বেদনাদায়ক পনেরোই আগষ্ট

 

আমার সকল নিয়ে বসে আছি

সর্বনাশের আশায়’

রবীন্দ্রনাথ ঠাকুর

-তারেক মাহবুব

আজ দুঃখ ভারাক্রান্ত হৃদয়ে ১৫ই আগস্ট , জাতীয় শোক দিবস সম্বন্ধে লিখতে বসে শতবর্ষ আগে কবি গুরুর লেখা এই গানটির কথা বার-বার মনে মনে পড়ছে।  রবির ভাষায়ই বলতে হয়, 'সাত কোটি বাঙালির হে বঙ্গ জননী, রেখেছ বাঙালি করে মানুষ করোনি।' পাকিস্তান কারাগার থেকে মুক্তি পেয়ে ১৯৭২ সালে রেসকোর্স ময়দানে বিশাল জনসবায় বঙ্গবন্ধু তার ভাষণে কবিগুরুর এই পংক্তিটি উল্লেখ করে বলেছিলেন, “কবিগুরু আজ মিথ্যা প্রমাণিত হয়ে গেছে, আমার বাঙালী আজ মানুষ হয়েছে।"  আসলে কবিগুরু যে মিথ্যা হন নাই, বঙ্গবন্ধু নিজের জীবন দিয়ে সেটা প্রমান করে গেছেন।

আজ আমি লজ্জিত, মৰ্মিত, এবং ভাষাহত।  নিজেকে বঙ্গসন্তান হিসাবে পরিচয় দিতে বড় অসহায় এবং কলঙ্কিত মনে হচ্ছে।  আমরা কেউই কখনো ইতিহাস থেকে কোন শিক্ষাই গ্রহণ করিনি, আর কখনো গ্রহণ করব বলে মনে হয় না।  অর্ধ শতাব্দী পূর্বে ক্ষণজন্মা এই মহাপুরুষটি নিজ জাতির সঠিক পরিচয়টি  মূল্যায়ন করতে যে ভুল করেছিলেন আজ এত বছর পরে এসে তার কন্যাও একই প্রকার ভুল ক'রে বাঙালি জাতিকে অকুল সমুদ্রে ভাসিয়ে গেলেন।

আজ আমি ভূতপূর্ব সরকার সম্মন্ধে খুব একটি আলোচনা করব না।  তাদের হিসাব-নিকাশ তারাই দেবেন, অন্যায় করলে তার বিচার হবে। আমার প্রশ্ন হল বঙ্গবন্ধুকে অপমান ক'রে আজ আমরা নিজেদের চরম দৈনতার পরিচয় দিয়েছি।  যে মানুষটি আজ সবুজ বাংলাদেশী পাসপোর্ট নিয়ে যুক্তরাষ্টে এসে নীল পাসপোর্টধারী হয়েছে, সে হয়ত ভুলে গেছে বঙ্গবন্ধু না থাকলে ওই সবুজ পাসপোর্টটি থাকত না।  যে ছেলেটি বঙ্গবন্ধুর ভাস্কর্য এর উপরে উঠে বীরত্ব প্রকাশ করছে, সেই মহামানবটি না থাকলে হয়ত পাকিস্তানের কোন এক বিদ্যালয়ের দ্বিতীয় শ্রেণীর ছাত্র হিসাবে পড়ালেখা করতে হত।  তাকে তখন আর কোটার বিরুদ্ধে আন্দোলন করতে হত না, কোটার জন্য আন্দোলন করতে হত, আর সেই আন্দোলনের মূল বিষয় হোত পূর্ব পাকস্তানীদের জন্য কোটা চাই। ধানমন্ডি ৩২ নম্বর কোন প্রাইভেট সম্পত্তি নয়, ওটা জাতীয় সম্পদ। পাকিস্তান নামের জানোয়ারগুলোও সেই বাসা অক্ষত রেখেছিল, আমরা বাঙালীরা সেটা ধ্বংস করে দিলাম। এই লজ্জা রাখি কোথায়।  বঙ্গবন্ধু কোন একক দলের নেতা না, উনি সমগ্র জাতির নেতা।

আজ শেখ হাসিনা সরকারের দুঃশাসনের জন্য যদি বঙ্গবন্ধুকে দায়ী করা হয়, তাহলে তো মুসলিমদের বিভিন্ন ব্যার্থতা ও অপকর্মের জন্য নবী মোহাম্মদকে দোষ দিলে সেটা কি কোন অন্যায় হবে? বাংলার ইতিহাসে আজ পর্যন্ত্য সব সরকারই ক্ষমতা থেকে পালা বদলের পর স্বৈরাচারের তকমা গায়ে লাগিয়েছে। যখন কেউ বলে শেখ হাসিনার হাতে রক্ত তখন তারা ভুলে যায় ২১শে আগষ্টের গ্রেনেড হামলার কথা।  খন্ডকালীন স্বরাষ্ট উপদেষ্টা ব্রিগেডিয়ার সাহেব যেদিন বললেন যে গুলিতে মানুষ মারা গিয়েছে সেই ৭১ ক্যালিবারের রাইফেল বাংলাদেশের কোন আইন শৃঙ্খলা বাহিনী ব্যবহার করে না বা তাদের হাতে সেই অস্ত্র নেই।  কয়েকদিন পরেই দেখলাম তাঁকে স্বরাষ্ট উপদেষ্টা থেকে বদলি করে পাট ও বস্ত্রণালয়ের উপদেষ্টা করা হয়েছে।  আন্দোলন হয়েছিল বৈষম্য বিরোধীতার জন্য এবং স্বৈর শাসনের বিরুদ্ধে। আন্দোলনকারীদের দাবী আগেকার প্রশাসনের সময়ে কথা বলতে দেওয়া হোত না।  তবে এখন কেন ১৫ আগস্টে ৩২ নম্বরে যেতে দেওয়া হল না। কারো ইচ্ছা হ'লে সেখানে যাবে, তাকে বাধা দেওয়া কি স্বৈর শাসনের মধ্যে পরে না।

প্রতিবেশী দেশে মহাত্মা গান্ধীকে অসম্মান করার মত দুঃসাহস বিজেপি বা আরএসএসের মত ডানপন্থী, হিন্দু জাতীয়তাবাদীও দেখায়নি। কারন তারা জানে গান্ধী শুধু কংগ্রেসের নেতা নন, উনি সমগ্র ভারতবর্ষের নেতা।  জীবনের প্রয়োজনে মধ্যপ্রাচ্যের কয়েকটি দেশে বহুদিন কাটিয়ে এসেছি। সেখানে প্রত্যেকটি দেশে বিশালাকৃতির রাজার ছবি বিভিন্ন সরকারি ভবনের বাইরে বিরাজমান।  এজন্য কারো কোন ধর্মীয় অনুভূতিতে আঘাত লাগে না। যত ধর্মীয় অনুভূতির আঘাত  আমাদের মধ্যে। অথচ নারী কেলেঙ্কারিতে জড়িত এক হেফাজতি নেতা হঠাৎ জেল থেকে ছাড়া পেয়েই সুযোগ বুঝে কাদিয়ানীর বিরুদ্ধে বিষোদ্গার বক্তৃতা দেওয়া শুরু করেছে।  কি অদ্ভুত এই দেশ এবং ততোধিক অদ্ভুত ধর্মীয় নেতারা। ইসলামিক আইন মানতে হলে তাকে অর্ধেক মাটিতে পুঁতে পাথর মেরে হত্যা করার রীতিমত নির্দেশ আছে।

 শুধু এই ঘটনাগুলিই নয়, কান পাতলেই  শুনতে পাই সুন্নীরা বলবে "শিয়া" বা 'খারাজী"  মুসলিম না।  ওদেরকে নন-মুসলিম হিসাবে ঘোষণা দেবার দাবী তুলে তাদের পবিত্র কোরান শরীফ পর্য্যন্ত পড়তে বাঁধা দেয়। অপর পক্ষে শিয়ারা বলবে সুন্নিরা মুসলিম না। হুজুররা তো কথায়-কথায় বলে ৯০% মুসলমানের দেশ বাংলাদেশ।  এখন কোটি টাকার প্রশ্ন হচ্ছে  এই শিয়া, আহমদিয়া, কাদিয়ানী, বা খারেজীরা কি ওই ৯০% এর  মধ্যে অন্তর্ভুক্ত? ওদেরকে বাদ দিলে আদৌ কি ৯০% থাকে?  যতক্ষণ হিন্দু আছে ততক্ষনই আমরা মুসলিম। ওদের তাড়ালেই আমরা শিয়া, সুন্নী, ওয়াহাবি, সালাফি, হানাফী, কাদিয়ানী, আহলে হাদিস, মাজারি, কওমী, ফুলতলী, ফুরফুরী, আটরশি, মাইজভাণ্ডারী হয়ে যাব।" এরা সবাই একে অপরকে কাফের হিসাবে গণ্য করবে।

মনে পড়ে আফগানিস্তানের কথা, ৭০ দশকে দেশটি একটি উদীয়মান জাতি হিসাবে পরিচিতি ছিল। সৈয়দ মুজতবা আলীর লেখা আফগানিস্তান ভ্রমণের বই থেকে শুরু ক'রে বিভিন্ন ইতিহাসবিদের তথ্য থেকে জানা যাই সেকুলার আফগানিস্তানের কথা। একটি প্রগতিশীল জাতি কিভাবে ধ্বংস হয়ে যায় তার বাস্তব উধাহরন আফগানিস্তান, আর পাকিস্তান নামের দেশটি অনেক আগে থেকেই দেউলিয়া হয়ে বসে আছে।  আমার ক্ষুদ্র বুদ্ধিতে বলে বাংলাদেশ অতি দ্রুততম সময়ে সেই পথের দিকে এগিয়ে যাচ্ছে। কোন এক বিখ্যাত মনীষী বলে গেছেন , "কথা ছিল ধর্ম মানুষকে রক্ষা করিবে, যেদিন থেকে মানুষ ধর্মকে রক্ষা করা শুরু করিল সেদিন থেকে গন্ডগোল শুরু হইল"।  

ডক্টর ইউনুস কেন বেআইনী শাসক?

সংবিধান অনুযায়ী ড. মুহম্মদ ইউনূসের মসনদে আরোহণ ফাঁসিযোগ্য অপরাধ এবং প্রধানমন্ত্রীসহ মন্ত্রীসভা এবং সংসদ যে আইনত এখনো বলবৎ আমাদের এ পোস্টের বিপরীতে এখন পর্যন্ত যুক্তিসঙ্গত কোনো পাল্টা বক্তব্য কেউ দেয় নি। তবে কেউ কেউ বলার চেষ্টা করছে, এটা যেহেতু অভ্যুত্থান, সেহেতু সংবিধান রক্ষার কোনো বাধ্যবাধকতা নেই। তাই সংবিধানে না থাকলেও যে কেউ ক্ষমতায় বসে যেতে পারে। যারা এটা বলছে, তারা সাময়িক উত্তেজনায় রাষ্ট্রের সংজ্ঞা না বুঝেই বলছে। রাষ্ট্র থাকলে সংবিধানও থাকবে। অভ্যুত্থান মানে সংবিধান বাতিল হয়ে যাওয়া নয়। তবে এই সত্য তাত্ত্বিকভাবে বুঝানোর চেয়ে আমরা দেখি ড. মুহাম্মদ ইউনূস তার শপথ গ্রহণের সময় কি প্রতিজ্ঞা করেছেন:

"আমি মুহাম্মদ ইউনূস সশ্রদ্ধচিত্তে (প্রায় ১০ সেকেন্ড ব্ল্যাকআউট) শপথ গ্রহণ করিতেছি যে, আমি আইন অনুযায়ী অন্তর্বর্তীকালীন সরকারের প্রধান উপদেষ্টা পদের কর্তব্য বিশ্বস্ততার সহিত পালন করিবো। আমি বাংলাদেশের প্রতি অকৃত্রিম বিশ্বাস ও আনুগত্য পোষণ করিবো। আমি সংবিধানের রক্ষণ, সমর্থন ও নিরাপত্তা বিধান করিবো। এবং আমি ভীতি বা অনুগ্রহ, অনুরাগ বা বিরাগের বশবর্তী না হইয়া সকলের প্রতি আইন অনুযায়ী যথাবিহীত আচরণ করিবো।"

শপথ অনুযায়ী, ড. ইউনূস সংবিধানের রক্ষণ, সমর্থন ও নিরাপত্তার জন্য দায়বদ্ধ। শপথে বলা হয় নি যে, আমি সংবিধান বাতিল করলাম বা নতুন কোনো সংবিধান লিখবো।

প্রধান উপদেষ্টাকে  নিয়োগ দেয়ার ব্যাপারে রাষ্ট্রপতিই সর্বেসর্বা এরকম একটি ভাইব তৈরির চেষ্টা চলছে। আদতে সংবিধান অনুযায়ী রাষ্ট্রপতির ক্ষমতা খুবই সীমিত। নিয়োগের বিষয়ে পরে যাই। আগে দেখি রাষ্ট্রপতি চাইলেই কি সাংসদদের চাকরি নট করে সংসদ ভেঙ্গে দিতে পারেন কি না। পত্রিকায় দেখলাম, "রাষ্ট্রপতি মো. সাহাবুদ্দিন সংবিধানের ৪৮(৩) অনুচ্ছেদ অনুযায়ী দ্বাদশ জাতীয় সংসদ ভেঙে দেন।" - এটা পুরোপুরি ভুল রেফারেন্স। ওই অনুচ্ছেদে আছে, "(৩) এই সংবিধানের ৫৬ অনুচ্ছেদের (৩) দফা অনুসারে কেবল প্রধানমন্ত্রী ও ৯৫ অনুচ্ছেদের (১) দফা অনুসারে প্রধান বিচারপতি নিয়োগের ক্ষেত্র ব্যতীত রাষ্টপতি তাঁহার অন্য সকল দায়িত্ব পালনে প্রধানমন্ত্রীর পরামর্শ অনুযায়ী কার্য করিবেন"। রাষ্ট্রপতির কোনো ক্ষমতা নেই একা একা সংসদ ভেঙ্গে দেয়ার। প্রধানমন্ত্রী পদত্যাগ করলেও নতুন নির্বাচন করে সরকার গঠনের আগ পর্যন্ত প্রধানমন্ত্রীসহ সব মন্ত্রীই দায়িত্ব পালন করবেন।

এখন আসি রাষ্ট্রপতি কোন ক্ষমতাবলে "অন্তর্বর্তী সরকার" এর প্রধান উপদেষ্টা নিয়োগ দিতে পারেন। প্রথমত বাংলাদেশের সংবিধান অনুসারে, আমাদের জানামতে তত্ত্বাবধায়ক ব্যবস্থাই বিলোপ করা হয়েছে। এবং চাইলাম আর করলাম বলে "অন্তর্বর্তীকালীন সরকার" নামের কিছু বসিয়ে দেয়ার ক্ষমতা রাষ্ট্রপতির নেই। বাংলাদেশের সংবিধানে এরকম কোনোকিছু নেই। উইকি বলছে, "এই ব্যবস্থা ২০২৪ সালের ৫ই আগস্ট বাংলাদেশের রাষ্ট্রপতি ও বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের কয়েকজন সমন্বয়ক এবং সেনাবাহিনী প্রধান দ্বারা নিশ্চিত করা হয়।" অর্থাৎ এই ব্যবস্থা পুরোপুরি সংবিধান-বহির্ভূত একটি ব্যবস্থা।

সংবিধান অনুযায়ী রাষ্ট্রপতি নিয়োগ দিতে পারেন প্রধানমন্ত্রীকে এবং প্রধান বিচারপতিকে। কিন্তু সেক্ষেত্রেও তার ইচ্ছাই শেষ কথা নয়। যেমন, প্রধানমন্ত্রী নিয়োগের ক্ষেত্রে, অনুচ্ছেদ ৫৬ অনুসারে, "(৩) যে সংসদ-সদস্য সংসদের সংখ্যাগরিষ্ঠ সদস্যের আস্থাভাজন বলিয়া রাষ্ট্রপতির নিকট প্রতীয়মান হইবেন, রাষ্ট্রপতি তাঁহাকে প্রধানমন্ত্রী নিয়োগ করিবেন।"

ড. মুহাম্মদ ইউনূস সংসদের কেউ নন। নির্বাচিত কেউ নন। রাষ্ট্রপতি চাইলেই তাকে সরকারে নিয়োগ দিতে পারেন না। ড. ইউনূস শপথ নিয়েছেন বাংলাদেশের সংবিধানের রক্ষণ, সমর্থন ও নিরাপত্তার জন্য। অথচ তার নিজের নিয়োগই পুরোপুরিভাবে সংবিধান বহির্ভূত। এবং এটি মৃত্যুদণ্ডযোগ্য অপরাধ। এখন সন্ত্রাস এবং বিশৃঙ্খলার সুযোগ নিয়ে তিনি এভাবে কিছুদিন রাজত্ব করতে পারবেন হয়তো। তবে একসময় গণতান্ত্রিক ব্যবস্থা ফিরে আসবেই। তখন আওয়ামী লীগ আসুক, বিএনপি আসুক বা অন্য কোনো দল, ড. ইউনূস ও তার সহযোগীদেরকে চরম মূল্য দিতে হবে, কোনো সন্দেহ নেই।

Painful Fifteenth of August

 I'm sitting with all of me 

hoping for destruction.' 

Rabindranath Tagore 

On this significant 15th of August, National Mourning Day, I am reminded of a poem by the notable Bengali poet Rabindranath Thakur, popularly known as Kabi Guru written a century ago. The moving words of the poet resonate: "Seven crores of Bengalis, O Mother of Bengal, made them Bengalis, not human beings." The father of Bangladesh nation Bangabandhu referred to this line in his 1972 speech at a large public gathering in Racecourse Maidan after his release from a Pakistani prison. He proclaimed, "Kabi Guru's statement has been proven wrong today; my Bengalis have become human today." This day, marked by Bangabandhu's ultimate sacrifice, showed that Kabi Guru Rabindranath's assertion was valid. 

Today, I am grappling with a profound sense of shame, heartache, and disbelief. It pains me to acknowledge my connection to Bangladesh, as we appear to be repeating past mistakes without learning from them. Just as a great leader misjudged the true essence of our nation half a century ago, today, his daughter has made a similar error, leading the Bengali nation astray. We must learn from history to avoid such missteps in the future. 

I prefer not to delve into the affairs of the previous government. They will be held accountable for their actions, and if they are found to be wrong, they will face the consequences. What troubles me today is disparaging Bangabandhu, which reflects our utmost malice. The individual who once held a green Bangladeshi passport and later obtained a blue one in the United States may have overlooked that the existence of the green passport is indebted to Bangabandhu. The young man perched atop the Bangabandhu statue, displaying his courage, might have been a second-grade student in a school in Pakistan if it weren't for the influence of that remarkable individual. Rather than protesting quotas, he would advocate for them, specifically for the rights of East Pakistanis. It's important to note that Dhanmondi number 32 is not merely private property but a valuable national asset. Even the Pakistani beasts kept that house intact; we Bangladeshis destroyed it. Where is this shame? Bangabandhu is not the leader of a single party; he is the leader of the entire nation. 

Is it fair to hold Bangabandhu responsible for the shortcomings of Sheikh Hasina's current government? Would it be akin to blaming Prophet Mohammad for the actions of Muslims? Throughout Bangladesh's history, every change in leadership has ushered in a new era of oppression. When critics point fingers at Sheikh Hasina for violence, they tend to overlook the 21st of August grenade attack.

The former home affairs advisor of the current interim Bangladesh government Brigadier General (Retired) M. Sakhawat Hossain recently talked about the firearm used in the recent violent outburst in the cities in Bangladesh. Brigadier Hossain said, “Those arms used were not issued by any law enforcement agency in Bangladesh”. Following this disclosure, the advisor was rapidly transferred from the Home Ministry to the Jute and Textile Ministry. While the movement aimed to address discrimination and autocracy, there were rumors of dissent being suppressed. Why were individuals prevented from visiting 32 Dhanmondi on 15th August? Without any doubt this restriction appears to align with autocratic tendencies. 

Even the right-wing Hindu nationalist parties of India, such as the BJP or RSS, are careful not to show disrespect towards Mahatma Gandhi. They recognize Gandhi not only as the leader of Congress but also as a leader of all of India. I have spent several days in various Middle Eastern countries out of necessity. In each country, large portraits of the monarchs are prominently displayed outside government buildings and public areas. This careful display of respect shows that the religious sentiments of others are not disrespected as much as our own. 

However, a custody Hefazat-e-Islami leader involved in the women's scandal seized the opportunity and started giving venomous speeches against Qadiani after being released from jail—what a strange country and even more strange religious leaders! Not only this incident, I hear some Bangladeshi religious zealots began to say, " “Shia" or "Kharazi" are not Muslims.” They claim to declare them as non-Muslims and prevent them from reading the Holy Qur'an. On the other hand, Shias will say that Sunnis are not Muslims. It is said that Bangladesh is a country of 90% Muslims. The question may arise out of these 90%, are those Shias, Ahmadis, or Kharejis included? As long as there are Hindus, we are Muslims, irrespective of being Sunni, Wahhabi, Salafi, Hanafi, Qadiani, Ahle Hadith, Mazari, Qaumi, Fultali, Furfuri, Atarshi, Maizbhandari. Ironically in reality they all regard each other as infidels.

Remember Afghanistan? In the 1970s, the country was known as an emerging nation. From Syed Mujtaba Ali's travel book to Afghanistan, we know about secular Afghanistan from the information of various historians. Afghanistan is a real example of how a progressive nation can be destroyed in the name of religion, and a country called Pakistan has long been bankrupt. I can see Bangladesh is moving towards that path at the fastest time. A famous thinker has said, "It was said that religion will protect people; from the day people started protecting religion, chaos started." 

"If you want to destroy a country, make the people of the country fight in the name of religion; the country will be destroyed automatically." 
_____________

Tarek Mahboob, Contributor

 

Unconstitutional Capture of Power by Dr. Yunus in Bangladesh

Dr. Muhammad Yunus took over the power of the country called Bangladesh amid violence and killings. The people of Bangladesh did not elect him to become the ruler of the country. It requires a lot of effort to form a political party and get elected by getting the mandate of the people to go to the helm of power. So, he conspired to achieve his goal. In fact, he has been conspiring for a long time to capture the power of this small country. This time he and his able backers have become successful by creating a violent atmosphere throughout Bangladesh.

Many students, common people, and police lost their lives for no good reason. The movement against the government started with a demand to abolish or reform quotas for government jobs. It was not supposed to turn into a violent form. In fact, there was a well-prepared and deliberate stratagem to turn this movement into a brutal conflict to bring about the downfall of the Government under Sheikh Hasina. There was a secret plan involving some of the top-ranking student coordinators, Dr. Muhammad Yunus, and many of his cohorts. In Bangladesh, there is a group of people who share the same conman characteristics like Dr. Yunus. Just to name a few, I can mention Dr. Asif Nazrul, Dr. Bodiul Alam Majumdar, Brigadier Gen. (retired) M. Sakhawat Hossain, retired foreign secretary Tauhid Hossain, Dr. Debapriya Bhattacharya, and several others. These are vocal minority people who want to grab power by hook or crook. The quota movement was a great opportunity for them to unseat a democratically elected government and finally occupy the power that they cherished so dearly.

The student leaders or coordinators (as they call themselves) were successfully able to turn the movement into a violent form by attacking police stations and chanting provocative slogans such as, we are Razakars (paramilitary forces created by Pakistan in 1971 to kill the freedom fighters and those who supported Bangladesh independence). It was like chanting slogans “we are Nazis” on the streets of Tel Aviv. The marauding mob attacked law enforcers and shots were fired both by the police and by the protesters. Unfortunately, the blame went onto the government and on Sheikh Hasina. In the digitalized Bangladesh (thanks to Sheikh Hasina for her priority and efforts on this), the blaming of the government became viral. To make the situation worst, the corps of Dr. Yunus came out onto the streets of Dhaka to accelerate the ouster of the government. The quota movement was eventually transformed into the one point ousting the government movement. In a matter of days, Sheikh Hasina had to leave Bangladesh for India, and a democratically elected government of Bangladesh fell apart.

Unfortunately, all these conspirators including Dr. Yunus have brought serious problems for a small country Bangladesh which was thriving vigorously under the able leadership of Sheikh Hasina. The power-hungry mob headed by Dr. Yunus has turned Bangladesh close to a failed state. In Bangladesh, now there is worse law and order, uncertainty in the markets, harassment everywhere, forced resignation of professionals, inferno in the minority villages, and so on. The rabble of Dr. Yunus will eventually turn Bangladesh into a completely failed state.

Sheikh Hasina had her focus on the development of the country and on the prevention of the Islamic terrorists, specifically after the attack and killings in Holey Artisan Bakery in 2016. She was aware of the previous conspiracies perpetrated by Dr. Yunus but she failed to understand the extent of all his henchmen who were currently preparing for the ouster of her government. The henchmen of Dr. Yunus very carefully orchestrated and executed their plan by creating a chaos out of no issue at all.  In the midst of the chaos, the former elected Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina had to step aside and leave the country.

To maintain the continuity of the government, the President of Bangladesh could have allowed the parliament to decide on the formation of a new cabinet. But the henchmen of Yunus captured the Parliament House, prime minister’s residence called Ganabhaban, and the streets of Dhaka. The president and the chief of the army had to submit to the elite oligarch gangs of Dr. Yunus. They had to give the power to the gang leader Yunus. This has entangled Bangladesh into a non-democratic system of rule under the leadership of a renowned con artist named Yunus for a long time to come. He didn’t receive any mandate from the people of Bangladesh but there is no problem for this shameless individual named Yunus to rule Bangladesh which was trying hard to continue following the constitution of the country.
_______________

Samir Arsalan, Freelance Writer

Bangladesh towards uncertainity

Bangladesh witnessed a planned upheaval to remove Sheikh Hasina, but it's indeed a part of the international conspiracy. The agitation and protest were well crafted, and she left Bangladesh on August 5th when the Military didn't extend their support to her and forced her to leave the country dramatically. Sheikh Hasina didn't foresee what was coming as they carefully unsettle her government. The following analysis is quite telling as it implicates the West for causing its hegemony to take over a stable government and replace it with their handpicked cronies. Bangladesh is entering a new phase where the puppets will breed democracy. 

Bangladesh: New Government Should Act on Rights

Bangladesh: New Government Should Act on Rights
Make Commitments at Next Week’s UN Meeting in Geneva
January 29, 2009
Source: Human Rights Watch

(New York) - The new Awami League government of Bangladesh has a unique opportunity and the responsibility to address major human rights problems that have been ignored by successive governments, Human Rights Watch said today in a letter to Prime Minister Shekh Hasina.

The letter makes specific recommendations for reform on subjects such as extrajudicial killings, torture, arbitrary detention, corruption, and the role of the Rapid Action Battalion and Directorate General for Forces Intelligence.

"The new government has a large majority and a public hungry for reform," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "We look forward to the government using the strong mandate the prime minister and her party have obtained to tackle the very serious abuses that Bangladeshis face at the hands of the security forces and others."

Human Rights Watch urged the government to use the February 3 session of the UN Human Rights Council to show the priority it places on addressing longstanding human rights problems by making concrete and specific commitments. Bangladesh is one of the countries whose rights records will be scrutinized in February under the council's Universal Periodic Review mechanism.

"How the government responds to recommendations for human rights progress at the Human Rights Council will be an early test for the new government," said Adams.

Dr. Yunus, is anything but a skilful person!

The Nobel laureate, Dr. Yunus, is anything but a skilful person!
Dr. Shabbir Ahmed

The tyranny and misrule of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and the fundamentalist Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) for the duration 2001 through 2006 had help create a bad image for the politicians in general in Bangladesh. A good number of educated people in nation of 145 million harbor a very negative impression about politicians. This negativity had become so ingrained among our educated people that many of them prefer grouping all political parties and politicians under a same set and within a single pair of brackets. To them, there is no iota of difference between Awami League (AL) and BNP. Likewise, they do not find any difference between Mrs. Sheikh Hasina and Mrs. Khaleda Zia even though they possess totally different educational and political background.

In the aftermath of one-eleven, all the politicians in general were subjugated through intimidation and torture. The military-backed caretaker government went an extra mile to mix all good and bad apples and put them all in one basket.. The snobbish urban educated elites tried to portray all the politicians as bad apples. These opportunists thought that it was their time to undermine all the politicians and take the opportunity to gain power through a top-down process. They are too comfort-loving impatient people who do not want to take time and build the support base through a time-consuming bottom-up political process. In fact, they prefer support from the civil-military bureaucracy for getting to the helm of the power in a quick fashion.. After one-eleven, a group of urban educated elites wanted to take events in their favor by snatching the victory of the people who brought down the Khakeda-Nizami- Tarek controlled caretaker government under BNP-appointed President Dr. Iajuddin Ahmed.

Bangladesh’s only Nobel Laureate, Dr. Muhammad Yunus, took the lead to snatch the victory of the democracy-loving people and paved the way for the urban elites to capture the power. During the emergency rule under the army-backed caretaker government, it was a free pass for Dr. Yunus to float a political party and talk about his politics while many veteran politicians were trying to avoid arrest by taking shelter under a so-called reform process.

Dr. Yunus and his associates’ perceived strategy was to use a negative propaganda and vicious campaign against the popular political leaders for capturing power. In this effort, Dr. Yunus had surpassed all. His remarks were so severe and caustic that he labeled all the politicians as corrupt at one point of time. He did not want to separate those who did corrupt practices by abusing the government power and those who did not. In fact, a vast majority of politicians never did govern Bangladesh but they were eager beaver to assume power bypassing the normal way, viz., building a grassroots organization. Also, since these folks have never run the government, they were never mired in corruption; therefore, it was very easy for them to say that they unlike AL and BNP politicians are clean as a whistle. Unfortunately, Dr. Yunus colored all the politicians as “black.” In his analyses, there were no white or gray colors. A few politicians at that time requested him to distinguish between colors and distinctively identify black, white, or gray. Dr. Yunus maintained his silence but continued "building" his party. During the Cold War era, it was relatively easy for the urban elite forces to take a side and get support for clinging to power with the help of civil-military bureaucracy. Now the condition is not the same as it were in 70s and 80s.

Under the backdrop of the present geo-political condition, Dr. Yunus and the urban elites could not able to strengthen their political base, if there were any, even with the support from the civil-military bureaucratic forces. He had to give up his short-lived ambition for political power in a rather pre-mature fashion. Thereafter, many events and drama took place. Finally, an election was held on December 29, 2008in which Awami League alone secured about three-fourth majority in the parliament.

It was a matter of great surprise to see Dr. Yunus in the oath-taking ceremony of the winning political leaders, whom he bluntly and indiscriminately labeled as corrupt. Did he make a false statement about all the politicians? Has he changed his position about the politicians? Maybe, he has changed his views about politicians because he has many businesses to run for the poor people through his Grameen Bank and Grameen cell phone. He has a business on yogurt (Shakti dai) as well. For all his businesses, he might need support from the government formed by the politicians he tried to undermine not too long ago. As an intelligent businessman, Dr. Yunus has probably shifted his position like a skilful politician and by attending the oath ceremony of the newly elected politicians he proved it again that he is a very clever businessman.

Khaleda meets Nizami

Khaleda meets Nizami
September 12, 2008
Source: Bdnews24.com

Dhaka, Sept 11 (bdnews24.com) – BNP chief Khaleda Zia met "exclusively" with Jamaat-e-Islami leader Matiur Rahman Nizami at her cantonment home Thursday night, a source close to the former prime minister said.

The meeting between the two top leaders of the four-party alliance followed the former prime minister's statement hours earlier that she would join both electoral dialogue and the general elections planned for December.

"BNP and the four-party combine will fight the elections together and again form the government," she told party colleagues at the Naya Paltan headquarters in the afternoon after her release from year-long detention.

Both parties boycotted the latest rounds of talks with the government and the Election Commission prior to Khaleda's release on bail.

The source, who refused to be named, said the Jamaat chief drove to her Mainul Road villa late evening. No other aides were known to have joined their meeting, said the source at her Mainul Road home.

The release of Tarique Rahman

The release of Tarique Rahman
Shamsuddin Ahmed
Source: The New Nation
September 10, 2008

The release of Tarique Rahman on Wednesday has certainly amused the BNP cadres and bemused the nation. He was accused in 13 corruption and extortion cases and set free on bail when undergoing trial by the special court. Son of former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, senior joint secretary general of BNP Tarique was supremo of the Hawa Bhaban and earned bad name for running parallel government during the BNP regime. The way BNP former state minister Ehsanul Haque Milon, former Adviser Barkatullah Bulu and former woman MP Bilquis Islam were subjected to mob beating on Wednesday has amply manifested the character of the JCD and Jubo Dal built up by the leader of the Young Turks Tarique Rahman. Their fault, they favoured reforms in the party.

Former minister Anwar Hossain Manju has been convicted, in absentia, and sentenced to jail for five years for keeping few cans of bear and bottles of wine. His closed friends felt wounded by the conviction of Manju, a non-alcoholist, chief of his faction of Jatiya Party, one of the owners of mass circulated daily and also owner of a couple industries. It is natural that he required to host foreign friends at his home and serve them with drinks they take as normal.

Barrister Maudud Ahmed, another former minister, has been accused in a number of cases, including one for having forbidden hard drinks in his house. He could have the similar fate of Manju had not the proceedings of his alcohol case been stayed by the higher court.

Manju and Maudud are among the scores of high profile politicians and business leaders who have been brought to book during anti-corruption drive launched soon after the caretaker government of Dr Fakhruddin Ahmed was installed in the January 11, 2007 change over. They were undergoing trial by special courts on charges of corruption, extortion and abuse of power. In the midst of trial former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of Awami League, facing about a dozen corruption and extortion cases, was released on parol and allowed to leave the country, understandably with the change of winds in the national politics. That opened the floodgate. Many more politicians and business tycoons have been enlarged on bail and proceedings of the cases against them halted by the order of the High Court. Tarique Rahman is the latest corruption suspect released on bail. Prime Minister Khaleda Zia undergoing trial in a number of cases is also expected to be released soon.

Conviction of Manju and setting free Hasina, Tarique and others remind the keen observers of a satirical cartoon. The cartoon depicted a minister-in-waiting brought before the king three men, with handcuff and rope round the waist. The first man, the minister told the king, was caught cursing you. "Off his head," came the order. The second man was caught stealing bread. "Feed him to the lions." The third was caught falsifying documents, money laundering and pilfering 700 million in corporate loans. "Hire him," roared the king.

Release of political leaders detained on corruption charges has indeed caused ACC Chairman Hasan Mashhud Chowdhury to lament. "The image of ACC is affected," he admitted referring to the recent bails granted to the accused in corruption cases and stay orders on the cases against them. People want punishment of the corrupt elements and they will certainly not like it, said the chairman.

The government wants the nation to understand that the detained politicians are released to bring all the political parties to the election planned for December. For, the caretaker government is under severe pressure from within and without the country for holding the election with the participation of all parties. But the major parties, especially the Awami League and the BNP, would not take part in the election without release of their detained leaders. So, they are set free.

Now Hasina, Tarique and their associates are free for taking part in the election. We have before us examples of recent democratic elections in Thailand and Pakistan. Followers of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra of Thailand, overthrown and discredited for corruption, won the election. Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, a protégé of Thaksin, last week declared emergency in the face of mass upsurge but the military declined to salvage him. Some two lakh people laid siege on the government administrative building and vowed they would not withdraw until Samak steps down.

In Pakistan, PPP won the election held in February. It entered into alliance with Muslim League of Nawaz Sharif and forced President Parvez Musharraf to step down. PPP co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari is now poised to become the President of Pakistan through election by the parliament on September 6. Zardari, known as 'Mr 20 percent' (taking commission during PPP rule) was debarred from the parliamentary election because of corruption case against him. Only recently attorney general of Pakistan got the money laundering case against Zardari withdrawn in Switzerland. Investigation found he had funneled 60 million dollars ill-gotten money.

Reputed columnist Mr Cowasjee wrote in daily Dawn on August 31, "I have been inundated with e-mails calling upon me to come to the aid of the country and save it from Zardari." He wondered how the armed forces feel at Zardari's becoming the President for he will also be the Commander in Chief and have his finger on the country's nuclear button. This has frightened the people of the world and the people of Pakistan, he added.

We believe that none would like the situation of Pakistan in Bangladesh. We have been assured by US Ambassador Moriarty who told the Amcham luncheon meet on May 21, "US does not want to see a repeat of Pakistan President Gen Parvez Musharraf government's nemesis in Bangladesh."

Chief of our Army Staff General Moeen U Ahmed who was wholly behind the January 11 change over had pledged to free the nation from corruption and dynastic politics. In his statement on April 2 last year he said, "…..we have to read the resolute character of Bangladeshi people that enabled us to overcome the perpetuation of dynastic rule for a transparent and accountable Bangladesh."

The advisers' regime

The advisers' regime
Source: Himal Southasian
September, 2008 Edition

Since a military-controlled interim government assumed power in Dhaka in January 2007 – suspending elections, announcing a jihad on corruption, arresting former prime ministers, and promising to right all that is wrong – a little-known Chinese proverb has entered the Bangla street lexicon. Riding a tiger is easy, the danger is in getting off strikes many as tailor-made to describe the unenviable plight that Chief Adviser Fakhruddin Ahmed and his colleagues find themselves in today, some 20 months after assuming power.

In late July, local elections to a handful of city corporations and municipalities (in Sylhet, Khulna, Barisal and Rajshahi), held under the ongoing state of emergency, may have confirmed the regime’s deepest fears. Last year, the Chief Election Commissioner, A T M Shamsul Huda, had time and again told the media that the emergency would have to be lifted before free and fair national polls could take place. In the wake of July’s local elections, however, he seems to have quickly changed his mind.

Though candidates in the local polls were not allowed to contest under the banner of the mainstream political parties, it was almost exclusively candidates with known party affiliations who won. Since the interim government came to power last year, a pro-government media blitzkrieg that blamed all of the coutnry’s ills on the politicians had sought to ensure that the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) stood thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the public. As undeserving as they are of public favour, these polls have shown that the people of Bangladesh still side with their candidates, despite the fact that almost everyone will agree that the party top brass is corrupt and autocratic.

This failure to transform politics could not have been brought home with greater impact than through a recent remark by CEC Huda, who publicly admitted to the interim government’s failure to bring “honest and capable candidates” to stand in the recently held elections. Huda’s comment made all the more of a splash due to the fact that this tagline of honesty and competence in politics has been regularly touted by the interim government as one of its strongest selling points.

Meanwhile, even the emergent elite, one of the strongest constituencies for this military-controlled government and its ambitious plan to ‘democratise’ the country, there is increasing disillusionment. There is no escaping the proof on the ground that all is not right. The Berlin-based Transparency International, which has ranked Bangladesh as the most corrupt country in the world for three years in a row, recently ruled that corruption had not abated under Bangladesh’s new uniformed rulers.

Exit and indemnity
In fact, most political observers believe that the coin dropped a long while ago. Having spent the first year arbitrarily arresting top politicos and businessmen for corruption (their confessions often extracted after torture, methods rendered inscrutable by the state of emergency), the government seemed to have changed its tack as the need for a safe landing became more and more pressing. The ‘minus-two’ formula envisioned exiling the two former prime ministers, Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia, along the lines of Pervez Musharraf’s Pakistan. Now, this seems to have been abandoned.

In June, Sheikh Hasina (whose supporters largely swept the July polls) was suddenly released on ‘parole’ for ‘medical treatment’. This came after the Awami League leader had spent a year in detention on a slew of corruption charges, with bail being consistently denied through the use of emergency powers. Three months on, the interim cabinet seems to be devoting an inordinate amount of rhetoric to reassure the BNP that its leader, Khaleda Zia, is also in the process of being released from detention. In fact, it is emerging as a source of embarrassment for the interim regime that she has been repeatedly quoted in the press as refusing to accept any form of exile, and demanding instead that her imprisonment run its normal legal course, rather than having an expedited release. If she does not want to be released, people are asking themselves, and yet if she is still as corrupt as the government has been saying, then why does the chief adviser need to reassure the BNP of her imminent release? The waters get murkier as the Awami League mounts pressure on the goverment to release arch-rival Khaleda -- to prevent her from emerging as a symbol of the pro-democracy movement, but mostly due to the fact that her continued incarceration makes Hasina seem too eager to compromise with the cantonment.

It certainly does not help the government’s case that ordinary Bangladeshis know that, historically, such developments have always been the result of dirty deals between the powerful and those in power. There is already talk on the street that the results of the national elections, now scheduled for December, could be determined by whichever party offers the advisers a safer ‘exit route’, as well as indemnity through a desperately necessary constitutional amendment. Bangladesh’s politicians, warts and all, may yet hold the key to ending this latest bout of military rule.

Proscribing Islamist Politics in Bangladesh

Proscribing Islamist Politics in Bangladesh:
Lessons from and for Pakistan

Taj Hashmi
Professor, Security Studies
Asia-Pacific Center for Security studies
Honolulu, Hawaii

Contrary to what Indian nationalist Gopal Krishna Gokhale (1866-1915) is said to have observed, “What Bengal thinks today, India thinks tomorrow”, in view of the ongoing and least expected “Pakistanization” of Bangladesh, one may rephrase the statement as, “What Pakistan thinks today, Bangladesh thinks tomorrow”. It is beyond the comprehension of many analysts and scholars that a country created in the name of Bengali nationalism, democracy and secularism, within five years of its inception adopted Islamism and autocracy turning away from the last vestiges of secularism, democracy and the rule of law.

The growing menace of Islamism and state-sponsored Islamization has been wrecking havoc to Pakistan’s economy and socio-political structure, at times making experts and laymen wonder if the country has already become a “failed state” or on the verge of becoming one. The situation in Bangladesh, an erstwhile Pakistani province, is slightly different in this regard as Islamists do not pose any impending threat of taking over parts of the country, as in Pakistan.

Nonetheless, it has also inherited Islamism as a legacy of the past; Islamist terrorism, including suicide attacks, is no longer an unfamiliar phenomenon in Bangladesh; Islam-oriented parties have become decisive factors in forming governments. While overt or covert martial law has become normative, with periodic interregnums of dynastic civil oligarchies a la Pakistan, Islamism and state-sponsored cosmetic Islamization of the polity have remained well-entrenched since late 1975.

One may attribute these phenomena to the failure of the welfare state, not that different from what has happened in Algeria, Egypt, Afghanistan and The Sudan, among other Muslim countries. Nevertheless, we need other explanations as to why not only the crest-fallen masses have been drawn to Islamism (considered an alternative to the “failed” secular ideologies of democracy, nationalism and national-socialism by many), but also the bulk of political and intellectual elite, including some hitherto-radical leftists.

As poverty, bad governance and the “Global Jihad” breed Islamist nihilism, so is illegitimate rulers’ exploiting religious sentiments of the people with a view to legitimizing their rule with state-sponsored Islamization. Islamization of the polity out of sheer political expediency, in the long run, could be disastrous for the polity as we find out in Pakistan, and on a minuscule level, in Bangladesh. What was once beyond one’s imagination that Bangladesh, a country created in the name of secular nationalism, would one day adopt Islam as its “state religion”, and pro-Pakistani Islamist political parties would play important role in running the polity, is a reality now.

However, despite the abysmally poor state of affairs in regard to governance and overall well-being of the people, there is a faint hope that Bangladesh will eventually reduce the level of Islamist obscurantism and insurgency in the near future. One is hoping against hope in view of the latest development in the country. The so-called Neutral Caretaker Government (NCG) is contemplating some bold steps towards curtailing the influence of Islamist political parties.

As reported in the media, the NCG is contemplating impose a ban on all religion-based political parties in accordance with the 1972 Constitution. It is indeed heartening that the provisions of the latest Representation of the People Order (RPO) stipulate that “a political party shall not be qualified for registration if any discrimination regarding religion, race, caste, language or sex is apparent in its constitution”. Since Islamist parties allow membership exclusively to “religious Muslims”, the RPO, in accordance with the Constitution, may legitimately de-register all religion-based parties.

In view of the above, as Bangladesh have lessons to learn from the Pakistani experience that unbridled growth of Islamism and even worse, state-sponsored Islamization of the polity, can be disastrous in the long run; similarly Pakistan may learn from the example of Bangladesh, where the government is thinking about proscribing Islamist political parties as a step towards containing, if not eliminating, Islamism. A successful deregistration of all Islamist political parties, especially the well-organized and well-funded Jamaat-i-Islami in Bangladesh, would be a good example for Pakistan and other countries confronting similar Islamist menace. This would also demolish the myth that Islamization of a polity is not reversible. We once nourished similar view about communism.

There is no reason to be complacent about allowing the so-called “constitutional” and “non-violent” Islamist parties like the Jamaat, Muslim Brotherhood and their likes. Although apparently they look different from al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Harkat Ul-Jihad al Islami (HUJI), the Taliban and similar Islamist outfits, there is no reason to assume that the Jamaat and Brotherhood believe in democracy and peaceful co-existence with liberal Muslims and non-Muslims. These proto-fascist organizations are committed to installing Islamist governments throughout the Muslim World by gradually infiltrating into every level of the polity, finally to takeover by violent means.

Let us hope Bangladesh will make an important breakthrough in delegitimizing Islamism by de-registering all Islam-oriented political parties as the first step. All democratic and secular Bangladeshis should come forward demanding the immediate de-registration of all religion-oriented parties. The civil society has to play an important role in this regard as some of the leading “secular nationalist” political parties are still going around with Islamists, weighing in the “vote bank” potential of the Islamist groups. Then again, Bangladesh alone cannot delegitimize Islamism in the country. Since deregistration of the various Islamist parties would be a major step towards their elimination process, countries and international donors can play a vital role in this regard. Having enough leverage to influence the policy makers in the country, they should press them hard to implement the proposed deregistration order vis-à-vis the Islamist parties.

Conversely, if Bangladesh fails to contain the so-called “constitutional and democratic” Islamist parties along with the clandestine Islamist ones now, under this unique military-backed Caretaker Government, the forthcoming elected government (in the event of elections taking place by December) is least likely to succeed in this regard irrespective of which party or coalition comes to power. Firstly, the major political parties in the country want to appease the Jamaat and similar Islamist groups out of political expediency; and secondly, the prevalent Islamization of the polity mainly due to bad governance, corruption and patronage of Islamism by various governments in the last thirty-odd years, Islamism has its special niece in the body politic of Bangladesh. In sum, we must realize what Islamist quagmire Pakistan has fallen into due to sheer negligence of the menace in its formative phase and the various governments’ flirting with the Jamaat and its likes since the 1970s. Bangladesh government’s success in deregistering Islamist parties would be a positive example for others, signaling a major victory in the “war on terror”.

The European Commission's Dilemma

EC in dilemma over sending EOM to Bangladesh
Source: The Financial Express
September 6, 2008

The European Commission (EC) seems to be in a critical dilemma over the question of whether or not it would send its Election Observation Mission (EOM) to Bangladesh to observe general polls in December under the State of Emergency, reports UNB.

In principle, the EC does not send EOM to any country where the state of emergency is in place. Last week, EC Head of the delegation in Bangladesh Ambassador Stefan Frowein met Foreign Adviser Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury and shared with him some observations of the EC Headquarters in Brussels to improve "few things" to ensure freedom of voters and participation of all in the election.

The EC had sent its Exploratory Mission last June when the Mission held extensive discussions with leaders of key political parties, Election Commissioners, government figures, members of the civil society and NGOs to take stock of pre-election ground situation.

The Exploratory Mission submitted its report to EC External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner in Brussels. During the meeting with the Foreign Adviser on August 31, Ambassador Frowein shared with him some information from the report, which was 'internal.'

'It's an internal report but I should say still there are few things where improvement should be done to guarantee the freedom of voters and freedom that was necessary for free and fair elections," Frowein had told reporters after an hour-long meeting.

He said there are rooms where improvement has to be made and the decision on sending EU Election Observation Mission to Bangladesh would be taken by Commissioner Benita Ferrero end of September or beginning of October.

Frowein said: "The state of emergency is a problematic point. Some people say it has to be lifted, some say it has to be relaxed."

However, he said: "It's not a question of terminology; it's a question of right of voters so that they could vote freely and everybody can participate."

Defining the EC's principled stance, the Ambassador said: "I can say clearly that we do not normally observe elections under the state of emergency. We normally don't do that."

He said that at this point it is difficult to predict any indication about whether or not the EU would observe the elections in Bangladesh.

Against the backdrop of such dilemma, Frowein said the Foreign Adviser has a meeting with Commissioner Benita Ferrero on September 22 in New York when they will discuss this matter in details.

This will be an important meeting following which the EC will decide the question of fielding an Observer Mission for the elections," he said.

Iftekhar, however, said although EU does not normally send its Election Observation Mission to a country under state of emergency but the Bangladesh situation is unique. "Our main challenge is to ensure each voter casts his vote freely without any impediment."

Mentioning recent remarks of the Chief Adviser, Dr Iftekhar said the emergency rules will be relaxed as much as possible to ensure free and fair elections. But the Foreign Adviser at this point of time could not be sanguine that the state of emergency would be in place or not.

Big political parties like Awami League and BNP have been pressing for long to fully lift the State of Emergency for creating a congenial environment for holding free, fair and credible elections to parliament.

Diplomatic sources told the news agency that the people in the European Commission in Brussels are aware of the present situation in Bangladesh but it is very difficult to convince them to send the Election Observation Mission to a country under the State of Emergency.

The diplomat, who preferred not to be named, admitted the fact that Bangladesh is a unique case but everything gets bogged down when the question of the State of Emergency is raised.

The sources said Iftekhar-Benita meeting in New York on September 22 is very critical as the question of observing the Bangladesh election will come up as the main agenda.

They said Benita is the single authority to take the decision and the decision would be announced, might be on October 6 or 7.

Before the political changeover in January 2007, the EC sent its long and short-term observers to observe the abortive general elections fixed on January 22. But the EC officially suspended its election observation mission on January 11 a few hours ahead of the declaration of the State of Emergency by the President to cool down the political turmoil over the elections.

Moeen vs. Musharraf

Drawing parallels and lessons
Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan and Moeen U Ahmed in Bangladesh

Mahmud ur Rahman Choudhury
Source: The Bangladesh Today
August 26, 2008

What happens in Pakistan ought not to overly concern us here in Bangladesh but it does because we were once part of Pakistan and have inherited some of the worst aspects of that Country's politics and governance. The four core institutions of our State - the Judiciary and system of Justice, the system of law-enforcement and Police, the system of administration and Bureaucracy and the Military - are all direct descendents of and still display many of the characteristics of the Pakistani system. Military involvement in politics is one of these awful legacies which we in Bangladesh are still tolerating and living with.

I don't know General Pervez Musharraf personally but I have read his very interesting auto-biography, "In the Line of Fire" and I happen to know one of his very close friends from whom I heard quite a bit about the General. As for General Moeen Uddin Ahmed, I have a passing acquaintance with him, having served for 25 years in the Bangladesh Army. Both of these individuals have catapulted themselves into politics in very critical moments in their respective countries' histories and therefore deserve a closer scrutiny of their characters and their deeds so as to draw appropriate lessons for the immediate future. The Pakistani General had to let go of power when he was forced to resign from his presidency on 18 August 2008 while the Bangladeshi General still holds a firm grasp of political power or so he believes.

Starting with the Pakistani General, Pervez Musharraf was a "Muhajir", that is a person who migrated to Pakistan after the partition of the sub-continent in 1947. In Pakistan, his family made good; he joined the Army and was commissioned in 1964. Through dint of his intelligence and hard work he rose through higher ranks in the Army. As he attained higher ranks and responsibilities, he carefully choose his mentors and friends both within the Army as well in political circles. On the way to the top, he earned respect of both his under-command and his seniors for his courage, integrity, determination, hard work and patriotism. In 1998, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Miah Newaz Sharif choose him as the Chief of Staff after the powerful Army Chief General Jehangir Karamat resigned. Some independent commentators suggested that General Musharraf's promotion came precisely because he did not belong to the Punjabi officer class and that Musharraf's ethnic background would leave the general unable to build a powerbase but by that time Musharraf had already built a powerbase. Barely a year later, on 12 October 1999, the aircraft carrying Pervez Musharraf from a visit to Sri Lanka was denied permission to land in Pakistan. When the plane ultimately landed with fuel for 10 minutes flying left in it, Pervez Musharraf had mounted a coup to oust Newaz Sharif. Supporters of Pervez Musharraf claim that Newaz Sharif intended to murder him while his detractors claim that the whole thing was a well planned ploy to capture state power. Pervez Musharraf ruled Pakistan for 9 crucial years during which time the Army went along with him by default.

General Pervez Musharraf assumed or more appropriately usurped political power some 9 years back on the contention that the political, economic and social systems in Pakistan have gone so corrupt that the Country's integrity and sovereignty is threatened. Moreover, the Taliban problems in Afghanistan and the Kashmir issue had serious spill over effects in Pakistan in terms of law and order situation and internal stability or so it was contented. All in all, excuses for Military intervention in politics were not lacking and this tendency towards military dictatorship was actively encouraged by the US who saw in General Pervez Musharraf and the Pakistan military a bulwark against the further spread westwards of radical "Islamic terrorism". In the 9 years that Pervez Musharraf "ruled" Pakistan, he brought the Country to near ruination until the people were near revolting. In an election about a year back, acceded to reluctantly by Musharraf, the people gave their verdict overwhelmingly against what the General stood for and now with the forced resignation of General Pervez Musharraf from the post of President that "ballot-box revolution" is complete. Whether the people of Pakistan can enjoy the fruits of their "democracy" will depend entirely on their determination to continue the process of democratization of their polity inspite of their politicians who are as corrupted a lot as there can be and who have betrayed the confidence of their people more than once.

In a sense Moeen U Ahmed is a Muhajir too; he was a cadet in the Pakistan Air Force College, Sargodah when the War of Liberation of Bangladesh was going on and only returned to Bangladesh a couple of years after the country had gained its independence. In 1974 he joined the Army and was commissioned with the 1st batch of officers of an independent Bangladesh. Like Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan, Moeen U Ahmed in Bangladesh is intelligent and hard working and he too selectively cultivated friendships both within the Army and political circles as he proceeded upwards in rank and responsibility. Unlike Musharraf, Moeen U Ahmed is an introvert who is not much liked or respected by either the rank and file or fellow officers but he does know how to command obedience. When in July 2005, Lt General Hasan Mashud Chowdhury was about to retire as the Chief of Staff, Moeen U Ahmed pulled his political connections in BNP through his course mate Major Syed Iskander, the brother of the then Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, to get to the top Army slot bypassing a dozen or so equally competent senior candidates. In December 2006, when political conditions in Bangladesh turned critical, Moeen U Ahmed supported by Major General Masud Uddin Chowdhury ( the brother-in-law of Major Syed Iskander), the GOC 9infantry Division based in Savar, made their bid for power. On the early morning of 11 January 2007, Moeen U Ahmed and Masud Uddin Chowdhury escorted by troops of 9 infantry Division invaded the Bangabhaban and forced the President to sign a Declaration of Emergency. A civilian façade was created by the formation of a council of 10 advisors with a Chief Advisor to head it; all advisors being retired bureaucrats, government servants or military officers. The excuses for this blatant grab at power were similar to those enunciated by Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. "All the evidence of Bangladeshi politics, point to the compelling conclusion that the political parties divided the Nation to a dangerous threshold that had no recourse but to confront a civil war" contented General Moeen U Ahmed in an interview with Global Bangladesh on 01 August 2007.

Much like the Pakistani Army with Pervez Musharraf, the Bangladesh Army went by default with Moeen U Ahmed. In the days after the military coup, there was a sense in the armed forces that they were all in this together. Much of it has evaporated in the past 20 months, and the current activities by Moeen only make clear that he is very much following his own agenda, and any collectivist goals have been discarded a long time ago, if he ever took them seriously at all. A lot of people had a lot of things in mind when they signed up for the military coup, but no one really visualized Moeen as another dictator.. It had taken all of 9 years for Pervez Musharraf to get his Country to the point of ruination but Moeen U Ahmed has managed to ruin Bangladesh within just 20 months; it only remains to be seen how he goes and what lessons we derive from these events.

The lessons than are:

Lesson # 01: Corrupt politicians, divisive politics and weak political institutions readily invite military interventions. Military dictators come to power with messianic goals which they rarely implement, instead breaking down existing institutions without being able to replace them with better ones further aggravating social, economic and political problems thereby initiating a cycle of conflict which in extreme cases leads to complete disintegration of the polity itself. Therefore, principled representative politics and strong political institutions are the "preventive medicines" against military dictators.

Lesson # 2: Weak political institutions lack control mechanisms of all sorts, most tellingly in the control of the Military. War, the preserve of the military demands rigid, hierarchal structures of command, control and communication for the military so that they can respond instantaneously to single commands at different levels emanating from the top and ending at the bottom. Surprise, shock, fear and dislocation - the stuff of successful warfighting can only be employed through such a system. Military dictators employ the same system when taking over the State. As long as Military dictators retain the uniform, the rank and the command goes along with it by default, they are impossible to remove even through massive public agitations and protests. It is only when they discard their uniforms and ranks, that they loose command and are vulnerable to removal and that too not immediately as the case of General HM Ershad in Bangladesh and Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan prove. Therefore, strong political control of the military at strategic and operational levels is the only way to prevent military dictators from taking over the State.

Lesson # 3: Military dictators are elitists. The military decision making process depends on a few selected lot of highly trained specialists called Staffs, who analyze all situations and work out courses of actions for the commander to select from. The Staff-Commander relationship is almost symbiotic with the commander responsible or answerable to no one for his decisions except the next higher commander. The highest military Commander is only accountable and answerable to his political master, whoever that is; in the absence of strong institutional political control, the highest military commander is accountable and answerable to no one save himself. Thus, when military dictators take over the State they aim for absolute control, often suspending or truncating existing core institutions of the State to establish that absolute sway. So, Military dictatorships are inimical, even hostile to institutional developments. The only way out of this is to keep on insisting on broadening the decision-making base, increasing the number of participants in the decision making process, not with the purpose of seeking solutions to problems but aimed at overwhelming the military dictator's decision making process with contradictory and conflicting inputs, finally paralyzing the decision process. This is a gradualist approach, demanding patience and determination on the part of the civil society wanting to get rid of a military dictatorship. This is the process through which the Pakistani civil society and politicians got rid of Pervez Musharraf and this is the process Bangladeshi civil society and politicians have to master, if they intend to get rid of military dictatorships.

Lesson # 4: The first thing military dictators do on taking over the State is to suspend or severely curtail existing laws and legal systems replacing them with such legal devices as emergency power rules, ordinances, special tribunals etc. One consequence of this is that military personnel who are paid just enough by the State to lead a life of "genteel poverty" create and use opportunities to enrich themselves by all sorts of corruption and since the military in State power is not answerable and accountable to anyone except themselves, military personnel often get away with such corruption. The regime itself indulges in corruption by buying up collaborators in politics, business, media and academicia by providing money or other privileges. This coterie of vested interest then supports the military dictator in perpetuating his hold on State power. Such regimes can sometimes be so rapaciously kleptocratic as to reduce the polity and its populace to abject penury or poverty. At the least, corruption is endemic in military dictatorships as is evident from Pakistan under Musharraf and Bangladesh under Ershad and now under a military-backed Emergency. The only way to get out of this is to ensure that democratic movements and governments which often replace military dictatorships do not post-facto legitimize such dictators but declare them unlawful and punish dictators and their collaborators.

This has gotten a mite lengthy and I have to end it here today but stay tuned as next Monday we will continue with our dissection of military dictators and see why and how they rely on foreign powers to shore-up their regimes.

Is the train on the right track?

Is the train on the right track?
Husain Imam
Source: Daily Star
August 25, 2008

THE time is probably ripe to assess whether the caretaker government of Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed has been, as promised, able to lift the derailed political train of Bangladesh from the abyss and put it on the right track. If you ask me, the answer is yes, the answer is no.

Yes, because it has, by preparing a fairly accurate voter list and holding four city corporation and nine pourashava elections successfully, set in motion the much needed electoral process.

No, because the people are still not sure whether the train is on the right track that will take it to its ultimate destination -- the parliament building at Manik Mia Avenue. Even if it is on the right track, one is not sure whether the train will be able to reach its destination without having the borjis (bandits) back on board. The reasons are simple:

One: Despite the fact that the chief adviser, the army chief and the chief election commissioner have time and again reassured the public that the national election will be held by the end of December 2008 at any cost (mori or bachi in the words of the CEC), with hardly four months in hand, people still do not have a clear view of the bogies of the electoral train for national election with their naked eyes.

Two: The government's determination to go ahead with the upazila polls in October this year, before national polls, against the will of the two major parties -- Awami League and BNP -- has not only raised a wall to obscure the electoral scenario of national election, it has also given rise to an air of uncertainty and scepticism about the election.

Three: The bandits, we say godfathers, who were put behind bars (more appropriately in quarantine camp) or kept on the run on charges of wanton corruption, violence, loot, extortion and abuse of state power, now seem to be flexing their muscles to stage a comeback with garlands around their necks and making V-sign with their fingers, thanks to the handling, or should we say mishandling, of the cases. Forgive me if I am wrong.

Let's take stock of the situation. The government, the Election Commission and the armed forces have done an excellent job in preparing a fairly accurate voter list with photos, and thus fulfilled one of their prime responsibilities as a caretaker government.

They have also, to their full credit, separated the judiciary from the executive, reconstituted the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), the Election Commission (EC), the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the Public Service Commission (PSC).

The rest are sad stories. The much talked about political reform hasn't met with any success. The attempt to change the top leadership of the two political parties who ruled the country over the last 15 years has backfired.

The possibility of emergence of a third political force to the liking of the caretaker government or the civil society has remained as bleak as it was before. Qualitative change in political culture remains a distant cry.

Administrative reform is not even on the agenda anymore. Electoral reform has not progressed as expected. Even the question of registration of the political parties is still uncertain.

To talk or think about a congenial atmosphere for a free, fair and credible election under emergency rules is bound to receive a mixed reaction from many a quarter at home and abroad. The idea of balancing Awami League with BNP in order to ensure a level playing field was ridiculous.

The anti-corruption drive, the only reason, other than preparation of a correct voter list with photos, that had given the present caretaker government the legitimacy by the people to run the country under emergency rules and extend their tenure well beyond their constitutionally mandated period of 90 days, seems to have run into trouble, if not disarray.

Setting up of a Truth and Accountability Commission (TAC) at the fag end of the tenure of the government to ease the burden on the judiciary in handling the innumerable graft cases filed by the ACC, and the response of the higher courts to the appeals against the verdicts of the lower courts are manifestations of the case in point.

The general people thought that the anti-corruption drive of the caretaker government would reduce corruption, lessen their harassment at the hands of the government agencies, lower the prices of essentials and utility services, and bring about some comfort in their daily life. That did not happen.

According to a TIB survey report, corruption has decreased in the upper level, thanks to the ACC and other agencies for their relentless effort and courageous steps, but it has increased in the middle and lower levels of administration, directly affecting the common people.

On top of it, the spiralling prices of food and other essential items, reaching far beyond the buying capacity of middle and lower income groups, shrinking of employment opportunities, and acute and persistent crisis of water, electricity and fertiliser have made both the farmers and the general public less and less interested in the reform measures of the caretaker government.

The people are no longer prepared to accept that all these problems are not the making of the incumbent government, nor are they willing to understand that most of these problems are the legacy of the most corrupt and anti-people governments of the past.

They are no more interested to know that the prices food, fuel and other essential items have gone to an all-time high in the international market in the recent months, nor are they willing to listen to the argument that the government had very little leverage in their hands to control the internal market price in an open market economy.

To be frank, despite the fact that the sad episodes of corruption, violence, repression and abject abuse of power of the past government still haunt their memories as nightmares, they have begun to believe that running the affairs of a country is not the task of an un-elected non-political government. They have begun to think that the earlier the caretaker government holds national election and hands over power to a truly representative elected government the better it will be.
______________________
Captain Husain Imam is a freelance contributor to The Daily Star.

Musharraf's exit: Lessons for them and us

Musharraf's exit: Lessons for them and us
Mahfuz Anam
Source: Daily Star
August 20, 2008

The most obvious and truly heartening meaning of Pervez Musharraf's ouster is that democracy is the best form of government and it is the only one that people prefer. There have often been talks of this or that country, or people not being ready for democracy. Such views are archaic, self-serving and devoid of all lessons of history. People everywhere prefer freedom and the political system that has been found, over and over again, to fulfill that irrepressible aspiration of the people is democracy. However, flawed democracy was and remains the best option for people everywhere. A lesson that we in Bangladesh have learnt the hard way and one that we are determined to preserve under all circumstances.

The other meaning, and of far reaching consequence for people everywhere is that military dictatorship cannot deliver and is not a sustainable option for countries anywhere in the world. Pakistan has proven once again, if proof was at all necessary, that military rulers however smart, efficient, modern, organised and well meaning (and they sometimes are) ultimately fail, and miserably so, to live up to the expectation of the people. Sometimes, if not rarely, they begin well. But ultimately it all ends in disaster as it also happened in Musharraf's case. In addition to curtailing freedom what military dictatorships end up doing is distorting institutions --administrative, financial and supervisory -- including their own. The most efficient of military ends up being corrupt and as such destroy themselves from within. And it all happens because they enjoy power and authority without being held accountable, which corrodes the discipline that is the lifeblood of a genuine military.

Pakistan should serve as the greatest example of how a country's stride into maturity was repeatedly thwarted by self-serving military charlatans. Each time a military dictator came, he promised to make Pakistan stronger and left it weaker and debilitated in every sense of the term. General Ayub Khan (1958-69) created the over-centralised, elitist and insensitive (of people's needs) bureaucracy that widened the rich-poor gap. Fatally it created economic disparity between the two wings of the country and laid the economic foundation of its bifurcation. Gen Yahya (1969-1971) presided over the genocide of the Bangalees and created the ground for Pakistan's immediate destruction. Gen Ziaul Huq (1977-1988) ravaged whatever was left of the original spirit of Pakistan by unleashing the obscurantist forces that might yet ring the death knell of whatever is left. Finally, Gen Musharraf destroyed Pakistan's democratic recovery by staging a coup under the most indefensible of all circumstances --that of saving his own job. In the name of "war on terror" he made Pakistan a backyard for Taliban and safe haven for al-Qaeda. Never has Pakistan been under such dark cloud of religious extremism as it is now. His selfishness and arrogance crossed all limits when he all but destroyed Pakistan's highest judiciary just to cling to power.

If there is a single factor that can be blamed for the gradual destruction of Pakistan it is the repeated military takeover of the state power.

Pakistan's sad story began with another general, Iskandar Mirza, who, back in mid-fifties manipulated himself into the presidency, and then colluded with Gen Ayub Khan to stage the coup, simply to prevent holding of the first-ever general election in Pakistan, scheduled for February 1958. If that election was held, Pakistan's history might well have been far happier.

While the generals in Pakistan were playing havoc with the country, what were the politicians doing? That is another lesson from Musharraf's departure that we need to think of today. Who opened the door for Maj Gen Iskandar Mirza to come to power? Who prevented the adoption of a constitution in Pakistan till 1956 (Pakistan was born in 1947)? Who planned with Gen Ayub to abrogate it in 1958, lest Awami League, led by Shaheed Suhrawardy, comes to power through the ballot? It can be said that two thoughts guided the politicians of Pakistan from 1947 to Ayub's coup. One was to prevent holding of the elections as long as possible and two, to deprive leaders of the eastern wing to have any share of power. (Suhrawardy's cabinet in 1957 was a honourable exception, which was brought down within 13 months of its taking office).

After December 1971, with the civilian rule returning, elections held, and with the lesson of Bangladesh liberation fresh in the mind, people hoped that Pakistan would embark on its journey towards democracy. But Zulfiqur Ali Bhutto turned into a tyrant. Under him the opposition was so oppressed that it ultimately took to streets, making the fatal opening for the much-humiliated Gen Ziaul Huq (The supremely arrogant Bhutto used to call him "My monkey general”) to stage his coup.

Both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were elected twice and twice they were forced out of power through civilian-military connivance but not without a widespread reputation of corruption. Benazir's husband, now Pakistan's kingmaker, Asif Ali Zardari, was widely known as "Mr. Ten Percent" under Benazir's premiership. It was Nawaz Sharif's father known as "Abba Ji" who ruled the roost during Nawaz's tenure, not to mention Nawaz's brother Shahbaz Sharif (Chief Minister of Punjab) and his wide network of family members and cronies who joined in the loot. It was corruption, nepotism and cronyism that defeated both the twice-elected Pakistani leaders.

While we rejoice at Pakistan's renewed opportunity to take to the democratic path, the facts cannot be lost on neither the people of Pakistan nor their well-wishers in the Saarc countries that Mr. Zardari's reputation leave a lot of us nervous as to his commitment to democracy. How can we forget that the Presidency of Pakistan's most popular party, the Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP), was bequeath to a minor son, as if it was personal property like a land or a house to be inherited through a will. And in line with Nawabs and Zamindars of the past, a Regent has also been willed, to look after the 'throne' till the minor son is ready to take over fully. So the father, reviled as one of the most corrupt men in the country, is to run the party till then. The leaders and the workers who worked for years risking their lives against the military rule of Musharraf had no say as to who the party's leader will be. The message is clear, lest anybody has any doubt, that Pakistan Peoples' Party is the personal property of the Bhutto family to be given away as an inheritance. Now that really sounds like the party to bring democracy to Pakistan.

If we are to blame the military dictators for the destruction of democracy in Pakistan, the politicians need to share a significant part of the blame. And here lies some crucial lessons for us in Bangladesh. If the colonels who assassinated Bangabandhu, and Gen Ziaur Rahman and Gen Ershad are guilty of bringing the military into politics in Bangladesh, our politicians are also guilty of failing to consolidate, institutionalise and deepen the roots of democracy in the country. Sheikh Mujib did not have to introduce BKSAL. Sheikh Hasina did not have to damage the economy through hartals and weaken the parliament through years of boycott. Khaleda Zia did not have to set up her son to 'inherit' the throne and the other one to gobble up business of others. She needn't have set up the most corrupt regime ever by an elected government. As the leader of two-thirds majority in the parliament she did not need the likes of Harris, Falu, Babar, and hordes of others like them. She did not have to make her sister a minister and allow her two brothers to interfere in the army and in the national airlines, the Biman.

Not withstanding many differences (our tradition of democratic movement is stronger, people are far more aware of their rights, we have better social indicators, and our military today is far different from that of Pakistan and they are far more respectful of democracy and need for elected government than Pakistan army ever was), just as Pakistan looks forward to democracy, so do we. Just as in Pakistan where the two old parties, the PPP and the Muslim League, are set to resume their roles in politics, in Bangladesh, our two major parties, the Awami League and the BNP, are set to regain their dominance in our politics following the elections later this year. The question here is, just as in Pakistan, will our politicians rise to the occasion and play their patriotic and nation-building role so that the likelihood of military dictatorship is forever banished from our realm of possibility?

Musharraf’s gamble

Musharraf’s gamble
William B Milam
Source: Daily Times
August 20, 2008

Who is gambling on this saga ending as Casablanca did, with Rick feeling that he has done the right thing for a greater good, joining Renault who has sacrificed his security for the same greater good, walking into the sunset together to fight for a better world

Captain Renault’s celebrated exclamation, “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here,” has been used a lot recently, especially in articles about the implosion of financial markets in the US and Western Europe. Writers have been “shocked” they say to find that the great, and trusted, investment wizards have been gambling with the public’s money. The gamble really was that the housing bubble, the rapid escalation of house prices in the US and Europe would continue, and the shaky financial instruments on which the bubble was based, would persist in escaping close inspection, at least until the next bonuses were paid.

They didn’t, the bubble has burst, and so maybe have the bonuses.

Captain Renault, Chief of the French Police, wasn’t really shocked, however, about the gambling in “Rick’s Café Americain”, he just needed an excuse to close the café. Almost as soon as he blows his whistle and shouts that the café is closed, the croupier comes from the back room to give him his nightly winnings. Like most of us who have implicitly had a role in today’s financial market crunch by continuing to pour our investment money into a housing market we had to know was wildly overpriced, so the Captain was complicit in the gambling that he found, publicly, so shocking.

Movie fans have instantly recognised Renault’s famous line from the movie “Casablanca”, released in November 1942, about the same time that the US Army was invading Morocco and capturing Casablanca, putting German General Rommel in a pincer between them and the British forces that by then had pushed the German Afrika Korps back into Libya. The movie did moderately good business in the year following as the battles in North Africa raged — the first blooding of American troops in the European theatre in WWII.

Yet though unmarked as a classic 65 years ago, the movie has assumed that status over the intervening years as it has become an icon of all the nostalgia about the good war — delivering the message to American audiences that there are values worth the sacrifices that war requires. Somehow the film’s attraction has been magnified to younger generations, which have taken it to their hearts as its contemporaries never did. None of its stars or makers would have predicted in 1942 that, 65 years later, it would consistently be rated by fans and many critics near the top of the 100 best movies ever made.

One interesting fact about the movie is that it was, more or less, made on the run. Taken from an unproduced play, it had at least four screen writers that worked on it in addition to the two playwrights. To say the least, this was a team effort. The writers, not always working together, wrote new dialogue every night for the next day’s filming. Yet, haphazardly written or not, I know of no other movie dialogue that is recorded almost in its entirety on the internet, and which movie crowds at revivals shout out many of the lines as they are spoken. Most of us real movie fans can push mute button on the remote and speak most of the dialogue from memory.

Despite its ad hoc production, the film became a classic. This may have been why the news from Pakistan reminded me of it. Or it may have been because once the film came into my mind, I was reminded of Captain Renault’s phoney surprise that gambling was going on in Rick’s back room, and wondered if anybody was really surprised at the turn of events in Islamabad. There has been a lot of gambling going on in the political back rooms of Islamabad since February 18.

The president was, perhaps, gambling that he could count on the army as his leverage in the political tug-of-war that was waged over how to get rid of him. I have pointed out before that the army has other concerns than just personal loyalty to “one of its own”. Similar history in other countries never seems to register in Pakistan, but the lesson of what happened to President/ex-General Ershad in Bangladesh should have been instructive.

When the Bangladesh army perceived that its corporate interests were threatened and its image so badly tarnished by the excesses and mistakes of one of its own, it walked away and left him to his fate (jail). By the time the situation had come to that point, Ershad had no leverage left to insist on immunity.

In the last 18 months, the situation in Pakistan has paralleled in many ways Ershad’s last 18 months in power. Though more unpopular by far than President Musharraf in his early years in power, Ershad became increasingly unpopular in the final years, as Musharraf increasingly has since 9/11. The army’s popularity traced Ershad’s, to the point that troops and officers refused to wear their uniforms when leaving the cantonments because they were suffering public insults and even being spat on. When the leaders of the two major parties of Bangladesh, after 8 years of enmity that enabled Ershad to keep them divided, finally agreed on a one-point programme — get rid of Ershad — his only defence to the pressure the parties jointly mounted was an emergency which the army refused to support.

Musharraf’s final defence against the lawyers and the judges he sacked was the November 3 emergency (in essence a coup against his own government) which only got him and the army in more hot water. The question is, did President Musharraf still have enough leverage (i.e. army support) left to protect him from political reprisals in retirement or, like Ershad, did he gamble too long on that?

The news that he has announced retirement is just coming in as this is written, and it does not make clear if he is leaving office with any kind of immunity or other legal protection from his sworn political enemies. Whether he deserves to be left alone in retirement, or to be brought up on charges similar to those in the charge-sheet we have read about the past few days in the press, is a question better left to a time when the rhetoric and the passions have cooled down. He made many mistakes; that is certain.

One of them is the long, drawn-out drama — really part of each of our mornings since February 18 — that is just coming to denouement. Though retirement itself, rather that restoring the judges, only became the central issue in the past two weeks, it has been the bottom line issue since he was rejected in that election.

The president should have come to this point himself several months ago. Had he done so, I suspect there would be no question of his leverage. The army leaders, many of whom were his willing colleagues until late last year when he finally resigned as COAS, would have not wanted to leave him (and by implication, them) without protection from those political actors who might seek revenge for grievances they hold against either the direct military government of 1999 to 2002 or the military/civilian hybrid one after October 2002.

It seems to me his gamble got riskier as the impasse between the parties on restoring the judges went on — almost causing the government alliance to crumble.

For the army leaders in either case, the question is what happens to the political alliance that has unseated President Musharraf after he is gone to his farm with immunity and the protection he will need or somewhere without immunity. Who is gambling on this saga ending as Casablanca did, with Rick feeling that he has done the right thing for a greater good, joining Renault who has sacrificed his security for the same greater good, walking into the sunset together to fight for a better world.

What are the odds on the PMLN saying to the PPP, as Rick says to Renault as they walk out of view, “...this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship?” Is it likely that two parties which seem to agree on nothing else, which couldn’t even find a compromise formula to restore some, if not all, of the judges and begin to restore the judiciary’s independence set out in the constitution of 1973 (eroded by both parties when they were in power since then) will come to anything like the same conclusion?

The President’s departure was necessary for political progress, but I doubt it will be sufficient for Pakistan to overcome its existential crisis.
______________
William B Milam is a senior policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Centre in Washington and a former US Ambassador to Pakistan and Bangladesh