I am writing this in reply to several responses that were made to my article, "Extremist Hindu and Secularist Forces Behind Mymensingh Blast." This article was met with near total incredulity and suspicion, as have many of my previous write-ups although the arguments put forward against my position have not been at all convincing or persuasive although my disputants claim to use the language of logic and rationalism. The main challenge put forward to my last article was that I had failed to prove my case. In other words, that I was not able to show that India or the Awami League were responsible for the outrage in Mymensingh. It is required of me that I produce the smoking gun which would inevitably and inexorably lead to India and AL being shown to be directly and unquestionably involved in the bombing. This is obviously impossible but this admission should not be taken as a submission of defeat on my part. I wish to take a different tack on the subject and propose an alternative way of looking at the controversy (which was my intention all along as well as to expose the Indian apologists in the intellectual ranks of Bangladesh and overseas).

If instead of the approach I actually took, I had accused the Taliban and Al-Qaeda of the atrocity, my conclusions would have met with complete acceptance and acclamation. This was the route taken by Shariar Kabir and Professor Shamsur Rahman and many other lesser mortals which led to their international recognition and fame. But no one thought to consider that this Al-Qaeda-Taliban interpretation is a far more flimsy and implausible contraption compared to the Indian-AL link that I put forward. In fact, it is my perspective and opinion that is receiving wide acknowledgement within Bangladesh amongst ordinary people inspite of a media barrage by the Indian controlled press and media. Apparently the Indian press is now claiming that madrassa students planned the bombing in Mymensingh but I think that many of us who have become accustomed to the false and motivated reporting by Indian newspapers can safely dismiss such allegations as a further plot to undermine Bangladesh's standing in the world.

In a highly entertaining and elaborate twist to this episode of vilification of Bangladesh, Reuters has retracted its original report on the bomb blasts. According to newspaper reports, Reuters can no longer vouch for the accuracy of the remarks attributed to Home Minister Altaf Hossain Chowdhury in a series of Dhaka datelined stories on the cinema bombing attacks where he was claimed to have indicated an Al-Qaeda link to the bombings. A senior staff reporter of the state-run news agency Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha (BSS) has been arrested in this connection for filing the false report with Reuters. This puts another nail in the coffin of hoax Al-Qaeda stories that have been circulating around the world. Even the usually left leaning pro-Indian daily, The Daily Star was obliged to comment in its Friday, December 13, 2002 editorial, "It is extremely regrettable that a section of the Indian press, as the freest and the oldest in the region and from which we expect maturity and professionalism, should opt to toe the propaganda line instead of doing some homework of their won to get the truth."

It is only after I talked to a wide cross section of Dhaka society that I decided to advance my thesis concerning the Mymensingh bomb blasts. The arrest of several important RAW operatives in Bangladesh made me even more confident that a nexus existed. The onslaught carried on by the Indian press and media assisted by the international news networks only added support to my view. The recent visit of Sheikh Hasina to India and her reception there along with the vicious comments of L.K. Advani and India's foreign minister Yashwant Sinha about Islamic fundamentalism in Bangladesh and terrorist dens confirmed my suspicions of a conspiracy. This is not confirmation in a legal sense (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt) but the best interpretation amongst many competing alternatives and interpretations. There is far more evidence of Indian and AL complicity than there is of Al-Qaeda and Taliban responsibility in the bombing: "…a section of the Indian press, presumably prompted by a quiet Indian RAW agenda, built up a propaganda dossier about Al-Qaeda activity in Bangladesh by planted reports from time to time. Contributors to the Western media clandestinely visited Bangladesh to confirm those reports and made sensational headlines by stories published in Time, Far Eastern Economic Review, Wall Street Journal, etc. A contractor for Channel Four TV in the United Kingdom sent a clandestine team to film staged scenes of Al-Qaeda agitation in Bangladesh. That team's intent has been foiled by police intervention, the foreign members of which have now been expelled from the country after due process of law. They were reportedly found to be guided by Indians, Bombay-based, as well as by Sheikh Hasina's connections, Dhaka based." (Sadeq Khan - 'BD can't slacken alert in diplomatic and security fronts' in Holiday December 13, 2002) Only six months ago two American students from Harvard and Yale Universities approached my senior for information concerning Hindu oppression through the medium of law and the recent violence committed against this minority after the Four-Party Alliance came to power. They disclosed that they had been sent by a man in New Delhi to investigate the killings and rapes on Hindus. Fortunately, I had an opportunity to speak to them at length and set them straight.

Let us now look at the case that can be made against an Al-Qaeda link. Firstly and most conspicuously not a single Al-Qaeda member has been arrested in Bangladesh. Secondly, the Americans do not appear to be interested in any of the allegations. Presidents Clinton and Bush as well as Ambassador Mary Ann Peters have reaffirmed their belief in the moderation of Bangladeshi Muslims. The US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said in a press briefing in Washington on December 9 that the US administration was not aware of any Al-Qaeda threat in Bangladesh. He explained, "We are all aware that Al-Qaeda has a presence in many countries around the world and we have indeed worked with many countries around the world to cooperate against that kind of presence. Specially, whether there is a presence in Bangladesh or not, I'm not sure I can say, but I can say that we have been working with the Government of Bangladesh against terrorism. We appreciate their continued cooperation. And fighting terrorism has been one of the highest priorities in our discussions with the Government of Bangladesh." (See further Sadeq Khan - 'BD can't slacken alert in diplomatic and security fronts' in Holiday December 13, 2002) Thirdly, these bombings in Mymensingh seem to have been an attempt to duplicate the bomb blast in Bali, Indonesia, where many British and Australian nationals were killed. Al-Qaeda admitted to this act but has not so far indicated any support for the Mymensingh blasts. The Mymensingh blast simply does not fit the high profile targets of Al-Qaeda. The victims were all Muslims from poor and indigent backgrounds. Certainly, these are not promising or rewarding targets for Al-Qaeda and nor does it fit the pattern of their attacks as I have already mentioned. On this basis, an Al-Qaeda involvement can be ruled out. It has already been ruled out by the BBC correspondent who focused on the lack of corroboration to back these allegations up. The only other perspective that can legitimately be expressed is the one I have suggested.

It has been made known through a different challenge to my opinions that I am being pro-Pakistan, pro-army and pro-BNP. I am not sure how such a ridiculous and irrelevant proposition could be forwarded. This was at no point raised in my original article and there is no evidence to make such an absurd conclusion or observation. I had made several disparaging comments about the BNP and its so-called ideology so this argument is a non sequitur and more colloquially a non-starter without any future. On a slightly different angle, a writer remarked that I should emphasise with the AL and try to put myself in a position where Sheikh Hasina is the Prime Minister and Khaleda Zia is in opposition and the AL government is behaving repressively with the BNP workers and leaders. He questioned how I would feel in these circumstances. A curt reply would require that I say that I feel nothing at all, as I am not a BNP supporter. A more forthcoming reply requires more elaboration. I have seen the last AL government and the entire country was brought under a reign of terror not witnessed since the last AL government that ended in 1975. It is because I feel these things and remember what happened that I can speak forthrightly on political issues. The quarrel between the BNP and the AL with the personality conflicts between the leaders of both parties in some way contributes to the prevailing climate of hostility that Indian intelligence is able to capitalise on. This trend in our politics reminds me of Shakespeare's play, 'The Taming of the Shrew.' I need not mention who I consider the shrew to be but a little piece of wisdom comes out of this play in the following quote,

"And where two raging fires meet together
They do consume the thing that feeds their fury:
Though little fire grows great with little wind,
Yet extreme gusts will blow out fire and all."

Another gentleman (Mr. Golam Akhter) proposed an impartial angle on the bombings and opined for cooperation amongst the South Asian nations. It must have escaped his attention that the principle barrier to any cooperation has been Indian intransigence and aggressiveness. This was recently voiced by the Finance Minister Saifur Rahman in reference to our trade relations with that country. Mr. Golam Akhter's enthusiasm for an investigation committee to look into all violent attacks in all countries of the subcontinent sounds like one of Sheikh Mujibs pipe dreams rather than a practical and workable solution. In the first place, who would man such a committee? Each country in the subcontinent has its own idea as to what it perceives to be impartial and neutral and in all the countries excepting India; this means someone who cannot be bought by the Indian intelligence. These impractical schemes now have an urgency due to my demand of declaring India a terrorist state. Why were none of these schemes expressed or audibly voiced when India was claiming that Bangladesh was harbouring Al-Qaeda terrorists? Where were all these peace loving doves when Indian Defence Minister, George Fernandez, said, "India has intelligence information and 'human evidence' to support its charge that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Al-Qaeda were using Bangladesh territory for anti-Indian activities" if not accepting these comments wholesale and orchestrating a campaign against Bangladesh in the United States. Now that the shoe is on the other foot they scream foul and are now thinking up grandiose stratagems to alleviate the hostility and rage in the subcontinent that was created by India in the first place. More important to them is to exonerate India from all responsibility rather than seek justice for the victims of the bombings and compensation from the Indian government. This would be a sign of India's sincerity especially in regard to the hundreds the BSF have killed over the border through target practice of our citizens.

Another writer replying to my article said he could not find anyone that was pro-Bangladesh but had to be pro-something else and then quoted from a dead minister who had said that he could find no one in the government of his day to be pro-Bangladesh. The quotation is correct but the attribution is wrong. The full quotation can be found in 'A Legacy of Blood' by Anthony Mascarenhas on page 7 which narrates the situation surrounding the Mujibnagar government, "It was a mishmash of political entities, divided not so much by ideological considerations as by the extra-territorial labels that, rightly or wrongly, its members were supposed to wear. Thus, ministers were commonly classified as pro-America, pro-Russia or pro-India. In this context Tajuddin Ahmed was labelled pro-India, Khandaker Mushtaque Ahmed as pro-America and Abdus Samad Azad pro-Russia. (Major Farook was to complain later: 'I couldn't find anyone who was supposed to be pro-Bangladesh!') Tajuddin Ahmed, the prime minister and most able administrator among the lot, was the first among equals and no more. The system was a collegiate one. The throne was still vacant."

The only possible ground for attack of my original article could be to question what possible motive India could have to create such unrest and destruction in Bangladesh. To answer this question we would also need to answer the questions posed by Faisal Hossain in his article, 'Do reporters really know how to choose their topic and do their homework right these days.' He queries, '… where is all this reporting on Bangladesh as a fundamentalist state actually taking us? What purpose does it serve best to have the secular reputation of a very poor nation tarnished? Do these 'ethical' reporters really care about a poor country with a fledgling democracy struggle to survive, or are they just motivated by the impulse of reporting for the sake of keeping their jobs safe?' (Holiday- 13th December 2002). While Mr. Hossain concentrates on the Hindu fundamentalist religious revival for the spate of attacks on Bangladesh, I also think that the problem goes deeper than just religion although this is one of the factors contributing to the aggression of India. Basically, India's policy to its two Muslim neighbours has not changed fundamentally from the words written by Jawaharlal Nehru some 50 years ago and which still influences the Indian and Hindu mindset,

"If India is split up into two or more parts and can no longer function as a political and economic unit, her progress will be seriously affected. The much worse will be the inner psychological conflict between those who wish to reunite her and those who oppose this … Unity is always better than disunity, but an enforced unity is a sham and dangerous affair, full of explosive possibilities. Unity must be of the mind and heart, a sense of the belonging together and of facing together those who attack it. I am convinced that there is that basic unity in India, but it has been overlaid and hidden to some extent by other forces. These latter may be temporary and artificial and may pass off, but they count today and no man can ignore them.

Thus we arrive at the inevitable and ineluctable conclusion that, whether Pakistan comes or not, a number of important and basic functions of the state must be exercised on all-India basis if India is to survive as a free state and progress. The alternative is stagnation, decay and disintegration, leading to a loss of political and economic freedom, both for India as a whole and its various separated parts. As has been said by an eminent authority: 'The inexorable logic of the age presents the country with radically different alternatives: union plus independence or disunion plus dependence.'

…There is grave danger in a possibility of partition and division to begin with. For such an attempt might well scotch the very beginnings of freedom and the formation of a free national state … Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of any free state emerging from such a turmoil, and if something does emerge, it will be a pitiful caricature full of contradictions and insoluble problems." (Jawaharlal Nehru - The Discovery of India (Ninth Impression) pp. 526-536).

India's attitude to partition and Pakistan was further highlighted by Pandit Nehru's daughter Indira Gandhi at a public meeting on November 30, 1970 where she stated, "India has never reconciled with the existence of Pakistan. Indian leaders always believed that Pakistan should not have been created and that Pakistan nation has no right to exist." ('India's Nuclear Doctrine by Wing Comd. (Retd) Muhammed Irshid - defence journal - Oct 99; see also Henry Kissinger - 'The White House Years' (First Published 1979; Mohammed Tajammul Hussain - Bangladesh Victim of Black Propaganda Intrigue and Indian Hegemony (First Published May 1996)). This by implication would include Bangladesh though no one in this country would admit it in so many words. India's role in the war was naturally an extension of its own policy considerations.

(For a more detailed analysis of the subject see my article 'Akhand Hindustan' - Parts 1 & 2)