to discuss the incident. The BSF initially tried to insist that the victims were illegal cattle traders, but the BDR personnel presented witness accounts countering this version. Some villagers who were present during the flag meeting said that the BSF eventually apologized and promised that the soldier responsible would be punished. It is not clear if any disciplinary action was taken.
Members of the BSF are described by local residents as unsympathetic, aggressive, and violent. This may be explained by the fact that many are deployed to the region after difficult and tense tours of duty on the India-Pakistan border in Kashmir. Human Rights Watch researchers witnessed BSF troopers shouting at villagers, calling them names, and often making them wait for hours as each person was searched and signed as they crossed BSF outposts, to reach their fields or homes which adjoin the border.
To prevent the accidental shooting of villagers, an informal curfew is imposed on both sides of the border at night. But the restriction of movement after dark causes numerous difficulties. In India, the BSF patrols are deployed in posts a few kilometers inside Indian territory. They restrict access to areas beyond the outposts, effectively cutting people off from their farms or markets. To prevent infiltration by Bangladeshi nationals, the BSF require residents to surrender their identity or citizenship cards when they cross the border outposts and to claim them on return. Mithoo Sheikh, a young man in Murshidabad, said that there are long queues as the BSF checks each identity:
Sometimes by the time we get to the field it is noon. And we have stop work by 4 p.m. because they stop us from returning after dark. The BSF does not understand cultivation problems. We cannot water our fields at noon. Sometimes we only get water at night, but they will not let us remain in the field. If we disobey, we get beatings or they file false charges… We are treated as outsiders in our country.
The police are unwilling to lodge complaints against the BSF. When Tutan Sheikh, an Indian national, complained to the police that he and his brothers were subjected to unprovoked beatings by the BSF, he was told by the police officer on duty that the BSF trooper had committed no crime since the BSF was there to "beat the people." In another case, after Indian national Noor Hossain was killed by the BSF, police told family members who wanted to lodge a complaint: "Why do you bother? What will happen to the BSF? Nothing can happen to the BSF. The BSF will say that the … border area is under their control."
The Indian NGO Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM), one of Human Rights Watch's partners in researching this report, has repeatedly approached the courts, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the National Minorities Commission, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as well as the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, to hold abusers accountable. None of the cases raised have been brought to a satisfactory conclusion. According to Kirity Roy, who heads MASUM, "As the de facto complainant, we were never summoned to appear or depose before any inquiry conducted by the BSF. However, we are aware that in some cases, family members or victims did appear before the BSF court of inquiry." No verdicts were made public.
According to the Bangladeshi authorities, India has never provided details of any BSF personnel who have been prosecuted for human rights violations. Until India ends its legal protection of security forces and civilian officials implicated in criminal offenses, a culture of impunity will prevail and abuses will continue.
The BSF, which has a long record of severe human rights abuses and members of India's other security forces, are exempt from criminal prosecution unless specific approval is granted by the Indian government to undertake a prosecution in a particular case. This legally sanctioned impunity is even included in a new bill to prohibit torture under consideration in the Indian parliament. The bill, as presently drafted, will require approval from the central or a state government for a court to have jurisdiction over an offense committed by a public servant.
BSF personnel are in theory liable to be produced before an internal court for making false accusations, or for "disgraceful conduct of a cruel, indecent or unnatural kind." Although the BSF claims that these courts are routinely used to prosecute those that commit crimes or violate the Border Security Force Act, there are no publicly known cases in which a BSF member was convicted of a crime for a human rights abuse at the India-Bangladesh border. It is time for the Indian government, which claims to follow the rule of law and respect basic rights, to take strong steps to end abuses and hold those responsible to account.
Key Recommendations
The Indian government should publicly order the Border Security Force (BSF) and other security forces to abide by the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. This requires officials to apply, as far as possible, non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms. Even in self-defense, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life. International law also requires security forces to give a clear warning of their intent to use firearms, and sufficient time to surrender.
Given the continuing failure of the BSF's internal justice system to prosecute its own members for human rights abuses, personnel of all ranks implicated in serious rights abuses should be investigated by civilian authorities and prosecuted in civilian courts. In cases of abuses against Indian and Bangladeshi nationals, the police must register complaints filed against the BSF. Guidelines as laid down by the National Human Rights Commission to investigate all cases of deaths in armed encounters should be applied to the BSF.
The Indian government should establish an independent and impartial commission of inquiry into serious violations of international human rights law by the BSF. The government should invite both Indian and Bangladeshi nationals to submit evidence and bring complaints to such a commission. The inquiry should be time bound and transparent, and should have the ability to provide protection to witnesses.
The Indian government should repeal all legal provisions that require approval of the executive branch for prosecutions against members of the security forces to proceed, including in article 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Similar provisions in the Indian Prevention of Torture Bill currently in front of the Indian parliament should be deleted. Such provisions provide effective immunity to the security forces and violate the principles of equality under the law enshrined in both the Indian Constitution and international law.
The UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations should inform the Indian government that those BSF personnel responsible for human rights violations should be excluded from peacekeeping duties.
The Government of India and Bangladesh should agree upon the request of the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, and arbitrary executions to visit the country, pending since 2000 for India and since 2006 for Bangladesh. The Special Rapporteur should also include in his program, visits the border areas between India and Bangladesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
China warns of 'fragile' India relationship
By Anjli Raval in New Delhi
Financial Times December 13 2010 12:48
Financial Times December 13 2010 12:48
Beijing has warned that its relationship with New Delhi is "very fragile" and can be easily destabilised only days before a visit by premier Wen Jiabao to India.
Zhang Yan, the Chinese ambassador to India, said on Monday that bilateral relations between two of Asia's biggest powers were "very fragile, very easy to be damaged and very difficult to repair. Therefore, they need special care in the information age."
"To achieve this, the [Indian] government should provide guidance to the public to avoid a war of words," he added.
His comments come as India and China try to resolve a decades-long border dispute over the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh and to restore balance to a lopsided trading relationship heavily skewed in China's favour. Trade between the two is worth $60bn annually, but India runs a large trade deficit with China that has been growing steadily for a number of years.
On Wednesday Mr Wen will pay a rare visit to New Delhi, accompanied by a 400-strong trade delegation – one of the largest ever to visit India – amid expectations of striking deals worth as much as $20bn.
In spite of increasing bilateral trade across the Himalayas during the past decade, and co-operation on global issues such as climate change, India and China remain apprehensive about each other's growing international clout and strengthening economies.
In the face of widespread concerns in India about China's rise and its future intentions in south Asia, Mr Zhang told Indian business leaders that New Delhi had to prevent "a war of words" in public discourse.
In response, Nirupama Rao, India's foreign secretary, said China had nothing to fear from India's "vibrant and noisy democracy". She said the two countries needed to co-operate in a spirit of "competition and collaboration".
"Often, our Chinese friends speak of a certain gulf in appreciation of each country vis-a-vis the other, especially when it comes to opinions of that are expressed in the media of the two countries," Ms Rao said.
"Our Chinese friends are increasingly exposed to the vibrant, I would say, noisy nature of our democracy. The fact that many schools of thought contend, many opinions are expressed which are often at divergence with each other," she added.
Mr Zhang voiced Beijing's support for a free-trade agreement between the world's fastest growing large economies, which he said would be on the agenda of Mr Wen's visit.
He proposed that "the two neighbouring countries should work together as a world factory and world office".
"The free trade agreement is the next stage [of India-China relations]. It is our hope that we can start the process," said Mr Zhang.
India, which is hoping to seal a trade pact with the European Union early next year, is resistant to a free-trade agreement with a neighbour whose cheap goods are already flooding across the border. Anand Sharma, India's commerce minister, told the Financial Times that India had never promoted the idea of free trade with China.
"The development of diversified trade, tourism and investment co-operation would be crucial for reducing the trade imbalance," Mr Zhang said. "We want to work with countries to minimise the imbalance because we know that in the long run a big gap in trade is not healthy or sustainable."
Beijing is also seeking greater access for its financial services sector in India. Mr Zhang said that 10 Indian banks were operating in China, but no Chinese bank had a presence in India.
Chinese authorities have implied that Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, the world's largest bank, will be given permission soon to start operations in India.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Yan, the Chinese ambassador to India, said on Monday that bilateral relations between two of Asia's biggest powers were "very fragile, very easy to be damaged and very difficult to repair. Therefore, they need special care in the information age."
EDITOR'S CHOICE
beyondbrics: Emerging markets blog - Aug-09
His comments come as India and China try to resolve a decades-long border dispute over the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh and to restore balance to a lopsided trading relationship heavily skewed in China's favour. Trade between the two is worth $60bn annually, but India runs a large trade deficit with China that has been growing steadily for a number of years.
On Wednesday Mr Wen will pay a rare visit to New Delhi, accompanied by a 400-strong trade delegation – one of the largest ever to visit India – amid expectations of striking deals worth as much as $20bn.
In spite of increasing bilateral trade across the Himalayas during the past decade, and co-operation on global issues such as climate change, India and China remain apprehensive about each other's growing international clout and strengthening economies.
In the face of widespread concerns in India about China's rise and its future intentions in south Asia, Mr Zhang told Indian business leaders that New Delhi had to prevent "a war of words" in public discourse.
In response, Nirupama Rao, India's foreign secretary, said China had nothing to fear from India's "vibrant and noisy democracy". She said the two countries needed to co-operate in a spirit of "competition and collaboration".
"Often, our Chinese friends speak of a certain gulf in appreciation of each country vis-a-vis the other, especially when it comes to opinions of that are expressed in the media of the two countries," Ms Rao said.
"Our Chinese friends are increasingly exposed to the vibrant, I would say, noisy nature of our democracy. The fact that many schools of thought contend, many opinions are expressed which are often at divergence with each other," she added.
Mr Zhang voiced Beijing's support for a free-trade agreement between the world's fastest growing large economies, which he said would be on the agenda of Mr Wen's visit.
He proposed that "the two neighbouring countries should work together as a world factory and world office".
"The free trade agreement is the next stage [of India-China relations]. It is our hope that we can start the process," said Mr Zhang.
India, which is hoping to seal a trade pact with the European Union early next year, is resistant to a free-trade agreement with a neighbour whose cheap goods are already flooding across the border. Anand Sharma, India's commerce minister, told the Financial Times that India had never promoted the idea of free trade with China.
"The development of diversified trade, tourism and investment co-operation would be crucial for reducing the trade imbalance," Mr Zhang said. "We want to work with countries to minimise the imbalance because we know that in the long run a big gap in trade is not healthy or sustainable."
Beijing is also seeking greater access for its financial services sector in India. Mr Zhang said that 10 Indian banks were operating in China, but no Chinese bank had a presence in India.
Chinese authorities have implied that Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, the world's largest bank, will be given permission soon to start operations in India.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
India rattles sabre ahead of Chinese talks
By James Lamont in Calcutta
Financial Times November 11 2010 17:34
By James Lamont in Calcutta
Financial Times November 11 2010 17:34
India has formed a military battalion named after the state of Arunachal Pradesh, also claimed by China, only days before talks between the two countries aimed at settling border disputes.
The Arunachal Scouts was raised formally in Shillong, the Assamese garrison city, this week to defend the north-eastern state, which borders China.
The battalion will have about 5,000 troops, drawn from local people and trained for the Himalayan environment and combat above an altitude of 1,500 feet. Its formation is part of a reinforcement of the state's defences, which also include the modernisation of airfields and road infrastructure.
The development comes days before officials from India and China meet in New Delhi for the 14th round of talks to settle a border dispute in which China claims Arunachal Pradesh as south Tibet. At the end of October, Wen Jiabao, China's premier, and Manmohan Singh, his Indian counterpart, agreed to reinvigorate efforts to resolve disagreement over the colonial-era McMahon Line before Mr Wen's visit to New Delhi next month.
China inflicted a humiliating defeat on India in a war over the territory in 1962. Of late, Indian officials have become rattled by China's growing influence in the region in countries such as Burma, Pakistan and Sri Lanka and what they describe as Beijing's "assertiveness" in its territorial claims.
Dorjee Khandu, chief minister of Arunachal Pradesh, said the battalion would reflect the "martial strength" of the north-east region, which already numbers regiments including the Assam Rifles, Gorkha Rifles and Naga Regiment. It would have particular strengths in adverse, often freezing, conditions and mountain warfare.
The formation of the battalion, he said, would create "one of the strongest, cohesive, disciplined and operationally proficient battalions of the Indian army".
India's armed forces are strengthening their presence speedily in Arunachal Pradesh, an area long starved of economic development and infrastructure.
P.V. Naik, head of India's air force, said the region's infrastructure was being overhauled to support modern weaponry.
"We are going for composite upgrading of capabilities in the north-east . . . ," the air chief marshal said. "Eight advance landing grounds are being upgraded and there are five to six major airfields where infrastructure will be improved to enable them to receive more modern aircraft."
The infrastructure investment coincides with the selection of 126 jet fighters in a deal worth about $11bn. One potential supplier said India was looking for aircraft that could perform longer-distance sorties over the Himalayan region than had been required to protect India from Pakistan, its traditional rival.
Indian officials said they had discussed their concerns about China with Barack Obama, US president, on his visit to New Delhi. They said the discussions were held in the light of the recent dispute between Beijing and Tokyo over territory in the South China Sea and Beijing's readiness to use economic sanctions and high-level diplomatic embarrassment.
The Arunachal Scouts was raised formally in Shillong, the Assamese garrison city, this week to defend the north-eastern state, which borders China.
EDITOR'S CHOICE
India eyes $11bn US fighter jets - Oct-24
The development comes days before officials from India and China meet in New Delhi for the 14th round of talks to settle a border dispute in which China claims Arunachal Pradesh as south Tibet. At the end of October, Wen Jiabao, China's premier, and Manmohan Singh, his Indian counterpart, agreed to reinvigorate efforts to resolve disagreement over the colonial-era McMahon Line before Mr Wen's visit to New Delhi next month.
China inflicted a humiliating defeat on India in a war over the territory in 1962. Of late, Indian officials have become rattled by China's growing influence in the region in countries such as Burma, Pakistan and Sri Lanka and what they describe as Beijing's "assertiveness" in its territorial claims.
Dorjee Khandu, chief minister of Arunachal Pradesh, said the battalion would reflect the "martial strength" of the north-east region, which already numbers regiments including the Assam Rifles, Gorkha Rifles and Naga Regiment. It would have particular strengths in adverse, often freezing, conditions and mountain warfare.
The formation of the battalion, he said, would create "one of the strongest, cohesive, disciplined and operationally proficient battalions of the Indian army".
India's armed forces are strengthening their presence speedily in Arunachal Pradesh, an area long starved of economic development and infrastructure.
P.V. Naik, head of India's air force, said the region's infrastructure was being overhauled to support modern weaponry.
"We are going for composite upgrading of capabilities in the north-east . . . ," the air chief marshal said. "Eight advance landing grounds are being upgraded and there are five to six major airfields where infrastructure will be improved to enable them to receive more modern aircraft."
The infrastructure investment coincides with the selection of 126 jet fighters in a deal worth about $11bn. One potential supplier said India was looking for aircraft that could perform longer-distance sorties over the Himalayan region than had been required to protect India from Pakistan, its traditional rival.
Indian officials said they had discussed their concerns about China with Barack Obama, US president, on his visit to New Delhi. They said the discussions were held in the light of the recent dispute between Beijing and Tokyo over territory in the South China Sea and Beijing's readiness to use economic sanctions and high-level diplomatic embarrassment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indian defence chiefs reassess Asian threats
Indian defence chiefs reassess Asian threats
By James Lamont in New Delhi
Financial Times October 24 2010 21:22
Financial Times October 24 2010 21:22
Senior officers of the Pakistan Air Force like to rattle off the number and types of jet fighter in India's arsenal as proof of the deadly threat they face on their eastern border.
From the high Himalayas to the industrial city of Pune in Maharashtra, India's largely Russian-made 400-strong fleet can strike Pakistan in as little as 15 minutes.
The days when India's defences comprised almost entirely MiG and Sukhoi jets are drawing to an end. With many of them near obsolete, India has in the past five years turned to US weapons systems in government-to-government deals. In recent months, New Delhi has opted for Boeing's C-130 and C-17 transport and Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft.
Now a high-stakes arms contest between European and US aerospace companies is coming to a climax as Barack Obama, the US president, prepares to visit India next month. India has a choice of F-16s or F-18 Super Hornets over Mirages, MiGs, Eurofighters and Gripens as it overhauls its aerial strike force.
A decision in favour of US weaponry would reflect a strategic shift. It was not so long ago that the US viewed India as being on the wrong side in the cold war and made it a target of punitive sanctions.
It would also be a blow to Moscow, whose arms industry has long held India's defences in its grip, from ships and nuclear submarines to supersonic missiles and jet fighters. Since India's independence 63 years ago, Russia has provided the backbone to India's armed forces, whose 1.1m-strong army is the world's third largest.
Buying American would highlight India's changing assessment of threats. More and more, China's assertiveness in the region – over trade, global finance and its borders – is overshadowing the traditional and better-understood threat from nuclear-armed Pakistan.
Some senior Indian security advisers say India could face its northern neighbours on two fronts in years to come and needs to rearm urgently.
"Chinese power is radiating through the Himalayas," says C. Raja Mohan, strategic affairs editor at the Indian Express newspaper. "This is something we have to address and deal with ... The rise of China is going to cause a whole set of problems across Asia."
Mr Mohan foresees the need for the US and India to work together to guarantee the freedom of "sea lanes, cyberspace and even outer space" in an alliance that has already "exploded the boundaries of south Asia".
Others view stronger broad alliances with the US among Asian nations as a hedge against China's growing influence, and expect New Delhi to partner with Washington in regional defence and trade pacts. "The underlying economics of Asia have changed. The central strategic reality is that China has fast become the central player in economic regionalism," says Evan Feigenbaum, adjunct senior fellow for East, Central, and South Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Mr Obama is likely to follow his predecessor's example on his visit to India next month by stressing the natural alliance of two celebrated democracies.
George W. Bush, the former US president who helped transform relations between the two countries with the 2008 US-India civil nuclear agreement, was fond of describing India as a country with "one billion people and a million problems, yet still a democracy".
Behind the broad-brush acclaim of human rights and civil freedoms, Mr Obama will nevertheless be keen to bolster this young relationship with greater defence and economic partnerships.
Some, however, doubt that what they call the two largest bureaucracies in the world – the US Pentagon and India's ministry of defence – can find common cause so easily.
One western diplomat describes New Delhi as "coquettish" in its bargain-driven approach to arms deals, and contends that any prediction about the outcome of the jet fighter competition would be premature.
She said the US could easily find itself sharing the prized jet fighter contract with France and Russia in the same way that the US-India civil nuclear programme has created opportunities for European companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the high Himalayas to the industrial city of Pune in Maharashtra, India's largely Russian-made 400-strong fleet can strike Pakistan in as little as 15 minutes.
The days when India's defences comprised almost entirely MiG and Sukhoi jets are drawing to an end. With many of them near obsolete, India has in the past five years turned to US weapons systems in government-to-government deals. In recent months, New Delhi has opted for Boeing's C-130 and C-17 transport and Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft.
Now a high-stakes arms contest between European and US aerospace companies is coming to a climax as Barack Obama, the US president, prepares to visit India next month. India has a choice of F-16s or F-18 Super Hornets over Mirages, MiGs, Eurofighters and Gripens as it overhauls its aerial strike force.
A decision in favour of US weaponry would reflect a strategic shift. It was not so long ago that the US viewed India as being on the wrong side in the cold war and made it a target of punitive sanctions.
It would also be a blow to Moscow, whose arms industry has long held India's defences in its grip, from ships and nuclear submarines to supersonic missiles and jet fighters. Since India's independence 63 years ago, Russia has provided the backbone to India's armed forces, whose 1.1m-strong army is the world's third largest.
Buying American would highlight India's changing assessment of threats. More and more, China's assertiveness in the region – over trade, global finance and its borders – is overshadowing the traditional and better-understood threat from nuclear-armed Pakistan.
Some senior Indian security advisers say India could face its northern neighbours on two fronts in years to come and needs to rearm urgently.
"Chinese power is radiating through the Himalayas," says C. Raja Mohan, strategic affairs editor at the Indian Express newspaper. "This is something we have to address and deal with ... The rise of China is going to cause a whole set of problems across Asia."
Mr Mohan foresees the need for the US and India to work together to guarantee the freedom of "sea lanes, cyberspace and even outer space" in an alliance that has already "exploded the boundaries of south Asia".
Others view stronger broad alliances with the US among Asian nations as a hedge against China's growing influence, and expect New Delhi to partner with Washington in regional defence and trade pacts. "The underlying economics of Asia have changed. The central strategic reality is that China has fast become the central player in economic regionalism," says Evan Feigenbaum, adjunct senior fellow for East, Central, and South Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Mr Obama is likely to follow his predecessor's example on his visit to India next month by stressing the natural alliance of two celebrated democracies.
George W. Bush, the former US president who helped transform relations between the two countries with the 2008 US-India civil nuclear agreement, was fond of describing India as a country with "one billion people and a million problems, yet still a democracy".
Behind the broad-brush acclaim of human rights and civil freedoms, Mr Obama will nevertheless be keen to bolster this young relationship with greater defence and economic partnerships.
Some, however, doubt that what they call the two largest bureaucracies in the world – the US Pentagon and India's ministry of defence – can find common cause so easily.
One western diplomat describes New Delhi as "coquettish" in its bargain-driven approach to arms deals, and contends that any prediction about the outcome of the jet fighter competition would be premature.
She said the US could easily find itself sharing the prized jet fighter contract with France and Russia in the same way that the US-India civil nuclear programme has created opportunities for European companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japan to shift military towards China threat
By Mure Dickie
Financial Times December 13 2010 11:01
Financial Times December 13 2010 11:01
Defence policy guidelines set to be unveiled by Tokyo this month are likely to contain bad news for Japanese tank commanders – and an even less welcome message for policymakers in neighbouring China.
Officials and analysts say the keenly awaited National Defence Policy Guidelines will signal a historic refocusing of Japan's army and other forces toward securing islands in the southern Nansei chain that are seen as threatened by China's rapidly growing military power.
"The biggest change from previous guidelines will be the shift from north to south," says Jun Azumi, senior vice-minister of defence, in an interview. "Strengthening defences in the Nansei area is going to be a major pillar."
The new priorities spell a redistribution of resources away from tank units and other forces originally deployed in areas such as the northern island of Hokkaido to defend against a feared full-scale invasion from the Soviet Union.
Many analysts say Tokyo has been slow to match what has been a sharp increase in China's ability to project power in the waters up to and beyond the lightly-populated Nansei archipelago between Japan's main islands and Taiwan.
Tokyo has already deployed more advanced fighters to the southern island of Okinawa and beefed up army units there, but China's deployment of new submarines, supersonic anti-ship missiles and advanced fighters is seen as challenging US and Japanese military superiority in an area that includes sea lanes vital to the trade-dependent economy.
Japanese concerns have been fuelled by the increasingly assertive tone of Chinese diplomacy – and in particular Beijing's fierce reaction to the arrest of a Chinese fishing boat captain that clashed with Japanese coast guard vessels near the Senkaku islands – known in China as the Diaoyu group – which Tokyo says are part of the Nansei chain.
Kunihiko Miyake, a security expert at the Canon Global Institute, says the incident helped generate the political will to overcome institutional resistance to change from within the army – officially known as the Ground Self Defence Force in a nod to Japan's pacifistic constitution.
It also helped win over members of the left-leaning ruling Democratic party, which ousted the long-ruling conservative Liberal Democratic party last year, says Mr Miyake.
"Probably we have to thank the captain of the Chinese fishing boat for helping us make this important decision on military posture," he says. "This is potentially a real breakthrough in the history of the Japanese Ground Self Defence Force."
The implications of the decision to make strengthening southern defences a priority are unlikely to be spelled out in full detail in the new guidelines, though Japanese media say GSDF tank numbers could be cut by one-third to free up funds.
Early steps are likely to include new island radar stations, with small army units to guard them. Some analysts say anti-ship missiles should later be deployed along the Nansei chain to support naval forces in the area.
Mr Azumi declined to discuss such specifics, but says the new policy will stress in particular the need for greater military mobility so that forces can be deployed quickly by air or sea to wherever they might be needed.
"Island defence is not just a matter of stationing 500 or 1,000 men on an island," the vice-minister says. "As we know from our tough fight against the US in the (1941-45) Pacific war, it's no use leaving them standing on their own. You need to have a lot of back-up and support."
The defence ministry also wants the new guidelines to set the stage for the acquisition of new submarines and destroyers, and for a long-delayed decision on an advanced fighter to replace its fast-ageing fleet of F-4 Phantoms.
Yet even with the public worries about China and about nuclear-armed North Korea – whose recent attack on a South Korean island is fuelling calls for an expansion of Japan's anti-ballistic missile defences – planners still face severe spending constraints.
A huge fiscal deficit means the defence ministry cannot even be sure of stemming years of defence budget cuts.
"Given the regrettable lack of détente in East Asia ... [we are arguing that] it is important to maintain defence spending," says Mr Azumi on the internal budget battle.
"Before you can fight China, you have to go to war with the finance ministry."
Officials and analysts say the keenly awaited National Defence Policy Guidelines will signal a historic refocusing of Japan's army and other forces toward securing islands in the southern Nansei chain that are seen as threatened by China's rapidly growing military power.
The new priorities spell a redistribution of resources away from tank units and other forces originally deployed in areas such as the northern island of Hokkaido to defend against a feared full-scale invasion from the Soviet Union.
Many analysts say Tokyo has been slow to match what has been a sharp increase in China's ability to project power in the waters up to and beyond the lightly-populated Nansei archipelago between Japan's main islands and Taiwan.
Tokyo has already deployed more advanced fighters to the southern island of Okinawa and beefed up army units there, but China's deployment of new submarines, supersonic anti-ship missiles and advanced fighters is seen as challenging US and Japanese military superiority in an area that includes sea lanes vital to the trade-dependent economy.
Japanese concerns have been fuelled by the increasingly assertive tone of Chinese diplomacy – and in particular Beijing's fierce reaction to the arrest of a Chinese fishing boat captain that clashed with Japanese coast guard vessels near the Senkaku islands – known in China as the Diaoyu group – which Tokyo says are part of the Nansei chain.
Kunihiko Miyake, a security expert at the Canon Global Institute, says the incident helped generate the political will to overcome institutional resistance to change from within the army – officially known as the Ground Self Defence Force in a nod to Japan's pacifistic constitution.
It also helped win over members of the left-leaning ruling Democratic party, which ousted the long-ruling conservative Liberal Democratic party last year, says Mr Miyake.
"Probably we have to thank the captain of the Chinese fishing boat for helping us make this important decision on military posture," he says. "This is potentially a real breakthrough in the history of the Japanese Ground Self Defence Force."
The implications of the decision to make strengthening southern defences a priority are unlikely to be spelled out in full detail in the new guidelines, though Japanese media say GSDF tank numbers could be cut by one-third to free up funds.
Early steps are likely to include new island radar stations, with small army units to guard them. Some analysts say anti-ship missiles should later be deployed along the Nansei chain to support naval forces in the area.
Mr Azumi declined to discuss such specifics, but says the new policy will stress in particular the need for greater military mobility so that forces can be deployed quickly by air or sea to wherever they might be needed.
"Island defence is not just a matter of stationing 500 or 1,000 men on an island," the vice-minister says. "As we know from our tough fight against the US in the (1941-45) Pacific war, it's no use leaving them standing on their own. You need to have a lot of back-up and support."
The defence ministry also wants the new guidelines to set the stage for the acquisition of new submarines and destroyers, and for a long-delayed decision on an advanced fighter to replace its fast-ageing fleet of F-4 Phantoms.
Yet even with the public worries about China and about nuclear-armed North Korea – whose recent attack on a South Korean island is fuelling calls for an expansion of Japan's anti-ballistic missile defences – planners still face severe spending constraints.
A huge fiscal deficit means the defence ministry cannot even be sure of stemming years of defence budget cuts.
"Given the regrettable lack of détente in East Asia ... [we are arguing that] it is important to maintain defence spending," says Mr Azumi on the internal budget battle.
"Before you can fight China, you have to go to war with the finance ministry."
M.A.Mannan AZAD
Editor:www.parisvisionnews.com
__._,_.___
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment