I think a more fruitful avenue of investigation for the one man judicial committee looking into the appalling carnage that resulted from the grenade attacks on an Awami League meeting should also include India's difficulties with Maoist insurgents and their paranoia over the concept of 'Brihot Bangladesh.' A concept invented by India's RAW and an idea that has virtually no basis within Bangladesh. It is this obsession with a Brihot Bangladesh (i.e. Greater Bangladesh) and the Maoist insurgents as well as separatist movements in the North East of India that has probably caused India to sacrifice their much beloved Awami League for a much larger objective of increased international (namely Indian) involvement in this country. The assassination of the top leadership of the AL would probably justify in their minds direct interference in Bangladesh (i.e. militarily, politically, diplomatically and economically). In other words, a progression to an 'Akhand Hindustan' (see my article of the same name) and a reversal of the perceived trend towards a Brihot Bangladesh - though an increasingly desirable notion in light of the victimization and harassment perpetrated upon Bangladesh by the Indian elites over the last 30 years.

This thesis has not being made up by me as a response to the attacks witnessed recently in Dhaka and elsewhere but is the brainchild of several Indian intelligence analysts. The reader should refer to Mr. Jaideep Saikia's article, 'Terror Sans Frontiers: Islamic Militancy in North East India' which lays out a fantastical plan for the creation of a Brihot Bangladesh by Pakistan's ISI and Bangladesh's DGFI with the aid of several Islamic Jihadi groups. Although, this idea of Brihot Bangladesh has some respectable intellectual support in Bangladesh it is very much in its infancy and probably will not grow to maturity at least within the next 50 years and may even then die a premature death out of natural causes such as exhaustion and lack of interest. However, the Indian intelligence agencies, political, intellectual and religious establishment have made this an all embracing vision that must be prevented at all costs. Lt. Gen. (Retd) S.K. Sinha PVSM, and a former Governor of Assam has commented,

"Failure to get Assam included in East Pakistan in 1947 remained a source of abiding resentment in the country (Pakistan). Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in his book, Myths of Independence wrote, 'It would be wrong to think that Kashmir is the only dispute that divides India and Pakistan, though undoubtedly the most significant. One at least is nearly as important as the Kashmir dispute, that of Assam and some districts of India adjacent to East Pakistan. To these Pakistan has very good claims.

"Even a pro-India leader like Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in his book, Eastern Pakistan: Its population and Economics, observed, 'Because Eastern Pakistan must have sufficient land for its expansion and because Assam has abundant forest and mineral resources, coal and petroleum etc., Eastern Pakistan must include Assam to be financially and economically strong." (Qouted in 'Terror Sans Frontiers: Islamic Militancy in North East India')
Mr. Jaideep Saikia reiterates this Indian concern of disintegration in the face of Islamic militancy as well as historical precedent but this line of inquiry eventually leads him to contradiction and an admission that Islamic zealotry is not part and parcel of the Bangladeshi outlook nor is it the sole purpose of its existence but an existence that is based on justice and a fight against exploitation (a problem we are facing with India today but a point not considered by Mr. Saikia),

"In India's eastern seaboard - the areas that abut North East India - 1971 was a turning point. The two-nation theory of the 1940's and the one that brought about the dismemberment of India was found to be fallacious; and it seemed that culture had over-ridden religious concerns which had governed the balkanization of united India [Akhand Hindustan?] and the grouping of East Bengal to Pakistan. However, fanatical elements in the newfound nation began a course of action that was less culturally zealous than the concerns that had led to the severance of Pakistan."

In my opinion the Islamic angle is just a cover or camouflage to distract from India's real concerns with the Maoists and separatists and also to confuse the Americans and Europeans into believing this to be a continuance of the War on Terror. Why else would the Indian intelligence agencies, press and media have been touting this notion of Bangladesh being a failed state in international forums, seminars and conferences? This bomb attack, interpreted in this light, appears simply to further India's agenda in this regard and allows them to show they were right all along. This I believe to be India's motivation and interest for conducting heinous and appalling attacks in Bangladesh. This also explains the emergence of several 'Islamic' groups expounding obscure and irrelevant agendas with interpretations of Quranic verses or others simply posing as Islamists but many being in the pay of India. The idea of Islamic insurgency is a convenient add-on to the increasingly convoluted theory of Brihot Bangladesh which is designed to influence American and European opinion after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. As Lt. Gen. (Retd) S.K. Sinha elaborates,

"This silent and invidious demographic invasion of Assam may result in the loss of the geo-strategically vital districts of Lower Assam. The influx of illegal migrants is turning these districts into a Muslim majority region. It will then only be a matter of time when a demand for their merger with Bangladesh may be made. The rapid growth of the (sic) international Islamic fundamentalism may provide the driving force for this demand. In this context, it is pertinent that Bangladesh has long discarded secularism and chosen to become an Islamic state. Loss of Lower Assam will sever the entire land mass of the North East from the rest of India and the rich natural resources of that region will be lost to the nation". (Qouted in 'Terror Sans Frontiers: Islamic Militancy in North East India')

This misconception of Bangladesh being an Islamic state was addressed by Mr. Sadeq Khan who has remarked that, 'Bangladesh incidentally is not an Islamic republic but a people's republic whose state religion is Islam.' He has further in response to the Jaideep Saikia report (mentioned above) made a quite prophetic and surprisingly accurate appraisal of the Indian-Awami League relationship which reflects not a brotherly-sisterly bond or kinship but one of an exploitative father sending his daughter out to prostitute herself and who is prepared to sacrifice her to his own ambitions if necessary,

"Clearly, the Awami League government, which was in power in Bangladesh at the time of the filing of the official report, was not spared the cloud of suspicion cast by Indian strategists. Trapped as it was in impotently, crying wolf about indeterminate Islamic militancy in the country at the time at the behest of alien propagandists, it helped neither its own cause, nor the cause of the nation." (Sadeq Khan - Indian demonisation of Bangladesh - Result of hegemonic 'India doctrine? (Holiday (June 11, 2004).

Sadly, it seems that the Awami League, 11 Party alliance and the JSD are intent on playing this game of politics over dead bodies by following the Indian blue print for Bangladesh. I am intensely disheartened that these groups are now less concerned with apprehending the culprits of this dastardly act but instead are rather seeking the toppling of the present BNP alliance government through street protests, false allegations and have already dismissed the investigations without much further ado. What Bangladesh least requires and needs at this time is disruption and chaos. If this were to happen the murderers will have won and Bangladesh have lost not only its sanity and integrity but also its right to its independence and sovereignty. I see no similar interest of Pakistan to carry out a bombing of this nature. It would simply further alienate the Bangladesh populace from them, which is certainly not in their interests especially if they wish to maintain a balance in the subcontinent. I will leave the reader with a though that I expressed in my article 'Akhand Hindustan' (Part 1),

"After the Liberation War in 1971, due to a want of strong leadership we were only able to change our masters and to a certain degree the quality of our enslavement but not the situation or position of enslavement. This status still prevails for us today. Certainly we were exploited and racially discriminated by the West Pakistani military junta but that is still something we have to live with in the present - now that we are under different overseers, namely, the Indian government and international financial and media institutions that assist it. We may no longer be physically in fetters but our intellectual processes are still entangled and weighed down by a ball and chain. Outside forces encourage our penchant for dispute and argumentation that leads to factionalism and disharmony which is the latter day policy of 'divide and rule'. We are constantly reminded of our weaknesses and deficiencies in face of a giant like neighbor and so discouraged from any independent thinking."