Indira Gandhi visited Bangladesh after the Indian troops pulled out

Photo: Rajib Dhar/Dhaka Tribune

SALEEM SAMAD
The road to recognition for Bangladesh as an independent nation

Just a day after he was released from Pakistani prison, among the first few phone calls to Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was one of course from Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on January 8, 1972 from a hotel in London.

Indira told him that she had changed her mind, and after discussion with British Prime Minister Edward Heath, a special flight was arranged to bring Sheikh Mujib to India with a stopover at Delhi on his return to newly independent Bangladesh.

Indira feared that an Indian civil or military aircraft could be intervened by enemies during over-flight over hostile territories and feared the plane could be shot down. Heath agreed with Indira’s concern about Mujib’s safety and security.

While meeting with British Prime Minister Edward Heath at 10 Downing Street, he told Mujib that the UK would give diplomatic recognition to a newly born Bangladesh only after Indian troops were withdrawn by March 31, 1972. However, Britain recognized Bangladesh on February 4.

Boarding a British Air Force aircraft, Sheikh Mujib was accompanied by an Indian diplomat Sashanka Shekhar Banerjee, stationed in London, who was selected by Indira.

Sashanka had secretly met Mujib along with Tofazzal Hossain Manik Miah, editor of Dainik Ittefaq, a couple of times in Dhaka, while he was second secretary of the Indian High Commission (1962-66).

The day was December 25, 1962. On a Christmas holiday, Sheikh Mujib appealed to India for her support to the cause of Bangladesh’s independence struggle.

Sashanka in his book India, Mujibur Rahman, Bangladesh Liberation & Pakistan claims to have received a letter in December 1962 from Sheikh Mujibur Rahman addressed to Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru asking for Indian assistance in bringing about East Pakistan’s independence from Pakistan.

Again, the Bangla-speaking diplomat was contacted when he was posted as First Secretary in London (1969-72) over the telephone from Delhi by Bangabandhu’s two trusted emissaries Nuruddin Ahmed, then treasurer of Awami League, and former bureaucrat Ruhul Quddus (co-accused in infamous Agartala Conspiracy Case) in mid-March of 1971. Initially, he refused to speak on the phone, until Ruhul Quddus mentioned the codename “Parashmoni” (given by Mujib).

Bangabandhu through his emissaries in a secret mission to India, conveyed to the Indian prime minister that genocide and killing of mass people was looming in Bangladesh. 

To resist the military blitz of the marauding Pakistan Army, would the Indian government come forward in aid of the people of Bangladesh by providing them with military hardware and training?

In a rare episode of history on March 15, 1971, Indira Gandhi sends Mujib a secret message which reads: “We wish doctors will take care of your health and that of your Awami League family of East Pakistan.” It was well understood by Mujib what Indira wanted to say.

They were also requested to convey to Mujib that India would extend financial and logistical support for helping organize the Bangladesh government in exile in Kolkata.

During the long battle for independence, the Indian Army would also join the war alongside the Mukti Bahini, the Indian officials told the emissaries on behalf of Indira Gandhi.

While on board the British aircraft heading to Delhi, Mujib requested Sashanka to send a cable to Indira before he reached Delhi. He conveyed the wishes of Edward Heath to Indira regarding the withdrawal of Indian troops.

Bangabandhu wanted to discuss the troop’s withdrawal issue with Indira during their official talks in Delhi.

The independence hero was given a tumultuous welcome at Delhi, the Indian President VV Giri and Indira Gandhi were present at the airport.

After the official parley, a joint communiqué stated that the two countries had agreed to shorten the deadline of the troop’s pullout from June 30 to March 31. This was the first diplomatic success by Mujib.

When Mujib was preparing to return to Dhaka, Indira asked the Indian Army Chief Sam Manekshaw to finalize logistics for a troop pullout from Bangladesh.

Mujib’s request to shift the prisoner of war (POW) of surrendered Pakistan armed forces to India was also agreed.

To express gratitude to the people of West Bengal in India for providing shelter to ten million war refugees and offering hospitality to the Bangladesh exile government, Mujib paid a visit to Kolkata on February 6.

After a public meeting in Kolkata, Mujib officially invited Indira for a state visit to Bangladesh. She accepted the invitation, but on condition that the date would be after a total troop pullout. The first head of government who visited Bangladesh was Indian PM Indira Gandhi, who arrived in Dhaka on March 17.

The troop pullout issue was in the back of Mujib’s mind. He was anxious to send a message to the world leaders that Bangladesh was an independent country, and not how some Muslim countries described the country, as “occupied by India.”

When Indira visited Bangladesh, the young country was recognized by Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Canada, and most European countries including the UK, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland, Italy, and France. ?

First published in the Dhaka Tribune on 24 March 2020

Saleem Samad is an independent journalist, media rights defender, recipient of Ashoka Fellow (USA), and Hellman-Hammett Award. Twitter @saleemsamad. Reach him at saleemsamad@hotmail.com

Discontent Against Myanmar For Rohingya Crisis

SALEEM SAMAD

Finally, Myanmar will begin to feel the pinch for its failure to provide meaningful accountability for its security forces' widespread and systematic violence and atrocities against the Rohingya Muslims in northern Rakhine state.

Despite global outcry, Myanmar refused to bring to account government and military officials implicated in the genocide, gang rapes, mutilations, and forced eviction by security forces on the Rohingya.

There is growing international frustration among several countries planning economic and legal measures against Myanmar.

The state-sponsored atrocities killed at least 10,000 Rohingya, left scores with physical disabilities, and caused the largest exodus of civilians since the Rwandan genocide. An estimated more than a million Rohingyas are living in refugee camps in Bangladesh for the last two and half years.

Myanmar has demonstrated its defiance against the international move toward meaningful accountability of the demands.

In the past weeks, there were signs of growing international support for the Gambia's International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide complaint against Myanmar.

In response to Gambia's official complaint of Myanmar's violation of the United Nations' 1948 Genocide Convention initiated in November 2019, the Myanmar government statement to the ICJ asserted that the Gambia's allegations were based on "incomplete and misleading factual picture of the situation in Rakhine state."

The ICJ delivered a harsh rebuke of that narrative on January 23 by supporting the Gambia's request for urgent provisional measures to protect the Rohingya population while the court undertakes the longer-term judicial consideration of the Gambia's genocide allegations.

That statement peddled by the Myanmar military's long-discredited narrative that its activities in northern Rakhine state in August 2017 constituted legitimate "clearance operations" in response to attacks on police posts by the banned Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA).

Myanmar's de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi told ICJ justices last December that what transpired in northern Rakhine in late 2017 was mere "an internal armed conflict started by coordinated and comprehensive attacks by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, to which Myanmar's Defence Services responded."

On February 25, Maldives announced that it would file a written "declaration of intervention" at the ICJ in support of the Gambia's genocide complaint.

Maldives' minister of foreign affairs, Abdulla Shahid, said that intervention - the details of which are yet to be made public - demonstrated his country's support for "the ongoing efforts to secure accountability for the perpetrators of genocide against the Rohingya people."

Last November 13, Rohingya and Latin American human-rights organisations filed a case with an Argentine court against Myanmar government and military officials under the principle of universal jurisdiction, which allows that people implicated in the most serious international crimes may be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted in countries other than their own.

The Argentine court filing seeks "the criminal sanction of the perpetrators, accomplices, and cover-ups of the genocide" perpetrated by Myanmar security forces against the Rohingya.

Germany's development minister, Gerd Müller, announced that

Berlin was suspending development cooperation with Myanmar because of its "ethnic cleansing" of its Rohingya minority.

Although Müller didn't specify the financial cost of that suspension, he simultaneously announced an additional German government contribution of €15 million (US$16.5 million) to support Bangladesh's Rohingya refugee population.

Other states are likely to initiate similar ICJ interventions over the coming weeks, including Canada and The Netherlands, whose governments announced in December that they planned to "jointly assist the Gambia at the International Court of Justice."

The biggest challenge remains with the international effort to trigger an ICC investigation of the atrocities that have been complicated by the fact that Myanmar is not a signatory to the Rome Statute that established the court.

Unfortunately, an ICC probe through a resolution of the UN Security Council has been stymied by the opposition of Russia and China.

Meanwhile, the UN-created Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar officially began operations in September 2019 to gather evidence of crimes against humanity against Myanmar's ethnic minorities, including, but not limited to, the Rohingya, nationwide over the past eight years.

That message is that Myanmar should stop obstructing Rohingya accountability efforts, or pay the price of pariah-state status synonymous with murderous impunity.

First published in The New Nation on 19 March 2020

Saleem Samad, is an independent journalist, media rights defender, recipient of Ashoka Fellow (USA) and Hellman-Hammett Award. Twitter @saleemsamad, Email: saleemsamad@hotmail.com

Mujib’s challenge was the road to democracy

Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman - Photo Credit: Rafiqur Rahman, Reuters

SALEEM SAMAD

How the architect of our independence paved the way for a democratic nation

Days after Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman returned from Pakistan, after languishing in solitary confinement in Mianwali prison, the stalwart politician quickly understood the challenges ahead.

The architect of Bangladesh’s independence, by dint of political wisdom, overcame the crisis. His first task was to bag diplomatic recognitions. Except for India, Bhutan, and later the Soviet bloc, no Western country had recognized independent Bangladesh.

Mujib decided to send strong messages to the global community and international bodies that war-torn Bangladesh had stepped into democracy.

Just a day after his home-coming on January 10, 1972, Bangabandhu promulgated the “Provisional Constitution of Bangladesh Order of 1972.” The order stated that those elected in the national and provincial parliament held in December 1970 and January 1971 would be deemed as members of the Constituent Assembly of Bangladesh. On the second day, January 12, the leader took an oath of office as the prime minister of Bangladesh and formed an 11-member cabinet of ministers.

Of course, no other political leader had ever been able to drive their country to the road to democracy after a bloody war of independence. In less than three months, Sheikh Mujib held Awami League’s first Council Session on April 7, 1972.

Two days later, the Constituent Assembly held its first session at the Constituent Assembly Hall, which is now the prime minister’s office.

The Constituent Assembly merged all 403 elected members from the national and provincial assembly as Members of the Constituent Assembly. Among the 401 members, all were from Awami League, except for Surenjit Sen Gupta from NAP (Muzaffar), and independent member Manebendra Narayan Larma from the Chittagong Hill Tracts; they were in the opposition bench.

On the first day, the Constituent Assembly formed a 34-member Constitution Drafting Committee with Dr Kamal Hossain, Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister in the chair.

Kamal Hossain wrote the draft in English and Anisuzzaman, a professor of Bangla from Chittagong University, painstakingly translated it to Bangla. Kamal Hossain was twice summoned by Bangabandhu for consultation regarding the draft constitution. On both occasions, he was accompanied by Professor Anisuzzaman.

Bangabandhu advised constitutional provisions to bifurcate religion and politics. The second was to block party law-makers from crossing the floor during voting in the parliament. Both pieces of advice were included in the first constitution and both the clauses had drawn flak from lawmakers.

The third issue regarding the citizenship was debated by independent lawmaker Manabendra Larma, for the use of the term “Bangali” to describe all Bangladeshi citizens.

He argued: “Under no definition or logic can a Chakma be a Bangali or a Bangali be a Chakma … as citizens of Bangladesh, we are all Bangladeshis, but we also have a separate ethnic identity.”

Nevertheless, the draft constitution was adopted with thunderous applause on November 4, 1972, and took effect from December 16, 1972 -- the day 93,000 marauding Pakistan troops surrendered at Dhaka -- and lawmakers decided to commemorate the day as Victory Day.

On December 17, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his cabinet colleagues took a fresh oath on the new constitution -- the four pillars of which were nationalism, democracy, socialism, and secularism. The Constituent Assembly decided to hold the first general election on March 7, 1973, to commemorate Bangabandhu’s historic fiery speech at Suhrawardy Uddyan.

After 25 years, the political battle of realizing regional autonomy against the Pakistan junta had yielded a constitution for an independent and sovereign nation.

As Mohiuddin Ahmed, a writer and political historian, described in his book “Bela Obela,” Awami League had envisioned to draft and adopt a constitution in the Constituent Assembly in the shortest time.

Finally, the “road to democracy” adopted a new path after the constitution came into effect.

First published in the Dhaka Tribune on 17 March 2020

Saleem Samad is an independent journalist, media rights defender, and a recipient of the Ashoka Fellow and Hellman-Hammett Award. He can be followed on Twitter @saleemsamad

Bangabandhu ... statesman among statesmen

SALEEM SAMAD

Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, days after he returned home following more than nine months of languishing in a prison in Pakistan --- "a journey from darkness to light"--- in early January 1972 was catapulted to being a statesman of the third world.

After Bangabandhu, the independence hero of Bangladesh took charge of the war-ravaged country of 75 million, he soon became an icon of independence, freedom, democracy, socialism and secularism of the south-south nations.

The brutal birth of Bangladesh, after a bloody war with the marauding Pakistan military along with its Islamist militia and dreaded henchmen, as a new sovereign state in South Asian politics with its very strategic geographic location and in the midst of very complicated international politics was a significant event in modern history.

Bangladesh was born at the time 'when a global transformation of power was going on with the formation of the Indo-Soviet axis vis-a-vis Sino-American rapprochement which not only had a bearing on the emergence of Bangladesh but also had an impact on the foreign policy of the country that was emerging'.

The emergence of Bangladesh as an independent state in 1971 in South Asia appears to be a unique phenomenon in international affairs.

Immediately after Sheikh Mujib's homecoming, Bangladesh achieved recognition from all major countries, except Saudi Arabia and China. He was able to establish Bangladesh in the comity of nations.

He declared, "I would like it [Bangladesh] to become the Switzerland of the East." The word Switzerland had two meanings – peaceful coexistence and national development.

The enigmatic world leader in his casual dress in long flowing punjabi, pyjama and black vest dubbed as 'Mujib Coat', declared that Bangladesh would steer clear of the Cold War and would remain non-partisan in the tug of the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union.

The charismatic leader became personal friends with a wide range of global personalities --- from Indira Gandhi of India to Fidel Castro of Cuba, from Houari Boumediene of Algeria to Marshal Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia to Anwar Sadat of Egypt, Alexei Kosygin of the Soviet Union to Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan of the Emirates, from Sir Edward Heath of the United Kingdom to Kakuei Tanaka of Japan, and from Senator Edward Kennedy to Prince Karim Aga Khan.

His contacts with the equally charismatic US leader Senator Edward Kennedy allowed Sheikh Mujib to express his thanks to the American people for their unflinching support for Bangladesh's independence, which eventually laid the foundations of Bangladesh's relations with the United States.

With the help of Bangabandhu's international friends and admirers, Bangladesh joined the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the Commonwealth of Nations and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).

The iconic Cuban leader Fidel Castro compared Mujib's personality with the Himalayas. "I have not seen the Himalayas, but I have seen Sheikh Mujib. In personality and in courage, this man is the Himalayas. I have thus had the experience of witnessing the Himalayas," the Cuban supreme leader remarked during the Non-Aligned Summit in 1973.

For Sheikh Mujib, the Chinese veto to appease Pakistan in blocking Bangladesh's membership to the United Nations was a passing cloud, a test of time.

By dint of Bangabandhu's statesmanship, Bangladesh was steered into the United Nations and at the same time, Sheikh Mujib pursued the goal of coming out of superpower rivalry, and two years after liberation in 1971, Bangladesh joined the Non-Aligned Movement. At the NAM summit in 1973, Bangabandhu was able to draw the attention of world leaders to his diplomacy of friendship for all and malice to none.

Addressing the UN General Assembly on 25 September 1974, Sheikh Mujib categorically said, "Bangladesh has consistently pursued an independent non-aligned foreign policy promoting friendship with all countries of the world based on mutual respect for sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity and non-interference in the internal affairs of other' states".

His statesmanship earned him global accolades. The World Peace Council honoured him with the Julio-Curie Peace Prize for his extraordinary contribution to the oppressed people of the world on 23 May 1973, and from "Bangabandhu", friend of Bengal, he became a universal friend.

No other global leaders could become such popular "friends of the world", as Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman could. His career as a national politician and as a global statesman will surely be remembered in the years to come.

First published in The Business Standard, 17 March 2020

The writer is an independent journalist, media rights defender, recipient of Ashoka Fellow (USA) and Hellman-Hammett Award. Twitter @saleemsamad, Email saleemsamad@hotmail.com

Sheikh Hasina deserves thanks for neutralise conflict in Assam

How Bangladesh helped Assam
SALEEM SAMAD

Early this year, New Delhi decided to withdraw the Indian Army from Assam, the neighbouring state in the northeast of India.

The conducting of a conflict assessment in the wake of a reduction in militancy in the region was the primary reason for the withdrawal of troops from Assam.

The top brasses in Indian defense were in the view that as the situation was improving in Assam, the state police should deal with it with the help of the Central Paramilitary Forces, according to The Assam Tribune.

Nearly two decades ago, the Indian army was deployed for counter-insurgency operations in Assam, in November 1990.

The dreaded militant groups National Democratic Front of Boroland (NDFB), United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), and other separatist armed groups were at the behest of Pakistan spy agency ISI, with their cohorts in Dhaka.

Bangladeshi territory was used by the militant leaders of ULFA, NDFB, and other insurgent groups in Tripura, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Manipur for their separatist movement.

The second-generation separatist leaders got renewed impetus in their illegal activities during the regime of Begum Khaleda Zia from 1991-1996 and again in 2001-2006. Pakistan was literally fighting a proxy war in the northeast through ISI covert operations in Dhaka.

The so-called headquarters of ULFA, NDFB, and others were dismantled, the leaders were pushed back from Bangladesh, months after Sheikh Hasina took oath in 2009. Since then, the entire gamut of militancy was physically immobilized in Bangladesh.

Thus, the cross-border terror came to a halt. The militant outfit’s bank accounts and other businesses were frozen by Bangladesh authorities. Several rogue elements in the Bangladesh government who were involved with aiding and abetting the militancy were punished and others reprimanded.

Recently, the NDFB(S) signed suspension of operations -- the ULFA remains the only major militant outfit active and the situation does not warrant deployment of the army all over the state -- the defense brass concludes.

On November 29, the Global Terrorism Index 2019 noted that Bangladesh had been the most successful South Asian country in countering terrorism. S Binodkumar Singh, Research Associate of Institute for Conflict Management in New Delhi wrote: “Bangladesh had the largest improvement of any country in South Asia.”

Most of the militant leaders pushed back are presently active in negotiation for sustainable peace in the region. After being evicted from Bangladesh, the camps of the separatists moved to Myanmar. Myanmar military caused havoc on their camps recently.

The casualty from two decades of conflicts in northeast India has significantly reduced after Bangladesh had been able to neutralize the militancy and keep cross-border terror in check.

According to data from the Institute for Conflict Management, in 2000 the civilian casualty was 267, security forces 37, and extremists killed 223; while in 2019 civilian deaths dropped to one, security forces casualty to zero, and only two militants were killed.

The total deaths in 20 years comes to: 2,208 civilians, 340 security forces, and the number of separatists killed was 2,331 in 2,562 incidents of conflicts. The tripartite agreement was signed between NDFB President B Saoraigwra, the Assam government’s Ashutosh Agnihotri, and Union Home Joint Secretary (North-East) Satyendra Garg in New Delhi on January 17.

Bangladesh security forces were on high alert, and last June a team from the Bangladesh army and RAB, in a joint operation, recovered 12,000 weapons, including rocket launchers and machine guns, from the Satchari National Park.

Earlier in the year 2004, in a sensational recovery, 10 truckloads of arms and ammunition -- apparently smuggled in by ULFA’s military commander Paresh Barua from China -- were seized by the Bangladesh Army near Chittagong port.

The fugitive Paresh Barua, once a popular Assamese soccer player, was handed the death sentence by a Bangladesh court after he stood convicted in the 10-truck arms smuggling case.

Last November, a three-member pro-talk ULFA delegation -- Chairman Arabinda Rajkhowa, General Secretary Anup Chetia, and Foreign Secretary Sasadhar Choudhury - attended a formal discussion with interlocutor AB Mathur, a former special secretary of the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) at an undisclosed location in New Delhi.

First published in the Dhaka Tribune on 2 March 2020

Saleem Samad is an independent journalist, media rights defender, and is a recipient of the Ashoka Fellow and Hellman-Hammett Award. He can be followed on Twitter @saleemsamad

ARSA: A Threat To Bangladesh or Myanmar?

SALEEM SAMAD

The terror outfit Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) has roots in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and there is not much evidence to prove that ARSA has any ties to the transnational jihadist network.ARSA's leadership was born and brought up in Karachi, Pakistan and moved to Saudi Arabia. They raised funds mostly from Rohingya's living in Pakistan and Middle-East.

Now it is come to surface, that the terror organisation with the poor fund was unable to launch any large scale skirmishes with Myanmar troops. Long ago they were able to make quite a number of hit-and-run operations, that activities have been significantly neutralised after Myanmar troop's crackdown on Rohingya Muslims.

Well, the Myanmar government officially labelled ARSA as "extremist Bengali [Bangalee] terrorists," warning that its goal is to establish an Islamic state in the region.

The exodus of one million Rohingyas from restive Rakhine State has also brought the ARSA members into Bangladesh territory living in squalid refugee camps.

In the camps, violent gangs who are members of ARSA, prey on people. There is an incentive to join militants because it accords them and their families a degree of security and additional resources.

In a rare interview given to international media, Ataullah abu Ammar Jununi, commonly known simply as Ataullah, said that ARSA would be "open war" and "continued [armed] resistance" until "citizenship rights were reinstated."

Ataullah denied any links to the ISIS in his 18 August 2017 video. He is reported to have turned his back on support from Pakistani-based militants.

Security experts in Bangladesh and abroad explains that ARSA has ideological differences and has reason to distance itself from transnational jihadist network, which would compel Bangladeshi security forces to move against them.

The plight of the Rohingya has been referenced by international jihadists in the past. Abdullah Azzam, the preacher who inspired Osama Bin Laden, raised the Rohingya issue in the 1980s. Al-Qaeda showed cursory interest in the 1990s.

In the July 2014 speech in which he declared the establishment of a caliphate, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi referenced the Rohingya as among "oppressed" Muslim populations worldwide that ISIS was looking to defend.

In 2016, the alleged chief of Islamic State in Bangladesh, Sheikh Abu Ibrahim al-Hanif (killed by Bangladesh counter-terrorism unit), in Dabiq interview that IS sought to turn Bangladesh into a launching pad for attacks in India and Myanmar.

Harkatul Jihad al-Islam (HuJI) and Arakan leaders have been photographed on the stage with Lashkar e-Taiba (LeT) leaders, including Hafiz Saeed. The LET's charitable arms, Jamat-ud Dawa and Falah-i-Insaniat Foundation support the Rohingya refugees in Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Bangladesh and Indian security forces believe that the Aqa Mul Mujahidin (AMM) received funding and support from Pakistan's ISI via the LET.

Indian authorities are investigating whether a little-known Rohingya militant group with links to Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB).

For obvious reasons, none of the global terror networks did set foot in the region. The territory is too hot to handle, as some experts explain.

The recruiters from sleeping-cells disseminated a message that joining ARSA was a Farj (a religious obligation).

However, ARSA remains focused on recruitment and indoctrination, followed by establishing small units and engaging in rudimentary military training.

Often news breaks-out from Rohingya refugee camps in Cox's Bazar and Bandarban of robbers, dacoits, and armed gangs were killed in an encounter by elite anti-crime forces. Most of the slain victims are radicalised Rohingya militants.

Finally, ARSA's military capabilities remain poor, their ragtag foot soldiers are more engaged in extortion, loot and plunder in the refugee camps. The smugglers, drug traders, and gunrunners employ the armed groups for escort services in the region.

There has been no militancy activity for quite some time, and it is unlikely there will be any in the immediate future.

Thus ARSA becomes a toothless tiger in the western frontier.

First published in The New Nation, on 24 February 2020

Saleem Samad, is an independent journalist, media rights defender, recipient of Ashoka Fellow (USA) and Hellman-Hammett Award. Twitter @saleemsamad, Email: saleemsamad@hotmail.com

Harassment, Arrest, Intimidation of Bauls threatens Freedom of Expression

GLOBAL MEDIA STATEMENT

[18 February 2020]

We, the media rights defenders of international and national freedom of expression organizations are concerned regarding the recent harassment, detention, and intimidation of the traditional Bauls, the mystic singers of Bangladesh.

In the month of January 2020, Sufi folk singer Baul Shariat Sarkar was arrested under the draconian Digital Security Act, 2018 when an Islamic cleric filed a blasphemy case against Sarkar for "stating that music is not forbidden in the Quran."

Similarly, two cases were filed against Baul Rita Dewan for “hurting religious sentiments” of the Muslims for her Pala-Gaan (logical debate through folk songs) performance. In fear of retaliation and personal harm, she long with her two young daughters made a public apology.

In both cases, a vested group is misusing the Digital Security Act, 2018, as a weapon to punish minorities of other faiths, folk singers and social media users too. If convicted, the Cyber Tribunal (Bangladesh) can give a verdict of a hefty fine and jail-term for up to seven years.

Notwithstanding, the media rights defenders had been warning the authorities about the misuse of the draconian Digital Security Act, 2018 which criminalizes freedom of expression and has been applied to detain several journalists, writers, poets, publishers, and bloggers.

Surely, the Islamists are a serious threat to the Baul community as they often preach hate against the women, people of other faiths and of course music and cultural events. They intimidate the Baul singers to silence the traditional cultural heritage.

The question and answer session in Pala-Gaan used mystical and esoteric language, which may be misunderstood by the audience which focuses on external, literal interpretations of Sufi interpretation of the society.

Conventionally the mystic song is an icon of rich folklore tradition, which is imbibed into Bangla heritage and must be protected as a cultural tradition.

To engage in Pala-Gaan, the mystic Sufi singers must have deep knowledge of different faiths, spiritualism, philosophy and contemporary issues.

The Bauls are essential in strengthening democracy, freedom of expression, philosophical debate, as well as tolerance in diversity.

Instead of protecting the folklore heritage, the draconian laws challenge the century-old tradition of freedom of belief and freedom of expression.

The nation-state was founded on the principles of secularism, pluralism, and equality for all to promote harmony among the diverse communities and cultural traditions of the land.

We are deeply disturbed that the intimidation on the Bauls violates the basic freedom of expression and freedom of faith.

We urge the Government of Bangladesh to protect its citizens from the radicalized religious groups.

We expect that the Government must act in upholding the unique traditions of secularism, freedom of faith, and tolerance in a bid to strengthen the visions of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the architect of Bangladesh.

Endorsed and signed by Media Rights Defenders:

1. Dr. Aireen Jaman, General Secretary, PEN International, Bangladesh, London;

2. Faruq Faisel, South Asia Regional Director, Article 19, London;

3. Saleem Samad, Correspondent, Reporter Without Borders (RSF), Paris;

4. Ahmed Swapan Mahmud, CEO, VOICE, Dhaka

5. Khairuzzaman Kamal, Representative International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), Brussels;

6. Mainul Islam Khan, Representative, Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), New York;

7. Biplob Mostafiz, Member, Mukto Prakash (FExB), Media Rights Defender;

8. Sayeed Ahmad, Representative, Front Line Defenders, Dublin, Ireland;

9. Ahamad Ullah, Member, Bangladesh Manabadhikar Sangbadik Forum (BMSF), Dhaka;

10.GM Mourtaza, CEO, CCD Bangladesh; Rajshahi.

11.Jana Syeda Gulshan Ferdous, somewhereinblog.net

For more information, please contact Saleem Samad: +88-01711-530207; email: saleemsamad@hotmail.com OR, Faruq Faisel: +88-01730-710267, emails: faruq@article19.org

How likely is Myanmar to make policy changes after the ICJ ruling?

Myanmar’s denial of organized human rights abuses hold little water Photo: REUTERS

SALEEM SAMAD

Does Myanmar have any obligation to take the world court -- the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague – seriously?

The second question is whether Myanmar’s quasi-military ruler has the political will to implement the landmark judgment of January 23. Myanmar has officially rejected the International Court of Justice’s historic ruling and accused international rights groups of making exaggerated statements about the prevailing situation. It also rejected the UN fact-finding mission’s report on the basis of being “one-sided.”

It is well understood that the ICJ has no legal jurisdiction over Myanmar or any individual nation.

The ICJ ordered Myanmar to implement vital measures to protect its Rohingya population from facing any further atrocities. This ruling has been hailed as an “accomplishment of international justice.” The court further ordered Myanmar to ensure protection from the destruction of any evidence of “possible” genocide.

The ruling means that a global body, for the first time, has officially recognized the threat of abuse against the Rohingya, and ordered Myanmar to protect the community.

The verdict was indeed a significant triumph for the forcefully displaced Rohingya currently in refuge in Bangladesh. This ruling was also hailed by the government of Bangladesh, as the country is host to more than 1 million displaced Rohingya presently languishing in camps.

A lawsuit was brought to the ICJ by the Gambia, an impoverished Muslim state in Africa. The legal process was backed by the 57-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in November at the highest body -- the United Nations -- for dispute resolution between states.

The OIC accused Myanmar of genocide against the Rohingya, in violation of a 1948 Genocide Convention. The Islamic body, as well as the United Nations, has condemned Myanmar’s refusal to repatriate the Rohingya as citizens of the country. Both bodies have raised concerns over the appalling human rights violations.

The challenges that remain the most significant impediments to the ICJ are that it has no power to execute its decisions and that it is voluntary in nature.

In 1993, the ICJ issued similar measures against Serbia after Bosnia had accused it of genocide. Just two years later, Serb forces killed thousands of Bosnian Muslim men and boys in what has become known as the Srebrenica massacre.

The ruling could not stop a second genocide in Europe after World War II.

Myanmar established an Independent Commission of Enquiry (ICOE) which acknowledges committing war crimes but not genocide during the military campaign.

The Myanmar government, headed by Nobel laureate for Peace Aung San Suu Kyi, has strongly denied organized human rights abuses. The regime systematically said that the military action, which followed militant attacks on Myanmar security forces in August 2017,  was “a legitimate counter-insurgency operation.”

The ICOE inquiry report mentions that nearly 900 people were killed. The commission failed to find assertions of gang-rape, or evidence to presume any intent of genocide. No one was surprised at the discrepancy between Myanmar and the international community over committing genocide.

The head of a UN fact-finding mission in Myanmar warned that there was a serious risk of genocide, and the mission did not hesitate to state in its final report, submitted in September 2019, that Myanmar should be held responsible in international legal forums for alleged genocide against the Rohingya.

Myanmar has questioned the legitimacy of the world court but is obliged under international law to comply with the ICJ ruling to provide regular reports to the ICJ, starting next May, to say what steps it has taken to prevent further abuse against the Rohingya.

It is highly unlikely that Myanmar will make any major policy changes to combat the discrimination against the Rohingya community, or provide support for international justice efforts. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has been paralyzed over the Rohingya crisis so far, with China shielding Myanmar from censure, which makes enforcement more difficult.

In this regard, an effective measure could be exerting diplomatic pressure by the international community, which has political and economic clout within the UN Security Council and can bring Myanmar to justice. The Convention against Genocide imposes a duty on states that are signatories to “prevent and to punish” genocide, as seen by Gambia’s ability to bring the case to the ICJ.

Until then, Myanmar will have an excuse to not take any measures for the repatriation, as well as the rehabilitation, of the displaced Rohingya. This difficultly will continue with a possible veto from China.

Whether Myanmar abides by the ICJ rulings remains to be seen. 

First published in Dhaka Tribune, 17 February 2020

Saleem Samad is an independent journalist, media rights defender, and is a recipient of the Ashoka Fellow and Hellman-Hammett Award. He can be followed on Twitter @saleemsamad

Impeachment is over, but despair remains

SALEEM SAMAD

United States President Donald J. Trump's impeachment inquiry has divided American society into thin and thick lines, which could be ascertained from several assessments published during the pre and post-impeachment period.

In this winter, the super-power was at a sombre moment in history, but it's also a pivotal one. What the impeachment process cannot escape from is politics.

According to a survey published on the University of Monmouth website on October 1, 52 percent of respondents opposed the removal of the current leader from his post, while 44 percent supported the initiative of the Democratic Party.

Meanwhile, the Hill-HarrisX study conducted on September 26-27 showed that 47 percent of respondents endorsed the idea of Donald Trump's opponents and 42 percent condemned it.

However framed, be it legal or judicial, the Senate Republicans had an obligation to make a choice - a tough choice for some - to check Trump's abuses of power as president. Regardless of the political implications for their own re-elections, they had a constitutional duty to do what's right.

But they failed to do their jobs - and their votes to cover up Trump's lawlessness didn't just excuse interference in our elections, they serve as an endorsement for him to do it again. But as we grapple with the consequences, we must not fall into despair.

Trump did admit to asking a foreign country (Ukraine) to interfere in US elections - which was indeed a direct threat to democracy. And since the impeachment trial began, advocates have continued to impress upon Congress its constitutional duty to hold Trump accountable to the law.

Several features stand out in the impeachment quest against President Trump.

There is constitutional discourse as mythology and fetish. There is an outrage that the executive office could have been used to actually investigate political opponents through foreign agents. There is cattiness over whether the conduct of the president veered into the territory of criminality, or fell somewhat short in his incessant obstruction.

The US President in rebuttal on the actions of his opponents said that this was the 'greatest scam in the history of American politics' and later even called democrats' impeachment inquiry a coup.

Analyzing the events unfolding in the US, Graham Dodds, Department of Political Science, Concordia University, reminded that a similar situation related to the beginning of the impeachment procedure occurs in US history for the fourth time.

There's just too much at stake right now to keep fighting to protect our democracy. That means fighting to protect US citizenry's access to the ballot box and for the right to have every vote count.

It means participating in the census, a critical tool that determines whether we are fairly represented in our voting districts and how much money is invested in our children's schools and in our families' health care, Diallo Brooks is Senior Director of Outreach and Public Engagement.

It means standing against Trump's narrow-minded, discriminatory judicial nominees whose decisions are rolling back our rights at every turn. It means fighting for our future and for our children's futures, says Brooks.

"Impeachment could help Trump, by energizing his core supporters and feeding into his claims that he is constantly treated unfairly and that everyone is out to get him. On the other hand, maybe this will give Republicans a way to finally stop blindly defending Trump and to distance themselves from him," Graham Dodds said. Trump the symptom remains, his voting base not necessarily convinced or persuaded.

First published in The Asian Age, 15 February 2020

Saleem Samad, is an independent journalist, media rights defender, recipient of Ashoka Fellow (USA) and Hellman-Hammett Award. Twitter @saleemsamad, Email: saleemsamad@hotmail.com

Iran Abuse Of Human Rights

SALEEM SAMAD

There is no quick-fix for the Islamic Republic of Iran, one of the few countries which are governed by strictest Sharia laws, which other Muslim leaders cautiously debate.

Nevertheless, the protests in Iran are continuing after nearly two months of street protests in major cities. The uprising was sparked in mid-November last year when the regime announced that fuel prices would be increased. The move angered the Iranians who have faced so much economic crisis in the past.

For many months, society has been simmering with discontent and there have been sporadic protests, strikes, and anti-government demonstrations calling for the overthrow of the government in Iran and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Also, hundreds of young women in Iran had been many silently and some overtly protesting forced to wear Hijab, a mark of thumbs down to say no to Iran's Islamic dictates.

Widespread protests erupted across Iran because of the fuel price hike. The protests which first started because of the price-hike soon turned to become a widespread uprising targeting Ayatollahs and demanding the overthrow of the Islamic Iran regime.

The ground reality is such that the people are explicitly angered with the leadership of the Mullahs (clergies) that has brutally suppressed their choice for freedom for decades, plundered the country's wealth and led some horrific policies that have plunged parts of the Middle-East into crisis at the expense of pubic exchequer of Iran.

"There is no doubt these protests are serious, in terms of their scale and scope," said Ali Vaez, director of the Iran programme at the International Crisis Group.

The people's anger is obvious. After a few weeks of street protests, the people were embracing the risk of arrest, imprisonment, injury and even death to make their voice heard - loud and clear.

Hundreds of people have been killed by the violent suppressive forces and anti-riot police, many of them shot in the head or chest, sometimes at point-blank range and from behind. Many were attacked by goons of the Ayatollahs who reigned the regime illegally for more than four decades.

The Iranian regime has made all attempts to downplay the gravity of the situation, with some officials saying that the protests have not had wide participation.

However, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) one of the other Iran-Protest campaigns is determined to continue the movement to a level of no-confidence against the clerics in Tehran.

Furthermore, thousands of people wounded and thousands more arrested, coupled with internet services blocked by the regime to hide under the carpet the state-led crimes in Iran.

The regime's decision to block the people's access to the internet demonstrates that the regime is terrified of the world finding out about its appalling human rights abuses under wraps for the regime.

Not denying that the regime is under fire from the United States and several Middle-East countries and are starting to realise that the US might have a genuine reason for keeping Iran under pressure.

Several other banned opposition groups are behind the pro-democracy Iran-Protest. The Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MeK) has many "Resistance Units" spread across the country. They are in contact with the Resistance located outside Iran and it has never been too difficult for information to be shared, no matter how hard the regime tries.

Iran's protests have managed to continue in spite of the most brutal government repression throughout the country. Not only have the protests continued, but activities of the MeK resistance units in major cities have escalated the Iran-Protest movement.

The outcome of this uprising depends largely on the reaction of the international community. The world leaders are slow to react to dreadful human rights abuses taking place in Iran.

The international community has a responsibility to ensure that the Iranian regime should be held accountable for flouting human rights and denial of democracy.

First published in the New Nation, 5 February 2020

Saleem Samad, is an independent journalist, media rights defender, recipient of Ashoka Fellow (USA) and Hellman-Hammett Award. Twitter @saleemsamad, Email saleemsamad@ hotmail.com

Who Is Beneficiary From US, Syria, Iraq, Iran Crisis?

SALEEM SAMAD

When the United States coalition forces toppled the despot Al-Qaeda backed Taliban regime in Afghanistan in 2001 in Iran's immediate east and US invasion of Iraq in 2003 in Iran's immediate west seemed to be a considered military threat to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

During 1991 Operation Desert Storm, the massive US military build-up in the Gulf was considered a threat to the Islamic Iran's regime. The US military headquarters in Pentagon heightened the tension when they reiterated that Iran as an "axis of evil" and said that Iran, not Iraq is the main enemy in the region and we desperately wanted Iraq to act as a counterweight to Iran.

The Iran-Iraq war ended in a stalemate with direct interference by the US.

According to a report by International Crisis Group, following are the priorities of the Ayatollahs in Iraq:

-    A strong centralised Iraqi government which is favourable to Iran, able enough to counter jihadist threats and secure its borders.

-    Preservation of territorial integrity of Iraq so that the country remains stable thereby leaving Iran unaffected by any security threats and vulnerable borders.

-    Prevent the opposition groups in Iraq and former Saddam loyalists to gain grounds in Iraq and thereby act against Iran's interests.

Iran relied on three important junctures to spread its influence in Iraq, the first such influence, as stated above came with the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The second juncture came in 2011 after the withdrawal of US troops when the first Shia Prime Minister Nouri-al-Maliki was backed by both the United States and Iran which acted against the interest of Sunni leaders leading to deprivation of their political power and economic marginalisation giving way to resurging extremism which strengthened Iranian interests in the country.

The third juncture was the rise of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria - ISIS (or Daesh) in Iraq which led Tehran to organise and empower the existing and even new Shia militias in the garb of aiding Tehran in its fight against ISIS.

By 2011, after the withdrawal of US forces and Nouri-al-Maliki's coronation as Prime Minister of Iraq, Iran had a significant influence over Iraqi politics and conflicts and its militias had key control over various funds and weapons and those acting again Iran's interests were annihilated.

The rise of ISIS in 2014 and its dramatic success posed a significant challenge to Iran's presence and the violent capture of Mosul and other Iraqi cities posed serious questions on the capabilities of Quds Force commanded by Qasem Soleimani and Iran's success in stabilising Iraq.

The possible prediction which can be made is the challenges before Iran amid security crisis, instabilities and weak governance, corruption and sectarian conflicts are to prevent the emergence of new jihadist threats or any other threat from its conventional allies, whether it is Israel, Saudi Arabia or the United States.

It would be difficult for Iraq to shrug off the domination of Shia politics in the governance of Iraq and to ensure proper funds and artillery for its Popular Mobilization Forces (PMUs) founded by Nouri al-Maliki, a coalition of Shia Muslims in Iraq, backed by the Quds Force.

The oldest bonhomie in the Middle-East is the proven relationship between Iran and Syria. Ever since the Islamic Revolution, the two countries established ties on the basis of Shia fraternity.

Despite Alawites sect of Islam are secular and liberal Muslims, which contradict's with Iran version of Shi'ism. Alawites celebrate some Christian and Zoroastrian religious holidays, but Iran's Ayatollah has accepted the Alawite Muslims as Shia.

The Iran-Syria relationship is considered as one of the most sustainable military alliance in the region when both deemed Israel and US presence are considered as an existential threat in the Middle-East.

Iran backed powerful Hezbollah militia stationed in South Lebanon is Iran's largest proxy group to render trouble to Israel was redeployed to aid the Assad regime by training the pro-Assad militias groups.

Iran fears if Sunni majority political alliance comes into power in the post-Assad regime, there is likely to express solidarity with US-Saudi nexus which will prove hostile against Iran's interest in the region.

At present, the greatest challenge before the clergies in Iranian is to continue with its Syria chapter despite carrying the heavy burden of international sanctions and preserve its axis of resistance.

First published in the New Nation, 27 January 2020

Saleem Samad is an independent journalist, media rights defender, recipient of Ashoka Fellow (USA) and Hellman-Hammett Award. Twitter @saleemsamad, Email: saleemsamad@hotmail.com

Iran, a nation plunged into crisis of competency, legitimacy

Rogue warlord General Qassem Soelimani commander of Quds Force killed in a US drone attack

SALEEM SAMAD

Iran, a nation plunged into crisis of competency, legitimacyQasem Soleimani

The aura of solidarity after General Qasem Soleimani's assassination temporarily created across

Iran soon gave way to hostility after a Ukraine Airlines was shot down by an Iranian missile.

The clerics of the Islamic Republic of Iran have finally plunged into a series of crisis faced internally and externally.

Never before the tens of thousands of Iranians in self-exile have stepped outside their abode to protest Islamic Iran's erroneous political policies and appalling human rights status meted by street protesters demanding democracy.

Iran's role in the geopolitics of the Middle-East since the Islamic Revolution in 1979 the religious fundamentalism plays as a catalyst in the formulation of Iran's foreign policy.

Iran's proxy war strategy which is practiced through hybrid Shia militias in the region. The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and its Quds Force, plays an important role in Iranian politics and security decisions.

The Quds Force engaged in hybrid war has been authorised by the Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to punish the most hated countries in Middle-East.

The assassinated Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani by US drone attack has shown success in waging proxy wars in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen to punish American allies Israel, Saudi Arabia and Emirates.

In the early 1980s only, when Ayatollah Ali Khomeini, who spearheaded the Islamic Revolution had been facing a war with Iraq, it started its policy of recruitment and mobilisation of Shia Muslims to raise rag-tag militias in all over the Middle-East to counter its arch-foes, Saddam Hussein's Baathist Iraq.

Iran backed Hezbollah involved proxies in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan have always remained involved, either directly or indirectly, in every conflict of Middle-East.

These proxy groups became immensely active after Baghdad fell to the United States in 2003. This hybrid warfare strategy immensely benefited Iran, by avoiding direct military confrontations and therefore hiding Iran's conventional military weaknesses and reshaping the politics of Iraq in its favour.

One of the very important factors regarding how Iran has been able to maintain his influence in the geopolitics of the Middle-East is due to its properly systematised network of proxies and its state actor IRGC and Quds Force.

Iran has always used these hybrid militias for strategic purposes, strengthening of its national security and its revolutionary agenda.

The conventional threat to Iran is mainly posed by the United States and its allies in the Middle East, but mainly Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Another threat that Iran faces is by Jihadist groups like Islamic State and Al-Qaeda affiliates in the Arab countries and Afghanistan.

If we talk about Syria, Iran's influence in the balance of power and politics of the Middle-East has accelerated to a new level after the eruption of civil wars in Syria and Yemen.

Syria has been a steady ally of Iran since the inception of the Islamic Republic in 1979 and has always supported the father and son duo of Hafez-al-Assad and Bashar-al-Assad respectively due to their allegiance to Alawite sect of Shia Islam.

Iran's support to the Houthis started in 1990 with an objective to protect the Zaidism sect of Shia Islam in Yemen.

Evidence of Iran's support and military assistance to Houthi rebels came to surface in 2012 when the United States found the Quds Force providing training to the Houthis in Saddah, a small town in Yemen.

Through these proxies, Iran has successfully encountered Saudi Arabia, American and Israeli influence in the region. The influence became unpredictable in the region and the USA had to redo its policy for the Arab states.

First published in The Asian Age, 25 January 2020

Saleem Samad is an independent journalist, media rights defender, recipient of Ashoka Fellow (USA) and Hellman-Hammett Award. Twitter @saleemsamad: Email: saleemsamad@hotmail.com

Proxy Warlord Who Undermines US Capabilities

SALEEM SAMAD

Qassim Soleimani, a shadowy Iranian general and head of rogue Quds Forces who has been blamed for exporting proxy war in the Middle East region had undermined the capability of the United States. Iran's clerics tasked the Quds Force with spreading Iran's influence abroad. In the past two decades, Suleimani had extraordinary success in implementing Tehran's objective in exporting proxy war in the region.

General Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force killed in a US drone strike at Baghdad airport on early on 3rd January, was the most influential military figures in Iran. Revered by Iranian as an iconic military commander and a blue-eyed boy of Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, was born in a peasant family in a small city in eastern Iran to become one of the most prominent military figures.

In the chaos and death that followed the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq and the 2011 Syrian revolution, Suleimani took the opportunity, pouring in men and money to build a crescent of pro-Iran forces stretching across the Middle-East. The iconic hero was the mastermind of proxy wars which extended from Gaza to Lebanon, from Iraq to Yemen. Literally, the proxy wars eclipsed Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Israel in the west and south. All the hated countries were staunch supporters of United States hegemony in the Middle East.

He successfully raised and trained tens of thousands of pro-Iran forces to destabilise the countries in regular battles for years to demoralise the regimes that Iran hated the most. No doubt his Quds Forces made decisive battles against ISIS or Daesh in Syria and Iraq, Al Qaeda and Taliban in the region, which was silently appreciated by the western powers including Pentagon.

There are not enough narratives about Soleimani's past, as he carefully avoided Iranian media. However, the 61-year-old father of five wasn't a religious scholar and didn't receive a religious education was an icon of Muslim fighters in the region.

In spite of his unknown reasons to participate in the demonstrations that toppled the Shah of Iran in 1979 in an Islamic Revolution orchestrated by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, but he did not hesitate to join the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and fought in the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88, where his future was made in solid ground.

His name was discussed in the Islamic clergy regime in Tehran after reconnaissance missions behind Iraqi lines during the war. He was given command of a special brigade during the war with Iraq. For commanding abilities and plan covert operations, he was entrusted to strengthen the Quds Force in 1998. The elite troop was raised during the Iran-Iraq war to provide military support to the Kurds in Iraq.

Soon Quds began to train foreign forces and equip them with weapons and also funded them to fight against regimes loyal to the US. The militia forces and warlords - Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen were overtly backed by Iran.

Quds was also responsible for training paramilitary forces in Iraq and Syria to fight the Islamic State (ISIS) Jihadists.

Last April, the United States in a bid to counter Iran-backed terrorism around the world listed Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), including the Quds Force a terrorist organisation. Earlier when the US invaded Afghanistan after the 1/11 terror attacks, Iranian officials - on Soleimani's orders - shared strategic maps with American officials of Taliban bases to target in Afghanistan.

Despite Quds involvement in attacks on US forces in Iraq after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, Soleimani cooperated with the Americans to elect Iraq's interim prime minister in 2010. US Defence Department says at least 603 American personnel were killed in hostile actions in Iraq by Iran-backed fighters.

The US in defence of Americans abroad had to strike the Quds dreaded commander. As Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that the US airstrike that killed Soleimani disrupted an "imminent attack" and "saved American lives" in the Middle East region. Despite Iran's vow to revenge against the US for killing Qassim Soleimani, it may compel Tehran to think twice before they attack the US or its partners in the region.

First published in The New Nation, Dhaka, Bangladesh on 6 January 2020

Saleem Samad, is an independent journalist, media rights defender, recipient of Ashoka Fellow (USA) and Hellman-Hammett Award. Email: