Drawing parallels and lessons
Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan and Moeen U Ahmed in Bangladesh
Mahmud ur Rahman Choudhury
Source: The Bangladesh Today
August 26, 2008
What happens in Pakistan ought not to overly concern us here in Bangladesh but it does because we were once part of Pakistan and have inherited some of the worst aspects of that Country's politics and governance. The four core institutions of our State - the Judiciary and system of Justice, the system of law-enforcement and Police, the system of administration and Bureaucracy and the Military - are all direct descendents of and still display many of the characteristics of the Pakistani system. Military involvement in politics is one of these awful legacies which we in Bangladesh are still tolerating and living with.
I don't know General Pervez Musharraf personally but I have read his very interesting auto-biography, "In the Line of Fire" and I happen to know one of his very close friends from whom I heard quite a bit about the General. As for General Moeen Uddin Ahmed, I have a passing acquaintance with him, having served for 25 years in the Bangladesh Army. Both of these individuals have catapulted themselves into politics in very critical moments in their respective countries' histories and therefore deserve a closer scrutiny of their characters and their deeds so as to draw appropriate lessons for the immediate future. The Pakistani General had to let go of power when he was forced to resign from his presidency on 18 August 2008 while the Bangladeshi General still holds a firm grasp of political power or so he believes.
Starting with the Pakistani General, Pervez Musharraf was a "Muhajir", that is a person who migrated to Pakistan after the partition of the sub-continent in 1947. In Pakistan, his family made good; he joined the Army and was commissioned in 1964. Through dint of his intelligence and hard work he rose through higher ranks in the Army. As he attained higher ranks and responsibilities, he carefully choose his mentors and friends both within the Army as well in political circles. On the way to the top, he earned respect of both his under-command and his seniors for his courage, integrity, determination, hard work and patriotism. In 1998, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Miah Newaz Sharif choose him as the Chief of Staff after the powerful Army Chief General Jehangir Karamat resigned. Some independent commentators suggested that General Musharraf's promotion came precisely because he did not belong to the Punjabi officer class and that Musharraf's ethnic background would leave the general unable to build a powerbase but by that time Musharraf had already built a powerbase. Barely a year later, on 12 October 1999, the aircraft carrying Pervez Musharraf from a visit to Sri Lanka was denied permission to land in Pakistan. When the plane ultimately landed with fuel for 10 minutes flying left in it, Pervez Musharraf had mounted a coup to oust Newaz Sharif. Supporters of Pervez Musharraf claim that Newaz Sharif intended to murder him while his detractors claim that the whole thing was a well planned ploy to capture state power. Pervez Musharraf ruled Pakistan for 9 crucial years during which time the Army went along with him by default.
General Pervez Musharraf assumed or more appropriately usurped political power some 9 years back on the contention that the political, economic and social systems in Pakistan have gone so corrupt that the Country's integrity and sovereignty is threatened. Moreover, the Taliban problems in Afghanistan and the Kashmir issue had serious spill over effects in Pakistan in terms of law and order situation and internal stability or so it was contented. All in all, excuses for Military intervention in politics were not lacking and this tendency towards military dictatorship was actively encouraged by the US who saw in General Pervez Musharraf and the Pakistan military a bulwark against the further spread westwards of radical "Islamic terrorism". In the 9 years that Pervez Musharraf "ruled" Pakistan, he brought the Country to near ruination until the people were near revolting. In an election about a year back, acceded to reluctantly by Musharraf, the people gave their verdict overwhelmingly against what the General stood for and now with the forced resignation of General Pervez Musharraf from the post of President that "ballot-box revolution" is complete. Whether the people of Pakistan can enjoy the fruits of their "democracy" will depend entirely on their determination to continue the process of democratization of their polity inspite of their politicians who are as corrupted a lot as there can be and who have betrayed the confidence of their people more than once.
In a sense Moeen U Ahmed is a Muhajir too; he was a cadet in the Pakistan Air Force College, Sargodah when the War of Liberation of Bangladesh was going on and only returned to Bangladesh a couple of years after the country had gained its independence. In 1974 he joined the Army and was commissioned with the 1st batch of officers of an independent Bangladesh. Like Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan, Moeen U Ahmed in Bangladesh is intelligent and hard working and he too selectively cultivated friendships both within the Army and political circles as he proceeded upwards in rank and responsibility. Unlike Musharraf, Moeen U Ahmed is an introvert who is not much liked or respected by either the rank and file or fellow officers but he does know how to command obedience. When in July 2005, Lt General Hasan Mashud Chowdhury was about to retire as the Chief of Staff, Moeen U Ahmed pulled his political connections in BNP through his course mate Major Syed Iskander, the brother of the then Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, to get to the top Army slot bypassing a dozen or so equally competent senior candidates. In December 2006, when political conditions in Bangladesh turned critical, Moeen U Ahmed supported by Major General Masud Uddin Chowdhury ( the brother-in-law of Major Syed Iskander), the GOC 9infantry Division based in Savar, made their bid for power. On the early morning of 11 January 2007, Moeen U Ahmed and Masud Uddin Chowdhury escorted by troops of 9 infantry Division invaded the Bangabhaban and forced the President to sign a Declaration of Emergency. A civilian façade was created by the formation of a council of 10 advisors with a Chief Advisor to head it; all advisors being retired bureaucrats, government servants or military officers. The excuses for this blatant grab at power were similar to those enunciated by Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. "All the evidence of Bangladeshi politics, point to the compelling conclusion that the political parties divided the Nation to a dangerous threshold that had no recourse but to confront a civil war" contented General Moeen U Ahmed in an interview with Global Bangladesh on 01 August 2007.
Much like the Pakistani Army with Pervez Musharraf, the Bangladesh Army went by default with Moeen U Ahmed. In the days after the military coup, there was a sense in the armed forces that they were all in this together. Much of it has evaporated in the past 20 months, and the current activities by Moeen only make clear that he is very much following his own agenda, and any collectivist goals have been discarded a long time ago, if he ever took them seriously at all. A lot of people had a lot of things in mind when they signed up for the military coup, but no one really visualized Moeen as another dictator.. It had taken all of 9 years for Pervez Musharraf to get his Country to the point of ruination but Moeen U Ahmed has managed to ruin Bangladesh within just 20 months; it only remains to be seen how he goes and what lessons we derive from these events.
The lessons than are:
Lesson # 01: Corrupt politicians, divisive politics and weak political institutions readily invite military interventions. Military dictators come to power with messianic goals which they rarely implement, instead breaking down existing institutions without being able to replace them with better ones further aggravating social, economic and political problems thereby initiating a cycle of conflict which in extreme cases leads to complete disintegration of the polity itself. Therefore, principled representative politics and strong political institutions are the "preventive medicines" against military dictators.
Lesson # 2: Weak political institutions lack control mechanisms of all sorts, most tellingly in the control of the Military. War, the preserve of the military demands rigid, hierarchal structures of command, control and communication for the military so that they can respond instantaneously to single commands at different levels emanating from the top and ending at the bottom. Surprise, shock, fear and dislocation - the stuff of successful warfighting can only be employed through such a system. Military dictators employ the same system when taking over the State. As long as Military dictators retain the uniform, the rank and the command goes along with it by default, they are impossible to remove even through massive public agitations and protests. It is only when they discard their uniforms and ranks, that they loose command and are vulnerable to removal and that too not immediately as the case of General HM Ershad in Bangladesh and Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan prove. Therefore, strong political control of the military at strategic and operational levels is the only way to prevent military dictators from taking over the State.
Lesson # 3: Military dictators are elitists. The military decision making process depends on a few selected lot of highly trained specialists called Staffs, who analyze all situations and work out courses of actions for the commander to select from. The Staff-Commander relationship is almost symbiotic with the commander responsible or answerable to no one for his decisions except the next higher commander. The highest military Commander is only accountable and answerable to his political master, whoever that is; in the absence of strong institutional political control, the highest military commander is accountable and answerable to no one save himself. Thus, when military dictators take over the State they aim for absolute control, often suspending or truncating existing core institutions of the State to establish that absolute sway. So, Military dictatorships are inimical, even hostile to institutional developments. The only way out of this is to keep on insisting on broadening the decision-making base, increasing the number of participants in the decision making process, not with the purpose of seeking solutions to problems but aimed at overwhelming the military dictator's decision making process with contradictory and conflicting inputs, finally paralyzing the decision process. This is a gradualist approach, demanding patience and determination on the part of the civil society wanting to get rid of a military dictatorship. This is the process through which the Pakistani civil society and politicians got rid of Pervez Musharraf and this is the process Bangladeshi civil society and politicians have to master, if they intend to get rid of military dictatorships.
Lesson # 4: The first thing military dictators do on taking over the State is to suspend or severely curtail existing laws and legal systems replacing them with such legal devices as emergency power rules, ordinances, special tribunals etc. One consequence of this is that military personnel who are paid just enough by the State to lead a life of "genteel poverty" create and use opportunities to enrich themselves by all sorts of corruption and since the military in State power is not answerable and accountable to anyone except themselves, military personnel often get away with such corruption. The regime itself indulges in corruption by buying up collaborators in politics, business, media and academicia by providing money or other privileges. This coterie of vested interest then supports the military dictator in perpetuating his hold on State power. Such regimes can sometimes be so rapaciously kleptocratic as to reduce the polity and its populace to abject penury or poverty. At the least, corruption is endemic in military dictatorships as is evident from Pakistan under Musharraf and Bangladesh under Ershad and now under a military-backed Emergency. The only way to get out of this is to ensure that democratic movements and governments which often replace military dictatorships do not post-facto legitimize such dictators but declare them unlawful and punish dictators and their collaborators.
This has gotten a mite lengthy and I have to end it here today but stay tuned as next Monday we will continue with our dissection of military dictators and see why and how they rely on foreign powers to shore-up their regimes.
Showing posts with label General Moeen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label General Moeen. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Could India and Bangladesh Be Friends?
Could India and Bangladesh Be Friends?
Anand Kumar
Source: Asia Sentinel
March 12, 2008
Visit by top Bangladesh general a sign of improving relations
Driven by concerns over northeast Indian separatists operating from Bangladeshi border areas and a flood of economic migrants to India, Bangladesh’s Army Chief of Staff Gen. Moeen U Ahmed recently spent a week in India to deal with a wide range of issues in arguably the closest example of cooperation between the two countries since Bangladesh’s independence in 1971.
Arriving home on March 2 after a week in India, Moeen said progress was so good that rail service would soon begin between Dhaka and Kolkata. “It will be good for all if the train service between India and Bangladesh commences,” Moeen told reporters, according to Bangladeshi newspapers. “I hope the train service will start as soon as possible after settling the issue of security of the two countries.”
The train service is just the most visible result of the talks. Moeen held extensive discussions with Indian army chief Gen. Deepak Kapoor on ways to further cooperation between the two armed forces in rare high-level military talks. As Bangladesh has emerged as a center for terrorist organizations, many with an anti-India agenda, India hopes the visit will lead to a mechanism for information sharing.
India has been cautious in approaching Bangladesh in the wake of a January 2007 coup that ended years of squabbling between the country’s two senior politicians, Begum Khaleda Zia, the last elected prime minister who headed the Bangladesh National Party, and Sheikh Hasina Wazed, who headed the Awami League. Their bitter electoral rivalry ended in chaos, spurring the coup. Both women, and scores of their supporters, remain under arrest on corruption charges. The existing caretaker government is headed by Fakhruddin Ahmad, a former World Bank official and Central Bank governor.
It is clear, however, that the army under Moeen is the spine that stiffens the caretaker government. India has chosen to do business with him as an improvement over its troublesome relationship with earlier governments.
What surprised political observers were the top Indian leaders Moeen met. The list included Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, President Pratibha Patil, Defence Minister AK Antony, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and National Security Adviser M K Narayanan. India is keen to improve long-term ties in order to secure transit rights for its goods through Bangladesh to the poverty-stricken northeastern Assam region, where India is almost bisected by Bangladesh. India also hopes to gain access to the Chittagong port at the mouth of the Ganges River and a commitment on transit of natural gas from Burma and possibly, the northeastern states.
For the immediate future, India expects a commitment from the general to clamp down on anti-India militants using Bangladesh as a safe haven. India is also concerned about illegal immigration. In return, India has shown its willingness to put Pranab Mukherjee’s November promise into effect to make a one-time exception and export a half million tons of rice to Bangladesh, after shortages that led to price increases and general dissatisfaction after natural disasters last year.
Moeen also met Minister of State for Commerce Jairam Ramesh and discussed various possibilities to improve trade and commerce, including the duty-free export of eight million pieces of readymade garments from Bangladesh. In the past, New Delhi has spoken of the possibility of reducing Bangladesh’s adverse balance of trade with India by encouraging Indian investment.
Moeen and the caretaker government have taken a relatively friendly approach towards India since assuming power. In return, India has a positive take on the general. He is the first army officer commissioned after the 1971 split with Pakistan to be army chief, and he has solid relationships within the service. His time as Bangladesh’s defence attaché to Pakistan also gives him more insight into the geopolitics of South Asia than some of his peers. among the Indian Army brass, there is a sense that Moeen is willing to crack down on the fundamentalists in his country.
Moeen earned a high domestic profile following the January 2007 coup, earning approval from a wide cross section of the country, with the exception of the diehard supporters of Khaleda and Hasina, whose acrimonious rivalry had stunted the economy, allowed Islamist groups to flourish and engendered corruption so thoroughgoing that Transparency International rated Bangladesh the most corrupt country in the world from 2001 to 2004. Despite the end of democracy, there was at least initial support from the population after the coup and subsequent corruption arrests.
Indo-Bangladesh relations have generally depended on the party in power in both countries. The worst depths of the bilateral relationship were during the period of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party in the 2001-2006 coalition headed by Khaleda, a time which the coalition was deaf both to Indian security concerns and economic proposals.
The caretaker government seems relatively friendly towards India. Though opinions differ in India about action taken against Islamist groups like Jamaat-ul-Muslim Bangladesh (JMB) there is a belief that that the government in Bangladesh is seeking to keep Islamists in line and out of India’s hair.
India has indicated it favors a stable and friendly Bangladesh that returns to democracy. Indian President Pratibha Patil called for early elections during the joint sitting of India’s Parliament, and Moeen also appears willing to follow a roadmap announced earlier for restoration of democracy. Analysts in India believe one of the objectives of his visit was to get the Indian political establishment to advise Hasina and Khaleda to stay out of national elections
The caretaker regime wants India’s help to get the two political leaders bow out gracefully. Strong-arm tactics to frighten them off with corruption and murder cases have so far not been successful. Reports have also indicated that Moeen requested Indian authorities not to insist on the release of the two women before elections. India has not responded to the request.
Moeen’s push for stronger bilateral relations seems to be working. India assisted in rehabilitation and reconstruction after Cyclone Sidr roared ashore in September 2007, killing 3,500 Bangladeshis. Increasing trade between the two nations has also boosted confidence that has been sorely tested for decades, especially after the assassination of the country’s founding father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, a determined secularist, in 1975. Successive governments, whether elected or authoritarian, courted the Islamist fringe, giving India cause for worry.
Anand Kumar
Source: Asia Sentinel
March 12, 2008
Visit by top Bangladesh general a sign of improving relations
Driven by concerns over northeast Indian separatists operating from Bangladeshi border areas and a flood of economic migrants to India, Bangladesh’s Army Chief of Staff Gen. Moeen U Ahmed recently spent a week in India to deal with a wide range of issues in arguably the closest example of cooperation between the two countries since Bangladesh’s independence in 1971.
Arriving home on March 2 after a week in India, Moeen said progress was so good that rail service would soon begin between Dhaka and Kolkata. “It will be good for all if the train service between India and Bangladesh commences,” Moeen told reporters, according to Bangladeshi newspapers. “I hope the train service will start as soon as possible after settling the issue of security of the two countries.”
The train service is just the most visible result of the talks. Moeen held extensive discussions with Indian army chief Gen. Deepak Kapoor on ways to further cooperation between the two armed forces in rare high-level military talks. As Bangladesh has emerged as a center for terrorist organizations, many with an anti-India agenda, India hopes the visit will lead to a mechanism for information sharing.
India has been cautious in approaching Bangladesh in the wake of a January 2007 coup that ended years of squabbling between the country’s two senior politicians, Begum Khaleda Zia, the last elected prime minister who headed the Bangladesh National Party, and Sheikh Hasina Wazed, who headed the Awami League. Their bitter electoral rivalry ended in chaos, spurring the coup. Both women, and scores of their supporters, remain under arrest on corruption charges. The existing caretaker government is headed by Fakhruddin Ahmad, a former World Bank official and Central Bank governor.
It is clear, however, that the army under Moeen is the spine that stiffens the caretaker government. India has chosen to do business with him as an improvement over its troublesome relationship with earlier governments.
What surprised political observers were the top Indian leaders Moeen met. The list included Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, President Pratibha Patil, Defence Minister AK Antony, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and National Security Adviser M K Narayanan. India is keen to improve long-term ties in order to secure transit rights for its goods through Bangladesh to the poverty-stricken northeastern Assam region, where India is almost bisected by Bangladesh. India also hopes to gain access to the Chittagong port at the mouth of the Ganges River and a commitment on transit of natural gas from Burma and possibly, the northeastern states.
For the immediate future, India expects a commitment from the general to clamp down on anti-India militants using Bangladesh as a safe haven. India is also concerned about illegal immigration. In return, India has shown its willingness to put Pranab Mukherjee’s November promise into effect to make a one-time exception and export a half million tons of rice to Bangladesh, after shortages that led to price increases and general dissatisfaction after natural disasters last year.
Moeen also met Minister of State for Commerce Jairam Ramesh and discussed various possibilities to improve trade and commerce, including the duty-free export of eight million pieces of readymade garments from Bangladesh. In the past, New Delhi has spoken of the possibility of reducing Bangladesh’s adverse balance of trade with India by encouraging Indian investment.
Moeen and the caretaker government have taken a relatively friendly approach towards India since assuming power. In return, India has a positive take on the general. He is the first army officer commissioned after the 1971 split with Pakistan to be army chief, and he has solid relationships within the service. His time as Bangladesh’s defence attaché to Pakistan also gives him more insight into the geopolitics of South Asia than some of his peers. among the Indian Army brass, there is a sense that Moeen is willing to crack down on the fundamentalists in his country.
Moeen earned a high domestic profile following the January 2007 coup, earning approval from a wide cross section of the country, with the exception of the diehard supporters of Khaleda and Hasina, whose acrimonious rivalry had stunted the economy, allowed Islamist groups to flourish and engendered corruption so thoroughgoing that Transparency International rated Bangladesh the most corrupt country in the world from 2001 to 2004. Despite the end of democracy, there was at least initial support from the population after the coup and subsequent corruption arrests.
Indo-Bangladesh relations have generally depended on the party in power in both countries. The worst depths of the bilateral relationship were during the period of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party in the 2001-2006 coalition headed by Khaleda, a time which the coalition was deaf both to Indian security concerns and economic proposals.
The caretaker government seems relatively friendly towards India. Though opinions differ in India about action taken against Islamist groups like Jamaat-ul-Muslim Bangladesh (JMB) there is a belief that that the government in Bangladesh is seeking to keep Islamists in line and out of India’s hair.
India has indicated it favors a stable and friendly Bangladesh that returns to democracy. Indian President Pratibha Patil called for early elections during the joint sitting of India’s Parliament, and Moeen also appears willing to follow a roadmap announced earlier for restoration of democracy. Analysts in India believe one of the objectives of his visit was to get the Indian political establishment to advise Hasina and Khaleda to stay out of national elections
The caretaker regime wants India’s help to get the two political leaders bow out gracefully. Strong-arm tactics to frighten them off with corruption and murder cases have so far not been successful. Reports have also indicated that Moeen requested Indian authorities not to insist on the release of the two women before elections. India has not responded to the request.
Moeen’s push for stronger bilateral relations seems to be working. India assisted in rehabilitation and reconstruction after Cyclone Sidr roared ashore in September 2007, killing 3,500 Bangladeshis. Increasing trade between the two nations has also boosted confidence that has been sorely tested for decades, especially after the assassination of the country’s founding father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, a determined secularist, in 1975. Successive governments, whether elected or authoritarian, courted the Islamist fringe, giving India cause for worry.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Gen. Moeen as the man Delhi can trust
Media treats Gen. Moeen as the man Delhi can trust
M. Shahidul Islam
Source: Holiday
March 7, 2008
The army chief's recent visit to India has drawn mythological anecdotes of varied natures. The timing and the texture of the visit aside, this was the first time an incumbent Bangladesh army chief was accorded a very unusually high-profile reception by the Indian government.
Marked by glittering galas and grandiose receptions, General Moeen U Ahmed was afforded closed-door interactions with External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, Defence Minister A.K. Antony and the West Bengal chief minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, besides the chiefs of the three services of India. Such an opportunity is usually preserved for a senior cabinet minister.
Interestingly, the visit further highlighted how the digit 'six' has become a magic number in the life of the army chief. The duration of the visit was six days long; he was gifted with six horses, and; he met six important personalities and discussed six important bilateral matters with the Indian authorities. The four-star General is also slated to be retired on the sixth day of the sixth month of this year; and he still has at least six more important things to accomplish before giving up a career that he'd successfully traversed for 33 years (3 plus 3 also equal six) to attain the pinnacle.
Despite the Indian High Commissioner Pinak Ranjan Chakrabarty's earlier comment to the media that the visit of "Bangladesh army chief was military-to-military", the itinerary of the visit belied that remark.
During the visit, the army chief has dealt with economic relations and made a fresh appeal to India to expedite the export of rice to Bangladesh and to liberalise bilateral trade. The political agenda included discussion on a plan of action for early return to democracy. The other major topic covered during the visit included bilateral security matters, joint collaboration in war on terror, prisoner extradition treaty, and Dhaka-Kolkata railway link.
The visit got catapulted into an august trajectory due partly to another reason: The President of India had greeted the arrival of Bangladesh army chief with a potent but veiled political message. No sooner the army chief landed in Delhi, President Pratibha Patil said in an address to a joint sitting of Parliament on February 25 that Bangladeshis "would be able to exercise their will through free and fair election for restoration of full democracy and liberalism in their country."
This particular signal was translated by observers as the army chief calling shots in Dhaka for all major decisions and Indian leaders and the media had reasons to treat him as the master of Bangladesh's political affairs, something the General has persistently denied. In more than one conversation with this writer, Gen. Moeen insisted he and the military were only aiding the caretaker government and he personally harbours no political intent.
However, despite all the bright side of the visit, some unwarranted display of power play by the Indian government and the media has truncated the glitters of the displayed symbolism to a great extent. At least six innocent Bangladeshis were killed by BSF in the wake of the army chief's India visit and major Indian media outlets carried an assortment of speculation-ridden stories that did not bode well with what the General's future plan is all about, at least whatever we all know. That aside, most of the Indian media also chose to present the General as the person India can trust, knowing well that a blind-pro Indianism is an anathema to the people of Bangladesh.
Reliable sources say the visit took place on the heels of an assurance from the government of Bangladesh that the army chief will get one year extension to enable him to complete a political mission which he has so enthusiastically undertaken since 1/11 to fine-tune certain fundamental pitfalls of our national polity. That is what has made him more precious to the Indian authorities who think General Moeen will roll past the electoral turmoil awaiting the nation.
Another observable factor was that astute Indian observers not paying much heed to the army chief's repeated assertion of not aiming for a political office, many of who believe the military is in power in Bangladesh.
This fabled perception was elucidated with convincing details in the Statesman newspaper of Kolkata that wrote in its post-editorial of February 29, "Having been a party, along with the USA, Britain and the EU, to giving consent to General Ahmed's takeover of power on 11 January last year so as to stall the "farcical" parliamentary poll that was scheduled for 22 January, India is now keen to know from the General how soon he plans to hold a free and fair poll and hand power back to a democratically elected government. And what plans and schedules he may have drawn up for holding such a poll, which was one of the key promises he had made when taking over. This promise was prompted by the fact that Bangladesh would have witnessed violence and chaos on an unprecedented scale. Major Western donors as well as India concurred with this view as they knew that the country's outgoing Prime Minister Khaleda Zia and her pro-Islamist four-party alliance, before laying down office, had made elaborate arrangement to rig the poll. In fact the caretaker government, which was to oversee the exercise, had also been usurped by her with this end in view."
The Statesman's post-editorial was penned by none other than the paper's editor, Manash Ghosh, who, however, did not fail to make an insightful observation while dealing with the nuances of the prevailing political situation in Bangladesh.
Ghosh observed, "The General also realises that Khaleda Zia, who made him Army Chief, superseding four other generals, will never forgive him for his "betrayal" of putting her behind bars on "frivolous corruption charges". Khaleda's party may go for retribution. Sheikh Hasina and her party's reaction will be much the same, because he also put her behind bars on "frivolous corruption charges".
The High Court having struck down her detention as illegal has not made things any easier for the General. He is convinced that if the Hasina-led alliance wins the poll, it will wreak vengeance on him and the military. Therefore the need for him to have his own political party and secure a two-thirds majority in the poll."
In an oblique reference to the need for Indian support and the disguised political inclination of the military, at least in the author's view, Ghosh wrote, "One can well gauge the popular mood in a country where rice prices, predominantly, determine who the populace want pulling the strings in Dhaka. Perhaps this has prompted General Ahmed's government into starting a dialogue with political parties. Knowing the mind of Sheikh Hasina's alliance, it has begun to make the right noises, like calling Sheikh Mujib "father of the nation" and hinting at the process of trying war criminals of the 1971 liberation war."
The geopolitical twist of the visit came from the Indo American News Service (IANS), which has a fondness in propagating the virtues of the ongoing US-led war on terror. The IANS reported, "With a gift of six horses worth a little over $850,000), New Delhi is attempting to build bridges with Bangladesh's army chief in an attempt to persuade the eastern neighbour to cease support to anti-India insurgent groups operating from that country. The agency quoted an anonymous official for having said, "It's an attempt to build bridges, to move forward in persuading Bangladesh to stop supporting anti-India insurgent groups that are operating from its soil."
The report further said, "Even more worrisome than the anti-India groups are the operations of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Harkat-ul-Jehad-al-Islami (HuJI) extremist group. India blames the HuJI that was established in 1992, reportedly with assistance from Osama bin Laden's International Islamic Front, for two sets of blasts in Hyderabad last year." The report quoted the same anonymous official as saying, "The activities of the ISI and the HuJI will figure in the discussions with General Ahmed."
While we are not sure how much priority such issues were accorded during the army chief's visit, sources maintain the visit was a routine one and did not deal with pending political and economic agenda which the government is expected to conduct. It, nonetheless, cemented the ties of fraternity between the two close neighbours. "The army chief has earned respect at home and abroad by standing firm on cracking down corruption. That is what has prompted the Indian authorities to honour him in a special manner," said one of the sources.
Such a rationale does not seem to pacify a crowd of cynics who think the army chief's series of visits to USA, China and then to India was a calculated move to elicit consent from major powers in order to prepare himself for a political mission that might be necessitated if the forthcoming election does not yield a government of the military's liking, or the election efforts get jeopardised by unwarranted political turmoil of any breed. They reinforce this argument with examples of recent talks on forming a national government.
Others say the General, who spent his childhood studying in Pakistan -- and has had a stint as a defence adviser (DA) to the Bangladesh High Commission in Islamabad -- was either misunderstood, or underestimated, by the India authorities who imperfectly thought him to be pliant to the myriad of wishes presented before him for considerations.
"If the General had promised something, such promises must be materialised through the usual diplomatic channels with input from an elected government," commented an expert on Bangladesh-India relations.
M. Shahidul Islam
Source: Holiday
March 7, 2008
The army chief's recent visit to India has drawn mythological anecdotes of varied natures. The timing and the texture of the visit aside, this was the first time an incumbent Bangladesh army chief was accorded a very unusually high-profile reception by the Indian government.
Marked by glittering galas and grandiose receptions, General Moeen U Ahmed was afforded closed-door interactions with External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, Defence Minister A.K. Antony and the West Bengal chief minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, besides the chiefs of the three services of India. Such an opportunity is usually preserved for a senior cabinet minister.
Interestingly, the visit further highlighted how the digit 'six' has become a magic number in the life of the army chief. The duration of the visit was six days long; he was gifted with six horses, and; he met six important personalities and discussed six important bilateral matters with the Indian authorities. The four-star General is also slated to be retired on the sixth day of the sixth month of this year; and he still has at least six more important things to accomplish before giving up a career that he'd successfully traversed for 33 years (3 plus 3 also equal six) to attain the pinnacle.
Despite the Indian High Commissioner Pinak Ranjan Chakrabarty's earlier comment to the media that the visit of "Bangladesh army chief was military-to-military", the itinerary of the visit belied that remark.
During the visit, the army chief has dealt with economic relations and made a fresh appeal to India to expedite the export of rice to Bangladesh and to liberalise bilateral trade. The political agenda included discussion on a plan of action for early return to democracy. The other major topic covered during the visit included bilateral security matters, joint collaboration in war on terror, prisoner extradition treaty, and Dhaka-Kolkata railway link.
The visit got catapulted into an august trajectory due partly to another reason: The President of India had greeted the arrival of Bangladesh army chief with a potent but veiled political message. No sooner the army chief landed in Delhi, President Pratibha Patil said in an address to a joint sitting of Parliament on February 25 that Bangladeshis "would be able to exercise their will through free and fair election for restoration of full democracy and liberalism in their country."
This particular signal was translated by observers as the army chief calling shots in Dhaka for all major decisions and Indian leaders and the media had reasons to treat him as the master of Bangladesh's political affairs, something the General has persistently denied. In more than one conversation with this writer, Gen. Moeen insisted he and the military were only aiding the caretaker government and he personally harbours no political intent.
However, despite all the bright side of the visit, some unwarranted display of power play by the Indian government and the media has truncated the glitters of the displayed symbolism to a great extent. At least six innocent Bangladeshis were killed by BSF in the wake of the army chief's India visit and major Indian media outlets carried an assortment of speculation-ridden stories that did not bode well with what the General's future plan is all about, at least whatever we all know. That aside, most of the Indian media also chose to present the General as the person India can trust, knowing well that a blind-pro Indianism is an anathema to the people of Bangladesh.
Reliable sources say the visit took place on the heels of an assurance from the government of Bangladesh that the army chief will get one year extension to enable him to complete a political mission which he has so enthusiastically undertaken since 1/11 to fine-tune certain fundamental pitfalls of our national polity. That is what has made him more precious to the Indian authorities who think General Moeen will roll past the electoral turmoil awaiting the nation.
Another observable factor was that astute Indian observers not paying much heed to the army chief's repeated assertion of not aiming for a political office, many of who believe the military is in power in Bangladesh.
This fabled perception was elucidated with convincing details in the Statesman newspaper of Kolkata that wrote in its post-editorial of February 29, "Having been a party, along with the USA, Britain and the EU, to giving consent to General Ahmed's takeover of power on 11 January last year so as to stall the "farcical" parliamentary poll that was scheduled for 22 January, India is now keen to know from the General how soon he plans to hold a free and fair poll and hand power back to a democratically elected government. And what plans and schedules he may have drawn up for holding such a poll, which was one of the key promises he had made when taking over. This promise was prompted by the fact that Bangladesh would have witnessed violence and chaos on an unprecedented scale. Major Western donors as well as India concurred with this view as they knew that the country's outgoing Prime Minister Khaleda Zia and her pro-Islamist four-party alliance, before laying down office, had made elaborate arrangement to rig the poll. In fact the caretaker government, which was to oversee the exercise, had also been usurped by her with this end in view."
The Statesman's post-editorial was penned by none other than the paper's editor, Manash Ghosh, who, however, did not fail to make an insightful observation while dealing with the nuances of the prevailing political situation in Bangladesh.
Ghosh observed, "The General also realises that Khaleda Zia, who made him Army Chief, superseding four other generals, will never forgive him for his "betrayal" of putting her behind bars on "frivolous corruption charges". Khaleda's party may go for retribution. Sheikh Hasina and her party's reaction will be much the same, because he also put her behind bars on "frivolous corruption charges".
The High Court having struck down her detention as illegal has not made things any easier for the General. He is convinced that if the Hasina-led alliance wins the poll, it will wreak vengeance on him and the military. Therefore the need for him to have his own political party and secure a two-thirds majority in the poll."
In an oblique reference to the need for Indian support and the disguised political inclination of the military, at least in the author's view, Ghosh wrote, "One can well gauge the popular mood in a country where rice prices, predominantly, determine who the populace want pulling the strings in Dhaka. Perhaps this has prompted General Ahmed's government into starting a dialogue with political parties. Knowing the mind of Sheikh Hasina's alliance, it has begun to make the right noises, like calling Sheikh Mujib "father of the nation" and hinting at the process of trying war criminals of the 1971 liberation war."
The geopolitical twist of the visit came from the Indo American News Service (IANS), which has a fondness in propagating the virtues of the ongoing US-led war on terror. The IANS reported, "With a gift of six horses worth a little over $850,000), New Delhi is attempting to build bridges with Bangladesh's army chief in an attempt to persuade the eastern neighbour to cease support to anti-India insurgent groups operating from that country. The agency quoted an anonymous official for having said, "It's an attempt to build bridges, to move forward in persuading Bangladesh to stop supporting anti-India insurgent groups that are operating from its soil."
The report further said, "Even more worrisome than the anti-India groups are the operations of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Harkat-ul-Jehad-al-Islami (HuJI) extremist group. India blames the HuJI that was established in 1992, reportedly with assistance from Osama bin Laden's International Islamic Front, for two sets of blasts in Hyderabad last year." The report quoted the same anonymous official as saying, "The activities of the ISI and the HuJI will figure in the discussions with General Ahmed."
While we are not sure how much priority such issues were accorded during the army chief's visit, sources maintain the visit was a routine one and did not deal with pending political and economic agenda which the government is expected to conduct. It, nonetheless, cemented the ties of fraternity between the two close neighbours. "The army chief has earned respect at home and abroad by standing firm on cracking down corruption. That is what has prompted the Indian authorities to honour him in a special manner," said one of the sources.
Such a rationale does not seem to pacify a crowd of cynics who think the army chief's series of visits to USA, China and then to India was a calculated move to elicit consent from major powers in order to prepare himself for a political mission that might be necessitated if the forthcoming election does not yield a government of the military's liking, or the election efforts get jeopardised by unwarranted political turmoil of any breed. They reinforce this argument with examples of recent talks on forming a national government.
Others say the General, who spent his childhood studying in Pakistan -- and has had a stint as a defence adviser (DA) to the Bangladesh High Commission in Islamabad -- was either misunderstood, or underestimated, by the India authorities who imperfectly thought him to be pliant to the myriad of wishes presented before him for considerations.
"If the General had promised something, such promises must be materialised through the usual diplomatic channels with input from an elected government," commented an expert on Bangladesh-India relations.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Moeen as Bangladesh's Musharraf
Moeen as Bangladesh's Musharraf
By J. Sri Raman
Source: t r u t h o u t
March 2, 2008
In our preoccupation with Pakistan and its embattled president, many of us have almost forgotten another South Asian country and another general encountering another pro-democracy movement. General Moeen U Ahmed, chief of the Bangladesh armed forces, was in New Delhi for a week since February 24 to remind India and the region of his role as the other Pervez Musharraf.
Moeen was supposed to be here on a "military-to-military" mission, and met Indian counterpart Deepak Kapoor and External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, reportedly to discuss cooperation in defense. Moeen, however, did not stop there.
It has been made public on his behalf that that he pleaded with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's government to help make Bangladesh safe for restored democracy by prevailing upon Bangladesh's two most prominent contenders for civilian power not to return to electoral politics. The reported plea warrants the presumption that the recent events in Pakistan prompted Moeen's India visit, which was put off last year on the officially cited ground of floods in Bangladesh.
The Musharraf syndrome is manifestly obvious here. As Pakistan's military ruler, its present president of uncertain powers had for years tried to prevent the country's two most prominent aspirants for civilian power from returning home and joining electoral politics. He was forced, however, to allow the return of former Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif - and even of the elections. Musharraf continues to be engaged in a contained confrontation with Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari - Bhutto's husband who is playing her political role after her horrible end.
Moeen, of course, is no president, but he is the power behind the throne in Bangladesh. The army-backed government in Dhaka, too, tried to exile former Prime Ministers Sheikh Hasina Wajed and Begum Khaleda Zia, but failed. Moeen and his men also tried to prevent the return of Hasina from a visit abroad, and failed again under international pressure. The leaders of the Awami League (AL) and the Bangladesh National Party (BNP), however, have been kept away from all political activities through a slew of corruption cases and long spells of under-trial detention.
Indications have been reported of Moeen's possible plans to install himself eventually as the president in the place of Fakruddin Ahmed, in charge of the current caretaker regime. It is not known, however, whether something like Pakistan's National Reconciliation Order, freeing the two leaders from corruption cases, will precede such a move. But there is another respect, certainly, in which Moeen is trying to do a Musharraf.
Musharraf may not really have profited by splitting Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League (PML) and forming a party named after the Quaid-e-Azam (the title of Pakistan's founder Mohammed Ali Jinnah.) The PML-Q has ended up a distant third, after Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and the PML-Nawaz, in the recent general election. The example, however, has not deterred Moeen from making a similar effort to give himself political legitimacy in the Bangladesh general election that the caretaker regime has promised to hold before the year end.
Last year, the army-backed government in Dhaka tried its utmost to push Nobel-winning economist Mohmmad Yunus into politics and help him form a party to end both main parties. The attempt proved abortive, with Yunus seeing through the cynical game. Efforts followed to break the both the AL and the BNP. Not much success has attended these efforts, and the parties as a whole have remained loyal to the harassed leaders with halos of their own.
Moeen and his men, however, have not given up. According to informed observers, he would like to be sure of a two-thirds majority in a new parliament to ratify the 37 ordinances, through which he has ruled the country for the last 13 months. Will two split-away parties give Moeen what a single one could not provide Musharraf? Few observers will answer that in the affirmative.
Moeen would appear to have no illusions about what a real democracy can do for him. Even as far back as last April, he caused more than a few political ripples by declaring at a public meeting that Bangladesh would not return to "an elective democracy." Days ago, he elaborated on the same theme. Asserting that the country had tried "Westminster-type parliamentary democracy for the last 15 years," but could not make it work, he called for "a form of democracy that is suitable for us."
The particular form of democracy he has in mind may suit neither the major political parties nor the people used to polls. Nothing, however, would suit the army more, or the religious parties and forces, particularly the Jamaat-e-Islami, which, as a member of Begum Zia's coalition regime, distinguished itself by its divisive role in the Bangladesh society. The poor electoral showing of the clerical parties in Pakistan has not made their Bangladeshi counterparts ardent partisans of ballot politics either.
Moeen and the army-propped regime were able to delay the democratic process for quite some time with an anti-corruption campaign that brought some of the political luminaries of the past to law. The glamor of the campaign, however, has worn thin, with its perceived excesses hitting the country's economy and with graft in the army and in select political circles appearing to have been placed outside its purview. the anti-corruption crusade has lost its attraction all the more following the recent steep spiral in the prices of rice, pulses and other essential commodities.
All this has not been lost on Moeen and his mandarins in the caretaker regime. They crushed a rebellion of campus origin months ago, but they know that popular discontent can find a dangerous expression again. They have made certain moves to win over the political opposition. This include official initiatives to rehabilitate martyred Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, liberator of Bangladesh and father of Hasina, as the "Father of the Nation," and Ziaur Rahman, former president and husband of Begam Khaleda Zia as a "patriot," besides a promise to try the "war criminals of 1971." By most accounts, however, the moves cannot succeed in stalling the pro-democracy movement.
It is interesting to recall, in this context, that Moeen himself was in Pakistan during the Bangladesh Liberation War and joined and returned to the country's armed forces as a "repatriated officer." The past record itself may not go against his current political ambitions. As in Musharraf's case, however, a massive democratic upsurge can do so.
By J. Sri Raman
Source: t r u t h o u t
March 2, 2008
In our preoccupation with Pakistan and its embattled president, many of us have almost forgotten another South Asian country and another general encountering another pro-democracy movement. General Moeen U Ahmed, chief of the Bangladesh armed forces, was in New Delhi for a week since February 24 to remind India and the region of his role as the other Pervez Musharraf.
Moeen was supposed to be here on a "military-to-military" mission, and met Indian counterpart Deepak Kapoor and External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, reportedly to discuss cooperation in defense. Moeen, however, did not stop there.
It has been made public on his behalf that that he pleaded with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's government to help make Bangladesh safe for restored democracy by prevailing upon Bangladesh's two most prominent contenders for civilian power not to return to electoral politics. The reported plea warrants the presumption that the recent events in Pakistan prompted Moeen's India visit, which was put off last year on the officially cited ground of floods in Bangladesh.
The Musharraf syndrome is manifestly obvious here. As Pakistan's military ruler, its present president of uncertain powers had for years tried to prevent the country's two most prominent aspirants for civilian power from returning home and joining electoral politics. He was forced, however, to allow the return of former Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif - and even of the elections. Musharraf continues to be engaged in a contained confrontation with Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari - Bhutto's husband who is playing her political role after her horrible end.
Moeen, of course, is no president, but he is the power behind the throne in Bangladesh. The army-backed government in Dhaka, too, tried to exile former Prime Ministers Sheikh Hasina Wajed and Begum Khaleda Zia, but failed. Moeen and his men also tried to prevent the return of Hasina from a visit abroad, and failed again under international pressure. The leaders of the Awami League (AL) and the Bangladesh National Party (BNP), however, have been kept away from all political activities through a slew of corruption cases and long spells of under-trial detention.
Indications have been reported of Moeen's possible plans to install himself eventually as the president in the place of Fakruddin Ahmed, in charge of the current caretaker regime. It is not known, however, whether something like Pakistan's National Reconciliation Order, freeing the two leaders from corruption cases, will precede such a move. But there is another respect, certainly, in which Moeen is trying to do a Musharraf.
Musharraf may not really have profited by splitting Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League (PML) and forming a party named after the Quaid-e-Azam (the title of Pakistan's founder Mohammed Ali Jinnah.) The PML-Q has ended up a distant third, after Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and the PML-Nawaz, in the recent general election. The example, however, has not deterred Moeen from making a similar effort to give himself political legitimacy in the Bangladesh general election that the caretaker regime has promised to hold before the year end.
Last year, the army-backed government in Dhaka tried its utmost to push Nobel-winning economist Mohmmad Yunus into politics and help him form a party to end both main parties. The attempt proved abortive, with Yunus seeing through the cynical game. Efforts followed to break the both the AL and the BNP. Not much success has attended these efforts, and the parties as a whole have remained loyal to the harassed leaders with halos of their own.
Moeen and his men, however, have not given up. According to informed observers, he would like to be sure of a two-thirds majority in a new parliament to ratify the 37 ordinances, through which he has ruled the country for the last 13 months. Will two split-away parties give Moeen what a single one could not provide Musharraf? Few observers will answer that in the affirmative.
Moeen would appear to have no illusions about what a real democracy can do for him. Even as far back as last April, he caused more than a few political ripples by declaring at a public meeting that Bangladesh would not return to "an elective democracy." Days ago, he elaborated on the same theme. Asserting that the country had tried "Westminster-type parliamentary democracy for the last 15 years," but could not make it work, he called for "a form of democracy that is suitable for us."
The particular form of democracy he has in mind may suit neither the major political parties nor the people used to polls. Nothing, however, would suit the army more, or the religious parties and forces, particularly the Jamaat-e-Islami, which, as a member of Begum Zia's coalition regime, distinguished itself by its divisive role in the Bangladesh society. The poor electoral showing of the clerical parties in Pakistan has not made their Bangladeshi counterparts ardent partisans of ballot politics either.
Moeen and the army-propped regime were able to delay the democratic process for quite some time with an anti-corruption campaign that brought some of the political luminaries of the past to law. The glamor of the campaign, however, has worn thin, with its perceived excesses hitting the country's economy and with graft in the army and in select political circles appearing to have been placed outside its purview. the anti-corruption crusade has lost its attraction all the more following the recent steep spiral in the prices of rice, pulses and other essential commodities.
All this has not been lost on Moeen and his mandarins in the caretaker regime. They crushed a rebellion of campus origin months ago, but they know that popular discontent can find a dangerous expression again. They have made certain moves to win over the political opposition. This include official initiatives to rehabilitate martyred Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, liberator of Bangladesh and father of Hasina, as the "Father of the Nation," and Ziaur Rahman, former president and husband of Begam Khaleda Zia as a "patriot," besides a promise to try the "war criminals of 1971." By most accounts, however, the moves cannot succeed in stalling the pro-democracy movement.
It is interesting to recall, in this context, that Moeen himself was in Pakistan during the Bangladesh Liberation War and joined and returned to the country's armed forces as a "repatriated officer." The past record itself may not go against his current political ambitions. As in Musharraf's case, however, a massive democratic upsurge can do so.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
No new brand of democracy
Source: UPI Asia Online
Rater Jonaki
Februrary 25, 2008
HONG KONG, China, The chief of the Bangladesh army, General Moeen U Ahmed, has been calling for the country to have its "own brand of democracy" for a long time. The concept, reiterated in the general's recently published book, is a burning topic in the country.
The general has not publicly clarified exactly what he means by his "own brand of democracy" theory; thus people are both curious and suspicious about what it would entail. Would this be another militarized brand of democracy?
In some of his recent media appearances Moeen has emphasized this undisclosed type of democracy in order to criticize current practices of the government of Bangladesh, as well as that of Britain, by calling them "Westminster democracy." In Moeen's view, there are only two political parties in Britain, which do not represent the whole range of public opinion. On the other hand, Bangladesh had been ruled by an extraordinarily powerful prime minister, who has always been supported by the ruling party and opposed by the opposition.
The reality of democracy in Bangladesh is basically that the government is formed through an election in which many voters are deprived of the right to cast their vote, and others are forced to vote a certain way, by the musclemen who control different areas of the country. It is almost more a feudal society than a democratic one.
Sometimes candidates have felt they were defeated as a result of vote-rigging or other malpractice and have lodged complaints with the Election Commission. In some such instances, the commission has failed to reach a judgment until after the current session of Parliament was over. By that time, the person who was elected -- legally or illegally -- has already enjoyed all the perks and privileges of being a member of Parliament, including participating in making legislation.
From the local government to the national elections, the use of excessive muscle power is more or less the same. It does not represent the opinion of the electors.
In decision making, whether in Parliament or at various levels of government, might is right! For instance, according to section 70 (1) of the Constitution of Bangladesh, a member of Parliament will be deemed absent if he votes against his party's position, even if the proposed bill is unrealistic or controversial or contradicts fundamental rights provided in the Constitution. Nothing more is necessary to show how arbitrary is the Constitution in supporting party politics, especially the ruling party. This cannot be called democracy in any sense.
The question is how democracy is perceived and practiced and participated in by society. Democracy requires the rule of law, not the rule of bureaucrats or politicians or the police.
What happens in Bangladesh if someone's civil rights are violated? Can the person lodge a complaint without paying a bribe at the police station? Is there any acceptable institution working to monitor what the police are doing and undoing? Will there be any impartial and honest investigation by the police unless both parties bribe the investigating officer as well as the concerned officials?
Is there any guarantee that there will be no interference by any of the influential groups, including public representatives and public servants, if any of the parties are in a position to involve them? Is there any guarantee that prosecution will take place without any bias or exploitation, by extracting money or delaying the matter if it doesn't serve the interest of the related professionals to resolve it?
Is there any guarantee that the judge or magistrate will be honest during the trial? Is there any guarantee that the order of the court will be implemented, if it requires intervention from any other government institution? Is there any guarantee that authorities will be held responsible for ignoring their jobs or failing to prove their accountability to the citizens?
Unfortunately, the answers to all the above questions will be a frustrated "No." That's why democracy does not work and people do not get the real benefits of it; rather the Bangladeshis are forced to learn how to suffer more and more.
If anyone truly wishes to benefit the people, he or she must make a credible attempt to change the existing system that runs the country. Bangladesh does not need to give birth to any "mule" type of democracy.
Democracy has its own qualities and characteristics, and these include accountability on the part of elected officials. Militarization of all sectors of the country should be avoided. Rather than discussing "reformation" in mocking tones, truly concerned leaders should throw out the repressive systems of government and replace them with effective and functioning institutions that accord with the laws of the land and serve the real needs of the people.
Bangladesh is overwhelmed by the black hands and arbitrary attitudes of the rulers and their associates. This rubbish needs to be removed from the nation forever.
(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.)
Rater Jonaki
Februrary 25, 2008
HONG KONG, China, The chief of the Bangladesh army, General Moeen U Ahmed, has been calling for the country to have its "own brand of democracy" for a long time. The concept, reiterated in the general's recently published book, is a burning topic in the country.
The general has not publicly clarified exactly what he means by his "own brand of democracy" theory; thus people are both curious and suspicious about what it would entail. Would this be another militarized brand of democracy?
In some of his recent media appearances Moeen has emphasized this undisclosed type of democracy in order to criticize current practices of the government of Bangladesh, as well as that of Britain, by calling them "Westminster democracy." In Moeen's view, there are only two political parties in Britain, which do not represent the whole range of public opinion. On the other hand, Bangladesh had been ruled by an extraordinarily powerful prime minister, who has always been supported by the ruling party and opposed by the opposition.
The reality of democracy in Bangladesh is basically that the government is formed through an election in which many voters are deprived of the right to cast their vote, and others are forced to vote a certain way, by the musclemen who control different areas of the country. It is almost more a feudal society than a democratic one.
Sometimes candidates have felt they were defeated as a result of vote-rigging or other malpractice and have lodged complaints with the Election Commission. In some such instances, the commission has failed to reach a judgment until after the current session of Parliament was over. By that time, the person who was elected -- legally or illegally -- has already enjoyed all the perks and privileges of being a member of Parliament, including participating in making legislation.
From the local government to the national elections, the use of excessive muscle power is more or less the same. It does not represent the opinion of the electors.
In decision making, whether in Parliament or at various levels of government, might is right! For instance, according to section 70 (1) of the Constitution of Bangladesh, a member of Parliament will be deemed absent if he votes against his party's position, even if the proposed bill is unrealistic or controversial or contradicts fundamental rights provided in the Constitution. Nothing more is necessary to show how arbitrary is the Constitution in supporting party politics, especially the ruling party. This cannot be called democracy in any sense.
The question is how democracy is perceived and practiced and participated in by society. Democracy requires the rule of law, not the rule of bureaucrats or politicians or the police.
What happens in Bangladesh if someone's civil rights are violated? Can the person lodge a complaint without paying a bribe at the police station? Is there any acceptable institution working to monitor what the police are doing and undoing? Will there be any impartial and honest investigation by the police unless both parties bribe the investigating officer as well as the concerned officials?
Is there any guarantee that there will be no interference by any of the influential groups, including public representatives and public servants, if any of the parties are in a position to involve them? Is there any guarantee that prosecution will take place without any bias or exploitation, by extracting money or delaying the matter if it doesn't serve the interest of the related professionals to resolve it?
Is there any guarantee that the judge or magistrate will be honest during the trial? Is there any guarantee that the order of the court will be implemented, if it requires intervention from any other government institution? Is there any guarantee that authorities will be held responsible for ignoring their jobs or failing to prove their accountability to the citizens?
Unfortunately, the answers to all the above questions will be a frustrated "No." That's why democracy does not work and people do not get the real benefits of it; rather the Bangladeshis are forced to learn how to suffer more and more.
If anyone truly wishes to benefit the people, he or she must make a credible attempt to change the existing system that runs the country. Bangladesh does not need to give birth to any "mule" type of democracy.
Democracy has its own qualities and characteristics, and these include accountability on the part of elected officials. Militarization of all sectors of the country should be avoided. Rather than discussing "reformation" in mocking tones, truly concerned leaders should throw out the repressive systems of government and replace them with effective and functioning institutions that accord with the laws of the land and serve the real needs of the people.
Bangladesh is overwhelmed by the black hands and arbitrary attitudes of the rulers and their associates. This rubbish needs to be removed from the nation forever.
(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.)
Saturday, January 19, 2008
General Moeen at Tritio Matra
Watch forty five minute long interview of General Moeen at
Channel I:
Read an in-depth analysis on General Moeen's interview at Tritio Matra published in Bangla at Sahcalaytan
Dhaka, Jan 19 (bdnews24.com)—Army chief General Moeen U Ahmed, referring to the caretaker government, said Saturday "the train that derailed is now back on track" and now "an efficient driver is required".
On the army's role in this regard, Moeen said: "We are working as the crane in service of the government to take the train to its destination."
In an interview on Channel i talk show Tritio Matra aired Saturday, Moeen said the problem started in 2006.
"The army did not want to get involved with the 1/11 (changeover)."
"But not even animals have to die like people died on October 28, 2006."
The country must not be pushed into the path of destruction, the army chief stressed.
Mentioning the role of the political parties on Jan 11, 2007, he said: "It's the failure of the political parties. They have a lot to answer for."
On the present government's success, Moeen said: "The identification of corruption as the foremost malaise and keeping it under control is the government's success."
On the failure of the caretaker government, the army chief said: "I would not call it failure. Prices increased due to floods, cyclone and higher prices in the international market."
Emphasising food security, he said: "We have to increase production. We have to bring in hybrid seeds."
Whether the government was monitoring corruption by those within the government itself, the general said: "I am sure the government is alert about it. It will not allow that to happen."
On the recent resignations of five advisers, Moeen said the advisers resigned for their "personal reasons".
"The government wanted to bring dynamism in its actions."
Asked why institutional changes had not occurred despite changes of personnel within different institutions he retorted: "How do you get reforms if you don't have a right person in the right place?"
"First you have to place efficient persons. Then they will bring in the institutional reforms," Moeen said, citing the Election Commission as an example.
Channel I:
Read an in-depth analysis on General Moeen's interview at Tritio Matra published in Bangla at Sahcalaytan
Dhaka, Jan 19 (bdnews24.com)—Army chief General Moeen U Ahmed, referring to the caretaker government, said Saturday "the train that derailed is now back on track" and now "an efficient driver is required".
On the army's role in this regard, Moeen said: "We are working as the crane in service of the government to take the train to its destination."
In an interview on Channel i talk show Tritio Matra aired Saturday, Moeen said the problem started in 2006.
"The army did not want to get involved with the 1/11 (changeover)."
"But not even animals have to die like people died on October 28, 2006."
The country must not be pushed into the path of destruction, the army chief stressed.
Mentioning the role of the political parties on Jan 11, 2007, he said: "It's the failure of the political parties. They have a lot to answer for."
On the present government's success, Moeen said: "The identification of corruption as the foremost malaise and keeping it under control is the government's success."
On the failure of the caretaker government, the army chief said: "I would not call it failure. Prices increased due to floods, cyclone and higher prices in the international market."
Emphasising food security, he said: "We have to increase production. We have to bring in hybrid seeds."
Whether the government was monitoring corruption by those within the government itself, the general said: "I am sure the government is alert about it. It will not allow that to happen."
On the recent resignations of five advisers, Moeen said the advisers resigned for their "personal reasons".
"The government wanted to bring dynamism in its actions."
Asked why institutional changes had not occurred despite changes of personnel within different institutions he retorted: "How do you get reforms if you don't have a right person in the right place?"
"First you have to place efficient persons. Then they will bring in the institutional reforms," Moeen said, citing the Election Commission as an example.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
সংস্কারের সংস্কৃতি এবং যুদ্ধাপরাধী প্রসঙ্গ
সংস্কারের সংস্কৃতি এবং যুদ্ধাপরাধী প্রসঙ্গ
অনিরুদ্ধ আহমেদ
সমকাল, ডিসেম্বর ৩, ২০০৭
সাইক্লোন সিডর কেবল দক্ষিণাঞ্চলের নয়, গোটা বাংলাদেশের যে একটা মস্ত বড় আরেক ধরনের ক্ষতি করে গেল সেটি হলো যুদ্ধাপরাধী প্রসঙ্গটিকে ধ্বংসাবশেষের মধ্যে যেন আপাতদৃস্টিতে চাপা দিল। যে উত্তপ্ত এবং অত্যাবশ্যক আলোচনা চলছিল এই যুদ্ধাপরাধীর বিষয় নিয়ে, সেই আলোচনায় আকস্মিক ইতি টেনে দিল দক্ষিণাঞ্চলের এই ঘূর্ণিঝড় এবং যেন মনে হচ্ছে, যুদ্ধপরাধীদের বিচার, বাংলাদেশের মাটিতে তাদের রাজনীতি করার ক্ষমতা এসব প্রসঙ্গ উপড়ে পড়া গাছের মতোই বাহ্যত মুখ থুবড়ে পড়ল। তবে আমরা আশা করি, এই নীরবতা নিতান্তই সাময়িক কারণ যে, বিষয়টির সঙ্গে বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা ও সার্বভৌমত্বের গুরত্বপূর্ণ প্রশ্ন জড়িত, তাকে এতখানি খাটো করে দেখার কোনোই অবকাশ নেই। তত্ত্বাবধায়ক সরকারের একজন উপদেস্টা অবশ্য প্রশ্ন তুলেছেন, ৩৬ বছর পর, যুদ্ধাপরাধের প্রশ্ন তুলে, তাদের কাজে বাধা দেওয়া হচ্ছে কেন, তাদের বিব্রত করা হচ্ছে কেন? এর পেছনে সেই উপদেষ্টা ষড়যন্ত্রের গন্ধ পেয়েছেন এবং বলছেন, তাদের সরকার এত বোকা নয় যে এই ফাঁদে পা দেবে। মুক্তিযুদ্ধের কোনো ইস্যুকে যদি স্বাধীন বাংলাদেশের কেউ ফাঁদে পা দেওয়া মনে করে, তাহলে এর চেয়ে দুর্ভাগ্যজনক আর কিছুই হতে পারে না।
ছত্রিশ বছর পর এই যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের বিচারের প্রশ্নটি যে কারণে উঠল, সে কারণ নির্বাচনী ও রাজনৈতিক সংস্কারের সঙ্গেও জড়িত। এই তত্ত্বাবধায়ক সরকার যদি ৩৬ বছর পর আমাদের সত্যিকার অর্থে রাজনৈতিক ও নির্বাচনী সংস্কারের জন্য সদর্থক পরিকল্পনা গ্রহণ করে থাকে, তাহলে ৩৬ বছর ধরে আমরা যে যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের বিচার করতে পারিনি সেই প্রসঙ্গটিও উত্থাপন করার অধিকার স্বাধীন বাংলাদেশের নাগরিকদের রয়েছে। বস্তুত সেনাপ্রধান মইন উ আহমেদ প্রথমে এ ব্যাপারে জাতির দৃস্টি আকর্ষণ করেছিলেন যখন তার প্রথমদিককার এক বক্তব্যে তিনি বলেন, আমরা যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের বিচার করতে পারিনি এই ৩৬ বছরেও, সেটি জাতি হিসেবে আমাদের জন্য লজ্জার বিষয়। সত্যি কথা, যে হত্যাযজ্ঞের মধ্য দিয়ে দেশটি স্বাধীন হলো, সেই হত্যাযজ্ঞের হোতারা রাজনৈতিক নেতা সেজে, রাজনীতির অধিকার ভোগ করবেন, সেটি আর যা-ই হোক সংস্কারের সংস্কৃতি নয়। কিছুদিন আগে সবচেয়ে ধৃস্টতাপূর্ণ অনৈতিহাসিক বক্তব্য রাখেন জামায়াতের দু’জন নেতা, যারা তাদের এই বক্তব্যে বস্তুত বাংলাদেশের মহান মুক্তিযুদ্ধকে আরো একবার অবমূল্যায়িত করেছেন। তারা এখনো একথাও পরিস্কারভাবে বলেননি, একাত্তর সালে তারা ভুল করেছিলেন। জামায়াত নেতারা যে সাফাই গান, সেটি হলো তখনকার পরিপ্রেক্ষিতে তারা চাননি বাংলাদেশ ভারতের অনুগত একটি রাস্ট্রে পরিণত হোক, আর সে জন্যই তারা সেই সময়ে বাংলাদেশ প্রতিষ্ঠার বিরোধিতা করেছিলেন। কিন্তু বস্তুত তাদের এ রকম ভাবনার মধ্যেই নিহিত ছিল নির্ভেজাল পাকিস্তানপ্রীতির লক্ষণ। ইতিহাসের চাকাকে তারা জোর করে পেছনে ঘোরানোর চেস্টা করেছেন, ভারতভীতির এক কল্পিত যুক্তি তুলে, বাংলাদেশের মুক্তিকামী মানুষকে বিভ্রান্ত করার অপচেস্টা চালিয়েছেন। বলাবাহুল্য, এই অপচেস্টা এবং অপপ্রচার এখনো অব্যাহত আছে।
দুই. আলী আহসান মোহাম্মদ মুজাহিদ একখন্ড রামায়ণও পড়বেন না জানি, কিন্তু আমি নিশ্চিত তিনি এটা ভালোই জানেন, সীতা কারো বাপ নয়। অথচ ভাজা মাছটি উল্টে খেতে জানেন না, এমন ভাব করে এই ব্যক্তি অকস্মাৎ এমন কিছু কথা বললেন যা বাংলাদেশের মুক্তিযুদ্ধের অবমূল্যায়নের নামান্তর মাত্র। তারই সঙ্গে একাত্মতা ঘোষণা করে ইসলামী ব্যাংকের সাবেক চেয়ারম্যান জামায়াতপন্থি শাহ আবদুল হান্নান বাংলাদেশের মুক্তিযুদ্ধকে গৃহযুদ্ধ বলে আখ্যায়িত করেছেন। এসব বিষয় বাংলাদেশের মানুষের জন্য একটি বড় রকমের চ্যালেঞ্জ সৃস্টি করেছে। ইতিহাসের যে ভুল ব্যাখ্যা মুজাহিদ, তার দল এবং দলের সমর্থকরা দিয়ে আসছেন, তাতে নতুন প্রজন্মকে নানাভাবে বিভ্রান্ত করার একটা অসৎ উদ্দেশ্য কাজ করছে। বাংলাদেশের এই নতুন প্রজন্ম এবং বাংলাদেশের মানুষের মুক্তিযুদ্ধের গৌরবময় ইতিহাসের মাঝে একটি দেয়াল তুলে, বিস্মৃতি ও অপব্যাখ্যার মাধ্যমে সত্যকে আড়াল করার যারা চেস্টা চালাচ্ছেন, তাদের সম্পর্কে সতর্ক হওয়ার এখনই সময়। আমরা আমাদের স্বাধীনতার ৩৬ বছর মাত্র পেরিয়ে এসেছি, মুক্তিযুদ্ধের সঙ্গে পরোক্ষ বা প্রত্যক্ষভাবে সংশ্লিস্ট ছিলেন এমন ব্যক্তিরা এখনো জীবিত আছেন, এই সময়ে যদি জামায়াত নেতা এবং তার দল মুক্তিযুদ্ধ সম্পর্কে এমন অপব্যাখ্যা দেন, তাহলে মুক্তিযোদ্ধাদের প্রজন্ম যখন সবাই প্রয়াত হবেন তখন এই ইতিহাস যে পাকিস্তানের গৃহযুদ্ধের একটি ইতিহাসে পরিণত হবে না সেটাই-বা কে বলতে পারে। শাহ আবদুল হান্নান যে জ্ঞানপাপীর মতো মুক্তিযুদ্ধকে গৃহযুদ্ধ বললেন, তাতে এটা মনে না করার কোনো কারণই নেই যে, শাহ হান্নান বস্তুত পাকিস্তানের একশ্রেণীর লোকের চিন্তাধারারই প্রতিফলন ঘটাচ্ছেন। আশ্চর্যের বিষয় এই যে, যখন খোদ পাকিস্তানের গণতন্ত্রকামী ও উদার লোকজন অকপটে এটা স্বীকার করেন, বাঙালিদের প্রতি বৈষম্যমূলক আচরণ করা হয়েছে এবং বাংলাদেশের মুক্তিযুদ্ধের পেছনে একাধিক ঐতিহাসিক ও যৌক্তিক কারণ ছিল তখন হান্নানরা যখন বলেন, এটা ছিল গৃহযুদ্ধ, তখন তাদের দেশপ্রেম সম্পর্কে সংশয়ের সৃস্টি হয়। মুক্তিযুদ্ধের যৌক্তিকতা সম্পর্কে যারা এখনো সন্দিহান, তাদের বাংলাদেশের নাগরিক হওয়ার অধিকার কতটুকু, সে কথা বাংলাদেশের জনগণই ভেবে দেখবে। মনে রাখা প্রয়োজন, পাকিস্তানিরা নিজেদের ইতিহাস বইয়ে আমাদের মুক্তিযুদ্ধকে গৃহযুদ্ধ হিসেবেই চিত্রিত করেছে। এটি গৃহযুদ্ধ ছিল না কোনো ব্যাখ্যাতেই, কারণ গোটা বাংলাদেশের মানুষ একাত্ম ছিল মুক্তিযুদ্ধের প্রশ্নে। কিছু ঘরের শত্রু বিভীষণের অপকর্মই একে গৃহযুদ্ধে রূপ দিচ্ছিল। শাহ আবদুল হান্নানের বক্তব্য অনুযায়ী তর্কের খাতিরে যদি একে গৃহযুদ্ধ বলে মেনে নেওয়া হয়, তাহলে সেই মুক্তিযুদ্ধকে যারা গৃহযুদ্ধে রূপ দিতে চেয়েছিল নিজেদের দেশের লোককে হত্যা ও ধর্ষণ করে, তাদের শাস্তি হওয়ার প্রয়োজন আছে। বাঙালি জাতির জন্য এ এক পরিহাসের বিষয় যে নতুন করে আমাদের ইতিহাসের পাঠ নিতে হয় তাদের কাছ থেকে, যারা ১৯৭১ সালের মুক্তিযুদ্ধের মাধ্যমে ইতিহাসের আঁস্তকুড়ে নিক্ষিপ্ত হয়েছিল।
তিন. মুজাহিদও যুক্তি দেখিয়েছেন যে, বাংলাদেশে কোনো যুদ্ধাপরাধী নেই, সেটি যে সম্পূর্ণ অসত্য ভাষণ সে কথা বলাবাহুল্য। তবে এটা বলা মোটেই বাহুল্য নয়, মুজাহিদের মতো যারা অহর্নিশ তরুণদের ডাক দেন, ‘এসো সত্যের পথে’ তারা সত্যের এ রকম অপলাপ করবেন সেটা আপাতদৃস্টিতে অস্বাভাবিক মনে হলেও আমরা বাংলাদেশে আমাদের অভিজ্ঞতার মাধ্যমেই জেনেছি, যারা ধর্মকে রাজনৈতিক কারণে ব্যবহার করে থাকেন তারা ওই একই কারণে সত্যকে নির্ভয়ে বৃদ্ধাঙ্গুলি প্রদর্শন করেন। আসলে সাধারণ যেসব মানুষের মনে এখনো এ রকম প্রত্যাশা রয়েছে, ইসলামের নামে যারা দল করেছেন, তারা হয়তো আর যাই-ই করুন না কেন মানুষ ঠকাবেন না, তারাও সম্প্রতি হতাশ হয়েছেন আলী আহসান মোহাম্মদ মুজাহিদের এই অসত্য ভাষণে। মুজাহিদ তার বক্তব্য প্রমাণ করার জন্য যেসব যুক্তি উপস্থাপন করেছেন তাকে কূটযুক্তির বেশি আর কিছু বলা যায় না। তিনি যে ১৯৫ জন পাকিস্তানি সৈন্য যাদের যুদ্ধাপরাধী হিসেবে চিহ্নিত করা হয়েছিল, শিমলা চুক্তির মাধ্যমে তাদের প্রত্যাবর্তনের কথা বলেছেন, সেই চুক্তিটি ছিল ভারত ও পাকিস্তানের মধ্যে একটি দ্বিপক্ষীয় চুক্তি। বঙ্গবন্ধু শেখ মুজিবুর রহমান (তিনি অবশ্য জামায়াত-বিএনপি ঘরানার লোক বলে বঙ্গবন্ধু শব্দটি সযত্নে পরিহার করে ‘মরহুম’ শব্দটি তার স্থলাভিষিক্ত করেছেন) যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের ক্ষমা করে দিয়েছিলেন এ কথাটি সর্বৈব অসত্য। ১৯৭৫ সালের মধ্য আগস্টেও এই যুদ্ধাপরাধে অনেকেই কারাবন্দি ছিল। পঁচাত্তর-পরবর্তী সময়ে সবার অগোচরে তাদের মুক্তি দেওয়া হয়। আর ঝাঁকের কৈয়ের মতো তারা মিশে যায় জাতির জনক বঙ্গবন্ধু শেখ মুজিবুর রহমানের ঘাতকদের সঙ্গে। এখানে ’৭৫-এর ঘাতক আর ’৭১-এর ঘাতকরা একটি অভিন্ন স্থানে এসে দাঁড়ায়। সেজন্যই যখন শোনা যায়, পঁচাত্তরের সেই হত্যাকান্ডের পেছনে পাকিস্তান সরকার এবং তার গোয়েন্দা সংস্থার হাত ছিল, তখন সেই সরল অঙ্কটা মেলাতে আর ভুল হয় না তেমন একটা।
চার. এখন যখন সংস্কারের সংস্কৃতি প্রাধান্য বিস্তার করেছে, তখন আমাদের ইতিহাসের বিভ্রান্তিগুলো দূর করার এটাই যথার্থ সময়। কিন্তু ইতিহাস নিয়ে এই বিভ্রান্তি কখনোই দূর হবে না যদি রাজনৈতিক ক্ষমতা অর্জনের সুযোগ দেওয়া হয় সেসব ব্যক্তি ও দলকে যারা একাত্তরে আমাদের মুক্তিযুদ্ধকে কলুষিত করেছে এবং এখনো এর পরোক্ষ বিরোধিতা করছে। কেউ কেউ হয়তো সরল বিশ্বাসেই বলবেন, গণতান্ত্রিক পদ্ধতিতে জামায়াত এবং অন্য মৌলবাদী দলগুলোর রাজনীতি করার, নির্বাচনের দাঁড়ানোর অধিকার আছে। কথাটির মধ্যে একটি তাত্ত্বিক সত্যতা রয়েছে বটে। কিন্তু বাস্তবে আমরা লক্ষ্য করি সেটি ঠিক নয়। এর প্রধান কারণগুলো হচ্ছে প্রথমত এ ধরনের ধর্মভিত্তিক দলগুলোর আদর্শ ও লক্ষ্য, স্বাধীন বাংলাদেশের সংবিধানের পরিপন্থী। দ্বিতীয়ত, এ দলগুলোর নিজস্ব গঠনতন্ত্রে যে ধরনের শাসনব্যবস্থা প্রতিষ্ঠিত করার কথা বলা হয়েছে, সে ধরনের শাসনব্যবস্থা গণতান্ত্রিক নয়। অর্থাৎ লক্ষ্য করার বিষয় এই যে, জামায়াতে ইসলামীর মতো দলগুলো, গণতন্ত্রের ছত্রছায়ায় ক্ষমতায় যাবে ঠিকই, কিন্তু সর্বময় ক্ষমতা লাভের পর তারা নানা ধর্মীয় কারণ দেখিয়ে অন্যদের অধিকারকে এতখানিই সঙ্কুচিত করবে যে, ইরানের সর্বোচ্চ পরিষদের অনুমতির মতো এখানেও সংসদের (তখন নাম হবে মজলিস-এ-শূরা) সদস্যদের মনোনয়নের জন্য কথিত ওলামাদের অনুমোদন নিতে হবে। এ ব্যবস্থা যে গণতান্ত্রিক নয় সে কথা বলাবাহুল্য। সুতরাং যারা গণতান্ত্রিক অধিকারের যুক্তি প্রয়োগ করে অগণতান্ত্রিক শক্তিকে ক্ষমতায় বসাতে চায়, তারা যে মৌলিক জায়গায় ভুল করছে সেটা বোঝার প্রয়োজন। ভুলে গেলে চলবে না, জার্মানিতে এডলফ হিটলারও নির্বাচনে জয়লাভ করেই এসেছিলেন আর সেই বাহ্যিক জনপ্রিয়তাকে তিনি গণতন্ত্রবিরোধী কাজে বিনিয়োগ করেছেন সবচেয়ে বেশি। জামায়াতে ইসলামী এবং তাদের মতো মৌলবাদী, ফ্যাসিবাদী দলগুলো গণতন্ত্রের ধারালো অস্ত্র দিয়েই গণতন্ত্রকে হত্যা করবে নিঃসন্দেহেই। অতএব, কেবল বাংলাদেশের মুক্তিযুদ্ধ এবং তার ফলে সে দেশের স্বাধীন অস্তিত্বের কারণেই নয়, গণতন্ত্রকে প্রাতিষ্ঠানিক রূপ দেওয়ার এই প্রচেস্টায়, সব অগণতান্ত্রিক দল, ধর্মভিত্তিক দল এবং যারা ধর্মভিত্তিক শাসনব্যবস্থা কায়েমের তত্ত্ব জোগান দিচ্ছে সন্ত্রাসীদের, তাদের নিষিদ্ধ করা একান্তই দরকার। বিএনপি-জামায়াত জোট সরকারের আমলে আমরা দেখেছি, এসব ক্ষেত্রে ক্ষমতার অপব্যবহার, জেএমবি, বাংলাভাইয়ের বাহিনীর বিরুদ্ধে বাংলাদেশের আইন-শৃংখলা রক্ষাবাহিনীকে নিস্ক্রিয় করার প্রয়াস এমনকি পুলিশের বর্তমান মহাপরিদর্শক নুর মোহাম্মদকে ইসলামী সন্ত্রাসবাদীদের বিরুদ্ধে ব্যবস্থা গ্রহণ থেকে নিবৃত্ত রাখার প্রচেস্টা - এ সবকিছুই প্রমাণ করে, ক্ষমতার ক্ষুদ্র অংশ পেয়েই জামায়াতের কী প্রভাব ছিল রাজনীতির ওপর যে মুক্তিযোদ্ধা জিয়াউর রহমানের পুত্র তারেক রহমান জামায়াত ও বিএনপিকে সহোদর হিসেবে বর্ণনা করেছেন।
এই যদি অবস্থা হয় ক্ষমতা ভাগাভাগিতে, জামায়াত যদি কখনো এককভাবে ক্ষমতা লাভ করে, তাহলে বাংলাদেশের মুক্তিযুদ্ধের কোনো আদর্শই যে বহাল থাকবে না সে কথা বলাবাহুল্য। সংস্কার সাধনের এই নানামুখী প্রয়াসের সঙ্গে এ বিষয়টিকে অন্তর্ভুক্ত যদি না করা হয়, তাহলে সংস্কার অসম্পূর্ণ থাকবে এবং গোটা জাতিকে এই ক্ষতি, এই ক্ষত বহন করতে হবে অনন্তকাল। বিজয়ের মাসে নতুন করে ভেবে দেখতে হবে, বাংলাদেশকে এগিয়ে যেতে হলে তার সব প্রতিবন্ধকতা দূর করা কতখানি আবশ্যক। নইলে আমাদের বিজয়ের বয়স বাড়বে যত, ততই যেন আমরা দূরে সরে আসব, মুক্তিযুদ্ধের সেই চেতনা থেকে।
লেখক : আমেরিকা প্রবাসী সাংবাদিক ও কলামিস্ট
অনিরুদ্ধ আহমেদ
সমকাল, ডিসেম্বর ৩, ২০০৭
সাইক্লোন সিডর কেবল দক্ষিণাঞ্চলের নয়, গোটা বাংলাদেশের যে একটা মস্ত বড় আরেক ধরনের ক্ষতি করে গেল সেটি হলো যুদ্ধাপরাধী প্রসঙ্গটিকে ধ্বংসাবশেষের মধ্যে যেন আপাতদৃস্টিতে চাপা দিল। যে উত্তপ্ত এবং অত্যাবশ্যক আলোচনা চলছিল এই যুদ্ধাপরাধীর বিষয় নিয়ে, সেই আলোচনায় আকস্মিক ইতি টেনে দিল দক্ষিণাঞ্চলের এই ঘূর্ণিঝড় এবং যেন মনে হচ্ছে, যুদ্ধপরাধীদের বিচার, বাংলাদেশের মাটিতে তাদের রাজনীতি করার ক্ষমতা এসব প্রসঙ্গ উপড়ে পড়া গাছের মতোই বাহ্যত মুখ থুবড়ে পড়ল। তবে আমরা আশা করি, এই নীরবতা নিতান্তই সাময়িক কারণ যে, বিষয়টির সঙ্গে বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা ও সার্বভৌমত্বের গুরত্বপূর্ণ প্রশ্ন জড়িত, তাকে এতখানি খাটো করে দেখার কোনোই অবকাশ নেই। তত্ত্বাবধায়ক সরকারের একজন উপদেস্টা অবশ্য প্রশ্ন তুলেছেন, ৩৬ বছর পর, যুদ্ধাপরাধের প্রশ্ন তুলে, তাদের কাজে বাধা দেওয়া হচ্ছে কেন, তাদের বিব্রত করা হচ্ছে কেন? এর পেছনে সেই উপদেষ্টা ষড়যন্ত্রের গন্ধ পেয়েছেন এবং বলছেন, তাদের সরকার এত বোকা নয় যে এই ফাঁদে পা দেবে। মুক্তিযুদ্ধের কোনো ইস্যুকে যদি স্বাধীন বাংলাদেশের কেউ ফাঁদে পা দেওয়া মনে করে, তাহলে এর চেয়ে দুর্ভাগ্যজনক আর কিছুই হতে পারে না।
ছত্রিশ বছর পর এই যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের বিচারের প্রশ্নটি যে কারণে উঠল, সে কারণ নির্বাচনী ও রাজনৈতিক সংস্কারের সঙ্গেও জড়িত। এই তত্ত্বাবধায়ক সরকার যদি ৩৬ বছর পর আমাদের সত্যিকার অর্থে রাজনৈতিক ও নির্বাচনী সংস্কারের জন্য সদর্থক পরিকল্পনা গ্রহণ করে থাকে, তাহলে ৩৬ বছর ধরে আমরা যে যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের বিচার করতে পারিনি সেই প্রসঙ্গটিও উত্থাপন করার অধিকার স্বাধীন বাংলাদেশের নাগরিকদের রয়েছে। বস্তুত সেনাপ্রধান মইন উ আহমেদ প্রথমে এ ব্যাপারে জাতির দৃস্টি আকর্ষণ করেছিলেন যখন তার প্রথমদিককার এক বক্তব্যে তিনি বলেন, আমরা যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের বিচার করতে পারিনি এই ৩৬ বছরেও, সেটি জাতি হিসেবে আমাদের জন্য লজ্জার বিষয়। সত্যি কথা, যে হত্যাযজ্ঞের মধ্য দিয়ে দেশটি স্বাধীন হলো, সেই হত্যাযজ্ঞের হোতারা রাজনৈতিক নেতা সেজে, রাজনীতির অধিকার ভোগ করবেন, সেটি আর যা-ই হোক সংস্কারের সংস্কৃতি নয়। কিছুদিন আগে সবচেয়ে ধৃস্টতাপূর্ণ অনৈতিহাসিক বক্তব্য রাখেন জামায়াতের দু’জন নেতা, যারা তাদের এই বক্তব্যে বস্তুত বাংলাদেশের মহান মুক্তিযুদ্ধকে আরো একবার অবমূল্যায়িত করেছেন। তারা এখনো একথাও পরিস্কারভাবে বলেননি, একাত্তর সালে তারা ভুল করেছিলেন। জামায়াত নেতারা যে সাফাই গান, সেটি হলো তখনকার পরিপ্রেক্ষিতে তারা চাননি বাংলাদেশ ভারতের অনুগত একটি রাস্ট্রে পরিণত হোক, আর সে জন্যই তারা সেই সময়ে বাংলাদেশ প্রতিষ্ঠার বিরোধিতা করেছিলেন। কিন্তু বস্তুত তাদের এ রকম ভাবনার মধ্যেই নিহিত ছিল নির্ভেজাল পাকিস্তানপ্রীতির লক্ষণ। ইতিহাসের চাকাকে তারা জোর করে পেছনে ঘোরানোর চেস্টা করেছেন, ভারতভীতির এক কল্পিত যুক্তি তুলে, বাংলাদেশের মুক্তিকামী মানুষকে বিভ্রান্ত করার অপচেস্টা চালিয়েছেন। বলাবাহুল্য, এই অপচেস্টা এবং অপপ্রচার এখনো অব্যাহত আছে।
দুই. আলী আহসান মোহাম্মদ মুজাহিদ একখন্ড রামায়ণও পড়বেন না জানি, কিন্তু আমি নিশ্চিত তিনি এটা ভালোই জানেন, সীতা কারো বাপ নয়। অথচ ভাজা মাছটি উল্টে খেতে জানেন না, এমন ভাব করে এই ব্যক্তি অকস্মাৎ এমন কিছু কথা বললেন যা বাংলাদেশের মুক্তিযুদ্ধের অবমূল্যায়নের নামান্তর মাত্র। তারই সঙ্গে একাত্মতা ঘোষণা করে ইসলামী ব্যাংকের সাবেক চেয়ারম্যান জামায়াতপন্থি শাহ আবদুল হান্নান বাংলাদেশের মুক্তিযুদ্ধকে গৃহযুদ্ধ বলে আখ্যায়িত করেছেন। এসব বিষয় বাংলাদেশের মানুষের জন্য একটি বড় রকমের চ্যালেঞ্জ সৃস্টি করেছে। ইতিহাসের যে ভুল ব্যাখ্যা মুজাহিদ, তার দল এবং দলের সমর্থকরা দিয়ে আসছেন, তাতে নতুন প্রজন্মকে নানাভাবে বিভ্রান্ত করার একটা অসৎ উদ্দেশ্য কাজ করছে। বাংলাদেশের এই নতুন প্রজন্ম এবং বাংলাদেশের মানুষের মুক্তিযুদ্ধের গৌরবময় ইতিহাসের মাঝে একটি দেয়াল তুলে, বিস্মৃতি ও অপব্যাখ্যার মাধ্যমে সত্যকে আড়াল করার যারা চেস্টা চালাচ্ছেন, তাদের সম্পর্কে সতর্ক হওয়ার এখনই সময়। আমরা আমাদের স্বাধীনতার ৩৬ বছর মাত্র পেরিয়ে এসেছি, মুক্তিযুদ্ধের সঙ্গে পরোক্ষ বা প্রত্যক্ষভাবে সংশ্লিস্ট ছিলেন এমন ব্যক্তিরা এখনো জীবিত আছেন, এই সময়ে যদি জামায়াত নেতা এবং তার দল মুক্তিযুদ্ধ সম্পর্কে এমন অপব্যাখ্যা দেন, তাহলে মুক্তিযোদ্ধাদের প্রজন্ম যখন সবাই প্রয়াত হবেন তখন এই ইতিহাস যে পাকিস্তানের গৃহযুদ্ধের একটি ইতিহাসে পরিণত হবে না সেটাই-বা কে বলতে পারে। শাহ আবদুল হান্নান যে জ্ঞানপাপীর মতো মুক্তিযুদ্ধকে গৃহযুদ্ধ বললেন, তাতে এটা মনে না করার কোনো কারণই নেই যে, শাহ হান্নান বস্তুত পাকিস্তানের একশ্রেণীর লোকের চিন্তাধারারই প্রতিফলন ঘটাচ্ছেন। আশ্চর্যের বিষয় এই যে, যখন খোদ পাকিস্তানের গণতন্ত্রকামী ও উদার লোকজন অকপটে এটা স্বীকার করেন, বাঙালিদের প্রতি বৈষম্যমূলক আচরণ করা হয়েছে এবং বাংলাদেশের মুক্তিযুদ্ধের পেছনে একাধিক ঐতিহাসিক ও যৌক্তিক কারণ ছিল তখন হান্নানরা যখন বলেন, এটা ছিল গৃহযুদ্ধ, তখন তাদের দেশপ্রেম সম্পর্কে সংশয়ের সৃস্টি হয়। মুক্তিযুদ্ধের যৌক্তিকতা সম্পর্কে যারা এখনো সন্দিহান, তাদের বাংলাদেশের নাগরিক হওয়ার অধিকার কতটুকু, সে কথা বাংলাদেশের জনগণই ভেবে দেখবে। মনে রাখা প্রয়োজন, পাকিস্তানিরা নিজেদের ইতিহাস বইয়ে আমাদের মুক্তিযুদ্ধকে গৃহযুদ্ধ হিসেবেই চিত্রিত করেছে। এটি গৃহযুদ্ধ ছিল না কোনো ব্যাখ্যাতেই, কারণ গোটা বাংলাদেশের মানুষ একাত্ম ছিল মুক্তিযুদ্ধের প্রশ্নে। কিছু ঘরের শত্রু বিভীষণের অপকর্মই একে গৃহযুদ্ধে রূপ দিচ্ছিল। শাহ আবদুল হান্নানের বক্তব্য অনুযায়ী তর্কের খাতিরে যদি একে গৃহযুদ্ধ বলে মেনে নেওয়া হয়, তাহলে সেই মুক্তিযুদ্ধকে যারা গৃহযুদ্ধে রূপ দিতে চেয়েছিল নিজেদের দেশের লোককে হত্যা ও ধর্ষণ করে, তাদের শাস্তি হওয়ার প্রয়োজন আছে। বাঙালি জাতির জন্য এ এক পরিহাসের বিষয় যে নতুন করে আমাদের ইতিহাসের পাঠ নিতে হয় তাদের কাছ থেকে, যারা ১৯৭১ সালের মুক্তিযুদ্ধের মাধ্যমে ইতিহাসের আঁস্তকুড়ে নিক্ষিপ্ত হয়েছিল।
তিন. মুজাহিদও যুক্তি দেখিয়েছেন যে, বাংলাদেশে কোনো যুদ্ধাপরাধী নেই, সেটি যে সম্পূর্ণ অসত্য ভাষণ সে কথা বলাবাহুল্য। তবে এটা বলা মোটেই বাহুল্য নয়, মুজাহিদের মতো যারা অহর্নিশ তরুণদের ডাক দেন, ‘এসো সত্যের পথে’ তারা সত্যের এ রকম অপলাপ করবেন সেটা আপাতদৃস্টিতে অস্বাভাবিক মনে হলেও আমরা বাংলাদেশে আমাদের অভিজ্ঞতার মাধ্যমেই জেনেছি, যারা ধর্মকে রাজনৈতিক কারণে ব্যবহার করে থাকেন তারা ওই একই কারণে সত্যকে নির্ভয়ে বৃদ্ধাঙ্গুলি প্রদর্শন করেন। আসলে সাধারণ যেসব মানুষের মনে এখনো এ রকম প্রত্যাশা রয়েছে, ইসলামের নামে যারা দল করেছেন, তারা হয়তো আর যাই-ই করুন না কেন মানুষ ঠকাবেন না, তারাও সম্প্রতি হতাশ হয়েছেন আলী আহসান মোহাম্মদ মুজাহিদের এই অসত্য ভাষণে। মুজাহিদ তার বক্তব্য প্রমাণ করার জন্য যেসব যুক্তি উপস্থাপন করেছেন তাকে কূটযুক্তির বেশি আর কিছু বলা যায় না। তিনি যে ১৯৫ জন পাকিস্তানি সৈন্য যাদের যুদ্ধাপরাধী হিসেবে চিহ্নিত করা হয়েছিল, শিমলা চুক্তির মাধ্যমে তাদের প্রত্যাবর্তনের কথা বলেছেন, সেই চুক্তিটি ছিল ভারত ও পাকিস্তানের মধ্যে একটি দ্বিপক্ষীয় চুক্তি। বঙ্গবন্ধু শেখ মুজিবুর রহমান (তিনি অবশ্য জামায়াত-বিএনপি ঘরানার লোক বলে বঙ্গবন্ধু শব্দটি সযত্নে পরিহার করে ‘মরহুম’ শব্দটি তার স্থলাভিষিক্ত করেছেন) যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের ক্ষমা করে দিয়েছিলেন এ কথাটি সর্বৈব অসত্য। ১৯৭৫ সালের মধ্য আগস্টেও এই যুদ্ধাপরাধে অনেকেই কারাবন্দি ছিল। পঁচাত্তর-পরবর্তী সময়ে সবার অগোচরে তাদের মুক্তি দেওয়া হয়। আর ঝাঁকের কৈয়ের মতো তারা মিশে যায় জাতির জনক বঙ্গবন্ধু শেখ মুজিবুর রহমানের ঘাতকদের সঙ্গে। এখানে ’৭৫-এর ঘাতক আর ’৭১-এর ঘাতকরা একটি অভিন্ন স্থানে এসে দাঁড়ায়। সেজন্যই যখন শোনা যায়, পঁচাত্তরের সেই হত্যাকান্ডের পেছনে পাকিস্তান সরকার এবং তার গোয়েন্দা সংস্থার হাত ছিল, তখন সেই সরল অঙ্কটা মেলাতে আর ভুল হয় না তেমন একটা।
চার. এখন যখন সংস্কারের সংস্কৃতি প্রাধান্য বিস্তার করেছে, তখন আমাদের ইতিহাসের বিভ্রান্তিগুলো দূর করার এটাই যথার্থ সময়। কিন্তু ইতিহাস নিয়ে এই বিভ্রান্তি কখনোই দূর হবে না যদি রাজনৈতিক ক্ষমতা অর্জনের সুযোগ দেওয়া হয় সেসব ব্যক্তি ও দলকে যারা একাত্তরে আমাদের মুক্তিযুদ্ধকে কলুষিত করেছে এবং এখনো এর পরোক্ষ বিরোধিতা করছে। কেউ কেউ হয়তো সরল বিশ্বাসেই বলবেন, গণতান্ত্রিক পদ্ধতিতে জামায়াত এবং অন্য মৌলবাদী দলগুলোর রাজনীতি করার, নির্বাচনের দাঁড়ানোর অধিকার আছে। কথাটির মধ্যে একটি তাত্ত্বিক সত্যতা রয়েছে বটে। কিন্তু বাস্তবে আমরা লক্ষ্য করি সেটি ঠিক নয়। এর প্রধান কারণগুলো হচ্ছে প্রথমত এ ধরনের ধর্মভিত্তিক দলগুলোর আদর্শ ও লক্ষ্য, স্বাধীন বাংলাদেশের সংবিধানের পরিপন্থী। দ্বিতীয়ত, এ দলগুলোর নিজস্ব গঠনতন্ত্রে যে ধরনের শাসনব্যবস্থা প্রতিষ্ঠিত করার কথা বলা হয়েছে, সে ধরনের শাসনব্যবস্থা গণতান্ত্রিক নয়। অর্থাৎ লক্ষ্য করার বিষয় এই যে, জামায়াতে ইসলামীর মতো দলগুলো, গণতন্ত্রের ছত্রছায়ায় ক্ষমতায় যাবে ঠিকই, কিন্তু সর্বময় ক্ষমতা লাভের পর তারা নানা ধর্মীয় কারণ দেখিয়ে অন্যদের অধিকারকে এতখানিই সঙ্কুচিত করবে যে, ইরানের সর্বোচ্চ পরিষদের অনুমতির মতো এখানেও সংসদের (তখন নাম হবে মজলিস-এ-শূরা) সদস্যদের মনোনয়নের জন্য কথিত ওলামাদের অনুমোদন নিতে হবে। এ ব্যবস্থা যে গণতান্ত্রিক নয় সে কথা বলাবাহুল্য। সুতরাং যারা গণতান্ত্রিক অধিকারের যুক্তি প্রয়োগ করে অগণতান্ত্রিক শক্তিকে ক্ষমতায় বসাতে চায়, তারা যে মৌলিক জায়গায় ভুল করছে সেটা বোঝার প্রয়োজন। ভুলে গেলে চলবে না, জার্মানিতে এডলফ হিটলারও নির্বাচনে জয়লাভ করেই এসেছিলেন আর সেই বাহ্যিক জনপ্রিয়তাকে তিনি গণতন্ত্রবিরোধী কাজে বিনিয়োগ করেছেন সবচেয়ে বেশি। জামায়াতে ইসলামী এবং তাদের মতো মৌলবাদী, ফ্যাসিবাদী দলগুলো গণতন্ত্রের ধারালো অস্ত্র দিয়েই গণতন্ত্রকে হত্যা করবে নিঃসন্দেহেই। অতএব, কেবল বাংলাদেশের মুক্তিযুদ্ধ এবং তার ফলে সে দেশের স্বাধীন অস্তিত্বের কারণেই নয়, গণতন্ত্রকে প্রাতিষ্ঠানিক রূপ দেওয়ার এই প্রচেস্টায়, সব অগণতান্ত্রিক দল, ধর্মভিত্তিক দল এবং যারা ধর্মভিত্তিক শাসনব্যবস্থা কায়েমের তত্ত্ব জোগান দিচ্ছে সন্ত্রাসীদের, তাদের নিষিদ্ধ করা একান্তই দরকার। বিএনপি-জামায়াত জোট সরকারের আমলে আমরা দেখেছি, এসব ক্ষেত্রে ক্ষমতার অপব্যবহার, জেএমবি, বাংলাভাইয়ের বাহিনীর বিরুদ্ধে বাংলাদেশের আইন-শৃংখলা রক্ষাবাহিনীকে নিস্ক্রিয় করার প্রয়াস এমনকি পুলিশের বর্তমান মহাপরিদর্শক নুর মোহাম্মদকে ইসলামী সন্ত্রাসবাদীদের বিরুদ্ধে ব্যবস্থা গ্রহণ থেকে নিবৃত্ত রাখার প্রচেস্টা - এ সবকিছুই প্রমাণ করে, ক্ষমতার ক্ষুদ্র অংশ পেয়েই জামায়াতের কী প্রভাব ছিল রাজনীতির ওপর যে মুক্তিযোদ্ধা জিয়াউর রহমানের পুত্র তারেক রহমান জামায়াত ও বিএনপিকে সহোদর হিসেবে বর্ণনা করেছেন।
এই যদি অবস্থা হয় ক্ষমতা ভাগাভাগিতে, জামায়াত যদি কখনো এককভাবে ক্ষমতা লাভ করে, তাহলে বাংলাদেশের মুক্তিযুদ্ধের কোনো আদর্শই যে বহাল থাকবে না সে কথা বলাবাহুল্য। সংস্কার সাধনের এই নানামুখী প্রয়াসের সঙ্গে এ বিষয়টিকে অন্তর্ভুক্ত যদি না করা হয়, তাহলে সংস্কার অসম্পূর্ণ থাকবে এবং গোটা জাতিকে এই ক্ষতি, এই ক্ষত বহন করতে হবে অনন্তকাল। বিজয়ের মাসে নতুন করে ভেবে দেখতে হবে, বাংলাদেশকে এগিয়ে যেতে হলে তার সব প্রতিবন্ধকতা দূর করা কতখানি আবশ্যক। নইলে আমাদের বিজয়ের বয়স বাড়বে যত, ততই যেন আমরা দূরে সরে আসব, মুক্তিযুদ্ধের সেই চেতনা থেকে।
লেখক : আমেরিকা প্রবাসী সাংবাদিক ও কলামিস্ট
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
At KSG, General Draws Fire
At KSG, General Draws Fire
Bangladeshi military chief accused of crackdown on academic freedom
Published On 10/30/2007 12:38:29 AM
By PARAS D. BHAYANI
Crimson Staff Writer
Source: The Harvard Crimson
The chief of the Bangladeshi military, who took part in a two-day session at the Kennedy School of Government last week, has come under fire from scholars who claim that his armed forces have been responsible for a crackdown on academic freedom at the nation’s universities.
Gen. Moeen U Ahmed, who also participated in a Kennedy School executive education course in 2002, is being criticized for crackdowns at Bangladesh’s Rajshahi University and its flagship institution, the University of Dhaka.
The crackdowns have included the arrests of at least four academics at Dhaka and eight at Rajshahi, with allegations that they have been tortured, according to The Daily Star, the largest English-language newspaper in Bangladesh.
Emran Qureshi, a fellow at the Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program, criticized the Kennedy School for closing Moeen’s visit to the public and the press.
“He should be allowed to speak, but it should have been public so that critics of their policy could have aired their thoughts,” Qureshi said in a phone interview yesterday. “It is incredibly ironic that at the very moment he speaks at Harvard University, he is presiding over an unprecedented crackdown on Bangladeshi academic institutions. It boggles the mind.”
The Kennedy School’s Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation, which hosted Ahmed, said in a statement last week that the sessions were closed to the press in order to “allow for frank, free and meaningful discussion.” An institute spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment.
Moeen had meetings on governmental reform and restoring democracy in Bangladesh during his two-day stay here, the statement said.
The arrests at the Bangladesh universities were in response to protests following an August incident in which soldiers attacked a student who was blocking their view of a soccer match.
“The demonstrations taking place in Bangladesh come after eight months of repressive emergency rule, which has restricted the rights to protest and fails to respect basic due process rights,” the watchdog organization Human Rights Watch said in a report.
Bangladesh declared a state of emergency in January 2007, with Moeen deploying the armed forces to end riots in the nation’s major cities. The military-backed provisional government that has ruled Bangladesh since January will leave office in December 2008, Moeen has said.
______________________________
—Staff writer Paras D. Bhayani can be reached at pbhayani@fas.harvard.edu.
Bangladeshi military chief accused of crackdown on academic freedom
Published On 10/30/2007 12:38:29 AM
By PARAS D. BHAYANI
Crimson Staff Writer
Source: The Harvard Crimson
The chief of the Bangladeshi military, who took part in a two-day session at the Kennedy School of Government last week, has come under fire from scholars who claim that his armed forces have been responsible for a crackdown on academic freedom at the nation’s universities.
Gen. Moeen U Ahmed, who also participated in a Kennedy School executive education course in 2002, is being criticized for crackdowns at Bangladesh’s Rajshahi University and its flagship institution, the University of Dhaka.
The crackdowns have included the arrests of at least four academics at Dhaka and eight at Rajshahi, with allegations that they have been tortured, according to The Daily Star, the largest English-language newspaper in Bangladesh.
Emran Qureshi, a fellow at the Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program, criticized the Kennedy School for closing Moeen’s visit to the public and the press.
“He should be allowed to speak, but it should have been public so that critics of their policy could have aired their thoughts,” Qureshi said in a phone interview yesterday. “It is incredibly ironic that at the very moment he speaks at Harvard University, he is presiding over an unprecedented crackdown on Bangladeshi academic institutions. It boggles the mind.”
The Kennedy School’s Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation, which hosted Ahmed, said in a statement last week that the sessions were closed to the press in order to “allow for frank, free and meaningful discussion.” An institute spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment.
Moeen had meetings on governmental reform and restoring democracy in Bangladesh during his two-day stay here, the statement said.
The arrests at the Bangladesh universities were in response to protests following an August incident in which soldiers attacked a student who was blocking their view of a soccer match.
“The demonstrations taking place in Bangladesh come after eight months of repressive emergency rule, which has restricted the rights to protest and fails to respect basic due process rights,” the watchdog organization Human Rights Watch said in a report.
Bangladesh declared a state of emergency in January 2007, with Moeen deploying the armed forces to end riots in the nation’s major cities. The military-backed provisional government that has ruled Bangladesh since January will leave office in December 2008, Moeen has said.
______________________________
—Staff writer Paras D. Bhayani can be reached at pbhayani@fas.harvard.edu.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Well said, your honour
Well said, your honour
Syed Muhammad Ibrahim
Syed Muhammad Ibrahim
Source: Daily Star
October 29, 2007
I draw the attention of readers to what former chief justice of Bangladesh Supreme Court Mostafa Kamal told The Daily Star on October 27: "Now it is being said that no war criminal exists in the country. May be after some time it would be said that the Liberation War never took place. This will mean we will be deprived of the real history."
Not only as a citizen, but also as an active or armed freedom fighter of the Bangladesh War of Liberation in 1971, I am shocked at the remarks leaders of a political party called Jamaat-e-Islami made to reporters after a meeting with the Election Commission on Thursday, October 25.
Chief Justice Mostafa Kamal expressed his suspicion that some day the detractors of the War of Liberation will deny the war itself. Justice Mostafa Kamal did not have to wait long.
At about 9.30 p.m. on Friday, October 26, in a television talk show on Ekushey TV titled Ekushey Shomoy, Mr. Shah Abdul Hannan a former secretary to the government of Bangladesh said that there was no Liberation War of Bangladesh, instead what happened in 1971 was civil war in Pakistan. Mr. Shah Abdul Hannan, in all possibility, represents a thought process of like-minded people who have decided to deny the War of Liberation by calling it civil war. Mr. Hannan is not alone. We need to answer these questions or in other words resolve this issue once and for all.
Many said, in the past, that to raise the issue of freedom fighters and non-freedom fighters is tantamount to dividing the society or opening old wounds or impeding national unity. As a freedom fighter I strongly submit that I have no intention to include among my nation such people who do not recognise the War of Liberation.
The denial of the War of Liberation is something like a child denying the fact that he was born of his mother and that his mother suffered much birth pangs during his birth. May I ask a question to Jamaat-e-Islami and Mr. Shah Abdul Hannan: "Pakistan government in 1971 used to say that the situation in East Pakistan in 1971 was an internal law and order problem. In 2007 Mr. Shah Abdul Hannan says it was a civil war. Question: Was Bangladesh born because of political struggle alone or because of the recommendations of politicians only?"
At least on five successive March 26s (that is in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006) Mr. Matiur Rahman Nizami and Mr. Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed of the Jamaat-e-Islami joined the ranks of other ministers at the national memorial at Savar, because that is the independence day of Bangladesh. Why did these two the then-ministers go to Savar if they did not believe that March 26, 1971 was not the day of independence of Bangladesh!
On the contrary, if they believe the date to be the day of independence, then how can there be a civil war between two different countries (that is a country called Bangladesh and another country called Pakistan). It had to be a war between the forces loyal to Bangladesh and forces who were "occupying" Bangladesh.
Mr. Hannan and his like-minded colleagues must be made to answer, albeit in an honourable and gentlemanly way.
It is high time that we resolve this issue once and for all. No national reconciliation is possible with any segment of the people who deny the process of birth of this country. The blood shed by the millions of martyrs in 1971 will not pardon the present generation or more specifically the freedom fighters who are still living for not ensuring due recognition of the War of Liberation. In this context, I have three specific proposals.
Proposal number one is about a commission. The background to this proposal is similar to the background which necessitates the Anti-Corruption Commission in Bangladesh. There is no dearth of reports in the print or electronic media about corruption by members of the political governments between 1991 to 2006. These reports alone are not sufficient to prosecute the people. Formal efforts are needed, that is why the Anti-Corruption Commission does the investigation, charge sheeting, and prosecution.
Similarly, there is no dearth of reports about opposition to the War of Liberation and atrocities by the opponents of the war. Therefore, to formalise the investigations and prosecution in a legal manner, there must be a high powered legal entity.
The name of the commission can be something like "Fact Finding Commission 1971" or "Political and War Crimes Finding Commission 1971" or "History Commission on Liberation War 1971" or some such. Wise people can find a good name.
The terms of reference may include among other matters:
I draw the attention of readers to what former chief justice of Bangladesh Supreme Court Mostafa Kamal told The Daily Star on October 27: "Now it is being said that no war criminal exists in the country. May be after some time it would be said that the Liberation War never took place. This will mean we will be deprived of the real history."
Not only as a citizen, but also as an active or armed freedom fighter of the Bangladesh War of Liberation in 1971, I am shocked at the remarks leaders of a political party called Jamaat-e-Islami made to reporters after a meeting with the Election Commission on Thursday, October 25.
Chief Justice Mostafa Kamal expressed his suspicion that some day the detractors of the War of Liberation will deny the war itself. Justice Mostafa Kamal did not have to wait long.
At about 9.30 p.m. on Friday, October 26, in a television talk show on Ekushey TV titled Ekushey Shomoy, Mr. Shah Abdul Hannan a former secretary to the government of Bangladesh said that there was no Liberation War of Bangladesh, instead what happened in 1971 was civil war in Pakistan. Mr. Shah Abdul Hannan, in all possibility, represents a thought process of like-minded people who have decided to deny the War of Liberation by calling it civil war. Mr. Hannan is not alone. We need to answer these questions or in other words resolve this issue once and for all.
Many said, in the past, that to raise the issue of freedom fighters and non-freedom fighters is tantamount to dividing the society or opening old wounds or impeding national unity. As a freedom fighter I strongly submit that I have no intention to include among my nation such people who do not recognise the War of Liberation.
The denial of the War of Liberation is something like a child denying the fact that he was born of his mother and that his mother suffered much birth pangs during his birth. May I ask a question to Jamaat-e-Islami and Mr. Shah Abdul Hannan: "Pakistan government in 1971 used to say that the situation in East Pakistan in 1971 was an internal law and order problem. In 2007 Mr. Shah Abdul Hannan says it was a civil war. Question: Was Bangladesh born because of political struggle alone or because of the recommendations of politicians only?"
At least on five successive March 26s (that is in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006) Mr. Matiur Rahman Nizami and Mr. Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed of the Jamaat-e-Islami joined the ranks of other ministers at the national memorial at Savar, because that is the independence day of Bangladesh. Why did these two the then-ministers go to Savar if they did not believe that March 26, 1971 was not the day of independence of Bangladesh!
On the contrary, if they believe the date to be the day of independence, then how can there be a civil war between two different countries (that is a country called Bangladesh and another country called Pakistan). It had to be a war between the forces loyal to Bangladesh and forces who were "occupying" Bangladesh.
Mr. Hannan and his like-minded colleagues must be made to answer, albeit in an honourable and gentlemanly way.
It is high time that we resolve this issue once and for all. No national reconciliation is possible with any segment of the people who deny the process of birth of this country. The blood shed by the millions of martyrs in 1971 will not pardon the present generation or more specifically the freedom fighters who are still living for not ensuring due recognition of the War of Liberation. In this context, I have three specific proposals.
Proposal number one is about a commission. The background to this proposal is similar to the background which necessitates the Anti-Corruption Commission in Bangladesh. There is no dearth of reports in the print or electronic media about corruption by members of the political governments between 1991 to 2006. These reports alone are not sufficient to prosecute the people. Formal efforts are needed, that is why the Anti-Corruption Commission does the investigation, charge sheeting, and prosecution.
Similarly, there is no dearth of reports about opposition to the War of Liberation and atrocities by the opponents of the war. Therefore, to formalise the investigations and prosecution in a legal manner, there must be a high powered legal entity.
The name of the commission can be something like "Fact Finding Commission 1971" or "Political and War Crimes Finding Commission 1971" or "History Commission on Liberation War 1971" or some such. Wise people can find a good name.
The terms of reference may include among other matters:
- What role did the political parties of the then Pakistan/East Pakistan play towards materialising an independent Bangladesh during the period March 26 to December 16, 1971.
- What support, if any, was available to the Pakistan army in 1971 during its operations in East Pakistan, from the local political parties, or local businessmen, or local citizens.
Priority is for a wide and deliberative enquiry into the entire range of crimes, but if wide ranging enquiry is not possible, then at least enquiry into the possibility of commission of war crimes by those who opposed the freedom fighters of Bangladesh, with armed actions or otherwise, must take place.
The proposed commission may be composed of three retired chief justices or justices of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, three retired freedom fighter general-officers of Bangladesh armed forces, three freedom fighters of 1971 from among general citizens, three former vice-presidents of the Supreme Court Bar and three eminent lawyers of international repute or of international human rights organisations recognised by the United Nations. The composition is also open to further thought and refinement.
Proposal number two is related to the government's decision-making process. I hope and pray that the present government will take the courageous step of addressing this issue of formally identifying the forces opposed to the Liberation War of 1971 and crimes committed by the opposition.
Should the government feel shy or diffident to touch the subject, then the government may refer the matter to the Bangladeshi/Bengali Nation through an independent referendum or referendum-cum-election. But the matter should, repeated should, be addressed. In particular I appeal to the armed forces of Bangladesh who are directly the professional descendents of freedom fighters.
Proposal number three relates to our media. In the absence of an elected parliament, the media needs to play this vital role that I am humbly suggesting. Let all the independent TV channels of Bangladesh organise discussions on the screen, to raise an awareness about war of liberation, the activities of the freedom fighters and the activities of the anti-liberation forces in 1971 so that the people of Bangladesh can take a decision.
We have paid enough price for neglecting the subject, we want to pay no more.
The proposed commission may be composed of three retired chief justices or justices of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, three retired freedom fighter general-officers of Bangladesh armed forces, three freedom fighters of 1971 from among general citizens, three former vice-presidents of the Supreme Court Bar and three eminent lawyers of international repute or of international human rights organisations recognised by the United Nations. The composition is also open to further thought and refinement.
Proposal number two is related to the government's decision-making process. I hope and pray that the present government will take the courageous step of addressing this issue of formally identifying the forces opposed to the Liberation War of 1971 and crimes committed by the opposition.
Should the government feel shy or diffident to touch the subject, then the government may refer the matter to the Bangladeshi/Bengali Nation through an independent referendum or referendum-cum-election. But the matter should, repeated should, be addressed. In particular I appeal to the armed forces of Bangladesh who are directly the professional descendents of freedom fighters.
Proposal number three relates to our media. In the absence of an elected parliament, the media needs to play this vital role that I am humbly suggesting. Let all the independent TV channels of Bangladesh organise discussions on the screen, to raise an awareness about war of liberation, the activities of the freedom fighters and the activities of the anti-liberation forces in 1971 so that the people of Bangladesh can take a decision.
We have paid enough price for neglecting the subject, we want to pay no more.
Maj. Gen. (retired) Syed Muhammad Ibrahim, Bir Protik, is a freelance contributor to The Daily Star.
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:
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Gen Moeen at Mysterious Harvard Seminar
General Moeen's Mysterious Harvard Seminar
When Bangladeshi news media reported that the Bangladesh's first four star general Gen. Moeen U. Ahmed would deliver a seminar at the prestigious Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government (KSG), we the Bangladeshi Diaspora were delighted. We were reported that the Harvard University invited our "strongman" to deliver a historic speech on crisis management of democracy that would be a model for nations to adopt. We echoed with General's emotions that it would bring prestige to Bangladesh military and would build up our much needed image abroad. It would be historic event as the Harvard's 1st woman President Drew Gilpin Faust in her inaugural speech on October 12, 2007 launched many special initiatives for Asia and we were pleased that our General would lead the President's Asian initiatives.
We were proud and happy at the news and therefore, we called the President's Office to thank her. Unfortunately her office appeared to have no knowledge of our General's scheduled talk. Being frustrated, we contacted other offices of The John F. Kennedy School of Government basically to get an invitation to listen to his historic speech. But to our dismay, we were told that the Bangladeshi general had no public forum or there was no scheduled talk at the university. We were further told that he might have been privately invited by a lecturer of the university for his class. The university administration had no knowledge of it.
Rumors spread quickly. Bangladeshi Diaspora of Boston reported that Professor Sumantra Bose of the Harvard University belonging to West Bengal had requested another well liked Bengali educationist, Dr. Gowher Rizvi, Director of the Harvard's Ash Center of Governance and Innovation to sponsor a public forum for the Bangladeshi General. Few months ago, he arranged a seminar for Professor Rehman Sobhan of Bangladesh. However, when we searched the Ash Center's program events, we did not find any public seminar with General Moeen Ahmed. Instead we find that there was a seminar on "Muslims in America" on October 17th. Our frustration prompted us to call the Center. They politely stated that no Bangladeshi general is their guest speaker at this time. We also inquired at The John F. Kennedy School of Government but of no avail. The mystery intensified.
We were simply stunned at it. Our hopes and expectations got a jolt. How a set program could be so illusive? Following our national leaders especially our Law Advisor Moinul Hossain we immediately thought that there must be a "conspiracy" to undermine Bangladesh and Islam. We speculated it could be The RAW of India might be behind it!! Others quipped that the Bangladesh Embassy officials belonging to BNP-AL might have foiled his scheduled talk at the KSG. To justify our hunch we concocted arguments. When General Moeen arrived in Boston he was neither been accompanied by the Bangladesh Ambassador, nor the PR, nor the Consul General. Secondly, we thought since former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's son Sajeeb Wazed Joy is a student at the Kennedy School, he might have foiled it. However, his classmates reported that they were very busy with Mid-term exams. Third, the AL and the BNP supporters might have arranged a massive protest owing to which the Harvard University cancelled it. But fact of the matter is, there was no protest, no demonstrations. Interestingly, the local AL Vice President Abul Kalam Azad received General Moeen at the airport. More importantly, we learned that in the 300 plus years history of the Harvard University they never ever withdrew any invitation once it was issued even against all odds and protests. Does it mean that the General's much celebrated trip was a "hoax" or a total lie?
We don't know who tried to foil our General's program or malign our General. Recently, three stories became public about Gen. Moeen. First one pertaining to his receiving loans of Tk. 99 lakh from the Trust Bank that is recorded in the bank's audit statement submitted to the government, the Bangladesh Bank and the Security Exchange. Second, the re-appointment of his elder brother at the Trust Bank of which he is the ex-officio Chairperson and Director thus violating the government regulation that no two family members could be appointed as Directors of the same bank. Third, his brother-in-law grabbed properties of a few people in Maulvibazar by misusing his power. Are these true or manipulated? It is charged that Bangladesh officials that we trust often do manipulate things to meet the wishes of their boss, the rich and the
powerful.
As per reports, he was invited by a Harvard lecturer who is rumored to be appointed as a Consultant in Bangladesh. The said lecturer is an authority on election reform and US congressional issues. He also takes classes of freshmen lawmakers. It is reported that our General would attend one of his classes along with his students. Each teacher in American universities or colleges routinely invites guest speakers in his/her classes and Gen. Moeen might have got such an invitation. Who knows?
We also checked the KSG bulletin boards. The 2-days that our general would be around Harvard, the KSG will be hosting nearly 7 public seminars and none on issues relating to South Asia or Bangladesh. They had an event on Bangladesh on October 13, the Eid day--- a public lecture of Nobel Laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunus.
Apparently General Moeen did not arrange any meeting with any leader of Massachusetts or of the U. S. Other than Congressman Crowley of New York, he has no appointments either with any U. S. Senators or US Congressmen/women, or with senior State Department officials. Nor there is any especial meeting with the Pentagon or with senior US Army officers as per media reports. He is visiting the U. S. at a time when nine U.S. lawmakers have placed a bill to allow tax-free imports from developing countries including Bangladesh and his courtesy meetings with the US lawmakers could help passing of such bill. However, he refrained from such lobbying. Then question is; why he made such a long trip to US when his each minute is so precious and crucial?
He had a "secret public appearance" for nearly 50 minutes at a location in Holbrook a tiny town, away from Boston on October 21. The guests were instructed to maintain utmost secrecy of the event. The reason for such secrecy is reportedly due to their fear that if Bangladeshi Diaspora knows about the event, they would stage protest demonstrations as they did in Florida.
It was a private dinner party arranged by one Mr. Shaheen Khan, a convenience store owner and more importantly, Mr. Khan is a friend of General's younger brother that lives in Florida. Reportedly this was arranged to thank the General as Mr. Khan's uncle, Nurul Islam, a sacked Secretary to Begum Khaleda Zia has been reinstated. Other than family members, nearly 25/30 local people were invited at the dinner and everybody had to finish their eating before Gen. Moeen enters the venue at 9:15 PM. Private security was arranged by Mr. Khan. However, TV cameramen and selected journalists were invited at the event.
It is an irony that General Moeen, the man who started jihad against corruption and corrupt people was welcomed at the dinner party by none other than a businessman who made his fortunate through bankruptcy and defrauding creditors. He was a real estate developer in 1980s and he collected millions of dollars from thousands of people including many Bangladeshis with the promise to double/triple their investments. Unfortunately, once funds were collected, he
declared bankruptcy and his Ivy Inc. was closed down. For nearly 12 years, he stayed away from public eyes. However, in recent days, he emerged and is currently a leader of the Bangladesh Islamic Society of New England. General Moeen might not know that the man who welcomed him and solicited his help for investment in Bangladesh once defrauded his customers, his bank, and his one time well wishers. Local TV and print media covered it widely when even his lawyer was jailed for fraud.
It is rumored that General's mission to the U. S. is to meet Sheikh Hasina's family members. He visited Florida where his only son, his younger brother and also Hasina's daughter live. At Harvard, it is rumored that he wanted to meet Sajeeb Wazed Joy. It is rumored that instead of a private meeting Joy suggested an open meeting. The General, therefore, have reportedly invited all the four Bangladeshi students of The John F. Kennedy School of Government to have luncheon with him on October 23, the day of his departure to China. It is believed that after this meeting, he would decide as to how to deal with Sheikh Hasina, the leader of the AL party now under detention. It may be mentioned that as per media reports, Joy met Indian Foreign Minister during his trip to New York few weeks ago and that might prompted General Moeen to have a face-to-face dialogue with Joy. General Moeen while answering a question at the Holbrook private dinner jokingly stated that there could be many changes in the next 14 months - a king can die, even a hoarse can fly (something impossible). Now who knows what is next.
When Bangladeshi news media reported that the Bangladesh's first four star general Gen. Moeen U. Ahmed would deliver a seminar at the prestigious Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government (KSG), we the Bangladeshi Diaspora were delighted. We were reported that the Harvard University invited our "strongman" to deliver a historic speech on crisis management of democracy that would be a model for nations to adopt. We echoed with General's emotions that it would bring prestige to Bangladesh military and would build up our much needed image abroad. It would be historic event as the Harvard's 1st woman President Drew Gilpin Faust in her inaugural speech on October 12, 2007 launched many special initiatives for Asia and we were pleased that our General would lead the President's Asian initiatives.
We were proud and happy at the news and therefore, we called the President's Office to thank her. Unfortunately her office appeared to have no knowledge of our General's scheduled talk. Being frustrated, we contacted other offices of The John F. Kennedy School of Government basically to get an invitation to listen to his historic speech. But to our dismay, we were told that the Bangladeshi general had no public forum or there was no scheduled talk at the university. We were further told that he might have been privately invited by a lecturer of the university for his class. The university administration had no knowledge of it.
Rumors spread quickly. Bangladeshi Diaspora of Boston reported that Professor Sumantra Bose of the Harvard University belonging to West Bengal had requested another well liked Bengali educationist, Dr. Gowher Rizvi, Director of the Harvard's Ash Center of Governance and Innovation to sponsor a public forum for the Bangladeshi General. Few months ago, he arranged a seminar for Professor Rehman Sobhan of Bangladesh. However, when we searched the Ash Center's program events, we did not find any public seminar with General Moeen Ahmed. Instead we find that there was a seminar on "Muslims in America" on October 17th. Our frustration prompted us to call the Center. They politely stated that no Bangladeshi general is their guest speaker at this time. We also inquired at The John F. Kennedy School of Government but of no avail. The mystery intensified.
We were simply stunned at it. Our hopes and expectations got a jolt. How a set program could be so illusive? Following our national leaders especially our Law Advisor Moinul Hossain we immediately thought that there must be a "conspiracy" to undermine Bangladesh and Islam. We speculated it could be The RAW of India might be behind it!! Others quipped that the Bangladesh Embassy officials belonging to BNP-AL might have foiled his scheduled talk at the KSG. To justify our hunch we concocted arguments. When General Moeen arrived in Boston he was neither been accompanied by the Bangladesh Ambassador, nor the PR, nor the Consul General. Secondly, we thought since former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's son Sajeeb Wazed Joy is a student at the Kennedy School, he might have foiled it. However, his classmates reported that they were very busy with Mid-term exams. Third, the AL and the BNP supporters might have arranged a massive protest owing to which the Harvard University cancelled it. But fact of the matter is, there was no protest, no demonstrations. Interestingly, the local AL Vice President Abul Kalam Azad received General Moeen at the airport. More importantly, we learned that in the 300 plus years history of the Harvard University they never ever withdrew any invitation once it was issued even against all odds and protests. Does it mean that the General's much celebrated trip was a "hoax" or a total lie?
We don't know who tried to foil our General's program or malign our General. Recently, three stories became public about Gen. Moeen. First one pertaining to his receiving loans of Tk. 99 lakh from the Trust Bank that is recorded in the bank's audit statement submitted to the government, the Bangladesh Bank and the Security Exchange. Second, the re-appointment of his elder brother at the Trust Bank of which he is the ex-officio Chairperson and Director thus violating the government regulation that no two family members could be appointed as Directors of the same bank. Third, his brother-in-law grabbed properties of a few people in Maulvibazar by misusing his power. Are these true or manipulated? It is charged that Bangladesh officials that we trust often do manipulate things to meet the wishes of their boss, the rich and the
powerful.
As per reports, he was invited by a Harvard lecturer who is rumored to be appointed as a Consultant in Bangladesh. The said lecturer is an authority on election reform and US congressional issues. He also takes classes of freshmen lawmakers. It is reported that our General would attend one of his classes along with his students. Each teacher in American universities or colleges routinely invites guest speakers in his/her classes and Gen. Moeen might have got such an invitation. Who knows?
We also checked the KSG bulletin boards. The 2-days that our general would be around Harvard, the KSG will be hosting nearly 7 public seminars and none on issues relating to South Asia or Bangladesh. They had an event on Bangladesh on October 13, the Eid day--- a public lecture of Nobel Laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunus.
Apparently General Moeen did not arrange any meeting with any leader of Massachusetts or of the U. S. Other than Congressman Crowley of New York, he has no appointments either with any U. S. Senators or US Congressmen/women, or with senior State Department officials. Nor there is any especial meeting with the Pentagon or with senior US Army officers as per media reports. He is visiting the U. S. at a time when nine U.S. lawmakers have placed a bill to allow tax-free imports from developing countries including Bangladesh and his courtesy meetings with the US lawmakers could help passing of such bill. However, he refrained from such lobbying. Then question is; why he made such a long trip to US when his each minute is so precious and crucial?
He had a "secret public appearance" for nearly 50 minutes at a location in Holbrook a tiny town, away from Boston on October 21. The guests were instructed to maintain utmost secrecy of the event. The reason for such secrecy is reportedly due to their fear that if Bangladeshi Diaspora knows about the event, they would stage protest demonstrations as they did in Florida.
It was a private dinner party arranged by one Mr. Shaheen Khan, a convenience store owner and more importantly, Mr. Khan is a friend of General's younger brother that lives in Florida. Reportedly this was arranged to thank the General as Mr. Khan's uncle, Nurul Islam, a sacked Secretary to Begum Khaleda Zia has been reinstated. Other than family members, nearly 25/30 local people were invited at the dinner and everybody had to finish their eating before Gen. Moeen enters the venue at 9:15 PM. Private security was arranged by Mr. Khan. However, TV cameramen and selected journalists were invited at the event.
It is an irony that General Moeen, the man who started jihad against corruption and corrupt people was welcomed at the dinner party by none other than a businessman who made his fortunate through bankruptcy and defrauding creditors. He was a real estate developer in 1980s and he collected millions of dollars from thousands of people including many Bangladeshis with the promise to double/triple their investments. Unfortunately, once funds were collected, he
declared bankruptcy and his Ivy Inc. was closed down. For nearly 12 years, he stayed away from public eyes. However, in recent days, he emerged and is currently a leader of the Bangladesh Islamic Society of New England. General Moeen might not know that the man who welcomed him and solicited his help for investment in Bangladesh once defrauded his customers, his bank, and his one time well wishers. Local TV and print media covered it widely when even his lawyer was jailed for fraud.
It is rumored that General's mission to the U. S. is to meet Sheikh Hasina's family members. He visited Florida where his only son, his younger brother and also Hasina's daughter live. At Harvard, it is rumored that he wanted to meet Sajeeb Wazed Joy. It is rumored that instead of a private meeting Joy suggested an open meeting. The General, therefore, have reportedly invited all the four Bangladeshi students of The John F. Kennedy School of Government to have luncheon with him on October 23, the day of his departure to China. It is believed that after this meeting, he would decide as to how to deal with Sheikh Hasina, the leader of the AL party now under detention. It may be mentioned that as per media reports, Joy met Indian Foreign Minister during his trip to New York few weeks ago and that might prompted General Moeen to have a face-to-face dialogue with Joy. General Moeen while answering a question at the Holbrook private dinner jokingly stated that there could be many changes in the next 14 months - a king can die, even a hoarse can fly (something impossible). Now who knows what is next.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
General Moeen at Harvard!!!
Source: Bangladesh Online Groups
So the invitation is a sweet-heart deal. Bangladeshi news paper New Nation reported that Gen. Moeen was invited by the President of Harvard University which should have been the case for a Army Chief of a nation. However, Dr. David C. King, a Lecturer in Public Policy at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government is the host, not the Harvard University. Bangladesh government sought Dr. David C. King's advice for election reform and wanted to appoint him as special consultant during his visit to Bangladesh. For this reason he invited Gen. Moeen to come to his school and to speak to his class and probably finalize the deal of him working as consultant. Money talks .... There is a definitely a conflict of interest. But who cares?
Gen. Muhammad Ershad also had a sweet-heart at University of Pennsylvania (another Ivy League University). The gentleman this case was Dr. Craig Baxter who was a political consultant to Bangladesh Government and a admirer of Ershad Adiminstration during his regime. The recently published Ayub's Diary has been edited by Dr. Ctaig Bacter who is currently a Professor Emiritus of Politics & History at Juniata College.
So the invitation is a sweet-heart deal. Bangladeshi news paper New Nation reported that Gen. Moeen was invited by the President of Harvard University which should have been the case for a Army Chief of a nation. However, Dr. David C. King, a Lecturer in Public Policy at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government is the host, not the Harvard University. Bangladesh government sought Dr. David C. King's advice for election reform and wanted to appoint him as special consultant during his visit to Bangladesh. For this reason he invited Gen. Moeen to come to his school and to speak to his class and probably finalize the deal of him working as consultant. Money talks .... There is a definitely a conflict of interest. But who cares?
Gen. Muhammad Ershad also had a sweet-heart at University of Pennsylvania (another Ivy League University). The gentleman this case was Dr. Craig Baxter who was a political consultant to Bangladesh Government and a admirer of Ershad Adiminstration during his regime. The recently published Ayub's Diary has been edited by Dr. Ctaig Bacter who is currently a Professor Emiritus of Politics & History at Juniata College.
Bangladeshi General at Florida
We are closely observing the story of General Moeen's denial on his bank loan for one core taka. We're highly recommending you to read these two posts:
Bangladeshi general's visit spurs protest
By DON JORDAN
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Source: Palm Beach Post
(Picture Courtesy: Khabor)
Bangladesh has been under a state of emergency since January, when violence broke out ahead of elections. The elections were canceled, and the country's military now holds most power.
Critics argue that some of the top soldiers, including Ahmed, are using the anti-corruption push to arrest prominent politicians and vault themselves into the ensuing political vacuum.
The protesters huddled under umbrellas, waved signs written in English and Bengali and mugged for a Bangladeshi news crew.
The group called for the release of Sheikh Hasina, a former prime minister and daughter of the nation's first prime minister, who is in prison on corruption charges.
"This is a big setback for women in Bangladesh," protester Farzana Khan said.
Some people arriving at the club cheered or whistled. More gawked through rolled-up windows.
The military leader traveled to the county to visit relatives, including his son, a student at Palm Beach Atlantic University in West Palm Beach, said his brother Salam Ahmed.
He will return to Bangladesh today after delivering a speech at Harvard University.
"This isn't a political event," said Salam Ahmed, who lives in suburban West Palm Beach. "He's just coming to see me."
Friday, October 19, 2007
The Cat is Coming out of the Bag Now...
Is it true? Yes, slowly the cat is coming out of the bag. Yes, it's only possible in Bangladesh. BDnews24 reports, (New York, Oct 18)
General Moeen U Ahmed said Wednesday it could be easier to tackle the situation prior to January 11 if there was a national security council. "If there was such a council it would have been possible to maintain balance in the administration in tackling the situation before January 11. If the common people are asked 90 percent of them would not want to go back to pre-1/11 situation."
How could a national security council ensure a fair election in Bangladesh when the ruling BNP-Jamaat Allaince made the EC and CTG very partisan and ineffective? Has any one been charged to make the previous CTG a failure? Has anyone reviewed the partisan acts of the previous Election Commission? No, and most likely not. We enjoy to be oblivious about all the facts that led the political uprising in January.
Remember the best quote of the Army Chief General Moeen U. Ahmed in April when he said Bangladesh democracy fails. BBC reported at that time: "We do not want to go back to an elective democracy where corruption becomes all pervasive, governance suffers in terms of insecurity and violation of rights, and where political criminalisation threatens the very survival and integrity of the state," Lt Gen Moeen U Ahmed told a conference in the capital Dhaka".
Yes, the cat is coming out of the bag, will soon take the hat off, too.
Questions to General Moeen
Bangladesh Army Chief, General Moeen Ahmed, is now visiting the USA. His visit to the USA has been closely observed by the Bangladeshi expatriates. There are so many unanswered questions that are floating now about the political developments of Bangladesh that need to be answered. There are some valid and rational questions and points getting enough attention from the political observers. They are as follows:
- .General Ahmed has repeatedly stressed that all the approximately 250,000 people arrested so far and the unknown number still detained are all corrupt. There have only been 20 or so trials to date. How has General Ahmed determined that these people are guilty? These people are being presumed guilty and the onus is on them is to prove their innocence in order to obtain their freedom. This is an egregious violation of human rights and due process.
- General Ahmed has announced at a press conference in London that he intends to expand the size of the present cabinet. The current regime has run for 9 months now. Therefore, if elections are to be held as soon as possible, there is no reason to expand the size. Our constitution also has absolutely no provision for any alteration of the size or form of an interim government. His intention to expand the government is an indication that rather than hold elections as soon as possible, he intends for this regime to stay longer.
- He has further floated the idea of forming a National Security Council which will have veto power over Parliament. This is completely undemocratic and follows the same path that General Musharraf took in Pakistan. It is simply another vehicle for him to hold on to power and will have the same consequences it did in Pakistan.
- General Ahmed has proposed changing the structure of our government to alter the power balance. This can only be altered by a two thirds majority of an elected Parliament. There are absolutely no other provisions in our constitution for such changes. Past constitutional changes made by dictators include the removal of the separation of church and state by General Ziaur Rahman and the bar on floor crossings by Members of Parliament by General Ershad. Much of the present difficulties in governing Bangladesh are a direct result of these unconstitutional changes. Unfortunately, it also takes a two thirds majority to reverse them.
- The military regime has announced that it will hold municipal elections between January and March. Yet the state of emergency is still being maintained. It takes several months to gear up an effective election campaign, which is completely prevented by the state of emergency and the climate of fear it projects. Any elections held under such circumstances will be meaningless.
- The voters list and electoral laws used in the municipal elections are the same as the ones for national elections. Therefore, if municipal elections can be held by March, there is absolutely no reason why national elections cannot be conducted in this timeframe as well. The only reason to hold municipal elections earlier is that they receive far less monitoring and are, therefore, easier to manipulate. Once municipal posts are controlled, then it becomes easier to manipulate the national elections far ahead of Election Day. This is a tactic that has been employed by all past military regimes.
- General Ahmed has publicly stated in a speech that “Bangladesh will have to construct its own brand of democracy… with religion being one of several components of its national identity.” This further explains the near total immunity the Islamic parties, particularly Jamaat-e-Islami, have enjoyed in spite of evidence of terrorism and corruption against them.
- Some of the most corrupt politicians from both the major parties remain immune from prosecution and in fact are being actively supported by this regime in trying to break up the two major parties and form new ones. Without the two major parties, the fundamentalist parties will inevitably be the most powerful voice in any new coalition.
Bangladesh deserves democracy. Prolonging a non elected interim government will open doors for autocracy and abuse. People should immediately raise the following demands to the Army Chief:
- Free detainees who have not been found guilty yet and are clearly not a flight risk. Remaining trials should be conducted in open courts under Bangladeshi penal code and not by closed special tribunals under the Emergency Powers Rule, which are abusive.
- Lift the state of emergency immediately.
- Engage the major political parties in any discussions on reforms. Reforms pushed through without their “buy in” will be meaningless and only result in future conflict.
- Conduct national elections as soon as possible. If municipal elections are possible, then so are national elections in their stead.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
General Moeen at London
Bangladesh Army Chief, General Moeen U. Ahmed, gave an interview with Bangla TV in London on his way to the USA. Suddenly, Bangladeshi military leaders are rushing to the USA and United Nations to win the hearts of the West!! Gen. Moeen is scheduled to address at Harvard University on October 21st. Although he's travelling all the way to Harvard University from Bangladesh, we could not find any event at the Kennedy School of Government that highlights General Moeen's event on October 21st. Either this event is not published, or it's a closed event that the School is putting together very quickly!!
Watch General Moeen's interview at Bangla TV in London that tried to give the best icing on the army backed Caretaker government's success in Bangladesh. Who'll refute his claim with facts and numbers? Who'll ask questions about the army's poor human rights records? Who'll challenge the increasing militarization of the civil affairs in Bangladesh?
Watch General Moeen's interview at Bangla TV in London that tried to give the best icing on the army backed Caretaker government's success in Bangladesh. Who'll refute his claim with facts and numbers? Who'll ask questions about the army's poor human rights records? Who'll challenge the increasing militarization of the civil affairs in Bangladesh?
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Rescuing military image in Bangladesh
Has the image of Bangladesh army been tarnished lately? Interestingly, the army backed Caretaker government is trying to redefine the army's role in the current government. Bangladesh army won't be involved into national politics may sound too assuring to a lot of political observers. People have growing suspicion about army's motive in the whole political process. Bangladesh offering a new model of military dominated civil affairs to the world body is a quiet fascinating provocation by its design.
"Bangladesh represents an effective model of civil-military cooperation in crisis prevention ," Fakhruddin Ahmed was quoted as saying at the UNGA session in New York by the state-run BSS. May be, he said the truth. He may have overlooked the course of political process that is increasingly dictated by the military planners. Blogger Jagrook Bangalee claims, "a parallel government is being run by the military intelligence in Bangladesh". The self-acclaimed civil-military model doesn't work "when in the midnight whose doors are knocked and abducted to unknown destination at least for a few days before handing over to the police, then to jail for indefinite period without bail. The eminent professor of Dhaka University and Rajshahi University could not be saved from such allegation, late production to police and detained to jail for indefinite period". The saga remains same for almost all of the people taken into custody.
Bangladeshis may seek comfort in what General Moeen recently said about the army's willingness to return to their barracks when the government asks them to do so. Will that cease Army's undue and invisible role in politics? It's very unlikely to happen in Bangladesh under the given condition. Suddenly an increasing drum beats on Army's retreat puzzle the political observers about the undercurrent of these statements. May be the recent geo-political developments are holding the untold answer. Burma is burning. The whole world is looking at the volatile situations in Burma. Bangladesh government is under increasing international scrutiny about its political reforms, election, and human rights issues. That is why, Bangladesh Army is validly redefining its role to escape international scrutiny which will be critically tested in the coming days. The hope for sustainable democracy will go away if invisible hands continue to dictate political developments in Bangladesh.
"Bangladesh represents an effective model of civil-military cooperation in crisis prevention ," Fakhruddin Ahmed was quoted as saying at the UNGA session in New York by the state-run BSS. May be, he said the truth. He may have overlooked the course of political process that is increasingly dictated by the military planners. Blogger Jagrook Bangalee claims, "a parallel government is being run by the military intelligence in Bangladesh". The self-acclaimed civil-military model doesn't work "when in the midnight whose doors are knocked and abducted to unknown destination at least for a few days before handing over to the police, then to jail for indefinite period without bail. The eminent professor of Dhaka University and Rajshahi University could not be saved from such allegation, late production to police and detained to jail for indefinite period". The saga remains same for almost all of the people taken into custody.
Bangladeshis may seek comfort in what General Moeen recently said about the army's willingness to return to their barracks when the government asks them to do so. Will that cease Army's undue and invisible role in politics? It's very unlikely to happen in Bangladesh under the given condition. Suddenly an increasing drum beats on Army's retreat puzzle the political observers about the undercurrent of these statements. May be the recent geo-political developments are holding the untold answer. Burma is burning. The whole world is looking at the volatile situations in Burma. Bangladesh government is under increasing international scrutiny about its political reforms, election, and human rights issues. That is why, Bangladesh Army is validly redefining its role to escape international scrutiny which will be critically tested in the coming days. The hope for sustainable democracy will go away if invisible hands continue to dictate political developments in Bangladesh.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Has ban on politics lifted?
Yes, it appears that political ban has been lifted for few stooges. That's how the picture of fairness and impartiality glares in the media. Who cares about political ban when the Army is behind you. This is a sad episode of Bangladesh Politics where king making has been Army's prime business. Shame for the current military Government who wants to rule the country through intimidation and favor to create a new nationalistic force of stooges. It happened during Zia and Ershad regimes, why shouldn't happen it under General Moeen?
BREAKING NEWS
Bhuiyan asserts control over BNP
Dhaka, Sept 5 (bdnews24.com) – Deposed secretary general Abdul Mannan Bhuiyan Wednesday asserted that only reformists constituted the mainstream of the BNP.
"We are the mainstream. We will take part in the next election by cleaning up the party," Bhuiyan said, two days after he was expelled from the troubled BNP by chairperson Khaleda Zia, who was arrested in a corruption case Monday.
He urged BNP leaders and workers not to veer away from the ideals of the late president Ziaur Rahman in an apparent show of political muscle-flexing.
He made the remarks at a rushed meeting with senior BNP leaders at his Gulshan home.
"BNP will remain united by the ideals of Zia," Bhuiyan said. "We will bring changes to politics through reforms. We will turn Bangladesh into a modern state."
He remarked that the country would not go back to the pre-Jan 11 state of violence.
Speakers at the meeting demanded a withdrawal of the decision to expel Bhuiyan and Ashraf Hossain.
In his reaction to the expulsion, Bhuiyan said both were expelled at the moment when BNP needs most to be united.
"I have been with BNP for the last 25 years. I was expelled without any notice after serving the party as secretary general for 11 long years," he said.
"My post might have been changed, but does that mean I have to lose primary membership of the party altogether? If this is the rule, then where is democracy?"
He also mentioned his role as a minister over the last 5 years, and in the activities of parliament and for the party.
Depicting the pre-Jan 11 situation of the country Bhuiyan said: "The two major political parties of the country were in conflict with one another. They were damaging property. They kept people hostage through strikes."
"The country would have faced a civil war if the events of Jan 11 did not take place," said Bhuiyan of the interim administration's installation.
He also mentioned that a lot of politicians were "unmasked" after Jan 11. "They were in politics to make fortunes, not for the sake of people."
On BNP founder Ziaur Rahman's endeavours to establish good governance and social development, Bhuiyan said: "Zia worked his entire life for the welfare of people. But his party has lost the trust of people in the last five years."
"BNP needs to clear out corrupt people from the party. The dedicated leaders should come to the front," he added.
He also elaborated his reform proposals and future plans in this regard.
BNP vice presidents Chowdhury Kamal Ibne Yusuf and Hafizuddin Ahmed, expelled joint secretary general Ashraf Hossain, Dhaka City mayor Sadek Hossain Khoka and Khaleda's advisers ZA Khan and Mofazzal Karim were among over 100 leaders present at the meeting.
bdnews24.com/sm/rhn/rah/ad/2127 hours
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)