PDA

View Full Version : Notable Women who have been assasinated or had dubious deaths ?


Pundit
December 28, 2007, 12:37 AM
Bhutto
Diana
That French Queen
.....

Dhurr
December 28, 2007, 12:44 AM
Indira Gandhi
Chandrika Kumaratunga

Sohel
December 28, 2007, 12:54 AM
Joan of Arc

Nocturnal
December 28, 2007, 01:13 AM
Ivy Rahman (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/19131)

oracle
December 28, 2007, 01:19 AM
Chandrika is'nt dead.

Sohel
December 28, 2007, 07:06 AM
Pritilata Waddedar.

ialbd
December 28, 2007, 08:32 AM
Chandrika Kumaratunga

which chandrika is this? the former SL PM isnt dead....

Kabir
December 28, 2007, 09:52 AM
But Chandrika Kumaratunga did get attacked once, if I'm not wrong?

Kana-Baba
December 28, 2007, 10:29 AM
Sheikh Hasina, though still alive, attempts have been made to assassinate her in 21<SUP>st</SUP> August 2004.

Bengaliprince176
December 28, 2007, 10:55 AM
its strange isnt it...south asian countries have tended to have the first femalie leaders, compared to a country like USA, yet look what has happened to most...

Parisa
December 28, 2007, 11:09 AM
its strange isnt it...south asian countries have tended to have the first femalie leaders, compared to a country like USA, yet look what has happened to most...
so true bengaliprince.....its a shame that third world countries have produced women leaders and a modern country like the usa have failed to do that

Kana-Baba
December 28, 2007, 01:22 PM
Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, President of Sri Lanka, survived LTTE suicide attack but lost one eye. 1999.

ammark
December 28, 2007, 02:05 PM
its strange isnt it...south asian countries have tended to have the first femalie leaders, compared to a country like USA, yet look what has happened to most...so true bengaliprince.....its a shame that third world countries have produced women leaders and a modern country like the usa have failed to do that

In the subcontinent, the overwhelming number of voters cling to a personality oriented political culture.

Secondly, their political identities have been founded on their fathers or husbands. Benazir Bhutto (daughter of Z.A Bhutto), Chandrika Kumaratunga (daughter of Solomon & Sirimavo Bandarnaike), SH and KZ, Indira (d/o Nehru) and Sonia Gandhi (wife of R.Gandhi and daughter-in-law of Indira Gandhi).

A lot of the reason why the contemporary women leaders have been able to take helm of their spouse's or father's parties was because of the fact that the voters and the people associate the party with those past leaders personalities. Its good politics to have their kin take the leading role and rally the masses, especially if they're capable of doing so. The masses identify them with their fathers/husbands.

I wouldnt be surprised if Pakistan's Peoples Party is as internally undemocratic as Awami League or BNP. In Bangladesh, so many people are loyal to BNP and AL just based on the fact that SH and KZ are carrying on the legacy of Sheikh Mujib or Ziaur Rahman though the party. But when it has come to the question of being effective in governance, the people have always judged them overwhelmingly as having failed. AL was voted in as a result of anti-BNP sentiments in 1996, the BNP was voted in 2001 because many people were looking for a change from AL. These leaders did not get a vote of approval to continue in consecutive regimes.

Politics in the Global North (Developed countries) relies greatly on internal competition, internal democracy and presenting substantial political platforms. Although George W Bush might seem as a paradox if this is true, the fact is, politics in the United States is much more mature. The fact that there are interest groups, media management, political debates are all examples of the sophistication the USA has (India is catching up on this, except that its population is 4 times as large) for people to attain a position of political power.

I would propose that it is shameful that we are producing renowned female leaders much for their dynastic ties and relationships, because of the lack of socio-political development in South Asia! Governance of a country cannot be left to dynastic leaders but instead on individuals whose merit will be tested through internal competition, internal democracy and a true appreciation of liberty, rights, law and justice.

Moshin
December 28, 2007, 02:20 PM
so true bengaliprince.....its a shame that third world countries have produced women leaders and a modern country like the usa have failed to do that
Is that why we countries are still in poverty, because difference in governance between the different genders?

Parisa
December 28, 2007, 02:22 PM
Is that why we countries are still in poverty, because difference in governance between the different genders?

no its just about equality.....asian countries are not as powerful as USA yet we are more equal in politics than america....which is one of the world's richest and powerful countries...

ammark
December 28, 2007, 02:28 PM
:hairpull::head::head::head::head:

I've been speaking to a wall!

Moshin
December 28, 2007, 02:29 PM
no its just about equality.....asian countries are not as powerful as USA yet we are more equal in politics than america....which is one of the world's richest and powerful countries...
we aren't that equal in politics i mean the death of benazir bhutto just sums up
the equality of males and females in most of the region, she was killed because she was a 'woman', but some how women just get into politics and become the Heads of Governments, like Bangladesh or Sri Lanka, its just so strange!

Parisa
December 28, 2007, 02:31 PM
we aren't that equal in politics i mean the death of benazir bhutto just sums up
the equality of males and females in most of the region, she was killed because she was a 'woman', but some how women just get into politics and become the Heads of Governments, like Bangladesh or Sri Lanka, its just so strange!

well usa still failed to produce a female president.....let alone a black president...in that sense we are more advanced....

Moshin
December 28, 2007, 02:31 PM
well usa still failed to produce a female president.....let alone a black president...in that sense we are more advanced....
....but still in poverty.

Moshin
December 28, 2007, 02:32 PM
:hairpull::head::head::head::head:

I've been speaking to a wall!
kheno, busta parchena?... oh up there^ ok let me read it...

Parisa
December 28, 2007, 02:33 PM
....but still in poverty.

but i wasn't talkin about poverty....i was talkin about equality in gender in politics in comparison to usa

Moshin
December 28, 2007, 02:36 PM
...Yes politics in South Asia is always aroused with Families or relatives, I mean the thought of people may be 'I must carry on my father's legislation' I think this is wrong, the countries might as well been better off as a Absolute Monarchy, there's no fair governance, The Sheikh Family, The Gandhi Family, The Zia Family, The Bhutto Dinasty and so on... another part of why we are still in poverty, unfair governance!

Moshin
December 28, 2007, 02:39 PM
There should be a strict policy in the countries, that people cannot carry
on with politics because of family roots and all that, its rubbish!

Parisa
December 28, 2007, 02:40 PM
There should be a strict policy in the countries, that people cannot carry
on with politics because of family roots and all that, its rubbish!

if that happened then there would be a shortage in government members

Moshin
December 28, 2007, 02:42 PM
if that happened then there would be a shortage in government members
The less the better I think, because it will make us less politically polarised.

Parisa
December 28, 2007, 02:44 PM
The less the better I think, because it will make us less politically polarised.

less government more crime....

Moshin
December 28, 2007, 02:46 PM
less government more crime....
if people in bangladesh weren't that concerned about politics, Bangladesh
could've been developed in a level atleast with India, but politics is the
number one thing that comes to our minds, which completely destroys the
country as a whole

Parisa
December 28, 2007, 02:48 PM
if people in bangladesh weren't that concerned about politics, Bangladesh
could've been developed in a level atleast with India, but politics is the
number one thing that comes to our minds, which completely destroys the
country as a whole

agree.....but politics isn't eating up just bangladesh...its eating up most other countries like pakistan, iraq

Moshin
December 28, 2007, 02:49 PM
In the subcontinent, the overwhelming number of voters cling to a personality oriented political culture.

Secondly, their political identities have been founded on their fathers or husbands. Benazir Bhutto (daughter of Z.A Bhutto), Chandrika Kumaratunga (daughter of Solomon & Sirimavo Bandarnaike), SH and KZ, Indira (d/o Nehru) and Sonia Gandhi (wife of R.Gandhi and daughter-in-law of Indira Gandhi).

A lot of the reason why the contemporary women leaders have been able to take helm of their spouse's or father's parties was because of the fact that the voters and the people associate the party with those past leaders personalities. Its good politics to have their kin take the leading role and rally the masses, especially if they're capable of doing so. The masses identify them with their fathers/husbands.

I wouldnt be surprised if Pakistan's Peoples Party is as internally undemocratic as Awami League or BNP. In Bangladesh, so many people are loyal to BNP and AL just based on the fact that SH and KZ are carrying on the legacy of Sheikh Mujib or Ziaur Rahman though the party. But when it has come to the question of being effective in governance, the people have always judged them overwhelmingly as having failed. AL was voted in as a result of anti-BNP sentiments in 1996, the BNP was voted in 2001 because many people were looking for a change from AL. These leaders did not get a vote of approval to continue in consecutive regimes.

Politics in the Global North (Developed countries) relies greatly on internal competition, internal democracy and presenting substantial political platforms. Although George W Bush might seem as a paradox if this is true, the fact is, politics in the United States is much more mature. The fact that there are interest groups, media management, political debates are all examples of the sophistication the USA has (India is catching up on this, except that its population is 4 times as large) for people to attain a position of political power.

I would propose that it is shameful that we are producing renowned female leaders much for their dynastic ties and relationships, because of the lack of socio-political development in South Asia! Governance of a country cannot be left to dynastic leaders but instead on individuals whose merit will be tested through internal competition, internal democracy and a true appreciation of liberty, rights, law and justice.
Because of these family dynasties, these have led to so many allegations of crime, fraud and corruption between the leaders, like Hasina, accused of death and Khaleda, accused of money corruption. Following family ties in politics is one thing our part of the world must get rid of for sure, to get rid of corruption or what not. If this illness of dynasty does not fade from our soil, we will suffer in the near future for development and for the sake of the people of the countries.

Bengaliprince176
December 28, 2007, 02:49 PM
guys its friday nite!! lets just chill out and watch sum tv, ive had enuf politics for today!!

Nocturnal
December 28, 2007, 02:54 PM
guys its friday nite!! lets just chill out and watch sum tv, ive had enuf politics for today!!

just like I had enough of cricket and don't wanna talk abt it today, bring on politics :-p

Moshin
December 28, 2007, 02:59 PM
just like I had enough of cricket and don't wanna talk abt it today, bring on politics :-p
Right on brother!!!

Farhad
December 28, 2007, 04:03 PM
Parisa's got pwned by our new Dhrubo. Who'da thunk it?

I think Ammarks hit the nail right on the head. Personally, I think most people seem to approach women leaders in the wrong way. People from the subcontinent use it to "prove" the areas gender inequality. And people over here in the west use this recent assassination to highlight womens struggle in the region. Both views are oversimplified IMO. The fact is that, as Ammark mentioned, a female leader in the region is more a sign of stunted political development than of gender equality. As for the recent assassination of Benazir Bhutto, although I believe her gender may had something to do with it, it couldn't have been the only factor for a variety of reasons, none that I have the time to discuss here. To know more about the motive behind the crime, we have to know who committed it. Till then, we just have to sit tight and not jump to any conclusions, something the media is having a lot of trouble doing...

tonoy
December 28, 2007, 06:38 PM
less government more crime....

Madam,

Your logic surpasses that of the great Platos. I am humbled by your presence

:notworthy:

Parisa
December 28, 2007, 06:49 PM
Madam,

Your logic surpasses that of the great Platos. I am humbled by your presence

:notworthy:

Sir,

Your logic is very hard to define. I too am humbled by your presence. So glad we agree.:-|

Zobair
December 28, 2007, 07:35 PM
Ammar, as usual, cogent arguements.

As for the bolded part, some would argue that "lobby culture" is a corruption of democracy since, more often than not, it shifts power from the popular masses into the hands of a powerful few who are simply better able to leverage their economic and political clout. It is a "layer" that many would like to see "peeled off" the U.S. democracy!



Politics in the Global North (Developed countries) relies greatly on internal competition, internal democracy and presenting substantial political platforms. Although George W Bush might seem as a paradox if this is true, the fact is, politics in the United States is much more mature. The fact that there are interest groups, media management, political debates are all examples of the sophistication the USA has (India is catching up on this, except that its population is 4 times as large) for people to attain a position of political power.

al Furqaan
December 28, 2007, 08:52 PM
Anna Nicole Smith

Moshin
December 28, 2007, 09:02 PM
Lol aint she a model who died like months ago with overdose of drugs?

Moshin
December 28, 2007, 09:10 PM
I dont think she will be noted in the list as one of the deaths of woman that has really has given a shock, she wasnt even assassinated or anything, plus got to do with drugs anywayz.

Dhurr
December 28, 2007, 09:36 PM
Chandrika is'nt dead.

My bad. I remembered the attack on her but forgot that she survived.

Dhurr
December 28, 2007, 09:39 PM
:hairpull::head::head::head::head:

I've been speaking to a wall!

LOL

Serious thread er moddhe dui pichchir tankibaji... thread tai mati.

Pundit
December 31, 2007, 12:37 PM
Sheikh Hasina, though still alive, attempts have been made to assassinate her in 21<SUP>st</SUP> August 2004.

Yes...almost made it to the list, our madam.

Sheikh Hasina could have been in many list....

....as could have beens.

That's the irony of her legacy (if there is one).

ammark
January 2, 2008, 01:29 PM
Ammar, as usual, cogent arguements.

As for the bolded part, some would argue that "lobby culture" is a corruption of democracy since, more often than not, it shifts power from the popular masses into the hands of a powerful few who are simply better able to leverage their economic and political clout. It is a "layer" that many would like to see "peeled off" the U.S. democracy!

Possibly. If I'm trying to understand political development as a progression to libertarianism and equal participation of all (Liberté, égalité) in a political system, then I can perceive the "lobby culture" as being a product of the USA's very libertarian political system. The very fundamentals of a democratic political system is that the individual is empowered and protected in terms of rights and liberties. What we see in the Global South is a significant impingement of the very ideals of individual rights and liberties, often for vague clauses such as "state security" and "national interest".

Simplistically speaking, in all countries, there are Interest Groups promoting some cause or the other within the political system, so that the government or the politicians address those causes. My perceptions about the US is that the special interest groups (just as any other part of their society) work in very liberal and unconstrained environments (compared to say, European Countries... but they have powerful trade unions too); and thus can grow to a position of extreme strength that co-opts and derails the very fundamental of democracy (ie. one person, one vote: equality).

RazabQ
January 2, 2008, 01:48 PM
Dudes (Pundit, Ammark, Zobair and others who meet the minimum IQ cutoff):

Democracy is an illusion. Developed North is ruled by Oligarchies. We are ruled by Oligarchies. Both are corrupted by a minority. Ours just haven't learned the subtleties. While our leaders will open their drawers and ask for Euros, the more "developed" ones will provision projects such as the National Drug Intelligence Agency (to be HQed at their hometown) or outsource critical defense functions to corporation which they used to run or are in the board off.

I actually kinda prefer ours at times. At least you know who the bad-guys are more readily.

billah
January 3, 2008, 03:59 AM
Dudes (Pundit, Ammark, Zobair and others who meet the minimum IQ cutoff):

Democracy is an illusion. Developed North is ruled by Oligarchies. We are ruled by Oligarchies. Both are corrupted by a minority. Ours just haven't learned the subtleties. While our leaders will open their drawers and ask for Euros, the more "developed" ones will provision projects such as the National Drug Intelligence Agency (to be HQed at their hometown) or outsource critical defense functions to corporation which they used to run or are in the board off.

I actually kinda prefer ours at times. At least you know who the bad-guys are more readily.

Razaaaaaaaaab: They will take your job away if they find out about this post of yours!
What kind of revolutionary double-talk is this from the 9-to-5ers !!
:)

RazabQ
January 4, 2008, 01:48 AM
Can't remember the last time I worked 9-5. You should know better :) And my firm's parent company is Infosys:)

billah
January 4, 2008, 03:50 AM
And my firm's parent company is Infosys:)

Aww sh** !

So, what are they payin' you now with.. big macs?:lol:

Just kiddin ! On a serious note, are they covering you for the weak greenbacks? Some of my Indian friends are complaining..rupee is too strong. They are losing out accepting salary in US$.

RazabQ
January 4, 2008, 03:55 AM
Note: Parent company. I work for their US mgmt consulting startup. Typical setup akin to a Deloitte, BearingPoint, PRTM, etc.

billah
January 4, 2008, 07:29 PM
Note: Parent company. I work for their US mgmt consulting startup. Typical setup akin to a Deloitte, BearingPoint, PRTM, etc.

Already know that you are a superbly talented, exceptionally bright and a high-achieving individual, Razab. Yet, not pedantic or condescending...

A rareity. I mean it. :up:


Was just havin' a little fun wit'chiya ...

Best wishes for you & yours in 2008.

Zunaid
January 4, 2008, 07:31 PM
Was just havin' a little fun wit'chiya ...


That's a good thing. Rawjob needs it for his mental health.

shaad
January 4, 2008, 08:37 PM
I actually kinda prefer ours at times. At least you know who the bad-guys are more readily.

Razab, as long as you grew up in Bangladesh, with the healthy dose of cynicism it engenders, you can always tell the bad guys.

The trouble is that many Americans believe their own myths (particularly the one about exceptionalism). We don't (other than expecting our cricket team to be world-beaters one day).

Dhurr
January 4, 2008, 09:57 PM
I actually kinda prefer ours at times. At least you know who the bad-guys are more readily.

And how does that help us? There are virtually no checks and balances in our system. At least in the "Developed North", there are checks and balances and people like you and me are not as affected by the corruption at the top as our parents were when they were our age because of the lack of checks and balances in the Bangladeshi system.

Pundit
January 5, 2008, 02:04 AM
Aww sh** !

So, what are they payin' you now with.. big macs?:lol:

Just kiddin ! On a serious note, are they covering you for the weak greenbacks? Some of my Indian friends are complaining..rupee is too strong. They are losing out accepting salary in US$.

Good to see Indians having so much choice. If not for the U.S. they would still be living in that mud hut of Chennai next to a pile of cow - dung...just like their past 10 generations.