Published in The Independent
January 29th., 2011
M. Serajul Islam
Under the law, local government elections have to be non-party based. None the less, the recently held municipal elections have been little else but party based. In a country where elections in public universities and professional bodies are overtly political where groups contesting in such elections openly expose their connections with the mainstream political parties , it is un-realistic to expect that political parties would have keep away from local government elections.
National leaders of the mainstream parties thus gave both covert and overt support in a variety of ways to their respective “unofficial” candidates as they have done in all past such elections in the recently held municipal elections. Such influence of the political parties was there for everyone to see more glaringly than in the past. In fact, the visit of the Prime Minister and former President Ershad to Rangpur just days before the elections in Rajshahi and Rangpur together was undertaken as a message to the voters in the local government elections there.
The ruling party has thus reasons to be concerned about the over-all results of these elections. In the 236 posts for which results were announced out of 242 contested, the AL backed candidates won 88 posts against 92 by BNP backed ones. Both parties faced rebellion from within. Such “rebel” candidates with link to the AL won 23 seats and 11won with link to the BNP. The Jamat won 5 posts while the Jatiya party only 1. The results of last round of these elections for 14 more municipalities were not available at the time of writing this piece.
The elections were peaceful in Rajshahi and Rangpur in the first phase but was not so in Barisal and Feni, Noakhali, and Laxmipur. The ruling party’s interference was noticeable in the later phases in Barisal where it won all but one seat and in Feni, Noakhali and Laxmipur where there was violence by the ruling party cadres leading to cancellation of election in a number of municipalities.
The Prime Minister described the elections as the most peaceful in Bangladesh’s history. The reversal of BNP’s fortunes in Barisal and violence in Feni, Noakhali and Laxmipur nevertheless makes the Prime Minister claim a little difficult to accept. However, after the BNP backed candidates fared well in Chittagong and Sylhet Division, credibility was restored to the elections. However, on balance, the elections were not convincing enough to show enough political maturity to abolish the Caretaker Government for national elections under the elected government that the ruling party would like.
The municipal elections were a report card on the status of politics in the country. Although nearly 7 million people voted, the voters were a mix that made the elections very interesting in the context of the politics of the country. It was neither held in the big cities nor in the rural areas but in small towns where the urban and rural population blend smoothly. Hence it helped reflect the mood of the people nationally more truthfully than national or rural/ union parisad elections.
The elections revealed that the huge popularity of the ruling party has waned a great deal in the last two years. It also exposed what is an open secret, that both the mainstream parties have problems within their respective parties. In many seats more 2 or more candidates have contested from the same party, one sanctioned by the party and the other not so who chose to contest anyway on his own. In case of the AL, 23 candidates won seats who have not been backed by the party. In case of the BNP; the number of such rebels was 10. In AL’s case, there was widespread suspicion that some senior members of the party who are not in favour of the party’s high command had encouraged the cause of the rebels. This was also true of the BNP but to a much lesser degree.
There were also a few other revelations worth noting. In the northern districts, the ruling coalition lost very badly and in Rangpur considered to be a forte of former President Ershad, the Jatiya Party linked candidates were wiped out. Even the joint appearance of the Prime Minister and the former President in what was covertly undertaken with the municipal elections in view; the voters rejected the ruling coalition. Nationally, the position of the Jatiya Party would be considerably weakened as a consequence of its poor performance in the municipal polls.
The election results were a clear message for the AL to shape up. It was however not an indication of a shift among the voters for the BNP as it would like to believe. Although the AL was eager to explain that these elections were fought on local ones where not national politics but personalities were on test, it was also mindful that a poor performance would have an impact upon its national standing. In that sense, it would do the AL a lot of good to accept the results as a wakeup call for the next national elections. It should be mindful that the people have taken note of the fact that it has not delivered on its election promises of cheaper prices of essentials, particularly rice, improved law and order; increased supply of power and trial of the war criminals. The BNP of can take heart from the elections that the AL is no longer invincible keeping the next elections in view. It could also feel happy that it put much less efforts in the elections than the AL but with better results.
The growth of private TV channels in a good number, private radio stations and of course the newspapers have helped bring down the wall between the nation’s capital and people living outside Dhaka. Thinking national is now the trend in the country. In the past, voters in the local level were influenced to vote for candidates of the ruling party to gain government’s assistance and support for local issues. In the municipal elections this time, the people have voted by giving national issues more importance than the local ones.
The law to keep local government elections non party based is also supported by the civil societies and for good reasons. Political parties would need large resources for direct involvement in such elections which in turn would mean investing more money and people. Such needs would force the parties to raise money through corrupt means such as extortion, etc. Further, it would lead the parties to take over local bodies directly using such control not for people’s welfare but their own. The negative and conflict ridden face of national politics would then be taken to the grassroots.
The existing law forbidding political parties from getting directly involved in local elections should continue. The results of the just concluded municipal elections could be a timely warning for both the political parties if they take lessons from it. For the AL, it could additionally encourage the Prime Minister to bring back to the Cabinet the party stalwarts that she has kept in the cold who have proven their strength that the former can ignore only at the party’s peril.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and a former Secretary to the Government.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
My Foreign Service Years: the Washington tenure
Published in The Independent, January 25th., 2011
M. Serajul Islam
My posting to our Embassy in Washington in June, 1990 was as a Political Counsellor was in a way like home coming for personal reasons. Of my six sisters, four lived at that time in Nashville, the home of country music. Apart from this personal angle of my posting to Washington, I found the tenure in world’s number one capital quite different from my two earlier postings to Canberra and New Delhi in a lot many ways.
Washington was those days as it is now, one of our bigger missions, somewhat the same size as the Embassy in New Delhi. It had all the attached wings as Commerce, Economic and Defense. My Ambassador upon arrival was Mr. Ataul Karim, a career diplomat of the 1955 batch of the erstwhile Pakistan Foreign Service. Ambassador Karim was then also concurrently accredited as the Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York. In effect, it was the Alternative Representative Mr. AHG Mohiuddin who was in charge with Ambassador Karim just lending his name in an ornamental way. Very soon after my arrival, Mr. AHG Mohiuddin was made the Permanent Representative.
Ambassador Karim was very reserved, somewhat introverted. He looked serious all the time and gave the impression of being a difficult boss. Before my posting to Washington, I had not served with him either at the Headquarters or in the Mission. Therefore my first few days with him were uneasy from my side. But as I settled down in the post, I found him pleasant; very understanding and compassionate. I remember a telephone call from Dhaka after I had been in the post for a year that my father was in his death bed. It was a Sunday and I called him on the phone to seek his permission to see him at the Residence with an application to go to Dhaka on emergency leave. When I met him, he just asked the condition of my father and signed the application praying that I would be able to see my father for one last time.
Soon after I arrived in my post, events in Dhaka had turned tense with the political movement against General Ershad at its peak. At the Embassy, we had a motley group that wanted the General’s end to come as quickly as possible. In the group, there was Brigadier Sabihuddin Ahmed who was posted to Washington as a Minister and who had a heart transplant operation before I arrived I my post. There was Mr. Mahbubul Alam, the current editor of The Independent who was then the Press Minister and Humayun Kabir who later was the Ambassador in Washington. In the weeks and days leading to the President Ershad’s downfall, some of us used to spend endless hours discussing the downfall and taking bets on how long the regime would last. On refection now about those days, I can only say that those 10 years of military government were unbearable and we were just impatient to see him go. It must nevertheless be said that although in the Embassy we were anxious to see President Ershad go, to the hosts we represented the military Government to the best of our abilities because while abroad as diplomats, we cannot oppose the government without opposing the country. Our enthusiasm to see the downfall of President Ershad was however not matched by Ambassador Karim who had been given a two years extension and thus wanted the President to continue.
President Ershad’s commitment of troops for the US led first Gulf War had made him a firm favourite of the US Government. The Mission’s standing with the US State Department was also enhanced substantially after our commitment of troops. Before the Gulf War, the Ambassador’s normal contact at the State Department was at the level of the Deputy Assistant Secretary and only on special occasions, was he able to meet the Assistant Secretary. During the Gulf War, Ambassador Karim was able to meet the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs on request very easily.
The Gulf War aside, President Ershad was able to befriend important people in the Washington based Prayer Breakfast Group, a conservative group with deep links in the Republican Party. In the late 80s, the Government had appointed Mr. Bannerman as a lobbyist in Washington who before becoming a lobbyist was a staffer of Republican Senator Richard Lugar. It was largely his contribution that led to the contact of President Ershad with the Breakfast Group. This Group those days was led by a gentleman named Mr. Douglas Coe. I was present in a couple of meetings between Ambassador Karim and Mr. Coe at the office of the Prayer Breakfast Group in Virginia not far from our Embassy in Wisconsin Avenue. The meetings were in preparation of the visit that President Ershad took to the United States in October, 1990. Mr. Douglas Coe and his Group hosted President Ershad in Colorado on a weekend of golf and leisure.
Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows. When President Ershad fell and democracy was established in Bangladesh, the United States, the champion of democracy, was not happy with the change. The reason was its national interest, that precedes all else in the conduct of foreign relations. If ever Bangladesh had made the US happy, it was President Ershad’s decision to commit troops for the Gulf War that Bangladesh did before most nations who joined the US led coalition. The US that was still involved in the war was wary that a new administration in Bangladesh would reverse President Ershad’s decision.
Those days, I used to accompany Ambassador Karim to all his official meetings. I remember both at the State Department and in the Congress, Ambassador Karim was spared no harsh words in conveying the US’s displeasure with politics in Bangladesh. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for South Asia those days was Mrs. Tereshita Schaffer whose husband Mr. Howard Schaffer was the US Ambassador to Dhaka and was a close friend of President Ershad. Ambassador Karim was summoned quite a few times to the State Department where Mrs. Tereshita Shaffer delivered strong messages about politics in Bangladesh where the USA’s concern was clearly in favour of General Ershad. In the Congress too Ambassador Karim faced the same music where the sentiment was in favour of the military regime.
Mr. Abul Ahsan, at that time the Foreign Secretary, was named to succeed Ambassador Ataul Karim after the BNP took office in Bangladesh. That angered the latter who felt that he should have been allowed to complete the extension that was given to him by the Ershad Government. Nevertheless, it was quite a few months before Mr. Abul Ahsan replaced him. In the meantime, Mr. Saifur Rahman paid a visit to Washington during which he had called on Congressman Tony Hall. At that meeting, the Congressman made a few blunt remarks in favour of Mr. Ershad who was by then in jail. Mr. Saifur Rahman gave the Congressman an emotional briefing about how he was taken to jail and the torture to which he was subjected by President Ershad’s intelligence. At one stage, he suddenly lifted his trouser up to the knee to show an injury mark that intelligence forces of President Ershad had inflicted on him. After the meeting, I could not help congratulating the Minister at the way he cornered the Congressman who just dropped the subject of President Ershad after the Minister’s briefing.
In fact, soon after that meeting, Brigadier Sabihuddin who by then had left the Embassy came to my office and asked me to give him a draft of a letter from Congressman Hall to then Prime Minister Khaleda Zia. Within a few hours, Brigadier Sabihuddin was back in my office with the letter signed by the Congressman and addressed to Prime Minister Khaleda Zia where he congratulated her and offered her his support for enhancement of Bangladesh-US relations! Brigadier Sabihuddin was given the letter to personally carry it to the Prime Minister. I wondered how this was done. Later I learnt and Brigadier Sabihuddin corroborated the fact that in the USA, the staffers of Congressmen most often sign such letter with an electronic pen where more often than not, Congressmen are unaware or just kept informed of such letters as the one to Begum Khaleda Zia.
Ambassador Ataul Karim passed away late last year, lamented by those who knew him as one of our finest diplomats. Brigadier Sabihuddin Ahmed died in Washington two years ago. He was an amazing man whom I respected for his great courage and integrity.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt and a former Secretary to the Government.
M. Serajul Islam
My posting to our Embassy in Washington in June, 1990 was as a Political Counsellor was in a way like home coming for personal reasons. Of my six sisters, four lived at that time in Nashville, the home of country music. Apart from this personal angle of my posting to Washington, I found the tenure in world’s number one capital quite different from my two earlier postings to Canberra and New Delhi in a lot many ways.
Washington was those days as it is now, one of our bigger missions, somewhat the same size as the Embassy in New Delhi. It had all the attached wings as Commerce, Economic and Defense. My Ambassador upon arrival was Mr. Ataul Karim, a career diplomat of the 1955 batch of the erstwhile Pakistan Foreign Service. Ambassador Karim was then also concurrently accredited as the Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York. In effect, it was the Alternative Representative Mr. AHG Mohiuddin who was in charge with Ambassador Karim just lending his name in an ornamental way. Very soon after my arrival, Mr. AHG Mohiuddin was made the Permanent Representative.
Ambassador Karim was very reserved, somewhat introverted. He looked serious all the time and gave the impression of being a difficult boss. Before my posting to Washington, I had not served with him either at the Headquarters or in the Mission. Therefore my first few days with him were uneasy from my side. But as I settled down in the post, I found him pleasant; very understanding and compassionate. I remember a telephone call from Dhaka after I had been in the post for a year that my father was in his death bed. It was a Sunday and I called him on the phone to seek his permission to see him at the Residence with an application to go to Dhaka on emergency leave. When I met him, he just asked the condition of my father and signed the application praying that I would be able to see my father for one last time.
Soon after I arrived in my post, events in Dhaka had turned tense with the political movement against General Ershad at its peak. At the Embassy, we had a motley group that wanted the General’s end to come as quickly as possible. In the group, there was Brigadier Sabihuddin Ahmed who was posted to Washington as a Minister and who had a heart transplant operation before I arrived I my post. There was Mr. Mahbubul Alam, the current editor of The Independent who was then the Press Minister and Humayun Kabir who later was the Ambassador in Washington. In the weeks and days leading to the President Ershad’s downfall, some of us used to spend endless hours discussing the downfall and taking bets on how long the regime would last. On refection now about those days, I can only say that those 10 years of military government were unbearable and we were just impatient to see him go. It must nevertheless be said that although in the Embassy we were anxious to see President Ershad go, to the hosts we represented the military Government to the best of our abilities because while abroad as diplomats, we cannot oppose the government without opposing the country. Our enthusiasm to see the downfall of President Ershad was however not matched by Ambassador Karim who had been given a two years extension and thus wanted the President to continue.
President Ershad’s commitment of troops for the US led first Gulf War had made him a firm favourite of the US Government. The Mission’s standing with the US State Department was also enhanced substantially after our commitment of troops. Before the Gulf War, the Ambassador’s normal contact at the State Department was at the level of the Deputy Assistant Secretary and only on special occasions, was he able to meet the Assistant Secretary. During the Gulf War, Ambassador Karim was able to meet the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs on request very easily.
The Gulf War aside, President Ershad was able to befriend important people in the Washington based Prayer Breakfast Group, a conservative group with deep links in the Republican Party. In the late 80s, the Government had appointed Mr. Bannerman as a lobbyist in Washington who before becoming a lobbyist was a staffer of Republican Senator Richard Lugar. It was largely his contribution that led to the contact of President Ershad with the Breakfast Group. This Group those days was led by a gentleman named Mr. Douglas Coe. I was present in a couple of meetings between Ambassador Karim and Mr. Coe at the office of the Prayer Breakfast Group in Virginia not far from our Embassy in Wisconsin Avenue. The meetings were in preparation of the visit that President Ershad took to the United States in October, 1990. Mr. Douglas Coe and his Group hosted President Ershad in Colorado on a weekend of golf and leisure.
Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows. When President Ershad fell and democracy was established in Bangladesh, the United States, the champion of democracy, was not happy with the change. The reason was its national interest, that precedes all else in the conduct of foreign relations. If ever Bangladesh had made the US happy, it was President Ershad’s decision to commit troops for the Gulf War that Bangladesh did before most nations who joined the US led coalition. The US that was still involved in the war was wary that a new administration in Bangladesh would reverse President Ershad’s decision.
Those days, I used to accompany Ambassador Karim to all his official meetings. I remember both at the State Department and in the Congress, Ambassador Karim was spared no harsh words in conveying the US’s displeasure with politics in Bangladesh. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for South Asia those days was Mrs. Tereshita Schaffer whose husband Mr. Howard Schaffer was the US Ambassador to Dhaka and was a close friend of President Ershad. Ambassador Karim was summoned quite a few times to the State Department where Mrs. Tereshita Shaffer delivered strong messages about politics in Bangladesh where the USA’s concern was clearly in favour of General Ershad. In the Congress too Ambassador Karim faced the same music where the sentiment was in favour of the military regime.
Mr. Abul Ahsan, at that time the Foreign Secretary, was named to succeed Ambassador Ataul Karim after the BNP took office in Bangladesh. That angered the latter who felt that he should have been allowed to complete the extension that was given to him by the Ershad Government. Nevertheless, it was quite a few months before Mr. Abul Ahsan replaced him. In the meantime, Mr. Saifur Rahman paid a visit to Washington during which he had called on Congressman Tony Hall. At that meeting, the Congressman made a few blunt remarks in favour of Mr. Ershad who was by then in jail. Mr. Saifur Rahman gave the Congressman an emotional briefing about how he was taken to jail and the torture to which he was subjected by President Ershad’s intelligence. At one stage, he suddenly lifted his trouser up to the knee to show an injury mark that intelligence forces of President Ershad had inflicted on him. After the meeting, I could not help congratulating the Minister at the way he cornered the Congressman who just dropped the subject of President Ershad after the Minister’s briefing.
In fact, soon after that meeting, Brigadier Sabihuddin who by then had left the Embassy came to my office and asked me to give him a draft of a letter from Congressman Hall to then Prime Minister Khaleda Zia. Within a few hours, Brigadier Sabihuddin was back in my office with the letter signed by the Congressman and addressed to Prime Minister Khaleda Zia where he congratulated her and offered her his support for enhancement of Bangladesh-US relations! Brigadier Sabihuddin was given the letter to personally carry it to the Prime Minister. I wondered how this was done. Later I learnt and Brigadier Sabihuddin corroborated the fact that in the USA, the staffers of Congressmen most often sign such letter with an electronic pen where more often than not, Congressmen are unaware or just kept informed of such letters as the one to Begum Khaleda Zia.
Ambassador Ataul Karim passed away late last year, lamented by those who knew him as one of our finest diplomats. Brigadier Sabihuddin Ahmed died in Washington two years ago. He was an amazing man whom I respected for his great courage and integrity.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt and a former Secretary to the Government.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Sunday, January 23, 2011
On schools, education and lottery
Published in The Independent, January 21st; 2011
M. Serajul Islam
Not very long ago, newspapers carried headline news with pictures that showed children and their parents involved in lottery to get seats in some of the city’s top schools! I expected leading newspapers would express indignation and civil societies great concern that such a predicament should await our children in a country where we spare no opportunity to stress our love and devotion to such issues as fundamental and human rights and democracy.
There was no editorial and no concern from any group on pushing our children and their guardians to face such a predicament. Worldwide, right of education up to the end of school level is taken for granted, with the government and the private sectors in pro-active partnership. Even in our Pakistani days, a period we tend to write off with contempt, things were better. Guardians could pick from a number of schools where they could place their children and the only thing that was required was for the children to take an admission test to enter a school of choice. Schooling those days for the middle and not so affluent section of the society was there for granted and we got it without asking.
Somewhere down the journey as an independent nation, our education system turned on its head. In Dhaka, private schools started to spring up like mushrooms, particularly in areas where the affluent reside, places like Dhanmandi, Gulshan and Banani. A schism was introduced into the educational system un-noticed or deliberately overlooked by those responsible for regulating education. The government schools of pre-independence days that provided quality education and were in high demand fell from grace as those well placed in the city and the novae riche started to send their children to these mushroom growth of new private schools. Some of the elites even sent their children to boarding schools in India.
In the midst of all these, the once excellent government schools of Dhaka to which the elites and the ordinary citizens of the city sent their children lost not just their standing but also the quality of education they once provided. Thus if the schools of Dhaka are to be taken as a yardstick for development, it could be very easily said that the country has moved away from the right direction. The rich and powerful and the poor do not send their children to the same schools anymore. The government schools are for the less affluent in society and hence the standard of education there does not seem to be the concern of those in position to assist these institutions because their children do not attend these institutions anyway.
It is indeed very sad that a sorry state of affairs dominate the education system in Dhaka. In the country, the situation is even worse. The once proud schools of the old district system of the Pakistani days, for instance the Government Zilla Schools, are there in name only. In the good old days, they used to compete with the best schools in Dhaka and often do better, particularly when it used to getting places in the merit lists of the SSC examinations. These days, two developments speak of the status of schools outside Dhaka. The Government finds it almost impossible to post officers from Dhaka to the districts because no one who has school going children are willing to leave the capital. Those who are forced to leave, do so without their families. Affluent people in the districts have a second home in Dhaka for their children’s education.
Added to these facts about schools in Dhaka and in the country, some more worrying aspects have been added that policy makers for strange reasons have avoided noticing. This is the commercialization of schools. Some of the private schools that have been established co-terminus with the failure of government schools to deliver or meet up with demand have started charging unbelievable sums as tuition fees, thus making good primary and secondary education out of the reach of the majority of the potential students with not so affluent parents. Instead of strengthening the existing government schools or establishing news schools to meet demand with rising population, successive governments instead poured money into colleges, turning hundreds of private colleges in the district and erstwhile sub-divisions into government institutions.
Nationalizing of private colleges would have made sense if the Government had adequate funds and wanted to extend higher secondary education to the common people. Unfortunately, the Government did not have the adequate funds and nationalized the colleges for purely political reasons and sadly, at the expense of the government schools. It has finally taken the Prime Minister to try and correct what has been a major flaw in the way successive governments have handled primary and secondary education, in other words schooling up to class 10.
Addressing Teachers and Employees Welfare Trust of Private Educational Institutions recently, the Prime Minister announced that the Government would establish 11 new schools in the capital to counteract what she termed as “admission business” by some vested quarters at some of the established schools in the city. No doubt she was referring to an open secret that seats in some of the leading schools are sold for cash. In one of these schools, parents have contested to become members of the school’s board in the same way politicians contest national or local elections, with all the festoons and placards and money for campaigning. The authorities should have cracked down on such interest of parents because this was an overt expression of the “vested quarters” to turn schools into establishments for corruption.
The whole country will soon be gripped by events for Bangla. We will witness our annual homage to the language martyrs and our commitment for our mother tongue. In the midst of these events, we should spare a moment and look at schools in Dhaka and see what we have done for the language. When Bangla was being cornered in the Pakistani days, there was just one school of worth in Dhaka that taught in the English medium. That school was St. Gregory’s that also had a Bengali medium section In Dhaka there are now just too many English medium schools to count. The elites and the well to do send their children to these schools and then turn up in public forums to give fiery speeches for Bangla! If their love for Bangla was genuine, they should have intervened when these schools were being established; encouraged those establishing them through laws and regulations to make Bangla the medium of instruction and at the same time ensure that English was taught as a second language. Sadly, in our school system neither the cause of Bangla nor the importance of English has been served in any meaningful way in schools where the vast majority of our children study.
Education is the backbone of any nation. It is not a cliché but the bottom line for development of any country. It is time that we focus on education, particularly at the school level. The past and existing faults in the system or the lack of it are obvious. The Prime Minister has set the right directions. Let our children not be hostage to business interests of vested quarters. We should be ashamed for subjecting our children to enter into lottery to get admitted in a school that should be his/her birth right.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt and a former Secretary to the Government.
M. Serajul Islam
Not very long ago, newspapers carried headline news with pictures that showed children and their parents involved in lottery to get seats in some of the city’s top schools! I expected leading newspapers would express indignation and civil societies great concern that such a predicament should await our children in a country where we spare no opportunity to stress our love and devotion to such issues as fundamental and human rights and democracy.
There was no editorial and no concern from any group on pushing our children and their guardians to face such a predicament. Worldwide, right of education up to the end of school level is taken for granted, with the government and the private sectors in pro-active partnership. Even in our Pakistani days, a period we tend to write off with contempt, things were better. Guardians could pick from a number of schools where they could place their children and the only thing that was required was for the children to take an admission test to enter a school of choice. Schooling those days for the middle and not so affluent section of the society was there for granted and we got it without asking.
Somewhere down the journey as an independent nation, our education system turned on its head. In Dhaka, private schools started to spring up like mushrooms, particularly in areas where the affluent reside, places like Dhanmandi, Gulshan and Banani. A schism was introduced into the educational system un-noticed or deliberately overlooked by those responsible for regulating education. The government schools of pre-independence days that provided quality education and were in high demand fell from grace as those well placed in the city and the novae riche started to send their children to these mushroom growth of new private schools. Some of the elites even sent their children to boarding schools in India.
In the midst of all these, the once excellent government schools of Dhaka to which the elites and the ordinary citizens of the city sent their children lost not just their standing but also the quality of education they once provided. Thus if the schools of Dhaka are to be taken as a yardstick for development, it could be very easily said that the country has moved away from the right direction. The rich and powerful and the poor do not send their children to the same schools anymore. The government schools are for the less affluent in society and hence the standard of education there does not seem to be the concern of those in position to assist these institutions because their children do not attend these institutions anyway.
It is indeed very sad that a sorry state of affairs dominate the education system in Dhaka. In the country, the situation is even worse. The once proud schools of the old district system of the Pakistani days, for instance the Government Zilla Schools, are there in name only. In the good old days, they used to compete with the best schools in Dhaka and often do better, particularly when it used to getting places in the merit lists of the SSC examinations. These days, two developments speak of the status of schools outside Dhaka. The Government finds it almost impossible to post officers from Dhaka to the districts because no one who has school going children are willing to leave the capital. Those who are forced to leave, do so without their families. Affluent people in the districts have a second home in Dhaka for their children’s education.
Added to these facts about schools in Dhaka and in the country, some more worrying aspects have been added that policy makers for strange reasons have avoided noticing. This is the commercialization of schools. Some of the private schools that have been established co-terminus with the failure of government schools to deliver or meet up with demand have started charging unbelievable sums as tuition fees, thus making good primary and secondary education out of the reach of the majority of the potential students with not so affluent parents. Instead of strengthening the existing government schools or establishing news schools to meet demand with rising population, successive governments instead poured money into colleges, turning hundreds of private colleges in the district and erstwhile sub-divisions into government institutions.
Nationalizing of private colleges would have made sense if the Government had adequate funds and wanted to extend higher secondary education to the common people. Unfortunately, the Government did not have the adequate funds and nationalized the colleges for purely political reasons and sadly, at the expense of the government schools. It has finally taken the Prime Minister to try and correct what has been a major flaw in the way successive governments have handled primary and secondary education, in other words schooling up to class 10.
Addressing Teachers and Employees Welfare Trust of Private Educational Institutions recently, the Prime Minister announced that the Government would establish 11 new schools in the capital to counteract what she termed as “admission business” by some vested quarters at some of the established schools in the city. No doubt she was referring to an open secret that seats in some of the leading schools are sold for cash. In one of these schools, parents have contested to become members of the school’s board in the same way politicians contest national or local elections, with all the festoons and placards and money for campaigning. The authorities should have cracked down on such interest of parents because this was an overt expression of the “vested quarters” to turn schools into establishments for corruption.
The whole country will soon be gripped by events for Bangla. We will witness our annual homage to the language martyrs and our commitment for our mother tongue. In the midst of these events, we should spare a moment and look at schools in Dhaka and see what we have done for the language. When Bangla was being cornered in the Pakistani days, there was just one school of worth in Dhaka that taught in the English medium. That school was St. Gregory’s that also had a Bengali medium section In Dhaka there are now just too many English medium schools to count. The elites and the well to do send their children to these schools and then turn up in public forums to give fiery speeches for Bangla! If their love for Bangla was genuine, they should have intervened when these schools were being established; encouraged those establishing them through laws and regulations to make Bangla the medium of instruction and at the same time ensure that English was taught as a second language. Sadly, in our school system neither the cause of Bangla nor the importance of English has been served in any meaningful way in schools where the vast majority of our children study.
Education is the backbone of any nation. It is not a cliché but the bottom line for development of any country. It is time that we focus on education, particularly at the school level. The past and existing faults in the system or the lack of it are obvious. The Prime Minister has set the right directions. Let our children not be hostage to business interests of vested quarters. We should be ashamed for subjecting our children to enter into lottery to get admitted in a school that should be his/her birth right.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt and a former Secretary to the Government.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
Saturday, January 8, 2011
On Bangladesh and Secularism
The Independent
Post Editorial
Saturday, 08 January 2011
Author / Source : M Serajul Islam
The annulment of the 5th Amendment by the Supreme Court early in the current term of the Awami League led to the need to restore certain fundamental elements of the 1972 Constitution that the 5th Amendment had deleted. Of these, the need to restore secularism is the most important. A section within the ruling party and civil society has been putting strong pressure on the government for its restoration. In a parliament where the Awami League has a 3/4th majority, acceding to the demands of these groups is a fairly simple matter. The Law Minister who has the primary responsibility for restoring secularism as a fundamental principle of state policy has assured unequivocally that this would be done. Nevertheless, a long time has elapsed but the government has not yet restored secularism in the Constitution.
The delay naturally raises questions in the public mind on whether the government has doubts about the issue. The delay also gives credence to what some feel that restoration of secularism in the Constitution may not be as easy as the protagonists would like them to believe. When the 1972 Constitution was written, the country had just become independent after a war of liberation during which the Pakistani army and their local collaborators used Islam to justify genocide and crimes against humanity. Thus when Secularism together with Nationalism, Socialism and Democracy were named as fundamental principles of state policy, the provision was perfectly in tune with the sentiments and emotions of the people.
The period preceding the 5th Amendment was tumultuous in the history of Bangladesh. The 4th Amendment, better known as the BAKSAL amendment, had frustrated a lot of people. Thereafter the dastardly nature of the assassination of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his family added to their disappointment and frustrations. Hence when Secularism was deleted and Islam and other Islamic provisions inserted, there was indifference among the people who had more serious issues to be concerned with. During the decade-long Ershad regime, when democracy was held captive, the movement was against the military dictatorship. The political leadership of both the BNP and the AL that led the movement were too involved with restoring democracy and not secularism. There was little interest to restore secularism as a state principle even after democratic rule was restored in 1991. In its first term in office, the AL too was little bothered with secularism. In fact, the demand for bringing back secularism into the Constitution was the result of the High Court ruling of 2005 during the BNP era.
When a plaintiff asked for a ruling against a martial law regulation against the ownership of Moon Cinema, the Court ruled the entire 5th Amendment that had deleted secularism had also validated executive orders under martial law following the change of government in August 1975, as illegal. The BNP Government used legal means to hold the ruling of the High Court from going to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for a final ruling but when the AL returned, it moved the Supreme Court that called upon the government to restore the 1972 Constitution, not just with the issue of secularism but together with the Islamic provisions introduced through the 5th Amendment.
More than three decades have passed by between the deletion of secularism and introduction of the Islamic provisions. In those three decades, while the people politically marginalized the parties who collaborated with the Pakistanis in 1971 and used Islam as a political weapon, Islam itself gained in strength. Further, Bangladesh is an overwhelmingly Muslim majority country where the majority of the people are good Muslims who love their religion. Most of them are not educated enough to understand secularism the way its protagonists know and understand the concept.
Unfortunately the latter in their enthusiasm to turn Bangladesh secular by re-insertion of the concept into the Constitution also went ahead and demanded the banning of political parties that use religion as a strategy. This was reflected in the media as a call for banning Islam-based political parties. In fact, senior leaders of the ruling party have demanded the banning of the Jamaat-e-Islami that is an Islam-based party.
As things stand, the government must just not reinsert secularism to abide by the court’s ruling on the annulment of the 5th Amendment but must also ban parties that use religion as well and other Islamic insertions such as making Islam a state religion. If these are not done, the secular character of the Constitution cannot be restored nor the court’s ruling. There lies the dilemma because the government is aware of the consequences of taking out the Islamic provisions. As one senior civil servant said in a TV talk show: taking out secularism was easy but once the Islamic provisions have been inserted, taking these out in a predominantly Muslim state like Bangladesh would be almost impossible unless the government wants to establish secularism in the Constitution at any cost. Clearly, the government is unwilling to take the test and statements have been made by senior leaders of the ruling party that the Islamic provisions introduced by the 5th and 7th amendments would not be taken out of the Constitution.
Between the 5th Amendment and today, while Islamic parties have been marginalized, Islam itself has grown stronger. Thanks to the international press, with the active support of the media next door, and encouragement given to Islamic fundamentalists by the last BNP Government, a wrong perception was given about Bangladesh that it was going the fundamentalist way. However, with the end of the BNP tenure, the fundamentalist threat folded and even the executions of the top terrorists like Bangla Bhai and his associates did not cause the faintest of backlash. Those five years of BNP notwithstanding, Islam has become a moral and ethical alternative to many, including the new generations.
It is time to take a fresh look at Islam in Bangladesh in a historical perspective. Bangladesh has not seen the type of communalism the rest of South Asia has seen. The majority Muslims of Bengal, later East Pakistan and now Bangladesh have lived in harmony with the minority Hindus. In next door India, Hindu-Muslim riots occur regularly where, as in the Gujarat riots, the State Government has actively participated against the Muslims. In recent times, Christians have shared the fate of the Muslims in the wake of rising Hindu fundamentalism. Yet, India protects secularism as a constitutional guarantee; Bangladesh does not. In one of the WikiLeaks disclosure, Rahul Gandhi has been quoted expressing more fear for Hindu fundamentalism than Islamic. Bangladesh, on evidence, thus has better secular credentials without constitutional guarantee than India with it.
The reason is a simple one. Bangladeshi Muslims are by nature secular. They respect religious leaders on religious matters but when the religious leaders have sought their votes, Bangladeshi Muslims have always rejected them. There is thus a safety net among Bangladeshi Muslims against Islamic fundamentalism and those who use Islam for politics.
Therefore, inserting secularism at the expense of the Islamic provisions and banning religion based parties in the Constitution would achieve little but could hurt the Islamic sentiments of the people and, in case of Jamaat, end up giving it a cause to fight and create political instability. Without taking the Islamic provisions out and without banning parties like Jamaat and just inserting secularism would leave the Constitution facing a contradiction that would demean its credibility.
Thus the government needs to show maturity in dealing with secularism if it wants to save the country from becoming another Algeria. The Islamic fundamentalists have no cause now. If the issue of secularism is not handled with a perspective of history and reality, it could create the very conditions for which the Islamic fundamentalists are praying.
The writer is a former ambassador to Japan and Egypt and a former Secretary to the Government of Bangladesh
Post Editorial
Saturday, 08 January 2011
Author / Source : M Serajul Islam
The annulment of the 5th Amendment by the Supreme Court early in the current term of the Awami League led to the need to restore certain fundamental elements of the 1972 Constitution that the 5th Amendment had deleted. Of these, the need to restore secularism is the most important. A section within the ruling party and civil society has been putting strong pressure on the government for its restoration. In a parliament where the Awami League has a 3/4th majority, acceding to the demands of these groups is a fairly simple matter. The Law Minister who has the primary responsibility for restoring secularism as a fundamental principle of state policy has assured unequivocally that this would be done. Nevertheless, a long time has elapsed but the government has not yet restored secularism in the Constitution.
The delay naturally raises questions in the public mind on whether the government has doubts about the issue. The delay also gives credence to what some feel that restoration of secularism in the Constitution may not be as easy as the protagonists would like them to believe. When the 1972 Constitution was written, the country had just become independent after a war of liberation during which the Pakistani army and their local collaborators used Islam to justify genocide and crimes against humanity. Thus when Secularism together with Nationalism, Socialism and Democracy were named as fundamental principles of state policy, the provision was perfectly in tune with the sentiments and emotions of the people.
The period preceding the 5th Amendment was tumultuous in the history of Bangladesh. The 4th Amendment, better known as the BAKSAL amendment, had frustrated a lot of people. Thereafter the dastardly nature of the assassination of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his family added to their disappointment and frustrations. Hence when Secularism was deleted and Islam and other Islamic provisions inserted, there was indifference among the people who had more serious issues to be concerned with. During the decade-long Ershad regime, when democracy was held captive, the movement was against the military dictatorship. The political leadership of both the BNP and the AL that led the movement were too involved with restoring democracy and not secularism. There was little interest to restore secularism as a state principle even after democratic rule was restored in 1991. In its first term in office, the AL too was little bothered with secularism. In fact, the demand for bringing back secularism into the Constitution was the result of the High Court ruling of 2005 during the BNP era.
When a plaintiff asked for a ruling against a martial law regulation against the ownership of Moon Cinema, the Court ruled the entire 5th Amendment that had deleted secularism had also validated executive orders under martial law following the change of government in August 1975, as illegal. The BNP Government used legal means to hold the ruling of the High Court from going to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for a final ruling but when the AL returned, it moved the Supreme Court that called upon the government to restore the 1972 Constitution, not just with the issue of secularism but together with the Islamic provisions introduced through the 5th Amendment.
More than three decades have passed by between the deletion of secularism and introduction of the Islamic provisions. In those three decades, while the people politically marginalized the parties who collaborated with the Pakistanis in 1971 and used Islam as a political weapon, Islam itself gained in strength. Further, Bangladesh is an overwhelmingly Muslim majority country where the majority of the people are good Muslims who love their religion. Most of them are not educated enough to understand secularism the way its protagonists know and understand the concept.
Unfortunately the latter in their enthusiasm to turn Bangladesh secular by re-insertion of the concept into the Constitution also went ahead and demanded the banning of political parties that use religion as a strategy. This was reflected in the media as a call for banning Islam-based political parties. In fact, senior leaders of the ruling party have demanded the banning of the Jamaat-e-Islami that is an Islam-based party.
As things stand, the government must just not reinsert secularism to abide by the court’s ruling on the annulment of the 5th Amendment but must also ban parties that use religion as well and other Islamic insertions such as making Islam a state religion. If these are not done, the secular character of the Constitution cannot be restored nor the court’s ruling. There lies the dilemma because the government is aware of the consequences of taking out the Islamic provisions. As one senior civil servant said in a TV talk show: taking out secularism was easy but once the Islamic provisions have been inserted, taking these out in a predominantly Muslim state like Bangladesh would be almost impossible unless the government wants to establish secularism in the Constitution at any cost. Clearly, the government is unwilling to take the test and statements have been made by senior leaders of the ruling party that the Islamic provisions introduced by the 5th and 7th amendments would not be taken out of the Constitution.
Between the 5th Amendment and today, while Islamic parties have been marginalized, Islam itself has grown stronger. Thanks to the international press, with the active support of the media next door, and encouragement given to Islamic fundamentalists by the last BNP Government, a wrong perception was given about Bangladesh that it was going the fundamentalist way. However, with the end of the BNP tenure, the fundamentalist threat folded and even the executions of the top terrorists like Bangla Bhai and his associates did not cause the faintest of backlash. Those five years of BNP notwithstanding, Islam has become a moral and ethical alternative to many, including the new generations.
It is time to take a fresh look at Islam in Bangladesh in a historical perspective. Bangladesh has not seen the type of communalism the rest of South Asia has seen. The majority Muslims of Bengal, later East Pakistan and now Bangladesh have lived in harmony with the minority Hindus. In next door India, Hindu-Muslim riots occur regularly where, as in the Gujarat riots, the State Government has actively participated against the Muslims. In recent times, Christians have shared the fate of the Muslims in the wake of rising Hindu fundamentalism. Yet, India protects secularism as a constitutional guarantee; Bangladesh does not. In one of the WikiLeaks disclosure, Rahul Gandhi has been quoted expressing more fear for Hindu fundamentalism than Islamic. Bangladesh, on evidence, thus has better secular credentials without constitutional guarantee than India with it.
The reason is a simple one. Bangladeshi Muslims are by nature secular. They respect religious leaders on religious matters but when the religious leaders have sought their votes, Bangladeshi Muslims have always rejected them. There is thus a safety net among Bangladeshi Muslims against Islamic fundamentalism and those who use Islam for politics.
Therefore, inserting secularism at the expense of the Islamic provisions and banning religion based parties in the Constitution would achieve little but could hurt the Islamic sentiments of the people and, in case of Jamaat, end up giving it a cause to fight and create political instability. Without taking the Islamic provisions out and without banning parties like Jamaat and just inserting secularism would leave the Constitution facing a contradiction that would demean its credibility.
Thus the government needs to show maturity in dealing with secularism if it wants to save the country from becoming another Algeria. The Islamic fundamentalists have no cause now. If the issue of secularism is not handled with a perspective of history and reality, it could create the very conditions for which the Islamic fundamentalists are praying.
The writer is a former ambassador to Japan and Egypt and a former Secretary to the Government of Bangladesh
Sunday, January 2, 2011
‘Pat down’ for Indian ambassador sets US-India on course of conflict
Published in The Daily Sun, 2nd January, 2011
M. Serajul Islam
India and the United States are caught in a diplomatic row that contrasts sharply with the ambiance that surrounded the state visit of President Obama last November when both nations were gaga over visit that had opened a new era of bilateral relations. The row is over the Indian ambassador to Washington Meera Shankar. On an official visit to Mississippi, the Ambassador was subjected to humiliating security check at Jackson Airport even after the security officials were informed that she was the Indian ambassador to the United States.
The ambassador was not subjected to the routine security checks that are uncomfortable but customary in US airports. Meera Shankar faced “pat down” check after she was singled out because she was wearing the sari. The “pat down” security has been recently introduced by the Transport Security Authority (TSA) together with a new full body scanning machine that scans the entire body of the passenger for the officials to see through an individual’s clothing that many passengers, particularly from Muslim and conservative societies, find offensive. A passenger has the choice of the “pat down” or the scanning machine. Where the “pat down” is chosen, a security official feels every part of the passenger’s body. A female passenger can ask for a female security official for the “pat down” security check.
The ambassador’s conflict with airport security officials was not the first time an Indian ambassador has been subjected to humiliating checks at airport security. Meera Shankar’s predecessor Ronen Sen and his wife during their four years’ stay in USA were subjected to humiliating checks a number of times even after security officials were aware of their diplomatic status. Indian diplomats and dignitaries seem to have problem at US airports fairly regularly. Former Indian Defense Minister George Fernandez had two serious conflicts with US security; one at IAD when he was on an official visit. Recently, Indian Minister for Civil Aviation Praful Patel was subjected to humiliations at Chicago airport but the Indian Government let that pass because the Minister was on a private visit to USA. On November 13, Indian permanent representative to the UN Hardeep Singh Puri was asked to take his turban off at Austin Airport, Texas. After a 20 minutes hassle, the security allowed Hardeep Singh to check his own turban and later the security examined his hands for explosives! WikiLeaks leaks on communications from the US Secretary of State recently did not show that Hillary Clinton was particularly happy with Indian diplomats.
Quite understandably, Meera Shankar was very angry and let her anger be known to the officials at Jackson and to the State Department at Washington. New Delhi was furious. Indian Foreign Minister Krishnan called the incident “unacceptable” and said that the Indian Government would take it up officially with US Government so that “such unpleasant incidents do not recur.” US Secretary of State asked for an inquiry but did not apologize while TSA said that security officials applied the checks according to procedure.
The incidents have raised the issue of treatment of diplomats in the host country. The State Department is placing security needs ahead of diplomatic niceties, even in case of ambassadors. The Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations (VCDR) is clear; the host country should ensure that diplomats do not face hindrance to perform the functions for which they are sent. All that the host asks in reciprocity for granting diplomats such privileges is for them to agree not to interfere in the politics of the host country. The VCDR does not however clarify whether diplomats are exempt from security checks at airports to include incidents arising out of “pat down” checks simply because when the Convention was written, no one visualised that one day there would be a 9/11 and diplomats would be subjected to all sorts of security checks, even humiliating ones as the pat down or the scanner. “Pat down” and full body scan are not routine checks; they run into fundamental conflict in allowing an ambassador the freedom s/he needs to perform their job. Meera Shankar has said she would never again travel to Mississippi and subject herself to such humiliation.
Official opinion backs the controversial systems but Americans are divided over it. Nevertheless, one cannot question the need to meet security loopholes ahead of diplomats’ privileges. One must of course question whether TSA’s scanner and “pat down” systems have been deployed with due consideration to what is proper for many who are diplomats, or come from foreign cultures. It is not that the TSA has not even thought of such considerations; it has gone ahead and implemented the systems on totally wrong presumptions. In case of both Meera Shankar and Hardeep Singh Puri, the mistakes have been blatantly flagged. TSA assumed both Meera Shankar and Hardeep Singh’s dresses were those likely to be worn by potential terrorists. Unfortunately, one is a Hindu and the other a Sikh and they follow religions not connected with those that the TSA subjectively consider as potential terrorists.
Diplomatic norms notwithstanding, “pat down” and full body scanning are offensive for cultural reasons to people of other cultures who are otherwise perfect model for any security system. Scanning is so offensive to women of not just Muslim culture but all oriental cultures that they would give up travelling rather than subject themselves to a scanner. These women would also feel offended if they were being subjected to the search that is required under “pat down” even where carried out by a female TSA official.
That brings us back to the issue of treatment to diplomats. There are many like these two ambassadors who wear the sari and the turban for cultural and religious reasons. Therefore to accede to the TSA dictate, the Vienna Convention would need to be amended and diplomats should be warned against the sari and the turban which would cause a major impediment to the freedom of a diplomat and conflict with the spirit of VCDR on treatment of diplomats in a host country.
There has to be a way around this issue. The TSA must surely realise that they have run the risk of being accused of racial profiling and that too, on mistaken assumptions with the sari and turban. It is not that all those wearing the sari are subjected to “pat down”. They let go many sari wearing and turbaned passengers without the “pat down”. Former permanent representative of Bangladesh to the UN Anawarul Karim Chowdhury, when interviewed by Washington Post in connection with the Meera Shankar incident, said that he and his wife who wears the sari have travelled frequently without hassle. Hence in case of the Indian ambassador, the “pat down” could have been avoided by other security checks.
In the coming days and weeks, India and the US will surely work this out. Meanwhile, there will be a lot of people who would anxiously watch the outcome. Whatever the outcome, the privileged days of diplomats are on the decline. Is there diplomatic immunity anymore?
Writer is a former ambassador to Japan and Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.
M. Serajul Islam
India and the United States are caught in a diplomatic row that contrasts sharply with the ambiance that surrounded the state visit of President Obama last November when both nations were gaga over visit that had opened a new era of bilateral relations. The row is over the Indian ambassador to Washington Meera Shankar. On an official visit to Mississippi, the Ambassador was subjected to humiliating security check at Jackson Airport even after the security officials were informed that she was the Indian ambassador to the United States.
The ambassador was not subjected to the routine security checks that are uncomfortable but customary in US airports. Meera Shankar faced “pat down” check after she was singled out because she was wearing the sari. The “pat down” security has been recently introduced by the Transport Security Authority (TSA) together with a new full body scanning machine that scans the entire body of the passenger for the officials to see through an individual’s clothing that many passengers, particularly from Muslim and conservative societies, find offensive. A passenger has the choice of the “pat down” or the scanning machine. Where the “pat down” is chosen, a security official feels every part of the passenger’s body. A female passenger can ask for a female security official for the “pat down” security check.
The ambassador’s conflict with airport security officials was not the first time an Indian ambassador has been subjected to humiliating checks at airport security. Meera Shankar’s predecessor Ronen Sen and his wife during their four years’ stay in USA were subjected to humiliating checks a number of times even after security officials were aware of their diplomatic status. Indian diplomats and dignitaries seem to have problem at US airports fairly regularly. Former Indian Defense Minister George Fernandez had two serious conflicts with US security; one at IAD when he was on an official visit. Recently, Indian Minister for Civil Aviation Praful Patel was subjected to humiliations at Chicago airport but the Indian Government let that pass because the Minister was on a private visit to USA. On November 13, Indian permanent representative to the UN Hardeep Singh Puri was asked to take his turban off at Austin Airport, Texas. After a 20 minutes hassle, the security allowed Hardeep Singh to check his own turban and later the security examined his hands for explosives! WikiLeaks leaks on communications from the US Secretary of State recently did not show that Hillary Clinton was particularly happy with Indian diplomats.
Quite understandably, Meera Shankar was very angry and let her anger be known to the officials at Jackson and to the State Department at Washington. New Delhi was furious. Indian Foreign Minister Krishnan called the incident “unacceptable” and said that the Indian Government would take it up officially with US Government so that “such unpleasant incidents do not recur.” US Secretary of State asked for an inquiry but did not apologize while TSA said that security officials applied the checks according to procedure.
The incidents have raised the issue of treatment of diplomats in the host country. The State Department is placing security needs ahead of diplomatic niceties, even in case of ambassadors. The Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations (VCDR) is clear; the host country should ensure that diplomats do not face hindrance to perform the functions for which they are sent. All that the host asks in reciprocity for granting diplomats such privileges is for them to agree not to interfere in the politics of the host country. The VCDR does not however clarify whether diplomats are exempt from security checks at airports to include incidents arising out of “pat down” checks simply because when the Convention was written, no one visualised that one day there would be a 9/11 and diplomats would be subjected to all sorts of security checks, even humiliating ones as the pat down or the scanner. “Pat down” and full body scan are not routine checks; they run into fundamental conflict in allowing an ambassador the freedom s/he needs to perform their job. Meera Shankar has said she would never again travel to Mississippi and subject herself to such humiliation.
Official opinion backs the controversial systems but Americans are divided over it. Nevertheless, one cannot question the need to meet security loopholes ahead of diplomats’ privileges. One must of course question whether TSA’s scanner and “pat down” systems have been deployed with due consideration to what is proper for many who are diplomats, or come from foreign cultures. It is not that the TSA has not even thought of such considerations; it has gone ahead and implemented the systems on totally wrong presumptions. In case of both Meera Shankar and Hardeep Singh Puri, the mistakes have been blatantly flagged. TSA assumed both Meera Shankar and Hardeep Singh’s dresses were those likely to be worn by potential terrorists. Unfortunately, one is a Hindu and the other a Sikh and they follow religions not connected with those that the TSA subjectively consider as potential terrorists.
Diplomatic norms notwithstanding, “pat down” and full body scanning are offensive for cultural reasons to people of other cultures who are otherwise perfect model for any security system. Scanning is so offensive to women of not just Muslim culture but all oriental cultures that they would give up travelling rather than subject themselves to a scanner. These women would also feel offended if they were being subjected to the search that is required under “pat down” even where carried out by a female TSA official.
That brings us back to the issue of treatment to diplomats. There are many like these two ambassadors who wear the sari and the turban for cultural and religious reasons. Therefore to accede to the TSA dictate, the Vienna Convention would need to be amended and diplomats should be warned against the sari and the turban which would cause a major impediment to the freedom of a diplomat and conflict with the spirit of VCDR on treatment of diplomats in a host country.
There has to be a way around this issue. The TSA must surely realise that they have run the risk of being accused of racial profiling and that too, on mistaken assumptions with the sari and turban. It is not that all those wearing the sari are subjected to “pat down”. They let go many sari wearing and turbaned passengers without the “pat down”. Former permanent representative of Bangladesh to the UN Anawarul Karim Chowdhury, when interviewed by Washington Post in connection with the Meera Shankar incident, said that he and his wife who wears the sari have travelled frequently without hassle. Hence in case of the Indian ambassador, the “pat down” could have been avoided by other security checks.
In the coming days and weeks, India and the US will surely work this out. Meanwhile, there will be a lot of people who would anxiously watch the outcome. Whatever the outcome, the privileged days of diplomats are on the decline. Is there diplomatic immunity anymore?
Writer is a former ambassador to Japan and Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.
Friday, December 31, 2010
On newspaper editorials and commentaries
Published in The Independent
January 1st , 2011
M. Serajul Islam
There is something unique that most newspaper editors do in Bangladesh. They frequently write columns that they call a commentary in which they raise issues that they consider are of national importance. In these commentaries, they often hold what could in plain words be described as a trial of top political leaders, often even the Prime Minister, raising questions that they think they have a duty to do this. Often, the assumptions on which they ask such questions are subjective and politically biased. I wonder what purpose these commentaries serve as the political leaders to whom they are directed pay no heed. However, there is little to wonder that these commentaries allow the editors to satisfy their egos for they just not only ask questions in their commentaries to the top political leadership; they deliver judgments too. In fact, the editors aside, there are none in the country who have such awe inspiring powers except when they care to take on the judges!
Newspapers outside Bangladesh perform this function that our newspapers do through commentaries simply with their editorial; but seldom as overtly as our newspapers and editors do in their commentaries. The editorial is an important part of a newspaper, in fact it is the most important one that makes or breaks a newspaper and is never taken lightly. In the editorial, the editor brings his experience not just to express opinions on issues of national and international importance; sometimes such opinions even set the political direction of the country. The editor has what is universal everywhere; a column of his own to bring such opinions before the politicians and the nation. The editorial does not merely tell the reader about the ability of the editor; it really sets the standard of a newspaper. The editorial is often the product of an editorial board that most newspapers have to make its quality and content beyond reproach.
Editorials are not sermons. The better editorials are focused, crisp and as objective as one can get. Editorials are supposed to be short so that it can hold the reader’s interest. Whether a daily is worth the paper on which it is printed is easily assessed by the readers’ interest in reading the editorial as an indispensible part of what he/she reads when he/she holds the paper. The credibility of a daily is also determined by the importance the government gives to what is said about its policies in the editorials.
In Bangladesh, editorials have not evolved in the way it has in other countries. Rarely has any newspaper in Bangladesh been able to reach that level of credibility where its editorial has left the government with no alternative but to accept the message in it and act according to it. Nor have newspapers been able to place a government in a predicament where it could ignore the message in the editorial at a political price. Our editorials have not reached that level of credibility or acceptability.
Editorials reach credibility and acceptability on the strength of their ability to influence and motivate the public. Our newspaper editorials have failed to achieve this either because editorials have generally taken political lines, which is generally not a negative factor. Unfortunately, in the context of Bangladesh’s politics, political lines in editorials end by dividing the people and hence losing credibility. The two years of Emergency have further diminished the acceptance of the editorials to the public. A number of leading newspapers that had acquired or were beginning to acquire the sort of acceptance that newspapers of merit have in many of the world’s capitals were caught with their pants down backing the Emergency.
These newspapers made the mistake that a newspaper should not make. The newspapers got interested in playing politics. They crossed the fine line between suggesting to the political leadership what is good for the country to getting involved in politics and forcing the changes themselves. They got interested in protecting the so-called Third Force and in the end what they achieved was the company and friendship of corrupt and anti-democratic elements of the society. It would take these newspapers a long time before they can regain the credibility in their editorials.
It does not seem like the newspapers of Bangladesh are going about the way to regain public confidence as newspapers do elsewhere. They still seem not interested to assist politics but to guide and control it. They still continue to indulge in partisan politics. It is their abiding interest to play politics that has encouraged newspapers to add a commentary to supplement in more details what they believe they cannot do through the editorial. With the commentary, a newspaper editor raises himself to the level of the political leadership and then holds court and delivers a verdict! These commentaries are often lengthy pieces where most of what is written is subjective and ends up annoying those for whom it is meant. In the end such commentaries reflect the anger and frustration of the editor but fail to move the political leadership towards listening to what the commentaries try to say, suggest and demand. Often editors write these commentaries from a misplaced sense of importance by placing themselves at par and often above the elected leaders.
Newspapers play a major role everywhere in shaping democracy by being a conduit between the public and the government. The role is a pro-active and positive one. Unfortunately, because of the history of our politics, newspapers have played a role of conflict with the government at times of extra-constitutional governments. The papers failed to adjust to the elected governments that they treated and continue to treat as they had treated the unelected governments. The newspapers also failed to build with the political leadership the element of trust and respect for which the political leadership too must take part of the blame.
As a consequence, our newspapers have lost a lot of their potential as an instrument of democracy. It is time that they make conscious efforts on their part to earn the trust of the political leadership and the people. They could do so by giving up their commentaries and concentrating on editorials. Commentaries are provocative or at least that is the way the political leaderships view them. There are a lot of people who also see the commentaries as subjective writings meant to accuse or embarrass the government. What the newspapers write in the commentaries would be better served if written in editorials because editorials are an integral part of a newspaper designed precisely to serve just such a purpose. A good newspaper or a good editor does not need a commentary to supplement their efforts. A good editorial can serve the purpose adequately provided the paper has earned the credibility and the editor, the capability.
The writer is a former ambassador to Japan and Egypt
January 1st , 2011
M. Serajul Islam
There is something unique that most newspaper editors do in Bangladesh. They frequently write columns that they call a commentary in which they raise issues that they consider are of national importance. In these commentaries, they often hold what could in plain words be described as a trial of top political leaders, often even the Prime Minister, raising questions that they think they have a duty to do this. Often, the assumptions on which they ask such questions are subjective and politically biased. I wonder what purpose these commentaries serve as the political leaders to whom they are directed pay no heed. However, there is little to wonder that these commentaries allow the editors to satisfy their egos for they just not only ask questions in their commentaries to the top political leadership; they deliver judgments too. In fact, the editors aside, there are none in the country who have such awe inspiring powers except when they care to take on the judges!
Newspapers outside Bangladesh perform this function that our newspapers do through commentaries simply with their editorial; but seldom as overtly as our newspapers and editors do in their commentaries. The editorial is an important part of a newspaper, in fact it is the most important one that makes or breaks a newspaper and is never taken lightly. In the editorial, the editor brings his experience not just to express opinions on issues of national and international importance; sometimes such opinions even set the political direction of the country. The editor has what is universal everywhere; a column of his own to bring such opinions before the politicians and the nation. The editorial does not merely tell the reader about the ability of the editor; it really sets the standard of a newspaper. The editorial is often the product of an editorial board that most newspapers have to make its quality and content beyond reproach.
Editorials are not sermons. The better editorials are focused, crisp and as objective as one can get. Editorials are supposed to be short so that it can hold the reader’s interest. Whether a daily is worth the paper on which it is printed is easily assessed by the readers’ interest in reading the editorial as an indispensible part of what he/she reads when he/she holds the paper. The credibility of a daily is also determined by the importance the government gives to what is said about its policies in the editorials.
In Bangladesh, editorials have not evolved in the way it has in other countries. Rarely has any newspaper in Bangladesh been able to reach that level of credibility where its editorial has left the government with no alternative but to accept the message in it and act according to it. Nor have newspapers been able to place a government in a predicament where it could ignore the message in the editorial at a political price. Our editorials have not reached that level of credibility or acceptability.
Editorials reach credibility and acceptability on the strength of their ability to influence and motivate the public. Our newspaper editorials have failed to achieve this either because editorials have generally taken political lines, which is generally not a negative factor. Unfortunately, in the context of Bangladesh’s politics, political lines in editorials end by dividing the people and hence losing credibility. The two years of Emergency have further diminished the acceptance of the editorials to the public. A number of leading newspapers that had acquired or were beginning to acquire the sort of acceptance that newspapers of merit have in many of the world’s capitals were caught with their pants down backing the Emergency.
These newspapers made the mistake that a newspaper should not make. The newspapers got interested in playing politics. They crossed the fine line between suggesting to the political leadership what is good for the country to getting involved in politics and forcing the changes themselves. They got interested in protecting the so-called Third Force and in the end what they achieved was the company and friendship of corrupt and anti-democratic elements of the society. It would take these newspapers a long time before they can regain the credibility in their editorials.
It does not seem like the newspapers of Bangladesh are going about the way to regain public confidence as newspapers do elsewhere. They still seem not interested to assist politics but to guide and control it. They still continue to indulge in partisan politics. It is their abiding interest to play politics that has encouraged newspapers to add a commentary to supplement in more details what they believe they cannot do through the editorial. With the commentary, a newspaper editor raises himself to the level of the political leadership and then holds court and delivers a verdict! These commentaries are often lengthy pieces where most of what is written is subjective and ends up annoying those for whom it is meant. In the end such commentaries reflect the anger and frustration of the editor but fail to move the political leadership towards listening to what the commentaries try to say, suggest and demand. Often editors write these commentaries from a misplaced sense of importance by placing themselves at par and often above the elected leaders.
Newspapers play a major role everywhere in shaping democracy by being a conduit between the public and the government. The role is a pro-active and positive one. Unfortunately, because of the history of our politics, newspapers have played a role of conflict with the government at times of extra-constitutional governments. The papers failed to adjust to the elected governments that they treated and continue to treat as they had treated the unelected governments. The newspapers also failed to build with the political leadership the element of trust and respect for which the political leadership too must take part of the blame.
As a consequence, our newspapers have lost a lot of their potential as an instrument of democracy. It is time that they make conscious efforts on their part to earn the trust of the political leadership and the people. They could do so by giving up their commentaries and concentrating on editorials. Commentaries are provocative or at least that is the way the political leaderships view them. There are a lot of people who also see the commentaries as subjective writings meant to accuse or embarrass the government. What the newspapers write in the commentaries would be better served if written in editorials because editorials are an integral part of a newspaper designed precisely to serve just such a purpose. A good newspaper or a good editor does not need a commentary to supplement their efforts. A good editorial can serve the purpose adequately provided the paper has earned the credibility and the editor, the capability.
The writer is a former ambassador to Japan and Egypt
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Our Expatriates and Politics: The case in USA
Published in The Daily Sun
M. Serajul Islam
The Awami League supporters gathered in the Kennedy Airport in New York to welcome Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina during her recent visit to New York. Things went out of hand as the Awami Leaguers broke into groups and there was altercation between them that caused quite a deal of embarrassment. Our expatriates ended up giving a bad impression about the country to the hosts.
It is a very heartening matter that our expatriates show enthusiasm in receiving our Prime Ministers or Ministers on their overseas visits. However what is not so heartening is the partisanship in the way they show their enthusiasm in receiving these political leaders. In 2005, Prime Minister Khaleda Zia was on an official visit to Japan. On that visit, s a historic event took place. In the heart of Tokyo, the local authorities offered Bangladesh a place for a permanent Shahid Manner that then Prime Minister Khaleda Zia inaugurated. This was a major concession made by the Japanese who are not accustomed to such an overture to a foreign culture. For Bangladesh, this was recognition of its language because this gave it the opportunity to inscribe in the heart of Tokyo, the story of the glorious Language Movement.
Unfortunately, the supporters of the Awami League did not see it that way. They made attempts of a black flag demonstration to spoil the occasion on the plea that the BNP was hobnobbing with Islamic fundamentalists and for a series of other alleged misdeeds in governance. It was with great efforts that the black flag demonstration was avoided with the help of the Japanese security. The BNP expatriates are also equally capable of doing what the AL expatriates had attempted during the visit of Khaleda Zia.
The nation owes great debt to our expatriates for their contribution to the national economy through remittance. That notwithstanding, the expatriates also do something that expatriates from other nations do not do. They establish branches of the parties in Bangladesh in their adopted countries. They also bring the conflicts and partisanship of these political politics and keep themselves divided just as the political parties at home keep the nation divided.
Thus there are branches of the AL, the BNP and the other smaller parties in every country to which Bangladeshis have migrated. In countries like the USA and UK, the mainstream parties have their branches in the cities where Bangladeshis live in a large number. The Bangladeshi private TV channels that can be viewed in the USA often carry advertisements from parties and candidates seeking support to get elected to the committees of these overseas branches of the political parties of Bangladesh. There are also other types of associations of Bangladeshi expatriates and in New York alone there are over 100 associations representing just not the political parties but districts and thanas reflecting the narrow parochialism of the community. The expatriates of other countries do not show even the hint of the division and disunity that the Bangladeshi community does. They are united for common benefit and also to unitedly represent their country. The Bangladesh community is divided on political and narrow self interests and in the process fail to make the impact that other expatriate communities achieve in the USA.
There was discussion during the Caretaker Government to ban the political parties from having overseas branches. The question of banning is a redundant one. These overseas branches need no formal sanction from the mainstream parties for opening overseas branches. These overseas branches however have to get approval of local authorities to function that control their activities. The call for banning these overseas branches nevertheless resonated in the minds of many in the country for a different reason. Many felt that by organizing as branches of parties in Bangladesh, Bangladeshi expatriates just assist in washing the dirty linen of Bangladesh’s politics abroad and thus enhances the negative image from which the country suffers.
Bangladeshis in the United States in the last two decades have increased in a substantial way. There is no reliable statistics on how many Bangladeshis live in the United States. It could be well in excess of a quarter million. Wikipedia mentions that between 1990 and 2000, the Bangladesh community was the fastest growing one in the US. It has now reached a position in cities such as New York, LA, Chicago, Greater Washington, Atlanta, Miami, Houston and Dallas where by their numbers they can act as a lobby to influence the country’s policies in areas of interest to Bangladesh. This year, a politician of Bangladeshi origin Hansen Clarke has been elected as a Member of Congress from Michigan.
Unfortunately, the achievement of the Bangladeshi Congressman seems to be a surprising exception as most Bangladeshis who can lead the community dissipate their energy in fighting the partisan politics of Bangladesh in the USA. The Federation of Bangladesh Associations of North America (FOBANA) that could have emerged as an apex organization of Bangladeshis in the USA for achieving not just social and cultural needs of the Bangladeshi community but also as an organization of political strength has now broken into a few splinter groups. Although the groups do not accept that they have been divided on politics of the country, there is enough reason to believe politics to a large extent as well as personalities have created the splinters.
The mainstream parties really do not gain anything through these branches established in their names. The branches gain even less in such a connection. Yet for some strange reasons, they keep the connection and as a consequence, the expatriates keep themselves divided as the nation keeps itself is divided at home. One reason why our expatriates love organizing themselves in line with politics at home is because they have been involved in politics as students or in their professional lives as activists of one or the other of the political parties before they migrated. By force of habbit, they do the same in the States. The fact that none of them would ever come home to do politics makes this attitude of the expatriates so hard to understand.
It is time that the Bangladeshis take a look at what other expatriate communities do and achieve in the USA. The Indians for instance organize themselves in the USA for furthering their social, economic, cultural and political lives in the USA. They do not try to get involved with politics in India that they leave to those in the country. They nevertheless love their country as much as Bangladeshis in the USA love theirs; most importantly their Indian identity. When it comes to furthering India’s interests in the USA, they thus have no problem in backing to the hilt the Government in power and in return, act as a powerful lobby for furthering India’s interest. All other expatriate communities in USA do the same because that is the logical thing to do. Unfortunately, in case of Bangladeshis in the USA, the community remains divided on politics of Bangladesh and have seldom been united in making Bangladesh’s interests a common cause with the power structure in the USA.
It is time for the expatriates of Bangladesh to unite. That will allow them not just to serve the interests of the community in USA but also help build a positive image for the country. They could even do better. They could create pressure on the politicians in Bangladesh given the love they have so clearly demonstrated for the motherland to end the “politics of hatred”, to take a quote out of the damning coverage by The Economist in its issue on 18th November, that is destroying Bangladesh. The expatriates in USA have the potential given the talent they have to send such a message but only if they unite and rise above politics.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt and a Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.
M. Serajul Islam
The Awami League supporters gathered in the Kennedy Airport in New York to welcome Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina during her recent visit to New York. Things went out of hand as the Awami Leaguers broke into groups and there was altercation between them that caused quite a deal of embarrassment. Our expatriates ended up giving a bad impression about the country to the hosts.
It is a very heartening matter that our expatriates show enthusiasm in receiving our Prime Ministers or Ministers on their overseas visits. However what is not so heartening is the partisanship in the way they show their enthusiasm in receiving these political leaders. In 2005, Prime Minister Khaleda Zia was on an official visit to Japan. On that visit, s a historic event took place. In the heart of Tokyo, the local authorities offered Bangladesh a place for a permanent Shahid Manner that then Prime Minister Khaleda Zia inaugurated. This was a major concession made by the Japanese who are not accustomed to such an overture to a foreign culture. For Bangladesh, this was recognition of its language because this gave it the opportunity to inscribe in the heart of Tokyo, the story of the glorious Language Movement.
Unfortunately, the supporters of the Awami League did not see it that way. They made attempts of a black flag demonstration to spoil the occasion on the plea that the BNP was hobnobbing with Islamic fundamentalists and for a series of other alleged misdeeds in governance. It was with great efforts that the black flag demonstration was avoided with the help of the Japanese security. The BNP expatriates are also equally capable of doing what the AL expatriates had attempted during the visit of Khaleda Zia.
The nation owes great debt to our expatriates for their contribution to the national economy through remittance. That notwithstanding, the expatriates also do something that expatriates from other nations do not do. They establish branches of the parties in Bangladesh in their adopted countries. They also bring the conflicts and partisanship of these political politics and keep themselves divided just as the political parties at home keep the nation divided.
Thus there are branches of the AL, the BNP and the other smaller parties in every country to which Bangladeshis have migrated. In countries like the USA and UK, the mainstream parties have their branches in the cities where Bangladeshis live in a large number. The Bangladeshi private TV channels that can be viewed in the USA often carry advertisements from parties and candidates seeking support to get elected to the committees of these overseas branches of the political parties of Bangladesh. There are also other types of associations of Bangladeshi expatriates and in New York alone there are over 100 associations representing just not the political parties but districts and thanas reflecting the narrow parochialism of the community. The expatriates of other countries do not show even the hint of the division and disunity that the Bangladeshi community does. They are united for common benefit and also to unitedly represent their country. The Bangladesh community is divided on political and narrow self interests and in the process fail to make the impact that other expatriate communities achieve in the USA.
There was discussion during the Caretaker Government to ban the political parties from having overseas branches. The question of banning is a redundant one. These overseas branches need no formal sanction from the mainstream parties for opening overseas branches. These overseas branches however have to get approval of local authorities to function that control their activities. The call for banning these overseas branches nevertheless resonated in the minds of many in the country for a different reason. Many felt that by organizing as branches of parties in Bangladesh, Bangladeshi expatriates just assist in washing the dirty linen of Bangladesh’s politics abroad and thus enhances the negative image from which the country suffers.
Bangladeshis in the United States in the last two decades have increased in a substantial way. There is no reliable statistics on how many Bangladeshis live in the United States. It could be well in excess of a quarter million. Wikipedia mentions that between 1990 and 2000, the Bangladesh community was the fastest growing one in the US. It has now reached a position in cities such as New York, LA, Chicago, Greater Washington, Atlanta, Miami, Houston and Dallas where by their numbers they can act as a lobby to influence the country’s policies in areas of interest to Bangladesh. This year, a politician of Bangladeshi origin Hansen Clarke has been elected as a Member of Congress from Michigan.
Unfortunately, the achievement of the Bangladeshi Congressman seems to be a surprising exception as most Bangladeshis who can lead the community dissipate their energy in fighting the partisan politics of Bangladesh in the USA. The Federation of Bangladesh Associations of North America (FOBANA) that could have emerged as an apex organization of Bangladeshis in the USA for achieving not just social and cultural needs of the Bangladeshi community but also as an organization of political strength has now broken into a few splinter groups. Although the groups do not accept that they have been divided on politics of the country, there is enough reason to believe politics to a large extent as well as personalities have created the splinters.
The mainstream parties really do not gain anything through these branches established in their names. The branches gain even less in such a connection. Yet for some strange reasons, they keep the connection and as a consequence, the expatriates keep themselves divided as the nation keeps itself is divided at home. One reason why our expatriates love organizing themselves in line with politics at home is because they have been involved in politics as students or in their professional lives as activists of one or the other of the political parties before they migrated. By force of habbit, they do the same in the States. The fact that none of them would ever come home to do politics makes this attitude of the expatriates so hard to understand.
It is time that the Bangladeshis take a look at what other expatriate communities do and achieve in the USA. The Indians for instance organize themselves in the USA for furthering their social, economic, cultural and political lives in the USA. They do not try to get involved with politics in India that they leave to those in the country. They nevertheless love their country as much as Bangladeshis in the USA love theirs; most importantly their Indian identity. When it comes to furthering India’s interests in the USA, they thus have no problem in backing to the hilt the Government in power and in return, act as a powerful lobby for furthering India’s interest. All other expatriate communities in USA do the same because that is the logical thing to do. Unfortunately, in case of Bangladeshis in the USA, the community remains divided on politics of Bangladesh and have seldom been united in making Bangladesh’s interests a common cause with the power structure in the USA.
It is time for the expatriates of Bangladesh to unite. That will allow them not just to serve the interests of the community in USA but also help build a positive image for the country. They could even do better. They could create pressure on the politicians in Bangladesh given the love they have so clearly demonstrated for the motherland to end the “politics of hatred”, to take a quote out of the damning coverage by The Economist in its issue on 18th November, that is destroying Bangladesh. The expatriates in USA have the potential given the talent they have to send such a message but only if they unite and rise above politics.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt and a Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Nation Fails to Defend an Icon
Published in The Independent, December 18th., 2010
M. Serajul Islam
The controversy created in the country involving the name of Dr. Mohammad Yunus was unfortunate. It was unbelievable that the media and politicians reacted to the documentary shown in Norway without verifying the facts with official sources in Norway or the Norwegian Embassy in Dhaka. Their reaction suggested that they were more eager to believe in the story than to check facts.
The documentary in question is “Caught in Micro-credit” that was aired on Norwegian National Television, NRK. It charged Grameen Bank of violating the terms of an agreement signed in 1994 by transferring US$ 100 million given to it by Government of Norway to Grameen Kalyan, a subsidiary of GB. The money was meant for being given out as micro credit and Grameen Kalyan has nothing to do with micro credit. Although the money was transferred back to GB, questions were raised over it by the Norwegian Embassy of Dhaka. After protracted exchanges, the Norwegian Embassy was finally satisfied in 1998 and settled the matter in favour of GB
It was open season in a section of the press and in the community on Dr. Yunus as soon as news of the documentary reached Dhaka. It was taken out of context and sensational headlines such as “embezzlement”, “siphoning “ of millions of dollars, etc were liberally used to give readers the impression that the Noble Laureate had misappropriated the money and that he should go to jail for it although in the facts that they revealed, there was little to substantiate such a serious accusation.
The Prime Minister stepped into the controversy early. She asked for an inquiry that was fair enough. In seeking the investigation, the Prime Minister’s choice of words was subjective and uncomplimentary. Dr. Yunus who was out of the country when the controversy exploded instantly welcomed the call. The matter should have rested there. Instead, the Foreign Minister pitched in with her own spin, stressing that the image of the country did not depend on the image of an individual.
In politics, patience is a virtue. One wished that the political leaders had shown this virtue. If they had, they would have saved themselves the embarrassment because the Norwegian Government later unequivocally cleared Dr. Yunus and the Grameen Bank of any wrongdoing. The country’s Minister for Environment and Development Erik Solheim underscored this in a statement issued after the press reports in Dhaka that said ” there is no indication that Norwegian funds have been used for unintended purposes, or that Grameen Bank has engaged in corrupt practices or embezzled funds. The matter was concluded when the agreement concerning reimbursement of the funds was entered into in May 1998 under the government in office at the time."
The statement of the Norwegian Minister and facts that have become known since have shown that a section of the media played a deplorable role. First, they treated the allegations as true without checking facts about a Noble Laureate who has done so much for the country’s image. Second, they left little doubt that they were happy that something like the Norwegian documentary fell into their hands. Third, they did not consider even the need to contact the Noble Laureate before declaring him guilty as accused. Fourth, they used motivated headlines to mislead readers. Finally, they even created a few “original” stories of their own to “help” substantiate the allegations of the documentary like involving the Indian Prime Minister as criticizing Dr. Yunus leading the Indian High Commission in Dhaka to trash it.
The Foreign Minister’s negative spin to the story was surprising. She said in the media that an individual’s image cannot affect the image of the country. There is a little problem in accepting this argument because Dr. Yunus cannot be dismissed as just any individual. For Bangladesh, he is an icon; an individual larger than life. In fact, when Dr. Yunus won the Noble Prize in 2006, people felt the same pride for him as they felt about the Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman during the war of liberation. Since winning the Noble Prize, Dr. Yunus has won many more international awards that have enhanced the image of Bangladesh. To dismiss him as individual whose reputation is not worth fighting for is surely is unacceptable to many in the country and abroad.
Hindsight is not always a fair way to judge people or events. In case of Dr. Yunus however people who jumped to believe the Norwegian documentary should have spared a moment to consider the impeccable credentials that the Noble Laureate has established for honesty and integrity. If they had done so, they would have thought twice before expressing their views.
Dr. Yunus has put Bangladesh positively on the world map long before he won the Noble Prize with the concept of Grameen Bank. During the 1991 Presidential campaign, then candidate Bill Clinton said in one of his campaign speeches that Dr. Yunus deserved the Noble Prize for the revolution he brought about with his concept of Grameen Bank and that if elected President, he would replicate the Grameen Bank model in some of the big cities of USA to deal with poverty. Since winning the Noble Prize, he has amongst his friends some of the most powerful men and women in contemporary history. He was a member of Global Elders, an international group announced in 2007 by Nelson Mandela on his 89th birthday “to support peace building, help address major causes of human suffering and promote the shared interests of humanity.” His name, reputation and awards he won are today the best products for helping Bangladesh’s poor image abroad.
It is indeed unfortunate that we did not defend his image against a slipshod documentary that deliberately misled viewers by failing to tell them that the allegation brought against him was settled in favour of Dr. Yunus and the Grameen Bank more than a decade ago. . Any other nation with an icon such as Dr. Yunus would have cried foul against the Norwegian documentary and demanded legal action against the producers of the documentary. Unbelievably, we declared him guilty without even an investigation or a chance to him to defend himself and even wanted to send him to jail!
The controversy has however brought to the surface the fact that there are many in the country not happy with him. The reasons for this are difficult to fathom except if one would like to conjecture. Perhaps by his Noble Prize winning feat, Dr. Yunus has made many unhappy. Perhaps, those who went after him believe that he is not with them politically. There are of course many who disagree with micro-credit for a variety of reason and they may have jumped into the fray to discredit him for the Noble Laureate is truly the “Father of Microcredit”. Nevertheless the unfortunate reaction in favour of the Norwegian documentary by groups in Bangladesh and their eagerness to declare Dr. Yunus guilty without checking facts or allowing him the right of defense raises serious questions about us as a nation.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt and a Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.
M. Serajul Islam
The controversy created in the country involving the name of Dr. Mohammad Yunus was unfortunate. It was unbelievable that the media and politicians reacted to the documentary shown in Norway without verifying the facts with official sources in Norway or the Norwegian Embassy in Dhaka. Their reaction suggested that they were more eager to believe in the story than to check facts.
The documentary in question is “Caught in Micro-credit” that was aired on Norwegian National Television, NRK. It charged Grameen Bank of violating the terms of an agreement signed in 1994 by transferring US$ 100 million given to it by Government of Norway to Grameen Kalyan, a subsidiary of GB. The money was meant for being given out as micro credit and Grameen Kalyan has nothing to do with micro credit. Although the money was transferred back to GB, questions were raised over it by the Norwegian Embassy of Dhaka. After protracted exchanges, the Norwegian Embassy was finally satisfied in 1998 and settled the matter in favour of GB
It was open season in a section of the press and in the community on Dr. Yunus as soon as news of the documentary reached Dhaka. It was taken out of context and sensational headlines such as “embezzlement”, “siphoning “ of millions of dollars, etc were liberally used to give readers the impression that the Noble Laureate had misappropriated the money and that he should go to jail for it although in the facts that they revealed, there was little to substantiate such a serious accusation.
The Prime Minister stepped into the controversy early. She asked for an inquiry that was fair enough. In seeking the investigation, the Prime Minister’s choice of words was subjective and uncomplimentary. Dr. Yunus who was out of the country when the controversy exploded instantly welcomed the call. The matter should have rested there. Instead, the Foreign Minister pitched in with her own spin, stressing that the image of the country did not depend on the image of an individual.
In politics, patience is a virtue. One wished that the political leaders had shown this virtue. If they had, they would have saved themselves the embarrassment because the Norwegian Government later unequivocally cleared Dr. Yunus and the Grameen Bank of any wrongdoing. The country’s Minister for Environment and Development Erik Solheim underscored this in a statement issued after the press reports in Dhaka that said ” there is no indication that Norwegian funds have been used for unintended purposes, or that Grameen Bank has engaged in corrupt practices or embezzled funds. The matter was concluded when the agreement concerning reimbursement of the funds was entered into in May 1998 under the government in office at the time."
The statement of the Norwegian Minister and facts that have become known since have shown that a section of the media played a deplorable role. First, they treated the allegations as true without checking facts about a Noble Laureate who has done so much for the country’s image. Second, they left little doubt that they were happy that something like the Norwegian documentary fell into their hands. Third, they did not consider even the need to contact the Noble Laureate before declaring him guilty as accused. Fourth, they used motivated headlines to mislead readers. Finally, they even created a few “original” stories of their own to “help” substantiate the allegations of the documentary like involving the Indian Prime Minister as criticizing Dr. Yunus leading the Indian High Commission in Dhaka to trash it.
The Foreign Minister’s negative spin to the story was surprising. She said in the media that an individual’s image cannot affect the image of the country. There is a little problem in accepting this argument because Dr. Yunus cannot be dismissed as just any individual. For Bangladesh, he is an icon; an individual larger than life. In fact, when Dr. Yunus won the Noble Prize in 2006, people felt the same pride for him as they felt about the Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman during the war of liberation. Since winning the Noble Prize, Dr. Yunus has won many more international awards that have enhanced the image of Bangladesh. To dismiss him as individual whose reputation is not worth fighting for is surely is unacceptable to many in the country and abroad.
Hindsight is not always a fair way to judge people or events. In case of Dr. Yunus however people who jumped to believe the Norwegian documentary should have spared a moment to consider the impeccable credentials that the Noble Laureate has established for honesty and integrity. If they had done so, they would have thought twice before expressing their views.
Dr. Yunus has put Bangladesh positively on the world map long before he won the Noble Prize with the concept of Grameen Bank. During the 1991 Presidential campaign, then candidate Bill Clinton said in one of his campaign speeches that Dr. Yunus deserved the Noble Prize for the revolution he brought about with his concept of Grameen Bank and that if elected President, he would replicate the Grameen Bank model in some of the big cities of USA to deal with poverty. Since winning the Noble Prize, he has amongst his friends some of the most powerful men and women in contemporary history. He was a member of Global Elders, an international group announced in 2007 by Nelson Mandela on his 89th birthday “to support peace building, help address major causes of human suffering and promote the shared interests of humanity.” His name, reputation and awards he won are today the best products for helping Bangladesh’s poor image abroad.
It is indeed unfortunate that we did not defend his image against a slipshod documentary that deliberately misled viewers by failing to tell them that the allegation brought against him was settled in favour of Dr. Yunus and the Grameen Bank more than a decade ago. . Any other nation with an icon such as Dr. Yunus would have cried foul against the Norwegian documentary and demanded legal action against the producers of the documentary. Unbelievably, we declared him guilty without even an investigation or a chance to him to defend himself and even wanted to send him to jail!
The controversy has however brought to the surface the fact that there are many in the country not happy with him. The reasons for this are difficult to fathom except if one would like to conjecture. Perhaps by his Noble Prize winning feat, Dr. Yunus has made many unhappy. Perhaps, those who went after him believe that he is not with them politically. There are of course many who disagree with micro-credit for a variety of reason and they may have jumped into the fray to discredit him for the Noble Laureate is truly the “Father of Microcredit”. Nevertheless the unfortunate reaction in favour of the Norwegian documentary by groups in Bangladesh and their eagerness to declare Dr. Yunus guilty without checking facts or allowing him the right of defense raises serious questions about us as a nation.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt and a Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Human Rights Watch Report on Border Killings
The Daily Sun, December 26th., 2010
M. Serajul Islam
The issue of killings of Bangladeshis on Bangladesh-India border by the Indian Border Security Force (BSF) has been a thorny one that has not been resolved satisfactorily. It has the potential to derail the positive steps that the two countries have taken in the last 2 years for a paradigm shift in their bilateral relations, given the emotional nature of the issue.
Bangladesh has protested these killings at various levels but without success. In the last decade, at least 1000 Bangladeshis have died at the hands of the BSF. The number alone underscores the seriousness of the issue. The reported cases of abuse and torture at the hands of the BSF have further complicated the issue of killings of Bangladeshis in the Indo-Bangladesh border.
Recently Human Rights Watch, one of world’s leading independent organisation dedicated to the protection of human rights, has published an 81 pages Report on the border killings/torture/abuse suffered by Bangladeshis (together with Indians) on the 2000 km border between Bangladesh and Indian province of West Bengal and the role of the BSF. The Report has documented indisputable evidence about BSF’s wrong doings and has shown that the problem is not really going to be resolved soon. The Report has been based on interviews with the families of the victims and in case of those abused/tortured, with the victims themselves. BSF officials and human rights groups in India and Bangladesh were also interviewed together with BDR officials.
The findings are grim. It has shown that the victims have been killed while involved in smuggling or cattle hustling or just being with those involved with those nefarious activities. It concluded that the relationship between the alleged crime and punishment was utterly disproportional and that in many cases, the victims were shot dead while fleeing. Some victims had been tortured to death simply on suspicion of being involved in smuggling. Children who were used by the smugglers to avoid detection had also been killed summarily.
There was almost no accountability in bringing the BSF personnel involved to justice and even the palpably evident cases of arbitrary killings had gone unpunished. The Report found the abuses and violation of human rights by the BSF acceptable to the Indian Government. The Indian Government argued that the BSF shootings had been necessary to check smuggling, mass migration of Bangladeshis and terrorists using Banagladesh as sanctuary to cross into India for terrorist attacks. The Report found that few of those killed had terrorist connections. Mass migration of Bangladesh was also an unacceptable excuse because India had fenced 3,200 km of the border. Smuggling was also not a good excuse to justify the killings because of fencing unless the BSF had connived and later, deals with smugglers had gone wrong.
The Report showed that Indian laws stood in the way to bring the “trigger happy” BSF personnel to bear responsibility for their acts. It also shed light to the fact that many of the BSF personnel involved in unlawful acts had gone to the Bangladesh-India border after a stint in Kashmir where security forces had been accused by both local and foreign human rights organizations of human rights violations.
The recommendations of the Report also pointed an accusing finger at BSF. It called upon the Indian Government to assure that the BSF followed UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms Law enforcement officials. It also recommended that the BSF officials accused of killing and abuses should be investigated by civilian courts as the BSF had failed to deliver justice in trying such cases. It also asked for an independent commission to try serious cases of violation of human rights by the BSF. The Report also called upon the Indian Government to remove all legal obstacles that provide immunity to BSF officials from prosecution. The Report called upon India and Bangladesh to accede to the request of the UN Rapporteur for extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions to visit India, pending since 2000 and Bangladesh, pending since 2006, to inquire and document the killings in the hands of the BSF. The Report also recommended that BSF officials accused of wrong doings should be barred from serving as UN Peace Keepers.
The Human Rights Watch Report has thus upheld a widely held view in Bangladesh that innocent Bangladeshis are killed, tortured and abused by BSF. The defense by the Indian side that the Bangladeshis deserved to die because they were caught at a place where they were not supposed to be legally is unacceptable because those killed could have been apprehended as they were unarmed. The abuse and torture of Bangladeshis by the BSF manifested an anti-Bangladeshi mindset as well. These findings have come at a time when Bangladesh and India are involved in making a paradigm shift in their bilateral relations and hence could be provocative.
The first thing that the AL Government did upon assuming power was to assure the Indian government that its soil would not be used for terrorist attacks against India. Before Sheikh Hasina visited India in January this year, Bangladesh handed to India top ULFA terrorists for which a grateful Indian media urged its government to settle Bangladesh’s concerns in bilateral relations with India immediately. Bangladesh’s major demands like sharing of waters of the common rivers; a fair demarcation of the maritime boundary or a better deal in trade that is heavily weighed in favour of India have not yet been addressed by India.
The only offers that India has made to Bangladesh are a US$ 1 billion loan on soft terms for the communication sector and a promise to sell electricity. So far, a little over US$ 600 million of the amount has been earmarked for 14 communications related projects mainly linking mainland India with its Northeast provinces through Bangladesh. The opposition in Bangladesh has called the soft loan an Indian ploy to get from Bangladesh another of its important needs, namely the land transit that in the past Bangladeshi negotiators had considered as their only card against India.
The window of opportunity for a paradigm shift in Bangladesh-India relations that Bangladesh officials have so enthusiastically drummed up will wither away unless India quickly concedes on Bangladesh’s major claims. A great deal will therefore depend on what the Indian Prime Minister has to offer when he comes on a visit to Bangladesh expected to take place early next year. The Report of the Human Rights Watch with all the negative manifestations will add extra pressure on India to relent. The ball is now in India’s court and unless India concedes, the agitation of the opposition against India will begin to gain momentum.
Writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and a Director, Center for Foreign Affairs Studies.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Saturday, November 20, 2010
President Obama gives India a dream visit
Published in The Sun, November 17th.'2010
M. Serajul Islam
If the Indians were to write the script for President Obama for his Indian visit, they could not have written a better one than what President Obama scripted and executed. While giving Indian support for a permanent seat in an expanded UN Security Council, the President suggested that with “increased power comes increased responsibility,” leaving no doubt that the USA considers India a responsible world power. In fact, in his speech in the Indian parliament, Obama said that India is not an emerging world power; it has already emerged as one.
The President entered India through Mumbai, the financial capital of India. In Mumbai, the President talked business that was on top of his agenda for the Indian trip for which a record 215 member trade team was in his entourage. He was eager to demonstrate to the Americans his focus on what was the major issue that led to the debacle in the mid-term elections for the Democrats. The massive defeat in which the Democrats lost control of the House, has also cast doubts on the President’s re-election bid. He thus pampered Indians to encourage them to sign business deals for not just increasing trade but also creating jobs in USA. He expressed surprise that India is not even in the list of 10 top trading partners of the USA.
Towards helping India achieve that position, deals worth over US$ 10 billion were signed by business executives travelling with him. For USA, such deals will have the potential to create 50,000 jobs. These deals were signed in areas of defence production; automobiles; electronics; aeronautics and transportation. Significantly for India, the US has agreed to lift controls for export of high technology items and technologies to India. This is a manifestation of the trust that US now has upon India.
In Mumbai, the President and the First lady stayed at Mumbai Taj, the scene of 24/11.The hotel was chosen deliberately to convey to the Indians USA’s support for fighting terror. However, Indian expectation that he would also convey a message to the Pakistanis whom they believe to be behind the 24/11 terrorist attacks in which 166 people were killed did not happen. That was perhaps the only issue that the President left undone in the Indians’ wish list but that was understandable given Pakistan’s strategic value to USA in the ongoing war on terror in the frontier between Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the Joint Declaration, the two sides “called for Pakistan to bring to justice the perpetrators of November, 2008 Mumbai attacks”.
The President was received in New Delhi by the Indian Prime Minister in breach of protocol that permits the Minister in waiting to receive a visiting Head of State. In official talks between the President and the Prime Minister, there was not a chance that there would be even the remotest possibility of any differences on any issue emerging. None did. A gleaming Prime Minister told the press in the press briefing he held jointly with the President that the USA has also agreed to help India gain membership in multilateral export control regimes, including the powerful Nuclear Suppliers Group, a cartel that has held India to a pariah status for over 3 decades following its nuclear tests of 1974 till the US had intervened to help remove India from that status to sign the civil nuclear deal.
The President’s speech in the joint session of parliament was simply the sweetest music to the Indian ears. He said India and the US are “indispensible partners” and the US fervently supports India’s rise as a world power. He partially satisfied for failing to name Pakistan for 24/11 earlier in the trip by stating in the Indian parliament that terrorism linked to safe havens in Pakistan “is not acceptable.” He spoke admiringly about India as a great civilization and even mentioned thoughtfully that the all important number zero was invented in India. He spoke of Mahatma Gandhi and how his life influenced him. Clearly, the President made very serious efforts to make India happy.
The Joint Statement on the visit contained the usual clichés that India and the US are the two largest democracies of the world. Nevertheless, there is a clear emphasis in the JS to conclude that the US now accepts India as an equal in strategic global partnership. In fact, in the JS, US-India has been described as “one of the defining and strategic partnerships of the 21st century.” The areas of cooperation are also significant because it covers important areas to underscore the depth of relationship.
President George Bush had come to India in 2006 with one issue; the civil nuclear deal. President Obama came with his domestic agenda and foreign affairs as priorities.. He has learnt a very valuable lesson on the relation between the economy and job creation and elections; that “it is the economy, stupid” that is of fundamental importance to voters. That explains the record trade team as well as the emphasis on the trade deals and job creation. One therefore cannot help but wonder whether the President would have praised India as he did had the Democrats not lost so badly that made India’s huge market of1.2billion people very attractive.
The foreign affairs agenda was to send a strong message to China to go slow in believing that it would be left with Asia and the Pacific as its spheres of influence. In that context, the President used his trip to tell China that USA and India would stand together to contest such a Chinese desire. The strong words used to support India’s Security Council candidature that is not a burning issue at UN Headquarters at New York at present was intentional for the same China factor.
The President travelled to India with 40 planes, including Air Force One, for reasons of security and logistics. In these, were 6 armoured vehicles including the President’s Cadillac that is fitted with mini communications centre to let the President remain in touch with Washington. This was by far the most extravagant arrangement ever for a US President allegedly costing US$ 200 million a day. The President’s men also lost no opportunity to remind that the 3 days that the President spent in India were the longest on a foreign trip. Clearly, the message of this new interest in India is for China. Nevertheless, for South Asia, it is also a message that India has made a quantum leap in world affairs, leaving the rest of South Asia behind. All said, the question that will linger in this region among those who know India better is whether India has the heart and the vision to live up to the importance that US has given it. Bangladesh for one would be looking expectantly for an answer when Dr. Manmohon Singh comes over to Dhaka for a visit early next year.
India’s current position, rising as it is towards becoming a world power, did not warrant the extravagant praises the President heaped upon it. For one, India’s contribution to the world GDP is still a low 2%. Inside the country; it has plenty of problems; one being the situation in Kashmir on the human rights issue that is hardly a happy one. India’s problems with its neighbours still linger where India has not shown the maturity that would make President Obama’s lavish praise fully comprehendible. One analyst called the President’s efforts high on “diplomatic flattery” while another reminded him that he spent the early part of his administration “kowtowing” China and neglecting India.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt and Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.
M. Serajul Islam
If the Indians were to write the script for President Obama for his Indian visit, they could not have written a better one than what President Obama scripted and executed. While giving Indian support for a permanent seat in an expanded UN Security Council, the President suggested that with “increased power comes increased responsibility,” leaving no doubt that the USA considers India a responsible world power. In fact, in his speech in the Indian parliament, Obama said that India is not an emerging world power; it has already emerged as one.
The President entered India through Mumbai, the financial capital of India. In Mumbai, the President talked business that was on top of his agenda for the Indian trip for which a record 215 member trade team was in his entourage. He was eager to demonstrate to the Americans his focus on what was the major issue that led to the debacle in the mid-term elections for the Democrats. The massive defeat in which the Democrats lost control of the House, has also cast doubts on the President’s re-election bid. He thus pampered Indians to encourage them to sign business deals for not just increasing trade but also creating jobs in USA. He expressed surprise that India is not even in the list of 10 top trading partners of the USA.
Towards helping India achieve that position, deals worth over US$ 10 billion were signed by business executives travelling with him. For USA, such deals will have the potential to create 50,000 jobs. These deals were signed in areas of defence production; automobiles; electronics; aeronautics and transportation. Significantly for India, the US has agreed to lift controls for export of high technology items and technologies to India. This is a manifestation of the trust that US now has upon India.
In Mumbai, the President and the First lady stayed at Mumbai Taj, the scene of 24/11.The hotel was chosen deliberately to convey to the Indians USA’s support for fighting terror. However, Indian expectation that he would also convey a message to the Pakistanis whom they believe to be behind the 24/11 terrorist attacks in which 166 people were killed did not happen. That was perhaps the only issue that the President left undone in the Indians’ wish list but that was understandable given Pakistan’s strategic value to USA in the ongoing war on terror in the frontier between Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the Joint Declaration, the two sides “called for Pakistan to bring to justice the perpetrators of November, 2008 Mumbai attacks”.
The President was received in New Delhi by the Indian Prime Minister in breach of protocol that permits the Minister in waiting to receive a visiting Head of State. In official talks between the President and the Prime Minister, there was not a chance that there would be even the remotest possibility of any differences on any issue emerging. None did. A gleaming Prime Minister told the press in the press briefing he held jointly with the President that the USA has also agreed to help India gain membership in multilateral export control regimes, including the powerful Nuclear Suppliers Group, a cartel that has held India to a pariah status for over 3 decades following its nuclear tests of 1974 till the US had intervened to help remove India from that status to sign the civil nuclear deal.
The President’s speech in the joint session of parliament was simply the sweetest music to the Indian ears. He said India and the US are “indispensible partners” and the US fervently supports India’s rise as a world power. He partially satisfied for failing to name Pakistan for 24/11 earlier in the trip by stating in the Indian parliament that terrorism linked to safe havens in Pakistan “is not acceptable.” He spoke admiringly about India as a great civilization and even mentioned thoughtfully that the all important number zero was invented in India. He spoke of Mahatma Gandhi and how his life influenced him. Clearly, the President made very serious efforts to make India happy.
The Joint Statement on the visit contained the usual clichés that India and the US are the two largest democracies of the world. Nevertheless, there is a clear emphasis in the JS to conclude that the US now accepts India as an equal in strategic global partnership. In fact, in the JS, US-India has been described as “one of the defining and strategic partnerships of the 21st century.” The areas of cooperation are also significant because it covers important areas to underscore the depth of relationship.
President George Bush had come to India in 2006 with one issue; the civil nuclear deal. President Obama came with his domestic agenda and foreign affairs as priorities.. He has learnt a very valuable lesson on the relation between the economy and job creation and elections; that “it is the economy, stupid” that is of fundamental importance to voters. That explains the record trade team as well as the emphasis on the trade deals and job creation. One therefore cannot help but wonder whether the President would have praised India as he did had the Democrats not lost so badly that made India’s huge market of1.2billion people very attractive.
The foreign affairs agenda was to send a strong message to China to go slow in believing that it would be left with Asia and the Pacific as its spheres of influence. In that context, the President used his trip to tell China that USA and India would stand together to contest such a Chinese desire. The strong words used to support India’s Security Council candidature that is not a burning issue at UN Headquarters at New York at present was intentional for the same China factor.
The President travelled to India with 40 planes, including Air Force One, for reasons of security and logistics. In these, were 6 armoured vehicles including the President’s Cadillac that is fitted with mini communications centre to let the President remain in touch with Washington. This was by far the most extravagant arrangement ever for a US President allegedly costing US$ 200 million a day. The President’s men also lost no opportunity to remind that the 3 days that the President spent in India were the longest on a foreign trip. Clearly, the message of this new interest in India is for China. Nevertheless, for South Asia, it is also a message that India has made a quantum leap in world affairs, leaving the rest of South Asia behind. All said, the question that will linger in this region among those who know India better is whether India has the heart and the vision to live up to the importance that US has given it. Bangladesh for one would be looking expectantly for an answer when Dr. Manmohon Singh comes over to Dhaka for a visit early next year.
India’s current position, rising as it is towards becoming a world power, did not warrant the extravagant praises the President heaped upon it. For one, India’s contribution to the world GDP is still a low 2%. Inside the country; it has plenty of problems; one being the situation in Kashmir on the human rights issue that is hardly a happy one. India’s problems with its neighbours still linger where India has not shown the maturity that would make President Obama’s lavish praise fully comprehendible. One analyst called the President’s efforts high on “diplomatic flattery” while another reminded him that he spent the early part of his administration “kowtowing” China and neglecting India.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt and Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Sino-Bangladesh relations: Need for vision
Published in Daily Sun, 9th., November, 2010
M. Serajul Islam
There was news in the media recently that Foreign Minister Dipu Moni had postponed her China visit on health ground. There was no news afterwards whether that visit has been rescheduled. In the absence of any information on the issue, questions have arisen in minds of many whether the visit was postponed on medical grounds alone.
Sino-Bangladesh relations had a very unhappy beginning. China opposed Bangladesh’s liberation and had held up its UN candidature for quite a while at a time when it was extremely important for it to have that membership. Following the changes after 15th August 1975, China established diplomatic ties with Bangladesh and also facilitated Bangladesh’s entry to the UN by withdrawing its veto. In the next three and a half decades, Sino-Bangladesh relations developed from one level to another in excellence. In the process, every aspect on which a country builds a relationship with another, like trade, economics, defense cooperation ; people to people contact, etc., have been brought into the Sino-Bangladesh relations with many agreements/protocols providing the framework for conducting these relations.
Although Bangladesh and China have not built a strategic partnership in the formal sense; there has never been any doubt that India has always been a factor in jelling their bilateral relations. In 1988, when Bangladesh faced one of history’s worst floods, General Ershad brought the point home in a dramatic way. He asked India through diplomatic channels to take back the helicopters that it had provided for dealing with the flood telling the Indians that there was no need of helicopters anymore. At the same time, in fact the same day, the President requested China on the national TV for helicopters to deal with the flood.
President Ershad visited China five times during his tenure to underscore the importance China gave Bangladesh. There were high level visits from China during this period including one from the Chinese President. There were reasons for China to please Bangladesh. First, Bangladesh had the opening to the Bay of Bengal in which China was interested for strategic reasons, including the need for a deep seaport for economic purpose that it hoped Bangladesh would build. Second, China in those days was also interested in the ongoing insurgencies in the Seven Sisters of India and Bangladesh was ideally located for furthering such interest. Third, China also had its problems with India. Fourth, China viewed Bangladesh with its large population as a potential market for its businesses. Finally, China perceived India as a competitor to its ambition to become a regional power and for that it needed Bangladesh (and other countries in South Asia) as an ally.
Although the end of the Cold War that also saw the return of elected government in Bangladesh changed many equations of international relations, Bangladesh-China relations remained warm. When the AL came to office in 1996, Sheikh Hasina accepted China’s invitation for a visit that was her first overseas trip when she was barely in office a couple of months, the party’s historical ties with India notwithstanding.
Bangladesh’s foreign policy practitioners did not fully comprehend the changes in international politics of the time, particularly the fact that some of the reasons that had made it attractive to China were losing their edge. They also failed to realize that Myanmar could give more to China, and in fact doing so, on the strategic issues than Bangladesh.
While these changes/developments were taking place, the BNP made a blunder in 2005 by allowing Taiwan to open a trade office without taking China into confidence. The office was opened at a time when elections were taking place in Taiwan and thus the most inopportune time to give such permission. It also cancelled a Chinese aided project DAP 1 that was signed in the final days of the AL government unilaterally that angered China very much. When the AL came to office in January, 2009, China’s eagerness for a relationship with Bangladesh based on special considerations had mellowed substantially. On coming to power, the AL also gave China cause for disappointment when it failed to take China into confidence while changing the name of the China-Bangladesh Convention Centre that China had fully funded.
The AL Government also made overtures to reach out to India that it did not last time. It made dramatic concessions on land transit and security during Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s “state visit” to India in January this year. In the Joint Communiqué, Bangladesh agreed to support India’s candidature for membership in an expanded Security Council although the issue is not even current in UN affairs. The strong words of support sent a clear message to Beijing about Bangladesh’s regional preference.
Bangladesh has painstakingly built its relations with China over many decades starting when China was a developing country to a position where it plays a dominant role in international politics and economics today. To lose China’s interest now or a mellowing down of the earlier warm relations would be losing out on benefits out one of the most successful pursuits in the foreign policy initiatives of Bangladesh, namely building with China excellent bilateral relations.
It is Bangladesh’s prerogative as a sovereign nation to get close or distant to and from any nation for pursuing its national interests. So China cannot have any qualms about what Bangladesh does with India. Nevertheless, Bangladesh should keep in mind that it befriended China for leverage against India. China reciprocated warmly towards Bangladesh also because of the India factor. Thus if Bangladesh would like to improve relations with India now, the least China would expect is to take a time tested friend into confidence. Today, as a responsible world power, China is no longer interested in meddling in India’s internal affairs. The two countries are also patching up their bilateral problems. Hence, India to which Bangladesh has made exceptional overtures for friendship that it has never done before would also not have any reason to worry if Bangladesh had taken China into confidence on moving ahead with it. Bangladesh foreign policy practitioners have not shown enough maturity in handling its relations vis-Ã -vis India and China for it does not appear that they have taken China into confidence. The time it took to invite Sheikh Hasina to Beijing this time underscores Chinese disappointment.
The Bangladesh Foreign Minister’s visit to Beijing would have answered questions in the public mind about China’s present perception about; whether Bangladesh has played away the strategic value of China for promises from India. The forthcoming visit of the Indian Prime Minister to Dhaka and what offer he brings for Bangladesh on its water sharing; trade and maritime boundary demarcation problems would also help clear a lot of uncertainties. If the Indian Prime Minister fails to offer major concessions to Bangladesh on the outstanding problems, the public would be convinced that Bangladesh has indeed played away its cards with India and in the process, lost the warmth of China.
China conducts foreign policy on long term perspective. It is also not in the habbit, as some major powers are, of abandoning a tested friend like Bangladesh. Thus whatever Manmohon Singh offers us or does not, Bangladesh should deal with China with vision and while trying to improve relations with India, do so with China on the loop. Between the BNP in its last term and the AL so far, Bangladesh has shown no such vision. One just hopes that China would understand if Bangladesh showed the vision.
(The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt and Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies)
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
President Obama’s India trip: Pakistan out
The Daily Sun, November 2nd.,2010
M. Serajul Islam
President Obama will start a trip on November 5th to India, Indonesia, South Korea and Japan for an APEC meeting. It is however his trip to India that has created discussion and controversy; a lot of it caused by the US side itself. The discussion and controversy has been based on the fact that he would be visiting India without a trip to Pakistan, something ususual. In the past, Washington had taken the sensitivities of the two South Asian rivals and had pleased both without playing favourite with either with a Presidential visit.
US-India relations have been on a fast track since the US and India signed in 2005 an agreement under which India agreed to separate its civil and military nuclear facilities and place the former under IAEA inspection. In the next 3 years, the US backed India through complex negotiations to get the consent of the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group, a very powerful cartel group whose consent was necessary to allow India to seek assistance for building nuclear reactors for energy needs. The NSG’s approval gave India the prestige and respectability as a responsible world power and helped it come out of its pariah status following its 1974 nuclear test.
President Obama backed fully his predecessor’s moves towards India and the whole gamut of bilateral relations was reviewed positively during Prime Minister Manmohon Singh’s very successful visit to Washington last year. The visit of President Obama to New Delhi has been described by his aides as one intended for action on what was agreed during the Indian PM’s trip to Washington in November last year. They said little time would be wasted on talks or negotiations, underscoring the fact that the two sides are ready for a paradigm shift in relations from one of “doner-donee” to one of strategic partnership between two equals.
President Obama has decided to visit India without a parallel trip to Pakistan fully conscious about what it would mean to Pakistan. It wants to give recognition to the massive strides that India has made in the last one decade or so in international politics and the importance of a US-India strategic partnership in Asia. US Under Secretary William Burns described this partnership as “ a cornerstone of our broader Asia approach.” China’s recent initiatives in Asia and the Pacific have not brought comfort in New Delhi. Washington too is viewing this with concern. The US side has none the less dismissed media speculation that the importance it is giving to President Obama’s India visit is intended to send signal to Beijing saying that it is equally interested to strengthen its relations with China. There is nevertheless reason to believe that the visit to India is being arranged without Islamabad on the loop to give that message precisely.
On the agenda for the trip will be the entire gamut of bilateral relationships; from health care to defense; from trade to climate change; from education to high tech exports. Trade and financial issues will however be a principal focus on the trip. US-India trade has doubled between 2004-and 2008 when it reached US$ 43 billion. This year, the two way trade is expected to touch US$ 50 billion. During the visit, both sides will push for exponential growth that is within reach of both countries. Market access by US farm products to Indian market is perhaps the only issue of contention in US-India relations at present is also expected to be discussed. One administration official hit the bull’s eye for anyone seeking to understand where US-India relations stand today when he said: "What concerns US today, concerns India as well. And what concerns India, concerns the US. If we move ahead on these issues, it will be a big push forward."
Nevertheless, Pakistan will be an important backdrop for the visit. Understandably, the Pakistanis have been upset by being ignored. However, leading to the visit, it has been the US administration that has made most of the attempts to explain that the importance of Pakistan cannot be under-estimated from the visit in the context of US’ foreign policy priorities where Pakistan is one of its most important allies. President Obama called President Zardari over telephone to reassure him that Pakistan continues to be a very important partner of the USA and its relations with India did not in any way affect its relations with Pakistan. He referred to the recent Third Round of US-Pakistan Strategic Talks in Washington to underscore the importance and depth of US-Pakistan bilateral relations. In his conversation, President Obama assured the Pakistani President that his country will assist Pakistan to get back on track once the war on terror is over, perhaps to assure Pakistan that it would not abandon Pakistan as it had the last time during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Earlier, President Obama had made an unexpected visit to the venue of US-Pakistan strategic talks in Washington to demonstrate the importance the US attaches to its relations with Pakistan. During that visit, he had told the Pakistan delegation that was led by Pakistan’s Foreign Minister that he would undertake a separate visit to Pakistan next year. During his telephone talk with President Zardari, President Obama re-confirmed this invitation.
The overtures that the US side has made to meet Pakistan’s sensitiveness are interesting and unusual. It is something that US has not done before, not for any country. The US, while undertaking these efforts, has also been aware about the furor that was created in US-UK relations when the British Prime Minister had visited India ignoring Pakistan. Yet it has gone ahead and arranged President Obama’s visit to India ignoring Pakistan.
Thus, all the pep talks to soften Pakistan’s sensitivities including a promise of a visit by President Obama next year notwithstanding, there is clearly a shift in preference of the US for one of the two arch rivals in South Asia. It is only the war on terror that is keeping the US committed to Pakistan. Recently, the US has committed US 2 billion in military aid; even overlooking human rights violations by Pakistani troops that should have come under serious scrutiny under the Leahy Amendment that bars aid under such circumstances. This aid comes on top of US$ 7 billion already committed for civilian projects. But at the same time, the US has also expressed its disappointment over the Pakistan military’s commitment in counter terrorism efforts and has warned that if any terrorist attack in USA is traced back to Pakistan, USA would take out “150 terrorist camps” in Pakistan unilaterally. USA is losing its patience with Pakistan and needs more commitment to end the war on terror with the US President committed to start withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan from next year. Ignoring Pakistan on the South Asian trip could have a message about this impatience.
The only silver lining that Pakistan could see in President Obama’s visit to India is he could convey to the Indians its concerns about Indian presence in Afghanistan where it has become a leading donor having so far pledged US$ 650 million. President Obama’s visit to India underlines the fact that it has emerged in a class of its own with Pakistan in the race as long as the war on terror remains unresolved with the rest of South Asian nations not even in the race in USA’s scheme of things in the region.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt and a Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)