The Independent, March 26th, 2011
M. Serajul Islam
One of the many thoughts that come flooding out my memory to my consciousness when I think about 1971 is the evening of March 25th, 1971. A friend and I were in the Dhaka University Club close to what was then Iqbal Hall (presently Sergeant Zahurul Huq Hall) that was the base camp of the students who were preparing for the fight ahead. A lawyer, now quite a well known one, who those days was closely involved with the negotiating team of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman told us that if a document had arrived that mid-day at Road Number 32, all the waiting would be over. He then paused for a moment and said, if it had not, then “keep your finger crossed.”
I arrived home in Dhanmandi RA around 9pm that night. Soon afterwards, a friend who was an Army Captain made a call from Dhaka cantonment. He asked me to stay home, under no circumstances to look out of the window and if possible to hide under the bed. The phone went kaput soon afterwards. That night and the next day and night, we stayed home with curfew clamped over the city, terrorized beyond expression, with incessant gunshots making that terror eerie and unbearable.
When curfew was lifted on the third day briefly, a friend and I surveyed the horror of the two nights in which the Pakistani Army killed innocent Bangalis of all background and left many of them dead on the road. We then returned to my home and sat with my father who was speechless. My father was an educationist, a retired Principal of Comilla Victoria and Government Commerce College, Chittagong. He was one of the 10 East Pakistani economists who signed the “Two Economy” paper at the annual conference of the Pakistan Economic Association in Peshawar in 1958. He knew of the economic disparity. He also believed in Pakistan and actively supported the cause of Pakistan’s independence in 1947. He did not lose that faith even in March, 1971.
But after those two nights and a day of carnage, my father sat before us in a pensive mood. After a while, he told us in a firm voice that Pakistan was dead and Bangladesh’s emergence was just a matter of time. It was just moments later that the three of us listened to that famous broadcast from Sadhin Bangla Betar Kendra in which then Major Ziaur Rahman declared the independence of Bangladesh in the name of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. My friend and I watched my father’s face and we did not need any more convincing that Bangladesh’s birth had taken place.
Those days, we who were in Dhaka used to share secretly whatever information we could gather from personal sources. In particular demand were newspapers and magazines like Time and Newsweek. I can still close my eyes and read in my mind one particular story carried by one of these two well known magazines. It was about a village in Bangladesh where the previous day, the Mukti Bahini had ambushed some Pakistani soldiers and killed one of them. The Pakistani army returned the next day and collected quite a few middle aged and old men as the young men had all vanished, many having joined the Mukti Bahini. A Pakistani army captain demanded from them information about the Mukti Bahini, threatening to kill them if they did not cooperate. One by one, they were killed yet no one betrayed the Mukti Bahini.
It was also the time when people of all background followed one voice, the one they heard on March 7th of their leader Bangabandhu asking them to unite for freedom. It was a call that united a nation of 75 million in a manner that did not unite any people in history. The people of Bangladesh responded to his call in a manner that has few parallels in world history. There were collaborators but their numbers were insignificant and although they assisted the Pakistani army in crimes against humanity, committing such acts themselves, they had no impact on the determination and resolve of the people of Bangladesh in fighting for their independence.
During my career as a diplomat, I have served in many stations where Bangladeshis reside in significant number. I always used to feel proud seeing that Bangladeshis far outnumber Bangla speaking people from West Bengal in these cities. I now travel frequently to Washington. Events of either the Bangladesh Embassy or of the many Bangladesh associations or organizations there invariably draw more people than the organizers can accommodate. The Bangla speaking people from West Bengal in Washington also hold functions of their own but they come nowhere near the number and the fanfare that accompanies those organized by our expatriates.
As a diplomat in Washington, I still remember the words of Mr. Siddhartha Shankar Ray, then the Indian Ambassador to the United States, at our National Day Reception in 1991. All the guests had left except Mr. Ray who had remained with us the Embassy officials. He told us that he was nostalgic and finding it hard to leave, because he did not want his “dream” of attending such gorgeous reception in Washington with so many ladies wearing the sari and speaking Bangla to end!
In the pre-1947 days, our elders grew up and lived in a British India where they were dominated in almost all spheres by West Bengal. In fact, because of the lack of development of East Bengal in those days, our cultured, well-groomed and well spoken Bengali compatriots of West Bengal used to refer to us in a rather derogatory manner as Bangals because in addition to our lack of development, we could not speak the Bangla language as they could. We spoke in local dialects that they thought was a distortion.
How much we have progressed in comparison to West Bengal was driven home when I was a member of the Prime Minister’s entourage to Kolkata where she was invited to that city’s famous Book Fair in 1999. I was a Director-General for South Asia at that time. In one evening of the visit, a group of us were in the hotel office room at Taj Bengal. We received the West Bengal Chief Minister Mr. Jyoti Basu and his Deputy Mr. Buddhudev Basu. We also received Ms. Mamata Banarjee (she was then not a central Minister) and we talked with them before taking them to the Prime Minister like they were simple visitors, without any disrespect to any of them. Nevertheless, we felt we were representing a sovereign government while these individuals were representatives of a provincial government of India. At the reception given to the Prime Minister by Kolkata’s social elites, we could feel by their show of respect to her how big strides our independence has given us in international affairs.
West Bengal is a province of India. Thus it is not a fit subject of comparison. Nevertheless, to our generation who went to the Universities in the 1960s and generations who came before us, it can be a measure of judgment of the fruits of our independence. To leave West Bengal behind and so substantially is no small measure of what we have achieved as an independent nation. It is also the opportunity to pay them back for calling our fathers and their fathers and perhaps also their fathers, Bangals.
These are some of the thoughts that come in a hurry in my memory as I look back to our glorious war of liberation and our independence with pride. Nevertheless, as we celebrate our 40th National and Independence Day and pay our homage to those whose sacrifices have earned us our independence, I cannot help feel sad and sorry that the unity that brought us together and earned us the respect of the rest of humanity has all but been exhausted. Instead, we have divided ourselves over issues and matters so trivial that it is indeed tragic for such division stands in our way to achieve our true potentials. We should spare ourselves a moment and harp on the unity and how dearly we need it today. In fact, it is this unity that is what we need to achieve the Bangladesh for which we fought in 1971. Without that unity we will remain independent, be better than West Bengal but never fulfill the dream and vision for which we created Bangladesh in blood and fire.
The writer is a former secretary and Ambassador to Japan and can be reached by email serajul7@gmail.com
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Bangladesh-India Border Talks: Forward movement in relations
Daily Sun, Sunday, March 20th, 2011
M. Serajul Islam
There has been some major forward movement in Indo-Bangladesh relations at the recently concluded meeting of the heads of the border forces of the two countries. Major General Rafiqul Islam, Director General of the Border Guard, Bangladesh (BGB) and Mr. Raman Srivastava, the Director-General of the Border Security Forces (BSF) led their respective delegations. The talks were held in New Delhi between 8 and 12 March. A Joint Statement was signed after the talks.
The ghost of Felani, the teenage Bangladesh girl who was killed by the BSF in January in Kurigram and whose dead body was left spread over the barbed wire fence at the border that had created widespread bipartisan condemnation in Bangladesh, created the background for the talks. The two sides reviewed all pending issues carried over from the last talks at this level and reached a few positive decisions.
The most positive one was that related to the killings of innocent Bangladeshis like Felani in the Bangladesh-India border by the trigger happy BSF. At the joint press conference, the leader of the Indian delegation said that the BSF soldiers would henceforth carry non-lethal weapons at certain designated spots on an experimental basis. If the experiment is positive, the experiment would be expanded to bring the entire border under its purview. The DG however made it clear that the BSF soldiers would also carry their normal weapons while carrying the non-lethal weapons.
Death of innocent Bangladeshis at the hands of the BSF soldiers is a major sour point in the bilateral relations between the two countries. Felani’s death had brought patience in Bangladesh to a breaking point over the inertia of the Indian Government to stop the killings of innocent Bangladeshis. In fact, people were aghast when it took the Bangladesh Ministry of Foreign Affairs nearly 10 days to hand over a protest note to the Indian High Commissioner against the killing of the young girl Felani.
The deaths has also been severely condemned and criticized by the Human Rights Watch, an international non-government watchdog against such arbitrary killings. The Watch’s report for 2010, has mentioned that in the last one decade, over 1000 Bangladeshis have been killed by the BSF on the Bangladesh-India border. The Report has gone to great details in investigating many of these deaths. In the majority of the cases, death could have been very easily avoided if the BSF had adopted a more civilized approach to the problem.
During the end of the last term of the Awami League, the two countries were involved in an armed conflict over killing of innocent Bangladeshis in the border by BSF soldiers, the first and only time in the history of the two countries. It was stooped before turning ugly after Sheikh Hasina and Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee intervened on behalf of their respective countries. It did not however do India’s image in Bangladesh much good. Since then, the Indians have taken a number of steps to stop smuggling and illegal movement of people from Bangladesh to India that the BSF has identified as the major cause for the deaths. The most important of these steps has been the fencing of the Bangladesh-India border on the Indian side. In 2005, the Indians External Affairs Minister Mr. Natawar Singh categorically stated that it was Indian intention to fence the 4000 miles long border to stop cross border illegal activities. A large part of that intent of India has already been accomplished.
Despite the border fencing, the deaths of Bangladeshis at the hands of the BSF has not declined nor the way they are being killed. Although in such killings, there are many Indians too that are not reported in the Bangladesh media, the fact remains that the Bangladesh nationals are killed indiscriminately and insensitively. It is a well known fact that a very vibrant smuggling trade thrives at the Bangladesh-India border. India has the fence on its side and also the control of the gates. Therefore, it is India that must take the responsibility for the deaths of both the Bangladeshis and Indians some of whom have been shot and killed while running from the BSF. None of these victims were armed.
On its part, Bangladesh Government, both under the AL as well as the BNP Governments and even when the Caretaker Government was briefly in power, has regularly asked the Indian Government and the BSF authorities to stop these senseless border killings. The Bangladesh side has consistently asked the BSF to use non-lethal weapons in stopping Bangladesh nationals in the border because they were in a majority of cases used as conduit in smuggling operations that are largely controlled by operators on the Indian side with full knowledge of the BSF. It is a well known fact that on the India side of the Bangladesh-Indian border, phensedyl factories have been set up with official permission of the Indian authorities whose products are all smuggled into Bangladesh! In case of most of the Bangladeshi victims, their deaths are the outcome of smuggling deal with the BSF authorities going wrong. The insensitivity of the Indian side was brought home even when Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was on her official trip to New Delhi last year and being treated as a state guest in exception of protocol for the visit of a Prime Minister. The BSF’s trigger happy ways against Bangladeshis went on like business as usual.
In the context of how this unfortunate issue has been handled by India in the past, the news from New Delhi augurs well for Bangladesh-India relations. An editorial by one leading English daily of Dhaka, while welcoming the decision, has written that the Indians would do well to see that no more innocent lives of Bangladeshis are lost.
The news that the Indians would allow Bangladesh 24 hours’ access to the enclaves of Dahagram and Angorpota enclaves through the Teen Bigha corridor is another welcome news from the Delhi talks. The Indians have unbelievably sat over it for over 3 and a half decades after the Indira-Mujib border agreement was reached in 1974 that should have given this access at that time. This will help clear some of the negative perceptions in the public mind about India’s small heartedness. Nevertheless, to borrow a cliché, it may be very well said, better late than never.
There was a final piece of good news from New Delhi. The two countries will soon introduce a ceremonial retreat or lowering of flags on Bangladesh-India border at Petraople-Benapole as is done in the Attari- Wagah sector on the Pakistan-India border. All these come together with the news that Bangladesh and India have reached an agreement on sharing of the water of the Teesta. The sum total of all these may be some forward movement in Bangladesh-India relations in the near future.
Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohon Singh is now expected to visit Bangladesh after the elections in April in West Bengal (the first round of those elections will start on April 18th). The long wait to see the Indian hand in improving the Bangladesh-India relations after Bangladesh played out its hand by giving India total commitment on its critically important security concerns and land transit, may be over with this impending visit. Or will it?
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt and a former Secretary to the Government.
M. Serajul Islam
There has been some major forward movement in Indo-Bangladesh relations at the recently concluded meeting of the heads of the border forces of the two countries. Major General Rafiqul Islam, Director General of the Border Guard, Bangladesh (BGB) and Mr. Raman Srivastava, the Director-General of the Border Security Forces (BSF) led their respective delegations. The talks were held in New Delhi between 8 and 12 March. A Joint Statement was signed after the talks.
The ghost of Felani, the teenage Bangladesh girl who was killed by the BSF in January in Kurigram and whose dead body was left spread over the barbed wire fence at the border that had created widespread bipartisan condemnation in Bangladesh, created the background for the talks. The two sides reviewed all pending issues carried over from the last talks at this level and reached a few positive decisions.
The most positive one was that related to the killings of innocent Bangladeshis like Felani in the Bangladesh-India border by the trigger happy BSF. At the joint press conference, the leader of the Indian delegation said that the BSF soldiers would henceforth carry non-lethal weapons at certain designated spots on an experimental basis. If the experiment is positive, the experiment would be expanded to bring the entire border under its purview. The DG however made it clear that the BSF soldiers would also carry their normal weapons while carrying the non-lethal weapons.
Death of innocent Bangladeshis at the hands of the BSF soldiers is a major sour point in the bilateral relations between the two countries. Felani’s death had brought patience in Bangladesh to a breaking point over the inertia of the Indian Government to stop the killings of innocent Bangladeshis. In fact, people were aghast when it took the Bangladesh Ministry of Foreign Affairs nearly 10 days to hand over a protest note to the Indian High Commissioner against the killing of the young girl Felani.
The deaths has also been severely condemned and criticized by the Human Rights Watch, an international non-government watchdog against such arbitrary killings. The Watch’s report for 2010, has mentioned that in the last one decade, over 1000 Bangladeshis have been killed by the BSF on the Bangladesh-India border. The Report has gone to great details in investigating many of these deaths. In the majority of the cases, death could have been very easily avoided if the BSF had adopted a more civilized approach to the problem.
During the end of the last term of the Awami League, the two countries were involved in an armed conflict over killing of innocent Bangladeshis in the border by BSF soldiers, the first and only time in the history of the two countries. It was stooped before turning ugly after Sheikh Hasina and Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee intervened on behalf of their respective countries. It did not however do India’s image in Bangladesh much good. Since then, the Indians have taken a number of steps to stop smuggling and illegal movement of people from Bangladesh to India that the BSF has identified as the major cause for the deaths. The most important of these steps has been the fencing of the Bangladesh-India border on the Indian side. In 2005, the Indians External Affairs Minister Mr. Natawar Singh categorically stated that it was Indian intention to fence the 4000 miles long border to stop cross border illegal activities. A large part of that intent of India has already been accomplished.
Despite the border fencing, the deaths of Bangladeshis at the hands of the BSF has not declined nor the way they are being killed. Although in such killings, there are many Indians too that are not reported in the Bangladesh media, the fact remains that the Bangladesh nationals are killed indiscriminately and insensitively. It is a well known fact that a very vibrant smuggling trade thrives at the Bangladesh-India border. India has the fence on its side and also the control of the gates. Therefore, it is India that must take the responsibility for the deaths of both the Bangladeshis and Indians some of whom have been shot and killed while running from the BSF. None of these victims were armed.
On its part, Bangladesh Government, both under the AL as well as the BNP Governments and even when the Caretaker Government was briefly in power, has regularly asked the Indian Government and the BSF authorities to stop these senseless border killings. The Bangladesh side has consistently asked the BSF to use non-lethal weapons in stopping Bangladesh nationals in the border because they were in a majority of cases used as conduit in smuggling operations that are largely controlled by operators on the Indian side with full knowledge of the BSF. It is a well known fact that on the India side of the Bangladesh-Indian border, phensedyl factories have been set up with official permission of the Indian authorities whose products are all smuggled into Bangladesh! In case of most of the Bangladeshi victims, their deaths are the outcome of smuggling deal with the BSF authorities going wrong. The insensitivity of the Indian side was brought home even when Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was on her official trip to New Delhi last year and being treated as a state guest in exception of protocol for the visit of a Prime Minister. The BSF’s trigger happy ways against Bangladeshis went on like business as usual.
In the context of how this unfortunate issue has been handled by India in the past, the news from New Delhi augurs well for Bangladesh-India relations. An editorial by one leading English daily of Dhaka, while welcoming the decision, has written that the Indians would do well to see that no more innocent lives of Bangladeshis are lost.
The news that the Indians would allow Bangladesh 24 hours’ access to the enclaves of Dahagram and Angorpota enclaves through the Teen Bigha corridor is another welcome news from the Delhi talks. The Indians have unbelievably sat over it for over 3 and a half decades after the Indira-Mujib border agreement was reached in 1974 that should have given this access at that time. This will help clear some of the negative perceptions in the public mind about India’s small heartedness. Nevertheless, to borrow a cliché, it may be very well said, better late than never.
There was a final piece of good news from New Delhi. The two countries will soon introduce a ceremonial retreat or lowering of flags on Bangladesh-India border at Petraople-Benapole as is done in the Attari- Wagah sector on the Pakistan-India border. All these come together with the news that Bangladesh and India have reached an agreement on sharing of the water of the Teesta. The sum total of all these may be some forward movement in Bangladesh-India relations in the near future.
Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohon Singh is now expected to visit Bangladesh after the elections in April in West Bengal (the first round of those elections will start on April 18th). The long wait to see the Indian hand in improving the Bangladesh-India relations after Bangladesh played out its hand by giving India total commitment on its critically important security concerns and land transit, may be over with this impending visit. Or will it?
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt and a former Secretary to the Government.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Blasphemy laws in Pakistan: playing with fire
Published in Daily Sun
Saturday, 12th March, 2011
The assassination of Pakistan’s Minister for Minority Affairs, Mr. Shahbaz Bhatti on March 2nd, at the hands of his security guard has dented Pakistan’s already fragile image as an intolerant country. In January, Pakistan’s a leading politician and Governor of Punjab Mr. Salman Taseer, was also gunned down by his security guard for he too like Mr. Bhatti had been campaigning against Pakistan’s draconian blasphemy laws that target minorities, particularly the Christians. In both cases, the alleged killers were widely hailed in the country. In case of Mr. Bhatti, information on his security was leaked by government security detailed for him.
In case of Mr. Bhatti’s assassination, there was official apathy for his death that was palpably visible. At the funeral of the late Minister, the Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani was the only senior Government official to turn up. The rest of his cabinet and officials, were conspicuously absent. Their absence was more than adequately made up by the presence of a large number of foreign diplomats, including the US Ambassador to Pakistan Mr. Cameron P Munter.
Pakistan’s blasphemy laws have brought the country criticism and censure from abroad particularly from the western nations. It was introduced in the country during the tenure of President Ziaul Huq who was an Islamic fundamentalist. The laws that are part of Pakistan’s Penal Code derive their authority from Article 2 of Pakistan’s constitution that makes Islam the state religion and Article 31that mentions that it is the duty of the country to foster Islam. The blasphemy laws that are included in Pakistan’s Penal Code are spread over a number of its sections. Section 295 prohibits defiling or damaging a place or an object of worship. Sub-sections of this section prohibits specific acts against Islam such as acts against Quran, against Prophet Mohammed (Peace be upon Him), etc and also specifies nature and extent of punishment that extends up to the death penalty. Section 298 and its sub-sections are also parts of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. Article 298-C contains discriminatory provisions against the Ahmediyyas.
The blasphemy laws are now threatening the very basis of Pakistan, already weakened first, by the aftermaths of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and now by the events after 9/11 when Pakistan became an US ally in the war against terror but now shows all the signs of becoming a victim of terror. The blasphemy laws of Pakistan were intended to respect Islam in a country where out of its 173 million people, 97% are Muslims and only 1.6%, Christians. In Pakistan, the religious minorities are not even by the remotest stretch of imagination any threat to the power structure in the country. The Ahmediyyas who have been made religious minorities and against whom the blasphemy laws have been systematically applied in Pakistan are also likewise not a threat to the Muslims of Pakistan.
Yet there have been hundreds of cases in various courts in Pakistan under the country’s blasphemy laws. Strangely, not all the victims of these draconian laws are non-Christians. The majority of the cases under the blasphemy laws have been brought against Muslims who have chosen to come into conflict with these laws. Coming into conflict is not difficult either. In fact for those who want to bring charges under these laws can find enough provisions in Pakistan’s Penal Code to do so easily and at will.
The case of Asia Bibi exposed the notoriety and their ridiculous nature of the blasphemy laws in Pakistan to the rest of the world. Asia Bibi is a Pakistani Christian who worked in a farm in Sheikhupura village. In 2009, she was asked to fetch water by fellow farm workers some of whom refused to drink water from her hand because they believed Christians to be “unclean”. There were some arguments over it but the matter later got entangled over property differences that Asia Bibi had with a neighbour. A mob went to her house and beat her and her family and accused her of passing derogatory remarks about Prophet Mohammed (phub). A case was filed against her under Section 295C and she was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging. The case is pending appeal in a higher court.
Asia Bibi still is now languishing in jail, awaiting her fate. Pope Benedict has appealed for clemency and human rights groups round the world have been vocal in her favour. The fundamentalists pursuing her case have threatened that if the High Court turns down the death sentence or if she is ultimately granted clemency, they will take the law into their hands and implement the death sentence. A human right researcher writing on the Asia Bibi case commented that the “The law creates this legal infrastructure which is then used in various informal ways to intimidate, coerce, harass and persecute."
Between 1986 and 2007, 647 cases were brought before the court for trial. Fifty percent of those who were charged were non-Muslims clearly underscoring the there is opposition among the majority Muslims against the blasphemy laws. However there are ominous signs in the way the blasphemy laws are being played out in Pakistan’s volatile politics. Of the 647 against whom charges were brought, 20 were murdered. Those who are wildly supporting the blasphemy laws have support at important places of the government. In case of both Mr. Bhatti and Mr Taseer, the government’s intelligence helped the assassinations. Mr. Bhatti who knew his life was at stake because of his opposition to the blasphemy laws, tried many ways to protect himself, including staying away from his official residence at night but in the end , his killer tracked him down where he simply lay in waiting for him to pull his trigger. In case of both the Governor and the slain Minister, the killers showed no remorse and were hailed by many as heroes.
It is scary that even the government at the highest level is bowing down to these elements as was evident by the absence of Government leaders excepting the Prime Minister at Mr. Bhatti’s funeral. These elements have been able to put the fear of death in minds of a lot of leading figures of Pakistan. The saddest part of developments in Pakistan over the blasphemy laws is the surrender of the Pakistan People’s Party to these elements. Prime Minister Gilani has said that his Government is not going to change the blasphemy laws, not even after knowing that these elements were behind the death of Benazir Bhutto. Britain’s leading newspaper The Guardian in a recent editorial put Pakistan in perspective with its despicable blasphemy laws by writing that “the government, the army the courts are playing with fire. Appeasement never works and in the end it will consume them all.”
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt and Secretary to the Government
Saturday, 12th March, 2011
The assassination of Pakistan’s Minister for Minority Affairs, Mr. Shahbaz Bhatti on March 2nd, at the hands of his security guard has dented Pakistan’s already fragile image as an intolerant country. In January, Pakistan’s a leading politician and Governor of Punjab Mr. Salman Taseer, was also gunned down by his security guard for he too like Mr. Bhatti had been campaigning against Pakistan’s draconian blasphemy laws that target minorities, particularly the Christians. In both cases, the alleged killers were widely hailed in the country. In case of Mr. Bhatti, information on his security was leaked by government security detailed for him.
In case of Mr. Bhatti’s assassination, there was official apathy for his death that was palpably visible. At the funeral of the late Minister, the Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani was the only senior Government official to turn up. The rest of his cabinet and officials, were conspicuously absent. Their absence was more than adequately made up by the presence of a large number of foreign diplomats, including the US Ambassador to Pakistan Mr. Cameron P Munter.
Pakistan’s blasphemy laws have brought the country criticism and censure from abroad particularly from the western nations. It was introduced in the country during the tenure of President Ziaul Huq who was an Islamic fundamentalist. The laws that are part of Pakistan’s Penal Code derive their authority from Article 2 of Pakistan’s constitution that makes Islam the state religion and Article 31that mentions that it is the duty of the country to foster Islam. The blasphemy laws that are included in Pakistan’s Penal Code are spread over a number of its sections. Section 295 prohibits defiling or damaging a place or an object of worship. Sub-sections of this section prohibits specific acts against Islam such as acts against Quran, against Prophet Mohammed (Peace be upon Him), etc and also specifies nature and extent of punishment that extends up to the death penalty. Section 298 and its sub-sections are also parts of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. Article 298-C contains discriminatory provisions against the Ahmediyyas.
The blasphemy laws are now threatening the very basis of Pakistan, already weakened first, by the aftermaths of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and now by the events after 9/11 when Pakistan became an US ally in the war against terror but now shows all the signs of becoming a victim of terror. The blasphemy laws of Pakistan were intended to respect Islam in a country where out of its 173 million people, 97% are Muslims and only 1.6%, Christians. In Pakistan, the religious minorities are not even by the remotest stretch of imagination any threat to the power structure in the country. The Ahmediyyas who have been made religious minorities and against whom the blasphemy laws have been systematically applied in Pakistan are also likewise not a threat to the Muslims of Pakistan.
Yet there have been hundreds of cases in various courts in Pakistan under the country’s blasphemy laws. Strangely, not all the victims of these draconian laws are non-Christians. The majority of the cases under the blasphemy laws have been brought against Muslims who have chosen to come into conflict with these laws. Coming into conflict is not difficult either. In fact for those who want to bring charges under these laws can find enough provisions in Pakistan’s Penal Code to do so easily and at will.
The case of Asia Bibi exposed the notoriety and their ridiculous nature of the blasphemy laws in Pakistan to the rest of the world. Asia Bibi is a Pakistani Christian who worked in a farm in Sheikhupura village. In 2009, she was asked to fetch water by fellow farm workers some of whom refused to drink water from her hand because they believed Christians to be “unclean”. There were some arguments over it but the matter later got entangled over property differences that Asia Bibi had with a neighbour. A mob went to her house and beat her and her family and accused her of passing derogatory remarks about Prophet Mohammed (phub). A case was filed against her under Section 295C and she was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging. The case is pending appeal in a higher court.
Asia Bibi still is now languishing in jail, awaiting her fate. Pope Benedict has appealed for clemency and human rights groups round the world have been vocal in her favour. The fundamentalists pursuing her case have threatened that if the High Court turns down the death sentence or if she is ultimately granted clemency, they will take the law into their hands and implement the death sentence. A human right researcher writing on the Asia Bibi case commented that the “The law creates this legal infrastructure which is then used in various informal ways to intimidate, coerce, harass and persecute."
Between 1986 and 2007, 647 cases were brought before the court for trial. Fifty percent of those who were charged were non-Muslims clearly underscoring the there is opposition among the majority Muslims against the blasphemy laws. However there are ominous signs in the way the blasphemy laws are being played out in Pakistan’s volatile politics. Of the 647 against whom charges were brought, 20 were murdered. Those who are wildly supporting the blasphemy laws have support at important places of the government. In case of both Mr. Bhatti and Mr Taseer, the government’s intelligence helped the assassinations. Mr. Bhatti who knew his life was at stake because of his opposition to the blasphemy laws, tried many ways to protect himself, including staying away from his official residence at night but in the end , his killer tracked him down where he simply lay in waiting for him to pull his trigger. In case of both the Governor and the slain Minister, the killers showed no remorse and were hailed by many as heroes.
It is scary that even the government at the highest level is bowing down to these elements as was evident by the absence of Government leaders excepting the Prime Minister at Mr. Bhatti’s funeral. These elements have been able to put the fear of death in minds of a lot of leading figures of Pakistan. The saddest part of developments in Pakistan over the blasphemy laws is the surrender of the Pakistan People’s Party to these elements. Prime Minister Gilani has said that his Government is not going to change the blasphemy laws, not even after knowing that these elements were behind the death of Benazir Bhutto. Britain’s leading newspaper The Guardian in a recent editorial put Pakistan in perspective with its despicable blasphemy laws by writing that “the government, the army the courts are playing with fire. Appeasement never works and in the end it will consume them all.”
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt and Secretary to the Government
On Bangladesh Cricket
Published in The Independent
Saturday, March 12th, 2011
It was not just the Bangladesh cricketers who disappointed us by their performance against the West Indies last week. The spectators were worse. The same crowd that ran behind the Bangladesh Team’s bus from Mirpur Stadium to the Hotel for wining a match against Ireland was on a rampage when Bangladesh lost to the West Indies. TV footages showed Dhaka University students taking down Bangladesh flags and advertisements related to the World Cup inside DU campus, the same students who were cheering late into the night after the Irish victory. Hence we cannot even say that the uncivilized behaviour was carried out by illiterate people.
The incident of throwing stones at the West Indian team’s bus was disgusting. Chris Gayle used choice words to abuse Bangladesh. From his bus, he went on Twitter and the news was instantly caught by news media around the world, denting Bangladesh’s fragile image abroad. A police official said later that the stones were meant for the Bangladesh team and landed in the West Indian bus by mistake. Chris Gayle did not show much sensitivity because he damaged a country’s image for faults of perhaps a handful of people.
The nation was shocked and disappointed because of build up in the media that was largely exaggerated on the issue of the ability of the Bangladesh team. The worst part of what should be for Bangladesh cricket termed as Black Friday was the attack on the house of the parents of the Bangladesh captain. It was utterly despicable to see how we can so easily fall to such utter depths of uncivilized behavior.
I am sure that those who are in charge of cricket in Bangladesh will use this defeat to good purpose by examining what went wrong. Cricket is a game of glorious uncertainties. Those uncertainties would have been acceptable if the fate of our team had been due to some exceptional bowling by the West Indians. That was hardly the case for when Junaid Siddiqui batted; he scored those 25 runs so fluently that his innings put in contrast the ridiculous ways in which his team mates were bowled out. The pitch was tailored to suit Bangladesh’s batting and bowling. It was a slow pitch that meant the West Indians’ fast bowlers were not expected to get much assistance from it. The team batted as if they were out to score 400 and even when the ship had sunk, it was incredible to see how Mohammed Ashraful was smiling at the crease as if he was out there for fun!
For those who understands cricket, the defeat was shocking because this time around, Bangladesh is not being considered as a minnow. Cricket commentators who in the past were dismissing Bangladesh rather insultingly are now accepting that on its day, Bangladesh can beat any of the teams playing in this year’s World Cup. However, this notwithstanding, we overlooked the fact that our expectations on cricket have been based on series victories in limited over’s cricket against West Indies, New Zealand and Zimbabwe and one time wins over Australia and India. In exaggerating the value of these victories, we failed to consider that we beat a West Indian team that was utterly depleted of its best players and we “white washed” a New Zealand team on home ground at a time when New Zealand is having a lean spell. Zimbabwe is today a minnow by its own acknowledgement and choice.
Our victories against Australia and India for which we have congratulated ourselves profusely have come after we have been losing to them monotonously. What could have been very well considered as a flash in the pan was instead taken by our media and our people who watch cricket as climbing the Everest. Suddenly, we became a self-acclaimed world cricketing power. Before the start of the Bangladesh-India game, due to the build up in the media and among the people, many genuinely expected Bangladesh to beat India.
The expectations were nevertheless built around certain facts. First we have in at least two of our players, Tamim Iqbal and Saqib al Hasan, class performers. Second, when the Bangladesh team plays, they show at certain stages of games, talent that inspires those watching to believe that this team would be able to beat anyone not just one time but repeatedly. However, we chose to build our expectations to become world beaters based on just these two players who themselves, despite their immense talents, have a lot to learn. More importantly, when they fail, the team crumbles like a pack of cards.
We did a few other things wrong too. The way the team was treated after its “white-wash” against New Zealand sent the wrong signals to the players. They were showered with land and cars as if they had brought the country the World Cup. A small section with a sense of history was reminded of General Mobuto and his gifts for the Zaire Football Team after it qualified in the World Cup Football, only to lose miserably. The team was unable to return home, fearing public wrath and the houses of the players were burnt.
It is time for all concerned with cricket to go back to the drawing board. There is a lot to be said about cricket, about team selection, etc. Let that be said elsewhere except let me raise one or two cricketing point here for the readers. Tamim Iqbal is a brilliant cricketer but he is not yet Virendra Sewag . Even Sewag now realizes that in 50 overs game, he must play till the last or try to do so. India has many world class players to hold the innings if he fails. Bangladesh has just Tamim Iqbal. Hence it is stupidity to let him play his attacking innings from the first ball. He has shown against India that he is capable of playing a restrained innings. Why then should he be allowed to play for himself only? Mohammed Ashraful is another player who summarizes both status and state of mind of Bangladesh cricket and cricketers, perfectly. He fails with monotonous regularity; yet he is included in the hope that the one good innings he plays once in a blue moon would also bring Bangladesh a once a blue moon win!.
And what about the media? Those who write on cricket need to educate themselves. After our victory against Ireland, newspapers carried banner headlines of this victory! It is time for all to show balanced response to our cricket that has improved substantially but still has a long way to go. We are today not taken for granted in limited over cricket while in Test we have still to prove our worth. In limited over cricket, we are far from attaining anything close to consistency in winning. In fact, we are still consistent in losing. In building our cricketing hopes, we should keep this in mind. We are building our hopes without caring about statistics.
Notwithstanding any of the above, Bangladesh could still move to the second round of the World Cup because of the upsets in Bangladesh’s group although its chances would have better if England had lost to South Africa. But Bangladesh cannot do that on cricketing ability alone, not yet; it would need a miracle of major proportions to move to the quarter finals.
The writer of a former Ambassador to Japan.
Saturday, March 12th, 2011
It was not just the Bangladesh cricketers who disappointed us by their performance against the West Indies last week. The spectators were worse. The same crowd that ran behind the Bangladesh Team’s bus from Mirpur Stadium to the Hotel for wining a match against Ireland was on a rampage when Bangladesh lost to the West Indies. TV footages showed Dhaka University students taking down Bangladesh flags and advertisements related to the World Cup inside DU campus, the same students who were cheering late into the night after the Irish victory. Hence we cannot even say that the uncivilized behaviour was carried out by illiterate people.
The incident of throwing stones at the West Indian team’s bus was disgusting. Chris Gayle used choice words to abuse Bangladesh. From his bus, he went on Twitter and the news was instantly caught by news media around the world, denting Bangladesh’s fragile image abroad. A police official said later that the stones were meant for the Bangladesh team and landed in the West Indian bus by mistake. Chris Gayle did not show much sensitivity because he damaged a country’s image for faults of perhaps a handful of people.
The nation was shocked and disappointed because of build up in the media that was largely exaggerated on the issue of the ability of the Bangladesh team. The worst part of what should be for Bangladesh cricket termed as Black Friday was the attack on the house of the parents of the Bangladesh captain. It was utterly despicable to see how we can so easily fall to such utter depths of uncivilized behavior.
I am sure that those who are in charge of cricket in Bangladesh will use this defeat to good purpose by examining what went wrong. Cricket is a game of glorious uncertainties. Those uncertainties would have been acceptable if the fate of our team had been due to some exceptional bowling by the West Indians. That was hardly the case for when Junaid Siddiqui batted; he scored those 25 runs so fluently that his innings put in contrast the ridiculous ways in which his team mates were bowled out. The pitch was tailored to suit Bangladesh’s batting and bowling. It was a slow pitch that meant the West Indians’ fast bowlers were not expected to get much assistance from it. The team batted as if they were out to score 400 and even when the ship had sunk, it was incredible to see how Mohammed Ashraful was smiling at the crease as if he was out there for fun!
For those who understands cricket, the defeat was shocking because this time around, Bangladesh is not being considered as a minnow. Cricket commentators who in the past were dismissing Bangladesh rather insultingly are now accepting that on its day, Bangladesh can beat any of the teams playing in this year’s World Cup. However, this notwithstanding, we overlooked the fact that our expectations on cricket have been based on series victories in limited over’s cricket against West Indies, New Zealand and Zimbabwe and one time wins over Australia and India. In exaggerating the value of these victories, we failed to consider that we beat a West Indian team that was utterly depleted of its best players and we “white washed” a New Zealand team on home ground at a time when New Zealand is having a lean spell. Zimbabwe is today a minnow by its own acknowledgement and choice.
Our victories against Australia and India for which we have congratulated ourselves profusely have come after we have been losing to them monotonously. What could have been very well considered as a flash in the pan was instead taken by our media and our people who watch cricket as climbing the Everest. Suddenly, we became a self-acclaimed world cricketing power. Before the start of the Bangladesh-India game, due to the build up in the media and among the people, many genuinely expected Bangladesh to beat India.
The expectations were nevertheless built around certain facts. First we have in at least two of our players, Tamim Iqbal and Saqib al Hasan, class performers. Second, when the Bangladesh team plays, they show at certain stages of games, talent that inspires those watching to believe that this team would be able to beat anyone not just one time but repeatedly. However, we chose to build our expectations to become world beaters based on just these two players who themselves, despite their immense talents, have a lot to learn. More importantly, when they fail, the team crumbles like a pack of cards.
We did a few other things wrong too. The way the team was treated after its “white-wash” against New Zealand sent the wrong signals to the players. They were showered with land and cars as if they had brought the country the World Cup. A small section with a sense of history was reminded of General Mobuto and his gifts for the Zaire Football Team after it qualified in the World Cup Football, only to lose miserably. The team was unable to return home, fearing public wrath and the houses of the players were burnt.
It is time for all concerned with cricket to go back to the drawing board. There is a lot to be said about cricket, about team selection, etc. Let that be said elsewhere except let me raise one or two cricketing point here for the readers. Tamim Iqbal is a brilliant cricketer but he is not yet Virendra Sewag . Even Sewag now realizes that in 50 overs game, he must play till the last or try to do so. India has many world class players to hold the innings if he fails. Bangladesh has just Tamim Iqbal. Hence it is stupidity to let him play his attacking innings from the first ball. He has shown against India that he is capable of playing a restrained innings. Why then should he be allowed to play for himself only? Mohammed Ashraful is another player who summarizes both status and state of mind of Bangladesh cricket and cricketers, perfectly. He fails with monotonous regularity; yet he is included in the hope that the one good innings he plays once in a blue moon would also bring Bangladesh a once a blue moon win!.
And what about the media? Those who write on cricket need to educate themselves. After our victory against Ireland, newspapers carried banner headlines of this victory! It is time for all to show balanced response to our cricket that has improved substantially but still has a long way to go. We are today not taken for granted in limited over cricket while in Test we have still to prove our worth. In limited over cricket, we are far from attaining anything close to consistency in winning. In fact, we are still consistent in losing. In building our cricketing hopes, we should keep this in mind. We are building our hopes without caring about statistics.
Notwithstanding any of the above, Bangladesh could still move to the second round of the World Cup because of the upsets in Bangladesh’s group although its chances would have better if England had lost to South Africa. But Bangladesh cannot do that on cricketing ability alone, not yet; it would need a miracle of major proportions to move to the quarter finals.
The writer of a former Ambassador to Japan.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
On love for the country
Published in The Independent, March 5th , 2011
M. Serajul Islam
We begin each year by celebrating the return of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman from his captivity in Pakistan to an independent Bangladesh that his vision and leadership created. Then in February, we devote the entire month to Bangla.
Our glorious war of liberation started with declaration of independence on March 25th, 1971. We now devote March every year to celebrate our independence and continue for the rest of the year remembering the great events of the 9 months long war. In April, we devote the month to the Bangla New Year. In August, we have the month of national mourning. We end the year as the month of liberation. In fact, there is hardly a month when we do not see the nation involved in demonstrating some event or other showing our love for our motherland, its history and culture and individuals whom we hold in esteem.
Other nations also acknowledge their history; celebrate their independence and if they have a leader like our Father of the Nation, they show him respect. They do these things but their enthusiasm comes nowhere to what we show. Where other nations spend a day for a national event, we end up devoting up to an entire month with some of these events and with our war of liberation, the observance just never ends. Does it then mean we love our country more than others love theirs?
If we look beyond the national events and leaders to our literature and songs devoted to our love for our country, we would surely stand head and shoulder above any nation on earth. In our poems, we depict Bangladesh as the most beautiful nation and express sentiments that no doubt reflect that our poets and those who read such poetry have their hearts in the right place but not their heads. The exaggeration is obvious.
What is really a wonder is the fact that in a country where we show such love for our motherland in so many ways, a significant part of the people accuses another significant part of utter lack of patriotism! For those of us who have lived through 1971, we know it to be true without any argument that except for a handful of people who collaborated with the genocidal Pakistani army as Razakars, the overwhelming majority of our people gave unequivocal and unwavering support to the cause of our freedom. It is therefore unacceptable that there can be such a large number of people opposed to Bangladesh today.
It is time therefore for us to look dispassionately whether we need to play our emotions and exposure in national life a little less so we can concentrate better at nation building efforts. There are many new issues cropping up in our national life on which we are unfortunately not focusing. A Few days ago, we wanted to watch World Cup Cricket on a big TV screen at a city’s elite club. We were not allowed because quite a large number of members were watching Indian superstar Mr. Salman Khan’s performance at Bangabandhu National Stadium where Hindi and Indian culture were on display and aired by a local TV channel for rest of the country to watch. We took the World Cup Trophy to the Shahid Minar that the nation cheered but the same nation also enjoyed Mr. Khan’s programme where Bangladeshi performers also joined with songs and dances alien to our culture. The fact that this was February meant little to the organizers and did not also draw any protest from those who are so passionate in our public life with such issues.
In Fact, in between our public passion with patriotism, we are being engulfed with invasion of Indian and foreign cultures , thanks to the easy availability of Indian TV channels and indulgence of our own private TV channels depicting copy cat programmes from Indian TV channels. In the midst of our indulgence with Bangla, we are blissfully overlooking how it is being sidelined from educational institutions to which not just the rich and the powerful but also people with lesser resources are sending their children. Bangla has in fact lost out in importance in educational institutions since our independence. Former US Ambassador Harry Thomas once said in a private discussion that he was amazed that in Bangladesh the upper section preferred the English schools for their children; those in the middle the Bangla schools and the vast section of poor of the country the Arabic schools while in public the whole country was overboard with their love for Bangla!
We take pride for the International Mother Language Day unaware of the fact that the Day is for committing ourselves to languages that are dying. We are pledge bound to save the languages of our indigenous peoples and our hill tribes but we are so busy with Bangla at the public level that we have just no time to bother about the languages of these peoples that our dying.
Have we served Bangla to the extent of the love we show for it? Speakers in this year’s “Boi Mela” have lamented that good books on serious subjects in Bangla are hardly coming to the market. Unless we are able to produce research and text books in Bangla, our language will never reach the heights for which it has the potential. The other sad aspect of books in Bangla is the cost factor. The ordinary folks are only capable of buying a token number of books in Bangla; nowhere to make such books an inevitable part of our lives. The rich and the powerful generally keep away from events as the Boi Mela because they have little use of these books.
We should feel proud of our love for our country; it language, history and leaders. However, sadly a lot of that love is not translated to nation building. We must consider restraining our emotions and spend more time and energy for nation building. Perhaps less emotion could lead us to do better things for the country. For instance it could help us find out that families of many we admire so emotionally in public are languishing in private in deep financial crisis and encourage us to care for them.
The bottom line is everyone loves his country for that is the natural thing to do. In his famous poem “Patriot” Sir Walter Scott had written those immortal lines: “Breathes there a man with soul so dead, who hath never said to himself, ‘this is my own, my native land.” The love of an individual for his country is natural as is one’s love for mother; anything to the contrary is not. Hence, patriotism is taken for granted everywhere without the need to boast about it or exaggerate it.
The way we demonstrated our love for the motherland in 1971 places us in a class of our own on patriotism. In fact, our sacrifices in 1971 should encourage us to be humble and use that patriotism to translate to reality the causes for which so many had made the ultimate sacrifice.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt and a former Secretary to the Gover
M. Serajul Islam
We begin each year by celebrating the return of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman from his captivity in Pakistan to an independent Bangladesh that his vision and leadership created. Then in February, we devote the entire month to Bangla.
Our glorious war of liberation started with declaration of independence on March 25th, 1971. We now devote March every year to celebrate our independence and continue for the rest of the year remembering the great events of the 9 months long war. In April, we devote the month to the Bangla New Year. In August, we have the month of national mourning. We end the year as the month of liberation. In fact, there is hardly a month when we do not see the nation involved in demonstrating some event or other showing our love for our motherland, its history and culture and individuals whom we hold in esteem.
Other nations also acknowledge their history; celebrate their independence and if they have a leader like our Father of the Nation, they show him respect. They do these things but their enthusiasm comes nowhere to what we show. Where other nations spend a day for a national event, we end up devoting up to an entire month with some of these events and with our war of liberation, the observance just never ends. Does it then mean we love our country more than others love theirs?
If we look beyond the national events and leaders to our literature and songs devoted to our love for our country, we would surely stand head and shoulder above any nation on earth. In our poems, we depict Bangladesh as the most beautiful nation and express sentiments that no doubt reflect that our poets and those who read such poetry have their hearts in the right place but not their heads. The exaggeration is obvious.
What is really a wonder is the fact that in a country where we show such love for our motherland in so many ways, a significant part of the people accuses another significant part of utter lack of patriotism! For those of us who have lived through 1971, we know it to be true without any argument that except for a handful of people who collaborated with the genocidal Pakistani army as Razakars, the overwhelming majority of our people gave unequivocal and unwavering support to the cause of our freedom. It is therefore unacceptable that there can be such a large number of people opposed to Bangladesh today.
It is time therefore for us to look dispassionately whether we need to play our emotions and exposure in national life a little less so we can concentrate better at nation building efforts. There are many new issues cropping up in our national life on which we are unfortunately not focusing. A Few days ago, we wanted to watch World Cup Cricket on a big TV screen at a city’s elite club. We were not allowed because quite a large number of members were watching Indian superstar Mr. Salman Khan’s performance at Bangabandhu National Stadium where Hindi and Indian culture were on display and aired by a local TV channel for rest of the country to watch. We took the World Cup Trophy to the Shahid Minar that the nation cheered but the same nation also enjoyed Mr. Khan’s programme where Bangladeshi performers also joined with songs and dances alien to our culture. The fact that this was February meant little to the organizers and did not also draw any protest from those who are so passionate in our public life with such issues.
In Fact, in between our public passion with patriotism, we are being engulfed with invasion of Indian and foreign cultures , thanks to the easy availability of Indian TV channels and indulgence of our own private TV channels depicting copy cat programmes from Indian TV channels. In the midst of our indulgence with Bangla, we are blissfully overlooking how it is being sidelined from educational institutions to which not just the rich and the powerful but also people with lesser resources are sending their children. Bangla has in fact lost out in importance in educational institutions since our independence. Former US Ambassador Harry Thomas once said in a private discussion that he was amazed that in Bangladesh the upper section preferred the English schools for their children; those in the middle the Bangla schools and the vast section of poor of the country the Arabic schools while in public the whole country was overboard with their love for Bangla!
We take pride for the International Mother Language Day unaware of the fact that the Day is for committing ourselves to languages that are dying. We are pledge bound to save the languages of our indigenous peoples and our hill tribes but we are so busy with Bangla at the public level that we have just no time to bother about the languages of these peoples that our dying.
Have we served Bangla to the extent of the love we show for it? Speakers in this year’s “Boi Mela” have lamented that good books on serious subjects in Bangla are hardly coming to the market. Unless we are able to produce research and text books in Bangla, our language will never reach the heights for which it has the potential. The other sad aspect of books in Bangla is the cost factor. The ordinary folks are only capable of buying a token number of books in Bangla; nowhere to make such books an inevitable part of our lives. The rich and the powerful generally keep away from events as the Boi Mela because they have little use of these books.
We should feel proud of our love for our country; it language, history and leaders. However, sadly a lot of that love is not translated to nation building. We must consider restraining our emotions and spend more time and energy for nation building. Perhaps less emotion could lead us to do better things for the country. For instance it could help us find out that families of many we admire so emotionally in public are languishing in private in deep financial crisis and encourage us to care for them.
The bottom line is everyone loves his country for that is the natural thing to do. In his famous poem “Patriot” Sir Walter Scott had written those immortal lines: “Breathes there a man with soul so dead, who hath never said to himself, ‘this is my own, my native land.” The love of an individual for his country is natural as is one’s love for mother; anything to the contrary is not. Hence, patriotism is taken for granted everywhere without the need to boast about it or exaggerate it.
The way we demonstrated our love for the motherland in 1971 places us in a class of our own on patriotism. In fact, our sacrifices in 1971 should encourage us to be humble and use that patriotism to translate to reality the causes for which so many had made the ultimate sacrifice.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt and a former Secretary to the Gover
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Branding Bangladesh and Image Building: The Problems
Published in The Bangladesh Journal of National and Foreign Affairs
Volume 8; Number 1, March, 2011
M. Serajul Islam
As a diplomat now retired, one of the many regrets that I have had over the years was the fact that I was not able to serve the country abroad in the early days of our independence. For my colleagues, who served the country overseas at that time, representing Bangladesh was a matter of pride. They could hold their heads high as representatives of the country that fought and won freedom that most nations would not even have dared to contemplate.
Yet something went amiss. In fact, a lot went amiss thereafter. Then it was no longer such a matter of pride to be a Bangladeshi diplomat abroad. The nature of politics at home was something that did not make life comfortable for a diplomat as humiliating questions aimed at Bangladesh were quite common from hosts in our places of postings; questions that made us hide our faces in shame. The horrendous crime perpetuated in killing Bangabandhu and his family was enough to wipe out all the international good feelings for Bangladesh that the country had earned by its glorious war of liberation. Bangabandhu himself did not help much either in the context of Bangladesh’s image. His 4th amendment to the Bangladesh constitution that turned Bangladesh from a democratic to an autocratic state was another fodder to the international press to humiliate Bangladesh.
It was however Dr. Henry Kissinger’s insensitive and gleeful nod to Ambassador Alexis Johnson’s reference to Bangladesh as the international basket case, made in Special Group Meeting on December 6th., 1971, that dealt a mortal blow to the country. Even after many decades, that cruel joke haunts Bangladesh and the damage it has done to Bangladesh’s development efforts is just too costly to comprehend. If there was justice in international relations, Bangladesh would have the perfect case to sue Dr. Kissinger and Ambassador Johnson for grave damages to Bangladesh. Dr. Kissinger, who encouraged the remark of Ambassador Johnson out of personal grudge that he and President Nixon held against Mrs. Indira Gandhi and Soviet Union, gained momentum in the international media after the famine of 1974 in Bangladesh; the 4hth amendment to the Bangladesh constitutions and the assassinations of Bangabandhu.
The 5th and 7th amendments that legitimized military rule and further damaged Bangladesh’s image abroad and made its development efforts that much more difficult given the fact that for a resource poor Bangladesh, international support was then as it is now, of the essence to its development efforts.
Despite the poor international image, the country made significant strides once democracy was restored in 1991. Kissinger’s international basket case has now an economy whose GDP size is close to US$ 100 billion that is larger than half of all Africa’s 54 states taken together. Seven million expatriates of whom the overwhelming majority have gone from Bangladesh’s poor villages have sent to the country roughly US$ 11 billion in foreign remittance last year. Bangladesh’s RMG exporters are now world class entrepreneurs competing with the best in business for markets in USA and Europe. In Dr. Yunus’ winning the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize, all these major developments of Bangladesh have found projection before the world.
Still, Bangladesh has not yet fully recovered from the damage done by Dr. Kissinger. The international media took Dr. Kissinger’s theme about Bangladesh to heart and even used the natural calamities that visited Bangladesh more than other developing countries to continue to brand Bangladesh as a hopeless case. I still remember a Bangladeshi stringer for a British newspaper who had woken his contact in London to tell him about an important event concerning one of the major elections of the country. His contact was angry to be woken up at night and the stringer was told that he should wake him up next time only when he had a major disaster in Bangladesh to report!
The dark shadows woven about Bangladesh’s image will never go unless it is tackled as an issue of major national importance. In fact, if any nation is begging on its knees today for branding to change its image, that country is Bangladesh where it has put almost all its acts together to come before the international community as a country of hope for a better future. Take two examples and the point will be clear. Dr. Kissinger based his infamous and insensitive comment on the aid Bangladesh would need in case there was a famine. Today, Bangladeshis with more than 2 times the population is close to self sufficiency in food production and famine that Dr. Kissinger had feared, is a matter of the past. Bangladesh has today achieved the best preparedness against natural calamities like cyclones and floods that has made the world acknowledge the country’s resilience and its abilities. In fact, when an international conference was held in Japan after the Tsunami, Bangladesh was invited as a special guest to talk in the conference because of its successes in dealing with natural calamities although the country was not affected by Tsunami.
Bangladesh has almost put its entire act together to brand itself. The icing on the cake without which the cake will be incomplete and hence cannot be sold in the international arena is the getting together of the political leadership and providing that icing. Unfortunately, here Bangladesh has a formidable obstacle because of the partisan and conflict ridden nature of its politics. In 2005, the internationally acknowledged financial institution Goldman and Sachs named Bangladesh as one of the “next11” emerging economies. It was wasted because the BNP was indulging with the Islamic fundamentalists and Awami League eager to tag Bangladesh as a “Taliban” state. In the post 9/11 world, the two parties could not have done worse for Bangladesh. The emergency that followed did not help Bangladesh’s desire to brand itself as a country with hope for a better future.
The Awami League’s calls for “digital Bangladesh” and “Time for Change” have encouraged the private sector to lead the yearning for branding Bangladesh. There are a number of initiatives taken by private sector groups for this purpose. Unfortunately, at the level of politics, the environment necessary for branding Bangladesh is deteriorating. The calls that had inspired millions of new generation of voters for “digital Bangladesh” and “Time for Change” are turning out to be weak slogans and politics is becoming more partisan and conflict ridden.
Hence despite the country being ready for branding, politics is not. At the government level, there is no serious move for branding. There is an acceptance for image building at government circles that can be loosely interpreted as branding that the private sector is trying to achieve but even in image building, the government is talking more and doing less. In such talks and weak efforts at image building, clichés have dominated the thinking of the government and still does to create a positive image of Bangladesh internationally without much success.
The clichés that have dominated the psyche of all governments, including the present one, have been Bangladesh’s beauty; its longest natural beach in the world; its glorious war of liberation; and its sacrifices for language; etc. While these factors are useful for domestic consumption; these have little saleable value internationally. For instance, the love of our poets in the country’s beauty notwithstanding, such beauty is average in comparison to natural sites in other countries. Our longest beach may be a geographical fact but shorter beaches round the world attract much more tourists. Our contribution for language has won UNESCO recognition but again does not many takers abroad.
There may however be many takers if Bangladesh looked for image building materials elsewhere. As an Ambassador of Japan, one of the proudest moments for me was when I was listening to songs of Farida Parveen who was invited as a guest by Japan Foundation to mark the 30th year of establishment of Bangladesh-Japan diplomatic ties. She sang Lalon songs to the accompaniment of flute by a person whose name I cannot remember now except the fact that he was a world class flutist. Her songs were translated into Japanese. The audience listened to the songs in rapt attention. Afterwards when I spoke with some of the audience, I could feel the rendition had touched their hearts because Japanese people have great depth in the themes that Lalon’s songs uphold. We seldom if ever make attempts project such treasures abroad and tend to think such efforts are a waste of public money. Instead we prefer to give our poets free ride with the Prime Minister on her foreign trips and when they “choose” to travel in economy class instead of business, our media eulogizes them for their concern for public money! If Farida Parveen and Lalon songs are used for branding and image building Bangladesh in Japan, then we could just not reach the Japanese purse but their hearts, keeping in mind Japan’s Buddhist traditions went from Bangladesh through Atish Dipanker over a thousand years ago.
We miss out on the richness of our history and civilization too eager to dwell on the present where controversy raised by the two mainstream parties have not allowed us to benefit from the sacrifices our people made in 1971 that has few parallels in history. In the process, we have not been able to project that our history is as ancient and as glorious as of next door India that has branded itself successfully as decedents of a civilization that has been unbroken for many millenniums.
Our branding or image building has failed so far for many reasons; as those cited. However, it has also failed because the country has not spent the resources needed for such a national effort. In fact, the governments have so far undertaken propaganda oriented efforts that they have chosen to call image building, spending pittance for such silly efforts. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has an apology of a wing called the External Publicity Division that has been given in the most non-professional and ad hoc manner, the task for image building. In next door India, it has under the External Affairs Ministry, establishments like the Indian Council for Cultural Relations and the External Publicity Division for official image building of India. These establishments have authority and resources to undertake the image building of India whose budget is perhaps more than what we spend for our Foreign Ministry!
Thus although everybody today acknowledges that branding and image building should be one of the major objectives of the Government, the ground reality for undertaking such an effort is not there. It is time that the civil society actively takes up the case to put pressure upon the political leaders to take a bipartisan approach to this important national task. The objective should be to give the role of branding or image building, as in India, to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and provide it with the appropriate resources to lead Bangladesh’s image building and coordinate the initiatives being undertaken at the private level.
On the important issue of branding, the country must first decide on a bipartisan approach that is absolutely crucial. It must then choose a Ministry of the Government and give it the responsibility for branding Bangladesh and give it the power, authority and resources. That Ministry should logically be the Foreign Ministry that would have nearly 50 of its Embassies located on foreign soil for image building. Once these crucial issues are resolved, the Ministry must take professional assistance of the highest standard, preferably from professional establishments abroad, for the purpose. Thereafter, its history and civilization; its glorious war of liberation; its rich cultural diversity; music, song and dances; its cuisine; its economic successes; should be woven into a theme. That would be the branding part.
Then would come the all important image building part. The Government must have a plan and a strategy for sustained efforts over a long period of time. While this is being undertaken, the branding and image building exercises must be considered as important a job of the government and the nation as defending the country’s sovereignty. Only then can we put behind us the ghost that Dr. Kissinger and the international media criminally tagged to us that we did not largely deserve, never to haunt us anymore.
The task is a humungous one and the nature of Bangladesh’s conflict ridden politics does not cause much hope in most minds that the country will come together for branding and then image building. In absence of such much needed efforts at national level, the country can only depend on the private sector efforts. The government can supplement these efforts by encouraging them, and importantly, keep politics out of it. The Government could do something else too. It could take the propaganda out of publicity that hampers both branding and image building exercises. The opposition could supplement these approaches to branding and image building by refraining from what the AL did when it was in the opposition; by not washing the country’s dirty linen in public and that too abroad.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt and a Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies, Dhaka.
Volume 8; Number 1, March, 2011
M. Serajul Islam
As a diplomat now retired, one of the many regrets that I have had over the years was the fact that I was not able to serve the country abroad in the early days of our independence. For my colleagues, who served the country overseas at that time, representing Bangladesh was a matter of pride. They could hold their heads high as representatives of the country that fought and won freedom that most nations would not even have dared to contemplate.
Yet something went amiss. In fact, a lot went amiss thereafter. Then it was no longer such a matter of pride to be a Bangladeshi diplomat abroad. The nature of politics at home was something that did not make life comfortable for a diplomat as humiliating questions aimed at Bangladesh were quite common from hosts in our places of postings; questions that made us hide our faces in shame. The horrendous crime perpetuated in killing Bangabandhu and his family was enough to wipe out all the international good feelings for Bangladesh that the country had earned by its glorious war of liberation. Bangabandhu himself did not help much either in the context of Bangladesh’s image. His 4th amendment to the Bangladesh constitution that turned Bangladesh from a democratic to an autocratic state was another fodder to the international press to humiliate Bangladesh.
It was however Dr. Henry Kissinger’s insensitive and gleeful nod to Ambassador Alexis Johnson’s reference to Bangladesh as the international basket case, made in Special Group Meeting on December 6th., 1971, that dealt a mortal blow to the country. Even after many decades, that cruel joke haunts Bangladesh and the damage it has done to Bangladesh’s development efforts is just too costly to comprehend. If there was justice in international relations, Bangladesh would have the perfect case to sue Dr. Kissinger and Ambassador Johnson for grave damages to Bangladesh. Dr. Kissinger, who encouraged the remark of Ambassador Johnson out of personal grudge that he and President Nixon held against Mrs. Indira Gandhi and Soviet Union, gained momentum in the international media after the famine of 1974 in Bangladesh; the 4hth amendment to the Bangladesh constitutions and the assassinations of Bangabandhu.
The 5th and 7th amendments that legitimized military rule and further damaged Bangladesh’s image abroad and made its development efforts that much more difficult given the fact that for a resource poor Bangladesh, international support was then as it is now, of the essence to its development efforts.
Despite the poor international image, the country made significant strides once democracy was restored in 1991. Kissinger’s international basket case has now an economy whose GDP size is close to US$ 100 billion that is larger than half of all Africa’s 54 states taken together. Seven million expatriates of whom the overwhelming majority have gone from Bangladesh’s poor villages have sent to the country roughly US$ 11 billion in foreign remittance last year. Bangladesh’s RMG exporters are now world class entrepreneurs competing with the best in business for markets in USA and Europe. In Dr. Yunus’ winning the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize, all these major developments of Bangladesh have found projection before the world.
Still, Bangladesh has not yet fully recovered from the damage done by Dr. Kissinger. The international media took Dr. Kissinger’s theme about Bangladesh to heart and even used the natural calamities that visited Bangladesh more than other developing countries to continue to brand Bangladesh as a hopeless case. I still remember a Bangladeshi stringer for a British newspaper who had woken his contact in London to tell him about an important event concerning one of the major elections of the country. His contact was angry to be woken up at night and the stringer was told that he should wake him up next time only when he had a major disaster in Bangladesh to report!
The dark shadows woven about Bangladesh’s image will never go unless it is tackled as an issue of major national importance. In fact, if any nation is begging on its knees today for branding to change its image, that country is Bangladesh where it has put almost all its acts together to come before the international community as a country of hope for a better future. Take two examples and the point will be clear. Dr. Kissinger based his infamous and insensitive comment on the aid Bangladesh would need in case there was a famine. Today, Bangladeshis with more than 2 times the population is close to self sufficiency in food production and famine that Dr. Kissinger had feared, is a matter of the past. Bangladesh has today achieved the best preparedness against natural calamities like cyclones and floods that has made the world acknowledge the country’s resilience and its abilities. In fact, when an international conference was held in Japan after the Tsunami, Bangladesh was invited as a special guest to talk in the conference because of its successes in dealing with natural calamities although the country was not affected by Tsunami.
Bangladesh has almost put its entire act together to brand itself. The icing on the cake without which the cake will be incomplete and hence cannot be sold in the international arena is the getting together of the political leadership and providing that icing. Unfortunately, here Bangladesh has a formidable obstacle because of the partisan and conflict ridden nature of its politics. In 2005, the internationally acknowledged financial institution Goldman and Sachs named Bangladesh as one of the “next11” emerging economies. It was wasted because the BNP was indulging with the Islamic fundamentalists and Awami League eager to tag Bangladesh as a “Taliban” state. In the post 9/11 world, the two parties could not have done worse for Bangladesh. The emergency that followed did not help Bangladesh’s desire to brand itself as a country with hope for a better future.
The Awami League’s calls for “digital Bangladesh” and “Time for Change” have encouraged the private sector to lead the yearning for branding Bangladesh. There are a number of initiatives taken by private sector groups for this purpose. Unfortunately, at the level of politics, the environment necessary for branding Bangladesh is deteriorating. The calls that had inspired millions of new generation of voters for “digital Bangladesh” and “Time for Change” are turning out to be weak slogans and politics is becoming more partisan and conflict ridden.
Hence despite the country being ready for branding, politics is not. At the government level, there is no serious move for branding. There is an acceptance for image building at government circles that can be loosely interpreted as branding that the private sector is trying to achieve but even in image building, the government is talking more and doing less. In such talks and weak efforts at image building, clichés have dominated the thinking of the government and still does to create a positive image of Bangladesh internationally without much success.
The clichés that have dominated the psyche of all governments, including the present one, have been Bangladesh’s beauty; its longest natural beach in the world; its glorious war of liberation; and its sacrifices for language; etc. While these factors are useful for domestic consumption; these have little saleable value internationally. For instance, the love of our poets in the country’s beauty notwithstanding, such beauty is average in comparison to natural sites in other countries. Our longest beach may be a geographical fact but shorter beaches round the world attract much more tourists. Our contribution for language has won UNESCO recognition but again does not many takers abroad.
There may however be many takers if Bangladesh looked for image building materials elsewhere. As an Ambassador of Japan, one of the proudest moments for me was when I was listening to songs of Farida Parveen who was invited as a guest by Japan Foundation to mark the 30th year of establishment of Bangladesh-Japan diplomatic ties. She sang Lalon songs to the accompaniment of flute by a person whose name I cannot remember now except the fact that he was a world class flutist. Her songs were translated into Japanese. The audience listened to the songs in rapt attention. Afterwards when I spoke with some of the audience, I could feel the rendition had touched their hearts because Japanese people have great depth in the themes that Lalon’s songs uphold. We seldom if ever make attempts project such treasures abroad and tend to think such efforts are a waste of public money. Instead we prefer to give our poets free ride with the Prime Minister on her foreign trips and when they “choose” to travel in economy class instead of business, our media eulogizes them for their concern for public money! If Farida Parveen and Lalon songs are used for branding and image building Bangladesh in Japan, then we could just not reach the Japanese purse but their hearts, keeping in mind Japan’s Buddhist traditions went from Bangladesh through Atish Dipanker over a thousand years ago.
We miss out on the richness of our history and civilization too eager to dwell on the present where controversy raised by the two mainstream parties have not allowed us to benefit from the sacrifices our people made in 1971 that has few parallels in history. In the process, we have not been able to project that our history is as ancient and as glorious as of next door India that has branded itself successfully as decedents of a civilization that has been unbroken for many millenniums.
Our branding or image building has failed so far for many reasons; as those cited. However, it has also failed because the country has not spent the resources needed for such a national effort. In fact, the governments have so far undertaken propaganda oriented efforts that they have chosen to call image building, spending pittance for such silly efforts. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has an apology of a wing called the External Publicity Division that has been given in the most non-professional and ad hoc manner, the task for image building. In next door India, it has under the External Affairs Ministry, establishments like the Indian Council for Cultural Relations and the External Publicity Division for official image building of India. These establishments have authority and resources to undertake the image building of India whose budget is perhaps more than what we spend for our Foreign Ministry!
Thus although everybody today acknowledges that branding and image building should be one of the major objectives of the Government, the ground reality for undertaking such an effort is not there. It is time that the civil society actively takes up the case to put pressure upon the political leaders to take a bipartisan approach to this important national task. The objective should be to give the role of branding or image building, as in India, to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and provide it with the appropriate resources to lead Bangladesh’s image building and coordinate the initiatives being undertaken at the private level.
On the important issue of branding, the country must first decide on a bipartisan approach that is absolutely crucial. It must then choose a Ministry of the Government and give it the responsibility for branding Bangladesh and give it the power, authority and resources. That Ministry should logically be the Foreign Ministry that would have nearly 50 of its Embassies located on foreign soil for image building. Once these crucial issues are resolved, the Ministry must take professional assistance of the highest standard, preferably from professional establishments abroad, for the purpose. Thereafter, its history and civilization; its glorious war of liberation; its rich cultural diversity; music, song and dances; its cuisine; its economic successes; should be woven into a theme. That would be the branding part.
Then would come the all important image building part. The Government must have a plan and a strategy for sustained efforts over a long period of time. While this is being undertaken, the branding and image building exercises must be considered as important a job of the government and the nation as defending the country’s sovereignty. Only then can we put behind us the ghost that Dr. Kissinger and the international media criminally tagged to us that we did not largely deserve, never to haunt us anymore.
The task is a humungous one and the nature of Bangladesh’s conflict ridden politics does not cause much hope in most minds that the country will come together for branding and then image building. In absence of such much needed efforts at national level, the country can only depend on the private sector efforts. The government can supplement these efforts by encouraging them, and importantly, keep politics out of it. The Government could do something else too. It could take the propaganda out of publicity that hampers both branding and image building exercises. The opposition could supplement these approaches to branding and image building by refraining from what the AL did when it was in the opposition; by not washing the country’s dirty linen in public and that too abroad.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt and a Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies, Dhaka.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Daily Sun, February 26th., 2011
Bangladesh foreign policy in the Middle East: Time to reflect on realities
M. Serajul IslamIt is just not that we are ignored by the media in the Middle East. Even in the process of recruitment and payment of salaries and other privileges, our workers get an unfair deal compared to workers from other countries. The general perception among our workers in the Middle East is that for the same type of work they do, workers from India, Pakistan and the Philippines get substantially more pay and perks
A friend who travels frequently to UAE raised a provocative issue in a private discussion recently. He said that one of his biggest disappointments is when he reads the UAE English dailies. These papers devote pages to news from the countries from where the expatriates come to the country. There are two pages in these papers devoted to India and the same number to Pakistan. Even the Philippines have a page. Sadly, Bangladesh is ignored except for isolated news about the country and that too, with a negative twist. The same treatment is given to Bangladesh in the media of the other countries in the region.
Yet 5 million of our people give their hearts and souls for the betterment of life and living of the citizens of these oil rich Middle East countries. We are perhaps the only country among those whose people work in such large numbers in the Middle East to have included in its Constitution a pledge to “preserve, consolidate and strengthen fraternal relations among Muslim countries.”
It is just not that we are ignored by the media in the Middle East. Even in the process of recruitment and payment of salaries and other privileges, our workers get an unfair deal compared to workers from other countries. The general perception among our workers in the Middle East is that for the same type of work they do, workers from India, Pakistan and the Philippines get substantially more pay and perks.
The expatriates blamed the BNP while in power and have done the same with the AL in office now. Both have dismissed such complaint forcefully. They have both described Bangladesh’s relations with the countries in the Middle East as a major focus of the country’s foreign policy and have claimed that such a policy in the region has been successful.
There is something seriously amiss here because the claim of the BNP and the AL can be true only when the public perception is incorrect. Unfortunately, there is truth in the public perception, not entirely but substantially. Recently, the Chairman of Bangladesh Human Rights Commission raised the issue of human rights in the context of Bangladesh Embassies. He was no doubt referring to the sufferings of our expatriates in the ME when they seek relief from miseries in their places of work from the Embassies.
In recent times, we are also hearing disturbing news that some of the ME countries are sending back Bangladeshis home and not recruiting new manpower from Bangladesh. These developments have already caused a perceptible decline of flow of remittance. The decline in flow of remittance has been partly the cause of the global recession that has hit these countries badly. However, the demand for the type of manpower we send to these countries has not been affected by global recession. In fact, in Saudi Arabia, such a demand has increased and yet our manpower is not being favoured.
Two issues in our politics have caused wrong perception in these countries about Islam in Bangladesh that have led them to pause on recruiting our manpower. These issues are the trial of the war criminals and the move to ban religious based parties. These have led these countries to conclude that there is a move against Islam in Bangladesh. When Sheikh Hasina had visited Saudi Arabia in April 2009, the issues had come up in her discussions with the Saudi Government. At that time, there were statements from official sources in Bangladesh that the Saudi Government would relax on the issue of ‘Ikema’ that made it illegal for expatriates to change jobs to bring respite to nearly 2 hundred thousand Bangladeshis who were running from Saudi authorities for violating the ‘Ikema’. That has not yet happened that would no doubt suggest that the Saudi Government is not convinced on its concerns about Islam in Bangladesh.
The issue of trial of war criminals and banning of religion based parties are Bangladesh’s internal matters and thus should be of no concern of these countries. Nevertheless, Islam as a religion is as much a matter of concern of these countries as it is ours. The problem is our failure to explain in pursuing these two extremely important national objectives, we are not doing anything against Islam which is the religion of the overwhelming majority of Bangladeshis. We have failed to do that. In fact, we have not seen any serious initiative by the Government in this regard apart from the visits by the Prime Minister to Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia that have not succeeded in re-opening our manpower market. In the meantime, the demands for the trials of the war criminals and secularism have become louder with unfortunately little to show in terms of achievement.
It is in the context of the above, with the future of millions of Bangladeshis in the region and future export of manpower at stake that we need to take a serious look at our foreign policy initiative in the Middle East. We must go ahead with the war trials and revive secularism. We must do the first because it is what the overwhelming majority of our people want. We must do the latter because that is a directive from the Supreme Court. However, if we value our relations with the ME and feel we need to protect the interests of the expatriates and the country, we also need to keep these governments informed on what we are doing with these issues. Of course, there must be diplomatic efforts being carried out by our Government but if these have been carried out through our Ambassadors as it appears to be, then I am afraid they are not expected to be treated by the hosts as much more than routine diplomatic efforts.
It is high time for us to do more. We should send to these countries special envoys from the Prime Minister. In fact, such envoys should have been sent long ago. Former President Ershad, who is a part of this Government, has great acceptance in Saudi Arabia and UAE and could be the perfect Special envoy to explain the Bangladesh views on the issues bothering these countries. If the issue is opening door in the region at the highest level, then the Government has the best man available and should make use of him.
The issue of Bangladesh in the media in the Middle East has gone by default for two reasons. Bangladeshis in the region lack the clout that the Indians and the Pakistanis have who play important roles in the media and business and both have a negative attitude towards Bangladesh. Nevertheless, our ME policy has to be revisited to serve the interests of our unfortunate expatriates and also in the context of the upheaval the region is now witnessing. Although, the upheaval may lead to loss of the Libyan market for our manpower export, the other oil rich ME countries where we send the bulk of our manpower are not likely to suffer any immediate impact. Diplomatic contacts with them at this critical juncture at a very high level may bring Bangladesh a rich harvest of economic benefits in the future.
Writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt and a Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
The Independent, February 26th., 2011
On a politically committed bureaucracy
M. Serajul Islam
During my tenure as an Ambassador in Japan, I had an interesting conversation one day with a senior official of JETRO. A current debate in our politics on our civil bureaucracy reminded me of the conversation. Before coming to this, let me put the conversation in perspective.
Japan has a very strong bureaucracy. Its politics is also developed and matured. The period I am talking about was the time when Japan was government by the Liberal Democratic Party that had been then in power for over 5 decades except for a brief period in 1993. The JETRO official in reference was once posted in Dhaka and that was his reason for meeting me in my office. That was also the time when then Prime Minister of Japan Mr. Junichiro Koizumi had called for an early election that many even in his own party expected him to lose badly. Japan was showing the signs of coming out of one party to a two-party political system.
Mr. Koizumi was quite a character; loved passionately by many and disliked by many with equal passion. That is the essence of democracy because a leader can be only passionately loved where people have no choice. This JETRO official was one of those who did not like Mr. Koizumi. Soon we were talking politics and the prospect of Japan emerging as a two-party democratic political system. This gentleman thought the LDP would lose and was extremely critical of the Prime Minister. I was curious about the way he was criticizing Mr. Koizumi and I expressed my curiosity to him, reminding him that Mr. Koizumi was still the Prime Minister. The JETRO official was quite firm when he told me that since the Prime Minister was again seeking his vote; it was his democratic right to express his views about him and his party. Then he told me equally firmly that if Mr. Koizumi returned, he would serve him as loyally as those who were cheering him because that is the way the Japanese bureaucracy was supposed to be under the law, neutral but 100% committed to the elected leadership.
In Bangladesh and rest of South Asia, the bureaucracy is based on the British model where political neutrality is its soul and substance. One need not look beyond India’s development to evaluate the contribution that its politically neutral bureaucracy has made to India’s emergence as a major world power. In fact, when Pandit Nehru was giving shape to his vision of India immediately after independence, he turned for nation building to the very ICS officers who were instruments of India’s colonolization. Neither Pandit Nehru nor India regretted this because the ISC officers served their Indian leaders as faithfully as their British masters because they were trained to leave politics to the politicians.
In recent times, leaders of this government are talking about the bureaucracy in a manner that is a worrying one. These leaders are calling for a politically committed bureaucracy to translate the policies of the political party in power. In other words, they are suggesting that the bureaucracy must follow the dictates of the political party in power. One Minister has suggested that the top level of the bureaucracy should come and go with every new government and those below them should be retired after 10/15 years in service. In making the suggestion, the Minister has given the US example, perhaps referring to their so-called “spoils system”. That however does not explain why senior civil servants should retire after 10 to15 years nor does it properly reflect the US system.
Such a perception about the bureaucracy is laden with very serious consequences for a number of reasons. First, it conflicts with the basic principle upon which the present bureaucracy is based, namely political neutrality that had encouraged Pandit Nehru to depend on the ICS. In fact, this is the principle upon which bureaucracies in all democracies are based. Second, it upholds the principle of supremacy of the political party over government; a principle that is followed only in communist regimes as China or regimes that have no opposition political party. In other words, the principle of a politically committed bureaucracy is a contradiction of democracy. The bureaucracy is there to uphold the policies of the political party in power as well as those of those who lost the election to make the government national.
In the context of Bangladesh, the principle of a politically committed bureaucracy is a prescription for suffocating it. Politics divides the country half and half everywhere into those who support the Awami League and those who oppose it. The bureaucracy is no exception. Further, the nature of politics the parties represent is conflict prone and negative. Notwithstanding this, the bureaucracy has served the country well but only when Governments respected their political neutrality. The bureaucracy’s ability to deliver deteriorated when the BNP politicized it in their last term and has worsened with the AL doing a better job of it in this term.
The USA had at one time politicized the civil bureaucracy under the “spoils system”. After Mr. Andrew Jackson became President in 1829, he removed 919 civil bureaucrats and placed in their places, those whom he had promised positions for political support. That was 10% of the civil bureaucracy’s strength those days. Successive Presidents carried on with the spoils system till the Pendleton Act of 1883 that mandated recruitment to federal jobs based on merit and not political connections. The Hatch Act of 1939 further diluted the spoils system by prohibiting civil servants from engaging in partisan political activities. Nevertheless, the spoils system has remained in a much scaled down manner and these days restricted to a few very senior civil service appointments but hardly in the manner that is being advocated for Bangladesh.
Thus what Bangladesh government leaders are advocating does not exist in any democratic country. The concept is also a self contradictory if our belief is in democracy as it must be. If the AL Government was to implement the concept, all officers serving in senior positions would have to toe the political line of the party. In other words, they would have to be political activists of the party. Given the nature of conflict prone politics in the country, it is not hard to imagine what would happen with so many AL activists in Government.
Likewise if the AL lost the next election, all the senior bureaucrats left by a departing AL Government would have to be asked to leave because they would all be self-acclaimed AL activists. Where would the BNP find such a large number of senior bureaucrats to fill the positions? Retiring all officers after 10 to 15 years would mean that the Government would leave a large number of trained civil servants without jobs at an age where they would find it almost impossible to get jobs elsewhere. And would a civil bureaucracy with a career span is only 10-15 years attract worthwhile talent?
The questions defy logical explanation. The concept of a politicized bureaucracy is one out of tune with time as well as democracy. It is better for everybody and most of all for the country that we reassert the policy of a politically neutral bureaucracy. Otherwise, we will only succeed in paralyzing a bureaucracy that is close to such a predicament because of this misplaced preference for a politicized bureaucracy.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt and a former Secretary to the Government.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Egypt: The battle is won not the war
Published in Daily Sun, February 20th., 2011
M. Serajul Islam
The successful overthrow of President Hosne Mubarak by people’s power was a historic event that neither USA nor Israel anticipated. In fact, Israel did not even welcome it when the movement showed the signs of succeeding. Israel cautioned its allies, particularly the US, while the revolution was being enacted in Egypt about power going to the Muslim Brotherhood. International politics makes even stranger bedfellows than politics itself and Egypt underscored that very effectively. Israel and Saudi Arabia voiced the same concern over the ouster of President Mubarak and the dismantling of his 3 decades old dictatorship.
The United States however was quick to see the events in Egypt better than Israel or Saudi Arabia. It quickly changed sides and forgot completely its long 30 years association with the regime of former President Mubarak. It also ignored the fact that it had revamped the coffers of Mr. Hosne Mubarak and his military with a new US 1.3 billion dollars loan only recently. It looked the other way when his regime flaunted all democratic norms to assure a ridiculous absolute victory to the ruling National Democratic Party in parliamentary elections held in November-December last year as a prelude for a new five years term for Mr. Mubarak or to pass the mantle to his son.
The US cannot be faulted on issue of realism. When President Bush found there was no WMD in Iraq, he did not lose any time to change course and claim that he had taken his country to Iraq for sake of democracy. In Egypt, when President Obama saw the people’s uprising there coming in the wake of successful toppling of Mr. Ben Ali in Tunisia, it took him no time to ask Mr. Mubarak to start packing. That message was strengthened by the President’s aide who advised the former President to start packing “from yesterday”!
The ouster of President Mubarak has been no more than winning a battle. Winning the war is still not even in sight because the path to establishment of democracy has to be through unchartered waters. The final success of the movement was largely the result of the phenomenal strength of networking through the Facebook, Twitter and the mobile technology. . There was the face of youth, the driving force in jelling the people against the regime, but there was no organized leadership, leader or political party involved in the movement, the ingredients necessary for establishing a democratic government in Egypt.
The movement has removed Mr. Hosne Mubarak. Power still remains in the hands of the very military whose loyalty had helped the former dictator consolidate and sustain his absolute power through state terror. The military was repaid by privileges that made it a stakeholder in the oppressive system that Mr. Mubarak built as President of Egypt. Although the military is generally held in respect in Egyptian society, that respect goes for the entire military and not the top brass who have been as guilty of building and sustaining the repressive regime of Mr. Hosne Mubarak as the former President himself.
The Supreme Military Council has since dissolved the parliament and has announced new elections in 6 months time. That is a long time and in between, many things could happen. Left to itself, it would be too much to expect that the military leadership will pave the way for democracy
in Egypt. History itself is against it. Therefore, it is time that those who have influence on the military of Egypt move fast and decisively to play a historic role that the youth of Egypt has not just given the country but to the region.
Two countries are crucial to guide Egypt at this critical juncture, the United States and Israel. While the US has played its opening hand positively in favour of the revolution; Israel has done so negatively. The US’ role in the exit of Mr. Mubarak was vital for it must have been the United States that encouraged Mr. Mubarak’s Generals to desert their patron and ask him to resign that he could not ignore. The US now must use the undeniable influence it has over the country’s military to ensure they keep democracy and the nation’s interest ahead of their personal and institutional ones..
Israel’s role is in a way as important as that of the United States. Israel has been smug under pseudo-democracy and autocratic rule in the region. The rulers in such systems have all these years paid lip service to the cause of Palestine while behind the scene; they have toed the line dictated to them by the United States that has always ensured that it was Israel’s interest that was served first and last.
Although Israel has always made a big issue of its democracy, in fact it has been to Israel’s benefit that democracy has so far not touched the region. Democratic governments in the region have the potential to bring peoples and governments together and when that happens, Israel would have find it very difficult to deny the just rights to Palestine.
The events in Egypt have woken Israel out of that smugness. It is the new reality to which Israel must adjust both for itself and the region. In a way it is also a great opportunity for Israel because the new generation that has spearheaded the democratic revolution is more interested in their future, in jobs and opportunities. It would nevertheless be a major mistake to believe that the new generation would push aside the question of Palestine and pursue just their interests.. They can nevertheless be won over for sustainable peace for Israel if Israel makes moves towards a just and fair solution of the Palestinian problem. It is time that Israel to take note that the new generation is a far stronger force than what they have been used to deal with in denying the Palestinians their rights.
The events in Egypt have given President Obama the opportunity to bring foreign policy into reckoning in his bid for re-election. Surely, voters will be encouraged to vote for him if his administration takes the leading role in ushering democracy in Egypt and the region. It has the power, influence and whatever else is needed for the purpose. Egypt has opened for President Obama not just a better chance for re-election but also to leave his legacy as a statesman and prove that he is truly worth the Nobel Peace Prize given to him , that many had questioned. The US should with wasting time influence the formation of an interim civilian government to keep the military in place.
Most of all the United States must convince Israel that their best bet for peace is in a Middle East where democracy rules and not dictators and autocrats. That peace which is crucial to complete the process of the democratic revolution that Egypt has opened for itself and the region can be established with US and Israel working together for a just solution to the Palestinian problem.
Writer is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to Egypt and Japan.
M. Serajul Islam
The successful overthrow of President Hosne Mubarak by people’s power was a historic event that neither USA nor Israel anticipated. In fact, Israel did not even welcome it when the movement showed the signs of succeeding. Israel cautioned its allies, particularly the US, while the revolution was being enacted in Egypt about power going to the Muslim Brotherhood. International politics makes even stranger bedfellows than politics itself and Egypt underscored that very effectively. Israel and Saudi Arabia voiced the same concern over the ouster of President Mubarak and the dismantling of his 3 decades old dictatorship.
The United States however was quick to see the events in Egypt better than Israel or Saudi Arabia. It quickly changed sides and forgot completely its long 30 years association with the regime of former President Mubarak. It also ignored the fact that it had revamped the coffers of Mr. Hosne Mubarak and his military with a new US 1.3 billion dollars loan only recently. It looked the other way when his regime flaunted all democratic norms to assure a ridiculous absolute victory to the ruling National Democratic Party in parliamentary elections held in November-December last year as a prelude for a new five years term for Mr. Mubarak or to pass the mantle to his son.
The US cannot be faulted on issue of realism. When President Bush found there was no WMD in Iraq, he did not lose any time to change course and claim that he had taken his country to Iraq for sake of democracy. In Egypt, when President Obama saw the people’s uprising there coming in the wake of successful toppling of Mr. Ben Ali in Tunisia, it took him no time to ask Mr. Mubarak to start packing. That message was strengthened by the President’s aide who advised the former President to start packing “from yesterday”!
The ouster of President Mubarak has been no more than winning a battle. Winning the war is still not even in sight because the path to establishment of democracy has to be through unchartered waters. The final success of the movement was largely the result of the phenomenal strength of networking through the Facebook, Twitter and the mobile technology. . There was the face of youth, the driving force in jelling the people against the regime, but there was no organized leadership, leader or political party involved in the movement, the ingredients necessary for establishing a democratic government in Egypt.
The movement has removed Mr. Hosne Mubarak. Power still remains in the hands of the very military whose loyalty had helped the former dictator consolidate and sustain his absolute power through state terror. The military was repaid by privileges that made it a stakeholder in the oppressive system that Mr. Mubarak built as President of Egypt. Although the military is generally held in respect in Egyptian society, that respect goes for the entire military and not the top brass who have been as guilty of building and sustaining the repressive regime of Mr. Hosne Mubarak as the former President himself.
The Supreme Military Council has since dissolved the parliament and has announced new elections in 6 months time. That is a long time and in between, many things could happen. Left to itself, it would be too much to expect that the military leadership will pave the way for democracy
in Egypt. History itself is against it. Therefore, it is time that those who have influence on the military of Egypt move fast and decisively to play a historic role that the youth of Egypt has not just given the country but to the region.
Two countries are crucial to guide Egypt at this critical juncture, the United States and Israel. While the US has played its opening hand positively in favour of the revolution; Israel has done so negatively. The US’ role in the exit of Mr. Mubarak was vital for it must have been the United States that encouraged Mr. Mubarak’s Generals to desert their patron and ask him to resign that he could not ignore. The US now must use the undeniable influence it has over the country’s military to ensure they keep democracy and the nation’s interest ahead of their personal and institutional ones..
Israel’s role is in a way as important as that of the United States. Israel has been smug under pseudo-democracy and autocratic rule in the region. The rulers in such systems have all these years paid lip service to the cause of Palestine while behind the scene; they have toed the line dictated to them by the United States that has always ensured that it was Israel’s interest that was served first and last.
Although Israel has always made a big issue of its democracy, in fact it has been to Israel’s benefit that democracy has so far not touched the region. Democratic governments in the region have the potential to bring peoples and governments together and when that happens, Israel would have find it very difficult to deny the just rights to Palestine.
The events in Egypt have woken Israel out of that smugness. It is the new reality to which Israel must adjust both for itself and the region. In a way it is also a great opportunity for Israel because the new generation that has spearheaded the democratic revolution is more interested in their future, in jobs and opportunities. It would nevertheless be a major mistake to believe that the new generation would push aside the question of Palestine and pursue just their interests.. They can nevertheless be won over for sustainable peace for Israel if Israel makes moves towards a just and fair solution of the Palestinian problem. It is time that Israel to take note that the new generation is a far stronger force than what they have been used to deal with in denying the Palestinians their rights.
The events in Egypt have given President Obama the opportunity to bring foreign policy into reckoning in his bid for re-election. Surely, voters will be encouraged to vote for him if his administration takes the leading role in ushering democracy in Egypt and the region. It has the power, influence and whatever else is needed for the purpose. Egypt has opened for President Obama not just a better chance for re-election but also to leave his legacy as a statesman and prove that he is truly worth the Nobel Peace Prize given to him , that many had questioned. The US should with wasting time influence the formation of an interim civilian government to keep the military in place.
Most of all the United States must convince Israel that their best bet for peace is in a Middle East where democracy rules and not dictators and autocrats. That peace which is crucial to complete the process of the democratic revolution that Egypt has opened for itself and the region can be established with US and Israel working together for a just solution to the Palestinian problem.
Writer is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to Egypt and Japan.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
My Foreign Service Years: More on Washington
Published in The Independent, February 16th., 2011
M. Serajul Islam
Washington is different as a diplomatic post for a variety of reasons. In other stations, diplomats feel important because the hosts give them certain privileges. In Washington, everything is business where little is given on any other considerations.
Soon after I arrived in Washington in the middle of 1990, our tax exemption cards were taken away because we were told that in Dhaka we did not provide these exemptions to US diplomats. We were surprised that Dhaka in its right mind would deny the US diplomats any privilege they were entitled to under diplomatic privileges and immunities. In any case, the oversight or lapse or whatever on Dhaka’s part was resolved as soon as we flagged the case. The needful was done in Dhaka and we were returned our tax exemption cards.
The exemption cards did not give us much relief but made us feel a bit privileged and we were happy to get the cards back. As a post, Washington brings diplomats to the ground who may otherwise have starry impression about themselves. Diplomats are evaluated and dealt in Washington by the hosts mainly on the weight of the country they represent. I learnt very soon upon arrival in Washington that being a diplomat did not mean much. In fact, sometimes the hosts unilaterally make the point that we are not special even when we do not ourselves seek any extra privilege as a diplomat.
I still remember a few incidents on this issue with amusement now that it means nothing at all. One was when Abul Ahsan took over as Ambassador. He wanted to have a credit card as in the United States, life is worthless unless one has a few of these cards in his/her wallet. He applied for one and was denied as quickly as he had filed it. The reason was simple. He had no credit rating and being an Ambassador really meant nothing. He was however given a credit card through the Bank where he had his account. By the time he was there a few months, his problem was refusing the companies who were issuing him such cards even without asking!
On a serious note, one way to raise the stakes for one’s country for which the United States has little interest except the usual diplomatic one which means little is to use whatever means is available locally. The system of lobbying is one of the means available to raise the stakes. There was then and still now a lot of misconception in Bangladesh about US lobbyists. In Washington, the lobby firms open doors for Ambassadors to places and people of power and influence, like the Congress for instance.
In one of our attempts as diplomats to build contacts for the Embassy in the Congress, a colleague and I had gone to see the Staff Director of Senator Jessie Helms, who was then the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. She told us bluntly that her Chairman had little time even for our President and when he was in town, not to call them for appointment for if they wanted one, they would call us! Lobbyists and lobby firms break such arrogant attitude in Congress for these lobbyists and lobby firms are owned and manned by those close to the politicians in power in Washington. A country like Bangladesh not just needs a lobbyist in Washington; it should have one where money should be the last of the considerations. Appointing a good lobby firm could bring benefits for the country that is not coming without one.
For President Ershad, in whose term a lobbyist was appointed but only briefly, the benefits were there for us those who served then in the Washington Embassy to see. Even when his public standing in the country was sinking, at the Embassy we were under constant pressure to see that harm did not come his way! It is not that a lobbyist is necessary because an Ambassador is not worthy. Lobbyist is necessary to make a worthy Ambassador achieve more for his country. During Ershad’s time, Mr. Obaidullah Khan was Ambassador in Washington whose intellect easily put him among the best of his peers when he served there. Yet, his achievements were far less because he was pulled back by the country he represented. In the midst of their busy schedules, people of power had little time for him. He was one who could have achieved far greater than what he did if he was assisted by a lobby firm of repute.
Sometimes luck plays a very important role in the performance of an Ambassador in his post. Such luck blessed Ambassador Ataul Karim soon after the elected BNP Government assumed office in Dhaka. After the devastating cyclones of April, 1991 had visited Bangladesh, the Ambassador received a SOS from Dhaka to request the US Government for assistance, particularly with helicopters. The Ambassador contacted the State Department and the Sub-Committee for South Asia for a hearing on the Bangladesh request. At the hearing chaired by Congressman Stephen Solarz, the Bangladesh request was considered but with not much enthusiasm. The State Department recommended a few helicopters to be sent from some US base located in the seas close to Bangladesh.
The hearing was on a Thursday and we at the Embassy had our fingers crossed about the helicopters. Over the weekend though, President Bush had seen graphic images of the disaster on TV while at Camp David. He ordered the US amphibious task force that was returning home after the first Gulf War to go to Bangladesh. That force, consisting of 2,500 soldiers and 15 ships carried out one of the biggest military disaster relief operation nicknamed Operation Sea Angel, in history. Unfortunately, by then the die was cast for Ambassador Karim and he was unable to translate his good luck to his advantage. He had to make way for Ambassador Ahsan as the next Bangladesh Ambassador to Washington soon afterwards.
Although Ambassador Karim stayed at his post for a few months after the fall of President Ershad, the Permanent Representative in New York Ambassador AHG Mohiuddin was relieved of his responsibilities almost immediately after the change in Dhaka. His connection with the former President as his brother-in-law was the reason why he had to leave. In his place, our High Commissioner in Ottawa Ambassador M. Mohsin who was an ex-PFS officer of the same batch as Ambassador Abul Ahsan given additional charge as the Permanent Representative. The change in New York was not just bad news for Ambassador AHG Mohiuddin; it was also not good news for the diplomats there. With Ambassador Mohiuddin there, the Mission New York was a power unto itself. They could really get anything they wanted those days with the Foreign Ministry powerless. The Mission controlled all transfers to the Mission and out of it.
Thus when Ambassador M. Mohsin was given additional charge of New York, there was restlessness among the officers there. One of them who knew I was close to Ambassador Mohsin at the headquarters called me for a few tips on how to deal with him. I told him that as far as Ambassador Mohsin was concerned, there was no need to be concerned about their days under Ambassador AGH Mohiuddin because he would deal with them without being influenced by what they did when AGH was the Ambassador. Later, the friend confirmed what I told him. He and his other colleagues found Ambassador Mohsin to be a true professional and a gentleman.
Ambassador Mohsin held charge of the New York mission only briefly till Ambassador Humayun Kabir assumed office as the Permanent Representative. For a brief period, Ottawa, New York and Washington had a Head of Mission of the same ex-PFS batch as Ambassador M. Mohsin, Ambassador Humayun Kabir and Ambassador Abul Ahsan all belonged to the 1961 batch. They were the best in their batch and all there were placed among the first 10 on all-Pakistan basis with Ambassador Ahsan as the topper of the batch. Of the three, Ambassador Humayun Kabir who later succeeded Ambassador Abul Ahsan in Washington was given an extension. Sadly, Ambassador Humayun Kabir died soon after his retirement and Ambassador Abul Ahsan a little over two years ago.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and a former Secretary to the Government.
M. Serajul Islam
Washington is different as a diplomatic post for a variety of reasons. In other stations, diplomats feel important because the hosts give them certain privileges. In Washington, everything is business where little is given on any other considerations.
Soon after I arrived in Washington in the middle of 1990, our tax exemption cards were taken away because we were told that in Dhaka we did not provide these exemptions to US diplomats. We were surprised that Dhaka in its right mind would deny the US diplomats any privilege they were entitled to under diplomatic privileges and immunities. In any case, the oversight or lapse or whatever on Dhaka’s part was resolved as soon as we flagged the case. The needful was done in Dhaka and we were returned our tax exemption cards.
The exemption cards did not give us much relief but made us feel a bit privileged and we were happy to get the cards back. As a post, Washington brings diplomats to the ground who may otherwise have starry impression about themselves. Diplomats are evaluated and dealt in Washington by the hosts mainly on the weight of the country they represent. I learnt very soon upon arrival in Washington that being a diplomat did not mean much. In fact, sometimes the hosts unilaterally make the point that we are not special even when we do not ourselves seek any extra privilege as a diplomat.
I still remember a few incidents on this issue with amusement now that it means nothing at all. One was when Abul Ahsan took over as Ambassador. He wanted to have a credit card as in the United States, life is worthless unless one has a few of these cards in his/her wallet. He applied for one and was denied as quickly as he had filed it. The reason was simple. He had no credit rating and being an Ambassador really meant nothing. He was however given a credit card through the Bank where he had his account. By the time he was there a few months, his problem was refusing the companies who were issuing him such cards even without asking!
On a serious note, one way to raise the stakes for one’s country for which the United States has little interest except the usual diplomatic one which means little is to use whatever means is available locally. The system of lobbying is one of the means available to raise the stakes. There was then and still now a lot of misconception in Bangladesh about US lobbyists. In Washington, the lobby firms open doors for Ambassadors to places and people of power and influence, like the Congress for instance.
In one of our attempts as diplomats to build contacts for the Embassy in the Congress, a colleague and I had gone to see the Staff Director of Senator Jessie Helms, who was then the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. She told us bluntly that her Chairman had little time even for our President and when he was in town, not to call them for appointment for if they wanted one, they would call us! Lobbyists and lobby firms break such arrogant attitude in Congress for these lobbyists and lobby firms are owned and manned by those close to the politicians in power in Washington. A country like Bangladesh not just needs a lobbyist in Washington; it should have one where money should be the last of the considerations. Appointing a good lobby firm could bring benefits for the country that is not coming without one.
For President Ershad, in whose term a lobbyist was appointed but only briefly, the benefits were there for us those who served then in the Washington Embassy to see. Even when his public standing in the country was sinking, at the Embassy we were under constant pressure to see that harm did not come his way! It is not that a lobbyist is necessary because an Ambassador is not worthy. Lobbyist is necessary to make a worthy Ambassador achieve more for his country. During Ershad’s time, Mr. Obaidullah Khan was Ambassador in Washington whose intellect easily put him among the best of his peers when he served there. Yet, his achievements were far less because he was pulled back by the country he represented. In the midst of their busy schedules, people of power had little time for him. He was one who could have achieved far greater than what he did if he was assisted by a lobby firm of repute.
Sometimes luck plays a very important role in the performance of an Ambassador in his post. Such luck blessed Ambassador Ataul Karim soon after the elected BNP Government assumed office in Dhaka. After the devastating cyclones of April, 1991 had visited Bangladesh, the Ambassador received a SOS from Dhaka to request the US Government for assistance, particularly with helicopters. The Ambassador contacted the State Department and the Sub-Committee for South Asia for a hearing on the Bangladesh request. At the hearing chaired by Congressman Stephen Solarz, the Bangladesh request was considered but with not much enthusiasm. The State Department recommended a few helicopters to be sent from some US base located in the seas close to Bangladesh.
The hearing was on a Thursday and we at the Embassy had our fingers crossed about the helicopters. Over the weekend though, President Bush had seen graphic images of the disaster on TV while at Camp David. He ordered the US amphibious task force that was returning home after the first Gulf War to go to Bangladesh. That force, consisting of 2,500 soldiers and 15 ships carried out one of the biggest military disaster relief operation nicknamed Operation Sea Angel, in history. Unfortunately, by then the die was cast for Ambassador Karim and he was unable to translate his good luck to his advantage. He had to make way for Ambassador Ahsan as the next Bangladesh Ambassador to Washington soon afterwards.
Although Ambassador Karim stayed at his post for a few months after the fall of President Ershad, the Permanent Representative in New York Ambassador AHG Mohiuddin was relieved of his responsibilities almost immediately after the change in Dhaka. His connection with the former President as his brother-in-law was the reason why he had to leave. In his place, our High Commissioner in Ottawa Ambassador M. Mohsin who was an ex-PFS officer of the same batch as Ambassador Abul Ahsan given additional charge as the Permanent Representative. The change in New York was not just bad news for Ambassador AHG Mohiuddin; it was also not good news for the diplomats there. With Ambassador Mohiuddin there, the Mission New York was a power unto itself. They could really get anything they wanted those days with the Foreign Ministry powerless. The Mission controlled all transfers to the Mission and out of it.
Thus when Ambassador M. Mohsin was given additional charge of New York, there was restlessness among the officers there. One of them who knew I was close to Ambassador Mohsin at the headquarters called me for a few tips on how to deal with him. I told him that as far as Ambassador Mohsin was concerned, there was no need to be concerned about their days under Ambassador AGH Mohiuddin because he would deal with them without being influenced by what they did when AGH was the Ambassador. Later, the friend confirmed what I told him. He and his other colleagues found Ambassador Mohsin to be a true professional and a gentleman.
Ambassador Mohsin held charge of the New York mission only briefly till Ambassador Humayun Kabir assumed office as the Permanent Representative. For a brief period, Ottawa, New York and Washington had a Head of Mission of the same ex-PFS batch as Ambassador M. Mohsin, Ambassador Humayun Kabir and Ambassador Abul Ahsan all belonged to the 1961 batch. They were the best in their batch and all there were placed among the first 10 on all-Pakistan basis with Ambassador Ahsan as the topper of the batch. Of the three, Ambassador Humayun Kabir who later succeeded Ambassador Abul Ahsan in Washington was given an extension. Sadly, Ambassador Humayun Kabir died soon after his retirement and Ambassador Abul Ahsan a little over two years ago.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and a former Secretary to the Government.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Fall of President Mubarak: Is Middle East moving towards democracy?
Published in Daily Sun, February 13th., 2011
M. Serajul Islam
Great events are unfolding in the Middle East showing early potentials of changing the conflict prone region to better times. It is also a time that calls for vision of all who could nurture these potentials and ensure that they bring positive results. Mr. Mubarak’s resignation on Friday last and his fellow dictator Mr. Ben Ali’s unceremonious exit earlier in the face of people’s power, are truly historical events. The resignation of Mr. Mubarak who was not expected to go so soon is a prelude to the buildup of a tsunami like wave in the region that is very likely to end by helping people win their political rights against dictators in pseudo-democratic regimes and autocratic regimes.
At such a historical juncture, there are other events at play in the region’s politics and society that could help the democratic wave. There is a belief in the West that both Middle East and Islam are not fertile grounds for democratic ideas and ideals to take root. In fact many in the West argue that Islam and democracy are not compatible. In the context of the region, they argue that in the type of society in the Middle East, historically, power is destined to be yielded by few. In other words, those who argue in these lines feel that any investment in bringing democracy in the Middle East is bad investment.
Thus over the years, the United States and other nations in the West, while paying lip service to democracy, have courted, supported and sustained dictators in the countries in the region that did not have monarchy. The United States and western countries also supported the hereditary rulers of the region to the tilt. In fact, one of the biggest US base in the region is in Qatar.
A lot has been written about the US-led invasion of Iraq. President Bush has been criticised severely both in his country and in rest of the world for this intervention. The President has been blamed after his administration was caught with its pants down on the reason to attack Iraq in the first place which was to destroy weapons of mass destruction. When the US occupation forces failed to find any WMD, the Bush administration changed stance and claimed that it attacked Iraq to force Mr. Saddam Hussein out and establish democracy in the country.
Suicide attacks, fighting among the various ethnic and religious groups and against the US forces led many to dismiss the claim of the Bush administration that it went to Iraq for the sake of democracy. In fact, the conflicts inside Iraq after the fall of Mr. Saddam Hussein encouraged the critics of President Bush’s decision to attack Iraq to state that Iraq would not see democracy because a Muslim Middle East country cannot be democratic.
However, after the US has pumped close to a trillion US $, sacrificed lives of over 4,000 of its servicemen and women and two parliamentary elections, Iraq today shows early signs that a democratic political system is in the process of being established in the country. The fighting ethnic and religious groups have realised that they can achieve better results for their groups through the elections than they can by bullets and suicide bombs.
In Iran, the three decade old conflict between the clergy and liberal democratic forces came to a head during and after the last Presidential elections, 2009. The conflict has now entered a new phase where many among the clergy are supporting democratic change. This clearly perceptible change in Iran where conservative Islam is slowly accepting western democratic ideas is sadly being missed out because of the west’s abiding interest above everything else against allowing Iran to build what it thinks the nuclear bomb. Iran is predominantly Shiite while the rest of the Middle East and North African Muslim countries are predominantly Sunnis. The Shiias are organised in the religious sense much better at all levels of the society and the country. There is no such organisation among the Sunnis; in fact the Sunnis have no such order for comparison with the Shiia religious order.
The difference notwithstanding, both among the Sunnis and Shiias, western liberal and democratic have clearly been established, a point that can also be perceived among Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. In the midst of the current upheaval there, the lingering fear in the western media is a takeover of Egypt by the MB and the dangerous fall out of such a takeover in the region. In this MB phobia, the western media is failing to recognise that the democratic ideas and ideals that have touched both the Sunni and Shiia masses in the region have also influenced the MB itself to change. In 2007, the MB that has been banned as a political party but has been present in the society in a number of other ways, has made public a document that suggests basic changes in their way of thinking about politics, society and the region. Even on Israel, a MB spokesman has said that MB would respect Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel if “Israel showed real progress on improving the lot of the Palestinians.”
The MB is now focused on the opportunity before it not in an Egypt that they wanted to establish through violence and extremism but an Egypt in which they could share power by democratic elections. The successful movement in the street against President Mubarak has opened this possibility. It is this possibility upon which the US should focus and see that elections are held in Egypt in the quickest possible time and power is allowed to be exercised by the winning party or the coalition even if the MB is a winner. A democratic government in Egypt and Tunisia could guide the fair wind of democracy blowing in the region towards establishment of sustainable democracy in the other countries of the region. Even countries under hereditary rule would find it difficult to resist the wave towards people’s rights.
Egypt today holds world attention. Egyptians have shown the depth of people’s power by remaining calm against provocation and in the end winning victory by non-violence that would have made Mahatma Gandhi proud. The military has done the right thing by withdrawing support from President Mubarak to force his resignation. It now has a bigger role to transfer power to a truly elected government. The US that has great influence over the Egyptian military must work with it to ensure free and fair elections.
The US must also send strong message to the other dictators and hereditary monarchs in the region that it would no longer support the likes of President Mubarak anymore. At the same time, the US must redouble its efforts for a just solution of the Palestinian problem to complete the process of change towards democracy as a result of defining events in Egypt and Tunisia. The solution of the Palestine problem justly and fairly would remove the need for the US to support and sustain dictators and autocratic rulers in the region anymore.
Writer is a former Ambassador to Egypt and Japan and a former Secretary to the Government.
Friday, February 11, 2011
On land purchase, acquisition and distribution
The Independent, February 12th., 2011
M. Serajul Islam
The show of people’s power over the acquisition of land at Arial Beel for a new international airport and the government’s decision to bow to people’s will are welcome signs for democracy in the country. This notwithstanding, the issue that is becoming a serious one for the country is land acquisition both legally and other means through which agricultural land and land for domestic use are being transferred a small number of rich people of the country. The Independent in a recent issue has carried a picture in the front page showing people of Rajshahi town gathered in a foul mood, some armed with indigenous lethal weapons, protesting the take-over of agricultural land for a housing project.
Land-people ratio in Bangladesh is the worst in the world. Hence, the demand for land will continue to increase as it has done since independence. In the last few years, this rush to buy, acquire and grab land has acquired irrational proportion. A small section of the people who have become fabulously rich are purchasing land as investment; for their own personal aggrandizement and for a variety of other reasons that only reflect their personal interests and little of the country.
On a recent visit to my village home near the Dhoom Ghat Bridge on the Feni side, I was shocked to see sign boards on very fertile agricultural land. Most of these signboards are for some factory or industry. I could not believe why people would buy agricultural land where there are no roads nor any other physical infrastructure for building factory or industry. I was told by the villagers that such land has been purchased and more are being purchased every day and very few if any at all of the new owners of the land have any intention of building any industry or factory on such land.
The spree to purchase agricultural land has been spurred by the fact that their owners are selling such land for economic hardship at prices set by the buyers although given the scarcity of such land, it should be the other way round. The buyers are buying such land just as investment. This process of transfer of ownership of agricultural land from farmers to investors in land has embedded in it dangerous consequences for the future. In case of my own village through which the four lane Dhaka-Chittagong highway has been planned, the price of land will rise by astronomical proportion very soon and land will no doubt be lost to agriculture for good. The poor sellers will see how these investors turn their land into gold mines!
A lot of agricultural land has already been lost and more would be lost in future throughout the country with improvement of the roads infrastructure to investors and speculators in land. If such transfers were to lead to transformation of Bangladesh from an agricultural to an industrial country, then the country and the people will benefit. Unfortunately that is not going to happen because transformation into an industrialized country is much more than mere transfer of agricultural land. Many of those who have bought the agricultural land and are buying more are not industrialists or potential industrialists but speculators in land who have made huge amount of money by both legal and illegal means and are greedy to make more profit by investment in land. These investors are just not taking away vital agricultural land to satisfy their greed; they are pushing the economy towards a bubble burst that could bring the economy down.
The rush to buy, acquire and grab agricultural land has already started to affect the country’s vital agricultural sector. The adverse impact has the potential also affect both society and politics in Bangladesh. In fact, the news headline in The Independent is loaded with hints of a disastrous future unless corrective measures are taken quickly. The transfer of land from farmers to the few and new rich people of the country is not taking place in any fair manner. The poor farmers are being dispossessed of their ownership of their land for a pittance. As these disposed farmers see the price of land they once possessed rise to unbelievable levels, they will feel cheated. As the number of such people swell, it will only need a catalyst of any sort to unite them to create disturbances to threaten the stability of the country, a preview of which we saw in Arial Beel and Rajshahi.
There is a different type of land purchase that is now a fashion among the rich people in Dhaka. They are buying land both agricultural land and land in domestic use in short distance from Dhaka in areas such as Savar, Gazipur, etc to build their farm houses. In a country where land is in such short supply, these individuals are buying many acres of individual holdings with ponds, recreational and entertainment facilities that can only be fantasy for all in the country except these few individuals.
There is of course no harm in anyone owning such farm houses. The problem, however, is the same as with the agricultural land being lost by the poor farmers to the land investors. These farm houses are built on land owned by the less fortunate in society. Their luxury holdings are already beginning to look like eyesores as these are surrounded by ancestral homes of people less fortunate many of whose relatives or neighbours have sold their land to these new rich of the society. These rich individuals have agents who are out to ensure that those who are holding to their land are lured to sell their land for more luxurious farm houses.
There is of course no clear law against acquiring agricultural land for purposes other than agriculture. An environmental group however has filed a case against the Army Housing Scheme for acquiring land for housing on agriculture land in Rupgang. The group has argued that the constitution guarantees right of life and livelihood for all and taking away agriculture land from farmers is tantamount to taking away their right to livelihood.
Rupgang is just one instance where a case has been made of agricultural land being lost to the newly rich in the country because it is taking away people’s livelihood from the sector that employs the highest number of the country’s workforce. The need for agriculture to support the country’s huge and growing population that is growing is also being seriously hampered by this dangerous loss of agricultural land. The most dangerous consequence on this land transfer by sale, acquisition and other means is the fact that it is placing the majority poor and the few rich on road to conflict that could tear the country apart.
The government must therefore enact laws immediately to prohibit selling agricultural land for use in any others sector. The Government must further enact laws to restrict land holdings so that there is a maximum amount that an individual would be able to buy to avoid clashes and conflicts between the small number of new land owners and those who are being forced to sell their land that is their livelihood and their ancestral holdings for economic reasons.
The Prime Minister’s decision on Arial Beel and the move by environmentalists against the Army Housing Scheme in Rupgang are steps in the right direction. Unfortunately, it does not seem likely that those who are indulging in the mindless acquisition of agricultural and domestic land by purchase, acquisition, etc would be encouraged to follow the Prime Minister’s lead or listen to the environmentalists. To stop incidents of people’s power shown in Arial Beel or Rajshahi spreading to the rest of the country with the potential to take the country apart, the legal system must be brought into the loop against mindless land acquisition by individuals for their personal aggrandizement.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and a former Secretary to the Government.
M. Serajul Islam
The show of people’s power over the acquisition of land at Arial Beel for a new international airport and the government’s decision to bow to people’s will are welcome signs for democracy in the country. This notwithstanding, the issue that is becoming a serious one for the country is land acquisition both legally and other means through which agricultural land and land for domestic use are being transferred a small number of rich people of the country. The Independent in a recent issue has carried a picture in the front page showing people of Rajshahi town gathered in a foul mood, some armed with indigenous lethal weapons, protesting the take-over of agricultural land for a housing project.
Land-people ratio in Bangladesh is the worst in the world. Hence, the demand for land will continue to increase as it has done since independence. In the last few years, this rush to buy, acquire and grab land has acquired irrational proportion. A small section of the people who have become fabulously rich are purchasing land as investment; for their own personal aggrandizement and for a variety of other reasons that only reflect their personal interests and little of the country.
On a recent visit to my village home near the Dhoom Ghat Bridge on the Feni side, I was shocked to see sign boards on very fertile agricultural land. Most of these signboards are for some factory or industry. I could not believe why people would buy agricultural land where there are no roads nor any other physical infrastructure for building factory or industry. I was told by the villagers that such land has been purchased and more are being purchased every day and very few if any at all of the new owners of the land have any intention of building any industry or factory on such land.
The spree to purchase agricultural land has been spurred by the fact that their owners are selling such land for economic hardship at prices set by the buyers although given the scarcity of such land, it should be the other way round. The buyers are buying such land just as investment. This process of transfer of ownership of agricultural land from farmers to investors in land has embedded in it dangerous consequences for the future. In case of my own village through which the four lane Dhaka-Chittagong highway has been planned, the price of land will rise by astronomical proportion very soon and land will no doubt be lost to agriculture for good. The poor sellers will see how these investors turn their land into gold mines!
A lot of agricultural land has already been lost and more would be lost in future throughout the country with improvement of the roads infrastructure to investors and speculators in land. If such transfers were to lead to transformation of Bangladesh from an agricultural to an industrial country, then the country and the people will benefit. Unfortunately that is not going to happen because transformation into an industrialized country is much more than mere transfer of agricultural land. Many of those who have bought the agricultural land and are buying more are not industrialists or potential industrialists but speculators in land who have made huge amount of money by both legal and illegal means and are greedy to make more profit by investment in land. These investors are just not taking away vital agricultural land to satisfy their greed; they are pushing the economy towards a bubble burst that could bring the economy down.
The rush to buy, acquire and grab agricultural land has already started to affect the country’s vital agricultural sector. The adverse impact has the potential also affect both society and politics in Bangladesh. In fact, the news headline in The Independent is loaded with hints of a disastrous future unless corrective measures are taken quickly. The transfer of land from farmers to the few and new rich people of the country is not taking place in any fair manner. The poor farmers are being dispossessed of their ownership of their land for a pittance. As these disposed farmers see the price of land they once possessed rise to unbelievable levels, they will feel cheated. As the number of such people swell, it will only need a catalyst of any sort to unite them to create disturbances to threaten the stability of the country, a preview of which we saw in Arial Beel and Rajshahi.
There is a different type of land purchase that is now a fashion among the rich people in Dhaka. They are buying land both agricultural land and land in domestic use in short distance from Dhaka in areas such as Savar, Gazipur, etc to build their farm houses. In a country where land is in such short supply, these individuals are buying many acres of individual holdings with ponds, recreational and entertainment facilities that can only be fantasy for all in the country except these few individuals.
There is of course no harm in anyone owning such farm houses. The problem, however, is the same as with the agricultural land being lost by the poor farmers to the land investors. These farm houses are built on land owned by the less fortunate in society. Their luxury holdings are already beginning to look like eyesores as these are surrounded by ancestral homes of people less fortunate many of whose relatives or neighbours have sold their land to these new rich of the society. These rich individuals have agents who are out to ensure that those who are holding to their land are lured to sell their land for more luxurious farm houses.
There is of course no clear law against acquiring agricultural land for purposes other than agriculture. An environmental group however has filed a case against the Army Housing Scheme for acquiring land for housing on agriculture land in Rupgang. The group has argued that the constitution guarantees right of life and livelihood for all and taking away agriculture land from farmers is tantamount to taking away their right to livelihood.
Rupgang is just one instance where a case has been made of agricultural land being lost to the newly rich in the country because it is taking away people’s livelihood from the sector that employs the highest number of the country’s workforce. The need for agriculture to support the country’s huge and growing population that is growing is also being seriously hampered by this dangerous loss of agricultural land. The most dangerous consequence on this land transfer by sale, acquisition and other means is the fact that it is placing the majority poor and the few rich on road to conflict that could tear the country apart.
The government must therefore enact laws immediately to prohibit selling agricultural land for use in any others sector. The Government must further enact laws to restrict land holdings so that there is a maximum amount that an individual would be able to buy to avoid clashes and conflicts between the small number of new land owners and those who are being forced to sell their land that is their livelihood and their ancestral holdings for economic reasons.
The Prime Minister’s decision on Arial Beel and the move by environmentalists against the Army Housing Scheme in Rupgang are steps in the right direction. Unfortunately, it does not seem likely that those who are indulging in the mindless acquisition of agricultural and domestic land by purchase, acquisition, etc would be encouraged to follow the Prime Minister’s lead or listen to the environmentalists. To stop incidents of people’s power shown in Arial Beel or Rajshahi spreading to the rest of the country with the potential to take the country apart, the legal system must be brought into the loop against mindless land acquisition by individuals for their personal aggrandizement.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and a former Secretary to the Government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)