Qaumi Madrassas and the reality

The Daily Star, May 16, 2009


THE World Bank Country Director recently forwarded to the government a report that is interesting in the context of Islamic militancy in Bangladesh in reality. In the last few months, the media has published series of reports and news items, many based on statements of Ministers that would suggest that Bangladesh is in imminent threat from Islamic militancy. At the time the intelligence agencies discovered a huge arsenal of arms and ammunition in a remote village in Barisal and linked it to a Bangladesh born British national. Some concluded that the Qaumi Madrassas (QM) were hotbeds of Islamic militancy. The WB report contradicts most of these allegations.

In a seminar in BILIA, a government sponsored think tank, the alleged link between QM and Islamic terrorism was blown out of proportion. Its Director quoted from a research in which the WB report found too many potholes. The Director had said that from 2001-2006 or during the BNP government, 35% of Army soldiers were recruited from QM against 5% before 2001 elections. The other dangerous element of his statement was his conclusion that the majority of madrassa educated soldiers “are involved with militancy.” The research paper that the BILIA Director quoted also mentioned that QM curricula are designed to prepare students for army entrance exams.

The WB report has trashed the all hitherto published news reports on QM; in particular the research paper that the BILIA Director has quoted. The Report said the QM is “doing a good job “and that it is not as well entrenched in rural Bangladesh as has been reported in the media. Only 1.9% of total rural primary enrolment is from QM. The WB report found no link in QM and militancy and has also rejected the claim of rise of madrassa educated graduates in Army as “unfounded.” In this context, the Prime Minister must be given the credit for dealing with the QM issue effectively when she met with its leaders and assured them that her government has confidence in the institution and did not believe what has been said about it in the media.

Bangladesh is a predominantly Muslim country with the overwhelming majority of them simple but firm believers in Islam as a complete code of life. Most of them are not educated enough to understand the virtues of secularism and other intellectual concepts. It is therefore very important for the government to be extremely cautious when handling Islam politically. The current debate over the Fifth Amendment to the constitution, which is now in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, must be handled with care. If the Appellate Division upholds the High Court verdict, then secularism will replace "Absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah shall be the basis of all actions" as the fourth principle of state policy with democracy, nationalism and socialism. The Law Minister, acknowledging that the amendment could affect Islamic sentiments, has reassured the people that "bismillah" will remain before the Preamble to the Constitution although this assurance may not be enough.

The trial of the war criminals must also be handled with care. The government cannot backtrack because people voted it to power on this plank as it did on a number of other issues like “Vision 2021” and “Digital Bangladesh.” There is little or no need for the government to go to the media with it because it is pledge-bound to carry it out. Media hype together with the inclination of the ministers to talk about the issue in the media will only delay the government's efforts to conduct the trials and give the opponents an excuse to use the Islamic card against the trials.

It would be foolhardy to underestimate threats of Islamic militancy in Bangladesh. But if any country facing such a threat is poised well to handle it, Bangladesh is the country only if the politics of blame-game does not intervene. One can still move about anywhere in Bangladesh without any fear of being blown up by a bomb. One cannot, however, move around in Bangladesh freely because of common criminals, some with alleged link to those in power. There has been a rapid deterioration of law and order all over Bangladesh and a lot of it is linked to politics in the country. Yet we seem to be concerned more with Islamic militancy and less about the slide in law and order that poses an equally great problem for Bangladesh.

The AL has no links to Islam based parties and thus has no baggage to carry to please such groups as the BNP had to during 2001-2006, an opportunity the Islamic parties used to good measure. The AL has won a massive mandate from the people on an agenda of economic development where power generation, water distribution and overall economic development are their promises to the nation together with holding the trial of the war criminals. To succeed on all these issues, a stable political environment is absolutely indispensable. It is unfortunate that they are now moving into areas that have potential of making politics volatile and unstable.

Our people are deeply sensitive towards Islam. Giving wrong perceptions of Islam abroad also has the potential of harming Bangladesh. Millions of our expatriates live in the Middle East with nearly two million in Saudi Arabia. If these countries perceive that Islam is in danger in Bangladesh, the economic consequences will not be good for the country. Islamic political parties have their supporters in these countries and hence when we blame them for terrorism, we must have our facts absolutely correct and discuss these with our friends in the Middle East, take them on board and then proceed with the matter. Here our diplomacy has a great role to play. Before anyone runs to the media to score points with Islamic militancy, they must have their facts impeccably correct and then weigh it against the diplomatic considerations.

With the AL's massive election victory, the country has been given a great opportunity for economic and social development. The WB report should remind the government that there is a lot of serious research that needs to be done on the status of Islamic militancy in the country before going public over it. This government must save the country from the threats of Islamic militancy and at the same time it must save the image of Bangladesh.

The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.

Indian Diplomacy and the focused Army General

Published in The Dhaka Courier, May 15, 2009

The recent news of the Indian High Commissioner's meeting with the Leader of the Opposition Begum Khaleda Zia was unexpected coming after the Indian Foreign Minister and the Indian Foreign Secretary had visited Dhaka and ignored the former Prime Minister that left many raised eyebrows with a lot of unhealthy speculations and criticisms to boot.

India's democratic credentials are universally acknowledged. Most of us have heard about the famous exchange the legendary Jawaherlal Nehru had with his three defense chiefs who had called on him soon after India's independence in 1947. He kept them waiting a long while, knowing their intention was to advise him on Pakistan, and when they faced him, he simply asked them to leave their uniforms if they wished to "advise" a Prime Minister on political affairs.

Therefore, when the Indian Foreign Minister came to Bangladesh and found time to meet our Army Chief but none to call upon the Leader of the Opposition, there were a lot of expected criticisms. The reason given by the Indian side that Pranab Mukherjee could not meet Khaleda Zia for lack of time was a poor one, given that he found time to visit Dhaka University, in addition to meeting General Moeen.

The meeting of the Indian Foreign Secretary Shivsankar Menon with the Army Chief was also equally surprising because it is unusual for someone in his position to call on someone like General Moeen while on an official visit. Since he followed his boss to meet the Bangladesh Army Chief, it may not be unfair to either to suspect that they both had something secret to discuss with him that forced them to break with practice and protocol. It would be interesting to find out whether an Indian Foreign Minister or a Foreign Secretary, while visiting another country, has met someone like General Moeen, especially as in case of Pranab Mukherjee, where he skipped meeting the Leader of the Opposition.

For good reasons, Indian diplomacy as Indian democracy is based on solid credentials. Indian Foreign Service has some of the finest diplomats. Therefore, for justifiable reasons, the meetings of Pranab Mukherjee and Menon with General Moeen have raised many questions in Bangladesh. A lot of this has also come out of the controversial role the General has played during the post 1/11 emergency rule when he tried to impose upon Bangladesh his "vision" of democracy that did not have any place for either Sheikh Hasina or Khaleda Zia. He summarily assumed politicians to be corrupt and got a large number of them incarcerated. Then he changed course and under his encouragement, the civilians in the emergency government negotiated an agreement for the 29th December elections that BNP thought favoured the Awami League.
During the emergency, the General also visited India and met senior leaders of the Congress-led Government. Before undertaking the trip, he said that he was going to put the Bangladesh-India relations on track, something political governments had failed to do, and would even meet the Indian Prime Minister that did not eventually happen. He, of course, met the Indian FM on this trip.

These facts about the General are known to the Indians. Yet the Indian Foreign Ministry arranged the meetings that have naturally caused suspicion in Bangladesh about what transpired in the meetings. There were reports in the Indian media that Shivsankar Menon came to warn Sheikh Hasina about a plot to assassinate her that was picked up on the internet chat sessions! Like the reason given for the Indian FM's failure to meet Khaleda Zia, this explanation is also a very wishy washy one that no one in Bangladesh has taken seriously.

Geopolitics and political realities leave Bangladesh and India with no alternative but to be good neighbours if they want the welfare of their peoples and their countries. Bangladesh, an agricultural nation where rivers sustain life and livelihood of its people, has 54 of the 56 rivers flowing from India. Our position is between the mainland India and seven Indian provinces in the Northeast whose economic development can only be fully achieved with Bangladesh's cooperation. Further, at times when terrorism is a major concern in India, it is essential for Bangladesh with its 150 million people to succeed and move forward as a state. If we fail, India cannot avoid the consequences as Bangladesh then can very well turn into a hotbed of international terrorism.

Few things have happened in Bangladesh recently that suggests we have crossed a bend to align our relations with India in a win-win perspective. Parties and informed groups are now openly talking on issues such as land transit/connectivity and giving India use of our ports that were taboo subjects in our politics not too long ago. The emergence of the AL with a massive mandate that has historically good relations with the Indians, particularly the ruling Congress, is another positive development for realigning Bangladesh-India relations on the basis of mutuality.

It is, therefore, surprising that Indian diplomacy should be making moves that are bound to cause legitimate concerns in Bangladesh. There are other causes for worry coming from the Indian side. In his meeting with Sheikh Hasina, Menon extended to our Prime Minister an invitation on behalf of the Indian Government to send a delegation to look at Tipai Mukh barrage, little concerned that this is an explosive issue for damaging relations, as dangerous as the Farakka issue. Already opinion inside Bangladesh is crystallizing dangerously against this barrage which people feel that just as the Farakka barrage will eventually turn northwest Bangladesh into a desert; this barrage will do the same to northeast Bangladesh after it is commissioned in 2012.

For achieving good and sustainable relations, India must change her mindset from bilateralism and seek regional and sub-regional resolution of the problems that have stood in the way of good relations between our two countries. The sharing of the issue of water of the common rivers, which is a major cause of ill feelings between our two countries, can easily be turned into a bondage for sustainable friendship given the undeniable fact that sub-regional approach to this issue could leave both India and Bangladesh together with Nepal and Bhutan with not only just enough water in the dry season but also enough electricity to share and devastating floods to contain.

Indian diplomacy in Bangladesh is perhaps focusing the wrong areas and thereby overlooking a momentous opportunity, one that may not come again in foreseeable future, when Bangladesh is really eager to improve its relations with India. Overtures to Bangladesh's armed forces together with building of barrages like Tipai Mukh (not forgetting fencing the border) are some of the recent Indian steps in opposite directions. Such overtures from Dhaka's point of view could throw Bangladesh-India relations into a new abyss out of which fundamentalism and terrorism could grow dangerously. A successful and stable Bangladesh is to India's advantage; while an unstable Bangladesh with attempts to project it as a 'failed state' is dangerous for India also. It is still a mystery why Indian diplomacy is moving in a wrong way to ensure the latter.

Indian High Commissioner's meeting with Khaleda Zia may be a move to manage relations from sliding, although India must do a lot more to re-assure Bangladesh. The Indians need Khaleda Zia on board for improvement of relations. They also need to talk to Sheikh Hasina to encourage her to resolve conflicts in Bangladesh's politics and not create any. Indian diplomacy is on test again not just for Bangladesh's sake but for India's as well.

Editorial Comment: Death of a Brilliant Scientist; National Sycophancy and an Opportunity Missed

The death of Mr. Wajed Ali Miah, the husband of the Prime Minister was sad news. He was a brilliant student. In his days, to secure a First Class First in Physics in both the Honours and Master’s examinations from Dhaka University were something that only the exceptionally bright and gifted could achieve. He was also elected the Vice President of Fazlul Huq Hall of Dhaka University that was also an exceptional feat because the best students of that period used to reside there.

These credentials and the fact that he was the husband of the Prime Minister are enough reasons for his death to be mourned nationally. In addition, as has been revealed in the floodgate of information that has come to the media following his death, he was also a brilliant professional and a kind and considerate man.

But his life and his credentials faded in the way his death was “mourned”. The way the doctor “cried” while announcing the death news, the wave of people who turned up in his funeral rites; the editorials and articles written on him; the number of talk shows held on his life; and the advertisements by the banks and commercial houses mourning his death reflected the type of a nation we are; sycophantic to the point of being ridiculous.

In the wave of national sycophancy, we have missed on the most important thing that happened surrounding this sad event. It was the embrace of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The decision of Khaleda Zia to visit Sudha Bhavan and for the Prime Minister to give her nod of approval to it was unexpected but one that should have been the thread that our media should have picked to give it a positive spin for the sake of the nation. Instead, the papers and the media sidelined this news and instead opted to join the floodgate of sycophantic news coverage, editorials, talk shows etc, etc. In those brief moments of the embrace, the two ladies wept and their tears were perhaps the few genuine tears that were shed over the death together with those of the immediate family and friends of the departed scientist. The rest of the tears was no better and no worse than “crocodile tears”.

Obama's speech in Turkey and hope for a better world

Published in The Daily Star, May 9, 2009

PRESIDENT Barak Obama is truly a breath of fresh air in every sense of the term. That his presence means Bush is no longer around is in itself great news. It is for good reasons that the story about God telling the guy who came to White House looking for Bush made such rounds on the internet. When the guy came the first day to White House and asked God about Bush, he was told he lived there no longer. The guy came a second day; asked the question again and received the same answer. When he came a third day and asked the same question, an irate God asked him why he was asking the same question knowing what the answer would be. The guy's answer, with a broad smile was, to hear from God over and over again that Bush is history.

Thus the warm welcome that President Obama received during his just-concluded first overseas trip to Europe and ME was because of the relief in these countries that he had replaced Bush in the position of the most powerful individual on earth. But this partly explains the rousing welcome he was given by the leaders and the people in these countries. The man is also to a large measure responsible for the reception he received. When he had started his campaign for the White House, he was given a long shot because of his colour. But the more his people saw him, the more they liked him for in what he spoke, there was both a moral and intellectual depth that made him comparable to the great presidents of US history, like Lincoln and Kennedy, for example. President Obama is now on the centre stage to prove that he is as good as these great US Presidents; in fact he may even have to be better to undo the harm that eight years of Bush presidency has done to US and the world.

The Bush presidency was at its worst in the way it divided the US and the Islamic world. In giving his first reaction to 9/11 on TV, President Bush had blurted out the word “crusade.” His actions in Afghanistan in pursuit of Al Qaeda that he held responsible for 9/11 was supported by many countries. However, when he entered Iraq where there was no Al Qaeda or Islamic militants, the Muslim world felt that his intentions were anti-Muslim and that his reference to the crusade was by no means accidental. In fairness though it must be admitted that long afterwards, Bush did say that US is not at war with Islam but by then very few in the Islamic world believed that his war was anything but against Islam; a clash of the Western and the Islamic civilizations. President Obama's speech before the Turkish parliament during this trip where he said that “US never is or will be at war with the Islamic world” has gone a long way in assuring Muslims that the US is not their enemy. The Islamic world's excitement has been based on other carefully crafted words in his speech such as: “many Americans have Muslims in their families; I know because I am one of them” in direct reference to his own Muslim heritage. He was introduced as Barak Hussein Obama by the Turkish speaker, the emphasis clearly on his middle name Hussein that he himself had emphasized while taking oath.

Muslim hearts worldwide have been gladdened by the speech. In his speech, President Obama extended a genuine hand of friendship to the Muslims. He acknowledged the importance of resolving the Palestinian problem that Bush had considered secondary in his foreign policy goals in ME, having taken eight months after assuming office to send his Secretary of State there who had then said that Iraq and not Palestine was the major concern of US in the region. He asserted US's commitment to the two-state policy for ending the Palestinian problem. He again reasserted that Iran is not “an axis of evil” but an Islamic Republic with which US wants dialogue for friendly relations; a statement that was so dramatic as to be unbelievable when it was made by the US President in a TV address that he gave before embarking on this overseas trip. These commitments are like waking up to a bright, sunny morning after a nightmare in hell under President Bush. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit, whose country is crucial to the resolution of the Israeli-Arab conflict, has articulated the reaction of the Muslim world aptly by referring to it as the “first and significant“ step for mitigating the tension between US and the Muslim world.

Despite his best intentions that few doubt; the odds on President Obama bridging the wide gap between the US and the Islamic world will not be easy. Newly emerging realities also add to make his task difficult. The emergence of the hardliner Benjamin Netanyahu as Israel's Prime Minister is not good news although his initial reaction to Obama's resolve for peace in ME and the Palestinian state has been positive. A statement from his office said: "The government of Israel is committed to both of these goals and will formulate its policies in the near future so as to work closely with the United States." The way Pakistan is sliding toward political uncertainty and Taleban gaining ascendancy there and in Afghanistan are worrying factors. Without a stable and dependable Pakistan and an Afghanistan where Afghans are in control, US's efforts to tackle terror and militancy will falter as the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan becomes stronger everyday as a safe haven for Al Qaeda.

On Israel-Palestine conflict, positive result will depend primarily on how forcefully President Obama can handle Israel. Netanyahu's name is enough to freeze any thought of a forward movement on the Israel-Palestine conflict, his positive reaction to Obama's speech notwithstanding. In the past, US moves in resolving the conflict faltered because the fundamental fact that the plight of the Palestinians who have been made refugees in the land that has been theirs for centuries, has not entered into the equation. Instead, the victims have been asked to make the concessions and blamed for the consequences. Recent events in Gaza have opened the eyes of even those who have so long been blind towards Israel about the mindlessness and cruelty of their behaviour towards Palestinians. It has made the Palestinian Doctor Ezzeldeen Abu Al-Aish, whose three daughters were recently killed by Israelis in Gaza, a top contender for this year's Noble Peace Prize. The US alone has the power and influence, as Israel's main ally and benefactor, to settle the Palestinian problem by convincing the latter that leaving this problem unresolved has been the main reason for rise of Islamic militancy. Resolving the Palestinian problem can still take a lot of the wind out of the sail of Islamic militancy and bring US and Muslims closer. Stabilizing politics in Pakistan and Afghanistan and ending Talebans' ascendency there will need great efforts. Getting Iran off the list of the “axis of evil” may not be enough and engaging Iran in constructive discussion could be a long drawn process. All said, President Obama has undoubtedly set US priorities in the right perspective.

The world is yearning for peace and there are hopeful signs. The worst seems to be over in Iraq, although it was achieved through the lives of thousands of US troops and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children who were “collateral “victims. The scepter of a war with Iran has dissipated. Obama's presence at this moment in history is too good to be true; a black US President with Muslim heritage. Even the best of the story tellers could not have imagined, when Bush was taking the world apart, fighting his war on terror in Muslim countries that there would be a black US President, with Muslim linkage and a Muslim middle name. Only the future can tell whether Obama would bring peace to the world. For the moment, his speech in Turkey has given us the courage to hope for a peaceful world.

Bipartisanship and Bangladesh's Future

Dr. Muzzaffar Ahmed Chowdhury, Professor of Political Science and Vice Chancellor of Dhaka University was also a Minister in the Cabinet of Bangobandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. He had in him what makes a legend and a legend he was. In class, he used to tell us while reflecting on the politics of Pakistan that a major problem of the country was mindset of the political leaders to blame others for their faults, never accepting any on their part.

Thirty eight years after our independence, we are still caught in the same mindset that Dr. Chowdhury saw in Pakistan. As a nation, we have failed to grow out of it just as Pakistan failed till it disintegrated. The blame game has worsened. In her latest speech on May Day, our Prime Minister explicitly pointed accusing fingers at the BNP for the major crises Bangladesh is facing with electricity and water. In fact, from the very first day of assuming office, she has been harping on this theme consistently with her Ministers orchestrating this blame game with consistency and devotion. Khaleda Zia in her May Day rally a day later also proved that she is equal to her nemesis in the blame game by blaming the AL for the current problems.
The people agreed overwhelmingly with the Awami League's anti-BNP platform in the December 29th elections. In fact, they left no one in doubt on the issue by the margin with which they returned the party to power. They also voted for AL's "Vision 2021" and "Digital Bangladesh". Therefore, they expect the AL to go ahead fulfilling the promises instead of wasting time blaming the BNP over and over again. It does not serve the AL's purpose either; the time wasted in this blame game is also a waste of time for the nation. It is in fact more than a waste of time; it provokes the BNP and if history is any guide for a prediction, Bangladesh will no doubt suffer the consequences of such provocation as it can only lead to making politics volatile and un-stable.

Even in this blame game, all is not fair. When the Prime Minister blamed the BNP for the current problems of the country, she failed to consider that there was a two-year period in-between during which an emergency government led by Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed was in office. Two years is a long time in the life of a government and more so, if power generation and water distribution are the issues. The emergency government in addition had the advantage of ruling without any opposition and did not also suffer the other disadvantages that elected governments confront. Hence, while the Prime Minister may have been justified in blaming the BNP on power and water in her May Day address, she should not have left the emergency government out of the equation in the blame game. Quite predictably, Khaleda Zia's response to Sheikh Hasina was nothing new. She made a number of accusations of her own in her public rally and threatened to launch a campaign to unseat the AL Government. This can very well be a prelude to conflicts and violence to follow.
Our politicians talk of history. Yet sadly no political party or political leader takes lessons from it. Today the AL is basking and for good reasons. Yet it is forgetting that in 2001, the BNP's victory was almost equally massive in terms of the number of seats won. The BNP squandered that massive victory by turning a blind eye to their mistakes, allowing corruption and terrorism to thrive in their backyard, too busy playing the blame game.

It is still too early to predict the direction in which the AL is going. But then in the course they are taking, there is an eerie similarity with the course BNP had taken in 2001 that left many people, who voted for the party in the belief that things would change the country for the better, worried. While it is true that the BNP has just 30 seats in parliament; it is also a fact that they represent a very large section of the nation whose support for governance is vitally necessary. Going after the BNP cannot be a national agenda; it can only come in the way of the AL implementing the promises it has made to the people who are only interested in the successful implementation of these promises. They do not care now about the BNP; they care much less about what wrong they had done in politics when they were in power.

Bangladesh is the envy of the rest of South Asia for its homogeneity and egalitarian society. It does not have the deep religious, regional, ethnic and rich-poor divides that are the bane of politics in many of the South Asian countries. Yet as a nation, we are the most divisive in the region, barring Sri Lanka, for it is just not that we have divided ourselves nationally into the two mainstream political parties, these parties in turn have divided the nation by extending their all-pervasive influence into the civil bureaucracy, civil society, educational institutions, judiciary; in fact, they have not spared any branch of organized activities in this country from their race for grab. Before this elected government came to office, we had 15 years of elected rule where the BNP was in office two times and the AL, once. They made the parliament non-functional and encouraged politics to be conducted in the streets through violence and mindless conflicts. During this period, many hundreds of days were lost because of hartals that not just damaged the economy; in case of students, this resulted in loss of valuable years from their lives. In economic and social development however, we achieved significant growth despite such violence and conflicts in our politics mainly because of the pioneering role of the private sector that just goes to prove one point; if the two mainstream parties were united on national issues of development between 1991-2006 and had given the private sector the support that they so richly deserved, then the AL's Vision 2021 and Dr. Yunus's dream of a Bangladesh free of poverty would have been achieved long ago.
Political parties in opposite camps fight in all democracies. They hold conflicting views too. But on issues of national importance, political parties everywhere make their best efforts to follow a bipartisan approach. When Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee was invited to visit Pakistan by President Pervez Musharaff, he (Vajpayee) made sure that he had the Congress on board and talked to Congress Leader Sonia Gandhi to ensure that she and her party were aware of what the Prime Minister would be discussing in Pakistan.

There is no reason why Bangladesh should not become what the Prime Minister envisions. Then there is also no reason why the Prime Minister's vision would be realized. The explanation to the obvious contradiction is embedded in the fact that Bangladesh cannot achieve its potentials on entirely the Awami League way or entirely the BNP way. In a basically two-party system, no nation can develop where the party in power tries to take the country forward with total disregard for the views of the opposition. Development is a national agenda, not essentially a party one and definitely not where the parties think of politics the way they do in Bangladesh. There has to be a bipartisan approach to Bangladesh's development. There is no alternative to it.

Recently I was in Cape Town and there visited Robben Island where Nelson Mandela was held captive for 18 years of apartheid. A former inmate of the prison briefed us. We were shown the lime quarry where the prisoners worked under the sun day in and day out. Many of the prisoners were eventually blinded as a consequence of the glare of the sun in the quarry. This ex-prisoner also told us of other inhuman cruelties, a lot of which we know from books and other sources of information. Yet when apartheid was overthrown, Nelson Mandela and his colleagues forgave their former captors, all for the sake of South Africa. In Bangladesh, the reasons of the blame-game of the two mainstream parties are trivial compared to what the blacks in South Africa had gone through. Yet why cannot our politicians and political parties find it in their hearts to forget and forgive for the sake of Bangladesh?

President Obama is a phenomenon for the same reasons. He has extended his hand of friendship to his bitterest foes. He has risen over his party credentials and personal dislikes for uniting a country that his predecessor has so badly divided. It is time for our elected Prime Ministers to do the same; the AL more so for it has used Obama campaign's theme of change in the December elections. Bangladesh is not a nation of just the Awami Leaguers or just the BNP supporters; both are almost equal in numbers. Serving the interests of just one of the parties forgetting the other completely is not even common sense that dictates a bipartisanship approach on national issues. As the Awami League is now in office, it is their responsibility to take this approach for the better future of Bangladesh. In fact, there is no other approach if the issue is the future of Bangladesh.

Interview with Voice of America's Ziaur Rahman

(Audio is in Bengali)

Ambassador Serajul Islam Comments on President Obama’s First 100 Days
By Ziaur Rahman
02-May-2009

In an interview with Voice of America, Ambassador Serajul Islam says President Obama in the first one hundred days of his administration changed the world atmosphere and attitude from animosity to friendship towards United States.

Ambassador Islam says President Obama extended a hand of friendship and cooperation towards the Muslim world, bringing Muslims of many nations closer to America.

http://www.voanews.com/bangla/2009-05-02-voa9.cfm

PM's Saudi trip and the Embarrassing Ministerial Conducts

Published in The Dhaka Courier, May 1, 2009

The Prime Minister's just concluded visit to Saudi Arabia, although taken for the purpose of performing the Umrah, achieved significant results in the shape of furthering Bangladesh's bilateral interests in the Kingdom where some 2.5 million Bangladeshis live and work. The expatriates from KSA remit the largest amount of foreign exchange to Bangladesh that amounted to US 2.7 billion in 2008 but our people there work in conditions that are pathetic and inhuman in many instances. The news that KSA has been preparing a list of 200,000 Bangladeshis who had switched jobs to be deported despite having legal papers was a burning issue that our expatriates there had been trying for the entire period of the emergency to bring to the attention of the government without either support or sympathy.

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's visit has resolved this issue as part of a Saudi law that was enacted while the PM was in Saudi Arabia. The new law will allow expatriates to switch jobs without losing their legal status to live and work in Saudi Arabia. The 200,000 Bangladeshis who were facing uncertainty and unbelievable tension will now be able to breathe again. They thus see the Prime Minister as a benefactor from the Almighty.

However, the press briefing of the Foreign Minister who accompanied the Prime Minister on this visit surprised everybody when she told journalists that Sheikh Hasina's meeting with King Abdullah was the first time in seven years that a Bangladesh Prime Minister had met the Saudi King. The BNP protested immediately with facts that showed that Khaleda Zia had met the Saudi King as Prime Minister during her tenure from 2002 to 2006 not once but four times. To embarrass the Foreign Minister even further, the State Minister for Foreign Affairs acknowledged the error made by her in a press briefing of his own.

Foreign Minister Dipu Moni is a bright and intelligent Minister and it is unbelievable that she made such a mistake. The press briefing of the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs after the BNP had come out contradicting the Foreign Minister was also a surprise move. This was a reflection on the unprofessional way things are handled at the Foreign Ministry. In the first two decades of our independence, there used to be a Director-General (External Publicity) in the Foreign Ministry who used to handle all these briefings. This office was then modeled after a similar office in the Indian External Affairs Ministry where a Minister or a State Minister in the Indian External Affairs Ministry seldom appears before the media. A Joint Secretary level bureaucrat deals with the media on a regular basis.
The Prime Minister's visit to Saudi Arabia was not a visit that was undertaken to allow her and her entourage of over 2 dozen mostly family members to perform the Umrah where at our request; the Saudis arranged a meeting with their King. The welcome news about Bangladesh expatriates was also not the result of the efforts of the Prime Minister but it was an outcome of a new Saudi law enacted by Saudi Arabia. This notwithstanding, one must share the feelings of excitement and relief among Bangladeshis in Saudi Arabia and give credit for this outcome to Sheikh Hasina. One also understands that there is political mileage here to cash upon that may have prompted the media briefing by the Foreign Minister.

The Foreign Minister, however, could have simply flagged this and left it at that. If there was an issue here to blame, that blame could have been squarely placed upon the government of Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed that failed to take up the inhuman sufferings of Bangladeshis in Saudi Arabia. BNP for all its failures during its tenure for which it lost the elections miserably had no role to play in all this. Instead the Foreign Minister was quick to bring the BNP into the equation to suggest that one of the main reasons for the success of the visit to Saudi Arabia was because our Prime Minister was able to meet the Saudi King that Khaleda Zia failed. The State Minister while putting records straight also tried to outsmart his boss Dipu Moni. In his press briefing, Mahmud spent more time telling journalists about earlier meetings of Sheikh Hasina with the Saudi King after quickly getting over the mistake made by his boss and then going on to tell them that the Saudi King referred to our Prime Minister as "sister". It is a usual practice for the Saudi King to refer to someone like our Prime Minister as a "sister". In case of a Prime Minister who is a Muslim and male, he would call him "brother". There was nothing special in this address although the State Minister made it sound like one and also left the journalists with a feeling that this was again a "first" for Bangladesh where a Saudi King had addressed our Prime Minister as "sister".

There are two elements here that we need to focus upon. The one I have touched briefly and will again do so shortly is on the Foreign Ministry. The other is the tendency among Ministers of this Government to get on the right side of this Prime Minister by losing no opportunity of blaming the BNP and more so, Khaleda Zia, for the ills in our politics. They seem to have concluded that if they attack the former Prime Minister and the BNP, they will end up by pleasing the Prime Minister because they see her blaming the BNP and Khaldea Zia for most of the problems her government is facing now.

A significantly development in Bangladesh that has been the direct product of the rapid growth of private TV channels in the country is the exposure that it has given to the Ministers before the media. Ministers relish this exposure for it gives them publicity that they can see visually. It also gives them the opportunity to reach the Prime Minister that they normally cannot because of a variety of reasons. In other words, the Ministers use the media, particularly the visual media, to interact with the Prime Minister and say things that they think will please her. In their eagerness, most of them do not do their own homework; nor do they care to consult their other colleagues. Thus they just not end up making mistakes quite often, like the one made by the Foreign Minister, but also contradict each other. Only recently when the British born Bangladeshi Faisal was caught, a Minister went before the TV and instantly concluded that all Qaumi Madrassas are dens for Islamic terrorists. The Prime Minister thereafter met all the senior leaders of the Qaumi Madrassas and assured them to the contrary!

It is time to draw a line and get the Ministers out of media glare for their sake and for the sake of this government. No professional government conducts governance before the media; it is right of information extended beyond bounds of reason and often propriety in what these Ministers are doing on a daily basis. A Minister must come before the media when the issue is of national importance and within his/her jurisdiction. In all other cases, there should be a bureaucrat in the Ministry to do the job under the right of information. When a Minister makes a mistake before the media, there is no way of retracing without embarrassing the Government. When such a mistake in terms of information is made by a bureaucrat; it can be easily dealt with as a bureaucratic lapse.

Coming back to the Foreign Minister; her lapse is not a simple one that the State Minister for Foreign Affairs would have us think. The Saudis, if they care about Bangladesh, could of course take this differently. At its worst, they could feel drawn rather undiplomatically into the internal affairs of Bangladesh. All this could have been avoided without either of the Ministers at the Foreign Ministry facing the media. The Director-General (External Affairs) who is a senior level bureaucrat in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (this post is now filled by a career diplomat after being retrieved from the Ministry of Information) could have easily given the media the briefings, instead by the Ministers. As a bureaucrat, it would have been less likely that he would have made such factual mistake. Even if he had, the way out would not have been at all embarrassing as it has been in this instance.

Are we crying wolf over terrorism?

A friend said something thought provoking recently. He said Bangladesh is in company of Afghanistan and Pakistan as three exceptional countries whose governments are telling the rest of the world that they are infested with terrorists. While Pakistan and Afghanistan cannot claim otherwise as there are deaths and destructions aplenty from terrorism, all reported in the international media the moment they occur, it is a mystery that our own government is projecting us as such where there are neither deaths nor destructions to show nor do we figure anywhere in the context of reporting in the international media as a militant prone country.

It is true though that there are terrorists in Bangladesh. Where is a country that does not? Next door, India and Sri Lanka are reeling under very real manifestations of terrorism. However, these governments, while in battle with terrorism as a daily fact of life, constantly underplay the menace to minimize the potentials for damage such news can have on their international trade, investment and tourism.

The news about the arrest of the Bangladesh born British national Faisal in Barisal with a huge quantity of arms is a case in point. The discovery is worrying but the way it was handled by the government and the media is mysterious. One very senior minister was the first to jump into the fray, seeing a link with the Qaumi Maddrasas that have three million students and quickly identifying them as terrorist outfits. Other ministers joined the fray and together they identified many hundred terrorist outfits in the country and several million terrorists to boot! This information made the butt of many talk show swipes where participants joked about the likelihood of one participant in every talk show being a “terrorist!“

Sometime ago, I wrote a piece in this paper where I said that worldwide, Islamic terrorism is on the decline. Although President Bush has been taken apart for his international politics, one has to give him credit for this declining trend in Islamic militancy. Since then, the situation in Iraq has turned around and Islamic militants are on the run. His war on terror has weakened the nexus of Islamic militancy worldwide. Islamic militants are now concentrated primarily in the no-man's land between Afghanistan and Pakistan where their national politics is sustaining Islamic terrorism.

Historically, Bangladesh is fundamentally different from these countries. Islam here has been tampered by other cultures, and more particularly, Sufiism has made Bangladeshi Muslims tolerant to other religions. In our family and social lives, Islam plays a major part. We are good Muslims and respect our religious leaders. But we have never in a major way backed their political aspirations. The most important Islam based political party, Jamat e-Islami, that has existed amongst us longer than both the Awami League and the BNP never won more than a score of seats in any of our national level elections.

There is however no room for complacency. There are serious potentials for rising Islamic extremism in Bangladesh and in that context the Faisal case deserves most serious attention. Having said these, we must also bring into the equation the fact that in Bangladesh Islamic militancy has gained ground due to sponsorship of the major political parties. The BNP must share the major blame for allowing its Islam based alliance partners, when in power from 2001 to 2006, all the freedom to build a network of armed cadre as payback for their electoral support in the 2001 elections. For political reasons, the BNP looked the other way and allowed the JMB terrorists to establish themselves, and turned a blind eye when the media and no less a person than the then US Ambassador, tried their best to draw the government's attention to the emerging frankstein. The Islam based parties used their political influence to penetrate the intelligence in a major way; a presence that was brought to dramatic focus when the Islamic terrorists managed to blast nearly 500 bombs all over Bangladesh in August 2005 while Prime Minister Khaleda Zia was on an official visit to China in a manner that could have been possible only with direct connivance of the intelligence agencies. Interestingly, although the number and the synchronization that went with these blasts were amazing, only a couple of people were killed and there was no devastation either, suggesting two things. First, these terrorists could carry out the acts because of state sponsorship at some level. Second, their capability to cause devastation like Islamic terrorists abroad was very limited indeed.

When the US Government took a serious view of events and pressured the government to tackle this growing menace, the JMB top leadership was caught in a manner that was almost farcical. These terrorists were later hanged under the Caretaker Government. There was not even a whimper from their cadre, which suggests that once state sponsorship was withdrawn they became innocuous. Since then, with decline in Islamic terrorism abroad, it is only logical to assume that such militancy should be on the decline in Bangladesh.

Why then are we crying out so loud that we are surrounded by Islamic terrorists on all sides for to have millions of terrorists we must surely be rubbing shoulders with many of them every day! The media is also not doing a bad job either in overstating our case. One reason is that our ministers are now behaving like loose cannons when confronted by the media, saying pretty much what they perceive will please the Prime Minister with whom most of them have little or no contact except at the Cabinet meetings. The second reason seems to be coming from the emergence of the need to reestablish secularism in our politics, a move that has official government backing. There is, however, very little coordinated approach in these moves. Those seeking to reestablish secularism feel that Islam based parties are an obstacle. Hence they are trying to establish a fear in the public mind that these parties are creating and supporting Islamic terrorism.

There is urgent need for the sensible people in this government to set things in order for unless they do so, we would end up creating those very conditions that breed militancy; the way things are moving, very soon we could see secularism and Islam come in conflict with disastrous consequences. It was thus heartening to see the Prime Minister meet the leaders of Qaumi Madrassas where there were mutual assurances against terrorism. We should also spare a moment and re-asses secularism which is a western concept that came from the need to keep the Church out of politics. In the Middle Ages of European history, also known as the Dark Age, the Church by the power that Christianity gave it, had turned the lives of nations and nationalities into hell through corruption and degeneration. Islam has no such baggage from history where the secular and religious forces have lived side by side in tranquility. We must re-think about the necessity of taking a western concept that has little relevance in our lives and inject a new element of conflict in our society, more so because we are in no threat of having Islam based parties rule our lives.

We must weed out those who propagate violence in the name of religion. The present government is determined to end Islamic terrorism. It should not be difficult for them to do so because terrorism has thrived in Bangladesh mainly under state sponsorship. However, in overstressing the case against Islamic terrorism, the government is allowing the common and politically based criminals, who cause the people and the country more harm, to re-establish themselves as well as help create an image that could bring disastrous economic consequences for the country. This government has called for establishment of a Digital Bangladesh. In the digital world, news and perceptions travel in the speed of light. We should keep this in mind and reflect upon the dangers of the call this government gave on Mujibnagar day which was “unite to free the country from militancy”. Why are we crying wolf?

The Presidency in Bangladesh

Published in The Dhaka Courier, April 24, 2009

The President of Bangladesh is in the public perception a titular head of state, elected by the party in power in parliament to carry out the decisions of the Prime Minister. However the events preceding and succeeding 1/11 and the role that President Iajuddin played or did not play makes it imperative to focus on this important institution of the government.

That role is coming under critical attention from a number of quarters; interestingly from both sides of the political divide. Former BNP Minister Moudud Ahmed is talking about this period as forcefully as the former AL Minister Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir. They both are arguing against the emergency to pinpoint responsibility upon the former Chief Adviser Dr. Fakhruddin and the army leaders of the caretaker government for the humungous violations of human civil rights during emergency rule.

In their strong and may I add legitimate feelings, the former Ministers have not focused on two facts. First, that politics before 1/11 had been vitiated in a manner that merely provided an excuse for the real architects of the emergency, the army and army intelligence, to usher the emergency for which the politicians must bear more than a fair share of responsibility. Second that the President of the country allowed himself to be dictated to act against the oath he took upon assuming office to defend the Constitution. At first, the President acted as a puppet of the BNP that put him in office. The manner in which he allowed himself to be manipulated by the BNP made politics of the period appear surreal; like a drama that the people were witnessing in a nightmare. Under their influence, he assumed the role of the Chief Adviser and for a period became a puppet at the hands of the Hawa Bhavan. The story of his Press Secretary keeping his mobile open in meetings of the Council of Advisers so that the proceedings could be heard at the Hawa Bhavan has been written in the media that prompted the President, instead of sacking his Press Secretary, to elevate him to the rank of an Adviser on "advice" of the Hawa Bhavan!

It did not need a crystal ball to predict that the President's inability to act independently and even without the basic common sense would lead the army top brass and its intelligence to put together a plan (call it a conspiracy if you like) where they would eventually move on the President. They did exactly that and forced him to declare emergency just a month before the 90 days limit that the Constitution has set clearly and unequivocally as the term for the Caretaker Government. Like a puppet two times over, the President surrendered himself to the whims and dictates of the army without even a murmur where a civilian façade was given by Dr. Fakhruddin for purposes of meeting any possible opposition at home and abroad. The rest is history, some of it revealed by the present army chief in a book he recently wrote of these events. It is a mystery how a sitting army general can write about contemporary politics, some of which is controversial in which he played the key role.

Unfortunately, the authors of the Bangladesh Constitution were more concerned in restricting the powers of the President than giving him any. Articles 48 to 53 are devoted to the President but most of it sets out the restrictions of his power; his impeachment and removal. The Constitution, however, does not make the President a puppet at the hands of the Prime Minister in case the former wishes to show character. The Constitution requires the Prime Minister under Article under 45 (5) to keep the President informed on matters of domestic and foreign policy. The same article also gives the President the right to request the Prime Minister to submit for Cabinet's consideration on any matter of domestic and foreign policy. Thus, though the spirit of the Constitution does not give the President independent powers, there is enough leverage constitutionally for the President not to submit himself to become a puppet in the hands of the Prime Minister.

In times of crisis, when politics is fluid and national identity is at crisis, the President can use the constitution in his favour for the country without letting politics go into the hands of extra-constitutional forces such as the army or introducing emergency by abrogating the constitution and suspending fundamental rights. The Presidency under the present constitution really emerges as a powerful institution during the period of caretaker government when, without a parliament and a Prime Minister, his powers are immense. It was just such a situation that had befallen former President Iajuddin when he could have played a momentous role. Instead, he chose to be a puppet and has ended creating a constitutional mess for which the elected government is now facing a challenging task to bring constitutional governance on rails. In doing so, they were also forced at one time considering whether President should face legal proceedings for his actions, a move that seems to have fallen by the way side due to development of other pressing matters in our politics.

The Iajuddin Presidency has left a very bad precedent. Therefore the nation welcomed the election of the incumbent President to the post. He is a veteran and tested politician. During his party's bad days, with the party leader incarcerated, he remained steadfast both to his leader and democracy by not wilting to the pressures of the military and their intelligence. The nation therefore expects that he would bring the Presidency back from the threshold into which the former President, threatened by the extra-constitutional forces, had pushed it.

The nation's expectations notwithstanding, President Zillur Rahman made a disappointing start. Before entering office, he told the nation in an interview on a TV channel that his "Netri" cannot do anything wrong when asked if he would advise the Prime Minister when he thought she was taking an incorrect decision. In the same interview, when the interviewer asked him about his reaction to the August 22nd bombing incident in which his wife was brutally killed, his answer was he wants to be with his "Netri" to protect her from conspiracies against her life. The President must have forgotten about the high status of the office he was about to enter from where his personal desires must be subordinate to the demands of his office.

Bangladesh's politics is weak. Institutions that sustain democracy are weaker. Hence there is an urgent need to strengthen the institutions. The PMO and the President's Office are crucial institutions in this process that should be complimenting each other without one needing to subordinate the other. In the present context, the PM is riding a massive mandate where the thought of the President interfering in her exercise of executive authority is not relevant. This notwithstanding, President Zillur Rahman can play a very positive role in an advisory capacity given the status of his office, his advanced age and reputation as a politician. He can also use his wisdom to help bring the ruling party and the opposition to work together for making the parliament function. In the event of a political crisis that is not at all uncommon in Bangladesh, the presidency can become a nation's savior if the president is a worthy one. He could have for example played a significant role in the BDR mutiny but his presence was visible only in the form of a condolence message that came out after the macabre event was over.

The nation does not expect President Zillur Rahman to follow the inglorious footsteps of his predecessor whose inability and lack of character had pushed Bangladesh to the brink. There is enough space within the bounds and spirit of the Constitution for both the office of the Prime Minister and the President to grow as complimentary institutions for the good of democracy and Bangladesh.

Moving towards a government by advisers?

Published in the Daily Star, April 16, 2009

BANGLADESH'S peaceful transition to elected government has unfortunately been overtaken by post-election conflicts, of which the BDR carnage has been the worst. As a consequence, we have failed to take advantage of an opportunity to turn the corner.

In the midst of these conflicts, we have overlooked a new trend in governance that has been set into motion by the government. Bangladesh opted for parliamentary democracy in 1991 after the country's two major political parties, Awami League and BNP, succeeded in ending the military dictatorship of General Ershad.

However, in the fifteen years during which BNP and AL held power alternately, parliamentary democracy was compromised as Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia emerged as undisputed leaders who exercised unrestrained power in the party, and in governance when in the government. At the same time, the parliament was also made non-functional as the party in opposition opted for the streets for resolution of conflicts, which made politics more conflict-ridden and violent.

The form of government in Bangladesh during this period can best be described as prime ministerial where, unlike the Westminster model, the prime minister was by no means the "first among equals;" she was much more like a president.

The incumbent government, without any discussion in parliament, has made further dents in the parliamentary or prime ministerial form of governance. This government has amended the Rules of Business to empower the prime minister to appoint any number of advisers and special assistants, and to give them status of ministers, ministers of state and deputy ministers.

The amendment thus allows the prime minister to sidestep the constitutional requirement that restricts her from appointing more than 10% of her ministers as "technocrats," who do not have to be members of Parliament. It also allows these advisers and special assistants to participate in cabinet meetings as equals to ministers, who are members of Parliament.

In the context of forms of government, this is uncharted territory for it does not fit into any known form -- parliamentary, presidential, prime ministerial, etc. The issue is not just one related to the form of government; more fundamental issues are involved here. Allowing advisers and special assistants the status of ministers/state ministers/deputy ministers, and also charge of different ministries, contradicts the sovereignty of the parliament because they are not answerable to it. Instead, they are answerable to the prime minister. In this context, the amendment has put the prime minister's power over that of the Parliament.

It would be worthwhile to look at Alexander Pope's famous dictum "for forms of government, let fools contest, whatever is administered best is best" to try and understand what is emerging in Bangladesh. Is this emerging form really going to be best for Bangladesh? This is a tough call because such a form of government has not been tried anywhere before. One can look into this issue from various viewpoints to find an answer.

First, the prime minister chose to leave out from her cabinet those who had experience as ministers during the party's last stint in power. Instead, she inducted individuals without such experience. Second, she told the new ministers that she was keeping them under watch, and if they failed to perform they would be shown the door. Third, in a talk show, one of the high profile advisers said that it was his responsibility to keep watch over the ministers and report to the prime minister.

In all these viewpoints, there is very little that suggests that this new experiment in governance will succeed. Instead, there is plenty to hint that it could cause problems rather than solve them. An interesting case in point is the ministry of energy that is headed by the prime minister. This ministry has an elected minister with the rank of a state minister, and also has an adviser with the rank of a full minister. The adviser will obviously not act under the state minister given the superior status he holds. But then, if the state minister acts at the dictates of the adviser, the principles of elected government will be compromised.

An adviser enjoying the rank of a full minister as the minister of planning and the minister of finance has been given the responsibility to look after these ministries as the prime minister's economic affairs adviser. In terms of realpolitik in Bangladesh, where access to the prime minister is a major basis of influence in governance, this system has the potential of becoming a management disaster.

The incumbent government has followed its predecessor, the un-elected caretaker government (CTG), in amending the Rules of Business (RoB). The CTG had amended the RoB to by-pass the constitutional restriction on the size of the council of advisers. The constitutional legality of that amendment was not tested in court because people were more focused on the constitutional legality of the CTG itself for extending its stay in office beyond the constitutionally set limit of ninety days.

Times are different now, and it is an elected government that is in office where the principles of democracy and constitutionality are of the essence. In the case of the AL, the principles of democracy should be more sacrosanct than it was for the un-elected (CTG).

People were disappointed when Bangabandhu imposed one-party rule in the shape of Baksal , rejecting the very principles with which he had motivated the people to follow him in 1971 to establish a democratic society and a democratic system of governance. The people have given his daughter Sheikh Hasina a historic majority and mandate, believing that her party would establish the democratic Bangladesh that had eluded her father.

Amending the RoB to allow non-elected individuals to head ministries and take part in cabinet meetings at par, or better, with elected individuals contradicts both democratic the premises and the constitution. If contested in a court of law, there is no reason why the amendment of the RoB would not be declared un-constitutional.

For a government that has been installed with broad public approval, a better way out is to elect these advisers to Parliament. The AL can do this easily, given the numbers they have in Parliament. A few members could vacate their seats to get these advisers elected. It will allow the prime minister to use their services democratically and constitutionally.

Bangladesh, conspiracy theories and unraveling truth

THE BDR carnage has left a scar on the face of the nation that will take a long time to fade off. At the same time, the country's image has taken a battering that will further debilitate its efforts to expand her interests in the international environment that is crucial to her existence and her future. The carnage has been covered by the international media in the context of the abhorrent nature of the atrocities committed. It has also reflected upon our inability in dealing with it in a manner that would help the nation recover from the shame the carnage has given us.

A recent New York Times report, while writing on the BDR carnage, has said that “conspiracy theories are a national sport” in Bangladesh. It was by no means a compliment to us as a nation because this tag has been given for our failure to deal with past political assassinations and acts of terror. In the context of the BDR carnage, the Minister of Commerce who has come before the media on the government's behalf as one responsible to deal with post-carnage responsibilities was quick to suspect a conspiracy and the hands of militants behind the BDR killings only to retract his suspicion days later. Most recently, the Prime Minister has informed the nation that the BDR carnage was a conspiracy by the evil forces who “wanted to foil the December 29th elections and push the country towards civil war by creating anarchy.”

There are three investigations underway. One has been set by the Ministry of Home Affairs and headed by a former bureaucrat Mr. Anisuzzaman. There is another investigation being conducted by the CID. A third is being conducted by the armed forces. Their reports are still awaited. International agencies like the FBI and Scotland Yard are assisting national efforts to unravel the heinous crime. The US Ambassador has said recently that it will take some time for FBI to make its report known. The investigation committee headed by ex-bureaucrat has just been given a month's extension; it was asked initially to submit its report in a week and afterwards given two further extensions, which suggests that this is not going to be an easy investigation. It is therefore surprising that the Prime Minister has gone public in speaking of the February 25th carnage as a conspiracy by the forces that lost the 29th December elections to push the country towards civil war.

The Prime Minister's conspiracy theory has been picked up by her ministers who are using the media to tell the nation that the February 25th carnage has been committed to destabilize the country by the forces who lost the last elections. While the Prime Minister as head of the government may know by the means available to her about the investigations underway (although not the right to reveal it till investigations are complete), the ministers orchestrating the Prime Minister's conspiracy theory have no means or reason of knowing about the investigations. Nevertheless, they are publicly talking about such a conspiracy theory with confidence. The BNP and the Jamat have also come up with their own conspiracy theories conflicting with that of the ruling party. It is just not the political parties that are suggesting conspiracies; the people are also participating in this “national sport”. It would therefore be interesting to quote here relevant part of the NYT story on the conspiracy theories afloat related to the BDR carnage: “Some point to terrorist groups and anti-Indian insurgents. Others say that it was fuelled by intelligence agencies in either India or Pakistan both countries have been alternately friend and foe to Bangladesh. There are those who suggest that it could involve politicians who lost the last election, while others blame people within Mrs. Hasina's party whose goal is to keep the army in check.”

In the midst of these conspiracy theories what is being overlooked is that there has been a massive failure in intelligence. To date, no one responsible has been asked by the government to stand down to facilitate the investigations. The BDR carnage, in the manner it has been carried out by its perpetrators and handled by the government, makes it imperative for the investigations to unravel the chain of events transparently. The perpetrators must be identified, including the masterminds behind it, and punished so that any theory of conspiracy, if there is any, is rested and the families of the victims satisfied that justice has been done. We must not forget that the carnage and its handling has affected civil-military relations adversely like never before in our history. A resolution of this issue will depend squarely upon transparent investigation and punishment of the perpetrators if a conspiracy involving forces external to BDR and/or the country is found in the investigation reports.

There is an event underway to brand Bangladesh: a nation that has stood with its head high before the rest of the world when its people fought and won freedom against the worst forces of oppression; a nation that has sacrificed blood for her mother tongue; a nation that has as rich a historical and civilization roots as the best on earth. It should be an easy nation to brand. Bangladesh has made itself difficult to brand because her politics has stood in the way. Politics dominated by some degree of conflicts, acts of terrorism and killings, disagreeable as these may be, is not unique to Bangladesh. Nations that suffer these unfortunate incidents come together to deal with it like India came together following the Mumbai terrorist attacks last November. What is unique in the case of Bangladesh is that when such killings and conflicts or acts of terror occur in our politics, there is little attempt to unravel the causes to bring the perpetrators to justice. Instead, we divide our nation by accusations and counter accusations by our political parties and our conspiracies almost always succeeds in helping the perpetrators get the benefit. Even the people get caught in this frenzy of conspiracy theories that hinders in dealing with such tragedies. Bangladesh's history is replete with such examples.

February 25th has hit the national psyche at the core as it was hit on March 25th, 1971. The nation needs to get together now as it did then if it wants to heal the scars that the February 25th carnage has left. All quarters should have patience to let the investigating agencies complete their work and then the Government should come forward to take action that should be firm, transparent and should rest all conspiracy theories to rest. Failure to deal with the February 25th carnage could have far-reaching consequences that could be disastrous for the nation. It is time for the Prime Minister to lead the nation just as her father Bangabandhu Sheikh Mijibur Rahman had done in the dark moments of our history: in the days preceding the beginning of the genocide by uniting the nation, not dividing it. It is time for us to give up our “national sport” with conspiracy theories for such indulgence only dilutes the investigations and help the perpetrators. Let the Prime Minister show the way; let her tell us about any conspiracy that there may have been behind the February 25th carnage but only after this has been established as a fact. That can only be established after the investigations are complete.

Hurdles to Regional Cooperation in South Asia

Paper presented at 25th Year’s Celebrations of Action Aid, Bangladesh on March 29th 2009

In the age of globalization, countries are coming ever so closer as borders fall to bring them into economic integration. Although globalization as a concept has come into common usage not very long ago, the trend towards this regional integration of nations started long before globalization came into common usage. The trend towards regional integration started soon after the second Great War in Europe. Globalization has both its supporters as well as opponents; but there are few who would argue about regional cooperation.

There are many examples of successful regional organizations formed for economic benefit to compete better in a globalized world. European Union is the best example. ASEAN is another. Then there are others such as NAFTA. Some of these organizations are moving towards political integration and bringing in other issues such as security to strengthen their regional organizations. In fact, no matter which regional organization one takes as an example, the result is the same; they have all moved through stages of integration that have benefitted both the organizations themselves and the member nations in a manner that can be best described as win-win for all.

These successful regional organizations no doubt had led late President Ziaur Rahman to propose towards the end of the 1970s a South Asian trading bloc that sowed the seeds of a regional organization for South Asia that ultimately matured when the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) was formed in Dhaka in 1985. SAARC brought 7 South Asian countries together that had the following strong points for regional integration:

1. More than 1.4 billion that is roughly 1/5th of humanity; majority of whom live below the poverty line;
2. Countries sharing common history, culture and civilization spread over few thousand years
3. Region where poverty is significant and where regional cooperation can be a major key to development.

Despite great potentials, SAARC has not evolved in the same way as has EU or ASEAN. In fact, the founding fathers of SAARC themselves were aware of the problems that they thought would stand in way of the organization evolving to its fullest potentials. In the charter therefore they clearly incorporated the fact that contentious bilateral issues would not be discussed in the framework of SAARC while adopting the following objectives in its Charter:
· to promote the welfare of the peoples of South Asia and to improve their quality of life;
· to accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region and to provide all individuals the opportunity to live in dignity and to realize their full potential;
· to promote and strengthen collective self-reliance among the countries of South Asia;
· to contribute to mutual trust, understanding and appreciation of one another's problems;
· to promote active collaboration and mutual assistance in the economic, social, cultural, technical and scientific fields;
· to strengthen cooperation with other developing countries;
· to strengthen cooperation among themselves in international forums on matters of common interest; and
· to cooperate with international and regional organizations with similar aims and purposes.
Anyone reading through the list cannot help sensing that existing bilateral problems among the member countries must have been upper most in the minds of the Founding fathers of the SAARC Charter about what the association could achieve. They were negative about its prospects , feeling that if bilateral issues were allowed to be discussed within SAARC, it would stand in the way of achieving the prospects and promises it had on issues of common nature to all the member countries. The objectives have thus been set out in a manner that is vague and does not render the organization with that positive environment within which to lead it to match the effectiveness or the successes of other regional organizations. As a consequence, some critical issues for removal of poverty as for example water cannot be discussed within SAARC as Bangladesh and India have problems related to it.
SAARC has therefore restricted itself with the Charter that it has adopted from emerging as a successful regional organization because member countries have among them serious bilateral problems. In fact, political rivalries among the member nations have stood in the way of SAARC growing meaningfully. The major political issues in this context are:
1. Kashmir issue between Pakistan and India
2. The Sri Lankan Civil War; and
3. Bangladesh-India problems over the waters of the common rivers.
4. Alleged “illegal migration” from Bangladesh to India; and
5. Cross border terrorism.
6. The unequal size of the member countries with Maldives and Bhutan often expressing concern over this issue.
As a consequence of these rivalries, the “core” issues could never be addressed meaningfully and have thus not succeeded in integrating the member countries in any concrete manner. In fact, over the years SAARC has been in existence, the region has seen India-Pakistan coming close to a nuclear war ; SAARC Summit postponed on political differences; and a fence built by India on its border with Bangladesh and Pakistan.
SAARC was visualized by its dreamer President Ziaur Rahman as a trade bloc. Trade came into contention quite sometime after SAARC was launched with an Integrated Program of Action (IPA) in nine areas, namely, Agriculture, Rural Development; Telecommunications, Meteorology; Health and Population Activities; Transport; Postal Services; Sports; and Arts and Culture. On trade issues, SAARC has limped badly. Member countries have expressed their unwillingness to sign a free trade agreement. India has free trade agreements with Sri Lanka, Maldives, Bhutan and Nepal. Such agreements by India with Pakistan and Bangladesh have been stalled on political and economic concerns. India has raised fencing across its borders with Bangladesh and Pakistan, apparently to counter smuggling and cross border terrorism that has further pushed back efforts towards free trade. SAPTA that was reached in the Male Summit in 1990 led Bangladesh to lower tariff against Indian imports on a wide range of items. India failed to reciprocate the Bangladeshi gesture. In the Islamabad Summit in 2004, the member states finally signed SAFTA, addressing their desire to make the region a free trade zone. The agreement came into force in 2006. Under the agreement, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Maldives will make their countries free trade areas for the SAARC member countries. Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan as LDCs will have 4 more years to do the same.
SAARC Secretary General in his recent visit to Bangladesh has been candid about the organization. He stressed upon the need to strengthen bilateral cooperation between the member states in order to lead to more intense regional cooperation. In other words, he has correctly assessed the conflicts among the member states in their bilateral cooperation as the main reason for SAARC not yet emerging as a successful regional organization. This conflict in bilateral relations as a major impediment to successful regional cooperation involves India at the core.
In a paper by Professor Ben Crow of University of California, Santa Cruz, written almost a decade ago on impediments to regional cooperation in South Asia, the author had identified India’s insistence on bilateral rather than multilateral negotiations for resolving bilateral conflicts as one of the most important reason for sustaining conflicts in the region. One is well aware that when SAARC was in the contemplating stages, India was the country that was reluctant about such an organization fearing that a regional organization would allow countries with which India has bilateral problems (that includes the rest of the member states) to group together against her. In fact, it is this Indian perception that has led to the negative induction of the clause that contentious bilateral issues will not figure in SAARC framework.
Ben Crowe, while seeking at alternate ways to reinvigorate SAARC, has mentioned water as an issue with which to overcome problems in India’s bilateral relations with her neighbours. While India has resolved its water sharing issues with Pakistan successfully, in its eastern and northern frontiers, it has left the water sharing problems, particularly with Bangladesh, un resolved with disastrous consequences for the latter. Fifty-four of Bangladesh’s 56 rivers that sustains life and livelihood inn Bangladesh run from India where the Ganges is the most important one. Bangladesh and India signed an agreement on sharing water of the Ganges in 1996 for sharing water of this mighty river available during the dry season at Farakka where India has unilaterally built the barrage but since the signing of the agreement, water flow at Farakka has become low for sharing due to withdrawal of waters at upstream in other Indian provinces. The 1996 agreement however assures Bangladesh 90% of the agreed quantum in the dry season and does not take into account the issues of availability. India therefore now faces treaty obligation to Bangladesh to give her the agreed share of water during the dry season from the Ganges.
A change in the Indian mindset from bilateralism towards multilateralism will not just augment water available at Ganges during the dry season; there are a host of other benefits here that could eventually help regional cooperation by overcoming persistent bilateral problems. This sub-region is, according to independent studies, one of the richest areas of the world in terms of availability of water. During the monsoon, in the absence of a sub-regional cooperation between Bangladesh, India and Nepal on water management, the waters flood this region causing havoc and devastation and most of the water is rained into the Bay of Bengal. It is retaining this water and managing it to augment dry season flow that holds the key to harnessing this natural resource for welfare of the people living in the Ganges basin which added to the people who live in the other great river basin of the world, namely the Brahmaputra Basin, is home to more poor people that the whole of Sub-Sahara taken together.
A multilateral negotiation with the countries of the sub-region on sharing waters of the mighty Ganges by building dams in Nepal would not just help manage water effectively, control floods, augment dry season flows, these dams will also allow generation of electricity that could be shared in a region where lack of electricity is a major hurdle to economic development. Water can thus be used in this region not just to bring about economic miracle; such cooperation on water would also help improve bilateral conflicts and ease way for strengthening SAARC. India’s recent move to build a barrage at Tippaihmukh on Bangladesh’s northeastern border is going to deprive the latter of waters of Surma and Kushiara and will only add to complicating bilateral relations, obstructing regional cooperation. Here India’s responsibility is of the essence but thus far she has made precious little moves that could help bilateral relations improve for creating the conditions necessary for regional cooperation.
Thus the key to strengthening SAARC lies in improving bilateral relations. In such efforts, where need be, the member countries should seek a multilateral approach to cooperation that in turn will create the confidence towards greater integration. The need of the moment is to tackle the air of distrust which has been entrenched further by the emergence of cross border terrorism that involves India and Pakistan. India is also concerned about Bangladesh that she considers as a “soft underbelly” for cross border terrorism. In this context, the proposal that Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina made upon assuming power for a South Asian Task Force has not met with the degree of approval from India that Bangladesh anticipated. When the idea was floated first, Indian Home Minister P. Chidambaram was very enthusiastic; so was opposition leader LK Advani. Then when the Indian FM came to Dhaka, the Indian interest had turned lukewarm; perhaps because they were hoping that the proposal would be bilateral rather than multilateral. India took shelter under a SAARC agreement on this subject that has hardly been activated since being incorporated in the framework of SAARC years ago.
The fruits of regional cooperation are immense but politics is the bane of success of a regional organization for South Asia. While building blocks for strengthening regional cooperation through improvement of bilateral relations among member countries of SAARC is feasible on northeast among India, Bangladesh, Bhutan and Nepal, given political will of the countries concerned; it is Pakistan-India relations, both nuclear powers and a history of bad relations that saw them fight two conventional wars and come close to a nuclear one that stands between South Asia and successful regional cooperation. Bad relations are also causing both the countries to spend billions of dollars in defense expenditures that could so well go for welfare of their peoples. India’s recent strides in global politics and economics have added to the air of dominance that she always had which is not good for regional cooperation. India’s recent successes globally should encourage her to use her newly found strength for strengthening regional cooperation and one hopes that after the elections to be held there shortly, the new Indian leadership would move that way. This notwithstanding, Pakistan’s current political situation is a new dark cloud over the future of SAARC. Unless Pakistan stabilizes politically and India sees the wisdom to cooperate regionally by improving her bilateral relations with her neighbours, SAARC will limp its way to the future cooperating on the Integrated Programme of Action (IPA) in areas that will hardly help the region achieve dramatic results through regional cooperation. As a regional organization, SAARC will fall far short of realizing even a part of its true potentials till these political relations are streamlined in a win-win situation of all the member states of the association. The region seems quite a distance away from such a possibility.

BDR carnage and International Crimes Tribunal Act, 1973

Published in The Daily Star's Independence Day Special, March 26, 2009

MODERN history's worst massacre of armed forces officers during peacetime is yet far from a resolution for which the nation together with the families of the victims is eagerly awaiting. Although little has been revealed, there is a nagging apprehension in the minds of many that this has been the result of a conspiracy that was aimed at rocking the very foundations of Bangladesh. It is everybody's hope and prayer that such a conspiracy, if it existed in reality, will be revealed and those responsible for it dealt with under the law.

What is known though is that the brutality of the massacre is too gory for print. The bodies of the officers were mutilated and dumped into holes. Clearly, the killers committed crimes against humanity for which they must face the harshest penalty under the law. Unfortunately, there seems to be confusion among those talking about it in public and that includes the government as well. One un-nerving piece of information being talked about is that the crimes committed by these criminals have to be tried under the BDR Act where the punishment is too benign, given the gravity of the crimes committed and the way it has affected the psyche of the nation. The Government has hinted that if need be, laws will be enacted to mete out the harshest punishments, a move that could run into conflict on the principle of retroactivity.

There is, however, no reason for confusion. The February 25th incident is clearly a crime against humanity that is in no way different from the genocide of 1971. There is also no reason to resort to the BDR Act and allow these criminals a chance of reprieve. Nor is there any reason to enact new laws. In July 1973, the Government of Bangladesh enacted into law the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act that gives the present Government clear and unequivocal directions and guidelines to try the perpetrators of the February 25th carnage in Pilkhana by defining their crimes as crimes against humanity and not as mutiny or otherwise. Once this is done, the perpetrators can then be brought to stand trial through the setting up of a Tribunal and be punished in a manner deserving the seriousness of the crimes they have committed.

The Act also gives the government the laws required to bring under its purview the local perpetrators of the 1971 genocide and crimes against humanity. The provisions of the Act also allows, in case of the 1971 genocide, not to get entangled with war crimes issues that could raise questions about the rationale of trying the local collaborators while not trying those who masterminded the genocide in the first instance. Provision 2 (a) of the Act on “auxiliary forces” removes the confusion, if there is any, on whether BDR personnel can be tried outside the BDR Act. The same provision brings the Razakars and Al Badrs created in 1971 under the purview of the Act. In fact, the details of the Act give the Government all the legal cover to try 1971 and February 25th crimes without the need to create any new law and punish the perpetrators. It is also imperative that Bangladesh should use the 1973 Act to try these crimes against humanity successfully bearing in mind that in 1974 it was Bangladesh that had hosted the Third International Criminal Law Conference which was participated by the most distinguished jurists, legal experts and criminologists of the time. It was this conference that had inspired the signing of the ICC statute in Rome in 1998 that is such a significant milestone in bringing the perpetrators of crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity to justice. Many of the provisions of the 1973 Act have been incorporated in the ICC Statute.

There are two issues that are crucial to the explication of the February 25th massacre. First, the Government must, through the due process of investigation, prove to the nation that the PM's decision saved the civilian population from harm, and that those dead were killed in the initial hours of the massacre. It cannot push this crucial matter under the table; it would be totally unfair to the families of the martyrs and their comrades. Second, it must deal with the military whose anger is understood but the manner in which it has been demonstrated clearly brings into focus issues that are crucial to democracy and democratic way of governance. The civil-military issue has unfortunately assumed a major significance that must be settled positively by punishing the perpetrators of the February 25th carnage under the law in a transparent manner, above politics, so that it is just not resolved in the context of civil-military relations but that it sets deterrence so that such crimes are not committed in future.

Analysis of events such as 1971 and February 25th by hindsight can be utterly subjective and lead to wrong conclusions. At this stage, the inquiry on the massacre should be conducted fairly and transparently. Pending this, the gGovernment has to take a dispassionate look at events. Mistakes were made that are apparent even to the most subjective observer. There is no doubt that the Prime Minister could have acted only in the manner that she has acted, that is going for a peaceful solution. But then, there are politicians with military background in her party whose advice she could have taken.

As the events unfolded that day, many inexperienced politicians were seen running between Pilkhana and the PM's residence. Be that as it may, it is in the aftermath of the massacre that she needs to show the nation her statesmanship. She must seek the cooperation of all, including the opposition, to lead the future course of action after the inquiry commissions submit their reports. The media's role in their “breaking stories” that created favourable opinion for the criminals at the expense of the martyrs must also be brought to focus, particularly because these reports distorted the fact that those who died were among the best in the armed forces whose professionalism and integrity have changed the BDR into an institution in which the nation can take pride.

The February 25th carnage has ravaged the nation's soul in the same manner as it had in 1971. At this stage, the nation must stand behind the Prime Ministe, for the country's very existence is integrally linked to whether she succeeds or fails. The Prime Minister, on her part, must bear in mind that she is leading the entire nation.

Manpower Maelstrom

Published in The Daily Star, March 23, 2009


THE Malaysian government's decision to revoke 55,000 Bangladeshi work visas has shocked everyone. This shows the lack of preparedness of this government for dealing with situations out of the ordinary.

On the BBC website, one can see related backdated stories that should have alerted this government that a crisis was coming. A January 9 story was captioned "Malaysian Visa Policy Tightened," and another on January 22 said "Malaysia bans foreign recruitment."

The government should have focused on Malaysia in view of the remittance earnings, instead it recalled the high commissioner. The recall was publicized by the government, and was reported in the Malaysian media in a manner that went against our country's interests.

The High Commission was thus left to a junior officer while the crisis regarding Bangladesh expatriates was going from bad to worse. The acting high commissioner could not control the labour attaché, who deemed it fit to reveal that 70,000 Bangladeshis had received visas.

He told the media that Malaysia's bleak economic situation notwithstanding, these 70,000 Bangladeshis would be able to come to Malaysia. His comments sparked protests led by the Malaysian Trade Union Congress that resulted in the decision to revoke the visas. A Daily Star editorial has been appropriately critical of the foreign and the expatriate affairs ministers at their offer to go to Malaysia "if required" to deal with the ensuing situation.

The Malaysian crisis has brought to the surface serious issues about the remittance business. One, it has re-emphasised the importance of the remittance business to the national economy. There is also a discrepancy here between what appears in the media and the situation in reality. The Malaysian decision is grave news, but it will not, as the media has predicted, be a death blow to the remittance business because those whose visas have been revoked have not yet gone to Malaysia and, hence, have not started sending money home.

Bangladesh expatriates are patted on their backs in appreciation for the money they send home. The government, however, does precious little more for them to make their stay abroad comfortable or to remit their money without worry.

Private banks bring the remittance home through banks and exchange houses abroad. In this process, the Ministry of Expatriate Affairs and the Foreign Ministry, which can play significant roles in streamlining the business, are out of the loop. Also left out are the Bangladesh missions abroad.

The expatriate ministry sends the labour attaches to the missions without any coordination with the foreign ministry, and without any policy guidelines. The Malaysian case has clearly demonstrated the folly of sending labour attaches, who have no knowledge of diplomacy and find themselves out of the depths when facing challenging diplomatic tasks in a foreign environment.

Bangladesh can no longer leave external relations to be shared by a number of ministries that have no coordinating mechanism. It is also imperative for the success of the country's economic diplomacy to place all who work in missions abroad, except defence personnel, under the foreign ministry.

Despite the current world economic meltdown, the remittance business is set to grow. While a few existing markets could slow down, like Malaysia, there are newer areas opening. In a recent talk show, the president of BAIRA spoke of East Europe as a new market since East Europeans are migrating to West Europe.

One Bangladeshi manpower agent has sent a few hundred workers to Romania to work in that country's garment sector. Libya is getting back in the market. In 2005, Bangladesh and Japan signed an accord -- Japan International Training Cooperation Agreement (JITCO) -- under which Bangladesh is entitled to send an unlimited number of trainees and apprentices to sixty of Japan's small and medium scale enterprises. But it has not seen the light of day due to the failure of the expatriate ministry to understand its potential.

Under this agreement Bangladeshi workers can work in Japan for three years, during which they could each earn at least 3 to 6 times what Bangladeshi workers get in the ME, and return home with world class training and experience. An agreement with South Korea, modeled after JITCO, has not yet been exploited fully.

There is also scope for sending Bangladeshi women as maids to West Europe, which is not possible yet because of lack of trained maids. Untrained Bangladeshi maids are nevertheless being sent abroad illegally. Six such Bangladeshi women died in Lebanon recently because they went without any training or legal documents, and fell prey to circumstances.

These prospects will remain prospects unless Bangladesh urgently introduces a mechanism for coordination among the ministries/institutions involved in the remittance business, something sadly and badly lacking now. As a consequence, Bangladeshi workers earn far less compared to workers from other countries.

The failure to bring embassies into the loop by strengthening them and empowering the ambassadors has not allowed Bangladesh achieve better deal for the workers as well as providing better consular services to them. Finally, training has been given little importance, as a consequence of which Bangladeshi workers can become helpless.

Manpower markets are expanding. At present, more than half of the money earned by Bangladeshi expatriates is being lost to the hundi system. Thus, the potential of remittance is vast, but to cash in on this we need to get our house in order.

Bangladesh receives less than $2 billion in aid and grant from the developed nations. She retains the External Resources Division where civil servants feel proud to serve. Yet ministries that can help bring many more billions of dollars, like the foreign and the expatriate ministries, are treated unfairly and not allowed to work to their fullest potential. For the nation's sake, it is necessary to change our mindset. The Malaysian decision should help Bangladesh do that.