Government rejects BGMEA "demand"

As we can see visible signs of the Hatirjheel project take shape, I cannot help feeling how much of an eyesore the BGMEA building located inside the project is becoming with every passing day. If the building stands when the project is eventually completed, it will literally be a pain in the neck of the project. Dhaka's environmentalists have been demanding restoration of the canals and wetlands that have been grabbed since 1971 that now submerges Dhaka every time there is a heavy downpour because the water's natural flow to the rivers around Dhaka have been taken away by private individuals and enterprises like the BGMEA.

It was therefore with some curiosity that I followed the press conference of the BGMEA President where he "demanded" Tk 300 crores from the government as incentive package to provide eid bonuses and wages to the workers in the RMG sector. He took the plea that the world economic meltdown has affected the RMG sector badly where more than 100 enterprises have closed down and a good part of the rest is suffering from lack of business. In the press conference, the BGMEA high officials were quite forceful about the points they made. They "demanded" that the government should pay the amount by September 7th failing which the consequences would fall upon the government. The BGMEA president did not leave much to imagination what could happen if the wages and bonuses were not paid to the workers.

The press conference of the BGMEA and what came out of it naturally has scared the daylight out from the RMG workers. They work their heart out for their employers and look forward to the Eid festivals as bright spots in their otherwise dismal lives. They therefore brought out a procession to protest the stand of the BGMEA and sought government assurance that their wages and eid bonuses would be paid on time. The Finance Minister later rejected the BGMEA "demand" as unacceptable. The Finance Minister was also critical that the BGMEA had sought compensation for power and gas crisis stating that "such a demand from them ahead of Eid is not a good sign."
The RMG sector has been the success story of Bangladesh's economic development. From a scratch, the sector now exports materials worth in excess of US 10 billion a year to the developed countries, including USA. In building up this sector, the private sector has led the thrust, very much on its own, and today, they compete with the leading exporters of RMG in the world market as a force to reckon with. A few years ago, when the US ended the quota for Bangladesh RMG exports, it was apprehended by many inside Bangladesh and abroad that the RMG sector would collapse. It did not happen; instead the sector became more competitive and expanded its exports to the USA and markets in Europe.

In recent times though, the RMG sector has seen subjected to turmoil in which many RMG factories have been razed to the ground. Various opinions have been expressed for such turmoil in the sector, including external hand to destroy it because of its success. These opinions apart, the RMG sector has, in recent times, suffered from labour discontent that has not been inspired by external agents. Even if the contention that the turmoil in the sector is inspired by external agents is true, it is equally true that the conditions in which the RMG workers are employed are fertile grounds for such turmoil even without external encouragement. The minimum wage that a RMG worker receives is Taka 1300. In discussions that have been conducted in talk shows on private TV channels on this issue, there has been significant resistance from RMG owners to enhance this minimum pay.

While the RMG workers toiled, the sector has gone from one level of success to another. Even at this juncture when there is a scare in business around the world, the RMG sector has not performed at all badly. The BGMEA President has stated that 40 per cent of 1500 garment factories would not be able to pay workers before Eid because of 15 to 20 per cent cut in first two months of exports this year. Against this, the Export Promotion Bureau has provided statistics that suggest to the contrary. In FY 2008-09 Bangladesh exported woven products worth $5.9 billion, which surpassed the export target, set by the sector, by 4.13 per cent and 14.54 per cent more compared with that for 2007-08. Bangladesh exported knitwear worth $6.4 billion in FY 2008-09, which fell, short of its target by 2.35 per cent, but compared with the preceding year, it was 16.21 per cent more. These figures thus belie the grim picture given by the BGMEA.

The Finance Minister was therefore quite right in rejecting the BGMEA demand as "unacceptable." There are of course a lot of other things unacceptable here. First, there is no doubt the BGMEA was trying to get a share of the Taka 500 crore incentive package the government has announced to counter recession hit sectors. Its health however is, going by the EPB statistics, too good to even consider this sector as a candidate for a share of the Taka 500 crore incentive package. Second, the manner in which the BGMEA put forth its "demand" was also audacious. It left the government literally days to meet tits demand and threatened to hold the government responsible for the consequences if the "demand" was not met and the workers went on a rampage. This was tantamount to an attempt to blackmail.

The rejection of the "demand "of the BGMEA by the government, nevertheless, leaves a very important national issue unresolved. There is still no assurance whether the workers would receive their legitimate benefits before the Eid. BGMEA's reaction to the Finance Minister’s rejection is still awaited. Meantime, a fundamental question must be asked of the BGMEA. Why it is that whenever they have a shortfall in their business orders from overseas, the poor workers are the first to be asked to bear the consequences and that too with what are their fundamental rights, namely their salary and their job security?

Only a couple of weeks ago, I was attending a seminar arranged for a project a business chamber is arranging abroad for packaging Bangladesh's business. The sponsors offered a package for the trip that included among other things, price of travel by air. A gentleman sitting next to me made a few comments on the package but did not forget to mention that in his case, as he would be travelling Business Class, he would pay the extra amount knowing the package offered by the sponsors included travel by economy class. The gentleman is a RMG exporter! I would be interested to know how much of personal sacrifices the RMG owners make in their life style when they move to take away even the basics from their workers when their business go down.

There is a moral issue here. We all know as I mentioned that the country owes a lot to the RMG sector for its success. They employ a large number of people of whom a significant number are women. They thus contribute to employment generation as well as women empowerment. They also do this by first making themselves very rich. The moral question is how much of this they share with those who make them rich. The Taka 1300 as minimum wage is more than a mere figure; they should reflect this amount against the price line in the market and then rest in peace if they can.
The RMG sector is vital to our economy and therefore the government must find a way out of the issue of wages and bonuses of the workers. Going by the EPB statistics, there is no doubt the majority of the 1500 units is capable of paying this bonus and must pay. An immediate statement on this should come out from the government to avoid the threat the BGMEA has cleverly apprehended. The government could consider some relief for the sick units as a temporary measure for paying the Eid bonuses because the BGMEA's threat has already created the favourable ground for disturbances that the external agents must have already noted. After the dust settles, the government has the responsibility of sitting down with the BGMEA and point out where the latter has gone off the rails in the "demand" it has made from the government. The Finance Minister must be credited for dealing with this "demand "of the BGMEA correctly but he must also know that BGMEA has placed him and the government on a spot. By standing on Hatirjheel, the BGMEA will not have many supporters eventually and by making the workers easy target for their alleged misfortune as they have done in this case, they will lose much more.

PM Hasina wants BNP in JS - But is she serious about her call?

Published in The Daily Independent, July 14, 2009

In her speech in the concluding segment of the budget session, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina said something extremely significant for our troubled politics. She urged the opposition to join the Parliament to fight together the conspiracy she believes is being hatched against parliamentary democracy by extra-constitutional forces. She asked the BNP to play a positive role in the House by giving their opinion on various national issues and added that her government would accept their criticism both in the House and outside to strengthen democracy and resist conspiracy by extra constitutional forces at any cost.

The Prime Minister's encouraging words towards the BNP were delivered during her reaction to a report of the Transparency International, Bangladesh in which the TIB was critical about the quorum crisis and misuse of public money in Parliament. The Prime Minister had special words about the TI Chairman about whom she said that his weakness for unconstitutional government is well known as in the past, he served as a Minister in the unelected government of late President Ziaur Rahman.

The Prime Minister's strong words about the TIB were somewhat surprising, as this organisation has been carrying on such activities for quite some time now. Thanks to the TIB's work for its parent organisation Transparency International, we were placed four times in a row, once under the AL and three times under the BNP, as the most corrupt nation on Earth. The TI Report on corruption in Bangladesh was based primarily on reports in newspapers and the media that are often exaggerated. There were many who did not like an organisation of Bangladesh assisting a foreign organisation to give Bangladesh such a bad name, particularly where the reasons that sustain corruption among public servants in Bangladesh, namely unbelievably poor pay would breed the same level of corruption in any government. The TI report on corruption in Bangladesh did our image irreparable damage while serving no purpose at all in tackling corruption.

During the emergency, the role of TIB Chairman was controversial as he appeared in too many TV channels regularly to project the emergency rule as good for the country. He was also seen on TV and in newspaper pictures/reports as a special guest in the ceremony arranged for the release of a book written by the army chief who is now being accused by both sides of the political divide for a variety of serious misdeeds, including violating the constitution and aiding and abetting corruption.
Nevertheless, it has been very encouraging to see that TIB has pushed the PM to a position where she has seen the necessity of extending a hand to the opposition for the sake of democracy and parliamentary sovereignty in Bangladesh. Politically, this statement is the first positive one we have seen in our politics since the emergency ended with the December 29th elections. Sadly, this statement apart, politics in the country is not conducive enough to encourage the BNP to accept the Prime Minister's offer. There is a lot that would need to be done by the Awami League to bring the BNP to the parliament to tackle jointly the conspiracy against parliamentary democracy.

The ball is now in the Prime Minister's court. She should follow up on her offer to the BNP to join the Parliament by relenting on the stalemate over the issue of seating. She should look at her absolute majority and not at what the BNP did the last time to give the latter the extra seats they want. That will take the wind out of the sail of the BNP's negative stance for joining the Parliament. Former Speaker Jamiruddin Sircar's case is becoming a new issue to encourage the opposition to stay away from Parliament. The Parliamentary Committee has found evidence of misuse of funds. The recommendation to scrap the former Speaker of his seat for such allegation is however not within the jurisdiction of the Committee according to the Constitution. Article 66 of the Constitution that specifies the qualifications and disqualifications of a Member of Parliament does not provide for removal of the former Speaker on grounds recommended by the Committee. The Prime Minister must help find a way to deal with it in a way that does not place the treasury and the opposition on a fighting course that will only provide the opposition with further excuse to make the Parliament more dysfunctional.

The Prime Minister has also urged the BNP to play its role outside the parliament as a responsible opposition to criticise the government to make parliamentary democracy stronger. To make this offer meaningful, the Prime Minister must rein in her Ministers and political leaders in the Awami League against provoking the BNP as a habit. Motia Chowdhury's recent allegation that the BNP leader Moudud Ahmed is illegally occupying his residence of last 27 years is a case in point. If the latter is indeed illegally occupying the residence that Moudud has rejected vehemently, the issue is a matter of the law and not one that would fall within the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Minister's responsibilities. This sort of statement will only vitiate the political climate and make the Prime Minister's offer towards the BNP meaningless. Some of the other Ministers are regularly appearing before the media to blame the BNP and Jamaat for conspiracies against the government and in some cases, against Bangladesh. It is time that they follow the Prime Minister and seek support of the BNP to fight the conspiracy against parliamentary democracy.

During the emergency, the caretaker government pursued the AL and the BNP with vigour and vindictiveness; incarcerating both Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia. Harsh treatment, in many instances violating human rights, was meted out to the senior leaders of both the parties. The present government has reviewed these cases and has recommended quashing a large number of these cases on the ground that these were politically motivated. Unfortunately, all the cases recommended for quashing are those of the AL leaders. This is surely a move that will create the differences between the two parties to strengthen their history of conflict and lack of trust. This move is also unfair and will not help achieve the cooperation that the PM now seeks for the sake of parliamentary democracy. She should now instruct the Home and Law Ministries to deal with the issue in a non-partisan manner.

Very recently, the Cabinet in principle has approved a draft law entitled "Father of the Nation's Family Members' Security Act 2009." According to the Agriculture Minister, the Prime Minister and her sister would be allocated houses under the law when enacted. While it is true that the sisters are extremely vulnerable from a security point of view and there is little to argue on the security recommended for them, the issue of allocating houses for them raises a few eyebrows because the government has decided to withdraw the house allotted to the BNP leader Khaleda Zia. If the government indeed allocates houses to the sisters, then it should withdraw the move to withdraw the house allocated to Khaleda Zia. Such a step will help create the conditions for bringing the BNP back to the Parliament without which parliamentary democracy will just not work, even if the conspiracy that the Prime Minister apprehends is not there.

In some of her recent political statements, the Prime Minister has given the nation the sense that she perceives correctly the direction in which the government should move for the sake of Bangladesh. The offer to the opposition to come to Parliament to fight the conspiracy against parliamentary democracy is a manifestation of this perception. She now needs to act positively on creating the conditions that would encourage the opposition to take up her offer.

Bangladesh's glorious war of independence was fought for establishment of democracy that cannot be achieved without the government and the opposition cooperating on a common agenda of development. It is not just for establishment of democracy; cooperation between the two is what is holding Bangladesh back from becoming a middle income country. It is also the best guarantee against extra-constitutional interference in our politics.

Time to severe nexus with political parties

Published in The Independent, Dhaka, 10th July, 2009

Recent news about the new central committee of the Jatiyabadi Chatra Dal (JCD), the student's wing of the BNP has attracted national attention because those named for the main positions are middle-aged individuals. Most of the students in the Universities today were not even born when the newly named President entered the university the first time. He is 44 and his close aides are also in their 40s or late 30s. This phenomenon of middle aged students heading a student's party is not particular to the BNP; the AL's student's party, the Bangladesh Chatra League (BCL), is also led by individuals more or less in the same age bracket.

One good initiative that was taken during the emergency was the one intended to end political parties having a student's wing. The initiative was supported by all except those directly involved in the nexus. In the period immediately after the present government took office, that conviction that the nexus is bad for the nation was strengthened as we witnessed the ugliest side of student's politics. In all public universities, students of the BCL ransacked and rampaged dormitories to wrest control from the JCD that had occupied these dormitories while the BNP was in power. A number of these universities had to be closed down due to the violence that resulted from the clashes between the BCL and the JCD. In disgust the Prime Minister resigned from her position as the chief patron of the Bangladesh Chatra League.
Students are the consciousness of the nation; they are the ones upon whom the nation must invest the most because in their hands lie the future of the country. In our history, the students have played a glorious role at different critical times. The Language Movement of 1952, all the movements against the dictatorship of Ayub Khan in our Pakistani days; the 1969 students movement that paved the way for our glorious war of liberation, are all movements in which the students played the major role. In fact, in many instances, the students paved the way that the politicians followed.

With the emergence of Bangladesh, one expected that the need for the students to worry about national politics would be over and they would be able to spend their time as studying so that they could empower themselves with knowledge in building the nation. During our Pakistani days, there was also the lure of international communism that was an added attraction that encouraged the students to participate in national politics as some of these parties were based on the communist or socialist ideology. Bangalee nationalism and international communism that provided the rationale for involvement of students in national politics are history. For a brief period during the Ershad era, it was necessary for the mainstream parties to be assisted by their student's wing for sake of democracy. Since the fall of Ershad, that reason is also a part of history.

The mainstream parties, nevertheless, continued to retain their student's wings although the reasons for their involvement in national politics faded. Student's politics thus began to reflect the same realities of national politics such as conflicts, corruption, extortion and violence. In a very interesting and analytical study entitled "The Freedom Industry and Students Politics in Bangladesh", Iftekhar Sayeed writes: "Student politics has been a deadly, internecine affair. Today, student groups are used by political parties as private armies: they are given guns, told to extort money, taxes and tolls - and bring down the government through violent hartals. They have become a highly criminalised group." In this treatise written in 2006, Sayeed gives spine chilling statistics. In 2001, 47 student politicians were murdered; 44 the following year; 61 the year after and 35 in 2005.
These murders have not been committed for sake of ideology or principle, nor for establishing democracy or any high sounding objectives. These were murders committed by criminals masquerading in our public universities as student leaders. Today, leaders of student's party use their political connections for personal gains; they extort money mafia style and destroy the environment of the educational institutions as they wish. In fact, these leaders indulge in activities that would shame even the hardened criminals. The events in Jahangirnagar University a few years ago where student leaders indulged in gang rape with full knowledge of the university authorities and the political party to which they belonged with neither coming forward for the victim would have shamed any nation.

The criminal activities of the student leaders are widely reported in the media but they fail to arouse the conscience of the political parties who give them more indulgence instead. The reason for the indulgence, as Sayeed has suggested, is to use student parties as private armies to fight political opponents. During the AL's last tenure, President Justice Shahabuddin publicly said that students were getting guns instead of education and urged the students to severe their connections with the political parties. His words fell on deaf ears and the nexus between the student's parties and political parties have grown stronger. The victims of such an undesirable nexus, unfortunately, are the majority of the students who suffer in the form of session jams that take away valuable years from their lives. The public universities of Bangladesh are the only educational institutions in the world where students are delayed by years in passing out because the students parties fight with one another and carry out the negative political agenda of political parties they represent that leads to frequent closure of these institutions.

The emergency we recently had may not have done that much good for the country. It has nevertheless highlighted to us some of the fundamental problems facing the nation. One of them being the revelation of how corrupt, criminalised and conflict ridden is the face of our politics. Student parties acting at the behest of such politics and political parties can only vitiate the educational environment. This is what student politics is doing to the public universities of Bangladesh.
The nexus between the political parties and their students' wings serves the ulterior purposes of just a few, while affecting badly the lives and careers of the general students. No matter how one looks at this nexus, there is just one conclusion to reach: that it is destroying the future of our students and this must end. In the period after the new government came to office and the BCL was re-occupying the dormitories mafia style, there was a picture covered by most newspapers that showed as an inset, a dead body of a student who had just then been killed and in the larger picture, a student flouting a machete that was meant to kill more. It was reminiscent of Burundi-Rwanda where during the genocide such machetes were used for killing millions. That picture should be the nadir for the nation's conscience and unite everybody for a common cause; to retrieve and regain the public universities by breaking the evil nexus for the sake of those who would be leading our nation in future.

The BNP has shown insensitivity in naming a JCD national committee where the leaders named should have been in the party's national committee and not in the JCD. It makes no sense and given the nature of student's politics in recent times, it raises questions about the party's credibility. The AL has no reason to feel better either about its own credibility as it also shown the same indifference for the Prime Minister's decision to distance herself from BCL notwithstanding; the latter has not changed its mafia like activities. The reasons that sustained student politics like the Language Movement, movement for Bangladesh, for international communism, are now part of history. There are no reasons for the students to be involved in national politics anymore. It is time that the "umbilical cord" between the two is severed for the sake of the students who are the future of Bangladesh.

BNP’s boycott of Parliament and return of negative politics

Published in The Independent, July 5, 2009

In recent times, there has been a series of news and views expressed in the media on the boycott of the BNP in the Budget session of Parliament. These views are critical. Treasury bench parliamentarian Suranjit Sen has suggested recall of the members who abstain from attending parliamentary sessions.

Unfortunately, BNP's boycott of the Parliament is not new. Suranjit Sen should know it better for this trend was set by his party when they were in the opposition when democratic government returned to Bangladesh after Ershad's fall in 1991. BNP obliged by doing the same when the AL was in office between 1996-2001. Awami League continued this trend again when they were in the opposition in 2001-2006.

Boycott of the parliament is unacceptable under any circumstances. In Bangladesh, it is a symptom of what is a much bigger and wider problem in our politics; a negative mindset with which these two parties do politics. We all know that during the five years tenure of the BNP, there was widespread corruption, politicisation of the bureaucracy; criminalisation of politics, and parochialism and narrow mindedness in distributing benefits of governance to those who were not supporters of their party. The Awami League was voted to office with a historical majority, among other reasons, also because of these drawbacks of the BNP and because of the AL pledge to fight these elements. Of course, the voters were also impressed with the other AL promises such as trial of the war criminals and its Vision 2021.

Half a year or 1/10th of the AL's term is already over but most of the reasons for which the people voted them to power have remained promises. In fact, the AL is moving in the same direction that the BNP went with governance. Corruption is gradually but surely finding its way back where the BNP left it. The politicisation of the bureaucracy is entering into a new phase with the largest number of senior bureaucrats being made OSDs in Bangladesh's history to determine their political affiliation. In appointing Ambassadors/High Commissioners in major capitals, professional diplomats have given way to political appointees, the first time professional diplomats have been treated so summarily that even the Foreign Secretary has not found a position. The criminals are back in full force with a slide in the law and order situation that is the cause of concern of everyone now. The trial of the war criminals, promised to be held as soon as the party took office, is still uncertain.

There are a few actions that AL has taken, even if they have gone against BNP, needed to be taken from their point of view, like for instance those related to history. The public understands this. But to clear all cases brought by the ACC against the AL during the emergency as politically motivated and not include even one from the BNP is something that has raised apprehension as to the intent of the ruling party. Then of course there are issues aimed on a personal level that, however correct they may be legally, are politically going to cause dissension and conflict in politics in place of the unity that the country and the government so badly needs.

Although the two mainstream parties never find any issue upon which to cooperate, they do have an eerie sense of cooperation in what is not good for our politics. When one criticises the other while in the opposition, it ends up doing worse regarding those very issues on assuming power. In the present instance, the AL is not allowing BNP the extra seats in the front row of parliament on the plea that the BNP declined a similar request from AL when in power between 2001-2006. While the BNP was in power, it dominated the Parliament by its two third majority and accommodating the AL's extra seats could have easily been done. In the present parliament, the AL has even a larger majority but it is denying the BNP the extra seats to pay back for what they did to the AL. For a political party enjoying such a huge majority, as the BNP did in 2001-2006 and the AL now, it is sadly a reflection of a negative mindset. The BNP has already suffered for this mindset and the AL could be exposing itself to the same fate by following the BNP's footsteps.
A recent study has placed Bangladesh 19th in the list of countries prone to become a failed state. This is unfortunate. In South Asia, two countries are higher on the list, Pakistan at 10th and Sri Lanka at 12th. These two countries have reasons to be placed ahead of us. Bangladesh should fare ahead of all other nations in South Asia because she has all it takes for successful nation building. We are a homogenous and egalitarian nation where religious and/or regional divides have little impact on our politics. We have shown the world what we can do by coming together as we did in 1971. In following the clarion call of Bangobandhu for fighting for our independence, we became a monolithic whole and succeeded in defeating a genocidal army to win our freedom and nationhood.

Unfortunately, we have not been united under a cause ever since. In fact, in the initial years, the politics was one of political assassinations and violence leading to militarisation that was an anathema to the rationale of our war of independence. When democracy returned, we saw the two mainstream political parties fight on issues that have not allowed Bangladesh to achieve the potentials with which we are endowed. Thousands of days were lost on hartal that gained nothing for the country but pushed us higher as a failed state.

The AL should realise that the 19th position we have received in the failed state criterion is not encouraging news to achieve their Vision 2021. The way to achieve this vision is for it to try and revive the spirit of 1971; the spirit of unity. That spirit will never be achieved if it believes that the only way for Bangladesh's development is the Awami League way. Bangladesh's potentials and its development will succeed only when the ruling party can get over this mindset and evolve a bipartisan approach to nation building. It is true that even if the AL tries to achieve unity, the BNP may not be forthcoming. But if the AL makes moves for seeking the BNP's cooperation, the latter will find it difficult to stand in the way of the AL's initiatives for transforming Bangladesh away from the threats of failing as a state.

Time is fast clicking away. The BNP that was in disarray after the elections is consolidating slowly. Unless the AL concentrates on governance and does so on a bipartisan way, it is only a matter of time for violence and conflict to return in our politics. In that event, AL's "Vision 2021" and "Deen Bodoler Pala" could remain merely promises. With little tolerance towards the opposition that is the basis of democracy, the AL can enhance its chances of achieving these promises.
Recently, the British Parliament elected a Speaker. In a Parliament where the Labour Party has a comfortable 66 seats majority, a Conservative has been elected as the Speaker. After his election, the new Speaker John Bercow in a speech said that he would be giving up his party affiliation so that as Speaker he could be impartial as is required by the office. In the present political climate in Bangladesh, we cannot even dare to hope that we could have a Speaker comparable to the British Speaker. But then why can we not hope that the present Speaker of Bangladesh would at least have the courage and common sense to give the BNP the extra seats and get them to the Parliament. He should know better than anybody that a Parliament where the Opposition remains absent cannot be a democratic parliament no matter how much one would like to blame the BNP for the boycott or how correct it would be to do so. If he could muster that courage, he would in fact be doing the AL and Bangladesh a favour and teaching the BNP a lesson for its action when in power.

Indian High Commissioner provokes opposition on Tipaimukh

Published in The Daily Star, July 4, 2009


THE Indian High Commissioner in Dhaka Mr. Pinak Ranjan Chakravarti has taken the centre stage in our volatile politics, albeit for the wrong reasons. He has incurred the wrath of the BNP who has demanded his withdrawal immediately. According to media reports, the High Commissioner made disparaging remarks about the BNP without naming it for opposition to the proposed Tipaimukh dam at a seminar on regional connectivity sponsored by the India-Bangladesh Friendship Society. The Bangladesh Foreign Minister Dipu Moni was present as the chief guest.

The Indian High Commissioner has also been in the news before his controversial speech while making rounds in the Secretariat, explaining to the Ministers that the Tipaimukh dam will not be harmful for Bangladesh and that it would not be constructed in violation of international law. His efforts have been reasonably successful as some of the Ministers have supported him in the media; although, outside this small circle, significant opposition has been building up against the dam across a wide section of the people.

In fact, environmental groups and the civil society in Bangladesh were already at work articulating public opinion against Tipaimukh dam before the High Commissioner's speech. In Manipur where the dam will provide electricity and control floods, indigenous people have described it as a "death trap." Environmental groups there also have fiercely objected to this dam. There is a whole literature available on the internet on vicious opposition inside India to Tipaimukh. Quite expectedly, the BNP, sensing the political potentials, has been leading the opposition to the dam.

The issue has all it takes to arouse passion in Bangladesh. If constructed, it will affect Bangladesh's northeast the same way the Farakka Barrage has started environmental degradation in the north-western part of the country. This dam, like the Farakka, is on an international river that India has planned without proper consultation with Bangladesh as the lower riparian. The site of the dam is on an earthquake prone zone that raises the possibility of devastating the north eastern part of Bangladesh with water if the dam is destroyed by an earthquake in future.

The High Commissioner has not cared to take note of the passion building in Bangladesh or opposition in his own country over the dam. He said instead that Bangladesh has no position under international law to object to the project. The High Commissioner has dismissed the opposition to the dam as “India phobia” implying that the BNP is responsible for it, although to a vast majority of the people of Bangladesh, this is patriotism. In fact, thanks to the High Commissioner's efforts, he has brought “India phobia” and patriotism to mean the same in the context of the Tipaimukh issue.

The high commissioner's explanation that the proposed dam would not violate international law and, therefore, Bangladesh has no right of objection is very simplistic. There are serious legal issues that could be subject of a separate article. Additionally, Bangladesh Water Development Board officials in 2003 had informed through the media that the Tipaimukh dam is part of a grand plan to connect thirty international rivers that flow from India to Bangladesh by building man-made canals and dams to divert water from India's flood prone northeastern region to the relatively arid central provinces. The high commissioner has not mentioned about these serious matters concerning the dam that the public of Bangladesh are learning nevertheless as they become more and more concerned with the potential dangers.

In Bangladesh, we are more tolerant than any other capital in giving leeway to foreign ambassadors and high commissioners over their activities as guests in our country. We tolerate them even when they address press conferences to openly accuse us of being corrupt, ungovernable, etc. in contravention of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. In this case, the Indian high commissioner has trashed public sentiment over a very volatile issue and provoked the BNP, a major party in Bangladesh that has twice formed the government, leaving it with little choice than to react in the manner in which they did. He disparagingly made statements that questioned the expertise of Bangladeshi experts and accused opponents of the dam for “lies” in projecting the dangers of the dam.

The high commissioner should have been summoned to the Foreign Ministry for an explanation for these remarks, particularly those hinted at the BNP. Unfortunately that was not possible because the foreign minister was present when the high commissioner made his remarks. However, she chose to remain silent and gave the BNP an opportunity to shoot at two targets with one bullet. They have been looking for an opportunity to confront the high commissioner for his views on Tipaimukh in recent times. He has given them this opportunity in a silver platter by his speech. Dipu Moni's silence has come as a “political bonus” to the BNP as they called for her resignation together with the withdrawal of the Indian high commissioner.

The foreign minister seems to be finding herself increasingly on sticky wickets while facing the media. In this instance, the Indian high commissioner spoke before she did. She thus had the opportunity to react to the remarks. If she had an antenna attuned to diplomatic norms and deviations, she would have instantly realized that she has been put on a spot, just like she was when an Indian journalist caught her on the wrong foot with the question on “buffer state” during the visit of the Indian foreign minister in February.

Indian diplomats are well known for their professionalism and their calm under testing circumstances. They never reacted in the manner the present Indian high commissioner has even when provoked. In fact, Indian environmentalists oppose this dam more forcefully than ours do and that makes the tone of the high commissioner's remarks difficult to comprehend. During the last BNP government, the present high commissioner's predecessor was made to listen to an anti-Indian diatribe from then Bangladesh foreign minister in a seminar. She retained her calm during the seminar, which was then considered by everyone as a professional reaction to an unprofessional conduct.

In February this year, the Indian foreign minister visited Bangladesh as special envoy and met the army chief without meeting the leader of the opposition. In April, the Indian foreign secretary also met the army chief. These meetings have raised questions and concerns in Bangladesh about Indian intentions. The high commissioner's speech enhances these concerns because it suggests that India's diplomacy vis-à-vis Bangladesh is becoming more assertive and arrogant and less helpful for development of better Bangladesh-India relations.

Bangladesh is a deltaic plane where the rivers that flow from India through her into the Bay of Bengal give her the fertility to sustain one of the most densely populated parts of the world. The grand Indian Plan will turn this fertile deltaic plane into part desert and part land unfit for agriculture due to rising salinity. The proposed Tipaimukh dam will carry on this dangerous process started by the Farakka barrage by destroying the fertile Sylhet division that receives water from the Barak River into its Surma and Kushiara rivers. The high commissioner has suggested generation of electricity as a main reason for construction of the Tipaimukh dam. In fact, it will generate only 400 MW of electricity. If India, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan cooperate for building dams in Nepal where the terrain is natural for such projects, then there would be ten times more electricity with the added advantage of controlling dangerous floods in these parts. The argument of electricity generation from Tipaimukh dam is therefore a very weak one indeed compared to environmental threats and damages to Bangladesh-India relations that it would surely cause.

The prime minister correctly sensed that the Indian high commissioner has raised a politically harmful controversy for her party and Bangladesh. She has therefore asked the BNP to send its own experts to study Tipaimukh, whose opinion would be considered in adopting Bangladesh's response. The ministers have also stopped talking about the dam. The high commissioner's speech may in fact become a conduit in bridging the AL-BNP divide against Tipaimukh for its dangers to Bangladesh. It should now move the foreign ministry to enforce norms in the way ambassadors act in Bangladesh.

Moving towards a government by advisers?

Published in the Daily Star, April 16, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bangladesh, conspiracy theories and unraveling truth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hurdles to Regional Cooperation in South Asia

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

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

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

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

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

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

BDR carnage and International Crimes Tribunal Act, 1973

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Manpower Maelstrom

Published in The Daily Star, March 23, 2009


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Japanese investment in BD: Pros and cons

Japanese Ambassador His Excellency Masayuki Inonyue had done two notable things since December 29th elections. He arranged a telephone conversation between Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and the Japanese Prime Minister Mr. Taro Aso that should lead to positive developments in bilateral cooperation. Then in a seminar on export diversification he told his audience of businessmen that following the transition to democracy that will inspire Japanese investors, this is “very right time“ to attract Japanese investment, an advice if followed professionally could have dramatic impact on Bangladesh's economic development.

My four-year long tenure in Japan as Ambassador till April 2006 exposed me to many wonderful things about the country that has practically no natural resources. Japan was devastated following the Second World War. Yet, with great leadership and dedication of her people, Japan has become the second largest economy in the world. Japan's economic prowess is also another aspect that would strike anyone with awe and wonder. Unlike other developed nations, Japan has built up huge cash reserves both in the private and public sectors. These reserves have gone to China, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam as FDI, turning these countries from economic obscurity to economic prosperity.

During a farewell lunch hosted by the head of Japan's External Trade Organization (JETRO) I was told that Japan's investments in China had become saturated and unstable due to Sino-Japanese tension and Japanese companies were seeking newer pastures for relocating part of their investments within the concept of China plus one. He said in that context Bangladesh figured in the consideration of many Japanese investors for her strategic location in the mouth of the Bay of Bengal as a bridge between South and Southeast Asia. In my discussions with Japanese business chambers during my tenure, I could sense a clear interest among many of them in looking at Bangladesh as a serious investment destination. In fact, during the visit of Prime Minister Khaldea Zia to Japan in June 2005, there was an overflow of participants at her seminar on investment opportunities in Bangladesh that was held at the Keiderenan, the apex chamber of big businesses of Japan.

Japanese investment in Bangladesh has been negligible despite interest among Japanese investors. Japan ranked a lowly tenth among investing countries in 2006 with US $ 22.7 million in investment. During the era of elected Governments till 1/11, Bangladesh has talked a lot about the country being a great investment destination that was not matched at the delivery level. The last BNP Government had projected the Board of Investment as a one-stop investment body that would take care of all the needs of an investor. The Japanese Ambassador at that time addressed a letter that was leaked to the press that highlighted that the BoI was just another layer in the bureaucratic red tape that made investment more difficult and cumbersome. He cited corruption and red tapism as major obstacles that were dissuading Japanese investors. In a meeting of Japan Bangladesh Committee for Commercial and Economic Cooperation (JBCCEC) held in Tokyo in June 2000, political instability, red tapism and power problem were identified as the main obstacles for Japanese investment although the leader of the Japanese side at the meeting acknowledged Bangladesh's potentials. He had said: “"Bangladesh's labor is cheaper from security perspective, it enjoys very good position, and it has no ethnic problem and war like Sri Lanka.”

Bangladesh has never truly understood the importance of Japanese investment, definitely not in the way Malaysia has. When Mahathir Mohammad became the Prime Minister, he saw his neighbour Japan with too much cash reserves to invest. He took charge and adjusted his country's investment laws to suit the needs of Japanese investors and investment from Japan followed like water seeks its own level when obstacles are removed. Of course Malaysia simultaneously extended the infrastructure support needed for foreign investment, of which uninterrupted power supply is absolutely indispensible. At present times, it is not that just the Japanese investors in China are interested to relocate part of their Chinese investments in another destination. In Japan too, investors are looking for new investment destinations as the Japanese Ambassador has clearly hinted. When Mr. Koizumi was the Prime Minister, his favourite priority was to privatize the postal service so that the US$ 3 trillion lying idle there could be invested. That money will also come in the market for investment. There is enough cash in Japan waiting for foreign investment opportunities despite the economic meltdown in US that has pushed Japan into recession.

At a time when foreign aid from Bangladesh's development partners is declining, FDI is the most attractive alternative. Bangladesh's huge population, added to points already noted like good human resources and geographical location are extremely favourable incentives for attracting Japanese FDI. An added incentive could be the future prospect of South Asia under SAARC and BMSTEC becoming free trading zones that would attract any FDI to Bangladesh like the pin to the magnet for then one would also be speaking of a market of nearly 2 billion people. In this context, Japan should be the number one priority country with which to pursue the country's economic diplomacy. When the chief of Toyota visited Russia under President Putin, the latter spent a lot of time with the former to impress Toyota to set up a plant in Russia. That is the sort of wooing that would be required to bring Japanese investment to Bangladesh.

The democratic elections in Bangladesh have set the stage to bring Japanese FDI. However, there has to be major changes in mindset and infrastructure development to achieve the desired result. In an age of transparency, slogans will not get Bangladesh anywhere. It is time to make BoI the one stop investment institution by action and not words so that Japanese investors given permission for electricity, gas and telephone connections do not have to go to the utility companies for their permission as well. When all these are done so that there is no gap between what is said and what the investor receives, it will be the turn of the Prime Minister to give acquiring FDI investment from Japan the same leadership that Mahathir Mohammed gave in Malaysia when he acquired Japanese investment for his country. The Prime Minister could do so by undertaking an official visit to Japan and meeting the Japanese Prime Minister, political leaders, businessmen and investors. Bangladesh could seriously consider setting up an exclusive Japanese Economic Zone that the Prime Minister could announce during this trip. The bottom line is Japanese FDI could transform Bangladesh in a major way in the quickest possible time.

This Government has not started on the wrong foot with Japan as the last BNP Government had. The BNP Government had unilaterally cancelled the DAP 11 Agreement with Japan on assuming office that had infuriated them and relations were put on a limbo till the project was reactivated a year and half later. It was a very insensitive decision because Japan provides to Bangladesh assistance totaling around US$ 300 million a year that is more than double of what the US provides, and additionally Japan has unquestioned FDI potentials. Bangladesh's development partners who contribute far less act as pay masters. It is ”very right time” to make serious efforts to attract Japanese investment by letting Japanese businessmen and investors know that Bangladesh is willing to do its part to attract Japanese FDI. In this context, the Foreign Ministry must start the process immediately to arrange an official visit of the Prime Minister to Japan for attracting Japanese investment. Prime Minister Aso is disposed favourably towards Bangladesh and may not last long as Japanese elections are due later this year and elections may be called even earlier. To get maximum mileage in terms of furthering economic diplomacy with FDI as a major target, the visit should be arranged during Mr. Aso's watch.

Moving Bangladesh-India relations: Reviving Gujral Doctrine is the key

Published in The Daily Star, January 24, 2009

THE Indian Foreign Minister Mr. Pranab Mukherjee is going to be the first high profile foreign visitor to Bangladesh when he arrives in Dhaka as a Special Envoy of the Indian Prime Minister on February 8th. India has figured high in this government's priorities. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has spoken of the need for jointly tackling militancy and terrorism which, the Foreign Minister has resonated. The Minister for Water Resources has also spoken of the need to reactivate the Joint River Commission. The Indian High Commissioner is also making his Ministerial rounds harping upon the need for closer Bangladesh-India cooperation. Clearly, intent from both governments for improvement of bilateral relations is obvious.

Both countries have significant stakes for developing and sustaining friendly bilateral relations. Bangladesh's stakes are fundamental to her existence based on geopolitics and history. As an agricultural country, almost all the rivers that are her lifeline either originate in or flow through India. Bangladesh thus needs India to give her water sharing rights under international law as a lower riparian. Bangladesh has great economic potentials in the Bay of Bengal that is rich in sea resources and hydrocarbons but her ability to exploit these resources is in a spanner due to India's conflicting claims. There are also other serious issues related to trade imbalance, land boundary demarcation, etc. that make it extremely important for Bangladesh to be friendly with India. Then there is also the reason of history embedded in the fact that India extended assistance to Bangladesh in 1971 that impels Bangladesh to seek out India as a friend.

India's stakes in friendly relations are also significant and lie in a land transit from the Indian mainland to the seven eastern provinces or Seven Sisters that Bangladesh cuts into two that could lead to great economic benefit for these provinces and the use of Chittagong port that could also propel significant economic development there. In recent times, with militancy and terrorism getting worse in India, where security situation in her eastern provinces is extremely fragile, India is in desperate need of Bangladesh's assistance to win her war on terror. In fact, in the wake of the Mumbai carnage of November last year, the need to fight the war on terror has become the first item in India's agenda vis-à-vis Bangladesh.

Bangladesh-India relations have not developed for mutual benefit due to mutual mistrust, the stakes notwithstanding. Depending upon which side one takes, blame could be apportioned on the other for their not-so-friendly relations. The mistrust on Bangladesh's side has developed from India's denial to grant her share of waters of the common rivers law and demarcating her maritime boundary in accordance with international law. India has also not kept her commitment under the India-Mujib Agreement on land border. There is also a generally held view in Bangladesh that India is a physical threat, a fact often asserted in the common mind by the frequent shooting deaths in the border by the BSF of India. The bottom line of this negative perception is that Bangladesh feels that India is conscious of her role as a regional power but insensitive about her responsibilities to her neighbours. India feels that Bangladesh has not always conducted her foreign relations keeping India's interests in focus. This ill-feeling has enhanced further in the Indian mind because she has played a major role in Bangladesh's liberation struggle during which she has also looked after ten million refugees from Bangladesh who had fled to India to escape the Pakistani genocide. India also has serious security concerns arising from her belief that Bangladesh allows her territory to be used as sanctuary by Indian militants. India is also unhappy because Bangladesh has not reacted favorably to her requests for land transit and use of Chittagong port. Bangladesh had also earlier turned down India's request for purchase of gas, an issue no longer relevant.

The stars of Bangladesh-India relations are beginning to align correctly for a paradigm shift for the better as a result of change of both internal and external environment. However to achieve the shift, both sides must show political will. India must acknowledge that Bangladesh's claims on water sharing and the maritime boundary are based on international law and are crucial to her viability as a nation. Bangladesh must acknowledge that India's major requests, namely the land transit together with use of Chittagong port and security concerns are issues that Bangladesh must accept for long-term friendship with India although India's claims and requests are not of the same merit as her claims.

The India factor or an anti-India bias did not play any role in the December 29th elections that has sent the AL to power with such a humungous majority. But then, it would be un-wise to think that the India factor has gone. It has just receded into the background because other important issues such as the agenda of corruption under the BNP and trial of war criminals had captivated the attention of the voters. The India-factor could very well come into play strongly unless the two sides pay attention to sensitivities of the people of Bangladesh in trying to move relations ahead. In this context, the comments that the Indian High Commissioner have made on the Ganges water sharing agreement and land transit may not help improvement of bilateral relations. The High Commissioner's suggestion of transit and use of Chittagong port are issues of economics and connectivity, and Bangladesh will make money out of it. However, to stress that transit is not a political issue would give wrong signal to Bangladeshis who believe that India must not be given land transit unless she shows the political will to give Bangladesh her legitimate share of water from the common rivers and flexibility and accommodation on other outstanding issues. As for his view about depleting availability of water in the Ganges, the position is that as an upper riparian India has treaty obligations under the 1996 agreement to ensure that Bangladesh's share as the lower riparian never fell below 90% of the agreed quantum.

The India-factor should be kept in focus by Bangladesh before making any concessions; India must likewise take note of it before seeking any concession from Bangladesh when the two sides discuss bilateral issues during Mr. Pranab Mukherjee' visit. A revival of the Gujral Doctrine could work like magic here and could set the stage where outstanding issues of Bangladesh-India relations could be resolved or at least have a fair chance of resolution. The first principle of the five-point Gujral Doctrine was that with neighbours like Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives and Sri Lanka, India would not seek reciprocity but would give and accommodate what it can on good faith and trust. India must adopt a similar stance for long-term friendly relations. A start in that direction could be made by the Indian Foreign Minister by acceding to Bangladesh's maritime claims that should not be very difficult considering that this would mean India giving only a very small portion of her total territorial waters in the Bay of Bengal. For Bangladesh, this would mean a very great deal. It could also be any other outstanding issues upon which India could show that she is willing to accede without reciprocity. This could create confidence in Bangladesh to move ahead on terrorism and militancy to start with, and then slowly move towards transit and use of Chittagong port with India relenting on the water sharing issues where even Nepal and Bhutan could be brought into the loop to exploit the vast and rich potential of the rivers in the sub-region.

The ball is now in India's court. The peace dividends here are immense for both sides. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has acted wisely in speaking out positively on the issues of militancy and maritime boundary and it is now up to India to show the political will needed to shake Sheikh Hasina's hand. Bangladesh is a politically conscious nation where politics is moving towards maturity. India can settle her security concerns as well as transit need but she must first act responsively on Bangladesh's concerns regarding water sharing, maritime boundary and trade deficit.