Mamata seeks to return West Bengal to feudal farming

The Times of India recently reported that Chief Minister (of the West Bengal government) Mamata Banerjee is seeking to limit the geographic areas where private businesses can purchase land for improvement. In other words, the government is seeking to limit industrialization to other areas that it designates. Her reasoning is that the areas to be excluded are "fertile" for, presumably, agricultural purposes and she is thus preventing a "food crisis." The areas designated for development include Purulia, Bankura, Birbhum, and West Midnapur.   Evidently, the government doesn't want these developments in North and South 24-Parganas, Howrah, Hooghly, and areas of Burdwan, Nadia, and Murshidabad.

Bangla Nation can agree to some of this but disagrees on the principle. The government should be allowed to  ameliorate the impact of private-funded industrialization, for instance, ensuring that tenants of the purchased land are properly compensated and placed in vocational programs (should they opt for it). The government should not wholesale prevent development for isolationist motives.

The Chief Minister incorrectly assumes that "fertile" agricultural land translates to preventing a food crisis. There may very well be a food crisis if the entire state of West Bengal was given to agriculture, some things are out of the government's control. In this case, the best defense against a food crisis is the enrichment and economic development of the population to ensure that they can purchase food that is available. The government's role, besides ensuring the population's enrichment and development, is to make sure food is available from any source whether it be from West Bengal, India, or abroad. And then there is the Maoist question.

I fully support the idea of driving development to "Maoist-infested" districts like Bankura, Purulia, and West Midnapur, however, development without security gains is utterly meaningless. Furthermore, what industrialist would want to invest in such a situation? Equitable economic and human development does need to come to these areas, but so does physical security. West Bengal's and the Centre's security forces should concentrate on carving out relative islands of prosperity that are attractive for development and industrialization programs from private firms. Once investment begins in a relative secure atmosphere, other human development projects can be introduced to ensure more healthcare and education for the residents. This approach not only deals effectively with the Maoist threat, but erodes that group's power base by showing the people who is really looking out for them.

Protecting the border with torture

Times of India is reporting (link) that the Supreme Court is seeking outside officers to investigate alleged human rights abuses among India's Border Security Force (BSF) on the West Bengal side of the Indo-Bangladesh border.

The alleged BSF actions include extra-judicial killings, torture, and rape.

Given the often tumultuous situation on the border between the two countries, we shouldn't be surprised if the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR, the Bangladesh border guards) engaged in their own acts of violence.

Bangla Nation has posted previously on questionable BSF (link) activities in Meghalaya state, India. Our opinion remains the same, the Indian state must act evenly and responsibly in all of its corners, whether its down the block from the Lok Sabha or in the ranges of Arunachal Pradesh.

Unfortunately these wanton acts of barbarity also reflect a growing undercurrent of Indian nationalism, which is typically on display on the Times of India comment boards. It is typically easy to dismiss such empty sentiments as "waste Bengal" but the BSF's activities should give the Centre pause.

A revealing study would entail releasing the information of those BSF soldiers who engages in these acts, where they were trained, and where they spent their formative years. Such a study might be illuminating.

Another journalist mucking up South Asia's geography

It seems that I always have the opportunity to write one post a year answering some journalist's analysis of South Asia.

This year's winner (maybe every year's winner...) is Robert Kaplan who's written an article on FP entitled "What's Wrong with Pakistan."

As usual, a journalist can appear to have done his or her research simply by providing a scant analysis of historical depth - in this case going back to the the days of Harappan. Yet for all the posturing they miss the big points. Kaplan completely neglects to mention that Bangladesh was once part of Pakistan. Perhaps he did forget since that would undermine his assumption that "Pakistan...does have geographical logic." I may have been asleep for my political geography class, but any child will tell you that attempting to govern land when another state lies in between for hundreds if not thousands of miles is ludicrous. That's not "geographically logical." In fact, there's no such thing as a geographically logical border.

At any rate, Kaplan betrays a well-known "western" bias in only examining the Ganges and Indus systems, why doesn't anyone talk about the Brahmaputra? Others have pointed out that the Bengal province of the Mughals and British Raj were the jewels in the crown, why else would the Mughals have expelled so much capital and manpower kicking out the Arakanese?

Second, Kaplan apparently wants to promote Islamophobia by insinuating the Muslims "conquered" and that Pakistan is the "very geographical and national embodiment of all the Muslim invasions." We should remember that Islam also spread peacefully throughout South Asia (and the world) through trade and contact with the Sufis. Considering that this phenomena typically predates military conquest (you can't conquer something if you a.) don't know about it or b.) don't know its value), Kaplan is presenting a VERY distorted view of history.

Third, Kaplan's whole Indian monsoon thesis/book is old hat. Enterprising readers are directed to "The Indian Ocean: Its Political, Economic, and Military Importance" (1972, Cottrell, Burrell, eds.)

To be continued...

Rohingyas are not foreigners!

Over the past few weeks, news services have been abuzz with reports covering the violence in Rakhine state, Burma/Myanmar. The violence has gotten so bad that the United Nations is pulling personnel out of the area. According to the reports, the violence has an ethno-religious character with perpetrators being from the predominantly Buddhist Rakhine community and the predominantly Muslim Rohingya community.

But that’s not the beginning of the story. This latest violence is a product of centuries of cleansing by the government in Burma/Myanmar. It started in the late 18th century with the Empire of Burma annexed the Kingdom of Arakan as the British Empire consolidated power elsewhere in the Subcontinent. The Kingdom of Arakan was populated primarily by people claiming to be Muslims and speakers of a dialect similar to Bengali. Like the Bengalis, the first local Muslims were converted from Hinduism or Buddhism centuries earlier when Arab traders plied the Indian Ocean. Upon conquering Arakan, Burma took as plunder Buddhist relics held, presumably, by the Rakhine community in the Muslim state. Note, I’m going from memory here, it is entirely plausible, even likely, that the ruling elite of Arakan were Buddhist while the people were predominantly Muslim. The issue of removing religious relics following conflict is a popular motif in Southeast Asian history. One of the northern Thai kingdoms “stole” a Lan Xang (now part of the state of Laos) Buddhist relic and eventually moved it to Bangkok. With Burma now in control of Arakan, the British passed the area to Burma open departing India in 1947; this would ostensibly restore the area to its pre-colonization status. Except that Arakan was not a target for colonization.

According to scores of Rohingya refugees, the government of Burma/Myanmar has actively sought to change the demographics of former Arakan. Using such tactics as forced relocation, mass rapes, threats of violence, and other coercive measures, the government of Burma/Myanmar has sought over the last several decades to remove the Muslim population from Arakan province (now renamed Rakhine province) in favor of the Buddhist community. In addition, the government has also sought to disavow and remove Muslims and Rohingya from the historical mosaic of Burma. This is manifested in near constant assertions by the government that Rohingyas are foreigners from Bangladesh and thus, illegal in Burma.

Obviously, this is patently false but serves to further the government’s goal of fabricating a Buddhist state. The onus should be on Bangladesh to provide for refugees but the UN and international community should be pressuring the government in Burma/Myanmar to treat all citizens equally.

Jamaat on Pakistan's side (in 1971)

Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh Chittagong leader:

"Jamaat was in the Pakistan's side during the liberation war as then the country was Pakistan." (April 2010, Daily Star) What additional proof do voters need?

Or is it that really isn't a Bangladesh or a Bangladeshi. There is only Muslim Bengalis who really do wish to be united under a pan-Muslim state with Pakistan?

Because that worked out so well for over a million Bengalis who wanted to speak Bangla.