Mohammad Asghar response to Mr. Larry Chowdhury

Holy cow! What have I done to myself? No sooner had I finished responding to Mr. Abid’s angry outburst on NFB against me, there comes another from Mr. Larry Chowdhury, blasting me as Hitler had tried to blast away the British from his path. Not satisfied by my demolition, he turned his fury to Dr. Jaffor Ullah, Syed Kamran Mirza and Dr. Shabbir Ahmed, though none of these gentlemen had any role to play in the act of insolence I had unwisely and inadvertently committed against the most revered person of Mr. Larry Chowdhury.

After reading his hard-hitting response to my questions, I became dumbfounded. I did not know how I should react or respond to his furry-laden harpoon, without antagonizing him any further. In desperation, I sought help of a Buddhist friend. His prescription: When a person is angry, as Mr. Larry is, do not go near to him. Maintain a safe distance, and try to explain to him your position as humbly as it is possible. Never take away your eyes from him, for such a person can easily cause you fatal harm by taking advantage of your absent-mindedness.

Following my friend’s advice, I wish to submit the following for the kind consideration of Mr. Larry Chowdhury:

Sir, I confess that I am the same person who wrote his first name with two different spellings. You do not have to go public to find out this fact. Though I hate misspelling of my name, yet I did the same thing to myself, perhaps, due to the following reason:

My son-in-law’s first name is also Mohammad. He writes it with a “U” between M and H. Perhaps, distracted by something that had to do with him at the time of writing one of the two posts Mr. Chowdhury has referred to, I misspelled my first name in it, thus creating the suspicion and unpleasantness in his mind. I apologize for my inadvertent mistake and I assure him that in future I shall be very careful in spelling my name.

Names are very important for we Bengalis. We can tolerate many things in our life, but not the changing or twisting of our names. The examples are the names, Thakur, Biswas and Mujumder etc., which many Bangladeshi Muslims carry with them.

In fact, these are Hindu names, but when holders of these names became Muslims, they did not like to lose their ancestral identity. Their descendents are still carrying on with their wish, hence these names’ existence in the Muslim population of Bangladesh, even after existence of Islam on its soil for thousands of years.

I had an employee by the name of Abdus Salam. Thinking that our American customers would feel comfortable with a short and easy name to pronounce, our Manager asked him if we could call him Sam. He agreed easily. I was surprised by his un-Bengali-like acquiescence. Asked to explain why he won’t mind being called Sam, his response was: I came to the United States to earn money. If bearing an easy name is the way to the fulfillment of my goal, I won’t mind even if I have to say that my name was Monkey.

I was wondering how come a highly erudite Bengali, having a keen sense of Bengali nationalism, calls himself “Larry?” Is it because of the same reason for which my employee Salam had agreed to change his name to Sam? Or, is it because of an English pedigree he belongs to?

Would you, Sir, tell us who you are? Are you a Bengali or a bye-product of a union between a Bengali and an English or American man or woman?

You have taken issue with the audacity I have committed by bringing in the acts of Pakistan Army in Bangladesh to my discussion, while you had restricted your criticism to the Indian soldiers only. For this child-like act of mine, I seek your forgiveness.

But how about your own ramblings around the world to make your points? Was Chile a subject of our discussion before? If not, why did you have to take us across seven seas to make an unnecessary point?

You appear like a fully matured man, with a memory that can beat any elephant on earth. I really admire you for your exceptional quality. I also know that you are a highly educated person. Therefore, I humbly ask you: do you think you should be lambasting the Indian soldiers for their infractions without pointing your fingers at the atrocities of the Pakistani Army?

Or is it your habit to dissect issues first, and then discuss them in turn? If it is what you do in your writing career, may I ask how do you correlate them? Do your scholarly instincts force you to summarily punish the minor criminals first, and then the major ones, and that, too, only if you find them guilty?

Sir, you have said that you do not want to praise me, because you think I am not a saint. Yes, you are absolutely right! I am a devil and devils deserve no praise. But don’t you believe that some devils are more powerful than many like you are, and that they do not need your praise to prove their worth? Please keep your praise to yourself, as it would come handy to shower on someone who belongs to your school of thought, and needs it badly to enhance his or her credibility.

In one place of your write up, you implied that SK. Mujib was not a gallant person, hence his inability to stop the Indian soldiers from their smuggling activities in Bangladesh; in another place, you confirmed that he was, indeed, a courageous man, as he was able to force the Indian government to withdraw its forces from Bangladesh.

Here, I think your elephantine memory has betrayed you. Had you remembered that in one sentence of your write up you claimed that Sheikh Mujib was not a gallant person, you would not have stated in another that he was a courageous man. Do you see where you have erred Mr. Larry? I ask you to reread your own article, and then judge for yourself how a fool you have made out of yourself!

The rule of thumb is that if a person is coward, say it clearly, and once you have said that, you cannot transform the same person into a hero, when it suites your fancy. This is known as calling a spade a spade. I think you realize it now!

Respected Mr. Larry wrote: “Per Mohammad Asghar it appears that D. P. Dhar was no threat to Mujib at all. Likewise P. N. Haksar at a later date during 1974-1975 periods was also not a threat to Mujib.”

My response: Excuse me Sir! I do not have an elephantine memory like you do. Therefore, I do not remember if I had mentioned anything in my write up about Messrs. D. P. Dhar and P. N. Haksar. Would you kindly quote the relevant passage of my write up wherein you have read the names of those two Indian gentlemen?  

Mr. Larry wrote: “If poor Mujib was not a stooge of India then why he had to sacrifice his life and got branded as Indian agent in the history of world civilization? Sri-Janab Tajuddin Ahmed played the role of most pro-Indian chamcha (lieutenant) but the blame was given to Mujib – isn’t it the aftermath?”

My response: Do you know what you have said in your quoted statement? Let me point it out to you for your easy understanding: On one hand you are telling us that SK. Mujib was a stooge of India, therefore, he lost his life. On the other, you are telling us that Tajuddin was the real chamcha of India, but poor Sk. Mujib got the blame for it, despite his not being an Indian stooge. Is it not what you have said in your statement? Do you have any idea of where you have goofed?

My respected Mr. Larry Chowdhury wrote: “It is a good question whether Mujib was a stupid or not. This stupid gave his life because of his stupidity and stubborn attitude. This is enough to justify his elimination process.”  

My response: According to his considered judgment, stupidity and stubbornness justify the elimination process of all the stupid and stubborn people of the world. I wonder if he has ever evaluated himself to find out where he stands with his level of intelligence and reasonableness. Won’t it be a good idea for him to look into the realities of his own life?

Mr. Larry said: “Ershad or Mohammadullah can become a President. In our society stupid becomes the ruler and we have plenty of examples.”

My response: Don’t you know that a nation gets a ruler as it deserves? Are you or were you not a part and parcel of the Bengali nation? Please evaluate yourself before passing judgment about yourself. That is a healthy thing for all humans to do. 

About the Farakkha (Oops! Farakka) Barrage, Mr. Larry wrote: “Mohammad Asghar, you did not give me any spade to call a spade. Pakistan did not trade Tarbela dam with Farakka (not Farakkha) Barrage. The Farakka proposal came in the Indian capital in 1954 for which Pakistan then was in turmoil. Almost every now and then the Prime Minister of Pakistan was getting replaced by another until October 07, 1958 since October 16, 1951. The last Prime Minister in that series was Ayub Khan who remained there until October 27, 1958. By that time Farakka proposal was finalized in the Indian parliament and J. L.

Nehru decided to shoot for that.

 

The then Pakistani leaders did not pay attention for this barrage and they did not have the cards on the table for Tarbela then. It was coined during the Ayub era while Farakka was on way to be constructed. Ayub protested but never worked due to subsequent 1965 war. Even Z. A. Bhutto (then Foreign Minister) talked about it at the UNO but produce no impact. Even Yahya Khan mentioned about this problem and screamed loudly in several of his quarterly Radio speeches during 1969-1971 periods (used to be last week of

March, June, September and December)”

 

My response: West Pakistanis controlled the central government of Pakistan. They also controlled, among others, its armed forces, finance and foreign policy. It appears from Mr. Larry’s statement that the West Pakistanis had already understood the impact of Farakka Barrage on East Pakistan, yet they failed to force India out of its construction.

Can we look at the scenario from a different angle? Consider this: Pakistan wanted to make Kashmir a part of West Pakistan, as it was in the interest of that part of Pakistan. To achieve this goal, Pakistan fought two major wars with India.

Had the West Pakistanis the interest of East Pakistan in their mind, could not they have pursued India on the issue of Farakka Barrage with all its might and main, as they did in case of Kashmir? Or, was there something else on the issue of this barrage that Mr. Larry would like to share with us?

My guru, Mr. Larry wrote: “The flood of 1904 or 1954 or 1955 is a consequence of similar incident. But what we see today? I have been seeing flood almost every year having no specific time. Once upon a time I saw flood in the months of September and October. Now-a-days we see in May or June or July. Why this is so? From a particular season this has been drifting since the blocking of the rivers entering Bangladesh.

 

My comment: There is a question in the above paragraph, it being: “Why is so?” This question relates to occurrence of floods in Bangladesh even in the months of May, June and July. Instead of asking the question, I would have been happy if he had explored all the reasons that cause floods in Bangladesh. But he didn’t, for a reason only he knows.

It is an offence for people like us to make suggestions in the presence of erudite people. Mr. Larry is one of them. With all respect due to him, may I say that behind the causation of floods in Bangladesh, there are many factors involved.

One is the change in world’s climatic conditions. The second is the erosion of river banks in Nepal, India and Bangladesh due to falling of trees, and destruction of other floras. The third is the shrunken dept of Bangladeshi rivers. The fourth is the excessive rains in the Himalayan range.  The fifth is the opening of flood gates at Farakka. There might be other factors, but I am not sure about them, hence my reluctance to mention them in this write up.

Would Mr. Larry deign to take the above factors into consideration, and write a treatise for the benefit of the Bangladesh people, and their government? Perhaps, he should provide a copy of his treatise to the United Nations; for, after all, many nations fall victim to floods every year and they desperately need expert opinions from people like Mr. Larry Chowdhury, the undisputed possessor of great memory, wisdom and sagacity.
 

Before making my final comment on Mr. Larry’s final paragraph, I wish to point out that I have snipped a lot of his balderdash, as those were unnecessary and irrelevant to our discussion. I hope readers will forgive me for my daring step.

Mr. Larry, the wise, cracked at the end of his diatribe:  “ …stupid remains stupid and asks stupid questions though understands what is stupidity and what is intelligence or what is wrong and what is correct.”

My comment: See, how correct is Mr. Larry in his assessment of people and their levels of understanding! He has rightly pointed out my limitations. I want to assure him that the level of my stupidity is still at a tolerable level. It would surpass all levels once I have reached his age. Therefore, be aware, Mr. Larry!

You are going to face many more stupidest questions in future. Therefore, shine your wherewithal to face them when they begin staring at your face. In the meantime, have a lot of funs, and keep yourself fit. And also, don’t forget to enjoy your life. After all, it comes once, and goes away often without giving advance notice.  

Regards,

Mohammad Asghar