Painful Fifteenth of August

 I'm sitting with all of me 

hoping for destruction.' 

Rabindranath Tagore 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tarek Mahboob, Contributor

 

Bangladesh coup: An Interview at the Duran

More than a mutiny

More than a mutiny
Saurabh Shukla
March 7, 2009
Source: India Today

The plot of senseless blood letting in Dhaka is thickening. And as the two-month-old Government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina battles to bring stability to the country following the barbaric killing of over 140 top Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) officers along with their family members in Dhaka on February 25, reports of a Pakistan-sponsored plot to assassinate her are gaining credence.

Increasingly intelligence is uncovering that the original plan was to assassinate Hasina and army chief Moeen U. Ahmed on February 24, but due to lack of coordination, the required ammunition couldn’t be smuggled into the Durbar area at the BDR headquarters where Hasina had gone a day before the mutiny. The plan was reportedly hatched at the behest of the ISI which is concerned with Hasina’s moderate outlook.

On February 25, a group of BDR junior commissioned officers, lined up the top brass of Bangladesh’s border guards and killed them. The brutality of the killing was shocking as the bodies of the officers and their families were dumped into manholes and mass graves. While some of the ringleaders of the coup and their accomplices have been arrested, over 1,000 BDR personnel have been charged by the Hasina Government.

A confidential report prepared by South Block suggests that Pakistani intelligence was behind the mutiny. The report claims “both Indian and some international intelligence agencies have received indisputable proof of the involvement of Salauddin Chowdhury—an influential BNP MP and a long standing Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agent of influence in Bangladesh with a strong criminal mafia nexus—in the entire episode”.

Chowdhury, a prominent shipping magnate, was a close associate and parliamentary secretary to former premier Khaleda Zia. His name also figured in the Chittagong arms haul in 2004, in which a lethal cargo of arms was unloaded for terrorist activities in India. But Chowdhury has denied such charges.

However, exclusive details available with India Today suggest that intelligence agencies had intercepted a telephone call from Pakistan’s defence attaché in Dhaka, Sajaad Rasool, to a contact in the Pakistani consulate in Dubai. Another intercept revealed Rasool was in contact with Chowdhury.

According to sources, the Pakistani defence attaché monitored the situation from the Gulshan area of Dhaka and was in constant touch with his handlers in Pakistan.

In fact, on February 25 he knew the precise details about the plot unfolding inside the BDR headquarters in Pilkhana. At 12.30 pm, Rasool made a call to the ISI headquarters in Islamabad reporting that DG BDR Major-General Shakeel Ahmed had been killed.

The big question is, how the Pakistani defence attaché knew what was happening inside when even senior officers of the Bangladesh Army and the Government were in the dark. Other intercepts that confirm the involvement of the ISI, include a series of phone calls made by some key Jamaat-e- Islami (JeI) leaders to their ISI contacts in Dubai, London and Islamabad updating them on the operation.

According to the report, the BDR was used by the plotters because resentment has been brewing in the lower ranks. Besides, the aim was to ensure a takeover by pro-Pakistan elements in the Bangladesh Army. So smooth was the planning that no intelligence agency got a whiff of the plot. Chowdhury allegedly used a former DG of BDR, Major-General Fazlur Rehman, as a frontman to instigate the troops.

Chowdhury is suspected to have paid Taka 40 crore (Rs 30 crore) to Fazlur Rahman, who in turn is said to have paid Taka 5 crore to four deputy assistant directors of BDR. While almost 400 sepoys were paid Taka 5 lakh, the key among them were paid Taka 50 lakh each, according to the report.

For India that has a vital stake in the stability of a moderate regime in Dhaka, the developments were worrying. In fact, on February 28, India had begun preparations to evacuate Hasina. External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee was in touch with Hasina and assured her of Indian support. Sources say New Delhi alerted Dhaka.

Following this, Hasina was taken to a Bangladesh Army safehouse. Two teams of commandos were kept ready at a forward air force base in Tripura and another one in Kolkata. But when the situation turned around with the Bangladesh Army backing Hasina and the mutiny quelled, the plan was shelved.

But the big question is why the ISI plotted to destabilise the Government. The reason is, compared to the fundamentalist regime of Khaleda Zia, Hasina’s government is considered to be moderate and has cracked down on Islamists. Sources say Pakistani intelligence fanned the conspiracy as it feared that many of its key assets could be tried for war crimes committed in 1971.

The Hasina Government had moved a resolution in Parliament last month to punish criminals of the 1971 war, something her party had promised in its election manifesto. Sources say JEI leaders Amir Rahman Nizami and Ali Ahsan Mujahid, who are alleged war criminals, provided logistical support to the mutiny.

The ISI plotted to kill Hasina as Islamabad has been uneasy with the Hasina regime’s policies and it’s perceived proximity to India. In fact the crisis in Dhaka should be another reason why India and Bangladesh should work together closely, especially on security issues. Besides, India has to align with the international community to ensure the stability of Hasina’s regime which is pivotal for India’s security concerns.

Experts say that New Delhi and Dhaka should use this opportunity to sensitise the world that Pakistan is the fulcrum of terrorism, and till its agencies, like the ISI, are neutralised, the world, beginning with our neighbourhood, cannot be free of terrorism.

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

Two ladies: Seeds of their discord?

Two ladies: Seeds of their discord?
Mozammel H. Khan
Source: Daily Star
August 15, 2008

IT is a very common utterance, especially by the so-called neutral citizens of our republic, that the two ladies are the root of all our evils. It is true that their animosity against each other has reached such a level that they are not even on talking term to each other. In the process our "neutral citizens" are in the mind-set of making the two ladies equally responsible for the animosities developed between them over the years.

Recently, Barrister Rafiq-ul Huq, the legal counsel for both, has spoken in blunt terms that they should sit together and resolve their differences in the interests of the country. A similar sentiment was echoed by adviser Dr. Hossain Zillur Rahman in a recent remark when he said: "The government hopes the two leaders will not only respond to this move, but also take initiatives on their own to this end."

However, any keen observer of our political landscape would be skeptical as to the tangible and lasting success of any such move without the logical identification of the causes of the discord and the required pragmatic steps to remove them before any such meeting takes place.

The seed of discord between them, not by any means the ideological difference between two political parties -- a common phenomenon in any democracy -- was sowed on the fateful night of August 15, 1975.

Over the next few years it would be one's husband who would reward the self-confessed killers with diplomatic jobs and would incorporate the infamous indemnity act into the constitution to give them impunity from the dreadful acts and prevent any future prosecution.

When she assumed the premiership of the country, instead of any attempt of reconciliation, she went further to re-write the history of our nation, especially of the culminating chapter, through absolute marginalisation of the contributions of the leader under whose clarion call and name the liberation war was fought.

The devastating addition to the discord took place with the declaration of August 15 as the day of national mourning by the AL government in 1996, when she started publicly celebrating the tragic day as her birthday.

She was surely not re-incarnated all of a sudden, and as a former PM and the widow of a former president, her birthday was on record on multiple documents, albeit there was no records of her celebration. It reflected the worst possible mental depreciation of any human being, more so for a public figure who at that time was the leader of the opposition and a former PM of the country.

With her second assumption of the premiership of the country, she put the last nail in the coffin of reconciliation. Without referring to her atrocious governance vis-à-vis treating her political opponents, history was re-invented, the way she wanted to please herself.

The text- books were re-written with fictitious stories to prevent our next generation from learning the true history of the birth of our nation. The day of national mourning was abolished. A documentary was made, allegedly by her son, which was telecast over BTV on two consecutive days in 2006 portraying the supreme leader of our independence as a villain, not a real hero as known at home and abroad.

An adviser to her, a former seasoned diplomat and DS contributor, confided to me, a few months before his sudden death, that she was deprived of any possible cabinet position, only because in his published memoir he referred to Sheikh Mujib as Bangabandhu and depicted the undistorted history of our liberation war of which he was an active participant as a diplomat posted in a key western capital. The antipathy toward that name is so intense that even a co-counsel, a BNP loyalist, who represented her with Barrister Rafiq, termed Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Hospital as PG Hospital the other day, probably to avoid any possibility of falling out of favour of his leader.

There was also deliberate effort by the past BNP regime neither to bring the convicted killers of Bangabadhu and members of his family to final justice nor to bring the absconding convicts back home to heal the wounds.

Any human soul, when in distress, usually regains one's human sense. It was also expected out of Khaleda Zia, especially when she gave a call for unity of all the political forces from custody. However, her followers' public celebration of her so-called birthday, following the declaration of the current CTG to revert August 15 back as a national day of mourning, only testified that nothing has changed for her vis-à-vis her attitude towards Sheikh Hasina.

It was extremely disheartening to spot a bureaucrat-turned-politician, at the fag end of his life, whose presence in BNP was not guided by any ideological dogma whatsoever, but only because AL could not promise him a nomination in 1991, enjoying the birthday cake at the jail gate. But such is politics in Bangladesh.

One-sided illustrations might provoke any reader to ask if Sheikh Hasina did nothing wrong to hurt Khaleda Zia. Yes, she certainly did, probably more than her due share -- but all of it through her verbal jabs, creating only transient wounds.

If meeting of the two ladies has to bring any fruitful outcome for smooth functioning of our democracy, Begum Zia has to publicly pledge not to undo the reverting of her wrongdoings by the current CTG in regard to our true history and the national day of mourning if she becomes PM again.

Finally, she has to pull herself out of her disrespect and cease the controversial public celebration of her birthday on the national day of mourning. These are the bare minimum required from her to create a congenial environment for meeting of the ladies, failing which any number of meetings between the two will end simply in fiasco and the nation will be back to square one.
____________________________
Dr. Mozammel H. Khan is the Convenor of the Canadian Committee for Human Rights and Democracy in Bangladesh.

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.

Big fish vs. small fish

Beneath The Surface
Big fish vs. small fish
Abdul Bayes
Source: Daily Star
August 31, 2008

COMPARE two former prime ministers of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina (1996-2001) and Begum Khaleda Zia (2001-2006). Hasina is the daughter of the father of the nation while Khaleda is the wife of a former president and famous freedom fighter. Khaleda Zia owns two palacious houses (gift from government) in the posh areas of Dhaka city. Hasina lives in her husband's house. The nation is so "grateful" to the father of the nation that his two surviving daughters remain homeless! I expected that the current CTG would provide a level playing field by providing Hasina and Rehana with two houses in Dhaka as a token of respect to the late father of the nation. Till now that did not happen.

However, Bangladesh emerged as a basket case of corruption (champions in corruption five times consecutively) during Khaleda's tenure. That is not to deny that there was corruption during Haisna's tenure, but much less in magnitude compared to that of Khaleda's. If one looks at the average amount of wealth amassed and concealed by the respective politicians of the two big parties and disclosed in media, one could clearly see the difference.

Besides this, family members and relatives of Khaleda Zia -- especially her two sons and two brothers -- are alleged to have amassed and laundered huge amounts of wealth. Even government spokesmen admitted that. The general belief is that Zia family and their followers have pocketed about one-fourth of our GDP during 2001 and 2006 period. Also on the air is the story that all that went to win the 2006 general election by hook or by crook was to protect the wealth of the "Marcos dynasty" of Bangladesh.

If a government wants to enquire into the wealth of the former PMs, who should be caught first, Khaleda or Hasina? Surely, it is Khaleda Zia because of the three most important factors: she is the most recent former PM, Bangladesh bagged five "gold medals" in corruption during her tenure, and popular and media perceptions are that her family members through Hawa Bhaban amassed huge wealth.

Unfortunately, and surprising us all, just the reversed happened. Among the two former PMs, the anti-corruption drive started with Hasina. She was not allowed to re-enter the country on the ground that she amassed huge amount of wealth. Hasina decided to defend her case of engaging in corruption but her defense was also denied. Anyway, the eroding image of the government and international pressure paved her way home.

Once back in the country, a barrage of cases were built to put her behind bars. The anti-corruption drive was seemingly turned into an "anti-Hasina" drive -- the drive against a person who served as PM long before this government and ACC (the current structure) came into place. It is, as if this was the "price" Hasina and her party had to pay for the movements marshaled against misdeeds of the past governments and the subsequent establishment of the present setup of governance.

At a much later stage, and possibly to put up a so-called level-playing field, Khaleda had to face the fire. But what strikes us all is the fact that Hasina was charge-sheeted in a number of cases, appeared several times before the court with deteriorating health condition. On the other hand, not a single charge-sheet could be made against Khaleda Zia. What about Tarique Rahman? Not a single charge sheet so far. Both of them were granted bails by the hon'ble High Court, and, hopefully, they will be released soon.

Lists after lists of corrupt persons were published and fed to the press. This is unfortunate because a person cannot be called corrupt unless proved by the court. In one such big list, appeared the names of the business tycoons, bureaucrats, and media owners. The anti-corruption drive that marched so mercilessly suddenly stalled and a concept of "truth commission" was invoked. What is that? The commission is to pardon all "good boys" who will speak the truth after passing through a long life of telling lies. Why should they be pardoned? Because, we are told, they are the backbone of the economy. The arguments are well placed but public perception is that some of these "good boys" are linked to the power structure ruling the country now. Otherwise, why should not the same path of pardoning be pursued for others.

Now comes the final "sermon." For ensuring a free and fare election and for enabling participation of all parties, the government has to accommodate by relaxing the tight rope round the politicians' necks. These "sermons" are now being circulated by government-backed media mongers and the so-called civil society members. The million dollar question is, if corruption has to be compromised for the sake of a general election, then why this farce for such a long time, depriving people of their due rights?

The above mentioned few conflicting episodes are just tip of the ice-berg. One could come up with a number of anomalies to argue that, sordidly, the whole anti-corruption drive turned into an anti-politics drive over time. Initially, the drive won the hearts of the millions as they want an end to corruption. But people also want that a non-discriminatory and lawful course of action be followed for this. Advertently or inadvertently, the whole drive is now facing a serious question: would it help or hinder corruption in Bangladesh? As it appears, when corrupt tycoons are coming out of jails -- due to procedural mistakes or political maneuvering -- suffice it so that our dream of a corruption-free society would likely be dashed.

One of the advisers of CTG once remarked: We have not come to catch small fish but big fish (amra chunuputi dhorte ashinai, amra rui katla dhorte ashesi). To our utter dismay, we are forced to observe that chunuputis are in jail while rui katlas are swimming in the sweet waters of their swimming pools built from corrupt money. Bangladesh is surely a test case of treacherous paths of politics!
_____________________________________
Abdul Bayes is a Professor of Economics at Jahangirnagar University. For feedback, please contact abdulbayes@yahoo.com.

Sheikh Hasina’s happy day

Sheikh Hasina’s happy day

Source: The Economist
August 7, 2008

The shape of post-military politics begins to emerge

IT HARDLY seemed like a significant event. On August 4th, just 1.5% of Bangladesh’s voters were permitted by the army to go to the polls in the first round of local elections. The vote was held under a state of emergency. Candidates could not compete under party labels. One party leader was in jail, another in exile.

But these were also the first polls held since the army installed a civilian government in January 2007. Fears that the military would rig the result proved unfounded. The election commission purged 12m duplicate, deceased or bogus names from voter rolls. For the first time, Bangladeshis saw a voting system that seemed to deliver a fair and credible outcome.

In this case, the outcome was a decisive victory for candidates backed by the Awami League (candidates had to run as independents but could be supported by parties). It won 12 of 13 mayoral races. The League is led by Sheikh Hasina, a former prime minister who remains in exile in America following the government’s decision to release her from prison in June on two months’ medical parole. The day after the poll, the government extended Sheikh Hasina’s bail for another month.

The vote made clear that the army has lost, or given up, the ability to influence the parliamentary election scheduled for December. That election now seems likely to go ahead (it was postponed last year), although the government refuses to set a date and the election commission took this week’s polls as evidence that there was no need to lift the state of emergency. Talk of setting up a national security council, to formalise the army’s role in politics after the vote, has not died down.

But three things make a return to civilian rule more likely. One is the confidence of the Awami League itself. Having been cut off from the public purse for 20 months, its politicians are desperate to get their mitts back on it again.

The next is a split in the League’s main rival, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), led by Khaleda Zia, the other “battling begum”, who is in jail on corruption charges. Mrs Zia called on her party to boycott the local poll but the party has split in three. At least one faction, no less desperate to return to power than the Awami League, is likely to defy her call to boycott the general election, too.

The BNP is now trying to get the Awami League to join it in a movement against influential military figures, invoking 1990, when in a rare moment of harmony the battling begums united to oust the then dictator, Mohammad Ershad. Instead, the League has chosen to join hands with him, probably to keep him out of the BNP camp.

Third, the interim administration is running into problems. The army-backed technocrats who run the country are drifting, unable to take big decisions. Last week Tata, an Indian conglomerate, pulled the plug on a proposed $3 billion foreign investment, the largest ever in Bangladesh. The costs of uncertainty are speeding up the return of an elected government.

Hasina’s party wins in Bangladesh poll

Hasina’s party wins in Bangladesh poll
By Tom Felix Joehnk in Dhaka

Source: Financial Times
August 5, 2008

Elections held under a state of emergency declared by Bangladesh’s military to purge corruption from the political system have been judged to be the fairest ever, though most posts were won by candidates backed by one of the country’s traditional party machines.

The Awami League, the party of Sheikh Hasina Wajed, former prime minister, celebrated as its candidates won 12 of 13 mayoral races. At least two of its candidates, Badaruddin Kamran in Sylhet and Ramzan Ali in Manikganj, had campaigned from jail.

Their success effectively dashed government hopes that people would vote for candidates with no criminal charges pending against them, in these first polls held since the military installed a civilian government in January 2007.

The voting won the backing of observers, particularly for the success of the election commission in purging some 12 million duplicate, deceased or otherwise bogus names from voter rolls. “We are looking forward to Sheikh Hasina leading the [Awami] party into the next parliamentary election,” said Saber Hossain Chowdhury, a senior league leader. He added that the main message of the election was that people wanted an “elected, political government”.

Sheikh Hasina has been charged with corruption and is being tried in absentia. She was released on two months’ bail on medical grounds in early June, and is currently in Washington.

Party leaders had not expected her to return before a medical appointment in the first week in September, and the government on Tuesday extended her bail until September 6.

Her bitter rival, former prime minister Khaleda Zia of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, remains in jail on corruption charges and said at the weekend that she would not accept an apparent offer by the government to release her, unless it also freed her son, Tarique Rahman, who was also detained in the anti-corruption drive.

The successful local polls are unlikely to resolve Bangladesh’s political deadlock. A major sticking point is the government’s plan to hold non-party elections in 465 upazilas, the lowest level of government administration, before parliamentary elections in December.

The main political parties have fiercely opposed these local elections because they would transfer significant powers, including control of development spending, away from those parties’ members of parliament.

ATM Shamsul Huda, chief election commissioner, said he saw “no problem” in holding parliamentary elections under a state of emergency. Western government have demanded the measure be lifted ahead of the vote.

The trial of Sheikh Hasina:

The trial of Sheikh Hasina: International community fails to ensure due process
Source: Asian Centre for Human Rights

South Asia provides glimpses of the world’s systems of governance and political structure. An imperfect democracy India is surrounded by Bhutan where monarchy orchestrated a sham election to give victory to the King’s party, Nepal – where King once considered reincarnation of Lord Bishnu cannot even cast his vote; Maldives where President Gayoom serves as the longest serving dictator in Asia; Sri Lanka where tyranny of the majority rules the roost and a military junta in Myanmar.

Yet, it is the quasi-military dictatorship in Pakistan and Bangladesh that will test South Asia’s tryst with democracy and rule of law. Following the elections, President Parvez Musharaff lost control. The newly elected Prime Minister released deposed Chief Justice Iftikar Choudhury. It remains to be seen how the Musharaff regime collapses and whether it provides any lessons to the Bangladeshi dictators.

I. High Court judgement on the trial of Sheikh Hasina under the Emergency Power Rules

The lack of international outcry against the regime in Bangladesh is disturbing. The emergency imposed on 11 January 2007 still continues. There is no apparent internal disturbance which requires continuation of the emergency. On the other hand, the interim government has been trying to fix the discourse of democracy in Bangladesh under the emergency regulations.

Nothing reflects it more than the order of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of 17 March 2008 to exercise his discretionary power to strip the High Court division bench of Justice Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman and Justice Shahidul Islam of its writ jurisdiction. This bench of the High Court had, among others, declared illegal a government sanction to try an extortion case against detained former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina under the Emergency Power Rules (EPR) and quashed the trial proceedings, and had ruled that the High Court can grant bail even to those convicted in the cases under the EPR. [1]

Asian Centre for Human Rights studied the judgement of the High Court delivered on 17February 2008 relating to the detention and trial of Sheikh Hasina under the EPR. The judgement is now available at: http://www.achrweb.org/countries/Bangla/Hasina-HC-Judgment17-02-08.pdf

While delivering its judgment, the High Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether alleged criminal offences committed prior to the promulgation of Emergency can be proceeded with tried under the provisions of the Emergency Power Rules 2007 in view of Section – 3(3Ka) of the Emergency Power Ordinance, 2007 and Articles 93 and 35 of the Constitution.
2. Whether the incorporation of penal provisions in the Rules, in particular, in Rules 15Gha, 19Gha, 19Cha of the Emergency Power Rules, 2007 are inconsistent with the provisions of the Articles – 27, 31, 32, 33 and 35 of the Constitution and are void in view of Article – 26 (2) read with Articles – 7 (2) of the Constitution.
3. In view above whether the sanctions given under Rule 19 Nye(1) and (5) of the Emergency Power Rules are valid for the cases, proceeded with/ tried under the Emergency Power Rules, 2007, arising out of the alleged offences committed prior to the promulgation of the Emergency;

In order to arrive at its decision, the High Court took assistance of Messrs (1) T H Khan, (2) Mahmudul Islam, (3) Abdur Rah Chaudhury, (4) Mahbubur Rahman, (5) Mahbubey Alam , (6) Md Rafiqul Islam Miah and (7) Md Munsrul Hoque Chowdhury, the learned Advocates of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh as Amiei.

Among others, the Amiei urged that “Since Article 35 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than or different from that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence, the accused petitioner is guaranteed to be proceeded with in connection with the alleged offence under the law as prevailing at the time of commission of the alleged offence, and that in view of the provisions of Article – 31, which provides that accused petitioner is to enjoy the protection of the law, and to be treated in accordance with law, and only in accordance with law and no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property can be taken except in accordance with law, which is an inalienable right guaranteed to the petitioner, the right of the accused petitioner for bail in the instant case cannot be denied and the Court’s power to grant bail cannot be curtailed and that in view of Article -26(2) of the Constitution, no provisions inconsistent with the provision of Articles – 31,32,33, and 35 of the Constitution (of Bangladesh) can be included either in the EPO or in the EPR legally, and if any such inconsistent provision is found or added therein, those are void ab-initio and this Court has the authority to declare those as Void in terms of the Constitution. Thus the provisions of Rules 19Gha, 10(2) and 11 of the EPR so far relates to bail, are bad and void”.

In fact as the Honourable judges noted, “The learned Additional Attorney General Mr Mansur Habib appearing for the respondent-Government submitted that in view of Section -3(4) of the EPO the offence committed prior to the promulgation of the Emergency can be tried under the provision of EPO and the Rules framed thereunder, giving retrospective effect. However, when his notice has been drawn to the provisions of Articles -93 as well as Articles- 31, 32, 33 and 35 with 141B of the Constitution and Sections – 1(2), 3(1) and 3(3ka) of the EPO, he found it difficult to elaborate his submissions in favor retrospective effect to the offence allegedly committed prior to promulgation of the EPO”.

Amiei referring to the effect of Article 26(2) of Constitution of Bangladesh further “submitted that no law can be made inconsistent with the provisions of the fundamental rights, detailed in Part III of the Constitution, and subject to restrictions mentioned in Article 141B thereof during the Emergency, and accordingly the provisions relating to “denial of bail” as appearing in Rules -19Gha, 10(2) and 11 of the EPR are void and the power of the Court relating to granting of bail under Sections 497 and 498 of the CrPC remained unaltered and unaffected and that Emergency did not affect the existing power and authority of any Court of law relating to trial of case and or bail”.

It was further submitted by Amiei that “the existing right or benefit of the people can only be altered or affected through enactment of a law consistent with the provisions of the Articles contained in Part III of the Constitution and that a law can be made by the Parliament, when in session, otherwise by the Honourable President promulgating Ordinance under the authority of Article 93 of the Constitution and that no law can be made inconsistent with the Articles 27 to 35 of the Constitution during the Emergency and that the Rules framed under the authority of any Ordinance cannot have more power than the Ordinance itself and through such Rule no penal provision can be created affecting the existing right to life and liberty of the public. Therefore the penal provisions contained in any Rule of the EPR are void and without lawful authority.”

The High Court accepted the bar imposed by Article 26(2) of the Constitution of Bangladesh on making of any law or part thereof, inconsistent with the provisions of fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, which are Articles 26-44, but Article 141B of the Constitution has given a protection against violation of the Articles 36 to 40 and 42 during the period of Emergency.

In their judgement, Honorable judges held:

“Considering the preamble of the Constitution as well as the provisions of Article 26 thereof and the contents of the oath prescribed for the Judges of the Supreme Court, we find substance in the submissions of the learned Advocate Mr T.H. Khan that no law or rule or any provision can be made during the Emergency curbing or curtailing the authority and power of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, subject to the restrictions imposed by the Articles 141 B and 141 C and that during Emergency period no law or rule can be framed inconsistent with provision of Articles 27 to 35 and as well as any existing law and the orders passed by the Judges of the Supreme Court…..

The provisions negating the authority of the Court to grant bail under Rules -19 Gha, 10(2), 11 and 15 Gha of the EPR, being inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 31, 32, 33 and 35 of the Constitution as well as Sections- 426, 496, 497 and 498 of CrPC, are void and the power and authority of the Court under sections 426, 496, 497 and 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to granting of bail has not been affected or infringed by said Rules-19Gha, 10(2), 11 and 15Gha of the EPR. Further no penalty or sentence can be imposed by any Rule of the EPR, framed under the authority of EPO. Since the Rules-3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 15Gha of the Rules, 2007 are inconsistent with the existing law as well the provisions of Articles 27 to 35 of the Constitution said Rules to the extent of the inconsistency for containing the provisions of penalty and sentence are void as per Article 26(2) of the Constitution.

Since in the Rule the impugned sanction is under challenge and we have found that the impugned sanction has been given without lawful authority, for non-fulfillment of the conditions-precedent set out in Rule-19Nyanh (4) and the alleged offence having been committed prior to the promulgation of Emergency, the instant case initiated under the Emergency Power Rules 2007 is illegal, without lawful authority and cannot be proceeded with further.

In fine it is held that:

a) any case arising out of an offence committed prior to the date of promulgation of the Emergency i.e. 11.01.2007 cannot be tried under the Emergency Power Rules, 2007;

b) existing rules framed under the Emergency Power Ordinance, 2007 are not retrospective in view of the objectives detailed in Section – 3(1) of the said Ordinance 2007 Emergency Power Rules;

c) for the purpose of granting sanction, consideration should be given to the importance the “offence committed” and not the status or importance of the accused, and that such offence must affect or be related to the objectives detailed in Section – 3(1) of the Emergency Power Ordinance, 2007;

d) Rules framed under a Statute being sub-legislation, the same cannot curb or infringe a right or benefit given by a Statute, hence the penal provisions as well as the provisions, curbing the right to bail, a contained in the Emergency Power Rules, 2007, are void and not enforceable;

e) Emergency has not curtailed the power and authority of any Court, and the Court retained its power and authority to deal with the bail and other matters in accordance with the existing laws in force;

f) Gulshan Police Station Case No. 34 dated 13.6.2007 cannot be proceeded under the Emergency Power Rules, 2007, pursuant to the impugned sanction dated 16.7.2007.

Accordingly, the Rule is made absolute without any order as to costs. The impugned sanction given by the respondent No. 2 under Rule -19Nyanh (2) of the Emergency Power Rules, 2007 of 16.7.2007, for proceeding with the Gulshan Police Station Case No. 34 dated 13.6.2007 filed under Sections 385/109 of the Penal Code, 1860, under the Emergency Power Rules, 2007 treating the offence to be of public importance evidenced by the Annexure-C to the Writ Petition, is declared to be without lawful authority and is of no legal effect and consequently, any action taken and or initiated and continuation of any proceeding and or trial of any case, arising out of said Gulshan Police Station Case No. 34 dated 13.6.2007 under the Emergency Power Rules, 2007, in any Court of law or authority, is declared to be without lawful authority and stands quashed.”

The judgment of the High Court relating to illegal detention of Sheikh Hasina is not the only one to have been overturned by the Supreme Court.

On 6 March 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that appellate courts, including the High Court, do not have the jurisdiction to grant bail to those convicted by special graft courts under the Emergency Power Rules (EPR). This judgment was delivered by the full bench of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Mohammad Ruhul Amin while hearing the appeals of the Anti-Corruption Commission against the grant of bail to then UN Special Rapporteur Sigma Huda and barrister Mir Helaluddin by the High Court on 13 December 2007 after they were convicted in corruption cases by a special court under the EPR. The Supreme Court also cancelled the bails granted to Ms Huda and Mir Helaluddin. [2] Earlier, on 18 December 2007, the Supreme Court stayed the bail granted by the High Court to Sigma Huda and Barrister Mir Helal Uddin on 13 December 2007. [3]

On 13 December 2007, the Supreme Court overruled the High Court order of 9 December 2007 that stayed the trial proceedings of the Taka 30 million extortion case filed against Sheikh Hasina and two others allegedly by Azam J Chowdhury, managing director of Eastcoast Trading Pvt Ltd. [4] On 24 January 2008, Azam J Chowdhury reportedly told the press that he did not file any case "directly" against Sheikh Hasina and that what he had said in the case has been “distorted”. [5]
On 4 October 2007, the Supreme Court stayed the bail granted by the High Court to detained former Prime Minister and Chairperson of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, Khaleda Zia in an alleged corruption case. [6]

On 27 August 2007, the Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s orders granting Sheikh Hasina bail in two extortion cases. The cases were related to the one filed by businessman Noor Ali in which the High Court granted bail on 7 August 2007 and asked the government not to have her tried under the emergency rules, and the one filed allegedly by Azam J Chowdhury, Managing Director of East Coast Trading Private Ltd in which Ms Hasina was granted bail by the High Court on 30 July 2007. [7] On the same day, the Supreme Court also stayed the High Court’s order granting bail to business leader Abdul Awal Mintoo, who was arrested under the EPR. [8]

II. Vowing judiciary

The Supreme Courts across South Asia bended and/or bowed before executive supremacy. India ’s Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the suspension of fundamental rights during the emergency. The Supreme Courts in Pakistan often legalised the military dictatorship. The Supreme Court of Nepal also suspended the fundamental rights during the emergency imposed by King Gyanendra in 2005. Justice Sarath Nanda Silva of Sri Lanka has been known for making political rather than judicious judgements and he went to the extent of declaring non-applicability of ICCPR in Sri Lanka . In Maldives and Bhutan, the rulers have been acting as the Chief Justices.

Against this backdrop, the judgments of the High Courts in Bangladesh under the current quasi-military regime have been remarkable, only to be undone by the Supreme Court.
Yet, there has been absolute silence on this particular aspect as if justice can be short circuited to try criminal offences. It is time that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights who is internationally respected as a jurist and the UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judiciary condemn the procedures and processes of administration of justice. No one is asking to go into the merits of the allegations brought by the government of Bangladesh against those arrested. The High Courts in Bangladesh have shown that the procedures and processes of administration of justice by the regime are themselves illegal and void.

[1] . HC bench of justice Nayeem, Shahidul stripped of writ powers, The Daily Star, 18 March 2008
[2] . Appeal courts asked not to grant bail, The Daily Star, 7 March 2008
[3] . HC bail to Sigma, Mir Helal stayed, The Daily Star, 19 December 2007
[4] . SC overrules stay on Hasina trial, The Daily Star, 14 December 2007
[5] . Azam Chy now says he did not file case against Hasina, The Daily Star, 25 January 2008
[6] . SC halts bail order for Khaleda, The Daily Star, 5 October 2007
[7] . Hasina's bail stayed, The Daily Star, 28 August 2007
[8] . Hasina's bail stayed, The Daily Star, 28 August 2007

Motion on Sheikh Hasina at the British Parliament

(This motion has been signed by 35 British Parliamentarians on March 17, 2008.)
Source: UK Parliament

That this House notes with grave concern that Mrs Sheikh Hasina Wajid, a former Prime Minister of Bangladesh and Leader of the Bangladeshi Awami League, has been under arrest for the last eight months by the military-backed government in Bangladesh; further notes that though various charges have been laid against her that she has not been offered due legal process or the right to a trial in an open, fair and transparent court; further notes that she is seriously ill in jail but has not been offered the appropriate hospital treatment; and calls upon the Government to make representations to the government of Bangladesh to either offer Mrs Sheikh Hasina Wajid a fair trial or to release her, to afford her immediate hospital treatment and, more generally, to uphold its democratic obligations to the country.

Politics: keeping things in the family

Source: The News
Date: February 26, 2008
By Jean-Michel C, adiot

PARIS: Family dynasties, most recently highlighted by the Castro clan in Cuba after Raul was selected to replace his ailing brother Fidel, are alive and kicking across a broad spectrum of world politics.

Be it democratically as in the United States or Argentina, or in a more or less authoritarian way as in Syria or the Democratic Republic of Congo, sons often replace fathers, spouses swap places and siblings take over each other’s posts.

In the United States, the Republican George W Bush was elected in 2000 and then again in 2004, eight years after his father left the White House where he served from 1988 to 1992. The current president’s brother Jeb, meanwhile, has served as governor of the state of Florida.

In Argentina, Cristina Kirchner won last year’s presidential election, replacing her husband Nestor. On a less democratic note, North Korea’s Supreme People’s Assembly in September 1998 confirmed Kim Jong-il as successor to his father Kim il-Sung, the communist state’s founding father.

In Syria Bashar al-Assad, 34, was elected by plebiscite in July 2000 on the death of his father Hafez al-Assad who had led the country for 30 years. The current president of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Joseph Kabila, became president in 2001, aged just 29 after the assassination of his father Laurent Desire Kabila.

Also in Africa, 39-year-old Faure Gnassingbe was proclaimed head of state of Togo in 2005, the day after the death of his long-ruling father Gnassingbe Eyadema. A similar transition took place in the Caucasus state of Azerbaijan, when in October 2003, Ilham Aliyev, 41, took over the reins of power occupied for a long time by his father Heydar, who died shortly afterwards.

Family dynasties are also a prominent fixture on the Indian subcontinent, often amid tragedy. Indira Gandhi, the daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru, post-independence India’s first prime minister, was twice prime minister herself before being assassinated in 1984.

Her son Rajiv succeeded her, but was also assassinated in 1991. Rajiv’s widow, the Italian-born Sonia Gandhi, is currently head of the ruling Congress party. In Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, twice prime minister and the first woman to lead a Muslim country, was assassinated on 27th December 2007. Her father Ali Bhutto, had been executed in 1979 by a military regime.

In Bangladesh, Hasina Wajed and Khaleda Zia, respectively daughter of the country’s founding father Mujibur Rahman, assassinated in 1975 and widow of the former prime minister Ziaur Rahman, killed in 1981, have both of them headed governments. Both are today in prison.

In Sri Lanka, Sirimavo Bandaranaike was the first woman in the modern era to head a government, from 1960 to 1965, succeeding her husband Salomon, who was assassinated in 1959. Their daughter Chandrika Kumaratunga, whose husband Vijaya had been assassinated in 1988, led the government for several months starting in 1994, then held the post of president for 12 years.

A dynasty can also involve siblings. In Poland Lech Kaczynski, the president, who is still in office, and his identical twin brother Jaroslaw, formerly prime minister, ran their country side by side for two years from the end of 2005 to end of 2007.

In Lebanon in 1982, Amin Gemayel was elected president after the assassination of his brother Bashir. They were the sons of a prominent Lebanese politician. Other potential dynasties were nipped in the bud.

In the United States Robert Kennedy, had launched a bid for the presidency when he was gunned down 1968, five years after his elder brother, president John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Hillary Clinton, the wife of former US president Bill Clinton, is currently hoping to win the presidency in her turn, although her campaign has run into trouble, in part because of the shadow cast by her spouse.

In a completely different context, Uday Hussein had been promised that he would lead Iraq in the footsteps of his father, Saddam. After the latter was overthrown by a US-led invasion, Uday was killed in July 2003, and his captured father was executed at the end of 2006.

Prosecution Drama in Bangladesh

Prosecutors' ploy to release politicians

RATER ZONAKI
Source: UPI Asia Online
February 12, 2008

The people of Bangladesh are keeping an eye on court proceedings regarding corruption charges against former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. The High Court ruled last week that the trial against her is illegal, since she is charged under the Emergency Powers Rules, yet her alleged crimes were committed years before the emergency rules went into effect.

She is one of a number of politicians -- including another former prime minister and dozens of former parliamentarians and Cabinet ministers -- facing corruption charges since the military-backed caretaker government took power a year ago, after imposing a state of emergency.

The politicians have not lost their claws and teeth, and are continuing to fight the charges in court, despite facing detention under the Special Powers Act of 1974 and the Emergency Powers Ordinance-2007, which has been supplemented by the Emergency Powers Rules-2007.

The latest surprise in Sheikh Hasina's trial is that the government has asked that a decision on the case be speeded up because of her "high social status." The attorney general's office reportedly made the request of the High Court Bench as the case was considered a matter of public importance. While the Constitution of Bangladesh declares in Article 27, "All citizens are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection under the law," the attorney requested special treatment based on social status.

It is not surprising that a military-backed government, by default, will be repressive as the present government of Bangladesh has been since taking power. But when an official from the attorney general's office makes a ridiculous argument before the top court, it raises questions. How did he invent the theory of social status to determine legal proceedings? What sort of credibility can he have as an upholder of the Constitution, when it appears he lacks basic knowledge of the Constitution?

This newly invented "theory of social status" from the attorney general's office reveals the poor state of the country's legal institutions. First of all, it is the Home Ministry that decides which charges should be included under speedy tribunal proceedings. Why? Why doesn't the law itself determine which cases should be tried under which laws and tribunals, rather than ministry bureaucrats, when the government itself does not seem to know what it should or should not do? Does this mean the judiciary is subject to the bureaucracy? What criteria do they follow to determine issues and cases?

Secondly, the attorney general's department and the prosecution apparatus are disposable; whichever party comes to power appoints its own people to allow them to make some money and do them political favors when necessary. There are no specific and credible recruiting procedures. In fact, the country has no recruitment policy for prosecutors except Article 64 of the Constitution.

It is unbelievable that politicians who hold government power in Bangladesh are "innocent" as far as corruption is concerned. But the appointment of attorneys and prosecutors without proper qualifications is a great debacle for the national justice system.

No one in the government has, so far, asked the attorneys to explain their "theory of social status," although it has paved the way for those accused of corruption to walk free. The state institutions will lose their moral strength to try those people, thanks to the substandard professionals within the attorney general's office and the prosecution branch of the judiciary.

Can the government foresee the consequences of failing to prove the corruption charges against the country's political giants? It may ultimately open the prison gates for key members of the present government. It may bring back destructive politics very soon, unfortunately.

The people of Bangladesh understand that a demoralized institutional system cannot bring about any miraculous change in the country. They want to know where the judiciary is headed now that its moral and legal deficiencies have been clearly exposed in public.

---

(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.)

Ruling on the Writ Petition

Listen to this news commentary from the BBC's Bangla program Probaho broadcast on February 6th about the High Court's ruling on Sheikh Hasina's writ petition.

Get this widget Track details eSnips Social DNA

Sheikh Hasina wins victory against corruption trial

Ex-Bangladesh PM wins victory against corruption trial
February 6, 2008

DHAKA (AFP) — Detained former Bangladeshi premier Sheikh Hasina Wajed scored a victory against the army-backed government Wednesday with a court ruling that she could not be tried for corruption under emergency laws.

The former premier, who led the country from 1996 to 2001, is one of around 150 high-profile figures arrested as part of an anti-graft drive by the emergency government, which took office in January 2007.

She is being tried by a special fast-track court, but the High Court in Dhaka said this was illegal -- effectively throwing into doubt all other completed or pending corruption cases pushed by the authorities.

"The High Court has also quashed the case against Hasina. The judgement has established the rule of law, supremacy of the constitution and the supremacy of the human rights in the country," her chief lawyer Rafiq-ul-Haque said.

"It's a historic judgement. It will benefit hundreds of thousands of victims put to jail under the emergency laws," he said.

But Kamrul Islam, her other lawyer, said the victory would be short-lived, with the government set to take the matter to the Supreme Court -- a body that has in the past sided with the authorities.

"We will fight in the Supreme Court, although we have very dim hope for a positive verdict. In the past, the Supreme Court's appellate division has overturned all the High Court verdicts in favour of the government," he said.

Sheikh Hasina, the leader of the Awami League party, went on trial for corruption late last month, facing accusations that she extorted 435,000 dollars from a power company owner.

She has denied the charges, arguing that the military-backed emergency government was merely trying to destroy her political career.

Hasina faces a maximum 14 years in jail if convicted. The trial is expected to be concluded within the next two months, as stipulated by the country's emergency rules.

Khaleda Zia, the country's last elected premier, is also in detention on graft charges. She and Sheikh Hasina are bitter rivals, and have been blamed for 16 years of misrule and rampant corruption.

The country has been under emergency rule since January 11 last year, when polls were cancelled after months of violence over vote-rigging allegations made by the Awami League against Zia's Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP).

New Twist in Corruption Case

Now it's inhuman to keep Hasina confined: AL

Dhaka, Jan 24 (bdnews24.com) – The Awami League thinks it would be inhuman and unjust to keep party president Sheikh Hasina detained after businessman Azam Jahangir Chowdhury said he had not sued the former prime minister for extortion.

Acting AL chief Zillur Rahman Thursday said they thought Hasina had been framed in the case to keep her confined and isolated from the people.

Zillur made the comment at a function to accept donations for the party's central relief fund for cyclone Sidr victims at his Gulshan home in the city.

"From the very beginning we have been saying that Sheikh Hasina is completely innocent. A conspiratorial case has been lodged against her. In this case we will win the legal battle," he said.

Chowdhury, the chairman of Prime Bank, said Thursday he had filed a case only against Sheikh Fazlul Karim Selim, Hasina's cousin, for extorting money from him in return for a promised deal.

"I want to make it clear that I did not file a case against Sheikh Hasina," Chowdhury told bdnews24.com by phone.

Zillur said: "What Azam J Chowdhury has said proves that we have been telling the truth. This is the victory of beauty over ugliness and of truth over lies.

"It has been proved that there is nothing substantial against Sheikh Hasina and Sheikh Rehana."

Quoting Selim, the AL presidium member accused in the case, Zillur said, "Sheikh Selim has told the court that his confessional statement was taken under duress. Besides, there is no witness in the case. This is a baseless case."

At the function, a cheque of Tk 10 lakh on behalf of Jeddah Awami League Council and Tk 1 lakh by Fazlur Rahman, a Bangladeshi expatriate in the USA, were given to the relief fund.

It was announced that the central relief fund would accept no financial help after Jan 31.

Awami League leaders Abdur Razzak, Dr Mostafa Jalal Mohiuddin and Nazma Rahman were present.

What a U Turn!!!

Azam J Chowdhury says he didn't sue Hasina

Dhaka, Jan 24 (bdnews24.com) – Prime Bank chairman Azam Jahangir Chowdhury Thursday said he had not sued former prime minister Sheikh Hasina.

Chowdhury said he filed a case only against Sheikh Fazlul Karim Selim, her cousin, for extorting money from him in return for a promised deal.

"I want to make it clear that I did not file a case against Sheikh Hasina," Chowdhury told bdnews24.com by phone.

"Sheikh Selim took the money from me in return for a deal. He told me that he would get the deal done with the help of Sheikh Hasina," he said.

But Chowdhury said he had not paid the money to Hasina. "Nor did she demand it from me."

"I don't know how she was implicated in that case," Chowdhury told reporters after he attended the annual business conference of Prime Bank at a Gulshan hotel.

"Sheikh Hasina is the daughter of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and I cannot even think of suing her."

News analysis of a dramatic trial

বাংলাদেশে চলছে নাটকীয় বিচার। প্রাক্তন প্রধানমন্ত্রী শেখ হাসিনার বিরুদ্ধে চাঁদাবাজির মামলার প্রক্রিয়া শুরু হয়েছে। প্রধানমন্ত্রী থাকা অবস্থায় তিনি জনৈক আজম চৌধুরীর নিকট থেকে তিন কোটি চাঁদা নিয়েছেন বলে সামরিক সরকার তাঁর বিরুদ্ধে মামলা করেছে। অবশ্য সামরিক গোয়েন্দা বাহিনীর লোকজনের হাতে মামলাকারী উধাও হন। তারপর মামলা দায়ের করার পর পরই তিনি মু্ক্তি পেয়ে বাড়ী ফেরেন। বর্তমান সামরিক সরকার তাঁর হাঁটুতে নেমে আসা বুদ্ধি দিয়ে এই নাটকীয় মামলায় নেমেছে। এর আইনগত বা প্রামাণিক সত্যতা নিয়ে আইন বিশেষজ্ঞসহ সাধারণ মানুষের মনে যথেস্ট সংশয় ও প্রশ্ন আছে। আজকের চ্যানেল আইনে প্রচারিত আজকের সংবাদপত্রের আলোচনায় অবজার্ভার পত্রিকার সম্পাদক সাংবাদিক ইকবাল সোবহান চৌধুরীর আলোচনার ভিডিওটি এখানে দেখুন:



বর্তমান সামরিক সরকার তার মাইনাস ফর্মুলা বাস্তবায়নের জন্য যে প্রক্রিয়া আর পদ্ধতি গ্রহণ করেছে তা যথেস্ট হাস্যকর। এর ফলে সরকার যে বিচার ব্যবস্থার স্বচ্ছতাকে নির্মমভাবে বলি দিচ্ছে তা বলার অপেক্ষা রাখে না। বিচারের জন্য এধরণের রাখঢাক করে সাজানো মামলা দিয়ে সরকার নিজের রাজনৈতিক এজেন্ডাকে জনগণের কাছে স্পস্ট করছে। এই মামলার অভিযোগের দূর্বলতা ও অস্পস্টতার বিশদ বিশ্লেষণ করেছে এশিয়ান সেন্টার অব হিউম্যান রাইটস। অবশ্য সরকার তার পছন্দের পথে এগোবে। এর মধ্যে আছে নির্বোধদের ঔদ্ধত্য। তা হাস্যকর হলেও সমস্যা নেই। এর আইনগত দূর্বলতা থাকলেও সমস্যা নেই। গোয়ার্তুমির কাছে যুক্তি খাটে না।

Trial Episode 1: Sheikh Hasina

Watch today's news coverage on Sheikh Hasina's trial:


BDnews24 reports,

Earlier during the trial, Hasina said: "I know I won't get justice. I want justice from Allah and people."

"I have struggled all my life for democracy. I will struggle more. But I have never agreed to any military dictator's coming to power or becoming president. Military dictators have captured power in this country time and again."

Hasina described the chief adviser's address to the nation as a "lie".

"The chief adviser said the trial of politicians was going on under law. This is worse than trial. This is in-camera trial. This is against the constitution."

At the time, the judge intervened and told Hasina, "Instead of saying all this, tell us whether you are guilty or innocent."

The comment prompted lawyers to heckle the judge.

Hasina called for calm.

The Awami League president continued: "The Election Commission has said they will hold the election by December, as per their roadmap. However, where there is no road, where do you get the map?"

The embattled party chief also demanded the unconditional release of all students and teachers of Dhaka University detained following the campus unrest last August.

"Defaming a teacher is shameful for the nation. The nation will not tolerate this shame. They don't want the nation to become educated," she said.

To the judge, Hasina said: "Why is everything revealed to you from a special place. You have no power to do anything against them. If you do, you may be in trouble."

"I wanted to resist vote rigging by the four-party alliance in order to establish the people's right to vote. This is my big crime."

"I was abroad attending to my ailing daughter when the cases were filed against me. I was then told that if I did not return to the country the cases would be withdrawn against me."

"I am now facing these false cases because I refused to agree to their proposal," Hasina said.

The former premier said: "I don't know Azam Jahangir Chowdhury. I have never even met him. How then could I take bribe from him?"

"Around 4,300 megawatts of power were produced during my tenure. How was so much electricity produced if I took bribes?"

"I want to tell the nation through the court that I'm a daughter of the Father of the Nation."

"I myself became prime minister and have never taken one taka through corruption. I'm completely innocent. How can I tolerate such defamation?"

Hasina said she had given the family's Dhanmondi home to the nation and that 1,200 students were continuing their studies through the Bangabandhu Memorial Trust.

She claimed 982 students had had their education suspended due to the case.

Hasina claimed that she had not had full access to her lawyer: "I have been kept in solitary confinement," she said.

"Allah protected me from the attacks on August 15 and August 21. But now they want to kill me off politically. This case has been filed to smear me in front of the people," Hasina alleged.