A.H. JAFFOR ULLAH
Whenever one talks about a looming political crisis in Bangladesh one thinks about one of the two major political parties, namely Awami League (AL) the party that made Bangladesh a free nation and Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), the party that is bent on Pakistanization of Bangladesh is the root cause of the problem. But when someone tells you that a lone retired soil science professor, who became the president of this 145 million people through the courtesy of Khaleda Zia, is the mischief-maker, then a knowledgeable person from the land would pooh-pooh the notion. Contrary to what you may think this is the reality. Make no mistake about it that Iajuddin being the puppet in the hands of BNP high commands has contributed to this new crisis, which may cause a great harm to the nation we lovingly call the Sonar Bangla.
As I have mentioned already, Bangladesh is now facing a monumental crisis, politically speaking of course. In late October 2006, the five-year term for BNP-led government came to an ignominious end. As per the constitution of the land, a neutral caretaker government headed by a chief advisor (CA) and ten members or advisors should be in place to conduct a free and fair election to pave the way for a new administration. The departing ruling party (BNP) by juggling the retirements of a few justices made sure that a person who is sympathetic to their party would become the CA of the caretaker government. They also appointed a few election commissioners who would toe the party line to ensure a BNP victory in the next election. The AL and other opposition parties in Bangladesh had been saying all along that the Election Commission should be recast to make a level playing field so that every political party is on equal footing entering the election process.
In the last week of October 2006 Bangladesh faced a mini crisis on the issue of electing a Chief Advisor of the much anticipated caretaker government. The leading candidate who was favored by BNP withdrew his nomination buckled under political pressure from the opposition. The president, Iajuddin Ahmed, did the unthinkable. Instead of appointing the next person in line who is also a retired justice of the Supreme Court he appointed himself to be the next CA of the caretaker government. Reluctantly, the opposition agreed to the proposal made by Iajuddin but they said that the president should show his neutrality while managing the next caretaker administration. Next, a ten-member advisory committee was formed in a hurry who are from civil society and nonpartisan. Thus, the caretaker government had only one partisan member but the trouble was that he made sure that most powerful portfolios stay with him.
To have Iajuddin as the Chief Advisor of the caretaker government was a disaster from day one. The opposition parties were demonstrating in the streets allover the nation to place their demands to block the appointment of the leading candidate for the position of CA of the caretaker government and to reform the Election Commission. Blinded by his love for BNP he wanted to deploy army to squish the demonstration called on by the opposition. The newly appointed advisors showed their annoyance to this move by the president. He rescinded his order to post army in the street under pressure from the new advisors. From day one Iajuddin was toeing his party line and he wanted to crush the opposition’s protest programs.
Another thing was quite discernible. Iajuddin was in no mood to consult the 10-member advisors on issues that have bearing on the upcoming election. The essence of the caretaker government is to make a favorable climate for a fair and free election. Iajuddin was doing just the opposite. To show that he is omnipotent when it comes to governance, he mistakenly thought that the nation is now under the presidential rule. It was far from being true. The constitution allowed the president to become the CA of the caretaker government despite some expert opinion that his ascension to the new position was unconstitutional for he did not follow the procedure outline in the constitution. When it was explained to him that he was wearing two hats and the real power lies with the CA of the caretaker government, he then understood where he erred. Iajuddin proved one thing for sure – people can still learn when they are old!
The main opposition party, the Awami League, and its 14-party alliance still pressed hard for Election Commission reform and they in consultation of the advisory council of the caretaker government came out with a 'package deal' agreeable to all parties including BNP. But in the final hour Iajuddin would not go along with it. He adamantly refused to let go one Election Commissioner. Bangladesh again plunged into a crisis and one could squarely blame it on Iajuddin because he was again toeing the party line.
On December 9, 2006 the crisis deepened a further when Iajuddin called the army to man the streets of Dhaka and elsewhere when his trusted advisors advised him to the contrary. A day later on December 10, 2006 four advisors of the ten-member team who were in the office for only 43 days tendered their resignation. The bottom-line was that they all thought they were ineffective in shaping up the policy to make a favorable environment for a fair and free election. Iajuddin is asking the four advisors to reconsider their decision to resign from the caretaker government.
The resignation of the four advisors took everyone in Bangladesh by surprise. These advisors were repeatedly hinting that Iajuddin was not listening to them and he has become a despot when it comes to making decision on key issues.
The chief of Awami League, Sheikh Hasina, sounded the alarm bell when she said that her party may boycott the election. Her reasoning is that Iajuddin is working to benefit only one party (BNP) and when the advisors are trying to make an environment for fair and free election Iajuddin is doing just the opposite while making others in the caretaker government very uncomfortable..
In the hindsight Hasina made a mistake in late October when Iajuddin declared himself to be the CA to caretaker government. At the time the opposition gave a benefit of doubt to Iajuddin and thought that he would take a neutral stance as far as the next election goes. But the events of the last 43 days have proved that a party man like Iajuddin is beyond any reform.
For a perspective on Iajuddin let me state that he was a very mediocre academic who did his doctoral degree in early sixties and vegetated in the campus of Dhaka University since then. In late 1970 and early 1980s he became a vocal champion of Gen. Ziaur Rahman, the founder of BNP, while being a full professor of the soil science department. With the help of BNP he held some important position at DU and in the government until he retired from the job. When Khaleda Zia booted out her first choice of the president of Bangladesh, Badruddozza Chowdhury, in 2002 because he would not toe the party line, she replaced him with Iajuddin who was not known beyond the four walls of Dhaka University. Khaleda Zia is elated now knowing how subservient this person is.
I chanced to read a few editorials from Dhaka’s newspapers on December 10, 2006 and most of them are very negative about Iajuddin's performance as the CA of the caretaker government. One editorial even mentioned that his midnight address to the nation on December 9 seems like it was prepared by the BNP in which he squarely blamed Awami League for fomenting the trouble.
Iajuddin still does not know that he is not the part of the solution but part of the problem. He lost his credibility and with his stubbornness while taking the nation to a spiraling downward journey. Bangladesh is facing a crisis already and there is this chance that the opposition may boycott the election in January 2007. It really took one person to make a mess of monumental proportion. Iajuddin became so blinded by his love for BNP that he breached the first rule of being the caretaker government – “Thou shalt be neutral.” Who is going to tell this Alzheimeric person that he ought to be neutral if he wants to be the CA of the caretaker government? With a person like him at the helm Bangladesh hardly needs an enemy to destroy the democratic norm in this impoverished nation of 145 million teeming masses. #
A.H. Jaffor Ullah, a researcher and columnist, writes from New Orleans, United States
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
President Prof. Iajuddin Ahmed dates with controversy
Daily Star Report
http://www.thedailystar.net/2006/12/12/d6121201044.htm
President Iajuddin Ahmed, who assumed the office of chief adviser (CA) to the caretaker government (CG) triggering a constitutional debate, has been giving rise to incessant controversies since then by taking unilateral decisions one after another on electoral issues.
The latest raging presidential controversy over Iajuddin's yet another unilateral decision of deploying the armed forces prompted four of the advisers to the CG to resign.
In the last 44 days, Iajuddin decided unilaterally three times to deploy the armed forces, appointed two election commissioners --- one of whom had been an aspiring BNP candidate in the next election, made the Election Commission (EC) make a hurried announcement of an election schedule , addressed the nation without consulting the advisers, and transferred some high level officials.
In one of the most striking move by the president and chief adviser other than calling out the army unilaterally, Iajuddin promoted his erstwhile press secretary Mokhlesur Rahman Chowdhury to the post of adviser to the president, which carries the status of a state minister, after allegations had been brought by all electoral political parties excepting BNP-led four-party alliance that Mokhles had been leaking confidential details of the advisory council meetings to the immediate past ruling alliance.
The advisers expressed their ignorance openly about the CA's decision making process. In absence of any advisory committee the advisers initially could not discuss reshuffling of the administration, and law and order situation in detail as the CA himself is in charge of the two vital ministries -- establishment and home affairs.
Later, two advisory committees on administrative affairs, and on law and order were formed but the CA made himself the chief of both the committees although advisers other than the CA usually lead them.
Interestingly, senior leaders of BNP have been blasting some of the advisers, especially the resigning four, for their conversations with the media, but never did they utter a single word criticising the activities of the CA.
CHRONOLOGY OF CONTROVERSIES
Iajuddin assumed the office of CA on October 29, jumping several constitutional alternatives on the appointment. Assuming the office, the CA in his address to the nation urged the major political parties to propose names of persons who could be considered for appointments as advisers, triggering a controversy whether the CA can seek names from the parties.
On November 9 at a meeting with the secretaries, Iajuddin reminded everyone that the present form of the government has become a 'presidential form of government' sparking another controversy.
In a sudden unilateral move, keeping the advisers in the dark, the president and CA on November 12 decided to deploy the armed forces across the country in aid of the civil administration but had to retract the decision on November 13 in the face of strong objections from the advisers.
After holding a meeting with BNP Chairperson Khaleda Zia, the president and CA on November 18 suddenly proposed to the leaders of the two major political alliances appointments of two new election commissioners while the advisers, who had been searching for ways to make the EC credible, had no clue of such a proposal coming.
On the night of November 22, Iajuddin addressed the nation without consulting the advisers although he had assured them of doing so.
Seething with frustration over the way the CA had been taking his decisions unilaterally and treating the advisers with a distant interest, five of them refrained from attending their offices on November 23.
On November 24 at a meeting of the council of advisers, the CA regretted his ways and assured the advisers that from that point on he would take every step consulting the advisers.
But on November 23, Election Commissioner Justice Mahfuzur Rahman in a surprise move convened a meeting of the EC and authorised himself as the acting CEC in absence of Aziz solely based on his consultation with Bangabhaban while the advisers were kept in the dark again.
Iajuddin made the EC announce an election schedule hurriedly on November 27, again keeping his advisers in the dark. On that day, the president also appointed two election commissioners --- Modabbir Hossain Chowdhury and Saiful Alam, without consulting the advisers who had been negotiating with rival political alliances to find a solution to the electoral crisis. Modabbir had been aspiring earlier to be a BNP candidate in the next election.
The CA initially agreed with the package proposal that included sending of two election commissioners, SM Zakaria and Modabbir, on leaves of absence like CEC MA Aziz. But he on last Wednesday at a meeting of the council of advisers suddenly appeared opposed the idea of sending Zakaria on a leave.
On November 9, the CA yet again unilaterally decided to deploy the armed forces across the country without paying heed to the advisers' repeated request not to do that.
On the night of November 10, he addressed the nation keeping his advisers in the dark yet again. In his address, he distorted some facts including the issue of Election Commissioner Zakaria and deployment of the armed forces.
On Zakaria issue, the CA said Awami League demanded his resignation although the issue was settled. On the deployment of the armed forces, he claimed that he had discussed the issue with the advisers. But the advisers said the president only informed them about his decision.
About Election Commissioner Modabbir, the president in his address said he initiated steps to send Modabbir on a leave of absence. But Modabbir yesterday expressed astonishment and said he is not at all aware of it. #
http://www.thedailystar.net/2006/12/12/d6121201044.htm
President Iajuddin Ahmed, who assumed the office of chief adviser (CA) to the caretaker government (CG) triggering a constitutional debate, has been giving rise to incessant controversies since then by taking unilateral decisions one after another on electoral issues.
The latest raging presidential controversy over Iajuddin's yet another unilateral decision of deploying the armed forces prompted four of the advisers to the CG to resign.
In the last 44 days, Iajuddin decided unilaterally three times to deploy the armed forces, appointed two election commissioners --- one of whom had been an aspiring BNP candidate in the next election, made the Election Commission (EC) make a hurried announcement of an election schedule , addressed the nation without consulting the advisers, and transferred some high level officials.
In one of the most striking move by the president and chief adviser other than calling out the army unilaterally, Iajuddin promoted his erstwhile press secretary Mokhlesur Rahman Chowdhury to the post of adviser to the president, which carries the status of a state minister, after allegations had been brought by all electoral political parties excepting BNP-led four-party alliance that Mokhles had been leaking confidential details of the advisory council meetings to the immediate past ruling alliance.
The advisers expressed their ignorance openly about the CA's decision making process. In absence of any advisory committee the advisers initially could not discuss reshuffling of the administration, and law and order situation in detail as the CA himself is in charge of the two vital ministries -- establishment and home affairs.
Later, two advisory committees on administrative affairs, and on law and order were formed but the CA made himself the chief of both the committees although advisers other than the CA usually lead them.
Interestingly, senior leaders of BNP have been blasting some of the advisers, especially the resigning four, for their conversations with the media, but never did they utter a single word criticising the activities of the CA.
CHRONOLOGY OF CONTROVERSIES
Iajuddin assumed the office of CA on October 29, jumping several constitutional alternatives on the appointment. Assuming the office, the CA in his address to the nation urged the major political parties to propose names of persons who could be considered for appointments as advisers, triggering a controversy whether the CA can seek names from the parties.
On November 9 at a meeting with the secretaries, Iajuddin reminded everyone that the present form of the government has become a 'presidential form of government' sparking another controversy.
In a sudden unilateral move, keeping the advisers in the dark, the president and CA on November 12 decided to deploy the armed forces across the country in aid of the civil administration but had to retract the decision on November 13 in the face of strong objections from the advisers.
After holding a meeting with BNP Chairperson Khaleda Zia, the president and CA on November 18 suddenly proposed to the leaders of the two major political alliances appointments of two new election commissioners while the advisers, who had been searching for ways to make the EC credible, had no clue of such a proposal coming.
On the night of November 22, Iajuddin addressed the nation without consulting the advisers although he had assured them of doing so.
Seething with frustration over the way the CA had been taking his decisions unilaterally and treating the advisers with a distant interest, five of them refrained from attending their offices on November 23.
On November 24 at a meeting of the council of advisers, the CA regretted his ways and assured the advisers that from that point on he would take every step consulting the advisers.
But on November 23, Election Commissioner Justice Mahfuzur Rahman in a surprise move convened a meeting of the EC and authorised himself as the acting CEC in absence of Aziz solely based on his consultation with Bangabhaban while the advisers were kept in the dark again.
Iajuddin made the EC announce an election schedule hurriedly on November 27, again keeping his advisers in the dark. On that day, the president also appointed two election commissioners --- Modabbir Hossain Chowdhury and Saiful Alam, without consulting the advisers who had been negotiating with rival political alliances to find a solution to the electoral crisis. Modabbir had been aspiring earlier to be a BNP candidate in the next election.
The CA initially agreed with the package proposal that included sending of two election commissioners, SM Zakaria and Modabbir, on leaves of absence like CEC MA Aziz. But he on last Wednesday at a meeting of the council of advisers suddenly appeared opposed the idea of sending Zakaria on a leave.
On November 9, the CA yet again unilaterally decided to deploy the armed forces across the country without paying heed to the advisers' repeated request not to do that.
On the night of November 10, he addressed the nation keeping his advisers in the dark yet again. In his address, he distorted some facts including the issue of Election Commissioner Zakaria and deployment of the armed forces.
On Zakaria issue, the CA said Awami League demanded his resignation although the issue was settled. On the deployment of the armed forces, he claimed that he had discussed the issue with the advisers. But the advisers said the president only informed them about his decision.
About Election Commissioner Modabbir, the president in his address said he initiated steps to send Modabbir on a leave of absence. But Modabbir yesterday expressed astonishment and said he is not at all aware of it. #
Bangladesh President Has Given Up All Semblance Of Neutrality
RIPAN KUMAR BISWAS
Accepting Noble Prize for peace, deploying army to control democracy practices, and resignation of the advisers as they couldn’t contribute to the interim government -these all are happening in one country at the same time.
Member of the interim administration's advisory council of Bangladesh Akbar Ali Khan, Hasan Mashhud Chowdhury, Sultana Kamal, and C.M Safi Sami have finally resigned on December 11, 2006.
Irked by the decision of the deploying army around Bangladesh, the advisers said to the media that they would resign as they found themselves too stuck to contribute anymore in the present interim government. Deployment of army without consultation with them has in fact become a “prestige issue” and they couldn’t go beyond their principles and conscience. According to them, there was no such situation in Bangladesh to deploy army and it could complicate political situation.
However, in a televised speech to the nation on late Sunday, December 10, 2006, President-cum-chief adviser of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh mentioned that he had duly consulted with the advisers before deploying the army. Whereas, according to Adviser Akbar Ali Khan and Adviser Hasan Mashhud Chowdhury, the deployment of army was not discussed with the interim administration's advisory council, and they even didn’t know for what purpose the army was called in by the president.
"I would like to remind everyone that the present form of government has become a presidential form of government after reposing the responsibility of caretaker government on the president," said president professor Iajuddin Ahmed of People’s Republic of Bangladesh at a meeting with secretaries to different ministries at the secretariat on November 9, 2006.
The following day, there was a press release from the press secretary of the president that media didn’t publish or establish president’s speech properly. Mr. President didn’t say that the present government of Bangladesh had become a presidential form of government. But in the long run, Bangladesh is now once again in autocracy.
After taking over, Mr. President-cum-chief adviser has immediately appointed ten other advisors as required by the constitution. From the very beginning, he is pushing the country towards confrontation and uncertainty by keeping the advisers in the dark and turning the Bangabhaban (President’s office cum residence) into one place of power generating.
At last Professor Ahmed did what he wanted to do since he became President-cum-chief adviser. Troops took up positions around Bangladesh on Sunday, December 10, 2006. President Iajuddin Ahmed ordered the deployment of army across the country amid a deterioration of public order. And as usual, the advisers didn’t know about it.
On November 8, 2006, Mr. President asked army to remain prepared to assist the civilian administration while he was addressing the senior army officers at Dhaka Cantonment. Following this a circular was issued by the Home Secretary to this effect. This decision was taken keeping all other advisers in the dark. The order was retracted after protest by the advisers. But this time, the advisers came to know after deployment and they had to take such a big decision like resignation.
Deploying the army was viewed as risky in a South Asian nation plagued by military coups since gaining independence from Pakistan in 1971. Two presidents have been slain in coups, and there have been 19 other failed coup attempts. Now it will be difficult in Bangladesh to promote democratic principles, vibrant civil societies, and free and fair elections.
However, the Home Ministry of Bangladesh said that the troops would protect public life and property, keep economic activities running, recover illegal weapons, and curb crimes to secure a congenial election atmosphere. In his last speech, Mr. Ahmed mentioned some of his recent steps which he had implemented.
President has also created some entirely avoidable controversies. Many had therefore expected that the controversial Chief Election Commissioner MA Aziz's departure on leave would be followed by credible reconstitution of the election commission of Bangladesh.
Unfortunately, the appointment of two new Election Commissioners on November 26, has only lent further credence to allegations of the President's partisanship. One of them, Modabbir Hossain Chowdhury, a former Inspector General of Police, had been actively seeking BNP (Bangladesh Nationalist Party)'s nomination for contesting the general election. There are also serious allegations against him of collaborating with Pakistan during the 1971 Liberation War.
The other appointee, Saiful Alam, has close links with the Jamaat-e-Islam. A former member of the lower judiciary his subsequent role as the Director General of the Anti-Corruption Bureau had raised serious questions.
It is now becoming increasingly clear that something is going very carefully to implement its crafted blueprint for rigging the forthcoming general election in Bangladesh. #
New York, December 11, 2006
Ripan Kumar Biswas was an intern at The Seoul Times and a freelance writer based in New York Ripan.Biswas@yahoo.com
Accepting Noble Prize for peace, deploying army to control democracy practices, and resignation of the advisers as they couldn’t contribute to the interim government -these all are happening in one country at the same time.
Member of the interim administration's advisory council of Bangladesh Akbar Ali Khan, Hasan Mashhud Chowdhury, Sultana Kamal, and C.M Safi Sami have finally resigned on December 11, 2006.
Irked by the decision of the deploying army around Bangladesh, the advisers said to the media that they would resign as they found themselves too stuck to contribute anymore in the present interim government. Deployment of army without consultation with them has in fact become a “prestige issue” and they couldn’t go beyond their principles and conscience. According to them, there was no such situation in Bangladesh to deploy army and it could complicate political situation.
However, in a televised speech to the nation on late Sunday, December 10, 2006, President-cum-chief adviser of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh mentioned that he had duly consulted with the advisers before deploying the army. Whereas, according to Adviser Akbar Ali Khan and Adviser Hasan Mashhud Chowdhury, the deployment of army was not discussed with the interim administration's advisory council, and they even didn’t know for what purpose the army was called in by the president.
"I would like to remind everyone that the present form of government has become a presidential form of government after reposing the responsibility of caretaker government on the president," said president professor Iajuddin Ahmed of People’s Republic of Bangladesh at a meeting with secretaries to different ministries at the secretariat on November 9, 2006.
The following day, there was a press release from the press secretary of the president that media didn’t publish or establish president’s speech properly. Mr. President didn’t say that the present government of Bangladesh had become a presidential form of government. But in the long run, Bangladesh is now once again in autocracy.
After taking over, Mr. President-cum-chief adviser has immediately appointed ten other advisors as required by the constitution. From the very beginning, he is pushing the country towards confrontation and uncertainty by keeping the advisers in the dark and turning the Bangabhaban (President’s office cum residence) into one place of power generating.
At last Professor Ahmed did what he wanted to do since he became President-cum-chief adviser. Troops took up positions around Bangladesh on Sunday, December 10, 2006. President Iajuddin Ahmed ordered the deployment of army across the country amid a deterioration of public order. And as usual, the advisers didn’t know about it.
On November 8, 2006, Mr. President asked army to remain prepared to assist the civilian administration while he was addressing the senior army officers at Dhaka Cantonment. Following this a circular was issued by the Home Secretary to this effect. This decision was taken keeping all other advisers in the dark. The order was retracted after protest by the advisers. But this time, the advisers came to know after deployment and they had to take such a big decision like resignation.
Deploying the army was viewed as risky in a South Asian nation plagued by military coups since gaining independence from Pakistan in 1971. Two presidents have been slain in coups, and there have been 19 other failed coup attempts. Now it will be difficult in Bangladesh to promote democratic principles, vibrant civil societies, and free and fair elections.
However, the Home Ministry of Bangladesh said that the troops would protect public life and property, keep economic activities running, recover illegal weapons, and curb crimes to secure a congenial election atmosphere. In his last speech, Mr. Ahmed mentioned some of his recent steps which he had implemented.
President has also created some entirely avoidable controversies. Many had therefore expected that the controversial Chief Election Commissioner MA Aziz's departure on leave would be followed by credible reconstitution of the election commission of Bangladesh.
Unfortunately, the appointment of two new Election Commissioners on November 26, has only lent further credence to allegations of the President's partisanship. One of them, Modabbir Hossain Chowdhury, a former Inspector General of Police, had been actively seeking BNP (Bangladesh Nationalist Party)'s nomination for contesting the general election. There are also serious allegations against him of collaborating with Pakistan during the 1971 Liberation War.
The other appointee, Saiful Alam, has close links with the Jamaat-e-Islam. A former member of the lower judiciary his subsequent role as the Director General of the Anti-Corruption Bureau had raised serious questions.
It is now becoming increasingly clear that something is going very carefully to implement its crafted blueprint for rigging the forthcoming general election in Bangladesh. #
New York, December 11, 2006
Ripan Kumar Biswas was an intern at The Seoul Times and a freelance writer based in New York Ripan.Biswas@yahoo.com
Friday, December 08, 2006
Call for unity to save the Constitution
AMIR-UL ISLAM
While the entire country is united in its expectations for a free and fair election, instead of allowing constitutional processes to precede, a deliberately contrived crisis has been created.
While the entire country is united in its expectations for a free and fair election, instead of allowing constitutional processes to proceed, a deliberately contrived crisis has been created.
The outgoing Government is required by the Constitution to handover the reign of government to a non-party, impartial, caretaker government during the interim period following the dissolution of parliament. The present arrangement whereby the President appointed himself as the Chief Advisor of Caretaker Government is a gross violation of the Constitution. The President himself being the choice of a particular alliance, there was added reason for genuine apprehension that the combination of the two offices would prevent the Non Party Caretaker Government from functioning in a credible manner.
The President initially projected himself as a make-believe non-party Advisor to the Caretaker Government as though the outgoing party in power exercised undue influence upon him to act the way he did. The events which unfolded later during last two weeks have now confirmed that the President himself is still working under the advise of forces outside the 10 advisers which are very apparent now, last instance being the arbitrary order/s in form of an absurd notification purporting to deploy the army in all the districts without any due consultation with the chief of staff and without any decision of the advisor's council showing the height of tyranny. Thanks God. This as we are told has been corrected due to timely intervention by the Advisers. We do not know how many more surprises are in the store for the nation to witness as the time closes towards election.
President has concentrated all the powers in his own hand without distributing the portfolios, which are most relevant for holding election, to other advisers. President in violation of the Constitution addressed the secretaries that it was a presidential form of government and that the secretaries should be accountable to him; whereas according to the Rules of Business, Advisers, who are now performing the function of the ministers are the head of the respective ministry and the Chief Adviser according to the Constitution and the Rules of Business ought to act collectively and not over the head of the advisers. The President even appointed his Press Secretary an adviser with the rank of a State Minister, which is unprecedented, and beyond the scope of the Constitution. Every day there is a new surprise causing concern rather than creating confidence and credibility in the system that is followed.
It took two weeks before the advisers could even have a proper minuted meeting held only on November 13, 2006. The immediate past government successfully destroyed all the institutions of the state including the Election commission, Public Service Commission, and the Judiciary and also the institution of the Caretaker Government as is being now unfolded.
The only institution, that is, the armed forces despite all odds and erosion in other sectors seem to have preserved some core discipline and developed their professional standard. Their professional image and performance has been acknowledged universally. The present unholy alliance is now trying to drag that institution also into the political controversy, so that the country and the people may not have any leverage left in order to keep the Constitution intact.
What can be done in order to bring the country back on the Constitutional rail?
President obviously skipped three steps and assumed (if not usurped) the power of the Chief Adviser. Thereby the checks and balances of the Constitution has been disturbed. This is bound to lead towards an anarchy and lawlessness in the state administration. While street anarchy and violence can be contained very easily (signs of moderation are already in sight) but downhill deterioration of state institution unless arrested immediately it will lead to irreversible damage causing major dent to our nascent democracy, our administration state agencies and further diminishing the prospect for economic development and progress.
Can we humbly suggest that¬ the two offices i.e. the President and that of the Chief Adviser ought to be kept distinct from each other.
While the Bill for 13th Amendment to the constitution was introduced in the parliament Mr. Jamiruddin Sircar the then Law Minister while introducing the Bill told the entire nation from the floor of the house in no uncertain terms the objects as well as the meaning and intent of the Bill clearly elaborating the three options in his own words as quoted here below:
In Part III at page 58 it further states that the Bill was in the select committee where M K Anwar, Khandakar Mahbuddin Ahmed and Barrister Aminul Huq were present. The then Law Minister's statement explains the object of the Bill in clear terms creating, thereby a universal consensus regarding steps to be taken under 58C (3), (4) and (5) never disputed ever before.
The reader may read the relevant provision of the Constitution reproduced hereunder and come to their own Conclusion in order to find remedial measures:
"58C. Composition of the Non-Party Caretaker government, appointment of Advisers, etcetera.
(1) Non-Party Caretaker government shall consist of the Chief Adviser at its head and not more than ten other Advisers, all of whom shall be appointed by the President.
(2) The Chief Adviser and other Advisers shall be appointed within fifteen days after Parliament is dissolved or stands dissolved, and during the period between the date on which Parliament is dissolved or stands dissolved and the date on which the Chief Adviser is appointed, the Prime Minister and his cabinet who were in office immediately before Parliament was dissolved or stood dissolved shall continue to hold office as such.
(3) The President shall appoint as Chief Adviser the person who among the retired Chief Justices of Bangladesh retired last and who is qualified to be appointed as an Adviser under this article:
Provided that if such retired Chief Justice is not available or is not willing to hold the office of Chief Adviser, the President shall appoint as Chief Adviser the person who among the retired Chief Justices of Bangladesh retired next before the last retired Chief Justice.
(4) If no retired Chief Justice is available or willing to hold the office of Chief Adviser, the President shall appoint as Chief Adviser the person who among the retired Judges of the Appellate Division retired last and who is qualified to be appointed as an Adviser under this article:
Provided that if such retired Judge is not available or is not willing to hold the office of Chief Adviser, the President shall appoint as Chief Adviser the person who among the retired Judges of the Appellate Division retired next before the last such retired Judge.
(5) If no retired judge of the Appellate Division is available or willing to hold the office of Chief Adviser, the President shall, after consultation, as far as practicable, with the major political parties, appoint the Chief Adviser from among citizens of Bangladesh who are qualified to be appointed as Advisers under this article.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, if the provisions of clauses (3), (4) and (5) cannot be given effect to, the President shall assume the functions of the Chief Adviser of the Non-Party Caretaker government in addition to his own functions under this Constitution.
(7) The President shall appoint Advisers from among the persons who are-
(a) qualified for election as members of parliament;
(b) not members of any political party or of any organisation associated with or affiliated to any political party;
(c) not, and have agreed in writing not to be, candidates for the ensuing election of members of parliament;
(d) not over seventy-two years of age.
(8) The Advisers shall be appointed by the President on the advice of the Chief Adviser.
(9) The Chief Adviser or an Adviser may resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the President.
(10) The Chief Adviser or an Adviser shall cease to be Chief Adviser or Adviser if he is disqualified to be appointed as such under this article.
(11) The Chief Adviser shall have the status, and shall be entitled to the remuneration and privileges, of a Prime Minister and an Adviser shall have the status, and shall be entitled to the remuneration and privileges, of a Minister.
(12) The Non-Party Caretaker government shall stand dissolved on the date on which the Prime Minister enters upon his office after the constitution of new parliament."
Readers may kindly note that dead person cannot be counted because the Constitution does not look for a dead person to be appointed the Chief Adviser. Secondly in 58C (3) the word such is used; whereas in (4) word 'such' is not mentioned. It says "If no retired Chief Justice is available or willing to hold the office of Chief Advise, the President shall appoint as Chief Adviser the person who among the retired Judges of the Appellate Division retired last and who is qualified to be appointed as an Adviser under this article". Hence the then Law Minister Mr Sircar is right in explaining that each of the retired Chief Justice within 72 years of age to be considered and exhausted before the next step is under taken.
Article 58 (3) and (4) if read together which Mr Jamiruddin Sircar explained as clear as the daylight that there will be two lists, one is that of all the retired Chief Justices who are within 72 years of age, and another that of the retired judges of the Appellate Division starting from the last retired. Those lists if one after another is exhausted and none is found available from either of the list then and then only, one should try to select a citizen to hold the office after due consultation. President did not act upon any of these options, which is evident from the conversation the Military Secretary of the President held with Justice Mahmudul Amin Chowdhury whom he sounded if he would like to feel embarrassed to enter upon the office of the Chief Adviser. Reply was as is reported through the media that he never felt embarrassed to hear any case in his court, nor he would ever feel embarrassed to perform any constitutional duty and obligation as he may be called upon to perform. Obviously the President knew that he was the next person to be offered after Justice K M Hasan declined. In case the President had any doubt or confusion or difficulty in understanding the finding the intent of the Constitution it was his obligation to refer the matter to be decided by the Appellate Division under Article 106. Obviously he knew who was the next to be appointed and perhaps that is the reason for which PMS contacted Justice Mahmudul Amin Chowdhury.
The entire nation is painfully aware that there has been no handing over of the power by the outgoing government to a properly constituted Non- Party Caretaker government. People are thus being deprived of a non-party caretaker government as a result of an utterly irresponsible conduct of the outgoing government. This amounts to violation of the Constitution which can only deepen the crisis and could ultimately lead to the destruction of the Constitution itself. The only way the Constitution can be saved and the country rescued from the current crisis is by the immediate appointment of Chief Adviser in accordance to the Constitution.
Election Commission:
Article 119 (1) gives the power of the Election Commission which includes the duty and obligation to prepare the electoral rolls specially mentioned in 119 (1) (d).
Article 119 and 120, if read together, ensure that every qualified person must be entitled to be a voter and there must be a permanent electoral roll, continuously to be updated and certainly before each of the elections. A transparent and flawless electoral roll is a necessary attribute to our citizenry and also of democracy envisaged under the constitution. The present Election Commission failed and/or wilfully defaulted by not making a transparent and lawful voter list according to the rules despite the judgements of the Highest Court. One after another flawed voter list are being prepared in a non transparent manner. Under the law it is obligatory to publish the draft voter list under Section 7(2) of Electoral Rolls Ordinance. This is in order for every citizen to be able to check and help correct the electoral roll if necessary. The Election Commission in violation of the law and the judgement declared that there will be no publication of draft voter list. Till now it is a hidden document, no one having access to it; whereas people ought to have been able to get it on the internet/website by now when so much money and time have been wasted during last several years. Wilful failure and publicly denying to publish the draft voter list is a serious violation obstructing constitutional process for a free and fair election. This is a clear misconduct for which the entire commission is liable to be dismissed.
The present status, of the electoral data is so messy that the printers find many new entries without serial and some men's name in the female list and vice versa. For violation of court's order the High Court Division issued Contempt Rule. Besides other misconduct of Chief Election Commissioner, the entire Election Commission, including its Secretary and Additional Secretary have failed to discharge the minimum requirement in preparing a dependable and credible voter list, but in the process spent 64 crore taka without any accountability and thus raising questions even by the then Finance Minister as to the propriety of the expenditures.
On January 4, 2006 High Court Division of Supreme Court held (in the writ case filed by Mr M A Jalil, General Secretary of Awami League challenging arbitrary and non transparent way of preparing the voter list) that "A correct and valid voter list is sine qua non for any free and fair election and any lack of transparency in the process of its preparation... is bound to have wide ramification."
In upholding the judgement of the High Court Division the Appellate Division gave fine-tuning to one of the directives in following terms -
The Commission should prepare Electoral Roll taking into consideration of the existing roll under Section 7(6) of the Ordinance. If there is a computerised database, the Commission should make the best use of it and if not, a computerised electoral roll with database would always be maintained to avoid further controversy.
May I ask very humbly the Hon'ble men in the election commission where is that transparent computerised electoral roll with data base? Where is the honest and manifest intent to avoid further controversy? Have you complied with the judgement? Have you not violated the judgement as well as the law by denying to publish the draft electoral roll as is required under Section 7(2) of the Ordinance and thus violated the law of transparency in election process asked from you by the nation through its Supreme Court?
If so are you not liable to be removed?
If you yet refuse to resign, does it not become the Constitutional obligation of the President to order for constitution of the Supreme Judicial Council with reference as to the reason, motive and purpose for derailing the election and thereby causing obstruction to the constitutional process amounting to high treason?
Suggestion:
1. President, therefore, is under a Constitutional obligation to refer the matter to Supreme Judicial Council for removal of the Election Commission.
2. Secretary and Additional Secretary be removed.
3. Audit be conducted regarding the money spent and they be prosecuted, if irregularities/misappropriation found. Let the Auditor and Comptroller General and other agencies be activated.
Let the people from all shades of opinion, profession and calling be united as they are expected to be in such a national crisis and in one voice demand and persuade the Hon'ble President to relinquish his additional responsibility of Chief Advisor by resigning from that office under Article 58C (9) and invite the person now duly available under the Constitution according to Article 58C (3) and (4). This will bring the Constitutional process back on the track and prevent the President from giving the nation shocking surprises every other day.
AMIR-UL ISLAM, Barrister-at-Law, eminent lawyer, co-author of Bangladesh constituion and presently president of Bangladesh Supreme Court Bar Association
Published in arrangement with South Asian News (SAN)-Feature Service
While the entire country is united in its expectations for a free and fair election, instead of allowing constitutional processes to precede, a deliberately contrived crisis has been created.
While the entire country is united in its expectations for a free and fair election, instead of allowing constitutional processes to proceed, a deliberately contrived crisis has been created.
The outgoing Government is required by the Constitution to handover the reign of government to a non-party, impartial, caretaker government during the interim period following the dissolution of parliament. The present arrangement whereby the President appointed himself as the Chief Advisor of Caretaker Government is a gross violation of the Constitution. The President himself being the choice of a particular alliance, there was added reason for genuine apprehension that the combination of the two offices would prevent the Non Party Caretaker Government from functioning in a credible manner.
The President initially projected himself as a make-believe non-party Advisor to the Caretaker Government as though the outgoing party in power exercised undue influence upon him to act the way he did. The events which unfolded later during last two weeks have now confirmed that the President himself is still working under the advise of forces outside the 10 advisers which are very apparent now, last instance being the arbitrary order/s in form of an absurd notification purporting to deploy the army in all the districts without any due consultation with the chief of staff and without any decision of the advisor's council showing the height of tyranny. Thanks God. This as we are told has been corrected due to timely intervention by the Advisers. We do not know how many more surprises are in the store for the nation to witness as the time closes towards election.
President has concentrated all the powers in his own hand without distributing the portfolios, which are most relevant for holding election, to other advisers. President in violation of the Constitution addressed the secretaries that it was a presidential form of government and that the secretaries should be accountable to him; whereas according to the Rules of Business, Advisers, who are now performing the function of the ministers are the head of the respective ministry and the Chief Adviser according to the Constitution and the Rules of Business ought to act collectively and not over the head of the advisers. The President even appointed his Press Secretary an adviser with the rank of a State Minister, which is unprecedented, and beyond the scope of the Constitution. Every day there is a new surprise causing concern rather than creating confidence and credibility in the system that is followed.
It took two weeks before the advisers could even have a proper minuted meeting held only on November 13, 2006. The immediate past government successfully destroyed all the institutions of the state including the Election commission, Public Service Commission, and the Judiciary and also the institution of the Caretaker Government as is being now unfolded.
The only institution, that is, the armed forces despite all odds and erosion in other sectors seem to have preserved some core discipline and developed their professional standard. Their professional image and performance has been acknowledged universally. The present unholy alliance is now trying to drag that institution also into the political controversy, so that the country and the people may not have any leverage left in order to keep the Constitution intact.
What can be done in order to bring the country back on the Constitutional rail?
President obviously skipped three steps and assumed (if not usurped) the power of the Chief Adviser. Thereby the checks and balances of the Constitution has been disturbed. This is bound to lead towards an anarchy and lawlessness in the state administration. While street anarchy and violence can be contained very easily (signs of moderation are already in sight) but downhill deterioration of state institution unless arrested immediately it will lead to irreversible damage causing major dent to our nascent democracy, our administration state agencies and further diminishing the prospect for economic development and progress.
Can we humbly suggest that¬ the two offices i.e. the President and that of the Chief Adviser ought to be kept distinct from each other.
While the Bill for 13th Amendment to the constitution was introduced in the parliament Mr. Jamiruddin Sircar the then Law Minister while introducing the Bill told the entire nation from the floor of the house in no uncertain terms the objects as well as the meaning and intent of the Bill clearly elaborating the three options in his own words as quoted here below:
In Part III at page 58 it further states that the Bill was in the select committee where M K Anwar, Khandakar Mahbuddin Ahmed and Barrister Aminul Huq were present. The then Law Minister's statement explains the object of the Bill in clear terms creating, thereby a universal consensus regarding steps to be taken under 58C (3), (4) and (5) never disputed ever before.
The reader may read the relevant provision of the Constitution reproduced hereunder and come to their own Conclusion in order to find remedial measures:
"58C. Composition of the Non-Party Caretaker government, appointment of Advisers, etcetera.
(1) Non-Party Caretaker government shall consist of the Chief Adviser at its head and not more than ten other Advisers, all of whom shall be appointed by the President.
(2) The Chief Adviser and other Advisers shall be appointed within fifteen days after Parliament is dissolved or stands dissolved, and during the period between the date on which Parliament is dissolved or stands dissolved and the date on which the Chief Adviser is appointed, the Prime Minister and his cabinet who were in office immediately before Parliament was dissolved or stood dissolved shall continue to hold office as such.
(3) The President shall appoint as Chief Adviser the person who among the retired Chief Justices of Bangladesh retired last and who is qualified to be appointed as an Adviser under this article:
Provided that if such retired Chief Justice is not available or is not willing to hold the office of Chief Adviser, the President shall appoint as Chief Adviser the person who among the retired Chief Justices of Bangladesh retired next before the last retired Chief Justice.
(4) If no retired Chief Justice is available or willing to hold the office of Chief Adviser, the President shall appoint as Chief Adviser the person who among the retired Judges of the Appellate Division retired last and who is qualified to be appointed as an Adviser under this article:
Provided that if such retired Judge is not available or is not willing to hold the office of Chief Adviser, the President shall appoint as Chief Adviser the person who among the retired Judges of the Appellate Division retired next before the last such retired Judge.
(5) If no retired judge of the Appellate Division is available or willing to hold the office of Chief Adviser, the President shall, after consultation, as far as practicable, with the major political parties, appoint the Chief Adviser from among citizens of Bangladesh who are qualified to be appointed as Advisers under this article.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, if the provisions of clauses (3), (4) and (5) cannot be given effect to, the President shall assume the functions of the Chief Adviser of the Non-Party Caretaker government in addition to his own functions under this Constitution.
(7) The President shall appoint Advisers from among the persons who are-
(a) qualified for election as members of parliament;
(b) not members of any political party or of any organisation associated with or affiliated to any political party;
(c) not, and have agreed in writing not to be, candidates for the ensuing election of members of parliament;
(d) not over seventy-two years of age.
(8) The Advisers shall be appointed by the President on the advice of the Chief Adviser.
(9) The Chief Adviser or an Adviser may resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the President.
(10) The Chief Adviser or an Adviser shall cease to be Chief Adviser or Adviser if he is disqualified to be appointed as such under this article.
(11) The Chief Adviser shall have the status, and shall be entitled to the remuneration and privileges, of a Prime Minister and an Adviser shall have the status, and shall be entitled to the remuneration and privileges, of a Minister.
(12) The Non-Party Caretaker government shall stand dissolved on the date on which the Prime Minister enters upon his office after the constitution of new parliament."
Readers may kindly note that dead person cannot be counted because the Constitution does not look for a dead person to be appointed the Chief Adviser. Secondly in 58C (3) the word such is used; whereas in (4) word 'such' is not mentioned. It says "If no retired Chief Justice is available or willing to hold the office of Chief Advise, the President shall appoint as Chief Adviser the person who among the retired Judges of the Appellate Division retired last and who is qualified to be appointed as an Adviser under this article". Hence the then Law Minister Mr Sircar is right in explaining that each of the retired Chief Justice within 72 years of age to be considered and exhausted before the next step is under taken.
Article 58 (3) and (4) if read together which Mr Jamiruddin Sircar explained as clear as the daylight that there will be two lists, one is that of all the retired Chief Justices who are within 72 years of age, and another that of the retired judges of the Appellate Division starting from the last retired. Those lists if one after another is exhausted and none is found available from either of the list then and then only, one should try to select a citizen to hold the office after due consultation. President did not act upon any of these options, which is evident from the conversation the Military Secretary of the President held with Justice Mahmudul Amin Chowdhury whom he sounded if he would like to feel embarrassed to enter upon the office of the Chief Adviser. Reply was as is reported through the media that he never felt embarrassed to hear any case in his court, nor he would ever feel embarrassed to perform any constitutional duty and obligation as he may be called upon to perform. Obviously the President knew that he was the next person to be offered after Justice K M Hasan declined. In case the President had any doubt or confusion or difficulty in understanding the finding the intent of the Constitution it was his obligation to refer the matter to be decided by the Appellate Division under Article 106. Obviously he knew who was the next to be appointed and perhaps that is the reason for which PMS contacted Justice Mahmudul Amin Chowdhury.
The entire nation is painfully aware that there has been no handing over of the power by the outgoing government to a properly constituted Non- Party Caretaker government. People are thus being deprived of a non-party caretaker government as a result of an utterly irresponsible conduct of the outgoing government. This amounts to violation of the Constitution which can only deepen the crisis and could ultimately lead to the destruction of the Constitution itself. The only way the Constitution can be saved and the country rescued from the current crisis is by the immediate appointment of Chief Adviser in accordance to the Constitution.
Election Commission:
Article 119 (1) gives the power of the Election Commission which includes the duty and obligation to prepare the electoral rolls specially mentioned in 119 (1) (d).
Article 119 and 120, if read together, ensure that every qualified person must be entitled to be a voter and there must be a permanent electoral roll, continuously to be updated and certainly before each of the elections. A transparent and flawless electoral roll is a necessary attribute to our citizenry and also of democracy envisaged under the constitution. The present Election Commission failed and/or wilfully defaulted by not making a transparent and lawful voter list according to the rules despite the judgements of the Highest Court. One after another flawed voter list are being prepared in a non transparent manner. Under the law it is obligatory to publish the draft voter list under Section 7(2) of Electoral Rolls Ordinance. This is in order for every citizen to be able to check and help correct the electoral roll if necessary. The Election Commission in violation of the law and the judgement declared that there will be no publication of draft voter list. Till now it is a hidden document, no one having access to it; whereas people ought to have been able to get it on the internet/website by now when so much money and time have been wasted during last several years. Wilful failure and publicly denying to publish the draft voter list is a serious violation obstructing constitutional process for a free and fair election. This is a clear misconduct for which the entire commission is liable to be dismissed.
The present status, of the electoral data is so messy that the printers find many new entries without serial and some men's name in the female list and vice versa. For violation of court's order the High Court Division issued Contempt Rule. Besides other misconduct of Chief Election Commissioner, the entire Election Commission, including its Secretary and Additional Secretary have failed to discharge the minimum requirement in preparing a dependable and credible voter list, but in the process spent 64 crore taka without any accountability and thus raising questions even by the then Finance Minister as to the propriety of the expenditures.
On January 4, 2006 High Court Division of Supreme Court held (in the writ case filed by Mr M A Jalil, General Secretary of Awami League challenging arbitrary and non transparent way of preparing the voter list) that "A correct and valid voter list is sine qua non for any free and fair election and any lack of transparency in the process of its preparation... is bound to have wide ramification."
In upholding the judgement of the High Court Division the Appellate Division gave fine-tuning to one of the directives in following terms -
The Commission should prepare Electoral Roll taking into consideration of the existing roll under Section 7(6) of the Ordinance. If there is a computerised database, the Commission should make the best use of it and if not, a computerised electoral roll with database would always be maintained to avoid further controversy.
May I ask very humbly the Hon'ble men in the election commission where is that transparent computerised electoral roll with data base? Where is the honest and manifest intent to avoid further controversy? Have you complied with the judgement? Have you not violated the judgement as well as the law by denying to publish the draft electoral roll as is required under Section 7(2) of the Ordinance and thus violated the law of transparency in election process asked from you by the nation through its Supreme Court?
If so are you not liable to be removed?
If you yet refuse to resign, does it not become the Constitutional obligation of the President to order for constitution of the Supreme Judicial Council with reference as to the reason, motive and purpose for derailing the election and thereby causing obstruction to the constitutional process amounting to high treason?
Suggestion:
1. President, therefore, is under a Constitutional obligation to refer the matter to Supreme Judicial Council for removal of the Election Commission.
2. Secretary and Additional Secretary be removed.
3. Audit be conducted regarding the money spent and they be prosecuted, if irregularities/misappropriation found. Let the Auditor and Comptroller General and other agencies be activated.
Let the people from all shades of opinion, profession and calling be united as they are expected to be in such a national crisis and in one voice demand and persuade the Hon'ble President to relinquish his additional responsibility of Chief Advisor by resigning from that office under Article 58C (9) and invite the person now duly available under the Constitution according to Article 58C (3) and (4). This will bring the Constitutional process back on the track and prevent the President from giving the nation shocking surprises every other day.
AMIR-UL ISLAM, Barrister-at-Law, eminent lawyer, co-author of Bangladesh constituion and presently president of Bangladesh Supreme Court Bar Association
Published in arrangement with South Asian News (SAN)-Feature Service
Distorting the History of Chittagong Hill Tracts
PRAJNALANKAR BHIKKHU
Lawyers and journalists uphold justice and truth in the society by their profession. But it is an irony in Bangladesh that Bengali Muslim lawyers like M.B.I. Munshi, Bar-at-Law & Advocate (Supreme Court), Dhaka, and journalists like Mohammad Zainul Abedin have started raping the history of the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) – let alone its non-Muslim minority communities (Jumma indigenous people) – as part of their support to the Bangladeshi government's "policy of Islamisation" in the region. If lawyers and journalists of Bangladesh can involve in such a crime, a sensible person can easily imagine the magnitude and graveness of atrocities being committed on the minority non-Muslim communities by a majority and powerful Islamic fundamentalist regime – Bangladesh.
The Jummas are the first people or sons of soil in the CHT. It is the Jummas who first fought with wild animals and dense forest and made the CHT habitable. Before them the region was a no-man's land. No historical records are available on the existence of Bengali Muslim settlement in the CHT before 1860. Of course, Bengali Muslims of Bengal had established trade relations with the Jummas in the early 16th century.
Bengali Muslims started migrating from parts of Bengal into the CHT as labourers hired by individual Jummas for agriculture since the colonization of the region by the British in 1860. Increasing population of Bengali Muslims in the CHT necessitated the British to enact the 1900 CHT Regulation in 1900. The Regulation restricts "outsiders" (here Bengali Muslims) from "purchasing land" and "settling permanently" in the region without prior permission from the Deputy Commissioner. According to the census reports, Bengalis – both Muslims and Hindus -- constituted only 1.5% in 1941, 6.29% in 1951 and 11.77% in 1961 of the total CHT population. It means in 1941, the Jummas constituted 98.5% of the total CHT population. It is clear who the sons or indigenous or first people of the CHT are. According to the census report of 2001, Bengali Muslims have increased to 49% (in fact, the figure is higher than 60%) of the total CHT population in 2001.
The Jummas migrated originally from India via Burma due to bloody feuds between the "tribal republics" and rising urban-based monarchical kingdoms after the demise of the Buddha. They established kingdom in the CHT under their Chiefs. The CHT had been an independent Buddhist kingdom until it was brought under British India in 1860. Even the long rule of the Mughals (1326-1757) failed to invade it for geo-political reasons. The CHT was one of the regions where the sword (terrorism in modern language) of Muslim invaders (terrorists in modern language) failed to reach out. This is one of the reasons why Buddhism is still surviving there despite its total destruction in India during the Muslim rule. From 1900 to 1947 the CHT was specially administered by the Chakma, Bomang and Mong Chiefs under the CHT Regulation of 1900. It was integrated with East Pakistan during the partition of the Indian Sub-continent in 1947 against the will of the people thereof. This integration is illegal, undemocratic and incomplete.
Bangladesh was born as an independent and sovereign nation-state out of the womb of Pakistan very recently in 1971. The history of Bangladesh begins from 1971 onwards, while the history of the CHT began centuries ago. Bangladesh is a baby-state. And the CHT had never been part of this baby-state before 1971.
The Jumma indigenous people had lost their homeland and sovereignty to East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, with the de-colonization of the Indian Sub-continent in 1947 due to the whimsical and arbitrary decision of the British. They are now on the threshold of losing their very identity and culture due to the Bangladeshi policy of Bengali Muslim population explosion in their territory. The CHT is one of the surviving colonies in the post-colonial era.
The Jummas identify themselves as indigenous people, as they truly are, in the context of the current Bangladeshi colonial rule in their traditional homeland. Bangladesh denies their identity as indigenous people and wrongly imposes "tribal identity" on them as part of its policy to deny their right to self-determination and to justify its colonial regime in the CHT.
Islam was born in the late 6th century i.e. 1400 years ago from today. It spread over South Asia in the 12th century. While the Vedic/Hindu and Buddhist periods in South Asia date back respectively to 3000 and 2500 years ago from today. Java, Borneo, Sumatra, Bali etc. islands of present Indonesia were Buddhist countries. Many century-old Buddhist monasteries like the Barabadur (a name deriving from an expression meaning "Mountain of accumulation of merits of the ten states of Bodhisattva" ) Stupa in Java built in the 6th century are still living witnesses of this historical fact. However, Muslim invaders destroyed these Buddhist islands in the 15th century while spreading Islam with the sword.
According to Wikipedia, the web-based free encyclopaedia, Buddhism entered Bengal before Asoka's time (3rd century BC.). Bangladesh (historical Bengal) has a unique place in the history of Buddhism, mainly for two reasons. Firstly, Bengal was the last stronghold of Indian Buddhism where it could survive as a socio-cultural force until the 12th century, despite its disappearance from other parts of the Indian subcontinent. Secondly, it is generally claimed that Bengal was the home of a form of Buddhism, namely, the Tantric Buddhism. Tantric Buddhism is a later development in Bengal and therefore it remains to be seen what specific factors are responsible for turning the pure form of Buddhism into tantricism and whether the mystic and esoteric practices in the Buddhism of Bangladesh are of distinctively Bengali origin.
The Mughals of India and the Bengali Muslims of present Bangladesh were, in fact, Hindus in the Vedic/Hindu period and peace-loving Buddhists in the Buddhist period. This historical fact is still alive in the ruins of Mahastangarh Buddhist monasteries (3rd century BC) in Bogra, Paharpur Buddhist monasteries (7th century) in Rajshahi, now a World Heritage Site recognized by UNESCO, Mainamati Salban Viharas (8th century) in Comilla, Pandit Vihara (10th century) in Chittagong and Dhakeshwari Temple (12th century) in Dhaka.
The Arab Muslim invaders forcibly converted them into Islam while they marched across South and South-east Asia to spread Islam with the sword in the 12th century. They destroyed the history, identity and culture of these Hindus and peace-loving Buddhists. The Bengali Muslims of Bangladesh are doing exactly the same in the CHT. Today these poor Hindus and peace-loving Buddhists forgot their past history and wrongly think themselves as Muslims under the evil influence of Islam.
Mohammad Zainal claims himself to be a "researcher", "historian" and "journalist". He should study and research the CHT history more with an objective mind. He should not apply his subjectivism and religious fanaticism in research. His "research" on the Jumma indigenous people is like raping the history of the CHT. #
Lawyers and journalists uphold justice and truth in the society by their profession. But it is an irony in Bangladesh that Bengali Muslim lawyers like M.B.I. Munshi, Bar-at-Law & Advocate (Supreme Court), Dhaka, and journalists like Mohammad Zainul Abedin have started raping the history of the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) – let alone its non-Muslim minority communities (Jumma indigenous people) – as part of their support to the Bangladeshi government's "policy of Islamisation" in the region. If lawyers and journalists of Bangladesh can involve in such a crime, a sensible person can easily imagine the magnitude and graveness of atrocities being committed on the minority non-Muslim communities by a majority and powerful Islamic fundamentalist regime – Bangladesh.
The Jummas are the first people or sons of soil in the CHT. It is the Jummas who first fought with wild animals and dense forest and made the CHT habitable. Before them the region was a no-man's land. No historical records are available on the existence of Bengali Muslim settlement in the CHT before 1860. Of course, Bengali Muslims of Bengal had established trade relations with the Jummas in the early 16th century.
Bengali Muslims started migrating from parts of Bengal into the CHT as labourers hired by individual Jummas for agriculture since the colonization of the region by the British in 1860. Increasing population of Bengali Muslims in the CHT necessitated the British to enact the 1900 CHT Regulation in 1900. The Regulation restricts "outsiders" (here Bengali Muslims) from "purchasing land" and "settling permanently" in the region without prior permission from the Deputy Commissioner. According to the census reports, Bengalis – both Muslims and Hindus -- constituted only 1.5% in 1941, 6.29% in 1951 and 11.77% in 1961 of the total CHT population. It means in 1941, the Jummas constituted 98.5% of the total CHT population. It is clear who the sons or indigenous or first people of the CHT are. According to the census report of 2001, Bengali Muslims have increased to 49% (in fact, the figure is higher than 60%) of the total CHT population in 2001.
The Jummas migrated originally from India via Burma due to bloody feuds between the "tribal republics" and rising urban-based monarchical kingdoms after the demise of the Buddha. They established kingdom in the CHT under their Chiefs. The CHT had been an independent Buddhist kingdom until it was brought under British India in 1860. Even the long rule of the Mughals (1326-1757) failed to invade it for geo-political reasons. The CHT was one of the regions where the sword (terrorism in modern language) of Muslim invaders (terrorists in modern language) failed to reach out. This is one of the reasons why Buddhism is still surviving there despite its total destruction in India during the Muslim rule. From 1900 to 1947 the CHT was specially administered by the Chakma, Bomang and Mong Chiefs under the CHT Regulation of 1900. It was integrated with East Pakistan during the partition of the Indian Sub-continent in 1947 against the will of the people thereof. This integration is illegal, undemocratic and incomplete.
Bangladesh was born as an independent and sovereign nation-state out of the womb of Pakistan very recently in 1971. The history of Bangladesh begins from 1971 onwards, while the history of the CHT began centuries ago. Bangladesh is a baby-state. And the CHT had never been part of this baby-state before 1971.
The Jumma indigenous people had lost their homeland and sovereignty to East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, with the de-colonization of the Indian Sub-continent in 1947 due to the whimsical and arbitrary decision of the British. They are now on the threshold of losing their very identity and culture due to the Bangladeshi policy of Bengali Muslim population explosion in their territory. The CHT is one of the surviving colonies in the post-colonial era.
The Jummas identify themselves as indigenous people, as they truly are, in the context of the current Bangladeshi colonial rule in their traditional homeland. Bangladesh denies their identity as indigenous people and wrongly imposes "tribal identity" on them as part of its policy to deny their right to self-determination and to justify its colonial regime in the CHT.
Islam was born in the late 6th century i.e. 1400 years ago from today. It spread over South Asia in the 12th century. While the Vedic/Hindu and Buddhist periods in South Asia date back respectively to 3000 and 2500 years ago from today. Java, Borneo, Sumatra, Bali etc. islands of present Indonesia were Buddhist countries. Many century-old Buddhist monasteries like the Barabadur (a name deriving from an expression meaning "Mountain of accumulation of merits of the ten states of Bodhisattva" ) Stupa in Java built in the 6th century are still living witnesses of this historical fact. However, Muslim invaders destroyed these Buddhist islands in the 15th century while spreading Islam with the sword.
According to Wikipedia, the web-based free encyclopaedia, Buddhism entered Bengal before Asoka's time (3rd century BC.). Bangladesh (historical Bengal) has a unique place in the history of Buddhism, mainly for two reasons. Firstly, Bengal was the last stronghold of Indian Buddhism where it could survive as a socio-cultural force until the 12th century, despite its disappearance from other parts of the Indian subcontinent. Secondly, it is generally claimed that Bengal was the home of a form of Buddhism, namely, the Tantric Buddhism. Tantric Buddhism is a later development in Bengal and therefore it remains to be seen what specific factors are responsible for turning the pure form of Buddhism into tantricism and whether the mystic and esoteric practices in the Buddhism of Bangladesh are of distinctively Bengali origin.
The Mughals of India and the Bengali Muslims of present Bangladesh were, in fact, Hindus in the Vedic/Hindu period and peace-loving Buddhists in the Buddhist period. This historical fact is still alive in the ruins of Mahastangarh Buddhist monasteries (3rd century BC) in Bogra, Paharpur Buddhist monasteries (7th century) in Rajshahi, now a World Heritage Site recognized by UNESCO, Mainamati Salban Viharas (8th century) in Comilla, Pandit Vihara (10th century) in Chittagong and Dhakeshwari Temple (12th century) in Dhaka.
The Arab Muslim invaders forcibly converted them into Islam while they marched across South and South-east Asia to spread Islam with the sword in the 12th century. They destroyed the history, identity and culture of these Hindus and peace-loving Buddhists. The Bengali Muslims of Bangladesh are doing exactly the same in the CHT. Today these poor Hindus and peace-loving Buddhists forgot their past history and wrongly think themselves as Muslims under the evil influence of Islam.
Mohammad Zainal claims himself to be a "researcher", "historian" and "journalist". He should study and research the CHT history more with an objective mind. He should not apply his subjectivism and religious fanaticism in research. His "research" on the Jumma indigenous people is like raping the history of the CHT. #
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Madam Khaleda Zia, What Relationship Do You Have with Us?
SHAFI AHMED CHOWDHURY
Madam Zia, I have a question to ask you. Do you believe in Allah? Are you afraid of Allah? Do you trust that if you deceive people Allah will never forgive you?
On 23 November (Thursday) last, Madam Khaleda Zia told the journalists that there had been no price-hike during her tenure and that the people were very happy with everything in the market. She quite arrogantly accused, which reflected in her face, that it was the media which reported the news of price-hike in a very inflated manner, but in reality the price of all the daily essentials had been stable and within the reach of the common people. Hearing this comment on the television I got speechless for some moment out of astonishment.
The instant thought striking me at that time was that either this lady had been in a different planet for the last couple of years, or she had lost her memory and no treatment had been made available for her, or during her tenure she had developed a humorous relationship (like beeai-beeain) with the common people that had tickled her making jokes with us regarding the price-hike.
Whatever the case is for her I have no way but to react to this abnormal comment as a worst sufferer due to price-hike in the market – may be in Madam Zia’s version there had been no price-hike. I have several reasons to believe that a woman like Madam Zia can and will never feel the pulse of the price-hike in the market. I shall come to that point later, but let me expose my tribulations due to price-hike during the last couple of years.
In 2001 the salary I received was x in amount, which was quite enough for me to maintain my family expenditure. Today in 2006 I am getting more than 2.5x in amount and I am staggering everyday to maintain my family. For your kind information Madam Zia, I have no source of that money that people would say “black” but I would say “white”. If I had that source, I am sure I would have never felt or cared to feel the pulse of the price-hike in the market as you did.
Is it not mad or joke to utter that there had been no price-hike in the market during your time when we had to buy sugar for 60 Taka per kg instead of 28 Taka, Mushur pulse for 65 Taka per kg instead of 36 Taka, rice 24 Taka per kg instead of 15 Taka, flour 26 Taka per kg instead of 14 Taka, potato 24 Taka per kg instead of 7 Taka, green chilly 150 Taka per kg instead of 40 Taka, oil 62 Taka per litre instead of 40 Taka, beef 150 Taka per kg instead of 80 Taka, mutton 220 Taka per kg instead of 130 Taka, powder milk 310 Taka per kg instead of 180 Taka, and so forth.
And more deplorably, the prices of the vegetable items had shot up 3-5 times, and in many cases beyond the reach of the common people. For your kind information Madam Zia, I am a regular goer to market for buying the daily household essentials and in the recent past, my heart had sunk every time I went to the market. What a pity, not for a single time I could see that the price of any essential item did not vary between two of my visits to market. Madam Zia, can you guess what would happen to your high-sounded so-called Dal-Bhat mission for the poor people when even the inferior quality rice is above 20 Taka per kg and Mushur pulse is 70 Taka per kg now?
Madam Zia, let me tell you one very sad thing, which will never stir you I know. The amount of money I earn now falls within the middle class level, still I feel shaky and dwindled when I go for buying milk for my baby – I simply cannot bear that, and pant within. Now think for a moment very honestly, what about the poor people who have babies to feed with milk everyday – at least 50% of the population falls under this category?
Madam Zia, you never can feel this pain, because you hadn’t not come from a poor family and you had been for many years now swimming in the ocean of money with your sons. Even if the price of the powder milk goes up to 100,000 Taka per kg today, you can very carelessly buy more than one pack everyday for your grandchildren with happy smile on your face, with complete oblivion that even yesterday the pack was sold 335 Taka per kg.
For your kind information Madam Zia, during your immediately passed tenure the price of almost all the daily essentials (that all of us including poor people extremely need) had gone up from 40% to 250% – in some cases more than that. As you did not go to the markets and as you did not go to the villages and as you casually asked the price situation to those people who were nothing but your sycophants to please you as per your pulse, you always had got rosy and dreamy pictures and that is why, very obviously you compelled to believe that what the media reported and what the common people uttered like me was inflated.
And that is why you with your natural arrogance tried to decline that there had been no price-hike in the market. To you there is no difference if the price of any item remains at 28 Taka or goes up to 60 Taka because you and your entourage are used to counting price in thousands and millions – not to say, even in billions. And that is why the amounts with one, two, three, four or five digits do not fall within your class. But in our cases if the price of any daily essentials goes up by 2 to 3 Taka, our condition just becomes “a fish out of water”.
Madam Zia, please don’t think that I am saying all these by taking part of any other political party. There is no politics in it because I strongly believe that all of you representing different political parties are just the same. One of you set an example, the others to follow suit. The innovative market extortion by a “syndicate” is a unique example set by BNP sitting in Hawa Bhaban. Owing to control of supply and demand by this syndicate, the price-hike is taking place everyday.
Just remember, Hawa Bhaban has become a Haunted Bhaban to the common people because every moment we feel engulfed by apprehensions of anything evil, like “forced price-hike”. Thanks a lot for leaving behind a wonderful legacy of continuous price-hike! Last week I bought a 5-kg can of oil for 335 Taka!
Unfortunately you all political parties have one thing identical – to grab power by sucking the blood of the common people. You might have differences in “who will grab power when”. But you don’t have differences in the ways of sucking and exploiting common people. And that’s why you all are afraid of independent judiciary, independent anti-corruption commission, independent election commission, civil society groups and institutions alike.
Can I put a question to Madam Sheikh Hasina in this connection? Will you bring all the corrupt members of BNP to book, if you come to power next time? Can you assure us that your government will be 100% honest, transparent and accountable to the people?
Madam Zia, let me take the courage to educate you a couple of things. You very arrogantly uttered in the press conference that the wage rate of the labourers had increased. It is true, but to what extent? The range you know and mentioned had been utterly preposterous, which once again indicates that it was reported by those of your sycophants to please you. For your kind information, the wage had not gone up from 30 Taka to 180 Taka anyway. It is in fact maximum 120 Taka during the peak season only. And in the lean season the labourers don’t get even 30 Taka.
Madam Zia, are you aware of the bonded labour in Bangladesh? Maybe not. In many parts of the country the labourers had to sell their labour in advance during the lean season to manage money for fighting starvation. Owing to crying need they had to sell their labour in advance in cheaper price for the peak season ahead. Thus they are deprived of even 120 Taka per day during the peak season. Unlike you Madam Zia, I have to travel to remote villages in every month and I know what the reality is. Believe it Madam Zia, the poor people call your names everyday when they had to go unfed due to poverty. Please don’t rely on your sycophants, rather go to the villages yourself in disguise and you will find truth in what I am telling you.
Another important point is that, increase in wage does not mean one has become rich. There is no value of this increase if inflation goes up in parallel. It is not the amount of money that matters; rather it is the purchase capacity that indicates how one’s financial condition has improved. It is true that the purchase capacity of the people has increased, but they fall only within the maximum upper 20%. That is why we see when the people of Dhaka city engage themselves in shopping spree during Ramadan time, poor people in the villages are struggling for mere survival. For your kind information Madam Zia, the income and asset gap between the upper 20% and the lower 20% of the population has gone up to 47 times in the last 5 years. In 2001 it was 27 times.
It is to be noted here that during the last 5 years inflation against daily essentials had gone up from 40% to 200% – in some cases it was even 300%. Look at me, as I told you that now I receive more than 2.5 times the salary of 2001, but I am still in the middle class, or more specifically, I have gone down from the middle class because now I have to struggle to maintain my family very franticly. When money loses its value and it becomes more like normal paper, there is no impact of its increase. I hope Madam Zia you will understand this simple economics as an ex prime minister.
Madam Zia, I have a question to ask you. Do you believe in Allah? Are you afraid of Allah? Do you trust that if you deceive people Allah will never forgive you? If so, please do refrain from deceiving people because if you deceive people Allah will never forgive you, unless the people who suffered have forgiven you once for all. Please remember, the way you made us suffer last 5 years we shall never forgive you.
May be you are performing Hajj or Umrah with our money, but rest assured, that will never help you clear up your sins. And finally one request, please do not utter the words you uttered in the said press conference or on many occasions. All these words appeared to us as if you were jeering at our wretchedness. We may not be “rich” like you, but we have self-esteem, because we live by honesty, sincerity and hard-work. Even as fun you should not utter those words because you and we are living in two different poles in terms of honestly, sincerity, humanity, truthfulness and generosity. That is why between you and us there can’t be any humorous relationship (like beeai-beeain). And please beware of your deeds and your fate after your death. I mean this not only for you but your people and the people of all political parties. #
This article has been published in arrangement with South Asian News (SAN)-Feature Service and Mukto-mona cyber forum
Shafi Ahmed Chowdhury is a development activist in Bangladesh. The article has been slightly edited. The writer could be contacts by e-mail: npfreethinker@yahoo.com
Madam Zia, I have a question to ask you. Do you believe in Allah? Are you afraid of Allah? Do you trust that if you deceive people Allah will never forgive you?
On 23 November (Thursday) last, Madam Khaleda Zia told the journalists that there had been no price-hike during her tenure and that the people were very happy with everything in the market. She quite arrogantly accused, which reflected in her face, that it was the media which reported the news of price-hike in a very inflated manner, but in reality the price of all the daily essentials had been stable and within the reach of the common people. Hearing this comment on the television I got speechless for some moment out of astonishment.
The instant thought striking me at that time was that either this lady had been in a different planet for the last couple of years, or she had lost her memory and no treatment had been made available for her, or during her tenure she had developed a humorous relationship (like beeai-beeain) with the common people that had tickled her making jokes with us regarding the price-hike.
Whatever the case is for her I have no way but to react to this abnormal comment as a worst sufferer due to price-hike in the market – may be in Madam Zia’s version there had been no price-hike. I have several reasons to believe that a woman like Madam Zia can and will never feel the pulse of the price-hike in the market. I shall come to that point later, but let me expose my tribulations due to price-hike during the last couple of years.
In 2001 the salary I received was x in amount, which was quite enough for me to maintain my family expenditure. Today in 2006 I am getting more than 2.5x in amount and I am staggering everyday to maintain my family. For your kind information Madam Zia, I have no source of that money that people would say “black” but I would say “white”. If I had that source, I am sure I would have never felt or cared to feel the pulse of the price-hike in the market as you did.
Is it not mad or joke to utter that there had been no price-hike in the market during your time when we had to buy sugar for 60 Taka per kg instead of 28 Taka, Mushur pulse for 65 Taka per kg instead of 36 Taka, rice 24 Taka per kg instead of 15 Taka, flour 26 Taka per kg instead of 14 Taka, potato 24 Taka per kg instead of 7 Taka, green chilly 150 Taka per kg instead of 40 Taka, oil 62 Taka per litre instead of 40 Taka, beef 150 Taka per kg instead of 80 Taka, mutton 220 Taka per kg instead of 130 Taka, powder milk 310 Taka per kg instead of 180 Taka, and so forth.
And more deplorably, the prices of the vegetable items had shot up 3-5 times, and in many cases beyond the reach of the common people. For your kind information Madam Zia, I am a regular goer to market for buying the daily household essentials and in the recent past, my heart had sunk every time I went to the market. What a pity, not for a single time I could see that the price of any essential item did not vary between two of my visits to market. Madam Zia, can you guess what would happen to your high-sounded so-called Dal-Bhat mission for the poor people when even the inferior quality rice is above 20 Taka per kg and Mushur pulse is 70 Taka per kg now?
Madam Zia, let me tell you one very sad thing, which will never stir you I know. The amount of money I earn now falls within the middle class level, still I feel shaky and dwindled when I go for buying milk for my baby – I simply cannot bear that, and pant within. Now think for a moment very honestly, what about the poor people who have babies to feed with milk everyday – at least 50% of the population falls under this category?
Madam Zia, you never can feel this pain, because you hadn’t not come from a poor family and you had been for many years now swimming in the ocean of money with your sons. Even if the price of the powder milk goes up to 100,000 Taka per kg today, you can very carelessly buy more than one pack everyday for your grandchildren with happy smile on your face, with complete oblivion that even yesterday the pack was sold 335 Taka per kg.
For your kind information Madam Zia, during your immediately passed tenure the price of almost all the daily essentials (that all of us including poor people extremely need) had gone up from 40% to 250% – in some cases more than that. As you did not go to the markets and as you did not go to the villages and as you casually asked the price situation to those people who were nothing but your sycophants to please you as per your pulse, you always had got rosy and dreamy pictures and that is why, very obviously you compelled to believe that what the media reported and what the common people uttered like me was inflated.
And that is why you with your natural arrogance tried to decline that there had been no price-hike in the market. To you there is no difference if the price of any item remains at 28 Taka or goes up to 60 Taka because you and your entourage are used to counting price in thousands and millions – not to say, even in billions. And that is why the amounts with one, two, three, four or five digits do not fall within your class. But in our cases if the price of any daily essentials goes up by 2 to 3 Taka, our condition just becomes “a fish out of water”.
Madam Zia, please don’t think that I am saying all these by taking part of any other political party. There is no politics in it because I strongly believe that all of you representing different political parties are just the same. One of you set an example, the others to follow suit. The innovative market extortion by a “syndicate” is a unique example set by BNP sitting in Hawa Bhaban. Owing to control of supply and demand by this syndicate, the price-hike is taking place everyday.
Just remember, Hawa Bhaban has become a Haunted Bhaban to the common people because every moment we feel engulfed by apprehensions of anything evil, like “forced price-hike”. Thanks a lot for leaving behind a wonderful legacy of continuous price-hike! Last week I bought a 5-kg can of oil for 335 Taka!
Unfortunately you all political parties have one thing identical – to grab power by sucking the blood of the common people. You might have differences in “who will grab power when”. But you don’t have differences in the ways of sucking and exploiting common people. And that’s why you all are afraid of independent judiciary, independent anti-corruption commission, independent election commission, civil society groups and institutions alike.
Can I put a question to Madam Sheikh Hasina in this connection? Will you bring all the corrupt members of BNP to book, if you come to power next time? Can you assure us that your government will be 100% honest, transparent and accountable to the people?
Madam Zia, let me take the courage to educate you a couple of things. You very arrogantly uttered in the press conference that the wage rate of the labourers had increased. It is true, but to what extent? The range you know and mentioned had been utterly preposterous, which once again indicates that it was reported by those of your sycophants to please you. For your kind information, the wage had not gone up from 30 Taka to 180 Taka anyway. It is in fact maximum 120 Taka during the peak season only. And in the lean season the labourers don’t get even 30 Taka.
Madam Zia, are you aware of the bonded labour in Bangladesh? Maybe not. In many parts of the country the labourers had to sell their labour in advance during the lean season to manage money for fighting starvation. Owing to crying need they had to sell their labour in advance in cheaper price for the peak season ahead. Thus they are deprived of even 120 Taka per day during the peak season. Unlike you Madam Zia, I have to travel to remote villages in every month and I know what the reality is. Believe it Madam Zia, the poor people call your names everyday when they had to go unfed due to poverty. Please don’t rely on your sycophants, rather go to the villages yourself in disguise and you will find truth in what I am telling you.
Another important point is that, increase in wage does not mean one has become rich. There is no value of this increase if inflation goes up in parallel. It is not the amount of money that matters; rather it is the purchase capacity that indicates how one’s financial condition has improved. It is true that the purchase capacity of the people has increased, but they fall only within the maximum upper 20%. That is why we see when the people of Dhaka city engage themselves in shopping spree during Ramadan time, poor people in the villages are struggling for mere survival. For your kind information Madam Zia, the income and asset gap between the upper 20% and the lower 20% of the population has gone up to 47 times in the last 5 years. In 2001 it was 27 times.
It is to be noted here that during the last 5 years inflation against daily essentials had gone up from 40% to 200% – in some cases it was even 300%. Look at me, as I told you that now I receive more than 2.5 times the salary of 2001, but I am still in the middle class, or more specifically, I have gone down from the middle class because now I have to struggle to maintain my family very franticly. When money loses its value and it becomes more like normal paper, there is no impact of its increase. I hope Madam Zia you will understand this simple economics as an ex prime minister.
Madam Zia, I have a question to ask you. Do you believe in Allah? Are you afraid of Allah? Do you trust that if you deceive people Allah will never forgive you? If so, please do refrain from deceiving people because if you deceive people Allah will never forgive you, unless the people who suffered have forgiven you once for all. Please remember, the way you made us suffer last 5 years we shall never forgive you.
May be you are performing Hajj or Umrah with our money, but rest assured, that will never help you clear up your sins. And finally one request, please do not utter the words you uttered in the said press conference or on many occasions. All these words appeared to us as if you were jeering at our wretchedness. We may not be “rich” like you, but we have self-esteem, because we live by honesty, sincerity and hard-work. Even as fun you should not utter those words because you and we are living in two different poles in terms of honestly, sincerity, humanity, truthfulness and generosity. That is why between you and us there can’t be any humorous relationship (like beeai-beeain). And please beware of your deeds and your fate after your death. I mean this not only for you but your people and the people of all political parties. #
This article has been published in arrangement with South Asian News (SAN)-Feature Service and Mukto-mona cyber forum
Shafi Ahmed Chowdhury is a development activist in Bangladesh. The article has been slightly edited. The writer could be contacts by e-mail: npfreethinker@yahoo.com
Bangladesh - A new phase in political drama
GOPAL SENGUPTA
We find no reason to feel relieved. With every passing day, we are probably waking into deeper crisis. What if the High Court rules that the President’s action was unconstitutional?
With some constitutional issues having direct impact on the election process and about which controversies exist landing in the High Court, the political drama enters a new phase. Three separate writ petitions challenging a) President Iajuddin’s assumption of the Chief Adviser’s office; b) his taking unilateral decisions ignoring the Council of Advisers and c) seeking an injunction against announcement of the election schedule before updating the voters’ list were filed on Sunday.
Temporarily at least, the battle seems to have shifted from the streets to the courtroom. That itself is some relief. But with so many other contentious issues remaining, we find no reason to think we are any closer to a resolution of all the problems. What really scares us is the possibility that it may not be possible to hold the elections in the 60 days remaining unless there is a sudden outpouring of goodwill from all sides.
We know it wouldn’t be proper to tread on matters now before the High Court. But there is no denying the fact that the situation perhaps would have been less difficult if the caretaker government could act as one team. What made the Chief Adviser to keep so many sensitive ministries and divisions under himself will always remain a mystery. If he had no confidence in his Advisers, he should not have appointed them. Again it is also true that the Advisers have more or less earned the confidence of the people. This has prevented the CG from acting in unison and that has greatly diluted its authority and acceptability. The caretakers do not know what they are to take care of! The resentment among the Advisers is no secret. But there is still time for the CA to pass on some of the key responsibilities to his Advisers. That might partially restore the people’s confidence in the CG.
There are several other smaller matters that create suspicion in the minds of the people. Abdul Jalil has reportedly requested the President to make publish CEC M.A.Aziz’s letter to him. None of the Advisers know what was in that letter. Wouldn’t it have been proper for the President to place the letter before his Advisory Council? Then what was the hurry in finding an acting CEC?
It stands to reason that if M.A.Aziz had gone on leave he would have asked one of his Commissioners to take temporary charge. Our understanding is, it is the prerogative of the President to appoint the CEC. In the absence of an elected government, the President’s decision should have been made on the advice of the Advisory Council.
Here are some very recent comments of some advisers: Advisers to the caretaker government (CG) fired a broadside at President and Chief Adviser Iajuddin Ahmed yesterday over his apparent retreat from a promise to consult them before the appointment two more election commissioners and announcement of the schedule for next general elections by the Election Commission (EC). "We were not aware of the announcement of election schedule," Information Adviser and spokesman for the council of advisers Mahbubul Alam told reporters emerging from a weekly meeting of the council at the CA's office. The advisers expressed their utter displeasure at the two decisions at the meeting that saw hurling of heated words at the chief adviser (CA) for keeping them (advisers) in the dark about the two vital decisions, sources said.
The meeting stretched to over four hours with the CA trying to downplay seriousness of the two decisions in the face of a barrage of questions from the advisers. The advisers later told reporters at the Secretariat that appointment of the two new election commissioners and announcement of election schedule were not discussed at the council meeting.
Meeting sources said the C A insisted on discussing the prices of essentials and agricultural production throughout the meeting, and at no point informed the advisers about the appointment of election commissioners and announcement of election schedule. At one stage, an adviser asked the CA why other important issues were not being discussed while another wanted to know why they were not informed about polls schedule announcement.
The CA then hesitantly informed the advisers that it is a matter for the Election Commission, meeting sources said. The advisers asked why Iajuddin appointed two election commissioners of his own accord while he had earlier promised to consult them before deciding on the appointments.
The CA continued to sidestep these questions. At one point, all but one adviser expressed their annoyance, the sources added. Mahbubul Alam told reporters, "The appointment (of two election commissioners) and the announcement of election schedule were not discussed at the council of advisers meeting." He went on, "I was not aware of these two issues till now, I am hearing it for the first time from you (reporters)."
Agriculture Adviser CM Shafi Sami expressed his surprise at the two decisions: "We were not aware how the election schedule was announced or how the two election commissioners were appointed.”The President has assured us that the two newly appointed election commissioners will not be controversial."
Industries Adviser Sultana Kamal said she came to know about the decisions at the media briefing. In reply to a question, she said, “First we have to consider whether circumventing the council of advisers violates the law, and then we can take a decision." Initially avoiding reporters' queries, Adviser Dhiraj Kumar Nath however said, "We did not have exact knowledge of the two issues."
But Adviser Yasmeen Murshed admitted that they were aware of the two decisions. Nevertheless, Dhiraj assured, "We will be able to transfer officials concerned with the EC, including the secretary." But he cautioned "We will face some complications if we want to transfer deputy commissioners (DCs) and thana nirbahi officers (TNOs)."
We find no reason to feel relieved. With every passing day, we are probably waking into deeper crisis. What if the High Court rules that the President’s action was unconstitutional? Now if somebody says that we don't understand neither democracy nor Constitution, we can perhaps blame President cum Chief Adviser who has been braking constitutional process and making high political drama in our recent time. #
Published in arrangement with South Asian News (SAN)-Feature Service
We find no reason to feel relieved. With every passing day, we are probably waking into deeper crisis. What if the High Court rules that the President’s action was unconstitutional?
With some constitutional issues having direct impact on the election process and about which controversies exist landing in the High Court, the political drama enters a new phase. Three separate writ petitions challenging a) President Iajuddin’s assumption of the Chief Adviser’s office; b) his taking unilateral decisions ignoring the Council of Advisers and c) seeking an injunction against announcement of the election schedule before updating the voters’ list were filed on Sunday.
Temporarily at least, the battle seems to have shifted from the streets to the courtroom. That itself is some relief. But with so many other contentious issues remaining, we find no reason to think we are any closer to a resolution of all the problems. What really scares us is the possibility that it may not be possible to hold the elections in the 60 days remaining unless there is a sudden outpouring of goodwill from all sides.
We know it wouldn’t be proper to tread on matters now before the High Court. But there is no denying the fact that the situation perhaps would have been less difficult if the caretaker government could act as one team. What made the Chief Adviser to keep so many sensitive ministries and divisions under himself will always remain a mystery. If he had no confidence in his Advisers, he should not have appointed them. Again it is also true that the Advisers have more or less earned the confidence of the people. This has prevented the CG from acting in unison and that has greatly diluted its authority and acceptability. The caretakers do not know what they are to take care of! The resentment among the Advisers is no secret. But there is still time for the CA to pass on some of the key responsibilities to his Advisers. That might partially restore the people’s confidence in the CG.
There are several other smaller matters that create suspicion in the minds of the people. Abdul Jalil has reportedly requested the President to make publish CEC M.A.Aziz’s letter to him. None of the Advisers know what was in that letter. Wouldn’t it have been proper for the President to place the letter before his Advisory Council? Then what was the hurry in finding an acting CEC?
It stands to reason that if M.A.Aziz had gone on leave he would have asked one of his Commissioners to take temporary charge. Our understanding is, it is the prerogative of the President to appoint the CEC. In the absence of an elected government, the President’s decision should have been made on the advice of the Advisory Council.
Here are some very recent comments of some advisers: Advisers to the caretaker government (CG) fired a broadside at President and Chief Adviser Iajuddin Ahmed yesterday over his apparent retreat from a promise to consult them before the appointment two more election commissioners and announcement of the schedule for next general elections by the Election Commission (EC). "We were not aware of the announcement of election schedule," Information Adviser and spokesman for the council of advisers Mahbubul Alam told reporters emerging from a weekly meeting of the council at the CA's office. The advisers expressed their utter displeasure at the two decisions at the meeting that saw hurling of heated words at the chief adviser (CA) for keeping them (advisers) in the dark about the two vital decisions, sources said.
The meeting stretched to over four hours with the CA trying to downplay seriousness of the two decisions in the face of a barrage of questions from the advisers. The advisers later told reporters at the Secretariat that appointment of the two new election commissioners and announcement of election schedule were not discussed at the council meeting.
Meeting sources said the C A insisted on discussing the prices of essentials and agricultural production throughout the meeting, and at no point informed the advisers about the appointment of election commissioners and announcement of election schedule. At one stage, an adviser asked the CA why other important issues were not being discussed while another wanted to know why they were not informed about polls schedule announcement.
The CA then hesitantly informed the advisers that it is a matter for the Election Commission, meeting sources said. The advisers asked why Iajuddin appointed two election commissioners of his own accord while he had earlier promised to consult them before deciding on the appointments.
The CA continued to sidestep these questions. At one point, all but one adviser expressed their annoyance, the sources added. Mahbubul Alam told reporters, "The appointment (of two election commissioners) and the announcement of election schedule were not discussed at the council of advisers meeting." He went on, "I was not aware of these two issues till now, I am hearing it for the first time from you (reporters)."
Agriculture Adviser CM Shafi Sami expressed his surprise at the two decisions: "We were not aware how the election schedule was announced or how the two election commissioners were appointed.”The President has assured us that the two newly appointed election commissioners will not be controversial."
Industries Adviser Sultana Kamal said she came to know about the decisions at the media briefing. In reply to a question, she said, “First we have to consider whether circumventing the council of advisers violates the law, and then we can take a decision." Initially avoiding reporters' queries, Adviser Dhiraj Kumar Nath however said, "We did not have exact knowledge of the two issues."
But Adviser Yasmeen Murshed admitted that they were aware of the two decisions. Nevertheless, Dhiraj assured, "We will be able to transfer officials concerned with the EC, including the secretary." But he cautioned "We will face some complications if we want to transfer deputy commissioners (DCs) and thana nirbahi officers (TNOs)."
We find no reason to feel relieved. With every passing day, we are probably waking into deeper crisis. What if the High Court rules that the President’s action was unconstitutional? Now if somebody says that we don't understand neither democracy nor Constitution, we can perhaps blame President cum Chief Adviser who has been braking constitutional process and making high political drama in our recent time. #
Published in arrangement with South Asian News (SAN)-Feature Service
Prof Muhammad Yunus discontent against telecom giant Telenor
ABU SAEED KHAN
Dhaka, Dec 6 (bdnews24.com) -- Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus has accused Telenor of breaching the contract and depriving Grameen Bank of PrameenPhone's management control, Fortune magazine said in an article Tuesday.
This is the first time Yunus publicly attacked Telenor and he did so a few days before receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, which is Telenor's hometown.
"When Muhammad Yunus travels to Norway to receive the Nobel Peace Prize December 10, he will come prepared to fight for management control over a company he believes is sucking profits from the poor of Bangladesh," Fortune wrote.
Yunus said he intended to point out the irony that the country that is awarding him the Nobel Prize for his pioneering work on microcredit is also home to a state-controlled company, Telenor, which he says refuses to honour an agreement to allow nonprofit Grameen Bank to take majority control of their joint mobile-phone venture.
Formed in October 10, 1996, grameenphone was Telenor's first venture in Asia. It was composed of Telenor (a 51 percent stake), Grameen Telecom (35 percent), Marubeni Corporation (9.50 percent) and Gonofone Development (4.50 percent).
Long before publicly bashing the Norwegian partner, Grameen Telecom, a unit of Grameen Bank, served a legal notice on Telenor on November 27, 2002.
When grameenphone was incorporated it was provisioned that Telenor would retain a 51 percent stake for the first six years and then transfer the control by selling its minimum 16 percent shares to Grameen Telecom under a first right of refusal, the notice claimed.
But the Norwegians never gave the microcredit lender grameenphone's control, which Grameen Telecom considers "a breach of obligation" under the Articles of Association and served the legal notice on Telenor through Barrister Omar Sadat.
Meanwhile, Marubeni and Gonofone sold their shares while Telenor and Grameen Telecom increased respective stakes to 62 percent and 38 percent in 2004.
After winning the Nobel Peace Prize two years later, Yunus made no effort to hide the discontents and reiterated to Fortune that Telenor "agreed to give us majority ownership within six years (in 2002)."
"Our intent was to convert to a social business enterprise (where profits are reinvested in the company rather than taken out), but Telenor does not accept."
He said Telenor is "oriented toward profit maximisation" while Grameen Telecom is "oriented toward social objectives."
In reply Telenor has come up with an olive brunch. "We have already invited Professor Yunus and Grameen Bank to discuss the relevant topics, and we are convinced that we will reach an understanding," said an official statement Wednesday.
"Now is the time to pay tribute to Grameen Bank and Professor Yunus for their long-lasting efforts in alleviating poverty in Bangladesh that ownership in grameenphone reflects our belief in the Bangladeshi market."
Telenor said that as a long-term, industrial actor, it contributes substantially to the development of the society in Bangladesh. Telenor is prepared to make necessary investments, extend the knowledge sharing with other mobile companies in the Group and put the best efforts into the development of the company.
"We welcome the initiative of discussing the future development of grameenphone together with Grameen Bank. However, the topic is of great importance to both grameenphone and Bangladesh as such. We believe that it is in all parties' interest to avoid a hasty process." #
Abu Saeed Khan is bdNews24.com Technology Editor
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Why India is concerned about Bangladesh?
The 1971 War: How it beganINDRANIL BANERJIE
Executive Director, SAPRA India Foundation
The men who created Pakistan believed in the idea that men of different religions are incapable of coexistence. They declared that the Hindus and Muslims of India constituted two separate nations and must live separately. This first led to the creation of Pakistan in 1947 and then to its dismemberment 24 years later.
The second event was triggered by the fact that the rulers who dominated Pakistan refused to accept the numerically superior Bengalis from the eastern half of their nation as their equals.
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the Awami League leader, who had secured the most votes in the 1970 Pakistani parliamentary election, was a Bengali. He was not allowed to form a government or become prime minister of his country. Why? Because the exclusivist establishment of West Pakistan did not consider Bengalis their equals.
Pakistan at that time was ruled by the military dictator, General Yahya Khan. He had seized power in 1969 and was promoting an ambitious Sindhi politician named Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Together they hoped that they could somehow ensure West Pakistan retained power and that the eastern wing remained a colonial appendage.
Yet, General Yahya Khan would have no political settlement and sent his somewhat psychotic junior, General Tikka Khan to 'deal' with the Bengalis. This precipitated one of the worst crises in the history of the Indian subcontinent. It also led to genocide in East Pakistan and the exodus of millions of starving Pakistanis into India.
Tikka Khan felt the Bengalis could be cowed down easily by the Pakistani army.
On March 25, 1971, he ordered an army crackdown in East Pakistan. Mujibur Rahman and his family were jailed. The same day, the Pakistani army began airlifting two of its divisions plus a brigade strength formation to East Pakistan.
Attempts to disarm Bengali troops were not entirely successful and within weeks of the March 25 massacres, many former Bengali officers and troops of the Pakistani army had joined Bengali resistance fighters in different parts of East Pakistan. They were supplemented by Mukti Bahini guerrillas.
The Pakistani army conducted several crackdowns, leading to massive loss of civilian life. The details of those horrific massacres, in which defenceless people were trapped and machine-gunned, is part of Bangladeshi history. Survivors compare it to the Nazi extermination of Jews.
Refugees were pouring into India and horrified public opinion in this country wanted an end to the genocide in neighbouring East Pakistan. Appeals to the Pakistani leadership proved futile and ultimately the then prime minister of India, Indira Gandhi, ordered her charismatic army chief, General S H F J Manekshaw, to prepare for war. The aim was to help the East Pakistani freedom fighters defeat the Pakistani army and declare independence. #
http://specials.rediff.com/news/2006/dec/05sld01.htm
When Sam quoted chapter and verse to Mrs Gandhi
Rediff.com on 5 December 2006
President Richard Nixon and his National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger had only one question for the United States chief of army staff who had just returned from India: how long will it take the Indians to liberate East Pakistan?
General William C Westmoreland, who was shown around the garrisons in West Bengal and elsewhere in the country by his Indian counterpart General Sam Manekshaw, did not hesitate: ''one-and-a-half months to two months, sir,'' he replied.
The conflict ended in only 13 days giving birth to Bangladesh and upsetting US calculations.
''What is it Sam that you did not show me,'' Gen Westmoreland, who got a thorough dressing down from Nixon, later asked the Indian war hero. Interestingly, the American general did not know that for Manekshaw, at that time it was only a thin line between getting promoted or being sacked.
''I have seen several angry women, including my wife. But never one like Mrs Gandhi,'' said the field marshal while releasing last evening in Delhi the book, Liberation and Beyond: Indo-Bangladesh relations , written by J N Dixit, former foreign secretary.
It was the afternoon of April 29, 1971. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had called an urgent cabinet meeting. Those present were Defence Minister Jagjivan Ram, Agriculture Minister Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, Finance Minister Y B Chauhan, External Affairs Minister Sardar Swaran Singh, and a special invitee, army chief Gen. Sam Manekshaw.
''What are you doing?'' a fuming Mrs Gandhi asked the general, throwing reports of refugee influx from East Pakistan send by the West Bengal Chief Minister, Siddhartha Shankar Ray, on the table, Manekshaw recalled.
''I want you to walk into East Pakistan,'' Mrs Gandhi told her army chief. ''That means war,'' the general said. ''I don't mind if it is war,'' was Mrs Gandhi's characteristic reply.
Manekshaw was unruffled by the outburst. ''Have you read the bible?'' he asked the PM in his usual breezy manner. ''What has the bible got to do with this?'' Swaran Singh intervened. ''In the beginning there was darkness. God said let there be light and there was light. He then divided light from the darkness,'' Manekshaw quoted the Genesis to impress upon the ministers that the army was not prepared for a sudden war.
''I have only 30 tanks and two armoured divisions with me. The Himalayan passes will be opening anytime. What if the Chinese give an ultimatum? The rains will start now in East Pakistan. When it rains there the rivers become oceans. I guarantee 100 per cent defeat,'' Manekshaw told Mrs Gandhi, disapproving the idea of an immediate attack.
Mrs Gandhi, who adjourned the meeting to 1600 hrs held back Manekshaw, who was the last man to leave the room. ''Shall I send in my resignation, on grounds of health, mental or physical?'' he asked. Mrs Gandhi finally gave her army chief the time he wanted to elaborate his strategy.
Seven months and four days later the war began when Pakistan president Gen. Yahya Khan lost patience and ordered his forces to attack Indian troops near the border on the evening of August 3, 1971. Manekshaw had by then amassed two brigades within the border for going in the next day.
Thirteen days later Bangladesh was born marking one of the high points in Indian diplomacy: in nine months the country was able to isolate the US, bring Western Europe on to our side and win over the world media.
Manekshaw was at his evocative best when he recalled his acquaintance with President Yahya Khan when the latter had worked under him in the military operations directorate of the British Indian Army just before partition.
Yahya Khan, then a colonel, was impressed by Manekshaw's James motorcycle which he had bought for Rupees 1400. ''I told him that he could have the vehicle for as much. He said he would give only Rupees 1000. I said okay,'' Manekshaw recalled.
''But I don't have a thousand rupees now, I will send it to you later,'' Yahya Khan said. It was August 13, 1947. Twenty-one years later Yahya Khan became the president of Pakistan. ''I never received the Rupees 1000, but he gave me the whole of East Pakistan,'' Manekshaw said amid thunderous applause.
Liberation and Beyond, (pp. 317, Rs.395), published by Konark, captures the defining moment in the sub continent's history and deals with politics and diplomacy during the war and the task ahead.
The blurb of the book says it also answers many questions often raised: why was the founder of Bangladesh, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, keen that India should return Pakistani prisoners of war to Islamabad? Why did he not hold war crime trials against Pakistani military officers? Why did Indo-Bangladesh relations start deteriorating while Mujibur Rahman was still in power?
Dixit, who headed the special division in the external affairs ministry to deal with the political dimensions of the East Pakistan crisis in 1971, was later sent by Mrs Gandhi as the first head of the Indian mission in newly-liberated Bangladesh. #
http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/may/10shaw.htm
Should India have helped liberate Bangladesh?
Rediff.com on December 05, 2006
Thirty-five years after India helped liberate Bangladesh, relations between the two nations are strained. Relations between Dhaka and Islamabad, on the other hand, continue to improve, particularly after Pakistan's President General Pervez Musharraf made an indirect apology for the atrocities of 1971.
Many politicians now in power in Dhaka had opposed independence, and some even plaintively note that had they not declared independence, they would have been a nuclear weapons State now.
Many Indian observers have slammed then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi for not having negotiated a settlement on Kashmir in return for the 93,000 Pakistani POWs captured after the war.
Indian concerns now include illegal migration, support for rebels in the northeast, increasing Bangladeshi links with Pakistan's ISI and terrorist acts in India, regular border skirmishes, and the general anti-India mood in Bangladesh. #
http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/dec/05msg.htm
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Bangladesh: Corrupted democracy
by LIZ PHILIPSON
Bangladesh’s worsening problems are the result of systemic political failure. Even as anger mounts in the midst of pre-election jockeying, however, the truth of the matter is that little will change after Bangladeshis head to the polls in January. Regardless of who wins, it won't be the people.
This coming January, Bangladesh will go to the polls to elect a government for the fifth time since military rule ended in 1990. During each past election, apart from the discredited February 1996 poll, strong anti-incumbency sentiment has resulted in a change of government, thereby allowing the two main parties, the Awami League (AL) and Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), to alternate in power.
Despite a strong record of formal democracy, both Bangladeshi and international analysts are expressing strong concerns about January's polls. Many fear that the results will be so marred by violence and corruption as to render them unacceptable. Some even worry that the existing situation may disallow the possibility of an election at all.
Politics, like much else in Bangladesh, has always been characterised by violence. After the bloody War of Independence in 1971, the country's first two prime ministers, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Ziaur Rahman, (Ed: Ziaur Rahman was first military dictator, later turned president) were both assassinated. Between 1974 and 1990, the country was governed largely under states of emergency or martial law. Intertwined political and familial histories have subsequently blighted the country's political landscape. Even as the upcoming election looms, the leaders of the two main political parties -- the AL's Sheikh Hasina (daughter of Mujibur Rahman) and the BNP's Begum Khaleda Zia (wife of Ziaur Rahman) -- are not able to so much as have a talk together about the national state of affairs.
The past three decades of deep personal animosity between the two leaders has stifled political discourse in Bangladesh generally. The Parliament is routinely boycotted by the opposition, so issues are fought out street-side through anti-government general strikes. Though these have become increasingly frequent, and perhaps more violent, in recent years, the pattern of the opposition eschewing dialogue in Parliament in favour of confrontation on the streets has held true no matter who sits in power.
Despite the uncertain political climate, Bangladesh has enjoyed an enviable growth rate averaging five percent over the past several years. However, rising economic performance has also resulted in an increasing polarisation between the country's rich and poor an inequality that potentially adds to instability. Penniless beggars stand outside Bashundhara City, the mega-mall in central Dhaka that is claimed to be the largest shopping complex in South Asia.
In rural areas, meanwhile, the situation has changed little. Bangladesh is doing better than other countries in the region at achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) set by the UN in 2000. The World Bank in Bangladesh states that the country "has made remarkable progress on several MDGs and is already on the verge of achieving the targets in gender parity. It also has a good chance of reaching other targets in areas such as under-five mortality and consumption poverty." Many Bangladeshis are openly astonished when they hear of such 'successes', however, being aware of the high levels of insecurity experienced by people of all classes in the country. At the end of the day, economic growth has not resulted in any increase in physical security for Bangladeshis; indeed, it may have promoted increasing insecurity through a rise in criminality and impunity.
In recent times, Bangladesh has come to international attention through the lens of Islamic extremist violence and terrorism. However, the threat posed by systemic corruption of the political, business and justice structures poses a greater and more immediate threat to the security of Bangladeshis, and to the integrity of democracy in the country. Bangladesh is a very politically aware country, but one where survival requires political patronage at all levels. The politics that is practiced is complex, multi-layered and opaque, and political relationships frequently include 'protection' that reaches into both the criminal sector and the justice system itself.
Mastaans and godfathers
Corruption is not so much endemic as systemic in Bangladesh, and the country has now topped the Transparency International corruption index for several years running. Corruption is also directly linked to criminality, violence and impunity. The social system in Bangladesh remains somewhat feudal, and both social and business relations are based on patronage relationships that have assisted organised crime to capture many aspects of the state and governance, law enforcement and the judicial system. It also pervades business practice. Mastaans, organised criminals, run wide-ranging 'protection rackets' through a complex system of payment and collection. Even street beggars pay for protection.
Mastaans have developed relationships and linkages with politicians, who in turn benefit financially. Some of these politicians, known as 'godfathers', hold high-ranking positions, and extend political and judicial protection to the mastaans. Some mastaans have become legitimate businessmen, while others have themselves entered politics each maintaining his own coterie of goondas. As such, the lines between politics, business and organised crime have become increasingly blurred in Bangladesh. Honest businessmen and politicians are often isolated and powerless, as the prevailing atmosphere makes it difficult to remain unsullied by corruption and patronage.
The success of the political-criminal nexus in Bangladesh is underpinned by impunity. The godfather-mastaan system enforces endemic corruption, and protects those engaged in its organisation. Furthermore, protected mastaans enjoy impunity from both police and the justice system, though in recent years this safety has been threatened by other extrajudicial means.
In October 2002, police claimed that 10 people were being killed every day by crime syndicates with links to politicians. The government subsequently launched Operation Clean Heart, an army programme that arrested over 11,000 people, of which only 2400 were listed as alleged criminals. There were 44 deaths reported during the operation, which ended in January 2003. The government immediately passed an ordinance granting indemnity to all the security personnel who had been involved in the excesses. Although there was a strong outcry from human rights organisations and Western governments at this use of the army and lack of due process, Operation Clean Heart was an immediate popular success. Dhaka thereafter instituted the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), a paramilitary force almost entirely composed of military personnel but reporting to the Home Affairs Minister. The RAB operations were 'legalised' by investing it with the powers of civilian police.
Numerous criminals have been killed in 'crossfire' by the RAB, to the extent that 'being taken to the crossfire' is entering the language in much the same way as 'being disappeared' did in Latin America in an earlier era. The RAB still enjoys high popularity, as many Bangladeshis view it as their only hope against preying criminals. Many RAB officers have been on UN peacekeeping missions, and therefore fully understand human rights norms; in the war against the mastaans, however, they do not see these as applicable. Currently, the RAB seems to be efficient, disciplined and relatively incorrupt, but their actions offend every precept of due process and rule of law. Even within some parts of the army itself, questions are being asked as to who will ultimately be able to control this proud, elite, popular force.
Impunity and enforcement of the rule of law are key issues to many of the country's governance, security and business ills. Unfortunately, many of those benefiting from the system are also those to whom one would look in the fight against impunity, criminality and corruption. A more successful process needs to be systematic, long-term, and one that harnesses the will of Bangladeshis.
Turn to conservatism
Unlike other parts of South Asia, Bangladesh was converted to Islam by the Sufis prior to its incorporation into the Mogul empire during the 17th century. The more spiritual, rather than clerical, approach of the Sufis resulted in a blended, syncretic Bengali culture. Though Islamic by religion, these cultural forms celebrate singing and dancing from the Sufi tradition, and also incorporate many aspects of Hinduism.
This traditional Sufi-based faith has been increasingly challenged, however, by both Deobandism from Pakistan and India, and some Wahabism from West Asia, both of which are stricter and more clerically based. The West Asian influence has been strengthened by investment of oil money in Bangladesh since the 1970s, as well as by Bangladeshis returning from work in the Gulf. Increasing worldwide Islamic consciousness and geopolitical events have also played a part in introducing more clerically based trends. Thousands of Bangladeshis are believed to have fought against the USSR in Afghanistan, subsequently returning home after the Soviets left.
The increasing conservatism of Islam in Bangladesh is noticeable in the transformation in dress of women and men, as well as in the conspicuous pious acts in which political leaders of all parties increasingly engage. The AL is traditionally seen as the party of secularism, while the BNP, which removed secularism from the Constitution, is perceived as more favourable to Islam. This is particularly so in the current context, as the present BNP-led government is an alliance that includes two Islamic parties, Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) and Islamic Oikkya Jote.
JI's percentage of the popular vote has remained below 10 percent in successive elections. After allying with the BNP in 2001, JI secured 18 out of 300 seats in Parliament, and now holds two cabinet ministries. This is the first time that the party has been in government, and the advantage it has been able to garner from this exposure will only be clear after the 2007 election results are known. The acrimony between the two major parties has left the population disillusioned with almost all their political leaders. As such, there were fears that JI's image as a party with a clear agenda and relatively free of financial irregularity would attract disillusioned voters. However, it seems that the activities of violent Islamist groups may have boomeranged against the party, and a JI election upset now appears unlikely.
International headlines, meanwhile, have focused on the threat of violent extremism, particularly in the wake of the bombings between August and December 2005 associated with the militant Jama'atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB). Despite widespread media reports, however, the government continued to deny JMB's existence for months, until strong international pressure forced Dhaka to ban the group in February 2005, one day before a high-level international donor meeting was slated to take place. After the JMB was suspected in the 459 near-simultaneous countrywide explosions in August that year, it was again international pressure that resulted in the incident being taken seriously.
During subsequent attacks that targeted members of the judiciary, investigations and arrests did indeed proceed. This resulted in several long jail sentences being handed down in February, and two leaders being sentenced to death in May. However, recent reports state that other trials have been frustrated by the authorities failing to produce the accused in court.
Furthermore, during the judicial process links have been discovered between the accused and Shibir, the student wing of Jamaat-e-Islami, as well as with JI itself. In addition, there have been reports of strong links with leading politicians in both the major parties. Some Bangladeshis believe that the JMB leadership has had 'godfather' protection, particularly in its earlier activities in northern Bangladesh.
In 2004, the leader of the terror outfit JMJB (Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh) known as 'Bangla Bhai', whose real name is Siddiqul Islam, held a press conference in a local government office in Rajshahi. Locals also observed cooperation between the police and the JMB, who were hunting down supposed communists and leftists. However, the actions by the security forces against the JMB have convinced most Bangladeshis that the Mujahideen has, for the moment, been broken although few believe that they are finished.
Prior to August 2005, there was much confusion about the extent of support that groups such as the JMB might have. The public reaction to the exhibitions of violence that month, however, indicated a clear rejection. Indeed, JI's profile has suffered badly as a result of the JMB's activities. This bodes well for countering further threats of Islamic violence in Bangladesh. However, the underlying spectre of Islamic conservatism 'laying the foundation' for an Islamic state appears to be one that Bangladeshi political parties are unwilling to publicly take on board, lest they offend Islamic sensibilities among the electorate. At the same time, the international community is simply unable to do so, constrained as they are by a mixture of excessive liberalism on the one hand, and judicious caution that they may inflame sensitive anti-imperialist and/or Muslim sentiments among Bangladeshis on the other.
New popular will It can now be seen that Bangladesh's formal democracy has been gradually undermined by the impunity and failure of the rule of law inherent to both the godfather-mastaan system and the politics of patronage. Yet over three previous elections, the first two were thought to be free and fair, while a third reflected the will of the people despite overt violence in some areas; a fifth poll was dubious, but was rejected by the people, and a new government was installed within five months. Critical to this has been the non-party caretaker government system, which has been held up as a model for other countries in democratic transition. Recent irregularities surrounding this system, however, have led to a wide coalition of opposition parties drawing up an Electoral Reform Agenda (See accompanying story, "A crippled caretaker").
The AL has threatened to boycott the election if the reforms are not adopted. The government agreed in principle to a discussion, and for a while it looked as if the absence of dialogue in Bangladeshi politics might suddenly be broken. But that hope was short-lived. The AL wanted direct talks with the BNP, and stated they would not hold discussions with the government's alliance partners, the JI and Oikkya Jote. The BNP subsequently put forward a dialogue team that included members from all alliance parties. As such, there has still been no dialogue, leading commentators and activists to believe that the government and opposition are on a collision course that can only end in violence.
Meanwhile, most of the country's voters appear to be disillusioned with both of the major parties, and harbour an active distrust of all politicians. The parties themselves have ignored the people's needs between elections, other than to use the public against each other. In the villages, there is an increasing polarisation between those who seek solace and social welfare from the new mosques, and those who cling to the traditional Sufism and embrace NGO programmes.
But as the political parties swing into election mode over the spring and summer of 2006, the people have begun to take things into their own hands. Popular local demonstrations, neither orchestrated by nor linked to any political party, have occurred spontaneously around a variety of non-political issues. In the volatile political atmosphere of present-day Bangladesh, these could continue to grow.
Though there had previously been some popular protest around energy and environmental issues, particularly in those areas that were devastated by gas blowouts and fires in the country's northeast, these had always been utilised by opposition parties for their own purposes against the government. For many, no electricity means no water; the high level of electricity outages has subsequently caused huge frustration, resulting in these large and public protests in Kansat and Demra villages during the first four months of this year. The national press estimated that over 1000 people were injured at Kansat, forcing the government to issue a public apology. Regardless, there is little that Dhaka can do to improve the electricity situation in the short term.
In late May 2006, the protest focus turned from electricity to industry, when workers across the garment sector violently rioted in what began as a dispute over dismissals in a single factory and quickly spread to engulf whole industrial areas. This is another example of the extreme volatility of contemporary conditions in Bangladesh. With no political party having the credibility to give leadership or direction to such protests, street turbulence lacking in any national leadership is likely to increase.
Little will change Getting through the next election is a necessary but not sufficient condition to stabilising Bangladesh. Despite the widespread disillusionment with the political parties, without doubt it is important that January's elections take place and, as far as possible, are conducted freely and fairly. The international agencies in Dhaka are already cooperating with Bangladeshi organisations to ensure that there is a good distribution of trained monitors, both local and international, throughout the country. If the elections cannot take place and there is no mandate for governance, the possibilities are all grim.
Bangladesh has a history of military government. Currently, the armed forces do not seem to have political ambition, they enjoy some political influence without any responsibility, and they earn well from UN missions and business deals. However, if the civilian political parties are unable to establish a credible government, their intervention may be welcomed as a stabilising factor both within and outside Bangladesh. Previous military governments originated under a similar guise of 'saving the country'.
As such, the 2007 elections are crucial for Bangladesh, despite the fact that their actual outcome will change little. The country's problems are systemic, and have come about through the lowering of people's expectations of government and of political parties. The latter, meanwhile, have managed to hollow out the state through corruption and nepotism. Both the AL and BNP are complicit in this negative process, and both have allowed the 'godfather system' to become so entrenched that it is questionable whether they can ever totally extricate themselves from it.
While these problems need to be articulated in the public domain, that has proven a dangerous task, as many Bangladeshi journalists have discovered for trying. But it is not until the corruption of Bangladeshi politics is addressed publicly that a corrective process will be able to begin. Only at that point will Bangladeshis be able to start developing systematic responses to the governance challenges the country faces. And only then might the people of Bangladesh be able to look to a more secure future. #
Himal SouthAsian is a progressive magazine published out of Nepal focussing on issues related to the South Asia. The present article is one of the many from the cover story of August 06 issue which is devoted to Bangladesh
Bangladesh’s worsening problems are the result of systemic political failure. Even as anger mounts in the midst of pre-election jockeying, however, the truth of the matter is that little will change after Bangladeshis head to the polls in January. Regardless of who wins, it won't be the people.
This coming January, Bangladesh will go to the polls to elect a government for the fifth time since military rule ended in 1990. During each past election, apart from the discredited February 1996 poll, strong anti-incumbency sentiment has resulted in a change of government, thereby allowing the two main parties, the Awami League (AL) and Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), to alternate in power.
Despite a strong record of formal democracy, both Bangladeshi and international analysts are expressing strong concerns about January's polls. Many fear that the results will be so marred by violence and corruption as to render them unacceptable. Some even worry that the existing situation may disallow the possibility of an election at all.
Politics, like much else in Bangladesh, has always been characterised by violence. After the bloody War of Independence in 1971, the country's first two prime ministers, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Ziaur Rahman, (Ed: Ziaur Rahman was first military dictator, later turned president) were both assassinated. Between 1974 and 1990, the country was governed largely under states of emergency or martial law. Intertwined political and familial histories have subsequently blighted the country's political landscape. Even as the upcoming election looms, the leaders of the two main political parties -- the AL's Sheikh Hasina (daughter of Mujibur Rahman) and the BNP's Begum Khaleda Zia (wife of Ziaur Rahman) -- are not able to so much as have a talk together about the national state of affairs.
The past three decades of deep personal animosity between the two leaders has stifled political discourse in Bangladesh generally. The Parliament is routinely boycotted by the opposition, so issues are fought out street-side through anti-government general strikes. Though these have become increasingly frequent, and perhaps more violent, in recent years, the pattern of the opposition eschewing dialogue in Parliament in favour of confrontation on the streets has held true no matter who sits in power.
Despite the uncertain political climate, Bangladesh has enjoyed an enviable growth rate averaging five percent over the past several years. However, rising economic performance has also resulted in an increasing polarisation between the country's rich and poor an inequality that potentially adds to instability. Penniless beggars stand outside Bashundhara City, the mega-mall in central Dhaka that is claimed to be the largest shopping complex in South Asia.
In rural areas, meanwhile, the situation has changed little. Bangladesh is doing better than other countries in the region at achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) set by the UN in 2000. The World Bank in Bangladesh states that the country "has made remarkable progress on several MDGs and is already on the verge of achieving the targets in gender parity. It also has a good chance of reaching other targets in areas such as under-five mortality and consumption poverty." Many Bangladeshis are openly astonished when they hear of such 'successes', however, being aware of the high levels of insecurity experienced by people of all classes in the country. At the end of the day, economic growth has not resulted in any increase in physical security for Bangladeshis; indeed, it may have promoted increasing insecurity through a rise in criminality and impunity.
In recent times, Bangladesh has come to international attention through the lens of Islamic extremist violence and terrorism. However, the threat posed by systemic corruption of the political, business and justice structures poses a greater and more immediate threat to the security of Bangladeshis, and to the integrity of democracy in the country. Bangladesh is a very politically aware country, but one where survival requires political patronage at all levels. The politics that is practiced is complex, multi-layered and opaque, and political relationships frequently include 'protection' that reaches into both the criminal sector and the justice system itself.
Mastaans and godfathers
Corruption is not so much endemic as systemic in Bangladesh, and the country has now topped the Transparency International corruption index for several years running. Corruption is also directly linked to criminality, violence and impunity. The social system in Bangladesh remains somewhat feudal, and both social and business relations are based on patronage relationships that have assisted organised crime to capture many aspects of the state and governance, law enforcement and the judicial system. It also pervades business practice. Mastaans, organised criminals, run wide-ranging 'protection rackets' through a complex system of payment and collection. Even street beggars pay for protection.
Mastaans have developed relationships and linkages with politicians, who in turn benefit financially. Some of these politicians, known as 'godfathers', hold high-ranking positions, and extend political and judicial protection to the mastaans. Some mastaans have become legitimate businessmen, while others have themselves entered politics each maintaining his own coterie of goondas. As such, the lines between politics, business and organised crime have become increasingly blurred in Bangladesh. Honest businessmen and politicians are often isolated and powerless, as the prevailing atmosphere makes it difficult to remain unsullied by corruption and patronage.
The success of the political-criminal nexus in Bangladesh is underpinned by impunity. The godfather-mastaan system enforces endemic corruption, and protects those engaged in its organisation. Furthermore, protected mastaans enjoy impunity from both police and the justice system, though in recent years this safety has been threatened by other extrajudicial means.
In October 2002, police claimed that 10 people were being killed every day by crime syndicates with links to politicians. The government subsequently launched Operation Clean Heart, an army programme that arrested over 11,000 people, of which only 2400 were listed as alleged criminals. There were 44 deaths reported during the operation, which ended in January 2003. The government immediately passed an ordinance granting indemnity to all the security personnel who had been involved in the excesses. Although there was a strong outcry from human rights organisations and Western governments at this use of the army and lack of due process, Operation Clean Heart was an immediate popular success. Dhaka thereafter instituted the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), a paramilitary force almost entirely composed of military personnel but reporting to the Home Affairs Minister. The RAB operations were 'legalised' by investing it with the powers of civilian police.
Numerous criminals have been killed in 'crossfire' by the RAB, to the extent that 'being taken to the crossfire' is entering the language in much the same way as 'being disappeared' did in Latin America in an earlier era. The RAB still enjoys high popularity, as many Bangladeshis view it as their only hope against preying criminals. Many RAB officers have been on UN peacekeeping missions, and therefore fully understand human rights norms; in the war against the mastaans, however, they do not see these as applicable. Currently, the RAB seems to be efficient, disciplined and relatively incorrupt, but their actions offend every precept of due process and rule of law. Even within some parts of the army itself, questions are being asked as to who will ultimately be able to control this proud, elite, popular force.
Impunity and enforcement of the rule of law are key issues to many of the country's governance, security and business ills. Unfortunately, many of those benefiting from the system are also those to whom one would look in the fight against impunity, criminality and corruption. A more successful process needs to be systematic, long-term, and one that harnesses the will of Bangladeshis.
Turn to conservatism
Unlike other parts of South Asia, Bangladesh was converted to Islam by the Sufis prior to its incorporation into the Mogul empire during the 17th century. The more spiritual, rather than clerical, approach of the Sufis resulted in a blended, syncretic Bengali culture. Though Islamic by religion, these cultural forms celebrate singing and dancing from the Sufi tradition, and also incorporate many aspects of Hinduism.
This traditional Sufi-based faith has been increasingly challenged, however, by both Deobandism from Pakistan and India, and some Wahabism from West Asia, both of which are stricter and more clerically based. The West Asian influence has been strengthened by investment of oil money in Bangladesh since the 1970s, as well as by Bangladeshis returning from work in the Gulf. Increasing worldwide Islamic consciousness and geopolitical events have also played a part in introducing more clerically based trends. Thousands of Bangladeshis are believed to have fought against the USSR in Afghanistan, subsequently returning home after the Soviets left.
The increasing conservatism of Islam in Bangladesh is noticeable in the transformation in dress of women and men, as well as in the conspicuous pious acts in which political leaders of all parties increasingly engage. The AL is traditionally seen as the party of secularism, while the BNP, which removed secularism from the Constitution, is perceived as more favourable to Islam. This is particularly so in the current context, as the present BNP-led government is an alliance that includes two Islamic parties, Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) and Islamic Oikkya Jote.
JI's percentage of the popular vote has remained below 10 percent in successive elections. After allying with the BNP in 2001, JI secured 18 out of 300 seats in Parliament, and now holds two cabinet ministries. This is the first time that the party has been in government, and the advantage it has been able to garner from this exposure will only be clear after the 2007 election results are known. The acrimony between the two major parties has left the population disillusioned with almost all their political leaders. As such, there were fears that JI's image as a party with a clear agenda and relatively free of financial irregularity would attract disillusioned voters. However, it seems that the activities of violent Islamist groups may have boomeranged against the party, and a JI election upset now appears unlikely.
International headlines, meanwhile, have focused on the threat of violent extremism, particularly in the wake of the bombings between August and December 2005 associated with the militant Jama'atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB). Despite widespread media reports, however, the government continued to deny JMB's existence for months, until strong international pressure forced Dhaka to ban the group in February 2005, one day before a high-level international donor meeting was slated to take place. After the JMB was suspected in the 459 near-simultaneous countrywide explosions in August that year, it was again international pressure that resulted in the incident being taken seriously.
During subsequent attacks that targeted members of the judiciary, investigations and arrests did indeed proceed. This resulted in several long jail sentences being handed down in February, and two leaders being sentenced to death in May. However, recent reports state that other trials have been frustrated by the authorities failing to produce the accused in court.
Furthermore, during the judicial process links have been discovered between the accused and Shibir, the student wing of Jamaat-e-Islami, as well as with JI itself. In addition, there have been reports of strong links with leading politicians in both the major parties. Some Bangladeshis believe that the JMB leadership has had 'godfather' protection, particularly in its earlier activities in northern Bangladesh.
In 2004, the leader of the terror outfit JMJB (Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh) known as 'Bangla Bhai', whose real name is Siddiqul Islam, held a press conference in a local government office in Rajshahi. Locals also observed cooperation between the police and the JMB, who were hunting down supposed communists and leftists. However, the actions by the security forces against the JMB have convinced most Bangladeshis that the Mujahideen has, for the moment, been broken although few believe that they are finished.
Prior to August 2005, there was much confusion about the extent of support that groups such as the JMB might have. The public reaction to the exhibitions of violence that month, however, indicated a clear rejection. Indeed, JI's profile has suffered badly as a result of the JMB's activities. This bodes well for countering further threats of Islamic violence in Bangladesh. However, the underlying spectre of Islamic conservatism 'laying the foundation' for an Islamic state appears to be one that Bangladeshi political parties are unwilling to publicly take on board, lest they offend Islamic sensibilities among the electorate. At the same time, the international community is simply unable to do so, constrained as they are by a mixture of excessive liberalism on the one hand, and judicious caution that they may inflame sensitive anti-imperialist and/or Muslim sentiments among Bangladeshis on the other.
New popular will It can now be seen that Bangladesh's formal democracy has been gradually undermined by the impunity and failure of the rule of law inherent to both the godfather-mastaan system and the politics of patronage. Yet over three previous elections, the first two were thought to be free and fair, while a third reflected the will of the people despite overt violence in some areas; a fifth poll was dubious, but was rejected by the people, and a new government was installed within five months. Critical to this has been the non-party caretaker government system, which has been held up as a model for other countries in democratic transition. Recent irregularities surrounding this system, however, have led to a wide coalition of opposition parties drawing up an Electoral Reform Agenda (See accompanying story, "A crippled caretaker").
The AL has threatened to boycott the election if the reforms are not adopted. The government agreed in principle to a discussion, and for a while it looked as if the absence of dialogue in Bangladeshi politics might suddenly be broken. But that hope was short-lived. The AL wanted direct talks with the BNP, and stated they would not hold discussions with the government's alliance partners, the JI and Oikkya Jote. The BNP subsequently put forward a dialogue team that included members from all alliance parties. As such, there has still been no dialogue, leading commentators and activists to believe that the government and opposition are on a collision course that can only end in violence.
Meanwhile, most of the country's voters appear to be disillusioned with both of the major parties, and harbour an active distrust of all politicians. The parties themselves have ignored the people's needs between elections, other than to use the public against each other. In the villages, there is an increasing polarisation between those who seek solace and social welfare from the new mosques, and those who cling to the traditional Sufism and embrace NGO programmes.
But as the political parties swing into election mode over the spring and summer of 2006, the people have begun to take things into their own hands. Popular local demonstrations, neither orchestrated by nor linked to any political party, have occurred spontaneously around a variety of non-political issues. In the volatile political atmosphere of present-day Bangladesh, these could continue to grow.
Though there had previously been some popular protest around energy and environmental issues, particularly in those areas that were devastated by gas blowouts and fires in the country's northeast, these had always been utilised by opposition parties for their own purposes against the government. For many, no electricity means no water; the high level of electricity outages has subsequently caused huge frustration, resulting in these large and public protests in Kansat and Demra villages during the first four months of this year. The national press estimated that over 1000 people were injured at Kansat, forcing the government to issue a public apology. Regardless, there is little that Dhaka can do to improve the electricity situation in the short term.
In late May 2006, the protest focus turned from electricity to industry, when workers across the garment sector violently rioted in what began as a dispute over dismissals in a single factory and quickly spread to engulf whole industrial areas. This is another example of the extreme volatility of contemporary conditions in Bangladesh. With no political party having the credibility to give leadership or direction to such protests, street turbulence lacking in any national leadership is likely to increase.
Little will change Getting through the next election is a necessary but not sufficient condition to stabilising Bangladesh. Despite the widespread disillusionment with the political parties, without doubt it is important that January's elections take place and, as far as possible, are conducted freely and fairly. The international agencies in Dhaka are already cooperating with Bangladeshi organisations to ensure that there is a good distribution of trained monitors, both local and international, throughout the country. If the elections cannot take place and there is no mandate for governance, the possibilities are all grim.
Bangladesh has a history of military government. Currently, the armed forces do not seem to have political ambition, they enjoy some political influence without any responsibility, and they earn well from UN missions and business deals. However, if the civilian political parties are unable to establish a credible government, their intervention may be welcomed as a stabilising factor both within and outside Bangladesh. Previous military governments originated under a similar guise of 'saving the country'.
As such, the 2007 elections are crucial for Bangladesh, despite the fact that their actual outcome will change little. The country's problems are systemic, and have come about through the lowering of people's expectations of government and of political parties. The latter, meanwhile, have managed to hollow out the state through corruption and nepotism. Both the AL and BNP are complicit in this negative process, and both have allowed the 'godfather system' to become so entrenched that it is questionable whether they can ever totally extricate themselves from it.
While these problems need to be articulated in the public domain, that has proven a dangerous task, as many Bangladeshi journalists have discovered for trying. But it is not until the corruption of Bangladeshi politics is addressed publicly that a corrective process will be able to begin. Only at that point will Bangladeshis be able to start developing systematic responses to the governance challenges the country faces. And only then might the people of Bangladesh be able to look to a more secure future. #
Himal SouthAsian is a progressive magazine published out of Nepal focussing on issues related to the South Asia. The present article is one of the many from the cover story of August 06 issue which is devoted to Bangladesh
No information about al-Qaeda presence in Bangladesh: US
THE HINDU
News Update Service
Friday, August 4, 2006 : 1015 Hrs
International
No information about al-Qaeda presence in Bangladesh: US
Washington, August 4 (PTI): The US has said it does not have any specific information about the al-Qaeda network's presence in Bangladesh.
Commenting on a media report that the al-Qaeda may have found its way into Bangladesh, State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, said Washington was as concerned as Dhaka about the issue of terrorism in the South Asian nation.
"We're concerned about terrorism in Bangladesh as is the Bangladeshi government. And we certainly stand ready to work with them. I don't have any particular information about the presence of al-Qaeda individuals in Bangladesh," McCormack, said at a media briefing yesterday.
"We do know that they have had in the past a worldwide network. So we do have cooperation on the counter-terrorism front with Bangladesh," he added.
News Update Service
Friday, August 4, 2006 : 1015 Hrs
International
No information about al-Qaeda presence in Bangladesh: US
Washington, August 4 (PTI): The US has said it does not have any specific information about the al-Qaeda network's presence in Bangladesh.
Commenting on a media report that the al-Qaeda may have found its way into Bangladesh, State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, said Washington was as concerned as Dhaka about the issue of terrorism in the South Asian nation.
"We're concerned about terrorism in Bangladesh as is the Bangladeshi government. And we certainly stand ready to work with them. I don't have any particular information about the presence of al-Qaeda individuals in Bangladesh," McCormack, said at a media briefing yesterday.
"We do know that they have had in the past a worldwide network. So we do have cooperation on the counter-terrorism front with Bangladesh," he added.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
A New Hub for Terrorism?In Bangladesh, an Islamic Movement With Al-Qaeda Ties Is on the Rise
By Selig S. Harrison
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; A15
While the United States dithers, a growing Islamic fundamentalist movement linked to al-Qaeda and Pakistani intelligence agencies is steadily converting the strategically located nation of Bangladesh into a new regional hub for terrorist operations that reach into India and Southeast Asia.
With 147 million people, largely Muslim Bangladesh has substantial Hindu and Christian minorities and is nominally a secular democracy. But the ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) struck a Faustian bargain with the fundamentalist party Jamaat-e-Islami five years ago in order to win power.
In return for the votes in Parliament needed to form a coalition government, Prime Minister Khaleda Zia has looked the other way as the Jamaat has systematically filled sensitive civil service, police, intelligence and military posts with its sympathizers, who have in turn looked the other way as Jamaat-sponsored guerrilla squads patterned after the Taliban have operated with increasing impunity in many rural and urban areas.
To the dismay of her business supporters, the prime minister gave the coveted post of industries minister to Matiur Rahman Nizami, a high-ranking Jamaat official who has helped promote the growth of a Jamaat economic empire that embraces banking, insurance, trucking, pharmaceutical manufacturing, department stores, newspapers and TV stations. A study last year by a leading Bangladeshi economist showed that the "fundamentalist sector of the economy" earns annual profits of some $1.2 billion.
Now the BNP-Jamaat alliance is rigging the next national elections, scheduled for January, to prevent the return of the opposition Awami League to power. Voter lists are being manipulated, and the supposedly neutral caretaker government and the commission that will run the election are being turned into puppets.
The BNP argues that coalition rule helps moderates in the Jamaat to combat Islamic extremist factions. But the reality is that Jamaat inroads in the government security machinery at all levels, starting with Home Secretary Muhammad Omar Farooq, widely regarded as close to the Jamaat, have opened the way for suicide bombings, political assassinations, harassment of the Hindu minority, and an unchecked influx of funds from Islamic charities in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf to Jamaat-oriented madrassas (religious schools) that in some cases are fronts for terrorist activity.
With some 15,000 hard-core fighters operating out of 19 known base camps, guerrilla groups sponsored by the Jamaat and its allies were able to paralyze the country last Aug. 17 by staging 459 closely synchronized explosions in all but one of the country's administrative districts. When the key leaders of these groups were captured, they were kept by the police in a comfortable apartment, where they were free to receive visitors. A cartoon in the Daily Star of Dhaka on July 24 showed them lounging on a rug, conducting classes in bombmaking. Their fate and present place of confinement is uncertain, and all of the major guerrilla groups are back to business as usual.
The bitterness of Bangladeshi politics is often attributed to a personal vendetta between two strong women, Prime Minister Zia and the Awami League leader, Sheikh Hasina Wajed. But the roots of the current struggle go back to 1971, when Bengali East Pakistan, led by the Awami League, broke away from Punjabi-dominated West Pakistan to form the nation of Bangladesh. The Jamaat, which originated in the western wing, opposed the independence movement and fought side by side with Pakistani forces against both fellow Bengalis and the Indian troops who intervened in the decisive final phase of the conflict.
For Pakistan's intelligence agencies, especially Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the legacy of the independence war has been a built-in network of agents within the Jamaat and its affiliates who can be utilized to harass India along its 2,500-mile border with Bangladesh. In addition to supporting tribal separatist groups in northeast India, the ISI uses Bangladesh as a base for helping Islamic extremists inside India. After the July 11 train bombings in Bombay, a top Indian police official, K.P. Raghuvanshi, said that his key suspects "have connections with groups in Nepal and Bangladesh, which are directly or indirectly connected to Pakistan."
A State Department report cited evidence that one of the Jamaat's main allies, the Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islami, also headquartered in Pakistan, "maintains contact with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan." Bangladesh Harakat leader Fazlul Rahman was one of the six signatories of Osama bin Laden's first declaration of holy war against the United States, on Feb. 23, 1998. Since the October 2002 Bali bombings led to repression of al-Qaeda, some of its Indonesian and Malaysian cells have shifted their operations to Bangladesh.
What makes future prospects in Bangladesh especially alarming is that the Jamaat and its allies appear to be penetrating the higher ranks of the armed forces. Among many examples, informed journalists in Dhaka attribute Jamaat sympathies to Maj. Gen. Mohammed Aminul Karim, recently appointed as military secretary to President Iajuddin Ahmed, and to Brig. Gen. A.T.M. Amin, director of the Armed Forces Intelligence anti-terrorism bureau.
The respected journalists in question cannot write freely about the Jamaat without facing death threats or assassination attempts. The U.S.-based Committee to Protect Journalists has published extensive dossiers documenting 68 death threats and dozens of bombing attacks that have injured at least eight journalists. "We are alarmed by the growing pattern of intimidation of journalists by Islamic groups in Bangladesh," the committee said recently. "As a result of its alliance with the Jamaat-Islamiyah, the government appears to lack the ability or will to protect journalists from this new and grave threat."
The Bush administration has yet to speak with comparable candor. The latest State Department annual report on terrorism mentioned only one of the three Jamaat militias as a terrorist group and avoided direct criticism of the BNP for its coalition with the Jamaat, referring only to the "serious political constraints" that explain the government's "limited success" in countering "escalating" terrorist violence. On July 13 the U.S. ambassador called Bangladesh "an exceptional moderate Muslim state."
The United States and other donors gave Bangladesh $1.4 billion in aid last year. There is still time for the administration to use aid leverage and trade concessions to promote a fair election by calling openly and forcefully for nonpartisan control of the Election Commission and the caretaker government. In addition to implicitly threatening an aid cutoff if it is rebuffed, the administration should offer the powerful incentive of duty-free textile imports from Bangladesh if Prime Minister Zia cooperates.
In Pakistan, the United States has been gingerly pushing Gen. Pervez Musharraf for democratic elections because it needs the limited but significant support he is giving against al-Qaeda and fears what might come after him. But what is the excuse for inaction in Bangladesh, where the incumbent government coddles Islamic extremists and a strong secular party is ready to govern?
The writer, a former South Asia bureau chief of The Post and the author of five books on South Asia, has covered Bangladesh since 1951. He is the director of the Asia program at the Center for International Policy and a senior scholar of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; A15
While the United States dithers, a growing Islamic fundamentalist movement linked to al-Qaeda and Pakistani intelligence agencies is steadily converting the strategically located nation of Bangladesh into a new regional hub for terrorist operations that reach into India and Southeast Asia.
With 147 million people, largely Muslim Bangladesh has substantial Hindu and Christian minorities and is nominally a secular democracy. But the ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) struck a Faustian bargain with the fundamentalist party Jamaat-e-Islami five years ago in order to win power.
In return for the votes in Parliament needed to form a coalition government, Prime Minister Khaleda Zia has looked the other way as the Jamaat has systematically filled sensitive civil service, police, intelligence and military posts with its sympathizers, who have in turn looked the other way as Jamaat-sponsored guerrilla squads patterned after the Taliban have operated with increasing impunity in many rural and urban areas.
To the dismay of her business supporters, the prime minister gave the coveted post of industries minister to Matiur Rahman Nizami, a high-ranking Jamaat official who has helped promote the growth of a Jamaat economic empire that embraces banking, insurance, trucking, pharmaceutical manufacturing, department stores, newspapers and TV stations. A study last year by a leading Bangladeshi economist showed that the "fundamentalist sector of the economy" earns annual profits of some $1.2 billion.
Now the BNP-Jamaat alliance is rigging the next national elections, scheduled for January, to prevent the return of the opposition Awami League to power. Voter lists are being manipulated, and the supposedly neutral caretaker government and the commission that will run the election are being turned into puppets.
The BNP argues that coalition rule helps moderates in the Jamaat to combat Islamic extremist factions. But the reality is that Jamaat inroads in the government security machinery at all levels, starting with Home Secretary Muhammad Omar Farooq, widely regarded as close to the Jamaat, have opened the way for suicide bombings, political assassinations, harassment of the Hindu minority, and an unchecked influx of funds from Islamic charities in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf to Jamaat-oriented madrassas (religious schools) that in some cases are fronts for terrorist activity.
With some 15,000 hard-core fighters operating out of 19 known base camps, guerrilla groups sponsored by the Jamaat and its allies were able to paralyze the country last Aug. 17 by staging 459 closely synchronized explosions in all but one of the country's administrative districts. When the key leaders of these groups were captured, they were kept by the police in a comfortable apartment, where they were free to receive visitors. A cartoon in the Daily Star of Dhaka on July 24 showed them lounging on a rug, conducting classes in bombmaking. Their fate and present place of confinement is uncertain, and all of the major guerrilla groups are back to business as usual.
The bitterness of Bangladeshi politics is often attributed to a personal vendetta between two strong women, Prime Minister Zia and the Awami League leader, Sheikh Hasina Wajed. But the roots of the current struggle go back to 1971, when Bengali East Pakistan, led by the Awami League, broke away from Punjabi-dominated West Pakistan to form the nation of Bangladesh. The Jamaat, which originated in the western wing, opposed the independence movement and fought side by side with Pakistani forces against both fellow Bengalis and the Indian troops who intervened in the decisive final phase of the conflict.
For Pakistan's intelligence agencies, especially Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the legacy of the independence war has been a built-in network of agents within the Jamaat and its affiliates who can be utilized to harass India along its 2,500-mile border with Bangladesh. In addition to supporting tribal separatist groups in northeast India, the ISI uses Bangladesh as a base for helping Islamic extremists inside India. After the July 11 train bombings in Bombay, a top Indian police official, K.P. Raghuvanshi, said that his key suspects "have connections with groups in Nepal and Bangladesh, which are directly or indirectly connected to Pakistan."
A State Department report cited evidence that one of the Jamaat's main allies, the Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islami, also headquartered in Pakistan, "maintains contact with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan." Bangladesh Harakat leader Fazlul Rahman was one of the six signatories of Osama bin Laden's first declaration of holy war against the United States, on Feb. 23, 1998. Since the October 2002 Bali bombings led to repression of al-Qaeda, some of its Indonesian and Malaysian cells have shifted their operations to Bangladesh.
What makes future prospects in Bangladesh especially alarming is that the Jamaat and its allies appear to be penetrating the higher ranks of the armed forces. Among many examples, informed journalists in Dhaka attribute Jamaat sympathies to Maj. Gen. Mohammed Aminul Karim, recently appointed as military secretary to President Iajuddin Ahmed, and to Brig. Gen. A.T.M. Amin, director of the Armed Forces Intelligence anti-terrorism bureau.
The respected journalists in question cannot write freely about the Jamaat without facing death threats or assassination attempts. The U.S.-based Committee to Protect Journalists has published extensive dossiers documenting 68 death threats and dozens of bombing attacks that have injured at least eight journalists. "We are alarmed by the growing pattern of intimidation of journalists by Islamic groups in Bangladesh," the committee said recently. "As a result of its alliance with the Jamaat-Islamiyah, the government appears to lack the ability or will to protect journalists from this new and grave threat."
The Bush administration has yet to speak with comparable candor. The latest State Department annual report on terrorism mentioned only one of the three Jamaat militias as a terrorist group and avoided direct criticism of the BNP for its coalition with the Jamaat, referring only to the "serious political constraints" that explain the government's "limited success" in countering "escalating" terrorist violence. On July 13 the U.S. ambassador called Bangladesh "an exceptional moderate Muslim state."
The United States and other donors gave Bangladesh $1.4 billion in aid last year. There is still time for the administration to use aid leverage and trade concessions to promote a fair election by calling openly and forcefully for nonpartisan control of the Election Commission and the caretaker government. In addition to implicitly threatening an aid cutoff if it is rebuffed, the administration should offer the powerful incentive of duty-free textile imports from Bangladesh if Prime Minister Zia cooperates.
In Pakistan, the United States has been gingerly pushing Gen. Pervez Musharraf for democratic elections because it needs the limited but significant support he is giving against al-Qaeda and fears what might come after him. But what is the excuse for inaction in Bangladesh, where the incumbent government coddles Islamic extremists and a strong secular party is ready to govern?
The writer, a former South Asia bureau chief of The Post and the author of five books on South Asia, has covered Bangladesh since 1951. He is the director of the Asia program at the Center for International Policy and a senior scholar of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)