Daily Sun
July 23rd, 2011
M. Serajul Islam
At her press conference recently, the Foreign Minister explained that the meeting between the Bangladesh Permanent Representative and the Dalai Lama was “unscheduled’. She said that at international conferences, such unscheduled conferences take place and she saw no fault with the “unscheduled” meeting.
No further details have been revealed on this “unscheduled” meeting. It appeared as if the Foreign Minister was referring to some international conference where the Dalai Lama and our Permanent Representative came across each other and held the meeting. A visit to the Dalai Lama’s website has not revealed to me that he was in New York for any international conference. Hence the question where the two met unscheduled remains unanswered.
The issue here is extremely serious for Bangladesh-China relations. The Dalai Lama’s visit to the US this time and particularly his meeting with President Obama at the White House raised more than the usual anger in Beijing. Nevertheless, the President met Dalai Lama for domestic political reasons.
Hence any one with some knowledge of international relations should have been aware that the Chinese would be following this visit under the microscope. Given the Chinese sensitivity with the Dalai Lama and the importance of Sino-Bangladesh bilateral relations, it is unbelievable that a senior Bangladesh diplomat would have an unscheduled meeting with the Dalai Lama.
The Chinese are not going to be too pleased with such an “unscheduled’ meeting either. Of course, they would not be making any fuss about it because as a sovereign country, Bangladesh can allow its Permanent Representative to meet the Dalai Lama even for a scheduled meeting. However, in diplomacy there is a price for exercising such sovereign rights. Chinese are serious customers in the art of diplomacy and they may not be easily convinced that the meeting was unscheduled and leave it at that.
The Permanent Representative in New York has committed a diplomatic faux pas; unwittingly perhaps. The case with our Ambassador in Nepal is quite a different story. From the stories that have come to the media that have not been contradicted by the Foreign Ministry, he has been involved in acts that are unimaginable even in a nightmare in Bangladesh’s diplomatic endeavors.
He is alleged to have escorted an Indian Army General in his official car with the Indian flag flying! In a function to mark Mujibnagar Day, he ordered the national anthem of India to be played together with those of Bangladesh and Nepal. Then there are allegations against him of moral misconduct. The Ambassador dismissed such allegations as “conspiracy against him.” The Foreign Secretary played the allegations down when he told a journalist that he will know about the Ministry’s action at the right time.
The Ambassador in question is a former teacher of BUET and from the minority community. One wonders whether he was chosen for the job because of the latter reason. If that is the case, it would be an irony because the ruling party is firmly committed to secularism. Even Nepal that is a Hindu country has unofficially expressed its desire that the Ambassador should be withdrawn post haste because of his undesirable activities.
In case of both the Permanent Representative in New York and the Ambassador in Nepal, it is very much possible that the media may have not produced the correct stories or may have twisted facts while reporting. Nevertheless, wrong perceptions have come out into the open concerning their alleged activities that may affect Bangladesh’s diplomatic relations with countries very important to its foreign policy priorities. Hence it is imperative for the Foreign Ministry to be more transparent and pro-active with what both the Ambassadors did. Thus far it has acted indecisively and has not shown any indication that matters are in its hands.
There was another embarrassing incident involving the Bangladesh Ambassador to Japan. The case was one of sexual harassment. That case too was allowed to linger too long. According to media reports, he has since been brought home after an investigation was conducted to the allegations against him that proved that the Ambassador was at fault.
The Japanese are sophisticated and cultured and do not express their displeasure forcefully. Nevertheless, it would be foolhardy for the Bangladesh Government to expect that the Ambassador’s extremely serious and unethical and immoral discretions would be forgotten just because we are inclined to forget it.
Indiscretions and immoral acts by anyone are human errors. Nevertheless, Ambassadors cannot commit the errors of which our Ambassadors stand accused because such errors embarrass the nation and seriously puts at risk important national interests. When Ambassadors are so accused, the sending country does not have the time on its side to deal with such cases at its convenience. In diplomacy, a correct way to deal with the errors that our Ambassadors have committed is to bring them home for “consultations” while investigating/examining the allegations.
In case of our Ambassador in Japan, the Foreign Ministry should have brought him home for consultations as soon as the allegations were made. The long delay has most definitely given Japan the wrong perception about our country and government. It is incredible that the Ambassador in Nepal is still in his post. The PR in New York has flagged the dangers of appointing a non-career Ambassador to one of Bangladesh’s most important diplomatic posts without giving him the necessary briefing about the imperatives of Bangladesh’s diplomacy. His faux pas is too serious to be explained away as the Foreign Minister has done as an “unscheduled” meeting.
There is an urgent and imperative need to review the process of appointment of Ambassadors and the way they act in their posts to save the country’s frail image and for the sake of achieving Bangladesh’s foreign policy goals. It seems that the Foreign Ministry’s role in the appointment and supervision of Ambassadors has weakened considerably. It is time that rationality is restored by giving the Foreign Ministry the power and clout to deal with Ambassadors to make them professional and competent. One suspects that politics is partly responsible for the damages the Ambassadors have done to Bangladesh and are being allowed to continue doing. That needs to end in haste for the sake of the country.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and a Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Deaths of a young man and 43 students
The Independent
As I See It Column
July 22nd, 2011
M. Serajul Islam
I had written quite some time ago in this column about the dangers for pedestrians from falling building materials as builders do not take the minimum of safety precautions. Hence I was deeply saddened but hardly surprised that a life of a young man when a brick fell on his head and killed him instantly as he was walking by a under construction high rise building. What is surprising is that such deaths do not happen every day in good numbers because pedestrians walk past such under construction buildings everyday and somehow, perhaps by the Almighty’s mercy, escape death the way it befell on this unfortunate young man.
Equally unfortunate but on a scale much larger was the fate that befell the 43 school students in Mirarsarai in Chittagong. These school students were returning after watching a football match in an open truck that went off the road and into a ditch full of water sending them to their deaths. The unbelievable part of the accident was the fact that the truck was being driven by a helper of the driver!
In Bangladesh, human life has become the most dispensable commodity.. Otherwise such deaths should never have taken place. In the midst of the booming construction business in the city, we all see how the builders have taken away our roads. They pile construction materials on the footpaths as if they own these paths meant for the public to walk in safety. They bring in trucks and building machineries at night and do not care about disturbing people when many have to just sit up and wait till these “criminals” finish their illegal activities.
Most roads inside residential areas that are not meant for heavy trucks and construction machineries are destroyed at will by these builders. In many places, these builders take away even a part of the road, not satisfied with taking away the foot paths totally. The way they use these public space for their benefit places the pedestrians at risk. The pedestrians have to walk on the roads instead of the footpaths. It may be a matter of great discomfort for the people of Dhaka that we have the worst traffic jam in the world. But it is the traffic jam that is saving many lives because had traffic been moving fast, there would have been many more deaths because of the illegal activities of the builders.
The construction sites are death traps. Little or no safety precautions are taken to protect the pedestrians walking on foot paths/roads from falling materials such as bricks, rods, cement, etc. Thus the death of this school student is by no means an accident. It is the consequence of willful disregard for public safety in which the builder and the authorities supposed to supervise have failed to perform their duties. The builders also take no safety measures for workers many of whom regularly fall and die.
The deaths of the 43 school children were no accident either. Their deaths were due to the failure authorities in performing their duties. It was a cruel joke to read that the authorities apprehended 20 so called drivers with forged licenses. Helpers drive busses/trucks in incredible numbers in full knowledge of the authorities. In fact, there is a nexus of corruption here involving the traffic authorities that has been sustained, unbelievably, in full knowledge of both the authorities and the public. One has to go out to the roads that connect the cities and towns of Bangladesh to see madness that rules our roads, where the heavy vehicles are driven in a manner as they are nowhere else. Again, it is the congestion on these roads that saves many lives as these criminals who masquerade as drivers cannot drive as they wish.
After the death of the young man, 6 laborers were arrested. After the deaths of the 43 students, the authorities arrested 20 drivers. These actions by the authorities are a joke. In case of the student, those who need to answer are, first, the builders. By arresting the laborers who are themselves exposed to danger all the time by the builders’ utter indifference to safety,, the authorities have helped take some of the heat for the builders.
Second, the Rajuk authorities should have also been hauled for this death. Under the law, supervision of construction of every building in the city is the responsibility of this body. If it was doing its duty, most of the construction sites of the city would have been closed on even a liberal interpretation of safety standards and many deaths would not have occurred including that of this student.
Third, the law enforcing agencies themselves should have been taken to task for allowing the builders break laws by spreading all sorts of hazardous materials , including taking over foot paths and roads , around their building sites with no concern for safety of the public. Surely, these builders cannot be breaking laws with contempt without the connivance of the law enforcing agencies.
On the 43 deaths, the need is to answer a few basic questions that have not even been raised. First, how long will the authorities allow murders to be committed on our national highways by letting helpers and drivers with forged driving licenses drive on these roads whose numbers have never been accounted for but by common knowledge is a very large one. The graphic videos we see every day on news programs of private TV channels leaves no doubt in anyone’s mind that such accidents are almost in all cases the result of incompetent and criminal driving where the law enforcing agencies keep on looking the other way.
The other question not asked is why the school authorities and guardians of the students allowed them to use a truck that is the most dangerous mode of transport in Bangladesh and one not meant for human transportation. It is good for the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to have visited the parents and relatives of those who died. However, these senseless and tragic deaths are occurring every day and in numbers that are increasing. The need of the moment is a national consensus to deal with these deaths that are not accidents but murders being committed because those who can stop these are not doing their jobs.
It is a great mystery that even after 4 decades of independence; we have between Dhaka-Chittagong where most of the deaths take place, roads that are a disgrace to the nation. The roads are virtual death traps and it is the traffic jam that saves many more lives being lost. The Dhaka-Chittagong highway has not been built so far not because of lack of finance but because of unethical reasons for which many in past governments are responsible.
A Judge has asked the builder of the site where the young man was killed to appear in the Court. This is encouraging. It is way past time to hold those responsible for failing to make buildings and roads safe, to task. We have capital punishment in this country. Why can’t we put the case of the helper who killed the 43 school students on a fast track and mete out the maximum punishment to him? For the builder who has been taken to Court, exemplary punishment should be served within the due process of law. Human life cannot be exchanged for money. Yet, to save lives why not impose on this builder a fine so hefty that other builders would be forced to make safety at building sites their first priority.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt
As I See It Column
July 22nd, 2011
M. Serajul Islam
I had written quite some time ago in this column about the dangers for pedestrians from falling building materials as builders do not take the minimum of safety precautions. Hence I was deeply saddened but hardly surprised that a life of a young man when a brick fell on his head and killed him instantly as he was walking by a under construction high rise building. What is surprising is that such deaths do not happen every day in good numbers because pedestrians walk past such under construction buildings everyday and somehow, perhaps by the Almighty’s mercy, escape death the way it befell on this unfortunate young man.
Equally unfortunate but on a scale much larger was the fate that befell the 43 school students in Mirarsarai in Chittagong. These school students were returning after watching a football match in an open truck that went off the road and into a ditch full of water sending them to their deaths. The unbelievable part of the accident was the fact that the truck was being driven by a helper of the driver!
In Bangladesh, human life has become the most dispensable commodity.. Otherwise such deaths should never have taken place. In the midst of the booming construction business in the city, we all see how the builders have taken away our roads. They pile construction materials on the footpaths as if they own these paths meant for the public to walk in safety. They bring in trucks and building machineries at night and do not care about disturbing people when many have to just sit up and wait till these “criminals” finish their illegal activities.
Most roads inside residential areas that are not meant for heavy trucks and construction machineries are destroyed at will by these builders. In many places, these builders take away even a part of the road, not satisfied with taking away the foot paths totally. The way they use these public space for their benefit places the pedestrians at risk. The pedestrians have to walk on the roads instead of the footpaths. It may be a matter of great discomfort for the people of Dhaka that we have the worst traffic jam in the world. But it is the traffic jam that is saving many lives because had traffic been moving fast, there would have been many more deaths because of the illegal activities of the builders.
The construction sites are death traps. Little or no safety precautions are taken to protect the pedestrians walking on foot paths/roads from falling materials such as bricks, rods, cement, etc. Thus the death of this school student is by no means an accident. It is the consequence of willful disregard for public safety in which the builder and the authorities supposed to supervise have failed to perform their duties. The builders also take no safety measures for workers many of whom regularly fall and die.
The deaths of the 43 school children were no accident either. Their deaths were due to the failure authorities in performing their duties. It was a cruel joke to read that the authorities apprehended 20 so called drivers with forged licenses. Helpers drive busses/trucks in incredible numbers in full knowledge of the authorities. In fact, there is a nexus of corruption here involving the traffic authorities that has been sustained, unbelievably, in full knowledge of both the authorities and the public. One has to go out to the roads that connect the cities and towns of Bangladesh to see madness that rules our roads, where the heavy vehicles are driven in a manner as they are nowhere else. Again, it is the congestion on these roads that saves many lives as these criminals who masquerade as drivers cannot drive as they wish.
After the death of the young man, 6 laborers were arrested. After the deaths of the 43 students, the authorities arrested 20 drivers. These actions by the authorities are a joke. In case of the student, those who need to answer are, first, the builders. By arresting the laborers who are themselves exposed to danger all the time by the builders’ utter indifference to safety,, the authorities have helped take some of the heat for the builders.
Second, the Rajuk authorities should have also been hauled for this death. Under the law, supervision of construction of every building in the city is the responsibility of this body. If it was doing its duty, most of the construction sites of the city would have been closed on even a liberal interpretation of safety standards and many deaths would not have occurred including that of this student.
Third, the law enforcing agencies themselves should have been taken to task for allowing the builders break laws by spreading all sorts of hazardous materials , including taking over foot paths and roads , around their building sites with no concern for safety of the public. Surely, these builders cannot be breaking laws with contempt without the connivance of the law enforcing agencies.
On the 43 deaths, the need is to answer a few basic questions that have not even been raised. First, how long will the authorities allow murders to be committed on our national highways by letting helpers and drivers with forged driving licenses drive on these roads whose numbers have never been accounted for but by common knowledge is a very large one. The graphic videos we see every day on news programs of private TV channels leaves no doubt in anyone’s mind that such accidents are almost in all cases the result of incompetent and criminal driving where the law enforcing agencies keep on looking the other way.
The other question not asked is why the school authorities and guardians of the students allowed them to use a truck that is the most dangerous mode of transport in Bangladesh and one not meant for human transportation. It is good for the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to have visited the parents and relatives of those who died. However, these senseless and tragic deaths are occurring every day and in numbers that are increasing. The need of the moment is a national consensus to deal with these deaths that are not accidents but murders being committed because those who can stop these are not doing their jobs.
It is a great mystery that even after 4 decades of independence; we have between Dhaka-Chittagong where most of the deaths take place, roads that are a disgrace to the nation. The roads are virtual death traps and it is the traffic jam that saves many more lives being lost. The Dhaka-Chittagong highway has not been built so far not because of lack of finance but because of unethical reasons for which many in past governments are responsible.
A Judge has asked the builder of the site where the young man was killed to appear in the Court. This is encouraging. It is way past time to hold those responsible for failing to make buildings and roads safe, to task. We have capital punishment in this country. Why can’t we put the case of the helper who killed the 43 school students on a fast track and mete out the maximum punishment to him? For the builder who has been taken to Court, exemplary punishment should be served within the due process of law. Human life cannot be exchanged for money. Yet, to save lives why not impose on this builder a fine so hefty that other builders would be forced to make safety at building sites their first priority.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt
Monday, July 18, 2011
New era of Bangladesh-India relations based on development-democracy-demography.
Daily Sun
July 17th., 2011
M. Serajul Islam
Bangladesh-India relations are on a roller coaster. After dipping to a low with some offensive remarks made by the Indian Prime Minister, things have brightened up lately following the visit to Dhaka by the Indian Foreign Minister Mr. Krishnan. At the same time, the Indian Prime Minister’s Office removed the offensive remarks from the PM’s official website and the Indian Government announced the dates of Mr. Singh’s visit to Dhaka in early September preceded by a preparatory visit by the Indian Home Minister.
Mr. Krishnan’s visit too was a preparatory one. His visit gave a preview of what Bangladesh could expect from Dr Singh’s visit. There would be a deal on the sharing of the waters of the Teesta. The 6.5 miles of demarcated land boundary that has been pending settlement for over 3 and a half decades would be finally resolved together with exchange of land under adverse possession. There were also hints of concessions from India on trade to help ease the balance that weighs too heavily in India’s favour.
During the visit, the High Commissioners of the two countries signed an agreement on protection and promotion of investments. This agreement has been welcomed by the business community in Bangladesh. They expect substantial Indian investment to come to this country.. The agreement could also open prospect of Bangladeshi investments into northeast India.
Mr. Krishnan’s programme in Dhaka was a tight one. He made courtesy calls on the President and the Prime Minister; held official talks with his Bangladesh counterpart Ms. Dipu Moni and also had a meeting with the Bangladesh Finance Minister. His predecessor Mr. Pranab Mukherjee had given wrong signals by meeting the then Army Chief and avoiding meeting the Leader of the Opposition when he visited Bangladesh in February, 2009. Mr. Krishnan avoided any contact with the military and met Begum Khaleda Zia, thus creating a positive environment for his important visit.
Mr. Krishnan’s visit was defined by his speech at the Bangladesh Institute of International and Strategic Issues where he outlined the nature of relations India wants with Bangladesh. He said that both India and Bangladesh are beneficiaries of development-democracy-demography dividend that will provide the right impetus for bringing the two countries closer together.
The Indian Minister said that both India and Bangladesh are experiencing growth of high proportion of “educated and trained youth, despite the large population” to positively impact on development. In fact, the Minister said that the economic development Bangladesh and India are experiencing “is even more remarkable than the global trend.” Such experiences are setting aside suspicion and conflict and bringing the region in alignment with the rest of the world. He reasoned that for Bangladesh and India, “this is a mission in which we may join hands to create a new global architecture.”
The Indian Minister put forward a vision of a relationship that would tie the two countries in a relationship deep into the future. That vision is documented in the Joint Communiqué that was adopted during Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s visit to New Delhi that is now being implemented for the paradigm shift in bilateral relations. He underscored the importance of India’s US$ 1 billion line of credit for infra structural projects for connectivity. He stressed upon the need to build a physical and an institutional framework to strengthen connectivity for improving the livelihood of the people and preparing them for a better future.
Mr. Krishnan also mentioned that a number of agreements are in final stages of negotiations for signature during the Indian Prime Minister’s visit. These agreements are related to outstanding land border issues; on Teesta water sharing; on overcoming the trade deficit and taking forward regional connectivity.
Two important contentious issues did not figure in Mr. Krishnan’s speech. One is the demarcation of the maritime boundary for which Bangladesh has closed the door for bilateral negotiations by going to the Tribunal on the Law of the Seas. Killing of innocent Bangladeshis by the BSF on Bangladesh-India borders that is a very emotive issue in Bangladesh also did not figure in his speech. On the latter issue, Mr. Krishnan spoke elsewhere and hinted that in future, BSF would use non-lethal weapons.
Going by his speech at BIISS, there are elements that Bangladesh would need to examine before believing in the vision the Indian Minister has envisaged. True, terrorism is a regional and a global problem. However, it is not so by a long mile as far as Bangladesh is concerned. For India, terrorism is a major problem; for Bangladesh it is not even a minor one. In fact, Bangladesh has exposed itself to ULFA terrorists by handing its top leaders to Indian security who vowed revenge.
Mr. Krishnan is also off the mark in using the development-democracy-demography model. India and Bangladesh are not on the same plane by a long distance on development and democracy for a common ground for cooperation. Indian democracy is deeply entrenched and institutionalized; Bangladesh’s is not. Indian development has amazed the world; Bangladesh is struggling to remain afloat. On the demographic front too, Bangladesh is today showing signs of sinking.
Nevertheless, Mr. Krishnan’s visit has shown promises; that perhaps India is finally looking at Bangladesh positively. It is likely that some of the issues that had kept bilateral relations almost antagonistic may finally be resolved; issues of water sharing, trade deficit and land border demarcation. Of the promises in the air, the most attractive is regional connectivity. If Bangladesh becomes the sub-regional connectivity hub, then there could indeed be a paradigm shift in Bangladesh-India relations.
India’s track record on keeping promises made to Bangladesh, however, is not encouraging. Even Indian media is not optimistic about these promises; else they would not have called these promises “a bagful of nothing.” In this context, one must take note of what the Leader of the Opposition said upon meeting the Indian Minister. She wanted all the deals r being made to be placed in parliament for sake of transparency before signing.
An editorial by leading English daily was critical of Begum Khaleda Zia for making such a submission to the Indian Minister. This notwithstanding little has come to public domain about details of what India would do for Bangladesh except overtly optimistic statements of Bangladesh officials. The importance of public knowledge of such deals can hardly be underestimated given the partisan nature of politics in the country. It is absolutely essential to know the details of the proposed Teesta agreement because it will set the precedence for sharing of waters of the other cross-boundary rivers. On land boundary, already there are signs of uneasiness on Bangladesh side in areas such as Sylhet.
It is of critical importance for Bangladesh to have friendly relations with India to achieve the full potentials of its strategic geo-political location vis-à-vis India. However, for such forward movement, it is equally important that the nation as a whole and not just the ruling party must be convinced of what Bangladesh would be giving to India and what it would be receiving in reciprocity. Thus far, this does not seem to be the case. One can criticize the BNP for its stand on India but there cannot be sustainable friendly relations with India without the former on board.
Therefore the ruling party in Bangladesh must open discussion with the opposition or else all the optimism that the Government is spreading on Bangladesh-India relations could quickly vanish into thin air. On India’s part, it too should bear in mind this fact while proceeding towards the paradigm shift in Bangladesh-India relations.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan.
July 17th., 2011
M. Serajul Islam
Bangladesh-India relations are on a roller coaster. After dipping to a low with some offensive remarks made by the Indian Prime Minister, things have brightened up lately following the visit to Dhaka by the Indian Foreign Minister Mr. Krishnan. At the same time, the Indian Prime Minister’s Office removed the offensive remarks from the PM’s official website and the Indian Government announced the dates of Mr. Singh’s visit to Dhaka in early September preceded by a preparatory visit by the Indian Home Minister.
Mr. Krishnan’s visit too was a preparatory one. His visit gave a preview of what Bangladesh could expect from Dr Singh’s visit. There would be a deal on the sharing of the waters of the Teesta. The 6.5 miles of demarcated land boundary that has been pending settlement for over 3 and a half decades would be finally resolved together with exchange of land under adverse possession. There were also hints of concessions from India on trade to help ease the balance that weighs too heavily in India’s favour.
During the visit, the High Commissioners of the two countries signed an agreement on protection and promotion of investments. This agreement has been welcomed by the business community in Bangladesh. They expect substantial Indian investment to come to this country.. The agreement could also open prospect of Bangladeshi investments into northeast India.
Mr. Krishnan’s programme in Dhaka was a tight one. He made courtesy calls on the President and the Prime Minister; held official talks with his Bangladesh counterpart Ms. Dipu Moni and also had a meeting with the Bangladesh Finance Minister. His predecessor Mr. Pranab Mukherjee had given wrong signals by meeting the then Army Chief and avoiding meeting the Leader of the Opposition when he visited Bangladesh in February, 2009. Mr. Krishnan avoided any contact with the military and met Begum Khaleda Zia, thus creating a positive environment for his important visit.
Mr. Krishnan’s visit was defined by his speech at the Bangladesh Institute of International and Strategic Issues where he outlined the nature of relations India wants with Bangladesh. He said that both India and Bangladesh are beneficiaries of development-democracy-demography dividend that will provide the right impetus for bringing the two countries closer together.
The Indian Minister said that both India and Bangladesh are experiencing growth of high proportion of “educated and trained youth, despite the large population” to positively impact on development. In fact, the Minister said that the economic development Bangladesh and India are experiencing “is even more remarkable than the global trend.” Such experiences are setting aside suspicion and conflict and bringing the region in alignment with the rest of the world. He reasoned that for Bangladesh and India, “this is a mission in which we may join hands to create a new global architecture.”
The Indian Minister put forward a vision of a relationship that would tie the two countries in a relationship deep into the future. That vision is documented in the Joint Communiqué that was adopted during Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s visit to New Delhi that is now being implemented for the paradigm shift in bilateral relations. He underscored the importance of India’s US$ 1 billion line of credit for infra structural projects for connectivity. He stressed upon the need to build a physical and an institutional framework to strengthen connectivity for improving the livelihood of the people and preparing them for a better future.
Mr. Krishnan also mentioned that a number of agreements are in final stages of negotiations for signature during the Indian Prime Minister’s visit. These agreements are related to outstanding land border issues; on Teesta water sharing; on overcoming the trade deficit and taking forward regional connectivity.
Two important contentious issues did not figure in Mr. Krishnan’s speech. One is the demarcation of the maritime boundary for which Bangladesh has closed the door for bilateral negotiations by going to the Tribunal on the Law of the Seas. Killing of innocent Bangladeshis by the BSF on Bangladesh-India borders that is a very emotive issue in Bangladesh also did not figure in his speech. On the latter issue, Mr. Krishnan spoke elsewhere and hinted that in future, BSF would use non-lethal weapons.
Going by his speech at BIISS, there are elements that Bangladesh would need to examine before believing in the vision the Indian Minister has envisaged. True, terrorism is a regional and a global problem. However, it is not so by a long mile as far as Bangladesh is concerned. For India, terrorism is a major problem; for Bangladesh it is not even a minor one. In fact, Bangladesh has exposed itself to ULFA terrorists by handing its top leaders to Indian security who vowed revenge.
Mr. Krishnan is also off the mark in using the development-democracy-demography model. India and Bangladesh are not on the same plane by a long distance on development and democracy for a common ground for cooperation. Indian democracy is deeply entrenched and institutionalized; Bangladesh’s is not. Indian development has amazed the world; Bangladesh is struggling to remain afloat. On the demographic front too, Bangladesh is today showing signs of sinking.
Nevertheless, Mr. Krishnan’s visit has shown promises; that perhaps India is finally looking at Bangladesh positively. It is likely that some of the issues that had kept bilateral relations almost antagonistic may finally be resolved; issues of water sharing, trade deficit and land border demarcation. Of the promises in the air, the most attractive is regional connectivity. If Bangladesh becomes the sub-regional connectivity hub, then there could indeed be a paradigm shift in Bangladesh-India relations.
India’s track record on keeping promises made to Bangladesh, however, is not encouraging. Even Indian media is not optimistic about these promises; else they would not have called these promises “a bagful of nothing.” In this context, one must take note of what the Leader of the Opposition said upon meeting the Indian Minister. She wanted all the deals r being made to be placed in parliament for sake of transparency before signing.
An editorial by leading English daily was critical of Begum Khaleda Zia for making such a submission to the Indian Minister. This notwithstanding little has come to public domain about details of what India would do for Bangladesh except overtly optimistic statements of Bangladesh officials. The importance of public knowledge of such deals can hardly be underestimated given the partisan nature of politics in the country. It is absolutely essential to know the details of the proposed Teesta agreement because it will set the precedence for sharing of waters of the other cross-boundary rivers. On land boundary, already there are signs of uneasiness on Bangladesh side in areas such as Sylhet.
It is of critical importance for Bangladesh to have friendly relations with India to achieve the full potentials of its strategic geo-political location vis-à-vis India. However, for such forward movement, it is equally important that the nation as a whole and not just the ruling party must be convinced of what Bangladesh would be giving to India and what it would be receiving in reciprocity. Thus far, this does not seem to be the case. One can criticize the BNP for its stand on India but there cannot be sustainable friendly relations with India without the former on board.
Therefore the ruling party in Bangladesh must open discussion with the opposition or else all the optimism that the Government is spreading on Bangladesh-India relations could quickly vanish into thin air. On India’s part, it too should bear in mind this fact while proceeding towards the paradigm shift in Bangladesh-India relations.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan.
A nation in moral crisis
The Independent
As I See It column,
July 16th.,2011
M. Serajul islam
My driver had been nagging me for quite some time that the car was consuming a lot more fuel and the mileage per liter had fallen substantially. I thought the driver was talking nonsense because the car is comparatively new and the mileage could not just have fallen like that. But the driver persisted with his complaint and after a while I also found out that I was paying more money on oil than before.
I sent the car to the repair shop. The owner is educated and articulate in explaining the working details of a car even to someone like me who is not well conversant with the workings of a car engine.
He said that my car is in perfect condition; almost as good as new. The problem is with the petrol pump/s from where I have been buying petrol. He said most of the pumps are supplying adulterated fuel. Even the brand new cars are having the same problem as I am having with my car.
Where are we going as a nation? Such fraud in public life is now common place. Four of my sisters who live in the US together with a number of nephews and nieces are now in Dhaka. They have come to attend the marriage of my daughter. When I extended invitation to them to come for the wedding, I had told them that this is a wonderful time to visit Bangladesh as this is the season of mango, the king of fruits.
Soon after they arrived here, there was news on how the mango traders are ripening mangoes these days by spraying dangerous chemicals. One leading English daily showed truck loads of such poisonous mangoes being destroyed.
My sisters asked me what have the authorities done to the traders responsible for poisoning. I said nothing, then paused and said that there could be some fine ones perhaps although I also added that I had not read of any such punishment being meted out to these criminals.
I wrote in the past articles here about formalin used by the fish traders. When I was growing up, I could never go to the fish market because of the flies. Thanks to our fish traders, the fish markets are now fly proof. It is for a “small” price of poisoning the customers. On mangoes, a group of traders to prove their honesty have advertised boldly in front of their shops that they sell only “poison-free” mangoes!
There is a serious disconnect here. The advertisement by these mango traders suggests that all other mango shops other than theirs sell poisonous mangos! More importantly, how could the authorities allow such advertisements to be publicly made?
Imagine what foreigners would think if they could read Bangla or someone interpreted the ads for them. Surely the would think they are in a place where law of the jungle prevails.
It is not with just the mangoes and fish that these unscrupulous traders have put the people at risk; chemicals are now openly used in most types of fruits and vegetables to keep them fresh. Apples can be kept in the open without any fear of rotting as long as one wishes. Even bananas are not wasted when left for days in the open.
One understands that in a poor country, there would be unscrupulous traders who would be greedy and try to make money by foul means. However, it is incredible that these traders would use chemicals on edible commodities knowing full well that by such use they would be poisoning innocent people slowly and sending them to their deaths.
This is something perhaps unique for it is hard to imagine that traders in any other society would stoop so slow as to do what they are doing in Bangladesh almost nonchalantly.It is even more incredible that so far little action has been taken by the authorities to deter these unscrupulous traders from slow poisoning the people. Even the mobile courts that were sent to catch and punish these traders have ceased going after them.
It seems that evil has won after all and the authorities have given up going after them for mysterious reasons. Is it just possible that there is an evil nexus working here so powerful that nothing can be done against those slow poisoning the people?
It is just not among the traders that we see such a moral degradation. The way the authorities and the people in general are accepting such action of traders without much protest or action also hints at a moral degradation in rest of the society.
Such moral degradation is now visible all around us; in almost all spheres of our public and private lives. Although the last CG committed many excesses; on the issue of corruption in public life it had succeeded in creating public corruption. Unfortunately, with the return of elected government, corruption has returned in full fury.
The assault on the school girl by her teacher of one of Dhaka’s top schools is another sign of the depth of moral degradation to which we have fallen. It may not have been very unusual that a school teacher has committed such a detestable act; it happens in the best of societies. What is incredible here is the action of the school authorities who have tried to keep it from coming into the open.
In fact, this school’s moral degradation started earlier. There was a time when merit was the only criterion for admission to this school. It is now an open secret that students are being admitted to this school for a hefty amount of money.
As a girl’s school, this institution used to have only two male teachers. But the school now has 6 male teachers and politics is very nearly ruining the school by hitting where it hurts most; its moral foundation that once made it a pristine girls’ school in the country.
The government that is so indifferent to the slide of the country towards moral degradation is by no means incapable of taking punitive measures where it wants. Recently, I was dumbfounded listening to a RAB official in a talk show defending the extra-judicial killings as if there is no harm done there.
Human life seems so dispensable in Bangladesh! He also proudly claimed that there is peace in the country because of the 8000 plus RAB officials who are serving the nation dedicatedly!
When it comes to beating up the opposition, the police can be ferocious as we have seen with the beating given to the Opposition Chief Whip. Why can’t this law enforcing forces act with the same dedication with the criminal traders under the purview of the law, traders who sell poisonous mangoes or the petrol pumps that sell adulterated petrol or the teacher who violates his student or the school authorities that admits students for a price?
The civil society that plays a fundamental role with problems of moral degradation in all societies has lost its value in Bangladesh because of its role during the last Caretaker Government.
Its support for a third force that brought the military into politics has hurt its credibility. Hence we are not witnessing any serious efforts by the civil society to deal with the moral crisis in the country..
That leaves the politicians to do the needful. Unfortunately, the politicians are busy fighting themselves. They have no time to deal with the deteriorating moral crisis. In fact, the nature of our politics is one major cause for the moral crisis we are in. Unless our quality of politics improves, the deepening moral crisis could destroy us as a nation.
The writer is a former ambassador to Japan and Egypt
As I See It column,
July 16th.,2011
M. Serajul islam
My driver had been nagging me for quite some time that the car was consuming a lot more fuel and the mileage per liter had fallen substantially. I thought the driver was talking nonsense because the car is comparatively new and the mileage could not just have fallen like that. But the driver persisted with his complaint and after a while I also found out that I was paying more money on oil than before.
I sent the car to the repair shop. The owner is educated and articulate in explaining the working details of a car even to someone like me who is not well conversant with the workings of a car engine.
He said that my car is in perfect condition; almost as good as new. The problem is with the petrol pump/s from where I have been buying petrol. He said most of the pumps are supplying adulterated fuel. Even the brand new cars are having the same problem as I am having with my car.
Where are we going as a nation? Such fraud in public life is now common place. Four of my sisters who live in the US together with a number of nephews and nieces are now in Dhaka. They have come to attend the marriage of my daughter. When I extended invitation to them to come for the wedding, I had told them that this is a wonderful time to visit Bangladesh as this is the season of mango, the king of fruits.
Soon after they arrived here, there was news on how the mango traders are ripening mangoes these days by spraying dangerous chemicals. One leading English daily showed truck loads of such poisonous mangoes being destroyed.
My sisters asked me what have the authorities done to the traders responsible for poisoning. I said nothing, then paused and said that there could be some fine ones perhaps although I also added that I had not read of any such punishment being meted out to these criminals.
I wrote in the past articles here about formalin used by the fish traders. When I was growing up, I could never go to the fish market because of the flies. Thanks to our fish traders, the fish markets are now fly proof. It is for a “small” price of poisoning the customers. On mangoes, a group of traders to prove their honesty have advertised boldly in front of their shops that they sell only “poison-free” mangoes!
There is a serious disconnect here. The advertisement by these mango traders suggests that all other mango shops other than theirs sell poisonous mangos! More importantly, how could the authorities allow such advertisements to be publicly made?
Imagine what foreigners would think if they could read Bangla or someone interpreted the ads for them. Surely the would think they are in a place where law of the jungle prevails.
It is not with just the mangoes and fish that these unscrupulous traders have put the people at risk; chemicals are now openly used in most types of fruits and vegetables to keep them fresh. Apples can be kept in the open without any fear of rotting as long as one wishes. Even bananas are not wasted when left for days in the open.
One understands that in a poor country, there would be unscrupulous traders who would be greedy and try to make money by foul means. However, it is incredible that these traders would use chemicals on edible commodities knowing full well that by such use they would be poisoning innocent people slowly and sending them to their deaths.
This is something perhaps unique for it is hard to imagine that traders in any other society would stoop so slow as to do what they are doing in Bangladesh almost nonchalantly.It is even more incredible that so far little action has been taken by the authorities to deter these unscrupulous traders from slow poisoning the people. Even the mobile courts that were sent to catch and punish these traders have ceased going after them.
It seems that evil has won after all and the authorities have given up going after them for mysterious reasons. Is it just possible that there is an evil nexus working here so powerful that nothing can be done against those slow poisoning the people?
It is just not among the traders that we see such a moral degradation. The way the authorities and the people in general are accepting such action of traders without much protest or action also hints at a moral degradation in rest of the society.
Such moral degradation is now visible all around us; in almost all spheres of our public and private lives. Although the last CG committed many excesses; on the issue of corruption in public life it had succeeded in creating public corruption. Unfortunately, with the return of elected government, corruption has returned in full fury.
The assault on the school girl by her teacher of one of Dhaka’s top schools is another sign of the depth of moral degradation to which we have fallen. It may not have been very unusual that a school teacher has committed such a detestable act; it happens in the best of societies. What is incredible here is the action of the school authorities who have tried to keep it from coming into the open.
In fact, this school’s moral degradation started earlier. There was a time when merit was the only criterion for admission to this school. It is now an open secret that students are being admitted to this school for a hefty amount of money.
As a girl’s school, this institution used to have only two male teachers. But the school now has 6 male teachers and politics is very nearly ruining the school by hitting where it hurts most; its moral foundation that once made it a pristine girls’ school in the country.
The government that is so indifferent to the slide of the country towards moral degradation is by no means incapable of taking punitive measures where it wants. Recently, I was dumbfounded listening to a RAB official in a talk show defending the extra-judicial killings as if there is no harm done there.
Human life seems so dispensable in Bangladesh! He also proudly claimed that there is peace in the country because of the 8000 plus RAB officials who are serving the nation dedicatedly!
When it comes to beating up the opposition, the police can be ferocious as we have seen with the beating given to the Opposition Chief Whip. Why can’t this law enforcing forces act with the same dedication with the criminal traders under the purview of the law, traders who sell poisonous mangoes or the petrol pumps that sell adulterated petrol or the teacher who violates his student or the school authorities that admits students for a price?
The civil society that plays a fundamental role with problems of moral degradation in all societies has lost its value in Bangladesh because of its role during the last Caretaker Government.
Its support for a third force that brought the military into politics has hurt its credibility. Hence we are not witnessing any serious efforts by the civil society to deal with the moral crisis in the country..
That leaves the politicians to do the needful. Unfortunately, the politicians are busy fighting themselves. They have no time to deal with the deteriorating moral crisis. In fact, the nature of our politics is one major cause for the moral crisis we are in. Unless our quality of politics improves, the deepening moral crisis could destroy us as a nation.
The writer is a former ambassador to Japan and Egypt
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Indian PM’s faux pas and Bangladesh government’s reaction
Daily Sun,
Saturday, July 10, 2011
M. Serajul Islam
Dr. Manmohon Singh has disappointed many in Bangladesh by his remarks about the country and its politics in a recent meeting with Indian newspaper editors. The Prime Minister’s website carried these remarks for a few days. When it caused criticism in India and in unofficial circles in Bangladesh, the remarks were hastily withdrawn with no serious explanation.
India is a major player in world affairs. Hence what its Prime Minister speaks officially, particularly about a neighbour that is suspicious of it, is spoken after due consideration. Hence his offensive remarks about Bangladesh and its politics must have been discussed with his aides and other concerned officials. It could not have just dropped into his head the moment he made these remarks. Therefore the remarks cannot be forgotten simply by deleting it from the PM’s website.
Dr. Singh said 25% of the people of Bangladesh are Jamaat activists who are in the clutches of the ISI. He also mentioned that the same percentage of the people of Bangladesh is also very anti-Indian. These negative facts notwithstanding, “generous” India, although not a rich nation, has offered Bangladesh a US$ 1 billion line of credit for economic infra-structure development in Bangladesh. Dr. Singh however acknowledged Bangladesh’s gesture in meeting its security concerns.
It is incredible that Dr. Singh would believe that 25% of the people of Bangladesh are Jamaat supporters. If that is a fact, with the BNP, the two would have by now made the AL history. The fact is Jamaat’s support among the people has always been in the low single digit. In the last elections, it polled 4% of the votes against 7% by President Ershad’s Jatiya party. His remarks about the extent of ISI influence in Bangladesh are offensive. It is true that past military governments and BNP have given in the past ISI leverage in Bangladesh’s politics. It is nevertheless way off the mark to suggest that 25% of Bangladeshis “are in the clutches of the ISI.” Perhaps Dr. Singh is not aware of Bangladesh’s history to suggest that 25% of the people would be so “controlled” by Pakistan’s military intelligence!
On the issue of Indian generosity, Indian line of credit of US$ 1 billion can hardly be called a generous act. 80% of the loan is tied to buying goods and services from India. Most importantly, it will be spent mostly for building infrastructure to facilitate transit of Indian goods from mainland India to Indian northeastern provinces through Bangladesh that has long been a major desire of India. Such land transit is expected to have major impact on the seven provinces’ economic and social development by cutting down of cost of transportation of goods and services and time. The successive governments of Bangladesh, in the past till the present, considered the land transit card valuable enough to help Bangladesh negotiate with India outstanding issues like share of water of common rivers, trade deficit, land and maritime boundaries favorably. It has given away this card without any reciprocal gesture. The US$ 1 billion is hardly one because it will be spent for the benefit of India more than for Bangladesh.
The Bangladesh government has done even a far bigger favour to India by handing over to Indian security the top ULFA insurgents that has broken the back of this long standing insurgency. It has also committed itself fully to India’s security interests. Since the present government came to office, it is generally believed in Bangladesh that it is not the ISI but Indian security agency RAW that has been given unhindered access in the country.
In fact, in history of Bangladesh-India relations, it is Bangladesh that has always shown generosity and India, the reverse. In 1974, after the Indira-Mujib agreement on land boundary was signed, Bangladesh kept its commitment while India, 37 years after the agreement was signed, is still dragging its foot on its commitments. In fact, one of the “generous” concessions that India would be making to Bangladesh in the near future is giving Bangladeshis 24 hour’s access to the enclaves of Dahagram and Angorpota, something it had committed almost 4 decades ago.
Bangladesh also gave India concession to install the Farakkha Barrage on a trial basis in April, 1975 that India unilaterally extended without Bangladesh’s concurrence to withdraw water from the Ganges at will. The trial agreement was finally converted into a bilateral agreement 25 years afterwards in 1996. In early 1990s, after the SAPTA agreement was signed, Bangladesh lowered its tariff against host of Indian goods that India never reciprocated fully.
In the face of all the above, it is absurd that Dr. Singh could have been so insensitive to have twisted truth in the manner he has. It is also hard to believe that his comments were inadvertent for it fits the mindset that the Indian bureaucracy has shown over the years in negotiating with Bangladesh. During a recent visit of journalists to India, even the Indian Finance Minister has acknowledged about this negative mindset in the Indian bureaucracy about Bangladesh.
Thus it was equally incredible that the Bangladesh government would react the way it has to Dr. Singh’s offensive comments. One senior Minister said Dr. Singh’s statements were “taken out of context”. The Foreign Secretary saw no necessity to make a formal complaint as he was fully satisfied by the explanation given by the Indian side. It appeared as if the Bangladesh Government was being apologetic that in India itself Dr. Singh’s comments created such widespread criticism that was the main reason why these were deleted from the PM’s website.
The nature of Dr. Singh’s comments, its withdrawal from the official website and the official reaction from Bangladesh left many wondering what is happening in Bangladesh-India relations. It is incredible that Bangladesh side would show such subservience to India as not to even raise an eyebrow, let alone a note of protest, on such a serious faux pas by the Indian Prime Minister that insulted and humiliated the nation. It brings back to memory the long delay that the Bangladesh Foreign Ministry took to register a note of protest on the Felani murder by the Indian BSF that incensed Bangladeshis. It also makes one wonder why senior officials of Bangladesh government are taking up Indian causes more aggressively than the Indian themselves where India, except for 1971, dealt with Bangladesh with not much generosity. One senior official even said that Bangladesh would prove itself uncivilised to charge from India any fee for granting it transit!
Indian Foreign Minister is in town at the time of filing this piece. So far what has been known of his visit is that India would be granting Bangladesh “concessions” that it had committed to Bangladesh decades ago! The Indian Home Minister is expected to come soon and the Prime Minister will come in early September. These visits are being undertaken way too belatedly for politics in Bangladesh has turned a bend towards dangerous pastures. With the caretaker government issue, the ruling party has created the most fertile grounds for confrontational politics that is bound to create equally fertile grounds for the opposition to play the India card. Dr. Singh has also helped in this respect by his insensitive remarks.
India can achieve the fullest benefits of land transit and its security concerns, two extremely important foreign policy goals for it, only when the Bangladesh government led by the ruling party has full and total control with the opposition in no position to do anything. It is just possible that Dr. Singh by his faux pas may have unwittingly spilled the beans; that there is a game plan involving the two governments to use Islamic extremism to strengthen the position of the ruling party in Bangladesh. One wonders!
The writer is a former Ambassador
to Japan.
Saturday, July 10, 2011
M. Serajul Islam
Dr. Manmohon Singh has disappointed many in Bangladesh by his remarks about the country and its politics in a recent meeting with Indian newspaper editors. The Prime Minister’s website carried these remarks for a few days. When it caused criticism in India and in unofficial circles in Bangladesh, the remarks were hastily withdrawn with no serious explanation.
India is a major player in world affairs. Hence what its Prime Minister speaks officially, particularly about a neighbour that is suspicious of it, is spoken after due consideration. Hence his offensive remarks about Bangladesh and its politics must have been discussed with his aides and other concerned officials. It could not have just dropped into his head the moment he made these remarks. Therefore the remarks cannot be forgotten simply by deleting it from the PM’s website.
Dr. Singh said 25% of the people of Bangladesh are Jamaat activists who are in the clutches of the ISI. He also mentioned that the same percentage of the people of Bangladesh is also very anti-Indian. These negative facts notwithstanding, “generous” India, although not a rich nation, has offered Bangladesh a US$ 1 billion line of credit for economic infra-structure development in Bangladesh. Dr. Singh however acknowledged Bangladesh’s gesture in meeting its security concerns.
It is incredible that Dr. Singh would believe that 25% of the people of Bangladesh are Jamaat supporters. If that is a fact, with the BNP, the two would have by now made the AL history. The fact is Jamaat’s support among the people has always been in the low single digit. In the last elections, it polled 4% of the votes against 7% by President Ershad’s Jatiya party. His remarks about the extent of ISI influence in Bangladesh are offensive. It is true that past military governments and BNP have given in the past ISI leverage in Bangladesh’s politics. It is nevertheless way off the mark to suggest that 25% of Bangladeshis “are in the clutches of the ISI.” Perhaps Dr. Singh is not aware of Bangladesh’s history to suggest that 25% of the people would be so “controlled” by Pakistan’s military intelligence!
On the issue of Indian generosity, Indian line of credit of US$ 1 billion can hardly be called a generous act. 80% of the loan is tied to buying goods and services from India. Most importantly, it will be spent mostly for building infrastructure to facilitate transit of Indian goods from mainland India to Indian northeastern provinces through Bangladesh that has long been a major desire of India. Such land transit is expected to have major impact on the seven provinces’ economic and social development by cutting down of cost of transportation of goods and services and time. The successive governments of Bangladesh, in the past till the present, considered the land transit card valuable enough to help Bangladesh negotiate with India outstanding issues like share of water of common rivers, trade deficit, land and maritime boundaries favorably. It has given away this card without any reciprocal gesture. The US$ 1 billion is hardly one because it will be spent for the benefit of India more than for Bangladesh.
The Bangladesh government has done even a far bigger favour to India by handing over to Indian security the top ULFA insurgents that has broken the back of this long standing insurgency. It has also committed itself fully to India’s security interests. Since the present government came to office, it is generally believed in Bangladesh that it is not the ISI but Indian security agency RAW that has been given unhindered access in the country.
In fact, in history of Bangladesh-India relations, it is Bangladesh that has always shown generosity and India, the reverse. In 1974, after the Indira-Mujib agreement on land boundary was signed, Bangladesh kept its commitment while India, 37 years after the agreement was signed, is still dragging its foot on its commitments. In fact, one of the “generous” concessions that India would be making to Bangladesh in the near future is giving Bangladeshis 24 hour’s access to the enclaves of Dahagram and Angorpota, something it had committed almost 4 decades ago.
Bangladesh also gave India concession to install the Farakkha Barrage on a trial basis in April, 1975 that India unilaterally extended without Bangladesh’s concurrence to withdraw water from the Ganges at will. The trial agreement was finally converted into a bilateral agreement 25 years afterwards in 1996. In early 1990s, after the SAPTA agreement was signed, Bangladesh lowered its tariff against host of Indian goods that India never reciprocated fully.
In the face of all the above, it is absurd that Dr. Singh could have been so insensitive to have twisted truth in the manner he has. It is also hard to believe that his comments were inadvertent for it fits the mindset that the Indian bureaucracy has shown over the years in negotiating with Bangladesh. During a recent visit of journalists to India, even the Indian Finance Minister has acknowledged about this negative mindset in the Indian bureaucracy about Bangladesh.
Thus it was equally incredible that the Bangladesh government would react the way it has to Dr. Singh’s offensive comments. One senior Minister said Dr. Singh’s statements were “taken out of context”. The Foreign Secretary saw no necessity to make a formal complaint as he was fully satisfied by the explanation given by the Indian side. It appeared as if the Bangladesh Government was being apologetic that in India itself Dr. Singh’s comments created such widespread criticism that was the main reason why these were deleted from the PM’s website.
The nature of Dr. Singh’s comments, its withdrawal from the official website and the official reaction from Bangladesh left many wondering what is happening in Bangladesh-India relations. It is incredible that Bangladesh side would show such subservience to India as not to even raise an eyebrow, let alone a note of protest, on such a serious faux pas by the Indian Prime Minister that insulted and humiliated the nation. It brings back to memory the long delay that the Bangladesh Foreign Ministry took to register a note of protest on the Felani murder by the Indian BSF that incensed Bangladeshis. It also makes one wonder why senior officials of Bangladesh government are taking up Indian causes more aggressively than the Indian themselves where India, except for 1971, dealt with Bangladesh with not much generosity. One senior official even said that Bangladesh would prove itself uncivilised to charge from India any fee for granting it transit!
Indian Foreign Minister is in town at the time of filing this piece. So far what has been known of his visit is that India would be granting Bangladesh “concessions” that it had committed to Bangladesh decades ago! The Indian Home Minister is expected to come soon and the Prime Minister will come in early September. These visits are being undertaken way too belatedly for politics in Bangladesh has turned a bend towards dangerous pastures. With the caretaker government issue, the ruling party has created the most fertile grounds for confrontational politics that is bound to create equally fertile grounds for the opposition to play the India card. Dr. Singh has also helped in this respect by his insensitive remarks.
India can achieve the fullest benefits of land transit and its security concerns, two extremely important foreign policy goals for it, only when the Bangladesh government led by the ruling party has full and total control with the opposition in no position to do anything. It is just possible that Dr. Singh by his faux pas may have unwittingly spilled the beans; that there is a game plan involving the two governments to use Islamic extremism to strengthen the position of the ruling party in Bangladesh. One wonders!
The writer is a former Ambassador
to Japan.
On our ‘brave’ police force: civil order or disorder?
The Independent,
As I See It Column
Saturday, 9th., 2011
M. Serajul Islam
The picture that most newspapers posted on the second day of BNP’s 48-hour hartal was a police officer landing a blow on the face of a man lying on the street. The police officer was easily recognizable from his uniform. So was the man he was assaulting. The man was unarmed. He is the Chief Whip of the opposition in parliament, Mr. Zainul Abdin Farroque!
The dastardly acts were also caught live on camera by the private TV channels. He was beaten, ripped off his shirt, dragged, thrown from the vehicle bleeding in the head and face and later landed in the ICU of a local hospital.
From newspaper reports, it was also revealed that the Chief Whip was targeted intentionally and brutally assaulted the way he was. To make a comedy out of a tragedy, the authorities later filed a case against him for assaulting police on duty!
The script is not a new one. The police have acted this way as long as its history in this country and in this region. They assaulted the freedom fighters under the British in the same manner. In the same way, they beat up opposition political leaders during the Pakistan time.
The British and the Pakistani regimes did not believe that there could be any opposition to the government. They used the police for browbeating the opposition into submission. In the end, both failed miserably.
Unfortunately for us, these two oppressive and detestable regimes of the past have left their indelible mark on all governments in Bangladesh, both elected and unelected, in encouraging them to use the police for oppressing the political opposition.
In fact all Bangladesh governments have taken the strategies used by the British and the Pakistani governments to their hearts and have refined it to deal with the opposition in ways that are a regression of democracy.
The present government has fine tuned police brutality for subjugating the opposition in a number of newer ways whose preview were there for the nation to see during the recent hartal. First, as a strategy, it employed a larger number of police officials and greater force to stop the opposition from picketing, something not seen in past police ways of dealing with hartal activists. This strategy worked very well and the opposition was not allowed to do any picketing at all during the hartal.
Second, a qualitative change was in view during the recent hartal in the use of police against the opposition. This police on duty have shown political commitment against hartal activists. In the past, police have been brutal because of conflict with hartal activists who were also armed and posed danger to them.
This time, the hartal activists were almost benign in their commitment to hartal but the police acted against them brutally with very little provocation out of political commitment for the ruling party.
The way the Chief Whip was singled out and beaten was in no sense a spontaneous act. It was well calculated and deliberate and was taken under instruction of higher political authority with which the police force complied like activists of the ruling party.
This time, the hartal activists lacked leadership because most opposition leaders are now afraid of being arrested and taken into remand. There are few politicians today in the opposition ranks who have the courage to face the threat of remand that is a leaf that the present police force has accepted as a legacy for torturing opposition from the last Caretaker Government. In fact, opposition leader Begum Khaleda Zia had reprimanded her senior colleagues for their lack of courage during the few hartals that the BNP had called in the past under this government.
These facts notwithstanding, the police used every opportunity to beat up opposition leaders during the 48-hour hartal with the clear intention to discourage them against actively picketing for hartal. Strangely, the police was not so focused or ferocious while hartal activists broke cars and burnt down busses.
Clearly, the strategy of the police has been to allow hartal activists to attack and vandalize cars and buses to create contempt in the public mind against the opposition. At the same, the police provoked and went after the opposition leaders to scare them from leading processions for picketing in favour of hartal. Apparently, the strategy was worked out at party level and the police carried out like activists of the ruling party.
Thus police actions during the two-day hartal has underscored the fact that although our politicians have been “fighting” for democracy for many decades, but the mindset of the politicians who have gone on to rule is no better or no worse than the British and Pakistani rulers.
In fact, the present government has shown a marked deterioration even in such a contemptible mindset. It has clearly underscored its intentions to use the police force to ensure the objectives of the ruling party against the opposition.
It is an irony that the ruling party while in the opposition has been the most vocal protagonist of hartal claiming it to be a democratic right of the opposition. Its commitment to hartal was such that it makes the ones undertaken by the opposition in the present term of the ruling party look almost innocuous and benign.
The latest hartal that the opposition had called was to challenge certain fundamental changes in the Constitution that the ruling party brought unilaterally for ensuring its victory in the next elections. Even on such a serious issue, the opposition has not shown even a bit of the ferocity that the ruling party had shown during hartals that it had called for issues far less significant. Yet they were dealt with ferociously.
In fact, the constitutional changes that the ruling party has introduced are all designed to reintroduce the 4th Amendment to the Constitution in a new format. The Baksal imprint is written so large in the present politics of the ruling party that one has to pause and wonder what is it that is really guiding it towards such a dangerous frontier in the politics of the country. It is forgetting one fundamental difference between the two periods.
In 1974, the Awami League was the only political party of consequence in the country. It had in leadership role Bangabandhu Sheikh Rahman. Yet, its journey with one-party government was too shortlived with tragedy beyond comprehension. Today, a major segment of the people of the country are opposed to the ruling party and as for leadership, there cannot be any comparison.
The “brave” police force of Bangladesh has shown a preview of the nature of politics to come by the brutal and uncivilized way they handled the opposition. It would do the government and the ruling party a great deal of good to consider why despite such police brutality that did not allow the opposition any chance for picketing, the 48-hour hartal was successful all across the country where the overwhelming majority of the people simply detest hartal. It could look at the sense of deep frustration among the people who were promised so much but so far have been given so little.
The ruling party seems to be forgetting that 75 million people became one in 1971 for democracy and no matter what it does or wishes, it can never achieve anything by undemocratic ways. It is also the verdict of history. Its political acts over the last few months have been anything but democratic. It is high time that it mended its ways for itself and the nation.
The writer is a former ambassador to Japan and Egypt
As I See It Column
Saturday, 9th., 2011
M. Serajul Islam
The picture that most newspapers posted on the second day of BNP’s 48-hour hartal was a police officer landing a blow on the face of a man lying on the street. The police officer was easily recognizable from his uniform. So was the man he was assaulting. The man was unarmed. He is the Chief Whip of the opposition in parliament, Mr. Zainul Abdin Farroque!
The dastardly acts were also caught live on camera by the private TV channels. He was beaten, ripped off his shirt, dragged, thrown from the vehicle bleeding in the head and face and later landed in the ICU of a local hospital.
From newspaper reports, it was also revealed that the Chief Whip was targeted intentionally and brutally assaulted the way he was. To make a comedy out of a tragedy, the authorities later filed a case against him for assaulting police on duty!
The script is not a new one. The police have acted this way as long as its history in this country and in this region. They assaulted the freedom fighters under the British in the same manner. In the same way, they beat up opposition political leaders during the Pakistan time.
The British and the Pakistani regimes did not believe that there could be any opposition to the government. They used the police for browbeating the opposition into submission. In the end, both failed miserably.
Unfortunately for us, these two oppressive and detestable regimes of the past have left their indelible mark on all governments in Bangladesh, both elected and unelected, in encouraging them to use the police for oppressing the political opposition.
In fact all Bangladesh governments have taken the strategies used by the British and the Pakistani governments to their hearts and have refined it to deal with the opposition in ways that are a regression of democracy.
The present government has fine tuned police brutality for subjugating the opposition in a number of newer ways whose preview were there for the nation to see during the recent hartal. First, as a strategy, it employed a larger number of police officials and greater force to stop the opposition from picketing, something not seen in past police ways of dealing with hartal activists. This strategy worked very well and the opposition was not allowed to do any picketing at all during the hartal.
Second, a qualitative change was in view during the recent hartal in the use of police against the opposition. This police on duty have shown political commitment against hartal activists. In the past, police have been brutal because of conflict with hartal activists who were also armed and posed danger to them.
This time, the hartal activists were almost benign in their commitment to hartal but the police acted against them brutally with very little provocation out of political commitment for the ruling party.
The way the Chief Whip was singled out and beaten was in no sense a spontaneous act. It was well calculated and deliberate and was taken under instruction of higher political authority with which the police force complied like activists of the ruling party.
This time, the hartal activists lacked leadership because most opposition leaders are now afraid of being arrested and taken into remand. There are few politicians today in the opposition ranks who have the courage to face the threat of remand that is a leaf that the present police force has accepted as a legacy for torturing opposition from the last Caretaker Government. In fact, opposition leader Begum Khaleda Zia had reprimanded her senior colleagues for their lack of courage during the few hartals that the BNP had called in the past under this government.
These facts notwithstanding, the police used every opportunity to beat up opposition leaders during the 48-hour hartal with the clear intention to discourage them against actively picketing for hartal. Strangely, the police was not so focused or ferocious while hartal activists broke cars and burnt down busses.
Clearly, the strategy of the police has been to allow hartal activists to attack and vandalize cars and buses to create contempt in the public mind against the opposition. At the same, the police provoked and went after the opposition leaders to scare them from leading processions for picketing in favour of hartal. Apparently, the strategy was worked out at party level and the police carried out like activists of the ruling party.
Thus police actions during the two-day hartal has underscored the fact that although our politicians have been “fighting” for democracy for many decades, but the mindset of the politicians who have gone on to rule is no better or no worse than the British and Pakistani rulers.
In fact, the present government has shown a marked deterioration even in such a contemptible mindset. It has clearly underscored its intentions to use the police force to ensure the objectives of the ruling party against the opposition.
It is an irony that the ruling party while in the opposition has been the most vocal protagonist of hartal claiming it to be a democratic right of the opposition. Its commitment to hartal was such that it makes the ones undertaken by the opposition in the present term of the ruling party look almost innocuous and benign.
The latest hartal that the opposition had called was to challenge certain fundamental changes in the Constitution that the ruling party brought unilaterally for ensuring its victory in the next elections. Even on such a serious issue, the opposition has not shown even a bit of the ferocity that the ruling party had shown during hartals that it had called for issues far less significant. Yet they were dealt with ferociously.
In fact, the constitutional changes that the ruling party has introduced are all designed to reintroduce the 4th Amendment to the Constitution in a new format. The Baksal imprint is written so large in the present politics of the ruling party that one has to pause and wonder what is it that is really guiding it towards such a dangerous frontier in the politics of the country. It is forgetting one fundamental difference between the two periods.
In 1974, the Awami League was the only political party of consequence in the country. It had in leadership role Bangabandhu Sheikh Rahman. Yet, its journey with one-party government was too shortlived with tragedy beyond comprehension. Today, a major segment of the people of the country are opposed to the ruling party and as for leadership, there cannot be any comparison.
The “brave” police force of Bangladesh has shown a preview of the nature of politics to come by the brutal and uncivilized way they handled the opposition. It would do the government and the ruling party a great deal of good to consider why despite such police brutality that did not allow the opposition any chance for picketing, the 48-hour hartal was successful all across the country where the overwhelming majority of the people simply detest hartal. It could look at the sense of deep frustration among the people who were promised so much but so far have been given so little.
The ruling party seems to be forgetting that 75 million people became one in 1971 for democracy and no matter what it does or wishes, it can never achieve anything by undemocratic ways. It is also the verdict of history. Its political acts over the last few months have been anything but democratic. It is high time that it mended its ways for itself and the nation.
The writer is a former ambassador to Japan and Egypt
CG system: Introduced and abolished for democracy
Daily Sun
Monday, July 4, 2011
M. Serajul Islam
I am not so sure if the Awami League is aware of its own history of agitations over the past four decades. I sometimes even suspect if it is even aware of the history of the country that it so proudly claims to have written.
If it did, it would not have claimed that elections are fair only when it is conducted by elected representatives of the people. It would also not have so summarily rejected the concept of the Caretaker Government by misusing its 3/4th majority which is only in the four walls of parliament and not so in the country.
The fact of history is in all the elections that have been held in Bangladesh, those that have been conducted by the elected representatives have been almost all abjectly fraudulent. Take for instance the 1973 elections. It was well known that in the 1973 elections, the government machinery interfered in the election process in a manner that made it look like that only Awami League candidates were contesting each other where those of opposing parties contested only to lose their security deposits. In fact, many did. Ballot boxes were stuffed in favour of ruling party candidates outside polling centres and counted as legitimate votes by polling officials in league with the party in power.
President Ershad also held elections in 1986 in which Awami League contested in the same manner. That election was also one that showed how easily those who conduct elections can interfere and win without the opposition even having a slight chance of making a contest out of it. In that election, even number of the seats was decided before the elections and Awami League received exactly as many seats as was negotiated ahead of the elections.
The case of by-elections under elected governments is even worse. Magura will forever remain in the history of elections in Bangladesh as the limit and the extent to which a party in power can influence the election process. In the by-elections in Bangladesh, only those seats have been won by the opposition party where the government “decided” not to win.
The reasons why the party in power wins elections it conducts so easily are manifold. First, in our political culture, political parties have not learnt to accept defeat as a part of the inevitable process of election. They believe only in winning at any cost. Second, in elections in Bangladesh, those involved in conducting it, like the polling officers, the police and civil administration have immense powers to influence outcome. Third, the Election Commission can take action in case where the polling officers/police and civil administration take sides in favour of one candidate or another only in theory in Bangladesh. In practice, as a body, excepting its Commissioners, the EC is subordinate to the executive. Even where the EC has intention to interfere on side of fairness, they are almost always unable to take action because they cannot fight an entire administration. In fact, the EC has no known record in Bangladesh of ever exercising its powers in favour of a candidate who lost an election by fraudulent means where there has been large number of such cases.
In contrast, all three elections held in the country under the CG have been free and fair. It has been so attested by national and international observers that included teams from the Commonwealth, International Democratic Institute of Washington and SAARC, institutions that had no subjective interest in favour of any of the contesting parties. In fact, in 1996, it was BNP that was unseated from power by the first CG that unseated AL in 2001. In 2008, again under the CG, it was BNP that was unseated. Therefore except in the minds of AL and the Judges, there was no apprehension in anyone’s mind that elections under the CG have been anything but fair and free that allowed a peaceful transition from one democratic government to another.
What is dangerous for democracy and Bangladesh’s future is the way AL is moving towards the next elections under its administration. First, it has totally politicised the civil bureaucracy. Thus by the time the next elections are held, all officers in civil bureaucracy who would be directly involved in the elections would be AL activists. Second, the entire police administration has been likewise politicised where all police officials to be involved in maintaining law and order during the next elections would also be ruling party activists. The EC that will be crucial to holding a free and fair election would have new Commissioners well ahead of the next elections. AL has left no one in doubt that it has no intention of placing anyone in public office not overtly and covertly loyal to it.
Thus the interim AL administration that will hold the next elections will have a civil bureaucracy, police administration and EC manned by its party activists. Going by the mindset AL has shown the people of Bangladesh over the past four decades, only someone in mental paralysis should expect that AL would in any way put its re-election in
any jeopardy.
It is indeed a cruel irony that all this is being done in the name of democracy! Nevertheless it is not new what AL is doing. In history, many of the worst anti-people moves by political parties in power have been done in the name of democracy. Indian history of the 1970s is one notable example. Thus AL that had put a gridlock on government during BNP’s tenure from 1991-96 to force BNP to introduce the CG system to protect democracy in place of elections under an interim government has forgotten its own past. It has now done a flip-flop, abolished the CG system as un-democratic and has introduced elections under the Interim Government as a democratic way to change government!
There is a major problem in what AL is doing even if one overlooks all the contradictions in the way AL is playing politics these days. It is true it enjoys a 3/4th majority in parliament. Unfortunately, in the country, its support is way short of it. Today AL does not even have a simple majority in terms of support in the country; it never had and won the last elections with 48% of the total votes cast and that too, with 13 other parties! In fact, today its support would be anything in the upper 30% of the people of Bangladesh leaving staggering 60% or more opposed to it.
With such a support base, it is inconceivable how AL hopes to carry home its plan for holding the next elections under an interim government that is not even a veiled blue print to return to power. If AL gets its way, history would be proven wrong for the minority has never been able to win the manner AL is proceeding.
What will happen instead is the country will slide into chaos. BNP and its allies have already made that clear. Given the opposition’s strong return in local government elections, AL can only ignore its strength at its and the country’s peril. It is high time that AL came out of the four walls of parliament where its 3/4th majority without the opposition in attendance have made it totally oblivious to the reality in the country.
The writer is a former Ambassador
to Japan.
Monday, July 4, 2011
M. Serajul Islam
I am not so sure if the Awami League is aware of its own history of agitations over the past four decades. I sometimes even suspect if it is even aware of the history of the country that it so proudly claims to have written.
If it did, it would not have claimed that elections are fair only when it is conducted by elected representatives of the people. It would also not have so summarily rejected the concept of the Caretaker Government by misusing its 3/4th majority which is only in the four walls of parliament and not so in the country.
The fact of history is in all the elections that have been held in Bangladesh, those that have been conducted by the elected representatives have been almost all abjectly fraudulent. Take for instance the 1973 elections. It was well known that in the 1973 elections, the government machinery interfered in the election process in a manner that made it look like that only Awami League candidates were contesting each other where those of opposing parties contested only to lose their security deposits. In fact, many did. Ballot boxes were stuffed in favour of ruling party candidates outside polling centres and counted as legitimate votes by polling officials in league with the party in power.
President Ershad also held elections in 1986 in which Awami League contested in the same manner. That election was also one that showed how easily those who conduct elections can interfere and win without the opposition even having a slight chance of making a contest out of it. In that election, even number of the seats was decided before the elections and Awami League received exactly as many seats as was negotiated ahead of the elections.
The case of by-elections under elected governments is even worse. Magura will forever remain in the history of elections in Bangladesh as the limit and the extent to which a party in power can influence the election process. In the by-elections in Bangladesh, only those seats have been won by the opposition party where the government “decided” not to win.
The reasons why the party in power wins elections it conducts so easily are manifold. First, in our political culture, political parties have not learnt to accept defeat as a part of the inevitable process of election. They believe only in winning at any cost. Second, in elections in Bangladesh, those involved in conducting it, like the polling officers, the police and civil administration have immense powers to influence outcome. Third, the Election Commission can take action in case where the polling officers/police and civil administration take sides in favour of one candidate or another only in theory in Bangladesh. In practice, as a body, excepting its Commissioners, the EC is subordinate to the executive. Even where the EC has intention to interfere on side of fairness, they are almost always unable to take action because they cannot fight an entire administration. In fact, the EC has no known record in Bangladesh of ever exercising its powers in favour of a candidate who lost an election by fraudulent means where there has been large number of such cases.
In contrast, all three elections held in the country under the CG have been free and fair. It has been so attested by national and international observers that included teams from the Commonwealth, International Democratic Institute of Washington and SAARC, institutions that had no subjective interest in favour of any of the contesting parties. In fact, in 1996, it was BNP that was unseated from power by the first CG that unseated AL in 2001. In 2008, again under the CG, it was BNP that was unseated. Therefore except in the minds of AL and the Judges, there was no apprehension in anyone’s mind that elections under the CG have been anything but fair and free that allowed a peaceful transition from one democratic government to another.
What is dangerous for democracy and Bangladesh’s future is the way AL is moving towards the next elections under its administration. First, it has totally politicised the civil bureaucracy. Thus by the time the next elections are held, all officers in civil bureaucracy who would be directly involved in the elections would be AL activists. Second, the entire police administration has been likewise politicised where all police officials to be involved in maintaining law and order during the next elections would also be ruling party activists. The EC that will be crucial to holding a free and fair election would have new Commissioners well ahead of the next elections. AL has left no one in doubt that it has no intention of placing anyone in public office not overtly and covertly loyal to it.
Thus the interim AL administration that will hold the next elections will have a civil bureaucracy, police administration and EC manned by its party activists. Going by the mindset AL has shown the people of Bangladesh over the past four decades, only someone in mental paralysis should expect that AL would in any way put its re-election in
any jeopardy.
It is indeed a cruel irony that all this is being done in the name of democracy! Nevertheless it is not new what AL is doing. In history, many of the worst anti-people moves by political parties in power have been done in the name of democracy. Indian history of the 1970s is one notable example. Thus AL that had put a gridlock on government during BNP’s tenure from 1991-96 to force BNP to introduce the CG system to protect democracy in place of elections under an interim government has forgotten its own past. It has now done a flip-flop, abolished the CG system as un-democratic and has introduced elections under the Interim Government as a democratic way to change government!
There is a major problem in what AL is doing even if one overlooks all the contradictions in the way AL is playing politics these days. It is true it enjoys a 3/4th majority in parliament. Unfortunately, in the country, its support is way short of it. Today AL does not even have a simple majority in terms of support in the country; it never had and won the last elections with 48% of the total votes cast and that too, with 13 other parties! In fact, today its support would be anything in the upper 30% of the people of Bangladesh leaving staggering 60% or more opposed to it.
With such a support base, it is inconceivable how AL hopes to carry home its plan for holding the next elections under an interim government that is not even a veiled blue print to return to power. If AL gets its way, history would be proven wrong for the minority has never been able to win the manner AL is proceeding.
What will happen instead is the country will slide into chaos. BNP and its allies have already made that clear. Given the opposition’s strong return in local government elections, AL can only ignore its strength at its and the country’s peril. It is high time that AL came out of the four walls of parliament where its 3/4th majority without the opposition in attendance have made it totally oblivious to the reality in the country.
The writer is a former Ambassador
to Japan.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Can an interim govt be an alternative to CG?
The Independent
As I See It Column
Saturday, 2nd., July, 2011
Constitutional Special Committee Vice Chairman Mr. Suranjit Sengupta is changing his position so often that it is difficult to focus on what he is saying at all. Immediately before the committee submitted its report, he said that the report would not include anything on Caretaker Government and it would be decided by the parliament. When the report was submitted and released to the media, the annulment of the Caretaker Government provision was the top item in the report’s list of recommendations!
Now Mr. Sengupta is harping on the concept of an Interim Government as an alternative to the Caretaker Government. He is selling the concept as if it is something innovative in a parliamentary system. He has suggested a more powerful Election Commission to make an election under an Interim Government democratic and acceptable to the public in place of elections under a Caretaker Government.
In the first place, there is nothing innovative in what Mr. Sengupta has said. In truth, when a parliament in a parliamentary system completes its term, it automatically stands abrogated. The executive, that is the Prime Minister and his/her Ministers continue with the day to day functions of the government while the authority responsible for holding elections, in our case it would be the Election Commission, holds the elections to elect a new parliament. The party that has the majority in the parliament forms the next government to which the Interim Government hands over power.
The problem of elections under an interim government is well documented in the history of most developing democracies. We need not go very far to find an example. In next door India, the interim government of Mrs. Indira Gandhi was accused of using the government machinery for winning the 1971 elections by unfair means. Mrs. Gandhi herself was accused of using her official power illegally to win her own seat to Parliament.
The rest is history. In a historic judgment in 1975, the Allahabad High Court declared her election null and void as she was found guilty of using her official position as the interim Prime Minister unfairly and illegally to influence the result of the election in her party’s favour. She was also banned from contesting in an election for six years but serious charges such as bribing voters and election malpractices were dropped.
The court’s verdict pushed India towards civil disturbance across the country. In the face of serious unrest, Mrs. Gandhi declared emergency in June 1975. For the next two years, she ruled the country under a virtual dictatorship with massive crackdown on civil liberties and political opposition.
She used the emergency and the 2/3 majority she enjoyed in parliament to impose her will on major political issues facing the country. In January 1977, she called for fresh Lok Sabha elections and lost to the Janata Party of Mr. Moraji Desai by a thin majority. In the process, India and Indian democracy were saved but it came close to being turned into a fascist, autocratic government.
It is such a prospect towards which Mr. Sengupta is pushing Bangladesh. India returned from the brink because of the institutional strength of its democracy. In contrast, and a very sharp one too, we have none of the institutional strength that helped bring India back from the brink of dictatorship and arbitrary rule. The Awami League, since coming to power with a 3/4th majority, has shown no signs of accommodating the opposition, either in parliament or outside it.
The other dangerous signs that the ruling party has shown that makes the possibility of elections under an interim government to be headed by the ruling party perilous for democracy are its perception of the party and government. In dealing with the bureaucracy, the ruling party has obliterated the distinction between the two.
In other words, it has in no uncertain terms made bureaucrats’ loyalty to the ruling party as a condition for their serving in the civil bureaucracy. Half-baked theories on what type of bureaucracy the ruling party is seeking are hazardous for a parliamentary democracy. In such theories, political neutrality of the bureaucracy that is a basic pre-requisite for parliamentary democracy has been destroyed totally.
In fact, in key positions of the civil bureaucracy, it is just not mere loyalty that is a criterion for placement. Key positions have been given to bureaucrats who are no less party activists as those who have been recruited by the party and working in the party.
The Election Commission has shown its intent to be strong and independent. Unfortunately, both in structure and design, like the rest of the civil bureaucracy, it is also fragile to the will of the ruling party. Except for the Chief Election Commissioner and the Commissioners who are theoretically independent, the rest of the EC is not by any remote stretch of the imagination neutral enough to hold a free and fair election under an interim government that would be formed by the ruling party.
To make matters worse, the three commissioners in the EC who were recruited by the last Caretaker Government would be gone by the time the next elections are held. They would be replaced by new commissioners who would be selected by the ruling party.
To expect that the ruling party would choose neutral and competent people who would dare to act as the Election Commission in, for instance, India would be a very fond wish but very unrealistic. In fact, it is only likely that the new members of the Commission would behave as the senior secretaries of the government these days.
That would leave the courts as the last hope to keep an interim government from following in the footsteps of what the Congress did in 1971. Unfortunately, the courts’ recent handling of political issues has deeply worried the public. In a number of instances the desires of the ruling party and the rulings of the court on constitutional issues have shown unusual similarities.
It would therefore be unrealistic to expect that the courts in Bangladesh will act anything like the Allahabad Court did in the case of Mrs. Gandhi in the event the opposition moved to seek its support on election issues.
Hence elections under an Interim government in Bangladesh could bring results even worse than what followed in India under Mrs. Gandhi’s interim government. In India then, at least, there was a politically neutral bureaucracy, a superior courts held in high esteem whose impartiality was above question and an Election Commission independent of the executive and powerful.
In Bangladesh, the ruling party has ensured that in the structures that are essential to hold a free and fair election, there are only those who are activists and loyalists of the ruling party. Hence an election under an interim government of the ruling party is but a blueprint for its return to power.
Unfortunately, the opposition in Bangladesh is formidable in the country despite its 34 seats in Parliament. The attempt of the ruling party to return to power under an interim government and civil bureaucracy that is now in its favour will surely lead to civil unrest where the prospect of elections and peaceful transfer of power would be the surest casualties.
Mr. Suranjit Sengupta would have done himself and the country a great favour if he would have considered some of the issues raised here rather than trying to predict the Prime Minister's thinking to make the recommendations of the Committee he co-chaired. The Committee has in fact helped the country move closer to an impending political impasse of a serious nature.
The writer is a retired career diplomat and a former ambassador to Japan and Egypt.
As I See It Column
Saturday, 2nd., July, 2011
Constitutional Special Committee Vice Chairman Mr. Suranjit Sengupta is changing his position so often that it is difficult to focus on what he is saying at all. Immediately before the committee submitted its report, he said that the report would not include anything on Caretaker Government and it would be decided by the parliament. When the report was submitted and released to the media, the annulment of the Caretaker Government provision was the top item in the report’s list of recommendations!
Now Mr. Sengupta is harping on the concept of an Interim Government as an alternative to the Caretaker Government. He is selling the concept as if it is something innovative in a parliamentary system. He has suggested a more powerful Election Commission to make an election under an Interim Government democratic and acceptable to the public in place of elections under a Caretaker Government.
In the first place, there is nothing innovative in what Mr. Sengupta has said. In truth, when a parliament in a parliamentary system completes its term, it automatically stands abrogated. The executive, that is the Prime Minister and his/her Ministers continue with the day to day functions of the government while the authority responsible for holding elections, in our case it would be the Election Commission, holds the elections to elect a new parliament. The party that has the majority in the parliament forms the next government to which the Interim Government hands over power.
The problem of elections under an interim government is well documented in the history of most developing democracies. We need not go very far to find an example. In next door India, the interim government of Mrs. Indira Gandhi was accused of using the government machinery for winning the 1971 elections by unfair means. Mrs. Gandhi herself was accused of using her official power illegally to win her own seat to Parliament.
The rest is history. In a historic judgment in 1975, the Allahabad High Court declared her election null and void as she was found guilty of using her official position as the interim Prime Minister unfairly and illegally to influence the result of the election in her party’s favour. She was also banned from contesting in an election for six years but serious charges such as bribing voters and election malpractices were dropped.
The court’s verdict pushed India towards civil disturbance across the country. In the face of serious unrest, Mrs. Gandhi declared emergency in June 1975. For the next two years, she ruled the country under a virtual dictatorship with massive crackdown on civil liberties and political opposition.
She used the emergency and the 2/3 majority she enjoyed in parliament to impose her will on major political issues facing the country. In January 1977, she called for fresh Lok Sabha elections and lost to the Janata Party of Mr. Moraji Desai by a thin majority. In the process, India and Indian democracy were saved but it came close to being turned into a fascist, autocratic government.
It is such a prospect towards which Mr. Sengupta is pushing Bangladesh. India returned from the brink because of the institutional strength of its democracy. In contrast, and a very sharp one too, we have none of the institutional strength that helped bring India back from the brink of dictatorship and arbitrary rule. The Awami League, since coming to power with a 3/4th majority, has shown no signs of accommodating the opposition, either in parliament or outside it.
The other dangerous signs that the ruling party has shown that makes the possibility of elections under an interim government to be headed by the ruling party perilous for democracy are its perception of the party and government. In dealing with the bureaucracy, the ruling party has obliterated the distinction between the two.
In other words, it has in no uncertain terms made bureaucrats’ loyalty to the ruling party as a condition for their serving in the civil bureaucracy. Half-baked theories on what type of bureaucracy the ruling party is seeking are hazardous for a parliamentary democracy. In such theories, political neutrality of the bureaucracy that is a basic pre-requisite for parliamentary democracy has been destroyed totally.
In fact, in key positions of the civil bureaucracy, it is just not mere loyalty that is a criterion for placement. Key positions have been given to bureaucrats who are no less party activists as those who have been recruited by the party and working in the party.
The Election Commission has shown its intent to be strong and independent. Unfortunately, both in structure and design, like the rest of the civil bureaucracy, it is also fragile to the will of the ruling party. Except for the Chief Election Commissioner and the Commissioners who are theoretically independent, the rest of the EC is not by any remote stretch of the imagination neutral enough to hold a free and fair election under an interim government that would be formed by the ruling party.
To make matters worse, the three commissioners in the EC who were recruited by the last Caretaker Government would be gone by the time the next elections are held. They would be replaced by new commissioners who would be selected by the ruling party.
To expect that the ruling party would choose neutral and competent people who would dare to act as the Election Commission in, for instance, India would be a very fond wish but very unrealistic. In fact, it is only likely that the new members of the Commission would behave as the senior secretaries of the government these days.
That would leave the courts as the last hope to keep an interim government from following in the footsteps of what the Congress did in 1971. Unfortunately, the courts’ recent handling of political issues has deeply worried the public. In a number of instances the desires of the ruling party and the rulings of the court on constitutional issues have shown unusual similarities.
It would therefore be unrealistic to expect that the courts in Bangladesh will act anything like the Allahabad Court did in the case of Mrs. Gandhi in the event the opposition moved to seek its support on election issues.
Hence elections under an Interim government in Bangladesh could bring results even worse than what followed in India under Mrs. Gandhi’s interim government. In India then, at least, there was a politically neutral bureaucracy, a superior courts held in high esteem whose impartiality was above question and an Election Commission independent of the executive and powerful.
In Bangladesh, the ruling party has ensured that in the structures that are essential to hold a free and fair election, there are only those who are activists and loyalists of the ruling party. Hence an election under an interim government of the ruling party is but a blueprint for its return to power.
Unfortunately, the opposition in Bangladesh is formidable in the country despite its 34 seats in Parliament. The attempt of the ruling party to return to power under an interim government and civil bureaucracy that is now in its favour will surely lead to civil unrest where the prospect of elections and peaceful transfer of power would be the surest casualties.
Mr. Suranjit Sengupta would have done himself and the country a great favour if he would have considered some of the issues raised here rather than trying to predict the Prime Minister's thinking to make the recommendations of the Committee he co-chaired. The Committee has in fact helped the country move closer to an impending political impasse of a serious nature.
The writer is a retired career diplomat and a former ambassador to Japan and Egypt.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Failed States: Is China and Iran Failing?
Daily Sun
Sunday, 26th June, 2011
M. Serajul Islam
Most newspapers reported in their recent editions that Bangladesh has improved by one position in the list of countries likely to become failed states. Last year, Bangladesh had figured 24th and this year it is 25th. Some of the reports have tried to give a spin that Bangladesh is making a move in the right direction.
What these reports have not described is that countries have been rated on the index into critical, in danger, borderline, stable and most stable where Bangladesh is in the list of those countries considered in danger of failing. Almost all the critical countries are in Africa except Pakistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan in South Asia; Iraq in ME and Haiti in the Caribbean.
The African countries are in critical danger of failing primarily because of tribal conflict. Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen are in the same category because of terrorism. In fact, Pakistan and Yemen are in the critical list because “state ideology and state institutions abet terrorism.”
The group of countries in danger of failing in which Bangladesh finds itself is a large one. Again, Africa makes up the majority of the countries in this group. Among South Asia countries, Nepal has been placed at 27th and Sri Lanka at 29th, with Bangladesh where 2 out of 5 people live below the poverty line, at the top of the list. Surprisingly, China and Iran have also been named as countries in danger of failing!
There is a complicated criterion for assessment for placing countries in the various categories. These are called “pressures on the state” and include demographic pressures, refugees, group grievances; human flight; uneven development; economic decline; de-legitimization of the state; public grievances; human rights; security apparatus; fractionalized elites; and external interference.
Nepal and Sri Lanka have problem with many of the issues that are considered for judging whether a nation is failing and if so how close it is to ailing. Bangladesh has little or no pressure from many of these issues. The issues of economic decline, refugees, external interference, are not there while the other criterions are not present in any serious proportion to make Bangladesh so close to becoming a failed state as concluded in the failed States list.
Nevertheless Bangladesh is close to failing as a state as the Failed States Index has predicted but for entirely different reasons. It is in the nature of its politics where the two mainstream parties cannot agree even to a minimum level of consensus on issues of national development that the seeds of Bangladesh becoming a failed state are embedded. Of course issue of pressure of population, fractionalized elites and uneven development creates that extra pressure for pushing Bangladesh into the category of countries in danger of failing but these are not issues that are insurmountable as in case of countries fighting to remain afloat from failing.
Bangladesh’s case for a place in the Failed List Index in the category of those in danger of failing is due to the failure of its politics and politicians. In Sri Lanka ethnic differences and more than 25 years of civil war has turned the country on its head. In Nepal an often oppressive monarchy encouraged large section of the people, the Maoists, to rebellion with external assistance and destroyed its fragile fundamentals of statehood. Bangladesh has not had any of these massive problems for successful statehood. In fact, in 1971 its 75 million people came together under one banner responding to the call of Bangabandhu, something unique in the annals of history.
In addition, Bangladesh is an egalitarian society where the rich poor divide has not yet become provocative or dangerous; something that quality politics can easily handle. Feudalism has not been a strong factor to set the people of Bangladesh against each other The people of Bangladesh have twice in 25 years gotten together to overthrow colonialism, once in 1947 against the British and again in 1971 against the oppressive neo-colonialism imposed by the Pakistani regime and have developed common bonds to fight forces of oppression
Bangladesh has also not been subjected to dangerous and divisive forces that have brought the African national critically and dangerously close to failing. The Europeans have been very bad colonizers and what is happening today in Africa, the civil turmoil, are largely due to the way the European colonizers have cut across tribal and ethnic fabric of Africa to create independent states.
It is the conflicting nature of politics of Bangladesh as it evolved after 1971 and silly issues over which the two mainstream political parties have been fighting that are reasons why today stand Bangladesh faces the prospects of failing as a state. Most of the criterion that have been used to categorize states as going the way to become failed ones could easily be overcome in the two mainstream parties could agree on a minimum agenda of national development that does not seem to be the case. The only other danger that could push Bangladesh towards failing is the effect of climate change.
The most surprising revelation of the Failed State index is to see Iran at 35 dangerously close to failing. China at 81 is also dangerously close to failing as a state. It is not possible here to go into analysis of the criterion on which these two countries have been placed as ones dangerously close to failing. It would nevertheless be useful worth noting that both Iran and China have survived as independent states as long as one can remember. These countries are in fact the cradles of civilization.
Why these two countries would now be dangerously close to failing is difficult to contemplate. True they may have certain problems of internal nature but that such problems, like political democratization in China, would destroy thousands of years of statehood is difficult to contemplate. Incidentally, Iraq is also in the critical list for becoming a failed state that contradicts the claim of US success there; that Iraq would see the beginning of a new era of multi-ethnic, multicultural society living in peace.
The Failed State list is the produce of two US based organizations, Foreign Policy and The Fund for Peace. The 2011 annual collaboration is the 7th the two organizations have jointly brought out. President Bush had said in 2002 that the US is threatened less by conquering states than by failed ones in reference to Al Qaeda growing out of Afghanistan that was by all accounts a failed state by 9/11. US Defense Secretary Bill Gates has said over the next 20 years, the gravest threats for US would come from failed states. The attempt of the two organizations to bring out the list of Failed States is to address this concern
The fear of international threat posed by failed states is overstated. Majority of the states that are failing in Africa are a threat to themselves and those dying are their own in their own hands. Even the co-relation of failed states syndrome with so-called Islamic terrorism is also overstated. Somalia and Chad, perilously close to failing as a state, with predominantly Muslim poses no threat internationally whereas Pakistan and Yemen that poses the gravest international terrorist threat have functional governments suggesting that only those states can pose threat internationally that have functional systems working, albeit weak ones.
There is enough issues in the way the Failed State Index is finalized for taking a critical look at the motive of the authors. They seem to be providing the US foreign policy makers a platform for its theory of pre-emptive strike that it invented by going into Afghanistan.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt.
Sunday, 26th June, 2011
M. Serajul Islam
Most newspapers reported in their recent editions that Bangladesh has improved by one position in the list of countries likely to become failed states. Last year, Bangladesh had figured 24th and this year it is 25th. Some of the reports have tried to give a spin that Bangladesh is making a move in the right direction.
What these reports have not described is that countries have been rated on the index into critical, in danger, borderline, stable and most stable where Bangladesh is in the list of those countries considered in danger of failing. Almost all the critical countries are in Africa except Pakistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan in South Asia; Iraq in ME and Haiti in the Caribbean.
The African countries are in critical danger of failing primarily because of tribal conflict. Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen are in the same category because of terrorism. In fact, Pakistan and Yemen are in the critical list because “state ideology and state institutions abet terrorism.”
The group of countries in danger of failing in which Bangladesh finds itself is a large one. Again, Africa makes up the majority of the countries in this group. Among South Asia countries, Nepal has been placed at 27th and Sri Lanka at 29th, with Bangladesh where 2 out of 5 people live below the poverty line, at the top of the list. Surprisingly, China and Iran have also been named as countries in danger of failing!
There is a complicated criterion for assessment for placing countries in the various categories. These are called “pressures on the state” and include demographic pressures, refugees, group grievances; human flight; uneven development; economic decline; de-legitimization of the state; public grievances; human rights; security apparatus; fractionalized elites; and external interference.
Nepal and Sri Lanka have problem with many of the issues that are considered for judging whether a nation is failing and if so how close it is to ailing. Bangladesh has little or no pressure from many of these issues. The issues of economic decline, refugees, external interference, are not there while the other criterions are not present in any serious proportion to make Bangladesh so close to becoming a failed state as concluded in the failed States list.
Nevertheless Bangladesh is close to failing as a state as the Failed States Index has predicted but for entirely different reasons. It is in the nature of its politics where the two mainstream parties cannot agree even to a minimum level of consensus on issues of national development that the seeds of Bangladesh becoming a failed state are embedded. Of course issue of pressure of population, fractionalized elites and uneven development creates that extra pressure for pushing Bangladesh into the category of countries in danger of failing but these are not issues that are insurmountable as in case of countries fighting to remain afloat from failing.
Bangladesh’s case for a place in the Failed List Index in the category of those in danger of failing is due to the failure of its politics and politicians. In Sri Lanka ethnic differences and more than 25 years of civil war has turned the country on its head. In Nepal an often oppressive monarchy encouraged large section of the people, the Maoists, to rebellion with external assistance and destroyed its fragile fundamentals of statehood. Bangladesh has not had any of these massive problems for successful statehood. In fact, in 1971 its 75 million people came together under one banner responding to the call of Bangabandhu, something unique in the annals of history.
In addition, Bangladesh is an egalitarian society where the rich poor divide has not yet become provocative or dangerous; something that quality politics can easily handle. Feudalism has not been a strong factor to set the people of Bangladesh against each other The people of Bangladesh have twice in 25 years gotten together to overthrow colonialism, once in 1947 against the British and again in 1971 against the oppressive neo-colonialism imposed by the Pakistani regime and have developed common bonds to fight forces of oppression
Bangladesh has also not been subjected to dangerous and divisive forces that have brought the African national critically and dangerously close to failing. The Europeans have been very bad colonizers and what is happening today in Africa, the civil turmoil, are largely due to the way the European colonizers have cut across tribal and ethnic fabric of Africa to create independent states.
It is the conflicting nature of politics of Bangladesh as it evolved after 1971 and silly issues over which the two mainstream political parties have been fighting that are reasons why today stand Bangladesh faces the prospects of failing as a state. Most of the criterion that have been used to categorize states as going the way to become failed ones could easily be overcome in the two mainstream parties could agree on a minimum agenda of national development that does not seem to be the case. The only other danger that could push Bangladesh towards failing is the effect of climate change.
The most surprising revelation of the Failed State index is to see Iran at 35 dangerously close to failing. China at 81 is also dangerously close to failing as a state. It is not possible here to go into analysis of the criterion on which these two countries have been placed as ones dangerously close to failing. It would nevertheless be useful worth noting that both Iran and China have survived as independent states as long as one can remember. These countries are in fact the cradles of civilization.
Why these two countries would now be dangerously close to failing is difficult to contemplate. True they may have certain problems of internal nature but that such problems, like political democratization in China, would destroy thousands of years of statehood is difficult to contemplate. Incidentally, Iraq is also in the critical list for becoming a failed state that contradicts the claim of US success there; that Iraq would see the beginning of a new era of multi-ethnic, multicultural society living in peace.
The Failed State list is the produce of two US based organizations, Foreign Policy and The Fund for Peace. The 2011 annual collaboration is the 7th the two organizations have jointly brought out. President Bush had said in 2002 that the US is threatened less by conquering states than by failed ones in reference to Al Qaeda growing out of Afghanistan that was by all accounts a failed state by 9/11. US Defense Secretary Bill Gates has said over the next 20 years, the gravest threats for US would come from failed states. The attempt of the two organizations to bring out the list of Failed States is to address this concern
The fear of international threat posed by failed states is overstated. Majority of the states that are failing in Africa are a threat to themselves and those dying are their own in their own hands. Even the co-relation of failed states syndrome with so-called Islamic terrorism is also overstated. Somalia and Chad, perilously close to failing as a state, with predominantly Muslim poses no threat internationally whereas Pakistan and Yemen that poses the gravest international terrorist threat have functional governments suggesting that only those states can pose threat internationally that have functional systems working, albeit weak ones.
There is enough issues in the way the Failed State Index is finalized for taking a critical look at the motive of the authors. They seem to be providing the US foreign policy makers a platform for its theory of pre-emptive strike that it invented by going into Afghanistan.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt.
On hartal, demoracy and common sense
The Independent
As I See It
June 25th Saturday
M. Serajul Islam
Columnists are writing good number of articles these days on hartal, particularly after the 36 hours called by the BNP and Jamat with promise of more to come. The Prime Minister condemned the call while the Leader of the Opposition called it a democratic right against an un-democratic government.
The columnists have backed the Prime Minister describing hartals as bad for the country and the economy. One columnist supported hartals of the past years when they were held against military dictatorships. This columnist also supported the AL hartals during the closing stages of the last BNP Government but rejected the last hartal called by the BNP. Generally these columnists seemed to have concluded that people are now against hartal.
My own view of people’s perception of hartal was the same as the columnists; that people are now generally against hartals. I have of course my own view on hartal to which I will come later. I was therefore somewhat surprised that the 36 hours hartal called by the opposition was successful despite the attempts by the Government to keep business open as usual.
In my years as a diplomat abroad, where representing Bangladesh is not easy, one issue that made it even harder to represent Bangladesh was hartal. As an Ambassador in Japan while the BNP was in office last time, my biggest hurdle in arguing Bangladesh’s case as an investment destination was political instability caused by hartal. That was the time when hartals were regular feature of our politics aimed to overthrow an elected government.
My own views made it even more difficult to defend hartal. In a democracy, the opposition has every right to protest the actions of the Government. They can call strikes and even general strikes depending on the gravity of the issue. They can even ask for a general shut down of the government. However, the people are sovereign in democracy and they have the ultimate right either to accept or reject the opposition’s call of a general strike or a shutdown of government.
A hartal takes away from the people that sovereign right and leaves them at the mercy of those who call hartal. The party that calls hartal burns vehicles; attacks businesses, closes educational institutions to tell the people in no uncertain terms that they must close down their lives and livelihood to make a hartal successful! In the process hartal enters into the dangerous arena of fascism.
With the new term of the AL, the opposition seemed to finally accept that hartal is no longer a strategy that people are willing to accept, no matter whether they are good in their perception or otherwise. Thus in two and a half years of this government, the BNP has been cautions with hartal and so far they have called only 4 hartals. However, it takes two to tango and here the AL instead of building on the opposition’s positive stance on hartal has surprisingly done the reverse.
The AL has not exactly helped the cause of making hartal history by announcing that future elections would be held under the elected government and not under the CG. Suppose the BNP was in power today and had announced elections under it and not the CG, would the AL accept it? The question does not require an answer for knowing AL’s style of politics it would have by now brought the government to a standstill with “lagatar” hartal.
Despite the clearly un-democratic nature of a hartal, it is the product of the negative style of politics in the country. Unless this negative politics becomes history, hartal will continue to plague us and our lives. In a recent discussion with a senior politically appointed official of the government, I was simply amazed to hear his views on hartal. At first, he sarcastically commented that hartal is welcome because it is environment friendly. In the next instance, he said that the hartal will have no affect on the government as the ruling party will use its “brute” majority to deal with the issue! He did not care to consider that with 48% of the votes cast in favour of the ruling coalition, it does not even have a simple majority!
It is this stance of the ruling party that has surprised many. The summary trial of hartal activists by invoking one of the blackest laws of the Pakistan era, the ruling party has given the public enough to worry about its intentions. At a time when it has crossed the first half of its term with most of its election promises still promises and where political stability is a fundamental pre-requisite to govern, it has decided to provoke the opposition. It is simply absurd to believe that the BNP would accept elections under the AL and it will go to any length for its demand for the CG. It has made that intention quite clear.
The Prime Minister’s contradictory statements on the CG system
indicate that the ruling party is in two minds about future course of politics in the country. At first, she and her party leaders made statements about holding at least two more elections under the CG. Then when the Supreme Court decision exactly what the ruling party was seeking but only after declaring the CG system illegal, the Prime Minister accepted the illegality but not the option of holding two more elections under the CG system. Now in another twist, the ruling party leaders are suggesting that the door for negotiating future election under CG is still open.
Now ruling party leaders are openly hinting at finding a way to retain the CG with some saying that the decision on the CG and constitutional amendments is exclusively a matter for the parliament and not the court. One hopes that sense would prevail upon the policy makers of the ruling party for if the AL decides to go ahead to hold next elections under it and deal with opposition hartals by “brute” force and summary trials of hartal activists, then it would be pushing the country to the brinks of civil disturbance that could put the country’s future in serious jeopardy. Let us not forget that only recently we have been listed as a country in danger of failing.
There is really no good or bad hartal; nor “rational” or “irrational ones” as the AL Secretary Genera has suggested. Hartal is bad for the economy and the country and fascist by its very nature. There is however an explanation why hartals take place and that too just in Bangladesh. It will be there as long as politics is the way it is; negative and provocative. To end hartal, it is the duty of the ruling party to stop provocating the opposition.
The Prime Minister who has shown great respect for the Court should follow its offer to the parliament to hold the next two elections under the CG. That would take the wind away out of the sail of any opposition desire for hartal and save the country from sliding into an abyss. The ruling party leaders who dismiss BNP led hartals sarcastically should keep in mind that they have championed this strategy and the opposition parties have been poor followers. And it is also not true that all its hartals it called when in opposition were “rational”; majority of them were forced on the people for no reason at all. For example, it called innumerable hartals for the CG system in BNP’s 1991-96 term and now rejecting it as undemocratic!
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan.
As I See It
June 25th Saturday
M. Serajul Islam
Columnists are writing good number of articles these days on hartal, particularly after the 36 hours called by the BNP and Jamat with promise of more to come. The Prime Minister condemned the call while the Leader of the Opposition called it a democratic right against an un-democratic government.
The columnists have backed the Prime Minister describing hartals as bad for the country and the economy. One columnist supported hartals of the past years when they were held against military dictatorships. This columnist also supported the AL hartals during the closing stages of the last BNP Government but rejected the last hartal called by the BNP. Generally these columnists seemed to have concluded that people are now against hartal.
My own view of people’s perception of hartal was the same as the columnists; that people are now generally against hartals. I have of course my own view on hartal to which I will come later. I was therefore somewhat surprised that the 36 hours hartal called by the opposition was successful despite the attempts by the Government to keep business open as usual.
In my years as a diplomat abroad, where representing Bangladesh is not easy, one issue that made it even harder to represent Bangladesh was hartal. As an Ambassador in Japan while the BNP was in office last time, my biggest hurdle in arguing Bangladesh’s case as an investment destination was political instability caused by hartal. That was the time when hartals were regular feature of our politics aimed to overthrow an elected government.
My own views made it even more difficult to defend hartal. In a democracy, the opposition has every right to protest the actions of the Government. They can call strikes and even general strikes depending on the gravity of the issue. They can even ask for a general shut down of the government. However, the people are sovereign in democracy and they have the ultimate right either to accept or reject the opposition’s call of a general strike or a shutdown of government.
A hartal takes away from the people that sovereign right and leaves them at the mercy of those who call hartal. The party that calls hartal burns vehicles; attacks businesses, closes educational institutions to tell the people in no uncertain terms that they must close down their lives and livelihood to make a hartal successful! In the process hartal enters into the dangerous arena of fascism.
With the new term of the AL, the opposition seemed to finally accept that hartal is no longer a strategy that people are willing to accept, no matter whether they are good in their perception or otherwise. Thus in two and a half years of this government, the BNP has been cautions with hartal and so far they have called only 4 hartals. However, it takes two to tango and here the AL instead of building on the opposition’s positive stance on hartal has surprisingly done the reverse.
The AL has not exactly helped the cause of making hartal history by announcing that future elections would be held under the elected government and not under the CG. Suppose the BNP was in power today and had announced elections under it and not the CG, would the AL accept it? The question does not require an answer for knowing AL’s style of politics it would have by now brought the government to a standstill with “lagatar” hartal.
Despite the clearly un-democratic nature of a hartal, it is the product of the negative style of politics in the country. Unless this negative politics becomes history, hartal will continue to plague us and our lives. In a recent discussion with a senior politically appointed official of the government, I was simply amazed to hear his views on hartal. At first, he sarcastically commented that hartal is welcome because it is environment friendly. In the next instance, he said that the hartal will have no affect on the government as the ruling party will use its “brute” majority to deal with the issue! He did not care to consider that with 48% of the votes cast in favour of the ruling coalition, it does not even have a simple majority!
It is this stance of the ruling party that has surprised many. The summary trial of hartal activists by invoking one of the blackest laws of the Pakistan era, the ruling party has given the public enough to worry about its intentions. At a time when it has crossed the first half of its term with most of its election promises still promises and where political stability is a fundamental pre-requisite to govern, it has decided to provoke the opposition. It is simply absurd to believe that the BNP would accept elections under the AL and it will go to any length for its demand for the CG. It has made that intention quite clear.
The Prime Minister’s contradictory statements on the CG system
indicate that the ruling party is in two minds about future course of politics in the country. At first, she and her party leaders made statements about holding at least two more elections under the CG. Then when the Supreme Court decision exactly what the ruling party was seeking but only after declaring the CG system illegal, the Prime Minister accepted the illegality but not the option of holding two more elections under the CG system. Now in another twist, the ruling party leaders are suggesting that the door for negotiating future election under CG is still open.
Now ruling party leaders are openly hinting at finding a way to retain the CG with some saying that the decision on the CG and constitutional amendments is exclusively a matter for the parliament and not the court. One hopes that sense would prevail upon the policy makers of the ruling party for if the AL decides to go ahead to hold next elections under it and deal with opposition hartals by “brute” force and summary trials of hartal activists, then it would be pushing the country to the brinks of civil disturbance that could put the country’s future in serious jeopardy. Let us not forget that only recently we have been listed as a country in danger of failing.
There is really no good or bad hartal; nor “rational” or “irrational ones” as the AL Secretary Genera has suggested. Hartal is bad for the economy and the country and fascist by its very nature. There is however an explanation why hartals take place and that too just in Bangladesh. It will be there as long as politics is the way it is; negative and provocative. To end hartal, it is the duty of the ruling party to stop provocating the opposition.
The Prime Minister who has shown great respect for the Court should follow its offer to the parliament to hold the next two elections under the CG. That would take the wind away out of the sail of any opposition desire for hartal and save the country from sliding into an abyss. The ruling party leaders who dismiss BNP led hartals sarcastically should keep in mind that they have championed this strategy and the opposition parties have been poor followers. And it is also not true that all its hartals it called when in opposition were “rational”; majority of them were forced on the people for no reason at all. For example, it called innumerable hartals for the CG system in BNP’s 1991-96 term and now rejecting it as undemocratic!
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Ambassadors embarass the nation
Daily Sun
June 19th., Sunday
M. Serajul Islam
Disturbing news has appeared in the newspapers about conduct of the Ambassadors in three of Bangladesh Embassies abroad. Two are extremely serious cases of sexual misconduct and impinge upon the character of the Ambassadors concerned. The third Ambassador has offended his hosts so seriously with his etiquette and manners that they have refused to deal with him, not even to discuss our Foreign Minister’s visit to that country.
The news concerning these three Ambassadors has appeared in the media over some length of time. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has however not contradicted the news. There have been media reports that MOFA has conducted investigations and one of the Ambassadors has been recalled. The silence of the Foreign Ministry has led many to conclude that the Ambassadors are guilty as charged.
The way the AL led Government has conducted foreign affairs thus far is unbelievable. At least 5 or six Ministers and Advisers with the Foreign Minister one of them are conducting the country’s foreign relations. In fact, from time to time, more Ministers speak on foreign affairs without caring for MOFA as if it is a common subject for all of them.
This government has shown equally unbelievable laid back approach in appointment of Ambassadors. For the first time ever, all major Bangladesh missions abroad have been given to non-career Ambassadors. In a number of these stations, those named have foreign nationality in addition to their Bangladeshi nationality. Those responsible for the appointments have not even considered serious legal issues. Under oaths that these foreign nationals have taken for their adopted countries, they are obliged to support their country of adoption when required even when it is Bangladesh’s interests at stake.
Prior to the AL’s current term, Ambassadors were appointed after a consultation between the Prime Minister and the Foreign Ministry. After receiving the PM’s approval informally, it was a summary from the Foreign Ministry to the Prime Minister that formalized Ambassadorial appointments. In majority of the cases not involving major posts, the Prime Minister went by MOFA’s recommendations. Even in case of major appointments, the views of MOFA were always an important input in selection of Ambassadors.
That system is now seemingly in disarray. In fact, the announcement of Ambassadorial assignments is no longer the prerogative of MOFA. That function is now with the Cabinet Division. Thus, those who are now advising or influencing the Prime Minister on appointment of career Ambassadors have little knowledge of the Foreign Ministry and its officers. In case of recommending non-career Ambassadors also, they do so with little knowledge of the needs, demands and environment in which the Ambassadors work.
The serious predicament in which the country now finds itself with the three Ambassadors is the consequence of breakdown of the system that worked well in the past by an ad-hoc way of dealing with an extremely important national matter. The case of the career Ambassador among the 3 under scrutiny is revealing.
His appointment was recommended by the PMO with MOFA not consulted. He was sent from a minor station to a major one; a lift from division three to division one! The reaction of those who knew the affairs of MOFA well was one of utter surprise and disbelief who questioned whether Bangladesh had decided to wind up its Embassy in that country. He had not even a remote claim to the post except his ability to reach the PMO over the Foreign Ministry!
There is a serious mismatch in the existing distribution of career Ambassadors to our Embassies. Some bright career Ambassadors are being wasted in less important Embassies. A few not so competent career Ambassadors have been sent to some important Embassies as is the case of the career Ambassador now in the news. The mismatch is due to politics involved these days in appointment of career Ambassadors where MOFA is often powerless to do anything.
If MOFA had decided appointment of the career Ambassador in question, such a mismatch would not have occurred. The reason is a simple one. By the time a career diplomat is considered for an Ambassadorial assignment, his/her ability and credibility or the lack of these qualities is an established fact in the Ministry because the Foreign Service cadre is a small one. Everyone at MOFA knew a disaster was coming when the Government appointed the career Ambassador to the important post!
The case of the two non-career Ambassadors should leave no one in doubt that the poor chaps had no clue about the role of an Ambassador. One has been accused of frequenting night clubs by going there on a motor cycle of a staff of the Embassy! Quite clearly those who recommended their names to the Prime minister did not care to check out their credentials.
The alleged conduct of the 3 Ambassadors has dented the fragile image of Bangladesh that is so vital for our economic future. Such conduct could also affect adversely our bilateral relations with the countries concerned, of which two are crucial for our economic future. It is good that the career Ambassador has been recalled although after a long delay that must surely have offended the hosts. The non-career Ambassadors should now also be recalled without wasting any more time.
Simultaneously, it is also of the utmost importance to put into place a system for appointment of both career and non-career Ambassadors for the ad-hoc system now in place is dangerous for the country. The old system was a good and could be improved by streamlining it further. In any case, in the new system, the primary role for appointment of Ambassadors should be entrusted to MOFA that of course will work under the guidance of the Prime Minister.
It is indeed sad that the AL Government should weaken MOFA the way it has. In its last term, MOFA was given a major role in conduct of foreign affairs. In the final stages of that term, the Prime Minister even gave the Foreign Secretary the charge to conduct negotiations with India when the two countries came close to a serious border conflict, a job that involved many ministries and agencies that he performed successfully. In many instances in that term, MOFA was able to change names recommended by the PMO for appointment as Ambassadors after discussion with the Prime Minister. In return for the confidence placed, MOFA earned for the country credit such as membership in the UN Security Council, Chairmanship of NAM, etc to name a few.
While it may take time to restore MOFA to its rightful place if the Government has a desire to conduct foreign affairs professionally, the procedure of appointing Ambassadors should be straightened without delay for the sake of the country’s image and interests. Career Ambassadors should be chosen not on basis of sycophancy but on merit because there is a terrible mix of bright and below average career diplomats due to all sorts of quotas for appointment in public service. At least one other career Ambassador was recalled under the present Government on issue of character.
Non-career Ambassadors should not be appointed from party activists. They should be given training in the basics of diplomatic conduct and etiquette before they are allowed to go to their posts.
The writer is a former career Ambassador.
June 19th., Sunday
M. Serajul Islam
Disturbing news has appeared in the newspapers about conduct of the Ambassadors in three of Bangladesh Embassies abroad. Two are extremely serious cases of sexual misconduct and impinge upon the character of the Ambassadors concerned. The third Ambassador has offended his hosts so seriously with his etiquette and manners that they have refused to deal with him, not even to discuss our Foreign Minister’s visit to that country.
The news concerning these three Ambassadors has appeared in the media over some length of time. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has however not contradicted the news. There have been media reports that MOFA has conducted investigations and one of the Ambassadors has been recalled. The silence of the Foreign Ministry has led many to conclude that the Ambassadors are guilty as charged.
The way the AL led Government has conducted foreign affairs thus far is unbelievable. At least 5 or six Ministers and Advisers with the Foreign Minister one of them are conducting the country’s foreign relations. In fact, from time to time, more Ministers speak on foreign affairs without caring for MOFA as if it is a common subject for all of them.
This government has shown equally unbelievable laid back approach in appointment of Ambassadors. For the first time ever, all major Bangladesh missions abroad have been given to non-career Ambassadors. In a number of these stations, those named have foreign nationality in addition to their Bangladeshi nationality. Those responsible for the appointments have not even considered serious legal issues. Under oaths that these foreign nationals have taken for their adopted countries, they are obliged to support their country of adoption when required even when it is Bangladesh’s interests at stake.
Prior to the AL’s current term, Ambassadors were appointed after a consultation between the Prime Minister and the Foreign Ministry. After receiving the PM’s approval informally, it was a summary from the Foreign Ministry to the Prime Minister that formalized Ambassadorial appointments. In majority of the cases not involving major posts, the Prime Minister went by MOFA’s recommendations. Even in case of major appointments, the views of MOFA were always an important input in selection of Ambassadors.
That system is now seemingly in disarray. In fact, the announcement of Ambassadorial assignments is no longer the prerogative of MOFA. That function is now with the Cabinet Division. Thus, those who are now advising or influencing the Prime Minister on appointment of career Ambassadors have little knowledge of the Foreign Ministry and its officers. In case of recommending non-career Ambassadors also, they do so with little knowledge of the needs, demands and environment in which the Ambassadors work.
The serious predicament in which the country now finds itself with the three Ambassadors is the consequence of breakdown of the system that worked well in the past by an ad-hoc way of dealing with an extremely important national matter. The case of the career Ambassador among the 3 under scrutiny is revealing.
His appointment was recommended by the PMO with MOFA not consulted. He was sent from a minor station to a major one; a lift from division three to division one! The reaction of those who knew the affairs of MOFA well was one of utter surprise and disbelief who questioned whether Bangladesh had decided to wind up its Embassy in that country. He had not even a remote claim to the post except his ability to reach the PMO over the Foreign Ministry!
There is a serious mismatch in the existing distribution of career Ambassadors to our Embassies. Some bright career Ambassadors are being wasted in less important Embassies. A few not so competent career Ambassadors have been sent to some important Embassies as is the case of the career Ambassador now in the news. The mismatch is due to politics involved these days in appointment of career Ambassadors where MOFA is often powerless to do anything.
If MOFA had decided appointment of the career Ambassador in question, such a mismatch would not have occurred. The reason is a simple one. By the time a career diplomat is considered for an Ambassadorial assignment, his/her ability and credibility or the lack of these qualities is an established fact in the Ministry because the Foreign Service cadre is a small one. Everyone at MOFA knew a disaster was coming when the Government appointed the career Ambassador to the important post!
The case of the two non-career Ambassadors should leave no one in doubt that the poor chaps had no clue about the role of an Ambassador. One has been accused of frequenting night clubs by going there on a motor cycle of a staff of the Embassy! Quite clearly those who recommended their names to the Prime minister did not care to check out their credentials.
The alleged conduct of the 3 Ambassadors has dented the fragile image of Bangladesh that is so vital for our economic future. Such conduct could also affect adversely our bilateral relations with the countries concerned, of which two are crucial for our economic future. It is good that the career Ambassador has been recalled although after a long delay that must surely have offended the hosts. The non-career Ambassadors should now also be recalled without wasting any more time.
Simultaneously, it is also of the utmost importance to put into place a system for appointment of both career and non-career Ambassadors for the ad-hoc system now in place is dangerous for the country. The old system was a good and could be improved by streamlining it further. In any case, in the new system, the primary role for appointment of Ambassadors should be entrusted to MOFA that of course will work under the guidance of the Prime Minister.
It is indeed sad that the AL Government should weaken MOFA the way it has. In its last term, MOFA was given a major role in conduct of foreign affairs. In the final stages of that term, the Prime Minister even gave the Foreign Secretary the charge to conduct negotiations with India when the two countries came close to a serious border conflict, a job that involved many ministries and agencies that he performed successfully. In many instances in that term, MOFA was able to change names recommended by the PMO for appointment as Ambassadors after discussion with the Prime Minister. In return for the confidence placed, MOFA earned for the country credit such as membership in the UN Security Council, Chairmanship of NAM, etc to name a few.
While it may take time to restore MOFA to its rightful place if the Government has a desire to conduct foreign affairs professionally, the procedure of appointing Ambassadors should be straightened without delay for the sake of the country’s image and interests. Career Ambassadors should be chosen not on basis of sycophancy but on merit because there is a terrible mix of bright and below average career diplomats due to all sorts of quotas for appointment in public service. At least one other career Ambassador was recalled under the present Government on issue of character.
Non-career Ambassadors should not be appointed from party activists. They should be given training in the basics of diplomatic conduct and etiquette before they are allowed to go to their posts.
The writer is a former career Ambassador.
The OSD cadre in civil bureaucracy
The Independent, Saturday 18th June, 2011
AS I SEE IT column
M. Serajul Islam
Recently I had an interesting conversation with an OSD of the Government. I knew what is happening in the civil bureaucracy but I was not aware that it was anything like he described. We all know that one of the election issues that the ruling party put before the voter was the extent of politicization of the civil bureaucracy under the BNP Government. But the extent of politicization under the present government that this officer described is unbelievable.
I have also been reading the post-budget comments of leading citizens. They have all given us reasons to worry about our future. In fact, the Finance Minister himself has said that the over-ambitious budget the Government has announced will bear the desired results based on its ability to deliver at the micro level. He has also said that political stability will be a crucial factor in determining the desired results outlined in the budget.
The institution whose role is critical to the way the budget shapes is the civil bureaucracy. In any knowledgeable discussion these days, the civil bureaucracy is described as a sinking institution. By the start of this term of the ruling party, the officers who were recruited in the Pakistan era had all retired. As a consequence, leadership of the civil bureaucracy was weakened considerably.
The explanation for this is a simple one. The best university graduates who entered the civil bureaucracy in Pakistan times avoided it after our independence. A few bright graduates nevertheless entered the civil bureaucracy. However, as an institution, the difference in quality and ability between officers of the earlier era and those leading now is palpably evident. When this was the state of affairs with the bureaucracy, the ruling party decided to leave out from the cabinet political leaders who were in the AL cabinet in 1996-2001 and in their place, brought in new and inexperienced faces.
Key Ministries of Home and Foreign Affairs have been given to women, both first timers in the cabinet. Thus the second administration of Sheikh Hasina started with a very bad mix for successful governance; an inexperienced cabinet and a very weak bureaucracy. The Prime Minister herself expressed her frustration with her cabinet colleagues and publicly questioned their ability.
In these contexts, what this OSD revealed to me is nerve wracking indeed. He said that after this government came to power, it has systematically sorted out the officers on the basis of loyalty to the ruling party. Accordingly, the officers have been categorized into those whose loyalty is unquestioned. Then there are those who have been branded as disloyal or loyal to the opposition. There is a third group who are in between; who are not considered disloyal but whose loyalty to the ruling party is also not established beyond doubt.
The pro-AL loyalists are of course ruling the roost. They are eating the cake and the icing too! Those whose loyalty was in doubt have either been sent on retirement or have been sorted out in various other ways. The OSD who led me to write this piece is in a group who could not prove their loyalty or those on witch hunt to seek out opposition elements in the bureaucracy could not link them to the opposition. His group consists of over 200 officers of level of Deputy Secretary, 70 Joint Secretaries, and a good Additional Secretaries and Secretaries! If this figure of officers made OSD is not startling enough, I am not sure what would be. These officers have no office or responsibility and under are required to go daily to the Establishment Division to sign a register. Out of pity for this unfortunate group, the Establishment Division has allowed them to sign the register at interval of 10 days.
Thus an already weak bureaucracy has been divided and a very large number of officers are paid salaries but not allowed to work. It does not need common sense to suggest that such a move has weakened the bureaucracy further. This is not even politicization of the bureaucracy; this is worse. What is going to happen if the opposition were to return to power? Can a bureaucracy politicized in such a manner and working half strength deliver the high objectives of the budget and government where the political leadership is weak?
With all respect to the Prime Minister whose wisdom is hardly in doubt, it does not need a crystal ball to predict that the Government will find it difficult if not impossible to deliver. The CPD that has attained credibility in the country and aboard has predicted that the Government will not be able to achieve the growth rate it has predicted in the budget. Leading economists of the country have also likewise made pessimistic predictions. The FM’s rather inexplicable outbursts against the CPD are one of nervousness about the Government’s ability to deliver.
Our bureaucracy has been based on political neutrality on traditions of the British bureaucracy. Next door India has benefitted immensely from a politically neutral bureaucracy by following the same British traditions as we have. In fact, Pandit Nehru turned to the ICS officers who served the British raj to build an independent India. They returned that trust by helping build the India Pandit Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi and others had visualized for an independent India.
We can destroy that fundamental basis of our bureaucracy, namely its political neutrality, only at our peril. A democratic government simply cannot have its civil bureaucracy totally subservient to the political party where that party as the ruling one does not even have a simple majority on votes cast in its favour or be manned by its political activists. This Government must focus seriously to bring the civil bureaucracy back on rails. Otherwise it will derail the Government. In fact, the derailment process is very visible and it is unbelievable that the Government is silent about it.
The OSD predicted that hell would be let loose in the civil bureaucracy when a change of government takes place for that is the direction in which the present government is pushing the once respected and vaunted bureaucracy. It is not even helping the cause of the ruling party because the bureaucrats are serving their own interests in the name of the party and depriving the benefits of governance to those who they believe do not support the ruling party.
Thus instead of building an efficient civil service based on ability and merit, the present government it is helping build a bureaucracy based on sycophancy. More importantly, it is pushing a significant part of the members of the bureaucracy into a corner as members of the OSD cadre! All aside, can any country afford it , least of all an impoverished country like Bangladesh that at full strength still is still well short of the desired number of bureaucrats to implement the responsibilities and objectives of the government?
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan
AS I SEE IT column
M. Serajul Islam
Recently I had an interesting conversation with an OSD of the Government. I knew what is happening in the civil bureaucracy but I was not aware that it was anything like he described. We all know that one of the election issues that the ruling party put before the voter was the extent of politicization of the civil bureaucracy under the BNP Government. But the extent of politicization under the present government that this officer described is unbelievable.
I have also been reading the post-budget comments of leading citizens. They have all given us reasons to worry about our future. In fact, the Finance Minister himself has said that the over-ambitious budget the Government has announced will bear the desired results based on its ability to deliver at the micro level. He has also said that political stability will be a crucial factor in determining the desired results outlined in the budget.
The institution whose role is critical to the way the budget shapes is the civil bureaucracy. In any knowledgeable discussion these days, the civil bureaucracy is described as a sinking institution. By the start of this term of the ruling party, the officers who were recruited in the Pakistan era had all retired. As a consequence, leadership of the civil bureaucracy was weakened considerably.
The explanation for this is a simple one. The best university graduates who entered the civil bureaucracy in Pakistan times avoided it after our independence. A few bright graduates nevertheless entered the civil bureaucracy. However, as an institution, the difference in quality and ability between officers of the earlier era and those leading now is palpably evident. When this was the state of affairs with the bureaucracy, the ruling party decided to leave out from the cabinet political leaders who were in the AL cabinet in 1996-2001 and in their place, brought in new and inexperienced faces.
Key Ministries of Home and Foreign Affairs have been given to women, both first timers in the cabinet. Thus the second administration of Sheikh Hasina started with a very bad mix for successful governance; an inexperienced cabinet and a very weak bureaucracy. The Prime Minister herself expressed her frustration with her cabinet colleagues and publicly questioned their ability.
In these contexts, what this OSD revealed to me is nerve wracking indeed. He said that after this government came to power, it has systematically sorted out the officers on the basis of loyalty to the ruling party. Accordingly, the officers have been categorized into those whose loyalty is unquestioned. Then there are those who have been branded as disloyal or loyal to the opposition. There is a third group who are in between; who are not considered disloyal but whose loyalty to the ruling party is also not established beyond doubt.
The pro-AL loyalists are of course ruling the roost. They are eating the cake and the icing too! Those whose loyalty was in doubt have either been sent on retirement or have been sorted out in various other ways. The OSD who led me to write this piece is in a group who could not prove their loyalty or those on witch hunt to seek out opposition elements in the bureaucracy could not link them to the opposition. His group consists of over 200 officers of level of Deputy Secretary, 70 Joint Secretaries, and a good Additional Secretaries and Secretaries! If this figure of officers made OSD is not startling enough, I am not sure what would be. These officers have no office or responsibility and under are required to go daily to the Establishment Division to sign a register. Out of pity for this unfortunate group, the Establishment Division has allowed them to sign the register at interval of 10 days.
Thus an already weak bureaucracy has been divided and a very large number of officers are paid salaries but not allowed to work. It does not need common sense to suggest that such a move has weakened the bureaucracy further. This is not even politicization of the bureaucracy; this is worse. What is going to happen if the opposition were to return to power? Can a bureaucracy politicized in such a manner and working half strength deliver the high objectives of the budget and government where the political leadership is weak?
With all respect to the Prime Minister whose wisdom is hardly in doubt, it does not need a crystal ball to predict that the Government will find it difficult if not impossible to deliver. The CPD that has attained credibility in the country and aboard has predicted that the Government will not be able to achieve the growth rate it has predicted in the budget. Leading economists of the country have also likewise made pessimistic predictions. The FM’s rather inexplicable outbursts against the CPD are one of nervousness about the Government’s ability to deliver.
Our bureaucracy has been based on political neutrality on traditions of the British bureaucracy. Next door India has benefitted immensely from a politically neutral bureaucracy by following the same British traditions as we have. In fact, Pandit Nehru turned to the ICS officers who served the British raj to build an independent India. They returned that trust by helping build the India Pandit Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi and others had visualized for an independent India.
We can destroy that fundamental basis of our bureaucracy, namely its political neutrality, only at our peril. A democratic government simply cannot have its civil bureaucracy totally subservient to the political party where that party as the ruling one does not even have a simple majority on votes cast in its favour or be manned by its political activists. This Government must focus seriously to bring the civil bureaucracy back on rails. Otherwise it will derail the Government. In fact, the derailment process is very visible and it is unbelievable that the Government is silent about it.
The OSD predicted that hell would be let loose in the civil bureaucracy when a change of government takes place for that is the direction in which the present government is pushing the once respected and vaunted bureaucracy. It is not even helping the cause of the ruling party because the bureaucrats are serving their own interests in the name of the party and depriving the benefits of governance to those who they believe do not support the ruling party.
Thus instead of building an efficient civil service based on ability and merit, the present government it is helping build a bureaucracy based on sycophancy. More importantly, it is pushing a significant part of the members of the bureaucracy into a corner as members of the OSD cadre! All aside, can any country afford it , least of all an impoverished country like Bangladesh that at full strength still is still well short of the desired number of bureaucrats to implement the responsibilities and objectives of the government?
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Friday, June 10, 2011
Monday, June 6, 2011
Monday, May 30, 2011
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Muslim discontent and West Bengal elections
Daily Sun , May 22nd, 2011
M. Serajul Islam
A few expatriates in Washington with whom I had a conversation recently were hot happy that our Prime Minister should be so overtly happy with the landside victory of Trinamool in elections in a province in India. They felt that the message of felicitations should have gone from a lower level in the Government.
These expatriates also referred to a 1999 incident when Sheikh Hasina was introduced to the audience as Chief Minister when she had gone to Kolkata for that city’s famous Book Festival as a Chief Guest. These expats felt that our Prime Minister had allowed herself to be “humiliated” by visiting an Indian province where she was not shown proper respect.
I corrected some of the false notions of the expats. I told them that I was present at the 1999 Book Festival as a member of the Prime Minister’s delegation and that the reference to Sheikh Hasina as a Chief Minister was totally un-intended and that when a few members of the Prime Minister’s delegation objected, the individual who was conducting the event apologized profusely. He said that West Bengal hardly if ever had an opportunity to welcome a Prime Minister and hence not accustomed with protocol concerning one. Sheikh Hasina herself was amused instead of feeling humiliated and I thought correctly so. She allowed the incident to be resolved in a manner that I thought was diplomatic and correct and enhanced her respect to the people of West Bengal.
Sheikh Hasina had good reasons to visit Kolkata in 1999. West Bengal’s Chief Minister then was Jyoti Basu who played a key role in reaching the Ganges water Sharing Accord earlier in that term of Sheikh Hasina. Jyoti Basu was also very influential in Indian politics and hence it made additional good reasons for the Prime Minister to go to Kolkata to make him happy for his support in resolving Bangladesh’s other problems with India.
Mamata Banarjee’s stature and influence in New Delhi where she was a Cabinet Minister before becoming West Bengal’s Chief Minister, is also significant. Hence it makes sense for our Prime Minister to make Mamata Banarjee happy as a strategy to achieve the country’s foreign policy interests. Mamata Banarjee’s Trinamool Congress is also an ally of the Congress that is in power at the Centre. The reservations of the expatriates in Washington notwithstanding, there are serious foreign policy considerations that have gone to not just the Prime Minister extending her felicitations to Mamata Banarjee but also the Foreign Minister who too warmly congratulated the new West Bengal Chief Minister.
Nevertheless, the concerns expressed by the expats in Washington cannot be dismissed lightly. Bangladesh must not forget its sovereign status. It is this sovereign status that must dictate its relations with West Bengal. In this context, our foreign policy makers must make an objective assessment of importance of West Bengal to our foreign policy needs and to that extent try and get that province on its side but at the same time remember that West Bengal is not really one of those provinces that matter a great deal in India’s politics.
At the same time, our foreign policy makers should examine the reasons that helped Trinamool earn such a landslide victory. In analysis in the media in Bangladesh on these reasons, a fact that has not been touched at all is the role of Muslim voters in the election’s outcome. Despite all the good things that have been attributed to the communists in West Bengal, including the fact that the province did not see any violence against the Muslims since 1964, the status of Muslims in the province has gone from bad to worse in this period. This fact has not gone to any analysis in our media about Trinamool’s victory. One newspaper’s editorial instead suggested that we could learn from the way Buddhadev Bhattacharya accepted his party’s defeat. The editor must have lost sight of two things. First the defeat was expected and so overwhelming that there was nothing left for the former Chief Minister but to accept defeat. Second, and more importantly, he also forgot that West Bengal is a province and subject to control by the Centre where there was just no alternative for Buddhadev Bhattacharya but to accept defeat, gracefully or otherwise.
The polarization of Muslims in West Bengal was there for all political analysts to see soon after the Sachar Commission Report of 2005 was published to predict that the leftists there were headed for a defeat just on this fact alone. The Commission was established by Prime Minister Manmohon Singh to find out the social, economic and political status of Muslims in India under the Chairmanship of Justice Rajinder Sachar, former Chief Justice of New Delhi High Court. The Report reveled that in the so-called non-communal West Bengal, Muslims who constitute 25% of the province’s population, occupied 2.5% of Government jobs! The Sachar Committee Report that pictured a very depressing state for Muslims of India gave West Bengal the worst marks for treating Muslims as second class citizens. Analysts of this report gave West Bengal even worse marks than Gujarat where its Chief Minister prides and thrives on his hatred for Muslims.
It is true friendly relations are desirable with India and West Bengal can help further that objective. Nevertheless, Bangladesh should not forget that the Indian Government and media regularly refer to us as fundamentalist that treats its minorities unfairly. Bangladesh should muster the courage to tell India that it should treat its Muslims fairly before criticizing Bangladesh that has a much better record for treatment of its minorities.
Bangladesh must keep in mind while dealing with Trinamool that the feelings in West Bengal against Muslims are not restricted just to the leftists. It is deeper and more widespread than what our foreign policy pundits and the government realize. Despite winning the elections so massively on votes of Muslims, Trinamool may not change their fate unless they are pressured. As a sovereign nation with a huge Muslim population, Bangladesh has a responsibility to encourage India in general and West Bengal in particular to deal with Muslims fairly.
Thus the expats in Washington may have a point. Bangladesh should restrain its excitement over change of government in West Bengal because on its records, the province does not deserve our unqualified felicitations. Our sovereign status demands this of us particularly where that province has lots more to show for our respect. In any case, the Indian Prime Minister who had postponed his long awaited visit to Dhaka for West Bengal elections where results have been achieved to make New Delhi happy would be visiting Bangladesh soon. Therefore what West Bengal means to the Centre and how much it can help Bangladesh’s interests, would be known soon.
The writer is a retired career diplomat and a former Ambassador to Japan
M. Serajul Islam
A few expatriates in Washington with whom I had a conversation recently were hot happy that our Prime Minister should be so overtly happy with the landside victory of Trinamool in elections in a province in India. They felt that the message of felicitations should have gone from a lower level in the Government.
These expatriates also referred to a 1999 incident when Sheikh Hasina was introduced to the audience as Chief Minister when she had gone to Kolkata for that city’s famous Book Festival as a Chief Guest. These expats felt that our Prime Minister had allowed herself to be “humiliated” by visiting an Indian province where she was not shown proper respect.
I corrected some of the false notions of the expats. I told them that I was present at the 1999 Book Festival as a member of the Prime Minister’s delegation and that the reference to Sheikh Hasina as a Chief Minister was totally un-intended and that when a few members of the Prime Minister’s delegation objected, the individual who was conducting the event apologized profusely. He said that West Bengal hardly if ever had an opportunity to welcome a Prime Minister and hence not accustomed with protocol concerning one. Sheikh Hasina herself was amused instead of feeling humiliated and I thought correctly so. She allowed the incident to be resolved in a manner that I thought was diplomatic and correct and enhanced her respect to the people of West Bengal.
Sheikh Hasina had good reasons to visit Kolkata in 1999. West Bengal’s Chief Minister then was Jyoti Basu who played a key role in reaching the Ganges water Sharing Accord earlier in that term of Sheikh Hasina. Jyoti Basu was also very influential in Indian politics and hence it made additional good reasons for the Prime Minister to go to Kolkata to make him happy for his support in resolving Bangladesh’s other problems with India.
Mamata Banarjee’s stature and influence in New Delhi where she was a Cabinet Minister before becoming West Bengal’s Chief Minister, is also significant. Hence it makes sense for our Prime Minister to make Mamata Banarjee happy as a strategy to achieve the country’s foreign policy interests. Mamata Banarjee’s Trinamool Congress is also an ally of the Congress that is in power at the Centre. The reservations of the expatriates in Washington notwithstanding, there are serious foreign policy considerations that have gone to not just the Prime Minister extending her felicitations to Mamata Banarjee but also the Foreign Minister who too warmly congratulated the new West Bengal Chief Minister.
Nevertheless, the concerns expressed by the expats in Washington cannot be dismissed lightly. Bangladesh must not forget its sovereign status. It is this sovereign status that must dictate its relations with West Bengal. In this context, our foreign policy makers must make an objective assessment of importance of West Bengal to our foreign policy needs and to that extent try and get that province on its side but at the same time remember that West Bengal is not really one of those provinces that matter a great deal in India’s politics.
At the same time, our foreign policy makers should examine the reasons that helped Trinamool earn such a landslide victory. In analysis in the media in Bangladesh on these reasons, a fact that has not been touched at all is the role of Muslim voters in the election’s outcome. Despite all the good things that have been attributed to the communists in West Bengal, including the fact that the province did not see any violence against the Muslims since 1964, the status of Muslims in the province has gone from bad to worse in this period. This fact has not gone to any analysis in our media about Trinamool’s victory. One newspaper’s editorial instead suggested that we could learn from the way Buddhadev Bhattacharya accepted his party’s defeat. The editor must have lost sight of two things. First the defeat was expected and so overwhelming that there was nothing left for the former Chief Minister but to accept defeat. Second, and more importantly, he also forgot that West Bengal is a province and subject to control by the Centre where there was just no alternative for Buddhadev Bhattacharya but to accept defeat, gracefully or otherwise.
The polarization of Muslims in West Bengal was there for all political analysts to see soon after the Sachar Commission Report of 2005 was published to predict that the leftists there were headed for a defeat just on this fact alone. The Commission was established by Prime Minister Manmohon Singh to find out the social, economic and political status of Muslims in India under the Chairmanship of Justice Rajinder Sachar, former Chief Justice of New Delhi High Court. The Report reveled that in the so-called non-communal West Bengal, Muslims who constitute 25% of the province’s population, occupied 2.5% of Government jobs! The Sachar Committee Report that pictured a very depressing state for Muslims of India gave West Bengal the worst marks for treating Muslims as second class citizens. Analysts of this report gave West Bengal even worse marks than Gujarat where its Chief Minister prides and thrives on his hatred for Muslims.
It is true friendly relations are desirable with India and West Bengal can help further that objective. Nevertheless, Bangladesh should not forget that the Indian Government and media regularly refer to us as fundamentalist that treats its minorities unfairly. Bangladesh should muster the courage to tell India that it should treat its Muslims fairly before criticizing Bangladesh that has a much better record for treatment of its minorities.
Bangladesh must keep in mind while dealing with Trinamool that the feelings in West Bengal against Muslims are not restricted just to the leftists. It is deeper and more widespread than what our foreign policy pundits and the government realize. Despite winning the elections so massively on votes of Muslims, Trinamool may not change their fate unless they are pressured. As a sovereign nation with a huge Muslim population, Bangladesh has a responsibility to encourage India in general and West Bengal in particular to deal with Muslims fairly.
Thus the expats in Washington may have a point. Bangladesh should restrain its excitement over change of government in West Bengal because on its records, the province does not deserve our unqualified felicitations. Our sovereign status demands this of us particularly where that province has lots more to show for our respect. In any case, the Indian Prime Minister who had postponed his long awaited visit to Dhaka for West Bengal elections where results have been achieved to make New Delhi happy would be visiting Bangladesh soon. Therefore what West Bengal means to the Centre and how much it can help Bangladesh’s interests, would be known soon.
The writer is a retired career diplomat and a former Ambassador to Japan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)