Bangladesh rulers kind to prisoners?
By Rater Zonaki
Source: UPI Asia On-line
September 9, 2008
Hong Kong, China — Many critics blame the current military-controlled government of Bangladesh for excessively abusing human rights, especially gross human rights violations during the state of emergency. The more the authorities are disinterested in accepting this reality, the greater is the attempt by human rights defenders and the media to criticize the government.
Many people seem to be too critical of the government all the time, which is rather unfair. However, government authorities, in all fairness, have taken some noble decisions against people and parties involved in abusing human rights. Some stories of government "kindness" deserve attention.
Since the state of emergency began, the government has been "kind" to the people of Bangladesh. They detained around 200 top politicians and businessmen and managed to lodge complaints against targeted politicians filed by public institutions and private individuals. Some were even prosecuted by a special anti-corruption tribunal.
Related to this is the case of Bangladesh Awami League general secretary Abdul Jalil, who was arrested on May 28, 2007 by the armed forces and detained without any charge throughout the year until implicated in a graft case lodged by the Anti-Corruption Commission on Dec. 18 with the Ramna police station. On Jan. 1, 2008, he was shown as arrested. While in detention, Jalil feel ill, which prompted a group of medical doctors to suggest that he be released to seek treatment abroad.
Then, the government appeared to be "kind" to the veteran politician by considering his case on humanitarian grounds and, on March 2, 2008, released him on parole without any formal intervention from the court, which could grant bail considering his health condition and subsequent requirements. Although the initial release order was for one month, it was extended to six after several requests by Jalil’s relatives.
Former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was arrested on July 16, 2007 and detained in a "sub-jail" with a number of graft cases against her. She had injured her ear and eye in a grenade attack during a public meeting in Dhaka on Aug. 21, 2004. While she was in detention, a group of doctors and members of a medical board formed by the government suggested that she travel to the United States for certain treatment that was not available any other place in the world.
This "kindness" of the government was exposed when it decided to release Hasina by an "executive order" instead of a judicial order. The initial release order was only for eight weeks, but was extended by a month following a request on behalf of the former prime minister. On Sept. 4, the government set a new record for its "kindness" by spontaneously extending the release order of Hasina for an additional month in the absence of any application or official request from anyone.
Mohammad Nasim, a former minister, was convicted by a special corruption tribunal and sentenced to 13 years imprisonment on Oct. 8, 2007 in a graft case. Another tribunal convicted him for three years for concealing information related to his wealth in a report submitted to the Anti-Corruption Commission. Recently he suffered a brain stroke and was admitted to a private hospital in Dhaka. On Aug. 15, 2008, the government released him so that he could seek treatment abroad, making it the first ever instance of a convicted person released to seek medical treatment abroad.
The mere suggestion by medical doctors to take someone abroad for treatment raises question about the credibility, standard and impartiality of the country's health professionals.
In the prisons of Bangladesh, dozens of convicted or prisoners under trial are seriously sick and many die while still in prison. For example, in 2006, around 52 prisoners died due to various reasons including health-related issues, according to credible reports. However, these poor people always fail to attract the "kind" attention of the government before their death. In all cases, prison authorities issue a press release or comment when contacted, which states that the person fell sick while in prison and so the prison staff took the person to a hospital where doctors declared him dead. All stories of death in prison have similar ends.
The same authorities that release rich and influential persons from prison without any legal papers exercise double standards toward the poor. They never feel that poor prisoners who are sick need to receive medical treatment either in the prison itself or in a public hospital. Existing laws are either flawed or do not apply to poor prisoners.
Authorities should realize and ensure that laws are applied equally toward all citizens, regardless of their social status and financial condition. Releasing prisoners on humanitarian grounds without proper legal and medical documents raises serious questions about the abuse of governmental power.
Misusing power is a clear violation of Art. 27 of the country's constitution, which enshrines the right to equal treatment before the law.
____________________________
(Rater Zonaki is the pseudonym of a human rights defender based in Hong Kong working at the Asian Human Rights Commission. He is a Bangladeshi national with a degree in literature from a university in Dhaka. He began his career as a journalist in 1990 and engaged in human rights activism at the grassroots level in his country for more than a decade. He also worked as an editor for publications on human rights and socio-cultural issues and contributed to other similar publications.)
Showing posts with label Fakhruddin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fakhruddin. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Monday, September 8, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Emergency Rule will not be lifted
The army backed interim government of Bangladesh insists that emergency rule will be in force during the national election in December. The political parties, human rights activists and international observers demand the immediate withdrawal of the emergency power for creating a congenial condition favorable for election and a smooth transition to democracy in Bangladesh. The recent statement by the LGRD Adviser rules out any possibility of lifting emergency rules by the military government during the election time. Daily Star reports,
LGRD and Cooperatives Adviser Anwarul Iqbal yesterday said the parliamentary elections, stalled for about 18 months, would be held under the state of emergency.
"The polls will surely be held under the state of emergency," he told journalists at the secretariat replying to a query whether the caretaker government intends to hold the national election under emergency.
He, however, hinted that if necessary, the Emergency Power Rules (EPR) might be relaxed.
Iqbal's remarks came a day after the European Union (EU) parliament member Nirj Deva, who held talks with Awami League (AL) leaders on Wednesday, said the state of emergency in Bangladesh remains a matter of concern for them as the EU don't send observers during elections in any country where the emergency is in force.
When asked to comment on the matter, the adviser said, "Since discussions between the EU and the Election Commission (EC) are going on, there won't be any problem," he told reporters.
The adviser said everyone in the country and abroad welcomed holding of the local government polls under emergency.
He said the government was willing to hold the elections under emergency from the beginning.
"It's not a big matter who is saying what about this," he said adding that none of the candidates in the just concluded local body polls complained about holding elections under the emergency.
"We also told the political parties during dialogue to come up with suggestions on further relaxation of emergency,” the adviser said.
But major political parties, including AL and BNP have been pressing for complete withdrawal of emergency before parliamentary elections scheduled to be held in the third week of December.
After Monday's local body polls, the chief election commissioner and the advisers to the caretaker government has been hinting about holding the national elections under emergency.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Time not ripe for lifting emergency in Bangladesh
Time not ripe for lifting emergency: CA
Source: The Bangladesh Today
July 21, 2008
Chief Adviser Dr Fakhruddin Ahmed on Monday said the time is not yet ripe for fully lifting the state of emergency, as some reasons still stand that "justify its enforcement".(The Bangladesh Today)
"We want to proceed towards complete withdrawal of the state of emergency by relaxing it in phases. Our experience will tell what needs to be done," he told reporters at the circuit house in response to queries about outcome of the national dialogue and current political issues.
His latest statement apparently rules out demands from political parties for immediate lifting of the emergency so they could politically prepare for the coming elections. The head of the caretaker government made it clear that the state of emergency was declared for special reasons-and some of the reasons still exist.
However, he said the emergency has been eased on the eve of the city corporation and municipality elections to allow electioneering. In this context, he said, "We will evaluate the experience of the people and the candidates about the local elections in this situation."
Asked about detained ex-PM and BNP chairperson Khaleda Zia's release, the Chief Adviser cited a government notification that expressed government's intention about her release for treatment at home and abroad.
"That process is still on. Everything is on track-release is possible. Release can take place by combining the legal and humanitarian aspects," he noted.
Asked about BNP participation in the political dialogue, which is all but complete, Dr Fakhruddin said, "We want participation of all parties in the dialogue and we want to go to elections along with all."
Asked if the caretaker government wants to neutralize political party activities by keeping the emergency in force, the Chief Adviser denied, saying: "We do not want to neutralize political activities and we don't have such intention as the caretaker government is not rival to any party."
He said political parties are necessary for flourishing democracy, but political parties should act taking into consideration people's aspirations.
Asked about the local polls contested by old faces with allegations of serious offenses, he said law is the yardstick to determine who is eligible or ineligible for election. He hoped political parties would field honest and competent candidates in the elections.
He observed that voters' duty is to cast their votes while duties of the caretaker government and the election commission are to ensure an atmosphere where voters can vote without any fear. "The government is determined to do its duty."
To another question, the Chief Adviser said the Election Commission has already planned to hold election to Upazila Parishads in phases before and after the general election.
About the mode of future government, balance of power and amendment to the Constitution, Dr Fakhruddin said a Constitution Commission could be formed so it can make recommendations on these subjects and keep those for the future elected government and parliament for consideration.
About national charter he had indicated in his address to the nation, the Chief Adviser said the government and political parties reached some consensus on some issues through the staggered political dialogue. He hoped a framework could be presented before the nation at the conclusion of the dialogue.
Asked if the anti-graft drive slows down in the wake of release of some top politicians facing corruption cases, the Chief Adviser said the government has not drifted away from its mission. Those who are accused were brought under the legal process, some trials were completed, some under trial and some investigations were at final stages.
"In some cases, decisions were taken considering humanitarian grounds as well as overall aspect. But we won't admit that we've been detracted from curbing corruption."
About the Truth Commission, he said the formation of the Commission is at the final stage and it would start functioning within weeks.
Source: The Bangladesh Today
July 21, 2008
Chief Adviser Dr Fakhruddin Ahmed on Monday said the time is not yet ripe for fully lifting the state of emergency, as some reasons still stand that "justify its enforcement".(The Bangladesh Today)
"We want to proceed towards complete withdrawal of the state of emergency by relaxing it in phases. Our experience will tell what needs to be done," he told reporters at the circuit house in response to queries about outcome of the national dialogue and current political issues.
His latest statement apparently rules out demands from political parties for immediate lifting of the emergency so they could politically prepare for the coming elections. The head of the caretaker government made it clear that the state of emergency was declared for special reasons-and some of the reasons still exist.
However, he said the emergency has been eased on the eve of the city corporation and municipality elections to allow electioneering. In this context, he said, "We will evaluate the experience of the people and the candidates about the local elections in this situation."
Asked about detained ex-PM and BNP chairperson Khaleda Zia's release, the Chief Adviser cited a government notification that expressed government's intention about her release for treatment at home and abroad.
"That process is still on. Everything is on track-release is possible. Release can take place by combining the legal and humanitarian aspects," he noted.
Asked about BNP participation in the political dialogue, which is all but complete, Dr Fakhruddin said, "We want participation of all parties in the dialogue and we want to go to elections along with all."
Asked if the caretaker government wants to neutralize political party activities by keeping the emergency in force, the Chief Adviser denied, saying: "We do not want to neutralize political activities and we don't have such intention as the caretaker government is not rival to any party."
He said political parties are necessary for flourishing democracy, but political parties should act taking into consideration people's aspirations.
Asked about the local polls contested by old faces with allegations of serious offenses, he said law is the yardstick to determine who is eligible or ineligible for election. He hoped political parties would field honest and competent candidates in the elections.
He observed that voters' duty is to cast their votes while duties of the caretaker government and the election commission are to ensure an atmosphere where voters can vote without any fear. "The government is determined to do its duty."
To another question, the Chief Adviser said the Election Commission has already planned to hold election to Upazila Parishads in phases before and after the general election.
About the mode of future government, balance of power and amendment to the Constitution, Dr Fakhruddin said a Constitution Commission could be formed so it can make recommendations on these subjects and keep those for the future elected government and parliament for consideration.
About national charter he had indicated in his address to the nation, the Chief Adviser said the government and political parties reached some consensus on some issues through the staggered political dialogue. He hoped a framework could be presented before the nation at the conclusion of the dialogue.
Asked if the anti-graft drive slows down in the wake of release of some top politicians facing corruption cases, the Chief Adviser said the government has not drifted away from its mission. Those who are accused were brought under the legal process, some trials were completed, some under trial and some investigations were at final stages.
"In some cases, decisions were taken considering humanitarian grounds as well as overall aspect. But we won't admit that we've been detracted from curbing corruption."
About the Truth Commission, he said the formation of the Commission is at the final stage and it would start functioning within weeks.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
All set to free Bangladesh
All set to free Bangladesh
By PAUL GABRIEL
Source: The Star Online
July 20, 2008
Dr Fakhruddin Ahmed, Chief Adviser to the Interim Caretaker Government of Bangladesh, has an enormous task ahead as his administration strives to ensure a free and fair general election this December.
Dr Fakhruddin has strived to put things in order by leading an anti-graft campaign in a country widely perceived as being among the world’s most corrupt. His caretaker administration has the responsibility of preparing one of the world’s largest Muslim democracies for a watershed general election, which it vows will take place this December.
In an exclusive interview with Sunday Star during a recent visit to Kuala Lumpur, Dr Fakhruddin, a noted Bangladeshi economist who once headed the Central Bank, spoke about his unique position and the challenges leading up to the scheduled December polls.
Politics has remained virtually frozen in Bangladesh since you assumed your caretaker role in Jan 2007. Many say the situation on the ground is still as volatile as ever. What is the actual state of affairs in Bangladesh?
I don’t think that politics is frozen in Bangladesh. If you read the newspapers, you will find that political leaders from different parties are making statements, organising meetings. Yes, there are certain laws and rules that really restricted some activities, but the Government has relaxed many of these rules. In fact, there have been large conferences organised by political parties in Dhaka, where they brought in people from outside the capital. In some areas, the Election Commission has announced the municipal council election schedule. So, the political scene is vibrant.
There are 150 million people in your country who expect a fresh start for Bangladesh in December when the general election is planned. But are conditions for free and fair elections, as you have promised, in place? Are you anywhere near that point at all?
Well, we are working towards that, both the Government and the Election Commission. Conditions for free, fair and credible elections can be held. There are a couple of things here - one is a voter list with photographs. That was the demand of many political parties, the people in general and members of civil society. For the past year or so, the Election Commission has been engaged in that task and they are about to complete it. It is a voter list that will include 80 million plus voters.
The Election Commission, in consultation with political parties, members of civil society, and other professional bodies, has also drafted the electoral law, rules, (and) even a code of conduct that will guide the electoral process. Basically, the conditions are being created for free, fair and credible elections.
So you are able to guarantee that the elections will take place as scheduled?
Yes. I do believe and can assure you, as I have assured my people that come December, elections will be held as earlier announced.
Is it a totally fresh voter’s list with 80 million photographs?
Absolutely. It is a totally fresh list where people came forward to be registered. What the Election Commission did was to prepare a voter's list that will have photographs of the voters against their names. In addition to the voter’s list, the people who came forward are also being issued with ID cards. This has also created a lot of enthusiasm among the people, that they are getting an ID card. As you will appreciate, this has been quite a tremendous task, and this was done using the most modern technology where the people were registered and their photographs taken at the same time.
What other electoral reforms have your caretaker administration introduced?
I have mentioned the institutional reforms ? the Election Commission, an independent judiciary. These are necessary if you are going to have a good, free and fair election. And secondly, some of the basic electoral laws, rules and regulations are being amended. But those are being led primarily by the Election Commission, which has decided that they require each political party to be registered and then work under certain parameters. That will bring in, shall we say, greater transparency to the activities of the political parties. This is also part of our democratisation. The Government is giving the Election Commission help. This is something that was demanded by the people even before the caretaker government came to power.
What do you say to critics who doubt that under existing circumstances in Bangladesh, democracy could never take root? Even many Bangladeshis are doubtful about the future of democracy in their country.
Democracy is an institution and form of government that we have chosen. There is no better alternative to democracy. Democracy is also a process. Elections are a necessary condition for democracy, but it is not a sufficient condition. Also, there needs to be, shall we say, a strong institutional base to sustain the democracy. And some of those bases are an independent Election Commission, judiciary, Anti-Corruption Commission and an independent Public Service Commission that recruits people on merit.
There are other institutional set-ups and arrangements, like we are now finalising a Right to Information Act, which would allow our citizens to demand information from the Government, various departments and ministries, down to the lower levels. These are strong institutions that will really provide the firm foundation for democracy. So there is no reason and there is nothing for me to doubt that democracy cannot be established. It has to be and it will be.
Going back to the elections, how many parties will be contesting? Is the boycott still in force by the main Opposition parties? Will this be a setback to your efforts?
Let me first say that the caretaker government is a neutral government. We believe that political parties are necessary to practise democracy. That is why the Election Commission is taking action so that the political parties can really develop in an environment that's more transparent than before.
How many political parties are going to participate? It will be our utmost effort that all the political parties, which the Election Commission has registered and say can participate, will participate. That is under the purview of the Election Commission. But as far as the government is concerned, we will try our best to get every political party to come forward and participate. We want a level playing field for all political parties and want to see fair and credible elections.
So you do not foresee a situation of too few political parties taking part?
I personally do not foresee that because I think all the parties are interested in a free, fair and credible election. And if we can demonstrate that conditions have been created for free, fair and credible elections, I will argue that all the political parties will participate.
Will the two main political rivals, former Prime Ministers Khaleda Zia, who is from the Bangladesh National Party which is the immediate past ruling party, and Sheikh Hasina who heads the Awami League, be contesting?
Ultimately they will have to decide whether they want to contest or not. And it's for the Election Commission to decide according to the laws of the land whether they can contest. If you look at what’s happening with the local council and municipal elections, they are going through that process. The Election Commission has invited nominations and are scrutinising nomination papers as we speak, whether the parties that have submitted nomination papers are fit to seek election under laws and rules of the commission. So that’s a clear, transparent process.
There are those who describe you as the civilian face of the military in Bangladesh. There are questions as to whether you are speaking up for the military or for the people. Are you actually standing up for what the people of Bangladesh want?
I would very much like to state that - yes. We are not a government by the people, but definitely a government for the people. Some of the reforms we have undertaken have been in the interest of sustainable democracy. This is in line with the wishes of the political parties and the people.
In our economic policies too, we have kept poverty alleviation and economic prudence absolutely on top of the agenda of reforms. I very much want to repeat that definitely we are a government of the people.
What about allegations that your caretaker administration has beaten up and thrown protesters into jail, moved against teachers and students who are unhappy with the situation, and stifled the independence of the press?
I don’t think we have moved against any specific groups or protesters. Whenever certain people were apprehended, it has been done under certain laws of the land. It is not because we didn’t allow or do not like to allow any protest.
If you look at what’s happening in the press right from day one, we have been saying that the press and media are free. If you look at the Bangladesh media today, I think I can very well argue and claim that it is as free as anytime in the past. If you look at the television and print media, you will find that they are criticising the government on various counts. They are able to express their free opinions.
So, basically we have not done anything to stop protests or take action against any particular group. But, obviously, if somebody takes law and order into their own hands, then the law of the land should be applied.
What is it like being a caretaker Head of Government?
I never think whether we are a caretaker government or not. I just keep on moving, keeping the goals in view and the goal that elections will be held and that this government will hand over power according to the schedule already announced.
By PAUL GABRIEL
Source: The Star Online
July 20, 2008
Dr Fakhruddin Ahmed, Chief Adviser to the Interim Caretaker Government of Bangladesh, has an enormous task ahead as his administration strives to ensure a free and fair general election this December.
Dr Fakhruddin has strived to put things in order by leading an anti-graft campaign in a country widely perceived as being among the world’s most corrupt. His caretaker administration has the responsibility of preparing one of the world’s largest Muslim democracies for a watershed general election, which it vows will take place this December.
In an exclusive interview with Sunday Star during a recent visit to Kuala Lumpur, Dr Fakhruddin, a noted Bangladeshi economist who once headed the Central Bank, spoke about his unique position and the challenges leading up to the scheduled December polls.
Politics has remained virtually frozen in Bangladesh since you assumed your caretaker role in Jan 2007. Many say the situation on the ground is still as volatile as ever. What is the actual state of affairs in Bangladesh?
I don’t think that politics is frozen in Bangladesh. If you read the newspapers, you will find that political leaders from different parties are making statements, organising meetings. Yes, there are certain laws and rules that really restricted some activities, but the Government has relaxed many of these rules. In fact, there have been large conferences organised by political parties in Dhaka, where they brought in people from outside the capital. In some areas, the Election Commission has announced the municipal council election schedule. So, the political scene is vibrant.
There are 150 million people in your country who expect a fresh start for Bangladesh in December when the general election is planned. But are conditions for free and fair elections, as you have promised, in place? Are you anywhere near that point at all?
Well, we are working towards that, both the Government and the Election Commission. Conditions for free, fair and credible elections can be held. There are a couple of things here - one is a voter list with photographs. That was the demand of many political parties, the people in general and members of civil society. For the past year or so, the Election Commission has been engaged in that task and they are about to complete it. It is a voter list that will include 80 million plus voters.
The Election Commission, in consultation with political parties, members of civil society, and other professional bodies, has also drafted the electoral law, rules, (and) even a code of conduct that will guide the electoral process. Basically, the conditions are being created for free, fair and credible elections.
So you are able to guarantee that the elections will take place as scheduled?
Yes. I do believe and can assure you, as I have assured my people that come December, elections will be held as earlier announced.
Is it a totally fresh voter’s list with 80 million photographs?
Absolutely. It is a totally fresh list where people came forward to be registered. What the Election Commission did was to prepare a voter's list that will have photographs of the voters against their names. In addition to the voter’s list, the people who came forward are also being issued with ID cards. This has also created a lot of enthusiasm among the people, that they are getting an ID card. As you will appreciate, this has been quite a tremendous task, and this was done using the most modern technology where the people were registered and their photographs taken at the same time.
What other electoral reforms have your caretaker administration introduced?
I have mentioned the institutional reforms ? the Election Commission, an independent judiciary. These are necessary if you are going to have a good, free and fair election. And secondly, some of the basic electoral laws, rules and regulations are being amended. But those are being led primarily by the Election Commission, which has decided that they require each political party to be registered and then work under certain parameters. That will bring in, shall we say, greater transparency to the activities of the political parties. This is also part of our democratisation. The Government is giving the Election Commission help. This is something that was demanded by the people even before the caretaker government came to power.
What do you say to critics who doubt that under existing circumstances in Bangladesh, democracy could never take root? Even many Bangladeshis are doubtful about the future of democracy in their country.
Democracy is an institution and form of government that we have chosen. There is no better alternative to democracy. Democracy is also a process. Elections are a necessary condition for democracy, but it is not a sufficient condition. Also, there needs to be, shall we say, a strong institutional base to sustain the democracy. And some of those bases are an independent Election Commission, judiciary, Anti-Corruption Commission and an independent Public Service Commission that recruits people on merit.
There are other institutional set-ups and arrangements, like we are now finalising a Right to Information Act, which would allow our citizens to demand information from the Government, various departments and ministries, down to the lower levels. These are strong institutions that will really provide the firm foundation for democracy. So there is no reason and there is nothing for me to doubt that democracy cannot be established. It has to be and it will be.
Going back to the elections, how many parties will be contesting? Is the boycott still in force by the main Opposition parties? Will this be a setback to your efforts?
Let me first say that the caretaker government is a neutral government. We believe that political parties are necessary to practise democracy. That is why the Election Commission is taking action so that the political parties can really develop in an environment that's more transparent than before.
How many political parties are going to participate? It will be our utmost effort that all the political parties, which the Election Commission has registered and say can participate, will participate. That is under the purview of the Election Commission. But as far as the government is concerned, we will try our best to get every political party to come forward and participate. We want a level playing field for all political parties and want to see fair and credible elections.
So you do not foresee a situation of too few political parties taking part?
I personally do not foresee that because I think all the parties are interested in a free, fair and credible election. And if we can demonstrate that conditions have been created for free, fair and credible elections, I will argue that all the political parties will participate.
Will the two main political rivals, former Prime Ministers Khaleda Zia, who is from the Bangladesh National Party which is the immediate past ruling party, and Sheikh Hasina who heads the Awami League, be contesting?
Ultimately they will have to decide whether they want to contest or not. And it's for the Election Commission to decide according to the laws of the land whether they can contest. If you look at what’s happening with the local council and municipal elections, they are going through that process. The Election Commission has invited nominations and are scrutinising nomination papers as we speak, whether the parties that have submitted nomination papers are fit to seek election under laws and rules of the commission. So that’s a clear, transparent process.
There are those who describe you as the civilian face of the military in Bangladesh. There are questions as to whether you are speaking up for the military or for the people. Are you actually standing up for what the people of Bangladesh want?
I would very much like to state that - yes. We are not a government by the people, but definitely a government for the people. Some of the reforms we have undertaken have been in the interest of sustainable democracy. This is in line with the wishes of the political parties and the people.
In our economic policies too, we have kept poverty alleviation and economic prudence absolutely on top of the agenda of reforms. I very much want to repeat that definitely we are a government of the people.
What about allegations that your caretaker administration has beaten up and thrown protesters into jail, moved against teachers and students who are unhappy with the situation, and stifled the independence of the press?
I don’t think we have moved against any specific groups or protesters. Whenever certain people were apprehended, it has been done under certain laws of the land. It is not because we didn’t allow or do not like to allow any protest.
If you look at what’s happening in the press right from day one, we have been saying that the press and media are free. If you look at the Bangladesh media today, I think I can very well argue and claim that it is as free as anytime in the past. If you look at the television and print media, you will find that they are criticising the government on various counts. They are able to express their free opinions.
So, basically we have not done anything to stop protests or take action against any particular group. But, obviously, if somebody takes law and order into their own hands, then the law of the land should be applied.
What is it like being a caretaker Head of Government?
I never think whether we are a caretaker government or not. I just keep on moving, keeping the goals in view and the goal that elections will be held and that this government will hand over power according to the schedule already announced.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Is Dialogue or Election Date Declaration Appropriate?
Is Dialogue or Election Date Declaration Appropriate To Reduce Uncertainty?
Dr. Abdul Momen
Once again the new game in Dhaka is ‘dialogue or sanglap’-- dialogue with political parties and other interest groups. Have we seen such before? Dialogues of Mannan Bhuiya and Abdul Jalil of 2006 or past dialogues of CTG Advisors that resigned in 2006 are still fresh in our minds. Question is; will it reduce political and economic uncertainty that plagued the country since 1/11 and brought economic disasters, one after another—double-digit inflation, plummeting investment, increase of joblessness, decrease of business confidence, increase of load shedding and water flow disruption and the like. If the objective of the dialogue is to have a ‘managed election’ or ‘to buy time’ for a new adventure, in that case, such dialogues may end in futility. Is it the reason as to why the newly appointed U. S. Ambassador to Bangladesh warned the military not to take additional burden? Are these dialogues prelude to a new adventure?
It is reported that the military intelligence forces have finalized a list of ‘300 acceptable candidates’ in each parliamentary constituency for the ensuing election. The government will do its best to get them elected. Reportedly, this list is composed of politicians of all shades and opinions, former bureaucrats both civil and military, NGO and civil society leaders, journalists, educators and also businessmen. Necessary arrangements will be made so that none outside this ‘acceptable list’ could be elected. More importantly, if there is any chance of a candidate getting elected outside the list, in that case, all popular tools such as corruption, extortion or terrorism cases will be lodged against such candidate to prevent him/her from contesting. If that does not deter him or her, ‘extra judicial killing’ like ‘encounter, heart attacks’ are still available to achieve the desired end. Will such ‘managed parliament’ deliver benefits to the country? Will they authorize all the actions of the current Caretaker government (CTG) of Dr. Ahmed?
Dr. Ahmed repeatedly declared that he is committed to hold election by December 2008 and he would withdraw the ‘state of emergency’ prior to it. But is he really in-charge and if so, why is he reluctant to declare a specific date yet? In earlier governments, for example, during 1975-81, we all knew that General Ziaur Rahman was in-charge of decision making. We knew that during 1982-90, it was General H. M. Ershad, during 1991-96 and again in 2001-2006, it was Begum Khaleda Zia and during 1996-2001, it was Sheikh Hasina in-charge of decision making. They could take decisions, good or bad. But now who is in-charge, which Ahmeds? Is it Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed or Dr. Moeen U. Ahmed or Dr. Iazuddin Ahmed? Or is it General M. A. Matin, the Home Advisor or Lt. Gen. Hasan Mashud Chowdhury, the ACC Chief or the British or the Indian High Commissioners? Or are they all order takers? Does Gen. Moeen U. Ahmed have absolute command and respect? We don’t know.
Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed is an intelligent bureaucrat. He knows that prolonging emergency will discourage both domestic and foreign investment and will create economic hardships in the country. He knows that the major problems of Bangladesh are (1) food shortage and price spiral, (2) energy crisis, (3) ill governance, (4) poor literacy rate, (5) mistrust between political leadership and military generals, (6) large scale unemployment and (7) corruption. Unfortunately, his government other than some lip service in the area of corruption, failed to initiate projects either to reduce energy crisis, or price spiral, or shortages and/or unemployment. Reportedly 30 million Bangladeshis will suffer from food hunger, malnutrition and starvation. His government failed to take necessary steps to evade the impending crisis. Nor he initiated any projects to help improve governance or to reduce illiteracy. More importantly, his only achievement other than creating an office of a 4-star general is ‘corruption jihad’ and it is basically targeted to punish a ‘select group of politicians and businessmen’ to gain cheap popularity. Sadly no effort has been seriously initiated or taken yet to improve the nation’s dysfunctional system to reduce chances of pervasive corruption and misuse of powers (extrajudicial killing, a form of misuse of powers is still not under control). No wonder, his corruption jihad is blamed as politically motivated and therefore, questionable. His administration is aware of it and therefore, they refrained from trying the cases openly and transparently in any legal court under existing laws. He is trying them in Kangaroo courts under emergency rules. Such is a disservice to the nation more so as their high hopes of ‘corruption-free Bangladesh’ have been virtually shattered and raped. Question is; when the emergency will be over, will such cases be declared null and void? Since many of our judges change their minds with the change of powers like weathers, we are afraid; will such corruption jihad be a waste of public resource and futile exercise?
In Bangladesh, there are mainly two camps; one Awami League (AL) and the other anti-Awami League. The anti-AL groups overwhelmingly supported Begum Khaleda Zia to power in 2001. They had high hopes and many thought, she would do well. Unfortunately, her performance was very poor, worse than her own record of 1991-96. Most of her close associates were highly corrupt and greedy unlike the current CTG. Other than her commendable effort of controlling environmentally non-friendly plastic garbage bags and three-wheel baby taxis off limit to Dhaka, her government’s milestones were looting, misappropriation and ill governance. Many of her supporters that were not die-hard BNP were shocked as well. They were shocked when she tried to defraud the nation with a ‘doctored election’. They disapproved her manipulation of appointing her handpicked President Dr. Iazuddin Ahmed (the current President) as Chief Advisor with an evil motive to cheat the election results. Such attempts created fear, mistrust and rejection. Finding no alternatives, her rival the AL party launched a country-wide agitation for a ‘free, fair, non-violent and credible election’. It was supported by moral majority and the public at large. As a result, the BNP-Jamat manipulation did not work and 1/11 became a reality. Dr. Iazuddin Ahmed had to resign as Chief Advisor, and he confessed of his government’s wrong doing and voter fraud or manipulation. A new Caretaker government (CTG) backed by army was installed. AL leader Sheikh Hasina welcomed the new CTG of Fakhruddin Ahmed as people’s victory. Dr. Ahmed took the oath of office to hold a ‘free, fair, non-violent and credible election as soon as possible’. But unfortunately, he was misguided and he is taking too much time to hold an election. Question is; will his election be ‘fair, free and more importantly, credible’?
Those that were anti-AL but not necessarily hardcore BNP also welcomed the military-backed interim Caretaker government of Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed. Although most of the advisors of the CTG are anti-AL and they are all beneficiaries of the past BNP-Jamat government, Khaleda Zia abstained from welcoming the new CTG. For example, Dr. Ahmed who was a retired banker living in Washington D. C. was appointed as the Governor of the Bangladesh Bank by Khaleda Zia. Reportedly, he got the job due to two people; his wife’s elder brother, Enam Ahmed Chowdhury, Khaleda’s Advisor (and then Chairman of Privatization Board) and Dr. Osman Faruq, another World Bank economist who was Khaleda’s Education Minister. General Moeen U. Ahmed was made Army Chief by Khaleda Zia at the advice of Khaleda’s son, Tariq Rahman by bypassing six senior generals. Being beneficiary, they had to compromise. In one end, their ethical and moral minds demand them to punish the looters of the nation i.e. BNP leaders and on the other, such punishment would destroy their own ideological group, i. e, the BNP and anti-AL group, and therefore, they were at a loss. Under such a situation, they could not be straight forward and judicious in their decisions. Therefore, they followed highly complex, non-transparent, discretionary and non-standard approaches creating extreme uncertainty and ambiguity. No one could follow them nor could understand their divergent motives. They moved one step ahead but immediately two steps backward. In fact, they had to devise creative ways and manipulate evidence to punish their targeted ones while causing minimal damage to their own ideological party; i.e. BNP. They tried to balance BNP by eliminating die-hard but corrupt Zia supporters and by encouraging forming a ‘reformed BNP’ party mostly composed of those politicians and ex-bureaucrats that could be easily brought and sold. However, they were hard onto the AL, their perceived-enemy, the party that they dislike. They picked up few corrupt people but left many gurus that support them made their effort questionable.
In addition, they tried to set up new political parties but failed. They used cheap slogan-- ‘political reform’ formula and tried to use ‘stick and carrot’ policy to divide the AL. It also did not succeed much. Now they are using ‘dialogue’ to befool the political parties and the nation. Will that work? However, good news is that finally ‘no dialogue with politicians’ that taboo is over.
Soon they might argue through their opinion leaders that ‘failure of dialogues’ and ‘release of the AL leader Sheikh Hasina and the BNP leader Begum Khaleda Zia’ will lead the nation to a situation prior to 1/11. No one wants to go back to 1/11 and witness a ‘doctored election’ or a ‘managed election’ (now stories are coming out that then Police Chief Anwarul Iqbal was involved in the conspiracy of the deaths of October 28th event. He withdrew police forces from the area in spite of knowing fully-well that such would create law and order problems. As a reward, he became an Advisor). No one wants the nation to go down and derail its process of growth. The current emergency rule has led the nation backward and created vacuum, uncertainty and political mistrust. There is also fear of rise of terrorism. All these can be avoided if the CTG declares an election date right now, and with a view to end mistrust and promote confidence building, releases political leaders both Hasina and Khaleda and withdraw the state of emergency. Let them be tried in normal court of law. Could the CTG rise above partisanship? Does it have the maturity and mindset to be an honest broker?
Let the ACC and the EC be non-partisan and honest brokers as well. It is not easy to be non-partisan----already it is reported that Gen. Hasan Mashud Chowdhury of the ACC had threatened resignation if Hasina is allowed to go free (and allowed to face her cases in normal court of law). The actions of the CTG, the ACC and the EC are all questionable and claimed to be politically motivated although all of them are personally honest and not corrupt to the best of my knowledge. No one can blame that Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed, Dr. ATM Shamsul Huda or Lt. Gen. Hasan Mashud Chowdhury is personally corrupt or they have any evil design. They hope to do good to the nation. In spite of this, the EC is being blamed by the ‘Khaleda-BNP’ for division of their party. The ACC is being blamed for ignoring corruption cases against military, and the CTG is being blamed for weakening the political parties under various pretexts. Such partisan mentality and approach has to be given up. Can they do it? Otherwise, the nation may face more uncertainty, more economic deprivation, and surely, more cloudy days. Who knows, will such partisanship lead it into another Afghanistan or Iraq, the land of misfortunate and prolong civil wars and terrorism? Is it prudent for Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed to make an about turn not for himself or Gen. Moeen U. Ahmed but for the nation and its wellbeing? Ahmed must review and reflect one question and it is; ‘baktier cheye dal boro, na dal theke jathi’ ---is the interest of a group or party is bigger to that of an individual ego and is the public interest of the nation bigger to that of a party or a group’? If Hasina and Khaleda are released under street demonstrations not under due process, then many of the achievements of the present CTG will be evaporated. Therefore, he must decide and take appropriate actions now. Remember, one day lost is lost forever.
______________________
April 21, 2008, Boston, USA
Dr. Abdul Momen
Once again the new game in Dhaka is ‘dialogue or sanglap’-- dialogue with political parties and other interest groups. Have we seen such before? Dialogues of Mannan Bhuiya and Abdul Jalil of 2006 or past dialogues of CTG Advisors that resigned in 2006 are still fresh in our minds. Question is; will it reduce political and economic uncertainty that plagued the country since 1/11 and brought economic disasters, one after another—double-digit inflation, plummeting investment, increase of joblessness, decrease of business confidence, increase of load shedding and water flow disruption and the like. If the objective of the dialogue is to have a ‘managed election’ or ‘to buy time’ for a new adventure, in that case, such dialogues may end in futility. Is it the reason as to why the newly appointed U. S. Ambassador to Bangladesh warned the military not to take additional burden? Are these dialogues prelude to a new adventure?
It is reported that the military intelligence forces have finalized a list of ‘300 acceptable candidates’ in each parliamentary constituency for the ensuing election. The government will do its best to get them elected. Reportedly, this list is composed of politicians of all shades and opinions, former bureaucrats both civil and military, NGO and civil society leaders, journalists, educators and also businessmen. Necessary arrangements will be made so that none outside this ‘acceptable list’ could be elected. More importantly, if there is any chance of a candidate getting elected outside the list, in that case, all popular tools such as corruption, extortion or terrorism cases will be lodged against such candidate to prevent him/her from contesting. If that does not deter him or her, ‘extra judicial killing’ like ‘encounter, heart attacks’ are still available to achieve the desired end. Will such ‘managed parliament’ deliver benefits to the country? Will they authorize all the actions of the current Caretaker government (CTG) of Dr. Ahmed?
Dr. Ahmed repeatedly declared that he is committed to hold election by December 2008 and he would withdraw the ‘state of emergency’ prior to it. But is he really in-charge and if so, why is he reluctant to declare a specific date yet? In earlier governments, for example, during 1975-81, we all knew that General Ziaur Rahman was in-charge of decision making. We knew that during 1982-90, it was General H. M. Ershad, during 1991-96 and again in 2001-2006, it was Begum Khaleda Zia and during 1996-2001, it was Sheikh Hasina in-charge of decision making. They could take decisions, good or bad. But now who is in-charge, which Ahmeds? Is it Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed or Dr. Moeen U. Ahmed or Dr. Iazuddin Ahmed? Or is it General M. A. Matin, the Home Advisor or Lt. Gen. Hasan Mashud Chowdhury, the ACC Chief or the British or the Indian High Commissioners? Or are they all order takers? Does Gen. Moeen U. Ahmed have absolute command and respect? We don’t know.
Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed is an intelligent bureaucrat. He knows that prolonging emergency will discourage both domestic and foreign investment and will create economic hardships in the country. He knows that the major problems of Bangladesh are (1) food shortage and price spiral, (2) energy crisis, (3) ill governance, (4) poor literacy rate, (5) mistrust between political leadership and military generals, (6) large scale unemployment and (7) corruption. Unfortunately, his government other than some lip service in the area of corruption, failed to initiate projects either to reduce energy crisis, or price spiral, or shortages and/or unemployment. Reportedly 30 million Bangladeshis will suffer from food hunger, malnutrition and starvation. His government failed to take necessary steps to evade the impending crisis. Nor he initiated any projects to help improve governance or to reduce illiteracy. More importantly, his only achievement other than creating an office of a 4-star general is ‘corruption jihad’ and it is basically targeted to punish a ‘select group of politicians and businessmen’ to gain cheap popularity. Sadly no effort has been seriously initiated or taken yet to improve the nation’s dysfunctional system to reduce chances of pervasive corruption and misuse of powers (extrajudicial killing, a form of misuse of powers is still not under control). No wonder, his corruption jihad is blamed as politically motivated and therefore, questionable. His administration is aware of it and therefore, they refrained from trying the cases openly and transparently in any legal court under existing laws. He is trying them in Kangaroo courts under emergency rules. Such is a disservice to the nation more so as their high hopes of ‘corruption-free Bangladesh’ have been virtually shattered and raped. Question is; when the emergency will be over, will such cases be declared null and void? Since many of our judges change their minds with the change of powers like weathers, we are afraid; will such corruption jihad be a waste of public resource and futile exercise?
In Bangladesh, there are mainly two camps; one Awami League (AL) and the other anti-Awami League. The anti-AL groups overwhelmingly supported Begum Khaleda Zia to power in 2001. They had high hopes and many thought, she would do well. Unfortunately, her performance was very poor, worse than her own record of 1991-96. Most of her close associates were highly corrupt and greedy unlike the current CTG. Other than her commendable effort of controlling environmentally non-friendly plastic garbage bags and three-wheel baby taxis off limit to Dhaka, her government’s milestones were looting, misappropriation and ill governance. Many of her supporters that were not die-hard BNP were shocked as well. They were shocked when she tried to defraud the nation with a ‘doctored election’. They disapproved her manipulation of appointing her handpicked President Dr. Iazuddin Ahmed (the current President) as Chief Advisor with an evil motive to cheat the election results. Such attempts created fear, mistrust and rejection. Finding no alternatives, her rival the AL party launched a country-wide agitation for a ‘free, fair, non-violent and credible election’. It was supported by moral majority and the public at large. As a result, the BNP-Jamat manipulation did not work and 1/11 became a reality. Dr. Iazuddin Ahmed had to resign as Chief Advisor, and he confessed of his government’s wrong doing and voter fraud or manipulation. A new Caretaker government (CTG) backed by army was installed. AL leader Sheikh Hasina welcomed the new CTG of Fakhruddin Ahmed as people’s victory. Dr. Ahmed took the oath of office to hold a ‘free, fair, non-violent and credible election as soon as possible’. But unfortunately, he was misguided and he is taking too much time to hold an election. Question is; will his election be ‘fair, free and more importantly, credible’?
Those that were anti-AL but not necessarily hardcore BNP also welcomed the military-backed interim Caretaker government of Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed. Although most of the advisors of the CTG are anti-AL and they are all beneficiaries of the past BNP-Jamat government, Khaleda Zia abstained from welcoming the new CTG. For example, Dr. Ahmed who was a retired banker living in Washington D. C. was appointed as the Governor of the Bangladesh Bank by Khaleda Zia. Reportedly, he got the job due to two people; his wife’s elder brother, Enam Ahmed Chowdhury, Khaleda’s Advisor (and then Chairman of Privatization Board) and Dr. Osman Faruq, another World Bank economist who was Khaleda’s Education Minister. General Moeen U. Ahmed was made Army Chief by Khaleda Zia at the advice of Khaleda’s son, Tariq Rahman by bypassing six senior generals. Being beneficiary, they had to compromise. In one end, their ethical and moral minds demand them to punish the looters of the nation i.e. BNP leaders and on the other, such punishment would destroy their own ideological group, i. e, the BNP and anti-AL group, and therefore, they were at a loss. Under such a situation, they could not be straight forward and judicious in their decisions. Therefore, they followed highly complex, non-transparent, discretionary and non-standard approaches creating extreme uncertainty and ambiguity. No one could follow them nor could understand their divergent motives. They moved one step ahead but immediately two steps backward. In fact, they had to devise creative ways and manipulate evidence to punish their targeted ones while causing minimal damage to their own ideological party; i.e. BNP. They tried to balance BNP by eliminating die-hard but corrupt Zia supporters and by encouraging forming a ‘reformed BNP’ party mostly composed of those politicians and ex-bureaucrats that could be easily brought and sold. However, they were hard onto the AL, their perceived-enemy, the party that they dislike. They picked up few corrupt people but left many gurus that support them made their effort questionable.
In addition, they tried to set up new political parties but failed. They used cheap slogan-- ‘political reform’ formula and tried to use ‘stick and carrot’ policy to divide the AL. It also did not succeed much. Now they are using ‘dialogue’ to befool the political parties and the nation. Will that work? However, good news is that finally ‘no dialogue with politicians’ that taboo is over.
Soon they might argue through their opinion leaders that ‘failure of dialogues’ and ‘release of the AL leader Sheikh Hasina and the BNP leader Begum Khaleda Zia’ will lead the nation to a situation prior to 1/11. No one wants to go back to 1/11 and witness a ‘doctored election’ or a ‘managed election’ (now stories are coming out that then Police Chief Anwarul Iqbal was involved in the conspiracy of the deaths of October 28th event. He withdrew police forces from the area in spite of knowing fully-well that such would create law and order problems. As a reward, he became an Advisor). No one wants the nation to go down and derail its process of growth. The current emergency rule has led the nation backward and created vacuum, uncertainty and political mistrust. There is also fear of rise of terrorism. All these can be avoided if the CTG declares an election date right now, and with a view to end mistrust and promote confidence building, releases political leaders both Hasina and Khaleda and withdraw the state of emergency. Let them be tried in normal court of law. Could the CTG rise above partisanship? Does it have the maturity and mindset to be an honest broker?
Let the ACC and the EC be non-partisan and honest brokers as well. It is not easy to be non-partisan----already it is reported that Gen. Hasan Mashud Chowdhury of the ACC had threatened resignation if Hasina is allowed to go free (and allowed to face her cases in normal court of law). The actions of the CTG, the ACC and the EC are all questionable and claimed to be politically motivated although all of them are personally honest and not corrupt to the best of my knowledge. No one can blame that Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed, Dr. ATM Shamsul Huda or Lt. Gen. Hasan Mashud Chowdhury is personally corrupt or they have any evil design. They hope to do good to the nation. In spite of this, the EC is being blamed by the ‘Khaleda-BNP’ for division of their party. The ACC is being blamed for ignoring corruption cases against military, and the CTG is being blamed for weakening the political parties under various pretexts. Such partisan mentality and approach has to be given up. Can they do it? Otherwise, the nation may face more uncertainty, more economic deprivation, and surely, more cloudy days. Who knows, will such partisanship lead it into another Afghanistan or Iraq, the land of misfortunate and prolong civil wars and terrorism? Is it prudent for Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed to make an about turn not for himself or Gen. Moeen U. Ahmed but for the nation and its wellbeing? Ahmed must review and reflect one question and it is; ‘baktier cheye dal boro, na dal theke jathi’ ---is the interest of a group or party is bigger to that of an individual ego and is the public interest of the nation bigger to that of a party or a group’? If Hasina and Khaleda are released under street demonstrations not under due process, then many of the achievements of the present CTG will be evaporated. Therefore, he must decide and take appropriate actions now. Remember, one day lost is lost forever.
______________________
April 21, 2008, Boston, USA
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed with David Frost
Watch this interview of Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed, the Chief Adviser of the Interim Government in Bangladesh, with David Frost at Al Jazeera TV. The army backed government's desperation to buy back the corrupt folks through a truth commission is echoed in his interview.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Bangladesh: The Other Pakistan
(Within last 24 hours, Channel 4 changed its news hadline to Bangladesh: An untold story)This headline has taken from a news coverage by the British Channel 4 news that interviewed Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed at London on March 18, 2008. It compares the democratic transition of Bangladesh with the Pakistani scenario as the military-backed rule of General Musharraf was the focus of world attention, but a similar situation in Bangladesh has gone widely unnoticed. Watch the 4 minute long interview here: Dr. Fakhruddin's Interview
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Chief Adviser addressed the nation
Four former student leaders Zahiruddin Shapan, Fazlur Rahman, Shirin Akhter and Mahmudur Rahman Manna are talking about the caretaker government and future of national politics in Bangladesh. Watch this interesting hour long discussion at Tritio Matra moderated by Zillur Rahman at Channel I.
Daily Star reports,
Daily Star reports,
Chief Adviser Fakhruddin Ahmed yesterday said the government is considering lifting restrictions on indoor politics countrywide and gradually relaxing the state of emergency depending on 'needs and circumstances'.
Addressing the nation on the first anniversary of the caretaker government in office, he said his administration would soon move to open dialogue with political parties in line with the decision taken by the advisory council Thursday.
"I hope the political parties will capitalise on this situation to be democratic and free of corruption. The sooner it happens, the better," said Fakhruddin.
In his speech, he outlined various steps and achievements of the government since taking over on January 12 last year.
"We hope the government, Election Commission and the political parties will hold discussions between themselves to pave the way for an ascent to democracy," he added.
"I reaffirm our commitment to holding the national election by December 2008 and if possible even earlier," said the chief adviser, who in his maiden address to the nation on January 21 last year pledged to have the stalled ninth parliamentary election held as early as possible.
"The government has been trying to create a level playing field for everyone so the election is free, fair and acceptable," he observed.
He said he hopes to see a democratically elected government by this time next year and that government would be dedicated to meeting the basic needs of the people.
Calling on everyone including the political parties to establish honest and competent leadership at all levels, Fakhruddin said, "In accordance with your wishes, we will surely hold an election acceptable to all, free from terrorism and influence of black money and muscle power."
"Such a spontaneous transition is rare in the world history. But we are going to do that because we believe democracy has no alternative," he noted.
Amid growing political violence and public displeasure, President Iajuddin Ahmed stepped down as the chief adviser along with 10 other advisers on January 11 last year.
The same day he declared the state of emergency and cancelled the election scheduled for January 22.
The next day former Bangladesh Bank governor Fakhruddin Ahmed was sworn in as chief adviser.
The new caretaker government slapped a ban on indoor politics on March 7. The curbs were lifted on September 10 but only for the capital.
Political parties have long been calling for a complete withdrawal of restrictions on politics. Besides, they have been asking the government to open dialogues with them to clear doubts over the conduct of polls.
In his address last night, the chief adviser repeatedly said the election would be held within the time envisaged in the Election Commission's electoral roadmap.
He said he hopes 2008 would be a watershed year marking a transition to a true democracy fulfilling public aspirations.
Turning to last week's cabinet shake-up, he said the replacements for five advisers and appointment of special assistants would revitalise the advisory council.
Assuring the people that his government is not interfering in the EC's work, Fakhruddin said electoral rules would be reformed once the commission is over and done with its dialogue with the political parties.
He said the government has set up Regulatory Reform Commission, separated the judiciary from the executive and reconstituted the Anti-Corruption Commission, Public Service Commission and University Grants Commission to promote good governance.
He added that the government's anti-corruption drives have been a signal that no-one would be spared if found guilty.
The former World Bank official said despite political turmoil and spiked prices of oil and other commodities on the global market in last fiscal year, the country clocked a GDP growth of 6.5 percent thanks to significant growth of industry and service sectors.
Citing formation of the Better Business Forum among other initiatives to improve the business climate, he said exports and investment are going up after a lull in the first three quarters of 2007.
He acknowledged that low- and fixed-income groups have been hit hard by soaring prices of essentials that, he said, were the result of international price hike, a 15 lakh tonnes shortfall in food grains and havoc caused by back-to-back floods and Cyclone Sidr.
Hoping that rice prices would come down further, Fakhruddin said the government has imported rice, launched open market sales and Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) programmes to tackle the crisis.
There's no alternative to prioritising agriculture if the prices of commodities are to be kept within the people's reach, he said adding that the government will do everything necessary to ensure a bumper Boro yield.
It has already taken steps to import fertiliser and give greater farm subsidy. Besides, it has allocated Tk 350 crore for agriculture research, added Fakhruddin.
He also said the administration has received accolades for taking precautionary measures that kept casualties and damage in the November 15 cyclone low.
He said power generation, development in communications sector and manpower export figure high on the government's priority list.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Commentary on Bangladesh Anniversary-BBC
Bangladesh's 'year of surprises'
By Mark Dummett
BBC News, Dhaka
Source: BBC
It has been a year of surprises in Bangladesh. When a state of emergency was declared on 11 January 2007, no-one could have imagined that peoples' basic rights would still be suspended 12 months later.
A caretaker government, made up mainly of retired officials, but backed heavily by the powerful military and important donor countries like the UK, is still in charge.
The former prime ministers and leaders of the two main parties, Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina are in custody, charged with extorting money when they were in power.
Credible vote
The "battling Begums'" are being held in detention in the grounds of parliament in Dhaka.
The chamber itself has been silent all year - at least some things stay the same as it has been boycotted by successive oppositions for much of its existence.
The interim government cancelled elections due to be held in January last year, after several months of street protests.
The violent aftermath of recent elections in Kenya are a reminder of the direction Bangladesh was heading.
The caretaker government said it would take many months to organise a truly fair, peaceful and credible vote.
They have now promised to hold it before December 2008.
It has embarked on preparing an entirely new voter list, promising to re-register every one of the country's 90 million voters.
Reforms of the legal system, the police and political parties are underway.
Denouement
The beefed-up Anti-Corruption Commission meanwhile, has gone after the old political class.
It says that close to 80 former ministers, civil servants and businessmen are now in detention.
They include one of the most feared and loathed men in Bangladesh, Tarique Rahman, son of Khaleda Zia.
"We are now moving towards the second phase - moving towards the denouement of the caretaker government's regime," Foreign Minister Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury said in an interview with the BBC.
"We are moving slowly towards the holding of elections.
"The main goal of the government is to create those institutions which will create a society which is the most stable and peaceful, in a region which is one of turbulence."
Few would argue with that aim - however the government's plans for 2008 have raised some uncomfortable questions.
Meetings banned
Firstly - how can the parties campaign for elections with their leaders behind bars and the emergency powers still in place?
These allow the security services to hold anyone, without charge, for an indefinite period.
Political parties can only hold private meetings in their offices in Dhaka and public meetings are banned.
"The emergency will of course be lifted before the elections," Dr Chowdhury says, "but exactly at what point in it will be lifted is difficult to say at this point."
Then there is the role of the military. The army has ruled the country for about half its existence, so many Bangladeshis are deeply suspicious of its motives.
The fierce response of the security forces to rioting students in August reminded many people of past military dictatorships.
Officially the men in uniform are just "supporting" the civilian government.
But they are involved in many of the most important things it does, such as selling food to the poor, organising the voter registration and co-ordinating aid efforts after last November's cyclone.
Obsequious
An army man is head of the cricket board, a retired officer runs the Anti-Corruption Commission.
Photographs of the head of the army, General Moeen U Ahmed, appear most days in the newspapers. He is often pictured in civilian dress, discussing non-military matters, such as the state of the economy.
"A deliberate effort is discernable in the post-emergency period to maintain the pretence of a civilian administration," NM Harun, a contributing editor of the New Age newspaper, wrote this week.
"But in practice it is General Moeen who calls the shots and Dr Fakhruddin (Ahmed, the head of the caretaker government) has been obsequiously following the lead of the military and running a puppet show."
If anything interrupts Bangladesh's peaceful return to democracy in 2008, however, many people believe it is likely to be the spiralling price of food.
In the past two weeks the cost of a kilogramme of rice, the staple, has gone up by about one fifth.
The food ministry says its stocks are half full and running out. It blames the devastating impact on November's cyclone and floods last year, as well as record global food prices.
But businessmen also blame the government. Its anti-corruption drive, some say, has at times resembled a witch-hunt and so scared away legitimate investments.
Whatever the causes, the government's reputation for competence has dropped as the prices have risen. So far, the public has largely supported the caretaker government. That could easily change if the food crisis continues.
By Mark Dummett
BBC News, Dhaka
Source: BBC
It has been a year of surprises in Bangladesh. When a state of emergency was declared on 11 January 2007, no-one could have imagined that peoples' basic rights would still be suspended 12 months later.
A caretaker government, made up mainly of retired officials, but backed heavily by the powerful military and important donor countries like the UK, is still in charge.
The former prime ministers and leaders of the two main parties, Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina are in custody, charged with extorting money when they were in power.
Credible vote
The "battling Begums'" are being held in detention in the grounds of parliament in Dhaka.
The chamber itself has been silent all year - at least some things stay the same as it has been boycotted by successive oppositions for much of its existence.
The interim government cancelled elections due to be held in January last year, after several months of street protests.
The violent aftermath of recent elections in Kenya are a reminder of the direction Bangladesh was heading.
The caretaker government said it would take many months to organise a truly fair, peaceful and credible vote.
They have now promised to hold it before December 2008.
It has embarked on preparing an entirely new voter list, promising to re-register every one of the country's 90 million voters.
Reforms of the legal system, the police and political parties are underway.
Denouement
The beefed-up Anti-Corruption Commission meanwhile, has gone after the old political class.
It says that close to 80 former ministers, civil servants and businessmen are now in detention.
They include one of the most feared and loathed men in Bangladesh, Tarique Rahman, son of Khaleda Zia.
"We are now moving towards the second phase - moving towards the denouement of the caretaker government's regime," Foreign Minister Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury said in an interview with the BBC.
"We are moving slowly towards the holding of elections.
"The main goal of the government is to create those institutions which will create a society which is the most stable and peaceful, in a region which is one of turbulence."
Few would argue with that aim - however the government's plans for 2008 have raised some uncomfortable questions.
Meetings banned
Firstly - how can the parties campaign for elections with their leaders behind bars and the emergency powers still in place?
These allow the security services to hold anyone, without charge, for an indefinite period.
Political parties can only hold private meetings in their offices in Dhaka and public meetings are banned.
"The emergency will of course be lifted before the elections," Dr Chowdhury says, "but exactly at what point in it will be lifted is difficult to say at this point."
Then there is the role of the military. The army has ruled the country for about half its existence, so many Bangladeshis are deeply suspicious of its motives.
The fierce response of the security forces to rioting students in August reminded many people of past military dictatorships.
Officially the men in uniform are just "supporting" the civilian government.
But they are involved in many of the most important things it does, such as selling food to the poor, organising the voter registration and co-ordinating aid efforts after last November's cyclone.
Obsequious
An army man is head of the cricket board, a retired officer runs the Anti-Corruption Commission.
Photographs of the head of the army, General Moeen U Ahmed, appear most days in the newspapers. He is often pictured in civilian dress, discussing non-military matters, such as the state of the economy.
"A deliberate effort is discernable in the post-emergency period to maintain the pretence of a civilian administration," NM Harun, a contributing editor of the New Age newspaper, wrote this week.
"But in practice it is General Moeen who calls the shots and Dr Fakhruddin (Ahmed, the head of the caretaker government) has been obsequiously following the lead of the military and running a puppet show."
If anything interrupts Bangladesh's peaceful return to democracy in 2008, however, many people believe it is likely to be the spiralling price of food.
In the past two weeks the cost of a kilogramme of rice, the staple, has gone up by about one fifth.
The food ministry says its stocks are half full and running out. It blames the devastating impact on November's cyclone and floods last year, as well as record global food prices.
But businessmen also blame the government. Its anti-corruption drive, some say, has at times resembled a witch-hunt and so scared away legitimate investments.
Whatever the causes, the government's reputation for competence has dropped as the prices have risen. So far, the public has largely supported the caretaker government. That could easily change if the food crisis continues.
News Coverage on One Year Anniversary
Watch the news coverage by NTV and Channel I on "One Year Anniversary" of the Army backed Caretaker Government in Bangladesh:
High on promises, low on delivery
High on promises, low on delivery
Nazrul Islam
Source: New Age
January 11, 2007
The country steps into its second year under a state of emergency today, with the government of Fakhruddin Ahmed reeling under a number of difficulties on the political and economic fronts. The government, which assumed office a day after the declaration of the state of emergency on January 11, 2007, on the other hand, has been dogged by problems within.
The resignation of five advisers in the space of two weeks has raised questions about its credibility and also its capability to carry out the proposed reforms towards ‘perpetuating democracy in Bangladesh.’
In his maiden address to the nation through radio and television on January 21, Fakhruddin promised sweeping reforms in political and electoral process to ensure credible and contested elections to the ninth Jatiya Sangsad, originally scheduled for January 22, 2007.
Holding contested and credible general elections remains the biggest challenge for the interim government, political analysts and former advisers to the caretaker government say.
‘The main challenge for the government is to hold the elections,’ Talukder Moniruzzaman, a professor of political science at Dhaka University, says. However, he believes, the government has been rather busy trying to break the established political parties and undermining the political process. ‘Politics without politicians will never help establish democracy,’ he says.
Moniruzzaman also suspects that there are attempts by the government and the Election Commission to doctor the electoral process, which he said would be disastrous for the nation in the long run.
Sultana Kamal, who was on the President Iajuddin Ahmed-led caretaker government but later resigned, agrees with Moniruzzaman’s view that the major challenge for the government is to hold credible and contested general elections, for which, she says, the withdrawal of the state of emergency is imperative.
Sultana says the interim government is in essence different from any of the past caretaker administrations. ‘It has done some remarkable jobs but also made some mistakes in the past one year.’
The state of emergency also impedes political reforms, politicians irrespective of party affiliations say politicians. ‘Political reforms will be impossible with civil and political rights suspended,’ an Awami League leader says. Meanwhile, the Election Commission has been riddled with more problems than one. It has failed to complete dialogues with the political parties over its proposed electoral reforms within the deadline stipulated in its election roadmap.
Also, the process to make the commission’s secretariat and amend the service rules for its employees has remained although the deadline set by the roadmap ended in December.
Besides, it has shelved the plan to hold elections to all local government bodies before the parliamentary polls and now narrowed its focus to holding city corporation elections. While the roadmap envisages general elections by the end of 2008, the commission has said on more occasions than one that the elections could be held earlier.
All the while, the relations between the government and the political parties have deteriorated. The politicians became all the more suspicious when some advisers of the government publicly advocated for the emergence of new leadership and the media reported overt and covert attempts by the incumbents to relegate Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia to political irrelevance.
The suspicion lingers on.
Politicians in almost all major camps in particular and the people in general are increasingly confused as to whether or not there would be any elections within the timeframe detailed by the government and in these circumstances. ‘We are not clear whether the government wants participation of the political parties or they just want to conduct elections with the now mushrooming parties with military blessings,’ a BNP leader says. ‘We see no prospect of elections keeping two former prime ministers behind bars.’
Politicians believe the government has so far made no attempt to hold any dialogue with political parties to find ways towards holding fair and contested elections, and is intent on sustaining its campaign to malign the political process.
Print and electronic media have, meanwhile, been subject to continuous ‘supervision.’ The government closed down one private television channel, put a bar on talk-shows for a few days and cancelled declaration of nearly 200 small newspapers and periodicals published outside Dhaka. Also, during the curfew imposed in the wake of the August 20-22 campus protests, several journalists were harassed.
Rights defenders say there have been repeated violations of human rights ever since the declaration of the state of emergency.
The Fakhruddin government allowed arbitrary detention of tens of thousands of people as part of its anti-corruption campaign. The army-led joint forces put more than 200 leading politicians behind bars.
These politicians mainly belong to the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the Awami League, which ruled the country alternately for the past 15 years. ‘The government must be respectful to people’s fundamental rights,’ said Sultana Kamal.
The anti-corruption campaign resulted in a slowdown in economic activities, forcing the administration to compromise with a few detained businessmen, many of whom were released on bail.
In almost all his five addresses to the nation, the chief adviser pledged to perpetuate the democratic process, create a business-friendly atmosphere and contain the skyrocketing of essential prices. However, economists say the government’s inefficiency to run its affairs has made the people ‘prisoners of economic insecurity.’
The insecurity has intensified because of an economic slowdown compounded by dipping foreign and local investments, rising inflation, food price hike, shrinking job market and declining foreign trade besides political uncertainties. Long-term investors are still waiting for a clear picture of the political scene, said Zaid Bakht, an economist.
‘Confidence is directly related to investment. We saw a declining trend in investment on the first year [of the interim government],’ the president of the Federation of Bangladesh Chambers of Commerce and Industry, says. The business community suffered a lack of confidence because of the government’s arbitrary actions, he adds. However, he believes, the investment scenario would be different this year if the government focuses on improving the business environment.
Towards the end of the year, the government did initiate a move to restore business confidence.
It formed the Bangladesh Business Forum and convened a conference of non-resident Bangladeshis in an apparent move to encourage expatriate Bangladeshis to invest in the country.
Nazrul Islam
Source: New Age
January 11, 2007
The country steps into its second year under a state of emergency today, with the government of Fakhruddin Ahmed reeling under a number of difficulties on the political and economic fronts. The government, which assumed office a day after the declaration of the state of emergency on January 11, 2007, on the other hand, has been dogged by problems within.
The resignation of five advisers in the space of two weeks has raised questions about its credibility and also its capability to carry out the proposed reforms towards ‘perpetuating democracy in Bangladesh.’
In his maiden address to the nation through radio and television on January 21, Fakhruddin promised sweeping reforms in political and electoral process to ensure credible and contested elections to the ninth Jatiya Sangsad, originally scheduled for January 22, 2007.
Holding contested and credible general elections remains the biggest challenge for the interim government, political analysts and former advisers to the caretaker government say.
‘The main challenge for the government is to hold the elections,’ Talukder Moniruzzaman, a professor of political science at Dhaka University, says. However, he believes, the government has been rather busy trying to break the established political parties and undermining the political process. ‘Politics without politicians will never help establish democracy,’ he says.
Moniruzzaman also suspects that there are attempts by the government and the Election Commission to doctor the electoral process, which he said would be disastrous for the nation in the long run.
Sultana Kamal, who was on the President Iajuddin Ahmed-led caretaker government but later resigned, agrees with Moniruzzaman’s view that the major challenge for the government is to hold credible and contested general elections, for which, she says, the withdrawal of the state of emergency is imperative.
Sultana says the interim government is in essence different from any of the past caretaker administrations. ‘It has done some remarkable jobs but also made some mistakes in the past one year.’
The state of emergency also impedes political reforms, politicians irrespective of party affiliations say politicians. ‘Political reforms will be impossible with civil and political rights suspended,’ an Awami League leader says. Meanwhile, the Election Commission has been riddled with more problems than one. It has failed to complete dialogues with the political parties over its proposed electoral reforms within the deadline stipulated in its election roadmap.
Also, the process to make the commission’s secretariat and amend the service rules for its employees has remained although the deadline set by the roadmap ended in December.
Besides, it has shelved the plan to hold elections to all local government bodies before the parliamentary polls and now narrowed its focus to holding city corporation elections. While the roadmap envisages general elections by the end of 2008, the commission has said on more occasions than one that the elections could be held earlier.
All the while, the relations between the government and the political parties have deteriorated. The politicians became all the more suspicious when some advisers of the government publicly advocated for the emergence of new leadership and the media reported overt and covert attempts by the incumbents to relegate Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia to political irrelevance.
The suspicion lingers on.
Politicians in almost all major camps in particular and the people in general are increasingly confused as to whether or not there would be any elections within the timeframe detailed by the government and in these circumstances. ‘We are not clear whether the government wants participation of the political parties or they just want to conduct elections with the now mushrooming parties with military blessings,’ a BNP leader says. ‘We see no prospect of elections keeping two former prime ministers behind bars.’
Politicians believe the government has so far made no attempt to hold any dialogue with political parties to find ways towards holding fair and contested elections, and is intent on sustaining its campaign to malign the political process.
Print and electronic media have, meanwhile, been subject to continuous ‘supervision.’ The government closed down one private television channel, put a bar on talk-shows for a few days and cancelled declaration of nearly 200 small newspapers and periodicals published outside Dhaka. Also, during the curfew imposed in the wake of the August 20-22 campus protests, several journalists were harassed.
Rights defenders say there have been repeated violations of human rights ever since the declaration of the state of emergency.
The Fakhruddin government allowed arbitrary detention of tens of thousands of people as part of its anti-corruption campaign. The army-led joint forces put more than 200 leading politicians behind bars.
These politicians mainly belong to the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the Awami League, which ruled the country alternately for the past 15 years. ‘The government must be respectful to people’s fundamental rights,’ said Sultana Kamal.
The anti-corruption campaign resulted in a slowdown in economic activities, forcing the administration to compromise with a few detained businessmen, many of whom were released on bail.
In almost all his five addresses to the nation, the chief adviser pledged to perpetuate the democratic process, create a business-friendly atmosphere and contain the skyrocketing of essential prices. However, economists say the government’s inefficiency to run its affairs has made the people ‘prisoners of economic insecurity.’
The insecurity has intensified because of an economic slowdown compounded by dipping foreign and local investments, rising inflation, food price hike, shrinking job market and declining foreign trade besides political uncertainties. Long-term investors are still waiting for a clear picture of the political scene, said Zaid Bakht, an economist.
‘Confidence is directly related to investment. We saw a declining trend in investment on the first year [of the interim government],’ the president of the Federation of Bangladesh Chambers of Commerce and Industry, says. The business community suffered a lack of confidence because of the government’s arbitrary actions, he adds. However, he believes, the investment scenario would be different this year if the government focuses on improving the business environment.
Towards the end of the year, the government did initiate a move to restore business confidence.
It formed the Bangladesh Business Forum and convened a conference of non-resident Bangladeshis in an apparent move to encourage expatriate Bangladeshis to invest in the country.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
CTG's One Year Anniversary
Watch this ATN Bangla discussion on the Caretaker Government's achievements. This discussion took place earlier this morning:
Thursday, November 1, 2007
যুদ্ধাপরাধ নিয়ে ড: ফখরুদ্দীনের দ্বন্দ্ব?
(সচলায়তনে প্রকাশিত)
বাংলাদেশ সরকারের প্রধান উপদেস্টা ড: ফখরুদ্দীন আহমেদ যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের চিহ্নিত করার উপায় নিয়ে বেশ উদ্বিগ্ন।? আজকে বিডি নিউজে দেখলাম,
এই দেশে যাদের জন্ম আর এদেশের জন্ম নিয়ে যাদের মনে কোন সন্দেহ আর দ্বন্দ্ব নেই, তাদের মনে যুদ্ধাপরাধ, মুক্তিযুদ্ধ আর স্বাধীনতা নিয়েও কোন সন্দেহ বসবাস করে না। যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের বিচার নিয়ে দেশীভয়েসে প্রকাশিত ড: আবদুল মোমেনের লেখা পড়ার জন্য ড: ফখরুদ্দীনকে আহবান জানাই। তাকে বেলজিয়াম প্রবাসী মুক্তিযুদ্ধ গবেষক ব্যরিস্টার জিয়াউদ্দীন আহমেদের জাস্টিস আফটার জেনোসাইড লেখাটা পড়তেও আহবান জানাব। কিন্তু যে জেনেও জানতে চায় না বুঝতে চায় না, তাকে কোন লেখা দিয়ে তিরিশ লাখ প্রাণের মূল্য বুঝানো যাবে?
বাংলাদেশ সরকারের প্রধান উপদেস্টা ড: ফখরুদ্দীন আহমেদ যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের চিহ্নিত করার উপায় নিয়ে বেশ উদ্বিগ্ন।? আজকে বিডি নিউজে দেখলাম,
ঢাকা, অক্টোবর ৩১ (বিডিনিউজ টুয়েন্টিফোর ডটকম)- যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের নির্বাচনে অংশ গ্রহণ সম্পূর্ণ অনভিপ্রেত বলে মন্তব্য করেছেন প্রধান উপদেষ্টা ফখরুদ্দীন আহমদ। বুধবার বিকালে নিজ কার্যালয়ে বিভিন্ন সংবাদ মাধ্যমের সম্পাদকের সঙ্গে বৈঠকে তিনি বলেছেন, "যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের নির্বাচনে অংশ গ্রহণ সম্পূর্ণ অনভিপ্রেত। কিন্তু কে বা কারা যুদ্ধাপরাধী, তা কি ভাবে নির্ণয় হবে।না, হান্নান-মুজাহিদ এদেশের স্বাধীনতা, মুক্তিযুদ্ধ নিয়ে যে কটাক্ষ করল, অস্বীকার করল তা নিযে তার কোন মন্তব্য নেই। দেশে প্রতিবাদ ও প্রতিরোধের ঝড় চলছে, তা নিয়েও তার কোন বক্তব্য নেই। যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের বিচার নিয়ে তার সরকারের কি কোন উদ্যোগ আছে? হাজার হাজার কোটি টাকা যারা পাচার করেছে তাদেরকে জেলের বাইরে রাখার জন্য তো উদ্যোগের কোন অভাব দেখি না। তার আশংকা কিভাবে যুদ্ধাপরাধীদেরকে সনাক্ত করা হবে তা নিয়ে? সেই দায়িত্ব যারা মুক্তিযোদ্ধা, আইনবিদ আর স্বজনহারা তাদের জন্য রেখে দিলে হয় না? হায়রে অভাগা বাংলাদেশ!!! যাদের রক্তের বিনিময়ে এদেশে স্বাধীনতার সূর্য জ্বলল তাদেরকে অস্বীকার করতে কতো ছলাকলা? নিমকহারামিরও একটা মাত্রা থাকে। এই দেশে কোন কিছুতে কোন মাত্রা নেই।
এই দেশে যাদের জন্ম আর এদেশের জন্ম নিয়ে যাদের মনে কোন সন্দেহ আর দ্বন্দ্ব নেই, তাদের মনে যুদ্ধাপরাধ, মুক্তিযুদ্ধ আর স্বাধীনতা নিয়েও কোন সন্দেহ বসবাস করে না। যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের বিচার নিয়ে দেশীভয়েসে প্রকাশিত ড: আবদুল মোমেনের লেখা পড়ার জন্য ড: ফখরুদ্দীনকে আহবান জানাই। তাকে বেলজিয়াম প্রবাসী মুক্তিযুদ্ধ গবেষক ব্যরিস্টার জিয়াউদ্দীন আহমেদের জাস্টিস আফটার জেনোসাইড লেখাটা পড়তেও আহবান জানাব। কিন্তু যে জেনেও জানতে চায় না বুঝতে চায় না, তাকে কোন লেখা দিয়ে তিরিশ লাখ প্রাণের মূল্য বুঝানো যাবে?
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Giti Ara Chowdhury: The New Godfather
Courtesy of: Shada Kalo
Dr. Mahbub Islam, a Ph.D. in Economics from Boston's Northeastern University and a tenured professor at St. Francis University in Pennsylvania moved back with his wife to Bangladesh a few years ago. He taught at a local university, and invested his hard-earned dollars into a realestate development company. He also built a building in Gulshan, and rented parts of it to Giti Ara Chowdhury and her husband. She is an adviser in the current CTG, and her husband was an MP in the BNP government. Mrs. Chowdhury has another identity: she is the sister-in-law of the chief adviser.So we have the Army's chief of staff, Gen. Moeen, and the CA, Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed, exhorting NRBs to invest in Bangladesh, while we have Mrs. Chowdhury, an adviser in the government and her husband violently attacking this university professor and trying to usurp his property.
Read the rest from here:
Dr. Mahbub Islam, a Ph.D. in Economics from Boston's Northeastern University and a tenured professor at St. Francis University in Pennsylvania moved back with his wife to Bangladesh a few years ago. He taught at a local university, and invested his hard-earned dollars into a realestate development company. He also built a building in Gulshan, and rented parts of it to Giti Ara Chowdhury and her husband. She is an adviser in the current CTG, and her husband was an MP in the BNP government. Mrs. Chowdhury has another identity: she is the sister-in-law of the chief adviser.So we have the Army's chief of staff, Gen. Moeen, and the CA, Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed, exhorting NRBs to invest in Bangladesh, while we have Mrs. Chowdhury, an adviser in the government and her husband violently attacking this university professor and trying to usurp his property.
Read the rest from here:
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Reality redefined
Reality redefined
Source: New Age Editorial
October 2, 2007
While one would have liked to give the chief adviser the benefit of the doubt and feel reassured by his statement, made this time to the global community, that his government had an ‘unswerving commitment to democracy and to the protection of human rights,’ the distorted and misleading version of the past and the present situation in Bangladesh that he provided to the world suggests that he himself is either unaware of what is going on in this country or is unwilling to provide a true picture of the ground reality in this country to the world outside, writes Shameran Abed
THE chief adviser to the military-driven interim government, Fakhruddin Ahmed, has recently returned from a trip to the United States where he gave a series of talks in New York in addition to addressing a near-empty United Nations General Assembly and attending a reception hosted by the US president, George W Bush. The chief adviser also spoke at a reception given in his honour by a section of the Bangladeshi community of New York. Wherever he went, Fakhruddin stuck to the same message that his government does not have any ambition to remain in power for longer than is necessary and that credible and acceptable elections to the ninth parliament will be held by the end of next year, come hell or high water.
That the chief adviser is aware of the fact that there is growing suspicion and wariness about the real motives of his government and its backers, both nationally and internationally, is evident from the fact that he felt it necessary, time and again, to reiterate that his government is not here to stay but that it was working with elections, with the return to a democratic dispensation in mind. While addressing the Bangladeshi community, the chief adviser claimed that he himself was not in favour of the extended stay of an unelected government and that his interim government was working to bring in an elected government as soon as is practicable.
While one would have liked to give the chief adviser the benefit of the doubt and feel reassured by his statement, made this time to the global community, that his government had an ‘unswerving commitment to democracy and to the protection of human rights,’ the distorted and misleading version of the past and the present situation in Bangladesh that he provided to the world suggests that he himself is either unaware of what is going on in this country or is unwilling to provide a true picture of the ground reality in this country to the world outside.
The chief adviser told the United Nations of the ‘ruinous corruption’ in our country that has undermined our democracy in the last two decades. He spoke of the ‘winner-takes-all’ electoral system that made corruption both the ‘means to and end of winning an election.’ This is all true, of course. But can Bangladesh’s democratic failure be blamed on the ‘ruinous corruption’ of the last decade and a half alone? Are the politicians who have been in charge of our destiny since the return to democratic governance in the early 1990s alone responsible for our political and governance failures? What the chief adviser chose not to mention is that the democratic institutions in our country have been systematically weakened since our independence by the unelected and undemocratic military and quasi-military governments of the past, and that the people of this country have time and again, pre- and post-independence, organised themselves for heroic struggles to rid the country of autocratic regimes. Few countries in the world can boast the legacy of struggle that Bangladesh can for the right to self-determination, democracy and human dignity.
Having painted a convenient picture of the state of affairs in Bangladesh leading to the military intervention on January 11 and the coming to power of his administration the following day, the chief adviser then provided a highly misleading picture of the situation in Bangladesh at present. He referred to the constitution to make a case for the constitutionality and hence, the legitimacy of his government by explaining to the UN that ‘the non-party caretaker administration acts as a bridge between successive political governments’ and that his administration’s ‘task, first and foremost, is to ensure a free and fair election.’ He also said the ‘task of conducting a free and fair election is the responsibility of the Election Commission.’ Since the chief adviser had decided to hide behind our constitution, perhaps he should also have also mentioned to the UN that our constitution stipulates that the Election Commission must hold parliamentary elections within 90 days of the dissolution of parliament and that the caretaker government, which is meant to be in power for those 90 days, is allowed by the constitution only to run the day-to-day affairs of the state and not take any policy decisions of the government. Both the Election Commission and his interim government are, therefore, carrying on in gross violation of the constitution that he referred to.
The chief adviser also said his government has ‘already overhauled the Election Commission, guaranteeing its independence and giving it a broader mandate. The Election Commission, on its own accord, has announced a timeline for holding the next parliamentary election by the end of 2008.’ Once again, we find that the chief adviser has been less than honest to the international community. While his government may have reconstituted the Election Commission in February, it is yet to separate the commission’s secretariat from the office of the chief executive, much less make it independent. Not only does the commission not have financial or administrative autonomy, that it is still dictated to by the interim government rather than dictating to it as per our constitution is evident from the fact that its repeated demands since April for a relaxing of restrictions on politics was snubbed by the government till September. Also, regardless of what the chief adviser might claim, few believe that the electoral ‘roadmap’ announced by the Election Commission was done on its own accord. The idea of having a ‘roadmap’, some say, was initiated by a foreign non-governmental organisation to prop up this government and to appease an increasingly restless donor community, and that the preparation of the roadmap was highly influenced by this interim government.
The chief adviser has claimed that his government has ‘initiated necessary steps to fully separate the executive and judicial branches of the government.’ That may indeed be the case, but in introducing the draconian Emergency Power Rules that have turned normally bailable offences non-bailable by taking the power to grant bail away from the judges, in constituting special courts that appear to be summarily sentencing the ‘corrupt’ to years in jail on flimsy evidence that are at times extracted from people under duress, in turning jurisprudence on its head by making people effectively guilty until proven innocent, rather than innocent until proven guilty, the government of Fakhruddin Ahmed has done great harm to the judiciary. What good will the independence of the judiciary do, when it finally does come, if the hands of the judges are tied behind their backs by the emergency rules that have also taken away the fundamental rights of the citizens?
Also, while it is indeed heartening that the chief adviser understands that ‘political parties are among the core constituents of democracy’ – one would not guess that his government feels much utility in having a political establishment in the country at all – the chief adviser has again been less than honest in suggesting that ‘in response to the demands of the people, the main political parties have themselves initiated various reforms.’ The people want the political parties to become more internally democratic for sure, but not a single political party has yet initiated a process of reform in response to those demands.
First of all, the political parties, up until a few days before Fakhruddin flew to the United States, were under lockdown with all political activity banned. Second, those within the major parties who have been pushing the ‘reform’ agenda during the lockdown in complete disregard of the government ban have done so at the egging on of the powers that be and in fear of the wind of the anti-corruption drive sweeping them along with it. It is no secret that the Fakhruddin government and its backers have been actively seeking political alternatives to the leadership of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party chairperson Khaleda Zia and the Awami League president Sheikh Hasina. The ‘reform’ agenda within the parties, thus far promoted by the opportunist stooges of this government, has concentrated solely on achieving this objective, not on the real democratisation of the parties.
The chief adviser has also spoken of the need for a National Human Rights Commission, saying his government has taken the decision to establish one, which would indeed be a step in the right direction. However, just as constituting an independent Anti-Corruption Commission was the ultimate paradox for the BNP-led alliance government which is considered to be the most corrupt in our country’s history, so might the constitution of a human rights commission be for this government, which continues to circumvent due process and against which there are widespread allegations of torture and human rights violations of those taken into custody. If the Fakhruddin government could first ensure that the minimum human rights and dignities of those who have been taken into custody during his tenure are ensured, and bring to justice those responsible for those violations in the last almost nine months, perhaps his promise of establishing a human rights commission could be considered a genuine intention rather than an eyewash for the international community and the people of this country alike.
Fakhruddin told the United Nations that his government ‘is fully committed to ensuring that our reform initiatives are comprehensive and irreversible.’ Does this chief adviser not realise that his government is doing everything possible, especially by circumventing the due process, to ensure that none of its reform measures will be sustainable in the long-run?
Most distressingly, the chief adviser told the General Assembly that ‘Bangladesh represents an effective model of civil-military cooperation in crisis prevention. Our experience in crisis management could be relevant for many crisis-torn, nascent democracies.’ That Bangladesh’s political establishment has failed to deliver governance to the extent that the people, at least at the beginning, welcomed an unelected regime that was brought about by the military should be nothing but a cause of shame and embarrassment for our country. An effective model of civil-military cooperation, even in crisis management, can only be found in true democracies, where the military works in harmony with the civil administration but remains at all times subservient to an elected political government. The existence of an unelected, undemocratic and unconstitutional government that is sustained by the military through the proclamation of an emergency that suspends the people’s fundamental rights to speak, gather and protest does not ‘represent an effective model of civil-military cooperation.’
Fakhruddin Ahmed, through his long and distinguished career as a bureaucrat, has gained a reputation of being a man of honesty and integrity. Unfortunately, his speech to the United Nations General Assembly does nothing to uphold that reputation. The country’s president, Iajuddin Ahmed, did irreparable harm to his own reputation and legacy during the short time that he headed a caretaker government. Does Fakhruddin Ahmed wish to take a similar route by concocting his own brand of omissions and half-truths?
Source: New Age Editorial
October 2, 2007
While one would have liked to give the chief adviser the benefit of the doubt and feel reassured by his statement, made this time to the global community, that his government had an ‘unswerving commitment to democracy and to the protection of human rights,’ the distorted and misleading version of the past and the present situation in Bangladesh that he provided to the world suggests that he himself is either unaware of what is going on in this country or is unwilling to provide a true picture of the ground reality in this country to the world outside, writes Shameran Abed
THE chief adviser to the military-driven interim government, Fakhruddin Ahmed, has recently returned from a trip to the United States where he gave a series of talks in New York in addition to addressing a near-empty United Nations General Assembly and attending a reception hosted by the US president, George W Bush. The chief adviser also spoke at a reception given in his honour by a section of the Bangladeshi community of New York. Wherever he went, Fakhruddin stuck to the same message that his government does not have any ambition to remain in power for longer than is necessary and that credible and acceptable elections to the ninth parliament will be held by the end of next year, come hell or high water.
That the chief adviser is aware of the fact that there is growing suspicion and wariness about the real motives of his government and its backers, both nationally and internationally, is evident from the fact that he felt it necessary, time and again, to reiterate that his government is not here to stay but that it was working with elections, with the return to a democratic dispensation in mind. While addressing the Bangladeshi community, the chief adviser claimed that he himself was not in favour of the extended stay of an unelected government and that his interim government was working to bring in an elected government as soon as is practicable.
While one would have liked to give the chief adviser the benefit of the doubt and feel reassured by his statement, made this time to the global community, that his government had an ‘unswerving commitment to democracy and to the protection of human rights,’ the distorted and misleading version of the past and the present situation in Bangladesh that he provided to the world suggests that he himself is either unaware of what is going on in this country or is unwilling to provide a true picture of the ground reality in this country to the world outside.
The chief adviser told the United Nations of the ‘ruinous corruption’ in our country that has undermined our democracy in the last two decades. He spoke of the ‘winner-takes-all’ electoral system that made corruption both the ‘means to and end of winning an election.’ This is all true, of course. But can Bangladesh’s democratic failure be blamed on the ‘ruinous corruption’ of the last decade and a half alone? Are the politicians who have been in charge of our destiny since the return to democratic governance in the early 1990s alone responsible for our political and governance failures? What the chief adviser chose not to mention is that the democratic institutions in our country have been systematically weakened since our independence by the unelected and undemocratic military and quasi-military governments of the past, and that the people of this country have time and again, pre- and post-independence, organised themselves for heroic struggles to rid the country of autocratic regimes. Few countries in the world can boast the legacy of struggle that Bangladesh can for the right to self-determination, democracy and human dignity.
Having painted a convenient picture of the state of affairs in Bangladesh leading to the military intervention on January 11 and the coming to power of his administration the following day, the chief adviser then provided a highly misleading picture of the situation in Bangladesh at present. He referred to the constitution to make a case for the constitutionality and hence, the legitimacy of his government by explaining to the UN that ‘the non-party caretaker administration acts as a bridge between successive political governments’ and that his administration’s ‘task, first and foremost, is to ensure a free and fair election.’ He also said the ‘task of conducting a free and fair election is the responsibility of the Election Commission.’ Since the chief adviser had decided to hide behind our constitution, perhaps he should also have also mentioned to the UN that our constitution stipulates that the Election Commission must hold parliamentary elections within 90 days of the dissolution of parliament and that the caretaker government, which is meant to be in power for those 90 days, is allowed by the constitution only to run the day-to-day affairs of the state and not take any policy decisions of the government. Both the Election Commission and his interim government are, therefore, carrying on in gross violation of the constitution that he referred to.
The chief adviser also said his government has ‘already overhauled the Election Commission, guaranteeing its independence and giving it a broader mandate. The Election Commission, on its own accord, has announced a timeline for holding the next parliamentary election by the end of 2008.’ Once again, we find that the chief adviser has been less than honest to the international community. While his government may have reconstituted the Election Commission in February, it is yet to separate the commission’s secretariat from the office of the chief executive, much less make it independent. Not only does the commission not have financial or administrative autonomy, that it is still dictated to by the interim government rather than dictating to it as per our constitution is evident from the fact that its repeated demands since April for a relaxing of restrictions on politics was snubbed by the government till September. Also, regardless of what the chief adviser might claim, few believe that the electoral ‘roadmap’ announced by the Election Commission was done on its own accord. The idea of having a ‘roadmap’, some say, was initiated by a foreign non-governmental organisation to prop up this government and to appease an increasingly restless donor community, and that the preparation of the roadmap was highly influenced by this interim government.
The chief adviser has claimed that his government has ‘initiated necessary steps to fully separate the executive and judicial branches of the government.’ That may indeed be the case, but in introducing the draconian Emergency Power Rules that have turned normally bailable offences non-bailable by taking the power to grant bail away from the judges, in constituting special courts that appear to be summarily sentencing the ‘corrupt’ to years in jail on flimsy evidence that are at times extracted from people under duress, in turning jurisprudence on its head by making people effectively guilty until proven innocent, rather than innocent until proven guilty, the government of Fakhruddin Ahmed has done great harm to the judiciary. What good will the independence of the judiciary do, when it finally does come, if the hands of the judges are tied behind their backs by the emergency rules that have also taken away the fundamental rights of the citizens?
Also, while it is indeed heartening that the chief adviser understands that ‘political parties are among the core constituents of democracy’ – one would not guess that his government feels much utility in having a political establishment in the country at all – the chief adviser has again been less than honest in suggesting that ‘in response to the demands of the people, the main political parties have themselves initiated various reforms.’ The people want the political parties to become more internally democratic for sure, but not a single political party has yet initiated a process of reform in response to those demands.
First of all, the political parties, up until a few days before Fakhruddin flew to the United States, were under lockdown with all political activity banned. Second, those within the major parties who have been pushing the ‘reform’ agenda during the lockdown in complete disregard of the government ban have done so at the egging on of the powers that be and in fear of the wind of the anti-corruption drive sweeping them along with it. It is no secret that the Fakhruddin government and its backers have been actively seeking political alternatives to the leadership of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party chairperson Khaleda Zia and the Awami League president Sheikh Hasina. The ‘reform’ agenda within the parties, thus far promoted by the opportunist stooges of this government, has concentrated solely on achieving this objective, not on the real democratisation of the parties.
The chief adviser has also spoken of the need for a National Human Rights Commission, saying his government has taken the decision to establish one, which would indeed be a step in the right direction. However, just as constituting an independent Anti-Corruption Commission was the ultimate paradox for the BNP-led alliance government which is considered to be the most corrupt in our country’s history, so might the constitution of a human rights commission be for this government, which continues to circumvent due process and against which there are widespread allegations of torture and human rights violations of those taken into custody. If the Fakhruddin government could first ensure that the minimum human rights and dignities of those who have been taken into custody during his tenure are ensured, and bring to justice those responsible for those violations in the last almost nine months, perhaps his promise of establishing a human rights commission could be considered a genuine intention rather than an eyewash for the international community and the people of this country alike.
Fakhruddin told the United Nations that his government ‘is fully committed to ensuring that our reform initiatives are comprehensive and irreversible.’ Does this chief adviser not realise that his government is doing everything possible, especially by circumventing the due process, to ensure that none of its reform measures will be sustainable in the long-run?
Most distressingly, the chief adviser told the General Assembly that ‘Bangladesh represents an effective model of civil-military cooperation in crisis prevention. Our experience in crisis management could be relevant for many crisis-torn, nascent democracies.’ That Bangladesh’s political establishment has failed to deliver governance to the extent that the people, at least at the beginning, welcomed an unelected regime that was brought about by the military should be nothing but a cause of shame and embarrassment for our country. An effective model of civil-military cooperation, even in crisis management, can only be found in true democracies, where the military works in harmony with the civil administration but remains at all times subservient to an elected political government. The existence of an unelected, undemocratic and unconstitutional government that is sustained by the military through the proclamation of an emergency that suspends the people’s fundamental rights to speak, gather and protest does not ‘represent an effective model of civil-military cooperation.’
Fakhruddin Ahmed, through his long and distinguished career as a bureaucrat, has gained a reputation of being a man of honesty and integrity. Unfortunately, his speech to the United Nations General Assembly does nothing to uphold that reputation. The country’s president, Iajuddin Ahmed, did irreparable harm to his own reputation and legacy during the short time that he headed a caretaker government. Does Fakhruddin Ahmed wish to take a similar route by concocting his own brand of omissions and half-truths?
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Bangladesh: Military, Mullahs and Oligarchs
Bangladesh was made a paradox with the able hands of military, mullahs, and oligarchs
A.H. Jaffor Ullah
The chief of the military-backed government of Bangladesh , Fakhruddin Ahmed, spoke before a gathering at the campus of Columbia University on September 28, 2007. The chief advisor came to New York City a few days earlier to attend the general assembly of the U.N. in which he gave a 15-miniute address before the dignitaries and the permanent representatives of the comity of nations that make this organization one of a kind world body.
Fakhruddin's address to Columbia University's "World Leader's Forum" caught the attention of many people because this is the first time that the chief advisor came to the West after being thrust into power by cantonment intrigue in Bangladesh. Also, the chief advisor never did take any question from journalists in Bangladesh despite the fact that he attended various state functions in many of which he delivered only speech.
The silent force that is the purveyor of Fakhruddin Administration does not allow the chief advisor to address the press in an open forum. That is precisely why quite a few eager beaver attended the lecture with the hope that they could ask him some pertinent questions about the way Bangladesh is being run since January 12, 2007. Many civil rights activists also attended the lecture to get the impression as to why about a quarter million people or so are rotting in the jail without any charge, tens and thousands of poor people were made homeless by the government's forces alone in Dhaka, half a dozen senior professors from three universities – Dhaka, Rajshahi, and Chittagong were arrested and placed in jail as of this writing, and why the government had arrested a twenty-year old cartoonists at the behest of Islamists in Bangladesh. The other pressing questions that need explanation are – the exit map for this temporary government whose 90-days tenure as per the constitution had all but expired and how long the emergency rule will continue in this "paradoxical" nation that is mired in hyper inflation, and quasi military rule. Not to mention the military-backed government had supported a faction of political leaders to engage in open politics when it has squashed the political activities of the leading parties and whose leaders are in jail pending litigation. Also important to many attendees of the lecture is the issue of the up coming general election and the reform process that should make a level playing field for all political parties.
I could not attend the lecture because I live about 1,300-1,400 miles away from New York City; however, Mr. Jahed Ahmed, who is one of the moderators of Mukto-mona forum, had attended the meeting and I read his eye account report of the speech. Mr. Ahmed did a superlative job in reporting the performance of Mr. Fakhruddin Ahmed while he took notes. I request the readers to peruse his report to know what Mr. Fakhruddin had emphasized in his carefully prepared speech.
What I would like to do in this write-up is to bring up the issue of one segment of his speech in which he said, "Bangladesh is, in many ways, a paradox that has baffled many a pundit." This needs elaboration a bit. I have no idea in which context the chief advisor categorized Bangladesh as a paradoxical land. Is it the polity, its political leadership, or is it the people?
As I have alluded to earlier that Mr. Fakhruddin Ahmed was thrust into the forefront of governance by a powerful coterie of power. His purveyor – the military in my view is accountable for making Bangladesh a paradoxical land. In August 15, 1975 the military executed a plan that it hatched in Kurmitola cantonment. Since then the military came to power not once but three times. All along the way, it courted the mullahs (read Islamists) to consolidate its power. Lest we forget, this tiny nation was formed in 1971 through a mass participation under the leadership of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Tajuddin Ahmed, Nazrul Islam, and many more like them. An estimated 3 million people were butchered and a quarter million women raped by the brute and occupation army of Pakistani government. The masses wanted a secular polity and they got one only to see that only three and half-year later the military reverted the course of the journey to transform this one-time vibrant society into a quasi religious state.
In mid-September 2007 a vernacular newspaper published an innocuous cartoon in which the twenty-year old cartoonist by the name Arifur Rahman poked a fun at the naming of Muslim boys. The Islamists twisted the meaning of the punch line and asked the government to arrest the cartoonist and the editor, publisher and the whole shebang of Bangla newspaper Prothom Alo. The Fakhruddin Administration could have appointed a body of scholars to look into the content of the carton before arresting the cartoonist. But to appease the religious fanatics the government did nothing of that sort and it simply arrested the young man who created the cartoon. The activist government then went further and arranged a " Taoba" (forgiveness or pardon) ceremony with the mullahs asking the law minister to be the middle man to carry out the fiasco in public. The picture of the hapless editor seated among corpulent mullahs graced the page of most newspaper. The secular segment of the society simply cringed in feat thinking what lies ahead for this "paradoxical" land. In my opinion the military-led government is making this country a nation of paradox.
The army appointed 10 or so technocrats, ex-military men, and businessman to run the country of 150 million people after January 11, 2007 over through of a caretaker government, which was ordained in late October 2006. The country is essentially being run by a group of oligarchs who have no connection to masses. Bangladesh is still a village-based polity. These men are all city-bred and have a serious disconnection to the people of the land. The Fakhruddin Administration' s main agenda was to break the tradition of two-family driven politics but to do execute its policy it appointed three oligarchs from the same family. Is not it paradoxical? The military-led government said it will arrest all the corrupt politicians but in reality it turned a blind eye to quite a few politicians who are corrupt. The only reason these corrupt politicians are roaming freely in the nation is that they are extending their helping hands to tighten the noose around the neck of two supreme political leaders. The government is also dictating these corrupt but free politicians to wreak havoc in their respective parties. Initially the government thought they could help catapult Dr. Yunus into the political arena. The Peace Nobel laureate thought he could facilely form a political party using the Internet and media but that was proven so wrong. The idea of forming the party just withered in the vine and the oligarchs could do nothing but twiddle their thumbs. Indeed, Bangladesh is seemingly a nation of contradiction.
If I understand correctly by reading Jahed Ahmed's write-up on day's event at Columbia University , Mr. Fakhruddin Ahmed talked about the success of poverty alleviation program, food production situation in Bangladesh and the need for good governance; however, he avoided those touchy issues as the arrest of university professors and the young cartoonist. These questions were asked but the chief advisor dodged the questions while he gave his glib answers. I was saddened to hear that Mr. Fakhruddin Ahmed did not even say word on the arrest of Arifur Rahman, the jailed cartoonist. By remaining reticent on this hot issue, the chief advisor had proved one more time that Bangladesh is riddled with contradiction in terms of the governance. The same Mr. Fakhruddin had given a fiery speech on February 21, 2007 in which he urged everyone to join in to make Bangladesh a knowledge-based society but that ephemeral plea just vanished in the thin air. The hard reality is that the nation is now under the influence of obscurantists who are dictating the government to efface the vestiges of secularism. Isn't that a glaring example of the paradoxical nature of Bangladesh ? If I may say so, Mr. Fakhruddin Ahmed, it is through your action our motherland is becoming not only a hapless but an utter paradoxical land. Instead of lecturing on it, please do something about it so that in future this epithet could be kept "rest in peace."
___________________________________________
A.H. Jaffor Ullah, a researcher and columnist, writes from New Orleans , USA
A.H. Jaffor Ullah
The chief of the military-backed government of Bangladesh , Fakhruddin Ahmed, spoke before a gathering at the campus of Columbia University on September 28, 2007. The chief advisor came to New York City a few days earlier to attend the general assembly of the U.N. in which he gave a 15-miniute address before the dignitaries and the permanent representatives of the comity of nations that make this organization one of a kind world body.
Fakhruddin's address to Columbia University's "World Leader's Forum" caught the attention of many people because this is the first time that the chief advisor came to the West after being thrust into power by cantonment intrigue in Bangladesh. Also, the chief advisor never did take any question from journalists in Bangladesh despite the fact that he attended various state functions in many of which he delivered only speech.
The silent force that is the purveyor of Fakhruddin Administration does not allow the chief advisor to address the press in an open forum. That is precisely why quite a few eager beaver attended the lecture with the hope that they could ask him some pertinent questions about the way Bangladesh is being run since January 12, 2007. Many civil rights activists also attended the lecture to get the impression as to why about a quarter million people or so are rotting in the jail without any charge, tens and thousands of poor people were made homeless by the government's forces alone in Dhaka, half a dozen senior professors from three universities – Dhaka, Rajshahi, and Chittagong were arrested and placed in jail as of this writing, and why the government had arrested a twenty-year old cartoonists at the behest of Islamists in Bangladesh. The other pressing questions that need explanation are – the exit map for this temporary government whose 90-days tenure as per the constitution had all but expired and how long the emergency rule will continue in this "paradoxical" nation that is mired in hyper inflation, and quasi military rule. Not to mention the military-backed government had supported a faction of political leaders to engage in open politics when it has squashed the political activities of the leading parties and whose leaders are in jail pending litigation. Also important to many attendees of the lecture is the issue of the up coming general election and the reform process that should make a level playing field for all political parties.
I could not attend the lecture because I live about 1,300-1,400 miles away from New York City; however, Mr. Jahed Ahmed, who is one of the moderators of Mukto-mona forum, had attended the meeting and I read his eye account report of the speech. Mr. Ahmed did a superlative job in reporting the performance of Mr. Fakhruddin Ahmed while he took notes. I request the readers to peruse his report to know what Mr. Fakhruddin had emphasized in his carefully prepared speech.
What I would like to do in this write-up is to bring up the issue of one segment of his speech in which he said, "Bangladesh is, in many ways, a paradox that has baffled many a pundit." This needs elaboration a bit. I have no idea in which context the chief advisor categorized Bangladesh as a paradoxical land. Is it the polity, its political leadership, or is it the people?
As I have alluded to earlier that Mr. Fakhruddin Ahmed was thrust into the forefront of governance by a powerful coterie of power. His purveyor – the military in my view is accountable for making Bangladesh a paradoxical land. In August 15, 1975 the military executed a plan that it hatched in Kurmitola cantonment. Since then the military came to power not once but three times. All along the way, it courted the mullahs (read Islamists) to consolidate its power. Lest we forget, this tiny nation was formed in 1971 through a mass participation under the leadership of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Tajuddin Ahmed, Nazrul Islam, and many more like them. An estimated 3 million people were butchered and a quarter million women raped by the brute and occupation army of Pakistani government. The masses wanted a secular polity and they got one only to see that only three and half-year later the military reverted the course of the journey to transform this one-time vibrant society into a quasi religious state.
In mid-September 2007 a vernacular newspaper published an innocuous cartoon in which the twenty-year old cartoonist by the name Arifur Rahman poked a fun at the naming of Muslim boys. The Islamists twisted the meaning of the punch line and asked the government to arrest the cartoonist and the editor, publisher and the whole shebang of Bangla newspaper Prothom Alo. The Fakhruddin Administration could have appointed a body of scholars to look into the content of the carton before arresting the cartoonist. But to appease the religious fanatics the government did nothing of that sort and it simply arrested the young man who created the cartoon. The activist government then went further and arranged a " Taoba" (forgiveness or pardon) ceremony with the mullahs asking the law minister to be the middle man to carry out the fiasco in public. The picture of the hapless editor seated among corpulent mullahs graced the page of most newspaper. The secular segment of the society simply cringed in feat thinking what lies ahead for this "paradoxical" land. In my opinion the military-led government is making this country a nation of paradox.
The army appointed 10 or so technocrats, ex-military men, and businessman to run the country of 150 million people after January 11, 2007 over through of a caretaker government, which was ordained in late October 2006. The country is essentially being run by a group of oligarchs who have no connection to masses. Bangladesh is still a village-based polity. These men are all city-bred and have a serious disconnection to the people of the land. The Fakhruddin Administration' s main agenda was to break the tradition of two-family driven politics but to do execute its policy it appointed three oligarchs from the same family. Is not it paradoxical? The military-led government said it will arrest all the corrupt politicians but in reality it turned a blind eye to quite a few politicians who are corrupt. The only reason these corrupt politicians are roaming freely in the nation is that they are extending their helping hands to tighten the noose around the neck of two supreme political leaders. The government is also dictating these corrupt but free politicians to wreak havoc in their respective parties. Initially the government thought they could help catapult Dr. Yunus into the political arena. The Peace Nobel laureate thought he could facilely form a political party using the Internet and media but that was proven so wrong. The idea of forming the party just withered in the vine and the oligarchs could do nothing but twiddle their thumbs. Indeed, Bangladesh is seemingly a nation of contradiction.
If I understand correctly by reading Jahed Ahmed's write-up on day's event at Columbia University , Mr. Fakhruddin Ahmed talked about the success of poverty alleviation program, food production situation in Bangladesh and the need for good governance; however, he avoided those touchy issues as the arrest of university professors and the young cartoonist. These questions were asked but the chief advisor dodged the questions while he gave his glib answers. I was saddened to hear that Mr. Fakhruddin Ahmed did not even say word on the arrest of Arifur Rahman, the jailed cartoonist. By remaining reticent on this hot issue, the chief advisor had proved one more time that Bangladesh is riddled with contradiction in terms of the governance. The same Mr. Fakhruddin had given a fiery speech on February 21, 2007 in which he urged everyone to join in to make Bangladesh a knowledge-based society but that ephemeral plea just vanished in the thin air. The hard reality is that the nation is now under the influence of obscurantists who are dictating the government to efface the vestiges of secularism. Isn't that a glaring example of the paradoxical nature of Bangladesh ? If I may say so, Mr. Fakhruddin Ahmed, it is through your action our motherland is becoming not only a hapless but an utter paradoxical land. Instead of lecturing on it, please do something about it so that in future this epithet could be kept "rest in peace."
___________________________________________
A.H. Jaffor Ullah, a researcher and columnist, writes from New Orleans , USA
Lecture Hop: cruel and petty dictator edition?
Lecture Hop: cruel and petty dictator edition?
September 29, 2007
Courtesy: The BWOG Blog
The World Leaders Forum might be over, but Bangladesh's problems sure aren't!
Armin Rosen reports on the last of this round of WLF events.
Like Turkmenistan, Bangaldesh finds itself straddling a perilously thin line. In Turkmenistan, a solid tradition of dictatorship makes it all too easy for president Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov to lead the central Asian country away from democracy (those who saw him speak this past Monday learned that this is exactly what he plans to do). Bangladesh has an equally checkered history of civil war and military rule, although Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed's relatively bullshit-free speech at the World Leaders Forum leads me to believe that the country probably won't revert to destructive historical habit--but it was difficult to watch Dr. Ahmed without thinking there's a decent chance that it will.
Dr. Ahmed was surprisingly candid as to the challenges facing his country. In impeccable English the Princeton PhD explained that his country holds long term promise, and that trade liberalization, foreign development and support from NGOs have put Bangladesh on pace to half poverty by 2015. Bangladesh could be a middle-income country within two decades, says Dr. Ahmed, who did an excellent job of presenting his country as the least dysfunctional of the world�s poverty-stricken hellholes--but he was nevertheless clear that Bangladesh remains a poverty-stricken hellhole. He touched on land shortages, corruption and market threats to the country's economically vital readymade garment industry as challenges that could break his small country of 150 million people. And he closed on the ominous prediction that global warming will sink 30% of Bangladesh within the next couple centuries.
What Dr. Ahmed didn't touch on during his keynote address was the fact that his very appearance at Columbia portends deep and possibly destructive problems for Bangladesh. Ahmed is the chief advisor to a "non-partisan transitional -government," and the country is operating under emergency rule as set forth in its constitiuon. But in South Asia, "emergency rule" is often just dictatorship by other means--a case in point is Indira Gandhi's heavy-handed tactics during India's "emergency" in the mid-70s. So is Ahmed a responsible caretaker for a poor but inevitably promising country, or a technocratic dictator ruling over a proverbial house of cards?
One Bangladeshi expat delivered a Bollingerian scolding during the question-and-answer session, and claimed that Ahmed's "regime" has been curtailing freedom of the press, imprisoning academics and turning a blind eye to religious and political extremism. Another questioner brought up the millions of Bangladeshis who have illegally settled in India, and mentioned that this could turn into a prickly and possibly intractable issue for the two neighbors (likely given the intensity of the immigration debate in our own country). Ahmed effectively sidestepped the question about imprisoned academics by assuring us that they deserve to be in jail. On illegal immigration he pled total ignorance, and he completely ignored the question of whether he is refusing to reign in extremism.
Ahmed's commitment to democracy will be revealed in 2008, when an election is scheduled to end Bangladesh's constitutional emeergency rule. If those elections go down as scheduled, and if Ahmed's program of poverty reduction proves even marginally successful he will go down as one of the great leaders in his country's young history. But Ahmed's revealing answers and non-answers suggest other disconcerting possibilities. What's for sure is that Bangladesh is no Turkmenistan--but that isn't exactly a big deal.
September 29, 2007
Courtesy: The BWOG Blog
The World Leaders Forum might be over, but Bangladesh's problems sure aren't!
Armin Rosen reports on the last of this round of WLF events.
Like Turkmenistan, Bangaldesh finds itself straddling a perilously thin line. In Turkmenistan, a solid tradition of dictatorship makes it all too easy for president Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov to lead the central Asian country away from democracy (those who saw him speak this past Monday learned that this is exactly what he plans to do). Bangladesh has an equally checkered history of civil war and military rule, although Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed's relatively bullshit-free speech at the World Leaders Forum leads me to believe that the country probably won't revert to destructive historical habit--but it was difficult to watch Dr. Ahmed without thinking there's a decent chance that it will.
Dr. Ahmed was surprisingly candid as to the challenges facing his country. In impeccable English the Princeton PhD explained that his country holds long term promise, and that trade liberalization, foreign development and support from NGOs have put Bangladesh on pace to half poverty by 2015. Bangladesh could be a middle-income country within two decades, says Dr. Ahmed, who did an excellent job of presenting his country as the least dysfunctional of the world�s poverty-stricken hellholes--but he was nevertheless clear that Bangladesh remains a poverty-stricken hellhole. He touched on land shortages, corruption and market threats to the country's economically vital readymade garment industry as challenges that could break his small country of 150 million people. And he closed on the ominous prediction that global warming will sink 30% of Bangladesh within the next couple centuries.
What Dr. Ahmed didn't touch on during his keynote address was the fact that his very appearance at Columbia portends deep and possibly destructive problems for Bangladesh. Ahmed is the chief advisor to a "non-partisan transitional -government," and the country is operating under emergency rule as set forth in its constitiuon. But in South Asia, "emergency rule" is often just dictatorship by other means--a case in point is Indira Gandhi's heavy-handed tactics during India's "emergency" in the mid-70s. So is Ahmed a responsible caretaker for a poor but inevitably promising country, or a technocratic dictator ruling over a proverbial house of cards?
One Bangladeshi expat delivered a Bollingerian scolding during the question-and-answer session, and claimed that Ahmed's "regime" has been curtailing freedom of the press, imprisoning academics and turning a blind eye to religious and political extremism. Another questioner brought up the millions of Bangladeshis who have illegally settled in India, and mentioned that this could turn into a prickly and possibly intractable issue for the two neighbors (likely given the intensity of the immigration debate in our own country). Ahmed effectively sidestepped the question about imprisoned academics by assuring us that they deserve to be in jail. On illegal immigration he pled total ignorance, and he completely ignored the question of whether he is refusing to reign in extremism.
Ahmed's commitment to democracy will be revealed in 2008, when an election is scheduled to end Bangladesh's constitutional emeergency rule. If those elections go down as scheduled, and if Ahmed's program of poverty reduction proves even marginally successful he will go down as one of the great leaders in his country's young history. But Ahmed's revealing answers and non-answers suggest other disconcerting possibilities. What's for sure is that Bangladesh is no Turkmenistan--but that isn't exactly a big deal.
Dr. Fakhruddin’s Speech at Columbia and the “Paradox” of Bangladesh
Dr. Fakhruddin’s Speech at Columbia and the “Paradox” of Bangladesh
Jahed Ahmed
Courtesy of: Mukto Mona
“Bangladesh is, in many ways, a paradox that has baffled many a pundit.”
-Dr. Fakhruddin at Columbia University (28th September 2007)
This morning Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed, Honorable Chief Adviser of Bangladesh, delivered a speech at Columbia University on an invitation by its World Leader’s Forum. At the same venue just a few days ago Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinajad was invited amid massive protests and gave a speech followed by questions and answers session during which Mr Mahmoud underwent a real tough time. Unlike Ahmedinajad, Dr Fakhruddin, however, was well received by the community of Columbia University, its students, teachers, staff and media. Dr. Fakhruddin’s speech was well-written and he delivered it well. Yet it might not be easy to predict, to what extent the Chief Adviser has been able to dispel the doubts about Bangladesh as “a paradox that has baffled many a pundit,” a phrase taken from his speech. Unlike what we see back home, here in US (and in much of the West) a speech or lecture by a VIP is almost always accompanied by the questions and answers (Q & A) session. But this session didn’t go as well as Dr. Fakhruddin might have predicted. And I am sure--our Chief Adviser, a Princeton alumni himself--has realized it as well.
The title of Dr. Fakhruddin’s speech was “Bangladesh’s Socioeconomic Development: Success, Challenges, and Imperatives.” During his more than half-an-hour speech which started at 11 am, Dr. Fakhruddin spoke on a wide range of issues starting from—Dr. Yunus’ micro-credit; challenges of poverty reduction; Bangladesh’s success in population control, food-production, garments industry, primary education, Non-formal education (NFE) (some may not agree with the way he promoted BRAC’s success as an NGO); migration issue— to current caretaker government’s drive against corruption and resolve to hold elections “before the end of December 2008.”
One very interesting aspect of Dr. Fakhruddin’s speech was his repeated utterance “democracy is a necessary but not sufficient condition for good governance.” (May be, General Moyeen has requested him to make it a point every where he goes to!) “Our democratically elected governments during the past 15 years failed to promote good governance and to protect citizens’ rights. We must accept that while democracy may take various forms and manifestations, its ultimate objective is always the same—the rule of law by the will of people. Democracy must put in place checks and balances against abuses of power and corruption,” said Dr. Fakhruddin during his speech. While many of us may agree with Dr. Fakhruddin’s statement about the failure and corruption (moral and fiscal) of country’s mainstream politicians, it’s quite dubious in my opinion that not even once did he mention that about the military’s repeated record of capture and abuse of power in Bangladesh by bypassing country’s constitution. After all, Bangladesh’s age is 35+ years, not 15 years. As for the underlined portion (Note: I did it to make my point. –J.A.) of his remarks, we only wish Mr Chief Adviser’s “various forms and manifestations” of democracy would not remind us of General Ayub’s “Basic Democracy.” The Q & A session started at around 11-35 a.m. I attended the speech on behalf of Mukto-Mona.com and carried a question with me which read as follows: Recently in Bangladesh, a young cartoonist Arifur Rahman was arrested and is held in prison for a cartoon which used the word, "Mohammed" and which some fundamentalist groups found objectionable. When a similar cartoon was published in the magazine of another fundamentalist group's own newspaper, no allegation of people’s "religious sentiments being hurt" or any such issue arose. We are aware that lawyers have been restricted from representing Mr Rahman and that his own family has not been allowed to meet him. This follows on the heels of the brutal torture and killing of Tribe leader and Activist Cholesh Ritchil and the arrests of hundreds of university teachers, several thousands of people with no prior criminal record. Would you please comment on this horrific state of affairs in Bangladesh with respect to individual rights and freedoms? During Q & A session I saw Dr. Austin Dacey, a long time friend of Mukto-Mona, United Nations representative of the Center for Inquiry (CFI) Trans-national and assistant editor of Free Inquiry magazine, in the queue on the other side of the hall. The moderator took first four questions from four members of the audience (there were total two lines). I was waiting for my turn. The first four questions were about Dr. Yunus & micro-credit (asked by a Bangladeshi journalist but I couldn’t quite clearly follow it); arrest of cartoonist Arifur Rahman (asked by Dr. Austin); imprisonment and harassment of university teachers, students and others and Bangladeshi refugees in India . In his response although Dr Fakhruddin maintained that his government is “respectful” (?) of the freedom of press, he clearly avoided the issue of cartoonist Arifur Rahman’s arrest. But the question regarding imprisonment and persecution of university teachers, asked by a young South Asian student, shattered the image which Dr. Fakhruddin created of his government through his sugar-coated speech. It was interesting to notice, how Dr. Fakhruddin’s face turned grumpy as the question was asked. And his answer to this particular question was old rhetoric: that it was initially a “minor” incident that was magnified later through some anti-government agents in order to destabilize the country. By the time my turn time came, Ms Clare Oh (who granted me permission to attend the event) came to me telling,” Sorry, media people are not allowed to ask any questions. Q & A session is open only to Columbia students and staff.” Surprised and deeply frustrated, I pleaded saying the first four persons who asked questions were not Columbia students themselves. Ms Clare acknowledged- that was a mistake. I obeyed the rule and came out with Dr. Austin, thanked him for raising the issue of cartoonist Arif’s arrest. If it was not for him, the American audience would not have learned about the example of this government’s policy of appeasement toward Islamic fundamentalists: imprisonment of a boy as young as 19 years only for “hurting religious sentiments” (!) of Muslims (read, Mullahs). As I was coming out, I left the copies of CFI's statement on cartoonist Arifur Rahman issued to Mukto-Mona yesterday on the table with the receptionists near the entrance. Initially I hoped to distribute them among the audience personally but I arrived there late and the speech already started.
How many more years would Bangladesh remain a ”baffling paradox?” Who might know answer to this question: The politicians, bureaucrats, the military, the public or none of them! I thought about this on my way back home.
New York
September 28, 2007
_______________________________
About the author: Jahed Ahmed is the co-moderator and editorial board member of Mukto-Mona (http://www.mukto-mona.com/), a network of freethinkers and humanists from South Asian countries. He can be reached at worldcitizen73@yahoo.com
Jahed Ahmed
Courtesy of: Mukto Mona
“Bangladesh is, in many ways, a paradox that has baffled many a pundit.”
-Dr. Fakhruddin at Columbia University (28th September 2007)
This morning Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed, Honorable Chief Adviser of Bangladesh, delivered a speech at Columbia University on an invitation by its World Leader’s Forum. At the same venue just a few days ago Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinajad was invited amid massive protests and gave a speech followed by questions and answers session during which Mr Mahmoud underwent a real tough time. Unlike Ahmedinajad, Dr Fakhruddin, however, was well received by the community of Columbia University, its students, teachers, staff and media. Dr. Fakhruddin’s speech was well-written and he delivered it well. Yet it might not be easy to predict, to what extent the Chief Adviser has been able to dispel the doubts about Bangladesh as “a paradox that has baffled many a pundit,” a phrase taken from his speech. Unlike what we see back home, here in US (and in much of the West) a speech or lecture by a VIP is almost always accompanied by the questions and answers (Q & A) session. But this session didn’t go as well as Dr. Fakhruddin might have predicted. And I am sure--our Chief Adviser, a Princeton alumni himself--has realized it as well.
The title of Dr. Fakhruddin’s speech was “Bangladesh’s Socioeconomic Development: Success, Challenges, and Imperatives.” During his more than half-an-hour speech which started at 11 am, Dr. Fakhruddin spoke on a wide range of issues starting from—Dr. Yunus’ micro-credit; challenges of poverty reduction; Bangladesh’s success in population control, food-production, garments industry, primary education, Non-formal education (NFE) (some may not agree with the way he promoted BRAC’s success as an NGO); migration issue— to current caretaker government’s drive against corruption and resolve to hold elections “before the end of December 2008.”
One very interesting aspect of Dr. Fakhruddin’s speech was his repeated utterance “democracy is a necessary but not sufficient condition for good governance.” (May be, General Moyeen has requested him to make it a point every where he goes to!) “Our democratically elected governments during the past 15 years failed to promote good governance and to protect citizens’ rights. We must accept that while democracy may take various forms and manifestations, its ultimate objective is always the same—the rule of law by the will of people. Democracy must put in place checks and balances against abuses of power and corruption,” said Dr. Fakhruddin during his speech. While many of us may agree with Dr. Fakhruddin’s statement about the failure and corruption (moral and fiscal) of country’s mainstream politicians, it’s quite dubious in my opinion that not even once did he mention that about the military’s repeated record of capture and abuse of power in Bangladesh by bypassing country’s constitution. After all, Bangladesh’s age is 35+ years, not 15 years. As for the underlined portion (Note: I did it to make my point. –J.A.) of his remarks, we only wish Mr Chief Adviser’s “various forms and manifestations” of democracy would not remind us of General Ayub’s “Basic Democracy.” The Q & A session started at around 11-35 a.m. I attended the speech on behalf of Mukto-Mona.com and carried a question with me which read as follows: Recently in Bangladesh, a young cartoonist Arifur Rahman was arrested and is held in prison for a cartoon which used the word, "Mohammed" and which some fundamentalist groups found objectionable. When a similar cartoon was published in the magazine of another fundamentalist group's own newspaper, no allegation of people’s "religious sentiments being hurt" or any such issue arose. We are aware that lawyers have been restricted from representing Mr Rahman and that his own family has not been allowed to meet him. This follows on the heels of the brutal torture and killing of Tribe leader and Activist Cholesh Ritchil and the arrests of hundreds of university teachers, several thousands of people with no prior criminal record. Would you please comment on this horrific state of affairs in Bangladesh with respect to individual rights and freedoms? During Q & A session I saw Dr. Austin Dacey, a long time friend of Mukto-Mona, United Nations representative of the Center for Inquiry (CFI) Trans-national and assistant editor of Free Inquiry magazine, in the queue on the other side of the hall. The moderator took first four questions from four members of the audience (there were total two lines). I was waiting for my turn. The first four questions were about Dr. Yunus & micro-credit (asked by a Bangladeshi journalist but I couldn’t quite clearly follow it); arrest of cartoonist Arifur Rahman (asked by Dr. Austin); imprisonment and harassment of university teachers, students and others and Bangladeshi refugees in India . In his response although Dr Fakhruddin maintained that his government is “respectful” (?) of the freedom of press, he clearly avoided the issue of cartoonist Arifur Rahman’s arrest. But the question regarding imprisonment and persecution of university teachers, asked by a young South Asian student, shattered the image which Dr. Fakhruddin created of his government through his sugar-coated speech. It was interesting to notice, how Dr. Fakhruddin’s face turned grumpy as the question was asked. And his answer to this particular question was old rhetoric: that it was initially a “minor” incident that was magnified later through some anti-government agents in order to destabilize the country. By the time my turn time came, Ms Clare Oh (who granted me permission to attend the event) came to me telling,” Sorry, media people are not allowed to ask any questions. Q & A session is open only to Columbia students and staff.” Surprised and deeply frustrated, I pleaded saying the first four persons who asked questions were not Columbia students themselves. Ms Clare acknowledged- that was a mistake. I obeyed the rule and came out with Dr. Austin, thanked him for raising the issue of cartoonist Arif’s arrest. If it was not for him, the American audience would not have learned about the example of this government’s policy of appeasement toward Islamic fundamentalists: imprisonment of a boy as young as 19 years only for “hurting religious sentiments” (!) of Muslims (read, Mullahs). As I was coming out, I left the copies of CFI's statement on cartoonist Arifur Rahman issued to Mukto-Mona yesterday on the table with the receptionists near the entrance. Initially I hoped to distribute them among the audience personally but I arrived there late and the speech already started.
How many more years would Bangladesh remain a ”baffling paradox?” Who might know answer to this question: The politicians, bureaucrats, the military, the public or none of them! I thought about this on my way back home.
New York
September 28, 2007
_______________________________
About the author: Jahed Ahmed is the co-moderator and editorial board member of Mukto-Mona (http://www.mukto-mona.com/), a network of freethinkers and humanists from South Asian countries. He can be reached at worldcitizen73@yahoo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)