RIPAN KUMAR BISWAS
EMERGENCY is always considered as a dangerous thing. Such government is the result of necessity, of the sheer imperative of survival. The greatest danger with such a form of government, and its related institutions and laws, is that they can remain with wrong direction after the crisis has abated.
It was a very bad time for Bangladesh, its general people and democracy when both former Bangladeshi prime ministers and their supporters didn’t pay any tolerance towards each other that kept the country in permanent turmoil.
And the journey moved democratic regime to another emergency following violent street clashes between rival political groups over electoral reforms and a neutral caretaker government which left more than 30 people dead.
On January 11, 2007, President Professor Iajuddin Ahmed of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh proclaimed emergency in the country, postponed national elections planned for January 22, 2007 and banned all political activities.
Bangladesh failed to continue paying gratitude towards Dr. Shamsul Alam Khan (was joint secretary of Bangladesh Medical Association, died November 27, 1990), Noor Hossain (a worker of Awami Jubo League, died 1987), and many other injured participators in an anti-autocracy movement for democracy on December 6, 1990.
Although emergency law is an obstacle on the road to political and democratic reform, people of Bangladesh accepted it due to the last volatile political combat.
Last couple of months, people of Bangladesh became happy to see the end of more than 160 corrupted politicians, bureaucrats and criminals being detained and expelled in the anti-graft drive.
But when the questions are about law, democracy, equal rights, fair judgment and anti-corruption movement, everyone should be treated equally by the present interim government of Bangladesh whether it’s for a general people or a big personality.
Begum Khaleda Zia and her political archrival, former Prime Minister Sheik Hasina Wazed, chairman of Awami League, have been blamed for steering the country into political chaos and government wants them to retire from politics.
The state of emergency, in its legal context, exceeded the law of emergency, and it negatively affects the soul of the legislative structure of any country. People of Bangladesh may not want to see a broken legislative structure in the future.
As part of the present interim administration's efforts to clean the country's corruption-riddled politics, government wants to send former Prime Minister, opposition leader and chairperson of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) Begum Khaleda Zia into exile.
It was a rumor at the very beginning of the present military-backed interim administration that government might send both of them into exile.
To make it unbiased and appreciable step, government did some home work and after arresting elder son of Begum Zia and joint secretary of BNP Tareq Rahman, they detained her younger son Arafat Rahman to make a pressure on her to go into self-exile.
After a fruitful negotiation and having release of Arafat Rahman, Begum Zia agreed to go into self-exile. In a different angle, government has partially admitted that the decision to go into exile in Saudi Arabia is her personal matters whereas it’s almost open the real intention of the government.
Since the arrest of her elder son on March 7, 2007, Begum Zia is now under virtual house arrest.
According to the emergency law, the executive authority has wide authorities related to restricting the freedoms of individuals and their constitutional rights, like restricting the right of individuals to peaceful assembly, transportation, residence, arresting suspects according to the likes and dislikes of the security forces, detention and inspecting persons and places without reference from the law or the Penal Code rules.
Everyone in Bangladesh accepted above those restrictions with thinking that Bangladesh will have a good shape of democracy in future. But unfortunately democracy becomes a farce in any case of emergency.
In an interview with B.B.C on April 18, 2007, former opposition leader Sheikh Hasina is adamant to return to the country whereas government has clearly blocked her return by mentioning her "provocative and malicious" remarks against the caretaker government and the law enforcement agencies at different meetings abroad.
In a press note on April 18, 2007, government of the present interim administration of Bangladesh has banned her return from the US on April 23, 2007 and in view of that government ordered a clear instruction to all airports, land ports, immigrations and customs officials and in addition government urged all the Bangladesh bound airlines not to carry her.
Moreover, according to the note, Sheikh Hasina and her party had completely upset law and order in the recent past and they may trigger another round of disturbance in the country.
Earlier, Sheikh Hasina was charged with murder of four rival political activists in street clashes in October last year and accused of taking bribes from a businessman to allow his company to build a power plant in 1998.
No need to mention that it’s a fundamental right to live in his/her native country whether he/she is a criminal or not. And by sending someone outside of the country is not a process of cleaning corruptions.
In a recent address towards nation, chief adviser of the care taker government Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed mentioned that his government is working hard to restore country’s democracy by the end of next year.
But the interim government should keep in mind that democracy works best in times of peace, when there is debate, compromise, and deliberation in forming governing rules, regulations and policies and of course holding basic human rights for everyone.
Since January 11, government is always trying to give an assurance that the law and orders will be imposed equally to everyone. Country may not be pleased to see the rough use of law and order by the government recently.
Meanwhile, in a SMS message to all media in Bangladesh, Government forbade to publish any reports, comments or interviews of Sheikh Hasina.
Of course, the very concept of an "emergency" is offensive and inimical to our political thinking as citizens of a democracy.
The history of democratic governments, from the ancient republics of Greece and Rome to the modern states that have replaced earlier totalitarian governments, show that governing by committees, or legislative bodies, however never works in times, but at least it holds public opinions and debates.
Any form of government in Bangladesh should need to realize the big interest of the people otherwise the future is very dark. #
Ripan Kumar Biswas is a freelance writer based in New York
Ripan.Biswas@yahoo.com
Monday, April 23, 2007
One hell of a vindictive government; arrest warrant for Hasina proves the assertion
A.H. JAFFOR ULLAH
THE illegal and unconstitutional military-backed interim government of Fakhruddin Ahmed is so desperate to bar Sheikh Hasina from returning Bangladesh that it hurriedly issued an arrest warrant against her. This move by the illegal and self appointed government was done solely to scare Hasina. Perhaps the government is worried that she would embark on a plane and head for Dhaka. To this effect, she met quite a few MPs and other influential people in England. And this is causing concern among Fakhruddin-Mainul-Matin-Moeen gang. They now think that the issuance of arrest order would bar Hasina from boarding the British Airways flight destined for Dhaka.
The autocratic ruler in Dhaka has no idea how tough Hasina is. When I met her on April 13, 2007 in Falls Church, Virginia, she told a select crowd that she will find a way to be with her people. Lest we forget, in 1968 Ayub Khan, the then autocratic ruler of Pakistan framed Hasina’s father, Sheikh Mujib, in a bogus treason case by the name Agartola Mamla (litigation), which was broken asunder by Mujib’s lawyer. The public opinion went against the government so much that Mujib was freed from jail and it catapulted him into national scene and made him a hero.
And history might repeat itself after 40 long years. Sheikh Hasina’s resolve to return home will earn her more sympathy among Bangalees not only in Bangladesh but also worldwide. Here is a woman in her sixties who lost her parents and family members in a bloody coup d'état in August 1975 and who served later as the Prime Minister during 1996 through 2001. Many independent analysts have written that considering all the obstacles Bangladesh faced during 1990s, she ran a very successful government when the impoverished nation achieved self sufficiency in food and women rights were strengthened in a society dominated by men. Thus, many people in rural Bangladesh have a soft corner for her. It is her standing among people especially in rural areas that concerns the autocratic regime of Bangladesh. That is precisely why the government is dead set on her return. They wrongly think she should not be allowed to set her feet in Bangladesh.
The government who came to power without peoples’ mandate on January 11, 2007 is living in a make belief world depicted by Lewis Carroll in his book Alice-in-wonderland. The government’s view has serious disconnection to reality. The power behind this unconstitutional government wrongly thinks that if the two female leaders are driven out of Bangladesh, then the nation will chart a course of prosperity never seen before. This is at most a very simplistic thinking. They forget to take in cognizance that politicians are the product of the land. Corruption is rampant and unchecked in Bangladesh not because of Hasina and Khaleda but because Bangladesh society condones bribe giving, bribe taking, malfeasance, etc. a big time. This cancer has been growing for the last 4-5 decades and no one really gave a damn about it. All of a sudden, the corruption and the growth of its tentacles in Bangladesh society have become a hot topic. A civil society is formed not in a day, month, or year. It takes decades to slowly build a society based on sound ethos. Every which way one looks in Bangladesh these days, one would see people with crass mentality managing the country. This goes for both politicians and civil bureaucrats.
The military is also a very much part of the society. However, they wrongly think that they are one notch above the public and their image is pristine. It is not a tightly kept secret that Bangladesh military is one of the most politicized institutions in the world and its officers receive generous perks when it comes to housing, subsidized food, healthcare, etc.
The government that came to power on January 11, 2007 unconstitutionally was never challenged in the court of law because Iajuddin, the partisan president was playing the game of charade with his ten advisers for nearly 80 days. The people of Bangladesh were sick and tired of his vile game; therefore, when he resigned in disgrace from the position of Chief Adviser of caretaker Government, people heaved a long sigh of relief. They welcomed the new administration with open arms hoping that all the wrongs done in the past two and a half month will be made right and the new administration would make a level playing field so that every political party will have an equal chance of winning the election. Furthermore, this new government was pledge-bound to hold election within a short but unspecified time after re-constituting the Election Commission and preparing a voters’ list acceptable to all political parties. However, little did Bangladesh people know about the conspiracy that was hatched in Kurmitola Cantonment to hang onto power for indefinite period? Isn’t that called Musharafism? We thought Bangalees parted Pakistanis nearly 36 years ago. Why then follow a Pakistani model?
The military-backed government took some super ambitious project to reform Bangladesh society. Some of them are indeed commendable but others were questionable. Bangladesh people accepted the idea of the newly formed government to arrest 100 or so corrupt politicians and businessmen who became super rich through their association with the ex-ruling party politicians but what the nation witnessed in horror was the arrest of 169,000 people. Many wholesale traders were arrested too or were threatened by the joint forces of police and RAB (another branch of elite law and order force) and consequently the equilibrium between supply and demand was disturbed. This led to spiraling increase in agricultural commodities and essential kitchen items price allover Bangladesh. Fakhruddin Ahmed, the chief adviser, is being touted as an ex-World Bank employee but even he failed to understand that a massive police drive to catch dishonest traders may lead to generate enough static in the market. Because of this flawed policy, people are suffering in both rural and urban areas paying an inflated price for foodstuffs. And if this continues unabated for a while, this government will lose its credibility among common people.
The failure of the government also shows up strongly in the area of litigation. They catch a few politicians without having enough evidence and the let them go scot-free. One such person was the youngest son of Khaleda Zia who was arrested and released after 24 hours. Now the news analysts say that it was done solely to scare the ex-Prime Minister who they are urging to go into exile in Saudi Arabia.
This autocratic regime is showing their true face as the days are passing by. The chief spokesperson of the government, Mainul Husein said the other day nonchalantly that his countrymen have no civil rights because of the emergency rule. The government has given the newspapers the rights to publish all kinds of news including the political one, but the people are not allowed to speak their mind. Needless to say, the democratic rights of Bangladeshis are breached and no one really knows how long this suffocating environment will last.
The present Bangladesh government is really an oligarchy in every which way one looks. Bangladesh’s people have not given this authority a mandate to put the two female leaders into exile. Is not it a sexist act by Fakhruddin government? Let the people decide who stays and who goes.
My dire prediction for Bangladesh is that the government’s action following their misguided policies is going to foment trouble. People have limited patience and they will protest when the time is appropriate. The days of subjugation is almost over and people are not going to sit tight witnessing all the wrongs done by this undemocratic administration.
Finally, it is fair to say that Sheikh Hasina has large followings in rural Bangladesh and the government will set a trap for itself from which it will be difficult to extricate when push comes to shove. Let us wait and see how long this charade continues in Dhaka and Kurmitola. For, the game cannot continue forever. #
Dr. A.H. Jaffor Ullah, a researcher and columnist, writes from New Orleans, USA
THE illegal and unconstitutional military-backed interim government of Fakhruddin Ahmed is so desperate to bar Sheikh Hasina from returning Bangladesh that it hurriedly issued an arrest warrant against her. This move by the illegal and self appointed government was done solely to scare Hasina. Perhaps the government is worried that she would embark on a plane and head for Dhaka. To this effect, she met quite a few MPs and other influential people in England. And this is causing concern among Fakhruddin-Mainul-Matin-Moeen gang. They now think that the issuance of arrest order would bar Hasina from boarding the British Airways flight destined for Dhaka.
The autocratic ruler in Dhaka has no idea how tough Hasina is. When I met her on April 13, 2007 in Falls Church, Virginia, she told a select crowd that she will find a way to be with her people. Lest we forget, in 1968 Ayub Khan, the then autocratic ruler of Pakistan framed Hasina’s father, Sheikh Mujib, in a bogus treason case by the name Agartola Mamla (litigation), which was broken asunder by Mujib’s lawyer. The public opinion went against the government so much that Mujib was freed from jail and it catapulted him into national scene and made him a hero.
And history might repeat itself after 40 long years. Sheikh Hasina’s resolve to return home will earn her more sympathy among Bangalees not only in Bangladesh but also worldwide. Here is a woman in her sixties who lost her parents and family members in a bloody coup d'état in August 1975 and who served later as the Prime Minister during 1996 through 2001. Many independent analysts have written that considering all the obstacles Bangladesh faced during 1990s, she ran a very successful government when the impoverished nation achieved self sufficiency in food and women rights were strengthened in a society dominated by men. Thus, many people in rural Bangladesh have a soft corner for her. It is her standing among people especially in rural areas that concerns the autocratic regime of Bangladesh. That is precisely why the government is dead set on her return. They wrongly think she should not be allowed to set her feet in Bangladesh.
The government who came to power without peoples’ mandate on January 11, 2007 is living in a make belief world depicted by Lewis Carroll in his book Alice-in-wonderland. The government’s view has serious disconnection to reality. The power behind this unconstitutional government wrongly thinks that if the two female leaders are driven out of Bangladesh, then the nation will chart a course of prosperity never seen before. This is at most a very simplistic thinking. They forget to take in cognizance that politicians are the product of the land. Corruption is rampant and unchecked in Bangladesh not because of Hasina and Khaleda but because Bangladesh society condones bribe giving, bribe taking, malfeasance, etc. a big time. This cancer has been growing for the last 4-5 decades and no one really gave a damn about it. All of a sudden, the corruption and the growth of its tentacles in Bangladesh society have become a hot topic. A civil society is formed not in a day, month, or year. It takes decades to slowly build a society based on sound ethos. Every which way one looks in Bangladesh these days, one would see people with crass mentality managing the country. This goes for both politicians and civil bureaucrats.
The military is also a very much part of the society. However, they wrongly think that they are one notch above the public and their image is pristine. It is not a tightly kept secret that Bangladesh military is one of the most politicized institutions in the world and its officers receive generous perks when it comes to housing, subsidized food, healthcare, etc.
The government that came to power on January 11, 2007 unconstitutionally was never challenged in the court of law because Iajuddin, the partisan president was playing the game of charade with his ten advisers for nearly 80 days. The people of Bangladesh were sick and tired of his vile game; therefore, when he resigned in disgrace from the position of Chief Adviser of caretaker Government, people heaved a long sigh of relief. They welcomed the new administration with open arms hoping that all the wrongs done in the past two and a half month will be made right and the new administration would make a level playing field so that every political party will have an equal chance of winning the election. Furthermore, this new government was pledge-bound to hold election within a short but unspecified time after re-constituting the Election Commission and preparing a voters’ list acceptable to all political parties. However, little did Bangladesh people know about the conspiracy that was hatched in Kurmitola Cantonment to hang onto power for indefinite period? Isn’t that called Musharafism? We thought Bangalees parted Pakistanis nearly 36 years ago. Why then follow a Pakistani model?
The military-backed government took some super ambitious project to reform Bangladesh society. Some of them are indeed commendable but others were questionable. Bangladesh people accepted the idea of the newly formed government to arrest 100 or so corrupt politicians and businessmen who became super rich through their association with the ex-ruling party politicians but what the nation witnessed in horror was the arrest of 169,000 people. Many wholesale traders were arrested too or were threatened by the joint forces of police and RAB (another branch of elite law and order force) and consequently the equilibrium between supply and demand was disturbed. This led to spiraling increase in agricultural commodities and essential kitchen items price allover Bangladesh. Fakhruddin Ahmed, the chief adviser, is being touted as an ex-World Bank employee but even he failed to understand that a massive police drive to catch dishonest traders may lead to generate enough static in the market. Because of this flawed policy, people are suffering in both rural and urban areas paying an inflated price for foodstuffs. And if this continues unabated for a while, this government will lose its credibility among common people.
The failure of the government also shows up strongly in the area of litigation. They catch a few politicians without having enough evidence and the let them go scot-free. One such person was the youngest son of Khaleda Zia who was arrested and released after 24 hours. Now the news analysts say that it was done solely to scare the ex-Prime Minister who they are urging to go into exile in Saudi Arabia.
This autocratic regime is showing their true face as the days are passing by. The chief spokesperson of the government, Mainul Husein said the other day nonchalantly that his countrymen have no civil rights because of the emergency rule. The government has given the newspapers the rights to publish all kinds of news including the political one, but the people are not allowed to speak their mind. Needless to say, the democratic rights of Bangladeshis are breached and no one really knows how long this suffocating environment will last.
The present Bangladesh government is really an oligarchy in every which way one looks. Bangladesh’s people have not given this authority a mandate to put the two female leaders into exile. Is not it a sexist act by Fakhruddin government? Let the people decide who stays and who goes.
My dire prediction for Bangladesh is that the government’s action following their misguided policies is going to foment trouble. People have limited patience and they will protest when the time is appropriate. The days of subjugation is almost over and people are not going to sit tight witnessing all the wrongs done by this undemocratic administration.
Finally, it is fair to say that Sheikh Hasina has large followings in rural Bangladesh and the government will set a trap for itself from which it will be difficult to extricate when push comes to shove. Let us wait and see how long this charade continues in Dhaka and Kurmitola. For, the game cannot continue forever. #
Dr. A.H. Jaffor Ullah, a researcher and columnist, writes from New Orleans, USA
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Is Bangladesh Following the Foot Steps of Pakistan?
Dr. ABDUL MOMEN
Pakistan is the 2nd largest Muslim country and it is mostly ruled by military junta. Its major political leaders were either hanged or forcibly exiled. The founder of new Pakistan, Z. A. Bhutto was hanged by Gen. Ziaul Haque, the military dictator that introduced anti-women Hudood Law in Pakistan. The democratically elected Prime Ministers of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto was denied entry to her homeland while she went on a private trip abroad and Newaz Sharif was forced into exile under pretext of corruption. In spite of their expulsion, corruption is still pervasive. Newaz Sharif is currently living in Saudi Arabia and Benazir in UAE. Same story is now being repeated in Bangladesh, the 3rd largest Muslim country, which was once a part of Pakistan. Until recently, it had a ‘partly free’ democracy for last 15 years. Its founding father Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was assassinated by a group of military in 1975 and thus democracy was replaced by military oligarchy until the end of 1990 when nation-wide mass movement toppled military dictator Gen. H. M. Ershad. Now it is again being ruled by a military-backed technocrat government. Following Pakistan, it denied entry to its ex-Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina (daughter of 1st Prime Minister Sheikh Mujib) who went abroad on a private trip like Benazir. The government also lodged corruption cases against the sons of immediate past Prime Minister Khaleda Zia and now putting pressure and cutting deals for her exile to Saudi Arabia similar to that of Newaz Sharif of Pakistan.
To have public support, the military governments generally promote religious groups and fanatics that lead to rise of fundamentalism. No wonder, under successive military governments where ‘rule of law and human rights’ were weak and religious politics become dominant, Pakistan became an epicentre of global terrorism. Bangladesh is also fast moving to that direction and becoming another hub. Recently, the Bangladesh government hanged six terrorists. However, it refused to disclose the names of their mastermind or their associates that bombed the public rally of the opposition party leader Sheikh Hasina killing 23 of her supporters, and rocked the country with panic by blasting 493 bombs simultaneously across the nation. Both in Pakistan and Bangladesh, the terrorists are ever increasing in spite of governments’ tough talks. In fact, after the Middle East region, as per U. S. data, both the terrorist attacks and fatalities have increased maximum in South Asia especially in Bangladesh and Pakistan since 9/11.
No one knows who are really involved in terrorism. In absence of transparency, rumours are ripe that security forces and military intelligence are involved in terrorist training and supplies.
In any society where there is no ‘rule of law’ and ‘respect for human rights’ are subdued, such society can easily turn into a state of anarchism and lawlessness, for example, Afghanistan under Taliban, and Somalia under warlords. In today’s Bangladesh ‘human rights’, ‘rule of law’ and ‘corruption’ are being compromised. The consequences of such situation might be disastrous especially for an impoverished country where half of its 147 million live on $2 a day income.
In fact, in today’s Bangladesh, the security forces are the ‘juror, the judge and the executioner’. They have executed over 800 people without any due process of law. After Iraq, Bangladesh tops in terrorism especially in extrajudicial killing. Extrajudicial killing is a form of state terrorism.
When the army-backed government of Dr. Fakruddin Ahmed took power on January 11, 2007, there was hope that such extrajudicial killing would stop soon. Unfortunately, such killings have not stopped yet. Over 89 people have been executed since Ahmed took over, nearly 30 in each month. His Foreign Advisor Dr. Iftikhar Ahmed Chowdhury who is also his wife’s brother eloquently stated that his government’s top priority is ‘upholding human rights’. Unfortunately, such eloquence has not been materialized yet nor there is any ray of hope.
Instead, the situation is worsening. When Manzoor Elahi, President of the Bangladesh Businessmen Association demanded the government not to harass or arrest businessmen under false pretexts or lockup their business ventures without due process of law, Dr. Mirza Azizul Islam, the nation’s Finance Advisor stated that such could not be assured. It is reported that due to fear of harassments and illegal appropriations of properties and businesses and seizure of bank accounts, the nation’s business is at stake. No investments either foreign or domestic are forth coming under such uncertainty and danger. Technically, a country that fails to guarantee ‘property rights’ and personal security cannot expect to have increasing investment or business activity. Therefore, it is no wonder that business activity in Bangladesh has slowed down sharply and scarcity of essentials causing price hike and misery to its fixed income earners.
Ninety eight days ago when the new government took over to evade a national crisis that resulted owing to then Caretaker government’s failure to hold a fair and free election on January 22, the nation sighed relief and welcomed it. The new government assured the nation to deliver ‘a free, fair and credible’ election and it also bowed to create a ‘level playing field’ echoing the demands of opposition parties and the development partners. As the new government started implementing the demands of the nation’s major opposition party, the Awami League (AL) and the wishes of the civil societies, it got tremendous support. Like the Ahsanullah Chowdhury government of 1982 under Lt. Gen. H. M. Ershad who launched a jihad against corruption and arrested 230 people including a Deputy Prime Minister and five top Ministers, the Ahmed government under Lt. Gen. Moeen also launched jihad against corruption and arrested top fifty leaders. As it successfully implemented Election Commission Reform, reorganized the Anti-Corruption Commission and expedited the process of independence of judiciary and started jihad against corrupt politicians, it received overwhelming support including that of the AL.
Unfortunately such overwhelming support is fast eroding because of its divergence from its promised goal. With a view to root out ‘family leadership’ [Sheikh Hasina, President of the AL is the daughter of the founder of the nation President Sheikh Mujib and Khaleda Zia, President of the BNP is the widower of President Maj. Gen. Ziaur Rahman, the military dictator. Her son Tarique Rahman became a BNP leader] not from within but from outside, the new government is now seemingly dedicated to destroy and weaken the major political parties of Bangladesh, the AL and the BNP. Initially it engaged Nobel Laureate Dr. Mohammed Yunus to launch a political party and as it did not flourish, that died out. Now reportedly, it is trying to form a new party consisting of senior leaders of AL and BNP excluding their top leaders. As a first step, they banned Sheikh Hasina, the former Prime Minister and the leader of the largest and oldest political party of Bangladesh, the AL, to return home. To keep her away, the government initially lodged two fabricated cases against her and as she wanted to face them legally in Bangladesh, the government hurriedly banned her return to homeland and issued circulars instructing media not to cover her statements, interviews and the like. They imposed press censorship. When the government’s Law Advisor Mainul Hossain was asked how they could deny the basic fundamental rights of Sheikh Hasina to return home, he replied ‘no fundamental rights are allowed’ now. Therefore, the current military-backed government can do or undo anything they like. In fact, the verdicts of the nation’s highest courts ordering the government to release many detainees have not been honoured yet and nearly 145,000 are under detention. Such created a chill and many investment houses are fast leaving the county.
The Ahmed government is also trying hard to force the immediate past Prime Minister, Begum Khaleda Zia, leader of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) to go on exile to Saudi Arabia. It arrested her two sons under various corruption and extortion charges apparently with a view to cut a deal. People initially believed in the government’s crusade against corruption as they did in 1958, 1969 and 1982 coups and supported them. But now due to ‘behind the scene deal making’, they are fast losing their confidence. Khaleda Zia is expected to leave the country any moment with her extended family just like Newaz Sharif of Pakistan. It appears Bangladesh is just following the Musharraf strategy.
However, problem is; in case of Pakistan Gen. Musharraf was in-charge. He was military chief and he assumed Presidency by overthrowing Prime Minister Sharif. Under U. S. pressure, he agreed to hold an election in 2008. In case of Bangladesh, Dr. Fakruddin Ahmed, a technocrat is now in-charge. Like Pakistan, under the U. S. pressure, he also assured election before the end of 2008. By that time, the sensitive TATA-investment deal, the Chittagong Port deal and the likely lucrative troop sending contracts in Afghanistan and Sudan are would be over.
Once that is done, will the Bangladesh military Chief Gen. Moeen U. Ahmed come out from the shadow? If history is any lesson, in 1975, then Chief Justice A.S M. Sayeem survived nearly 18 months as the President and the Chief Martial Law Administrator backed by Gen. Zia. Justice Ahsanullah Chowdhury also served few months in 1982. Can Dr. Ahmed survive next six months? Can he maintain his credibility that long? If his government loses credibility, the next election may not be credible either. That would be a loss to a nation that loves democracy most. Therefore, should he allow election by January 2008?
In the last 15 years (1991-2006), there has been accelerated economic growth under political leadership in spite of polarization and rivalries. Empirically, it surpassed all the macroeconomic records of achievements under military rule from 1975 through 1990. More importantly, people’s awareness and political maturity sharpened dramatically under political rule and free media. Question is; is Bangladesh heading towards another Martial Law regime that would reverse its growth to another 30 years backward and become a hub of terrorism like Pakistan?
Bangladeshis are not Pakistanis. They love multi-party democracy and therefore, there is still hope. #
Dr. Abdul Momen, a professor of economics and business management, Boston, USA
Sylhet@Verizon.net
Pakistan is the 2nd largest Muslim country and it is mostly ruled by military junta. Its major political leaders were either hanged or forcibly exiled. The founder of new Pakistan, Z. A. Bhutto was hanged by Gen. Ziaul Haque, the military dictator that introduced anti-women Hudood Law in Pakistan. The democratically elected Prime Ministers of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto was denied entry to her homeland while she went on a private trip abroad and Newaz Sharif was forced into exile under pretext of corruption. In spite of their expulsion, corruption is still pervasive. Newaz Sharif is currently living in Saudi Arabia and Benazir in UAE. Same story is now being repeated in Bangladesh, the 3rd largest Muslim country, which was once a part of Pakistan. Until recently, it had a ‘partly free’ democracy for last 15 years. Its founding father Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was assassinated by a group of military in 1975 and thus democracy was replaced by military oligarchy until the end of 1990 when nation-wide mass movement toppled military dictator Gen. H. M. Ershad. Now it is again being ruled by a military-backed technocrat government. Following Pakistan, it denied entry to its ex-Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina (daughter of 1st Prime Minister Sheikh Mujib) who went abroad on a private trip like Benazir. The government also lodged corruption cases against the sons of immediate past Prime Minister Khaleda Zia and now putting pressure and cutting deals for her exile to Saudi Arabia similar to that of Newaz Sharif of Pakistan.
To have public support, the military governments generally promote religious groups and fanatics that lead to rise of fundamentalism. No wonder, under successive military governments where ‘rule of law and human rights’ were weak and religious politics become dominant, Pakistan became an epicentre of global terrorism. Bangladesh is also fast moving to that direction and becoming another hub. Recently, the Bangladesh government hanged six terrorists. However, it refused to disclose the names of their mastermind or their associates that bombed the public rally of the opposition party leader Sheikh Hasina killing 23 of her supporters, and rocked the country with panic by blasting 493 bombs simultaneously across the nation. Both in Pakistan and Bangladesh, the terrorists are ever increasing in spite of governments’ tough talks. In fact, after the Middle East region, as per U. S. data, both the terrorist attacks and fatalities have increased maximum in South Asia especially in Bangladesh and Pakistan since 9/11.
No one knows who are really involved in terrorism. In absence of transparency, rumours are ripe that security forces and military intelligence are involved in terrorist training and supplies.
In any society where there is no ‘rule of law’ and ‘respect for human rights’ are subdued, such society can easily turn into a state of anarchism and lawlessness, for example, Afghanistan under Taliban, and Somalia under warlords. In today’s Bangladesh ‘human rights’, ‘rule of law’ and ‘corruption’ are being compromised. The consequences of such situation might be disastrous especially for an impoverished country where half of its 147 million live on $2 a day income.
In fact, in today’s Bangladesh, the security forces are the ‘juror, the judge and the executioner’. They have executed over 800 people without any due process of law. After Iraq, Bangladesh tops in terrorism especially in extrajudicial killing. Extrajudicial killing is a form of state terrorism.
When the army-backed government of Dr. Fakruddin Ahmed took power on January 11, 2007, there was hope that such extrajudicial killing would stop soon. Unfortunately, such killings have not stopped yet. Over 89 people have been executed since Ahmed took over, nearly 30 in each month. His Foreign Advisor Dr. Iftikhar Ahmed Chowdhury who is also his wife’s brother eloquently stated that his government’s top priority is ‘upholding human rights’. Unfortunately, such eloquence has not been materialized yet nor there is any ray of hope.
Instead, the situation is worsening. When Manzoor Elahi, President of the Bangladesh Businessmen Association demanded the government not to harass or arrest businessmen under false pretexts or lockup their business ventures without due process of law, Dr. Mirza Azizul Islam, the nation’s Finance Advisor stated that such could not be assured. It is reported that due to fear of harassments and illegal appropriations of properties and businesses and seizure of bank accounts, the nation’s business is at stake. No investments either foreign or domestic are forth coming under such uncertainty and danger. Technically, a country that fails to guarantee ‘property rights’ and personal security cannot expect to have increasing investment or business activity. Therefore, it is no wonder that business activity in Bangladesh has slowed down sharply and scarcity of essentials causing price hike and misery to its fixed income earners.
Ninety eight days ago when the new government took over to evade a national crisis that resulted owing to then Caretaker government’s failure to hold a fair and free election on January 22, the nation sighed relief and welcomed it. The new government assured the nation to deliver ‘a free, fair and credible’ election and it also bowed to create a ‘level playing field’ echoing the demands of opposition parties and the development partners. As the new government started implementing the demands of the nation’s major opposition party, the Awami League (AL) and the wishes of the civil societies, it got tremendous support. Like the Ahsanullah Chowdhury government of 1982 under Lt. Gen. H. M. Ershad who launched a jihad against corruption and arrested 230 people including a Deputy Prime Minister and five top Ministers, the Ahmed government under Lt. Gen. Moeen also launched jihad against corruption and arrested top fifty leaders. As it successfully implemented Election Commission Reform, reorganized the Anti-Corruption Commission and expedited the process of independence of judiciary and started jihad against corrupt politicians, it received overwhelming support including that of the AL.
Unfortunately such overwhelming support is fast eroding because of its divergence from its promised goal. With a view to root out ‘family leadership’ [Sheikh Hasina, President of the AL is the daughter of the founder of the nation President Sheikh Mujib and Khaleda Zia, President of the BNP is the widower of President Maj. Gen. Ziaur Rahman, the military dictator. Her son Tarique Rahman became a BNP leader] not from within but from outside, the new government is now seemingly dedicated to destroy and weaken the major political parties of Bangladesh, the AL and the BNP. Initially it engaged Nobel Laureate Dr. Mohammed Yunus to launch a political party and as it did not flourish, that died out. Now reportedly, it is trying to form a new party consisting of senior leaders of AL and BNP excluding their top leaders. As a first step, they banned Sheikh Hasina, the former Prime Minister and the leader of the largest and oldest political party of Bangladesh, the AL, to return home. To keep her away, the government initially lodged two fabricated cases against her and as she wanted to face them legally in Bangladesh, the government hurriedly banned her return to homeland and issued circulars instructing media not to cover her statements, interviews and the like. They imposed press censorship. When the government’s Law Advisor Mainul Hossain was asked how they could deny the basic fundamental rights of Sheikh Hasina to return home, he replied ‘no fundamental rights are allowed’ now. Therefore, the current military-backed government can do or undo anything they like. In fact, the verdicts of the nation’s highest courts ordering the government to release many detainees have not been honoured yet and nearly 145,000 are under detention. Such created a chill and many investment houses are fast leaving the county.
The Ahmed government is also trying hard to force the immediate past Prime Minister, Begum Khaleda Zia, leader of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) to go on exile to Saudi Arabia. It arrested her two sons under various corruption and extortion charges apparently with a view to cut a deal. People initially believed in the government’s crusade against corruption as they did in 1958, 1969 and 1982 coups and supported them. But now due to ‘behind the scene deal making’, they are fast losing their confidence. Khaleda Zia is expected to leave the country any moment with her extended family just like Newaz Sharif of Pakistan. It appears Bangladesh is just following the Musharraf strategy.
However, problem is; in case of Pakistan Gen. Musharraf was in-charge. He was military chief and he assumed Presidency by overthrowing Prime Minister Sharif. Under U. S. pressure, he agreed to hold an election in 2008. In case of Bangladesh, Dr. Fakruddin Ahmed, a technocrat is now in-charge. Like Pakistan, under the U. S. pressure, he also assured election before the end of 2008. By that time, the sensitive TATA-investment deal, the Chittagong Port deal and the likely lucrative troop sending contracts in Afghanistan and Sudan are would be over.
Once that is done, will the Bangladesh military Chief Gen. Moeen U. Ahmed come out from the shadow? If history is any lesson, in 1975, then Chief Justice A.S M. Sayeem survived nearly 18 months as the President and the Chief Martial Law Administrator backed by Gen. Zia. Justice Ahsanullah Chowdhury also served few months in 1982. Can Dr. Ahmed survive next six months? Can he maintain his credibility that long? If his government loses credibility, the next election may not be credible either. That would be a loss to a nation that loves democracy most. Therefore, should he allow election by January 2008?
In the last 15 years (1991-2006), there has been accelerated economic growth under political leadership in spite of polarization and rivalries. Empirically, it surpassed all the macroeconomic records of achievements under military rule from 1975 through 1990. More importantly, people’s awareness and political maturity sharpened dramatically under political rule and free media. Question is; is Bangladesh heading towards another Martial Law regime that would reverse its growth to another 30 years backward and become a hub of terrorism like Pakistan?
Bangladeshis are not Pakistanis. They love multi-party democracy and therefore, there is still hope. #
Dr. Abdul Momen, a professor of economics and business management, Boston, USA
Sylhet@Verizon.net
Rahul Gandhi insults a nation and its people
JAHED AHMED and MEHUL KAMDAR
LATELY an important piece of news has gone unnoticed by most of the mainstream news media of Bangladesh. In a recent political campaign, Rahul Gandhi, a member of the Indian parliament and son of a former Indian prime minister, the late Rajiv Gandhi, has solely credited his family for the division of Pakistan in 1971, which led to the independence of Bangladesh. While campaigning for a candidate in the state of Uttar Pradesh, considered India’s heartland, Mr Gandhi managed to say, ‘Once my family decides on something, it doesn’t go back. Whether it’s about India’s freedom, dividing Pakistan or taking India to the 21st century.’ The remark clearly implied that it was a family vendetta against Pakistan that drove the division of the erstwhile East Pakistan and led to the creation of Bangladesh. It ignored the systematic genocide of three million Bengalis by the Pakistani army, the rape and humiliation of hundreds of thousands of Bengali women and the cascade of events preceding 1971 such as the language movement of 1952, six-point based agitation of 1966 and the Bengali people’s revolt in 1969 against Ayub Khan.
While the incident did not merit any attention within Bangladesh for reasons that are completely unknown, condemnation both within India and from Pakistan was immediate and vociferous. The only public protest from a Bangladeshi voice was that of the exiled author Dr Taslima Nasrin who spoke at a press conference in Bhopal and listed the 1952 killings of Bangladeshis for asking that Bangla be made a state language and of the mass movement that began against the country’s Pakistani rulers in 1969. While she did not condemn the casual callousness with which these remarks were issued, she could not, because she is a resident of India and hopes to get Indian citizenship someday, it was clear that she did not approve of the cynical attempt by Mr Gandhi to suggest that the sacrifices of the Bangladeshi people did not mean anything, that it was his grandmother’s anti-Pakistan vendetta that actually split the country up.
In the meantime, the exiled Pakistani doctor and humanist, Dr M Younus Sheikh, who lives in Switzerland, released an open letter to members of the Indian parliament, condemning the ‘foolish and immature’ remarks that Mr Gandhi had issued. Dr Sheikh has authored articles on the repression in Bangladesh under Pakistani rule, was one of the first Pakistanis to protest what he clearly called ‘genocide’ against Bengalis by the Pakistani army, and for this as well as several other reasons he was jailed and sentenced to death under completely trumped up charges in Pakistan until international pressure forced the government to release him from prison and exile him to Switzerland where he lives today.
Curiously, the response from Dhaka has been muted, to say the least. The Bangladesh high commissioner to India would only remark that he was grateful to India for its support in the struggle for independence and there was no statement at all from Dhaka until the writing of this article. Indeed, in comparison to the angry voices both within India as well as from Pakistan (albeit for completely different reasons, because the Pakistani government now claims that it now has evidence that the whole struggle in Bangladesh was merely an Indian inspired secessionist plot) the silence from Dhaka has been deafening. Few countries are as proud of their language and, therefore, of their struggle to form a nation based on the suppression of their language as Bangladesh, and yet, the attempt by Mr Gandhi to suggest that the now well-documented horrors of the struggle for independence were little more than a task that his grandmother had decided to take up to gain personal revenge against Pakistan did not receive a single note of protest in response.
One must not mix up the issue of acknowledging India’s generous role and humanitarian effort during 1971 by Bangladesh with the condemnation of Rahul Gandhi’s infantile remarks. While Bangladesh, as a nation, does not have any valid reasons to forget India’s help during our liberation struggle in 1971; welcoming Rahul Gandhi’s comments by the Bangladesh government — as it was reported in some Indian newspapers — would not only be just self-degrading, it will also be a dishonour to the memory of three million martyrs of 1971.
Perhaps, it is because of the current political situation within Bangladesh that this silence continues, more than two days after the remarks attracted the flak that they did in the rest of South Asia. Perhaps, at a time when relations between the three major nations of South Asia have been visibly improving, no one in Dhaka would like to rock the boat. The fact, though, is that neither the spokespeople in Pakistan nor the segment of the Indian political and media establishment that criticised these remarks believes that criticizing Rahul Gandhi’s ridiculous claims is likely to set the process of rapprochement back. Criticising a callous statement that demeans the struggle of an entire nation and its people to emerge from severe political repression and hardship to enjoy their independence as a people does not amount to a declaration of war. It is unfortunate that no voice has been raised in Dhaka about these remarks yet. The silence speaks as poorly about those who choose not to speak about the remarks as it does about Rahul Gandhi’s personal callousness. #
Jahed Ahmed, based in New York, and Mehul Kamdar, originally from Tamilnadu, India and now settled in Chicago, are co-moderators of mukto-mona.com, an online network of South Asian humanists
LATELY an important piece of news has gone unnoticed by most of the mainstream news media of Bangladesh. In a recent political campaign, Rahul Gandhi, a member of the Indian parliament and son of a former Indian prime minister, the late Rajiv Gandhi, has solely credited his family for the division of Pakistan in 1971, which led to the independence of Bangladesh. While campaigning for a candidate in the state of Uttar Pradesh, considered India’s heartland, Mr Gandhi managed to say, ‘Once my family decides on something, it doesn’t go back. Whether it’s about India’s freedom, dividing Pakistan or taking India to the 21st century.’ The remark clearly implied that it was a family vendetta against Pakistan that drove the division of the erstwhile East Pakistan and led to the creation of Bangladesh. It ignored the systematic genocide of three million Bengalis by the Pakistani army, the rape and humiliation of hundreds of thousands of Bengali women and the cascade of events preceding 1971 such as the language movement of 1952, six-point based agitation of 1966 and the Bengali people’s revolt in 1969 against Ayub Khan.
While the incident did not merit any attention within Bangladesh for reasons that are completely unknown, condemnation both within India and from Pakistan was immediate and vociferous. The only public protest from a Bangladeshi voice was that of the exiled author Dr Taslima Nasrin who spoke at a press conference in Bhopal and listed the 1952 killings of Bangladeshis for asking that Bangla be made a state language and of the mass movement that began against the country’s Pakistani rulers in 1969. While she did not condemn the casual callousness with which these remarks were issued, she could not, because she is a resident of India and hopes to get Indian citizenship someday, it was clear that she did not approve of the cynical attempt by Mr Gandhi to suggest that the sacrifices of the Bangladeshi people did not mean anything, that it was his grandmother’s anti-Pakistan vendetta that actually split the country up.
In the meantime, the exiled Pakistani doctor and humanist, Dr M Younus Sheikh, who lives in Switzerland, released an open letter to members of the Indian parliament, condemning the ‘foolish and immature’ remarks that Mr Gandhi had issued. Dr Sheikh has authored articles on the repression in Bangladesh under Pakistani rule, was one of the first Pakistanis to protest what he clearly called ‘genocide’ against Bengalis by the Pakistani army, and for this as well as several other reasons he was jailed and sentenced to death under completely trumped up charges in Pakistan until international pressure forced the government to release him from prison and exile him to Switzerland where he lives today.
Curiously, the response from Dhaka has been muted, to say the least. The Bangladesh high commissioner to India would only remark that he was grateful to India for its support in the struggle for independence and there was no statement at all from Dhaka until the writing of this article. Indeed, in comparison to the angry voices both within India as well as from Pakistan (albeit for completely different reasons, because the Pakistani government now claims that it now has evidence that the whole struggle in Bangladesh was merely an Indian inspired secessionist plot) the silence from Dhaka has been deafening. Few countries are as proud of their language and, therefore, of their struggle to form a nation based on the suppression of their language as Bangladesh, and yet, the attempt by Mr Gandhi to suggest that the now well-documented horrors of the struggle for independence were little more than a task that his grandmother had decided to take up to gain personal revenge against Pakistan did not receive a single note of protest in response.
One must not mix up the issue of acknowledging India’s generous role and humanitarian effort during 1971 by Bangladesh with the condemnation of Rahul Gandhi’s infantile remarks. While Bangladesh, as a nation, does not have any valid reasons to forget India’s help during our liberation struggle in 1971; welcoming Rahul Gandhi’s comments by the Bangladesh government — as it was reported in some Indian newspapers — would not only be just self-degrading, it will also be a dishonour to the memory of three million martyrs of 1971.
Perhaps, it is because of the current political situation within Bangladesh that this silence continues, more than two days after the remarks attracted the flak that they did in the rest of South Asia. Perhaps, at a time when relations between the three major nations of South Asia have been visibly improving, no one in Dhaka would like to rock the boat. The fact, though, is that neither the spokespeople in Pakistan nor the segment of the Indian political and media establishment that criticised these remarks believes that criticizing Rahul Gandhi’s ridiculous claims is likely to set the process of rapprochement back. Criticising a callous statement that demeans the struggle of an entire nation and its people to emerge from severe political repression and hardship to enjoy their independence as a people does not amount to a declaration of war. It is unfortunate that no voice has been raised in Dhaka about these remarks yet. The silence speaks as poorly about those who choose not to speak about the remarks as it does about Rahul Gandhi’s personal callousness. #
Jahed Ahmed, based in New York, and Mehul Kamdar, originally from Tamilnadu, India and now settled in Chicago, are co-moderators of mukto-mona.com, an online network of South Asian humanists
Friday, April 20, 2007
The Army Comes to the Rescue
NICHOLAS SCHMIDLE
BANGLADESH'S 2007 election season has featured an unexpected—and unlikely—pair of stars: the army and Nobel Peace Prize-winner Mohammad Yunus. In February, Yunus, the micro-credit guru and acclaimed "banker to the poor," announced that he was entering the political fray by promising to "build Bangladesh as we dreamt." And the army, which took control of the country 11 days before the parliamentary elections originally scheduled for Jan. 22, has embarked on a merciless anti-corruption campaign. It has arrested thousands of allegedly crooked politicians and sent the rest into hiding. To arrange an interview in Dhaka these days can be trying; dodging arrest, many politicians have changed phone numbers and no longer sleep at home. The only politico putting himself about is Yunus.
Kamal Hossain, like millions of others around the country, is ecstatic. A well-dressed man in his early 70s, with a deep, throaty voice, Hossain sounded triumphant and giddy during our recent meeting. "People are shocked, because suddenly the law has returned to Bangladesh," he said. He thinks that if Yunus can leverage his public stature and stay committed to clean, principled politics, he could "fuel a real democratic movement." Thirty-five years ago, Hossain played a critical role in the movement to form Bangladesh, acting first as legal adviser to "father of the nation" Sheik Mujibur Rahman and later writing the 1972 constitution. But 30 years later, he found his nation's prospects growing grim. Yunus' candidacy, Hossain says, is proof that, "God exists for Bangladesh."
But is serious change truly under way? And can the army take credit?
Bangladesh is a Muslim-majority country of roughly 145 million people whose army has a history of meddling in politics. In 1975, a handful of army officers assassinated Mujib, as Mujibur Rahman was affectionately known, and his family. That touched off a rapid series of coups and countercoups. Gen. Ziaur Rahman, who ruled from 1975 through 1981, survived 22 coup attempts before finally being assassinated. Five separate military regimes ruled from the time of Mujib's murder until December 1990, when massive street demonstrations forced Gen. Mohammad Ershad, who had seized power in a 1982 coup, to step down and hand power to a civilian government.
During the three elections since 1991, the army remained in its barracks. Many considered Bangladesh a model for other burgeoning Muslim democracies. Its parliamentary system placed real power in the hands of an elected prime minister, who appoints a president whose powers are limited. The United States Institute of Peace published a report in May 2005 that compared Bangladesh to Turkey and added that it "exemplifies the coexistence of Islam and democracy." But regular elections and a functioning democracy are not the same. During this period of civilian rule, the heads of the two main political parties, Sheik Hasina of the Awami League and Khaleda Zia of the Bangladeshi Nationalist Party, fought out one of the world's nastiest personal rivalries. They competed with each other in everything, including the amount of money they could plunder from the state. Transparency International, the corruption watchdog, ranked Bangladesh as the most corrupt nation in the world five out of the last six years. Meanwhile, the World Bank estimates that the average person makes $470 a year.
Throughout the 1990s and the first seven years of this decade, the army sat back and watched. It had secured a sweet peacekeeping mandate with the United Nations, whereby its soldiers serve one-year postings in places like the Congo, Sierra Leone, and East Timor. In return, the annual salaries of the soldiers increased five- or six-fold. The army didn't want to see their lucrative agreement with the Unites Nations jeopardized as a result of any reckless adventurism, i.e., a coup. But growing tensions and violence throughout the country in late 2006 pushed the generals' patience to the limit.
The trouble started in October 2006, when the outgoing BNP government handed power to a caretaker administration full of BNP sympathizers. In protest, the AL orchestrated demonstrations, strikes, and blockades, during which 40 people died and hundreds were injured. As the elections neared, the frequency and intensity of the street battles intensified. On Jan. 3, the AL announced that it was boycotting the polls. This prompted the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute, two election-monitoring organizations, to cancel their programs, since polls without one of the two major parties could never be considered free or fair. As street violence increased, the United Nations hinted to the army that its inability to keep peace in Bangladesh was threatening its peacekeeping mandate overseas.
I arrived on Jan. 13, two days after President Iajuddin Ahmed declared the state of emergency. No one really knew what to think. Had the army staged a coup? Was martial law coming next? On my first night in Dhaka, I met a young couple at an upscale cafe near the center of town. They hadn't left their house for the previous two weeks, guarding against the off-chance that they would be caught someplace where protesters might be chucking bricks at the police. They were thrilled about the state of emergency. The roads were safe, and they could get their cappuccinos again. Already, rumors were circulating about Yunus taking a political role, perhaps as president or chief adviser to the caretaker government. When I asked the cappuccino couple what they thought, the woman nodded her head approvingly and said, "This country could use some new people." By the time I left a month later, Yunus had officially announced the formation of his party, Nagorik Shakti, or Citizen's Power. He talked about saving the country and rescuing the poor. I knew that the cafe crowd and the elite loved him, but what about the poor?
Mohammad Abdul is a 77-year-old slum dweller with a long white beard, stained at the tips like the mustache of a two-pack-a-day-smoker. On the day we met, he wore a green, crocheted prayer cap and a button on his left breast pocket to commemorate his service as a freedom fighter in the 1971 war, when Bangladesh, formerly known as East Pakistan, seceded from Pakistan and fought a gruesome nine-month war that left roughly 3 million people dead. He stood in front of his home—a tin shack suspended by a few knobby-kneed bamboo poles above stagnant water, rotting celery stalks, and shimmering pieces of plastic chip bags—and explained that he was about to be evicted.
As part of the its anti-corruption and anti-lawlessness campaign, the army was working in conjunction with police units and detachments of the elite anti-crime force known as Rapid Action Battalion to demolish numerous settlements that were deemed to be illegally encroaching on government property. Three days before my visit, RAB was in the Karwan Bazar slum to give Abdul a three-day notice to quit. "I spilled blood for this country because I believed that the poor would live freely, but we are still being harassed," he told me, exposing a mouthful of teeth the size of dominoes, the result of an aggressively receding gum line.
I expected him to continue berating the joint forces for their plans to demolish his home. But in fact, he was sanguine. He granted that he had no place to go and would probably wind up "roaming the streets," but he didn't blame the army. They are doing the right thing, he said. "These crooks must be arrested."
It wasn't until I brought up Yunus that he became animated. When I asked Abdul if he would consider supporting Yunus in the next election, he sucked on his huge choppers and pretended to swat at invisible flies. Microcredit is one thing, he explained, but running for prime minister is quite another. "Yunus was fine before winning the peace prize," he said. He stuck to what he knew best. "But he doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to politics. He is just talking." #
This article was first published in www.slate.com on April 16, 2007
http://www.slate.com/?reload=true
BANGLADESH'S 2007 election season has featured an unexpected—and unlikely—pair of stars: the army and Nobel Peace Prize-winner Mohammad Yunus. In February, Yunus, the micro-credit guru and acclaimed "banker to the poor," announced that he was entering the political fray by promising to "build Bangladesh as we dreamt." And the army, which took control of the country 11 days before the parliamentary elections originally scheduled for Jan. 22, has embarked on a merciless anti-corruption campaign. It has arrested thousands of allegedly crooked politicians and sent the rest into hiding. To arrange an interview in Dhaka these days can be trying; dodging arrest, many politicians have changed phone numbers and no longer sleep at home. The only politico putting himself about is Yunus.
Kamal Hossain, like millions of others around the country, is ecstatic. A well-dressed man in his early 70s, with a deep, throaty voice, Hossain sounded triumphant and giddy during our recent meeting. "People are shocked, because suddenly the law has returned to Bangladesh," he said. He thinks that if Yunus can leverage his public stature and stay committed to clean, principled politics, he could "fuel a real democratic movement." Thirty-five years ago, Hossain played a critical role in the movement to form Bangladesh, acting first as legal adviser to "father of the nation" Sheik Mujibur Rahman and later writing the 1972 constitution. But 30 years later, he found his nation's prospects growing grim. Yunus' candidacy, Hossain says, is proof that, "God exists for Bangladesh."
But is serious change truly under way? And can the army take credit?
Bangladesh is a Muslim-majority country of roughly 145 million people whose army has a history of meddling in politics. In 1975, a handful of army officers assassinated Mujib, as Mujibur Rahman was affectionately known, and his family. That touched off a rapid series of coups and countercoups. Gen. Ziaur Rahman, who ruled from 1975 through 1981, survived 22 coup attempts before finally being assassinated. Five separate military regimes ruled from the time of Mujib's murder until December 1990, when massive street demonstrations forced Gen. Mohammad Ershad, who had seized power in a 1982 coup, to step down and hand power to a civilian government.
During the three elections since 1991, the army remained in its barracks. Many considered Bangladesh a model for other burgeoning Muslim democracies. Its parliamentary system placed real power in the hands of an elected prime minister, who appoints a president whose powers are limited. The United States Institute of Peace published a report in May 2005 that compared Bangladesh to Turkey and added that it "exemplifies the coexistence of Islam and democracy." But regular elections and a functioning democracy are not the same. During this period of civilian rule, the heads of the two main political parties, Sheik Hasina of the Awami League and Khaleda Zia of the Bangladeshi Nationalist Party, fought out one of the world's nastiest personal rivalries. They competed with each other in everything, including the amount of money they could plunder from the state. Transparency International, the corruption watchdog, ranked Bangladesh as the most corrupt nation in the world five out of the last six years. Meanwhile, the World Bank estimates that the average person makes $470 a year.
Throughout the 1990s and the first seven years of this decade, the army sat back and watched. It had secured a sweet peacekeeping mandate with the United Nations, whereby its soldiers serve one-year postings in places like the Congo, Sierra Leone, and East Timor. In return, the annual salaries of the soldiers increased five- or six-fold. The army didn't want to see their lucrative agreement with the Unites Nations jeopardized as a result of any reckless adventurism, i.e., a coup. But growing tensions and violence throughout the country in late 2006 pushed the generals' patience to the limit.
The trouble started in October 2006, when the outgoing BNP government handed power to a caretaker administration full of BNP sympathizers. In protest, the AL orchestrated demonstrations, strikes, and blockades, during which 40 people died and hundreds were injured. As the elections neared, the frequency and intensity of the street battles intensified. On Jan. 3, the AL announced that it was boycotting the polls. This prompted the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute, two election-monitoring organizations, to cancel their programs, since polls without one of the two major parties could never be considered free or fair. As street violence increased, the United Nations hinted to the army that its inability to keep peace in Bangladesh was threatening its peacekeeping mandate overseas.
I arrived on Jan. 13, two days after President Iajuddin Ahmed declared the state of emergency. No one really knew what to think. Had the army staged a coup? Was martial law coming next? On my first night in Dhaka, I met a young couple at an upscale cafe near the center of town. They hadn't left their house for the previous two weeks, guarding against the off-chance that they would be caught someplace where protesters might be chucking bricks at the police. They were thrilled about the state of emergency. The roads were safe, and they could get their cappuccinos again. Already, rumors were circulating about Yunus taking a political role, perhaps as president or chief adviser to the caretaker government. When I asked the cappuccino couple what they thought, the woman nodded her head approvingly and said, "This country could use some new people." By the time I left a month later, Yunus had officially announced the formation of his party, Nagorik Shakti, or Citizen's Power. He talked about saving the country and rescuing the poor. I knew that the cafe crowd and the elite loved him, but what about the poor?
Mohammad Abdul is a 77-year-old slum dweller with a long white beard, stained at the tips like the mustache of a two-pack-a-day-smoker. On the day we met, he wore a green, crocheted prayer cap and a button on his left breast pocket to commemorate his service as a freedom fighter in the 1971 war, when Bangladesh, formerly known as East Pakistan, seceded from Pakistan and fought a gruesome nine-month war that left roughly 3 million people dead. He stood in front of his home—a tin shack suspended by a few knobby-kneed bamboo poles above stagnant water, rotting celery stalks, and shimmering pieces of plastic chip bags—and explained that he was about to be evicted.
As part of the its anti-corruption and anti-lawlessness campaign, the army was working in conjunction with police units and detachments of the elite anti-crime force known as Rapid Action Battalion to demolish numerous settlements that were deemed to be illegally encroaching on government property. Three days before my visit, RAB was in the Karwan Bazar slum to give Abdul a three-day notice to quit. "I spilled blood for this country because I believed that the poor would live freely, but we are still being harassed," he told me, exposing a mouthful of teeth the size of dominoes, the result of an aggressively receding gum line.
I expected him to continue berating the joint forces for their plans to demolish his home. But in fact, he was sanguine. He granted that he had no place to go and would probably wind up "roaming the streets," but he didn't blame the army. They are doing the right thing, he said. "These crooks must be arrested."
It wasn't until I brought up Yunus that he became animated. When I asked Abdul if he would consider supporting Yunus in the next election, he sucked on his huge choppers and pretended to swat at invisible flies. Microcredit is one thing, he explained, but running for prime minister is quite another. "Yunus was fine before winning the peace prize," he said. He stuck to what he knew best. "But he doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to politics. He is just talking." #
This article was first published in www.slate.com on April 16, 2007
http://www.slate.com/?reload=true
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Bangladesh in the Generals’ Grip
PROMOTING democracy, especially in Islamic countries, is supposed to be a major goal of President Bush’s foreign policy. But his administration has raised little protest as Bangladesh — until January the world’s fifth most populous democracy — has been transformed into its second most populous military dictatorship.
Washington is being dangerously short sighted. Democracy can be messy, and in Bangladesh it was extraordinarily so. But military rule offers no answers to the grievances that fuel Islamic radicalism, as can be seen from nearby Pakistan (the world’s most populous military dictatorship). By stifling authentically popular mainstream parties and their leaders, military regimes often magnify the political influence of religious extremists.
This year’s democratic eclipse in Bangladesh did not follow the classic script for a military coup. A civilian caretaker has been nominally in charge since January, after troubled national elections were indefinitely postponed. Meanwhile, the generals consolidated power behind the scenes and began harassing and jailing many of the country’s top civilian political leaders.
Last week, Sheik Hasina Wazed — who served as prime minister from 1996 through 2001 — and top leaders of her 14-party alliance were charged with murder in connection with violent pre-election protests. Her long time rival, Khaleda Zia, who both preceded and followed her in office, is now under virtual house arrest. More than 150 other senior politicians have been detained on corruption charges and the timetable for new elections keeps receding.
This concept of a militarily guided democracy without democrats is familiar in South Asia. Gen. Pervez Musharraf has followed the same script in Pakistan and his countrymen are still waiting, with increasing impatience, for the real democracy he promised them nearly eight years ago.
Both former Bangladeshi prime ministers have much to answer for, including tolerance for corruption and a bitter personal rivalry that kept the country in permanent turmoil. But the answering should be done to Bangladesh’s voters and, if called for, to an independent civilian judiciary — not to an unaccountable military dictatorship. And President Bush, if he truly cares about democracy in the Islamic world, needs to say so. #
NEW YORK TIMES Editorial, April 15, 2007
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/opinion/15sun2.html?pagewanted=print
Washington is being dangerously short sighted. Democracy can be messy, and in Bangladesh it was extraordinarily so. But military rule offers no answers to the grievances that fuel Islamic radicalism, as can be seen from nearby Pakistan (the world’s most populous military dictatorship). By stifling authentically popular mainstream parties and their leaders, military regimes often magnify the political influence of religious extremists.
This year’s democratic eclipse in Bangladesh did not follow the classic script for a military coup. A civilian caretaker has been nominally in charge since January, after troubled national elections were indefinitely postponed. Meanwhile, the generals consolidated power behind the scenes and began harassing and jailing many of the country’s top civilian political leaders.
Last week, Sheik Hasina Wazed — who served as prime minister from 1996 through 2001 — and top leaders of her 14-party alliance were charged with murder in connection with violent pre-election protests. Her long time rival, Khaleda Zia, who both preceded and followed her in office, is now under virtual house arrest. More than 150 other senior politicians have been detained on corruption charges and the timetable for new elections keeps receding.
This concept of a militarily guided democracy without democrats is familiar in South Asia. Gen. Pervez Musharraf has followed the same script in Pakistan and his countrymen are still waiting, with increasing impatience, for the real democracy he promised them nearly eight years ago.
Both former Bangladeshi prime ministers have much to answer for, including tolerance for corruption and a bitter personal rivalry that kept the country in permanent turmoil. But the answering should be done to Bangladesh’s voters and, if called for, to an independent civilian judiciary — not to an unaccountable military dictatorship. And President Bush, if he truly cares about democracy in the Islamic world, needs to say so. #
NEW YORK TIMES Editorial, April 15, 2007
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/opinion/15sun2.html?pagewanted=print
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Wrong turn for our rights
JALAL ALAMGIR
The right to due process is afforded to citizens to ensure protection from abuses of authority, intentional or unintentional. It is neither a constitutional footnote, nor a mere convenience. It is uncompromisingly fundamental to securing justice.
The interim government is cracking down on corruption, and doing so apparently in a spectacular fashion. Six Islamist extremists have also been hanged recently. Although—suspiciously enough—they were not allowed to speak and reveal the names of their patrons, the government has promised to try and uncover the kingpins.
But alongside, there is a simultaneous subversion of justice that will exact a heavy toll on the integrity of our legal system and political institutions.
In the last three months, according to Odhikar, 79 citizens have been killed extra judicially, an average of about 26 per month.
Supporters of hard power—and there are many—may be tempted to think that this is not a big number, given the rampant corruption and violence the country had experienced in the past five years.
Actually it is higher than the record of most previous years since democracy was established in 1991.
The 2001-2006 tenure by BNP, which far surpassed its predecessors in such deaths, averaged about 12 extrajudicial killings per month. Only the average in 2005 is higher, about 30 a month. But 2005 was really the Year of the RAB, the worst year of extrajudicial killings in Bangladesh since human rights records are available systematically.
Is this the standard to which we should be holding our caretakers?
The right to life is inviolable by our constitution, even in a state of emergency. Such killings also contravene several international conventions on human rights that Bangladesh has signed and is bound to uphold. The UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions was right to voice strong concern that these activities amount to ‘using murder as a policing technique.’
And what of the arrested? By Odhikar’s estimate, a staggering 1, 26,968 people have been detained across the country in the last three months. Most have been detained under the two ‘black laws’ of the country abused widely by every government: the Special Powers Act of 1974, and Section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Both of these allow arrest and detention without a warrant.
The way media headlines have run, one would think that most of these people are already guilty beyond doubt, just by virtue of getting arrested. But consider this sobering fact: in the nearly 11,000 petitions against arbitrary arrests filed in the High Court between 1974 and 1995, the Court found less than 9 per cent of detentions to be valid.
There is really no reason to expect that the proportion will be wholly reversed this time. For the innocent, however, recourse to law has been restricted severely.
The government wants speedy trials. Speedy trials are always suspected, since they favour efficiency over the protection of rights.
Moreover, it will be impossible to dispense justice for so many people quickly. Assembly lines may be good for producing cars but they are never defensible as a means of conviction.
With the increased powers given to the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), corruption charges can be brought against anyone on virtually any basis. The accused, once arrested, can be denied bail—a move that militates against long-standing international legal principles for such cases. While detained, they will then have to supply an accurate account of their entire life’s income and expenses within 72 hours, an impossible task for even the most meticulous.
Any discrepancy between the information supplied and what the government expects—and the government unilaterally decides what constitutes a discrepancy—can result in seizure of their properties, a provision which, under normal circumstances, would contravene a host of fundamental rights enunciated in Articles 26 through 43 of our constitution.
Most damagingly, there is no scope of appeal in a higher court against such seizure, which under normal circumstances would directly violate Article 44 of the constitution that guarantees a citizen’s right to move the High Court to protect his or her fundamental rights.
Now, one may argue that fundamental rights do not matter now, for we are in a state of emergency and we need to root out corruption.
But can corruption be rooted out by corrupting legal principles and citizens’ rights?
This is precisely when fundamental rights should matter the most; they’re the only institutional protection citizens have when authority becomes highly centralised. And the real test of a decent government is in the extent to which it can hold on to fundamental principles during times of crisis, when it becomes both tempting and convenient to jettison them.
Many of those arrested are guilty, no doubt. But many of them may also be innocent. It is not possible to guarantee integrity when thousands are being added to prison rosters every day. It is also apprehended that some cases have been motivated politically in order to silence the people.
The right to due process is afforded to citizens to ensure protection from abuses of authority, intentional or unintentional. It is neither a constitutional footnote, nor a mere convenience. It is uncompromisingly fundamental to securing justice.
And it is vital to creating a ‘level playing field,’ a goal to which this government has committed itself over and again.
But instead, the government has stacked the cards heavily in its own favour by cutting citizens’ rights and subverting due process. It is easier than ever before for the government to imprison and punish citizens summarily. By the same token, the government has put up extremely high barriers for citizens to mount a credible defence.Unless fundamental rights are put back on the right track, talk of a ‘level playing field’ will remain mostly a rhetorical ploy. #
Dr Jalal Alamgir is assistant professor of Political Science at the University of Massachusetts, Boston
The right to due process is afforded to citizens to ensure protection from abuses of authority, intentional or unintentional. It is neither a constitutional footnote, nor a mere convenience. It is uncompromisingly fundamental to securing justice.
The interim government is cracking down on corruption, and doing so apparently in a spectacular fashion. Six Islamist extremists have also been hanged recently. Although—suspiciously enough—they were not allowed to speak and reveal the names of their patrons, the government has promised to try and uncover the kingpins.
But alongside, there is a simultaneous subversion of justice that will exact a heavy toll on the integrity of our legal system and political institutions.
In the last three months, according to Odhikar, 79 citizens have been killed extra judicially, an average of about 26 per month.
Supporters of hard power—and there are many—may be tempted to think that this is not a big number, given the rampant corruption and violence the country had experienced in the past five years.
Actually it is higher than the record of most previous years since democracy was established in 1991.
The 2001-2006 tenure by BNP, which far surpassed its predecessors in such deaths, averaged about 12 extrajudicial killings per month. Only the average in 2005 is higher, about 30 a month. But 2005 was really the Year of the RAB, the worst year of extrajudicial killings in Bangladesh since human rights records are available systematically.
Is this the standard to which we should be holding our caretakers?
The right to life is inviolable by our constitution, even in a state of emergency. Such killings also contravene several international conventions on human rights that Bangladesh has signed and is bound to uphold. The UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions was right to voice strong concern that these activities amount to ‘using murder as a policing technique.’
And what of the arrested? By Odhikar’s estimate, a staggering 1, 26,968 people have been detained across the country in the last three months. Most have been detained under the two ‘black laws’ of the country abused widely by every government: the Special Powers Act of 1974, and Section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Both of these allow arrest and detention without a warrant.
The way media headlines have run, one would think that most of these people are already guilty beyond doubt, just by virtue of getting arrested. But consider this sobering fact: in the nearly 11,000 petitions against arbitrary arrests filed in the High Court between 1974 and 1995, the Court found less than 9 per cent of detentions to be valid.
There is really no reason to expect that the proportion will be wholly reversed this time. For the innocent, however, recourse to law has been restricted severely.
The government wants speedy trials. Speedy trials are always suspected, since they favour efficiency over the protection of rights.
Moreover, it will be impossible to dispense justice for so many people quickly. Assembly lines may be good for producing cars but they are never defensible as a means of conviction.
With the increased powers given to the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), corruption charges can be brought against anyone on virtually any basis. The accused, once arrested, can be denied bail—a move that militates against long-standing international legal principles for such cases. While detained, they will then have to supply an accurate account of their entire life’s income and expenses within 72 hours, an impossible task for even the most meticulous.
Any discrepancy between the information supplied and what the government expects—and the government unilaterally decides what constitutes a discrepancy—can result in seizure of their properties, a provision which, under normal circumstances, would contravene a host of fundamental rights enunciated in Articles 26 through 43 of our constitution.
Most damagingly, there is no scope of appeal in a higher court against such seizure, which under normal circumstances would directly violate Article 44 of the constitution that guarantees a citizen’s right to move the High Court to protect his or her fundamental rights.
Now, one may argue that fundamental rights do not matter now, for we are in a state of emergency and we need to root out corruption.
But can corruption be rooted out by corrupting legal principles and citizens’ rights?
This is precisely when fundamental rights should matter the most; they’re the only institutional protection citizens have when authority becomes highly centralised. And the real test of a decent government is in the extent to which it can hold on to fundamental principles during times of crisis, when it becomes both tempting and convenient to jettison them.
Many of those arrested are guilty, no doubt. But many of them may also be innocent. It is not possible to guarantee integrity when thousands are being added to prison rosters every day. It is also apprehended that some cases have been motivated politically in order to silence the people.
The right to due process is afforded to citizens to ensure protection from abuses of authority, intentional or unintentional. It is neither a constitutional footnote, nor a mere convenience. It is uncompromisingly fundamental to securing justice.
And it is vital to creating a ‘level playing field,’ a goal to which this government has committed itself over and again.
But instead, the government has stacked the cards heavily in its own favour by cutting citizens’ rights and subverting due process. It is easier than ever before for the government to imprison and punish citizens summarily. By the same token, the government has put up extremely high barriers for citizens to mount a credible defence.Unless fundamental rights are put back on the right track, talk of a ‘level playing field’ will remain mostly a rhetorical ploy. #
Dr Jalal Alamgir is assistant professor of Political Science at the University of Massachusetts, Boston
The Case Against Sheikh Hasina, a Pawn in the Global Chess?
Dr. ABDUL MOMEN
Do you think the Caretaker Government (CG) is fast losing its credibility by manipulating a false case against Sheikh Hasina, President of the largest political party of Bangladesh or does this case a pawn in the global chess? The report states that one Kazi Tajul Islam Farouk, the Country Director of the Westmont Bangladesh Ltd, a Malaysia-based energy company handed over Taka 3 crore to the then Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina at her official residence. The report states that he brought cash of 600 packets of Tk500 denominations and handed those over to her. It apparently happened in 1998 and he never thought of filing a case in last 9 years 'out of fear of the ousted Prime Minister Hasina'.
The case appears to be fabricated and motivated. It also appears that it is designed hastily by a gang of immature officials. For example, a seating Prime Minister never accepts even a packet of cookies without being inspected by an array of security personnel. Moreover, any large packets worth of more than Taka 300 or even a ‘jai namaj’, a prayer mat is not allowed to be handed over to the Bangladesh Prime Minister or to take to her room. These are generally retained by the security personnel. After checking and rechecking they take it to the Prime Minister or send it to the government Tusha-Khana. Moreover, the names of all visitors to the Prime Minister are recorded in several books and places including the 'security gates' that issue 'gate pass' to the person. So the case appears to be made without evaluating these realities.
Second, the government should have checked whether Kazi Tajul Islam Faruk had that much cash. Did he pay income tax of earning over Tk3 crore for the period? Did he mention it in his tax return in 1999? IF he did not then he should be penalised for abating the government taxes. How much was his income in 1997, 1998 and 1999? What dates he withdrew such huge sum of cash and from which accounts, and which banks. Was he capable of having Tk3 crore? How did he earn it? Is he a credible person? Why he looked disturbed in the TV while submitting the case and why did he reportedly left for pilgrimage at the Shahjalal Dargah in Sylhet immediately after the case submission? Is there any special reason? If not, and if the case is concocted then he should be punished for filling such a false case.
By lodging an apparently false and surprise case against Sheikh Hasina more so immediately after her critical statement against the government for adopting a delaying tactic to hold the general election, the CG’s credibility is being questioned. Soon people may start doubting whether all the cases that have been entertained so far were ill motivated. My fear is that by lodging such a false case is the CG undermining all other cases? More importantly, if the CG loses credibility, then it would be difficult for them to hold a ‘free, fair, non-violent and credible election’ for which they came into being in the first place. Such will destroy all the hopes of Bangladeshi people both home and abroad for a lasting and credible multi-party democracy. Alternatively, such may install Bush-ian democracy like that of Iraq or Afghanistan that thrives on civil war and wanton blood bath and destruction. I hope and wish that people do not have to resort to destructive movements again to over throw another non-elected government.
Some argue that such strategy is necessary to eliminate the current leadership of the AL and the BNP with a view to weaken these parties so that multi-party democracy could be replaced by a Karzai-like or Al-Maliki-like government in Bangladesh. It is true that until these two ladies are weakened and disgraced, it might be difficult for any 'fresh-in-politics' to get elected and therefore, should they must go...... not by ballots but by palace politics and strategic conspiracies?
It was reported earlier that the Bangladesh army was looking forward to have a very lucrative and substantial assignments in Afghanistan and Sudan and the fears of the global employers like the U. S. and he UN were that a political government (either Hasina or Khaleda) might not be willing to send large contingents in Muslim countries like Afghanistan and Sudan. They have the evidence of it. When US Secretary of State Colin Powell rushed to Dhaka only to get a 'token participation of soldiers' in their 'coalition of the willing' against dictator Saddam Hussain, even the BNP Chairperson Khaleda Zia disagreed. Therefore, they would like to have a non-political government in power in Bangladesh until the end of 2008 by which time all the agreements of assignments and initial deployments of soldiers would be complete. Therefore, it was expected that the life of the Caretaker government would last till the end of 2008.
Unfortunately, complexities already develop in the said areas due to US Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi and Senator Reid. In addition, the Australian Prime Minister John Howard's recent decision to send an additional 35,000 soldiers to Afghanistan when the NATO soldiers would withdrew next year has minimized the hopes of the Bangladesh forces to get the Afghan job. Moreover, if the US soldiers are forced to withdraw from Iraq war by next year as Nancy Pelosi and Senator Reid are demanding, they might be deployed to Sudan limiting the scope for Bangladesh forces. If the said assignments become bleak, then the Bangladesh army have to stay in power for longer period under various pretexts. Removal of Hasina and Khaleda therefore, definitely could help such objectives.
It is pleasing that Sheikh Hasina would fight her corruption case to clear her name in a country where 'documents could easily be doctored or forged and false witnesses and confessions are not hard to get under police threats and torture'. In spite of such dire situation, she has the courage and she is rushing to her country. But since 'rule of law and transparency in Bangladesh' is very poor, should she be accompanied by a group of foreign lawyers, human rights activists, UN observers and foreign journalists plus foreign political leaders so that the case is transparent, open, and public.......not decided under cover at a 'kangaroo court'. Should Bangladeshi expatriates raise funds to hire best law firms and engage reputed international investigators to dig out evidence and profile of each person involved with the case and the circumstances leading to the case. The case should be fully exposed in the international media and to the general public to have a 'just and fair trial'. Secondly, is it necessary to tag the guarantee of a free and fair trial to the prospect of lucrative UN Peace keeping assignments abroad for Bangladesh forces to have a surprising impact? #
Do you think the Caretaker Government (CG) is fast losing its credibility by manipulating a false case against Sheikh Hasina, President of the largest political party of Bangladesh or does this case a pawn in the global chess? The report states that one Kazi Tajul Islam Farouk, the Country Director of the Westmont Bangladesh Ltd, a Malaysia-based energy company handed over Taka 3 crore to the then Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina at her official residence. The report states that he brought cash of 600 packets of Tk500 denominations and handed those over to her. It apparently happened in 1998 and he never thought of filing a case in last 9 years 'out of fear of the ousted Prime Minister Hasina'.
The case appears to be fabricated and motivated. It also appears that it is designed hastily by a gang of immature officials. For example, a seating Prime Minister never accepts even a packet of cookies without being inspected by an array of security personnel. Moreover, any large packets worth of more than Taka 300 or even a ‘jai namaj’, a prayer mat is not allowed to be handed over to the Bangladesh Prime Minister or to take to her room. These are generally retained by the security personnel. After checking and rechecking they take it to the Prime Minister or send it to the government Tusha-Khana. Moreover, the names of all visitors to the Prime Minister are recorded in several books and places including the 'security gates' that issue 'gate pass' to the person. So the case appears to be made without evaluating these realities.
Second, the government should have checked whether Kazi Tajul Islam Faruk had that much cash. Did he pay income tax of earning over Tk3 crore for the period? Did he mention it in his tax return in 1999? IF he did not then he should be penalised for abating the government taxes. How much was his income in 1997, 1998 and 1999? What dates he withdrew such huge sum of cash and from which accounts, and which banks. Was he capable of having Tk3 crore? How did he earn it? Is he a credible person? Why he looked disturbed in the TV while submitting the case and why did he reportedly left for pilgrimage at the Shahjalal Dargah in Sylhet immediately after the case submission? Is there any special reason? If not, and if the case is concocted then he should be punished for filling such a false case.
By lodging an apparently false and surprise case against Sheikh Hasina more so immediately after her critical statement against the government for adopting a delaying tactic to hold the general election, the CG’s credibility is being questioned. Soon people may start doubting whether all the cases that have been entertained so far were ill motivated. My fear is that by lodging such a false case is the CG undermining all other cases? More importantly, if the CG loses credibility, then it would be difficult for them to hold a ‘free, fair, non-violent and credible election’ for which they came into being in the first place. Such will destroy all the hopes of Bangladeshi people both home and abroad for a lasting and credible multi-party democracy. Alternatively, such may install Bush-ian democracy like that of Iraq or Afghanistan that thrives on civil war and wanton blood bath and destruction. I hope and wish that people do not have to resort to destructive movements again to over throw another non-elected government.
Some argue that such strategy is necessary to eliminate the current leadership of the AL and the BNP with a view to weaken these parties so that multi-party democracy could be replaced by a Karzai-like or Al-Maliki-like government in Bangladesh. It is true that until these two ladies are weakened and disgraced, it might be difficult for any 'fresh-in-politics' to get elected and therefore, should they must go...... not by ballots but by palace politics and strategic conspiracies?
It was reported earlier that the Bangladesh army was looking forward to have a very lucrative and substantial assignments in Afghanistan and Sudan and the fears of the global employers like the U. S. and he UN were that a political government (either Hasina or Khaleda) might not be willing to send large contingents in Muslim countries like Afghanistan and Sudan. They have the evidence of it. When US Secretary of State Colin Powell rushed to Dhaka only to get a 'token participation of soldiers' in their 'coalition of the willing' against dictator Saddam Hussain, even the BNP Chairperson Khaleda Zia disagreed. Therefore, they would like to have a non-political government in power in Bangladesh until the end of 2008 by which time all the agreements of assignments and initial deployments of soldiers would be complete. Therefore, it was expected that the life of the Caretaker government would last till the end of 2008.
Unfortunately, complexities already develop in the said areas due to US Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi and Senator Reid. In addition, the Australian Prime Minister John Howard's recent decision to send an additional 35,000 soldiers to Afghanistan when the NATO soldiers would withdrew next year has minimized the hopes of the Bangladesh forces to get the Afghan job. Moreover, if the US soldiers are forced to withdraw from Iraq war by next year as Nancy Pelosi and Senator Reid are demanding, they might be deployed to Sudan limiting the scope for Bangladesh forces. If the said assignments become bleak, then the Bangladesh army have to stay in power for longer period under various pretexts. Removal of Hasina and Khaleda therefore, definitely could help such objectives.
It is pleasing that Sheikh Hasina would fight her corruption case to clear her name in a country where 'documents could easily be doctored or forged and false witnesses and confessions are not hard to get under police threats and torture'. In spite of such dire situation, she has the courage and she is rushing to her country. But since 'rule of law and transparency in Bangladesh' is very poor, should she be accompanied by a group of foreign lawyers, human rights activists, UN observers and foreign journalists plus foreign political leaders so that the case is transparent, open, and public.......not decided under cover at a 'kangaroo court'. Should Bangladeshi expatriates raise funds to hire best law firms and engage reputed international investigators to dig out evidence and profile of each person involved with the case and the circumstances leading to the case. The case should be fully exposed in the international media and to the general public to have a 'just and fair trial'. Secondly, is it necessary to tag the guarantee of a free and fair trial to the prospect of lucrative UN Peace keeping assignments abroad for Bangladesh forces to have a surprising impact? #
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The alliance between army and academia in Bangladesh
SHABBIR AHMED
With the passage of time Bangladesh had experienced a period of political turbulence on the issue of the neutrality of election commission and the caretaker government during the rule of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Jamaat-i-Islami (JI). With the stepping down of BNP-JI government, the emergency rule was imposed by the President albeit under pressure by the defense forces. Ever since then, the caretaker government is supported by the defense establishment.
The moral turpitude of BNP leadership including that of Khaleda Zia had directly caused the downfall of the democracy under the civilian government. If BNP government behaved little rationally, then they would not be in such a humiliating condition at the present from which it is unlikely for them to recover and come back with full strength as a frontline democratic party. In general, a soft and/or a diehard supporter of BNP used to think that the defense forces would always remain loyal to them. Based on this assumed strength, the BNP leaders/workers/supporters were always ready to ignore the demands and causes of the opposition political parties. Unfortunately, it was a surprise for them to see Gen. Moeen U. Ahmed took steps against their desired goals for holding election only to bring them back to power through intrigue.
It is true that initially the overwhelming majority of the people supported the neutral steps taken by the defense forces in bringing stability to the country. They were praised for their role behind the scene in supporting the civil government. Especially, Gen. Moeen, the chief of army staff was praised for his statements on upholding the true history and for recognizing the founding father of Bangladesh . But, the recent unbridled remarks by Gen. Moeen on the democratic system of Bangladesh has raised some concerns because people heard these types of statements in the past that did not do anything good for the people or the nation. Lest he forgot, the present chaos in the polity was caused by the political parties which were formed by the ex generals by interfering with and by distorting the civilian democratic rule. Many believe that the political system of Pakistan was polluted by the military generals that ultimately led to the breakdown and independence of Bangladesh .
It is not very clear to us when we hear the phrase Bangladesh needs "our brand of democracy" from the chief of the army. From India to Europe to America , we do not hear about different brand of democracies from the generals of these countries. But, in Bangladesh and Pakistan , we heard and we were given different brand of democracies by the generals and all these brands had failed miserably in the past. In fact, the democratic system was destroyed by the cantonment-born political parties. The intellectuals behind the cantonment-based parties are the ones, who in the name of reform, work from behind to bring the generals through extra-constitutional means. There is nothing wrong if the generals/officers retire and/or leave their job and join politics after 3-4 years of their retirement to bring about change in politics. Examples of army general joining politics are there; Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, the hero of the WWII ran for the White House in 1950 and became victorious. In fact, any nation would have been benefited from their patriotism, administrative capabilities, and for their vision for the future of the country. However, nowhere in the civilized world do we see a sitting army general pontificating on the status of democracy in his country. It is simply not done. Period.
Bangladesh may have joined a comity of nation in the U.N. but in some respect it is a odd nation. Here a seated army general could openly talk about how he is going to bring about a change in the polity. Could any general in our neighboring India think about bringing changes in their political system? Are they less patriotic than their counterparts in Pakistan and Bangladesh ?
Is there any group of people who are pressurizing the general to make a policy statement of the interim government vis-à-vis the democracy? Wait! Come to think of it, there is more to the story than meets the eye. Gen. Moeen U. Ahmed was invited by the Bangladesh Political Science Association, Dhaka by none other than the president of this association Dr. Ataur Rahman, a professor at the political science department of Dhaka University . He is known for his inclination toward the cantonment-born party BNP. I had opportunities to watch some of his interviews and discussions in TV programs, recently. According to him, the capture of power through coup and counter-coup in 1975 was valid. It was "Soldier-People Revolution" to him as the BNP-JI and a few other parties had been claiming for years.
In 1975, I did not see any people’s participation while the conspiracies in the cantonment were going on. Yes, there were a few people chanted slogans only in some parts of Dhaka after one of the conspirators succeeded in consolidating his power in the cantonment. There was nothing like a deluge of people taking to the street spontaneously as we saw in 1969, 1971, 1990, and in 2006-2007 for bringing down the tyrannical governments. In one program, this professor was arguing with Mr. Nur-e-Alam Siddique for not being inclusive in accepting the fascist Jamaat-I-Islami. Recently, I read in a few leading newspapers that Dr. Ataur Rahman was involved in some sort of maneuvering for awarding 52 first class to the students in political science department, who were aligned to BNP-JI. There was some inquiry against this move by the charlatan professor of DU. Despite this controversy, he became actively involved in promoting the proposed action on bringing new form of democracy by the sitting general. I watched his interview on this issue in Channel I with the editor of "Amader Somoi" and I was appalled on hearing fawning remarks coming out of Dr. Rahman’s mouth. Indeed, there is no dearth of sycophants in academia in Bangladesh .
As I alluded to earlier, we do not have shortages in having people like Dr. Ataur Rahman who are out to promote different brand of democracies using rhetoric and debating skills. In harmony with the cantonment folks they work as the promoters and the agents of the powerful quarters. In ancient Greece , these types of people were known as sophists. In Bangladesh and Pakistan , the army generals (after capturing power) got direct/indirect supports from this particular group of intellectuals from civilian side, who were mostly sophists. This group of ambitious intellectuals possesses impressive powers of persuasion and spinning philosophy to accommodate the powerful quarters mainly through sophistry. In fact, these sophists do not have any strict principle and/or philosophy. They can twist and use their motivational powers to help advance the interest of the party for whom they work. The conscientious people of Bangladesh should be aware of the sophists. #
With the passage of time Bangladesh had experienced a period of political turbulence on the issue of the neutrality of election commission and the caretaker government during the rule of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Jamaat-i-Islami (JI). With the stepping down of BNP-JI government, the emergency rule was imposed by the President albeit under pressure by the defense forces. Ever since then, the caretaker government is supported by the defense establishment.
The moral turpitude of BNP leadership including that of Khaleda Zia had directly caused the downfall of the democracy under the civilian government. If BNP government behaved little rationally, then they would not be in such a humiliating condition at the present from which it is unlikely for them to recover and come back with full strength as a frontline democratic party. In general, a soft and/or a diehard supporter of BNP used to think that the defense forces would always remain loyal to them. Based on this assumed strength, the BNP leaders/workers/supporters were always ready to ignore the demands and causes of the opposition political parties. Unfortunately, it was a surprise for them to see Gen. Moeen U. Ahmed took steps against their desired goals for holding election only to bring them back to power through intrigue.
It is true that initially the overwhelming majority of the people supported the neutral steps taken by the defense forces in bringing stability to the country. They were praised for their role behind the scene in supporting the civil government. Especially, Gen. Moeen, the chief of army staff was praised for his statements on upholding the true history and for recognizing the founding father of Bangladesh . But, the recent unbridled remarks by Gen. Moeen on the democratic system of Bangladesh has raised some concerns because people heard these types of statements in the past that did not do anything good for the people or the nation. Lest he forgot, the present chaos in the polity was caused by the political parties which were formed by the ex generals by interfering with and by distorting the civilian democratic rule. Many believe that the political system of Pakistan was polluted by the military generals that ultimately led to the breakdown and independence of Bangladesh .
It is not very clear to us when we hear the phrase Bangladesh needs "our brand of democracy" from the chief of the army. From India to Europe to America , we do not hear about different brand of democracies from the generals of these countries. But, in Bangladesh and Pakistan , we heard and we were given different brand of democracies by the generals and all these brands had failed miserably in the past. In fact, the democratic system was destroyed by the cantonment-born political parties. The intellectuals behind the cantonment-based parties are the ones, who in the name of reform, work from behind to bring the generals through extra-constitutional means. There is nothing wrong if the generals/officers retire and/or leave their job and join politics after 3-4 years of their retirement to bring about change in politics. Examples of army general joining politics are there; Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, the hero of the WWII ran for the White House in 1950 and became victorious. In fact, any nation would have been benefited from their patriotism, administrative capabilities, and for their vision for the future of the country. However, nowhere in the civilized world do we see a sitting army general pontificating on the status of democracy in his country. It is simply not done. Period.
Bangladesh may have joined a comity of nation in the U.N. but in some respect it is a odd nation. Here a seated army general could openly talk about how he is going to bring about a change in the polity. Could any general in our neighboring India think about bringing changes in their political system? Are they less patriotic than their counterparts in Pakistan and Bangladesh ?
Is there any group of people who are pressurizing the general to make a policy statement of the interim government vis-à-vis the democracy? Wait! Come to think of it, there is more to the story than meets the eye. Gen. Moeen U. Ahmed was invited by the Bangladesh Political Science Association, Dhaka by none other than the president of this association Dr. Ataur Rahman, a professor at the political science department of Dhaka University . He is known for his inclination toward the cantonment-born party BNP. I had opportunities to watch some of his interviews and discussions in TV programs, recently. According to him, the capture of power through coup and counter-coup in 1975 was valid. It was "Soldier-People Revolution" to him as the BNP-JI and a few other parties had been claiming for years.
In 1975, I did not see any people’s participation while the conspiracies in the cantonment were going on. Yes, there were a few people chanted slogans only in some parts of Dhaka after one of the conspirators succeeded in consolidating his power in the cantonment. There was nothing like a deluge of people taking to the street spontaneously as we saw in 1969, 1971, 1990, and in 2006-2007 for bringing down the tyrannical governments. In one program, this professor was arguing with Mr. Nur-e-Alam Siddique for not being inclusive in accepting the fascist Jamaat-I-Islami. Recently, I read in a few leading newspapers that Dr. Ataur Rahman was involved in some sort of maneuvering for awarding 52 first class to the students in political science department, who were aligned to BNP-JI. There was some inquiry against this move by the charlatan professor of DU. Despite this controversy, he became actively involved in promoting the proposed action on bringing new form of democracy by the sitting general. I watched his interview on this issue in Channel I with the editor of "Amader Somoi" and I was appalled on hearing fawning remarks coming out of Dr. Rahman’s mouth. Indeed, there is no dearth of sycophants in academia in Bangladesh .
As I alluded to earlier, we do not have shortages in having people like Dr. Ataur Rahman who are out to promote different brand of democracies using rhetoric and debating skills. In harmony with the cantonment folks they work as the promoters and the agents of the powerful quarters. In ancient Greece , these types of people were known as sophists. In Bangladesh and Pakistan , the army generals (after capturing power) got direct/indirect supports from this particular group of intellectuals from civilian side, who were mostly sophists. This group of ambitious intellectuals possesses impressive powers of persuasion and spinning philosophy to accommodate the powerful quarters mainly through sophistry. In fact, these sophists do not have any strict principle and/or philosophy. They can twist and use their motivational powers to help advance the interest of the party for whom they work. The conscientious people of Bangladesh should be aware of the sophists. #
Friday, April 06, 2007
Democracy recalled in Bangladesh by General Moeen
A.H. JAFFOR ULLAH
In the West when a product manufacturer occasionally does make hazardous merchandise, the company is pressured to recall it for fixing. Not a single year that goes by when we do not hear a car manufacturer recalling a particular model of car. The factory defect is repaired at manufacturer cost and the item is promptly returned to the consumer. This is the way to amend the mistake a company makes when it makes a lemon. A parallel thing is now going on in Bangladesh. Read on and you will know what I am writing about
In Third World countries such as in Bangladesh we never hear the recalling of a product whether it is a formalin-laced fish or adulterated cooking oil. Life goes on normally in the idyllic place while consumers devour adulterated foodstuff or operate a faulty car. However, this cannot be said about democracy, which was never healthy but no one recalled it to fix or mutate it.
Have anyone heard about recalling a seemingly defective democracy in the West? Hardly so. But in the Third World, democracy is recalled every so often after a military coup. Remember October 1958 when Pakistan's constitution was abrogated by Field Marshall Ayub Khan only to engender a substitute by the name “Basic Democracy.” Ayub Khan’s handlers thought there are different kinds of democracies in the world. Since parliamentary democracy, which was in vogue in Pakistan during mid fifties, did not work as per military leaders, they had to recall that democracy and replace it with another home-grown democracy the likes of which were never seen before. Ayub’s Basic Democracy was a far cry from true democracy but that brand of democracy was favoured because it was manageable. Some eighty thousand elected members decided who would be the president. Ayub Khan thought he could buy 40,000 of those basic democrats to become the president and guess what? He was right. While Ayub was busily practicing Basic Democracy in Pakistan many Bangalee politicians were protesting in the streets of Dhaka, Chittagong, Khulna, and elsewhere. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founding father of Bangladesh, was one of them who never compromised with the Pakistani military’s new brand of democracy.
Gen. Moeen, the head of Bangladesh’s military who is not a part of the Caretaker government but is seen as the strongman who is pushing the military’s agenda through Fakhruddin Administration in Dhaka. The army chief is following Ayub’s tried and tested method of tinkering democracy. On April 2, 2007 he said before a selected crowd comprising of political scientists that Bangladesh will forego electoral type of democracy and go for a “new and improved” type of democracy, which will be Bangladesh’s own. Very soon there will be a new entry in Wikipedia on Moeen’s brand of democracy.
The intrepid and sapient army General who has crisscrossed Bangladesh in the last 80 days to deliver his message on nation building has finally spoken to a section of nation’s intelligentsia. This time on April 2, 2007 he spoke before political scientists where he hinted that a new type of homebrewed democracy will replace the tried and failed democracy that is flourishing in many nations including Bangladesh’s neighbour India. There is a caveat here. In India the military stays in the barrack and in cantonment and the Generals do not pretend to know everything a sapient sage has to know. The military in India is under the control of a civilian government and they honour the constitution of the land. In Pakistan, however, this is not to be the case. Bangladesh unfortunately follows Pakistan in the matter of governance and politics. Maybe, Gen. Pervez Musharraf is Gen. Moeen’s hero. Like Pakistan, Bangladesh will also follow a ‘Band Aid’ method to govern the country following a homebrewed democracy.
In November 1975 Bangladesh military came to power through backdoor, unconstitutionally. The General who took control of the country with the help of tanks and firearms also maimed the constitution and then invented Bangladesh’s very first “own brand” of democracy. Perhaps this time around, Gen. Moeen will also come up with a 2007 version of Bangladesh’s “own brand” of democracy. Of course there are a mélange of political scientists who are just waiting to aid the general. Through newspaper report we heard that two political scientists and theorists were brought from Oshkosh, Wisconsin, USA who would counsel the Gen. Moeen to accomplish this tough job. These flunky political scientists are there nearby to draft the blueprint of Bangladesh’s own brand of democracy. There is no dearth of charlatan academics in Bangladesh who would like to give a glowing encomium to strongman. In the past both Gen. Ziaur Rahman and Gen. H. M. Ershad was guided by Bangladeshi academics and constitutional experts who could write the first draft of the constitution to engender Bangladesh’s very own brand of democracy. Come to think of it, one barrister by the name Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed helped Gen. Ziaur Rahman to envision his “own brand” of democracy.
In summary, quite single-handedly Gen. Moeen, the emerging strongman of Bangladesh had recalled democracy because he thinks that it is sick and infirm after getting abused by three successive administrations. A body of political trouble shooter has been engaged by the military to come up with the solution. More is yet to come; therefore, stay tuned. Similar to Pakistan, in Bangladesh also the military knows what is best for the nation. Oh, one more thing I forgot to add. Bangladesh’s military has a pristine background. They don’t dabble in coups or regime change and they are incorruptible. #
Dr. A.H. Jaffor Ullah, a researcher and columnist, writes from New Orleans
In the West when a product manufacturer occasionally does make hazardous merchandise, the company is pressured to recall it for fixing. Not a single year that goes by when we do not hear a car manufacturer recalling a particular model of car. The factory defect is repaired at manufacturer cost and the item is promptly returned to the consumer. This is the way to amend the mistake a company makes when it makes a lemon. A parallel thing is now going on in Bangladesh. Read on and you will know what I am writing about
In Third World countries such as in Bangladesh we never hear the recalling of a product whether it is a formalin-laced fish or adulterated cooking oil. Life goes on normally in the idyllic place while consumers devour adulterated foodstuff or operate a faulty car. However, this cannot be said about democracy, which was never healthy but no one recalled it to fix or mutate it.
Have anyone heard about recalling a seemingly defective democracy in the West? Hardly so. But in the Third World, democracy is recalled every so often after a military coup. Remember October 1958 when Pakistan's constitution was abrogated by Field Marshall Ayub Khan only to engender a substitute by the name “Basic Democracy.” Ayub Khan’s handlers thought there are different kinds of democracies in the world. Since parliamentary democracy, which was in vogue in Pakistan during mid fifties, did not work as per military leaders, they had to recall that democracy and replace it with another home-grown democracy the likes of which were never seen before. Ayub’s Basic Democracy was a far cry from true democracy but that brand of democracy was favoured because it was manageable. Some eighty thousand elected members decided who would be the president. Ayub Khan thought he could buy 40,000 of those basic democrats to become the president and guess what? He was right. While Ayub was busily practicing Basic Democracy in Pakistan many Bangalee politicians were protesting in the streets of Dhaka, Chittagong, Khulna, and elsewhere. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founding father of Bangladesh, was one of them who never compromised with the Pakistani military’s new brand of democracy.
Gen. Moeen, the head of Bangladesh’s military who is not a part of the Caretaker government but is seen as the strongman who is pushing the military’s agenda through Fakhruddin Administration in Dhaka. The army chief is following Ayub’s tried and tested method of tinkering democracy. On April 2, 2007 he said before a selected crowd comprising of political scientists that Bangladesh will forego electoral type of democracy and go for a “new and improved” type of democracy, which will be Bangladesh’s own. Very soon there will be a new entry in Wikipedia on Moeen’s brand of democracy.
The intrepid and sapient army General who has crisscrossed Bangladesh in the last 80 days to deliver his message on nation building has finally spoken to a section of nation’s intelligentsia. This time on April 2, 2007 he spoke before political scientists where he hinted that a new type of homebrewed democracy will replace the tried and failed democracy that is flourishing in many nations including Bangladesh’s neighbour India. There is a caveat here. In India the military stays in the barrack and in cantonment and the Generals do not pretend to know everything a sapient sage has to know. The military in India is under the control of a civilian government and they honour the constitution of the land. In Pakistan, however, this is not to be the case. Bangladesh unfortunately follows Pakistan in the matter of governance and politics. Maybe, Gen. Pervez Musharraf is Gen. Moeen’s hero. Like Pakistan, Bangladesh will also follow a ‘Band Aid’ method to govern the country following a homebrewed democracy.
In November 1975 Bangladesh military came to power through backdoor, unconstitutionally. The General who took control of the country with the help of tanks and firearms also maimed the constitution and then invented Bangladesh’s very first “own brand” of democracy. Perhaps this time around, Gen. Moeen will also come up with a 2007 version of Bangladesh’s “own brand” of democracy. Of course there are a mélange of political scientists who are just waiting to aid the general. Through newspaper report we heard that two political scientists and theorists were brought from Oshkosh, Wisconsin, USA who would counsel the Gen. Moeen to accomplish this tough job. These flunky political scientists are there nearby to draft the blueprint of Bangladesh’s own brand of democracy. There is no dearth of charlatan academics in Bangladesh who would like to give a glowing encomium to strongman. In the past both Gen. Ziaur Rahman and Gen. H. M. Ershad was guided by Bangladeshi academics and constitutional experts who could write the first draft of the constitution to engender Bangladesh’s very own brand of democracy. Come to think of it, one barrister by the name Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed helped Gen. Ziaur Rahman to envision his “own brand” of democracy.
In summary, quite single-handedly Gen. Moeen, the emerging strongman of Bangladesh had recalled democracy because he thinks that it is sick and infirm after getting abused by three successive administrations. A body of political trouble shooter has been engaged by the military to come up with the solution. More is yet to come; therefore, stay tuned. Similar to Pakistan, in Bangladesh also the military knows what is best for the nation. Oh, one more thing I forgot to add. Bangladesh’s military has a pristine background. They don’t dabble in coups or regime change and they are incorruptible. #
Dr. A.H. Jaffor Ullah, a researcher and columnist, writes from New Orleans
Tall Order, Fat Hope, Slim Chance: Restoring Order in Bangladesh
TAJ HASHMI
[This article is, sort of, an open letter to the Chief of the Caretaker Government and fellow Bangladeshis who want peace, prosperity and order. I apologize to everyone who thinks I am promoting autocracy to the detriment of democracy. I prefer a short-lived, honest and efficient autocracy to a perennially inefficient and corrupt elected oligarchy or “Democracy Bangladesh Style”. Nothing would make me happier than being proven wrong for drawing a not-so-bright prospect for Bangladesh with regard to having true democracy and the elimination of corruption, poverty and disorder under an elected government, in the near future.]
I find Charles Dickens very handy in explaining the state of the State of Emergency in Bangladesh. One is not sure if the country is going through “the best of times” or “the worst of times”. While the height of optimism would be the glorification of the period as a prelude to taking the people to “heaven”, the cynical view would be to ascribe the situation as a precursor to taking them nowhere but “hell”.
Celebrated both at home and abroad, the State of Emergency seems to be the last resort for the weak and desolate, honest and powerless people in the country. Consequently despite the present government’s taking some harsh measures, such as abrupt raising of fuel price by withdrawing state subsidy at the behest of the World Bank, the vast majority irrespective of class and political affiliation are supportive of the Emergency. They are so sick and tired of the anarchic situation that prevailed during the democratically elected regimes in the past that they do not seem to mind the suspension of some of their fundamental rights under this interregnum. Since the so-called democratic regimes in the past had hardly any respect for democracy, the rule of law, human rights and human dignity and ran the country as personal fiefdom, the people in general have no qualms about “losing” the elusive and non-existent fundamental rights.
However, as William Milam has aptly pointed out, “even civilianised military interventions have a limited shelf life in Bangladesh”; and covert military intervention without any “specific agenda and timetable for restoring fully civilian sovereignty” might backfire [“Remember the past, enjoy the interval”, Daily Times, April 4, 2007]. In accordance with this train of thought we may draw attention to the following slips and momentary failures of the present government to take advantage of its popularity to smooth over the obstacles to good governance, growth and stability:
1. Lack of transparency and sense of direction;
2. Failure to bring more corrupt people under detention;
3. Bringing flimsy charges against the handful of detainees said to have robbed billions from the public coffer;
4. Relying on traditional judiciary and outdated laws to incriminate the fabulously rich and powerful criminals having political connections.
Afflicted with inertia, the government seems to have lost momentum and any sense of direction. Undoubtedly it has done certain laudable jobs, especially with regard to the reorganization of the Election and Anti-Corruption commissions, detention of several godfathers and corrupt people, and above all, improvement of the law and order situation. Although these measures seem to have raised the hope and confidence levels of the people, they are not sure (so are most analysts and observers) if this government is (a) a transitory, momentary arrangement or (b) it has a long-term program albeit with sketchy and fuzzy agenda.
Despite not having any constitutional backing this Caretaker-cum-Emergency interregnum is better than what Bangladesh had during the last twenty five years, from Ershad’s autocracy to Khaleda’s dynastic oligarchy. And as I have mentioned above, the popularity of the current government by default is a by-product of the abysmal failure of politicians to behave and the high hope people have reposed in the government out of sheer frustration with politicians.
Now the ball is in the government court. If it does not play well, or undermines its own promises by demolishing the tower of tall order it has erected with fat hope of the people, both the ruler and the ruled would be in trouble. Since there is nothing constitutional about this government, it should keep up the good work, not worrying much about the constitutional and legal implications and intricacies, with the best of intention or niyyat only aiming at salvaging the nation from the morass of corruption and misrule.
It is quite unsettling as the government goes one step forward and one step back to square one – on the one hand, by behaving as if the country is under military rule (which is unconstitutional) and on the other, by adhering to the principles of civil code and the judiciary. By the way, the judiciary is no longer the promoter / protector of justice for the sake of it. It is high time that we see the real picture uncased out of the sealed packet. We want the government to tell everyone straight forward that it is an extra-constitutional (if not unconstitutional per se) quasi-military interim government, which has come into being to defend the constitution and protect the people of the country from the evil politicians, bureaucrats, traders and others. We believe this would appease the people at least for a couple of years.
Otherwise, the government will have to face scores of embarrassing questions and suggestions, as some Western diplomats have already done by asking as to when the elections would be held or even worse, suggesting when they should be held, violating all norms of diplomatic etiquette and protocol.
Since this is an extra-constitutional government under an extra-ordinary situation, the government cannot afford to commit an irremediable blunder by conforming to the ordinary law, dispensed by our judiciary. The hard core criminals with tons of ill-gotten money and political clout know how to sneak out of trouble through the legal loop holes. If the handful of corrupt politicians and businessmen who are behind bars succeed in proving their innocence, it would be a big slap in the face of the entire nation; and most definitely, would discredit the government.
Finally, instead of being ambivalent and promising a special brand of “home grown” democracy, the government should be rather relying on the people to deliver them democracy – socio-economic justice and political freedom – not elected, unaccountable governments, in the near future. By relying on the people and the circumstantial evidences this extra-ordinary government can punish the criminals and recover the stolen wealth and tarnished image of Bangladesh. #
[This article is, sort of, an open letter to the Chief of the Caretaker Government and fellow Bangladeshis who want peace, prosperity and order. I apologize to everyone who thinks I am promoting autocracy to the detriment of democracy. I prefer a short-lived, honest and efficient autocracy to a perennially inefficient and corrupt elected oligarchy or “Democracy Bangladesh Style”. Nothing would make me happier than being proven wrong for drawing a not-so-bright prospect for Bangladesh with regard to having true democracy and the elimination of corruption, poverty and disorder under an elected government, in the near future.]
I find Charles Dickens very handy in explaining the state of the State of Emergency in Bangladesh. One is not sure if the country is going through “the best of times” or “the worst of times”. While the height of optimism would be the glorification of the period as a prelude to taking the people to “heaven”, the cynical view would be to ascribe the situation as a precursor to taking them nowhere but “hell”.
Celebrated both at home and abroad, the State of Emergency seems to be the last resort for the weak and desolate, honest and powerless people in the country. Consequently despite the present government’s taking some harsh measures, such as abrupt raising of fuel price by withdrawing state subsidy at the behest of the World Bank, the vast majority irrespective of class and political affiliation are supportive of the Emergency. They are so sick and tired of the anarchic situation that prevailed during the democratically elected regimes in the past that they do not seem to mind the suspension of some of their fundamental rights under this interregnum. Since the so-called democratic regimes in the past had hardly any respect for democracy, the rule of law, human rights and human dignity and ran the country as personal fiefdom, the people in general have no qualms about “losing” the elusive and non-existent fundamental rights.
However, as William Milam has aptly pointed out, “even civilianised military interventions have a limited shelf life in Bangladesh”; and covert military intervention without any “specific agenda and timetable for restoring fully civilian sovereignty” might backfire [“Remember the past, enjoy the interval”, Daily Times, April 4, 2007]. In accordance with this train of thought we may draw attention to the following slips and momentary failures of the present government to take advantage of its popularity to smooth over the obstacles to good governance, growth and stability:
1. Lack of transparency and sense of direction;
2. Failure to bring more corrupt people under detention;
3. Bringing flimsy charges against the handful of detainees said to have robbed billions from the public coffer;
4. Relying on traditional judiciary and outdated laws to incriminate the fabulously rich and powerful criminals having political connections.
Afflicted with inertia, the government seems to have lost momentum and any sense of direction. Undoubtedly it has done certain laudable jobs, especially with regard to the reorganization of the Election and Anti-Corruption commissions, detention of several godfathers and corrupt people, and above all, improvement of the law and order situation. Although these measures seem to have raised the hope and confidence levels of the people, they are not sure (so are most analysts and observers) if this government is (a) a transitory, momentary arrangement or (b) it has a long-term program albeit with sketchy and fuzzy agenda.
Despite not having any constitutional backing this Caretaker-cum-Emergency interregnum is better than what Bangladesh had during the last twenty five years, from Ershad’s autocracy to Khaleda’s dynastic oligarchy. And as I have mentioned above, the popularity of the current government by default is a by-product of the abysmal failure of politicians to behave and the high hope people have reposed in the government out of sheer frustration with politicians.
Now the ball is in the government court. If it does not play well, or undermines its own promises by demolishing the tower of tall order it has erected with fat hope of the people, both the ruler and the ruled would be in trouble. Since there is nothing constitutional about this government, it should keep up the good work, not worrying much about the constitutional and legal implications and intricacies, with the best of intention or niyyat only aiming at salvaging the nation from the morass of corruption and misrule.
It is quite unsettling as the government goes one step forward and one step back to square one – on the one hand, by behaving as if the country is under military rule (which is unconstitutional) and on the other, by adhering to the principles of civil code and the judiciary. By the way, the judiciary is no longer the promoter / protector of justice for the sake of it. It is high time that we see the real picture uncased out of the sealed packet. We want the government to tell everyone straight forward that it is an extra-constitutional (if not unconstitutional per se) quasi-military interim government, which has come into being to defend the constitution and protect the people of the country from the evil politicians, bureaucrats, traders and others. We believe this would appease the people at least for a couple of years.
Otherwise, the government will have to face scores of embarrassing questions and suggestions, as some Western diplomats have already done by asking as to when the elections would be held or even worse, suggesting when they should be held, violating all norms of diplomatic etiquette and protocol.
Since this is an extra-constitutional government under an extra-ordinary situation, the government cannot afford to commit an irremediable blunder by conforming to the ordinary law, dispensed by our judiciary. The hard core criminals with tons of ill-gotten money and political clout know how to sneak out of trouble through the legal loop holes. If the handful of corrupt politicians and businessmen who are behind bars succeed in proving their innocence, it would be a big slap in the face of the entire nation; and most definitely, would discredit the government.
Finally, instead of being ambivalent and promising a special brand of “home grown” democracy, the government should be rather relying on the people to deliver them democracy – socio-economic justice and political freedom – not elected, unaccountable governments, in the near future. By relying on the people and the circumstantial evidences this extra-ordinary government can punish the criminals and recover the stolen wealth and tarnished image of Bangladesh. #
Are Bangladesh & Pakistan abandoning parliamentary democracy?
AATAAI GAZI MAHBUB
When the U.S. proclaims itself as a defender of democracy around the world, it should be borne in mind that two of its closest South Asian allies, Pakistan and Bangladesh, home to 280 million Muslims, have been subjected for many years to U.S.-backed military regimes, instead of democratic governance.
Pakistan is ruled by General Pervez Musharraf, who ousted the elected government of Nawaz Sharif in a bloodless coup on October 12, 1999, with currently no prospect for a genuinely democratic restoration. For its part, Bangladesh has been under martial law since Jan. 12, 2007, and eight prominent politicians were arrested on Feb. 4, 2007 amid allegations by the main opposition party, the Awami League, of corrupting the electoral system.
The last elected government, led by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), resigned on Oct. 28, 2006, and a caretaker government, formed by President Iajuddin Ahmed took over civilian power and set the date for national elections for Jan. 22, 2007.
The political parties then engaged in disputes, with the Islamic parties joining nationalist and secularist alliances and giving up their Islamic ideology with a view to gaining political leverage, and the 14-party alliance led by secularists and leftists stipulating an accord with an Islamist party, which, if voted back into power, would reform Islamic law.
In this context, the U.S. Ambassador and the U.K. High Commissioner to Bangladesh, having become active in the nation's political arena, did not accept the accord that established Islamic law (Shari'a) as the law of the land.
At this point, the caretaker government was rejected and a military regime, reportedly sponsored by the U.S. and U.K., took power. As a result, the term of the British High Commissioner was extended to 2008, and the U.S. Ambassador was promoted to become eligible for selection as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq for 2008.
After swearing in by President Ahmed on Jan. 12, 2007 as Chief Advisor to the caretaker government, Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed, backed by Bangladeshi security forces, launched a national anti-corruption drive, arresting more than a hundred prominent political figures, including Tareque Rahman, the son of ex-Prime Minister Ziaur Rahman, and banning all political activities.
The word in Bangladesh is that former prime minister and chair of the BNP, Begum Khaleda Zia, is now in protective custody and under unofficial house arrest. Although the Bangladeshi Army Chief of Staff, Lt. General Moeen U Ahmed, claimed he had no intention of taking power, his actions so far have belied this.
When the caretaker government took power, it announced that it would return authority to elected representatives after completing reforms of the political process and the electoral system, but it has yet to set a time line. On the other hand, Bangladesh, whose level of corruption has been perceived as the highest in the world from 2001 to 2004, as cited by Transparency International, which awarded it third place in 2006, has lately seen some of its democratic structures under assault during the current anti-corruption drive.
Jatiya (People's) Party Chair Anwar Hossain Monju recently announced his resignation from political life, reportedly under pressure from the caretaker government, and it is expected that more career politicians may follow his lead.
Bangladeshis are generally quite satisfied with the current government, especially when they witness the apprehension of political figures known to be corrupt -- thieves of the public good, mafia-style godfathers and recoverers of illegal lands and have praise for the anti-corruption initiative taken by the government.
Bangladesh's economy is performing better than usual. Foreign exchange reserves now exceed a record $US 4 billion. Remittances from abroad are also at record levels, with US$ 281,700,000 coming in during the first half of March, 2007. The value of exports increased by 22 percent.
The government tries to keep down the price of essential goods through the state-run trading agency, Trading Corporation of Bangladesh (TCB).
For these reasons, in describing the culture of political corruption, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ahmed has said that for 36 years we have not realized the promises of independence at the hands of the politicians, and now the government tries to portray a "Golden" Bangladesh, which most print media believe to be a portent of coming military rule.
The nation's two major think tanks, the Center for Policy Dialogue, and Transparency International Bangladesh, which were established with the assistance of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), are now the main influences on government policy making.
The caretaker government planned to lessen the influence of Islam by reforms reportedly sponsored by Western powers and has taken some steps, which have had little effect. For example, they wanted to shift the weekly religious holiday from Friday to Sunday, which is a congregational prayer day for Muslims, but cancelled for fear of mass demonstrations. It is conducting a concerted action against an Islamist terror group, Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB), born in the first year of the previous elected government (1998-2006).
It now plans to recognize secularist Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Bangladesh's first prime minister, who was killed in 1975 by a group of junior army officers, as a father of the nation.
In Bangladesh, military rulers have achieved popularity based on their deeds. In 1978, General Ziaur Rahman, founder of the BNP, emerged as strongman after a series of military coups. He became a popular leader (after carrying out a 19-point program of economic reform and transforming the government to a democratically elected, constitutional one). After his assassination in 1981 his BNP party ruled Bangladesh for two terms (1991-1996 and 2001-2006).
General Hussain Mohammed Ershad assumed power in 1982 and assumed the presidency a year later. He was in power until December 1990, and his Jatiya Party got around 30 of 300 seats in two previous parliamentary elections (in 1991 and 1996), and he is still a factor in Bangladeshi politics. The current army chief will also be popular across the country.
By the same token, Pakistanis have lived under General Pervez Musharraf for eight years and are said to be more content with the current regime than previous, elected civilian administrations. When Musharraf took control, he launched an anti-corruption drive in the political arena and divided Muslim League led by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and filed corruption charges against many politicians, including former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, chair of the Pakistan People's Party, and her husband, known as "Mr. Ten Percent," for taking bribes.
According to Transparency International, Pakistani corruption is still perceived as one of the most pronounced in the world. Benazir Bhutto was twice elected prime minister (1988-1990, 1993-1996) but did not complete her term of office and was rejected amid allegations of corruption.
Similarly, Nawaz Sharif, who was also elected prime minister twice (1990-1993; 1997-1999) was unable to complete his term of office and was dismissed on charges of corruption.
Political corruption prepared the way for the advent of military rule. General Musharraf has contributed more to the development of his nation than have other, more democratic rulers. Pakistan's economy is doing very well now, and its rate of GDP growth is 8.6 percent. Per capita income is US$1,000, and the growing middle class amounts to 19 percent of the total population.
Freedom of the press isn't totally unheard of, and there have been as many as 157 daily newspapers in publication, in Urdu, English and regional languages, as well as 43 TV channels.
Government investment has attracted foreign capital in turn, and investment by Singapore, China, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates has invigorated Pakistan's economy and created many jobs. A study published in 2006 by the South Asian News Agency claimed that a majority of Pakistanis back military rule in the country.
Pakistani women are satisfied on the whole with the current regime, which is committed to their emancipation and the cancellation of the Hudood Ordinance, which was not in effect even from a modern lady like Benazir Bhutto.
For its part, the U.S. wants to keep Musharraf in power to control Islamists and Taliban adherents. As well as offering aid packages, the U.S. maintains relentless pressure on Pakistan to root out Islamists. Washington has already threatened to retract the $US300 million pledged to support counter-terrorism efforts contained in President Bush's 2008 budget request as well as the pledge announced by Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher of $US750 million over the next five years for economic development in the tribal areas, if Musharraf fails to root out Islamist terrorism.
Shielding Islamist terrorism in conservative Pakistan might come more naturally to a military ruler than elected leaders, who must echo public sentiment. For this reason, the outgoing U.S. Ambassador said on Mar. 26, 2007, that Musharraf was not an autocratic leader, albeit military, and the comeback issue of Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto was the domestic reflection of this, in which the U.S. would not interfere.
For five of its six decades, an army general has run Pakistan, and many more military officials (active and retired) have been installed in its high-ranking posts, as diplomat and bureaucrat, receiving material advantages. Although the entire Pakistani judicial system was paralyzed after the March 9 filing of presidential charges against Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Musharraf was able to manage, appointing as his right-hand man a non-Muslim chief justice.
It's been accepted that it will not be a problem for the Supreme Court to have a president for another term, starting in 2008. He has consolidated his power well, promoting, as his own men, 96 brigadiers to the rank of major general.
It might be of interest that Bangladesh was once the Bengali province of Pakistan (East Pakistan), obtaining its independence in 1971 at the sacrifice of 3 million lives, and that it now is ready to follow a military model similar to Pakistan's. #
When the U.S. proclaims itself as a defender of democracy around the world, it should be borne in mind that two of its closest South Asian allies, Pakistan and Bangladesh, home to 280 million Muslims, have been subjected for many years to U.S.-backed military regimes, instead of democratic governance.
Pakistan is ruled by General Pervez Musharraf, who ousted the elected government of Nawaz Sharif in a bloodless coup on October 12, 1999, with currently no prospect for a genuinely democratic restoration. For its part, Bangladesh has been under martial law since Jan. 12, 2007, and eight prominent politicians were arrested on Feb. 4, 2007 amid allegations by the main opposition party, the Awami League, of corrupting the electoral system.
The last elected government, led by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), resigned on Oct. 28, 2006, and a caretaker government, formed by President Iajuddin Ahmed took over civilian power and set the date for national elections for Jan. 22, 2007.
The political parties then engaged in disputes, with the Islamic parties joining nationalist and secularist alliances and giving up their Islamic ideology with a view to gaining political leverage, and the 14-party alliance led by secularists and leftists stipulating an accord with an Islamist party, which, if voted back into power, would reform Islamic law.
In this context, the U.S. Ambassador and the U.K. High Commissioner to Bangladesh, having become active in the nation's political arena, did not accept the accord that established Islamic law (Shari'a) as the law of the land.
At this point, the caretaker government was rejected and a military regime, reportedly sponsored by the U.S. and U.K., took power. As a result, the term of the British High Commissioner was extended to 2008, and the U.S. Ambassador was promoted to become eligible for selection as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq for 2008.
After swearing in by President Ahmed on Jan. 12, 2007 as Chief Advisor to the caretaker government, Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed, backed by Bangladeshi security forces, launched a national anti-corruption drive, arresting more than a hundred prominent political figures, including Tareque Rahman, the son of ex-Prime Minister Ziaur Rahman, and banning all political activities.
The word in Bangladesh is that former prime minister and chair of the BNP, Begum Khaleda Zia, is now in protective custody and under unofficial house arrest. Although the Bangladeshi Army Chief of Staff, Lt. General Moeen U Ahmed, claimed he had no intention of taking power, his actions so far have belied this.
When the caretaker government took power, it announced that it would return authority to elected representatives after completing reforms of the political process and the electoral system, but it has yet to set a time line. On the other hand, Bangladesh, whose level of corruption has been perceived as the highest in the world from 2001 to 2004, as cited by Transparency International, which awarded it third place in 2006, has lately seen some of its democratic structures under assault during the current anti-corruption drive.
Jatiya (People's) Party Chair Anwar Hossain Monju recently announced his resignation from political life, reportedly under pressure from the caretaker government, and it is expected that more career politicians may follow his lead.
Bangladeshis are generally quite satisfied with the current government, especially when they witness the apprehension of political figures known to be corrupt -- thieves of the public good, mafia-style godfathers and recoverers of illegal lands and have praise for the anti-corruption initiative taken by the government.
Bangladesh's economy is performing better than usual. Foreign exchange reserves now exceed a record $US 4 billion. Remittances from abroad are also at record levels, with US$ 281,700,000 coming in during the first half of March, 2007. The value of exports increased by 22 percent.
The government tries to keep down the price of essential goods through the state-run trading agency, Trading Corporation of Bangladesh (TCB).
For these reasons, in describing the culture of political corruption, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ahmed has said that for 36 years we have not realized the promises of independence at the hands of the politicians, and now the government tries to portray a "Golden" Bangladesh, which most print media believe to be a portent of coming military rule.
The nation's two major think tanks, the Center for Policy Dialogue, and Transparency International Bangladesh, which were established with the assistance of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), are now the main influences on government policy making.
The caretaker government planned to lessen the influence of Islam by reforms reportedly sponsored by Western powers and has taken some steps, which have had little effect. For example, they wanted to shift the weekly religious holiday from Friday to Sunday, which is a congregational prayer day for Muslims, but cancelled for fear of mass demonstrations. It is conducting a concerted action against an Islamist terror group, Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB), born in the first year of the previous elected government (1998-2006).
It now plans to recognize secularist Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Bangladesh's first prime minister, who was killed in 1975 by a group of junior army officers, as a father of the nation.
In Bangladesh, military rulers have achieved popularity based on their deeds. In 1978, General Ziaur Rahman, founder of the BNP, emerged as strongman after a series of military coups. He became a popular leader (after carrying out a 19-point program of economic reform and transforming the government to a democratically elected, constitutional one). After his assassination in 1981 his BNP party ruled Bangladesh for two terms (1991-1996 and 2001-2006).
General Hussain Mohammed Ershad assumed power in 1982 and assumed the presidency a year later. He was in power until December 1990, and his Jatiya Party got around 30 of 300 seats in two previous parliamentary elections (in 1991 and 1996), and he is still a factor in Bangladeshi politics. The current army chief will also be popular across the country.
By the same token, Pakistanis have lived under General Pervez Musharraf for eight years and are said to be more content with the current regime than previous, elected civilian administrations. When Musharraf took control, he launched an anti-corruption drive in the political arena and divided Muslim League led by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and filed corruption charges against many politicians, including former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, chair of the Pakistan People's Party, and her husband, known as "Mr. Ten Percent," for taking bribes.
According to Transparency International, Pakistani corruption is still perceived as one of the most pronounced in the world. Benazir Bhutto was twice elected prime minister (1988-1990, 1993-1996) but did not complete her term of office and was rejected amid allegations of corruption.
Similarly, Nawaz Sharif, who was also elected prime minister twice (1990-1993; 1997-1999) was unable to complete his term of office and was dismissed on charges of corruption.
Political corruption prepared the way for the advent of military rule. General Musharraf has contributed more to the development of his nation than have other, more democratic rulers. Pakistan's economy is doing very well now, and its rate of GDP growth is 8.6 percent. Per capita income is US$1,000, and the growing middle class amounts to 19 percent of the total population.
Freedom of the press isn't totally unheard of, and there have been as many as 157 daily newspapers in publication, in Urdu, English and regional languages, as well as 43 TV channels.
Government investment has attracted foreign capital in turn, and investment by Singapore, China, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates has invigorated Pakistan's economy and created many jobs. A study published in 2006 by the South Asian News Agency claimed that a majority of Pakistanis back military rule in the country.
Pakistani women are satisfied on the whole with the current regime, which is committed to their emancipation and the cancellation of the Hudood Ordinance, which was not in effect even from a modern lady like Benazir Bhutto.
For its part, the U.S. wants to keep Musharraf in power to control Islamists and Taliban adherents. As well as offering aid packages, the U.S. maintains relentless pressure on Pakistan to root out Islamists. Washington has already threatened to retract the $US300 million pledged to support counter-terrorism efforts contained in President Bush's 2008 budget request as well as the pledge announced by Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher of $US750 million over the next five years for economic development in the tribal areas, if Musharraf fails to root out Islamist terrorism.
Shielding Islamist terrorism in conservative Pakistan might come more naturally to a military ruler than elected leaders, who must echo public sentiment. For this reason, the outgoing U.S. Ambassador said on Mar. 26, 2007, that Musharraf was not an autocratic leader, albeit military, and the comeback issue of Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto was the domestic reflection of this, in which the U.S. would not interfere.
For five of its six decades, an army general has run Pakistan, and many more military officials (active and retired) have been installed in its high-ranking posts, as diplomat and bureaucrat, receiving material advantages. Although the entire Pakistani judicial system was paralyzed after the March 9 filing of presidential charges against Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Musharraf was able to manage, appointing as his right-hand man a non-Muslim chief justice.
It's been accepted that it will not be a problem for the Supreme Court to have a president for another term, starting in 2008. He has consolidated his power well, promoting, as his own men, 96 brigadiers to the rank of major general.
It might be of interest that Bangladesh was once the Bengali province of Pakistan (East Pakistan), obtaining its independence in 1971 at the sacrifice of 3 million lives, and that it now is ready to follow a military model similar to Pakistan's. #
Remember the past, enjoy the interval
Mr. Milam's articles in the last 4 months have been quite impressive in predicting events in Bangladesh
WILLIAM B MILAM
IT takes three hours (much longer if it is Wagner), and much great music, for an opera to tell a simple story. The mind has great opportunity to wander through any political implications. In this case, a simple political principle emerged only implicitly: get the history right and operate on the basis of unvarnished fact, not on the myths that often dominate official histories.
I hesitate to begin this piece with the same quote from George Santayana that I have used at least once before, not least because it is not even my favourite Santayana quote—perhaps only my second-most favourite. But Santayana’s famous line, “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” has often seemed to me—to paraphrase Marx—to be the iron law of politics in both Pakistan and Bangladesh. And Milam’s corollary to Santayana’s principle, “if you do remember the past, remember it right,” is also an important admonition that South Asian political leaders ignore at their own peril.
It is as if the political and military leaders in the two countries have severely challenged memories; they appear not to be able to remember the past; or they remember only a mythological version of the past. Moreover, they seem not able to understand that bad history or no history leads inevitably to the law of unintended consequences. This may explain why things continually go wrong.
I was reminded vividly of my corollary last Saturday when I caught a performance of a rarely seen or heard Richard Strauss opera, Die Aegyptische Helena (the Egyptian Helen), at the Metropolitan Opera in New York. Though the music is rich and beautiful, the story is convoluted and fantastical, which may explain, in part, why the opera hadn’t been performed at the Met since 1928. But, despite the confusing story, I thought the ending had lessons for us all.
To try to summarise the story in a paragraph is impossible. The essential facts are that the Trojan War has ended after 10 long years. Helen (of Troy) has been recaptured by her husband, Menelaus, who killed Paris, the man who had spirited her away, and professes to want to kill her too. Being somewhat weak-minded, however, Menelaus can’t remember whether or not he has already done so. It is left unsaid (or unsung) whether Helen went to Troy with Paris willingly or not.
Helen wants to stay alive and, strangely enough, seems to want Menelaus to take her back (or maybe she just figures that the only way to stay alive is to convince him to take her back). A sorceress is helping her—I said it is fantastical—and gives her two magic potions, one to make Menelaus forget everything, the other to make him remember everything.
The crucial point is that Helen, even though the sorceress strongly recommends that she give Menelaus the forgetting potion, opts to give him the remembrance one. She reasons that trying to fool Menelaus with some fantasy of an unblemished past will not save her, that the only genuine solution is for him to remember the true past, as blemished as it might be. She is right; all is forgiven, and they all live happily ever after.
Of course, this opera is essentially about personal relationships—how to keep a marriage together under great stress. Though it is a stretch, I think Helen’s point about the use and misuse of history has application to the world of politics. That is one of the charms of opera. You can infer all kinds of general principles from stories about nothing more than how to get someone’s mate back.
It takes three hours (much longer if it is Wagner), and much great music, for an opera to tell a simple story. The mind has great opportunity to wander through any political implications. In this case, a simple political principle emerged only implicitly: get the history right and operate on the basis of unvarnished fact, not on the myths that often dominate official histories. As Helen noted in passing, the only way to genuine reconciliation is to recognise the past as it really was, blemishes and all, not as one wishes it had been.
It is interesting that political leaders, both civilian and military, see through some historical myths easily and adjust their actions to take account of the facts, yet are blind to others. The Bangladeshi Generals learned well from history that previous military interventions were forced to civilianise. So, on January 11, the Bangladesh Army moved from direct military intervention to civilianised military intervention in one day. It was, for the briefest few minutes, in direct control of the country. It claims to be just “assisting” the civilian government to reform the country’s politics so they can be returned completely to civilian control. Bangladeshis get restive quickly under military governments.
It is not clear, however, that the Generals and their civilian sidekicks have understood that even civilianised military interventions have a limited shelf life in Bangladesh. Almost three months after the army intervened, its specific agenda and timetable for restoring full civilian sovereignty is not known. The attitude of military exceptionalism may be growing as the reform agenda becomes longer, deeper and more complicated. So far the public has welcomed the intervention and the idea of reform, especially rooting out the corruption, but there is always the danger in Bangladesh of overstaying that welcome.
In Pakistan, President Musharraf appears to have escaped the trap of the historical mythology that surrounds the 60-year contentious relationship with India by his creative and flexible approach to the diplomatic process of gradually normalising relations. But I wonder if he understands that as each of his major predecessors accumulated power important segments of the polity became increasingly alienated. Ayub Khan, ZA Bhutto, even Zia-ul Huq, progressively lost the support of important political actors by their arbitrary actions. Ayub and ZAB lost their jobs and/or their lives as a result. (And possibly Zia-ul Huq too, if the theory that he was assassinated is true.)
Will the president’s arbitrary action against the chief justice lead ultimately to his downfall? Many of my informed friends think it will. I remain agnostic, but an objective look at Pakistani history would, I think, call for a strategy to defuse the problem in its early phase. Perhaps it is time for him to civilianise this military government even more by becoming a civilian himself. To do it on his own initiative, without it being forced on him by circumstances, would not only be a good reading of history but ensure that he will not end up a historical failure as those predecessors did. It might even prolong his political career.
And in regard to any kind of career, I return to Santayana and my favourite among his many worthy quotes, “there is no cure for birth or death save to enjoy the interval.” It is hard sometimes for me to understand how any honest man in politics can enjoy the interval. When one appears we need to be certain that he reads history correctly so he can. #
William Milam is a former US ambassador to Pakistan and Bangladesh. He is currently at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington DC
Daily Times
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\04\04\story_4-4-2007_pg3_2
WILLIAM B MILAMIT takes three hours (much longer if it is Wagner), and much great music, for an opera to tell a simple story. The mind has great opportunity to wander through any political implications. In this case, a simple political principle emerged only implicitly: get the history right and operate on the basis of unvarnished fact, not on the myths that often dominate official histories.
I hesitate to begin this piece with the same quote from George Santayana that I have used at least once before, not least because it is not even my favourite Santayana quote—perhaps only my second-most favourite. But Santayana’s famous line, “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” has often seemed to me—to paraphrase Marx—to be the iron law of politics in both Pakistan and Bangladesh. And Milam’s corollary to Santayana’s principle, “if you do remember the past, remember it right,” is also an important admonition that South Asian political leaders ignore at their own peril.
It is as if the political and military leaders in the two countries have severely challenged memories; they appear not to be able to remember the past; or they remember only a mythological version of the past. Moreover, they seem not able to understand that bad history or no history leads inevitably to the law of unintended consequences. This may explain why things continually go wrong.
I was reminded vividly of my corollary last Saturday when I caught a performance of a rarely seen or heard Richard Strauss opera, Die Aegyptische Helena (the Egyptian Helen), at the Metropolitan Opera in New York. Though the music is rich and beautiful, the story is convoluted and fantastical, which may explain, in part, why the opera hadn’t been performed at the Met since 1928. But, despite the confusing story, I thought the ending had lessons for us all.
To try to summarise the story in a paragraph is impossible. The essential facts are that the Trojan War has ended after 10 long years. Helen (of Troy) has been recaptured by her husband, Menelaus, who killed Paris, the man who had spirited her away, and professes to want to kill her too. Being somewhat weak-minded, however, Menelaus can’t remember whether or not he has already done so. It is left unsaid (or unsung) whether Helen went to Troy with Paris willingly or not.
Helen wants to stay alive and, strangely enough, seems to want Menelaus to take her back (or maybe she just figures that the only way to stay alive is to convince him to take her back). A sorceress is helping her—I said it is fantastical—and gives her two magic potions, one to make Menelaus forget everything, the other to make him remember everything.
The crucial point is that Helen, even though the sorceress strongly recommends that she give Menelaus the forgetting potion, opts to give him the remembrance one. She reasons that trying to fool Menelaus with some fantasy of an unblemished past will not save her, that the only genuine solution is for him to remember the true past, as blemished as it might be. She is right; all is forgiven, and they all live happily ever after.
Of course, this opera is essentially about personal relationships—how to keep a marriage together under great stress. Though it is a stretch, I think Helen’s point about the use and misuse of history has application to the world of politics. That is one of the charms of opera. You can infer all kinds of general principles from stories about nothing more than how to get someone’s mate back.
It takes three hours (much longer if it is Wagner), and much great music, for an opera to tell a simple story. The mind has great opportunity to wander through any political implications. In this case, a simple political principle emerged only implicitly: get the history right and operate on the basis of unvarnished fact, not on the myths that often dominate official histories. As Helen noted in passing, the only way to genuine reconciliation is to recognise the past as it really was, blemishes and all, not as one wishes it had been.
It is interesting that political leaders, both civilian and military, see through some historical myths easily and adjust their actions to take account of the facts, yet are blind to others. The Bangladeshi Generals learned well from history that previous military interventions were forced to civilianise. So, on January 11, the Bangladesh Army moved from direct military intervention to civilianised military intervention in one day. It was, for the briefest few minutes, in direct control of the country. It claims to be just “assisting” the civilian government to reform the country’s politics so they can be returned completely to civilian control. Bangladeshis get restive quickly under military governments.
It is not clear, however, that the Generals and their civilian sidekicks have understood that even civilianised military interventions have a limited shelf life in Bangladesh. Almost three months after the army intervened, its specific agenda and timetable for restoring full civilian sovereignty is not known. The attitude of military exceptionalism may be growing as the reform agenda becomes longer, deeper and more complicated. So far the public has welcomed the intervention and the idea of reform, especially rooting out the corruption, but there is always the danger in Bangladesh of overstaying that welcome.
In Pakistan, President Musharraf appears to have escaped the trap of the historical mythology that surrounds the 60-year contentious relationship with India by his creative and flexible approach to the diplomatic process of gradually normalising relations. But I wonder if he understands that as each of his major predecessors accumulated power important segments of the polity became increasingly alienated. Ayub Khan, ZA Bhutto, even Zia-ul Huq, progressively lost the support of important political actors by their arbitrary actions. Ayub and ZAB lost their jobs and/or their lives as a result. (And possibly Zia-ul Huq too, if the theory that he was assassinated is true.)
Will the president’s arbitrary action against the chief justice lead ultimately to his downfall? Many of my informed friends think it will. I remain agnostic, but an objective look at Pakistani history would, I think, call for a strategy to defuse the problem in its early phase. Perhaps it is time for him to civilianise this military government even more by becoming a civilian himself. To do it on his own initiative, without it being forced on him by circumstances, would not only be a good reading of history but ensure that he will not end up a historical failure as those predecessors did. It might even prolong his political career.
And in regard to any kind of career, I return to Santayana and my favourite among his many worthy quotes, “there is no cure for birth or death save to enjoy the interval.” It is hard sometimes for me to understand how any honest man in politics can enjoy the interval. When one appears we need to be certain that he reads history correctly so he can. #
William Milam is a former US ambassador to Pakistan and Bangladesh. He is currently at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington DC
Daily Times
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\04\04\story_4-4-2007_pg3_2
Bangladesh power not tilted towards any family or dynasty
SALEEM SAMADBangladesh's army chief says the country should not go back to being run by an "elective democracy" and said that the military-backed interim government would build a new brand of democracy to overcome the country's chronic poor governance.
Army chief Lieutenant General Moeen Uddin Ahmed launched a scathing attack against the country's corrupt politicians on April 2, 2007, saying they had to be rooted out in the graft-ridden country if the nation was to move forward.
“...own brand of democracy”
He explained that “Bangladesh must build its own brand of democracy”, recognising its social, historical and cultural conditions with religion being one of the components of its national identity.
He explained that “Bangladesh must build its own brand of democracy”, recognising its social, historical and cultural conditions with religion being one of the components of its national identity.
It makes Moeen's first clear public statement on the shape of governance with new leadership at all levels, which he thinks Bangladesh should have in place.
He said democracy in Bangladesh had so far led to corruption, rights violations and criminalisation threatening the state's survival.
Bangladesh, now being ruled by an interim government headed by Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed and strongly backed by the military, has been under a state of emergency since January 11.
The new caretaker government, headed by former central bank governor Fakhruddin Ahmed, has pledged to clean up Bangladesh's notoriously corrupt politics in order to hold credible elections.
As part of a massive graft crackdown, scores of high-profile politicians, security forces have detained more than 160 key political figures, including Tareque Rahman, son of former prime minister Begum Khaleda Zia, for extortion and misuse of power.
Bangladesh, now being ruled by an interim government headed by Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed and strongly backed by the military, has been under a state of emergency since January 11.
The new caretaker government, headed by former central bank governor Fakhruddin Ahmed, has pledged to clean up Bangladesh's notoriously corrupt politics in order to hold credible elections.
As part of a massive graft crackdown, scores of high-profile politicians, security forces have detained more than 160 key political figures, including Tareque Rahman, son of former prime minister Begum Khaleda Zia, for extortion and misuse of power.
He has caught the emotions of millions in Bangladeshi and their expatriates in Europe, North America and Australasia when he remarked last week of March that after “36 years after independence, politicians…did not…give due recognition to the national leaders" referring to founder of Bangladesh Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, also the country's first president.
Goes Public on Politics
Recently the army chief has been making public statements on state politics, society and good governance which caught media attention, mixed reaction of the civil society and criticism from political leaders.
Some observers see General Moeen is speaking his mind to emotional charged Bangladesh citizens at home and abroad. He is described as a military hawk aspiring to capture state power with a ploy of good governance and implement their military-democracy agenda.
Some observers see General Moeen is speaking his mind to emotional charged Bangladesh citizens at home and abroad. He is described as a military hawk aspiring to capture state power with a ploy of good governance and implement their military-democracy agenda.
Gen. Moeen did not elaborate on the new brand of democracy. But he appeared to be sending a message to the political parties that there would be no election before political corruption is eliminated, or drastically curbed.
He reasoned out that a redesigned democracy was necessary as he said the previous political system bred massive corruption in society.In his address to a conference in the presence of President Prof. Iajuddin Ahmed at Dhaka Sheraton Hotel, the army chief said the ancient Athenian democracy was not even "remotely achievable today".
He reasoned out that a redesigned democracy was necessary as he said the previous political system bred massive corruption in society.In his address to a conference in the presence of President Prof. Iajuddin Ahmed at Dhaka Sheraton Hotel, the army chief said the ancient Athenian democracy was not even "remotely achievable today".
In his keynote paper on "The Challenging Interface of Democracy and Security" presented at the regional conference of International Political Science Association, Moeen said: "I believe the aspiring democratic process of Bangladesh and the current transition period allow us an opportunity to develop a new concept and find a new sense of direction to the future politics of Bangladesh."
He did not elaborate on what kind of a system should be introduced as replacement.
He also widely blamed the corruption generated by continuous political turmoil as the reason behind Bangladesh's stunted economic growth.
Economic growth
"Had poor governance not been a conspicuous phenomenon in our democratic politics, the per capita income would not have stagnated to its current level of $482 but reached a more respectable $920 with every possibility of breaking the $1,000 barrier in the coming years," Moeen said.
Economic growth
"Had poor governance not been a conspicuous phenomenon in our democratic politics, the per capita income would not have stagnated to its current level of $482 but reached a more respectable $920 with every possibility of breaking the $1,000 barrier in the coming years," Moeen said.
"By its own merit, the country has a principle to live by and a purpose to strive for, and this needs rethinking so that we can reinvent a system of governance with new leadership at all levels."
"We do not want to go back to an elective democracy where corruption becomes all pervasive, governance suffers in terms of insecurity and violation of rights, and where political criminalisation threatens the very survival and integrity of the state," Gen Moeen told the conference.
Moeen took few questions from the media and political activists after the inaugural session of the conference. He said the Armed Forces were the "silent" partner of people.When asked whether he has ambition to float a political party, he said it is the people who would have to decide whether they need a new political platform to achieve the agenda he has spell out.
Moeen took few questions from the media and political activists after the inaugural session of the conference. He said the Armed Forces were the "silent" partner of people.When asked whether he has ambition to float a political party, he said it is the people who would have to decide whether they need a new political platform to achieve the agenda he has spell out.
"We have tried the presidential form of government and parliamentary form of government and people will judge which was better," he said.
He defined the "own brand of democracy" as a "balanced government, power not tilted towards any family or dynasty". #
With reports from bdnews24.com, Reuters, AFP and BBC online
He defined the "own brand of democracy" as a "balanced government, power not tilted towards any family or dynasty". #
With reports from bdnews24.com, Reuters, AFP and BBC online
Monday, April 02, 2007
Bangladesh army chief should be Seen but not Heard!
A.H. JAFFOR ULLAHTHE fact that Bangladesh army chief, Lieutenant General Moeen Uddin Ahmed is inching forward in itself is an ominous sign! The place for a good soldier is a cantonment or a garrison but not the civil society. If the army chief in America or any other civilized society were to address the civilian people, it would start a controversy. However, our Sonar Bangla is a case in exception. Here the army had done two coup d'états, maimed the constitution, and pushed the nation into the path of rapid Islamisation. The nation is under an emergency rule. On January 11, 2007 the president goaded by the military had declared the emergency rule. The country is now being ruled by a handpicked technocrat by the army. To earn the trust of the masses, the government had started a campaign to get rid of corrupt politicians and business tycoon. The army chief was lying low in the initial 3-4 weeks but after that he is becoming increasingly visible.
I do not like a bit the sign that tells me Gen. Moeen is positioning himself for something big. First, he started to address small gatherings in the backwaters of Bangladesh such as Chittagong Hill Tracts, Borguna, and other hinterland where he wrongly said that Iajuddin Ahmed had saved the nation by declaring emergency. Now I am reading that he is supposed to deliver a keynote speech on "Rethinking Political Development Tomorrow."
For the life of me, I do not understand how the General has become so knowledgeable on such a lofty subject as "Political Development." Do they teach politics in Army Cadet College, never mind "Political Development"?
To show the importance of the meeting where the Army Chief is going to deliver the keynote speech, the newspaper report wrote that one Prof. Zillur R. Khan of "Washington University" will attend the conference. I never heard anyone by the name Zillur R. Khan who is a professor of Washington University. However, there is a pedagogue by the name Zillur R. Khan who to my knowledge is the brother of Late Dr. Fazlur R. Khan (the architect of the Sears Tower, Chicago). Prof. Zillur R. Khan taught all his life at University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh, a far cry from University of Wisconsin at Madison. Is there a university in America by the name Washington University? Bangladesh's news media are not big on names; therefore, Wisconsin or Washington hardly makes any difference.
Please watch the next move by Gen. Moeen. The other day I read another report in which it was stated that Gen. Moeen told the law enforcement people: "I do not want to hear the news of another garment Industry go in flame" (this is not the exact quote but a very similar one). My question to Gen. Moeen is - who do you think you are? Dr. Fakhruddin being the CA of Caretaker Government may say this to the chief of police. But why does the Army Chief project him as the Chief of the government. In fact, his place should be Kurmitola. And he should come forward when asked by the President or the Chief Advisor of the caretaker government. This kind of statement coming out of the military chief or his delivery of the keynote speech does not bode well for Bangladesh. Because, the army chief should be seen but not heard! #
Dr. A.H. Jaffor Ullah, a researcher and columnist, writes from New Orleans, USA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)