An Imposed Friendship and Our Humiliation.

Originally Published on The Weekly Economic Times
M. Tawsif Salam


Dr Dipu Moni’s remark about Indian High Commissioner Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty that he breached a diplomat’s code of conduct was not her first remark to be considered as a flap. She received spectacular criticisms after forgoing an Indian journalist who marked Bangladesh as a ‘buffer state’ in a press conference presided by her.

People from the top brass of present Awami League government power structure have set some more examples of being kind to forgo a couple of commentaries of people associated with India. The most recent one was Dipu Moni’s presence in a seminar where Indian High Commissioner added the adjective ‘so-called’ while naming Bangladeshi experts, especially those who are critical to India’s unpopular Tipaimukh dam. After Chakravarty’s remark, BNP’s lawmaker Adv Mahbubuddin Khokon, who is also BNP’s lone representative to the parliamentary panel for foreign affairs, demanded immediate expulsion of the rowdy diplomat.

Following Khokon’s demand, Dr Dipu Moni’s popular remark about Chakravarty’s breaching the code of conduct was almost covering up the controversy that she caused by her silence against humiliation of Bangladesh.

Now, it’s to be noted that Dr Dipu Moni became a part of several events where she received criticisms either by her humiliating silence, or by her apparent incompetence to put thrashing replies against insulting remark against Bangladesh; and throughout all these Awami League’s attention to her activities never became public.

But at a certain point Awami League top brass became really tensed about her statements and took no time to differ what she said about the rowdy diplomat. After no time from Dr Dipu Moni became coldly vocal about Chakravarty’s rowdiness, Awami League’s spokesperson and the Minister of Local Government and Cooperatives Syed Ashraful Islam said that he at no point thinks that Chakravarty has breached a diplomat’s code of conduct.

To some extent it was a common idea that Bangladesh Awami League’s ‘more friendly than necessary’ stance to India is just a general point of criticising them, which is often practiced and not necessarily the claim has to be too definite or abundantly substantial. But behaviours and speeches of responsible government persons, political or non-political, put admissible evidences backing the supra-enthusiasm of the present government on issues those concern Indian purposes more than those of Bangladesh.

The Tipaimukh dam issue has seen more passes than sometimes satirically presented Dutch ‘total football’ could ever have produced or suggested. We don’t know who were midfielders, attackers or defenders, but the passes have been subsequently carried out by the ministries of Foreign Affairs, Water Resources, and Environment & Forest, without much of the senses of their particular roles. Whenever the responsible individuals received stern quizzes about the issue, they either kept passing it to other offices, or made remarks those are solely enough to humiliate the sovereignty of a nation.

The Minister of Commerce Col. Faruk Khan, who in accordance with his official functions wasn’t supposed to be concerned about the issue, claimed all of a sudden that the Bangladeshi experts who are being critical to Tipaimukh issue don’t know anything.

Following his statement, Chakravarty made two subsequent comments; one is that the protest against Tipaimukh issue was politically ill-motivated, and the other is no laws on earth could bar India from building Tipaimukh dam. Quoting Chakravarty, Minister of Communications Abul Hossain said the protest against Tipaimukh dam is insubstantial. Minister of Water Resources Ramesh Sen, who did something more serious than a quotation, commented that if there is any negative impact of Tipaimukh dam, Bangladesh should concede the damages at least for sake of the alliance with her greater neighbour.

As it has been told earlier, this series of comments is solely enough to humiliate the sovereignty of a nation. The present government as well as the ruling party, and most importantly Syed Ashraful Islam who was in a hurry to reestablish the submissiveness of his government to the Indian authority by differing Dr. Dipu Moni’s cold protest within hours, should get the note that friendship cannot be imposed.

You just cannot pick up a group of people and ask them to recite “Bangladesh and India are friends”, who already are holding newspapers with headlines of Bangladeshi frontier population body-counts to the BSF bullets. Or, you cannot just ask people to accept long-lasting damages just for sake of alliance with a nation which appoints ‘so-called’ diplomats to meddle in our internal politics and humiliate our sovereignty.

People won’t accept speeches from a minister like Ramesh Sen hinting at sacrificing Bangladeshi resources for sake of India’s friendship, or of lawmakers like Abdur Razzaq stating Bangladesh can make up her desertification by importing Tipaimukh produced power; hence Bangladesh can accept both her desertification and Indian bills just to have power produced in Tipaimukh. These comments hint at their loyalties to something else than the sovereignty of Bangladesh.Dr Dipu Moni’s remark about Indian High Commissioner Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty that he breached a diplomat’s code of conduct was not her first remark to be considered as a flap. She received spectacular criticisms after forgoing an Indian journalist who marked Bangladesh as a ‘buffer state’ in a press conference presided by her.

People from the top brass of present Awami League government power structure have set some more examples of being kind to forgo a couple of commentaries of people associated with India. The most recent one was Dipu Moni’s presence in a seminar where Indian High Commissioner added the adjective ‘so-called’ while naming Bangladeshi experts, especially those who are critical to India’s unpopular Tipaimukh dam. After Chakravarty’s remark, BNP’s lawmaker Adv Mahbubuddin Khokon, who is also BNP’s lone representative to the parliamentary panel for foreign affairs, demanded immediate expulsion of the rowdy diplomat.

Following Khokon’s demand, Dr Dipu Moni’s popular remark about Chakravarty’s breaching the code of conduct was almost covering up the controversy that she caused by her silence against humiliation of Bangladesh.

Now, it’s to be noted that Dr Dipu Moni became a part of several events where she received criticisms either by her humiliating silence, or by her apparent incompetence to put thrashing replies against insulting remark against Bangladesh; and throughout all these Awami League’s attention to her activities never became public.

But at a certain point Awami League top brass became really tensed about her statements and took no time to differ what she said about the rowdy diplomat. After no time from Dr Dipu Moni became coldly vocal about Chakravarty’s rowdiness, Awami League’s spokesperson and the Minister of Local Government and Cooperatives Syed Ashraful Islam said that he at no point thinks that Chakravarty has breached a diplomat’s code of conduct.
To some extent it was a common idea that Bangladesh Awami League’s ‘more friendly than necessary’ stance to India is just a general point of criticising them, which is often practiced and not necessarily the claim has to be too definite or abundantly substantial. But behaviours and speeches of responsible government persons, political or non-political, put admissible evidences backing the supra-enthusiasm of the present government on issues those concern Indian purposes more than those of Bangladesh.

The Tipaimukh dam issue has seen more passes than sometimes satirically presented Dutch ‘total football’ could ever have produced or suggested. We don’t know who were midfielders, attackers or defenders, but the passes have been subsequently carried out by the ministries of Foreign Affairs, Water Resources, and Environment & Forest, without much of the senses of their particular roles. Whenever the responsible individuals received stern quizzes about the issue, they either kept passing it to other offices, or made remarks those are solely enough to humiliate the sovereignty of a nation.

The Minister of Commerce Col. Faruk Khan, who in accordance with his official functions wasn’t supposed to be concerned about the issue, claimed all of a sudden that the Bangladeshi experts who are being critical to Tipaimukh issue don’t know anything.

Following his statement, Chakravarty made two subsequent comments; one is that the protest against Tipaimukh issue was politically ill-motivated, and the other is no laws on earth could bar India from building Tipaimukh dam. Quoting Chakravarty, Minister of Communications Abul Hossain said the protest against Tipaimukh dam is insubstantial. Minister of Water Resources Ramesh Sen, who did something more serious than a quotation, commented that if there is any negative impact of Tipaimukh dam, Bangladesh should concede the damages at least for sake of the alliance with her greater neighbour.

As it has been told earlier, this series of comments is solely enough to humiliate the sovereignty of a nation. The present government as well as the ruling party, and most importantly Syed Ashraful Islam who was in a hurry to reestablish the submissiveness of his government to the Indian authority by differing Dr. Dipu Moni’s cold protest within hours, should get the note that friendship cannot be imposed.

You just cannot pick up a group of people and ask them to recite “Bangladesh and India are friends”, who already are holding newspapers with headlines of Bangladeshi frontier population body-counts to the BSF bullets. Or, you cannot just ask people to accept long-lasting damages just for sake of alliance with a nation which appoints ‘so-called’ diplomats to meddle in our internal politics and humiliate our sovereignty.

People won’t accept speeches from a minister like Ramesh Sen hinting at sacrificing Bangladeshi resources for sake of India’s friendship, or of lawmakers like Abdur Razzaq stating Bangladesh can make up her desertification by importing Tipaimukh produced power; hence Bangladesh can accept both her desertification and Indian bills just to have power produced in Tipaimukh. These comments hint at their loyalties to something else than the sovereignty of Bangladesh.

Advertisements

21st February: International Mother Language Day.

21 February was proclaimed the International Mother Language Day by UNESCO on 17 November 1999. Its observance was also formally recognized by the United Nations General Assembly in its resolution establishing 2008 as the International Year of Languages.

The International Mother Language Day is being observed every year in UNESCO’s Member States and at its Headquarters to promote linguistic and cultural diversity and multilingualism

On that day of 21 February 1952, corresponding to 8 Falgun 1359 in the Bangla calendar, a number of students campaigning for the recognition of Bangla as one of the state languages of Pakistan were killed when police fired upon them. [2]

Mohammed Ali Jinnah(the Governor general of Pakistan) declared that the Urdu will be the only language for both west and east Pakistan at a public meeting on 1948, 21 March. The people of the East Pakistan (now Bangladesh, whose main language is Bengali) started to protest against this.

A student meeting on 21 February called for a province-wide strike. But the government invoked Section 144 on 20 February. The student community at a meeting on the morning of 21 February agreed to continue with their protest but not to break the law of Section 144. Even then the police opened fire and killed the students.

  • The Linguapax Prize is presented annually on International Mother Language Day.
  • UNESCO sets the theme for each International Mother Language Day and holds related events at its headquarters in Paris on or around 21 February each year.
  • In 2008, the International Year of Languages will be formally launched on International Mother Language Day