The SSG drama: Victory for democracy or corruption?
Holiday
April 26, 2012
M. Serajul
Islam
In the case concerning the Minister for Railways, many
miscalculated the outcome. Analysts of political events had spoken and written that
Suranjit Sen Gupta would retain his post and the hue and cry over the taka 7
million found in the car of his APS when he was coming to his residence close
to midnight would die down like similar incidents in the past. They based their
prediction on the assumption that the Prime Minister would not sack the
Minister, the allegations against him notwithstanding, because that would give
political victory to the Opposition.
When the Minister resigned, everybody thought that he was not just
out of the Ministry of Railways but out of the Cabinet as well. There was of
course no reason to believe to the contrary. The fact that the Minister was
later retained in the Cabinet was a mystery yet to be answered. The members of
the civil society were the first to be fooled into the belief that the Minister
was out of the Cabinet and ended embarrassing themselves. They went ahead and congratulated
the Prime Minister for forcing the Minister out and felicitated the Minister
for his courage and his commitment for democracy for deciding to resign.
The Chairman of the Human Rights Commission also did not waste
time to welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to encourage the Minister to
resign and the Minister for listening to the Prime Minister as a victory for
democracy. One just wonders what human rights issue was involved in the
resignation to have encouraged him to come to the media and give the statement
he gave. The Ministers of the Government warmly felicitated their leader for
her courage, her wisdom and political vision in the service of democracy and
called the Minister’s resignation a “historical” event!
The decision of the Prime Minister to keep the Minister in the
Cabinet after raising the optimism that he was in fact sacked showed in bad
light those in the civil society who had hurriedly gone ahead to congratulate
the Prime Minister and the Minister. In fact, the Prime Minister did nothing
unpredictable for she was not prepared to let it appear that she had given to
the demand of the Opposition. She just removed the Minister from his post as
she had done with the former Minister for Communications, only this time she
reacted quickly to give the sense that she was sacking the Minister.
Nevertheless, if it was just the fact that she was retaining SSG
in the Cabinet so as not to give in to the demand of the Opposition, she ended
giving the impression that her claim of
zero tolerance on corruption was a mere lip service to the issue. The tall
claims made by her Ministers and members of the civil society that the
resignation was a victory for democracy was made laughable when the Minister was
retained in the cabinet as a Minister without portfolio. In particular, those
Ministers who had hailed SSG’s resignation as “historical” should now know what
historical stupidity they made by their hurried claim.
In retrospect, SSG committed more blunders than other Ministers
against whom charges of corruption were brought in the past. He intervened with the Border Guards and the
Police on behalf of his APS and senior officials of his Ministry after they
were apprehended with Taka 7 million in their car. The fact that they were
coming with it to his residence at close to midnight after picking the money
from a suburb in the city made the case look more suspicious. If he knew that
there was that amount of money in the car when he intervened with the
authorities, he made a serious error of judgment. For a politician who took
such immense pleasure to rub his self-acclaimed expertise in legal and
constitutional issues on the opposition, that act, even unintentional, was
unpardonable.
Unfortunately for the Minister, other facts suggested that he was
not really unaware of what he was doing. If indeed there was any need to
intervene with the authorities on behalf of the Ministry’s officials on
questions of identity, a Minister would normally leave such a matter to his
Private Secretary or someone else in his Ministry‘. By intervening himself, the
Minister showed a personal interest in the case. Further, in a Ministry’s
staff, an APS of the Minister is one who is closest to the Minister. A Minister
has the right and all Ministers use it to appoint someone who looks after his
personal affairs to such a post. In fact, one appointed to the post of an APS
need not even be a serving civil servant at the point of being named to the
post.
The Minister’s first acts proved his knowledge of what those
apprehended were up to. The driver of the car as the whistle blower gave the
public the reason to doubt the Minister’s innocence. The presence of Yusuf Ali
Mridha in the car was another very serious incriminating evidence of
corruption. He has since been accused by the employees’ association of the Railway
Ministry as being the leader of money for job racket in the Ministry that has so far netted huge
amounts of money from the 7000 posts on offer in the Ministry.
Additional facts emerged from family sources that did not help the
Minister in fighting the quicksand to which he fell. His son, just couple of
days before the incident later named in the media as Railway Gate, had paid
Taka 5 crores up front as fee for a
telecommunications license he was granted by the Bangladesh Telecommunications
Board. The Minister’s son was working in an internet provider for a monthly
salary of Taka 50,000 till only recently. At the same time, the Minister was
scheduled to open his own mall, the Sen Mall in Sunamgang that was built at
costs running into huge sums of money. The circumstantial evidence both
connected and unconnected to Railway Gate
all piled up to leave the people convinced that the Minister was far
from being the epitome of honesty and integrity that he tried to project about
himself and his politics.
The Minister’s 50 years of politics did not prepare him for
dealing with the situation that confronted him. He made a series of other silly
mistakes to complicate his predicament. He formed two committees, one under his
Private Secretary and another under a Joint Secretary in his Ministry for
clearing the allegations. He then suspended his APS and then sacked him not
knowing what was correct or what would be acceptable to the public. He sent the
Ministry’s officials on leave at first and then suspended them. Later he formed
a committee to investigate into the whole incident at a senior level.
In the midst of these series of confused behaviour, he ridiculed a
BNP lady MP who had asked for a judicial inquiry, calling her a novice who was
unaware about the serious business of governance. In hindsight he ended being
the novice himself for if he had accepted her demand and asked for a judicial
inquiry instead of trying to clear himself by forming committees under
officials controlled by him, he would have given an impression of honest intent
to the public.
At the height of crisis, he once hinted that if the allegations
against him were proven he would resign. He then somersaulted and declined to
do so, loudly claiming that none of the charges were against him and therefore
he was under no compulsions, under issues of democracy or ministerial
responsibility or otherwise, to resign. During the crisis, the opposition made
him nervous by loudly demanding his resignation and for probe in to the
allegations of corruption.
He could perhaps have faced those demands of the opposition if he
had any support forthcoming from his own party. Senior members of his party led
by former Home Minister Mohammad Nasim joined voice with the Opposition and
asked him to take responsibility for his actions, in other words asked him to
resign. In fact Mohammad Nasim’s comment that the Railway Bhavan would not be
allowed to become the Hawa Bhavan hurled at the Minister much more serious
accusation of corruption than what the opposition could articulate.
When the Prime Minister returned from Turkey and consulted her close
aides on the incident, the Minister’s goose was more than well cooked. The
Minister was given the post only recently after he was by-passed three years
ago because he had annoyed the Prime Minister as a reformist during the period
of the last caretaker government. He was included eventually after he had
become an embarrassment for the Prime Minister and the ruling party with his
criticisms aimed at just not the government but also at the Prime Minister and
her family. The Minister, by what he did or failed to do with Railway Gate,
gave the Prime Minister the opportunity to snub a colleague for whom she had no
reason for compassion.
Therefore there was no service done to democracy nor was it intended as the
members of the ruling party projected initially. The Minister, by his actions gave the Prime
Minister the opportunity for which she was waiting and she did not miss that
opportunity. She did not go to the full extent of humiliating the Minister
because she did not want to give the opposition any opportunity to feel that
she had acted under pressure from them.
The whole nation heaved a sigh of relief that the Prime Minister had
held a colleague responsible for corruption and moved him from his post quicker
than she did with the former Minister of Communications. However, they welcomed
it more because they felt that the Minister more than deserved it. Their only pleasure was that the Prime
Minister sealed the mouth of a politician
who irked not just the opposition but many right thinking people by his
self-righteousness and the manner in which he ridiculed his opponents on issues
of corruption by placing himself on a pedestal of honesty and integrity.
The Prime Minister would richly deserve the nation’s
congratulations only when she completed the process of allegations against the
Minister, his Ministry, his wealth and his son’s Taka 5 million, not forgetting
from where the Taka 7 million came from and why were the culprits headed for
the Minister’s house. Otherwise, her action to force the Minister to resign
from his post would be a victory not for democracy but for corruption. Her
decision to keep him in the Cabinet as a Minister without portfolio hinted that
corruption still had a head start over democracy in winning the Railway Gate
case.
Post script: The Railway Gate had pulled down the ruling party to
a new low politically given the fact that it was its promise to fight
corruption with zero tolerance that had helped it win a thumping majority in
the last elections. When the Prime Minister had appeared to have sacked SSG on
that zero tolerance, the ruling party managed to undo a lot of the potential
damage that Railway gate had done to it. With SSG now resurrected as a Minister
where there was no support for him even from his party and the Prime Minister
not entirely unhappy with his predicament, India is being mentioned as the
power that intervened on his behalf.
The emergence of the India factor has created more serious
liabilities for the ruling party. By keeping the Minister in the cabinet, it
failed to convince the people on its zero tolerance on corruption. Now with the
India factor to deal with; the ruling party has a very dangerous combination at
hand looking ahead into the next general elections. India’s standing in
Bangladesh’s politics because of its failure to deliver on many promises it
made to it is now at an all time low.
The writer
is a retired career diplomat and a former Ambassador to Japan.
No comments:
Post a Comment