Investigate LGBT murders, says HRW

(New York) – The Bangladeshi authorities should immediately investigate the killings of two lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) human rights activists, Human Rights Watch said today. Police found Xulhaz Mannan and Tonoy Mahbub hacked to death in a Dhaka apartment on the evening of April 25, 2016.

The killings follow a spate of recent targeted attacks on writers, educators, bloggers, and editors who promote liberal and secular ideas that radical groups believe are against Islam. The killings of Mannan and Mahbub brings to nine the number of liberals hacked to death in Bangladesh in 2016.

“The slaughter of two men advocating the basic rights of Bangladesh’s beleaguered LGBT community should prompt a thorough investigation, aimed at prosecuting those responsible,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The government needs to protect activists and to call a halt to the impunity that links this chain of vicious murders.”

On April 23, machete-wielding assailants killed Rezaul Karim Siddique, 58, an English professor at Rajshahi University, in an assault that copied previous attacks by Islamist militants on secular and atheist activists. On April 7, Nazim Uddin, who was openly critical of religion and Islamic fundamentalism, was hacked to death on the streets of Dhaka.

Mannan was an editor of Roopban, Bangladesh’s first LGBT-themed magazine, which began publishing in 2014. He was a visible and openly gay human rights activist who supported and protected LGBT people even in the face of threats against the community. Mahbub was also an openly gay activist.

Several bloggers and their publishers were similarly hacked to death by Islamist militants in 2015 for promoting secularism. Religious extremist groups have claimed responsibility for murders and even published a hit list of activists and bloggers. The government offered police protection for those on the hit list, but the protection has clearly been inadequate as several on the list have been killed since. Prime Minister Sheik Hasina advised bloggers to use restraint in their exercise of free speech or leave the country for their safety.

Although the prime minister has promised to take action against the attacks, authorities appointed by her have instead prosecuted bloggers for “hurting people’s religious sentiments.”

Mannan had participated in planning a diversity celebration slated to take place in Dhaka on April 14. The evening before the event, police asked organizers to cancel it due to threats against LGBT activists, and organizers agreed to the request. However, on the morning of April 14, police arrested four people and accused them of attempting to stage the event regardless. Mannan spent the day working for their release.

In 2013, the country’s National Human Rights Commission called on the government to protect sexual and gender minorities from discrimination. In a 2015 manual on sexual and gender minorities, the commission acknowledged that police physically and sexually assault LGBT people, and also arbitrarily arrest them based on their appearance.

In a 2015 report, Bangladeshi LGBT rights groups said that, “Visibility…can be life-threatening and isolating due to social stigma, religious beliefs and family values that create a hostile environment for LGBT individuals.” Following a 2015 visit, the United Nations special rapporteur on freedom of religious belief said, “Sexual minorities do not find much acceptance in the society and often experience verbal or other abuse.”

Human Rights Watch interviewed LGBT people in Bangladesh in recent months and found that they faced threats of violence, particularly after homophobic public comments by Islamic leaders. Activists working on gender and sexuality said that to ensure their personal safety, they conceal their identities and constrain their work. Those who were exposed in the media and public spaces felt particularly vulnerable.

Same-sex sexual behavior, dubbed “carnal intercourse against the order of nature,” is criminalized in Bangladesh under section 377 of the country’s colonial-era penal code.

In recent years, LGBT people in Bangladesh have also been targeted with extremist rhetoric. For example, in November 2015, when activists began publishing a cartoon series featuring a lesbian character, religious groups issued hateful anti-LGBT statements, calling on the government to prosecute LGBT people under section 377 and Sharia (Islamic Law).

The government should use laws and law enforcement to protect, not harass and prosecute LGBT people, Human Rights Watch said.

In a 2009 UN human rights review, the government of Bangladesh received a recommendation to train law enforcement and judicial offers to protect women, children, and LGBT people “and adopt further measures to ensure protection of these persons against violence and abuse.” The government accepted the recommendation with regard to women and children, but said: “The specific recommendation on sexual orientation cannot be accepted.… Indeed, sexual orientation is not an issue in Bangladesh.”

“The massacre of two gay men in a private home demonstrates the need for the government to combat extremists preying on minorities,” Ganguly said. “Dismissing sexual orientation as a non-issue effectively sanctions abuse of an already-marginalized community.”

Bangladesh's pluralism is at risk if Sheikh Hasina does not stop extremists

By Simon Tisdall / The Guardian

The government of Sheikh Hasina Wazed is under growing pressure in Bangladesh to end an apparent culture of impunity after a series of brutal murders of secular writers, bloggers and liberal intellectuals by radical Isla mists.

A torrent of protest followed the latest killings, on Monday night, of Xulhaz Mannan, editor of the country’s only lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender magazine (LGBT), and Mahbub Rabbi Tonoy, an actor and fellow gay rights activist. Critics have accused the Awami League government of failing to act effectively to stop the carnage.

“It is shocking that no one has been held to account for these horrific attacks and that almost no protection has been given to threatened members of civil society,” said Amnesty International’s Champa Patel, reacting to the four killings so far this month.

John Kerry, the US secretary of state, echoed the criticism, along with other western leaders. Similar protests by Bangladeshi free speech activists and well-known foreign writers have had little discernible effect in the past.

Xulhaz Mannan, left, and Mahbub Rabbi Tonoy, who were killed in Dhaka

Since 2013, attacks characterised by the assailants’ use of machetes and cleavers have claimed the lives of secular bloggers, authors, journalists, academics and teachers of a supposedly liberal bent. The common denominator is the offence their views supposedly cause to hardline Islamists among Bangladesh’s mostly moderate and tolerant Sunni Muslim majority. 

Westerners in general have also been randomly targeted in the past 12 months, as have members of Bangladesh’s Shia and Ahmadi Muslim minorities, Hindus and Christian converts. The geographical spread is expanding, too. Whereas attacks were initially mostly confined to highly observant rural areas, the murder of Xulhaz Mannan and his friend took place in the heart of the capital, Dhaka. 

The official response has been seen as largely inadequate. Seven men were convicted last year of a 2013 attack, but most of the murders have gone unsolved and unpunished. This may be in part because Bangladesh is a poor country with a badly resourced police force.

Government curbs on press, television and social media have been blamed for a lack of scrutiny of the growth of religious extremism and of the meek official response. At the same time, the spread of Arab jihadi ideology is linked to the increased use of social media in Bangladesh.

But such factors aside, Hasina and the Awami League stand accused of a lack of political will, and more broadly, of risking the collapse of Bangladesh’s secular, post-independence democratic tradition by marginalising the main opposition party, the Bangladesh Nationalist party (BNP), and over-controlling the national political discourse.

In typically uncompromising fashion, Hasina bluntly blamed the BNP and its Islamist political ally, Jamaat-e-Islami (JEI), for the latest deaths. “The BNP-Jamaat nexus has been engaged in such secret and heinous murders in various forms to destabilise the country ... Such killings are being staged in a planned way,” she said. 

The government flatly denies international jihadi groups such as Islamic State and al-Qaida are active in the country, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. It claims the killers belong to home-grown groups.

Contradicting official claims, the banned group Ansar al-Islam, the Bangladeshi branch of al-Qaida on the Indian subcontinent, claimed responsibility on Tuesday for killing the two gay rights activists in what it called a “blessed attack”.

It said the two were killed because they were “pioneers of practising and promoting homosexuality in Bangladesh” and were “working day and night to promote homosexuality ... with the help of their masters, the US crusaders and its Indian allies”.

Ministers have argued that a crackdown on Islamist groups could offend religious sensibilities and cause more problems than it would solve. Interviewed by the Guardian last autumn, Hasina blamed Britain and unnamed Arab countries for tolerating the rise and global spread of radical Islamist ideas, and in some cases nurturing and funding hardline groups.

“The British government should take more steps on the ground. Jamaat has a strong influence in east London. That’s true; they are collecting money, they are sending money,” she said. 

Opposition parties claim the government’s alleged exploitation of the country’s international crimes tribunal investigating mass killings at the time of Bangladesh’s 1971 war of liberation is fuelling extremist violence.

The JEI backed Pakistan against the independence fighters led by Hasina’s father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who was later murdered. Several JEI leaders have been sentenced to death or to long prison terms since the tribunal process was launched by Hasina in 2009, to the fury of their hardline supporters.

Bangladesh’s overall inability to get to grips with extremism is in part the result of a fractured political space, where legitimate criticism and debate are increasingly restricted, analysts in Dhaka say. The Awami League’s dominance, coupled with grinding poverty, ongoing human rights abuses and an ineffective, divided opposition, is causing growing polarisation and political stagnation, and placing democracy at risk

Evidential Chasm: The Case Against Journalists Accused of Plotting to Kill Bangladesh PM’s Son

By David Bergman on 25/04/2016 / The Wire 

Given that Sajeeb Wazed has already asserted that Shafik Rehman was directly involved in the plot to kidnap and kill him, it is difficult to see how the police can walk back from the path set out for it.

Dhaka: Two senior journalists, with strong links to the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), were last week arrested on charges of conspiring to kill Sajeeb Wazed, the son of Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.

The allegations against Shafik Rehman and Mahmudur Rahman are based on evidence collected by the FBI when it investigated a scheme in the US involving a Bangladeshi-American, Rizve Ahmed, who purchased confidential information about Wazed from a corrupt law enforcement agent.

As The Wire had earlier revealed, whilst sentencing Ahmed and two others for bribery offences, the US States Federal District Court judge, ruled in March 2015 that the FBI’s evidence was not sufficient to show that Ahmed had planned to use the illegally obtained confidential information to physically harm Wazed.

Whilst this US court ruling would appear to significantly dent the credibility of Bangladesh’s case against the two journalists – who were not even alleged to be part of the bribery scheme in the first place – the authorities in Dhaka have brushed it to one side.

The day after the publication of The Wire’s article, the magistrate court in Dhaka granted a police application seeking a further five-day period in which to question Rehman in custody.

The US court order may be an embarrassment, but it will not curb the enthusiasm of the Bangladeshi authorities in pursuing this case.

An alleged plot to kidnap and kill the son of the prime minister, involving two major pro-opposition journalists, which could reach into the heart of the BNP itself, is too good to be true for a government that is seeking every opportunity it can use to weaken the opposition party.

But let us give the Bangladesh authorities their due – and put aside the US Federal court ruling and see how the evidence uncovered by the FBI supports the government’s contention that two Bangladeshi journalists were involved in a plot to kidnap and kill Wazed.

The evidence of a plan to injure Wazed

Court documents point to the US Department of Justice having three pieces of evidence in support of the claim made in court that Ahmed, who pleaded guilty to bribery offences, ‘sought to cause Individual 1, who was living in Virginia with his wife and child, to be kidnapped and physically harmed.’

First, the Department of Justice’s sentencing submission relating to Ahmed states: “In a voluntary interview with investigating agents, Ahmed admitted that he provided the private investigator $4,000, and that he requested the private investigator’s help regarding a plan to “scare,” “kidnap,” and “hurt” Individual 1.”

This private investigator, referred to as Steve, was not one of the three men involved in the bribery scheme, but a separate person who Ahmed contacted around January 2012 to obtain information about Wazed.

Secondly, according to Judge Vincent L. Briccetti’s summarising of the evidence, the private investigator had confirmed to the FBI that Ahmed had told him that he ‘wanted his help regarding a plan to scare and hurt Individual 1’

The third piece of evidence concerns a text message from the corrupt FBI agent, Robert Lustyik to his friend Johannes Thaler, both of whom were convicted along with Ahmed, which was sent when the two men thought Ahmed was reneging on their financial deal. The text stated: ‘Tell [Ahmed], I’ve got [Individual 1’s] number and I’m pissed. . . I will put a wire on n get them to admit they want [a Bangladeshi political figure] offed n we sell it to [Individual 1].’ The assumption, here, is that ‘offed’ means killed.

The court’s views about the evidence

In relation to his admission in the interview, the judge stated that Ahmed made conflicting statements:

‘Ahmed made conflicting statements about what he intended to do with respect to Individual 1 when he was interviewed following his arrest a year and a half or so after the bribery scheme in this case had petered out … As I said, the statements he made about it were conflicting. At first he said he did, then he said he didn’t. I don’t know which is true.’

And as to the statement made by the private investigator, the judge stated that whilst Ahmed did mention an intention to scare and hurt Wazed, it was not discussed any further. The judge said:

‘And [Ahmed] was asked of course about involvement in this case but he was also asked about his involvement with a private investigator by the name of Steve that he hired after the Lustyik/Thaler conspiracy had petered out, and in the context of being asked about his relationship with Steve, according to the memo of interview, Ahmed told Steve that he wanted his help in obtaining private security for BNP officials in Bangladesh, .. and Ahmed also allegedly told Steve that he wanted his help regarding a plan to scare and hurt Individual 1. And it also says in the report that Ahmed initially told the investigators that he was just kidding about such a plan. But when he was questioned further … Ahmed acknowledged that his intent was genuine when he asked Steve for help to hurt and kidnap but not kill Individual Number 1. Steve said that was possible but they didn’t discuss it any further.’

About the third piece of evidence, the judge seems not to have concluded that ‘offed’ meant ‘kill’, and said the following:

‘Everything that I’ve been presented in this case, the text messages and the other things that I’ve seen — and I acknowledge that I’m definitely not as familiar with the case as the lawyers are, but all I can do is rely on what I’ve been provided with — based on what I’ve been provided with, this case is all about furthering Ahmed’s political aims, getting confidential information to expose what Ahmed apparently thought was corrupt behavior by the ruling party and otherwise embarrass Individual Number 1. And that’s all terrible behavior and as I said relevant to sentencing. But there’s no talk in these exchanges about doing physical harm to Individual. So I cannot find that that objective was part of the offense of conviction here.’

In summary about the three pieces of evidence, the judge stated: ‘I will also say for the record that the government’s contention that Ahmed in fact sought to kidnap and physically harm an individual is a stretch. I just don’t feel there’s enough evidence that’s been presented to me for me to make that finding. …  As I said earlier, Ahmed’s overall intentions with respect to Individual 1 are to say the least unkind and highly relevant to sentencing in this case. But I don’t believe that there’s sufficient evidence that he really did seek to kidnap and physically harm Individual 1.’

So, the US court, rightly or wrongly, ruled that these three pieces of evidence were not sufficient to allow him to conclude that Ahmed sought to use the illegally obtained information to physically harm Wazed. The US government did not appeal the judge’s decision on this matter.

The significance of the evidence

However, for the purposes of this article, let us now bin the judge’s comments and look at the evidence itself. How does this help the government in its case against the two journalists in Bangladesh?

To consider this question, one must look at some other aspects of the FBI investigation into Ahmed’s conduct.

First, the FBI found that Ahmed had provided the illegally obtained FBI information to three men, including a ‘Bangladesh journalist’. Also one of the court documents states that it was in fact this journalist who had paid ‘$30,000’ for the information.

Secondly, Ahmed, having already paid  $1000 to obtain some confidential FBI information, organised a meeting at this home at the end of January 2012 which, according to one court document, was attended by Lustyik, Thaler, Ahmed, Ahmed’s father – who is the vice-president of the cultural wing of the opposition BNP – and ‘two Bangladeshi men’.

Let’s assume for the purposes of this exercise that Rehman was this ‘Bangladesh journalist’. This would mean that he received illegally acquired FBI information from Ahmed – and may even have paid for it.

As for the meeting, according to evidence it was ‘to discuss exchanging additional confidential law enforcement information, to which Special Agent Lustyik had access to by virtue of his position with the FBI, for additional cash payments.’

Therefore, if, lets say the two arrested journalists were the two ‘Bangladeshis’ present at the meeting – and this is by no means confirmed – then they may well have been complicit in the offence of bribing an FBI agent, an offence that could be prosecuted in the US, but not in Bangladesh. (It should be noted that, according to his family Rehman has visited the United States in 2014 and 2015 and was not apprehended by the authorities)

But the Bangladesh government’s claim is not about the illegal acquisition of FBI documents – but about a conspiracy to kill Wazed.

Of course, if we assume that the evidence set out above is correct and Rizvi sought to harm Wazed, then perhaps at this meeting such a plot was discussed – or perhaps the plot to harm Wazed was discussed at some other meeting between Ahmed and the two journalists.

However, such an assertion would be total speculation. There is no known evidence to support this contention.

This brings us to the basic weakness of Bangladesh’s allegation. Although there is some evidence that Ahmed may have thought about using the FBI information to harm Wazed – there is no evidence that on receiving the information, Ahmed, or anyone connected to Ahmed, actually made an attempt to harm the prime minister’s son.

The relationship between Ahmed and the FBI agent ended in February 2012.

Ahmed, however, was not arrested until 2 August 2013 – 18 months later – and in that period, there is no evidence of any plotting or attempting to kidnap Wazed.

Following Ahmed’s arrest, his house was searched by the FBI.

In the Department of Justice’s sentencing submission, it is stated that ‘a search of Ahmed’s residence and electronic devices revealed that he was in possession of false FBI credentials and false business cards representing that Ahmed was an FBI agent, FBI paraphernalia, and false FBI documents that purported to contain classified information.’ Whilst it is possible that false FBI credentials could have been used as part of a kidnapping plan, the Department of Justice does not suggest that they were intended to be used in that way. And there is no evidence linking this paraphernalia to either of the two journalists.

Indeed at the Federal court, the sentencing judge stated:

‘Finally, it’s also clear, fortunately, that Individual 1 was in fact never physically harmed nor was there ever an attempt to harm him.’

Of course, most significantly, the Department of Justice never indicted Ahmed for seeking or planning or attempting to harm Wazed – something it could have only done if it had enough evidence that between February 2012 and the time of his arrest a year and a half later, Ahmed had planned to do so.

Wazed’s recent claim that Ahmed pleaded guilty to crimes of bribery in order to avoid ‘facing a very long prison sentence for attempted murder,’ is not supported by the case documents. Ahmed was indicted in August 2014 for five bribery offences, his plea bargain involved him pleading guilty to two of offences, escaping prosecution for the other three.

So whilst there is some evidence that points to Ahmed thinking of causing physically harm to Wajed, it is – using the language of the Federal judge –  a very big ‘stretch’ to then use this evidence to argue, as Wazed and the Bangladesh police do, that the two journalists were conspiring to kill him.

New evidence?

However, the evidence set out above may not be the end of the story.

It may be that there is other evidence that the FBI did not make public in the court documents which could fill the evidential chasm in the government’s case.

The US embassy in Dhaka has in the last few days issued a statement saying, ‘The United States Department of Justice responded to the Government of Bangladesh’s request for legal assistance related to this case. As a general matter, when the U.S. government shares law enforcement information as part of a request for legal assistance, we do not comment on it.’

So what information could the Department of Justice be sharing?

At the very least, one would expect it to provide the names of the three men who received information from Ahmed, along with the names of Ahmed’s other two associates, who met with the corrupt FBI agent.

It is also possible that there was additional information that the FBI may have collected during the investigation into the bribery case which the Department of Justice did not mention in its sentencing submission and which did not come up during the court hearing. We simply don’t know.

For the Bangladeshi authorities, however, this is less a question of evidence and more one of politics.

Of course, the authorities would love it if the US Department of Justice could provide them with additional evidence of a plot. They would much rather prosecute a case with strong rather than weak evidence. But if the Department of Justice doesn’t provide them the requisite evidence, the authorities will not worry them much – since damaging and weakening the opposition party by any means is a key goal.

Even without new evidence, the criminal case will go on, as will the assertion of a plot to kill Wazed.

Indeed, Wazed has already asserted, without ambiguity, that Rehman had ‘direct involvement in the plot to kidnap and kill’ him. It is difficult to see how the Bangladeshi police can walk back from the path Wazed has set out for it.

In Bangladesh, criminal justice is very often just politics by other means.

-       - David Bergman is an investigative  journalist based in Bangladesh. He also runs the Bangladesh Politico and Bangladesh War Crimes blogs.

'জয় যেদিন জন্মগ্রহণ করেন সেদিন প্রথম শেখ হাসিনাকে লাল গোলাপ নিয়ে কে শুভেচ্ছা জানিয়েছিলেন?'

বাংলাদেশ ব্যাংকের রিজার্ভ চুরির পর প্রধানমন্ত্রী শেখ হাসিনার আইটি উপদেষ্টা ও তার পুত্র সজীব ওয়াজেদ জয়ের ভূমিকার কঠোর সমালোচনা করেছেন গণস্বাস্থ্যের প্রতিষ্ঠাতা ডা.জাফরুল্লাহ চৌধুরী। তিনি বলেন, উনি আমাদের আইটি বিশেষজ্ঞ। এমনই আইটি বিশেষজ্ঞ যে, আমার কোষাগার লুন্ঠন হয়ে গেছে, উনি একবারও আসার প্রয়োজন বোধ করেননি। কারণতার শরীরে রক্তের টানটি তো নাই। থাকেন বিদেশে। এদেশের সম্পদ নিয়ে বিদেশে বাড়িঘর করেন। অনেকেই হয়তো এভাবে বিদেশে থাকেন, কিন্তু তারা আর আমাদের বঙ্গবন্ধুর পরিবারতো ভিন্ন কথা।

বুধবার বিকেলে রাজধানীর জাতীয় প্রেসক্লাবে এক আলোচনা সভায় তিনি এসব কথা বলেন। সাংবাদিক শফিক রেহমানের রিমান্ড বাতিল এবং তার মুক্তি দাবিতে এই অনুষ্ঠানের আয়োজনকরে ‘শফিক রেহমান মুক্তি মঞ্চ’।

প্রধানমন্ত্রী শেখ হাসিনার পুত্র সজীব ওয়াজেদ জয় যেদিন ঢাকা মেডিকেল কলেজে জন্মগ্রহণ করেন সেদিন প্রথম শেখ হাসিনাকে লাল গোলাপ নিয়ে কে শুভেচ্ছা জানিয়েছিলেন? একথাএকটু স্মরণ করতে বলেন। সরকারের ভালোভাবে জানা উচিত দেশের কিছু মানুষকে বোকা বানানো যায় কিন্তু সব মানুষকে এক সাথে বোকা বানানো যায় না। মানুষ ফুসছে কিন্তু কথাবলতে পারছে না বলেও মন্তব্য করেন  গণস্বাস্থ্য কেন্দ্রের প্রতিষ্ঠাতা ডা. জাফরুল্লাহ চৌধুরী।

জাফরুল্লাহ চৌধুরী তার বক্তৃতায় বিশিষ্ট ব্যবসায়ী সালমান এফ রহমানেরও সমালোচনা করে বলেন, ইন্টারনেট, ওয়েবসাইট এসবের ওপরে সাড়ে ৮ ভাগ একটি চাঁদা উঠানো হয়। এর নামহলো এমডিএস (মার্কেট ডেভেলপমেন্ট সারচার্জ)। বাংলাদেশ দেখাশোনা করে আমাদের দরবেশ সালমান (সালমান এফ রহমান)। উনি বাংলাদেশ অংশের দেখাশোনা করেন, আমেরিকারঅংশে কে আছে আমি জানি না। শফিক রহমান যদি সেই খোঁজ নেওয়ার চেষ্টা করে থাকেন, তাহলে সে তো দেশপ্রেমিকের কাজ করেছে। যে কাজটি করতে আমি ভয় পাচ্ছি, সেই কাজটিইতো সে অনুসন্ধান করছে, যোগ করেন জাফরুল্লাহ।

সম্প্রতি সময়ে সুপ্রীম কোর্টর বিচারপতি শামসুদ্দিন চৌধুরী মানিকের একটি মন্তব্যের প্রসঙ্গ টেনে তিনি বলেন, মানিক সাহেব বলেছেন, সুপ্রীম কোর্টের জজ সাহেবরা ঘুষ খেয়েছেন।কোথায় সিনহা বাবু? কেন চুপ করে আছেন? এখনো পর্যন্ত কনটেম্পট হয়নি কেন? একজন বিচারপতি আমাদের বিচারকদের এভাবে প“লিত করতে পারেন। যারা এভাবে পদলিত হয়,সেই বিচারকদের কাছ থেকে আমরা কি প্রত্যাশা করতে পারি?

সরকারের সমালোচনা করে তিনি বলেন, এই সরকার অনেক চতুর সরকার। তারা ভালো করেই জানে তাদের পায়ের নিচের মাটিটি নড়াচড়া করছে। জনগণের কিছু অংশকে বোকা বানিয়েরাখা যায়, কিন্তু সব লোককে চিরদিন অন্ধকারে রাখা যায় না। মানুষ ফুঁসছে কিন্তু কেউ কিছু বলছে না। মানুষ বোকা নয়। কিন্তু সরকার নিজেদের অনেক চালাক মনে করে।’

জাফরুল্লাহ বলেন, আজকে তিস্তার পানি আসে না। কিন্তু আমার বুকের ওপর দিয়ে ট্রানজিট দিয়ে দিয়েছে। প্রতি মাসে ভারতের সাশ্রয় ২ হাজার কোটি কাটা। আমরা কি পাচ্ছি। মেগাপ্রজেক্ট নেওয়া হচ্ছে। কারণ মেগা প্রজেক্ট না নিলে তো মেগা দুর্নীতি হবে না।