Ambassador Serajul Islam's Political Blog

2015-12-31T00:49:00.001-05:00

Dear visitors to my Blog,

I am sorry because I was unable to post my articles here for a little over a year although, in the past year, I have written more articles compared to the previous year. I am now not writing on Bangladesh but on general issues and on American politics as I am these days based in Maryland, USA. My articles are posted regularly in my Facebook . My Facebook id is serajul7@gmail.com. Thanks and a very happy 2016.

Ambassador M. Serajul Islam

China and emerging politics in Bangladesh and 2 other articles.

2014-10-13T12:43:00.000-04:00

-->

VIEWS & OPINION

Posted: 13 Oct, 2014

China and emerging politics in Bangladesh

M. Serajul Islam

China has become the world's number one economic power. The new status coincided with the 65th year of the founding of Communist China. The news that the US has become the number two economy of the world was disclosed at the Annual World Bank-IMF Meeting in Washington last week. It has been revealed by the International Monetary (IMF), using the purchasing power parity (PPP) that the Chinese gross domestic product (GDP) stands at US$ 17.6 trillion while the US GDP at US$ 17.4 trillion!

Bangladesh must feel extremely good at this news because it has been befriending China since the early seventies when, in economic terms, the country was no better than an ordinary developing country. China scaled to this position, ironically, due to initiatives of US President Nixon and his Secretary of State Dr. Henry Kissinger and their 'Ping-Pong' diplomacy. These brought China back from the cold and sent it on way to becoming a world power with the return of its membership of the UN and with it, the permanent seat in the UN Security Council. In the opening-up that ensued in China under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, it was the US that gave Beijing the opportunities for economic growth with investment and trade facilities. The Chinese leadership grabbed the opportunities to eventually overtake its benefactor to become the world's number one economic power.

During the Bangladesh war of liberation in 1971, China made the Americans happy. It opposed that war and with it, supported Pakistan even when that country carried out genocide in Bangladesh. When Bangladesh was liberated and had applied for UN membership, China opposed it. Of course, China opposed the membership not just to make the Americans happy but also to oppose its adversaries of the time, namely the USSR and the Indians. It also opposed Bangladesh's membership to make Pakistan happy because it was the conduit in the 'ping-pong' diplomacy that set the direction for China to conquer the world.

Bangladesh decided to forget China's role in 1971 soon after the "change of government" on August 15, 1975. Then, Bangladesh ignored China's 'dubious' role in 1971 and instead befriended China whole-heartedly, mainly as a way to deal with the overbearing influence that India had gained in Bangladesh for its role in the country's independence.

Since the establishment of diplomatic ties in 1976, China has treated Bangladesh as one of its best friends in the region. It helped develop and build the Bangladesh armed forces and also a lot of its economic infrastructure. The quality of China's friendship was such that all subsequent governments, including the 1996-2001 Awami League-led government that should have had deep reservations for China, treated the country as one of Bangladesh's best friends.

Over the years, there has been no looking back for the positive attitude of the people, political parties and governments in Bangladesh for China. In contrast, India, which had done so much for Bangladesh in 1971, never enjoyed anywhere near China's acceptance in Bangladesh among its people. Governments and political parties have also not all been friendly towards India. The Awami League (AL) has been friendly but the Bangladesh National Party (BNP) not that friendly. Among the people, India has always been controversial because of many issues, mainly its unfriendly ways of dealing with water, trade and border-related issues.

The India-Bangladesh relations during 2008-2014 terms of Congress-rule in India and the AL in Bangladesh have been extremely close. Leading to the January 05 election, almost all-important foreign governments, except India, had urged the AL-led government to hold inclusive elections. China, although friendly with all political parties but in public perception closer to the BNP, had stated that the way elections were to be held, Bangladesh sovereignty would be at peril. Many read in that statement made by the Chinese Ambassador in Dhaka a not very subtle hint to the AL-led government not to hold the election without the BNP. Many also believed that China had referred to India as the source of threat to Bangladesh's sovereignty.

Those who had interpreted China's stand before the election to be supportive of the BNP were set for a shock after the AL returned to power through the controversial January 05 election that has led all of Bangladesh's development partners to term the new government weak on legitimacy. China surprisingly made a volte-face. It invited Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to a visit to Beijing and treated her in a manner that dismissed any thought that her government was suffering on legitimacy. A grateful Hasina discussed giving China the green signal to build the hugely costly and strategically critical Sonadia deep-sea port and the go-ahead with the BCIM-EC and, above all, agreed wholeheartedly to accept China's leadership for Asia's march into the world stage. Since the visit, Bangladesh is processing buying of two submarines from China. Trade/defence cooperation, already at their best, has received further impetus from the visit.

These overtures by China should have upset the BNP. Surprisingly, if what transpired at a seminar arranged by the pro-BNP Bangladesh Cultural Academy Foundation to celebrate the 65th Anniversary of the founding of People's Republic of China (PRC) is any indication, the BNP is not unhappy at all . The speakers, who were also from other parties including the communist parties and well-known individuals, besides the BNP, stated at the seminar that 'Bangladesh needs China to maintain its sovereignty.' That was, however, interpreted by the speakers differently from their respective party and individual backgrounds. The BNP supporters interpreted the need of China to protect Bangladesh's sovereignty from India. The communists in the seminar thought the threat was from the United States.

The Chinese CDA did not make any commitment in the context of Bangladesh's politics. He, of course, did not need to because all speakers were so enamoured with China from their respective perspectives that no one was willing to see anything wrong with the way China has handled its policies with Bangladesh. In 1971, it went against Bangladesh's liberation but now finds the AL- led government willing to follow it, without any questions asked, in leading Asia to the world stage. The BNP that was let down very badly by China after the January 05 elections seems to have forgotten this episode believing that it would come to Bangladesh's assistance against India which, in turn, would influence politics of the country.

The BNP leaders, who spoke at the seminar, have not followed recent developments in regional politics correctly. China is in no mood to fight for Bangladesh's sovereignty because it is now wooing the AL-led government for getting a strong footing in the Bay of Bengal through the proposed Sonadia deep seaport and the BCIM-EC projects. These projects are critical for China because Japan, India and the US are now moving to keep China out of this critical geopolitical area 'which overlooks the strategically important sea lanes of the Indian Ocean linking China with the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, thus playing a role in securing energy supplies for Beijing'.

Thus while the communists at the seminar had their interests right and those not representing any political party spoke what they felt was right, the BNP speakers had it all wrong. By placating China that will not lift a finger to help Bangladesh have a new election and supporting any US-inspired conspiracy against it, the BNP may have upset the US that has repeatedly asked for new election. India under the Modi government has kept its distance from the AL government and if recent Modi-Obama meeting is any hint, the USA and India may indeed be getting closer on many issues. There is a possibility that the US would be able to encourage India for a new inclusive election in Bangladesh as it had tried and failed with the January 05 one.

The seminar underlined that in regional diplomacy in the context of Bangladesh, China has so far outwitted all Bangladeshi political parties and international stakeholders, including India and the US. Somehow, it just seems the people, political parties and governments of Bangladesh do not have the heart to be critical of China even where they supported Pakistan while it committed genocide against it. It is time for India, in particular, to study China and its diplomacy in Bangladesh and inquire why China is not held responsible in Bangladesh for its actions even when it goes against the interest of the country and often against one or the other of the two mainstream parties. Bangladesh's political parties and also its well-known individuals in public domain do not seem to have that capability.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador.

Print Edition

Post Editorial

Saturday, 11 October 2014

Code of conduct for ministers

Author / Source: M. Serajul Islam

Former Minister Suranjit Sengupta has called upon the government to introduce a code of conduct for ministers. This call in the wake of the explosive nature of what senior minister of the government Abdul Latif Siddique said in a meeting in New York that had led to a bounty of taka 5 lakh to be laid on his head by the Hefazat e Islam. A number of cases have been lodged against him and the Dhaka Metropolitan Magistrate has called him for a hearing in his court. The Prime Minister has said that he would be removed both from the cabinet and also from the party.

Latif Siddique has caused a political sensation at a time when the AL -led government did not need one. On a visit with the Prime Minister on her trip to New York, the minister took the opportunity of a meeting arranged in his honour by the expatriates of his home district Tangail to speak out against the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) and one of the five pillars of Islam, the hajj in a manner that would even Islamophbics would not do. He referred to the Prophet like a common person and said his companions were dacoits. He also said that Hajj was a total waste of money and ridiculed it as nonsense. The way he delivered the diatribe was also significant. He gestured and ridiculed Islam in an unbelievable manner.

The diatribe of the minister has caused uproar in the country, particularly among the religious parties. BNP looking for the opportunity for a movement against the government has also joined the religious parties. They have dismissed the assurances given by the Prime Minister as inadequate although if the Prime Minister’s assurances were carried out, he would even lose his membership of parliament. The religious parties and BNP want the minister arrested and given punishment as prescribed by the law. They have given the ruling party till the 15th of October to act as they have demanded and have further added that if their demands were not met, there would be hartal on the 25th. HM Ershad has called the minister a murtad and demanded that he be hanged!

The holidays for the Eid and Durga Puja that intervened went in favour of the government because it helped put a brake on the ground swell of anger at the grassroots against the minister’s statement. Nevertheless, the issue still has serious potentials for public anger going by past occurrences. Poet Daud Haider and Taslima Nasrin have not yet been forgiven for their attempts to humiliate Islam and have not, decades after what they had done, allowed to come back home. Last year, when it was revealed that the some of the youth in the Shahabag Movement had indulged in anti-Islam postings on the Internet, a potentially extremely powerful youth movement that was heralded as the second liberation war of the country to re-establish the spirit of 1971 simply fizzled away within days. For two weeks, Shahabag had become a place of pilgrimage for the people of Dhaka and young and old were all making daily visits to Shahabag in hundreds of thousands. Within days of the public knowledge of the anti-Islam postings, almost all of them abandoned Shahabag underlining the power of Islam to the common folks in the country.

Suranjit Sengupta nevertheless spoke about the code of conduct for ministers out of frustration. He knows very well as does everybody in the country that in the last few years, the ministers of the government have acted as lose cannons under an unwritten approval from the highest level of the government to speak in public almost anything they wanted as long as it was directed at the opposition. In fact, the free license to ministers to “speak as they like” was given by the ruling party as a political strategy to attack/ridicule and humiliate the opposition. He himself has liberally done that as a minister. The strategy has worked fine and the ministers have been to a large extent able to keep the opposition on leash by the constant attacks in public. It has helped the ruling party to create division/confusion and an element of tentativeness in the opposition.

Nevertheless, the strategy always had a danger of boomerang. In giving the ministers the license, the government/ruling party did not consider the possibility that the ministers could use their license for their own personal gains and may not always use this license to only go after the opposition. Thus in the past six years of the AL led government, ministers have embarrassed the government umpteen times by going in public over issues that were their own interpretation of government polices or events and contradicted with those of the government. Ministers have regularly contradicted one another and often ended giving impression to the public that there was an utter lack of coordination in the government and among the ministers.

That was of course only a natural outcome of the system that this government wittingly or unwittingly demolished. In the past, ministers very seldom went public on issues of governance. For matters of governance, every minister/ministry had a Public Relations Officer (PRO) who shielded the minister and his ministry from the media, aware of the dangers of exposure to the media. That system of course had due respect for the media because it always had access of the minister or his ministry’s views on any issue of importance to the public through the PRO. In case of matters of extreme public importance, ministers came before the media to satisfy public concerns. There is still a PRO for every minister/ministry but although his/her job description has not been altered even a bit, he/she now has a desk but no responsibility because the ministers these days play his/her role.

In fact, the ministers have been so much emboldened by their license to speak as they like that they these days do not even bother that in their open ended role in the media, they talk about the government without being designated as its spokesman. In fact, all ministers these days think they are spokesman of the government. It is not just the ministers, even party officials think that they are also part of the government and act as its official spokesman. The Minister of Communications is the example of one who has given himself the power of the government spokesman on all issues. The party joint secretary Mahbubul Alam Hanif is a party official who, forgetting he is no part of the government, has taken upon himself of the responsibility of not just the party but of the government’s as well. In the process, he has lumped the party and the government into one.

What Abdul Latif Siddique has done, its absurdity notwithstanding, is nothing unusual. Ministers of this government have said much more outlandish things in public in the past because of their license to “speak as you like”. There has thus always been a pandemonium in governance as a result of the way ministers have spoken in public without any legal authority. No one cared and the media seldom or never spoke against this deterioration of professional standards of governance. Latif Siddique has landed this government in trouble and it could be very serious one because he has decided to speak against Islam. Therefore the code of conduct for ministers that Suranjit Sengupta has talked about only underlines the fact that as a result of the “speak as you like policy”, the government has finally landed itself in a n extremely serious predicament. However a code of conduct is not certainly the cure.

He should ask himself why. He has taken the liberty to speak on an embarrassing truth of this government but he does not have the authority to speak on such an issue. The problem apart, his call for a code of conduct has established that the ministers of this government, supposed to be public leaders, do not know how to conduct themselves in public. Surely no party government anywhere would allow one of its own to go public to try to establish such a shame about itself.

In fact, the proper answer to Suranjit Sen’s concern is a very simple one. It is not in a code of conduct for the ministers that are already prescribed by law. The government must return to the existing laws and conventions. It must without delay designate the minister/s to be the official spokesman of the government and stop all others from making statements like they too have the right to do so. Simultaneously, the right of ministers to speak in public on issues of governance as they like must be restricted only to their ministerial responsibilities where also they should be required to speak through their PROs unless the issues are of extreme public concern.

The writer is a retired Ambassador and his email id is ambserajulislam@gmail.com

Islam again under attack in the international domain

M. Serajul Islam

The case of Latif Siddiqui and earlier Taslima Nasrin and before that of Salman Rushdie; the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in the name of war on terror and the current turmoil in Iraq/Syria with the emergence of ISIS/ISIL may not be unrelated. All these could very well be conscious multi-faceted efforts by the West to demean and destroy Islam.

Salman Rushdie’s case was the first of West’s strategy to encourage Muslims to attack Islam in works of literature or in speeches. He had won the Booker’s Prize for his outstanding book Midnight’s Children and many thought he was on course to becoming a Noble Laureate in Literature. He upset all the predictions by writing the Satanic Verses in which he, for reasons he alone could explain, chose to hurt the sentiments of the billion plus Muslims of the world leading to a fatwa for his head by Iran. The 2.8 million-dollar bounty on his head made him hide in fear. Whether or not Iran had the ability of carrying out the threat was never tested because not even a stone was thrown at him. Nevertheless, the international media, largely biased against Islam, pitched the Rushdie case as a case of Islam’s intolerance. And although Rushdie has not won the Noble Prize, he won much more international attention than a Noble Prize would not have brought him courtesy the forces against Islam.

Taslima Nasrin, whose literary value is zero compared to Salman Rushdie nevertheless reached the same lofty heights of international attention with her book Lajja attacking Islam. The forces against Islam picked her up when a nondescript Islamic group in Bangladesh placed a price on her head and she was banished from the country. She instantly became the darling of the West, courted admiringly wherever she went. The West never questioned her credibility as a writer or the background of the nondescript group that put the price on her head. It just used her because she had humiliated Islam. Perhaps, there is a similar reason behind the Latif Siddiqui diatribe against Islam and the holy Prophet. Perhaps, he too has similar pretensions. Perhaps, the international forces working against Islam have encouraged him to fight the war against Islam from within.

Since his diatribe, anti-Islam postings on the Internet have become extensive that suggest that international forces that are coordinating these efforts are using the social media and Internet to destroy Islam that was not available when Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasrin were attacking Islam. That there are powerful international anti-Islam forces in the social media/Internet was evident when unbelievable diatribes against Islam were posted at the time of the Shahabag movement last year. These forces that had seemingly gone into hibernation in the face of public wrath in Bangladesh when the Shahabag anti-Islam postings became public knowledge have now re-emerged following the diatribe of Latif Siddiqui. Postings are flooding in the social media backing Latif Siddiqui for his “courage” and the anti-Islam Muslims are now liberally quoting the Koran to depict it as a book that patronises cruelty and barbarity.

The anti-Islam Muslims are working, wittingly or otherwise, as part of the intellectual framework provided to the West to destroy Islam by Professor Samuel Huntington in his infamous book named The Clash of Civilizations. In the book, the Professor argued that there are seven civilizations coexisting at present and that notwithstanding, the world is destined to see a clash between the West and Islam. He therefore urged the West to prepare itself for the inevitable clash. Professor Huntington’s urging had a sense of urgency because he felt that Islam’s moral and ethical strength made it a strong challenger and unless the West prepared itself adequately and effectively for that inevitable clash, it would lose to Islam.

Professor Huntington argued his case based on many gross misrepresentations about Islam and the peoples of the Orient. Edward Said, a Palestinian Professor of Columbia, led the intellectual efforts to undermine Professor Samuel Huntington’s thesis to humiliate Islam. His book “Orientalism” practically destroyed the premises of Professor Huntington’s book. In his subsequent writings and lectures, Edward Said nailed the ill intents of the Professor against Islam convincingly. Nevertheless, the West took Professor Huntington’s warnings against Islam seriously and the efforts to use Muslims like Salman Rusdie and others have been a part of a multi- faceted strategy to destroy Islam from within, by a conscious effort of using Muslims to demean their own religion.

The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have been the part of the multi-faceted strategy to destroy Islam with physical force. Thus in invading Afghanistan in 2001, the US went into denial that the very terrorists they went to fight there namely Al Qaeda led by Osama ben Laden were earlier established there by US intelligence to help the Mujahedeen fight the Soviets, a point only recently stressed by none other than Hillary Clinton. Likewise, the US invaded Iraq two years later on false pretexts that the country had WMD in denial of the fact that it had allowed the evil regime its best years when it was fighting Iran and did not bother when in 1983, the regime had killed thousands of Kurds using chemical weapons because it was fighting another Muslim state, Iran. The US invaded Iraq only when Saddam Hussein was no more willing to fight Iran and had meanwhile armed his regime enough to become a threat to Israel, US’ protégé in the region.

The US and West’s intentions in invading Afghanistan and Iraq may have prima facae failed. Afghanistan may likely to fall into the hands of the Taliban once the US withdraws its combat troops from there by end of December. Iraq is now under threat from ISIS/ISIL. Thus between Iraq and Afghanistan, trillions of US dollars and thousands of lives of West’s men/women in uniform may seem to have gone down the drain. Nevertheless, despite such setbacks, the West’s multifaceted strategy to destroy Islam has succeeded because in both the countries, Muslims are fighting and killing Muslims and weakening Islam as a result of the US led invasion of the West. The rise of ISIS/ISIL in Iraq has also come very useful in the multi faceted strategy against Islam. The West is using its barbarity and cruelty against fellow Muslims and the beheading of the westerners to depict Islam as a cruel and barbaric regime demean Islam further. In reality though, the ISIS/ is the direct outcome of the West’s US led invasion. Before the invasion, Iraq had an evil dictator but no terrorists.

These facts and the phobia that US and western media have been spinning of imminent attacks on US and western soil by ISIS/ISIL have led to deep suspicions that ISIS/ISIL is the creation of western intelligence establishments like Al Qaeda and Osama Ben Laden as part of the West’s many faceted strategy to destroy Islam. The suspicions are gaining strength because the ISIS/ISIL in reality is busy fighting fellow Muslims and threatening or being threatened by the royal regimes in the Middle East. Thus the rise of ISIS/ISIL, the flood of anti-Islam postings on Internet, anti-Muslim actions of writers and politicians could all be very well a part of the West multi-faceted strategy of preparedness for the clash of civilization as predicted by Professor Huntington.

The writer is a retied career Ambassador. His email id is HYPERLINK "mailto:ambserajulislam@gmail.com" ambserajulislam@gmail.com -

Education sector on edge of precipice

2014-10-05T20:01:00.003-04:00

Education sector on edge of precipice

M. Serajul Islam

The Education Minister and the Vice Chancellor of Dhaka University were pitched in a media battle this week over results of admission tests for the 2014-15 first year Honours in a manner that is unbelievable. The issue is the mismatch in the performance of students in SSC/HSC examinations and DU admission tests. Sixty-six% of GPA-5 holders in the SSC and HSC Examinations (students with 80% and more marks, “star” students of the earlier days) failed to pass the admission tests. In English Department admission test, only 2 passed! And lest we have forgotten, these are students whose brilliance had been certified by the Prime Minister and the Education Minister to underline the high quality of students and the education system up to the HSC level for which they took great credit.

The Education Minister, instead of explaining how so few could have passed the DU admission tests where the same students had passed with such brilliant results in their SSC/HSC examinations, blamed the Dhaka University for deliberately failing the students with its unrealistic, made to fail, admission tests. He thought it fit to go to the media to blame the Dhaka University authorities. The Dhaka University Vice Chancellor, instead of going behind the media to discuss the problem, also chose the media to answer the allegations. He challenged the Education Minister by stressing that the students failed because they were not good enough. The nation was forced to watch their fight, astounded and dumb founded because the two between them humiliated the Prime Minister in public.

The Education Minister has a lot of good will going in his favour among the public. In the cabinets the country has had in the last few years, Ministers have involved themselves in all sorts of antics that have added very little to their credibility but have embarrassed the government beyond tolerable limits. Nevertheless it has been extremely surprising that none of the Ministers have been called to explain for their embarrassing conduct. In that backdrop, the Education Minister has come across as a serious, committed and above all, honest person whose integrity has not been questioned in any forum.

His good work with trying to set the education sector on a better footing has been acknowledged, particularly in getting textbooks to the students in time. He has also done visibly good work with the orderly holding of the major examinations up to the HSC level with issues of improving curriculums in the schools and colleges and improving the gender issues in these levels of education in the country. Nevertheless, his efforts in dealing with corruption in the education sector, particularly with leakages of question papers, commercialization of admission in the public sector schools and colleges and the impunity of the student wing of the ruling party in the educational institutions were palpable failures. Nevertheless, he has not been held responsible for these ills on a personal level, as people have seen these as a part of the deterioration of politics and influence of politics in the educational sector.

Nevertheless, the people’s good feelings for him started to change with the way he went to the media with the HSC results. Except for the very few people in the ruling party and in his own Ministry, the rest of the country saw that he led a political campaign with the last HSC results, using the numbers to establish that the education sector is having the best years in the country’s history and tied it to the successful AL leadership of the government and society. The Minister’s loud claims were shot down not by the BNP or the Jamat but by almost everybody across the political divide. Experts in education, without any political affiliations, have come in the media to tell the Minister that he was using inflated and manipulated numbers to give a wrong picture of the country’s education sector where in reality the sector was slumping into the abyss.

The Prime Minister unfortunately put her good name into the debate and blamed that those criticising the Minister for the “brilliant” HSC results were jealous of the great progress in the education sector. Unfortunately for her and the Education Minister, the DU entry examinations and the pathetic pass numbers more than established the widespread concerns that credible, non-political individuals have expressed and continue to express about the falling standard in education. Nevertheless, in the way the DU authorities acted, all is of course neither fair nor well. Serious questions are being raised on how the pass percentages in the DU entry examinations could drop so low in the span of a year. Last year, these pass percentages in DU entry examinations were not as absurd as this year.

Therefore many tend to believe something wrong in the way the DU authorities have conducted their entry examinations. The minister has accused the system as faulty, one designed to fail the students. The DU VC dismissed the accusation and defended the DU system as most modern. The positions are extremes and made little sense to the public. Clearly, there is no way both can be right in their contradictory positions. If the DU is correct in its stand on the issue of the entry examinations, then where would its English Department for instance get the students to keep the department from closing?

The Minister, unfortunately for his public image, has no doubt played politics with the HSC examinations. Nevertheless, he has a point with the faulty entry examinations. No one will buy the DU argument that politics notwithstanding, the ability of students who have passed the HSC examinations this year has fallen so abysmally low that so few would be able to enter Dhaka University. This position simply cannot be accepted as true. Dr. Sirajul Islam Chowdhury has hinted at where the problem lies. He said that the problem is embedded in the fact that students these days neglect classroom teaching and “more inclined towards attending coaching centres to learn the technique of obtaining better marks in the exams and answer sheets are evaluated liberally.”

Dr. Chowdhury has also stated that students do not receive quality education from primary to tertiary levels. Thus thanks to the coaching centres, these students learn the techniques to pass SSC and HSC level examinations in record numbers with many with “brilliant results”. That answers the “brilliant” results at this year’s HSC examination that started the public debate over the education sector. Dr. Chowdhury has thus exposed unequivocally why the HSC results were brilliant and why the DU entry examinations taken by these “brilliant” students were pathetically the opposite. The problem is the SSC/HSC Examinations that these students passed and many with brilliant results do not in any way prepare them for the DU admission tests! That such a ridiculous and unbelievable mismatch exists is what the experts were trying to point out.

That brings to question why were the DU authorities sitting till this literally the 11th hour to hit the students on their heads? The Education Minister may have played politics with the numbers but he has a point that the entry examinations by the DU, unless altered, would ruin the future of the students. Nevertheless he made another serious faux pas while underlining a point that the public would like to accept. He has threatened that unless DU authorities are responsible, the government would have to change the laws. Is the Minister trying to tell that DU admissions would henceforth be decided politically!

Both sides are playing with the future of students who have been caught in the middle of politics. DU authorities cannot simply take the lofty pedestal and wash off its hands by saying their entry systems is “modern” and leave the students in the lurch. It must find a way to take the students to fill the seats it has for admission to deal with the present situation. However, it and the Education Ministry must sit down together with the other stakeholders with what Dr. Sirajul Islam Chowdhury has flagged and come out with a long-term solution. This should be for the government a more important agenda than any of its others issues at hand because education is the backbone of the country and politics, dirty politics, has pushed it to the edge of the precipice.

The writer is a career Ambassador. His email id is ambserajulislam@gmail.com -

Hurting Religious Sentiments

2014-10-05T00:21:00.004-04:00

VIEWS & REVIEWS

Posted : 05 Oct, 2014 00:00:00

AA-A+

Hurting religious sentiments and political consequences

M. Serajul Islam

A good number of ministers of this government are like loose cannons. They are serious embarrassment and danger to it in the manner they speak to the media. This has been flagged many times and over a long period of time. The government has never paid any heed to these concerns. The reason for the government's lack of concern about such ministers is that they speak as they like in public as part of, what seems to be, a deliberate political strategy to attack, humiliate and ridicule the opposition. They are doing a good job of it, attacking and ridiculing the opposition 24/7. In fact, bashing/ridiculing the two major opposition parties is a daily routine of a number of ministers of this government.

No serious government can expect to do itself - let alone the country - much good by such a policy of free license to the ministers who speak to the media all the time to attack and humiliate the opposition. The danger of boomerang of such a policy has always been there. In fact, if research were done on the ministers' opposition bashing/ridiculing and its impact on the ruling party, it would show that instead of affecting the opposition adversely in public view, the ministers concerned have instead contributed to the falling popularity of their party. It would further show that their mindless and senseless ranting has harmed their party much more than the opposition.

Finally, at a time when it is under pressure at home and abroad on the issue of legitimacy because of the January 05 elections, a minister has landed the present government in a deep political black hole. Senior Minister Abdul Latif Siddiqui in a meeting organised for him by the New York association of his home district Tangail, said that the followers of the Prophet of Islam were "dacoits". He laughed and ridiculed at Hajj, calling it a huge wastage. His body language in the speech was ridiculous. The video of his address that went viral on the Internet shows him uttering the obscenities in a manner that leaves no one in doubt that he relished his Islam-bashing. That a minister of a government of an overwhelmingly Muslim-majority country would utter such obscenities at Islam is something that no one could have imagined even in the worst of nightmares.

No Muslim anywhere in the world utters the name of the holy Prophet without saying "peace be upon him". This Minister, with the deliberate intent to hurt the Muslims, referred to Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) simply by his name. He thus chose two of the most sensitive and delicate aspects of the great religion of Islam, namely its Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) and Hajj, one of the five pillars of the religion, to ridicule Islam and hurt its followers. The minister attacked Islam to incite its followers in the meanest, basest and utterly indecent way possible.

Quite naturally, the minister's speech, its contents and the manner in which he gave it reached Dhaka via the social media almost as soon as he had left the venue of the meeting. And equally naturally, the reaction has been as expected. The Islamic parties called him a "murtad" and demanded his banishment from the cabinet. They also asked for his apology, arrest and punishment under the law. Former President HM Ershad of Jatiya Party in a public meeting went the farthest, demanding that the minister be hanged. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) that has already threatened a movement against the government to force it to hold new elections and looking for issues to encourage the public to stand behind it has received the minister's unbelievable speech as a heaven-sent opportunity. It has given the government time until October 15 to take all appropriate actions under the law against the minister that included his sacking and incarceration. The religious parties have threatened that unless the minister is seriously and severely punished, they would call hartal on October 25 and continue with their movement until the government punishes the minister to satisfy their demands.

Readers would recollect that in the 1970s, poet Daud Haider was banished from the country for ridiculing Islam and now lives in Germany. Taslima Nasrin faced a similar fate for her book that ridiculed Islam. In this case, the offender is a minister. Millions have seen the video of his speech and found his offence more serious than those of Daud Haider and Taslima Nasrin. The offence has international connotation. It will deeply upset the Muslim countries, particularly Saudi Arabia. It will also seriously embarrass the Prime Minister with the West because in her recent trip to New York she has taken the line that Bangladesh is facing Islamic terrorism for which the western world must support her government that is fighting such terrorism. The minister's action has placed that stand of the Prime Minister into doubt because the minister's speech will be construed in the West as the greatest provocation to help the Islamic fundamentalists.

The government has thus been handed a political problem of humungous proportions that would need extremely deft handling for it to come out of it unscathed. It is not an issue that the ruling party would be able to handle with action by security forces or by ridiculing the opposition, as it is in the habit of doing in recent times. At a press conference on Friday, Prime Minister stated that a process under the provisions of the country's Constitution was underway to remove the minister concerned from the cabinet as well as the ruling party, Awami League. The moot question now is: would that meet or fall short of the demands from different quarters for his arrest and the punishments under the law? The issue is explosive and has, as many Awami Leaguers have openly admitted, the potential to trigger opposition movement for fresh elections and resolution of many other issues in the public domain. The impending Eid may be only reason for the ruling party to take some comfort. Nevertheless, the period after Eid will be critical because this issue will not go away unless resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned.

Minister Abdul Latif Siddiqui may feel surprised that his party is gearing to take such severe actions against him because he has said or done things far worse before. Many other ministers have also acted the same way and got away without even an eyebrow being raised by the Prime Minister or by the party leaders. This Minister has fallen in trouble this time because it is Islam that he chose to offend. This underlines Islam's undeniable force in the politics of Bangladesh. Hence the AL may have to think twice in just sacking this minister from the cabinet and the party and leaving his case there. These actions may not be enough. And for the long-term future of the party, the AL already on the back foot on Islam because of its earlier strong support to the Shahbag bloggers some of whom were considered by the religious parties as being blatantly anti-Islamic, cannot afford to be seen soft on this minister.

This brings to the organisers of the minister's meeting. The top leaders of the North American Awami League were present in the event. None of the organisers or those present protested the unbelievable diatribe of the minister against Islam. These organisers are now faced with a double jeopardy. They have become party without protest to something that could land the AL in deep political trouble. More importantly, they gave the minister the forum to ridicule Islam and its Prophet that only a group of Islam-haters of the worst type imaginable, would. They should keep in mind that there is a digital imprint of this unbelievably anti-Islam meeting. The Minister could plead insanity or, as one organiser has said, he was "not natural" and perhaps will get away with his crime. What about them?

The writer is a retired career diplomat and Ambassador. ambserajulislam@gmail.com

Modi-Hasina Meeting: An anti climax

2014-10-05T00:15:00.003-04:00

Modi-Hasina meeting: An anticlimax

Print Edition

Post Editorial

Saturday, 04 October 2014

Author / Source: M. Serajul Islam

The meeting between Sheikh Hasina and Narendra Modi on the sidelines of the 69th UNGA in New York was an anti-climax in the backdrop of the hype that was created in the Bangladesh media over it. Foreign Minister AH Mahmood Ali’s briefing to the media following his official visit to New Delhi early in September and meeting with Narendra Modi was one of the main reasons for the media hype in Bangladesh over the Sheikh Hasina-Narendra Modi meeting.

One line in this media hype was that the Indian Prime Minister would assure Sheikh Hasina that India and China are on the same page regarding support for Bangladesh. The media in Bangladesh also took a story floated in the Indian media that RAW had unearthed a Jamat-ISI plan to assassinate Sheikh Hasina and that Narendra Modi would bring Sheikh Hasina up-to-date on the plan to assure her and her government of New Delhi’s full support against the plot. The media further speculated that Narendra Modi would also bring Washington on board against the plot to encourage the United States to support the AL Government for sake of saving secularism and fighting Islamic fundamentalism in Bangladesh.

The media hype ended on an anti-climactic note with a meeting that lasted for only 15 minutes. The meeting was thus not long enough for the Indian Prime Minister to discuss the issues upon which the media had speculated leading to the meeting. The short duration planned for the meeting no doubt hinted clearly that the Indians did not have in mind any intention to discuss serious issues in Bangladesh-India relations, speculations in the Bangladesh media notwithstanding. The issue of duration apart, the note taker for the meeting was an official from the Indian side with none from Bangladesh side that was both surprising and unusual.

The bland outcome of the meeting was reflected in the fact that the news of the meeting failed to get coverage as a major news item in the Bangladesh media the following day belying the media hype over it leading to the meeting. The Bangladesh Foreign Secretary who briefed the media after the meeting said Narendra Modi informed Sheikh Hasina about his government’s seriousness about the Teesta and LBA deals and “searching for ways to resolve the deals”. According to him, Sheikh Hasina raised the BCIM-EC corridor and removal of problems related to regional connectivity to which Narendra Modi responded positively. The Foreign Secretary repeated the spin that the Foreign Minister had given upon his return from New Delhi; that Narendra Modi had told him that Bangabandhu founded Bangladesh and his daughter saved the country.

This important part of the Foreign Secretary’s briefing however did not figure in the briefing of the Indian MEA spokesman on the meeting. The Spokesman Syed Akbaruddin said that Narendra Modi informed Sheikh Hasina that the bill for ratification of the LBA is with the parliamentary standing committee where it is under process. He added that since new members have been included in the parliamentary committee, they would need time to examine the bill. The Spokesman said that on the Teesta deal, Narendra Modi told Sheikh Hasina that water is a sensitive issue and that Teesta deal is moving towards a resolution taking the sensitivity into account. Narendra Modi added that water is flowing to Bangladesh on the Teesta even without the deal. The Indian Spokesman emphasised that Narendra Modi assured Sheikh Hasina about India’s goodwill for Bangladesh.

The briefings by the two sides and other reports that have come in the media left both the ruling Awami League and the BNP unsure whether to be happy or unhappy with the meeting’s outcome. The Awami Leaguers and their supporters were expecting that Narendra Modi would use the meeting to send the message that his government would stand behind the AL led government, if not exactly the way the Congress had, to a large extent that way. That did not come out of the meeting. The BNP had expected Narendra Modi would raise issues, particularly on Bangladesh’s overtures towards China, that would give the impression that his government would move away in a major manner from supporting the AL led government compared to the Congress Government.

Nevertheless, the BNP has felt happy that Narendra Modi mentioned about continuing relations with Bangladesh instead of mentioning the AL led government. It has also taken heart from the fact that the media speculations that Narendra Modi would offer all out cooperation to the Hasina Government to protect it from the alleged ISI-Jamat plot has turned out to be just a media hype. The AL can feel happy that Narendra Modi did not raise any issue that would have hinted that it is unhappy with anything that the Hasina Government is doing for instance its overtures towards China that media has speculated has made New Delhi uncomfortable. It can feel confident that the Indian Government under Narendra Modi would not change course in the way the Congress Government had conducted bilateral relations.

The take of the two parties apart, the Sheikh Hasina-Narendra Modi meeting had very little for the people of Bangladesh. Narendra Modi did not acknowledge the fact the Teesta and LBA are negotiated deals for which Bangladesh has given India what it needed most from Bangladesh, a guarantee of its security concerns. As a part of that security commitment, the AL led government handed to Indian security top ULFA terrorists immediately after coming to power in January 2008 that have helped India break the backbone of the dangerous ULFA secessionist movement. Bangladesh also gave India land transit on trial basis that allowed Tripura to build the 700 MW gas fired Palatana Power station. Narendra Modi showed no regret for India’s failure on the commitments and instead merely reiterated his government’s intentions to deliver the deals without any time frame. In fact, reading between the lines of the MEA Spokesman’s briefing, both deals are now uncertain.

The Bangladesh Prime Minister did not flag for her counterpart that in the last two years of the Congress Government, New Delhi had many times conveyed to the Bangladesh Government that the deals would be delivered “soon” or round the corner. Therefore she should have informed that the Indian Prime Minister that if the two deals are not delivered without any further delay, it would affect the forward movement of Bangladesh-India relations. Unfortunately such is the present importance of New Delhi in Bangladesh unbelievably partisan politics that the AL led government is afraid to press New Delhi for what it owes Bangladesh lest it upsets it. The opposition is also afraid to point this out lest it ends annoying India.
Thus India is in no hurry and also under no pressure in conducting its relations with Bangladesh. Nevertheless, when India failed to deliver the two deals in September 2011 during the visit of the Indian Prime Minister to Dhaka, the international media had called that failure a betrayal.

Therefore India should deliver the deals for its own good name and Narendra Modi more so because of his already stated foreign policy priority of developing friendly relations with SAARC countries. Narendra Modi-Sheikh Hasina meeting in New York has not set any new directions in bilateral relations. It has also not answered whether the BJP Government would discontinue the blatant Indian interference in Bangladesh in favour of one major party against the other. So far the expectations of the people of Bangladesh are concerned, the meeting has been a setback.

The writer is a retired career diplomat. The views expressed above are his
very own and not necessarily shared
by this paper.
His email id is :
ambserajulislam@gmail.com

Post Editorial

Saturday, 04 October 2014

Author / Source: M. Serajul Islam

2014-09-28T01:06:00.002-04:00

· VIEWS & OPINION

Posted : 28 Sep, 2014 00:00:00

AA-A+

Indo-Bangla relations - an analysis

M. Serajul Islam

The Awami League (AL)-led government is in a spin mode with a flurry of foreign affairs initiatives. The Prime Minister took two major visits to Japan and China and then the Japanese Prime Minister came to Dhaka.

In this spin mode, the country that should have figured on top of the list for many reasons, namely India, has not been in the picture in a major way. It was India that had encouraged the AL-led government to go ahead and hold the January 05 elections without the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and 32 others of the country's 45 registered political parties that returned it to power. When 154 members of parliament (MPs) were elected without a vote and less than 10 per cent voters elected the rest, India had stood behind the AL-led government to try and give the elections legitimacy where many countries and international organisations had stated the elections were not democratic and the country would need fresh elections. Yet, since the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) under Narendra Modi took power in May, the two countries have exchanged visits at only the foreign ministerial level. Meanwhile, Narendra Modi has visited Bhutan and Nepal. He met the Pakistan Prime Minister and the Sri Lankan President in his inauguration ceremony that Sheikh Hasina did not attend as she was then on a visit to Japan.

Thus it was in New York on the sidelines of the 48th UN General Assembly session that Sheikh Haisna met the Indian Prime Minister Modi for the first time. To recall, Sheikh Hasina began her official foreign visits with a visit to New Delhi upon assuming power in January 2009. India had then honoured that visit by upgrading it from an official one, in supersession of protocol, to a state visit, reserved exclusively for a head of state and not a head of government. Since the BJP took office, the developments in Bangladesh-India relations, therefore, do not show the warmth that had existed in these relations under the Congress-led government in India.

Before he left for his New Delhi visit, Foreign Minister AH Mahmood Ali had stated in the media that he would in his discussions with Indian leaders seek assurances that Bangladesh would not be subjected to any attacks from across the border intended for a regime change. He was no doubt spinning on a newspaper report that the Indian intelligence RAW had unearthed an ISI-inspired Jamaat-led move was underway to destabilize the AL government.

The two issues on which Bangladesh should not just have demanded New Delhi for immediate action, namely the highly overdue Teesta and the LBA (Land Boundary Agreement) deals, figured passively in the Bangladesh Foreign Minister's discussions in New Delhi. He came back with Indian commitment to deliver both the deals, commitments that New Delhi has reiterated many times in the past without any forward movement. The Indians did not give him any time-frame and he did not also demand one. In fact, in both the Indian Foreign Minister's visit to Dhaka and her counterpart's visit to New Delhi, no new grounds were covered. And the million-dollar question whether New Delhi under Narendra Modi would give the AL-led government the same support as under the Congress still remains unanswered keeping not just the AL government tense but also everyone else in Bangladesh.

Meanwhile, the AL-led government's foreign policy initiatives since the January 05 elections undertaken primarily to remove the uncertainty arising out of the controversial January 05 elections and the departure of the Congress government in New Delhi have instead added to the uncertainty. One major initiative was Sheikh Hasina's visit to China that was very successful in the context of bilateral relations. However, it was not for strengthening bilateral relations that she undertook the visit. Its real intention was "to woo China to snub the West" that has refused to withdraw its reservation on the January 05 elections and give the AL-government legitimacy. In trying to achieve that objective, the visit has achieved results that have caused concerns in New Delhi and also in Washington and Tokyo.

The China visit has further strengthened Bangladesh's defence cooperation with Beijing. It is now in the process of acquiring two submarines from Beijing that New Delhi fear will allow China to move into the Bay of Bengal. To these, the BCIM-EC and the Sonadia deep seaport initiatives discussed during the visit would also, if realized, allow China a strong foothold in an extremely important geopolitical location too close to the fragile Indian northeast where a number of secessionist movements are still active for India's comfort. To these strategic issues, the visit would also strengthen the already strong trade relations where India, despite its strong support for Bangladesh and proximity, finds its trade figure with Bangladesh half of China's. Last year, Bangladesh-China trade was worth US$ 10 billion and Bangladesh-India half of that, both weighed heavily against Bangladesh.

To these outcomes/realities, Sheikh Hasina's pledge during that visit to be an 'active partner' in a 'China-led' century has added further to New Delhi's uneasiness. It appears that the new developments in Bangladesh-China relations would cause anxieties in New Delhi was not anticipated by the Bangladesh foreign policy managers in the flurry of foreign policy initiatives taken by them since the January 05 elections to gain legitimacy and to attack the West. Therefore, with the active support of those in Indian intelligence who had planned the Bangladesh policy under the Congress government, it is now using the story floated about Jamaat-led ISI-backed story to destabilize the AL-led government to bring New Delhi under the BJP on the same page as the Congress government on Bangladesh.

When the story to destabilize the AL-led government first hit the media, it was the US that had been named as the brain behind the plot, a story that the US Embassy in Dhaka had trashed. The story has now re-emerged where the name of the US has been replaced by ISI-Jamaat. In the rehashed story, it is now being said that Narendra Modi would bring Sheikh Hasina up to date on the plot. He would also offer Sheikh Hasina the same support as the Congress government to fight Islamic fundamentalism and save secularism. As if Narendra Modi supporting AL-led government for sake of secularism is not incredible enough, the rehashed story is also suggesting that Narendra Modi would ask the US government to do the same when he meets President Obama in Washington.

The twisted/rehashed original conspiracy theory has too many loopholes for serious consideration. It is again bringing into play the Jamaat/Islamic fundamentalist phobia for public consumption that has outlived its usefulness and acceptability.

This new story has been developed in denial of the new realities, particularly those related to Bangladesh's overtures to China and Indian sensitivity. During the last term, when Sheikh Hasina was in Beijing and ready to sign a number of deals, her team had kept New Delhi informed on these deals so that there would not be any misapprehensions in New Delhi. Added to this, the twisted conspiracy theory involving ISI-Jamaat has also been developed in denial of Narendra Modi's need to make the US happy for his and India's interests and US-Japan interests in Bangladesh where all three - India, the USA and Japan - are on the same page where China is the common enemy.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador. His email id is ambserajulislam@gmail.com

Purchase of Chinese submarines and its implications

M. Serajul Islam

The Prime Minister’s International Affairs Adviser Dr. Gauhar Rizvi said recently in a seminar that the Chinese CDA in Dhaka also attended and addressed that China and India are on the same page as far as Bangladesh is concerned. He used the developing initiative of Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar Economic Corridor (BCIM-EC) to emphasize his view. The Chinese CDA expressed that his country hoped that the four countries would be able to sign a framework agreement for BCIM by the end of the year or early next year.

The seminar was organized by the Centre for East Asia Foundation, a Dhaka think tank, that also addressed in addition to the BCIM-EC, the Maritime Silk Route. The Seminar was also attended and addressed by the Myanmar Ambassador. However, from newspaper reports, it was not clear whether the fourth country in the BCIM-EC initiative, namely India, was present in the Seminar. If India was absent in the Seminar, than the optimism of the Prime Minister’s Adviser could be misplaced. This matter notwithstanding, the Adviser’s optimism could also be misplaced for other important reasons as well.

China has suddenly found rich pastures in Bangladesh for its economic/strategic interests at a time when it is India that has invested much more time, energy and even a US 1 billion soft loan to befriend Bangladesh for furthering its own strategic and economic interests. India had been the most trusted friend of the AL government in its 2009-2013 tenure. It was primarily India’s backing that allowed the Awami League Government to hold the controversial January 5 election and return to power. Nevertheless, China that had opposed the country’s liberation war has been a substantially bigger beneficiary in trading with Bangladesh than India. Bangladesh-China trade last year was US$ 10.3 billion as against US$ 5 in Bangladesh-India bilateral trade, both heavily weighed against Bangladesh.

In this new term, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has undertaken a well-publicized visit to China after an equally well-publicized visit to Japan. In the last term, her first overseas visit was zealously guarded for India. On her trip to China in early June, she moved Bangladesh deeper into the Chinese lap by promising to buy more arms. A number of economic cooperation agreements were also signed; including one related to the major infrastructure project, the Padma Bridge. The proposal for the proposed deep seaport in Sonadia was also discussed. That proposal has already attracted significant attention in New Delhi as part of China’s desire to rope Bangladesh in an anti-India “string of pearl” plan, a pearl of deep-seaports built by China extending from Pakistan through Sri Lanka to Bangladesh. The concept has caused considerable concern in New Delhi together with Bangladesh’s over-enthusiasm to become an “active partner” in a “China led” century.

Bangladesh-China overtures have taken another new dimension from New Delhi’s perspective with the recent news that Bangladesh is going to purchase two submarines from China worth US$ 203 million dollars and the deal is awaiting clearance at the Bangladesh Finance Ministry. Reports have also stated that the Government has purchased land in the island of Kutubdia for building a submarine base. A senior Indian naval officer has stated that the decision of Bangladesh to acquire offensive naval armament together with “the on-going strife in the country is a matter of concern” for New Delhi. He also stated that “ Chinese submarines are sneaking into Indian territorial waters in the Bay of Bengal region” and that the Indian navy is not prepared for any conflict due to inadequate infrastructure.

The submarine purchase therefore does not hint that New Delhi, Beijing and Dhaka are on same page as the Prime Minister’s Adviser has stated with conviction. In fact, BCIM-EC and the proposed Sonadia seaport where China will help build and finance it if it goes ahead, have enough potential to take India away from the same page where Bangladesh and China undoubtedly are at the moment. The proposed submarine purchase is going to take India further from that page with the AL led government trying hard to “woo China to snub the West.” China is of course only too glad to be doing great business in Bangladesh where the AL led government, in its eagerness to strike the West, has wittingly or otherwise allowed China concessions that are of great strategic value to it as well as economic.

The AL Government has thus been too warm in its relations with China after the January 5 elections for New Delhi’s comfort. Therefore, if India was absent in the seminar on BCIM-EC in Dhaka, it must have been to flag that concern. In fact, ever since the BCIM-EC initiative has been discussed publicly, New Delhi has not matched the enthusiasm of Dhaka and Beijing over it. The reasons for such lack of enthusiasm are many but the most important one is that the situation in India’s northeast is still fragile. There are a number of active secessionist movements going on there where the Chinese had fiddled in the past with Bangladesh by its side. In fact, even in the latest discussions between the Bangladesh Border Guards and the Indian BSF, the Indians have expressed concern over sanctuaries of Indian secessionists in Bangladesh.

Further, If BCIM-EC corridor and the Sonadia deep seaport eventually emerge as successful endeavours, it will give China dominant presence in a strategic geopolitical location “ which overlooks the strategically important sea lanes of the Indian Ocean linking China with the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, thus playing a role in securing energy supplies for Beijing”. Therefore there is no reason to believe that India would feel comfortable with China gaining such a dominant position in the Bay of Bengal, courtesy Bangladesh. In fact, such a prospect would also sound alarm bells in Washington and Tokyo as well.

There is also the new phase of Washington-New Delhi relations that is emerging. Narendra Modi would need the United States for India’s presence in the international scene much more than the Congress led Indian government. The two countries are getting closer and Narendra Modi and Barak Obama are scheduled to meet in Washington next week. The new phase of Washington-New Delhi relations is expected to bring back the strategic partnership between the two countries that was announced in 2011 by President Obama but had subsequently gone into the cold storage as relations soured between the two countries over many issues of which Bangladesh was one. That Washington-New Delhi strategic relation had the intention to contain China in South, Southeast Asia and Pacific at the core.

To add to the above, the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visited Dhaka early this month. It was an unusual visit because there has never been a return visit between the two countries at the level of the Prime Minister and that too so soon after Sheikh Hasina’s visit to Tokyo. Shinzo Abe came to Dhaka after Narendra Modi’s visit to Tokyo and Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s visit to China. In Dhaka, Shinzo Abe’s main interest was Japan’s Bay of Bengal initiative where China is no part, an initiative that is still being developed. Japan has committed nearly US$ 6 billion in aid over the next 5 years. Shinzo Abe therefore came to Dhaka to ensure that Bangladesh to think twice over the Sonadia deep seaport project and taper its enthusiasm on the BCIM-EC as both projects would give China, its arch rival, a strong foothold in a key strategic area and accept its Bay of Bengal initiative as the better alternative.

Therefore, there is little reason for India to be on the same page with China on Bangladesh where China is currently ruling the roost with India watching apprehensively. In fact, there are many reasons to the contrary. It appears that Bangladesh has entered into a foreign affairs quagmire from where it would require diplomatic skills of the rare kind to get China and India interested in the same book, let alone the same page on Bangladesh.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador. His email id ambserajulislam@gmail.com

Ganajagaran Mancha and the rise and fall of the phoenix

Print Edition

User Rating: / 0
Poor Best

Post Editorial

Saturday, 27 September 2014

Author / Source: M. Serajul Islam

Imran H Sarkar can very well be the hero in Robert Browning’s immortal poem, “ The Patriot”. Little more than a year ago, he was the hero who had held even the president, the prime minister, the ministers and the rest of Bangladesh in awe, all waiting to hear what he had to say and all eager to oblige his wishes and desires. He had the power to mesmerize the parliament to adopt new laws when the old ones were unable to hang the one he and his followers wanted to go to the gallows.

He was allowed to hold traffic from moving through one of Dhaka’s major intersection where two major hospitals are located so that he and his comrades could hold their public meetings. Incredible as it may now seem, he was the government and the elected one was just too anxious and pleased to play second fiddle to what he and his comrades desired. The country’s intellectuals, identifying themselves as the secular forces, announced to the nation that Sarkar and his comrades were the mythical phoenix that had risen from the ashes to lead Bangladesh to a new level where the spirit of 1971 in its pristine glory would prevail.

That was a lofty goal but these intellectuals were not daunted and on the nation’s behalf, placed upon his and his comrades the task of rebuilding a new Bangladesh.

The media was aggressive in support of the Gonojagoron Mancha (GM). A few private TV channels laid camp at Shahabag and covered live the rise of the phoenix. They spread the news that it was a nation’s duty to pay homage to the heroes of Shahabag and declared that those who did not do the pilgrimage were the anti liberation forces! It was arithmetic pure and simple and for days, a dazed nation watched the rise of phoenix, many convinced that a second liberation had started in Bangladesh. The frenzy was unbelievable. No one questioned or was allowed to question about the identities of the youth and their objectives.

No one questioned or was allowed to question why the GM who were angered by a decision of the ICT that allowed a war criminal to escape the gallows were not expressing their anger at the ICT that failed them and the AL led government that built up hopes through its ministers and political leaders that the alleged war criminals would be hanged.

The media went into denial over the presence of well-known AL cultural activists round the clock in the Mancha who were old enough to be fathers and grand fathers of the Shahabag activists. That media’s state of denial allowed these pro AL cultural activists to turn a potentially anti-government movement into pro-government and anti BNP/Jamat one. The media was in denial even when the link between the AL led government and the GM was palpably evident.

The media, instead of exposing this palpable link, kept on harping that the GM would rise as the proverbial Phoenix from the ashes and dared the doubters to the contrary as anti-liberation forces. When Islam entered into the equation, the outpouring of support for the GM fell substantially. The government, aware that the GM was of immense value to its politics to contain the BNP/Jamat demand for elections under the caretaker government, however did not allow the GM to fall apart.

It came behind the GM’s demand to hang Qader Mollah directly, giving Imran H Sarkar and his comrades VVIP hospitality to keep the GM alive. The GM with the media in tandem created the hype in which the government hanged Qader Mollah. The hype was surreal but it helped create the necessary political conditions the government needed in its strategy to hold the January 5 elections the way it did and returned to power. The GM’s role in the AL’s return has been a major one by any estimation.

The GM nevertheless had touched a large number of the people where it mattered most, their pride in the war of liberation and the need to punish those who collaborated with the Pakistani army in its genocide. Thus, they were sad and disappointed to see that the ruling party losing its interest in the trials of the war criminals with the conviction it had before the elections. It was even worse for them to see the government distancing itself from the GM. In fact, when the Mancha expressed its disappointment with the snail’s pace in the trials, it received stern warnings from the government.

In frustration, Imran H Sarkar and his associates blamed the ruling party of a deal with Jamat. In turn, the ruling blamed Imran H Sarkar and his associates of accepting money from Jamat and misappropriating huge sums from funds raised by the GM. The ruling party used its power to split the GM into 3 factions pushing Imran H Sarkar faction to oppose it. Thus when the Supreme Court commuted Jamat leader Delwar Hossain Sayedee’s death sentence into life imprisonment without parole; only the Imran H Sarker faction opposed the verdict. The GM that had brought hundreds of thousands of people to the Mancha over the ICT’s failure to hang Qader Mollah succeeded in bringing only a few hundred to Shahabag to protest the reprieve given to Delwar Hossain Sayedee.

The pro-government faction also descended on Shahabag with fewer supporters with even a smaller third faction whose intentions were not clear also descending upon Shahabag. The police that had assisted the Mancha before the January 5 elections in every conceivable way like the Mancha employed them beat and chased the Imran H Sarkar faction from rallying at Shahabag.

The turnabout in the fate of the mainstream GM led by Imran H Sarkar has literally been a 180 turn about. What made the turnabout ironic is the fact that the ruling party and the self-acclaimed pro-liberation and secular forces that had backed the GM absolutely to pressure and force the government/parliament to change the laws to hang Qader Mollah did nothing when the mainstream GM led by Imran H Sarker went to Shahabag to protest the reprieve given to Delwar Hossain Sayedee.

Compared to Qader Mollah, Delwar Sayedee is a more serious alleged war criminal but the Supreme Court turned aside the ICT verdict to hang him.
Therefore, the forces that supported the protest in the QM case, in particular the self-acclaimed secular/pro-liberation war forces, should have come more strongly behind the protest of Imran H Sarkar led GM against Sayedee’s reprieve. They did not and watched silently as the police beat and attempted to force it out of Shahabag.

Rashed Khan Menon hit bull’s eye in exposing the reason behind this irony. He said that the GM has outlived its usefulness and hence there was no reason for it to continue. In retrospect, politics has in fact been the main reason for the emergence of GM and its popularity. It served the ruling party’s objective to deal with the BNP/Jamat’s movement for elections under the caretaker government. The people were taken for a ride with emotional issues such as pro-liberation and spirit of 1971 issues. And now, a widely held public perception is that the ruling party is negotiating with Jamat to bring it out of its alliance with BNP, weaken the latter and perhaps go for a mid term elections and overcome its legitimacy issue that has been dogging it since the January 5 elections.

Imran H Sarker’s days and those of his comrades as heroes are certainly over like that of Robert Browning’s patriot. No one is seriously blaming the ruling party for its treatment of the erstwhile heroes because no one expected politics to be anything but the pursuit of gaining and retaining political power by any means.

The GM is no longer of any value to the ruling party in the power game.

Nevertheless, the nation expected the secular and pro-liberation forces to stand by these patriots that has not been the case that has exposed something sinister; that they too have been in league with the ruling party in using, rather misusing, the Projonmo. The mythical Phoenix has thus been defeated by politics and with it, also the nation’s dream that the Projonmo would take Bangladesh to new
heights.

The writer is a retired career diplomat. His email id is : ambserajulislam@gmail.com

The articles were publiched in Fiancial Express in last two months

2014-09-21T13:47:00.003-04:00

AK Khandker and his book

M. Serajul Islam

AK Khandker (AKK) has enflamed the political platform with his book “1971 Bhetoray Bairay”. The book has also brought the former Deputy Chief of the Mukti Bahini bagful of abuses and insults. The ruling party supporters have condemned him into the same league as late President Ziaur Rahman whom they called a Pakistan ISI agent, and Kader Siddiki, whom they named as a neo-Razakar. They have accused AKK of taking money from ISI to write the book as a part of conspiracy by anti-liberation forces against Bangladesh!

Critics have used the meanest adjectives to attack the war hero where even his presence at the historic surrender ceremony on December 16, 1971 as Deputy Chief of the Mukti Bahini has been trashed. They have stated that AKK was loitering in Kolkata on 16 December 1971 and was lifted by the Indians and taken to Dhaka for the ceremony, thus undermining the role of Mukti Bahini in the liberation war and India in that war. They further stated that even his dress in shirt and trouser and not war fatigues indicated that he was not actively involved in the liberation war!

The ruling party supporters and other critics of AKK are shocked because he said in the book that Bangabandhu ended his historic March 7 speech with “Joy Pakistan” after saying “Joy Bangla.” They have also been angered because AKK has said that Bangabandhu did not announce the independence of Bangladesh before he surrendered and that the Awami League was not prepared to fight the war of liberation. These statements in AKK’s book have hit the AL’s interpretation of the 1971 war of liberation with the force of a political tsunami.

Ironically, in attacking AKK, the Awami Leaguers have bit at their own base. They have used foul language to abuse him but have not been able to put forward convincing arguments to dismiss the issues of history that the war hero has raised in his book. Instead of convincing arguments, they have argued that anyone who contradicts or questions the zero-sum contribution of Bangabandhu in the war of liberation of Bangladesh is a traitor and does not deserve to live in Bangladesh.

I have worked with AKK for five years; between 1980-82 in Canberra and between 1983-86 in New Delhi. He talked to me about the events of 1971 many times over. Except the issue of “Joy Pakistan”, all the other issues that have brought AKK heaps of abuse from the Awami League have been written the same way as he had told me in one to one conversations I had with him. The “Joy Pakistan” issue has surprised me as it has many others. But the other issues that have angered the Awami Leaguers have been discussed and written in the public domain before AKK’s book. Tajuddin’s daughter’s book is more graphic against the AL’s version of history on the issues of declaration of the war and its preparedness than AKK’s book.

AKK to those who know is nothing like the villain that his present opponents have tried to make him. If patriotism means being prepared to do for the country whatever it requires to ensure and protect its independence, then he should be anyone’s patriot. In those long conversations I had with him, he would tell me repeatedly how from March 1, 1971 he would walk from his residence to the old airport and watch the Pakistanis bring in every flight of PIA paramilitary from West Pakistan dressed in the Awami dress. His own intelligence being the second in command of the East Pakistan base of the Pakistan Air Force told him in no uncertain terms that the Pakistanis were involved in sham negotiations with Bangabandhu to buy time to strike upon the people of East Pakistan.

AKK had also told me of his closeness with his Punjabi boss and how easy it would have been for him and those in contact with him before March 25 to destroy the Air Force arsenal. As many would remember, the Pakistanis used the Air Force extensively for strafing to physically control the land after the Pakistanis started their genocide on the night of March 25, 1971. AKK’s contact with the AL’s political leadership to destroy the Air Force’s arsenal was turned down with contempt. Similar attempt by Brigadier Majumdar in Chittagong from where the announcement of independence was made and the first salvos at the Pakistani army by the freedom fighters to make the first move was also turned down.

No historical evidence has yet turned up to suggest that the AL had contacted the Bengali members of Pakistani’s military, EPR, Police to prepare for the war of independence. There is no evidence either that the AL itself had any armed cadre for such a war in which the Pakistanis massacred hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. In fact, these Bengali officers/soldiers/ armed personnel defected and spontaneously started their armed response to the Pakistani genocide on their own and did not wait for a declaration of independence. The AL’s leadership had crossed into India and Bangabandhu had surrendered to the Pakistanis without any contact with them.

AKK, like the rest of those who joined the freedom movement from armed cadre background, decided to join the war of liberation on his own accord. He left Dhaka within days of the start of Pakistani genocide with his family and joined the liberation war risking his life and those of his wife and children who accompanied him. The way the members of the ruling party in which the opposition JP also joined and abused AKK in parliament was unbelievable. Members wanted the book banned; AKK arrested and tried as a traitor. The body language of these members was particularly significant, full of venom like they wanted to physically tear the war hero apart. Those who watched this surreal session in parliament were left wondering where those who attacked AKK with such venom were during the liberation war.

The AL came to power in 2008 riding the crest of a popularity wave. AKK as the President of the Sector Commanders Forum was instrumental in motivating the Projonmo to vote for the AL on the spirit of 1971. It is also significant that those who were with AKK at the launching of his book were not BNP or Jamat but stalwarts of the AL’s cultural front. They must have read the book underlining that many prominent Awami Leaguers like for instance Dr. Anisuzzaman have not dismissed the book the way Awami League’s top political leadership has.

AKK has not been disrespectful to Bangabandhu personally in the book. His book’s basic theme nevertheless is that the genocide of the Pakistanis that started on March 25, 1971 transformed people in such manner that it did not matter who announced the independence or who led it because the people were determined to die for freedom. His regret is that had the AL been better prepared for the war of liberation, there would have been lesser miseries and deaths in that war. In fact, dispassionate reading of his book would give the BNP many issues to criticise because AKK does not give Ziaur Rahman any of the credit that the party gives him for announcing the declaration of independence and his role in the liberation war.

There is nothing wrong in the criticisms against AKK’s book but there is nothing right either in the manner the Awami League supporters have subjected him to abuse/humiliation and insults. Finance Minister AMA Muhit made this point explicitly when he asked those who oppose his book to write his/her own book and refute the points/issues with which they differ. However, the Awami Leaguers have shown no intention of taking up AMA Muhit’s suggestion and have kept up their abuse on their belief that all glory of independence of Bangladesh should go to Bangabandhu and the Awami League; a belief that is now falling apart. AKK’s book and that of Tajuddin’s daughter would be of tremendous value when attempts are made at some future time to get out of the AL’s zero-sum interpretation of history and seek out a balanced view of the 1971 liberation war.

Doubt lingers also in the minds of many who are not AL supporters whether Bangabandhu said “Joy Pakistan”. However, the onus is on AKK’s opponents to prove he is wrong. The only way to do this is to bring out a record of the entire speech. Meanwhile, the Awami Leaguers who are now attacking AKK should spare a moment and consider that they are not doing Bangabandhu or their role in 1971 any favour by condemning the country’s top liberation war heroes – Maulana Bhasani, MAG Osmani, Ziaur Rahman; Kader Siddiki; and now AKK - as anti liberation force and ISI agents. Meanwhile AKK has resigned as Chairman, Sector Commanders’ Forum that has enhanced his standing with those who think that those who fought with arms in 1971 are the country’s real heroes. He has not budged even a bit from what he wrote in the book.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador. His email is ambserajulislam@gmail.com

Abe’s Dhaka visit and Japan’s strategic interests

M. Serajul Islam

Japan has been Bangladesh’s most trusted friend. It has always treated Bangladesh as special since recognising the country in February 1972. Bangladesh was the largest recipient of Japanese ODA for a long time. In the 1970s 80s and 90s, when its development partners were literally underwriting the country’s development budget, Japan was Bangladesh’s number one provider of development assistance. Japanese assistance was of the highest quality going to the country’s economic and human infrastructure building. Although Japanese aid has been both in aid and grant, most of the aid has been subsequently written off as grant.

Development assistance, however, is no longer as critical as before to Bangladesh’s development efforts. Nevertheless, Japan’s importance to Bangladesh has not diminished even a little bit. In fact it has enhanced significantly because Japan can now literally lift Bangladesh the quickest towards its destination of becoming a middle-income country through trade and investment. The ground work for such cooperation was laid out during the successful visit of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to Japan in the end of May when Japan pledged US$ 5.96 billion over next five years in assistance and proposed the formation Bay of Bengal Industrial Growth Belt (BBIGB) to help Bangladesh realise its huge economic potentials and expedite its growth.

Both were major overtures by Japan to become deeply involved in Bangladesh. Nevertheless, the decision of the Japanese Prime Minister to come to Dhaka so soon after Sheikh Hasina’s visit emphasised a paradigm shift in its interests in Bangladesh. The offers/proposals that Japan made to the Bangladesh Prime Minister in Tokyo were expected to mature over time. In fact, a number of high-level visits from Tokyo to Dhaka were undertaken already to carry forward the discussions and decisions reached in Tokyo at the Summit meeting. There was no need for Japan to pursue those decisions at another Summit level meeting. In diplomatic parlance, visits at summit level that take place in such quick succession hints at something unusual and extraordinary.

Therefore, the reason for Shinzo Abe’s Dhaka visit was an urgent one and perhaps had little to do with the decisions reached between the two countries in Tokyo. Subsequent to her visit to Japan, Sheikh Hasina had visited China. A number of decisions were reached there on Bangladesh-China relations that must have worried Tokyo. One was the discussion on the Chinese offer to build the Sonadia deep seaport. The others were the decisions on enhancing military and economic cooperation. The offer on Sonadia and decisions of cooperation in economic/military areas underlined that Chinese involvement in Bangladesh is deepening and entering into strategic areas. In particular, the offer to build the Sonadia deep seaport where Chinese also have stated they would keep control had the potential to directly conflict with the Japanese offer of the Bay of Bengal Industrial Growth Belt.

Japan and China have historical enmity with a lot of it emanating from Japanese occupation of China during the Second World War. That enmity has now taken a new dangerous dimension over the issue of the islands in South China Sea. Japan’s BBIGM offer has been made keeping in view the strategic location of Bangladesh and its importance vis-à-vis China. Amitava Mukherjee has recently underlined that strategic value in an article “Is Bangladesh the newest acquisition to China’s pearl of strings? in the Internet based web paper geopoliticalmonitor.com. In the article, the writer highlighted Bangladesh “as a country which overlooks the strategically important sea lanes of the Indian Ocean linking China with the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, thus playing a role in securing energy supplies for Beijing”.

Therefore there are ample reasons to believe that the overtures by China to Bangladesh during Sheikh Hasina’s China visit taken after her Japan visit have worried Tokyo and necessitated the visit of Shinzo Abe to Dhaka to woo Bangladesh from China. Meanwhile, the new government in New Delhi is coming come closer to Washington. Secretary of State John Kerry has already visited New Delhi and Narendra Modi would be visiting Washington later this month. The Indo-US strategic partnership that President Obama had announced in 2011 to stop Chinese influence in Southeast Asia and Pacific that was sent to cold storage as US-India relations deteriorated under the Congress government over a host of issues where Bangladesh’s elections of January 5 also played a role is now warming up again.

Japan, a traditional US partner, under Shinzo Abe’s second term, has also targeted Southeast and South Asia as a new focus in foreign affairs where it sees China’s influence the same way, as does the United States, perhaps even with more concern. Thus the US/India and Japan are getting closer in a strategic partnership that wants to contain China from expanding into South Asia and Southeast Asia vis-à-vis China. In the evolving strategic equations, Bangladesh’s geopolitical location has become very important. Bangladesh may thus be moving into a position where USA/India/Japan could be vying for Bangladesh’s support to keep China from getting any foothold in the geopolitical location that is emerging as one of tremendous strategic value. In fact, US’ massive investments in Myanmar that is equally important in this emerging cold-war type of conflict have been made with containing China in view.

One is not sure if the Bangladesh foreign policy strategists have considered its attempts to deal with Japan and China with these strategic issues in mind. It does not appear to be so. In fact, one could suspect that the Bangladesh Government has inadvertently walked into a situation that could turn for it into a hot potato where the way the issues would be resolved would depend not on it but on the international players. This would explain why Shinzo Abe’s Dhaka visited Dhaka so soon after Hasina’s Tokyo and also visited Sri Lanka together with his Dhaka visit where the Chinese are creating a foothold through helping that country with its deep seaports.

In fact, the media has openly stated that Shinzo Abe’s Bangladesh and Sri Lanka visits were undertaken to offset China in South Asia. These views have connected Narendra Modi’s visit to Tokyo before he visited Dhaka/Colombo to conclude a Japanese-Indian meeting of minds on China vis-à-vis China. Shinzo Abe did not cover any new issue in Dhaka in Bangladesh-Japan bilateral relations except those covered in Tokyo. He reiterated again the importance of the BBIGB that only exposed further Japan’s interest to use this proposal to offset the Chinese offer on Sonadia and thereby get a strategic stranglehold in the Bay of Bengal.

Shinzo Abe steered clear of Bangladesh’s internal politics. He said nothing that was of use for the AL led government to score points over the issue of legitimacy of the government. In fact, his meeting with Begum Zia and his emphasis on discussion among the parties suggested that Japan considers that Bangladesh is still in the midst of a political crisis that needed to be resolved. In all these, he of course did not fail to get from a government willing to do anything to please Japan a commitment on its candidature for a seat as a non-permanent member in the UN Security Council. The large business/investment delegation that went the Japanese Prime Minister nevertheless that Japan is looking at Bangladesh seriously as a major investment destination.

Shinzo Abe’s visit was pursued in Japan’s long-term strategic interests with Bangladesh with the immediate objective to stop China’s influence in the country and South Asia growing. He has left the Bangladesh Government with the task of finding a way to deal with China with which it has wittingly or unwittingly gone deeper in economic/defence and strategic cooperation after Sheikh Hasina’s visit; a task that will now get more difficult as USA and India are expected to join Japan in encouraging Bangladesh to disengage from China’s strategic goals in the region.

The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan. His email id is ambserajulislam@gmail.com

President’s Obama’s present predicament: A deer before headlights

M. Serajul Islam

The President who had ignited so much hope in not just his own country but the rest of the world with his message of change is now fighting his own personal battle to keep his name from heading the list of US’ worst Presidents. President Barak Obama entered White House in 2008 after 8 years of President Bush had pushed US economy into depression that in turn ruined the world economy because of two disastrous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

President Obama decided to be presidential upon assuming office. Hence he owned everything his predecessor left on his plate including the two wars although by that time, public opinion in USA had already shifted against the wars because of the humungous costs, both financial and in terms of lives of US men/women in uniform lost. Instead, President Obama who as a rookie Senator from Illinois from 2005 till he became the President, had opposed the wars, decided to send additional troops to Afghanistan and took time to end US involvement in Iraq thus allowing the economy to bleed further.

President Obama had other ideas in mind as the country’s first African-American President for which he even set aside what most politicians would have done almost naturaly; update the nation on the poor state of the union he inherited. He thought his destiny was to carve for himself a name as one of the country’s great presidents. His role model was President Abraham Lincoln who attained immortality for the way he united a nation torn by civil war through political bipartisanism. President Obama like President Obama believed that bipartisanship was of the need of the hour to unite the nation that President Bush had divided. He thus accepted bipartisanship as his guide to presidential glory.

He thus gave the key post in his cabinet, that of the Secretary of Defence in his first term to a Republican and it is a Republican again who holds that office in his present term. Till 2010, President Obama did not feel how serious was the opposition to his administration and to him personally because the Democrats held the majority in the Senate as well as the House. President Obama began to see the true face of his opponents once the Republicans gained majority of the House in the November, 2010 elections. They made it a policy to oppose the President to make it difficult for his administration to achieve and bills proposed by the White House were turned down routinely simply because they did not want to work with him. President Obama wanted to make his name in US history by bringing the country’s 50 million poor; unprivileged and uninsured under an affordable heath insurance. He was able to enact the Affordable Care Act (ACA) while the democrats held the House. The Republicans took the ACA to court and when the Supreme Court vacated the case in 2013, they refused to fund the federal government and stopped it for 11 days to impede the implementation of the ACA.

That effort failed and ACA was implemented. The Republicans have now passed the resolution to take the President to court for not implementing parts of the ACA underlining so far their relationship with the President is concerned; to them he is damned if he does and damned if he does not. The President who had entered the White House with faith in bipartisanship as his guiding principle in politics found to his dismay as he started his second term that his opponents were determined to condemn him to the list of the country’s all time worst presidents and had little intention of working with his administration. In fact, there are many who are now convinced that the Republicans are articulating the views of the country’s large conservative base that have never felt comfortable with an African American President in the White House with visions of becoming a great American President.

By their actions, the Republicans have trashed the vision of the founding fathers of the US constitution of a government of checks and balances among the 3 branches of the government to encourage them to cooperate rather than dominate one another and enhance democracy and democratic ways of governance. The Republicans by their deliberate policy not to work with the President, have pushed the President to fall upon his power to issue executive order to run the government by bypassing the Congress because important issue of national interest related to the economy, taxation, immigration needed to be resolved.

President Obama’s presidency has thus turned full circle; from bipartisanship in the Congress to according to New York Times “ moving assertively and in private to fashion government policies by executive order on issues ranging from immigration to tax law”. The White House has made it clear that where the Congress is willing to work with the President, it would go there but where the Congress showed unreasonable opposition, it would depend on all means available to the President including executive order to move the administration’s agenda along. In fact, lobbyists/pressure groups/stakeholders who were seen in the Congress not too long ago are now engaged with the White House for furthering the interests of those they represent. And for the White House, it is not issuing executive orders at will but through deliberations and consultations with the stakeholders.

Nevertheless, the president’s opponents have been incensed by the use of executive orders. There was already a resolution by the House to take the President to court and Republicans have now threatened to impeach him over the use of executive orders. Presidents in the past have used executive order to move their administration along. President Bush issued 291 executive orders and President Bill Clinton 395 compared to President Obama’s 184 to date. Past Presidents Franklin D Roosevelt and Harry Truman issued many times more. Unfortunately, past Presidents issued executive orders not to challenge the Congress; President Obama has been compelled to issue these orders because the Congress has decided not to let his administration work.

The President is in no fear of impeachment yet as the Democrats hold the Senate. But the heat is increasing and present politics in Washington suggests for the first time that the US Government as designed by the founding fathers where the Congress would makes the laws and the President execute them, is falling apart. The fault lies in both but the Congress started the process of falling apart by refusing to work with the President thus violating the spirit with which the founding fathers had written the constitution. The President who desperately wanted to work with Congress in a spirit of Lincoln inspired bipartisanship challenged the Congress out of need rather than design. With elections due in the Congress due in November, the President’s predicament could be worse if the Republicans are able to get the Senate while holding on to the House. He could then indeed face impeachment over the use of executive orders.

Meanwhile the President’s predicament has worsened with James Foley’s beheading that occurred while he was on vacation. He played golf right after speaking to James Foley’s mother and when it enraged even his supporters on issue of insensitivity, the President played golf again to prove a point to ISIS that threats do not work with his administration that convinced only people still deeply devoted to him. The pressure on President Obama increased when David Cameron threatened war against ISIS but he appeared confused and admitted that his administration had no policy on how to deal with the ISIS crisis. The president’s confusion encouraged the resolve of the Republicans to make his tenure as difficult as possible. Even some Democrats have joined the Republicans against the President leading the media to describe the President Obama’s current predicament with that of a deer suddenly caught before the headlights.

A tense fight is underway in US politics between the White House and Congress without any clear winner yet where US’ way of conducting politics in a democratic way is being dented. There is neither any winner yet nor signs of compromise. The November Congress elections may provide the winner or the answer.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador and his email id is ambserajulislam@gmail.com

Impeaching the Judges: A few facts

M. Serajul Islam

The cabinet has set the ball rolling for another amendment to the Constitution, the 16^th. It approved the draft of the proposed amendment in a cabinet meeting recently. Under the proposed amendment, the parliament would regain its power to impeach the judges that was originally given to it by the 1972 Constitution that it lost subsequently through the amendment to the constitution.

The cabinet decision has since become a major subject of discussion everywhere because it has introduced a new controversial issue in the public domain. Talk Shows and newspaper columnists have gone overboard over it. In the Talk Shows and newspaper columns, the pro AL participants and columnists have supported the government’s move as a positive one for a number of reasons. First, they argued it would strengthen the sovereignty of the parliament that is the spirit of the 1972 Constitution. Second, they further argued that it would be a positive move towards reinstating the historic 1972 Constitution in its pristine glory.

The pro-AL Talk Show participants and newspaper columnists are right in a way. In many countries under the parliamentary system, the power of impeachment of the judges rests with the parliament. In next-door India, article 126 of its constitution gives the parliament that power. Nevertheless, the explanations in defence of the proposed 16^th amendment are too simplistic and do not reflect the context in which these are being argued. They are defending the proposed amendment by going into denial over nature and composition of the present parliament, the timing of the proposed amendment and the current state of politics in the country. If these were brought into the equation, their simple and seemingly justified explanations would not stand to serious scrutiny. In particular, scrutiny would show that the parliament lost its power to impeach the judges by an amendment by the AL government and the opposition had nothing to do with it.

The first problem in giving the parliament the power to impeach the judges lies in Article 70 of the Constitution that defeats the context in which the ruling part/government has argued the need of the proposed 16^th amendment. Article 70 stipulates that members of parliament would lose their membership if they vote on any issue against the party’s decision conveyed to them by the Party Whip. Under this power, the parliament would become the judge, jury and prosecution while impeaching a judge following the enactment of the proposed 16^th amendment. Even if mechanisms were built in the proposed 16^th amendment to safeguard the interests of the judge facing impeachment; his/her fate would still be decided by the decision of the ruling party communicated through the Whip. With Article 70 remaining in the Constitution, the proposed 16^th amendment would give politics precedence over justice and force judges to toe the line of the ruling party, thus destroying the independence of the judiciary that has also been guaranteed by the constitution.

The second problem for the proposed 16^th amendment arises from the nature of the present parliament. With the issue of legitimacy hanging over it like the Sword of Damocles, with 154 of its 300 members without a single vote to show, arguing that giving the present parliament the right to impeach the judges would restore the sovereignty of the people makes no sense because this parliament does not reflect the will or wishes of the people. Further, the ruling Awami League did not seek any mandate of the people for such a fundamental change in the constitution to empower the parliament that would destroy the independence of the higher judiciary. Therefore, it cannot be argued that restoring the right of parliament in its present state to impeach judges would be democratic. In fact, no one without political motive would argue that the present parliament deserves to be given such a power.

The politics surrounding the proposed 16^th amendment makes it most controversial. Ruling party leaders have said that the power to impeach the judges was taken away from the 1972 Constitution by President Ziaur Rahman and given to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) to make the judges happy for backing the changes after August 15, 1975. This is not correct. The power was taken in 1974 through the 4^th amendment and given to the President. Ziaur Rahman became President in 1977. In fact, he could have benefitted from the 4^th amendment. Therefore he should be given credit for doing something that no one else in power has done in the country’s history. He gave up the President’s power to impeach the judges to the Supreme Judicial Council.

It should also not be forgotten, that the 4^th amendment ended the parliamentary system and introduced the presidential one. Therefore the parliament was no longer sovereign when Ziaur Rahman assumed political power and the power to impeach the judges by then had already been given to the President. Therefore, Ziaur Rahman could not have given the parliament the power to impeach judges that it had under the 1972 constitution because it would not have made sense to do so to a parliament that was no longer sovereign. President Ziaur Rahman did the best thing he could have in terms of making the government he had inherited less dictatorial; he created the SJC and handed to it the power that he could have exercised himself.

Therefore the initiative of the government to give the parliament the right to impeach judges has caused many eyebrows to be raised in the country. There are many who do not see any necessity at the moment for it to do so. They feel that the judges have shown their willingness to back the ruling party without showing any signs to oppose or embarrass it. Former Chief Justice Khairul Huq, the architect of the controversial 15^th amendment and now the Chairman of the Law Commission came to the media and gave the government’s initiative a carte blanche. He did not do his good name any credit by doing so but nevertheless underlined that the present parliament is under no threat from the judiciary in its dominance over the country’s government and politics.

Therefore many are curious why would the ruling party initiate a move that raises so many questions about its intentions, particularly on timing. The answer lies in what Ministers and AL political leaders have said repeatedly in the media leading to the cabinet decision o the proposed 16^th amendment; that they intend to remain in power till 2019 and beyond. The judiciary is still the guardian of the constitution and therefore could be a threat to such a desire of the ruling party however benign it may seem prima facae. The proposed 16^th amendment would take care of that possibility. Past experiences of governments with adding to its powers to remain in power indefinitely have boomeranged. In its 1972-75 term, the AL had enacted the Special Powers Act of 1974 but became its victim. The BNP had given the police the power for permitting political meetings in Dhaka and the ruling party has used this power against it very effectively so far.

The proposed 16^th amendment could provide a future BNP government the handle to mould the judiciary largely pro-Awami League to its advantage that would be harmful for democracy. Readers interested on a detailed analysis of the right to impeach the judges in the context of the 1972 Constitution should read a very thought provoking article “ Fourth Amendment to the Constitution: A Review” that appeared in the Financial Express’ issue of July 20, 2013 in its Feature and Analysis section. All arguments in favour and against the proposed 16^th amendment apart, it has already created considerable unhealthy controversy. Given the fact that parliaments worldwide have impeached judges only in a blue moon (in India, it has happened only twice in over six decades), one must wonder why the government has decided to initiate the 16^th amendment at a time when it could do very well with every bit of public confidence in its intentions and its governance when the judges should be the least of its worries.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador. His email is ambserajulislam@gmail.com

Articles carried by Daily Sun since August 3, 2014

2014-09-21T11:58:00.002-04:00

Bangladesh cricket team’s white wash in West Indies

M. Serajul Islam

At 156/2 at the start of the final session of the fourth day of the second Bangladesh-West Indies Test, with the Tamim Iqbal and Momin ul Huq partnership past 100, the 489 target was still too distant. That notwithstanding, the commentators were not sure whether the target that would normally be considered impossible for any Test team would be out of reach for the Bangladesh team. Perhaps, the Bangladeshi in the commentary team influenced them. Atahar Ali Khan was once a national cricketer himself but when it comes to the Bangladesh team, he seems to forget his cricket sense and lets his emotion take over.

He thought Bangladesh had a chance after Shamsur Rahman put the Bangladesh innings on fast track with a quick fire 39 but in the context of the game, a thoroughly useless innings and perhaps out of sympathy for him, the West Indian commentators too did not rule out a miracle when Tamim-Momin were batting. However once Tamim was removed, the team folded like a pack of cards for 192, losing by a massive 296 runs within four days with West Indies declaring their second innings with 6 wickets remaining. Bangladesh lost its last 8 wickets in the last session!

To be fair to Atahar Ali Khan, even the West Indies Captain Dinesh Ramdin said later that he too was worried of the impossible happening during the Tamim-Momin partnership. When that 110 runs partnership was on, the Bangladesh team did not seem inferior to any of the Test playing teams. Mushfiq and Mahmudullah showed that same patch of glory in the First Test with their 130 runs partnership. Unfortunately, the outstanding batting performances of Bangladesh such as these two instance have been just too few and have almost always been followed by collapses like the one in the second Test that raises doubts even in the minds of the team’s most avid followers whether Bangladesh should be playing Test cricket.

Bowling has always been Bangladesh’s weakest point. It has never shown any promise of being able to bowl a team twice. The 4 times in 85 Tests that Bangladesh was able to bowl a team twice and win were against Zimbabwe when it was finding it difficult to play cricket at the international level and West Indies when it was at the weakest for a variety of reasons including some not related to cricket. Skipper Mushfiq in a show of inexperience stated in the media before the start of the West Indies Test series that his Team would try its best to draw. His statement exposed to the opposition and others following Bangladesh cricket that the Team itself did not believe it has the ability to play Test cricket because it did not have the bowling potentials.

Mushfiq showed experience as a skipper also in the way he handled the Test in the two Tests. He won the toss in both the Tests. Yet, on placid wickets in both the Tests, he chose to field. He thus allowed the West Indies team to pile up a huge total in the First Test and spent the rest of the time in that Test trying to save an innings defeat that it saved by the skin of the teeth. In the Second Test again he chose to field and allowed the opposition to build a good total, although not a formidable one. The total was still enough to force a follow on that the opposition did not impose. Instead the West Indies batted again, compiled a huge lead and then imposed on the Bangladesh Team, a crushing defeat.

Instead, if Mushfiq had chosen to bat in the 2 Tests, the batsmen would not have been under any pressure when starting the Tests and left to play according to their abilities. The placid nature of the wickets would have given them the confidence and the chance to pile good totals to place the West Indies Team in some pressure. By choosing to field in placid wickets, the Bangladesh Team chose to place itself under pressure in both the Test from the moment the first ball was bowled. In fact with sub-standard bowling of which he was well aware, Skipper Mushfiq himself set up the Team for a predicament from where even the draws that he had hoped became unrealistic.

Skipper Mushfiq’s hope to draw the Tests was also unrealistic because he failed to consider what is, after the lack of bowling potentials, the other major problem of the Bangladesh Team namely the mental attitude of the players in playing cricket at the Test level. Tamim Iqbal scored two fifties and one near 50 and showed a temperament that he never showed before for his own good. In the two Tests he did not bat like it was a 50/50 game. Yet, in showing this improvement, he also showed his impunity by playing irresponsible shots that go him out. The way he was out when his promising partnership with Mominul Huq was making the opposition nervous showed that his improvement in this regard is still not up to what should be expected from the top batsman in the team.

Mushfiq with the only century to his credit and Mahmudullah with two fifties played well as did Mominul Huq. But the rest of the batsmen neither had the talent nor the mental aptitude of Test cricketers. The bating of Mushfiq/Tamim/Mahmudullah/Momen were good individual performances. In fact, when they batted, they played and looked at par and even better than the West Indian batsmen by comparison. But they did not score enough runs to put the Team in any position of strength, as scores of 182 and 314 in the First Test and 161 and 192 in the Second Tests, underline conclusively. These scores for a team without bowling potentials are certain enough to earn humiliating defeats.

The West Indies series showed that Bangladesh Test Team’s bating is on the decline while its bowling abilities remain as poor as before. Shakib al Hasan’s inclusion in the Team may have made some difference but would not have made much difference in the eventual outcome. Some batsmen need to be replaced like Nasir Hossain, Shamsur Rahman, Anamul Huq and Imrul Kayes but there are no batsmen sitting on the sides that can replace them. In bowling, the predicament is such that the Team plays four specialist bowlers simply because without them, the Team would not be able to play at all. The Team bowling is so poor that even hoping for draws is utterly unrealistic, Mushfiq’s hopes expressed before the series notwithstanding.

The West Indies tour has thus been a mishap in every department. Added to the two massive defeats in the Tests, the Bangladesh side also lost the 3 50/50 matches and the single 20/20 match convincingly. The white wash has been embarrassing and humiliating and should give the cricket administrators of Bangladesh enough reasons to worry about the future of Bangladesh cricket. The poor performance of the Bangladesh Team was reflected by the drought of spectators in the field. Thus no one was charged money to watch the match in the Second Test, as it was West Indies’ 500^th Test match.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador. His email id is ambserajulislam@gmail.com

President Obama’s tryst with his golfing passion

M. Serajul Islam

The foreign affairs issue causing the President the greatest concern is the beheading of American journalist James Foley by an ISIS terrorist and then the release of a video of that act on YouTube that has been rightly been viewed by Americans as one of the most outrageous acts of terrorism in recent memory. The fact that ISIS still holds 3 more Americas that it has threatened to execute Foley style has added to the tension and concern of Americans that in turn has placed pressure on the President to act. To this, the killing of an unarmed black youth by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri that sparked off a racial riot has added to create further pressure on President Obama.

President Obama himself provided ammunition for his by taking his yearly vacation to Martha’s Vineyard, a favourite holidaying island in Massachusetts with these issues in their height. US Presidents have long set the tradition that no matter how demanding the issues at hand, they have the right like anyone else to do the normal things that others do, like for instance take their yearly vacation with the family and divide time between their work and personal pleasures. Former White House officials have unanimously said “ to make cold hearted decisions in the best interest of the country and manage the burdens of perhaps the most stressful job on the planet, a president must guard against becoming consumed by the emotions of the situations they confront.” Further, these officials have also explained that a US President works with the same degree of devotion and concentration whether in the White House or on vacation anywhere.

During the first Gulf War, while US troops were in harms way fighting Saddam’s invading forces in Kuwait, the elder President Bush would retire to bed at the usual appointed time every night of those tension filled days. Therefore, the fact that President Obama took his vacation this year is not a matter that has put him in trouble. It is the manner in which he has handled the Foley crisis that now has his opponents gunning at him for his insensitivity. The nation has in fact been outraged that the President went off for a game of golf right after he had spoken with the mother of the slain journalist James Foley, promising her that his administration would pursue the perpetrators “relentlessly” and he has been “heartbroken” at the grisly affair.

In a similar situation but of lesser degree in terms of affecting the Americans emotionally, President Bush was sent to the cleaners because he went to play golf immediately after issuing a strong statement condemning a suicide bombing in Israel in 2002. As a price for that indiscretion, he gave up playing golf the next year for the remainder of his tenure as President. President Obama’s indiscretion has been much more serious because the nation had seen Foley’s beheading in the video that the perpetrators had posted on YouTube. President Obama has become known for his “cool, emotional detachment “that Americans thought was a good quality but with time, they have become critical of it. Thus when he went to play golf immediately after talking to James Foley’s mother, they felt the President was too cool and detached and less human for their liking.

The matter of the President Obama’s vacation, more precisely his decision to play golf right after talking to Foley’s mother, has been explained by the White House as a matter of policy and not that of President’s lack of compassion or his love for golf. These officials have said that with 3 more Americans as hostage in ISIS hands, the terrorists would have construed any break in the President’s activities as a hint that the administration was softening that would have been contrary to US’ time honoured and sacrosanct policy of not dealing with terrorists under duress. Thus, the President decided not only to show his determination to the ISIS terrorists but also to his supporters at home that he has long stopped worrying about what his critics say by playing golf again the day after talking to Foley’s mother, “ his 8^th day at the course in 11 days on the island.”

The Republicans are cashing upon the national anger on the President by pursuing the resolution they passed in the House to take the President to court over not implementing part of the Affordable Healthcare Act (ACA) or Obamacare. They are also speaking in public to demean the President over his vacation time. On both counts, they have no reason to go after the President. The Republicans had fought ACA tooth and nail in Congress but when they failed to stop it from becoming law because in 2010, he Democrats held the House, they pursued it out of court and failed to stop it there as the Supreme Court validated it. They then stopped the federal government from functioning for 11 days late last year by withholding the budget but failed there too. And, now they are threatening to take the President to court for not implementing parts of the same Act!

On vacation time, the President’s supporters are hitting back strongly. They are stating that a House that is scheduled to be in office for only 124 days in the whole of 2014 has no moral right to criticise a President who has had vacation time since entering the White House for only 129 days! However, the President is really taking the fall over his golfing “obsession”. Even his sympathisers “have started to mutter about the unseemly symbolism of a commander-in-chief who practically lives on the links.” Some of them have openly said that his decision to go golfing after talking with Foley’s mother was an error in judgement and done in “bad taste”. One pro-Democrat paper came out with a picture of Foley’s grieving parents and a news headlined “Prez tees off as Foley’s parents grieve.”

Thus a President fighting for a legacy and fighting against a media that has problems with him that goes beyond his ability and credentials to the colour of his skin, has played into the hands of his opponents by taking his vacation at a wrong time; handling the Foley issue insensitively and his love of golf. His cool demeanour has now become his fault because many Americans on both side of the political divide want to see in their President, a caring and compassionate human being that the President has failed to demonstrate during his vacation at Martha’s Vineyard with the issues he had to handle.

America is waiting to see the President’s next move. His supporters are hoping he would do something like what his predecessor President GW Bush had done had done. Unfortunately, if recent moves and attitude of the President are any indication, it is a different Barak Obama that the nation is seeing now. The President Barak Obama who came to the White House to build a presidency based upon bipartisanship to leave a legacy for himself as one of America’s best presidents, is now running an administration on executive orders because he now knows that he cannot get anything done any longer through bipartisanship. Perhaps, he now believes that his legacy rests on being able to achieve his objectives particularly on issues such as Obamacare that can now no longer be achieved through the Congress and bipartisan politics.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador. His email id is ambserajulislam@gmail.com

President Obama rejects war to end ISIS

M. Serajul Islam

President Obama finally announced his plan to deal with the fast growing ISIS crisis. In an address to the nation on Wednesday, he laid out that strategy with not just his nation watching in rapt attention but also the rest of the world. He expressed his administration’s firm determination to deal with the ISIS phenomenon and stated: “Our objective is clear: we will degrade, and ultimately destroy, [ISIS] through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy.”

President Obama has described ISIS as an extremist/terrorist group the same way as President Bush had described Al Qaeda and rejected its pretensions to call itself a state. He has also expressed the same determination to end ISIS as his predecessor was determined to destroy Al Qaeda. President Obama however made one extremely qualitative difference in his strategy to pursue ISIS from his predecessor’s objective to pursue Al Qaeda. President Bush had used war to end Al Qaeda and entered Afghanistan in pursuit. President Obama’s strategy will not lead to any combat troops on the ground in Iraq. It will be a counter-terrorism strategy where airstrikes will be the means to achieve the end of ISIS.

President Obama mentioned in his address that he has held consultations with US allies abroad and Congress at home in formulating the strategy to deal with ISIS. He said that the ISIS will be pursued not just Iraq but also in Syria to first degrade it and eventually destroy it as long as it takes. President Obama has also underlined that ISIS does not represent Islam because it is killing fellow Muslims from the Shia sect to bring together the coalition of Sunni Muslim countries in the region. He has targeted Saudi Arabia, UAE, Turkey and the majority Sunni states with special focus upon Turkey in order to use its air bases for launching ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria.

President Obama’s address to the nation has been generally well received in the United States. CNN carried an extremely interesting analysis of his speech. It divided the speech into segments. The part where the President spoke of strong action against ISIS to chase it down and decimate it, Democrats/Republicans/independents gave him very high marks. In the part where the President spoke on putting US men and women in uniform in the line of fire, the support for the President nosedived where even among the Democrats, support for the speech fell. The CNN analysis underlined unequivocally that Americans want the ISIS threat to be dealt with forcefully and urgently but they are opposed to put Americans combat troops on ground.

Americans want ISIS demolished but not through war. Therefore, there is support for the President’s strategy as he outlined on Wednesday. The Republicans supported the President determination on ending ISIS and have given his speech full marks on ending ISIS. However, they are pinning down the President on his time frame and lack of details in the strategy to end the ISIS danger. House Speaker John Boehner while supporting the President’s strategy on degrading and demolishing ISIS fully also added categorically that bombing ISIS and training Iraqi troops would not achieve the objective. He demanded details from the President on how the objective would be achieved and the time frame for it.

The Republicans in Congress have said they would give the President approval on sending troops for training and defending American interests that is part of the strategy the President announced on Wednesday. They are however avoiding suggesting to the President that he should send combat troops to Iraq to end the ISIS in the quickest possible time although they are nevertheless mentioning that time is critical and if ISIS were not destroyed fast, it would grow and become more menacing. Senator John McCain has taken the cudgel against the President by digging into the past. He has been blaming the President for ISIS becoming the danger that it is today; stating that it is now a more dangerous threat to the United States than Al Qaeda was when President Bush invaded Afghanistan in pursuit of the war on terror.

In a CNN talk show, he told Jay Carney, President Obama’s former Press Secretary that if his boss had not left Iraq in a hurry in 2011 and had left residual forces in the country, ISIS would not have grown and the present danger would not have arisen. Jay Carney’s response was that even when there were over 100,000 US troops on ground in Iraq, Sunni and Shia terrorist groups were killing the same way they are today in which the US troops were aloe being killed and that withdrawing US combat troops had no impact to the worsening situation in Iraq. What Jay Carney failed to point out is that it was Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki who was installed in office by the United States who did not allow US residual troops to remain in Iraq.

That regime reversed Saddam Hussein’s policy of Sunni domination over the Shias by killings of Sunnis by Shias far worse than even in the worst days of the Saddam era. The seeds of Iraq’s current predicament were thus sown when US occupation forces were in Iraq during the administration of President Bush. President Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq failed to bring democracy and instead placed in power a regime far worse than the one it replaced that has pushed Iraq towards its current predicament including the rise of ISIS where there is no effective government running the country from Baghdad. It is a mystery of sorts why the President and the Democrats are still unwilling to place at the door of the Republicans the blame for Iraq’s current predicament. It is now evidently clear that President Bush had invaded Iraq on fraudulent intelligence when there were neither weapons of mass destruction there nor any terrorists and these are the reasons why after the US spent US$ trillions and the lives of over 4000 US soldiers, Iraq is in flames and ISIS threatening to take over the country.

It is clear that despite the President’s well-accepted speech, the strategy he has outlined will not end ISIS any time soon. At best, it will only weaken its present strength and surge. The President’s strategy will also train and arm the Free Syrian Army working against President Bashir Asad in Syria. However, this will also take time to have any impact on the ISIS. Meanwhile, while Americans feel the President is on the right track in his determination to end the ISIS phenomenon without going to war, some Republicans are drumming up the ISIS threat as one of imminent danger to US security to argue the necessity for war. The anniversary of 9/11 is helping up their cause.

The need for war to end ISIS that some Republicans are suggesting has been explained by a story that has recently made its rounds in the media in the United States. US’ humungous war industry that brings US$ billions to the rich and the powerful that backs the Republicans are having a lean time with the end of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and no new ones in the horizon. A new war in Iraq, this time for destroying ISIS would again bring new life into the declining war industry in USA and in turn to the rich and powerful supporters of the Republicans. With President Obama in office however, a new war in Iraq has no chance of becoming a reality. Thus ISIS that is a 31,000 strong active fighting force, will be on the run as the US starts to bomb its strongholds but in no immediate danger of dissemination, President Obama’s strategy notwithstanding.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador. His email id is ambserajulislam@gmail.com

A hospital’s pound of flesh

M. Serajul Islam

The recent case at the United Hospital where its authorities refused to hand over the dead body to the relatives had caused quite a furore in the media. Unfortunately, it is one of the public issues that the media helps raise but are then dumped into the archives because the government is too busy with politics and the society that is increasingly becoming one for the privileged, too unconcerned to loose its sleep over someone’s dead body lying to be buried because his relatives could not pay for his treatment.

One had hoped that the outrageous incident over the right of Mohammad Aslam to be buried with his religious rites as quickly as possible after he had passed away and the duties and responsibilities of his relatives to send him to his eternal rest that were held up by the United Hospital over a matter of money would linger a little longer in the public domain. It has not and it is now forgotten; an irrelevant matter of the past. No one knows whether the same hospital or others like it would not hold more dead bodies with the same mind-set of Shylock and his pound of flesh.

The Minister of Health had assured the public that an inquiry would be held to determine whether the hospital had done anything irregular while it still had the dead body in its custody, unwilling to release till the debt was paid. The Minister’s intervention was responsible to instil some sense in the United Hospital to release the body but it did not compromise on its pound of flesh. It held the dead body for 5 days till it was assured that its debt would be paid while the dead man’s daughter appealed to the public for help, as she did not have the money to pay.

The questions that Mohammad Aslam’s death raised have not ended. At the time he died, Mohammad Aslam’s relatives were left with a bill of Taka 31 lakhs for his unsuccessful treatment of which Taka 12 lakhs had been paid leaving taka 19 lakhs as the remaining part of the pound of flesh. Mohammad Aslam was in United not for the super expensive heart surgery but for a lung ailment. In US dollars, his treatment cost was 35 thousands; a sum too huge for payment anywhere in the world where patients have no insurance. A royal illness like one related to the heart would have cost Mohammad Aslam many times more; a bill that only those that are super affluent in the society can afford. US$35 thousand is one that even the affluent in Bangladesh cannot pay without borrowing.

Mohammed Aslam’s predicament in the hands of the United Hospital may not go in vain if the society could muster the moral courage to demand a few things of the government and get answers. For example, how many in this poor country can pay for treatment in these mega hospitals? Are these hospitals being run under any well-established set of regulations that can be pursued when violated? Do the patients have any recourse under the law if they do not receive fair treatment? Could the costs that the patients are charged be lowered by strict regulation and monitoring? Finally, how many in this country where there is no system of health insurance be able to pay US$ 35 thousands for a lung ailment?

The public perception about United from its outwardly looks and high treatment charges is that it is a five-star hospital. In Dhaka, the Apollo is another that falls in the same category. Some would say Square too is another. There have been no new five star hospitals since the last one United was established many years ago. Instead there have been mushroom growths of cheaper hospitals modelled after these hospitals but without any assurance of satisfactory treatment. The reasons are interesting. First, there is no market for the 5-star hospitals because of the prohibitive treatment costs. Second, the mushroom growth of clinics and hospitals modelled after these 5 star one suggest that if costs could be reduced, the demand is huge. All these underline that there is something eerily amiss in these hospitals/clinics.

Unfortunately, there are no visible efforts by the government to check the costs in the big hospitals and lack of regulation of the quality of treatment in the hospitals, both 5-star and the cheaper versions. Thus maltreatment in private hospitals is rampant. One reads regularly of deaths in these hospitals/clinics but never any news that anyone has been held responsible for such deaths. In fact, a relative of this writer, a widow, was recently subjected to colonoscopy without anesthesia to cut on costs in one of the cheaper hospitals. The pain was unbelievable, like she was being slaughtered. When her relatives in USA heard of the ordeal, they asked her to sue because from their experience in USA, they thought the doctor/hospital would instantly lost license to practice or be in business is she did so.

Unfortunately, there lies the untold travesty of justice in Bangladesh’s health sector. Hospitals/doctors in Bangladesh do not take any malpractice insurance for there is no reason to. Even if laws are there to take doctors/hospitals to court, no one ever heard on any malpractice suit succeeding in any court in the country. In fact, the medical profession, God bless those regulating it, are the beneficiary of unbounded love and affection of the regulators. The regulators are blissfully oblivious to what hospitals and doctors do to their patients and believe it or not, doctors and hospitals have the license of James Bond of fiction, immunity from being questioned or taken to court for deaths in their hands.

Therefore the urgent need in the country is to establish patients’ rights. Bangladesh is perhaps the only country in the world where patients are literally at the mercy of the doctors/hospitals/clinics where they often pretend to be gods! The task of establishing these rights would be extremely difficult, if not impossible and hence must be approached in steps; piece meal. A good way to start this approach would be to bring the big hospitals into a comprehensive legal framework where violations can be easily implemented in the court. The authorities should undertake a serious look at the costs, particularly whether patients are treated for unavoidable examinations. Patients are seldom told about their treatment regime. Thus many, in fact majority of patients, who are not affluent and have to borrow money for treatment, find that there is always a huge extra bill where they are lucky to get well. Others, like Mohammad Aslam, cannot even die in peace and be buried and have to wait for days till these hospitals receive their pound of flesh..

It must however not be forgotten that above state of affairs notwithstanding, doctors/ hospitals render yeoman services in Bangladesh. Some of the doctors would be able to stand with the best anywhere. Nevertheless, their potentials are lost because once they make their names; they have to treat many times more patients each day than they humanly can because there are so few of them. Thus even in the hands of these potentially world level doctors, patients are often maltreated and many lose their lives regularly because these doctors see just too many patients and hence commit the errors. These outstanding doctors would tell you that they have no lives because of the way people chase them for their services. Yet, they make no effort, like doctors worldwide, to see that many patients that they can treat each day without risking lives. The bottom line is, life is cheap in Bangladesh and doctors/hospitals take full advantage of it.

Thus the big hospitals are exploiting the regulation-free health market to the fullest and now even not sparing dead bodies to make more money. The question that every individual in the country with a conscience should ask is did United not make enough money by exploiting the regulation free health care market to show come compassion to facilitate Mohammad Aslam’s journey to eternity without holding his dead body in custody for 5 days? Doctors in this hospital are under the Hippocratic oath that makes his/her work a service to the people to be delivered with the highest ethical standards. Instead the Mohammad Aslam case has shown that the ethics in the oath of Hippocrates has been replaced by the mind-set of Shylock and worse in the health care sector on Bangladesh. Even Shylock would have more human than to extract his debt with a dead body.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador. His email id is HYPERLINK "mailto:ambserajulislam@gmail.com"

President Obama’s tryst with his golfing passion

M. Serajul Islam

If President Obama had thought after winning his second term for the White House that he would spend his present term for building his legacy, his current predicament must be making him feel that it is a nightmare into which he has been thrust instead. The state of the economy that the Republicans had expected would stop his desire for a second term has turned around very comfortably and showing visible signs of good health. Yet, on issues of foreign affairs, immigration; healthcare and race, considered much less important to most Americans than the economy, President Obama is pitched against the biggest battle of his presidency to keep his name from becoming the worst President in US history.

The foreign affairs issue causing the President the greatest concern is the beheading of American journalist James Foley by an ISIS terrorist and then the release of a video of that act on YouTube that has been rightly been viewed by Americans as one of the most outrageous acts of terrorism in recent memory. The fact that ISIS still holds 3 more Americas that it has threatened to execute Foley style has added to the tension and concern of Americans that in turn has placed pressure on the President to act. To this, the killing of an unarmed black youth by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri that sparked off a racial riot has added to create further pressure on President Obama.

President Obama himself provided ammunition for his by taking his yearly vacation to Martha’s Vineyard, a favourite holidaying island in Massachusetts with these issues in their height. US Presidents have long set the tradition that no matter how demanding the issues at hand, they have the right like anyone else to do the normal things that others do, like for instance take their yearly vacation with the family and divide time between their work and personal pleasures. Former White House officials have unanimously said “to make cold hearted decisions in the best interest of the country and manage the burdens of perhaps the most stressful job on the planet, a president must guard against becoming consumed by the emotions of the situations they confront.” Further, these officials have also explained that a US President works with the same degree of devotion and concentration whether in the White House or on vacation anywhere.

During the first Gulf War, while US troops were in harms way fighting Saddam’s invading forces in Kuwait, the elder President Bush would retire to bed at the usual appointed time every night of those tension filled days. Therefore, the fact that President Obama took his vacation this year is not a matter that has put him in trouble. It is the manner in which he has handled the Foley crisis that now has his opponents gunning at him for his insensitivity. The nation has in fact been outraged that the President went off for a game of golf right after he had spoken with the mother of the slain journalist James Foley, promising her that his administration would pursue the perpetrators “relentlessly” and he has been “heartbroken” at the grisly affair.

In a similar situation but of lesser degree in terms of affecting the Americans emotionally, President Bush was sent to the cleaners because he went to play golf immediately after issuing a strong statement condemning a suicide bombing in Israel in 2002. As a price for that indiscretion, he gave up playing golf the next year for the remainder of his tenure as President. President Obama’s indiscretion has been much more serious because the nation had seen Foley’s beheading in the video that the perpetrators had posted on YouTube. President Obama has become known for his “cool, emotional detachment “that Americans thought was a good quality but with time, they have become critical of it. Thus when he went to play golf immediately after talking to James Foley’s mother, they felt the President was too cool and detached and less human for their liking.

The matter of the President Obama’s vacation, more precisely his decision to play golf right after talking to Foley’s mother, has been explained by the White House as a matter of policy and not that of President’s lack of compassion or his love for golf. These officials have said that with 3 more Americans as hostage in ISIS hands, the terrorists would have construed any break in the President’s activities as a hint that the administration was softening that would have been contrary to US’ time honoured and sacrosanct policy of not dealing with terrorists under duress. Thus, the President decided not only to show his determination to the ISIS terrorists but also to his supporters at home that he has long stopped worrying about what his critics say by playing golf again the day after talking to Foley’s mother, “ his 8th day at the course in 11 days on the island.”

The Republicans are cashing upon the national anger on the President by pursuing the resolution they passed in the House to take the President to court over not implementing part of the Affordable Healthcare Act (ACA) or Obamacare. They are also speaking in public to demean the President over his vacation time. On both counts, they have no reason to go after the President. The Republicans had fought ACA tooth and nail in Congress but when they failed to stop it from becoming law because in 2010, the Democrats held the House; they pursued it out of court and failed to stop it there as the Supreme Court validated it. They then stopped the federal government from functioning for 11 days late last year by withholding the budget but failed there too. And, now they are threatening to take the President to court for not implementing parts of the same Act!

On vacation time, the President’s supporters are hitting back strongly. They are stating that a House that is scheduled to be in office for only 124 days in the whole of 2014 has no moral right to criticise a President who has had vacation time since entering the White House for only 129 days! However, the President is really taking the fall over his golfing “obsession”. Even his sympathisers “have started to mutter about the unseemly symbolism of a commander-in-chief who practically lives on the links.” Some of them have openly said that his decision to go golfing after talking with Foley’s mother was an error in judgement and done in “bad taste”. One pro-Democrat paper came out with a picture of Foley’s grieving parents and a news headlined “Prez tees off as Foley’s parents grieve.”

Thus a President fighting for a legacy and fighting against a media that has problems with him that goes beyond his ability and credentials to the colour of his skin, has played into the hands of his opponents by taking his vacation at a wrong time; handling the Foley issue insensitively and his love of golf. His cool demeanour has now become his fault because many Americans on both side of the political divide want to see in their President, a caring and compassionate human being that the President has failed to demonstrate during his vacation at Martha’s Vineyard with the issues he had to handle.

America is waiting to see the President’s next move. His supporters are hoping he would do something like what his predecessor President GW Bush had done. Unfortunately, if recent moves and attitude of the President are any indication, it is a different Barak Obama that the nation is seeing now. The President Barak Obama who came to the White House to build a presidency based upon bipartisanship to leave a legacy for himself as one of America’s best presidents, is now running an administration on executive orders because he now knows that he cannot get anything done any longer through bipartisanship. Perhaps, he now believes that his legacy rests on being able to achieve his objectives particularly on issues such as Obamacare that can now no longer be achieved through the Congress and bipartisan politics.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador. His email id is HYPERLINK "mailto:ambserajulislam@gmail.com"

Dream of racial equality in USA

M. Serajul Islam

Ferguson, a city in St Louis County in Missouri, USA and with it, the nation is in turmoil. On August 9, a white police officer Darren Williams gunned down a black teenager Michael Brown in the city of 21,000 where the population is 2/3rd African-American but where 94% of the police force is white! As African-Americans protested the death and turned unruly and violent, their protests were met by an insensitive administration where their anger was trashed with a show of combined force of police and National Guards that was unbelievable. Armoured cars were put on the streets that kept vigil. Night curfew was imposed and the victims were made to look the guilty party. The facts that have come into the public domain from Ferguson show that African-Americans in the world’s oldest democracy suffer racial discrimination and profiling where they are considered to be the cause of their predicament by the majority whites of the country!

Michael Brown was guilty on that August day of a violation of the law. Video footages have shown that he had forcibly taken out a cigar box and push the casher and walked out of a convenience store. Minutes later, Darren Williams confronted Michael Brown walking in the middle of a road and obstructing traffic. Darren Williams was unaware that Michael Brown had robbed the store and confronted him for his illegal behaviour. Michael Brown immediately and instinctively raised his hands and asked the police officer not to shoot. His pleas were disregarded and Darren Williams fired, hitting Michael Brown six times, twice in the head, all from the front, killing him instantly.

These details were revealed in an autopsy report that underlined unequivocally that Michael Brown was as good as dead the moment the police officer saw him in an unruly manner on the road. He was given no chance of survival, like a weak animal that comes in the path of a tiger praying in the jungle. Ferguson is pointing at a very deep malaise in the mind-set of the country’s predominantly white police forces vis-à-vis the African Americans, a mind-set supported by a large number of the country’s predominantly white population. There is no doubt that African Americans have made great strides. They were once slaves in the country and became free following the American Civil War of 1861-65. They gained their civil rights following the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Yet five decades and more since that historic movement, African Americans find themselves in a racial predicament that raises serious questions if the majority whites will ever accept the African-Americans as equals.

The US Declaration of Independence states unequivocally that all men are created equal and it is the duty of the state to ensure their life, liberty and happiness. Nevertheless, events occur like the one in Ferguson occur with monotonous regularity in the country that brings to the surface a race related reality that is shocking; that the US Declaration; its Constitution and all the laws giving the African-American their civil rights notwithstanding, the dream of Martin King of a United States where people would be judged not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character is still a distant dream. In fact, Ferguson and before it, the case of Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman in Florida in 2012-2013 have underlined that the racial contempt and reservation of the majority whites about their fellow African-American citizens have deepened instead.

Ferguson is still raging. It has highlighted that African American youth in the country, notwithstanding what the law says, no matter what their station in life, are taught by their mothers, that when confronted by the police in public places, they must consider their lives depended on not giving the police any excuse to shoot them dead. In Town Hall meetings in Ferguson after the shooting, African-American mothers unanimously said that they do not sleep at night unless they know that their sons have safely returned home. The fear of the Ferguson African-American mothers resonated in the hearts of African-American mothers around the country.

Last year, an all White jury united the African-Americans in their revulsion after they had acquitted George Zimmerman although all evidence proved that he had gunned down the African American teenager Trayvon Martin on a racial mind-set among many whites that coloured people are dangerous. George Zimmerman was a member of a vigilante group that was formed and armed legally on a mind-set that African-American men pose a deadly threat to the security of the whites. President Obama had then spoken emotionally as an African-American underlining that when he and his fellow African-American walk into a white neighbourhood, the whites instinctively look at them with suspicion, like they are risks to their safety, their lives. The President had then said that he knew the feeling first hand, having felt it many times himself.

The President has come twice before the nation on the racial storm witnessed over Ferguson. He condemned the senseless killing of Michael Brown and underlined the excessive use of force by the police both while killing Michael Brown as well as while containing the outburst of anger in the African American community. However, the President was also critical about the riots and acts of violence from the community against the police and condemned what he thought were their excesses. Clearly, unlike in the case over the Trayvon Martin murder, on Ferguson, the President has tried to balance on the race issue and has put part of the blame also upon the African Community for the way they have reacted.

In doing so, he has neither found favour with the African Community nor among the majority whites. The former is aghast at the President that the police officer has not yet been arrested and charged and he has said nothing on the issue. The conservatives and the elements on the right of US’s great political divide have used the President’s condemnation of the violence by the African-Americans to justify that Darren Williams was right in killing Michael Brown. These elements have also used the President’s condemnation of the violence by the African Americans in Ferguson to further justify their racial profiling of them as violent people who deserve to be discriminated against and even be killed.

It is true that African-Americans in USA are violence prone. But then, it is also equally true that the number of people in the country who die in the hands of the whites is also significant. In fact, most of the major mass shootings in recent times, including that of the killing of 26 in Connecticut in 2012 of which 20 were children was the act of a white. This notwithstanding where African Americans have been wrongly profiled as violent while whites have been wrongly spared, the US laws guarantee protection of life of even an accused murderer till a court of law finds him guilty. In fact, the US prides in this and lectures the world for falling short on the rule of law index. Yet, white police officers are regularly getting away with murder in USA and the rule of law is blatantly violated when an African American is the victim.

Thus despite shooting Michael Brown, unarmed as he was and pleading to be arrested, Darren Williams gunned him down but still remains outside the purview of the law. Ferguson’s African-American protesters are instead being pursued by the law for demanding his arrest as they would be entitled even where the rule of law is not high by US standard. Events such as this one in Ferguson not just exposes the racial problem in the USA nakedly to the rest of the world; it also effectively takes away USA’s moral right to lecture the rest of the world on human and civil rights and the rule of the law. As US ponders on the moral and ethical questions raised by the Ferguson murder, it may also look into why African Americans are violence prone. Martin Luther King Jr. had said in the 1960s “a riot is the language of the unheard.” It is high time that in world’s oldest democracy, the majority whites would show the mind-set to hear the plight and predicament of the minority African Americans.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador. His email email id is HYPERLINK "mailto:ambserajulislam@gmail.com"

Hillary Clinton attacks President Obama on foreign affairs

M. Serajul Islam

President Obama will leave office in January 2017. He cannot contest again for the White House. Thus he is in political terms, a lame duck President. This is the time that former Presidents in US history have devoted to building their legacies. Among the recent Presidents in US history, President Obama just did not come to office with great promises to his fellow Americans and the world, he did not leave anyone in doubt that he wanted to be remembered among the country’s great Presidents.

He therefore chose President Abraham Lincoln as his role model. He wanted to unite the country after his predecessor had thrown it apart like President Lincoln had done to the country after the American Civil War. His promise of change not just attracted voters in his own country to look beyond the colour of his skin and vote for him; it attracted the attention of the rest of the world who pinned their hopes upon him to unite the world after George W Bush had torn it asunder by his “war on terror”.

The US and the world saw in him as President John F Kennedy of a new era. Inspired by the way people in US and the world supported him; President Obama reached out to his opponents to build an administration on bipartisanship. He offered the most crucial job in his administration to a Republican; that of the Secretary of Defence where he retained President Bush’s choice, Robert Gates. He replaced him with another Republican Conservative Chuck Hagel in 2013. He tried his best to reach out to the Republicans on many occasions and on issues. In 2010, he compromised on the federal budget deal. He also tried to reach to the Republicans on pro-choice and pro-life and health care issues.

President Obama also owned the policies of President Bush in domestic politics as well as international affairs at a time when the two were directly related to each other like seldom before in history and in both, the country’s predicament was at its worst. He entered the White House when eight years of President Bush’s war on terror had led the country to spend trillions of dollars of tax payers’ money in the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq where in the latter there were no terrorists or terror groups to carry out any war of terror.

Those trillion of dollars spent in the wars that were never popular in the country turned the US economy from a net surplus one to a net deficit one. President Bill Clinton had left for President GW Bush a healthy economy whereas in the 8 years, President GW Bush turned that economy into tatters and left for his successor President Obama, an economy in ruins. In addition, President GW Bush left President Obama with US troops in thousands, fighting unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. By the time President Obama took office, thousands of US soldiers had been killed fighting for objectives that did not appeal or make sense to the Americans.

Thus in domestic affairs and international relations, the United States was in a predicament that was nothing short of a nightmare for a US President to find himself in upon entering the White House. Yet, President Obama, believing that it was his destiny to become one of US’ great Presidents, did not put the blame for his or the country’s predicament upon his predecessor. He tried to lead the country united, failing to realize that the Republicans never accepted or cared for his offers of bipartisanship and were determined to fight his administration in all manners imaginable or possible to ensure that he would leave the White House as the worst US President in recent times.

President Obama today is fighting for his name from being listed at the top of the list of the worst Presidents in sharp contrast to his wish and dream to become one of the best for which he had tried his policy of bipartisanship. At a time when he is praying for divine intervention to get him out of his current predicament, President Obama has been subjected to attack from an important but totally unexpected quarter in his own camp, that from his former cabinet colleague Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton, now certain to announce her candidacy for the next US Presidential election, moved from her personal concerns to criticise the President in an unbelievable manner on his foreign policy initiatives, particularly those related to Iraq/ISIS/Syria and Russia/Ukraine believing that such attacks would strengthen her credibility.

The Washington Post recently carried a report that has been based on an interview she gave to Geoffrey Goldberg. In this interview according to the Post report, she distanced herself completely from President Obama’s foreign policy forgetting that she herself as the Secretary of State had laid its foundations. She hit the President where his opponents are hitting him the hardest, his policy in Syria and Iraq. She blamed the President for not arming the opponents of President Assad that she called a “big mistake that has led to the spread of violent jihadists throughout the region.” She failed to acknowledge that she was in charge of foreign affairs when that “big mistake” was committed.

The former Secretary of State thus stabbed the President on the back at a very bad time for him. However, the manner she stabbed him earned her the anger of a wide spectrum of people in the country who were ready to support her for possible bid for the White House. At a time when in the rest of the world, people are calling the Israeli atrocities in Gaza as genocide, the former First Lady’s support and compassion was not for the children and innocent people killed in Gaza but for those who are perpetrating the crime. Thus in her interview with Geoffrey Goldberg, she went much further in supporting the Israeli cause than the President who himself has disappointed many of his supporters and admirers abroad by strong and unequivocally upholding Israel’s crimes against humanity in Gaza.

She used the issue of Israel’s security as the excuse to give the country carte blanche to deal with Gaza and the West Bank in any manner it wanted. She said in her interview: “If I were the prime minister of Israel, you’re damn right I would expect to have control over security, because even if I’m dealing with [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud] Abbas, who is 79 years old, and other members of Fatah, who are enjoying a better lifestyle and making money on all kinds of things, that does not protect Israel from the influx of Hamas or cross-border attacks from anywhere else. With Syria and Iraq, it is all one big threat. So Netanyahu could not do this in good conscience.”

Critics have taken Hillary Clinton apart for this interview. Jennifer Rubin who wrote the Washington Post article called her interview “the worst sort of political opportunism for which she is famous.” She blamed her for not having the “nerve to resign out of principle on Syria, as did former ambassador Robert Ford. Only now, when the entire region has gone to seed she decides the Obama critics were right on some key aspects of foreign policy.” Jennifer Rubin put the blame for the current crisis in the region over the ISIS threat squarely on Hillary Clinton with President Obama also equally responsible for their hurry to get out of Iraq in 2011. She wrote: “Both Obama and Hillary Clinton wanted out of Iraq completely; this turned out to be among their gravest errors, which contributed to the rise of the Islamic State and necessitated our re-entry into Iraq.”

Hillary Clinton’s interview has not been a clever political act for this has led many to believe she is an opportunist that could cause her to lose support for her bid for the White House among many groups in the country. By her interview, she has succeeded in strengthening the efforts of the President’s opponents to condemn him as the country’s worst ever President. All this goes to prove, first, that the Democrats are a disunited party leading to mid-term elections later in the year for the Congress and the Presidential elections in 2016 and second, President Barak Obama has not just failed with his policy of bipartisanship with his opponents but also failed in inspiring his own party and his closest collegaues to be loyal and faithful to him.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador. He can be reached at HYPERLINK "mailto:ambserajulislam@gmail.com"

On British Minister’s resignation and death of humanity in Gaza

M. Serajul Islam

It took a British politician with Pakistani roots Baroness Sayeeda Warsi to show Great Britain what is wrong with its government’s policies in Gaza. For now over three weeks at the time of writing this piece, over 1800 Palestinians, including over 200 children, have been killed by Israeli bombardment intended to reduce the 1.8 million people crammed in the 138 sq. mile coastal enclave, to pulp. The tragedy earned international attention but failed to raise the conscience of the powers in the West that watched silently as Israelis killed at will. One picture that came out of Gaza was of a dead child in a freezer who could not be buried as Gaza had run out of burial places!

It is unbelievable that the rich and developed nations that routinely embarrass and pull up the less privileged ones for violation of human rights cannot muster the courage to call the systematic annihilation of the people of Gaza as crime against humanity or genocide. It is equally unbelievable that the nation of Israel that came into existence in 1948 because its people were subjected to genocide by Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime that brought the world together in sympathy is today doing to the Palestinians what Hitler had done to them.

President Barak Obama who had come to power with the promise of bringing the West and the Muslim countries together after his predecessor President GW Bush’s “crusade” had set the two worlds apart has since reneged on his promise. His role in Palestine has sadly been one of betrayal. He has failed to lift a finger against the actions of the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who ascended to power at the same time he went to White House for the first time to derail the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. In fact, far from lifting a finger, President Barak Obama has accepted barrage of insults from the Israeli Prime Minister without even a protest.

In 2011, Netanyahu was angry with the US President over illegal Israeli settlements in Palestinian. On a visit to the United States, while the anger lasted, Benjamin Netanyahu ignored the President by skipping a scheduled meeting with him and instead addressed the Joint House of the US Congress, an honour that the country gives to exceptional world leaders and under exceptional circumstances. The way the US has conducted its relations with Israel under President Barak Obama, few have been left in doubt that it has been Israel that has called all the shots.

The White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest while spinning to rope the Russian President in the MH17 downing said recently: “Whether it is the Russians themselves that pulled the trigger or Russian separatists trained by Russians, it’s all the same. It all goes back, ultimately, to Vladimir Putin.” Instantly, the Press secretary’s spin was spun back to place the blame for the Gaza massacres upon President Obama. One newspaper report thus wrote: “Whether it is the Americans themselves that pulled the trigger in Gaza, so far killing over 1 000, most non-combatants, or Israeli soldiers equipped with US-supplied weapons, it’s all the same. It all goes back, ultimately, to Barack Obama.” In fact, after this comment was made, the death toll in Gaza doubled and instead of taking the side of the victims, the US President sanctioned an additional US$ 250 million to improve the dome technology for Israel’s protection. By this sanction the US President gave Israel the green signal to continue with its killing spree as long as it takes to ensure that Hamas no longer has any ability to fight for freedom and bring to an end the decade long blockade that has been slowly but certainly snuffing the life out of the people of Gaza.

The US/West have backed Israel in its crimes against humanity in Gaza based on Israel’s right to defend against Hamas’ rocket attacks that have resulted in deaths of 64 Israelis and 5 civilians. In justifying Israeli action, these powers have gone into denial over why Hamas fires rockets at Israel. There was no Israel before 1948. The state of Israel has been created on land that belonged to the Palestinians that they shared with the Christians and the Jews for thousands of years and lived in peace and harmony till the land fell into the hands of Great Britain after the First World War as a trust territory. It was then that the British Government with the infamous the Balfour Declaration of 1917 hatched the plot to create Israel by driving away the Palestinians from their land thus condemning millions of the Palestinians to become homeless and refugees or to live in a ghetto like Gaza and in the West Bank, without a present and a future.

The British, an Anglican Christian state, used the scriptures to support the Zionist movement for creation of Israel. In supporting this movement, the British did not care; first that it had no right to make that decision because the land was not theirs, and second, the creation of Israel based upon the scriptures could not be binding under international law because scriptures are not historical facts, not necessarily. It was not just with the Palestinians that the British have been the cause of what ails the modern world. They have done the same wherever they have been colonial powers. They created the Kashmir problem before they left India. They divided India in 1947 that caused millions of deaths in Punjab for which responsibility should be theirs.

Therefore in the historical context, Baroness Warsi’s resignation is worthy of international attention. Her resignation will go into the record book as that by a British Minister who has resigned because she did not agree with the British Government’s immoral and unethical policy in Gaza. What infuriated Baroness Warsi is Prime Minister David Cameron’s refusal to call Israeli attack of a UN school in Gaza as a “moral outrage and a criminal act.” He agreed that the UN Secretary General had been right to speak against that attack but accused Hamas for “no regard for human life and must cease firing rockets into Israel and digging tunnels to facilitate the murder of civilians”. He had no words for the 1800 deaths in Gaza including those of children and would only say “sustainable security for Israel cannot be achieved simply by permanent blockade, aerial bombardment and periodic ground incursion.”

Baroness Warsi’s resignation will not change the Cameron Government’s immoral stand in Israel. Nevertheless it will bring focus on where and why it is wrong. This is why she deserves the warmest cheers of freedom loving people worldwide for her courage to stand for right against wrong and bring to focus upon Britain and its dismal record in history and international politics. Israel, with its latest crimes against humanity in Gaza, has gone way too much over the line with its argument of self-defense leading the Italian philosopher Gianno Vattimi to state that it “is a little worse than Hitler.” That statement is now beginning to resonate around the world.

The above notwithstanding, the people of Gaza are suffering because the powerful countries with the United States and Great Britain leading are using their powers for the perpetrators of crimes against humanity and not the victims. The victims bring to memory the David versus Goliath fight of the scriptures to underline that the human spirit and it’s craving for freedom cannot be and has never been defeated, no matter how heavy the odds.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador and can be reached at: HYPERLINK "mailto:ambserajulislam@gmail.com" ambserajulislam@gmail.com

Email

Print

Next News »

China’s string of pearls

M. Serajul Islam

An article has gone viral on the Internet about Bangladesh-China relations and how New Deli views it. If the assumptions and conclusions in the article are even partly correct, then Bangladesh politics could be headed into unchartered waters about which not many in Bangladesh seems to be aware of, let alone write or talk about it in the public domain. The article written by Amitava Mukherjee (AM) has appeared in the web based Geopoliticalmonitor.com with a provocative title “Is Bangladesh the Newest Addition to China’s String of Pearls’?’

AM has suggested that New Delhi policy makers are worried with the visit of Sheikh Hasina to Beijing in June this year and with the agreements that were signed on the visit and the general tenor of the visit that suggested that Sino-Bangladesh relations are graduating from “ the stage of economic partnership into the realm of strategic partnership.” He further suggested that Sheikh Hasina’s visit to China and the developments thereafter have led New Delhi to go slow on its election rhetoric against Bangladesh on the sensitive issue of illegal Bangladeshis in India. New Delhi does not want to upset the AL led government at this stage with the issue because that would push Bangladesh deeper into the Chinese strategic plan for South Asia and move the AL led government to move away from its traditional “India centric” policy to a “China centric one.”

New Delhi’s feels that these developments are likely “to entangle Dhaka in the vortex of troubled South Asian waters” in an anti-Indian Chinese strategic plan that he has named the “string of pearls.” The essence of this anti-Indian plan is China’s desire for foothold in the waters of the Arabian Sea, the Indian Ocean and the Bay of Bengal as well as inland in Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh together with landlocked Nepal and Bhutan, to encircle and isolate India. In this context, the Chinese have helped Pakistan build its Gwadar deep seaport; Sri Lanka its southern Hambantota deep seaport are now in the process of signing with Bangladesh an agreement for constructing the Sonadia deep seaport together with investments for improvement of the Chittagong port.

AM has also underlined New Delhi’s concerns from Bangladesh’s huge defense purchases that makes China the country’s number one supplier and agreements for infrastructure development and development of energy needs of the country that have come to light with Sheikh Hasina’s visit to Beijing. He concluded from these developments that Sino-Bangladesh relations have not just been transformed from an economic to a strategic one but also concluded that Bangladesh has now become “the newest addition to China’s string of pearls”.

The writer has emphasized upon Bangladesh’s location as “a country which overlooks the strategically important sea lanes of the Indian Ocean linking China with the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, thus playing a role in securing energy supplies for Beijing” to explain the importance of Bangladesh to China in its strategic plan of the pearl of strings. AM explains convincingly based on geopolitics and China’s well-known policy of antagonism towards India why it considers Bangladesh an “acquisition.” However, the reasons he has put forward to explain why Bangladesh has become a part of the plan as an acquisition by China is not very convincing.

The author has put forwards a couple of reasons to explain why Bangladesh now finds itself as a part of the Chinese plan of the “string of pearls. First, he thinks that the AL led government is also conscious like China of its huge strategic value and wants to use it for its advantage to project an “independent identity.” Second, he thinks Bangladesh wants to use that “independent identity” to get back at India for its betrayal to deliver the Teesta and the LBA deals. Both promises however do not stand to serious scrutiny for reasons that are obvious. Following the January 5 elections, the AL Government has run into deep crisis on legitimacy and now needs New Delhi more desperately than ever to overcome this crisis. In fact, if New Delhi decides to back the western nations whose pressures upon the AL led government for fresh elections are mounting, the AL government will have no alternative but to catapult where China’s ability to help it is absent.

Further, the AL led government has too many issues of history, politics and of course the fact that India surrounds it on all sides to risk going over to China in an anti-India strategic plan. In fact, history and reality makes it absurd to accept that an AL led government would be part of an anti-India Chinese plan consciously. This line of thinking is also fundamentally opposed to the very ethos of the Awami League. Therefore it is incomprehensible that the AL government would leave India at such a desperate time for it and join the China sponsored anti-India “string of pearls” strategy just because the Teesta and LBA deals have not been delivered.

Nevertheless, facts revealed by AM suggest strongly about China’s anti-Indian “string of pearls” plan and its interest to “acquire” Bangladesh and why not? In 2010, India and the US became strategic partners to contain China’s influence in Asia and the Pacific, a partnership that both countries entered not in secret but openly. That partnership had gone to the cold storage as relations between USA and India soured under the Congress Government over an wide array of issues in which the Bangladesh elections has also played a part. That partnership has resurfaced with the departure of the Congress Government. US Secretary of State John Kerry is in New Delhi at the time of writing this piece. Narendra Modi who needs USA to overcome his government’s credibility on Hindu fundamentalism and for himself over his role in the Gujarat riots will visit Washington shortly. Thus in the period ahead, Washington-New Delhi strategic partnership against China is expected to deepen, leaving Bangladesh with China in this emerging scenario.

This leaves for speculation whether the AL led government has deliberately decided to go with China and against USA and India. AM has agued that the choice has been deliberate. He has further argued that New Delhi does not want to lose the confidence of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. If New Delhi is interested to bring Bangladesh back to its fold and away from China, the cards are too strongly stacked in its hands to break the Chinese “string of pearls” and the role of Bangladesh in it. New Delhi need not woo Sheikh Hasina but could demand it if indeed her government is deliberately pursuing an anti-India policy with China as a partner in the so-called “string of pearls.” India has that power over the AL led government and with USA with it, the task is child’s play.

There is of course a simpler and more realistic explanation to the recent overtures in Sino-Bangladesh relations that AM has not seen. The Bangladesh Government has been desperate for recognition after the January 5 elections and the Chinese hand of friendship came to it as heaven sent. The Chinese used the AL government’s desperation for legitimacy to deepen its economic advantages that are significantly better than India’s but also to rope Bangladesh to become its unwitting “newest acquisition” in the so-called string of pearls. Therefore an equally simple explanation to New Delhi’s concerns over China-Bangladesh relations is that Beijing trapped an unsuspecting Dhaka in its anti-India strategic plan.

The facts AM revealed in his intriguing article are interesting and its premises, specially those based on facts, suggest that Bangladesh has indeed walked into the “vortex of troubled South Asian waters.” It will need extremely competent diplomatic handling for the AL government to keep its head above the water where the players it is pitched with/against are without a shadow of doubt, of a much superior class.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador. He can be reached at: HYPERLINK "mailto:ambserajulislam@gmail.com"

Articles carried by The Independent in the last couple of months

2014-09-21T10:33:00.003-04:00

-->

On the 16^th Amendment

M. Serajul Islam

The government is determined give the power to impeach the judges to the parliament. The proposed 16^th amendment that has already been tabled in parliament has created significant opposition from various sections of the country’s politics and society. Dr. Kamal Hossain has led the latest opposition. He is not just an eminent lawyer but also the individual who as Minister for Law and Parliamentary Affairs crafted the 1972 constitution. Dr. Kamal Hossain’s opposition is important because the ruling party is arguing that the amendment is necessary to restore the power of impeaching the judges to the parliament given to it by the 1972 Constitution.

No one knows the views of the judges whose fate is being decided. The judges by law and custom are not supposed to come into the public domain and express views on politics and issues of governance like the rest of the government and society. No one has also seriously come forward to argue the issue from the point of view of the judges. These facts notwithstanding, the judges must be thinking that the 16^th Amendment is not just a matter of restoring the spirit of the 1972 Constitution that was based upon the supremacy of the parliament. There are issues beyond the reasons that the government has given for the 16^th Amendment or has so far come into public discussion.

Till now, only the President can remove a judge but only on inquiry and recommendation of the Supreme Judicial Council (SCJ) comprising the Chief Justice and the next two senior judges. The Council can initiate an inquiry against a judge but only after it receives a go ahead signal from the President to its request to do so. The President on his own can also ask the Council to initiate such an inquiry. The judges are comfortable with this provision because it provides the independence of the judiciary where the executive or the legislature has no inherent power to interfere in removing a judge from office. It also ensures the judiciary the environment in which to act as the guardian of the constitution as enshrined in the 1972 constitution.

The bill for the 16^th amendment if enacted into law will entrust this power upon the legislature making the SCJ redundant on this issue. The Law Minister while placing the bill in parliament argued that parliaments worldwide in a parliamentary system like Bangladesh enjoy the power to impeach the judges .The explanation is neither fair nor complete because it does not take into account the circumstances under which the move to give the Bangladesh Parliament the power to impeach the judges has been made. During the last AL term, there was a very public conflict between a Supreme Court Judge and the parliament. There were heated speeches in Parliament against this Judge and the Speaker issued a ruling stating that the Judge had crossed constitutional limits. The High Court examined the Speaker’s ruling and turned it down stating, “ the Supreme Court possesses the overseeing authority that no organ of the state could cross its limit of power given by the Constitution”. The Judge in the centre of the storm said after the High Court ruling that the Speaker had no knowledge about the Constitution. Members of Parliament thereafter openly expressed their contempt for the High Court ruling and their desire to control the judiciary.

Further, the move to give Parliament the right to impeach judges have not emanated from the parliament itself. The Cabinet took the parliament for granted and delivered to it a fait accompli with the issue. The Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Law after expressing that view of the stakeholders would be taken later made a volte-face and passed the bill as tabled by the Law Minister. That exposed the fact that the present parliament is but a rubber stamp one with little credibility. Therefore to state that the 16^th Amendment would restore the spirit of the 1971 Constitution in the context of parliamentary sovereignty would not be a fair assessment. In fact, the 16^th Amendment would place the judiciary under the direct control of the executive, in the hands of the Prime Minister precisely.

Therefore to argue that the 16^th Amendment will give the Bangladesh parliament the role that parliaments worldwide exercise in a parliamentary system over the judiciary does not stand to any serious examinations for reasons stated above. The amendment will lead to a direct conflict between the judiciary and the executive and destroy the independence of judiciary in Bangladesh. This is why there has been so much opposition to the proposed 16^th Amendment. It has led lawyers on both sides of the political divide to come together to strongly oppose the enactment of the 16^th Amendment, something that has not happened in the country’s politics since the fall of the military regime of HM Ershad.

The bipartisan lawyers’ committee formed under Dr. Kamal Hossain’s leadership however ran into trouble immediately after its formation. The pro-AL lawyers, a few leading lawyers of the country, later opted out of the committee. Nevertheless, in the meeting that was called to form this committee, these pro-AL lawyers were very liberal in their criticism of the ruling party’s move for the proposed 16^th Amendment and opposed the amendment as forcefully as the pro-BNP lawyers. The uncertainty over the committee notwithstanding, the speakers on both sides of the political aisle were able to send a clear message to the Awami League led government that it would be imprudent on its part to enact the 16^th Amendment without discussion with the various stakeholders.

The Law Minister while introducing the bill in Parliament introduced further controversy and politics to the issue when he said that President Ziaur Rahman had taken this power from the parliament and given it to the Supreme Judicial Council in 1978. The statement is not correct. The parliament’s power was taken away in January 1975 through the 4^th Amendment and given to the President. The two subsequent Presidents exercised this power. President Ziaur Rahman in fact gave away this power to the Supreme Judicial Council, an extremely rare instance in the politics of the country.

Therefore, the circumstances surrounding the proposed 16^th Amendment have not been explained to the satisfaction of the people and the stakeholder. The volte-face of the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Law and the withdrawal of two leading pro-AL lawyers from Dr. Kamal Hosain’s committee suggests that the executive branch is exercising its power and influence to end controversy over the proposed 16^th amendment by means not democratic and adopt it post haste. Unfortunately, that is pushing the bill for the proposed 16^th Amendment into further controversy leading to speculations that this and the National Broadcast Policy are ominous signs for the country that underline the intention of the AL led government to perpetuate power by dispensing with all kinds of political opposition.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador. His email id is ambserajulislam@gmail.com

President Obama and ISIS: A deer in the headlights

M. Serajul Islam

President Obama is these days up to his neck trying to keep his name from getting to the top of the list of the worst President in US history; a stark contrast to the message of “change” with which he had assumed office in 2008, encouraging many to think that he would be the new era’s John F Kennedy in terms of popularity. It is not just a conspiracy that his opponents have hatched to disgrace him; unfortunately the President himself is contributing to his predicament.

In the latest turn of events for the worse, the President chose to go on his yearly vacation to Martha’s Vineyard, an island off the coast of Massachusetts to pursue his passion with golf that his opponents have picked as a major ammunition to attack him. The President decided to take the vacation when on his lap were the Ferguson murder of an African American youth at the hands of a white police officer and the ISIS phenomenon. The two issues were extremely threatening and required the President’s undivided attention.

Presidents take their yearly vacations and no questions are asked when they take it or where they take it because they are equipped to perform their duties the same way while on vacation as they do at the White House. Therefore there was nothing wrong with President Obama’s vacation in Martha’s Vineyard with major crisis on his administration’s lap. The President fell into a deep personal crisis because as ill luck would have it, ISIS beheaded James Foley that shook the nation in its roots across the political divide.

President Obama has been credited for his cool and calm disposition in the face of crisis. This time, that ability became the reason of anger among Americans including his own party members because after speaking to James Foley’s mother and then assuring the nation with TV cameras focussed on him that he was “heartbroken”, he went to play golf. The President played golf again the next day, the 8^th time in his 11 days vacation in response to the nation’s outrage. The President preferred to go into denial instead of acknowledging that people had good reasons to feel frustrated over his golfing passion and insensitivity

The ISIS situation is fast becoming a major crisis for President Obama because it has threatened to kill a few other Americans in its custody. The President’s calm confidence seen on the golf course was thus gone when he returned to Washington. He stated that the US and its allies had no strategy over how to handle ISIS that caused widespread disbelief because the threat from this group is growing by leaps and bounds. There were many who were inclined to dismiss ISIS as a threat when it was bold enough to declare itself as a Caliphate with control of vast tracts of Sunni dominated Iraq and parts of Syria. The Foley beheading has been a rude awakening for the US and its allies that ISIS is no makeshift terror group that would wither away. Great Britain has raised the red flag on ISIS by stating that it one of the greatest threats to the west in recent times, greater than what was seen with Al Qaeda and Taliban that led President GW Bush to start the war on terror.

Prime Minister David Cameron stated that “a terrorists state on the shores of the Mediterranean” in ISIS has become a reality that the western nations could lightly at its own peril. His government raised its security concerns from ISIS from “substantial” to “severe.” President Obama’s response has been a stark contrast. His statement that the US and its allies did not yet have a strategy disappointed his supporters and strengthened his opponents to claim that he did not have what it requires to lead the world’s only Superpower. One newspaper described his predicament over ISIS as that of a deer in the headlights, confused and unsure.

President Obama’s current predicament therefore is one that must be painful for is supporters. Unfortunately, neither his supporters nor his opponents are discussing the fact that the upsurge and successes of ISIS underlines the utter failure of the US/allies’ invasion of Iraq. It further underlines that the trillions of US $ that were spent mainly by the US together with the deaths of thousands of soldiers, again mainly of Americans, have been wasted and that these wastages were the consequences of his predecessor’s ill conceived decision to invade Iraq. Prior to the invasion that was undertaken on falsehood and lies, there were no terrorists in Iraq. There were violations of human rights by the evil regime of Saddam Hossain but there was no threat to the territorial integrity of the country.

Today, Iraq is under serious threat of breaking up. ISIS is postured to take away a major part of the country and some of its oil resources. With parts of Syria in it, the Islamic State could emerge on the shores of the Mediterranean as a terrorist state as David Cameron has said. However, western leaders such as David Cameron and the western media are in almost total denial over the hundreds of thousands of men, women and children that have been victims of “collateral damage” of the western invasion. The western leaders and media are in similar denial that the democracy that the US/allies had promised to Iraq for which the US/allied troops have killed these hundreds of thousands of innocent of Iraqis and turned the country to face its present predicament has now vanished into thin air.

The media in the United States seems to have chosen their President to take the major blame for Iraq’s current predicament and the rise of ISIS. The President’s opponents are suggesting that had the President taken decisive action in Syria when Bashir Assad had crossed the Red Line and instead armed the opposition groups against him, the leadership of the anti-Bashir group would not have gone into the hands of the Al Qaeda and the terrorists that linked up with the Sunni groups in Iraq and created the ISIS and turned it into a powerful fighting force, very sophisticated and well funded right under the nose of the US an its allies.

There is no doubt that President Obama has been indecisive in Syria and that had a major impact in the emergence of ISIS as a powerful force. Nevertheless, the reason for growth of ISIS is not really in inaction in Syria or President Obama’s failures. The seeds on ISIS were sown by the way the US/allies intervened in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a creation of the US and his indulgence with terror was mainly carried while his regime had the goodwill of Washington. The US led the attack on Iraq on false pretext because the advisers of President Bush who were also advisers of his father- Dick Cheneye, Karl Rove and Donald Rumsfeld- felt that while USA had indulged with Saddam Hussein, he had armed his regime with weapons of mass destruction that threatened Israel.

That belief led to US/allies invasion of Iraq in 2003 and destroyed the country and unleashed the Shia-Sunni hatred that was always there but kept in control by the Saddam regime. Thus it has been the US/allied invasion that has directly created the environment for emergence of ISIS because the government in whose hands the US/allies had left Iraq believing it would be able to establish democracy was corrupt, inept and tried to impose Shia denomination over the Sunnis doing the same thing that Saddam Hussein had done but only in reverse.

President Obama’s mistake for his present predicament over ISIS/Iraq has been his failure to blame his predecessor for misleading the country to invade Iraq for upholding Israel’s interests and allowing the Republicans to pocket major part of the trillions of dollars of taxpayer’s money spent in Iraq. Because of these failures, he now finds himself confused over the next move against ISIS, as he himself has admitted, without a strategy and therefore exposing himself further to the attempts of his opponents to turn him into one if US’ worst presidents. The President’s confusion notwithstanding, his administration is in no position of sending troops to Iraq again and David Cameron’s strong words were simply rhetoric.

At the time of filing this article, a second American Steven Sotloff has been beheaded. President Obama has sent 350 additional troops as a response but to Iraq to guard US interests. He is still like the deer confused in the headlights, unsure how to deal with the deepening ISIS crisis.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador and his email id is ambserajulislam@gmail.com

The politics of education

M. Serajul Islam

The Minister of Education is undoubtedly one of the Ministers of the Government that the people of the country respects. He is a serious person and very sincere as well. Therefore, whenever he speaks in the public, people take his words seriously and try to understand his public statements. The people are comfortable that such an important Ministry of the Government is in the hands of a person on whom they can depend; something that cannot be said of many of his colleagues.

But why was he announcing the HSC results? There are a number of Boards with a Chairman in each that conducts these examinations. In the good old days, even the Chairman did not think that announcing results was his responsibility. There is a Controller of Examinations in each of these Boards and it used to he his/her (and still is) responsibility to announce the results of the SSC/HSC Examinations of their equivalents. The HSC and the SSC examinations are very important examinations no doubt. However, having the Minister appear before the media and then carry the results to the Prime Minister with the media accompanying does not add anything to the importance of these examinations.

Therefore if the Minister of Education appears before the media to announce the HSC examination results, then quite naturally people are justified to be curious. They cannot help but feel that even these examinations have now an agenda of the politics of conflict in the country. The Minister has not just announced the results; he bragged that the pass percentage has been over 4% higher that the last HSC examinations and a record number of students have got the G5 as if these are achievements of the AL led government. Why would the Minister brag about what after all is a basic service that governments worldwide perform without any fanfare at all as our Minister has done?

The reality with education in the country is both positive and negative where the positive ones are being lost because the government has been trying to take credit by going to denial over the negatives. On the credit side, there have been improvements in education in the country at the levels where the government is taking credit. The number of students entering schools leading up to the HSC has increased. The changes in the system of conducting these examinations have also led to more students passing these examinations than in the past. This government must also be credited for the way it has succeeded with supplying of textbooks. But this government cannot take the credit for these positive developments in the education sector alone. Credit must also be given to preceding governments and the huge non-government sector and private initiatives that have also positively contributed to these aspects of education in the country.

Therefore there is no reason for the Minister to make the high percentage passes look like this has happened because of the present government. The major credit for the improvements should go to the students and their parents and of course to the teachers. The Minister while announcing this year’s HSC results not just bragged over the outcome, he also asked a rhetorical question about what would be wrong if 100% passed instead of the 78.5% in this years HSC examinations. With this rhetoric, the Minister tried to get back at those who think that all is not well with the country’s education sector. In fact, the Minister did not leave any doubt that his press conference was intended to answer the critics of the country’s education policy as well as to take political mileage for the government.

In doing so, unfortunately the Minister has gone into denial that the criticisms have not at all been political. The critics have all been individuals from the civil society/educationists who are supposed to know what they are talking about and none representing any political party. Their concerns have been based on the sudden but largely unexplained rise in the pass percentages and in the number of G5 passes. In fact, there are so many aspects in the institutions that deal with education like the leakages of question papers by the Boards underline laxity in administration of an extremely serious nature. There have been no new policies or massive funding of the education sector by the government to justify the sudden spectacular improvement of education. In fact, a leading English daily in an editorial, while justifying the public criticisms, has added that the recent HSC results have underlined the fact that the urban-rural divide now increasing in all sectors has also been reflected in the HSC results; an issue that the Minister has not addressed.

In fact, a dispassionate look at the education sector overall is not particularly encouraging. The HSC results do not cause public enthusiasm because of the over-all state of affairs existing in the education sector of the country. These days, among the urban affluent living in the major cities particularly Dhaka that makes the major impact in the country’s politics; economy and society, there are not many who send their children to take the SSC/HSC Examinations and the few who take these examinations, get G5 passes effortlessly underlining that G5 can no longer be a proof of brilliance as its equivalent first division was in the olden days when only a very few could achieve it. The affluent these days send their children to take the O and A levels and then to universities abroad, perhaps never to come back. Those who do not leave the country after HSC enter the private universities, which are already turning counterproductive to a sound educational policy. These universities are producing an unbelievably disproportionate number of business graduates like Bangladesh would fly into economic heaven on the shoulders of these graduates where often for commercial reasons, results are made to order and not necessarily based on merit.

The 78.33% pass rate and the 70,632 with G5 result at this year’s HSC Examinations therefore do not cause public optimism. The public perception is that in the country where there has been a general deterioration of all institutions that include educational institutions where violence in the campus has become the buzzword, there are no reasons that in the year 2014, suddenly so many students would be passing their HSC examinations and such a huge number would be passing with G5. The government has neither taken major polices in the education sector in recent times nor allocated to the sector large additional fund to justify the exceptional results for which the Minister has bragged.

Thus, people without any political motives on the issue, cannot help feel that the exceptional pass percentage and unbelievably large number of G5 passes have been the outcome of a decision of the government to play with the numbers for political mileage. It is a pity that a Minister whose integrity and honesty is beyond reproach has become controversial as a result. Unfortunately, hard facts related to this year’s HSC results suggest that politics have played a part. Therefore many fear that politics that has very much contaminated almost every sector of the country is now set to do so to the vital education sector that could be dangerous and devastating for the country.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador. His email his email id is ambserajulislam@gmail.com

Indian elections and end of Congress-AL era of Bangladesh-India relations

M. Serajul Islam

The Awami League leaders are more concerned whether the BNP would gain any advantage from the change of guards in New Delhi to bother with the realities of the change. They are abusing and insulting the BNP by calling the party as one of “ahammaks”; idiots; goats; etc, etc because they think that the BNP leaders are gloating at the victory of the BJP. The Prime Minister ridiculed the BNP as Indian agents for expressing excitement and happiness at the BJP’s victory. In dong so, the AL leaders have gone into denial over what the Indian elections mean for Bangladesh and of course for its own future.

Narendra Modi had said during his campaign trail that his government would start “pushing back” the alleged 20 million Bangladeshis his party believes are in India immediately upon assuming power. The prospect of the LBA deal being delivered by the BJP Government would be remote. The Trinamool’s strong performance in Paschim Bangla would mean a similar fate for the Teesta deal. In addition, the BJP has come to power riding the Hindu fundamentalist wave. Therefore, New Delhi would no more have the compulsion of fighting the fundamentalist agenda in Bangladesh. The Prime Minister and AL leaders should therefore have been worried and concerned with the changed reality instead of going into a tangent with BNP bashing.

The AL’s BNP bashing of course makes sense from the perspective of the party’s interests and those of the government. The Congress’ defeat is very bad news for the Awami League and the BNP bashing underlines that fact. Since January 2009, New Delhi had looked after the interests of the Awami League ahead of those of Bangladesh. It interfered blatantly in the January 5 elections to ensure that the Awami League would return to power at any cost. Its support to the AL led government after January 5 elections gave it the breathing space in the face of widespread national and internal outcry that the elections did not reflect the will of the people with less than 10% people voting and 154 of the 300 members of the parliament being elected uncontested.

The question over the legitimacy of the January 5 elections still persists in Bangladesh and abroad. In fact, if anything, the question has gathered momentum. The AL’s problems at home over governance, particularly on law and order and human rights issues have re-enforced that question. At such a time, the AL led government’s need for continued and unqualified support of New Delhi is huge. That unqualified support would now come under the spanner in New Delhi because the support has not just brought the AL to power in questionable ways; such support also has caused Indian acceptance in Bangladesh to fall into an all time low. There is no reason why the new government would not consider these realties while conducting relations with Bangladesh.

Also, the BJP has no historical reasons to support the Awami League at any cost. Having come to power with a landslide, the BJP would have no reason to ditto the Congress’ Bangladesh Policy that many would say also reflected what went wrong with the Congress to have suffered its worst ever defeat in history. There are a few other reasons for the Awami League to be worried and concerned. A lot of the unqualified support that New Delhi gave to the Awami League came from two sources. The Indian President had taken the interests of the Awami League and more importantly, those of Sheikh Hasina in a personal way. Shiv Sankar Menon, the National Security Adviser was equally committed to the Awami League and was responsible for the hard to believe “Bangladesh Policy” of the Congress. The Indian President’s powers to do whatever he wanted in Bangladesh would now be clipped and SS Menon would no longer be around.

The Congress government did not just support the AL in Bangladesh at any cost. When the USA expressed support for “inclusive” national election in Bangladesh, New Delhi put its own relations with Washington on line. The case of Devyani Khobragade, some would say, went to nasty level among other reasons also because of New Delhi-Washington differences over Bangladesh. Good relations with Washington would top the agenda in the foreign affairs priorities of the BJP government. Narendra Modi would need Washington’s support desperately for both personal as well as India’s interests. Therefore, the differences between Washington-New Delhi over Bangladesh seen under the Congress could very well turn into cooperation and the Awami League would be seriously cornered if that were to happen.

These realities after the Indian election would thus explain the AL’s anger and abuse of the BNP. The BNP is of course happy that the Congress has been dumped because it literally took away its chances of coming to power from its grasp. In fact, impartial observers also believe that without the Congress’ unfair interference for the AL, the latter would have suffered the same fate on January 5 as the Congress has suffered now. The BNP, on its part however, has not expressed any joy and happiness in public to bring upon it the sort of abuse and insult that have been heaped on it. It has resulted from AL’s insecurity that the Congress would no longer be around to back it at any cost.

The AL would do itself favour if it stopped its BNP bashing for a better grasp of reality. Even if the BJP were not to support the AL like the Congress, there is no reason to think that it would ensure for the BNP a new election in Bangladesh. The BJP would like the Congress do what would be in the interest of India. As for election in Bangladesh, that would depend on the efforts and abilities of the BNP, the opposition parties and the civil society. The BNP, to be fair to it, has not stated publicly that they would want or that they expect the BJP to do any such thing. For the BNP, the fact that the Congress has been dumped should be enough reason for rejoicing.

The Foreign Minister has stated that the Bangladesh Government is waiting eagerly to start bilateral relations with the BJP government to take these to greater heights. That statement too has been made out of the same feeling of insecurity and nervousness as those of insults and abuse of the AL leaders. It is indeed a reflection on Bangladesh as a country that when it would needs to come together to deal with new dangers that could come from New Delhi, its mainstream parties are considering their respective party’s interests and showing little or no concern about how to deal with these dangers. In fact, the ruling party in any other country would have consulted with the opposition to respond to the dangers that have appeared in Bangladesh-India relations as a result of the recent Indian elections.

The reactions in Bangladesh particularly those from the ruling party are therefore strange ones. In particular, the comparison in Sheikh Hasina’s congratulatory message that the BJP’s historic mandate is similar to one AL received by the AL on January 5 has been made in utter denial to reality. The BJP will conduct relations with Bangladesh based on India’s national interests and in that, little will change. Nevertheless, the BJP will, unlike the Congress, also look at the long-term prospects of pursuing India’s interests in Bangladesh; in particular its acceptance or the lack of it in pursuing these interests. It will also consider where the AL led government is going with governance and how Congress’ support for it at any cost has made it unpopular as well as India. Therefore, while the new BJP government will most certainly not do anything to benefit the BNP immediately; it will also not give the AL blank cheque to use Indian support to rule in Bangladesh the way it is doing at present. The AL led government’s problem with RAB will also discourage the BJP government in giving the AL led government unqualified support. That could make sense why the BNP is gloating, as they no doubt are in private.

On our certified freedom fighters

M. Serajul Islam

The aura around the war of liberation, the pride of every Bangladeshi, is breaking in the seams. Not long ago, it was the forgery over the gold in the “gold medals” given to the country’s foreign friends who gave us support in 1971 that shamed the country to the international community. It was discovered that the “gold medals” were fake and the forgery was committed in the Ministry of Liberation War. Investigations have been conducted into the despicable affair but the perpetrators of this act of national shame have been spared any real punishment.

This time five secretaries to the government have been exposed to have taken privileges/benefits as freedom fighters with fake freedom fighters certificates. Media reports have stated that there are hundreds more who have used fraud certificates for liberal benefits that the government gives to the freedom fighters in public service. The forgery of the secretaries has stunned and angered the nation. The government so far has just taken away the certificates. In other words, these officers have been set free with a reprimand for a crime that should have sent them to jail.

Every country with history of wars of external aggression or national liberation honours those who place their lives in harms way for their country’s independence and freedom. They are the heroes of the country; their freedom fighters. Bangladesh’s heroes were the Bengali officers/soldiers who defected from the Pakistani Army; the para military EPR and the Police/Ansar who started the war of liberation. People from all walks of life; from the cities as well as the villages; later joined them and fought the murderous Pakistani military mainly in a guerrilla war and earned the right to become FFs.

During the 9 months of the liberation war, the freedom fighters were in the hearts of the people who considered them as their saviours. It was the image of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib and the freedom fighters that kept the hopes of the people alive in the darkest period of their lives when danger and death lurked at every corner. When the country became independent and time came to honour the freedom fighters, it was easy to identify the armed cadres in the liberation war. When it came to the civilians, politics decided the issue. The Awami League led Government issued certificates to them keeping vague the nature of their participation. The certificates went almost all to the supporters of the Awami League in a war of liberation where every party/sections of the people except a few well-identified groups/individuals participated. The certificates gave the certified freedom fighters top government jobs that paved the way for them to rise to the highest rungs of the bureaucracy. Sheikh Hasina exposed the pro-AL nature of these certified freedom fighters. In 1996, she called the 1973 certified freedom fighters’ batch in civil service as “Tofael Bahini”.

The 1973 FF batch was a very large one. During the 1971-75 term, the AL also issued thousands of freedom fighters certificates to its supporters who used these certificates to enter subsequent intakes into the civil service where a significant percentage was set aside for freedom fighters under a quota system. Later non-AL governments did not add or change in any substantial way to the list, as they were afraid to fiddle with a sensitive issue. Subsequently children of the certified FFs were given the same benefits as their parents. This extension allowed the Awami League to have its supporters in the civil service in a substantial number that gave the party significant edge in the country’s politics as the civil service became politicised.

The strength of pro-AL members of the civil bureaucracy beefed and led by the FFs was visible in 1996. The certified FFs organised and led the Janatar Mancha that brought down the BNP government. The preponderance of AL supporters among the certified FFs is not the only issue that has frustrated the people outside the Awami League circles and supporters. The fact that the overwhelming majority of the civilians who were given the FF certificates did not have direct contact in the war is what has been even more frustrating. Further, in giving the freedom fighters certificates, the rights of many thousands who participated/fought in the war of liberation, in many cases with arms, were ignored because they had no connections with the Awami League.

Many in civil service or trying to enter service have tried to gain freedom fighters certificates to get lucrative benefits allowed for certified FFs. Although many were successful in establishing their case and were given FF certificates, the overwhelming number of certified FFs have been those to whom the Awami League Government of 1971-75 had issued the certificates. The certificates opened doors for their holders to higher civil service that went only to those with exceptional academic qualifications in the Pakistani days that the majority of these certified FFs did not have, for instance position of Secretary; Cabinet Secretary; Ambassador, etc. The instance of passing such lucrative benefits to the children of certified FFS is unique and exceptional to Bangladesh alone. The quota that these days exists in the civil service for the children of certified FFs is now a major cause of dis-satisfaction in the civil service of Bangladesh.

The secretaries who are now the centre of the storm were led by the lucrative advantages of being a FF to commit the fraud. It was the lure of an extra year of service that this government decided to give to the certified FFs over and above all the other advantages for certified FFs that encouraged them to commit the fraud. Further; their closeness to the ruling party helped them in their act. Their case revived in the public mind the lingering perception that many in civil service treaded the same path by acquiring FF certificates without participating in the liberation war but were never exposed for a variety of reasons of which political protection has been one. Therefore, they feel they have been singled out by a government that they thought would protect them and surprised that they have become the object of its wrath.

The reason for this government’s decision to review the list of FFs has not been explained properly. Nevertheless, it has brought out into the public an issue over which no past government has acted this way because of its sensitivity. It has reopened debate on just not these secretaries but on certified FFs in general. In this debate it has come out that the list of FFs in Bangladesh has been prepared without any definition of a freedom fighter. In USA for instance, a FF or a veteran is defined by the very act of wearing uniform to fight for the country. In India, where the freedom movement staggered over decades, the list of FFs was carefully compiled from those who unquestionably put their lives and livelihood on line for freedom of the country. In case of Bangladesh, the criterion of a civilian FF has been very questionable and very vague and designed to fit almost anyone.

Unfortunately, too much water has gone under the bridge. It will be impossible now to correct the mistakes of the past. It is therefore time to draw the curtain. Nevertheless the 5 secretaries and the others caught with fake FF certificates should be punished as prescribed by law and not allowed to get off with simply their FF certificates taken away. Their case should be made exemplary; otherwise the nation’s pride in its liberation war will be deeply dented. The cancellation of quota for children of FFs is now also a demand of the majority of those who take the civil service examinations. This is also something that the government should do to restore rationality to the way the issue of civilian FFs has been handled that in turn has had and continue to have an adverse effect on the civil bureaucracy.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador. His email id is ambserajulislam@gmail.com

Indian Foreign Minister's visit to Dhaka

2014-06-28T22:36:00.003-04:00

Posted : 29 Jun, 2014 00:00:00

AA-A+

Sushma Swaraj's visit of hope

M. Serajul Islam

The visit of Sushma Swaraj has ended quietly compared to the media hype that the country witnessed leading to it. The ruling party wanted desperately to show the people of Bangladesh that the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) government would treat it in the same special way as the Congress government had done. The BNP (Bangladesh Nationalist Party) wanted the contrary - that the visit would show that the BJP government would be different and that the visit would reveal that so as to weaken the ruling party's strength in the politics of the country.

The Indian External Affairs Minister came to Dhaka with an agenda of her own that did not consider the interests of either of the two parties that made desperate efforts to please her and through her, the new government in New Delhi. Sushma Swaraj came to Dhaka to convey a message to the people of Bangladesh that the BJP Government will conduct bilateral relations by putting their interests and the country's sovereignty as indispensable elements of their Bangladesh policy. She also came to Dhaka in pursuit of the new government's policy of close relations with the SAARC (South Asian Association for regional Cooperation) countries that was revealed when the SAARC leaders were invited to the inauguration of Narendra Modi.

Thus in her official consultation with the Bangladesh Foreign Minister, the sticky bilateral issues were set aside. The Bangladesh side just flagged some of the outstanding bilateral issues such as the pending Teesta/LBA deals without making any demand so as not to upset the Indian Minister. The Indian Minister also did not raise the sticky issue of the 20 million alleged Bangladeshis. In her meeting with Sheikh Hasina, Sushma Swaraj assured the Bangladesh Prime Minister that New Delhi will deliver the deals "soon" but did not give any time frame like these issues were not important for the visit.

Nevertheless, the visit has been a very important one. In a quiet, unassuming way, Sushma Swaraj with her trademark "tip" and pleasant demeanour, outlined the parameters within which the BJP government will conduct bilateral relations. These parameters are a major shift from the way the Congress had conducted bilateral relations. Henceforth, New Delhi will not play any favourites and relations will be between country-to-country and government-to-government. This will rule out the special position the Awami League (AL) enjoyed under the Congress Government. By emphasizing that the people of Bangladesh will resolve the internal political problems of its politics, New Delhi has underlined that it will not interfere in Bangladesh's politics like the Congress had done for the Awami League. In fact, by stressing that Bangladesh must solve its own political problems, Sushma Swaraj has perhaps unwittingly admitted that such was the case under the Congress Government.

The visit did not just change the parameters, which have been dramatic and substantial. It also revealed New Delhi's view on a major issue with which the AL and BNP are fighting. By meeting Begum Khaleda Zia over the objections of the Awami League, the Indian Foreign Minister established the credibility of the BNP as the main opposition in the country. A week prior to Sushma Swaraj's visit, the UN had recognized the BNP as the main opposition after the faux pas committed by the President's men following his meeting with the UN Secretary General and had urged the AL to negotiate with it for fresh elections. Although Sushma Swaraj did not go to that extent, her meeting with the BNP leader has undermined the ruling party's attempts to sideline the BNP in the politics of the country.

There were other aspects of the visit that revealed that New Delhi does not see the present political situation in Bangladesh the way the AL-led government wants it to. In her speech at the Bangladesh Institute of International and Strategic Studies (BIISS), Sushma Swaraj mentioned without any direct reference to Bangladesh that institution building and tolerance are vital to growth of democracy. Many were quick to see in this a subtle criticism of the way the Awami League has been ruling the country.

The separate press briefings were another aspect of the visit that underlined that New Delhi and Dhaka are on different wavelengths. Dhaka wanted joint press briefing to give the impression to the people of Bangladesh about the thickness of its relations. Indians demanded separate briefings to convey the contrary view, and got it, that the Indian Minister left the MEA's Spokesman to handle. In Bangladesh's case, it was the Foreign Minister who briefed the media.

The media briefing of the Bangladesh Foreign Minster also underlined that the visit did not go the way the AL wanted. The Minister was defensive in the briefing and took pains to explain that Bangladesh has not granted land transit and the permission given to Indian trucks to use Bangladesh road was a humanitarian gesture. The Bangladesh side highlighted the BCIM-EC as an example of India's interest in making Bangladesh the regional connectivity hub that did not draw any response from the Indian Minister. In fact, on connectivity, the Indian Spokesman said it will be all about connecting the people of the two countries thus setting aside Bangladesh's efforts to use the visit to show New Delhi is as committed to Bangladesh's economic development as was the Congress Government.

Sushma Swaraj's visit was therefore largely a goodwill one. Nevertheless, the fact that she chose Bangladesh as the first country to begin her foreign trips underlines that India values its relations with Bangladesh as important. However, she also undertook the trip to reach out to the people of Bangladesh because the blatant interference of the Congress-led government has pushed India's standing in Bangladesh to its lowest ebb ever. Therefore, through the visit, she has laid down new parameters of bilateral relations to assure the people that it respects Bangladesh's sovereignty and its people. There is perhaps another issue that has led the parameters to be changed. India has not particularly liked the AL-government overtures towards China and its total commitment for Asia's march to world dominance under China's leadership. This message of disapproval has been subtly embedded in the way the visit was undertaken.

Therefore on final analysis, the visit of Sushma Swaraj has not gladdened the hearts of the ruling party. The BNP has gained credibility and will be inspired that the BJP Government will not back the AL government anything like the Congress had done which is the cause of its present nightmarish predicament. However, the visit has not failed to gladden the hearts of many Bangladeshis who believe that India has the power to build or destroy Bangladesh. In that context, the visit of Sushma Swaraj has been a visit of hope for the people of Bangladesh because the parameters that she set within which her government will conduct bilateral relations with Bangladesh will help keep Bangladesh on democratic path and help it to return from the path of disaster towards which it is headed for which the outgoing Congress has played a significant role.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador. His email id is ambserajulislam@gmail.com

June 29, 2014

On Sushma Swaraj’s visit

M. Serajul Islam

The much-hyped visit of Sushma Swaraj was exceptional in many ways. If she had visited any other South Asian country as the External Affairs Minister of a government that had just come to power, she would have expected that country’s stakeholder to have more or less the same expectations in receiving her. Her just concluded visit to Dhaka was however different. The ruling party had one set of expectations; the BNP, , another set of expectations in direct contrast to those of the ruling party. The people as the other major stakeholder had a set of expectations different from the two mainstream parties.

The visit was unusual also from another context. The BJP has a history that should have caused apprehensions among the Bangladeshi stakeholders about what to expect from a party that came to power with a huge mandate riding the wave of Hindu fundamentalism. Also, as the opposition party, the BJP had obstructed the Congress government from delivering the Teesta and LDA deals to Bangladesh. Additionally, the BJP had campaigned in the elections against Bangladesh. Narendra Modi had no inhibitions in telling voters that if elected, the BJP government would send packing 20 million alleged Bangladeshis in India, across the border.

Therefore, Sushma Swaraj should have expected a very unfriendly environment in Dhaka. Instead, the ruling AL showed no intention of embarrassing her on Teesta and LBA deals for which the AL led government had given India unequivocal support on its extremely critical security needs and land transit on trial basis, and instead assured Sushma Swaraj the same support it had given the outgoing Congress government. The ruling party did not also express worries about BJP’s history or its anti-Bangladesh rhetoric. The BNP that is know for its critical views about India was also equally interested in pleasing the Indian Minister instead of raising during her visit, critical views about India.

The reasons for such stance of the AL and the BNP towards Sushma Swaraj’s visit are embedded in the nature of Bangladesh’s politics and in the partisan role-played in it by the outgoing Congress Government. That government had supported the AL against both opposition inside Bangladesh and abroad to hold the January 5 elections that helped the Awami League to return to power. The political situation for the AL led government has deteriorated since the elections and pressure from western countries for fresh elections has mounted. Therefore, the AL needs the type of support from New Delhi as it had received under the Congress Government very badly. It therefore hoped that Sushma Swaraj would convey such support of the new BJP government.

The BNP has been badly served by the Congress Government. It feels that had the Congress not interfered for the AL, it would have been able to force the government to hold participatory elections. That did not happen. Instead, the Congress Government took upon itself the task of gaining for the AL led government credibility for the January 5 elections where the western nations and the UN raised serious question about its credibility and legitimacy. The BNP was therefore excited that the Congress was routed in the Indian elections. It has been expecting that the new Indian Government would see the mistakes of the Congress Government and carry forward relations with Bangladesh where the interests of Bangladesh would come ahead of those of the Awami League.

The outcome of the visit has not made the Awami League happy. The Indian Minister made it clear that under the BJP Government; Bangladesh-India relations would be people to people and that in such relations, interests of any political party would be of no consideration. In her speech at the BIISS, Sushma Swaraj underlined the issues of institution building and tolerance and their importance to democracy. Reading between the lines, the emphasis could be construed as criticisms of the way the AL is governing. Further, the emphasis of the Official Spokesman Syed Akbaruddin about relations with people “that transcends any forms of government” is a clear departure from the parameters within which the outgoing Congress Government had conducted bilateral relations with Bangladesh.

Another major message that the visit conveyed to Bangladesh was given through the meeting of the Indian Minister with Begum Khaleda Zia. By meeting her, the Indians followed the direction set by the UN following the faux pas over the President’s meeting with the UNSG. The UN, through a most unusual statement on that meeting underlined that the BNP is the country’s main opposition party and that the ruling party must hold talks with it for fresh elections. India did not go as far as demanding fresh elections but by the meeting with Begum Khaleda Zia, it raised subtle questions about the January 5 elections and established the position of the BNP as the party represents the opposition in Bangladesh.

In the hype over whether the ruling party or the BNP scored the points from the visit, very little attention has been paid to the substantive issues of the visit. The Indians, notwithstanding what the Bangladeshi parties wanted, undertook the visit as one of goodwill. Therefore Sushma Swaraj simply stated that India is going to deliver the Teesta/LBA deals but said little else. She did not provide a time frame of delivery although for the LBA, the BJP government needs just the political will to deliver.

The Indians used the visit to score points for its new foreign policy direction, namely to be seen as the regional leader. In his inauguration, Narendra Modi had invited all SAARC leaders as part of that policy. Sushma Swaraj’s visit was also undertaken under this new foreign policy initiative. Nevertheless, she used the visit also to establish a fresh approach towards Bangladesh; no doubt by acknowledging the fact that the Congress’ policy of favouring the AL has resulted in India becoming unpopular across Bangladesh. Thus in her speech at BISS, in her talks with the Bangladesh Foreign Minister, the Prime Minister and Begum Zia and in the media briefing, the theme of the visit has been a clear one. The BJP government is interested to reach the people of Bangladesh to regain the popularity India has lost in the country under the Congress.

Two other aspects of the visit have hinted that the BJP government would be different from the outgoing Congress Government. One was that the two sides held separate press conferences as wanted by the Indian side. The separate press conferences suggest that the Indians did not want to be seen too close with the AL led government in its efforts to reach out to the people of Bangladesh. The second was that although the Indian Minister left press briefing to the MEA Spokesman, the Bangladesh Foreign Minister held the press conference of the Bangladesh side. In that conference, he made efforts to explain that Bangladesh has given India permission to use its roads for humanitarian reasons to dismiss perceptions in the country that it has granted to India, the land transit. He also mentioned about the BCIM-EC and India’s interest in it to convey the perception that the AL led government is already getting close to the new Indian Government. The Indians ignored the issue, perhaps because New Delhi has questions about Dhaka’s over-eagerness towards China..

The Bangladesh-India relations have not been conducted under the Congress Government in any professional manner. As a consequence, although India has gained undue advantages, some extremely important, it has been achieved at great harm to Indian image in Bangladesh and by pushing the politics of Bangladesh towards un-democratic path. It appears like the Indian side considered these points seriously. New Delhi knows that both the AL and the BNP are more than prepared to be equally with India and that it will not be necessary for the new BJP Government to play favourites with the two parties of Bangladesh to further its interests. Therefore, for long-term interests of India, the new Indian Government has opted to reach out to the people of Bangladesh.

These messages that have come out distinctly from the visit of Sushma Swaraj has gladdened the people of Bangladesh because they believe that India has the ability to encourage Bangladesh towards democracy. The Indian Minister with the trademark tip on her forehead and pleasant demeanour has impressed the people of Bangladesh although the same cannot be said of the AL. The BNP has been reasonably satisfied with the visit because the BJP government would not play favourites in Bangladesh anymore. Nevertheless, the BJP government must not try to keep Bangladesh satisfied on promises alone, like the outgoing Congress Government, and it must find ways to deliver the Teesta and LBA deals without further delay to improve India’s image in Bangladesh and Bangladesh-India relations on track.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador. His email is HYPERLINK "mailto:ambserajulislam@gmail.com" ambserajulislam@gmail.com - See more at: http://www.daily-sun.com/details_On-Sushma-Swaraj%EF%BF%BDs-visit_900_2_5_1_0.html#sthash.sVA2Sba5.dpuf

When the dream of overseas jobs turns into a nightmare

2014-06-18T10:48:00.000-04:00

-->

Tuesday, 17 June 2014

When the dream of overseas jobs turns into a nightmare

M. Serajul Islam

The recent incident in the Bay of Bengal in which five Bangladeshis were killed is no accident. They were among 318 in a trawler who were trying to reach Malaysia illegally and were killed when Myanmar's human traffickers fired at them. The deaths of the Bangladeshis underscore a great tragedy that has been in the making for quite sometime. It reflects the air of hopelessness and desperation in the manpower market, where the dream of many for a job overseas is shrinking.

Recently, members of my immediate family were in Saudi Arabia for the Umrah. They were in Saudi Arabia a few times before for Hajj as well as Umrah. The news they carried back was that of a sharp drop in the number of Bangladeshis in Saudi Arabia. On their earlier trips, they had found the overwhelming majority of those they came across at airports, in hotels, and in other labor-intensive places of work were Bangladeshis. This time, in their hotels, they found that most of the Bangladeshis were gone. Those few who were still there told them that the Saudis were recruiting labourers from other countries such as Pakistan, Nepal and Myanmar (the Rohingyas) to replace the Bangladeshis.

The number of new workers from Bangladesh to other Middle East (ME) countries has also declined but that is not due to a fall in demand. In Qatar and UAE, demand has in fact increased with the 2022 World Cup Soccer in Qatar and 2022 World Expo in Dubai. Yet in both Qatar and UAE, labour export from Bangladesh has declined - in case of UAE, much more. The reason for the decline of Bangladeshi labourers in these two countries and the rest of the ME that no one talks about is the way politics has been conducted in the country since the Awami League (AL) came to power in January 2009, and its reflection in foreign relations. The demand of the secular groups in Bangladesh that Awami League ban Jamaat-e-Islami has been one reason for the declining numbers of migrant workers. Added to that has been the demand in the country for the trial of those who are alleged to have been involved with war crimes in 1971.

The ME countries have not expressed any views on the two issues. They had no reason to do so because what Bangladesh does at home is Bangladesh's business. Nevertheless, the Jamaat has deep links with at least one of the countries in the ME. Therefore, before the AL-led government had decided to hold the war crimes trials and taken an ambivalent stand on banning the Jamaat, its foreign policy team should have explained, for reasons of economic diplomacy, to the ME countries its compulsions on both the issues. On her first trip to Saudi Arabia soon after assuming power in January 2009, the Prime Minister had explained the issues in her audience with the King. Unfortunately, the government ended messing up both the issues, in which the Shahbag Movement, that the government supported, also contributed significantly. Although the Jamaat has not been banned and just one of the war criminals has been hanged, the government ended up giving negative perceptions to the ME countries providing them enough excuse to believe that Islam was being victimized on the two issues.

The impact of the perceptions in the Middle Eastern countries is now emerging. Remittance figures have shown that in the 2013-14 financial year, remittance flow to the country would fall by over US$ 1.0 billion. With no new labourers being recruited to offset the numbers of workers being sent home from Saudi Arabia and many ME countries, the remittance figures are certain to drop further in the future.

The way Bangladesh conducted relations with the UAE also has had a negative impact on the remittance flow. Last year, Bangladesh for reasons no one has explained, voted against UAE in its successful bid to hold the Expo 2018. Bangladesh had instead voted for Russia that lost its bid. The result was, not only did UAE stop recruiting labour; at one stage it had even stopped granting transit visas to Bangladeshis using UAE airports for travelling to Europe and the USA.

The government, unfortunately, is in denial over the shrinking ME labour market. That is not the case in the villages of Bangladesh. There many hundreds of thousands have been encouraged to dream that one day, they too would follow the hundreds of thousands of their brothers/friends/relatives to work in the Middle East. However, lately the dreams of many began to fade as many were returning home with few leaving for their dream jobs. The conflict between the ministry of expatriates' affairs and the BAIRA, the association of manpower agents, has further added to the declining trend in manpower export.

The new BJP government in India has threatened to "push back" millions of alleged Bangladeshis in India. Although Bangladesh disputes the huge figure that the Indians claim, the fact is that there are a large number of illegal Bangladeshis in India who went there, among other reasons, for a route to the Middle East. Human traffickers cheated them and abandoned them. That was years ago. These days, the human traffickers cannot smuggle Bangladeshis with the promise to send them to their dream jobs in the foreign lands through India, because meanwhile India has raised the impenetrable barbed wire fence along the Bangladesh-India border.

The tragedy in the Bay of Bengal is the result of what is happening in rural Bangladesh. The dream of overseas jobs has been forcing people in the rural areas to take desperate ventures with the temptations coming from the same traffickers who once led hundreds of thousands to a miserable life in the slums of India's Mumbai while promising them jobs in the ME. They are now misleading the new generation of rural Bangladeshis to brave the dangers of the high seas for dream jobs in Malaysia. No one in authority in the country seems to bother about educating these people that since there were no jobs in the Middle East for those who had been eventually trapped in India, likewise there were no jobs in Malaysia for those who were daring the dangerous seas to reach there.

Bangladesh's economy stands on two pillars: the ready-made garment (RMG) sector and foreign remittance. While the RMG sector has deep links with the power structure, the remittance earners are unfortunate who get honourable mention and little else. They are left literally at the mercy of the elements. At the time of going abroad, many of them fall victim to unscrupulous manpower agents for which they end up paying a lot more money for going abroad than the labour force in comparative jobs in the Middle East from other countries. In their place of work, many of them suffer inhuman cruelties with little support from the Bangladesh embassies to deal with their sufferings.

The country's domestic policy that has created misperceptions in the Middle East added to the miseries of the expatriate workers in that region. The consequences have created desperation in the villages of Bangladesh leading thousands to the traps of the human traffickers. Therefore, closing the net on the human traffickers alone would not improve the dangerous situation; for the sake of economic diplomacy, the country's foreign affairs team must go back to the drawing board and re-write their script for successful economic diplomacy with the manpower destination countries, particularly in the Middle East. Meanwhile, the relevant authorities must alert the people in our villages that instead of their dream coming true in Malaysia, there are no jobs at all in that country for illegal immigrants, and for those who risk the dangers of the high seas of the Bay of Bengal to reach Malaysia, a living hell awaits them there.

The writer is a career Ambassador. His email id is ambserajulislam@gmail.com

Egypt’s presidential election: A counter-revolution

2014-06-15T12:42:00.002-04:00

-->

June 15, 2014

Egypt’s presidential election: A counter-revolution

M. Serajul Islam

Egypt’s “Arab Spring” has turned sour and the country has another new era Hosne Mubarak who appears to have more grandiose visions of military rule than his predecessors including Gamal Abdel Nasser into whose footsteps he is trying to step. In the just concluded presidential election, the script was the same up to even the minor details as all the presidential elections held during President Mubarak’s 30 years of dictatorial rule of Egypt that were always short on credibility.

The new strongman of Egypt has chosen for himself the title that his illustrious predecessors did not have. Gamal Abdel Nasser was merely a Colonel, while Hosne Mubarak was a General. The new President of Egypt has the title of a Field Marshal. In the presidential run-off, he won 96.91% of the votes leaving nothing practically for his poor opponent. Only 47% of the voters turned out on Election Day compared to the 52% that had turned out when Egypt had its last presidential elections two years ago that had elected Dr. Mohammad Morsi as the candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2005, when Egypt had its first direct presidential election, Hosne Mubarak had polled 88.6% of the 22.9% of voters that had turned out to vote.

The way Dr. Morsi was ousted is history. There was of course a lot that had gone wrong in the 13 months the MB had been in power in democratic Egypt. The MB was in a hurry to implement its Islamists agenda. They way it hurried through the drafting and implementing the new Constitution of Egypt without due consultations with the other groups in society and parliament was a grave error. It instantly and rightly upset the secular forces in the country that had been instrumental in bringing down the dictatorship of President Hosne Mubarak.

The equally serious mistake of the Muslim Brotherhood was its failure to consider that although it had won both the parliamentary and presidential elections, it was not the majority in the society and the country. It had failed to realize that there was no way that its Islamic fundamentalist agenda would be accepted without compromise with the secular forces whose role in the “Arab Spring” was more significant than its own. During its short hold on power, the MB government had also indulged in acts of persecution against its political opponents and minorities similar to those committed during the military dictatorship of President Hosne Mubarak.

Nevertheless, its mistakes notwithstanding, the MB had earned the right to rule and legislate the affairs of the country democratically. Therefore, the way the elected President Dr. Mohammad Morsi was removed and the legislature dissolved were also a denial of democracy and democratic aspirations of the people of Egypt. The persecution of MB supporters by the military regime of FM Sisi surpassed those by the regime of Hosne Mubarak on its opponents. Two instances of persecution of MB supporters were unbelievable. In March, the military backed Egyptian court sentenced 529 MB supporters to death for attacking a police station where many who were sentenced were not even present and many were not even members of the MB. In April, the court sentenced 683 MB supporters including some leaders of the party to death for killing one policeman!

These two cases stand out as unique instances in history where so many individuals had been sentenced in a court for killing just one individual; a policeman! Nevertheless, these instances also underlined the determination of the military rulers of Egypt to exterminate the MB for good. There was no doubt that the type of rule that Field Marshal Abdel Fatah el Sisi promised Egypt was welcomed by many who were fed up with the long period of instability following the downfall of General Mubarak that had a disastrous impact on the country’s economy. The Field Marshal was in fact brought to power by the very forces that had ousted the regime of Hosne Mubarak in the wake of Arab Spring, minus the MB that had supported that movement from the outside that had dissuaded the Americans from calling the take over by FM Sisi (then a General) a coup d’état.

Nevertheless, the take over turned out to be more than a mere coup d’état. The regime made no attempts to hide its intentions to re-establish military rule in the traditions of President Mubarak. There was no doubt that such intention also had the support among a substantial number of the masses. However, it was far from what the propagandist of the regime said it was; that it had support of the entire masses. That fact was borne out from the number that turned out to vote for the Field Marshal. The regime had promised a voter turn out of nearly 80%. The eventual turnout was about half of that. There were also reasons to suspect that the actual turn out was even less as many election booths were found empty on Election Day. International observers have also cast doubts on the elections credibility.

What has happened in Egypt is a counter-revolution. The democratic aspirations of the people of Egypt as expressed through the Tahrir Square revolution over 3 years ago has turned a full circle and power has once again gone to the very military that was overthrown by that revolution. The ease with which the military has re-established itself after an initial period of serious efforts of the MB to fight it has led many to write obituaries of the MB. An op-ed that appeared in the NYT of May 23, 2014 entitled “ The Muslim Brotherhood Will Be Back” however reminded those making such conclusions that such obituaries were written about it in the past too but were proven to be untrue. In 1963, Manfred Halpern, a noted Political Scientist, had written, “ secular nationalism had triumphed over political Islam.”

Today, the MB’s opponents are again claiming that the ouster of Mohammad Morsi was not that of a man but of a “world view” that Islam and democracy are not compatible. The NYT editorial pointed at the error of such a viewpoint by stating that the truth was in fact the reverse. It called the claim of MB’s opponent “an odd claim considering that it was the democratically elected Mr. Morsi who was overthrown by the army and not the other way around.” The NYT op-ed espoused the concept and cause of illiberal democracy; the need to accommodate regimes as democratic even where they do not fit into the western prescription that democracy and liberalism are complimentary and are inseparable.

In Egypt and in many countries of the world, regimes elected freely; and fairly and reflecting popular will have found it difficult to live up to liberal democracy. The problem of Islamist parties like the MB is even a more difficult one; they find they cannot “ fully express their Islamism in a strictly secular state.” Alternatively, if Islamist parties were to give up their Islamism “then this runs counter to the essence of democracy — the notion that governments should be responsive to, or at least accommodate, public preferences.” The problems of trying to resolve such illiberalism in democratically elected Islamic regimes by military coup d’état are huge; they could push such Islamist parties under ground and bring with it related consequences and dangers.

Nevertheless, the NYT op-ed has predicted that the assumption of power by Field Marshal Sisi would not in anyway be the end of the MB. Instead, the MB would be lurking in the wings as it had done in the past and waiting for democratic openings “ready to return to political prominence, and perhaps even power.” Therefore, the NYT op-ed concludes that the lesson of the Arab Spring is not that “Islamist parties are inimical to democracy, but that democracy, or even a semblance of it, is impossible without them.”

The writer is a retired career Ambassador and his email id is HYPERLINK "mailto:ambserajulislam@gmail.com" ambserajulislam@gmail.com

Egypt’s presidential election: A counter-revolution

M. Serajul Islam

Egypt’s “Arab Spring” has turned sour and the country has another new era Hosne Mubarak who appears to have more grandiose visions of military rule than his predecessors including Gamal Abdel Nasser into whose footsteps he is trying to step. In the just concluded presidential election, the script was the same up to even the minor details as all the presidential elections held during President Mubarak’s 30 years of dictatorial rule of Egypt that were always short on credibility.

The new strongman of Egypt has chosen for himself the title that his illustrious predecessors did not have. Gamal Abdel Nasser was merely a Colonel, while Hosne Mubarak was a General. The new President of Egypt has the title of a Field Marshal. In the presidential run-off, he won 96.91% of the votes leaving nothing practically for his poor opponent. Only 47% of the voters turned out on Election Day compared to the 52% that had turned out when Egypt had its last presidential elections two years ago that had elected Dr. Mohammad Morsi as the candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2005, when Egypt had its first direct presidential election, Hosne Mubarak had polled 88.6% of the 22.9% of voters that had turned out to vote.

The way Dr. Morsi was ousted is history. There was of course a lot that had gone wrong in the 13 months the MB had been in power in democratic Egypt. The MB was in a hurry to implement its Islamists agenda. They way it hurried through the drafting and implementing the new Constitution of Egypt without due consultations with the other groups in society and parliament was a grave error. It instantly and rightly upset the secular forces in the country that had been instrumental in bringing down the dictatorship of President Hosne Mubarak.

The equally serious mistake of the Muslim Brotherhood was its failure to consider that although it had won both the parliamentary and presidential elections, it was not the majority in the society and the country. It had failed to realize that there was no way that its Islamic fundamentalist agenda would be accepted without compromise with the secular forces whose role in the “Arab Spring” was more significant than its own. During its short hold on power, the MB government had also indulged in acts of persecution against its political opponents and minorities similar to those committed during the military dictatorship of President Hosne Mubarak.

Nevertheless, its mistakes notwithstanding, the MB had earned the right to rule and legislate the affairs of the country democratically. Therefore, the way the elected President Dr. Mohammad Morsi was removed and the legislature dissolved were also a denial of democracy and democratic aspirations of the people of Egypt. The persecution of MB supporters by the military regime of FM Sisi surpassed those by the regime of Hosne Mubarak on its opponents. Two instances of persecution of MB supporters were unbelievable. In March, the military backed Egyptian court sentenced 529 MB supporters to death for attacking a police station where many who were sentenced were not even present and many were not even members of the MB. In April, the court sentenced 683 MB supporters including some leaders of the party to death for killing one policeman!

These two cases stand out as unique instances in history where so many individuals had been sentenced in a court for killing just one individual; a policeman! Nevertheless, these instances also underlined the determination of the military rulers of Egypt to exterminate the MB for good. There was no doubt that the type of rule that Field Marshal Abdel Fatah el Sisi promised Egypt was welcomed by many who were fed up with the long period of instability following the downfall of General Mubarak that had a disastrous impact on the country’s economy. The Field Marshal was in fact brought to power by the very forces that had ousted the regime of Hosne Mubarak in the wake of Arab Spring, minus the MB that had supported that movement from the outside that had dissuaded the Americans from calling the take over by FM Sisi (then a General) a coup d’état.

Nevertheless, the take over turned out to be more than a mere coup d’état. The regime made no attempts to hide its intentions to re-establish military rule in the traditions of President Mubarak. There was no doubt that such intention also had the support among a substantial number of the masses. However, it was far from what the propagandist of the regime said it was; that it had support of the entire masses. That fact was borne out from the number that turned out to vote for the Field Marshal. The regime had promised a voter turn out of nearly 80%. The eventual turnout was about half of that. There were also reasons to suspect that the actual turn out was even less as many election booths were found empty on Election Day. International observers have also cast doubts on the elections credibility.

What has happened in Egypt is a counter-revolution. The democratic aspirations of the people of Egypt as expressed through the Tahrir Square revolution over 3 years ago has turned a full circle and power has once again gone to the very military that was overthrown by that revolution. The ease with which the military has re-established itself after an initial period of serious efforts of the MB to fight it has led many to write obituaries of the MB. An op-ed that appeared in the NYT of May 23, 2014 entitled “ The Muslim Brotherhood Will Be Back” however reminded those making such conclusions that such obituaries were written about it in the past too but were proven to be untrue. In 1963, Manfred Halpern, a noted Political Scientist, had written, “ secular nationalism had triumphed over political Islam.”

Today, the MB’s opponents are again claiming that the ouster of Mohammad Morsi was not that of a man but of a “world view” that Islam and democracy are not compatible. The NYT editorial pointed at the error of such a viewpoint by stating that the truth was in fact the reverse. It called the claim of MB’s opponent “an odd claim considering that it was the democratically elected Mr. Morsi who was overthrown by the army and not the other way around.” The NYT op-ed espoused the concept and cause of illiberal democracy; the need to accommodate regimes as democratic even where they do not fit into the western prescription that democracy and liberalism are complimentary and are inseparable.

In Egypt and in many countries of the world, regimes elected freely; and fairly and reflecting popular will have found it difficult to live up to liberal democracy. The problem of Islamist parties like the MB is even a more difficult one; they find they cannot “ fully express their Islamism in a strictly secular state.” Alternatively, if Islamist parties were to give up their Islamism “then this runs counter to the essence of democracy — the notion that governments should be responsive to, or at least accommodate, public preferences.” The problems of trying to resolve such illiberalism in democratically elected Islamic regimes by military coup d’état are huge; they could push such Islamist parties under ground and bring with it related consequences and dangers.

Nevertheless, the NYT op-ed has predicted that the assumption of power by Field Marshal Sisi would not in anyway be the end of the MB. Instead, the MB would be lurking in the wings as it had done in the past and waiting for democratic openings “ready to return to political prominence, and perhaps even power.” Therefore, the NYP op-ed concludes that the lesson of the Arab Spring is not that “Islamist parties are inimical to democracy, but that democracy, or even a semblance of it, is impossible without them.”

The writer is a retired career Ambassador and his email id is HYPERLINK "mailto:ambserajulislam@gmail.com" ambserajulislam@gmail.com - See more at: http://www.daily-sun.com/details_Egypt%EF%BF%BDs-presidential-election:-A-counter-revolution_886_2_5_1_0.html#sthash.nhBJirfG.dpuf

Contrasting Bangladesh politics with US politics

2014-06-15T00:47:00.003-04:00

Contrasting Bangladesh politics with US politics

Post Editorial

Sunday, 15 June 2014

Author / Source: M. Serajul Islam

Washington has been rocked this week by the unexpected news of the defeat of Eric Cantor who was seeking re-election to a Congressional District in the suburbs of Richmond, Virginia. Eric Cantor is no ordinary member of the Republican Party. He is the Majority Leader in the House, the “heir apparent” to be next Speaker, a position of tremendous political power in the country. Eric Cantor, over and above all these, has represented the Congress seat from Virginia for 7 times in the past and would have gone to the House of Representative for an eighth time!

Eric Cantor was so confident of his victory that he spent the day of the election taking care of his legislative business as the Leader of the majority party in the House instead of any worries about the outcome of the election. He is a key Congressman in two major issues before the Republican Party and the Congress as the country heads towards elections for the Congress later in the year that also will have a major impact on the presidential election to take place in the end of 2016.

Paul Kane, writing the headline story in The Washington Post on June 11, 2014, stated that Eric Cantor “was considered the necessary linchpin in any possible breakthrough on a number of difficult issues facing Congress, from an overhaul of immigration policy to fiscal and tax reform. “ With Eric Cantor now out, Speaker John A Boehner who after an initial period of difficulties found in Eric Cantor a “loyal deputy”, will now find himself in a difficult situation in dealing with the Democrats on the tough issues related to fiscal, tax and immigration reforms. He will be under increasing pressure from the Tea Party members of the party as the gather force to derail the possibilities of compromise on these issues. Without compromise on these issues, the Republican Party would no doubt please the Tea Party members and their extreme conservative followers but could end up losing nationally as the country gears towards elections to the House of Representatives later this year. The fall of Eric Cantor did not just end the career of a politician almost without warning when he was on course to reaching the top. It has brought out into the open a host of other possibilities about US politics that are not just matters of concern for the Republican Party but for the country. One of course is that fact that it will put at jeopardy a possible compromise between the Republicans and the Democrats on “ an overhaul of immigration policy to fiscal and tax reform.”

Eric Cantor lost to a Tea Party candidate, David Bratt, a Professor who was not considered a serious challenger as he was not well known and his campaign was underfunded. His candidature received a last moment shot in the arm that took him ahead to take the primary with 55% of the votes after Eric Cantor made comments about the pending immigration bill just days before the primary election. Talking to a CBS affiliate in the US city of Richmond, the House Majority Leader had advocated citizenship for the children brought to the country illegally. That was enough to swing the voters as David Brat accused the Congressman of supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants, a highly sensitive issue among the conservatives. Eric Cantor’s defeat has also been attributed to the fact that he has been too busy with national issues and issues of the Republican Party and has lost his touch with his district.

Readers may keep in mind the fact that the election that Eric Cantor has lost is what in US politics is known as the primary. He is still a member of the Congress and will remain so till the elections to the 435 seats of the Congress are held in November. The primary is a system unique in US and some western democracies that narrows down candidates of the parties for the main election. It also transfers the power of nominating candidates for national elections from the party leaders to the people.

The political parties do not choose the candidates who contest in national elections, to the Congress and White House, in the United States. The candidates choose themselves by contesting in the primaries. These primaries are conducted at the grassroots without the direct interference or influence of the party leaders at the top level. The primaries also underline the way democracy as reflection of people’s power works in both these parties. Any member of the party can nominate himself/herself and contest in the primaries. There is no limit to how many members can participate in any one constituency in the primary. The candidate who wins the primary wins the nomination of the party.

The party does not choose on its own even the candidate it nominates for the presidential election.

Any ordinary member of either party can declare himself/herself to become a candidate for election to become the President of the United States. He/she must do so by declaring his/her candidature at the primaries. For the presidential election, the two parties have a fixed number of primaries and the candidate that takes the majority of electoral votes in these primaries is the candidate that the party must nominate as its choice for the presidential election. This is why it was possible for someone like Jimmy Carter in 1974 and Bill Clinton in 1992 to become presidential candidates although at the top level of the two parties, both the former Presidents were practically unknown political figures when they were nominated. Likewise, the candidate who just ended the promising career of Eric Cantor is a political unknown in the top level of the Republican Party. Yet he won the right to become the candidate of the Republican Party from Virginia seat defeating the candidate who is one of the top political leaders of the country.

In Bangladesh, the system we have is in direct contrast to the system at work in the United States. All political parties, and in particular the mainstream ones, consider it almost their God ordained right to nominate candidates for national elections at the top level of the party. The party supporters at the grassroots have simply no influence or input in choosing the candidate in their constituency for the parliamentary election.That is not all. The mainstream parties have meanwhile transformed their God ordained right to nominate candidates to all the constituencies as a very lucrative business and fund raising opportunity as candidates offer mind boggling sums for receiving party nominations. This system has also allowed individuals with money, both legal earned through business and illegally, to become members of parliament for they have the money to buy their nominations. This is also one reason why the country’s politics is so corrupt.

In the United States, the system of primaries emerged out of the progressive movement that began in the early part of the last century. The movement called progressiveness is still evolving. It helps bring issues into politics that people want because the primaries allow them to send to the elected offices those they choose. Perhaps it is time for such a movement to begin in Bangladesh. Perhaps such a movement that could bring primaries to Bangladesh could be the answer to the current ills of the country’s politics that is taking the country towards great uncertainty.

The writer is a former career Ambassador. His email id is
ambserajulislam@gmail.com

The unforgettable Mahbubul Alam: A giant among his peers

2014-06-14T10:40:00.000-04:00

The unforgettable Mahbubul Alam: A giant among his peers

Post Editorial

Wednesday, 11 June 2014

Author / Source: M. SERAJUL ISLAM

A month or so ago, I was watching from Washington, a Bangladesh television channel’s talk show in which Mr. Mahbubul Alam, Mahbub Bhai to many of us, was the only guest. I was shocked at his emaciated appearance. He of course spoke in his usual easy manner and explained what he wanted to explain in a way that was his trademark; the ability to tell the hardest truth while not losing his charming smile and easy manner. After the show, I called my daughter’s father-in-law Mr. Ziaur Rahman, Zia Bhai, a well-known former senior editor of the Voice of America who knew Mahbub Bhai, as a close friend and conveyed to him my concerns about him.

Zia Bhai had called him soon afterwards after I conveyed to him my concern. Mahbub Bhai had told him that he was doing fine and that he had been to Bangkok where the doctors had given him a clean bill of health. A day before he died, Zia Bhai called me to inform me that his wife had called him to tell him that Mahbub Bhai was at the ICU of a hospital in Dhaka and was fighting for his life and that she and their 3 daughters were leaving for Bangladesh. Sadly, before they could reach Dhaka, Mahbub Bhai had passed away.

I knew Mahbub Bhai as a Foreign Service officer. Although he was one of the most outstanding career journalists in the country’s history, he had also distinguished himself in the foreign service that he served both at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Dhaka and also in the Bangladesh missions aboard. At the Ministry, he was a Director-General (External Publicity) and at the missions, he was Press Counsellor in London, Press Counsellor in Washington and later he was sent to Washington for the second time as Press Minister. When I was posted to Washington in 1990, Mahbub Bhai was already posted there as the Press Minister. Mahbub Bhai was also the Bangladesh Ambassador to Bhutan.

Mahbub Bhai was a more capable and distinguished diplomat than many who have served in the Bangladesh Foreign Service as career diplomats. In Washington, a capital that is the hardest for a Bangladeshi diplomat dealing with the press and media, Mahbub Bhai distinguished himself like no one had before him and no one since. He had mastered the most important attribute of diplomats that is building personal contacts with those in the host country who they considered would be helpful to them to further their country’s interests in their areas of responsibilities.

In 1992, I saw the ability of Mahbub Bhai when the then Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia visited the United States on an official trip. He utilized his contacts that he had painstakingly built to get the Prime Minister publicity that money could not buy. He was able to get the Prime Minister interviewed both in the Washington Post and the New York Times that underlined the brilliance of his abilities as Press Minister. He was able to get the interviews in those prestigious papers because he had from the day he arrived in Washington built the contacts with the papers so that he would be able to get publicity for VVIP visits to the United States. The two papers interviewed the Prime Minister more because of the personal contacts of Mahbub Bhai with the papers than because of their interests in either Bangladesh or the Prime Minister.

I remember Mahbub Bhai on the first VVIP visit we made together. It was the visit of President HM Ershad to Fiji to attend the Commonwealth Regional Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGRM) in 1981. I joined that visit from Canberra where I was then the Second Secretary. Mahbub Bhai was then the Director-General (EP) in the Foreign Ministry. That visit was HM Ershad’s first visit overseas as the country’s Head of State. In Fiji, being his first participation in a high profile meeting, the President was naturally not at ease.

The Foreign Minister was the high profile HMS Doha. There were army officers aplenty in that delegation of President HM Ershad and the poor civilians were constantly being watched for their performance. Mahbub Bhai was unperturbed and in the company of Abul Ahsan, who was on that trip as the Additional Foreign Secretary, underlined the high quality of the officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as professional diplomats. I did not see Mahbub Bhai tense or worried even for a fleeting moment and he performed his duties and responsibilities like “business as usual.”

Zia Bhai told me many stories about Mahbub Bhai the journalist. In particular, he told me how highly he was rated in the Pakistan days. He was the Bureau Chief of the Dawn, at that time Pakistan’s leading newspaper, to New Delhi during the India-Pakistan war of 1965. His reports from New Delhi were the talk of entire Pakistan at the informed circles because they provided the most detailed and in depth coverage of that war from the Indian perspective. In particular, his reports of the debates in the Lok Sabha during the war had made him a star in the media circles of Pakistan. Earlier, his coverage of news about the death of Pandit Jahwarlal Nehru and the event of his funeral had earned him the attention and respect of readers of Pakistan, both East and West.

I found Mahbub Bhai’s public exposure as the Information Adviser to the Caretaker Government before the emergency was declared in January 2007 as so positive that it made me proud to have known him personally. In the short time he was in that role, Mahbub Bhai distinguished himself and impressed everybody by the way he would talk to the media. These days, we see our Ministers make a mockery of their meeting with the media. If they would care to take the videos of Mahbub Bhai’s meetings with the media during his short tenure as the Information Adviser that must be in the archives of the private TV channels, and studied those, they would have so much to learn. One major lesson they could learn from the life of Mahbub Bhai is how to establish authority and earn respect without showing arrogance or pride.

I started to write my column in The Independent primarily because of Mahbub Bhai’s encouragement and that of another colleague of his Golam Tahboor. At one time, between the two, they had gathered a team in The Independent that was talented enough to challenge any newspaper in the country. I spent many hours at his office with Tahboor Bhai talking of the possibilities of the paper. Sadly those promises were not fulfilled, not at all because of Mahbub Bhai but because of the lack of vision of those who needed to give his talents and leadership abilities due recognition.

I met Mahbub Bhai last year in Washington where he would come on a yearly visit every year, as his three daughters live here. On these visits, Zia Bhai would always arrange a dinner for him at his house together with common friends of the two in Washington. Zia Bhai arranged the last meal we had together as a lunch at a restaurant as Mahbub Bhai was unable to give time for the dinner. We chatted for a long time mainly about common friends and of course about the politics of Bangladesh.

Among those I know and have known, Mahbub Bhai had the most rational and analytical assessment of politics of Bangladesh without the biasness over which most of us are unable to rise. He was not happy with the political situation and believed that we all had a duty to ensure that the country’s current tryst with the type of negative and destructive politics we are now witnessing in the country must end.Gustav Flaubert had said that “a friend who dies; it’s something of you who dies.” Mahbub Bhai had many friends and admirers. I have no doubt that in them, as in me; it is a part of us that has died in the passage of Mahbub Bhai from the material world to the world of eternity. May Almighty Allah rest his soul in eternal peace.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador and his email id is ambserajulislam@gmail.com

On fallacy of the clash of civilizations

2014-06-14T10:32:00.002-04:00

On fallacy of the clash of civilizations

Post Editorial

Saturday, 07 June 2014

Author / Source: M. Serajul Islam

While preparing for the lectures I gave recently on Islam and globalization, I came across a wide array of books and articles that suggested that Islam and globalization are at the two ends of the spectrum with no common meeting ground. Famous Political Scientist Samuel Huntington in his book “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order” ruled out the chances of the Islamic countries ever being a part of the process of globalization. Instead, he predicted that there would inevitably be a clash between the western civilization and “the Islamic civilization”.

Professor Huntington originally articulated the idea of the so-called clash in an article for the Foreign Affairs journal in 1993 that he titled as “the Clash of Civilizations?” The question mark suggested that he had some element of doubt about the thesis. In the book however he dropped the question mark that suggested that any doubt that he had at the time of writing the article had gone and he was convinced that the world was inevitably moving towards a clash between the western world and the world of Islam. He therefore wrote the book as a prescription to the western world to prepare itself in order to be in the position to lead the new world order that would emerge as a result of the clash between the western world and the “Islamic world.”

The events of 9/11 were the perfect breeding ground for such a thesis to find acceptance in the West. Many in the West grabbed Professor Huntington’s theory and used it to justify the heavy price that the Muslims have paid since 9/11 for the crimes of the few terrorists who have been alleged to have committed the dastardly acts on 9/11.

The United States and allied troops went to Afghanistan and later to Iraq in pursuit of those they thought had masterminded the 9/11 attacks and their compatriots. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims, including women and children as “collateral damage” as the US led allied troops pursued Al Qaeda and “Islamic terrorists”. The US left Iraq a few years ago. It is now preparing to leave Aghhanistan with its combat troops numbering 100,00 together with 40,000 from allied countries by the end of the year. In Iraq, the current semblance of democracy notwithstanding, the country is yet far from becoming the sort of country that the US had promised it would be after it had removed Saddam Hossain for power and hanged him.

Sectarian viloence between the Sunnis and Shias resulting in deaths in large numbers are now common place. The US would be leaving Afghanistan by year’s end after its longest war ever with the Taliban showing signs of returning once the US troops leave the country. In fact, between Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has established the cardinal errors in the thesis of Professor Huntington, errors that have been underlined by another scholar of history Edward Said in no uncertain manner.

Years before Professor Huntington wrote his book, Edward Said in his book “Orientalism”, written in 1979, had exposed the gross error in the way the western world perceived the Orient. He underlined the West’s failure to understand the internal cultural/regilious/ethni divisions and differences among those that made up the Orient among whom were the Muslims.Edward Said later elaborated his ideas in the light of Professor Huntington’s book and the spin given to it in the West as justfication for the actions of the United States and the alied troops in Iraq and Afghainstan. In series of lectures and articles, he argued that the Muslims are niether a monolith nor a civilization and that within the so-called Islamic world, there were regional, cultural and sectaran differences that made the argument forwarded by Professor Huntngton palpably erroneous.He underlined the differences between the Arab Muslims who constituted only 20 % of the Muslims of the world but perceived in the West as the entire Muslim world and the Muslims elsewhere.

The present situation in Iraq and Afghanistan have destroyed Professor Huntington’s thesis on clash of civilizations further. Instead it underscored the correctness of Edward Said’s arguments about the wrong path taken by the United States and the alllies in pursuing their so-called war on terror. In fact, the present situation in the two countries went to establish that the Muslim world was far from being a monolith that Professor Huntington had said it was and in no way ready or interested or even in any positiion to clash with any civilization, let alone the West. In fact, Muslims are dying at the hands of fellow Muslims suggesting that the clash of civilizations had been used by the West as an excuse to attack Muslim countries and that the Muslim countries had little to do with the clash and instead were the victims.

That the western countries had themselves contributed to the one-sided clash between the West and the Muslim countries has been underlined very recently by no other than Hillary Clinton. In an interview to FOX TV recently, she said that the Taliban in Afghanistan that “we are now fighting” was created by the United States . She also stated that the US acting through Pakistan had sponsored and supplied the other logistics to arm and strenghten the Taliban so that it would work with the Mujahideens to fight the Najibullah Government and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Once the Soviet Union fell and the war in Afghanistan ended, the US withdrew from the region and left Afghanistan to be overtaken by the Taliban and Pakistan to be permanently scarred by the Taliban Frankenenstein that it had helped create. In fact, even Osama Ben Laden’s safe passage from Sudan to Afghanistan was arranged by the US intellegence.

Therefore, the admission from Hilary Clinton that USA had a hand in establishing the Taliban is promising. It shows a sense of responsibility of the West in acknowledging problems in the Muslim countries where the cause of the problems have not been the Muslim countries but the western powers. There are other promising signs in the USA of the country moving away from the position where it was holding Muslims no matter where they came from, responsible for the crimes of few in the context of the events of 9/11. Already, the signs are visible in places like the airports where Muslims no longer feel they are being held up and harassed because of the crimes of the 9/11 terrorists. The US State Department recently came out with a publication available on the internet. It showed how American Muslims , estimated by sources to be close to 7 million, have been integrating in the US mainstream and how their efforts were being supported by the Americans encouraged by the US Government. Readers may wish to read the publication available in the website given here;

http://photos.state.gov/libraries/amgov/30145/publications-english/American_Muslims.pdf. If the integration of American Muslims into mainstream America is successful and it looks it is going that way, it could lead to positive developments for integrating the Muslim countries with the West. Muslim Americans have their linkages with hundreds of millions of Muslims in the rest of the world where the message of their successful integration would undoubtedly have positive ramifications. That in turn would no doubt establish the fallacy of Professor Samuel Huntington’s thesis of the clash of civilizations; that a new world order would emerge as a consequence of that clash.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador and his email id is ambserajulislam@gmail.com

Sushma's visit: Will it answer Bangladesh's worries?

2014-06-09T20:37:00.001-04:00

June 10, 2014

Sushma's visit: Will it answer Bangladesh's worries?

M. Serajul Islam

What will Narendra Modi do with Bangladesh? This has been the subject of concern in the country's politics ever since the new Indian Prime Minister led the Bharatiya Party (BJP) to the biggest victory by a party/alliance in the last 30 years. Never before has the attitude of an Indian government towards Bangladesh been the subject of so much discussion in the country. In 1971, before the people of Bangladesh had time to worry about Indian stand, New Delhi not just had backed the Bangladesh war of liberation 100 per cent; it had also taken upon itself the task of looking after the 10 million refugees who had fled to India to escape the genocide perpetrated in the country by the Pakistani military.

New Delhi has always felt comfortable dealing with an Awami League government in Dhaka. When India had a Congress government and Bangladesh an AL-led government, then New Delhi felt that dealing with Bangladesh was like dealing with a power that could not be anymore friendly. But the BJP has been a little different and has in the past not shown any preference between the two mainstream political parties - the Awami League and the BNP - in conducting bilateral relations with Bangladesh. In 2001, when the BNP had come to power with a 2/3rd majority, the BJP had made genuine advances towards the BNP for establishing pro-active bilateral relations but those efforts were frustrated by the BNP.

When I was posted in Japan, I had an in-depth discussion with the Indian Ambassador to Japan Mani Tripathi on this aspect of Bangladesh-India relations. Mani Tripathi had gone to Japan on a cross posting from Dhaka where he was the Indian High Commissioner at the time of the 2001 national elections in Bangladesh. The Indian diplomat had told me that as the High Commissioner in Dhaka, he knew that the Awami League had no chance in wining the 2001 elections and that BNP would sweep the seats. He had therefore alerted New Delhi well ahead to be ready to deal with the incoming BNP Government. His initiative resulted in New Delhi being the first country to congratulate the BNP's victory and also the first to name a Special Envoy to visit Dhaka.

In both the cases, the BNP Government spurned the BJP Government's positive moves. The BNP Government, according to Mani Tripathi, announced the messages of congratulation from other countries before the one from India and did the same with the issue of Special Envoy although in both the instances, the BJP Government reached the BNP Government ahead of the other countries. It is not just the 1999-2004 BJP Government that had tried to deal with Bangladesh on a country-to-country basis; all non-Congress Governments of India had likewise done so. In fact, Bangladesh has benefitted more under non-Congress governments because those governments considered the interests of Bangladesh ahead of those of any political party in the country. The AL-led government achieved the Ganges Water Sharing Treaty of 1996 and the Chittagong Hill Tracts Agreement in 1997 under non-Congress governments while under the Congress Government in its last term, it was denied the Teesta and the LBA deals after Bangladesh had delivered to India, its security interests and land transit on a trial basis.

The present BJP Government has taken office at a time like never before as far as India-Bangladesh relations are concerned. The Congress Government had gone overboard in dealing with Bangladesh by considering the political interests of only the Awami League. It directly intervened in Bangladesh's internal affairs in the context of January 05 elections to ensure the Awami League returned to power a second time. It did so because it argued that if the AL did not return to power, the religious fundamentalist would and that would not be in India's interests. The other argument for Congress' blatant interference in Bangladesh, of course, was that the AL would support India's interests in a way New Delhi wanted which of course was the case.

The fact that the BJP is itself a religious fundamentalist party has destroyed the Congress' secular argument and therefore has removed the major foundation for New Delhi's need to interfere in Bangladesh blatantly as the Congress had done. That leaves the issue of India's national interest and how to achieve it as the only issue that would determine the BJP Government's policy towards Bangladesh. The AL-led government has publicly assured the new government ion Delhi that it would give it same support as it had given to the Congress Government. It has overlooked the BJP's role under the Congress Government when it was the reason why the Teesta and the LBA deals were not delivered. Further, the AL-led government has also overlooked the BJP's other anti-Bangladesh stands, notably on the alleged Bangladeshis in India. Therefore, the BJP should only be too happy to deal with the AL-led government because it has offered India full support for furthering its interests in Bangladesh without demanding the two pending deals or demanding withdrawal of the threat to "push back" the alleged Bangladeshis.

Jane's Defense Weekly (JDW) in a recent review of the direction of Bangladesh-India relations under the BJP Government has therefore predicted that it would follow the trend set by the Congress government. In fact, the BJP Government would be stupid to do otherwise under normal circumstances. However, the circumstances are hardly normal. First, the BNP would have been the party the BJP would now be dealing with had the January 05 elections been a normal, democratic one. Second, there is deep resentment in the country over the January 05 election. Third, the western countries have questioned the January 05 elections and continue to urge the Bangladesh government to hold participatory elections. Fourth, the AL-led government has so far been unable to win over the people to encourage them to forget the nature of January 05 elections. Finally, the BNP has changed its India policy dramatically and has offered to the BJP the same friendship as the AL-led government.

The above-mentioned factors would no doubt be at the back of Sushma Swaraj's mind as she comes to Bangladesh at the end of the month. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina had requested Narendra Modi to consider Bangladesh his "second home" and make it the first country for starting his overseas trips. That he would be going to Bhutan instead and that Bangladesh is not yet in the list of countries he would be visiting up to September would suggest that Narendra Modi has not fallen for the Prime Minister's "second home" bait. He would instead be sending his External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj to Dhaka no doubt to assess the political situation in Bangladesh first-hand. The new foreign affairs team in New Delhi must have meanwhile no doubt alerted the PMO in New Delhi about the political predicament of the AL-led government and that in the country and among the western countries, there is serious concern over the legitimacy of the government.

The BJP government and in particular Narendra Modi would need something that the Congress Government did not - namely American goodwill. For US goodwill, Narendra Modi would be visiting Washington in September. Bangladesh had figured to some extent in the coolness of Washington-New Delhi relations under the Congress Government. No doubt, Bangladesh would figure again in Obama-Modi talks as it had between Obama-Manmohon Singh when the latter had visited Washington in September 2013. In fact, the BJP government's Bangladesh policy would be clear only after the Obama-Modi talks in Washington. There are reasons to believe that those talks could be different from those between President Obama and Prime Minister Manmohon Singh.

Sushma Swaraj would not be expected to promise much to the AL-led government as according to JDW, "the Teesta river and land disputes over water flow from Bangladesh to India are likely to remain unresolved". There is no reason for her to make BNP happy either. In fact, as the BNP is no longer in parliament, she would not be expected to meet the BNP leadership. Nevertheless, unless she goes into some sort of denial, there is no reason for her not to see on her visit to Dhaka that the Congress had pursued a policy with Bangladesh that was wrong and could not be sustained because the country is yearning for new elections. Most importantly, she cannot unless in denial, fail to see how the Congress' policy in placing the interests of the Awami League ahead of the interests of Bangladesh has harmed India's standing in the country.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador.

On fallacy of the clash of civilizations

2014-06-09T20:33:00.003-04:00

On fallacy of the clash of civilizations

Post Editorial

Saturday, 07 June 2014

Author / Source: M. Serajul Islam

The US left Iraq a few years ago. It is now preparing to leave Aghhanistan with its combat troops numbering 100,00 together with 40,000 from allied countries by the end of the year. In Iraq, the current semblance of democracy notwithstanding, the country is yet far from becoming the sort of country that the US had promised it would be after it had removed Saddam Hossain for power and hanged him.

Sectarian violence between the Sunnis and Shias resulting in deaths in large numbers are now common place. The US would be leaving Afghanistan by year’s end after its longest war ever with the Taliban showing signs of returning once the US troops leave the country. In fact, between Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has established the cardinal errors in the thesis of Professor Huntington, errors that have been underlined by another scholar of history Edward Said in no uncertain manner.Years before Professor Huntington wrote his book, Edward Said in his book “Orientalism”, written in 1979, had exposed the gross error in the way the western world perceived the Orient. He underlined the West’s failure to understand the internal cultural/regilious/ethni divisions and differences among those that made up the Orient among whom were the Muslims.

Edward Said later elaborated his ideas in the light of Professor Huntington’s book and the spin given to it in the West as justfication for the actions of the United States and the alied troops in Iraq and Afghainstan. In series of lectures and articles, he argued that the Muslims are niether a monolith nor a civilization and that within the so-called Islamic world, there were regional, cultural and sectaran differences that made the argument forwarded by Professor Huntngton palpably erroneous.He underlined the differences between the Arab Muslims who constituted only 20 % of the Muslims of the world but perceived in the West as the entire Muslim world and the Muslims elsewhere.

That the western countries had themselves contributed to the one-sided clash between the West and the Muslim countries has been underlined very recently by no other than Hillary Clinton. In an interview to FOX TV recently, she said that the Taliban in Afghanistan that “we are now fighting” was created by the United States . She also stated that the US acting through Pakistan had sponsored and supplied the other logistics to arm and strengthen the Taliban so that it would work with the Mujahideens to fight the Najibullah Government and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador and his email id is ambserajulislam@gmail.com

Indian elections and Bangladesh’s reactions

2014-05-25T15:46:00.002-04:00

Indian elections and Bangladesh’s reactions

M. Serajul Islam

The Indian elections have seen some weird reactions in Bangladesh. The people, who do not seem to matter any more in the country’s politics, are concerned and worried that a Hindu fundamentalist party has come to power in India. To add to their fear, that party had stated that if elected, it would “push back” 20 million alleged Bangladeshis. To add further to why the people are concerned and worried, the BJP is fundamentally opposed to the LBA deal and with the Trinamool sweep in Paschim Bangla; the Teesta deal would also become a distant hope for Bangladesh.

The Awami League led government expressed no concerns at the change. Instead, it made efforts to convince the people that it would be business as usual with the new government and Bangladesh-India relations would even reach newer heights. In a congratulatory message to Narendra Modi, Sheikh Hasina compared the BJP’s mandate as similar to what the AL received on January 5 for such optimism. The AL leaders have nevertheless abused and insulted the BNP because it thought the party was happy and excited at the BJP victory. They called the BNP a party of “ahammaks”’ idiots and goats for its happiness and excitement at the BJP victory.

The BNP leaders also did not articulate the public concerns. BNP chairperson Begum Khaleda Zia congratulated Narendra Modi in a message. BNP leaders in private were joyed by the defeat of the Congress. Its joy was primarily because it expected that the BJP government in New Delhi would no longer support the Awami League the way the Congress government had; support that kept the BNP from coming to power. The BNP was also happy knowing that the powers of the Indian President would be clipped and he would no more have the leverage to make the interests of the AL and Sheik Hasina, his own and those of India. The BNP was happy knowing further that SS Menon, the National Security Adviser who had put the Congress’ policy of backing the AL to any extent to keep it in power, would also be gone.

However, neither party has grasped what the change in New Delhi would mean to Bangladesh as both are looking at the change through their respective prisms. There is a sense of nervousness in the Awami League and for good reasons. Its BNP bashing underlines that nervousness. The clipping of the President’s powers and the departure of SS Menon would bring about a qualitative change in New Delhi’s Bangladesh policy. The new government would also review the Congress government’s policy of placing the interests of the AL ahead of Bangladesh that has affected India’s acceptance in the country and also in that context, review the positive changes in the BNP towards India. Finally, the BJP has no historic ties with the Awami League to set aside the legitimacy issue of the AL led government and its growing unpopularity in the country to pursue a long term policy with it like the Congress did.

The BJP would nevertheless do nothing to make the BNP smile. It would continue business as usual with Bangladesh but if the AL were to expect that the new government would consider its interests the way the Congress led government had, then the business between New Delhi and Dhaka would not be as usual. There would be a new concern for the AL led government from Washington. New Delhi and Washington had fallen apart on the issue of elections in Bangladesh where the Congress government had argued the need of bringing the AL back in power at any cost for tackling fundamentalist forces. Narendra Modi would need the United States for his own credibility and also the government’s particularly with its fundamentalist background. Therefore, the United States that still insists in restoring the issue of legitimacy of the Bangladesh government could strike a deal on Bangladesh with the Modi government.

The reactions of the AL and BNP have not allowed a proper assessment of the Indian elections in Bangladesh. The Indian voters have achieved a quiet revolution through the elections. They have rejected the elitism in Indian politics by dumping the scion of the Nehru/Gandhi lineage for a tea seller’s son. The voters have also underlined the Hindu character of India rejecting secularism that the Congress had tried to place as the face of India. The elections have underlined that the phase of control of the centre by the regional parties is coming to an end. That would have worked well for Bangladesh had it not been that on the issues where a strong centre would have been helpful for Bangladesh to over-rule the province, namely the LBA and Teesta deals, the BJP and provincial interests are the same.

The BJP had lost the 2004 elections over many issues where its election slogan “shining India” had caused the maximum damage. The BJP had chosen that slogan encouraged with the excellent health of the economy. That proved to be its downfall because rural India saw very little shining in their fate. They thought the slogan taunted them and voted the BJP out of power. This time, the BJP chose Hindu fundamentalism in place of “shining India” and deliberately went against the Muslims to consolidate the Hindu vote. The BJP also promised that under Narendra Modi as Prime Minister, the whole of India would see the same success that he had achieved for Gujarat during his 13-year tenure to benefit both the rich and the poor. The blend of religion and economics was successfully executed with the financial support of India’s corporate world that would now stand to benefit with the most from the most business savvy politician in India who would now be the new Prime Minister of the country. The failure of the Congress over a whole range of issues of governance where unbridled corruption was a major one together with the aloofness and high-handedness of Sonia Gandhi and lack of appeal of Rahul Gandhi were the other main reasons for Congress’s dumping in the elections.

The BJP would now be seriously involved fulfilling the election promises made to the Indians to have too much time to bother about Bangladesh. The huge mandate would now also be an additional pressure. Nevertheless, the huge mandate would also give it the authority to balance on the election promises by taking more realistic view on those promises. In that endeavour, the primary concern of the Modi government would be with the economy where the new Prime Minister who otherwise has had no experience in Central Government would bring to New Delhi experience that he has earned by successfully leading Gujarat not just to the attention of India but of the world.

Though Hindu fundamentalism was a big issue in the BJP’s victory, the new government would not pursue the agenda with any degree of seriousness knowing it would now divide the country where it would need unity for India’s economic development. In fact, the new government is now likely to extend a friendly face to the Muslims in search of national unity. On neighbours too, and that includes Bangladesh, the Narendra Modi government would like to seek cooperation and in that context, it may not pursue the “push back” of alleged Bangladeshis beyond rhetoric.

The BJP government is not likely to make major changes in terms of policies except change focus and priorities but would certainly endeavour to bring the government closer to the people and free it from the utter depths of corruption to which it had sunk. In that endeavour, the fact that he is a tea seller’s son is something that Narendra Modi would neither himself like to forget nor let his administration to do so. For Bangladesh, the Modi government would undoubtedly pursue a policy to suit India’s interests above all else without making the mistake the Congress did by choosing a party over the country to conduct those relations. Of course, the most important message for Bangladesh out of the Indian elections is to take lessons from the way the election was held where the people were able to vote as they wished freely, fairly and in a transparent manner.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador

Congress’ humiliating poll defeat is bad news for Awami League

2014-05-24T01:03:00.001-04:00

-->

23 May, 2014

Congress’ humiliating poll defeat is bad news for Awami League
M. Serajul Islam

There is a surreal drama being enacted in Bangladesh with the change of government in New Delhi. The ruling party is in a state of denial over what the change means to it, the government and the country. Instead it is abusing and insulting the BNP in language that has crossed the limits of decency as if it is the BNP’s fault that the Congress has lost the Indian elections. The BNP is being called a party of “ahammaks”; idiots and goats because the Awami League thinks the BNP is excited and happy at the resounding victory of the BJP.

The BNP is of course happy for very good reasons. The BNP was not fighting just the AL since January 2009 but also the Congress that had involved itself in Bangladesh’s politics as a stakeholder and senior partner of the Awami League. Its role in the January 5 elections was a major reason why the AL returned to power. If the Congress had supported “inclusive elections” like the western nations that was also the demand of the people of Bangladesh, the AL would have lost to the BNP just the way the Congress has lost to the BJP, winning 43 seats out of 542; its worst performance in history. It now looks like that the Congress that had led the movement for Indian independence may be headed the same way the Muslim League that had led the movement for Pakistan, went in Pakistan.

AL lost its sole backers
The BNP’s happiness is of course not because the Congress could be headed that way. It is happy primarily because the Awami League’s best friend that had kept it in power by interfering in an unbelievable way in the internal affairs of Bangladesh, is now gone. The Congress had left no one in doubt that it wanted the AL to remain in power, which was a questionable way of conducting relations with a smaller neighbour for a country like India with aspirations of becoming a world power. Nevertheless it was understandable in the context of the historical relationship between the two political parties. The way the AL government made India’s interests its own at great political risks also made it understandable that the Congress led government would go out of its way to support the Awami League in Bangladesh’s politics and elections.

However, the Congress led government did not restrict itself to supporting the Awami League covertly and overtly. It went much beyond that. It gave assistance to the Awami League to remain in power at any cost where it saw India’s relations with Bangladesh as those with the Awami League and not the country. There are examples galore about the unbelievable ways in which the Congress supported the Awami League but one stood apart. The Indian Foreign Secretary Sujata Singh had made an official visit to Dhaka just before the Bangladesh elections.

Bangladesh was then slipping into a political nightmare over the elections and many had expected that she would be carrying a massage for Sheikh Hasina to ensure “inclusive” elections. Instead, she met HM Ershad and encouraged the Jatiya Party to participate in the elections to give it credibility after the BNP/Jamaat had decided to boycott! President HM Ershad revealed the details to the media almost as soon as Sujata had left his residence after the talk. When the dust would finally settle on the present phase of politics in Bangladesh, that initiative of the Indian Foreign Secretary would no doubt go down as an example of the utter depths to which politics and diplomacy was allowed to slip under the Congress led government.

Congress’ blatant meddling
The Congress government also ensured that the initiatives of the developed countries led by the United States in favour of “inclusive” elections in Bangladesh would be still born by encouraging the AL to go ahead and hold the “exclusive” elections. In fact, many would even suggest that the serious problem between Washington and New Delhi over Devyani Khobragade was also influenced by the differences between the two countries over elections in Bangladesh. Sujata Singh had gone to Washington right after her Dhaka visit for furthering India-US bilateral relations. However, there too, she pursued the AL’s interests and had advised the United States to support the policy of “exclusive” elections in Bangladesh in order to keep the BNP led fundamentalist forces from coming to power!

The Congress thus backed the one-party elections beyond limits of diplomatic norms and conduct. The Congress government was not bothered that the elections were a farce with less than 10% people voting and 154 of 300 members of parliament elected unopposed. It welcomed the return of the AL to power and took up the AL’s led government’s case with the international community that looked upon the elections as deeply flawed. Thus the Congress by backing the AL the way it did, considered the BNP the enemy like the Awami League and conspired with it to rob the BNP from the certain prospect of coming to power.

The BNP has other very good reasons to be happy with the Congress’ humiliating defeat. A major reason why the Congress government interfered in Bangladesh in unbelievable ways was the personal interest of the Indian President Pranab Mukherjee in Bangladesh and in particular in Sheikh Hasina. He used his undoubted command in the party to make Bangladesh his own turf where the need to keep Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League in power at any cost were the key elements. SS Menon the National Security Adviser executed those two key elements uncompromisingly and unambiguously where the AL led government or Sheikh Hasina did not have to request New Delhi what needed to be done to keep them in power; these were delivered by the two in New Delhi obligingly.

Why is BNP happy
SS Menon would be gone and the Indian President for whom Narendra Modi and the BJP has no great love would have his powers clipped making him once again a figure head; all reasons to make the BNP smile. The BNP has another great reason to be happy that the Congress is gone. A new international equation would soon emerge with the exit of the Congress. The Modi Government, in particular Narendra Modi himself would need the United States for his own credibility and that of his government. In that new equation, Bangladesh would emerge in a different way.

The Congress’ argument to convince the US to keep the AL in power was the fundamentalist argument. For the BJP, itself a fundamentalist party, that argument would no longer be tenable. Further, the Congress’ unqualified support for the AL has divided Bangladesh more dangerously than the so-called fundamentalist threat where the current peace is misleading. The prospects of civil disturbances leading to civil war in Bangladesh are real; prospects that would put into jeopardy the great US investments in the region, particularly in opening up Myanmar. Therefore, the US would encourage the new Indian Government towards a democratic resolution to the dangerous prospects before Bangladesh.

The BNP’s happiness could also be easily explained by the fact that its enemy’s best and extremely powerful friend has left the scene. Nevertheless, in fairness to the BNP, it has not shown excitement in the manner that would justify the AL’s BNP bashing. The AL’s BNP bashing is indeed a reflection of the deep sense of insecurity and nervousness that has gripped it because the Congress that was the fundamental source of its power is now gone. Therefore, with BNP bashing, the AL is also trying to convince itself to believe that Indian foreign policy does not change with change of government and therefore, between the BJP Government in New Delhi and with it, it would be business as usual. The Foreign Minister has stated in the media that Bangladesh-India relations would reach newer heights in the coming days and had nothing to say about the issue of the illegal Bangladeshis and the fate of the two deals over which he too went into total denial.

What will BJP do?
Nevertheless, the new BJP Government would no doubt, these issues notwithstanding, want to establish good relations with Bangladesh. In that effort, there is no reason to expect that it would encourage the AL led government to hold new elections in Bangladesh as the BNP may be expecting. However, in developing relations, the BJP Government would no doubt review the way the Congress conducted these relations because there were just too many faults with it some contradicting India’s democratic beliefs.

In reviewing these relations, the BJP would have no reason to put AL and Sheikh Hasina’s interests as those of its government’s and India’s. It would also examine how India’s acceptance has nose dived in Bangladesh by the Congress policy of putting the interests of the AL and Sheikh Hasina over those of Bangladesh. It would no doubt review how RAW had taken over the day to day operations of Bangladesh-India relations and how India’s image in Bangladesh has suffered as a consequence. In particular, in such a review, there would be no reason for the new government to see the BNP as the villain. The BJP and the BNP have had reasonable working relations while the two were in power together in the BNP’s last term. With its own fundamentalist basis, the BJP would not let BNP’s alliance with the fundamentalist as the excuse for supporting the AL led government.

In reviewing its Bangladesh policy, the BJP would no doubt also see that the BNP has changed since it was in power last, particularly its publicly stated commitment for India’s security. The BJP would also not fail to see how the BNP has changed on the issue of land transit that the party has linked to reciprocity. The BJP would see the changes in the BNP as extremely positive for long-term relations with Bangladesh in the backdrop of the importance of Bangladesh to India’s critical national interests. Therefore, instead of pursuing India’s interests with a government in Bangladesh that has lost its credibility and legitimacy for which many in Bangladesh blame the Congress; the BJP would most likely wait to see how Bangladesh resolves these question before it shows inclination to do business as usual with Dhaka.

The changed stance

The BJP has already toned down in stand on the illegal Bangladeshis and would no doubt, having come to power with a huge mandate, be willing also to deal with Bangladesh on reciprocity but would not like to deal with the government for building long term relations with a government that is way too short on credibility and legitimacy.

Therefore, it’s unlikely to be business as usual with New Delhi to relieve the AL’s sense of nervousness. It would also not mean new elections in Bangladesh to make the BNP happy. On balance though, Congress’ loss is a paradigm shift in the AL’s fortunes because unqualified and unquestioned support of New Delhi was one of the two major foundations of its strategy for holding on to power since the January 5 elections. The other foundation, namely that of using RAB/Police against the opposition, has also now run into trouble, a policy that the BJP would have no reason to support. All these notwithstanding, the people of Bangladesh are worried and concerned about what the BJP has said about Bangladesh during the elections and therefore shocked at the AL’s BNP bashing and BNP’s failure to articulate the new dangers from New Delhi.

The BJP’s victory would no doubt lead to a change of New Delhi’s Bangladesh policy without doubt where the wishes of neither the AL nor the BNP would be the deciding factor. Sheikh Hasina has inadvertently revealed the direction in which Bangladesh-India relations would move in her message of congratulations to Narendra Modi where she compared the BJP’s massive mandate similar to its own. By that, she has pointed to where the change would come in Bangladesh-India relations under the BJP.

The BJP would have no reason to consider the AL government as one stalled in power with any mandate at all and therefore would know that relations with the AL led government would not have long term validity; neither in what it would give to Bangladesh nor receive from it. Therefore, the BJP Government would in all likelihood wait and see how Bangladesh resolves its political problem and the issue of legitimacy that is hanging over the AL led government like the sword of Damocles. It would however not be encouraged to remove that sword but would like to wait for it to be gone before conducting long-term relations with Bangladesh.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador and his email is ambserajulislam@gmail.com

India assures about unchanging policies towards Bangladesh

Print Edition

Post Editorial

Saturday, 24 May 2014

Author / Source: M. Serajul Islam

The Awami League leaders are more concerned whether the BNP would gain any advantage from the change of guards in New Delhi to bother with the realities of the change. They are abusing and insulting the BNP by calling the party as one of “ahammaks”; idiots; goats; etc, etc because they think that the BNP leaders are gloating at the victory of the BJP. The Prime Minister ridiculed the BNP as Indian agents for expressing excitement and happiness at the BJP’s victory. In doing so, the AL leaders have gone into denial over what the Indian elections mean for Bangladesh and of course for its own future.

Also, the BJP has no historical reasons to support the Awami League at any cost. Having come to power with a landslide, the BJP would have no reason to ditto the Congress’ Bangladesh Policy that many would say also reflected what went wrong with the Congress to have suffered its worst ever defeat in history. There are a few other reasons for the Awami League to be worried and concerned. A lot of the unqualified support that New Delhi gave to the Awami League came from two sources.The Indian President had taken the interests of the Awami League and more importantly, those of Sheikh Hasina in a personal way. Shiv Sankar Menon, the National Security Adviser was equally committed to the Awami League and was responsible for the hard to believe “Bangladesh Policy” of the Congress. The Indian President’s powers to do whatever he wanted in Bangladesh would now be clipped and SS Menon would no longer be around.

It will also consider where the AL led government is going with governance and how Congress’ support for it at any cost has made it unpopular as well as India. Therefore, while the new BJP government will most certainly not do anything to benefit the BNP immediately; it will also not give the AL blank cheque to use Indian support to rule in Bangladesh the way it is doing at present. The AL led government’s problem with RAB will also discourage the BJP government in giving the AL led government unqualified support. That could make sense why the BNP is gloating, as they no doubt are in private.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador and his email id is : ambserajulislam@gmail.com . The above are the views of the writer’s very own not necessarily shared by this paper

The BJP's victory and Bangladesh

2014-05-18T23:07:00.001-04:00

-->

VIEWS & REVIEWS

Posted: 19 May, 2014

The BJP's victory and Bangladesh

M. Serajul Islam

The Awami League (AL) general secretary has called the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) "ahammaks" for "gloating" at Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) victory. A senior AL leader has asked the BNP not to jump like goats. Prime Minister's international affairs adviser has said Bangladesh-India relations would move forward in the direction set by the Congress. The foreign minister has said that the Bangladesh-India relations are time tested and therefore the relations would not change. The communications minister has also asked the BNP not to get excited.

Why is the AL reacting this way? From what has come out in the media, the major reaction of the BNP to the Indian elections has been the BNP chairperson's congratulatory message to Narendra Modi. The party general secretary has said something to the effect that the BNP hopes of good relations between Bangladesh and India under the BJP government. Therefore, the reactions of the AL leaders on the BJP victory have been, to say the least, curious ones. It has on the one hand taken this victory to abuse the BNP and on the other, to state unilaterally and forcefully that nothing would change in Bangladesh-India relations. Both expressions, mutually contradictory, make little sense unless one was to examine how the results have shaken the AL's confidence.

Neither the AL nor the BNP has touched substance about what has been a major revolution in India. A tea seller's son has become the prime minister defeating the scion of the Nehru/Gandhi dynasty in what was in effect a presidential election in terms of how Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi fought for the hearts and minds of the Indian voters. That tea seller's son also blatantly and unashamedly used Hindu fundamentalism to defeat India's claim as a country based firmly on the secular principles. To boot all these, Narendra Modi has been called by Mamata Banarjee as "the Butcher of Gujarat" even during the elections for his 2002 role in the Gujarat riots when under his watch 2000 were killed, mostly Muslims in Hindu-Muslim riots.

Narendra Modi has not been complimentary about Bangladesh in his election campaign. He has strongly stated that he would "push back" 20 million alleged Bangladeshis in India, a view that was intensely anti-Bangladesh and highly provocative. The BJP was responsible for defeating the Congress-led government's efforts to deliver to Bangladesh the Teesta and the LBA (Land Boundary Agreement) deals. During the campaign, Narendra Modi did not express any intention that a BJP government would deliver these deals to Bangladesh. Therefore, going by his anti-Muslim and anti-Bangladesh rhetoric, both the AL and the BNP together with the people of Bangladesh should be scared, worried and apprehensive at the massive victory of an anti-Bangladeshi Narendra Modi as the new Prime Minister of a Hindu fundamentalist BJP.

Unfortunately, Bangladesh is not a normal country and the reaction in Bangladesh to the BJP victory underlines that fact as clear as daylight. Nevertheless, as the cliché goes, there is always a method in madness. The reasons for such strange reaction in Bangladesh to the BJP's victory are not hard to uncover. The Congress-led government has had historic relations with the Awami League. Since January 2009, the Congress-led government had looked upon the interests of the AL-led government like its own. In fact, when the AL looked doomed to lose a free and fair election, the Congress-led government went against majority opinion in Bangladesh and international opinion as well and ensured that the AL returned to power. It also put its own relations with Washington on line to get the AL back in power.

Added to that, the Indian president had looked upon the Awami League and, more importantly, Sheikh Hasina with great affection. In the Indian system, the president is a figurehead like the Bangladesh President. However, Pranab Mukherjee was anything but a figurehead in the Congress government. Pranab Mukherjee was the de facto Prime Minister as well under the Congress government because Manmohon Singh was one of the weakest-ever prime ministers of India. It was an open secret that under the Congress-led government the Indian president called the shots on major issues related to India's relations with Bangladesh.

That equation would now be gone and this would take away a massive leverage for the Awami League with New Delhi. The Awami League would also lose another major leverage with the change. One of the major architects of Congress’ Bangladesh policy, whose major focus was to ensure that the Awami League remained in power at any cost, was Shiv Sankar Menon, the National Security Adviser. He would no longer be around to sponsor and patronize the Awami League. These developments in New Delhi, which would happen no matter what, would not be the only worries for the Awami League. The AL government would now face pressure from New Delhi on a new and volatile issue of the alleged Bangladeshis in India without getting any hope on the Teesta and the LBA deals. That should dampen the prospects of "business as usual" between Dhaka and New Delhi under the BJP.

Therefore, the departure of the Congress has left the AL-led government with too many worries - like someone over-dependent on parents, becoming suddenly orphaned. The Congress was a life insurance policy for the AL that has suddenly and dramatically turned valueless. That explains why its leaders are abusing the BNP. They think that the BNP is happy with the AL's current predicament, which is adding salt to its injury. The AL leaders' other reaction that nothing will change in Bangladesh-India relations under the BJP government is no doubt one to reassure themselves to deal with a serious insecurity that has gripped them at having lost their major insurance policy in the Indian elections.

If the BNP were expecting that the Modi government would help it out by ensuring a new election in Bangladesh that would be premature. However, it is the AL that is saying that the BNP is expecting that way; no BNP leader has made such a statement publicly - not yet. Therefore, that the AL is making such a statement is also evidence of its own weakness and sense of insecurity that the new government in New Delhi could go ahead and take such a course in conducting its relations with Bangladesh. The Awami League knows it better than anyone else that the January 05 elections have not given its government legitimacy and that it was the Congress' policy of supporting it right or wrong that had returned it to power. The BJP would have no reason to support the AL to the extent the Congress had done.

Nevertheless, the stand of the AL and that of the BNP as perceived by the AL notwithstanding, Narendra Modi would have too many major issues at hand to spend too much time on Bangladesh. However, the new team for conducting Bangladesh-India relations in New Delhi would see far too many faults in the way the Congress team conducted these relations.
The policy of Congress to put the Awami League ahead of Bangladesh has pushed India's acceptance in the country to its nadir. The new team would also not fail to see that the Congress brought the AL to power through an election that has not been accepted by the people of Bangladesh and the mess that the AL has made of governance as a consequence. It would also not fail to see that the Congress' decision to back the AL has also put on line its relations with Washington.

All this would in no way lead to what the BNP must be hoping although it has not stated so publicly - that the BJP would ensure new elections in Bangladesh. The BNP would have to ensure that itself. In such an effort, the BNP would not find New Delhi as actively, openly and blatantly backing the AL as the Congress government had done.

The Indian High Commissioner in Dhaka, however, is trying to spin the change in New Delhi the way the AL leaders are - that under the BJP Government; it would be business as usual. To convince the people of Bangladesh, the High Commission has released to the media the details of the US$ 1.0 billion soft loan without talking about the pending deals and the issue of the alleged Bangladeshis in India. It appears that the Indian mission is feeling the same kind of insecurity as the AL with the change in New Delhi as it actively promoted the Congress' policy in Bangladesh to keep it under New Delhi's leash. This will certainly be reviewed by the BJP government.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador. His email id is ambserajulislam@gmail.com

Democracy, rule of law and responsibility

2014-05-17T20:13:00.000-04:00

Democracy, rule of law and responsibility

M. Serajul Islam

In June 2012, US Secretary of Commerce John Bryson was involved in a hit and run car accident on a trip to California. He had hit a car but did not stop and then hit a second car and was then found by the police in an unconscious state. Meanwhile, the law took its own course and the police recorded the accident. While in hospital, it was revealed that the Secretary had a history of seizure that he had not revealed while taking his driving test because it would have disqualified him from getting his driving license. After police investigation revealed his medical problem, the Secretary accepted responsibility and resigned. He did not wait for the President to ask him to do so.

More recently, a second resignation occurred in the Obama resignation. Secretary of Health and Human Services, one of President Obama’s most trusted colleagues, Kathleen Sebellius resigned from her post. She had been with the President since day one of his first administration. The Secretary came into public criticism when the website designed to implement Obamacare for which her Department was in charge, ran into serious trouble. A company from Canada to which the job was outsourced, did a very bad job and millions eager to register for Obamacare, could not do it because of failure to access. It was also a great embarrassment for the President because there was serious opposition from the Republicans to destroy Obamacare and the glitch with the website was used by them to put the President and the Democrats and of course Obamacare on the mat.

The Secretary worked overtime and so did her collegaues. The glitches were resolved and by 31st March, 7 million Americans had registered for Obamacare, a number that even the Republicans accepted as a mark of success for the President’s health care policy, one with which he believes he would eventually be judged as one of America’s most successful Presidents. Kathleen Sebellius tendered her resignation after resolving the website problems successfully without any pressure or without being asked because she felt she was individually responsible for causing the President and his party deep embarrassment when the nation was eagerly waiting to know about Obamacare to register when the Republicans were out to destroy it.

Last month, the Prime Minister of South Korea Chung Hong-won left another glaring example of the importance of individual responsibility in a democracy. He resigned 11 days after a ferry disaster had killed 281, mostly school children because of botched rescue operations following the disaster that left the nation very angry and extremely upset. In tendering his resignation, he said: “During the search process, the government took inadequate measures and disappointed the public. I should take responsibility for everything as the prime minister, but the government can assume no more. So I will resign as prime minister.”

The two US Secretaries were not legally required to resign. The Prime Minister of South Korea was also under no legal pressure that would have removed him from office if he had not resigned. They all resigned on their own as required in a democracy where the law can only set the basic parameters of governance but where individual responsibility of those holding public offices is required to establish governance based on the principles of democracy. In any democratic government, ministers or their equivalents do not wait for the law to be told to take responsibility for failure in their ministries/departments that causes national outcry even where the failures do not necessarily occur due to their faults individually.

In fact, individual responsibility of ministers and public officials of similar status is a litmus test proof of a country’s democratic credentials. A twin litmus test of the depth of a country’s democratic credentials is the presence of the rule of law. The proofs of the litmus tests are visible in the public domain of any country that is democratic and governed by the rule of law. The nature and extent of such proofs establish the strength of the country’s democratic and rule by law foundations. The litmus test for the rule of law is a much simpler one because it occurs continuously and more frequently than cases of individual responsibility in a democratic country. Take for instance the case of the US Commerce Secretary. By the time he had regained his consciousness in the hospital, the law had taken its course and the fact that he was a minister was totally inconsequential to the police that wrote the report and reflected in it his medical condition. Therefore by the time he was out of the hospital in a few days time, he had decided to resign on his own on individual responsibility.

In fact, in the USA and everywhere else where there is rule of law, being important public officials like President/Prime Minister/Ministers or offspring’s of such individuals or related to such individuals are reasons for the law to be applied on them much more stringently than in case of the ordinary folks. In USA for example, the law treats a son or a daughter of even the President in the same manner as anyone else in the country. Therefore, if hypothetically, President Obama’s elder daughter who will be 16 on July 4th were to run into problem with the law, the White House would not intervene with the authorities to save her from the law. When President Bush’s twin daughters ran into conflict with the law on drinking charges and possession of fake ID, the White House issued the following statement: “It is an issue involving the president and the first lady and their daughters and their private lives,” and the law took its own course. The White House’s statement was intended to protect the daughters from the media and not the law.

Sadly, we cannot say that we are anywhere near fulfilling the conditions of individual responsibility or rule of law to establish our democratic credentials. In fact, if what is happening in Narayanganj is any guide, we would fail the twin litmus tests miserably. Seven murders were committed in which three officers, one a Lieutenant Colonel, of the country’s most elite law enforcing agency, the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) have been charged. The Lieutenant Colonel also happens to be the son-in-law of a senior Minister of the Government. The murders have caused national and international outcry. The Asian Chapter of the Human Rights Watch has addressed an open letter to the Prime Minister and has demanded impartial inquiry into the 7 murders and also on the extra-judicial killings and forced disappearances for which too fingers have been pointed at RAB.

The Government has removed the three RAB officers from service. The High Court has ordered their arrests. The Prime Minister has stated her resolve to bring the offenders to justice. Yet, the arrests have not been carried out. If those in public offices responsible for RAB had even the scantiest appreciation for rule of law and the importance of individual responsibility in a democracy, the head of the RAB and/or the Minister in charge of Home would have resigned by now. The Minister whose son and son-in-law are allegedly involved would have likewise also resigned. Regrettably, the way these officials are talking to the media on the issue that humiliated the government and the country at home and abroad, it is evident that they do not believe that individual responsibility or rule of law has any value in democratic governance. Such indifference to rule of law and individual responsibility by the guardians of the law not only obstructs democratic governance but also the credibility of the government. In fact, the Prime Minister’s current woes with the Narayanganj would have been substantially lessened if at least one of her Ministers had resigned which by the way is not an acknowledgement of guilt.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador and his email id is HYPERLINK "mailto:ambserajulislam@gmail.com" ambserajulislam@gmail.com - See more at: http://www.daily-sun.com/details_Democracy,-rule-of-law-and-responsibility_858_2_5_1_0.html#sthash.eNO2gKDs.dpuf

It's time to return to the Constitution

2014-05-17T00:01:00.001-04:00

VIEWS & OPINION

Posted : 17 May, 2014

It's time to return to the Constitution

M. Serajul Islam

The seven murders in Narayanganj have underlined that the country is caught in a political quicksand because of the way the Awami League-led government is conducting politics. Bangladesh's politics is breaking at the seams like a cricket ball. When a cricket ball starts to break, that ball becomes useless and must be replaced. The urgent need is, therefore, to bring about a paradigm shift in the nature of the country's politics. It is time to return to the drawing board for a new cricket ball. It is time to return to the Constitution. The politicians won't do it for they are the problem why the ball is breaking at the seams; "we, the people of Bangladesh" must now put their acts together.

The Preamble to the Bangladesh Constitution unequivocally underlines the important role of the people in the country. There is no ambiguity in it. The opening sentence of the Constitution reads: "We, the people of Bangladesh, having proclaimed our Independence on the 26th day of March, 1971 and through a historic struggle for national liberation, established the independent, sovereign People's Republic of Bangladesh" The Preamble gives the proprietorship of the country to the people and therefore the source of all powers of the state. The Preamble does not recognise any individual or a party for its establishment. Therefore, the Preamble does not recognise any stakeholder for proprietorship of the country except "we, the people".

The Preamble to the Bangladesh Constitution, that is, its heart, correctly gives all credit for the establishment of the country to the people because they contributed to the establishment of their country unlike any other in living memory. In 1971, the people of Bangladesh were face-to-face with death when a military regime armed to the teeth wanted to keep control of Pakistan over what is now Bangladesh where they were prepared to kill to the last the 65 million that were in their grasp. Yet, those 65 million refused to surrender and supported the war of liberation that eventually led to victory and liberation of the country. They overcame their fear of death to support the war of liberation aware that they could be killed for their support and in fact, millions were killed for doing so.

Unfortunately, regimes after regimes have taken away people's sovereignty over the country for personal and group interests through one amendment to the Constitution after another. The 15th Amendment, as the cliché goes, is the last straw that broke the camel's back. The Fifteenth Amendment has violated the Preamble like an arrow in the heart of the Constitution. It did this in a number of ways.

First, it has taken away the provision of referendum that had given the people the ultimate right over that of parliament on issues of fundamental importance to the nation. Second, it clipped people's sovereignty further by making certain provisions in the Constitution sacrosanct that 'we, the people" could question only at the risk of being charged with treason that is punishable by death.

Third, the Awami League (AL) used its three-fourths majority in Parliament to put these provisions in the Constitution without a mandate from the people. Finally, the provisions have been placed in the Constitution not only by ignoring the people but also by being overtly those that favour the ruling party! The 15th Amendment, to use another cliché, took "we, the people" for a ride.

The 15th Amendment in effect has changed the status of the people from being proprietors of the state to being tenants. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) was too deeply involved in its demand over the reinstatement of the Caretaker Government that the 15th Amendment had annulled. It failed to reveal the grand design behind the Amendment that was to make the Constitution and the Government subordinate to the will of the ruling party. It is a design modelled after present-day Russia where as Time Magazine has stated in its current edition, President Putin has emerged as the Czar where the Constitution, government and party are all serving his interests and of his chosen few.

It is a pity that the BNP failed to reveal the grand design behind the 15th Amendment. The country's constitutional pundits also failed likewise. The media, too, failed to expose how the status of the people was changed in favour of the ruling party and much more. The net result of these failures to reveal the grand design was the ease with which the people were made powerless as was evident on January 05 when the AL returned to power without the overwhelming majority of the people even being asked to vote. That brought about a paradigm shift in the nature of the government that became one from being elected by the people to one chosen by the ruling party itself.

The results of the grand design are now all around. The sense of accountability is no longer a matter of concern for the government because the people are no longer sovereign. The 15th Amendment has transferred that sovereignty to the ruling party. Thus we are witnessing the impunity with which the cadres of the ruling party, including its student and youth wings, are exercising power over the people.

One MP, by his own assertion very close to the Prime Minister, has openly stated in a public meeting that he would take law into his hands and serve justice in the Narayanganj murders! Law-enforcement agencies are now perceived by the people as being partners of crime with the cadres of the ruling party with no power to control them. Hussain Mohammed Ershad, a Special Envoy of the Government, has described the AL-led government like those that were run by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.

Millions gave their lives so that Bangladesh would be a democratic country, where the people would be the source of all powers of the state. The 1972 Constitution had guaranteed that in the Preamble unequivocally. The 15th Amendment has taken away that power of the people by its provisions and thus has turned the country un-democratic and dishonoured the spirit of 1971. It has also pushed Bangladesh to the edge.

The only way of bringing Bangladesh back on track is for the people to rise as they did in 1971 and seek the rights that have been taken away from them. The politicians will not do it as they did not in 1971 when "we, the people" fought the Pakistani killers and were successful. If they succeeded in 1971, they will again.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador.

ambserajulislam@gmail.com

A public hartal on formalin treated fish/fruits

2014-05-16T23:56:00.004-04:00

A public hartal on formalin treated fish/fruits

M. Serajul Islam

When I was growing up, I used to accompany my father sometimes to the fish market in New Market in Dhaka. That was in the 1950s and 1960s. I hated going there because of the smell and the flies. The unhygienic conditions of the market and the fact that a lot of the fish sold there those days were decaying brought the flies to the Fish Market like pins to the magnet. Those flies started to desert the fish market not just in New Market in Dhaka but also in all the fish markets in the country at first slowly and before the people realized why, totally. The fish markets became spic and span like someone had waved a magic wand.

There was however no magic in what happened in the fish markets. There was no drive by the authorities to make the markets clean so that the flies would go away. In fact, the traders were as merrily selling decaying fish as they were in the days when my father used to go to the fish market in New Market; only the Market has now become more crowded and bigger with many times more fish sold than when my father’s days. Therefore something strange was happening in the fish market. But neither the authorities nor the buyers were concerned why the flies had suddenly left the fish markets of the country because the traders had found the way to keep them out, keep their fish looking fresh and not decaying and fooling the buyers.

The magic later started to visit the people in their homes. The fruits that they were buying were not decaying for long period of time. Bananas that had to be eaten as quickly as they were brought home could lie on the table for days with little signs of softening or decaying. Other fruits, many imported from abroad like the apples and the grapes were likewise remaining fresh for unusual period of time, like Nature had forgotten to act upon them. They were not decaying even when they were left uneaten in the open for a long time. The fish and the fruits in Bangladesh seemed like they had found the way to fight Nature!

Then the magic was revealed. It was not black magic or that Nature had suddenly lost its power. It was formalin doing the trick. Pure and simple formalin that is used to keep the dead bodies from decaying so that their burial could be delayed so that their close relatives could come from a distance and see them for one last time before they were buried or cremated. Used in fish and fruits, the traders could sell their perishable products without any wasted by Nature.

Formalin is of course poison. It sends people to their death as surely as they keep dead bodies fresh for a while. Consuming fish/fruits treated with formalin is a slow process of death by poisoning. The dishonest traders who are involved in using formalin are therefore as guilty as those who commit murders in cold blood. In fact, these dishonest traders are worse than those who come before the law accused of killing at the heat of the moment. There is no ambiguity in what is happening here. Traders are selling products and are using formalin in full knowledge that they are poisoning their customers. What is absurd and totally unbelievable is the response of the other stakeholders in this deadly game, namely the authorities and the customers.

The authorities have now known the truth about formalin for quite sometime. Yet the only actions that they have taken so far is burn and destroy some of the formalin treated products. Not one of the traders who are poisoning their customers systematically and in cold blood has been brought before the law. Any country where such acts of cold-blooded slow poisoning of consumers would have come to public attention, capital punishment would have been served on the traders and the issue would have become history almost instantly. Not so in Bangladesh. The more the media exposed the extent of such public poisoning by formalin, the less the authorities seemed interested to bring such a dangerous matter to an end. In fact, using formalin on perishable products has come to stay. It appears like the traders using formalin have won their fight with the authorities by befriending them!

That points to where Bangladesh is going these days. Everything is about making money. Laws and legality are there to help dishonest people make money provided of course they share their money with the political leadership in power and the authorities. The use of formalin and the trade that goes with it involves humungous amount of money conducted under the table where the guardians of the law are those who sustain the breakers of the law that explains why not one of these “formalin killers” have been punished. The recent murders in Narayanganj therefore should not surprise anyone; it is a public proof of the nexus of the lawbreakers and those in power, including the law enforcing agencies.

That leaves the consumers in Bangladesh as the sacrificial lambs in the deadly game of formalin. They are accepting death by formalin without protest. Their silence is either sheer stupidity or perhaps it underlines the new reality about Bangladesh; that the people have lost their ability to react to the array of lies/untruth in their public domain even when it threatens our own lives. However, it is not just their lives that formalin threatens; it threatens the lives of their future generation and therefore, the consumers must wake up from their slumber and act. Clearly, the authorities would not end the slow poisoning with formalin. The nexus of corruption is too deep and the money involved is too much to encourage them to act in the interests of the people. Therefore they cannot go into denial over formalin anymore. Denial over what is going on in politics has led to the loss of the most fundamental of all their rights, namely their right to vote, that has been taken away from them. If they go into denial over formalin any longer, they would now lose their lives and those of the future generations.

There is a simple and easy way for the people of Bangladesh to end the formalin threat. It is in their hands if only they deice to act. They should simply refuse to buy fruits and fish that are not essential for their survival. They should do a reverse hartal by refusing to be victims. If they show such a resolve, they would undoubtedly have the media by their side to spread the message of the boycott. If the people could keep the boycott going for a reasonable length of time, they would be able to put these dishonest traders out of business. Of course there would be a flip side to such a mass effort. The producers, all honest people who are from the masses, would be hurt. But then the producers are hurt anyway because they get only a small part of their efforts for their products. The nexus of the traders, the middlemen and the authorities take away most of their profit leaving just a pittance for them.

Therefore although in the short term the producers of fish/fruits would suffer from a people inspired hartal against the murderous formalin traders and their partners in crime in politics and administration, in the end they too would be the winner. The people have suffered a great deal from hartal by the politicians. It is time they do a hartal in reverse and use it to their advantage and instead of becoming the victims of hartals; use it for a good cause and become the victors.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador and his email id is ambserajulislam@gmail.com

WHCA, democracy and transparency in USA

2014-05-16T23:05:00.003-04:00

Daily Sun
Sunday, May 11, 2014

The US President kept his tryst with history and democracy on May 3rd. He was the Chief Guest at the centennial dinner by the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) that was organized in the capital’s Hilton Hotel’s ballroom with 2,600 guests attending. The dinner has become an annual dinner that brings Washington’s political and social elite with those from Hollywood; a “Washington meets Hollywood” event. However more importantly, in participating in the event, the President willingly subjects himself to a “roast” by a stand-in-comedian while he himself gets to “roast” his political opponents; the media and also himself and his own administration. The “roast” is something exceptional to the United States. It is “an event in which an individual is subjected to a public presentation of comedic insults, praise, outlandish true and untrue stories, and heart-warming tributes as a mock counter to a toast.”

The annual event has long become a major item in Washington’s political/social calendar. The event is telecast live in prime time and has a national following comparable to the top media events of the unbelievably competitive media world in the United States. What is more important about this event is that it brings to focus the strength of democracy in the United States where for an evening over dinner, the President sits with his guests over the dinner but in reality before the entire country and the world and together, spends an evening making fun of politics and politicians not necessarily restricted to the United States! In this year’s event, the Russian President Putin was given special attention.

The WHCA annual dinner in its present form is held with the President as the Chief Guest although in the past, the annual dinners were also held without the President in attendance. These days, it allows the President a good part of the evening’s real time to get back at those who had criticised him all the year including the media itself, but only in the style of comedy. The President gets the first dig but it is a performance that requires high speaking skills and intellect and helps in the healthy growth of democracy and democratic traditions. The President does not even spare his own serious political failures for a laugh. President Obama, while acting out his role as the nation’s comedian-in-chief this year, said that he had prepared a video to thank the WHCA for its excellent work. That video choked and froze and the President yelled for help to fix the video. Kathleen Sebellius, the former Health and Human services Secretary came to the President’s rescue! She had only recently resigned from her position after taking responsibility for the glitches in Obamacare website.

The stand-in comedian to take digs at the President is chosen carefully. Most of the top stand-in-comedians of the country has been invited to the WHCA’s annual dinner. The stand-in-comedian is expected to be “a verbal hit man imported from out of town to blast away at every pomposity inside the Beltway (in Washington) that can be readily seen from elsewhere.” This year’s stand-in-comedian was Joel McHale, the star of NBC’s show “Community”. He is given as much time as the President and the same freedom to “roast” the President and everyone else in the country but all in the spirit of fun and intellectual comedy. Nevertheless, some stand-in-comedians have caused controversy by their digs. The WHCA Annual dinner hit the national news headlines in 2006 when that year Steven Colbert’s dig at President George Bush had become a “media and internet sensation”. The conservative US media carried out a “cover-up” in reporting the event. Nevertheless, Stephen Colbert’s performance made the event more popular and the WHCA has not imposed any restriction on the stand-in-comedian’s choice of individuals or institutions for his digs.

The WHCA today has become a part of the White House and occupies physical presence in the West Wing of the world famous building. There is a legend that says that in 1900, President Roosevelt had watched from his office, correspondents drenching in rain outside the gates of the White House and had taken pity on them and had given them space inside the White House. However, serious research to the WHCA’s beginning has dismissed this legend. Instead, the real history is a much more laboured effort of the early pioneers who “worked its way up from huddling over one small table in the mansion to occupying a full press room in the West Wing. There was a time when blacks were not allowed to be a member of the WHCA. In 1944, a brilliant black journalist Harry S McAlpin was excluded from covering presidential news conferences. This year at the WHCA dinner, the Association announced establishment of a scholarship in his name and his son was invited to receive the honour. Yet his story remains as a black spot on WHCA. Harry McAlpin left journalism in 1945 to practice law. Even after President FDR had permitted him to cover his conferences, the WHCA did not recognise him till his death in 1985. It needed a black President to bring that dark chapter in WHCA history to a close at this year’s dinner.

The WHCA’s annual dinner has today emerged as an institution and underlines the strength and importance of the media in US democracy and the positive and healthy relationship between the government and the “Fourth Estate.” Membership is open to any correspondent who is an editorial staff of a newspaper, magazine, and wire service, TV/radio whose principal responsibility is to report on the White House. The members elect a nine-member board of directors that ‘addresses access to the chief executive; coverage arrangements; work space arrangements; logistics and costs for press travel to accompany a president on the road. “WHCA works independent of the White House and there is no influence from the administration on deciding upon the membership of the WHCA and in determining the parameters of their duties and responsibilities. A healthy relationship has evolved between the White House and the WHCA and the annual dinner and the fun and frolic that goes with it underlines the nature and depth of that healthy relationship.

The WHCA is responsible for the transparency that one witnesses in the way the US administration works. The WHCA could be a model for any administration that is committed to transparency on how its executive branch works. US politics has a dark side where the political parties openly fight in as mean a manner as in countries where democracy is far from perfect. The media in USA is also divided in the way it is in imperfect democracies. However, due to the way the WHCA/White House Press Wing have developed their relationship, those who represent papers/TV stations/radio critical to the administration and those who support it are treated in the same way. Thus, the administration has to wait for WHCA’s annual dinner to take digs at the WHCA members that represent newspapers/TV stations etc opposed to it as the President did this year on Fox and CNN. Otherwise, the relationship between the administration and the WHCA is healthy and proactive.

The WHCA uses the annual dinner to raise money for scholarships and awards that recognize aspiring and established journalists. The awards that WHCA gave out this year were the Aldo Beckman Memorial award; Merriman Smith Memorial Award; Edgar A. Poe award. A new award, the Presidential Award was created this year. We rightly criticize many aspects of politics in the USA but a study of the WHCA and particularly its annual dinner would tell us how far we are from transparency in the way our executive works. Such a study would also show us the way we would need to proceed if we wanted to bring transparency in the work of our executive branch.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador. He can be reached at: HYPERLINK "mailto:ambserajulislam@gmail.com"

he US President kept his tryst with history and democracy on May 3rd. He was the Chief Guest at the centennial dinner by the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) that was organised in the capital’s Hilton Hotel’s ballroom with 2,600 guests attending. The dinner has become an annual dinner that brings Washington’s political and social elite with those from Hollywood; a “Washington meets Hollywood” event. However more importantly, in participating in the event, the President willingly subjects himself to a “roast” by a stand-in-comedian while he himself gets to “roast” his political opponents; the media and also himself and his own administration. The “roast” is something exceptional to the United States. It is “an event in which an individual is subjected to a public presentation of comedic insults, praise, outlandish true and untrue stories, and heart-warming tributes as a mock counter to a toast.”

The annual event has long become a major item in Washington’s political/social calendar. The event is telecast live in prime time and has a national following comparable to the top media events of the unbelievably competitive media world in the United States. What is more important about this event is that it brings to focus the strength of democracy in the United States where for an evening over dinner, the President sits with his guests over the dinner but in reality before the entire country and the world and together, spends an evening making fun of politics and politicians not necessarily restricted to the United States! In this year’s event, the Russian President Putin was given special attention.

The WHCA annual dinner in its present form is held with the President as the Chief Guest although in the past, the annual dinners were also held without the President in attendance. These days, it allows the President a good part of the evening’s real time to get back at those who had criticised him all the year including the media itself, but only in the style of comedy. The President gets the first dig but it is a performance that requires high speaking skills and intellect and helps in the healthy growth of democracy and democratic traditions. The President does not even spare his own serious political failures for a laugh. President Obama, while acting out his role as the nation’s comedian-in-chief this year, said that he had prepared a video to thank the WHCA for its excellent work. That video choked and froze and the President yelled for help to fix the video. Kathleen Sebellius, the former Health and Human services Secretary came to the President’s rescue! She had only recently resigned from her position after taking responsibility for the glitches in Obamacare website.

The stand-in comedian to take digs at the President is chosen carefully. Most of the top stand-in-comedians of the country has been invited to the WHCA’s annual dinner. The stand-in-comedian is expected to be “a verbal hit man imported from out of town to blast away at every pomposity inside the Beltway (in Washington) that can be readily seen from elsewhere.” This year’s stand-in-comedian was Joel McHale, the star of NBC’s show “Community”. He is given as much time as the President and the same freedom to “roast” the President and everyone else in the country but all in the spirit of fun and intellectual comedy. Nevertheless, some stand-in-comedians have caused controversy by their digs. The WHCA Annual dinner hit the national news headlines in 2006 when that year Steven Colbert’s dig at President George Bush had become a “media and internet sensation”. The conservative US media carried out a “cover-up” in reporting the event. Nevertheless, Stephen Colbert’s performance made the event more popular and the WHCA has not imposed any restriction on the stand-in-comedian’s choice of individuals or institutions for his digs.

The WHCA today has become a part of the White House and occupies physical presence in the West Wing of the world famous building. There is a legend that says that in 1900, President Roosevelt had watched from his office, correspondents drenching in rain outside the gates of the White House and had taken pity on them and had given them space inside the White House. However, serious research to the WHCA’s beginning has dismissed this legend. Instead, the real history is a much more laboured effort of the early pioneers who “worked its way up from huddling over one small table in the mansion to occupying a full press room in the West Wing. There was a time when blacks were not allowed to be a member of the WHCA. In 1944, a brilliant black journalist Harry S McAlpin was excluded from covering presidential news conferences. This year at the WHCA dinner, the Association announced establishment of a scholarship in his name and his son was invited to receive the honour. Yet his story remains as a black spot on WHCA. Harry McAlpin left journalism in 1945 to practice law. Even after President FDR had permitted him to cover his conferences, the WHCA did not recognise him till his death in 1985. It needed a black President to bring that dark chapter in WHCA history to a close at this year’s dinner.

The WHCA’s annual dinner has today emerged as an institution and underlines the strength and importance of the media in US democracy and the positive and healthy relationship between the government and the “Fourth Estate.” Membership is open to any correspondent who is an editorial staff of a newspaper, magazine, and wire service, TV/radio whose principal responsibility is to report on the White House. The members elect a nine-member board of directors that ‘addresses access to the chief executive; coverage arrangements; work space arrangements; logistics and costs for press travel to accompany a president on the road. “WHCA works independent of the White House and there is no influence from the administration on deciding upon the membership of the WHCA and in determining the parameters of their duties and responsibilities. A healthy relationship has evolved between the White House and the WHCA and the annual dinner and the fun and frolic that goes with it underlines the nature and depth of that healthy relationship.

The WHCA is responsible for the transparency that one witnesses in the way the US administration works. The WHCA could be a model for any administration that is committed to transparency on how its executive branch works. US politics has a dark side where the political parties openly fight in as mean a manner as in countries where democracy is far from perfect. The media in USA is also divided in the way it is in imperfect democracies. However, due to the way the WHCA/White House Press Wing have developed their relationship, those who represent papers/TV stations/radio critical to the administration and those who support it are treated in the same way. Thus, the administration has to wait for WHCA’s annual dinner to take digs at the WHCA members that represent newspapers/TV stations etc opposed to it as the President did this year on Fox and CNN. Otherwise, the relationship between the administration and the WHCA is healthy and proactive.

The WHCA uses the annual dinner to raise money for scholarships and awards that recognise aspiring and established journalists. The awards that WHCA gave out this year were the Aldo Beckman Memorial award; Merriman Smith Memorial Award; Edgar A. Poe award. A new award, the Presidential Award was created this year. We rightly criticise many aspects of politics in the USA but a study of the WHCA and particularly its annual dinner would tell us how far we are from transparency in the way our executive works. Such a study would also show us the way we would need to proceed if we wanted to bring transparency in the work of our executive branch.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador. He can be reached at: HYPERLINK "mailto:ambserajulislam@gmail.com" ambserajulislam@gmail.com - See more at: http://www.daily-sun.com/details_yes_11-05-2014_WHCA,-democracy-and-transparency-in-USA_851_2_5_1_1.html#sthash.M8dqqrKt.dpuf

Decadence all around

2014-05-10T10:07:00.000-04:00

Decadence all around

Print Edition

Post Editorial

Saturday, 10 May 2014

Author / Source: M. Serajul Islam

A joint news editor of a private TV channel was sacked because she criticised the owner in her Facebook status. Her criticisms were a few. First, she stated that the employees are not paid regularly; sometimes almost 2 months late and sometimes, paid half their salaries. Second, those who work till 12: 30 at night and supposed to be dropped at their homes by office vehicles are not because these vehicles are deputed to attend personal duties of the owner or the managing director. Third, the employees have to pay extra attention to programmes of the owner and treat these as national news. Finally, she asked herself the heart-rending question if she has sold herself by coming to work in the station.

Not too long ago, there was a news item in the newspapers about the state of affairs in the private TV channels. The item was similar to what this sacked TV joint news editor has written in her Facebook status; that in most of the TV stations, employees are not sure when they would receive their monthly salaries. On the stations making extra efforts to treat events of their owners as national news, all the private TV channels do this all the time, some so blatantly as to be almost detestable. There are major TV channels whose owners think they are worthy of national attention like the Prime Minister/Ministers and elected officials or individuals who have earned international recognition like Dr. Mohammed Yunus or Sir Fazle Hasan Abed.

The problem for this joint news editor and those who think such self-exposure of owners is detestable is that the laws cannot do anything about it. Thus when these channels show their owners who the viewers know are not any more worthy than any other member of the public like national leaders, they have to suffer in silence. In case of one such owner, the TV station he owns got a few well known individuals from the cultural front to discuss his literary works like he was about to win one of the country’s most prestigious awards or perhaps even win an international although those watching the show knew he was but a run of the mill author. There is another owner who is misusing his station to project himself as a national leader where without his station he is simply worthless.

The problems the joint news editor raised in her Facebook status are very serious ones. It reflects the general decline of morality in our society. We have changed into a society where money can buy status that laws and legality cannot question. Newspaper owners/editors do this all the time these days. Newspapers whose editors are owners of their papers do something that editors in no other capital would even think in a fit of madness. They write commentaries where they hold court of the elected leaders. Newspapers editors are respected everywhere. They write editorials as the watchdog of the public on issues of national interests so that those in government remain on the right track on issues of public interests. In fact, in other countries, the government weighs editorials in taking major decisions of the government and between the editors and those in government; the relationship is proactive and healthy.

Whether it is the fault of those in power or the inability of the editors, the government in Bangladesh cares very little about newspaper editorials. There is surely a quality of editorials involved. Also, Dhaka is perhaps the only capital where the government would have a valid point in ignoring the editorials that in other capitals can be taken lightly only at great risks for the government. Dhaka has simply too many newspapers to justify the need for the government to take editorials seriously. Therefore, the newspapers that assume they represent a voice of the country by the strength of their circulation write commentaries where they can take liberty with space that they don’t have with editorials. Unfortunately, notwithstanding the faults and limitations of the politicians, those elected by the people and form the government cannot be subjected to what these commentaries intend which is to lift the editors to the level of the top functionaries of the government, including the Prime Minister and hold court as judge, jury and the prosecutor and that too without giving those they try the right of defense!

The politicians are on a course that makes no sense; their actions are anything but democratic. The ruling party is not concerned that the vast majority of us did not vote it to power. Ours is a parliamentary democracy; yet our Prime Minister treats the party that is not in parliament not just as the opposition but one threatening to take power away from it. The “enforced disappearances”, kidnappings and extra judicial killings have become a nightmare for the nation where the law enforcing agencies are a major part of the problem together with part of the ruling party. Naryangang has exposed the truth to the nation.

Suranjit Sen has openly hinted there is a government within the government. Yet the Prime Minister sees BNP/Jamat hands in these acts.
The business sector is also showing the same signs of decadence. A news item carried widely in the Bangladesh media recently showed that there is only one known businessman among the country’s 10 richest men with a few worth over a billion US dollars! Another news item mentioned that the rich of the country have one step in the safer pastures of Singapore, Malaysia and Canada because they are not confident about the country’s future.

In fact, poor Bangladesh is second in the list of countries that have invested in Malaysia’s programme for overseas investment in real estate.
The only genuine hope for the country’s economic future comes from the poor who work with their lives on the line in Middle East and Malaysia to send remittance in foreign exchange that is the only source of hope for the country. In 2013, Bangladesh received US$ 14.5 billion from its poor expatriates. Unfortunately, with decay in politics and elsewhere in the society, it is just a matter of time that the remittance sector would become a victim to what is happening in the rest of the society.

Bangladesh is thus at a worse crossroad than in the tumultuous period of its history in 1971. The dangers in 1971 were humungous with a murderous military regime poised to kill to the last. It came out of it successfully because the nation fought the dangers united like a monolith. The nation today is divided in a manner that is unbelievable where those who are supposed to lead the major sectors of the society have become self-seekers in the worst ways imaginable.

That would have been enough but not so because these self-seeking leaders of the society are exploiting the nation for their self interests but claiming that they are doing so for democracy, spirit of 1971 and whatever else goes with it. They are pouring salt to the injury of the silent majority in the country. It is therefore way past time to share the predicament of the joint news editor as that of each and every one of us who is no part of the self-seeking leaders of our society. It would be suicidal for us, as a country to think she is alone and not stand with her just as it would be suicidal to think the nightmare in Naryangang and rest of the country would vanish by the way the Prime Minister thinks it will by putting the blame on the BNP.

It is time for the nation to rise individually as it did in 1971 and fight these self-seekers in the name of being our leaders in whatever way we can. Let us take heart not just from 1971 but also in the belief that it is little drops that make the nation. Let the little drops count to help Bangladesh find its moral/ethical moorings.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador. His email id is ambserajulislam@gmail.com. The views expressed above are the writer’s very own not necessarily shared by this paper