1. আল্লাহর মাল আল্লাহ নিয়ে গেছেন ।
2. We are looking for শত্রুs.
3. We have got a new dimension. We have found a Hindu জঙ্গি ।
4. সন্ত্রাসী যে-ই হোক, বিশ হাত মাটির তল থেকা, প্রয়োজনে পানির নিচ থেকে তাদের ধরে আনা হবে ।
5. সারা দেশে যা হচ্ছে তা ওদের নিজেদের গন্ডগোল্, ওরা নিজেরা নিজেদের মারছে ।
6. জঙ্গিs should be caught, nothing matter who is Bangla, who is English brother.
7. পুলিশের জানাজা পড়ি, সন্ত্রাসীদের জানাজা তো পড়ি না ।

8. ‘এসব বিচ্ছিন্ন ঘটনা। এটা কোনো ব্যাপার না। এমনটি ঘটতেই পারে। তবে আমরা কী পদক্ষেপ নিচ্ছি সেটিই বড় বিষয়।’

a. Altaf Hossain Chowdhury.
b. Lufuzzaman Babur.
c. Mohammed Nasim.
d. Sahara Khatun.

——

This is not a fun game.  Each of these statements were made by the person entrusted with maintaining law and order, the very first task of a government, after some tragic incidence for which each of them should have taken moral responsibility. 

Last April I called for Sahara Khatun to show moral responsiblity.  Today I ask the Prime Minister to show leadership and fire the Home Minister.

The background, from today’s Prothom Alo:

‘মনে হচ্ছে, ঢাকা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ে একজন ছাত্রকে হত্যা করা খুব স্বাভাবিক ঘটনা। আমরা নিরীহ মানুষ। কার বিরুদ্ধে অভিযোগ করব? কার কাছে বিচার চাইব? ওপরওয়ালা আছেন। তিনি সব দেখবেন।’
ঢাকা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ের ছাত্র আবু বকর সিদ্দিকের মৃত্যু নিয়ে স্বরাষ্ট্রমন্ত্রীর বক্তব্যের পর এই প্রতিক্রিয়া তাঁর ভাই মুদি দোকানদার আব্বাস আলীর। তিনি গতকাল শুক্রবার প্রথম আলোকে আরও বলেন, ‘আজ যদি প্রধানমন্ত্রীর ছেলে মারা যেত, তাহলে কি মাননীয় স্বরাষ্ট্রমন্ত্রী এমন কথা বলতেন?’
গত বৃহস্পতিবার আইন মন্ত্রণালয়ে অনুষ্ঠিত তিন মন্ত্রণালয়ের সমন্বয় বৈঠকের পর স্বরাষ্ট্রমন্ত্রী সাহারা খাতুন সাংবাদিকদের বলেছিলেন, ‘এসব বিচ্ছিন্ন ঘটনা। এটা কোনো ব্যাপার না। এমনটি ঘটতেই পারে। তবে আমরা কী পদক্ষেপ নিচ্ছি সেটিই বড় বিষয়।’

ShareThis

***********************************

Supreme Court Decides the fate of the Fifth Amendment

In 2005, a High Court bench led by Justice Khairul Huq declared the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of Bangladesh illegal. The full judgment is available at Unheard Voice. It is a fascinating read. Justice Khairul Huq’s portion is slightly longer than Justice A. T. M. Fazle Kabir’s. Page 336-337 contains the reasons that the Fifth Amendment was found to be invalid.

This case is worth thinking about, because it does not deal with legal technicality, or arcane judicial procedure. This case is about the design, the blueprint if you will, of the State of Bangladesh. It is also about whether we, the people of Bangladesh, tell our government what to do, or whether they turn around and tell us what to do. Who gets the last word, the people or the government?

The Constitution of Bangladesh is the supreme law of Bangladesh. The First Parliament of independent Bangladesh, as elected representatives of a sovereign people, approved it. This constitution is a written contract between us, the people of Bangladesh, and the government, whom we allow the exercise of state power on our behalf. This contract is binding upon all organs of this government: the parliament, the president, the Supreme Court and all lower courts, the military, the police, and our local representatives, all must abide by it….

Read More in In The Middle of Nowhere…

ShareThis

Kibria, 4 AL men killed in grenade attacks

I sit there for a while, my tea getting cold. I think about calling my parents, but decide against it — it’s middle of the night there, why wake them up. Why wake them up to the fact that the country was sleepwalking to a disaster?

Or did they need waking up at all? A few months earlier, I received SMS messages from friends and family: Dhaka is hot again, murder attempts on Hasina, we’re safe, don’t worry. For much of the following years, I’d receive more such messages: bomb attacks etc, but we’re safe, don’t worry. Things got so bad that in October 2006, when someone rang my cellphone and started: Have you heard the news? Dr Yunus… my first thought was the sentence would end in … has been assassinated.

Seemingly, Bangladesh has turned the corner since, since we haven’t had assassinations and grenade attacks for a while.

But have we really turned the corner? Five years later, the Kibria case is still unsolved. And for three of these five years, Bangladesh has been ruled by non-BNP governments (at the very least, local BNP men are implicated in the assassination, and there is a belief that BNP high ups were involved). Forget Kibria, three months on, we still don’t know who tried to kill Fazl-e-Noor Tapash.

Have we really turned the corner? Perhaps not.

Even as we mourn him, and demand justice, we should also celebrate SAMS Kibria’s life and achievements. We need more people like him in Bangladesh, particularly in politics.

(More at Mukti)

ShareThis

PIA logo

PIA

ShareThis

For readers benefit, here is the full verdict by HC on the Fifth amendment

A post that appeared in UV last month is posted again below:

There is a lot of noise about the court case re: 5th Amendment.   Senior politicians from both parties, various legal experts, non-legal experts in TV talk shows, and other sundry pundits who write columns (and blogs) have been expressing their opinions freely.  Some people (including the Law Minister) are saying the court’s verdict means: we are on our way to the 1972 constitution, secularism will return, religion-based politics will become illegal, and oh, Zia’s government was illegal.  Others are saying this verdict means: Bismillah will be erased from the constitution and Islam will be gone from the country, we will have a constitutional crisis, and/or we will return to Bakshal-style fascism. 

As with many other things, I think our media is doing an atrocious job of reporting the facts.  In fact, the reporting is so hazy that a fellow blogger with an astute political antenna said to me that he couldn’t make much sense of it at all. 

I don’t have any more expertise in constitutional law than my friend, and so it may well be like a blind leading another.  Over the fold is what I think the verdict means: military coups are illegal, but fears of Bakshal returning or claims that religion-based politics will be automatically banned are ill-founded. 

We shall very much appreciate anyone with background in consitutional law clarifying the situation for us.

(For some inexplicable reason, the ending of this post got lost in the cyberspace yesterday.  My apologies.  A new ending is now written.  JR, 7.05am BDT, 9 Jan)

First, let’s consider the background for the verdict.  The verdict came about:

… in response to the writ petition filed by Masudul Alam on behalf of Bangladesh Italian Marble Works Company (BIMWC), to reclaim a cinema hall in Waizghat in Dhaka that the company lost during the military rule.

…

The BIMWC once used to own the Moon Cinema Hall in Wiseghat. But after the independence, the cinema hall was declared abandoned and the government handed it over to the Muktijoddha Kalyan Trust. The marble works company filed a writ petition in 1976, staking its claim on the theatre. In 1977, the High Court asked the government to hand over the hall to the company. However, the MLR 7 negated the High Court order, making the cinema hall continue to be an abandoned property.

In 1994, the BIMWC again filed a writ petition. But the High Court and later the Appellate Division said that since the fifth amendment has validated the MLR 7, the company cannot claim ownership of the property.

In 2000, the BIMWC moved against the validity of MLR 7. The implications of the petition have turned out to be far-reaching, as it hits a wide area of unconstitutional and undemocratic power transfers in the volatile mid-seventies.

Further details are here and here. 

Note that the concerns about Bismillah is unfounded:

“Some of the areas that the court condones are closed-transactions. For instance, incorporation of Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim or resting trust on the Almighty Allah in the fifth amendment do not fall under the purview of illegality since the court feels that these could also have been done constitutionally.”

This Prothom Alo op ed by Mizanur Rahman Khan further explains what the verdict actually does and doesn’t say.  His conclusion:

 আপিল বিভাগ ৩ জানুয়ারি সরকারের এর আগের স্থগিত আবেদন রদ করেছেন। বিএনপি সরকার কতিপয় অতি উত্সাহীর পরামর্শে গেল গেল রব তুলেছিল। দ্রুত আপিল করেছিল। তখন হাইকোর্টের ওই রায় স্থগিত করা হয়। গতকাল তা রদ হলো। কারণ, বর্তমান সরকার বিএনপি সরকারের স্থগিত আবেদন প্রত্যাহারের আবেদন করেছিল। ১৮ জানুয়ারি ইন্টারভেনর হিসেবে বিএনপির লিভ টু আপিলের শুনানি হবে। আপাতত হাইকোর্টের রায় পেন্ডিং চ্যালেঞ্জ আবেদন সাপেক্ষে সমুন্নত।
এখন দরকার সঠিক তথ্য ও ব্যাখ্যার প্রেক্ষাপটে গণমাধ্যমে বিতর্ক চলমান রাখা। এ জন্য সর্বাগ্রে বাহাত্তরের সংবিধানে ফেরা কিংবা পঞ্চম সংশোধনী বাতিলের মতো ঢালাও মন্তব্য পরিহার করা। কারণ, ওই দুটি উত্তেজক রাজনৈতিক পরিভাষার বাস্তব ব্যবহার ইতিমধ্যেই অচল ও অপ্রাসঙ্গিক হয়ে পড়েছে। বাহাত্তরের সংবিধানে পুরোপুরি ফেরা যাবে না। পঞ্চম সংশোধনীও পুরোপুরি বাতিল করা যাবে না। সুতরাং অহেতুক উত্তেজনা না ছড়ানোই প্রত্যাশিত। তর্ক হোক অনুচ্ছেদভিত্তিক।

Supporters of Ziaur Rahman’s politics don’t need to be upset about this.  Zia became president when Sayem resigned on ‘health grounds’.  Sayem became president when Mushtaq resigned on 6 Nov 1975.  Mushtaq was just a cabinent minister when Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was assassinated, and his presidency was illegal under the constitution.  Regardless of the good or bad of Zia’s politics, the point here is that his ascension to power was a result of martial law, and martial law is unconstitutional.

This has strong implications.  I heard from Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury, then foreign advisor,  in a personal conversation in June 2007 that ‘martial law will be declared unconstitutional, so even if we (CTG) are a constitutional fiction, that fiction is important. 

b. But anything Mushtaq-Sayem-Zia (and Ershad) governments did in the public interest that could also have been done by a constitutional government are condoned/excused.

Self-evidently the return of multi-party democracy was in public interest, and any duly elected parliament could done it.  Therefore the question of ‘Bakshal will be back’ doesn’t arise. 

Similarly, replacing secularism with ‘trust in Allah’, inserting Bismillah, lifting the ban on religion-based political parties etc could also be done by a parliament in public interest.  Therefore the fear/claim about secularism/Islam being in danger/automatically banning religious parties doesn’t arise.

—–

Specifically, the Prime Minister recently noted explicitly that Bismillah and Islam as the state religion will stay in the constitution.  If those parts of the constitution survive, then on what ground does the ‘automatic ban of religion-based politics’ return?

Again, people with constitutional law background can clarify things for us. 

But as things stand, I think the ‘Islam in danger’ or ‘Bakshal will return’ show the opposition’s intellectual bankruptcy more than anything else, while the Law Minister’s confusing statements about ‘religion-based politics’ are probably a smokescreen to detract from the fact that there is little movement in the war crimes trial front.  These are the phantom menaces our politicians want us to focus on.

However, there is also the possibility of a new hope.  There are many things in our constitution — not just symbolic issues like secularism/Bismillah, but also functional issues like the Article 70 that stifles and MP’s voice — that ought to be addressed.  There is a legitimate debate to be had over the caretaker system.  And things like term limit or proportional system or upper house, which are not in the constitution, can also be considered. 

The current government has the numbers to amend the constitution.  If the opinion polls are to be believed, then it has the political capital to consider these issues. 

Could there be a new hope, or will we be chasing the phanton menace?

ShareThis

Take your pick and substantiate your claim..
NRB = Never Relenquished Bangladesh
NRB = Non Reliable Bangladeshi
NRB = Not Required in Bangladesh

ShareThis

4 injured in settler-local clash
Khagrachhari, Jan 31 (bdnews24.com) — At least four people were seriously injured in a clash, spanning several hours, between the indigenous and Bengali settlers in Khagrachhari on Saturday. The clash occurred when a jeep hit a CNG-run autorickshaw. The injured are Shubodh Chakma, 32, Kalachan Marma, 37, Mongeon Marma, 32, and the jeep driver Abdul Wahab, supposedly in his thirties. All four are undergoing treatment at local hospitals. Wahab’s condition is said to be critical. Police and witnesses said that after altercations over the slight accident, goons of one Rafique group beat up the Chakma autorickshaw driver at Pankhaiya Para in the afternoon. In retaliation, Chakma boys beat up Abdul Wahab at Chengis Para at about 8.00pm in the evening.

This sparked severe violence between the locals and Bengali settlers which continued in waves through the evening. Shops were shut down as fear of widespread ethnic violence spread though the district town. At one point Bengalis beat up Mongeon Marma, a civil servant, when he reached the College Gate area by his motor bike. The Bengalis burnt his bike as well. Passers by became panicked when this led to a bout chase and counter chase between groups armed with sticks in that area. Upon receipt of information, officer in charge of the Sadr police station, Shahriar Khan and SI Shubir Datta came to the spot and recovered the motor bike. According to information the entire town was still tense at 11.30pm with visibly beefed up police deployment. Assistant police superintendent (circle) Mohammad Maksedur Rahman said that the situation was under control despite the tension. He acknowledged reports of incidents from different parts of the town.

“We have deployed a high number of police personnel across the town to make sure that the situation remains calm.” The top government executive, Sadr Upazila Nirbahi Officer, Mohammad Rahed Hossain said the clash had been instigated by certain quarters. “We are looking into the entire episode.”

Protest Meetings against attack on top indigenous leaders held in Dhaka and Rangamati

On 30 January 2010 protest meetings and processions against the cowardly attacks on top indigenous leaders in the country namely Santu Larma, Raja Devasish Roy and Sanjeeb Drong were simultaneously held in Dhaka and Rangamati.

In Dhaka, at 11.00 am protest meeting organised jointly by Bangladesh Indigenous Peoples Forum (BIPF), Parbatya Chattagram Jana Samhati Samiti (PCJSS), Jatiya Adivasi Parishad (JAP) and Bangladesh Adivasi Odhokar Andolon (BAOA) was started at the Central Shaheed Minar with information and publicity secretary of PCJSS Mr. Mangal Kumar Chakma in the chair.

Gono Forum presidium member Pankaj Bhattacharya, convenor of Workers Party of Bangladesh (Reconstituted) Haider Akbar Khan Rano, general secretary of Workers Party of Bangladesh leader Anisur Rahman Mallik, leader of Bangladesher Samajtantrik Dal Bazlur Rashid Firoz, central member of Communist Party of Bangladesh and Dhaka University teachers M M Akash general and secretary Mujahidul Islam Selim, assistant general secretary of Bangladesh National Awami League Party (NAP) Ismail Hossain, Dhaka University teachers Muhammad Samad, Saurav Sikdar and Robayet Ferdous, women rights activists Khishi Kabir of Nejera Kori and Rokeya Kabir of Bangladesh Nari Pragati Sangha, indigenous women rights activists Madhabi Lata Chakma of Parbatya Chattagram Women Association, Rakhi Mrong of BAOA, Chaitali Tripura of BIPF and Tandra Chakma, human rights activists Salam Azad, indigenous rights activists Ajoy A Mree and Sanjeeb Drong, among others, spoke at the protest meeting.

Speakers condemned the recent attacks on the president of BIPF and PCJSS Jyotirindra Bodhipriya Larma, Chakma circle chief Raja Barrister Devasish Roy and general secretary of BIPF Sanjeeb Drong. They urged the government to take stern steps to prevent recurrence of such attacks.

Demanding a proper investigation of the attacks and punishment of the culprits, a protest meeting also accused the government of doing little to protect the members of the ethnic minorities. They said the attack on top indigenous leaders during the Awami League-led government’s regime indicated how vulnerable indigenous peoples are in the country. They appalled the government to find out the perpetrators of such attacks and ensure their punishment.

Speakers also urged the government for early implementation of the CHT Accord and to announce a roadmap towards the implementation of the Accord.

Later, the organisers brought out a procession. Starting from Shaheed Minar, the rally paraded different city streets around Dhaka University campus. Several hundreds representative from indigenous peoples from across the country also joined the protest rally.

In Rangamati, PCJSS brought out procession protesting attack on PCJSS president Santu Larma and Chakma circle chief Raja Devisish Roy from outer stadium in Rangamati to Banarupa. Procession was followed by protest meeting at premises of Deputy Commissioner’s office.

The protest meeting was presided over vice president of PCJSS Laxmi Prasad Chakma while facilitated by assistant information and publicity secretary of PCJSS Sajib Chaknma. Among others, acting general secretary of PCJSS Pranati Bikash Chakma, general secretary of PCJSS Rangamati district branch Bodhi Satta Chakma, general secretary of Rangamati district Women Association Suprava Chakma and president of Hill Students Council (PCP) Udayan Tripura spoke at the meeting.

Speakers of the protest meeting urged the government to ban UPDF soon, to arrest and prosecute those responsible for this attack and to conduct judicial investigation to the attack.

It is mentionable that on 27 January 2010 president of BIPF and PCJSS Jyotirindra Bodhipriya Larma alias Santu Larma and Chakma circle chief and former special assistant to caretaker government of Bangladesh came under attack by UPDF miscreants in Mahalchari under Khagrachari district. Earlier on 22 January 2010, Sanjeeb came under attack at Rannikhong in Netrakona district when he was returning from Boheratali Christian Mission riding a motorcycle.

–
PCJSS
(Parbatya Chattagram Jana Samhati Samiti)
##################
“It was not an attack, it was merely a protest” – says a Reformists JSS leader

chtnews.com/News No. 17/2010, January 31, 2010

A top ranking leader of the Reformist faction of the Jana Samhati Samiti has said the alleged attack on Santu Larma on 27 January was actually not an attack; it was merely a popular protest against his destructive policies that keep the intra-Jumma conflict alive.

“People are fed up with his politics of killings and kidnappings. He is responsible for the killing of hundreds of Jumma activists including former General Secretary of the PCJSS and a veteran guerrilla leader, Mr. Chandra Shekhor Chakma.” the Reformist leader told chtnews.com requesting anonymity for security concern. “I don’t fear death, but I think I should be discreet because there is nothing Santu Larma cannot do to eliminate his political opponents.” he added.

He said Mr. Larma had personally ordered his gunmen to shoot and kill Chandra Shekhor Chakma, his long-time aide and comrade-in arm. Chandra Shekhor Chakma was shot and wounded, and died a few months after the shooting incident. His wife filed an attempt to murder case against Santu Larma. However, he has secured bail from the High Court. Larma’s gunmen also shot and wounded Aungshuman Chakma, another JSS leader, and attacked Mintu Chakma, a NGO activist, with sticks and iron rods in Rangamati town.

Asked to comment on JSS allegation that UPDF was behind the attack on Santu Larma, UPDF leader Shanti Dev Chakma said, “This is completely baseless. Mr. Larma made this claim without investigating the matter.”

He asked: “Why should we attack him, since he is already dead, politically and ideologically?”

He said people are genuinely angry with him because scores of innocent people had to suffer because of him. “He is the one who initiated division and conflicts within the Jumma movement and pursued scorched earth policy in his attempt to eliminate UPDF and his political opponents.” Shant said.

ShareThis

Delwar Hossain writes in the Guardian on 28 October: Recent scenes from Haiti remind me of relief work in Bangladesh, where there was never enough to go around.

As news channels beam images of aid distribution in Haiti, I am reminded of a post-emergency relief that I witnessed last year in a remote part of Bangladesh where a flood in 2007 had destroyed large areas of paddy and numerous homes. The people affected were some of the most marginal in the country, what development experts call “the extreme poor”.

The devastation caused by the flood was far-reaching and continued to be so, in particular because the destroyed fields left thousands hungry. The distribution that I watched was co-ordinated by the local staff of a large European NGO with many years’ experience in the area. Villagers were to receive building equipment.

I came on the day tin sheets were being handed out. Even before the distribution had begun, there was trouble. The list that was originally drawn up of people from the most severely affected village had to be re-done.

According to Tariq, a staff member with the NGO, this was because a local community-based organisation that they had commissioned to make an inventory of recipients had put the names of their own relatives and friends on it, thus denying the most needy.

The second list had a different set of names but, as Tariq said, “there was no way of checking the validity of the revised list”. Nonetheless, orders came from head office that the distribution had to continue. Before we arrived, Tariq received a phone call from staff already there. They had been threatened by people whose names had been erased from the original.

The people had been waiting for us at the primary school since daybreak. It was the only concrete building there. It was now mid-afternoon. Boredom adorned their gaunt, rain-soaked faces. They followed Tariq like he was the Pied Piper as we both ungracefully squelched into one of the classrooms with mud-sodden sandals, interrupting the lesson taking place. Tariq told the villagers that his staff ought to be able to work in the area without being threatened. A local politician started shouting about the list, demanding to see the original.

Talk of the name changes continued as the rain showed no sign of abating. Eventually, Tariq announced that the villagers would be getting five sheets of tin and not six as previously promised. This was because the local community-based organisation, also responsible for procurement, had stolen some of the funds. Some groaned, but these were desperate people; they are used to such things.

One man waiting in the huddle, Mijan, was a farmer in the dry season. In the wet season, he worked as a labourer, loading sacks of coal on to boats destined for the brick fields of Dhaka. He earned by the tons he loaded, roughly 300tk (£3) per day. He had arrived at the school at 6am. One sheet of tin cost 400tk. I asked what he would do with it. “I will strengthen my house,” Mijan said.

A man selling snacks turned up from somewhere. No one seemed interested in his wares.

Tariq’s colleagues had already handed out tickets to the recipients. When a name was called, the recipient went to one of the NGO staff where the ticket was matched with the official list. He or she then either signed or gave a thumbprint. Older people were able to sign but, unused to holding a pen in their hands for some time, their signatures were child-like scrawls. Youngsters could not even manage that – a symptom of a time and a place where education was no longer believed to help people out of poverty.

Sheets of tin were counted and dispensed. People carried them on their heads. Some cut their hands on the sharp ends of the sheets. One piece fell over on the ground, narrowly missing a child’s head. Most waited in the rain for non-existent boats to take them to the other side of the river.

Others, not receiving, simply grumbled. “What is the point of five sheets of tin? You can’t even build a toilet with five. You need 18 in total to build a house.”

Someone retaliated: “When you go to a wedding, you don’t expect to eat all the food, do you? So why complain?” A woman beseeched me. She had received bamboo poles when the NGO distributed them previously but would not be receiving tin. “I was on the first list of names, but not on the second. What will I do with just bamboo poles?” She looked as poor as all the second-listers.

The teachers had all taken an extended break. In the classrooms, youngsters who had not been inside one for a while, though still old enough to have been at school, commandeered the chalk and were scribbling on the board. I asked them what class they were in just to make sure.

“We don’t go to school,” they said, smiling, exposing their metal-infested teeth. “Can you read and write?”

“No,” they said nervously.

“If you are not careful, then in a few years’ time, you will also be waiting in the rain for tin,” I said. They laughed.

I stood on the veranda watching people tend to their freshly-cut wounds from the tin sheets as the arguments continued. More rumours of corruption spread.

It all seemed so futile. The floods will return. The state will put up its hand and say it is unable to do anything to help. The NGOs will go through the motions. The poor will stand in queues.

A boy, decked out in his school uniform, takes down the soaking national flag from the veranda, folds it up and puts it in the staffroom. In a week’s time the NGO would be distributing goats and ducks here.

ShareThis

The killing of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his family members were grave human rights abuses, and those who committed them should be brought to justice. However, this should not be done through executions, because the death penalty itself is a violation of every person’s human rights and is a cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases, and anywhere in the world, regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, or the method used by the state to kill the prisoner. The death penalty violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Here is the response from the other side:

In addition to the above assertions, both in favour of and against capital punishment, one has to perceive the socio-political aspect of the society to make an absolute standing on the issue. The EU has the moral right to demand enactment of a law for the abolishment of capital punishment to the government, not to the court of law, since only one out of its 27 member countries, Latvia, still maintains capital punishment for crimes during war.

One has to take into cognisance the fact that it is only possible in Bangladesh, not in any member country of the EU, that a convicted cold blooded murderer of seven students at Dhaka University campus was freed from life imprisonment by the first military ruler of Bangladesh when he was running for president to obtain his (convict’s) father’s support in the election. Only a few years ago, a convicted killer got presidential mercy and his death sentence was commuted to acquittal, not even to life imprisonment. Does this type of socio-political scenario exist in any country of the EU?

What’s your take on death penalty in Bangladesh?

ShareThis

The comments can be paraphrased as follows.

The summit has cemented the gains of the past year in terms of confidence building from the Bangladeshi side, and has laid a firm foundation for resolving the major outstanding issues from the Indian side.  This is a considerable achievement and something to get enthused about — a qualified hoi hoi if you will.  In that sense the visit really has been significant and successful.  While communiques are generally what policy wonks focus on, in the current context, the communique alone is neither a very meaningful statement nor a useful way to look at / measure the success of the trip.  Atmospherics and context are key here.  And if you consulted people involved in the trip from either side of the border, you would appreciate the success much more.

My responses in detail are over the fold.  Quick take away:

1. Agree that in the past year, Bangladesh has taken immense measures in confidence building — measures that are good for Bangladesh regardless of tepid public reactions from India.

2. Concede that I have no inside information, and thus can be missing the atmospherics completely.

3.  Stress that if the above view of qualified hoi hoi is correct, then we should see some concrete steps from India reasonably soon.

Firstly, it is true that since the current government came to power, significant steps have been taken in the Bangladeshi side to allay Indian security fears.  More importantly, these steps, I believe, have been to the benefit of Bangladesh, regardless of Indian reactions. 

Without getting into a debate about how much involvement past Bangladeshi governments may or may not have had with Indian militants, these are reasonably incontrovertible facts: there were Indian militants present in Bangladesh; and there were serious security lapses in 2004-06 (assassinations, 10 truck arms etc).  It is also reasonable to theorise that the two were connected, that the presence of Indian militants in Bangladeshi soil poses a direct threat to Bangladesh’s security. 

Not Indian, but Bangladeshi security. 

Therefore, uprooting these militants is a benefit for Bangladesh.  This doesn’t mean we turn a blind eye to conditions that create these militants.  But the responsibility of the People’s Republic is primarily to its own people, and the responsible thing to do is to completely disentangle ourselves from India’s wars.  (As an aside, anyone comparing northeast Indian secessionists with our Mukti Bahini either misunderstands history, or is being a demagogue).

We can debate the manner in which the current government has carried out the disentanglement.  Publicly humiliating the security agencies, or breaking domestic laws to extradite foreign nationals, can have longstanding negative consequences.  But on the big picture, the government has done the right thing, at considerable political (and for the Prime Minister, personal) risk.  They ought to be congratulated, regardless of Indian reaction.

But this doesn’t mean we should overlook the fact that Indian public reaction thus far has been fairly lackluster.  That’s the point made in my Hoi Hoi or hai hai piece, or Asif’s Guardian piece. 

This takes us to the second point.  I do not have any private information.  My analysis is strictly based on what is available in public domain.  As a general rule, I try to stick to publicly available facts, because they improve the discourse.  But I do accept that in the current case, there may well be benefits in relying on such private information.

Unfortunately, since I don’t have access to the corridors of power, I cannot report on what may happen.  But, for argument’s sake, suppose it is really the case that the trip ‘has laid a firm foundation for resolving the major outstanding issues from the Indian side’. 

What will happen then?

Well, a Joint River Committee meeting is scheduled for the first quarter of 2010.  Presumably if the Indians are ready to resolve outstanding issues, then we will see some solid movements in this meeting?  Not just promises to resolve river-related issues, but actually resolve them?  Or may be some political commitment about the killings at the border?  Or postponement of Tipaimukh Dam? 

The ‘qualified hoi hoi‘ theory has a testable prediction: resolution of at least one outstanding issue within a reasonable time. 

I will be very happy to be proved wrong about not believing the hype, and to raise cheers of hoi hoi if my well connected friends prove correct. 

But will the Indians rise to the occasion?

ShareThis

The third anniversary of 1/11 got overshadowed by the Prime Minister’s trip to India.  Fortunately, regular UV pariticipant Tacit has written a series for Mukti, looking back at the coup that dared not speak its name (to borrow the Economist’s words).

The first post tackles the gross violations of human rights seen under that regime.  It observes that the root of this violation was in the last BNP government’s mistake in forming RAB instead of reforming police to curb crime.  The post ends with this advice for the current government:

This torture has not been investigated. The people carrying it out have not been punished. Steps have not been taken to ensure that no one is tortured at the hand of government agencies. Sheikh Hasina may believe that she can ignore these problems, but these charges will not go away: the victims are too many, and the scars are too deep. The government must investigate the torture, and take suitable steps, so that private actors have no excuse to take action that is outside the scope of law.

The second post quotes Barrister Rafiqul Huq and discusses the impact of the so-called anti-corruption drive on the economy.  The chart below is perhaps the clearest illustration of the points made in the post.

It shows investment-to-GDP ratio since 1989-90 (earliest Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics has official data).  Without investment, the economy won’t grow, there won’t be additional jobs to keep pace with population growth, and incomes won’t rise to dent poverty.  The chart shows steady rise in investment-to-GDP ratio throughout the 1990s.  Although the pace had slowed, investment continued to rise relative to GDP in this decade, reaching a peak of 24.7% in 2005-06 (supposedly the height of alleged corruption, jihadi violence, and many other form of misrule by Hawa Bhaban).  And the impact of the honestocratic revolution of Gen Moeen and his friends?  Investment had been sliding relative to GDP since they came to save the nation.

The final post is forward looking.  It asks the BNP chief to think hard about the choices she makes in the coming years.  Nothing less than the survival of Bangladesh’s democracy, and ultimately political sovereignty, is at stake.

ShareThis

Farooq Sobhan comments at DS round-table, Jan 16.

I believe this was a very successful summit. It has opened up whole of vista, not only simply in terms of Bangladesh’s bilateral relations with India, but in terms of Bangladesh becoming a middle income country by 2021.

If Bangladesh is to move from 6 percent growth to 8 to 9 percent growth, there is no way to achieve it without a meaningful regional and in particular sub-regional economic integration with our neighbours, starting with India, but certainly including Nepal and Bhutan and extending beyond Myanmar and to Asean countries and China.

I believe this visit opens up this opportunity. I thought it would be appropriate particularly since Reaz [Rahman] in his presentation has focused on the issue of connectivity and major concessions. I would say this is been a major gain.

On the 8th and 9th of this month, Mr Matlub Ahmed and myself were both invited to speak at the 5th north-east summit in Kolkata. High-powered delegations of all the Asean were present. The Myanmar delegation was led by the foreign minister. I think it’s appropriate for me to read just very briefly two lines from his speech. His entire speech focused on one subject, which as the importance of connectivity. We should also remember that from the 1st of January this year the India-Asean free trade agreement comes into force.

What the Myanmar foreign minister said: “The development of transport infrastructure is no doubt one of the most important factors in trade and tourism industry. The Indo-Myanmar friendship road as it connects northeast India to South Asia and Southeast Asia is the most viable commercial transport route that significantly enhances trade between Myanmar and India.”

He goes on to say, I would like to mention, that China can become the biggest market for the north-eastern region of India. In fact the Stilwell Road is the shortest route linking the north-eastern India with China. Hence we consider that if goods from north-eastern region can be transported along the Stilwell Road to China then the goods can reach their destination in a short time.

So I would like to say that the key to Bangladesh’s growth and development is the need for connectivity. Our greatest strength has been our geographic location. And this is what we really need. India has made a major concession in permitting both Nepal and Bhutan and this is something needs to be fleshed out in future discussion. So that we hope that certainly the port of Mongla, which has been lying idle, can now become a major outlet for goods of Nepal and also for Bhutan. We have now excess container capacity in Chittagong and this would also provide a huge boost to Chittagong port and will make the idea of deep seaport in Chittagong considerably more viable.

Why should this be looked upon as a concession? We see connectivity and integration of transport system all across Europe, all across North America, all across the Asean region, all across the Arab world. Indeed the key to regional economic cooperation has always been connectivity. So I believe this is been a very major and important step forward.

I think the major issues were reflected in the three agreements that were signed. And this is indeed in my view has caused a major shift in Indian thinking and attitude to Bangladesh. For the first time in many years that Bangladesh has taken what I considered to be logical, practical and realistic approach in terms of addressing not only its own security concern, but that for its neighbours.

In terms of the action that it has taken against ULFA operatives in Bangladesh, we have consistently stated that this cannot in any way serve the interests of Bangladesh. But saying that and implementing that have been two different issues. We are all familiar with the Chittagong arms case and it is now evidently clear that ULFA was deeply involved as were many other players involved, both internal and external.

The consequences of allowing Bangladesh to be a transit route for the movement of arms has been of immense costs to Bangladesh and I think cooperation in this field was long overdue and has been a major achievement of the visit.

On the subject of trade and investment I would like to say, realistically looking at Bangladesh’s location and neighbourhood, where is the investment going to come from. Is it going to be Europe or the US? No, the companies that are interested that have shown now from many years an interest to invest in Bangladesh are India companies.

And I believe that this visit, in particular PM’s speech when she addressed the joint chambers of FICCI, CII and AssoCham, has now made it clear that Bangladesh would now welcome investment and this is going to provide huge boost to industrial development in the country as well as to trade because part of the attraction of India investment of the opportunity to re-export goods back to India, particularly northeast India taking advantage of our geographical location. It is also taking advantage of Bangladesh’s duty-free access to Europe and many other countries.

The subject of duty-free access I agree has been a long standing one and I think we have seen strong commitment on the part of India, reflected in its decision to take 47 items off the negative list.

I think what is now important in the follow-up actions is to address the issue of non-tariff barriers. There has been a strong commitment. Three major constraints in terms of flow of Bangladeshi goods to India. The first issue is been the issue of standard and certification, and I think the issue has been fully and properly addressed. I think it is important that we upgrade BSTI and there is a mutual acceptance on that basis of the standard and certification of India and Bangladesh jointly. So our certificates are accepted by India and vice versa. I think this will have a certain impact in terms of movement of goods.

The second key issue has been improving the customs facilities at the borders. I think this issue has been properly addressed during the visit.

The third issue I think we hope has also been addressed and will be taken up seriously has been the issue of countervailing duties and sales taxes. So zero tariff means zero tariff. And this in my view will add substantially to Bangladesh’s exports to India. I would go so far is to say that perhaps the FM may consider a commitment and I believe it is a viable and doable commitment. That is in next six months Bangladesh’s exports to India will increase by $200 million. And I hope India will deliver on that.

I think Reaz refers to the $1 billion concessional line of credit as a negative. I find that difficult to understand: this is an opportunity for BD to upgrade its rail, road and infrastructure as a whole. I see this as an enormous opportunity. We all know that the railway system in Bangladesh is urgently and desperately in need of improvement. And we now have the opportunity through this line of credit upgrade the railway system because if we are to connect ourselves to India and Asean and the rest of the world we need to drastically improve our rail and road system.

Reaz also referred to, and I was not very clear why, energy cooperation as a minus. I would say this is a huge plus in the relationship. We all know one of the urgent requirements of Bangladesh at the moment is to meet its shortfall in the energy sector. And grid connectivity has been something that we have pursued for 20 years, ever since I was a High Commissioner. It has been pursued through two BNP governments, through the last of AL government, and now finally we hope to see a conclusive agreement being reach on grid connectivity will be of enormous benefit.

Similarly, in the case of the availability of Ashuganj as a riverine port. I think it was in the mutual interest of the both countries to reactivate our river system. And dredging has been a key factor on that. India has now agreed to make available a number of dredgers. And will help reopening of riverine routes. Perhaps better benefit will be for Bangladesh than India.

This is a subject for Matlub Ahmed. I hope he will speak on it. Tripura is a captive market for Bangladeshi goods. Unfortunately, most of the goods enter Tripura illegally through smuggling to the mutual disadvantage of both the countries. Real connectivity will allow formal trade to take place. Indeed I think it is a good move that we have finally allowed border trade on trial basis. I think this is been a major step forward.

The issue of Teesta was raised. I think we have a clear commitment as reflected in the communiqué. The Teesta will be taken up on a priority basis in next three months. There was very positive language on the maritime boundary.

Now the last point Reaz made, and I would finish with that: the issue of India’s permanent membership in the UN Security Council. Now my point here is that Bangladesh supporting India’s permanent membership will not mean that India will become a permanent member. What it does do is the fact that it recognises India as an emerging global power. And India does deserve the seat. Japan also claims a permanent seat. If India and Japan become permanent members in the SC indeed it will increase the opportunity of Bangladesh becoming a non-permanent member. I don’t think this is a concession.

ShareThis

With explicitly or implicitly anti-Indian governments in control of the national narrative for almost all of the time since, this alignment has had a devastating impact on Bangladesh’s political and social evolution.

Politically, it has made any rapprochement with India very difficult, even for governments who felt that better bilateral relations were in the national interest. The India card was always there to ensure that there would be a high electoral price to pay for such diplomatic heresy.

This tilt has disfigured Bangladesh’s domestic politics for the past 35 years and poisoned our relationship with the rest of the world. It is for this reason that fixing our relationship with India is in Bangladesh’s best interests and must be a top policy priority.

Thus, Sheikh Hasina has made the country’s India policy the centre-piece of her government’s policy agenda. She has done what no Bangladeshi prime minister has ever done before: put herself at immense political and personal risk to address India’s legitimate security concerns.

Sheikh Hasina is trying to communicate to New Delhi that it is a new day in Bangladesh. No longer will we try to make electoral advantage of opposing India. No longer will we claim that India is behind everything that happens, from the August 21 killings to the Pilkhana massacre. No longer will we permit our territory to be used for anti-Indian operations. No longer will we be obstructionist for the sake of opposing India, turning up our noise at deals that would benefit us merely because they would also benefit India.

The recent trip to India cemented the confidence building gains of the past year. To that extent it was a success, and that is why the government sees it as a success. The atmospherics of the relationship have shifted and India cannot now claim Bangladeshi intransigence as a justification for not addressing Bangladesh’s legitimate concerns.

Will the prime minister’s charm offensive change things? Well, if you believe that Indian intransigence is due to the fact that they are intrinsically evil, then perhaps you would be hard to convince of the merits of her approach.

I think it is more persuasive to suggest that India will act in its own interests. In the past it has perceived its interests to dictate that it not cooperate with a neighbour it sees as hostile. But now that Bangladesh has demonstrated that we are no longer hostile, it is squarely within India’s interests to reciprocate and to ensure that this rapprochement continues.

Commentators beating their breast and rending their garment over the wording of the communiqué signed at the end of the summit miss the point completely. Parsing its content line by line like some Talmudic scholar is an exercise in futility. It is not a treaty. Nothing in it is binding. It is, at most, a statement of intent that reflects the atmospherics of the meeting.

That said, the Indians should appreciate how much the prime minister has risked to change the game with respect to the bilateral relationship. If India does not reciprocate in kind, it will miss a huge opportunity and will hand Sheikh Hasina’s domestic opponents a potent weapon to use against her.

What can the Indian government do to reciprocate?

One simple step that would win good will and build confidence would be to ensure that the Indian border security force stops gunning down Bangladeshi nationals. This would be easy to implement, and signal to Bangladesh that it is a new day in India, too.

A second point of concession should be trade. Again, the cost of fully opening up India’s markets to Bangladeshi businesses would be negligible, but the gains in terms of changing public opinion in Bangladesh would be incalculable.

The 250 megawatts of power and $1 billion loan for infrastructure development that have been pledged are a good start, but if the Indians really want to make inroads into Bangladeshi public opinion, BSF killings and duty-free market access are the places to start.

Bangladesh has done its level best to address India’s security concerns. We have shown that we are interested in connectivity and cooperation and that the days of self-defeating obstructionism are over.

Ultimately, Bangladesh cannot advance if it is not connected with and open to the rest of the world. And that means a better relationship with India. Permitting India (and other countries) to use ports and to transit through Bangladesh isn’t doing them a favour, it is in our economic interests, too.

Sheikh Hasina has shown that she understands this and will act accordingly. Now it is up to India to reciprocate in kind. This is a once in a generation opportunity.

If Sheikh Hasina’s charm offensive is allowed to fail, then it will destroy the ability of any future Bangladeshi government to make any similar overture to India, and our two countries will remain stuck in the vicious circle of non-cooperation that we have been in for the past 35 years.

Sheikh Hasina’s opening to India shows true leadership and true courage. I do not agree with those who say that India has responded with apathy and indifference. I believe that India is appreciative of what the prime minister has risked.

But it needs to take as big a step as Hasina has taken to keep the momentum going. The stakes are high and the potential benefits — for both Bangladesh and India — are tremendous. Let us hope that the Indians rise to the occasion.

Zafar Sobhan is Editor, Editorial & Op-Ed, The Daily Star.

ShareThis

Daily Star/Thursday, January 21, 2010
Editorial: Brother against brother
by Naeem Mohaiemen

EACH movement, in stasis or motion, gravitates to leaders. Symbols and enigma — where hopes are invested, even in absentia.

For two decades, the movement for self-determination of the Pahari (Jumma) people of Chittagong Hill Tracts had leaders and symbols. The guerillas of Shanti Bahini were figures never seen, always imagined. Then, one day in 1997, the ghost army’s representatives came out of hiding. A helicopter landed in a forest clearing. Designated men on each side, at the negotiation table. Finally, the signing of the CHT Accord with the government, a ceremony with doves, a surrender of guns in a stadium.

So there our curtain goes down, the story ambles along to a happy ending. Or does it? On the 12th anniversary of the Accord, the coda is that almost no aspect of the Accord has been implemented. Even the minimal steps towards implementation, that began last year under this new government, have provoked an organised opposition from groups that want to cancel the Accord. As always in Bangla politics, stopping things is easier.

A court case is underway, trying to declare the CHT Accord unconstitutional. With large amounts of land and forest timber at stake, those who want to keep Paharis marginalised, and the CHT Accord in permanent limbo, are muscular, connected and funded.

But another issue has emerged as a boon for the anti-Accord groups — the fractures within the Pahari movement itself, grown sharper each year the Accord remains unimplemented. Up to 1997, the Pahari community was represented militarily by Shanti Bahini, and politically by JSS (Jana Sanghati Samity). When the accord was signed, a section of the guerilla army and the political movement criticised the Accord, particularly because it failed to provide constitutional recognition to ethnic and adivasi groups. That opposition crystallised into UPDF (United People’s Democratic Front), a new political party of Paharis that formed from the refusenik segment of JSS.

While much of the efforts of JSS and UPDF are focused on the conditions of Pahari oppression, some of their energy in recent years is diverted to conflicts with each other. These fractures do not spring out of thin air. Power struggles within movements are standard issue, especially when the struggle continues longer without results.

But another theory is that anti-Accord groups have also done their part to amplify these internal conflicts among Paharis. Certainly for those Bengalis who want to block the Accord, a common and convenient refrain is: How can we reach a settlement with the Paharis, they are fighting each other?

In the latest expression of fracture, leaders of the JSS called for a political ban on the UPDF. One reason for the call for a ban is that UPDF has opposed the 1997 Accord.

However, according to their recent press releases, UPDF still considers the Accord “unfair” but now accepts it as “fact” and works within that framework. In addition, JSS claims UPDF members are involved in kidnapping in the region. UPDF makes the same counter-claim against JSS. There are diametrically opposed claims from both sides, with no mechanism to get to truth, resolution or stability.

The pertinent question is, where are Pahari political leaders going with this? Do the JSS leaders think that calling for a ban on UPDF, besides being undemocratic, is going to help the movement for Pahari rights? UPDF also has not made significant moves towards making peace with JSS. Both sides seem deliberately oblivious to the fact that a widening fracture within the Pahari movement, through an active struggle for supremacy, will only help those who want to sabotage the CHT Accord.

This is a familiar scenario, from many liberation movements in our past. The third world charisma crisis is embedded with this as well. Guerilla and liberation leaders in the Global South’s recent past: They won the war, but lost the peace. In movements and in negotiations, the leader is the movement, the movement is the leader. But after accords, after independence, after an armistice, the same leaders can fail the movement.

It is urgent, on this crucial anniversary, that the two opposing factions of the Pahari movement stop battling each other, and reach some form of pragmatic détente. The government must be an active intermediary, by insisting that both organisations are represented in talks and decision-making bodies on the future of the CHT.

A continued internecine struggle between UPDF and JSS only helps those who want a return of conflict to Chittagong Hill Tracts. This group, pushing the Accord towards collapse, is not insignificant. They take advantage of chaos and continue to profit from the land, while this endless shadow battle plays out.

Naeem Mohaiemen wrote the chapter on ethnic and religious minorities in several Ain Salish Kendra annual reports.

ShareThis

There was a sense of history at the Bangladeshi prime minister’s office on Saturday. Sheikh Hasina, in a show of strength, flanked by the top members of her government, was addressing the country’s editors and reporters. In an unprecedented White House-style press conference broadcast live on all the TV channels and radio stations, her mood was combative. She was defending the agreements she had signed in India the previous week. “Are we to let our resources remain unused forever?… The deals will fight South Asia’s common enemy – poverty,” she said, trying to defuse opposition to the deals.

ShareThis