ডক্টর ইউনুস কেন বেআইনী শাসক?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bangladesh coup: An Interview at the Duran

Unconstitutional Capture of Power by Dr. Yunus in Bangladesh

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

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

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

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

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

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

Samir Arsalan, Freelance Writer

Does Bangladesh military deserve impunity?

Does Bangladesh military deserve impunity?
By Rater Zonaki
Source: UPI Asia On-line
February 10, 2009

Hong Kong, China — Bangladeshi members of Parliament and the media have been speaking out against the former military-controlled emergency government, now that a new elected government is in place. They are demanding the prosecution of members of the military forces responsible for arresting and detaining high-ranking politicians, and subjecting them to physical and mental torture in custody.

Abdul Jalil, general secretary of the Awami League, which is now the ruling party, has demanded a parliamentary probe into such detentions. The veteran politician could not help crying while describing the torture he underwent in a detention center operated by the armed forces. He said around eight armed men had come to his office, blindfolded him and taken him away in a waiting car. They identified themselves as members of the Joint Forces.

Jalil was detained in custody where he was physically and psychologically tortured for five consecutive days. He was later paroled for treatment abroad, and after returning to Bangladesh, managed to get bail from the Supreme Court.

Another member of Parliament, Mahiuddin Khan Alamgir, has also described his arrest and torture in a number of articles, interviews and talk shows. He has declared his intention to sue the chairman of the Anti-Corruption Commission, Lt. Gen. Hassan Mashhud Chowdhury, and other members of the armed forces for torturing and treating him inhumanely in detention.

Barrister Moudud Ahmed – who was minister of law during the former Bangladesh Nationalist Party-led regime and lost his seat in Parliament in the recent election – has also been trying to convince people through the media that he was a victim of brutal torture and degrading treatment in the custody of the armed forces. Moudud also announced that he is writing a book on his life in prison.

However, Moudud’s hue and cry about custodial brutality appears to be aimed at personal or political gain. In fact, Moudud was law minister when the government validated actions of the armed forces during Operation Clean Heart, an 86-day crackdown on political dissenters in late 2002, which resulted in 58 deaths in the custody of the armed forces. The government termed all these deaths as "heart attacks."

More than 10,000 ordinary citizens were illegally arrested, arbitrarily detained and brutally tortured under fabricated charges by the military-dominated law-enforcement agencies. Moudud, as the minister for law, justice and parliamentary affairs, issued an ordinance to ensure blatant impunity to the perpetrators in January 2003, which was then enacted by Parliament.

Moudud and his government ignored the people's fundamental rights, especially the right to life and liberty. Later, he was a victim of the same treatment.

Talking about human rights, as Jalil, Alamgir and Moudud are now doing, is rare in Bangladesh’s political circles. This discussion conveys a message to ordinary victims that some politicians now understand the taste of pain. At the same time, their stories support claims made by human rights defenders that the armed forces and law-enforcement agencies operate torture cells.

The real picture of brutality by the armed forces and the police is much more severe than the stories of these three politicians. Ordinary citizens have long suffered immeasurable atrocities at the hands of the military during the state of emergency and the police during previous regimes.

Now the incumbent law minister, Barrister Shafique Ahmed, is talking about the "doctrine of necessity" as a means of justifying the actions of the military-controlled emergency government. Speaking of the armed forces, he told the media, "You cannot say all their actions or activities were within the bounds of the Constitution …Whatever they did, they did responding to the necessity of the time. So we are not giving legal cover to all their actions, we're not validating all their ordinances."

This raises the question as to whether the illegal arrests, detentions, torture and killings were a "necessity of the time." Are the present politicians ready to accept the armed forces' actions even though they defied the Constitution? Isn’t the so-called "doctrine of necessity" merely an excuse to once again grant impunity to the perpetrators of injustice, with the permission of the present government and at the demand of the armed forces?

It is not convincing that those now in power can accept and explain the former government’s brutal and unconstitutional actions under the "doctrine of necessity." Why can’t people like Moudud and Shafique face the truth behind the recurrent take-over of power by the armed forces?

Will the current batch of politicians also surrender to the armed forces instead of taking effective action to stop such brutality forever? Why is there no effective resistance to keep the soldiers in their barracks?

The door must be closed forever on the armed forces’ ability to take over and abuse power. The ruling party could start now by using its absolute majority in Parliament to criminalize torture and repeal Article 46 of the Constitution, which allows Parliament to grant impunity to state officers for any action, however brutal, taken to “restore order.”

The demand for justice by a few senior members of Parliament has aroused the interest of the people. But ordinary people will treat such demands as mere political rubbish unless the politicians follow through and effectively punish the perpetrators.


(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.)

Military invades Bangladesh's judiciary

Military invades Bangladesh's judiciary
By Rater Zonaki
Source: UPI Asia On-line
Date: October 14, 2008

Hong Kong, China — The judiciary in Bangladesh is being seriously undermined by the military, to the point that it can no longer carry out its functions. Judges and courts are subject to illegal, unconstitutional and even criminal practices.

Among the more serious recent incidents, two handmade bombs were discovered in the residence of Justice Sharif Uddin Chaklader, who until last week was head of a High Court Division dealing with petitions challenging detention orders against politicians and businessmen. In late September a bomb exploded in front of the house of Justice Tariqul Hakim, another Supreme Court judge. Luckily neither judge was injured.

Anonymous letters threatening assassinations were also sent to three senior lawyers – Barrister Rafique-ul Haque, Barrister Shafique Ahmed and Barrister M Amir-ul Islam – as well as the present and past presidents of the Supreme Court Bar Association.

Rafique-ul Haque, who is a former attorney general of Bangladesh, lamented the situation during an urgent meeting of the Supreme Court Bar Association last Sunday. “An army major sits in a room on the second floor of the Supreme Court building where no one is allowed to enter,” he said. He explained that this major handles the case list for the Supreme Court judge – meaning that only those cases the military-backed government approves of will be given a hearing.

Barrister Haque also explained that the chief justice has reconstituted the benches of the High Court Division, assigning junior judges to deal with sensitive criminal cases and sidelining more competent senior judges. It is generally understood that this was done under military pressure.

These incidents expose the vulnerability of judges and lawyers at the highest levels of the judiciary. Not even the Supreme Court of Bangladesh can confront the military authoritarianism in an organized manner.

These incidents have occurred whenever the military-controlled government has faced serious challenges from the highest levels of the judiciary, especially regarding enquiries into the legality of its actions in the past 21 months of emergency rule in Bangladesh.

The government, which grabbed power illegally, has no legitimate authority to rule the country. It is already unhappy with the decision of the High Court that declared its promulgation of ordinances to be beyond its constitutional powers. Also, under emergency laws, the current rulers have disallowed decisions by the Supreme Court on granting bail to certain accused persons.

It appears that over-ambitious high-ranking officers of the armed forces are behind these incidents. The armed forces of Bangladesh shamelessly believe that by invading the civil institutions they can achieve more, especially if a powerful institution like the judiciary is sufficiently suffocated. The people of Bangladesh seem headed for an even more disastrous era under the grip of the armed forces.

If the armed forces dictate to the highest judiciary, how can their abuse of power be curbed? Should the judiciary entertain or tolerate these ongoing military invasions? What role is the chief justice of Bangladesh playing to stop the humiliation of the judiciary at the hands of the military? Why is the lawyers' community silent while its professional dignity and sanctity are under serious threat? Why does the Supreme Court not hold the armed forces accountable for grabbing power and occupying civil institutions illegally?

People who are aware of the situation in Bangladesh know that corruption and abuse of power with blanket impunity are among the biggest setbacks to the country's journey toward democratic stability. At the same time, the existing system allows people to become involved in corruption, either by choice or by force, due to the lack of transparency and accountability by civil servants and politicians who are close to the military rulers.

This does not mean that only a few members of a specific professional community are responsible for leading the country toward disaster or capable of improving things overnight.

Officers of the armed forces are accustomed to taking orders and following commands. However, such practices are useless in civil institutions. Many decisions taken by the military in civilian circumstances are not based on rationality or on a constructive assessment of the consequences of these decisions. This is true because the military officers have no respect for civilians and civil institutions. Most people agree that the armed forces are absolutely incompetent to solve civil problems by adopting military rules and regulations.

The Bangladeshis and the international community who are committed to the rule of law should think seriously whether it is time to remain silent or to act to ensure the survival of Bangladesh's judiciary and other civil institutions. Remaining silent could kill all hope of justice ever being restored to its rightful place in Bangladesh.
____________________________________
(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.)

Military must not dominate civil administration

BANGLADESH: Military must not dominate civil administration
Source: Asian Human Rights Commission
Date: August 29, 2008

The government of Bangladesh has directed its civil administration to work in collaboration with the officers of the "Joint Forces" stationed across the country.

The government made the decision on August 25, after having reshuffled its administration by appointing 35 new Deputy Commissioners (DCs), the apex bureaucratic authorities in the district administrations. The government briefed the media on its policies on the proposed local and general elections, implementation and monitoring mechanisms and emphasized the need for friendly relations with the local people. Cabinet Division Secretary Mr. Ali Imam Mazumdar chairing the meeting on 25 August directed the officers to work together with the SPs (Superintendents of Police) and the commanders of the Join Forces across the country.

The direction to the administrators asserting collaboration with the Joint Forces which comprises of officers of the armed forces and which is dominated by the army, practically renders the civil administration officials subordinate to the army. It also generates multiple suspicions regarding the government motives behind such controversial directives. This adds to the already adopted government policy of placing the armed forces over the civil administration. This is a small picture of the ongoing disaster in the governance in Bangladesh. Here are some facts:

The Ministry of Home Affairs is headed by Major General (Retired) M A Matin. Major General (retired) Ghulam Quader, former director general of National Security Intelligence, has been made adviser to the Ministry of Communications. Brigadier General (Retierd) M A Malek is the Special Assistant to the Chief Adviser for Ministries of Social Welfare and Telecommunications

Founding Director General of the Rapid Action Battalion, allegedly the arbiter of hundreds of extra judicial killings, and former head of the Bangladesh Police Mr. Anwarul Iqbal has grabbed the position of the adviser to the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives. Another Major General (retired), ASM Matiur Rahman previously occupying the Ministry of Health was later asked to resign from his position for poor performance.

Immediate past army chief Lt. Gen. (Retired) Hassan Mashud Chowdhury is the chairperson of the Anti Corruption Commission while Colonel Mr. Hanif Iqbal occupies the position of Director General (Administration).

Brigadier General (Retired) Muhammad Sakhawat Hussain is in the constitutional position of Commissioner of the Election Commission. Bangladesh Army has been given official responsibility to prepare the voter list for the whole country. The army deputed its Principal Staff Officer (PSO) of Armed Forces Division Lieutenant General Masud Uddin Chowdhury to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs when he had been serving as the Chief Coordinator of the National Coordination Committee for deciding the corruption cases.

Major General (retd) Manzurul Alam chairs Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission while Colonel Md. Saiful Islam takes the position of the Director General and Lieutenant Colonel Shahidul Alam is the Director of its Spectrum Management Department. Lieutenant Colonel Shahidul Alam is the Project Director of a World Bank funded project while Major Rakibul Hassan is a Deputy Director of its Systems & Services Department.

Captain of Bangladesh Navy Mr. A.K.M Shafiqullah is occupying the position of the Director General of the Department of Shipping while Commodore Mr. A K M Alauddin occupying the position of the Chief Engineer and Ship Supervisor.

Navy Captain Mr. Yeaheya Sayeed is a Director of Chittagong Dry Dock Limited, an enterprise of the Bangladesh Steel & Engineering Corporation and also a Member of the Chittagong Port Authority. Captain Mr. SY Kamal is Member (operations), Captain Mr. Ramjan Ali is Deputy Conservator of the Chittagong Port Authority, and Captain Mr. Zahir Mahmood is Deputy Conservator of the Port of Chalna Authority in Khulna.

Brigadier General Md. Rafiqul Islam is the Director (signals) of the Bangladesh Telecommunications Company Ltd.

Major Gen (retd) Manzur Rashid Chowdhury has been made the newly formed Truth and Accountability Commission's member.

Even the sports sector is not safe from their interference. The current army chief General Moeen U Ahmed grabs the positions of the Chairman of the National Sports Council and the President of Bangladesh Olympic Association. The chief of air force Vice Marshal Ziaur Rahman Khan heads Bangladesh Hockey Federation while the naval chief Admiral Sarwar Jahan Nizam heads the Swimming Federation. Major General Ahsab Uddin, the General Officer Commanding of the 9th Infantry Division, is the President of the National Shooting Federation. The chief of general staff of the army Major General Seena Ibn Jamali is the President of Bangladesh Cricket Board with Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) Md. Abdul Latif Khan as Vice President. Lieutenant Commodore A K Sirker is occupying the post of General Secretary of the Basketball Federation.

These are very few out of the numerous positions occupied by the officers of the armed forces in the civil administration and autonomous institutions of Bangladesh. All information on such events is not available as the authorities suppress information to skip criticism.

Moreover, the armed forces have been deployed in all the district headquarters of the 64 districts of Bangladesh since the state of emergency besides the decades' long full-fledged militarization of three districts in the hill tracks of Chittagong region. Initially, the government deployed armed forces in all the upazillas (sub-district units) as soon as the emergency was imposed.

The DCs have been severely humiliate because army Majors being much junior to them have been placed in the districts levels. These Majors hurl abusive and exert illegal influences before the DCs, making the district heads embarrassed and frustrated. “People should no longer have patience and resist the audacity of these uncivilized Majors”, commented a DC, who did not wish to be identified.

All the national level policy decisions are made, changed and influenced by the top officials of the armed forces. The "National Coordinating Committee", which oversees the corruption issues staying atop all administrative setups, recommends the Anti Corruption Commission as to who will be charged and who will not be. The top officers of the armed forces occupy the coordinating body.
The Rapid Action Battalion, also drenched with the officers of the armed forces on deputation, is extended to the district and upazilla levels with their own setups besides the regular police force.

The police who are supposed to be responsible for maintaining law and order in the country have excessively been supported by the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) and the armed forces during the state of emergency. So, in reality, all the forces arrest people. The common people have access only to the police stations for enquiring on the whereabouts of the arrested and detained persons, and none of the law-enforcing agencies explain to anyone whenever arrests are made. When the armed forces and RAB arrest, detain and torture people the police remain out of the picture and none of the police stations record any case regarding such incidents. Even the lawyers rarely agree to assist the victims by drafting and lodging a complaint with the Magistrate’s Court, which is last resort for the vulnerable people to seek redress following a denial by the police.

According to reports, the armed force officers frequently make phone calls to the Magistrates and Judges regarding pending cases to address the issues meeting the interest of the officers. Magistrates also cannot ignore fearing the security of themselves, their families and relatives. However, none of these magistrates agreed to disclose it officially other than "off the record". The condition of the prosecutors is worse than that of the judges and magistrates. The offices of the prosecutors and attorneys are filled up with members of the intelligence agencies and in special cases the officers of the armed forces, who insist and direct them to lead the proceedings as the agencies wish.

Surprisingly enough, under the coverage of emergency provisions, officers of the armed forces remain present in the courtrooms and relevant offices of the courts during, before and after the trials as members of "Task Force". They visit the courts and the relevant offices to monitor, dictate and insist the staffs for the cases they are more interested.

The military remains far away from any mechanism of accountability unlike any other organizations of Bangladesh. Thus, the armed forces enjoy absolute impunity for their unlawful actions supported by the laws made by the government during the state of emergency.

The existing situation evidently shows the silent but gradual, and eventually complete, militarization in Bangladesh. The joint forces deployed across the country frequently intervene into many local and private institutions including the activities of the media, NGO, and human right activisms though they are not eligible and competent to do so. These unlawful attempts have already demoralized the concerned professionals. As a consequence of regular interventions by the armed forces into their work, they cannot contribute to the society and to their respective fields by accomplishing their official responsibilities.

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is highly concerned about the all out militarization in Bangladesh. The military cannot be capable or substitute of the civil administration in any place of the world because of their training with arbitrariness. The armed forces are accustomed to command rather than being accountable to any civil authority. The ongoing huge militarization has been destroying the fabrics of democracy and rule of law in the country. AHRC urges the civil society and human rights groups in the country and the international community to insist the authorities of Bangladesh to immediately demilitarize all institutions the armed forces have been occupying illegibly.

The begums are back

The begums are back
Source: The Economist
September 18, 2008

Back to square one as the army admits defeat

Zia, free at last, and back in the battle. IT IS a spectacular military retreat. “You can smell the burning tyres,” says one Dhaka-based diplomat. Since the army seized power in January 2007 and installed a technocratic interim government, it has tried and failed to end an era of dominance by Bangladesh’s two squabbling former prime minsters, Khaleda Zia of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Sheikh Hasina Wajed of the Awami League.

Yet, after a year in jail on charges of corruption, Bangladesh’s battling begums are back. On September 11th the government freed Mrs Zia on bail. Five days later, it cleared legal hurdles for the return of Sheikh Hasina from America, where she went for medical treatment following her release on parole in June. She is expected back in Bangladesh early next month.

Both leaders still face charges. But prosecutors are unlikely to take action against them without the approval of the government, which is no longer trying to bring their political careers to an end. So, barring an extraordinary upset, one of them will be Bangladesh’s next prime minister.

It is an astonishing volte-face. The begums alternated in power from 1991-2007 and are blamed for the fiercely antagonistic, corrupt politics that led the army to step in. First it tried to exile them and create a “third force” in Bangladeshi politics; then it jailed them and tried to split their parties, hoping that new leaders might emerge. But the begums’ parties are held together by two things: patronage and personality cult. They are unviable without their leaders: hence the BNP’s offer to Mrs Zia this week to lead the party “for life”. She declined.

The good news is that Bangladeshis, for the first time since 2001, will get the chance to elect a government. For once it will be almost impossible to rig the poll. The election commission has purged 12m duplicate, deceased or otherwise bogus names from voter rolls. On September 22nd it will unveil a firm date for the election, long promised for December. And the government is soon to announce steps to lift the 20-month old state of emergency.

It is troubling, however, that Bangladesh’s transition to multiparty democracy has in effect been entrusted to the two politicians who made it unworkable in the first place. They have refused to talk to each other for decades, though the government says it is working on getting them to “sit across the table”.

The price the government had to pay to prevent the parties boycotting the polls is the return of total impunity to Bangladesh. For five years from 2001, Bangladesh led international corruption rankings. But this month the government freed Mrs Zia’s son, Tarique Rahman, the main trophy of its anti-corruption drive. The begums’ coteries have been released on bail. It seems likely that the convictions of those jailed for corruption will be overturned.

Some in Dhaka worry that all of this might be too much for the generals to stomach. The army still has to secure its own safe passage into the multiparty era, but has little clout over the resurgent political parties. The two years Western governments quietly granted it to fix the country’s messy politics are drawing to a close. Neither foreign governments nor Bangladeshis want to see its rule extended.

But there are hints that the generals might not leave politics altogether. A banned Islamist militant group, the Jama’atul Mujahideen Bangladesh, which the army previously claimed to have crushed, is reported to have threatened members of the emergency government. This week the home ministry gave warning of worsening law and order. The general’s retreat seems inevitable, but such scares suggest it might not be total.

Bangladesh politics heading for uncharted water!

Suddenly, Bangladesh politics heading for uncharted water!
By A.H. Jaffor Ullah, USA

The capricious politics of Bangladesh, which was in doldrums like a boat in a river without any wind to move it in the forward direction, got the much needed gusty wind now — but the direction of the move is unfortunately in the opposite direction. It seems as if the riverine nation with its huddled masses is heading for uncharted water! Thanks to the invisible power that is ensconced in the cantonment, which had been propelling the government run by a bunch of oligarchs for the last 20 months.

Many political observers both inside and outside the country are puzzled by this new direction. Gone are the tough words that used to emanate from General Moeen, the silent dictator who made the coup possible on January 11, 2007. Also, gone are the strongly worded messages from advisors that used to grace the pages of Bangladesh’s newspapers. What lies ahead for this godforsaken nation of 160 million impoverished is quite uncertain.

The outgoing government of Khaleda Zia tried to engineer an election coup by placing election officials allover the nation sympathetic to her party. She also tried to manipulate the selection of advisors of the caretaker government that would conduct the upcoming parliamentary election. This was going on in the aftermath of Khaleda Zia government’s expiry sometime in late October 2006.

President Iajuddin Ahmed, who was a Khaleda Zia’s stooge through and through, took marching order from Hawa Bhavan, the epicenter of Khaleda Zia’s party, Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). He took the onerous job of the chief advisor of the newly minted caretaker government violating the constitution of the land. That however did not ruffle feathers in him or in BNP leaderships. The opposition parties including the Awami League headed by Sheikh Hasina Wajed took to the streets in retaliation to Iajuddin’s move. Consequently, a state of anarchy was engendered.

While all these were going on, the military of Bangladesh who is the arbiter of politics in this impoverished nation, received a warning shot from the United Nation. The U.N. officials knew that an army coup might come anytime soon. To thwart this unwelcoming development, the U.N. officials told the army in no uncertain term that if an army coup is stage, Bangladesh army stand to lose any future lucrative contract from the U.N. as peacekeeping force. This overseas job brought a steady source of extra income for army officials and foot soldiers who participate in the peacekeeping force in disputed areas throughout the world.

The Bangladesh military did not want to lose the contract; therefore, they engineered a silent coup to topple Iajuddin and the advisors from the caretaker government. The chose Fakhruddin Ahmed, an ex-employee of the World Bank, and a handful of ex-military officers and civilians to form the second consecutive caretaker govern for which there is no constitutional mandate. However, in Bangladesh, when the military talks everyone listens.

During the trying times of Bangladesh I penned an article a week after the silent military coup, which was published on January 19, 2007 eight days after the inauguration of the military-backed Fakhruddin Government, in which I clearly pointed out that the new caretaker government, had the tacit approval from the army. To my knowledge, mine was the first article to label the present government as the military-backed unconstitutional government. This extrajudicial government was legitimized because the civil society gave their approval through Center for Policy Development - a non-governmental organization headed by some powerful members of the civil society. This newly minted government also had the approval of Muhammad Yunus, the Grameen bank chief, whose popularity was cresting at the time due to the Nobel Peace Prize which he and his organization received sometime in late October 2006.

The caretaker government promised to make a level playing field for all political party by reconstituting the election commission, a demand waged by the opposition parties. They also promised to clean up the politics by arresting leaders who made theirs misbegotten wealth through bribe-taking, malfeasance, and influence peddling. The civil society gave their approval to this and the nation witnessed a mass arrest of politicians.

The military-backed caretaker government also railroaded the Islamists to walk the gallows for killing two judges in Jhalokati, a town in south Bangladesh. They did not allow the Islamists to talk to the press lest a can of warms comes out to implicate the military and BNP in the spate of bombings allover Bangladesh in August 2006 in which nearly 300-400 homemade bombs were blasted, synchronously. The August 21, 2004 bombing of Awami League’s meeting in Dhaka is an unsolved murder but many observers believe that it was a handiwork of a consortium composed of Islamists, BNP goons and persons from Kurmitola cantonment. It makes hell of a lot of sense as to why the Islamists were sent to gallows so quickly.

The military-backed government spoke mostly through Barrister Mainul Hosein and General Matin. Later, an ex-general Mashhud Chowdhury who got the portfolio of the chairman of a revamped anti-corruption department (ACC or DUDOK in Bangla) became the mouthpiece of the government. This anti-democratic and repressive government ruled Bangladesh tightfistedly for the last 20 months promising to reform many institutions and the politics but instead of solving the problems it has exacerbated the situation. The developmental projects mostly financed by WB and foreign governments came to a standstill. The productivity had slowed down and the economy hardly expanded with an anemic rate of growth.

The military-backed government promised to wipe out corruption from the government and politics. But it miserably failed. The government arrested in excess of 250,000 ordinary people calling them political hooligans. These incarcerated people were languishing in jail without facing the court. The government also arrested a few notable industrialists and newspaper publishers but failed to prosecute them. In April 2007 the government took a new initiative to send the two leaders, Ms. Hasina and Ms. Zia, in exile but for whatever reasons failed to execute the plan. Then the government tried to break the major parties without much success. It also tried to float new political party one time through Grameen Chief, Muhammad Yunus, and another time through an obscure politician by the name Ferdous Qureshi. This mischievous plan did not bore any fruit, though.

During Khaleda Zia’s five years stint at the helm many of her party men including her two worthless sons have amassed billions of Taka (Bangladeshi currency) through bribery, extortions and whatnot. And we thought finally these vile groups of politicians will pay a price receiving stiff jail sentencing and they will be barred from entering politics rest of their lives. But how wrong was I.

On September 11, 2008 when the world was remembering the victims of 9-11, I read Dhaka’s newspapers to learn to my amazement that Khaleda Zia's corrupt son was released from the jail and he was sent to U.K. for treatment. Khaleda Zia who was the protagonist in Bangladesh's “tragic” political drama was also released from the jail. Sheikh Hasina is also out on furlough now visiting America for medical treatment. The general secretary of Awami League, Mr. Jalil, was also freed from the jail. To add insult to injury, hardly a week ago a few other corrupt BNP politicians were let loose from the confinement by the military-backed government.

All of these new developments, which hardly make any sense, are telling a telltale sign. Why the government did make its volte-face? Did they realize at long last that it will be an arduous job for them to reform the existing political parties?

This writer has always expressed a concern for the oligarchs who ruled Bangladesh rather unconstitutionally for the last 20 months. During that time, the Harvard “trained” army General gave enough hints that democracy as practiced in Bangladesh needs to be reformed. The General being the servant of the government overstepped his authority to pontificate his fellow countrymen.

I have the slightest clue now what prompted this government to give up their reform movement. Maybe, under pressure from Big Brothers abroad the military is finally willing to host the parliamentary election. This is also perplexing to know that all the champions of the reform movement - the CPD, Muhammad Yunus, and the rest of the Civil Society Movement is maintaining their reticence. Rather than maintaining their deafening silence this is the time they should open their mouth to protest the unleashing of corrupt politicians from jail. Why it took so long to take the corrupt politicians to court? Where are Barrister Mainul Hosein, General Matin, and General Mashhud Chowdhury at this critical juncture, now that the nation needs to hear their strongly-worded warnings? Should not they vociferously complain the government’s unwise decision to turn the clock backward?

-------------------------
Dr. A.H. Jaffor Ullah, a researcher and columnist, writes from New Orleans, USA
E Mail : jhankar@bellsouth.net

Four Pledges for Khaleda's Release

4 pledges secured release?
Source: Daily Star
September 12, 2008

BNP Chairperson Khaleda Zia and her elder son Tarique Rahman's release through seemingly transparent legal procedures, was actually part of a 4-point deal with the government, authoritative sources claim.

They say the army-backed caretaker government had a lengthy negotiation with Khaleda Zia who was totally cold towards the present regime but finally gave in and agreed to cooperate with them.

Under the agreement, Khaleda agreed to take part in dialogues with the government and also participate in the upcoming general election.

And accordingly, just five hours into her release, the former premier announced the four-point conditions put to her.

The BNP chairperson, for now,

claims that there is no split within the party. Meanwhile sources say she will soon take the steps to unite the party by accommodating the reformist leaders.

Sources say Khaleda Zia agreed to declare immediately after her release that BNP would join the current dialogue with the Election Commission and government, participate in the December parliamentary election and keep her son Tarique away from the upcoming parliamentary poll by sending him abroad for treatment and keeping him away for at least a few years.

And finally, that Khaleda would withdraw the expulsion order of ex-BNP secretary general Abdul Mannan Bhuiyan and joint secretary general Ashraf Hossain and accommodate the pro-reformist faction of the party.

The BNP leadership, of course, claims there was no deal regarding the releases of both Khaleda and Tarique, and that they were released completely on the merit of the legal process.

A competent source within the government said that Khaleda, prior to her release from the makeshift sub-jail, agreed that she would first make it clear to the public that Tarique is to go abroad for treatment and remain away from politics till he recovers fully.

A top ranking BNP leader, not wishing to be named, admitted that Tarique's absence from the next election was part of the deal between Khaleda and the government.

He, however, said that the BNP chairperson would not remain in the sidelines but be a frontrunner in the December election.

Khaleda’s release and beyond

Khaleda’s release and beyond
Source: Editorial, New Age
September 12, 2008

FORMER prime minister Khaleda Zia’s release on bail yesterday is indeed a welcome development, particularly because of the military-controlled interim government’s decision to show respect to the court orders granting her bail in all the cases. Given that this regime has shown a tendency to place arbitrary roadblocks on the release of corruption suspects, often re-arresting them from the jail-gate in hastily put-together cases after the courts have granted them bail, we could not be sure whether the court orders would be followed through this time around. At the same time, it is now an open secret that the release of both Sheikh Hasina in June and Khaleda Zia yesterday took place following intense negotiations leading to agreements between them and the present regime, the contents of which are altogether unknown to us. We believe the people have the right to know what negotiations and agreements have taken place.

We have long argued that while the government must pursue through legal avenues those who have allegedly engaged in corruption, regardless of their power or profile, it should not stand in the way of corruption suspects seeking and being granted bail by the courts. In our view, there was little reason to drag Khaleda Zia to jail in the first place and even fewer reasons for her prolonged incarceration. The same was the case with Awami League president Sheikh Hasina. The emergency government could easily have pursued the cases against the two leaders without jailing them for such long periods. After all, there was little, if any, chance that they would attempt to abscond. At the same time, there is hardly any justification left to keep incarcerated other corruption suspects who are yet to be convicted or acquitted by the courts. We, therefore, urge the government to allow everyone indicted on bailable charges to seek bail from the courts and to honour the decisions of the courts in the bail petitions.

Now that Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina are both free, at least for the time being, while the cases against them are under trial, a new responsibility falls on the two leaders. While it is true that the present regime has been an incompetent manager of the state and has further complicated the political process rather than levelling the electoral playing field, it is also true that the people of this country do not wish to return to the politics of the past. At the same time, while the people have never supported the imposition of reforms on the parties from the outside by an unelected regime, they understand nevertheless that the parties must internally democratise by bringing about major reforms. All this time, both the BNP and the Awami League have said that internal reforms would be brought about under the leadership of their top leaders once they are released from jail. Now that both the top leaders have been released, they owe it to the people of this country, who have stood by them through thick and thin, to bring about the kind of reforms within their parties that are necessary and to change the essentially corrupt nature of our politics.

The release of Tarique Rahman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bangladesh rulers kind to prisoners?

Bangladesh rulers kind to prisoners?
By Rater Zonaki
Source: UPI Asia On-line
September 9, 2008

Hong Kong, China — Many critics blame the current military-controlled government of Bangladesh for excessively abusing human rights, especially gross human rights violations during the state of emergency. The more the authorities are disinterested in accepting this reality, the greater is the attempt by human rights defenders and the media to criticize the government.

Many people seem to be too critical of the government all the time, which is rather unfair. However, government authorities, in all fairness, have taken some noble decisions against people and parties involved in abusing human rights. Some stories of government "kindness" deserve attention.

Since the state of emergency began, the government has been "kind" to the people of Bangladesh. They detained around 200 top politicians and businessmen and managed to lodge complaints against targeted politicians filed by public institutions and private individuals. Some were even prosecuted by a special anti-corruption tribunal.

Related to this is the case of Bangladesh Awami League general secretary Abdul Jalil, who was arrested on May 28, 2007 by the armed forces and detained without any charge throughout the year until implicated in a graft case lodged by the Anti-Corruption Commission on Dec. 18 with the Ramna police station. On Jan. 1, 2008, he was shown as arrested. While in detention, Jalil feel ill, which prompted a group of medical doctors to suggest that he be released to seek treatment abroad.

Then, the government appeared to be "kind" to the veteran politician by considering his case on humanitarian grounds and, on March 2, 2008, released him on parole without any formal intervention from the court, which could grant bail considering his health condition and subsequent requirements. Although the initial release order was for one month, it was extended to six after several requests by Jalil’s relatives.

Former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was arrested on July 16, 2007 and detained in a "sub-jail" with a number of graft cases against her. She had injured her ear and eye in a grenade attack during a public meeting in Dhaka on Aug. 21, 2004. While she was in detention, a group of doctors and members of a medical board formed by the government suggested that she travel to the United States for certain treatment that was not available any other place in the world.

This "kindness" of the government was exposed when it decided to release Hasina by an "executive order" instead of a judicial order. The initial release order was only for eight weeks, but was extended by a month following a request on behalf of the former prime minister. On Sept. 4, the government set a new record for its "kindness" by spontaneously extending the release order of Hasina for an additional month in the absence of any application or official request from anyone.

Mohammad Nasim, a former minister, was convicted by a special corruption tribunal and sentenced to 13 years imprisonment on Oct. 8, 2007 in a graft case. Another tribunal convicted him for three years for concealing information related to his wealth in a report submitted to the Anti-Corruption Commission. Recently he suffered a brain stroke and was admitted to a private hospital in Dhaka. On Aug. 15, 2008, the government released him so that he could seek treatment abroad, making it the first ever instance of a convicted person released to seek medical treatment abroad.

The mere suggestion by medical doctors to take someone abroad for treatment raises question about the credibility, standard and impartiality of the country's health professionals.

In the prisons of Bangladesh, dozens of convicted or prisoners under trial are seriously sick and many die while still in prison. For example, in 2006, around 52 prisoners died due to various reasons including health-related issues, according to credible reports. However, these poor people always fail to attract the "kind" attention of the government before their death. In all cases, prison authorities issue a press release or comment when contacted, which states that the person fell sick while in prison and so the prison staff took the person to a hospital where doctors declared him dead. All stories of death in prison have similar ends.

The same authorities that release rich and influential persons from prison without any legal papers exercise double standards toward the poor. They never feel that poor prisoners who are sick need to receive medical treatment either in the prison itself or in a public hospital. Existing laws are either flawed or do not apply to poor prisoners.

Authorities should realize and ensure that laws are applied equally toward all citizens, regardless of their social status and financial condition. Releasing prisoners on humanitarian grounds without proper legal and medical documents raises serious questions about the abuse of governmental power.

Misusing power is a clear violation of Art. 27 of the country's constitution, which enshrines the right to equal treatment before the law.
____________________________
(Rater Zonaki is the pseudonym of a human rights defender based in Hong Kong working at the Asian Human Rights Commission. He is a Bangladeshi national with a degree in literature from a university in Dhaka. He began his career as a journalist in 1990 and engaged in human rights activism at the grassroots level in his country for more than a decade. He also worked as an editor for publications on human rights and socio-cultural issues and contributed to other similar publications.)

The advisers' regime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proscribing Islamist Politics in Bangladesh

Proscribing Islamist Politics in Bangladesh:
Lessons from and for Pakistan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The European Commission's Dilemma

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Musharraf’s gamble

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old trick in new package

Old trick in new package
Source: New Age Editorial
August 19, 2008

The military-controlled interim government’s decision to set up a special police intelligence unit to monitor and report on the activities of the political parties is, we believe, its latest attempt at political engineering although the incumbents have claimed that it is aimed at helping the law-enforcement agencies to maintain public order. The decision indicates that the current regime is still busy trying to find ways to harass political parties and activists, undermine the political process, and redraw the political landscape to suit itself. We also agree with several high-profile politicians from different parties who have suggested that this decision pushes us further towards a ‘police state’.

The national security and intelligence agencies of our country have long been used by elected as well as unelected governments to monitor and report on political activities of rival camps, with a view to unduly clinging to power. At a time when our country needed to have moved away from such practices for the sake of democratic growth, the setting up of a Political Intelligence Operation will now formalise the spying on the politicians by the government’s law-enforcement and intelligence agencies. This is not only absolutely unacceptable but is deeply troubling as well.

Since the current regime’s assumption of power in January of last year, it has seemingly tried to redraw the political landscape through overt and covert attempts at political engineering. For example, there have been repeated attempts by this regime at implementing the ‘minus-two’ plan of politically neutralising Awami League president Sheikh Hasina and Bangladesh Nationalist Party chairperson Khaleda Zia in addition to the apparent efforts to fracture the Awami League and the BNP and to promote alternative leadership within these parties. Even the Election Commission got in on the act late last year when it recognised a splinter faction of the BNP as the party’s mainstream faction and invited it for formal dialogue. Moreover, we have witnessed, with growing disillusionment, the government’s much-hyped anti-corruption campaign be reduced to a mere political tool. We have also heard loud murmurs by those close to the regime about plans for a National Security Council, which, in our opinion, would do nothing more than formalise a role for the country’s armed forces in the running of the state. All these actions, we feel, have complicated the political process and made our democratic quest more difficult.

Against this backdrop, we cannot but be wary of the government’s decision to set up a separate intelligence unit to spy on political leaders and activities, that too only a few months prior to the promised general elections to the ninth parliament. The decision, as already hinted by the politicians, will further complicate the situation. Our recommendations to this regime, therefore, are that it should abandon plans for a Political Intelligence Operation, lift the state of emergency, allow full political activity that is within the bounds of the law, and devote its energy to creating grounds for credible and participatory general elections to be held.

New DMP branch to police political parties

New DMP branch to police political parties
AL, BNP deem it a move to harass leaders, activists
Source: Daily Star
August 18, 2008

Dhaka Metropolitan Police (DMP) has launched a new intelligence wing recently to gather information in advance about the activities of different political parties and their front organisations.

Two major political parties--the Awami League (AL) and BNP--said the new intelligence wing has been set up to harass political party leaders and activists.

DMP Commissioner Naim Ahmed, however, said the objective of the Political Intelligence Office (PIO) is not to harass anyone; it is rather to collect information about any incident quickly so that the police can take preventive measures before it escalates into something bigger which may become difficult to handle.

Police sources said after collecting information the PIO will inform the deputy commissioners' offices of the area concerned about the matter.

The PIO will be given the responsibility of collecting details of leaders and activists of different political parties and their front organisations and make a database with the collected data. The PIO will also prepare analytical reports on important political matters.

It has already started gathering information on political agitations, student unrests and violence in garment factories in coordination with Special Branch (SB) of Police in Dhaka.

The PIO has been set up with a specialised team of officials from the Detective Branch (DB) of Police. Deputy Commissioner of South Zone DB Awlad Hossain will supervise the team led by an assistant commissioner of DB.

DB sources said DMP Commissioner Naim Ahmed in an order dated August 12 set up the PIO. Initially, five officials led by an assistant commissioner are working to figure out the PIO's modus operandi.

"The PIO has been set up so that we can get information on any kind of political and other agitations as those initiate and before those spread," DB Deputy Commissioner Awalad Hossain told The Daily Star.

He said, "If we can get any information in advance, we will be able to take preventive measures before the small incident escalates into something big."

DMP Commissioner Naim Ahmed told BBC Bangla Service yesterday that he has set up the PIO under Dhaka Metropolitan Police Rules, 2006.

REACTION

Major political parties, meantime, termed the move illogical and anti-democratic.

Awami League presidium member Motia Chowdhury said it is a ploy to control politics even further and turn the country into a police state.

She said when the government cannot maintain law and order and give people security, it wants to let loose the police on the political parties.

Terming the move illogical, BNP chairperson's adviser Brig Gen (retd) ASM Hannan Shah said the police department should open a new wing to improve the deteriorating law and order instead of snooping on political parties.

"No civilised society has such practices. It is immoral of the present caretaker government. All including the civil society should protest it," he told The Daily Star.

Jatiya Party (JP) acting chairman barrister Anisul Islam Mahmud said no political party would welcome the move.

"It won't be right to engage the police in gathering intelligence on political parties when there is a normal process of collecting information for maintaining law and order," he said.

"Covert surveillance by the police on political parties and political activities is against democratic principles and practices," said Workers' Party President Rahsed Khan Menon.

"I see no reason to launch it," he said.

Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal (JSD) President Hasanul Haque Inu said the government should instead increase the competence and manpower of traditional intelligence agencies.

"The intention to spy on political parties is bad," Inu said.

The drop scene

The drop scene —Talat Masood
Source: Daily Times
August 14, 2008

President Musharraf is so blinded by his obstinacy that he fails to acknowledge that his era is over and that he has to resign to save the country, his former institution and the presidency from any further humiliation and damage

Battle lines have been clearly drawn and the coalition government and President Pervez Musharraf are set on a collision course. In a landmark decision to impeach Musharraf, the main political parties are putting up a united front to remove the president whom they consider illegitimate and unconstitutional. The call for impeachment was a major incentive for holding the coalition together. The outcome of the impeachment process could be a defining phase in Pakistan’s chequered history that could determine the future course of the country.

The current struggle has to be seen in a broader context — it has been going on for several decades for the supremacy of civil democratic forces over the military. It has intensified over the last fifteen months and is reaching its climax, but not necessarily its end. No doubt, Musharraf’s obstinacy has given it an impetus and sharpened the civil-military divide. It has also brought to the fore movements for change among different segments of society in different forms.

The judicial crisis, the lawyers’ movement, the media revolution, the partial awakening of civil society and the rise of militancy are all part of this struggle between the forces of status quo and the agents of change. Political consciousness has been stimulated by these happenings and has created a group of people with shared grievances and resentments, albeit seeking different solutions.

For example, in FATA and the NWFP, it has taken a violent and dangerous course due to first the Soviet and later the American occupation of Afghanistan. Militants and radical groups wearing the garb of religion are trying to find answers to the myriad problems of communities where successive governments have failed in providing security, justice and employment opportunities. The Taliban are imposing their will through coercive tactics and use of force in the conservative cultural society of the NWFP and FATA.

The lawyers and civil society are struggling for rule of law and constitutionalism by galvanising public opinion in a more urban environment and softer cultural context.

No doubt removal of the president through impeachment or preferably by his resignation will be a major step in moving the democratic process forward. But there is a long and tortuous road the country has to travel before this change can fully materialise and stabilise the country.

Musharraf’s departure does not imply that army’s role in Pakistan would disappear or that the grave threat of expanding militancy and dire economic problems will ease. The military in the foreseeable future will continue to play a central role in fighting the war on terror in the tribal belt and the NWFP, countering insurgency in Balochistan and keeping a watchful eye on the eastern border. Deep and expanding involvement of the US and NATO in Afghanistan and now in our tribal belt will also raise the profile of the military and the security establishment. It will remain the major recipient of the national budget and foreign aid.

Multiple security threats, however, demand high professional competence and undivided attention by the military to its profession. As recent events have demonstrated, the Frontier Corps and the army are weak in counterinsurgency operations and will have to be better equipped and trained to succeed. With the resurgence of insurgency in Kashmir, the eastern front too would need the army’s full attention.

Prolonged involvement of the military in governance and politics has alienated the masses. Winning back the confidence and earning the respect of the people is crucial in fighting internal militancy and external threats. Democracy is now an institutional and security imperative for the military as much as it is for the country.

Nonetheless, take-over by the military is no more a viable option due to its current professional compulsions. The military cannot deliver on the economic front either. The problems of Balochistan, Sindh, the tribal belt and the NWFP demand political solutions rather than mere reliance on military solutions, and politicians, at least in the long run, would be better equipped for that purpose. In Punjab, there could be a strong reaction from the public and civil society. Mediapersons and lawyers would all join the political forces in case a lawful government is arbitrarily removed.

All these factors clearly indicate that the army will at least for now stay away from politics, but its inherent power and role in the country has not diminished. Disengagement is essentially tactical and not necessarily strategic. For making the process irreversible, the civilian government will have to also acquire performance legitimacy by considerably improving governance and strengthening democratic institutions, especially the parliament and cabinet.

Clearly, the Army would not want President Musharraf’s impeachment and would prefer his resignation. As Musharraf has worn two hats — President and COAS — his trial would directly or indirectly drag the army into the impeachment process and could be embarrassing and even intolerable.

In any case, Musharraf has hardly any options left but to quit. His main political supporter, the PMLQ is tottering although putting up a façade. It is most likely that those on the fringes of the PMLQ and the PPPS would side with impeachment to whiten their sins and to be seen on the right side of the divide for their political future. Of course, only the diehard among them like Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and company would stick with the president as their politics is all about patronage and Biradari and has less to do with principles or serving the masses.

The Bangladesh model will be equally dysfunctional and unacceptable, with the same problems that would arise with an overt military takeover. After all, the BD model is a somewhat innovative way of the army retaining control and supremacy over the civilians in the garb of bringing political stability and economic growth. Pakistan’s current problems are more of a political and social nature as mentioned earlier.

President Bush may continue being loyal at the personal level to President Musharraf. But the Bush administration clearly sees that the situation in Pakistan has dramatically altered since February and power today is diffused, which is characteristic of all democratic governments. The US will have to relate to the new power structure, however weak and incoherent it may be. In fact, the Musharraf-centric policy of the Bush administration has discredited the war on terror and makes it difficult for the current civilian government to market to the people that it is their war and our greatest challenge.

President Musharraf is so blinded by his obstinacy that he fails to acknowledge that his era is over and that he has to resign to save the country, his former institution and the presidency from any further humiliation and damage.
_______________________
The writer is a retired Lieutenant General of the Pakistan Army. He can be reached at talat@comsats.net.pk