Daily Sun
Sunday, 26th June, 2011
M. Serajul Islam
Most newspapers reported in their recent editions that Bangladesh has improved by one position in the list of countries likely to become failed states. Last year, Bangladesh had figured 24th and this year it is 25th. Some of the reports have tried to give a spin that Bangladesh is making a move in the right direction.
What these reports have not described is that countries have been rated on the index into critical, in danger, borderline, stable and most stable where Bangladesh is in the list of those countries considered in danger of failing. Almost all the critical countries are in Africa except Pakistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan in South Asia; Iraq in ME and Haiti in the Caribbean.
The African countries are in critical danger of failing primarily because of tribal conflict. Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen are in the same category because of terrorism. In fact, Pakistan and Yemen are in the critical list because “state ideology and state institutions abet terrorism.”
The group of countries in danger of failing in which Bangladesh finds itself is a large one. Again, Africa makes up the majority of the countries in this group. Among South Asia countries, Nepal has been placed at 27th and Sri Lanka at 29th, with Bangladesh where 2 out of 5 people live below the poverty line, at the top of the list. Surprisingly, China and Iran have also been named as countries in danger of failing!
There is a complicated criterion for assessment for placing countries in the various categories. These are called “pressures on the state” and include demographic pressures, refugees, group grievances; human flight; uneven development; economic decline; de-legitimization of the state; public grievances; human rights; security apparatus; fractionalized elites; and external interference.
Nepal and Sri Lanka have problem with many of the issues that are considered for judging whether a nation is failing and if so how close it is to ailing. Bangladesh has little or no pressure from many of these issues. The issues of economic decline, refugees, external interference, are not there while the other criterions are not present in any serious proportion to make Bangladesh so close to becoming a failed state as concluded in the failed States list.
Nevertheless Bangladesh is close to failing as a state as the Failed States Index has predicted but for entirely different reasons. It is in the nature of its politics where the two mainstream parties cannot agree even to a minimum level of consensus on issues of national development that the seeds of Bangladesh becoming a failed state are embedded. Of course issue of pressure of population, fractionalized elites and uneven development creates that extra pressure for pushing Bangladesh into the category of countries in danger of failing but these are not issues that are insurmountable as in case of countries fighting to remain afloat from failing.
Bangladesh’s case for a place in the Failed List Index in the category of those in danger of failing is due to the failure of its politics and politicians. In Sri Lanka ethnic differences and more than 25 years of civil war has turned the country on its head. In Nepal an often oppressive monarchy encouraged large section of the people, the Maoists, to rebellion with external assistance and destroyed its fragile fundamentals of statehood. Bangladesh has not had any of these massive problems for successful statehood. In fact, in 1971 its 75 million people came together under one banner responding to the call of Bangabandhu, something unique in the annals of history.
In addition, Bangladesh is an egalitarian society where the rich poor divide has not yet become provocative or dangerous; something that quality politics can easily handle. Feudalism has not been a strong factor to set the people of Bangladesh against each other The people of Bangladesh have twice in 25 years gotten together to overthrow colonialism, once in 1947 against the British and again in 1971 against the oppressive neo-colonialism imposed by the Pakistani regime and have developed common bonds to fight forces of oppression
Bangladesh has also not been subjected to dangerous and divisive forces that have brought the African national critically and dangerously close to failing. The Europeans have been very bad colonizers and what is happening today in Africa, the civil turmoil, are largely due to the way the European colonizers have cut across tribal and ethnic fabric of Africa to create independent states.
It is the conflicting nature of politics of Bangladesh as it evolved after 1971 and silly issues over which the two mainstream political parties have been fighting that are reasons why today stand Bangladesh faces the prospects of failing as a state. Most of the criterion that have been used to categorize states as going the way to become failed ones could easily be overcome in the two mainstream parties could agree on a minimum agenda of national development that does not seem to be the case. The only other danger that could push Bangladesh towards failing is the effect of climate change.
The most surprising revelation of the Failed State index is to see Iran at 35 dangerously close to failing. China at 81 is also dangerously close to failing as a state. It is not possible here to go into analysis of the criterion on which these two countries have been placed as ones dangerously close to failing. It would nevertheless be useful worth noting that both Iran and China have survived as independent states as long as one can remember. These countries are in fact the cradles of civilization.
Why these two countries would now be dangerously close to failing is difficult to contemplate. True they may have certain problems of internal nature but that such problems, like political democratization in China, would destroy thousands of years of statehood is difficult to contemplate. Incidentally, Iraq is also in the critical list for becoming a failed state that contradicts the claim of US success there; that Iraq would see the beginning of a new era of multi-ethnic, multicultural society living in peace.
The Failed State list is the produce of two US based organizations, Foreign Policy and The Fund for Peace. The 2011 annual collaboration is the 7th the two organizations have jointly brought out. President Bush had said in 2002 that the US is threatened less by conquering states than by failed ones in reference to Al Qaeda growing out of Afghanistan that was by all accounts a failed state by 9/11. US Defense Secretary Bill Gates has said over the next 20 years, the gravest threats for US would come from failed states. The attempt of the two organizations to bring out the list of Failed States is to address this concern
The fear of international threat posed by failed states is overstated. Majority of the states that are failing in Africa are a threat to themselves and those dying are their own in their own hands. Even the co-relation of failed states syndrome with so-called Islamic terrorism is also overstated. Somalia and Chad, perilously close to failing as a state, with predominantly Muslim poses no threat internationally whereas Pakistan and Yemen that poses the gravest international terrorist threat have functional governments suggesting that only those states can pose threat internationally that have functional systems working, albeit weak ones.
There is enough issues in the way the Failed State Index is finalized for taking a critical look at the motive of the authors. They seem to be providing the US foreign policy makers a platform for its theory of pre-emptive strike that it invented by going into Afghanistan.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
On hartal, demoracy and common sense
The Independent
As I See It
June 25th Saturday
M. Serajul Islam
Columnists are writing good number of articles these days on hartal, particularly after the 36 hours called by the BNP and Jamat with promise of more to come. The Prime Minister condemned the call while the Leader of the Opposition called it a democratic right against an un-democratic government.
The columnists have backed the Prime Minister describing hartals as bad for the country and the economy. One columnist supported hartals of the past years when they were held against military dictatorships. This columnist also supported the AL hartals during the closing stages of the last BNP Government but rejected the last hartal called by the BNP. Generally these columnists seemed to have concluded that people are now against hartal.
My own view of people’s perception of hartal was the same as the columnists; that people are now generally against hartals. I have of course my own view on hartal to which I will come later. I was therefore somewhat surprised that the 36 hours hartal called by the opposition was successful despite the attempts by the Government to keep business open as usual.
In my years as a diplomat abroad, where representing Bangladesh is not easy, one issue that made it even harder to represent Bangladesh was hartal. As an Ambassador in Japan while the BNP was in office last time, my biggest hurdle in arguing Bangladesh’s case as an investment destination was political instability caused by hartal. That was the time when hartals were regular feature of our politics aimed to overthrow an elected government.
My own views made it even more difficult to defend hartal. In a democracy, the opposition has every right to protest the actions of the Government. They can call strikes and even general strikes depending on the gravity of the issue. They can even ask for a general shut down of the government. However, the people are sovereign in democracy and they have the ultimate right either to accept or reject the opposition’s call of a general strike or a shutdown of government.
A hartal takes away from the people that sovereign right and leaves them at the mercy of those who call hartal. The party that calls hartal burns vehicles; attacks businesses, closes educational institutions to tell the people in no uncertain terms that they must close down their lives and livelihood to make a hartal successful! In the process hartal enters into the dangerous arena of fascism.
With the new term of the AL, the opposition seemed to finally accept that hartal is no longer a strategy that people are willing to accept, no matter whether they are good in their perception or otherwise. Thus in two and a half years of this government, the BNP has been cautions with hartal and so far they have called only 4 hartals. However, it takes two to tango and here the AL instead of building on the opposition’s positive stance on hartal has surprisingly done the reverse.
The AL has not exactly helped the cause of making hartal history by announcing that future elections would be held under the elected government and not under the CG. Suppose the BNP was in power today and had announced elections under it and not the CG, would the AL accept it? The question does not require an answer for knowing AL’s style of politics it would have by now brought the government to a standstill with “lagatar” hartal.
Despite the clearly un-democratic nature of a hartal, it is the product of the negative style of politics in the country. Unless this negative politics becomes history, hartal will continue to plague us and our lives. In a recent discussion with a senior politically appointed official of the government, I was simply amazed to hear his views on hartal. At first, he sarcastically commented that hartal is welcome because it is environment friendly. In the next instance, he said that the hartal will have no affect on the government as the ruling party will use its “brute” majority to deal with the issue! He did not care to consider that with 48% of the votes cast in favour of the ruling coalition, it does not even have a simple majority!
It is this stance of the ruling party that has surprised many. The summary trial of hartal activists by invoking one of the blackest laws of the Pakistan era, the ruling party has given the public enough to worry about its intentions. At a time when it has crossed the first half of its term with most of its election promises still promises and where political stability is a fundamental pre-requisite to govern, it has decided to provoke the opposition. It is simply absurd to believe that the BNP would accept elections under the AL and it will go to any length for its demand for the CG. It has made that intention quite clear.
The Prime Minister’s contradictory statements on the CG system
indicate that the ruling party is in two minds about future course of politics in the country. At first, she and her party leaders made statements about holding at least two more elections under the CG. Then when the Supreme Court decision exactly what the ruling party was seeking but only after declaring the CG system illegal, the Prime Minister accepted the illegality but not the option of holding two more elections under the CG system. Now in another twist, the ruling party leaders are suggesting that the door for negotiating future election under CG is still open.
Now ruling party leaders are openly hinting at finding a way to retain the CG with some saying that the decision on the CG and constitutional amendments is exclusively a matter for the parliament and not the court. One hopes that sense would prevail upon the policy makers of the ruling party for if the AL decides to go ahead to hold next elections under it and deal with opposition hartals by “brute” force and summary trials of hartal activists, then it would be pushing the country to the brinks of civil disturbance that could put the country’s future in serious jeopardy. Let us not forget that only recently we have been listed as a country in danger of failing.
There is really no good or bad hartal; nor “rational” or “irrational ones” as the AL Secretary Genera has suggested. Hartal is bad for the economy and the country and fascist by its very nature. There is however an explanation why hartals take place and that too just in Bangladesh. It will be there as long as politics is the way it is; negative and provocative. To end hartal, it is the duty of the ruling party to stop provocating the opposition.
The Prime Minister who has shown great respect for the Court should follow its offer to the parliament to hold the next two elections under the CG. That would take the wind away out of the sail of any opposition desire for hartal and save the country from sliding into an abyss. The ruling party leaders who dismiss BNP led hartals sarcastically should keep in mind that they have championed this strategy and the opposition parties have been poor followers. And it is also not true that all its hartals it called when in opposition were “rational”; majority of them were forced on the people for no reason at all. For example, it called innumerable hartals for the CG system in BNP’s 1991-96 term and now rejecting it as undemocratic!
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan.
As I See It
June 25th Saturday
M. Serajul Islam
Columnists are writing good number of articles these days on hartal, particularly after the 36 hours called by the BNP and Jamat with promise of more to come. The Prime Minister condemned the call while the Leader of the Opposition called it a democratic right against an un-democratic government.
The columnists have backed the Prime Minister describing hartals as bad for the country and the economy. One columnist supported hartals of the past years when they were held against military dictatorships. This columnist also supported the AL hartals during the closing stages of the last BNP Government but rejected the last hartal called by the BNP. Generally these columnists seemed to have concluded that people are now against hartal.
My own view of people’s perception of hartal was the same as the columnists; that people are now generally against hartals. I have of course my own view on hartal to which I will come later. I was therefore somewhat surprised that the 36 hours hartal called by the opposition was successful despite the attempts by the Government to keep business open as usual.
In my years as a diplomat abroad, where representing Bangladesh is not easy, one issue that made it even harder to represent Bangladesh was hartal. As an Ambassador in Japan while the BNP was in office last time, my biggest hurdle in arguing Bangladesh’s case as an investment destination was political instability caused by hartal. That was the time when hartals were regular feature of our politics aimed to overthrow an elected government.
My own views made it even more difficult to defend hartal. In a democracy, the opposition has every right to protest the actions of the Government. They can call strikes and even general strikes depending on the gravity of the issue. They can even ask for a general shut down of the government. However, the people are sovereign in democracy and they have the ultimate right either to accept or reject the opposition’s call of a general strike or a shutdown of government.
A hartal takes away from the people that sovereign right and leaves them at the mercy of those who call hartal. The party that calls hartal burns vehicles; attacks businesses, closes educational institutions to tell the people in no uncertain terms that they must close down their lives and livelihood to make a hartal successful! In the process hartal enters into the dangerous arena of fascism.
With the new term of the AL, the opposition seemed to finally accept that hartal is no longer a strategy that people are willing to accept, no matter whether they are good in their perception or otherwise. Thus in two and a half years of this government, the BNP has been cautions with hartal and so far they have called only 4 hartals. However, it takes two to tango and here the AL instead of building on the opposition’s positive stance on hartal has surprisingly done the reverse.
The AL has not exactly helped the cause of making hartal history by announcing that future elections would be held under the elected government and not under the CG. Suppose the BNP was in power today and had announced elections under it and not the CG, would the AL accept it? The question does not require an answer for knowing AL’s style of politics it would have by now brought the government to a standstill with “lagatar” hartal.
Despite the clearly un-democratic nature of a hartal, it is the product of the negative style of politics in the country. Unless this negative politics becomes history, hartal will continue to plague us and our lives. In a recent discussion with a senior politically appointed official of the government, I was simply amazed to hear his views on hartal. At first, he sarcastically commented that hartal is welcome because it is environment friendly. In the next instance, he said that the hartal will have no affect on the government as the ruling party will use its “brute” majority to deal with the issue! He did not care to consider that with 48% of the votes cast in favour of the ruling coalition, it does not even have a simple majority!
It is this stance of the ruling party that has surprised many. The summary trial of hartal activists by invoking one of the blackest laws of the Pakistan era, the ruling party has given the public enough to worry about its intentions. At a time when it has crossed the first half of its term with most of its election promises still promises and where political stability is a fundamental pre-requisite to govern, it has decided to provoke the opposition. It is simply absurd to believe that the BNP would accept elections under the AL and it will go to any length for its demand for the CG. It has made that intention quite clear.
The Prime Minister’s contradictory statements on the CG system
indicate that the ruling party is in two minds about future course of politics in the country. At first, she and her party leaders made statements about holding at least two more elections under the CG. Then when the Supreme Court decision exactly what the ruling party was seeking but only after declaring the CG system illegal, the Prime Minister accepted the illegality but not the option of holding two more elections under the CG system. Now in another twist, the ruling party leaders are suggesting that the door for negotiating future election under CG is still open.
Now ruling party leaders are openly hinting at finding a way to retain the CG with some saying that the decision on the CG and constitutional amendments is exclusively a matter for the parliament and not the court. One hopes that sense would prevail upon the policy makers of the ruling party for if the AL decides to go ahead to hold next elections under it and deal with opposition hartals by “brute” force and summary trials of hartal activists, then it would be pushing the country to the brinks of civil disturbance that could put the country’s future in serious jeopardy. Let us not forget that only recently we have been listed as a country in danger of failing.
There is really no good or bad hartal; nor “rational” or “irrational ones” as the AL Secretary Genera has suggested. Hartal is bad for the economy and the country and fascist by its very nature. There is however an explanation why hartals take place and that too just in Bangladesh. It will be there as long as politics is the way it is; negative and provocative. To end hartal, it is the duty of the ruling party to stop provocating the opposition.
The Prime Minister who has shown great respect for the Court should follow its offer to the parliament to hold the next two elections under the CG. That would take the wind away out of the sail of any opposition desire for hartal and save the country from sliding into an abyss. The ruling party leaders who dismiss BNP led hartals sarcastically should keep in mind that they have championed this strategy and the opposition parties have been poor followers. And it is also not true that all its hartals it called when in opposition were “rational”; majority of them were forced on the people for no reason at all. For example, it called innumerable hartals for the CG system in BNP’s 1991-96 term and now rejecting it as undemocratic!
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Ambassadors embarass the nation
Daily Sun
June 19th., Sunday
M. Serajul Islam
Disturbing news has appeared in the newspapers about conduct of the Ambassadors in three of Bangladesh Embassies abroad. Two are extremely serious cases of sexual misconduct and impinge upon the character of the Ambassadors concerned. The third Ambassador has offended his hosts so seriously with his etiquette and manners that they have refused to deal with him, not even to discuss our Foreign Minister’s visit to that country.
The news concerning these three Ambassadors has appeared in the media over some length of time. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has however not contradicted the news. There have been media reports that MOFA has conducted investigations and one of the Ambassadors has been recalled. The silence of the Foreign Ministry has led many to conclude that the Ambassadors are guilty as charged.
The way the AL led Government has conducted foreign affairs thus far is unbelievable. At least 5 or six Ministers and Advisers with the Foreign Minister one of them are conducting the country’s foreign relations. In fact, from time to time, more Ministers speak on foreign affairs without caring for MOFA as if it is a common subject for all of them.
This government has shown equally unbelievable laid back approach in appointment of Ambassadors. For the first time ever, all major Bangladesh missions abroad have been given to non-career Ambassadors. In a number of these stations, those named have foreign nationality in addition to their Bangladeshi nationality. Those responsible for the appointments have not even considered serious legal issues. Under oaths that these foreign nationals have taken for their adopted countries, they are obliged to support their country of adoption when required even when it is Bangladesh’s interests at stake.
Prior to the AL’s current term, Ambassadors were appointed after a consultation between the Prime Minister and the Foreign Ministry. After receiving the PM’s approval informally, it was a summary from the Foreign Ministry to the Prime Minister that formalized Ambassadorial appointments. In majority of the cases not involving major posts, the Prime Minister went by MOFA’s recommendations. Even in case of major appointments, the views of MOFA were always an important input in selection of Ambassadors.
That system is now seemingly in disarray. In fact, the announcement of Ambassadorial assignments is no longer the prerogative of MOFA. That function is now with the Cabinet Division. Thus, those who are now advising or influencing the Prime Minister on appointment of career Ambassadors have little knowledge of the Foreign Ministry and its officers. In case of recommending non-career Ambassadors also, they do so with little knowledge of the needs, demands and environment in which the Ambassadors work.
The serious predicament in which the country now finds itself with the three Ambassadors is the consequence of breakdown of the system that worked well in the past by an ad-hoc way of dealing with an extremely important national matter. The case of the career Ambassador among the 3 under scrutiny is revealing.
His appointment was recommended by the PMO with MOFA not consulted. He was sent from a minor station to a major one; a lift from division three to division one! The reaction of those who knew the affairs of MOFA well was one of utter surprise and disbelief who questioned whether Bangladesh had decided to wind up its Embassy in that country. He had not even a remote claim to the post except his ability to reach the PMO over the Foreign Ministry!
There is a serious mismatch in the existing distribution of career Ambassadors to our Embassies. Some bright career Ambassadors are being wasted in less important Embassies. A few not so competent career Ambassadors have been sent to some important Embassies as is the case of the career Ambassador now in the news. The mismatch is due to politics involved these days in appointment of career Ambassadors where MOFA is often powerless to do anything.
If MOFA had decided appointment of the career Ambassador in question, such a mismatch would not have occurred. The reason is a simple one. By the time a career diplomat is considered for an Ambassadorial assignment, his/her ability and credibility or the lack of these qualities is an established fact in the Ministry because the Foreign Service cadre is a small one. Everyone at MOFA knew a disaster was coming when the Government appointed the career Ambassador to the important post!
The case of the two non-career Ambassadors should leave no one in doubt that the poor chaps had no clue about the role of an Ambassador. One has been accused of frequenting night clubs by going there on a motor cycle of a staff of the Embassy! Quite clearly those who recommended their names to the Prime minister did not care to check out their credentials.
The alleged conduct of the 3 Ambassadors has dented the fragile image of Bangladesh that is so vital for our economic future. Such conduct could also affect adversely our bilateral relations with the countries concerned, of which two are crucial for our economic future. It is good that the career Ambassador has been recalled although after a long delay that must surely have offended the hosts. The non-career Ambassadors should now also be recalled without wasting any more time.
Simultaneously, it is also of the utmost importance to put into place a system for appointment of both career and non-career Ambassadors for the ad-hoc system now in place is dangerous for the country. The old system was a good and could be improved by streamlining it further. In any case, in the new system, the primary role for appointment of Ambassadors should be entrusted to MOFA that of course will work under the guidance of the Prime Minister.
It is indeed sad that the AL Government should weaken MOFA the way it has. In its last term, MOFA was given a major role in conduct of foreign affairs. In the final stages of that term, the Prime Minister even gave the Foreign Secretary the charge to conduct negotiations with India when the two countries came close to a serious border conflict, a job that involved many ministries and agencies that he performed successfully. In many instances in that term, MOFA was able to change names recommended by the PMO for appointment as Ambassadors after discussion with the Prime Minister. In return for the confidence placed, MOFA earned for the country credit such as membership in the UN Security Council, Chairmanship of NAM, etc to name a few.
While it may take time to restore MOFA to its rightful place if the Government has a desire to conduct foreign affairs professionally, the procedure of appointing Ambassadors should be straightened without delay for the sake of the country’s image and interests. Career Ambassadors should be chosen not on basis of sycophancy but on merit because there is a terrible mix of bright and below average career diplomats due to all sorts of quotas for appointment in public service. At least one other career Ambassador was recalled under the present Government on issue of character.
Non-career Ambassadors should not be appointed from party activists. They should be given training in the basics of diplomatic conduct and etiquette before they are allowed to go to their posts.
The writer is a former career Ambassador.
June 19th., Sunday
M. Serajul Islam
Disturbing news has appeared in the newspapers about conduct of the Ambassadors in three of Bangladesh Embassies abroad. Two are extremely serious cases of sexual misconduct and impinge upon the character of the Ambassadors concerned. The third Ambassador has offended his hosts so seriously with his etiquette and manners that they have refused to deal with him, not even to discuss our Foreign Minister’s visit to that country.
The news concerning these three Ambassadors has appeared in the media over some length of time. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has however not contradicted the news. There have been media reports that MOFA has conducted investigations and one of the Ambassadors has been recalled. The silence of the Foreign Ministry has led many to conclude that the Ambassadors are guilty as charged.
The way the AL led Government has conducted foreign affairs thus far is unbelievable. At least 5 or six Ministers and Advisers with the Foreign Minister one of them are conducting the country’s foreign relations. In fact, from time to time, more Ministers speak on foreign affairs without caring for MOFA as if it is a common subject for all of them.
This government has shown equally unbelievable laid back approach in appointment of Ambassadors. For the first time ever, all major Bangladesh missions abroad have been given to non-career Ambassadors. In a number of these stations, those named have foreign nationality in addition to their Bangladeshi nationality. Those responsible for the appointments have not even considered serious legal issues. Under oaths that these foreign nationals have taken for their adopted countries, they are obliged to support their country of adoption when required even when it is Bangladesh’s interests at stake.
Prior to the AL’s current term, Ambassadors were appointed after a consultation between the Prime Minister and the Foreign Ministry. After receiving the PM’s approval informally, it was a summary from the Foreign Ministry to the Prime Minister that formalized Ambassadorial appointments. In majority of the cases not involving major posts, the Prime Minister went by MOFA’s recommendations. Even in case of major appointments, the views of MOFA were always an important input in selection of Ambassadors.
That system is now seemingly in disarray. In fact, the announcement of Ambassadorial assignments is no longer the prerogative of MOFA. That function is now with the Cabinet Division. Thus, those who are now advising or influencing the Prime Minister on appointment of career Ambassadors have little knowledge of the Foreign Ministry and its officers. In case of recommending non-career Ambassadors also, they do so with little knowledge of the needs, demands and environment in which the Ambassadors work.
The serious predicament in which the country now finds itself with the three Ambassadors is the consequence of breakdown of the system that worked well in the past by an ad-hoc way of dealing with an extremely important national matter. The case of the career Ambassador among the 3 under scrutiny is revealing.
His appointment was recommended by the PMO with MOFA not consulted. He was sent from a minor station to a major one; a lift from division three to division one! The reaction of those who knew the affairs of MOFA well was one of utter surprise and disbelief who questioned whether Bangladesh had decided to wind up its Embassy in that country. He had not even a remote claim to the post except his ability to reach the PMO over the Foreign Ministry!
There is a serious mismatch in the existing distribution of career Ambassadors to our Embassies. Some bright career Ambassadors are being wasted in less important Embassies. A few not so competent career Ambassadors have been sent to some important Embassies as is the case of the career Ambassador now in the news. The mismatch is due to politics involved these days in appointment of career Ambassadors where MOFA is often powerless to do anything.
If MOFA had decided appointment of the career Ambassador in question, such a mismatch would not have occurred. The reason is a simple one. By the time a career diplomat is considered for an Ambassadorial assignment, his/her ability and credibility or the lack of these qualities is an established fact in the Ministry because the Foreign Service cadre is a small one. Everyone at MOFA knew a disaster was coming when the Government appointed the career Ambassador to the important post!
The case of the two non-career Ambassadors should leave no one in doubt that the poor chaps had no clue about the role of an Ambassador. One has been accused of frequenting night clubs by going there on a motor cycle of a staff of the Embassy! Quite clearly those who recommended their names to the Prime minister did not care to check out their credentials.
The alleged conduct of the 3 Ambassadors has dented the fragile image of Bangladesh that is so vital for our economic future. Such conduct could also affect adversely our bilateral relations with the countries concerned, of which two are crucial for our economic future. It is good that the career Ambassador has been recalled although after a long delay that must surely have offended the hosts. The non-career Ambassadors should now also be recalled without wasting any more time.
Simultaneously, it is also of the utmost importance to put into place a system for appointment of both career and non-career Ambassadors for the ad-hoc system now in place is dangerous for the country. The old system was a good and could be improved by streamlining it further. In any case, in the new system, the primary role for appointment of Ambassadors should be entrusted to MOFA that of course will work under the guidance of the Prime Minister.
It is indeed sad that the AL Government should weaken MOFA the way it has. In its last term, MOFA was given a major role in conduct of foreign affairs. In the final stages of that term, the Prime Minister even gave the Foreign Secretary the charge to conduct negotiations with India when the two countries came close to a serious border conflict, a job that involved many ministries and agencies that he performed successfully. In many instances in that term, MOFA was able to change names recommended by the PMO for appointment as Ambassadors after discussion with the Prime Minister. In return for the confidence placed, MOFA earned for the country credit such as membership in the UN Security Council, Chairmanship of NAM, etc to name a few.
While it may take time to restore MOFA to its rightful place if the Government has a desire to conduct foreign affairs professionally, the procedure of appointing Ambassadors should be straightened without delay for the sake of the country’s image and interests. Career Ambassadors should be chosen not on basis of sycophancy but on merit because there is a terrible mix of bright and below average career diplomats due to all sorts of quotas for appointment in public service. At least one other career Ambassador was recalled under the present Government on issue of character.
Non-career Ambassadors should not be appointed from party activists. They should be given training in the basics of diplomatic conduct and etiquette before they are allowed to go to their posts.
The writer is a former career Ambassador.
The OSD cadre in civil bureaucracy
The Independent, Saturday 18th June, 2011
AS I SEE IT column
M. Serajul Islam
Recently I had an interesting conversation with an OSD of the Government. I knew what is happening in the civil bureaucracy but I was not aware that it was anything like he described. We all know that one of the election issues that the ruling party put before the voter was the extent of politicization of the civil bureaucracy under the BNP Government. But the extent of politicization under the present government that this officer described is unbelievable.
I have also been reading the post-budget comments of leading citizens. They have all given us reasons to worry about our future. In fact, the Finance Minister himself has said that the over-ambitious budget the Government has announced will bear the desired results based on its ability to deliver at the micro level. He has also said that political stability will be a crucial factor in determining the desired results outlined in the budget.
The institution whose role is critical to the way the budget shapes is the civil bureaucracy. In any knowledgeable discussion these days, the civil bureaucracy is described as a sinking institution. By the start of this term of the ruling party, the officers who were recruited in the Pakistan era had all retired. As a consequence, leadership of the civil bureaucracy was weakened considerably.
The explanation for this is a simple one. The best university graduates who entered the civil bureaucracy in Pakistan times avoided it after our independence. A few bright graduates nevertheless entered the civil bureaucracy. However, as an institution, the difference in quality and ability between officers of the earlier era and those leading now is palpably evident. When this was the state of affairs with the bureaucracy, the ruling party decided to leave out from the cabinet political leaders who were in the AL cabinet in 1996-2001 and in their place, brought in new and inexperienced faces.
Key Ministries of Home and Foreign Affairs have been given to women, both first timers in the cabinet. Thus the second administration of Sheikh Hasina started with a very bad mix for successful governance; an inexperienced cabinet and a very weak bureaucracy. The Prime Minister herself expressed her frustration with her cabinet colleagues and publicly questioned their ability.
In these contexts, what this OSD revealed to me is nerve wracking indeed. He said that after this government came to power, it has systematically sorted out the officers on the basis of loyalty to the ruling party. Accordingly, the officers have been categorized into those whose loyalty is unquestioned. Then there are those who have been branded as disloyal or loyal to the opposition. There is a third group who are in between; who are not considered disloyal but whose loyalty to the ruling party is also not established beyond doubt.
The pro-AL loyalists are of course ruling the roost. They are eating the cake and the icing too! Those whose loyalty was in doubt have either been sent on retirement or have been sorted out in various other ways. The OSD who led me to write this piece is in a group who could not prove their loyalty or those on witch hunt to seek out opposition elements in the bureaucracy could not link them to the opposition. His group consists of over 200 officers of level of Deputy Secretary, 70 Joint Secretaries, and a good Additional Secretaries and Secretaries! If this figure of officers made OSD is not startling enough, I am not sure what would be. These officers have no office or responsibility and under are required to go daily to the Establishment Division to sign a register. Out of pity for this unfortunate group, the Establishment Division has allowed them to sign the register at interval of 10 days.
Thus an already weak bureaucracy has been divided and a very large number of officers are paid salaries but not allowed to work. It does not need common sense to suggest that such a move has weakened the bureaucracy further. This is not even politicization of the bureaucracy; this is worse. What is going to happen if the opposition were to return to power? Can a bureaucracy politicized in such a manner and working half strength deliver the high objectives of the budget and government where the political leadership is weak?
With all respect to the Prime Minister whose wisdom is hardly in doubt, it does not need a crystal ball to predict that the Government will find it difficult if not impossible to deliver. The CPD that has attained credibility in the country and aboard has predicted that the Government will not be able to achieve the growth rate it has predicted in the budget. Leading economists of the country have also likewise made pessimistic predictions. The FM’s rather inexplicable outbursts against the CPD are one of nervousness about the Government’s ability to deliver.
Our bureaucracy has been based on political neutrality on traditions of the British bureaucracy. Next door India has benefitted immensely from a politically neutral bureaucracy by following the same British traditions as we have. In fact, Pandit Nehru turned to the ICS officers who served the British raj to build an independent India. They returned that trust by helping build the India Pandit Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi and others had visualized for an independent India.
We can destroy that fundamental basis of our bureaucracy, namely its political neutrality, only at our peril. A democratic government simply cannot have its civil bureaucracy totally subservient to the political party where that party as the ruling one does not even have a simple majority on votes cast in its favour or be manned by its political activists. This Government must focus seriously to bring the civil bureaucracy back on rails. Otherwise it will derail the Government. In fact, the derailment process is very visible and it is unbelievable that the Government is silent about it.
The OSD predicted that hell would be let loose in the civil bureaucracy when a change of government takes place for that is the direction in which the present government is pushing the once respected and vaunted bureaucracy. It is not even helping the cause of the ruling party because the bureaucrats are serving their own interests in the name of the party and depriving the benefits of governance to those who they believe do not support the ruling party.
Thus instead of building an efficient civil service based on ability and merit, the present government it is helping build a bureaucracy based on sycophancy. More importantly, it is pushing a significant part of the members of the bureaucracy into a corner as members of the OSD cadre! All aside, can any country afford it , least of all an impoverished country like Bangladesh that at full strength still is still well short of the desired number of bureaucrats to implement the responsibilities and objectives of the government?
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan
AS I SEE IT column
M. Serajul Islam
Recently I had an interesting conversation with an OSD of the Government. I knew what is happening in the civil bureaucracy but I was not aware that it was anything like he described. We all know that one of the election issues that the ruling party put before the voter was the extent of politicization of the civil bureaucracy under the BNP Government. But the extent of politicization under the present government that this officer described is unbelievable.
I have also been reading the post-budget comments of leading citizens. They have all given us reasons to worry about our future. In fact, the Finance Minister himself has said that the over-ambitious budget the Government has announced will bear the desired results based on its ability to deliver at the micro level. He has also said that political stability will be a crucial factor in determining the desired results outlined in the budget.
The institution whose role is critical to the way the budget shapes is the civil bureaucracy. In any knowledgeable discussion these days, the civil bureaucracy is described as a sinking institution. By the start of this term of the ruling party, the officers who were recruited in the Pakistan era had all retired. As a consequence, leadership of the civil bureaucracy was weakened considerably.
The explanation for this is a simple one. The best university graduates who entered the civil bureaucracy in Pakistan times avoided it after our independence. A few bright graduates nevertheless entered the civil bureaucracy. However, as an institution, the difference in quality and ability between officers of the earlier era and those leading now is palpably evident. When this was the state of affairs with the bureaucracy, the ruling party decided to leave out from the cabinet political leaders who were in the AL cabinet in 1996-2001 and in their place, brought in new and inexperienced faces.
Key Ministries of Home and Foreign Affairs have been given to women, both first timers in the cabinet. Thus the second administration of Sheikh Hasina started with a very bad mix for successful governance; an inexperienced cabinet and a very weak bureaucracy. The Prime Minister herself expressed her frustration with her cabinet colleagues and publicly questioned their ability.
In these contexts, what this OSD revealed to me is nerve wracking indeed. He said that after this government came to power, it has systematically sorted out the officers on the basis of loyalty to the ruling party. Accordingly, the officers have been categorized into those whose loyalty is unquestioned. Then there are those who have been branded as disloyal or loyal to the opposition. There is a third group who are in between; who are not considered disloyal but whose loyalty to the ruling party is also not established beyond doubt.
The pro-AL loyalists are of course ruling the roost. They are eating the cake and the icing too! Those whose loyalty was in doubt have either been sent on retirement or have been sorted out in various other ways. The OSD who led me to write this piece is in a group who could not prove their loyalty or those on witch hunt to seek out opposition elements in the bureaucracy could not link them to the opposition. His group consists of over 200 officers of level of Deputy Secretary, 70 Joint Secretaries, and a good Additional Secretaries and Secretaries! If this figure of officers made OSD is not startling enough, I am not sure what would be. These officers have no office or responsibility and under are required to go daily to the Establishment Division to sign a register. Out of pity for this unfortunate group, the Establishment Division has allowed them to sign the register at interval of 10 days.
Thus an already weak bureaucracy has been divided and a very large number of officers are paid salaries but not allowed to work. It does not need common sense to suggest that such a move has weakened the bureaucracy further. This is not even politicization of the bureaucracy; this is worse. What is going to happen if the opposition were to return to power? Can a bureaucracy politicized in such a manner and working half strength deliver the high objectives of the budget and government where the political leadership is weak?
With all respect to the Prime Minister whose wisdom is hardly in doubt, it does not need a crystal ball to predict that the Government will find it difficult if not impossible to deliver. The CPD that has attained credibility in the country and aboard has predicted that the Government will not be able to achieve the growth rate it has predicted in the budget. Leading economists of the country have also likewise made pessimistic predictions. The FM’s rather inexplicable outbursts against the CPD are one of nervousness about the Government’s ability to deliver.
Our bureaucracy has been based on political neutrality on traditions of the British bureaucracy. Next door India has benefitted immensely from a politically neutral bureaucracy by following the same British traditions as we have. In fact, Pandit Nehru turned to the ICS officers who served the British raj to build an independent India. They returned that trust by helping build the India Pandit Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi and others had visualized for an independent India.
We can destroy that fundamental basis of our bureaucracy, namely its political neutrality, only at our peril. A democratic government simply cannot have its civil bureaucracy totally subservient to the political party where that party as the ruling one does not even have a simple majority on votes cast in its favour or be manned by its political activists. This Government must focus seriously to bring the civil bureaucracy back on rails. Otherwise it will derail the Government. In fact, the derailment process is very visible and it is unbelievable that the Government is silent about it.
The OSD predicted that hell would be let loose in the civil bureaucracy when a change of government takes place for that is the direction in which the present government is pushing the once respected and vaunted bureaucracy. It is not even helping the cause of the ruling party because the bureaucrats are serving their own interests in the name of the party and depriving the benefits of governance to those who they believe do not support the ruling party.
Thus instead of building an efficient civil service based on ability and merit, the present government it is helping build a bureaucracy based on sycophancy. More importantly, it is pushing a significant part of the members of the bureaucracy into a corner as members of the OSD cadre! All aside, can any country afford it , least of all an impoverished country like Bangladesh that at full strength still is still well short of the desired number of bureaucrats to implement the responsibilities and objectives of the government?
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Friday, June 10, 2011
Monday, June 6, 2011
Monday, May 30, 2011
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Muslim discontent and West Bengal elections
Daily Sun , May 22nd, 2011
M. Serajul Islam
A few expatriates in Washington with whom I had a conversation recently were hot happy that our Prime Minister should be so overtly happy with the landside victory of Trinamool in elections in a province in India. They felt that the message of felicitations should have gone from a lower level in the Government.
These expatriates also referred to a 1999 incident when Sheikh Hasina was introduced to the audience as Chief Minister when she had gone to Kolkata for that city’s famous Book Festival as a Chief Guest. These expats felt that our Prime Minister had allowed herself to be “humiliated” by visiting an Indian province where she was not shown proper respect.
I corrected some of the false notions of the expats. I told them that I was present at the 1999 Book Festival as a member of the Prime Minister’s delegation and that the reference to Sheikh Hasina as a Chief Minister was totally un-intended and that when a few members of the Prime Minister’s delegation objected, the individual who was conducting the event apologized profusely. He said that West Bengal hardly if ever had an opportunity to welcome a Prime Minister and hence not accustomed with protocol concerning one. Sheikh Hasina herself was amused instead of feeling humiliated and I thought correctly so. She allowed the incident to be resolved in a manner that I thought was diplomatic and correct and enhanced her respect to the people of West Bengal.
Sheikh Hasina had good reasons to visit Kolkata in 1999. West Bengal’s Chief Minister then was Jyoti Basu who played a key role in reaching the Ganges water Sharing Accord earlier in that term of Sheikh Hasina. Jyoti Basu was also very influential in Indian politics and hence it made additional good reasons for the Prime Minister to go to Kolkata to make him happy for his support in resolving Bangladesh’s other problems with India.
Mamata Banarjee’s stature and influence in New Delhi where she was a Cabinet Minister before becoming West Bengal’s Chief Minister, is also significant. Hence it makes sense for our Prime Minister to make Mamata Banarjee happy as a strategy to achieve the country’s foreign policy interests. Mamata Banarjee’s Trinamool Congress is also an ally of the Congress that is in power at the Centre. The reservations of the expatriates in Washington notwithstanding, there are serious foreign policy considerations that have gone to not just the Prime Minister extending her felicitations to Mamata Banarjee but also the Foreign Minister who too warmly congratulated the new West Bengal Chief Minister.
Nevertheless, the concerns expressed by the expats in Washington cannot be dismissed lightly. Bangladesh must not forget its sovereign status. It is this sovereign status that must dictate its relations with West Bengal. In this context, our foreign policy makers must make an objective assessment of importance of West Bengal to our foreign policy needs and to that extent try and get that province on its side but at the same time remember that West Bengal is not really one of those provinces that matter a great deal in India’s politics.
At the same time, our foreign policy makers should examine the reasons that helped Trinamool earn such a landslide victory. In analysis in the media in Bangladesh on these reasons, a fact that has not been touched at all is the role of Muslim voters in the election’s outcome. Despite all the good things that have been attributed to the communists in West Bengal, including the fact that the province did not see any violence against the Muslims since 1964, the status of Muslims in the province has gone from bad to worse in this period. This fact has not gone to any analysis in our media about Trinamool’s victory. One newspaper’s editorial instead suggested that we could learn from the way Buddhadev Bhattacharya accepted his party’s defeat. The editor must have lost sight of two things. First the defeat was expected and so overwhelming that there was nothing left for the former Chief Minister but to accept defeat. Second, and more importantly, he also forgot that West Bengal is a province and subject to control by the Centre where there was just no alternative for Buddhadev Bhattacharya but to accept defeat, gracefully or otherwise.
The polarization of Muslims in West Bengal was there for all political analysts to see soon after the Sachar Commission Report of 2005 was published to predict that the leftists there were headed for a defeat just on this fact alone. The Commission was established by Prime Minister Manmohon Singh to find out the social, economic and political status of Muslims in India under the Chairmanship of Justice Rajinder Sachar, former Chief Justice of New Delhi High Court. The Report reveled that in the so-called non-communal West Bengal, Muslims who constitute 25% of the province’s population, occupied 2.5% of Government jobs! The Sachar Committee Report that pictured a very depressing state for Muslims of India gave West Bengal the worst marks for treating Muslims as second class citizens. Analysts of this report gave West Bengal even worse marks than Gujarat where its Chief Minister prides and thrives on his hatred for Muslims.
It is true friendly relations are desirable with India and West Bengal can help further that objective. Nevertheless, Bangladesh should not forget that the Indian Government and media regularly refer to us as fundamentalist that treats its minorities unfairly. Bangladesh should muster the courage to tell India that it should treat its Muslims fairly before criticizing Bangladesh that has a much better record for treatment of its minorities.
Bangladesh must keep in mind while dealing with Trinamool that the feelings in West Bengal against Muslims are not restricted just to the leftists. It is deeper and more widespread than what our foreign policy pundits and the government realize. Despite winning the elections so massively on votes of Muslims, Trinamool may not change their fate unless they are pressured. As a sovereign nation with a huge Muslim population, Bangladesh has a responsibility to encourage India in general and West Bengal in particular to deal with Muslims fairly.
Thus the expats in Washington may have a point. Bangladesh should restrain its excitement over change of government in West Bengal because on its records, the province does not deserve our unqualified felicitations. Our sovereign status demands this of us particularly where that province has lots more to show for our respect. In any case, the Indian Prime Minister who had postponed his long awaited visit to Dhaka for West Bengal elections where results have been achieved to make New Delhi happy would be visiting Bangladesh soon. Therefore what West Bengal means to the Centre and how much it can help Bangladesh’s interests, would be known soon.
The writer is a retired career diplomat and a former Ambassador to Japan
M. Serajul Islam
A few expatriates in Washington with whom I had a conversation recently were hot happy that our Prime Minister should be so overtly happy with the landside victory of Trinamool in elections in a province in India. They felt that the message of felicitations should have gone from a lower level in the Government.
These expatriates also referred to a 1999 incident when Sheikh Hasina was introduced to the audience as Chief Minister when she had gone to Kolkata for that city’s famous Book Festival as a Chief Guest. These expats felt that our Prime Minister had allowed herself to be “humiliated” by visiting an Indian province where she was not shown proper respect.
I corrected some of the false notions of the expats. I told them that I was present at the 1999 Book Festival as a member of the Prime Minister’s delegation and that the reference to Sheikh Hasina as a Chief Minister was totally un-intended and that when a few members of the Prime Minister’s delegation objected, the individual who was conducting the event apologized profusely. He said that West Bengal hardly if ever had an opportunity to welcome a Prime Minister and hence not accustomed with protocol concerning one. Sheikh Hasina herself was amused instead of feeling humiliated and I thought correctly so. She allowed the incident to be resolved in a manner that I thought was diplomatic and correct and enhanced her respect to the people of West Bengal.
Sheikh Hasina had good reasons to visit Kolkata in 1999. West Bengal’s Chief Minister then was Jyoti Basu who played a key role in reaching the Ganges water Sharing Accord earlier in that term of Sheikh Hasina. Jyoti Basu was also very influential in Indian politics and hence it made additional good reasons for the Prime Minister to go to Kolkata to make him happy for his support in resolving Bangladesh’s other problems with India.
Mamata Banarjee’s stature and influence in New Delhi where she was a Cabinet Minister before becoming West Bengal’s Chief Minister, is also significant. Hence it makes sense for our Prime Minister to make Mamata Banarjee happy as a strategy to achieve the country’s foreign policy interests. Mamata Banarjee’s Trinamool Congress is also an ally of the Congress that is in power at the Centre. The reservations of the expatriates in Washington notwithstanding, there are serious foreign policy considerations that have gone to not just the Prime Minister extending her felicitations to Mamata Banarjee but also the Foreign Minister who too warmly congratulated the new West Bengal Chief Minister.
Nevertheless, the concerns expressed by the expats in Washington cannot be dismissed lightly. Bangladesh must not forget its sovereign status. It is this sovereign status that must dictate its relations with West Bengal. In this context, our foreign policy makers must make an objective assessment of importance of West Bengal to our foreign policy needs and to that extent try and get that province on its side but at the same time remember that West Bengal is not really one of those provinces that matter a great deal in India’s politics.
At the same time, our foreign policy makers should examine the reasons that helped Trinamool earn such a landslide victory. In analysis in the media in Bangladesh on these reasons, a fact that has not been touched at all is the role of Muslim voters in the election’s outcome. Despite all the good things that have been attributed to the communists in West Bengal, including the fact that the province did not see any violence against the Muslims since 1964, the status of Muslims in the province has gone from bad to worse in this period. This fact has not gone to any analysis in our media about Trinamool’s victory. One newspaper’s editorial instead suggested that we could learn from the way Buddhadev Bhattacharya accepted his party’s defeat. The editor must have lost sight of two things. First the defeat was expected and so overwhelming that there was nothing left for the former Chief Minister but to accept defeat. Second, and more importantly, he also forgot that West Bengal is a province and subject to control by the Centre where there was just no alternative for Buddhadev Bhattacharya but to accept defeat, gracefully or otherwise.
The polarization of Muslims in West Bengal was there for all political analysts to see soon after the Sachar Commission Report of 2005 was published to predict that the leftists there were headed for a defeat just on this fact alone. The Commission was established by Prime Minister Manmohon Singh to find out the social, economic and political status of Muslims in India under the Chairmanship of Justice Rajinder Sachar, former Chief Justice of New Delhi High Court. The Report reveled that in the so-called non-communal West Bengal, Muslims who constitute 25% of the province’s population, occupied 2.5% of Government jobs! The Sachar Committee Report that pictured a very depressing state for Muslims of India gave West Bengal the worst marks for treating Muslims as second class citizens. Analysts of this report gave West Bengal even worse marks than Gujarat where its Chief Minister prides and thrives on his hatred for Muslims.
It is true friendly relations are desirable with India and West Bengal can help further that objective. Nevertheless, Bangladesh should not forget that the Indian Government and media regularly refer to us as fundamentalist that treats its minorities unfairly. Bangladesh should muster the courage to tell India that it should treat its Muslims fairly before criticizing Bangladesh that has a much better record for treatment of its minorities.
Bangladesh must keep in mind while dealing with Trinamool that the feelings in West Bengal against Muslims are not restricted just to the leftists. It is deeper and more widespread than what our foreign policy pundits and the government realize. Despite winning the elections so massively on votes of Muslims, Trinamool may not change their fate unless they are pressured. As a sovereign nation with a huge Muslim population, Bangladesh has a responsibility to encourage India in general and West Bengal in particular to deal with Muslims fairly.
Thus the expats in Washington may have a point. Bangladesh should restrain its excitement over change of government in West Bengal because on its records, the province does not deserve our unqualified felicitations. Our sovereign status demands this of us particularly where that province has lots more to show for our respect. In any case, the Indian Prime Minister who had postponed his long awaited visit to Dhaka for West Bengal elections where results have been achieved to make New Delhi happy would be visiting Bangladesh soon. Therefore what West Bengal means to the Centre and how much it can help Bangladesh’s interests, would be known soon.
The writer is a retired career diplomat and a former Ambassador to Japan
Friday, May 27, 2011
The Judiciary and the Constitution
The Independent, May 21st., 2011
As I see it Column
M. Serajul Islam
There are many things happening in politics of the country that are creating more conflict than resolving any. The Supreme Court has entered into the fray. In fact, it has taken up the task of showing the politicians the road to the future of politics in the country.
All would be fine if the people had been prepared to accept the court for the role that they are now playing. There have been public expressions, some even from ruling party parliamentarians, on whether the judiciary has the right on its own to decide on the Constitution or constitutional issues and amendments. The parliamentarians feel that these issues are within their competence because they are the elected representatives of the people that the judges are not.
Judicial intervention is coming in the context of politics of conflict in the country that is going from bad to worse. A leading lawyer of the country congratulated the present government for consulting all shades of opinion on constitutional amendments. He was correct but only partly.
The Special Parliamentary Committee on constitutional amendments offered the BNP to name a member to this committee that it later increased by one more. The BNP declined to sit on the committee claiming that the style of AL’s politics made it futile for them to be a part of it for their opinion would not be heard anyway.
The BNP’s refusal thus takes away from the work of the committee a lot of substance for consensus that is critical for bringing the changes. The BNP represents at the minimum 34% of the voters of Bangladesh who voted the present government to office. Realistically, with AL’s failure to deliver on its election promises, that percentage of BNP’s hold on voters must have increased.
Hence, even if one is to accept the ruling party’s claim that the BNP is at fault, the fact remains that whatever amendments are made to the Constitution, a large number of the people would not be a party to the amended constitution of the country unless the BNP is a part of these amendments despite the committee’s consultations with many stakeholders.
The Court emerged in politics at this critical phase in the country’s politics where consensus building that is of critical importance for constitutional amendments is difficult to contemplate let alone achieve. In this context, concerns have been raised in many quarters on whether the judiciary is helping in consensus building or strengthening the partisan politics that is destroying Bangladesh’s future.
One issue of concern amongst many with the court’s engagement with constitutional issues is its recent ruling on the 13th Amendment. In a majority decision taken with the just retired Chief Justice in the chair, the Supreme Court declared the 13th Amendment of the Constitution, that inserted in 1996 the system of non-party CG, as illegal. The Court however ruled that the next two elections could be held under the “illegal” system and gave the parliament “liberty” to make amendments to it!
The ruling remained silent on what would happen to the present government after declaring the system that elected it as “illegal “ nor how elections under an “illegal” system would give legality to the next two elections . The court has created contradictions and confusion at a time when the country is yearning for the contrary.
The two mainstream parties have interpreted the court’s ruling to suit their own agenda. The ruling party, even before the court’s ruling, had stated publicly that it wanted the CG to stay with amendments. In fact, some of its leaders said they wanted the CG system to be there for two more elections before it is scrapped. The BNP stated categorically after the ruling that it would not go for the next elections unless it is held under the CG. The BNP’s stand has been enforced by a subtle change of position by the ruling party after the court’s ruling.
The Constitutional Committee, that in reality reflects the views of the ruling party, said very recently that it is considering alternatives to the CG system or to modify it in line with the decision of the court. Quite understandably, the BNP is apprehensive that the ruling party is thinking of bringing those changes to the CG system that would place it better in contesting the next elections, an opportunity that has come its way as a result of the court’s ruling.
The way the judiciary has dealt with constitutional issues in general also adds to the apprehensions of the opposition. The issue with the 5th Amendment with which the court set the ball rolling was the outcome of a plaintiff’s attempt to get redress to a cinema hall that the High Court had used to declare the whole 5th amendment void. It directly affected the BNP. As the BNP was in office at that time, it appealed to the Supreme Court where it was kept pending till the end of its term. The AL activated the appeal soon after coming to power in early 2009 and the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling.
The ruling on the 7th Amendment is also the outcome of a move by the ruling party. In fact, the whole focus on constitutional issues by the judiciary has some political overtones. The Court’s rulings have all also gone against the BNP creating a fear in the latter that the ruling party is using the courts against it. In fact, the BNP acting General Secretary has accused the ruling party of “burying” the judiciary by misusing its executive power.
Perhaps it is just coincidence that most of the judiciary’s rulings on constitutional issues have been those that leaders of the ruling party expressed in public. Nevertheless, the courts should have seen this and done something about it. The highly partisan political environment of the country is no secret to anyone. It is natural, therefore, that the BNP will not see the similarity of thinking on political issue between the judiciary’s rulings and that of the ruling party as coincidence.
The court’s ruling on stopping extra-constitutional interventions in future by constitutional provisions has also likewise raised questions because these uphold the views of the ruling party. Those who question the ruling feel that when the military intervenes, they do not even think that there is a constitution.
They also feel that the only way to keep the military from usurping power is for politics to develop to the level where the need or even the thought of such an intervention would be considered absurd. That is hardly the case in Bangladesh because its politics is what creates the condition for extraneous interventions. The court could have focused on this aspect instead.
The rulings of the judiciary on constitutional amendments are dividing politics further instead of uniting it instead of helping Bangladesh’s political development upon which Bangladesh’s future depends.
The writer is a retired career diplomat and a former ambassador to Japan.
As I see it Column
M. Serajul Islam
There are many things happening in politics of the country that are creating more conflict than resolving any. The Supreme Court has entered into the fray. In fact, it has taken up the task of showing the politicians the road to the future of politics in the country.
All would be fine if the people had been prepared to accept the court for the role that they are now playing. There have been public expressions, some even from ruling party parliamentarians, on whether the judiciary has the right on its own to decide on the Constitution or constitutional issues and amendments. The parliamentarians feel that these issues are within their competence because they are the elected representatives of the people that the judges are not.
Judicial intervention is coming in the context of politics of conflict in the country that is going from bad to worse. A leading lawyer of the country congratulated the present government for consulting all shades of opinion on constitutional amendments. He was correct but only partly.
The Special Parliamentary Committee on constitutional amendments offered the BNP to name a member to this committee that it later increased by one more. The BNP declined to sit on the committee claiming that the style of AL’s politics made it futile for them to be a part of it for their opinion would not be heard anyway.
The BNP’s refusal thus takes away from the work of the committee a lot of substance for consensus that is critical for bringing the changes. The BNP represents at the minimum 34% of the voters of Bangladesh who voted the present government to office. Realistically, with AL’s failure to deliver on its election promises, that percentage of BNP’s hold on voters must have increased.
Hence, even if one is to accept the ruling party’s claim that the BNP is at fault, the fact remains that whatever amendments are made to the Constitution, a large number of the people would not be a party to the amended constitution of the country unless the BNP is a part of these amendments despite the committee’s consultations with many stakeholders.
The Court emerged in politics at this critical phase in the country’s politics where consensus building that is of critical importance for constitutional amendments is difficult to contemplate let alone achieve. In this context, concerns have been raised in many quarters on whether the judiciary is helping in consensus building or strengthening the partisan politics that is destroying Bangladesh’s future.
One issue of concern amongst many with the court’s engagement with constitutional issues is its recent ruling on the 13th Amendment. In a majority decision taken with the just retired Chief Justice in the chair, the Supreme Court declared the 13th Amendment of the Constitution, that inserted in 1996 the system of non-party CG, as illegal. The Court however ruled that the next two elections could be held under the “illegal” system and gave the parliament “liberty” to make amendments to it!
The ruling remained silent on what would happen to the present government after declaring the system that elected it as “illegal “ nor how elections under an “illegal” system would give legality to the next two elections . The court has created contradictions and confusion at a time when the country is yearning for the contrary.
The two mainstream parties have interpreted the court’s ruling to suit their own agenda. The ruling party, even before the court’s ruling, had stated publicly that it wanted the CG to stay with amendments. In fact, some of its leaders said they wanted the CG system to be there for two more elections before it is scrapped. The BNP stated categorically after the ruling that it would not go for the next elections unless it is held under the CG. The BNP’s stand has been enforced by a subtle change of position by the ruling party after the court’s ruling.
The Constitutional Committee, that in reality reflects the views of the ruling party, said very recently that it is considering alternatives to the CG system or to modify it in line with the decision of the court. Quite understandably, the BNP is apprehensive that the ruling party is thinking of bringing those changes to the CG system that would place it better in contesting the next elections, an opportunity that has come its way as a result of the court’s ruling.
The way the judiciary has dealt with constitutional issues in general also adds to the apprehensions of the opposition. The issue with the 5th Amendment with which the court set the ball rolling was the outcome of a plaintiff’s attempt to get redress to a cinema hall that the High Court had used to declare the whole 5th amendment void. It directly affected the BNP. As the BNP was in office at that time, it appealed to the Supreme Court where it was kept pending till the end of its term. The AL activated the appeal soon after coming to power in early 2009 and the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling.
The ruling on the 7th Amendment is also the outcome of a move by the ruling party. In fact, the whole focus on constitutional issues by the judiciary has some political overtones. The Court’s rulings have all also gone against the BNP creating a fear in the latter that the ruling party is using the courts against it. In fact, the BNP acting General Secretary has accused the ruling party of “burying” the judiciary by misusing its executive power.
Perhaps it is just coincidence that most of the judiciary’s rulings on constitutional issues have been those that leaders of the ruling party expressed in public. Nevertheless, the courts should have seen this and done something about it. The highly partisan political environment of the country is no secret to anyone. It is natural, therefore, that the BNP will not see the similarity of thinking on political issue between the judiciary’s rulings and that of the ruling party as coincidence.
The court’s ruling on stopping extra-constitutional interventions in future by constitutional provisions has also likewise raised questions because these uphold the views of the ruling party. Those who question the ruling feel that when the military intervenes, they do not even think that there is a constitution.
They also feel that the only way to keep the military from usurping power is for politics to develop to the level where the need or even the thought of such an intervention would be considered absurd. That is hardly the case in Bangladesh because its politics is what creates the condition for extraneous interventions. The court could have focused on this aspect instead.
The rulings of the judiciary on constitutional amendments are dividing politics further instead of uniting it instead of helping Bangladesh’s political development upon which Bangladesh’s future depends.
The writer is a retired career diplomat and a former ambassador to Japan.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Saturday, April 30, 2011
In Search of truth in Public Affairs
Daily Syn,May 1st., 2011
M. Serajul Islam
I write rather frequently these days for newspapers on current affairs. I face an ordeal for almost every piece I write on our domestic and foreign affairs because of the difficulty in assessing facts and the truth regarding major issues of our national and foreign affairs.
Take for instance the important visit of the Indian Minister for Commerce to Dhaka. One English Daily’s caption on the visit reads: “India to pay land transit fees.” The minister, according to this paper, said categorically that India would pay transit charges based on “internationally established” norms. The minister deals with WTO affairs on behalf of India and should know WTO provisions like the back of his palm. What happens then to the statements made by important people representing this government that Bangladesh cannot charge any transit fees from India? The issue is a subject of critical importance in Bangladesh-India relations, one that the opposition has rejected outright. In fact, not long ago, the idea itself was pariah and was not uttered in public, not even by the Awami League Government when it was in power the last time.
However, here lies a big problem not just for me but for Bangladesh. Something unusual has been happening with this government since it assumed office. Often while speaking on major national and foreign affairs issues, the ministers contradict their own statements and public utterances. The ministers and party leaders also often contradict one another on such issues publicly. Our ministers and party leaders often play the game of contradictions for totally inexplicable reasons sometimes; at times for purely their own self-interests and often because they love to speak to the media, particularly the private TV channels.
Hence it is hardly surprising that the Minister for Finance called late President Ziaur Rahman “a great war hero”. I am sure when he said this at the function of the Foreign Ministry honouring diplomats who had defected in 1971; he had not forgotten that a good number of his Cabinet and party colleagues have identified the late president as a collaborator, a Razakar and a Pakistan agent! There is of course no doubt that President Ziaur Rahman was exactly what Mr. Muhit has said. The declaration of independence he read on Swadhin Bangla Betar Kendra was heard by millions, not once, but over and over again in those nine months of our liberation war. He also led the fight for liberation as a Sector Commander and fought the enemy within the soil of Bangladesh.
The Finance Minister has also cleared Grameen Bank on two counts of alleged wrongdoing based on a report by a government constituted committee. He has given it a clean chit over the Norwegian fund. He has also said that the 20% interest rate GB charge is the lowest among the micro-credit institutions of the country. On both, the statements contradict the Prime Minister and many of his cabinet colleagues and fellow senior party members! While the Adviser for Power has given assurance that our misfortune with power outages are going to end soon, the Parliamentary Committee on Power has said that we cannot expect respite from power shortages for a decade more.
On the issue of the constitutional amendments, our ministers have done the same thing. Some of the ministers have said that the 1972 Constitution should be restored in its original form; that the Islamic insertions made by the 5th and 7th amendments should go to restore its secular character and that Jamat should be banned because it uses Islam for political ends. Other Ministers have said that while secularism should be restored as it is the Court’s verdict, certain Islamic provisions brought by amendments should not be touched, like the insertion of Bismillah and Islam as a state religion through the 7th amendment. For a long time, ministers were unanimous in demanding the banning of Jamat. Recently, the Prime Minister has drawn the line by stating that secularism would be restored but the Islamic provisions would remain and Jamat would not be banned. A former Minister for Home Mr. M. Nasim has only the other day said that it would no longer be possible to restore the 1972 constitution!
Very recently, on the issue of the share marker scam, the same lack of well coordinated views from ministers and important ruling party leaders were obvious once again. For a Committee handling a very sensitive issue, it was almost eerie the way the Minister for Finance and the Chairman of the Committee played out the issue in the media. The Finance Minister stated categorically publicly that the Report would be made public only after names that were mentioned in it were edited. The Chairman of the Committee went to a private TV channel and without blinking an eyelid named a number of well known individuals from the business community for wrongdoing that he himself contradicted later, again on a private TV channel. The strangest thing of all surrounding the public drama played with the Report was that while the Finance Minister insisted on not making the Report public, all who wanted to read an unedited copy of the Report was given one through the Internet – courtesy of the internet based newspaper www.bdnews24.com. The SEC that was at the receiving end as one held the guilty party in the Report has now come out with a statement blaming the Committee of bias and lack of professional competence.
In this game of contradictions, no one with the responsibility on behalf of the government cared to consider the plight of many thousands of people who were taken for a ride in the share market scam and reportedly lost their fortunes. These people were seen in public display of their anger as they went breaking cars and vehicles for days together and ended their frustration by blocking the road in front of the DSE, kneeling in prayers, to rest their case with the Almighty knowing the futility of expecting action from the government.
It is high time that some sense is brought into the way leaders of this government are confusing the people and even themselves by making statements on important public issues without checking facts or without consulting one another. Ministers and advisers have specific responsibilities and charges. They should confine their public statements only in the context of their own responsibilities. There is therefore the urgent need of some coordinating mechanism for ministers/advisers when they speak in public on any issue that they share with other ministers/advisers. They should also be strongly advised not to comment on issues of national importance for which they are not responsible as ministers/advisers.
One hopes that Mr. Sharma’s categorical statement will lay to rest the un-necessary controversy over India using Bangladesh’s roads for economic reasons. In fact, someone in this government should make an effort to go back to the Joint Communiqué issued after our Prime Minister’s visit to India to see why we are talking of land transit (which in Bangladesh-India context means carrying goods from mainland India to its northeastern states through Bangladesh) when the JC just recommends for use by India of the Chittagong and Mongla Ports to carry goods to and from India.
In any case, the controversies that the ministers/advisers raise in public mind by their statements to the media that they themselves often contradict as well as get contradicted by their colleagues should stop forthwith to enhance the credibility of the government and in the interest of the nation and truth.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan.
M. Serajul Islam
I write rather frequently these days for newspapers on current affairs. I face an ordeal for almost every piece I write on our domestic and foreign affairs because of the difficulty in assessing facts and the truth regarding major issues of our national and foreign affairs.
Take for instance the important visit of the Indian Minister for Commerce to Dhaka. One English Daily’s caption on the visit reads: “India to pay land transit fees.” The minister, according to this paper, said categorically that India would pay transit charges based on “internationally established” norms. The minister deals with WTO affairs on behalf of India and should know WTO provisions like the back of his palm. What happens then to the statements made by important people representing this government that Bangladesh cannot charge any transit fees from India? The issue is a subject of critical importance in Bangladesh-India relations, one that the opposition has rejected outright. In fact, not long ago, the idea itself was pariah and was not uttered in public, not even by the Awami League Government when it was in power the last time.
However, here lies a big problem not just for me but for Bangladesh. Something unusual has been happening with this government since it assumed office. Often while speaking on major national and foreign affairs issues, the ministers contradict their own statements and public utterances. The ministers and party leaders also often contradict one another on such issues publicly. Our ministers and party leaders often play the game of contradictions for totally inexplicable reasons sometimes; at times for purely their own self-interests and often because they love to speak to the media, particularly the private TV channels.
Hence it is hardly surprising that the Minister for Finance called late President Ziaur Rahman “a great war hero”. I am sure when he said this at the function of the Foreign Ministry honouring diplomats who had defected in 1971; he had not forgotten that a good number of his Cabinet and party colleagues have identified the late president as a collaborator, a Razakar and a Pakistan agent! There is of course no doubt that President Ziaur Rahman was exactly what Mr. Muhit has said. The declaration of independence he read on Swadhin Bangla Betar Kendra was heard by millions, not once, but over and over again in those nine months of our liberation war. He also led the fight for liberation as a Sector Commander and fought the enemy within the soil of Bangladesh.
The Finance Minister has also cleared Grameen Bank on two counts of alleged wrongdoing based on a report by a government constituted committee. He has given it a clean chit over the Norwegian fund. He has also said that the 20% interest rate GB charge is the lowest among the micro-credit institutions of the country. On both, the statements contradict the Prime Minister and many of his cabinet colleagues and fellow senior party members! While the Adviser for Power has given assurance that our misfortune with power outages are going to end soon, the Parliamentary Committee on Power has said that we cannot expect respite from power shortages for a decade more.
On the issue of the constitutional amendments, our ministers have done the same thing. Some of the ministers have said that the 1972 Constitution should be restored in its original form; that the Islamic insertions made by the 5th and 7th amendments should go to restore its secular character and that Jamat should be banned because it uses Islam for political ends. Other Ministers have said that while secularism should be restored as it is the Court’s verdict, certain Islamic provisions brought by amendments should not be touched, like the insertion of Bismillah and Islam as a state religion through the 7th amendment. For a long time, ministers were unanimous in demanding the banning of Jamat. Recently, the Prime Minister has drawn the line by stating that secularism would be restored but the Islamic provisions would remain and Jamat would not be banned. A former Minister for Home Mr. M. Nasim has only the other day said that it would no longer be possible to restore the 1972 constitution!
Very recently, on the issue of the share marker scam, the same lack of well coordinated views from ministers and important ruling party leaders were obvious once again. For a Committee handling a very sensitive issue, it was almost eerie the way the Minister for Finance and the Chairman of the Committee played out the issue in the media. The Finance Minister stated categorically publicly that the Report would be made public only after names that were mentioned in it were edited. The Chairman of the Committee went to a private TV channel and without blinking an eyelid named a number of well known individuals from the business community for wrongdoing that he himself contradicted later, again on a private TV channel. The strangest thing of all surrounding the public drama played with the Report was that while the Finance Minister insisted on not making the Report public, all who wanted to read an unedited copy of the Report was given one through the Internet – courtesy of the internet based newspaper www.bdnews24.com. The SEC that was at the receiving end as one held the guilty party in the Report has now come out with a statement blaming the Committee of bias and lack of professional competence.
In this game of contradictions, no one with the responsibility on behalf of the government cared to consider the plight of many thousands of people who were taken for a ride in the share market scam and reportedly lost their fortunes. These people were seen in public display of their anger as they went breaking cars and vehicles for days together and ended their frustration by blocking the road in front of the DSE, kneeling in prayers, to rest their case with the Almighty knowing the futility of expecting action from the government.
It is high time that some sense is brought into the way leaders of this government are confusing the people and even themselves by making statements on important public issues without checking facts or without consulting one another. Ministers and advisers have specific responsibilities and charges. They should confine their public statements only in the context of their own responsibilities. There is therefore the urgent need of some coordinating mechanism for ministers/advisers when they speak in public on any issue that they share with other ministers/advisers. They should also be strongly advised not to comment on issues of national importance for which they are not responsible as ministers/advisers.
One hopes that Mr. Sharma’s categorical statement will lay to rest the un-necessary controversy over India using Bangladesh’s roads for economic reasons. In fact, someone in this government should make an effort to go back to the Joint Communiqué issued after our Prime Minister’s visit to India to see why we are talking of land transit (which in Bangladesh-India context means carrying goods from mainland India to its northeastern states through Bangladesh) when the JC just recommends for use by India of the Chittagong and Mongla Ports to carry goods to and from India.
In any case, the controversies that the ministers/advisers raise in public mind by their statements to the media that they themselves often contradict as well as get contradicted by their colleagues should stop forthwith to enhance the credibility of the government and in the interest of the nation and truth.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan.
Land Transit to India for Free?
Daily Sun, April 23, 2011
M. Serajul Islam
For over 3 decades we who worked in the Foreign Ministry and had the experience of dealing with India felt extremely disadvantaged not just because of our size but also because of our poor natural hand in bilateral negotiations with our great neighbour. We were at India’s mercy with the vitally needed water of our rivers, with the maritime boundary, on trade and on border issues. Our only comfort was in the belief that we had the “land transit card” in which India was very interested for economic reasons. We knew it was a strong hand and if we played it deftly, we could get from India our legitimate demands.
Therefore, it is extremely surprising to wake up suddenly to the fact that the “transit card” is a useless one. An Adviser to the Prime Minister has gone on record to state that it would be “uncivilized” to ask from India any fees for transit. At least one senior Minister and few others have referred to relevant WTO regulations to which both Bangladesh and India are signatories to prove why Bangladesh cannot charge any transit fee from India. Senior members of our own Government are now advocating land transit for India for free!
This Adviser’s statement is “breaking news”. What is comforting though is that an inter-Ministerial Committee headed by the Chairman of the Tariff Commission has recommended in a Report to the government between US$ 4- 50 in transit fees depending on the route to be used. The Report that has dealt with a wide range of other related issues has been reviewed by the Ministers of Finance, Foreign Affairs and Commerce and a few Advisers of the Prime Minister. They have however given no reaction on the recommendations.
The Bangladesh side never agreed to accept land transit as an item in the agenda for discussion in the many decades of bilateral negotiations with India. Even the Awami League did not allow the issue to be discussed in bilateral negotiations, knowing how sensitive it is to Bangladesh when it was in Government from 1996-2001.
The controversial land transit issue was given a new name to make it acceptable to Bangladesh after this Government came to office and started bilateral negotiations aimed at achieving a paradigm shift in the otherwise conflict-prone bilateral relations. The two sides started to refer to land transit as regional connectivity in which Bangladesh was conveniently pitched as the hub for road and rail network to bring it with Northeast India, Bhutan, Nepal, Myanmar and South China into a sub-region of economic growth and development. Bangladesh was drawn into the concept at a time when except for India talking with it secretly, none of the other countries were even consulted. India threw in a soft loan worth US$1 billion to be spent with India’s approval primarily for building roads and related infrastructure to facilitate land transit under a new nomenclature.
In addition, India also offered electricity to an energy starved Bangladesh. Very deftly, the Indians transformed an issue in bilateral relations that no Bangladesh Government in the past, except the present one, dared to even talk about in public, let alone discuss it with India without the latter relenting on the issues of water, trade, maritime boundary, etc. Without receiving even one concession on any of these issues, Bangladesh has presented India land transit to India on a silver platter. To make it sugar coated, some members of its own Government together with interested groups in non-government circles are now eager to offer land transit to India free!
Bangladesh must be a very generous country or it may not even know what its national interests are. If WTO regulations do not allow it to charge India for transit, how come Government sources quoted huge amount of money that Bangladesh would make by allowing India land transit to make a controversial bilateral issue saleable to the people? More importantly, who would pay for the infrastructure costs that would be according to the Tariff Commission’s Report over US$ 7 billion? And what about the environmental costs and damages where Bangladesh is a frontline state in the fight against environmental degradation?
These questions apart, why would an Adviser of the Government use such a harsh word as “uncivilized “to criticize his own country in favour of India where the latter has been anything but fair in dealing with Bangladesh? Why are others in Government taking a different stand? The way Bangladesh Government is dealing with the issue shows that those in charge are not clear about what they are handling with an absurd lack of coordination that will only strengthen he hands of the opposition that has already dismissed the land transit issue as sell off to India.
The only way to deal with the opposition would be to show the people clearly the financial gains that would accrue to Bangladesh from land transit. If the Adviser and his supporters succeed in waiving for India the transit fee, then it would not need a crystal ball, WTO provisions if they are there notwithstanding, to predict that India would never get to use Bangladesh roads for its economic benefit knowing that the opposition has the support of almost half the people of Bangladesh.
It would be in India’s interest therefore to urge the Bangladesh Government to ensure that its officials do not contradict one another or offer land transit to it free. India should simultaneously also show its willingness to give Bangladesh its fair share of the river waters and resolve other outstanding bilateral problems for bipartisan support of Bangladesh on land transit.
As for its diplomatic efforts, Bangladesh has made a mess. India that coined regional connectivity to get land transit must be smiling at Bangladesh’s negotiating skills by the way certain sections in the Bangladesh Government and non-government organizations and individuals are openly talking of land transit without the need to refer to it as regional connectivity! India must also be curious as to who runs Bangladesh’s foreign policy but happy nevertheless that people within Bangladesh Government are doing it favours that it dared not even ask of Bangladesh Governments in the past.
The surprising support in a section in Bangladesh for giving India land transit has raised apprehensions in a lot many particularly because those supporting are in government and willing to giveit free and without any reciprocity from India. For the many who feel apprehensive that Bangladesh is playing away its only card against India without caring for its national interests, the hope seems to lie in the fact that the infrastructure for land transit would take 4 years in implementing. In the context of Bangladesh’s politics, the issue could come back to square number one in this period of waiting!
There is a postscript to the drama over the transit fees. India has very recently written to the Government of Bangladesh that it should fix “reasonable” transit fees. Perhaps the Indians are unaware of the WTO regulations as some of us in Bangladesh know or if they know, they know, such regulations notwithstanding, how absurd it would be for expecting to receive land transit from Bangladesh without charges given how shabbily and unfairly it has treated Bangladesh in the past.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and a former Secretary to the Government.
M. Serajul Islam
For over 3 decades we who worked in the Foreign Ministry and had the experience of dealing with India felt extremely disadvantaged not just because of our size but also because of our poor natural hand in bilateral negotiations with our great neighbour. We were at India’s mercy with the vitally needed water of our rivers, with the maritime boundary, on trade and on border issues. Our only comfort was in the belief that we had the “land transit card” in which India was very interested for economic reasons. We knew it was a strong hand and if we played it deftly, we could get from India our legitimate demands.
Therefore, it is extremely surprising to wake up suddenly to the fact that the “transit card” is a useless one. An Adviser to the Prime Minister has gone on record to state that it would be “uncivilized” to ask from India any fees for transit. At least one senior Minister and few others have referred to relevant WTO regulations to which both Bangladesh and India are signatories to prove why Bangladesh cannot charge any transit fee from India. Senior members of our own Government are now advocating land transit for India for free!
This Adviser’s statement is “breaking news”. What is comforting though is that an inter-Ministerial Committee headed by the Chairman of the Tariff Commission has recommended in a Report to the government between US$ 4- 50 in transit fees depending on the route to be used. The Report that has dealt with a wide range of other related issues has been reviewed by the Ministers of Finance, Foreign Affairs and Commerce and a few Advisers of the Prime Minister. They have however given no reaction on the recommendations.
The Bangladesh side never agreed to accept land transit as an item in the agenda for discussion in the many decades of bilateral negotiations with India. Even the Awami League did not allow the issue to be discussed in bilateral negotiations, knowing how sensitive it is to Bangladesh when it was in Government from 1996-2001.
The controversial land transit issue was given a new name to make it acceptable to Bangladesh after this Government came to office and started bilateral negotiations aimed at achieving a paradigm shift in the otherwise conflict-prone bilateral relations. The two sides started to refer to land transit as regional connectivity in which Bangladesh was conveniently pitched as the hub for road and rail network to bring it with Northeast India, Bhutan, Nepal, Myanmar and South China into a sub-region of economic growth and development. Bangladesh was drawn into the concept at a time when except for India talking with it secretly, none of the other countries were even consulted. India threw in a soft loan worth US$1 billion to be spent with India’s approval primarily for building roads and related infrastructure to facilitate land transit under a new nomenclature.
In addition, India also offered electricity to an energy starved Bangladesh. Very deftly, the Indians transformed an issue in bilateral relations that no Bangladesh Government in the past, except the present one, dared to even talk about in public, let alone discuss it with India without the latter relenting on the issues of water, trade, maritime boundary, etc. Without receiving even one concession on any of these issues, Bangladesh has presented India land transit to India on a silver platter. To make it sugar coated, some members of its own Government together with interested groups in non-government circles are now eager to offer land transit to India free!
Bangladesh must be a very generous country or it may not even know what its national interests are. If WTO regulations do not allow it to charge India for transit, how come Government sources quoted huge amount of money that Bangladesh would make by allowing India land transit to make a controversial bilateral issue saleable to the people? More importantly, who would pay for the infrastructure costs that would be according to the Tariff Commission’s Report over US$ 7 billion? And what about the environmental costs and damages where Bangladesh is a frontline state in the fight against environmental degradation?
These questions apart, why would an Adviser of the Government use such a harsh word as “uncivilized “to criticize his own country in favour of India where the latter has been anything but fair in dealing with Bangladesh? Why are others in Government taking a different stand? The way Bangladesh Government is dealing with the issue shows that those in charge are not clear about what they are handling with an absurd lack of coordination that will only strengthen he hands of the opposition that has already dismissed the land transit issue as sell off to India.
The only way to deal with the opposition would be to show the people clearly the financial gains that would accrue to Bangladesh from land transit. If the Adviser and his supporters succeed in waiving for India the transit fee, then it would not need a crystal ball, WTO provisions if they are there notwithstanding, to predict that India would never get to use Bangladesh roads for its economic benefit knowing that the opposition has the support of almost half the people of Bangladesh.
It would be in India’s interest therefore to urge the Bangladesh Government to ensure that its officials do not contradict one another or offer land transit to it free. India should simultaneously also show its willingness to give Bangladesh its fair share of the river waters and resolve other outstanding bilateral problems for bipartisan support of Bangladesh on land transit.
As for its diplomatic efforts, Bangladesh has made a mess. India that coined regional connectivity to get land transit must be smiling at Bangladesh’s negotiating skills by the way certain sections in the Bangladesh Government and non-government organizations and individuals are openly talking of land transit without the need to refer to it as regional connectivity! India must also be curious as to who runs Bangladesh’s foreign policy but happy nevertheless that people within Bangladesh Government are doing it favours that it dared not even ask of Bangladesh Governments in the past.
The surprising support in a section in Bangladesh for giving India land transit has raised apprehensions in a lot many particularly because those supporting are in government and willing to giveit free and without any reciprocity from India. For the many who feel apprehensive that Bangladesh is playing away its only card against India without caring for its national interests, the hope seems to lie in the fact that the infrastructure for land transit would take 4 years in implementing. In the context of Bangladesh’s politics, the issue could come back to square number one in this period of waiting!
There is a postscript to the drama over the transit fees. India has very recently written to the Government of Bangladesh that it should fix “reasonable” transit fees. Perhaps the Indians are unaware of the WTO regulations as some of us in Bangladesh know or if they know, they know, such regulations notwithstanding, how absurd it would be for expecting to receive land transit from Bangladesh without charges given how shabbily and unfairly it has treated Bangladesh in the past.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and a former Secretary to the Government.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
On Human Rights and Bangladesh
Daliy Sun, April 18th., 2011
M. Serajul Islam
The Human Rights Report that the US State Department publishes every year at this time of the year, is out. In the Report, the State Department grades the countries of the world every year and has been doing so for a long time now. The Bangladesh Country Report on Human Rights for 2010 is available on the website and the web address for it is: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/sca/154478.htm.
The Foreign Minister has taken serious umbrage with the report. In a press briefing, she said that the report on Bangladesh “has been weak, inadequately researched and poorly sourced.” According to her, credible reports on human rights are those documented and presented by internationally recognized human rights organization, like for instance the United Nations Human Rights Council. She also said that Bangladesh has twice been elected in this body that reflects the country’s standing on human rights issues.
It is not difficult to fathom the disappointment of the Foreign Minister. The report has made observations about nature of governance that does not show the Awami League led Government in good light. The main criticisms are:
1. Security Forces continue to kill people in custody and extra-judicial deaths in the hands of RAB continue to be a “matter of serious concern.”
2. The judiciary is becoming increasingly politicized that constrained the access to justice by the opposition.
3. Freedom of speech and press freedom remained threatened and journalists continued to be under pressure from security forces.
4. Right of assembly continued to remain an issue for those who did not belong to the ruling party.
The Report also spoke of other forms of discrimination as those against women, religious and ethnic minorities. It did not fail to mention about the 59 deaths in custody of those accused of BDR killings of February, 2009 as a matter of serious concern in violation of human rights.
A great part of the report consists of information of deaths of individuals in custody. It has gone to some depths in reporting these cases. Most of these have been based on information given to the media by leading human rights organization of the country such as Ain of Salish Kendra (ASK) and Odhikar. The report has also taken a lot of its information from the newspapers. In collating these information, the Report has underscored the fact that despite such cases of extra-judicial and custodial deaths being reported extensively in the newspapers and in the media as well as by human rights organization in their reports, very little to no action has been taken by the authorities to deliver justice for the deaths and violations of human rights.
An underlying message in the report is the political bias in the violation of human rights. The report said that “politically motivated violence is on the increase since the AL assumed office.” It quoted Odhikar to report that 220 deaths were suspected to be politically motivated in 2010 as compared to 251, the previous year.
It is unfortunate that the Foreign Minister has out of hand dismissed the US State Department’s Report. There are many elements in it that needs to be addressed. In that context, the Government should have taken the Report as an encouragement to address the issues raised because that would have enhanced the image of Bangladesh. One has to agree with the Foreign Minister on suggesting that the credibility of Bangladesh on the human rights issues has been enhanced by its membership of the UN Human Rights Council. But to assume that the membership of HRC sets aside the human rights issues reported in the US Report is not logical.
The reason is a simple one. No country has a perfect human rights record. Even the United States that publishes the yearly report on human rights across the world for reasons that it alone can explain has violated and continues to violate human rights. The Muslims for example have faced many basic human rights violations in the United States after 9/11. Therefore criticisms, no matter who makes it, are useful if the country in question is willing to accept it. In fact, acceptance will make it a better nation than rejecting it, especially when as is the case with Bangladesh, the issues and facts raised in the Report are those that everybody in the country knows to be true.
On the matter of our membership of the HRC, readers could find it interesting to see the names of some of the countries that are members of this Council or have been members in the past. For reasons of politics, countries with abysmal human rights credentials have found a place in the Council. There is a further issue that we need to look at carefully. Bangladesh depends on support and assistance of the international community. In this context, the support of the United States is critical. Whether we like it or not, our development partners, USA included, these days make it imperative that we stand firm on human rights credentials for their favours. Therefore, it may be poor diplomacy if we dismiss the US State Department’s Report publicly that will not enhance the country’s standing in any way but will put at risk the future of millions of our people.
And why should we dismiss the Report just like that? The extra judicial killings have become a Frankenstein. When it started, many people were happy because they thought RAB would take out those that the law and politics were protecting; thugs and crooks who were making lives of the common people intolerable. Before people had time to take a deep breath, RAB had become a power unto itself. In fact, while the extra-judicial killings started with the BNP, it did not recede under the CG. The AL that made an election promise to stop all forms of extra-judicial killings is stuck because such killings are going on like business as usual. Sadly, other law enforcing agencies have taken up RAB as their role model and these killings are going on as merrily as ever.
It is puzzling and unbelievable that no strong voice is heard from the so-called civil society on the story that accompanies each extra-judicial killing. The official story always is about a fight between RAB and the law enforcing agency and the suspect/s where the former is forced to shoot in self defense that ends in the death of the suspect. In these fictitious “encounters” in which many hundreds have died thus far, not even one law enforcing agent has been hurt. They are explaining these deaths as if those listening are children. It is incredible that the Government is accepting these explanations! To outsiders, it just shows how shallow we are as a nation.
If the Foreign Minister had instead argued against the right of the US State Department to bring out yearly such a report on all countries of the world , it could have hit the right chord with a lot of people. But that is a different issue. We have serious human rights problems and it is incumbent upon us to deal with it. It would not be wise to ignore the abuses just because the US State department has reported it.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and a former Secretary to the Government.
M. Serajul Islam
The Human Rights Report that the US State Department publishes every year at this time of the year, is out. In the Report, the State Department grades the countries of the world every year and has been doing so for a long time now. The Bangladesh Country Report on Human Rights for 2010 is available on the website and the web address for it is: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/sca/154478.htm.
The Foreign Minister has taken serious umbrage with the report. In a press briefing, she said that the report on Bangladesh “has been weak, inadequately researched and poorly sourced.” According to her, credible reports on human rights are those documented and presented by internationally recognized human rights organization, like for instance the United Nations Human Rights Council. She also said that Bangladesh has twice been elected in this body that reflects the country’s standing on human rights issues.
It is not difficult to fathom the disappointment of the Foreign Minister. The report has made observations about nature of governance that does not show the Awami League led Government in good light. The main criticisms are:
1. Security Forces continue to kill people in custody and extra-judicial deaths in the hands of RAB continue to be a “matter of serious concern.”
2. The judiciary is becoming increasingly politicized that constrained the access to justice by the opposition.
3. Freedom of speech and press freedom remained threatened and journalists continued to be under pressure from security forces.
4. Right of assembly continued to remain an issue for those who did not belong to the ruling party.
The Report also spoke of other forms of discrimination as those against women, religious and ethnic minorities. It did not fail to mention about the 59 deaths in custody of those accused of BDR killings of February, 2009 as a matter of serious concern in violation of human rights.
A great part of the report consists of information of deaths of individuals in custody. It has gone to some depths in reporting these cases. Most of these have been based on information given to the media by leading human rights organization of the country such as Ain of Salish Kendra (ASK) and Odhikar. The report has also taken a lot of its information from the newspapers. In collating these information, the Report has underscored the fact that despite such cases of extra-judicial and custodial deaths being reported extensively in the newspapers and in the media as well as by human rights organization in their reports, very little to no action has been taken by the authorities to deliver justice for the deaths and violations of human rights.
An underlying message in the report is the political bias in the violation of human rights. The report said that “politically motivated violence is on the increase since the AL assumed office.” It quoted Odhikar to report that 220 deaths were suspected to be politically motivated in 2010 as compared to 251, the previous year.
It is unfortunate that the Foreign Minister has out of hand dismissed the US State Department’s Report. There are many elements in it that needs to be addressed. In that context, the Government should have taken the Report as an encouragement to address the issues raised because that would have enhanced the image of Bangladesh. One has to agree with the Foreign Minister on suggesting that the credibility of Bangladesh on the human rights issues has been enhanced by its membership of the UN Human Rights Council. But to assume that the membership of HRC sets aside the human rights issues reported in the US Report is not logical.
The reason is a simple one. No country has a perfect human rights record. Even the United States that publishes the yearly report on human rights across the world for reasons that it alone can explain has violated and continues to violate human rights. The Muslims for example have faced many basic human rights violations in the United States after 9/11. Therefore criticisms, no matter who makes it, are useful if the country in question is willing to accept it. In fact, acceptance will make it a better nation than rejecting it, especially when as is the case with Bangladesh, the issues and facts raised in the Report are those that everybody in the country knows to be true.
On the matter of our membership of the HRC, readers could find it interesting to see the names of some of the countries that are members of this Council or have been members in the past. For reasons of politics, countries with abysmal human rights credentials have found a place in the Council. There is a further issue that we need to look at carefully. Bangladesh depends on support and assistance of the international community. In this context, the support of the United States is critical. Whether we like it or not, our development partners, USA included, these days make it imperative that we stand firm on human rights credentials for their favours. Therefore, it may be poor diplomacy if we dismiss the US State Department’s Report publicly that will not enhance the country’s standing in any way but will put at risk the future of millions of our people.
And why should we dismiss the Report just like that? The extra judicial killings have become a Frankenstein. When it started, many people were happy because they thought RAB would take out those that the law and politics were protecting; thugs and crooks who were making lives of the common people intolerable. Before people had time to take a deep breath, RAB had become a power unto itself. In fact, while the extra-judicial killings started with the BNP, it did not recede under the CG. The AL that made an election promise to stop all forms of extra-judicial killings is stuck because such killings are going on like business as usual. Sadly, other law enforcing agencies have taken up RAB as their role model and these killings are going on as merrily as ever.
It is puzzling and unbelievable that no strong voice is heard from the so-called civil society on the story that accompanies each extra-judicial killing. The official story always is about a fight between RAB and the law enforcing agency and the suspect/s where the former is forced to shoot in self defense that ends in the death of the suspect. In these fictitious “encounters” in which many hundreds have died thus far, not even one law enforcing agent has been hurt. They are explaining these deaths as if those listening are children. It is incredible that the Government is accepting these explanations! To outsiders, it just shows how shallow we are as a nation.
If the Foreign Minister had instead argued against the right of the US State Department to bring out yearly such a report on all countries of the world , it could have hit the right chord with a lot of people. But that is a different issue. We have serious human rights problems and it is incumbent upon us to deal with it. It would not be wise to ignore the abuses just because the US State department has reported it.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and a former Secretary to the Government.
Friday, April 15, 2011
On Nehru’s Vision of a united India
The Independent, As I see it Column, April 16th, 2011
M. Serajul islam
A video is making rounds on the internet on YouTube. It is a speech of a well known and well respected retired bureaucrat at a seminar in the city. He wanted people present at the seminar to know that India has not accepted the partition of 1947 and that they have a plan to reunite Bharat Mata.
He spoke of a resolution that Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru helped adopt at a meeting of the Central Working Committee of the Congress a month after the 1947 partition. When he was charged for the failure of the Congress to protect Bharat Mata, Pandit Nehru found a way out of a tight spot by adopting a resolution that described the 1947 partition as “temporary” and that India would be united again.
The retired bureaucrat gave a range of examples from his official and personal life on the Indian intent. In one of these examples, he revealed that Bangladesh had given India permission for running the Farakkha Barrage on a trial basis during Bangabandhu’s time for seven days only that India unilaterally extended permanently till the 1997 treaty was signed.
Facts clearly prove that the bureaucrat is correct about India. The way India handled the issue of Teen Bigha is a shame. The way India constructed the Farakkha Barrage and unilaterally withdrew waters of the Ganges was an unfriendly act. India’s failure to be fair to Bangladesh on trade issues is equally unfortunate. Their decision to construct Tippaihmukh and indiscriminate killing of Bangladeshis in the border are unfriendly and insensitive acts.
However, to conclude from these examples that India has a plan to annex Bangladesh to undo the 1947partition is farfetched. Lots of water has gone under the bridge that has thrown many new factors into the equation that has changed the way Pandit Nehru and his colleague’s viewed India’s destiny in 1947. For one, Pakistan has since emerged as a nuclear power and thus has a rock solid insurance against Bharat Mata.
Bangladesh has emerged in blood. People have tasted freedom. It is not just that; Bangladesh now has a population of 150 million highly politically conscious people. The country has done well all around except in politics. Seven million Bangladeshis live abroad. The country’s GDP by 2010 estimates was over US$ 100 billion. Its homogeneity could be the envy of nations that suffer ethnic, religious, regional or rich-poor divides .If only it could set its political in order, Bangladesh could someday become the most successful country in South Asia.
Pandit Nehru’s vision did not take any of these facts into consideration. He could not because these facts have emerged after his death. Nevertheless, these facts have altered the dream of Nehru and many like him who took comfort in the belief that Pakistan would not last and India would again become one. However, there are still many in India who believes in the vision that Nehru left in their psyche. Bharatiya Janata Party’s concept of Hindutva that it espoused while in power is Pandit Nehru’s vision of 1947 in a different name.
However, BJP’ dream of Hindutva was a manifestation of its irrational beliefs that millions of Hindu fundamentalists hold that partition allowed the Muslims to escape the clutches of an independent and united India under Hindu domination that would have allowed the majority Hindus to settle the score of Muslim domination for 800 years. India, looking into the future at this stage of its history, knows too well that such a desire would stand between India and its vision to emerge as a regional leader of world stature with permanent membership in an expanded UN Security Council.
One must also think about what India would gain by fulfillment of Panditji’s vision. For one, India would with Bangladesh a part of it; have to accept all of Bangladesh’s demands made to it over the last 4 decades. It will have to take care of 160 million people who can be very troublesome. Indians would also have to consider nearly 300 million Bengalis of Bangladesh and West Bengal uniting under Bengali nationalism which could be the start of India’s disintegration. Equally dangerous to India’s unity would the prospect of 150 million Bangladeshi Muslims uniting with an equal number of Indian Muslims that would make India the largest Muslim nation on earth. If Indian leaders are sensible there is no good reason for India today to believe in Panditji’s vision in the physical sense.
India has already achieved more than it bargained for in 1971. When it entered the Bangladesh war of liberation, it was not sure whether it would be able to break Pakistan. Having done that, India has relieved itself of Pakistan’s pressure from the East. The value of this, given the nature of problems in India-Pakistan relations, is fantasy becoming a reality. Nevertheless, the retired bureaucrat’s apprehensions were right about Bharat Mata. There is a genuine problem for Bangladesh with Pandit Nehru’s vision. This is coming less from India but more from amongst us. All of a sudden, some of us and the number is not small, have woken to the fact that those raising apprehensions about India are wrong; that India is our friend in need.
These Bangladeshi friends of India do not see any harm in Farakkha, or in trade deficit or Tippaihmukh. Nor do they care how generations of Muslims on either side of 1947 partition have suffered from the Zamindari system overwhelmingly dominated by the Hindus or from their Hindu neighbours. Strangely, they say that the problem then and now is with us; that we are fundamentalists and that Islam makes us that way.
The video of the retired bureaucrat is a must watch one for these friends of India. While they watch it, they should spare a moment and think about India that they admire for its history; its democracy and its secularism. Our history is as rich as is India’s and our democracy, conflict ridden as it may be, has made significant strides. India has hundreds of millions of active members of the RSS and the Hindu Mahashaba, both stridently Hindu fundamentalist organizations who support the BJP that has formed government at the centre.BJP has a Chief Minister in Gujarat who has genuine aspirations of becoming an Indian Prime Minister who stands accused by the United States for personally supervising killings of Muslims in Gujarat. In the context of religious fundamentalism, we are still in the minor league because the overwhelming majority of our people have kept the religious fundamentalists parties insignificant. In India, the BJP with hundreds of millions of its supporters is in the super league and espouses Hindu fundamentalism proudly and has no qualms with Hindutva that proposes to make India a land of the Hindus.
Panditji was right about Pakistan being temporary though but not the way he envisioned or the retired bureaucrat concluded. Pakistan was the need of history arising out of the British policy of “divide and rule.” Having taken power from the Muslims without firing a single shot, the British ruled us for 200 years by playing the Muslims against the Hindus. To Hindus, they gave education, job, and commerce. When the Muslims became politically conscious at the turn of the 20th century, they found that the British had given the Hindus a head start and had prepared for them, a second class status in an independent India.
Pakistan allowed the Muslims to escape such a predicament. Everything else about Pakistan was illogical. West Pakistani leadership ended the illogical state by its genocide in 1971, although its destruction was embedded in its creation in 1947. Bharat Mata in the physical sense or the way Panditji visualized is a myth for India was united only under the British in the sense we understand an independent country today. Nevertheless, Bharat Mata is in Indian psyche; the urge to dominate the Muslims of South Asia for reasons of history. That is what India has manifested all these 4 decades with Bangladesh. Our only chance to escape the grasp of Bharat Mata is to unite. The spirit of 1971 demands of us that unity.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and a former Secretary to the Government.
M. Serajul islam
A video is making rounds on the internet on YouTube. It is a speech of a well known and well respected retired bureaucrat at a seminar in the city. He wanted people present at the seminar to know that India has not accepted the partition of 1947 and that they have a plan to reunite Bharat Mata.
He spoke of a resolution that Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru helped adopt at a meeting of the Central Working Committee of the Congress a month after the 1947 partition. When he was charged for the failure of the Congress to protect Bharat Mata, Pandit Nehru found a way out of a tight spot by adopting a resolution that described the 1947 partition as “temporary” and that India would be united again.
The retired bureaucrat gave a range of examples from his official and personal life on the Indian intent. In one of these examples, he revealed that Bangladesh had given India permission for running the Farakkha Barrage on a trial basis during Bangabandhu’s time for seven days only that India unilaterally extended permanently till the 1997 treaty was signed.
Facts clearly prove that the bureaucrat is correct about India. The way India handled the issue of Teen Bigha is a shame. The way India constructed the Farakkha Barrage and unilaterally withdrew waters of the Ganges was an unfriendly act. India’s failure to be fair to Bangladesh on trade issues is equally unfortunate. Their decision to construct Tippaihmukh and indiscriminate killing of Bangladeshis in the border are unfriendly and insensitive acts.
However, to conclude from these examples that India has a plan to annex Bangladesh to undo the 1947partition is farfetched. Lots of water has gone under the bridge that has thrown many new factors into the equation that has changed the way Pandit Nehru and his colleague’s viewed India’s destiny in 1947. For one, Pakistan has since emerged as a nuclear power and thus has a rock solid insurance against Bharat Mata.
Bangladesh has emerged in blood. People have tasted freedom. It is not just that; Bangladesh now has a population of 150 million highly politically conscious people. The country has done well all around except in politics. Seven million Bangladeshis live abroad. The country’s GDP by 2010 estimates was over US$ 100 billion. Its homogeneity could be the envy of nations that suffer ethnic, religious, regional or rich-poor divides .If only it could set its political in order, Bangladesh could someday become the most successful country in South Asia.
Pandit Nehru’s vision did not take any of these facts into consideration. He could not because these facts have emerged after his death. Nevertheless, these facts have altered the dream of Nehru and many like him who took comfort in the belief that Pakistan would not last and India would again become one. However, there are still many in India who believes in the vision that Nehru left in their psyche. Bharatiya Janata Party’s concept of Hindutva that it espoused while in power is Pandit Nehru’s vision of 1947 in a different name.
However, BJP’ dream of Hindutva was a manifestation of its irrational beliefs that millions of Hindu fundamentalists hold that partition allowed the Muslims to escape the clutches of an independent and united India under Hindu domination that would have allowed the majority Hindus to settle the score of Muslim domination for 800 years. India, looking into the future at this stage of its history, knows too well that such a desire would stand between India and its vision to emerge as a regional leader of world stature with permanent membership in an expanded UN Security Council.
One must also think about what India would gain by fulfillment of Panditji’s vision. For one, India would with Bangladesh a part of it; have to accept all of Bangladesh’s demands made to it over the last 4 decades. It will have to take care of 160 million people who can be very troublesome. Indians would also have to consider nearly 300 million Bengalis of Bangladesh and West Bengal uniting under Bengali nationalism which could be the start of India’s disintegration. Equally dangerous to India’s unity would the prospect of 150 million Bangladeshi Muslims uniting with an equal number of Indian Muslims that would make India the largest Muslim nation on earth. If Indian leaders are sensible there is no good reason for India today to believe in Panditji’s vision in the physical sense.
India has already achieved more than it bargained for in 1971. When it entered the Bangladesh war of liberation, it was not sure whether it would be able to break Pakistan. Having done that, India has relieved itself of Pakistan’s pressure from the East. The value of this, given the nature of problems in India-Pakistan relations, is fantasy becoming a reality. Nevertheless, the retired bureaucrat’s apprehensions were right about Bharat Mata. There is a genuine problem for Bangladesh with Pandit Nehru’s vision. This is coming less from India but more from amongst us. All of a sudden, some of us and the number is not small, have woken to the fact that those raising apprehensions about India are wrong; that India is our friend in need.
These Bangladeshi friends of India do not see any harm in Farakkha, or in trade deficit or Tippaihmukh. Nor do they care how generations of Muslims on either side of 1947 partition have suffered from the Zamindari system overwhelmingly dominated by the Hindus or from their Hindu neighbours. Strangely, they say that the problem then and now is with us; that we are fundamentalists and that Islam makes us that way.
The video of the retired bureaucrat is a must watch one for these friends of India. While they watch it, they should spare a moment and think about India that they admire for its history; its democracy and its secularism. Our history is as rich as is India’s and our democracy, conflict ridden as it may be, has made significant strides. India has hundreds of millions of active members of the RSS and the Hindu Mahashaba, both stridently Hindu fundamentalist organizations who support the BJP that has formed government at the centre.BJP has a Chief Minister in Gujarat who has genuine aspirations of becoming an Indian Prime Minister who stands accused by the United States for personally supervising killings of Muslims in Gujarat. In the context of religious fundamentalism, we are still in the minor league because the overwhelming majority of our people have kept the religious fundamentalists parties insignificant. In India, the BJP with hundreds of millions of its supporters is in the super league and espouses Hindu fundamentalism proudly and has no qualms with Hindutva that proposes to make India a land of the Hindus.
Panditji was right about Pakistan being temporary though but not the way he envisioned or the retired bureaucrat concluded. Pakistan was the need of history arising out of the British policy of “divide and rule.” Having taken power from the Muslims without firing a single shot, the British ruled us for 200 years by playing the Muslims against the Hindus. To Hindus, they gave education, job, and commerce. When the Muslims became politically conscious at the turn of the 20th century, they found that the British had given the Hindus a head start and had prepared for them, a second class status in an independent India.
Pakistan allowed the Muslims to escape such a predicament. Everything else about Pakistan was illogical. West Pakistani leadership ended the illogical state by its genocide in 1971, although its destruction was embedded in its creation in 1947. Bharat Mata in the physical sense or the way Panditji visualized is a myth for India was united only under the British in the sense we understand an independent country today. Nevertheless, Bharat Mata is in Indian psyche; the urge to dominate the Muslims of South Asia for reasons of history. That is what India has manifested all these 4 decades with Bangladesh. Our only chance to escape the grasp of Bharat Mata is to unite. The spirit of 1971 demands of us that unity.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and a former Secretary to the Government.
Monday, April 11, 2011
On sending our workers to Japan
The Independent
April 11th, 2011
M. Serajul Islam
I read with interest in one leading English daily about experts suggesting that the Government should take immediate steps to enter the Japanese manpower market. They have said that as a consequence of the earthquake and tsunami devastation, Japan would require to undertake massive reconstruction work for which they would need to import manpower from abroad. They have said that the depletion of the ME manpower market has made it necessary to look at Japan urgently together with renewed efforts in Malaysia.
While appreciating the concerns of the experts, there are issues of history, culture and policy concerning Japan that they have overlooked. In fact, they may not even be aware of it. Japan is one of the very few countries in world’s history that was never colonized. In fact, for 200 years up to the middle of the 19th century, Japan pursued a policy of isolation. Although Japan later interacted with the outside world, there are in Japan many widely held misconceptions about foreigners, most of them uncomplimentary.
In the 1950s, Japan’s economic situation was desperate. It did not have any other resources other than human to reconstruct a war ravaged country. That destruction was epitomized by the atom bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan developed through the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s virtually on its own and emerged as the second strongest economy in the world. Japan did not depend on any help from outside in its development in terms of manpower. True the last earthquake has been the worst in its recent history due to the accompanying tsunami causing damages worth US $ 235 billion. But Japan overcame one in Kobe in 1995 where the damages were worth US$ 200 billion at a time when the economy was doing worse than now entirely on its own. There is no doubt that it will also tackle the recent one also on its own without any need to import manpower.
In recent years, Japanese population has shown a declining growth and in many sectors in the small and medium enterprises, the country has faced a serious shortage of manpower for a long time now. As Japan became affluent, people, particularly the new generation, became less and less interested in serving in these sectors that added to the dearth of manpower in these enterprises. Nevertheless Japan did not consider opening its door to manpower from other countries, largely because the homogenous Japanese society did not feel comfortable with foreigners.
Instead Japan introduced a scheme for the SMEs through the Japan Industrial Training Cooperation Organization (JITCO) to bring to the country people to work as trainees and apprentices for a total of 3 years. Under this scheme, Japan fulfilled a small part of the need for manpower in the SMEs and also its duty as a responsible developed country to help developing country train its manpower. JITCO is a Government programme that was introduced in 1991 by five Ministries including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Justice. Over the years, it has brought to Japan thousands of workers from many developing countries in Asia including China, Vietnam, etc. In 2005, Bangladesh also signed with Japan, the JITCO agreement.
Unfortunately, the JITCO agreement was not activated in Bangladesh till only very recently. Why it was not activated is in itself a sad story that shows government inertia when it comes to helping people. The JITCO Agreement is designed to bring to Japan workers from developing countries like Bangladesh in about 60 designated SMEs, like welding, packaging, agricultural etc. The SMEs of Japan themselves interview and select the workers in the sending country. They l train them in basic Japanese language either in the sending country or in Japan. They pay for the workers’ air travel and even a monthly amount to the workers’ family for security for losing an earning member to the JITCO programme. In Japan, the worker works as a trainee at first and then as an apprentice up to 3 years.
The worker under the JITCO programme is not allowed to overstay and must return to the sending country. In the three years, an average worker can save Taka 15 to Taka 20 lakhs (by 2005 estimates when Bangladesh entered the JITCO programme) together with training and experience in world’s second strongest economy. The JITCO agreement does not allow any authority or agency to charge the workers even a single cent and also prohibits the manpower agencies from entering into the programme. The agreement does not limit the sending country on number of workers they send to Japan.
I was personally involved in the signing of the JITCO agreement. Later when I returned from Japan in 2006, I met Ministers and officials before this Government came to office, urging them to activate the programme. I could not believe that any sensible government would let such an agreement lapse. In one of my meetings with senior officers of the Expatriate Affairs, I heard one officer ask what JITCO really offered to them. For this officer, the fact that Bangladeshis would be trained in Japan for 3 years, would not have to pay a cent and return home with Taka 15 to Taka 20 lacs were not good enough reasons! In contrast, our workers who go to the ME pay up to Taka 2 lacs to manpower agents to work under inhuman conditions for a paltry salary. Our Expatriate Ministry favoured the latter and not the JITCO programme till recently, perhaps because there is something for them in sending workers to the ME through the manpower agencies and none under the JITCO programme.
The present Government must be commended for staring the JITCO programme although more than 4 valuable years have been lost during which we could have sent so many workers to Japan. Nevertheless, the JITCO programme is not manpower business as there seems to be the understanding of the experts. Also, there is little possibility that Japan would open its manpower sector to overseas workers soon, although in selective fields, many foreigners work in Japan under special visa status.
This does not mean that Japan would not open its doors to overseas manpower in future. The possibility is always there. This is why the JITCO programme is so important. When Japan opens its manpower sector, it would take those first who have worked in Japan under JITCO programme and have returned home. This is why we need to run the JITCO programme with care, follow its provisions and wait till Japan one day opens its manpower sector to foreign workers to be able to send our workers to Japan under manpower export business. Till that happens, utmost care should be taken to keep the JITCO programme out of the each of the manpower agents as the experts are suggesting. The JITCO agreement demands it.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan.
April 11th, 2011
M. Serajul Islam
I read with interest in one leading English daily about experts suggesting that the Government should take immediate steps to enter the Japanese manpower market. They have said that as a consequence of the earthquake and tsunami devastation, Japan would require to undertake massive reconstruction work for which they would need to import manpower from abroad. They have said that the depletion of the ME manpower market has made it necessary to look at Japan urgently together with renewed efforts in Malaysia.
While appreciating the concerns of the experts, there are issues of history, culture and policy concerning Japan that they have overlooked. In fact, they may not even be aware of it. Japan is one of the very few countries in world’s history that was never colonized. In fact, for 200 years up to the middle of the 19th century, Japan pursued a policy of isolation. Although Japan later interacted with the outside world, there are in Japan many widely held misconceptions about foreigners, most of them uncomplimentary.
In the 1950s, Japan’s economic situation was desperate. It did not have any other resources other than human to reconstruct a war ravaged country. That destruction was epitomized by the atom bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan developed through the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s virtually on its own and emerged as the second strongest economy in the world. Japan did not depend on any help from outside in its development in terms of manpower. True the last earthquake has been the worst in its recent history due to the accompanying tsunami causing damages worth US $ 235 billion. But Japan overcame one in Kobe in 1995 where the damages were worth US$ 200 billion at a time when the economy was doing worse than now entirely on its own. There is no doubt that it will also tackle the recent one also on its own without any need to import manpower.
In recent years, Japanese population has shown a declining growth and in many sectors in the small and medium enterprises, the country has faced a serious shortage of manpower for a long time now. As Japan became affluent, people, particularly the new generation, became less and less interested in serving in these sectors that added to the dearth of manpower in these enterprises. Nevertheless Japan did not consider opening its door to manpower from other countries, largely because the homogenous Japanese society did not feel comfortable with foreigners.
Instead Japan introduced a scheme for the SMEs through the Japan Industrial Training Cooperation Organization (JITCO) to bring to the country people to work as trainees and apprentices for a total of 3 years. Under this scheme, Japan fulfilled a small part of the need for manpower in the SMEs and also its duty as a responsible developed country to help developing country train its manpower. JITCO is a Government programme that was introduced in 1991 by five Ministries including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Justice. Over the years, it has brought to Japan thousands of workers from many developing countries in Asia including China, Vietnam, etc. In 2005, Bangladesh also signed with Japan, the JITCO agreement.
Unfortunately, the JITCO agreement was not activated in Bangladesh till only very recently. Why it was not activated is in itself a sad story that shows government inertia when it comes to helping people. The JITCO Agreement is designed to bring to Japan workers from developing countries like Bangladesh in about 60 designated SMEs, like welding, packaging, agricultural etc. The SMEs of Japan themselves interview and select the workers in the sending country. They l train them in basic Japanese language either in the sending country or in Japan. They pay for the workers’ air travel and even a monthly amount to the workers’ family for security for losing an earning member to the JITCO programme. In Japan, the worker works as a trainee at first and then as an apprentice up to 3 years.
The worker under the JITCO programme is not allowed to overstay and must return to the sending country. In the three years, an average worker can save Taka 15 to Taka 20 lakhs (by 2005 estimates when Bangladesh entered the JITCO programme) together with training and experience in world’s second strongest economy. The JITCO agreement does not allow any authority or agency to charge the workers even a single cent and also prohibits the manpower agencies from entering into the programme. The agreement does not limit the sending country on number of workers they send to Japan.
I was personally involved in the signing of the JITCO agreement. Later when I returned from Japan in 2006, I met Ministers and officials before this Government came to office, urging them to activate the programme. I could not believe that any sensible government would let such an agreement lapse. In one of my meetings with senior officers of the Expatriate Affairs, I heard one officer ask what JITCO really offered to them. For this officer, the fact that Bangladeshis would be trained in Japan for 3 years, would not have to pay a cent and return home with Taka 15 to Taka 20 lacs were not good enough reasons! In contrast, our workers who go to the ME pay up to Taka 2 lacs to manpower agents to work under inhuman conditions for a paltry salary. Our Expatriate Ministry favoured the latter and not the JITCO programme till recently, perhaps because there is something for them in sending workers to the ME through the manpower agencies and none under the JITCO programme.
The present Government must be commended for staring the JITCO programme although more than 4 valuable years have been lost during which we could have sent so many workers to Japan. Nevertheless, the JITCO programme is not manpower business as there seems to be the understanding of the experts. Also, there is little possibility that Japan would open its manpower sector to overseas workers soon, although in selective fields, many foreigners work in Japan under special visa status.
This does not mean that Japan would not open its doors to overseas manpower in future. The possibility is always there. This is why the JITCO programme is so important. When Japan opens its manpower sector, it would take those first who have worked in Japan under JITCO programme and have returned home. This is why we need to run the JITCO programme with care, follow its provisions and wait till Japan one day opens its manpower sector to foreign workers to be able to send our workers to Japan under manpower export business. Till that happens, utmost care should be taken to keep the JITCO programme out of the each of the manpower agents as the experts are suggesting. The JITCO agreement demands it.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan.
Indian Cricket: As superior as its diplomacy
Daily Sun
M. Serajul Islam
April 11, 2011
India entered the World Cup as a top contender. Pakistan joined the contest as an outsider but with potentials to spring a surprise. Both countries lived up to the pre-match assessments of the cricket pundits. India went to Mohali confident and in style. Pakistan, true to form, almost lost to Canada, beat former champions Australia and entered the semi-final unpredictably but threatening an upset.
A semi-final that over a billion South Asian and many more cricket lovers around the world wanted was achieved. All attention was focused on Mohali, for the dream semi-final. Then, for whatever are the reasons, the Indians played a fast one and that came from the Indian Prime Minister Manmohon Singh. He invited President Asif Zardari to join him in the VVIP Box in Mohali and together watch the match. He declined and the invitation was passed on to Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani who accepted. Suddenly, the attention of the rest of the world, many of whom hardly understood cricket, was drawn to Mohali.
Cricket commentators were upset. Many called it an attempt to put diplomacy ahead of cricket and they did not like it. In talk shows on private Indian TV channels, even members of the public who were asked for their views, were unhappy that the politicians attempted to take away the limelight from cricket. In fact in one talk show, former Indian diplomat and former Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar was the lone participant who defended the Indian Prime Minister.
In the end, no dramatic breakthrough was achieved in India-Pakistan’s thoroughly messed up bilateral relations. In fact, the so-called cricket diplomacy had a negative impact on the meeting of the Home Secretaries of the two countries that was held just days before the meeting of the two Prime Ministers. With all attention on Mohali, who cared what the Home Secretaries discussed? In the field, India expectedly won and again expectedly went to win the World Cup, that too in style.
The Mohali match nevertheless revealed a few interesting facts for analysis of politics and relations between Pakistan and India. Although India won the match in the end easily, yet in retrospect the match could have gone either way. The Pakistanis had the game in control after the initial onslaught of Sewag was tackled. In that brief period, the Pakistanis showed its leadership qualities or the lack of it. Umar Gul, till the Mohali match, one of the tournament’s most dangerous bowlers was sent to all parts of the field by Sewag. Yet Pakistan’s Captain persisted with him. After those 20 plus runs he gave in his second over to Sewag, any other Captain would have rested him. Pakistan’s Captain Shahid Afridi did not. Again towards the end, when India had asked for the batting power play, Afridi brought back Umar Gul and let him be hit for crucial runs. Afridi failed to realize that it was not Gul’s day and he also failed to apply his mind to work out a distribution among his other bowlers to shield Umar Gul who eventually ended giving 69 runs in 9 overs where all the other bowlers who had India in a tight spot. In the end those 20 to 30 extra runs that Umar Gul conceded gave India not just the chance to get back into the game but also to win it.
Again when Pakistan batted, they failed to apply themselves. Many were out to shots they should have played in club cricket and definitely not in a World Cup Semi-Final and that too against India. Misbah ul Huq’s batting was a mystery. He plodded along; killing crucial overs as if he was playing in one of the timeless tests of ages ago and when he woke up, the asking rate was too demanding to overtake the Indian score. Misbah’s batting was not the only mystery. The mental paralysis of Pakistan’s captain and its dressing room in forgetting to take the batting power play when Misbah and Afridi were together was inexplicable. Power play when Misbah and Afridi were together could have helped Pakistan with extra runs to put psychological pressure on India that could have altered the course of the game. All through the game, Afridi was high strung whereas the team needed leadership with a cool frame of mind.
In contrast, MS Dhoni was serious, focused and calm and lived up to the name he has earned for himself as “Captain Cool.” He had a well thought out game plan for using his bowlers, on when to take the last batting power play and on setting fields in a way to entrap the Pakistani batsmen. His bowlers also had a game plan on how to bowl and capitalize on the weakness of the Pakistani batsmen. By his leadership, he was able to bring the team back a few times when the game was slipping out of Indian control. In fact, by going to bat ahead of the inform Yuvuraj Singh, he showed willingness to take responsibility and eventually his brilliant 91 not out was the final nail in Pakistan’s coffin of defeat. He did not take one false step for which he could be criticized and his team followed him like an orchestra follows its conductor.
The style of leadership displayed in the cricket match at Mohali in a way reflected the style of diplomacy of the two countries. Dr. Singh is like the Indian cricket Captain, relaxed and easy going but firm in giving anything to his adversary. The Pakistani Prime Minister was unsure and his smile was hardly spontaneous. Like Shahid Afridi, he did not appear at all confident. Shahid Afridi left little doubt in the minds of those who watched that he was not in any sense in charge with many dictating his decisions from the background. The Pakistani Prime Minister was likewise not in charge too, sent to Mohali without any thought to the decision to be there.
The attempt of the politicians to gain limelight for a world sporting event did not succeed. The media that covered the match wasted little time to the two Prime Ministers who were only fleetingly shown on live TV coverage of the event. Nevertheless, the Indians who successfully floated the idea, gained mileage by showing the rest of the world that they wanted to break the deadlock in bilateral relations, knowing full well that no such possibility was even remotely on cards. The Pakistanis played into the Indian hands and got nothing out of it except perhaps the opportunity for its Prime Minister to watch the game free! There is a qualitative difference in Indian and Pakistani style of diplomacy and at Mohali Indian diplomacy was the winner like its brilliant cricket team that won the World Cup.
There is a postscript. A news on internet revealed that the India was planning a technical knock-out against Pakistan in case it lost on the cricket ground. There were at least 3 players in the Pakistan team whose domicile was in dispute. The Opposition BJP learnt of the disputed domicile the night before the match through a leak at the Ministry of External Affairs and brought this to the notice of the External Affairs Minister. When India was floundering at 194/5, Dr. Singh was told that the ICC would offer the match to India even if it lost if a complaint was lodged on the domicile issue. The Indian PM turned down the proposition unequivocally although it had the endorsement of senior leaders of the Congress and the BJP with the latter ready to go public with it if India had lost!
The writer of a former Ambassador to Japan and a former Secretary to the Government
M. Serajul Islam
April 11, 2011
India entered the World Cup as a top contender. Pakistan joined the contest as an outsider but with potentials to spring a surprise. Both countries lived up to the pre-match assessments of the cricket pundits. India went to Mohali confident and in style. Pakistan, true to form, almost lost to Canada, beat former champions Australia and entered the semi-final unpredictably but threatening an upset.
A semi-final that over a billion South Asian and many more cricket lovers around the world wanted was achieved. All attention was focused on Mohali, for the dream semi-final. Then, for whatever are the reasons, the Indians played a fast one and that came from the Indian Prime Minister Manmohon Singh. He invited President Asif Zardari to join him in the VVIP Box in Mohali and together watch the match. He declined and the invitation was passed on to Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani who accepted. Suddenly, the attention of the rest of the world, many of whom hardly understood cricket, was drawn to Mohali.
Cricket commentators were upset. Many called it an attempt to put diplomacy ahead of cricket and they did not like it. In talk shows on private Indian TV channels, even members of the public who were asked for their views, were unhappy that the politicians attempted to take away the limelight from cricket. In fact in one talk show, former Indian diplomat and former Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar was the lone participant who defended the Indian Prime Minister.
In the end, no dramatic breakthrough was achieved in India-Pakistan’s thoroughly messed up bilateral relations. In fact, the so-called cricket diplomacy had a negative impact on the meeting of the Home Secretaries of the two countries that was held just days before the meeting of the two Prime Ministers. With all attention on Mohali, who cared what the Home Secretaries discussed? In the field, India expectedly won and again expectedly went to win the World Cup, that too in style.
The Mohali match nevertheless revealed a few interesting facts for analysis of politics and relations between Pakistan and India. Although India won the match in the end easily, yet in retrospect the match could have gone either way. The Pakistanis had the game in control after the initial onslaught of Sewag was tackled. In that brief period, the Pakistanis showed its leadership qualities or the lack of it. Umar Gul, till the Mohali match, one of the tournament’s most dangerous bowlers was sent to all parts of the field by Sewag. Yet Pakistan’s Captain persisted with him. After those 20 plus runs he gave in his second over to Sewag, any other Captain would have rested him. Pakistan’s Captain Shahid Afridi did not. Again towards the end, when India had asked for the batting power play, Afridi brought back Umar Gul and let him be hit for crucial runs. Afridi failed to realize that it was not Gul’s day and he also failed to apply his mind to work out a distribution among his other bowlers to shield Umar Gul who eventually ended giving 69 runs in 9 overs where all the other bowlers who had India in a tight spot. In the end those 20 to 30 extra runs that Umar Gul conceded gave India not just the chance to get back into the game but also to win it.
Again when Pakistan batted, they failed to apply themselves. Many were out to shots they should have played in club cricket and definitely not in a World Cup Semi-Final and that too against India. Misbah ul Huq’s batting was a mystery. He plodded along; killing crucial overs as if he was playing in one of the timeless tests of ages ago and when he woke up, the asking rate was too demanding to overtake the Indian score. Misbah’s batting was not the only mystery. The mental paralysis of Pakistan’s captain and its dressing room in forgetting to take the batting power play when Misbah and Afridi were together was inexplicable. Power play when Misbah and Afridi were together could have helped Pakistan with extra runs to put psychological pressure on India that could have altered the course of the game. All through the game, Afridi was high strung whereas the team needed leadership with a cool frame of mind.
In contrast, MS Dhoni was serious, focused and calm and lived up to the name he has earned for himself as “Captain Cool.” He had a well thought out game plan for using his bowlers, on when to take the last batting power play and on setting fields in a way to entrap the Pakistani batsmen. His bowlers also had a game plan on how to bowl and capitalize on the weakness of the Pakistani batsmen. By his leadership, he was able to bring the team back a few times when the game was slipping out of Indian control. In fact, by going to bat ahead of the inform Yuvuraj Singh, he showed willingness to take responsibility and eventually his brilliant 91 not out was the final nail in Pakistan’s coffin of defeat. He did not take one false step for which he could be criticized and his team followed him like an orchestra follows its conductor.
The style of leadership displayed in the cricket match at Mohali in a way reflected the style of diplomacy of the two countries. Dr. Singh is like the Indian cricket Captain, relaxed and easy going but firm in giving anything to his adversary. The Pakistani Prime Minister was unsure and his smile was hardly spontaneous. Like Shahid Afridi, he did not appear at all confident. Shahid Afridi left little doubt in the minds of those who watched that he was not in any sense in charge with many dictating his decisions from the background. The Pakistani Prime Minister was likewise not in charge too, sent to Mohali without any thought to the decision to be there.
The attempt of the politicians to gain limelight for a world sporting event did not succeed. The media that covered the match wasted little time to the two Prime Ministers who were only fleetingly shown on live TV coverage of the event. Nevertheless, the Indians who successfully floated the idea, gained mileage by showing the rest of the world that they wanted to break the deadlock in bilateral relations, knowing full well that no such possibility was even remotely on cards. The Pakistanis played into the Indian hands and got nothing out of it except perhaps the opportunity for its Prime Minister to watch the game free! There is a qualitative difference in Indian and Pakistani style of diplomacy and at Mohali Indian diplomacy was the winner like its brilliant cricket team that won the World Cup.
There is a postscript. A news on internet revealed that the India was planning a technical knock-out against Pakistan in case it lost on the cricket ground. There were at least 3 players in the Pakistan team whose domicile was in dispute. The Opposition BJP learnt of the disputed domicile the night before the match through a leak at the Ministry of External Affairs and brought this to the notice of the External Affairs Minister. When India was floundering at 194/5, Dr. Singh was told that the ICC would offer the match to India even if it lost if a complaint was lodged on the domicile issue. The Indian PM turned down the proposition unequivocally although it had the endorsement of senior leaders of the Congress and the BJP with the latter ready to go public with it if India had lost!
The writer of a former Ambassador to Japan and a former Secretary to the Government
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Friday, April 8, 2011
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Fall in remittance: the reasons
Daily Sun, April 3rd 2011
M. Serajul Islam
A report in a leading English Daily on declining remittance flow to Bangladesh made a few doomsday predictions. The report was based on an interview with economists and analysts. The doomsday scenario was based on developments in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt and these events influencing pro-democracy movements leading to political instability in the oil rich ME countries where our expatriates work in millions. These gentlemen have predicted that as a consequence thousands of Bangladeshis would be sent home leading to dramatic fall in remittance that in turn would have a disastrous impact upon the economy.
One of the few success stories of Bangladesh has been the contribution of our expatriates in sending to the country their hard earned income as foreign remittance. Last year, our expatriates sent home foreign exchange worth US 10.92 billion that had a huge positive impact on the economy and society. That amount was a 2.2% growth on the previous year and was a sharp fall in remittance flow from previous successive years when remittance flow had grown in double digit figures.
The learned gentlemen who gave this leading weekly the interview did not look at right places for the reasons for remittance declining so sharply in 2010. True, there was the worldwide economic depression that no doubt adversely affected the oil rich countries of the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait, our three largest destinations for manpower export. That world economic recession started in end of 2008 and was there for the whole of 2009. Yet in 2009, our remittance growth was in double digit.
In 2010, that economic recession did not deteriorate. In fact, it showed signs of recovery. Also, the demand of the type of manpower that we export to these countries did not fall either. Next door Nepal has sent larger number of its expatriates to these countries last year whereas Bangladesh failed to send any additional manpower in the same year. In fact, last year many Bangladeshis have been sent home. Those the newspaper interviewed would have done better if they had looked into these facts to get to the root of the problem of declining remittance.
Their concern about Libya is a correct one because we had sent 60,000 people there. But in the overall remittance business, our expatriates to Libya who were cheated by those who sent them there were able to send only a little over US$ 100 million. Thus the Libyan case is not an appropriate one to conclude any doomsday scenario for the remittance market. The emphasis of a democratic wave running across the ME and in its wake, creating major political instability in the oil rich countries leading to our expatriates returning home in large numbers is also a case of misplaced emphasis.
Tunisia and Egypt that have been overrun by a democratic surge are not manpower export markets for Bangladesh. Jordan, Yemen and Syria where the democratic wave has started to make significant impact, are also not manpower exporting destinations for Bangladesh. Only in Bahrain where we are witnessing political disturbances is a manpower market. However, the movement in Bahrain is not similar to the movements in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya or Yemen. In Bahrain, it is a sectarian conflict where the majority who are Shiias is seeking to be free from rule of the minority Sunnis and the downfall of the ruling royal family.
The other countries of Middle East are the very rich oil/gas producing countries. True, the rulers in these countries have little regard for democracy and people’s rights. Hence in these countries, the majority of the people has democratic aspirations and has shown inclinations to seek their democratic rights. There has been news of limited political unrest in Saudi Arabia where again such unrest coming from minority Shiias influenced more by neighbouring Bahrain than by Libya, Egypt or Tunisia. Nevertheless, fearing political demands in future, the Saudi King has offered a multi-billion dollar appeasement package, including creation of 60,000 new jobs.
There are qualitative differences in economic conditions in the oil rich countries compared to Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen for instance to make them instantly or in the short term susceptible to mass upsurge and downfall of regimes. Tunisia and Egypt, the trail blazers in the movement for democracy drew inspiration from the majority of the people who were economically deprived largely because the inability of the governments to deliver due to lack of financial resources. In Tunisia for instance, the whole movement was triggered when a young man committed suicide by putting himself on fire to escape his economic hardships.
In Egypt, the vast majority of the people, particularly the youth, got together against President Mubarak’s dictatorship because they too were economically depressed and felt that democracy was the panacea for their economic ills. In Syria, Yemen and strangely in Libya too, the majority who came out into the streets have done so in order to seek an end to their economic ills through capturing power or by getting rid of the dictatorial regimes.
There is no doubt that the people in the oil rich ME countries have also been affected by Tunisia, Egypt and Libya in the context of seeking their democratic rights. However, the driving force that moved people to the streets to overthrow the regimes in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen has been economic. The oil producing countries are so rich and getting richer at regular intervals by windfall gains from rising prices of oil that they possess the power to take out the economic factor for pro-democracy movement almost totally out of the equation. Hence it is extremely unlikely that pro-democracy movements in ME will attain the intensity and force as in Tunisia, Egypt or Yemen.
The other element in the equation that a lot of those who are suggesting democratic upsurges all over the ME like those seen in Egypt and Tunisia is missing is the nature of society in the oil rich ME countries. Although at one level, they do not share political power with the people, on another level there is the element of equality between the rulers and the people that removes a lot of the hatred that we have seen in Egypt and Tunisia for the erstwhile dictators. These rich countries are based on tribal linkages that provide the element of equality to blunt the conflict between the ruler and the ruled and also the hatred that moved peoples in millions in Egypt and Tunisia to fight to overthrow their dictators.
Nevertheless, the democratic movements in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and Yemen are bound to resonate in the shores of these oil rich countries, like the effects of the Tsunami. Like the effects of the Tsunami, the rulers of these countries would also be warned in advance about what is coming and hence they would no doubt be encouraged and prepared to make the necessary democratic changes to avert any serious uprising.
Therefore those who have pictured the doomsday scenario that oil rich ME would be faced with political instability leading to depleting seriously our manpower export market may have over stated the case. Nothing dramatic is likely to happen; not in the short term. They would be better advised to look at the cause of the depletion of our export market to the ME that has happened and continuing, elsewhere, in the failure of our foreign policy. Our favour for secularism and haste to ban Jamat are much more important reasons for the depletion. Bangladesh’s rating with these oil rich countries is now on an all time low and the proof of it is in the sharp decline of foreign remittance from the oil rich ME countries.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Egypt and Japan and a former Secretary to the Government.
M. Serajul Islam
A report in a leading English Daily on declining remittance flow to Bangladesh made a few doomsday predictions. The report was based on an interview with economists and analysts. The doomsday scenario was based on developments in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt and these events influencing pro-democracy movements leading to political instability in the oil rich ME countries where our expatriates work in millions. These gentlemen have predicted that as a consequence thousands of Bangladeshis would be sent home leading to dramatic fall in remittance that in turn would have a disastrous impact upon the economy.
One of the few success stories of Bangladesh has been the contribution of our expatriates in sending to the country their hard earned income as foreign remittance. Last year, our expatriates sent home foreign exchange worth US 10.92 billion that had a huge positive impact on the economy and society. That amount was a 2.2% growth on the previous year and was a sharp fall in remittance flow from previous successive years when remittance flow had grown in double digit figures.
The learned gentlemen who gave this leading weekly the interview did not look at right places for the reasons for remittance declining so sharply in 2010. True, there was the worldwide economic depression that no doubt adversely affected the oil rich countries of the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait, our three largest destinations for manpower export. That world economic recession started in end of 2008 and was there for the whole of 2009. Yet in 2009, our remittance growth was in double digit.
In 2010, that economic recession did not deteriorate. In fact, it showed signs of recovery. Also, the demand of the type of manpower that we export to these countries did not fall either. Next door Nepal has sent larger number of its expatriates to these countries last year whereas Bangladesh failed to send any additional manpower in the same year. In fact, last year many Bangladeshis have been sent home. Those the newspaper interviewed would have done better if they had looked into these facts to get to the root of the problem of declining remittance.
Their concern about Libya is a correct one because we had sent 60,000 people there. But in the overall remittance business, our expatriates to Libya who were cheated by those who sent them there were able to send only a little over US$ 100 million. Thus the Libyan case is not an appropriate one to conclude any doomsday scenario for the remittance market. The emphasis of a democratic wave running across the ME and in its wake, creating major political instability in the oil rich countries leading to our expatriates returning home in large numbers is also a case of misplaced emphasis.
Tunisia and Egypt that have been overrun by a democratic surge are not manpower export markets for Bangladesh. Jordan, Yemen and Syria where the democratic wave has started to make significant impact, are also not manpower exporting destinations for Bangladesh. Only in Bahrain where we are witnessing political disturbances is a manpower market. However, the movement in Bahrain is not similar to the movements in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya or Yemen. In Bahrain, it is a sectarian conflict where the majority who are Shiias is seeking to be free from rule of the minority Sunnis and the downfall of the ruling royal family.
The other countries of Middle East are the very rich oil/gas producing countries. True, the rulers in these countries have little regard for democracy and people’s rights. Hence in these countries, the majority of the people has democratic aspirations and has shown inclinations to seek their democratic rights. There has been news of limited political unrest in Saudi Arabia where again such unrest coming from minority Shiias influenced more by neighbouring Bahrain than by Libya, Egypt or Tunisia. Nevertheless, fearing political demands in future, the Saudi King has offered a multi-billion dollar appeasement package, including creation of 60,000 new jobs.
There are qualitative differences in economic conditions in the oil rich countries compared to Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen for instance to make them instantly or in the short term susceptible to mass upsurge and downfall of regimes. Tunisia and Egypt, the trail blazers in the movement for democracy drew inspiration from the majority of the people who were economically deprived largely because the inability of the governments to deliver due to lack of financial resources. In Tunisia for instance, the whole movement was triggered when a young man committed suicide by putting himself on fire to escape his economic hardships.
In Egypt, the vast majority of the people, particularly the youth, got together against President Mubarak’s dictatorship because they too were economically depressed and felt that democracy was the panacea for their economic ills. In Syria, Yemen and strangely in Libya too, the majority who came out into the streets have done so in order to seek an end to their economic ills through capturing power or by getting rid of the dictatorial regimes.
There is no doubt that the people in the oil rich ME countries have also been affected by Tunisia, Egypt and Libya in the context of seeking their democratic rights. However, the driving force that moved people to the streets to overthrow the regimes in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen has been economic. The oil producing countries are so rich and getting richer at regular intervals by windfall gains from rising prices of oil that they possess the power to take out the economic factor for pro-democracy movement almost totally out of the equation. Hence it is extremely unlikely that pro-democracy movements in ME will attain the intensity and force as in Tunisia, Egypt or Yemen.
The other element in the equation that a lot of those who are suggesting democratic upsurges all over the ME like those seen in Egypt and Tunisia is missing is the nature of society in the oil rich ME countries. Although at one level, they do not share political power with the people, on another level there is the element of equality between the rulers and the people that removes a lot of the hatred that we have seen in Egypt and Tunisia for the erstwhile dictators. These rich countries are based on tribal linkages that provide the element of equality to blunt the conflict between the ruler and the ruled and also the hatred that moved peoples in millions in Egypt and Tunisia to fight to overthrow their dictators.
Nevertheless, the democratic movements in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and Yemen are bound to resonate in the shores of these oil rich countries, like the effects of the Tsunami. Like the effects of the Tsunami, the rulers of these countries would also be warned in advance about what is coming and hence they would no doubt be encouraged and prepared to make the necessary democratic changes to avert any serious uprising.
Therefore those who have pictured the doomsday scenario that oil rich ME would be faced with political instability leading to depleting seriously our manpower export market may have over stated the case. Nothing dramatic is likely to happen; not in the short term. They would be better advised to look at the cause of the depletion of our export market to the ME that has happened and continuing, elsewhere, in the failure of our foreign policy. Our favour for secularism and haste to ban Jamat are much more important reasons for the depletion. Bangladesh’s rating with these oil rich countries is now on an all time low and the proof of it is in the sharp decline of foreign remittance from the oil rich ME countries.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Egypt and Japan and a former Secretary to the Government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)