RAW re-predicts doom of ruling party during next election in Bangladesh

Indian intelligence agency – RAW, in its recent report has once again forecasted massive defeat of the ruling
Bangladesh Awami League, during the 2014 general election in the country. It said, although Bangladesh Awami League, under the leadership of Sheikh Hasina has been exhibiting sincerity in strengthening relations with India, its popularity at home has been miserably dropping down due to series of high-profile corruptions, financial scams, campus violence, deteriorating law and order situation, suffocation of media and freedom of expression. It said, the ruling party, which even in the recent past enjoyed reasonably good relations with the Islamic political parties and fronts despite its secularist policy, some of the recent actions of Bangladesh Awami League has not only created huge gap between them and the Islamic leaders, but also giving wrong impression amongst the people, interpreting the ruling party as "anti-Islam". On the other hand, continuous repression on religious minorities, including Hindus and very recent incident at the Buddhist temples at Chittagong Hill Tract areas, the religious minorities are no more feeling comfortable under the rule of Bangladesh Awami League. The vandalism on the Buddhist temples and population in the eastern part of Bangladesh has already tarnished the image of the ruling party at home and abroad.

The report said, the decline in popularity of the ruling Bangladesh Awami League is even beyond speculations, while Bangladeshi masses are openly expressing anger at the poor governance of the ruling party. Taking advantage of such situation, main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party has suddenly boosted its diplomatic efforts within and outside the country, which is clearly aimed at winning a diplomatic battle with the ruling party. While Bangladesh Nationalist Party is intensifying its diplomatic efforts, including visit of former Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia to China and her upcoming visit to India, the ruling party as well as its foreign minister is rather sitting reluctantly, as if they are prepared to accept the diplomatic defeat. Dhaka's relations with Washington is already freezing down, which became clear when the Prime Minister's office ignored repeated requests from the US ambassador in Bangladesh, Dan W Mozena, who had been seeking appointment to meet the Bangladeshi Prime Minister. Top brasses in the foreign ministry had reportedly suggested its staffs to refrain from showing "extra importance" to any of the members of the Western missions in Dhaka.

Indian intelligentsia and political pundits had been expressing concern over potential security threats to Indian soil, if Bangladesh Awami League gets defeated in the next general election, as Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has been taking numerous measures in uprooting anti-Indian activities within Bangladesh as well as activities of the separatist groups in India, who had been earlier using Bangladeshi soil as safe haven. During Sheikh Hasina's current tenure, a large number of members of the United Liberation Front of Assam [ULFA], including its bigwig Aravind Rajkhowa, had been handed over to the Indian authorities, while the Bangladeshi government is set in handing over ULFA leader Anup Chetia and two of his accomplices to India in next few weeks. It may be mentioned here that, Anup Chetia along with his accomplice Babul Sharma and Laxmi Prasad had been serving in Bangladeshi prison since 1993. Anup Chetia and two others were arrested from Dhaka by the local intelligence agency in 1993, when Bangladesh Nationalist Party [BNP] was in power. Although Anup Chetia was arrested during BNP's rule, it is rumored that the party had been extending support towards ULFA and other Indian separatist groups while there is also allegation of providing logistic supports by the BNP led government to these anti-Indian elements. Currently, trial into the case of recovery of a huge arms haul is continuing in Bangladeshi court, where leaders of Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami are accused of having hands behind this arms trafficking, which reached Bangladeshi soil en-route to separatist groups in the North-Eastern provinces in India. Few of the top figures of country's intelligence and law enforcement agencies are also accused in this huge arms haul.
Earlier on December 17, 1995, western nationals were arrested when arms were being dropped from Latvian Antonov AN-26 aircraft at Indian district of Purulia in the state of West Bengal. The chief accused "Kim Davy" [real name Niels Holck, alias Niels Christian Nielsen] claims that it was a conspiracy of the Indian government together with RAW and MI5 to overthrow the communist government in West Bengal and he was given assurances from the central government about his safety and return to Denmark. He further alleges that MP Pappu Yadav, who is in touch with the Prime Minister of India, facilitated his safe exit from India. The crew of the aircraft consisted of five Latvian citizens and Peter Bleach, a British citizen and an ex Special Air Service operative turned mercenary who was based in Yorkshire and involved in arms dealing. However, Annie Machon, the former MI5 officer, accuses Bleach of being an MI6 agent in her book "Spies, Lies and Whistleblowers". In numerous interviews, Bleach has always evaded questions on this subject and has declined to answer questions on his military background. They were arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment while alleged kingpin Niels Christian Nielsen [aka Kim Peter Davy], a Danish citizen and member of the Ananda Marga group, escaped. Later, an Interpol red notice was issued against him. Following the intervention of Russian authorities, the Latvian crew [who gained Russian citizenship while in Indian custody] were later pardoned and released in 2000. An appeal has been submitted by the pilot lawyer before the Calcutta High Court in March 2000 challenging the trial results and the judgment but it is still pending. Peter Bleach, too, was released on 4 February 2004, via a presidential pardon, allegedly due to persistent British Government pressure. In 2007 Kim Davy was traced by Denmark authorities and on April 9, 2010 Danish government decided to extradite Kim Davy to India but Danish authorities failed to successfully defend their decision in the Danish high court. The court, therefore, refused extradition of Kim Davy to India. Further, Danish authorities decided not to appeal the high court judgment to the Supreme Court.

The government in Bangladesh led by Sheikh Hasina also nabbed a number of anti-India terror outfit, including Lashkar-e-Toiba, Sipah Sahaba, Joish-e-Mohammed etc, which had been reportedly operating from within Bangladesh. Some of these terror outfits reportedly had direct links with Al Qaeda. When Bangladesh Nationalist Party led government was in power, a team of Al Qaeda clandestinely visited Bangladesh and held secret meeting with the local counterparts inside a warehouse in Ashuganj area, which is 25-30 kilometers from Indian district of Agartala. The international terror outfit Al Qaeda reportedly established connections with a number of Bangladeshi Islamist and jihadist groups. But, since Sheikh Hasina's government came in power, jihadist operatives within Bangladesh have been significantly eliminated with the help of Indian intelligence. The Indian intelligence strongly believes that, during the rule of Bangladesh Awami League, threats to India's domestic security from the cross-border terrorists is greatly checked. For this particular reason, Indian intelligentsia is recommending New Delhi's direct hands in ensuring Bangladesh Awami League in continuing in the office, at least for another term, while it categorically predicts a huge political doom to the ruling party, if the election is participated by Bangladesh Nationalist Party, which may bag brute majority in the election, mostly because of anger of the voters over gross misrule of the grand alliance government led by Bangladesh Awami League.

While the possible outcome of the electoral result of 2014 polls in Bangladesh is clearly going to be unfavorable to the ruling grand alliance government, Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence [ISI] has recently intensified its activities inside Bangladesh with the ulterior motive of putting the ruling grand alliance government into further political complicities. According to sources, ISI operatives have suddenly become over-active in Bangladesh, while some of its jihadist contacts are regularly holding secret meetings possibly to finalize blueprint of anti-government sabotages in the country. Some of the ISI operatives are regularly holding meetings at Dhaka's Banani and Dhanmondi areas, while an ISI agent with extensive connection with local Jihadist groups and fanatic clergies, is giving anti-government provocations with the instigation of unseating the current government much ahead of the next general election. The same ISI agent is also reportedly holding secret meetings with some of the retired offic

Debate returns 2012 focus to fundamentals

HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. — Barack Obama did well enough in the second debate that he can rest assured about one thing: If he loses his bid for a second term it won’t be because he is bad at debates.
If Mitt Romney wins the presidency, likewise, it won’t be because in the final weeks of the campaign he revealed exciting new dimensions of his personality and record that were somehow obscured during the previous two years.

In that sense, the Hofstra University debate and Obama’s spirited performance there succeeded in stripping away atmospherics and peripheral arguments to expose the bare guts of the 2012 choice, in both its personal and ideological dimensions.
That choice is now inescapably focused—in a way it was not at the Denver debate and the flood of commentary afterward on Obama’s listless first outing —on fundamental questions.
Is Obama’s record, especially on the economy, defensible? The president defended it as effectively as he is ever going to in the face of some skeptical questions from voters assembled for the debate’s town-hall format. Romney’s hope is that no rhetorical argument from the incumbent is sufficient to mask the weak facts behind it. In a nod to that assumption, Obama showed again Tuesday that he’s far more voluble about Romney’s vulnerabilities than he is making the case for his own record.
Is the Republican nominee an acceptable alternative? If the candidate in Denver seemed to show a whole new side of himself, the one who showed up in Hempstead was entirely familiar to anyone who watched any of the 20 Republican primary debates: crisp, well-prepared, sometimes a little peevish, sometimes a little awkward. It was a stark if redundant reminder: At age 65, Romney is who he is as a politician, and his performances typically fall within a narrow range. Romney advisers feel that their candidate must do no more than clear a basic plausibility standard to exploit Obama’s weaknesses.
Along the way to his party’s nomination, however, Romney embraced a lot of orthodox Republican positions—most notably on immigration and women’s issues—and Obama was relentless in highlighting the most unpopular pieces of Romney’s primary baggage. Both men seemed as if they had been steeped for days on end in their campaign’s opposition research files.
“Clearly his advisers told him, drink your Red Bull, get ready to attack, don’t do what you did last time,” said Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Romney surrogate, said of Obama.
The intense natural competitiveness of both men was on display. Obama was clearly helped by this, snapping-to after a first debate that must have embarrassed him. Romney was probably hurt at least a little by his competitive instincts. He jostled with moderator Candy Crowley to ensure he got the last word on several exchanges, and at several junctures seemed to act as if the evening would be scored like a real debate—with the prize going to whoever recites the most complete set of arguments—rather than as a stage to highlight which person comes off as more credible as a leader and appealing as a person.
Because of this, Obama seemed to come out ahead in the second debate, though not by the emphatic margin that Romney did in the first.
Going forward, this outcome probably helps reset the race and steer the national conversation away from theater criticism and toward more substantive closing arguments. That itself is a considerable relief for Obama, since another weak show would have turned growing unease among Democrats about a tightening race into genuine panic.
After Hofstra, it seems clear the election will not be turn on minutia, such as whether it was cockiness or the thin Rocky Mountain air that made Obama groggy in Denver, or whether Vice President Biden was appealingly forceful or unappealingly annoying with his interruptions of Paul Ryan at the debate in Kentucky.
With both nominees having turned in one strong performance, the temptation is to look to next Monday’s debate at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla., as the tie-breaker. Historically, however, later debates matter less than the early ones. The question is whether the first two debates have altered the basic trajectory of the race.