Sun 22 May 2005
In an effort to raise awareness and reach a wider target audience, the news of the Palashbari Fundraising drive has been communicated to various internet-based Bangladeshi organizations. There was a “comment” in response to the news item that was posted at amaderGaan.com.
This is my response to the comment, and I welcome your feedback.
**************************
**************************
I wanted to clarify something based on the comment related to the drishtipat news on the main page. Its encouraging that the news item is instigating some *thought* among the visitors!
Pressuring industrialists, employers and the authorities to consider human and civil rights in addition to their worries of sustainable economic development, is a controversial arena. Speaking out for religious minorities, for the neglected sector of our populace and for those whose voice will remain muted unless they are given some support, is often not appealing to the “image” of Bangladesh in the international community.
from our webpage: Drishtipat is a non-profit, non-political expatriate Bangladeshi organization committed to safeguarding every individual’s basic democratic rights, including freedom of expression, and is opposed to any and all kinds of human rights abuses in Bangladesh.
Drishtipat’s goal is not to tarnish the image of Bangladesh or its state of governance in the eyes of our international partners and colleagues. Drishtipat’s goal is not to staunch the economic development of Bangladesh. I sincerely hope I speak for all the members associated with Drishtipat when I wonder whether sustainable economic development and national advancement is necessarily tied to the “collateral damange” of violation of freedom of expression, of our right to safety and security, our right to the basic needs of life and the right to live with dignity, like a human being.
While I am not in a position to comment on the other local chapters, one of the top most priority for the development of the Boston local chapter is our commitment to projecting a positive image of Bangladesh, despite the grave issues we will be highlighting, based entirely on the general approach of our awareness raising strategies.
Our message to the world is not “look, we’re so evil in Bangladesh, we don’t care about our fellow countrymen, we do whatever it takes to get to the top 0urselves.”
Our message to the world is “there are human rights violations in every single corner of the world, from the richest to the poorest of nations, regardless of economic standing. As Bangladeshis, we are brave enough to admit that there is a problem in Bangladesh regarding human rights. We care enough to try to identify these issues - knowing the problem is the problem half solved. We take up our civic responsibility enthusiastically to try to develop a working framework, working “with” other human rights groups *and* the authorities, whereby economic development does not conflict with assurance of basic human rights.”
Bangladeshis have set an example in the international world time and again. 1952 led to the International Mother Language Day. Microcredit and its associated economic and business models have been applauded and imitated all over the world, even in Chicago, USA. Its time Bangladesh set another important example: that caring about human rights *can* go hand in hand with national development and advancement, and that, in fact, it must.
Drishtipat is a step towards that direction.
May 26th, 2005 at 7:33 am
I want to add my voice as a resounding supporter of Drishtipat and what it stands for and has accomplished. Having said that, let me add a slightly different nuance.
I actually do think that ‘collateral damage’ is inevitable in our rush towards economic development. We are so far behind that we do not have the luxury (nor the resources) of doing everything ‘by the book’. In order to have an impact, we may have to throw the book away, or at least, rewrite large sections. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR OUR ACTIONS (OR INACTIONS) AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES.
Back in 1972, when I took the SSC exams, there were two batches who took the ’short exams’ - 75 points each for Bangla and English and 50 points each for Physics, Chemistry and Math (for the science group). Was it ideal? By no means! But it was necessary to clear the backlog. Did that mean that some people got by with lower qualifications than what is standard? Undoubtedly! I am sure I myself was a beneficiary! But these short cuts needed to have been taken although it is likely that there are a few more ‘SSC pass’ cases from those years than appropriate!
But that does not mean that when these graduates work in real life, they ought to be cut extra slack or held to lower standards. They are judged and rewarded the same as others. That, to me, is accountability.
Now a less benign example: Think of two groups of sick people suffering from the same ailment. There are two approaches to deal with them. The first is rest, good nutrition and an expensive regime of medicine and the chances for full recovery are 100%. The second is a cheaper, five day course of a strong medicine that will have plenty of side effects - perhaps a few deaths! We know which of the two courses we prefer - but what if we can only afford only one? Ring any bells?
The example is not as far fetched or manufactured as one might imagine(although the choices are almost never that stark or clear). As we speak, I am trying to start a pilot program of ‘village medicine’. The idea is to train HSC graduates for six months or so as rudimentary pharmacist cum physicians to treat everyday maladies. The idea is to train them enough to send people on to real doctors or hospitals for serious illnesses but otherwise provide a low cost and accessible health alternative to the really poor. Will there be mistakes made? Will some people go home with aspirin when they should have really gone to the hospital? You better believe it! There will be collateral damage. And each case will be a tragedy on its own. But if the program works (or as it takes shape) success ought to be measured on a broader scale. The difference here, perhaps, is that lives would not be put at risk so that someone can make more money. Lives would be at risk because the system will try to save more lives by treating each one faster and cheaper. The net result has to be more lives saved than compared to doing nothing or using the same limited resources to train one doctor instead of 50 of these ‘medical assistants’. And there should be some effort to monitor, measure and minimize the ‘collateral damage’.
The response to Palashbari should not be more regulations - but enforcement of existing ones. Do not add more bureaucracy to the building process (I’d argue that that would not add to safety) but add accountability. The builder, the architects etc. should be held criminally accountable and the business held civilly liable for damages. (It wouldn’t be fair to hold the business criminally liable - since it would not be usual for a garment manufacturer to be an expert on building codes). Once the collateral damage happens, to the extent there is negligence, the price must be paid. And even without negligence (accidents do sometimes happen) we need some means for providing succour.
I apologize for the long response. I just wanted to note that we have to be prepared to accept some collateral damage in order to achieve certain goals. But what needs to go hand in hand is accountability. And we also need to have a social structure that lends a voice to the aggrieved and provides a means for them to get compensated. Drishtipat has been instrumental in doing both and I commend them for it.
May 26th, 2005 at 1:42 pm
Is it necessary to use the phrase “collateral damage” in this debate– a phrase used widely by military forces to describe mass civillian deaths in pursuit of a military target.
May 28th, 2005 at 10:25 am
If you believe that no military action is ever justified then collateral damage is evil - for it represents the destruction of life and property without justification.
If however, you allow that military action, defensive as well as offensive may sometimes be necessary (and therefore justified) then collateral damage is a more acceptable concept - but one that needs to be measured, monitored and evaluated constantly in order to make more informed decisions.
In either case, the phrase is somewhat incendiary, insensitive and laden with heavy overtones of excessive behaviour. But one must admit that it (the phrase) is good at stirring debate and examination!
Clearly, there is no absolute necessity to use ‘collateral damage’ in the context of economic development or civil contracts. Perhaps ‘hidden societal costs’ is a less offensive euphemism. But in the context of Bangladesh (and other very poor nations) the harsher overtones may actually force people to more closely examine the reality underlying specific situations. and that can be a good thing because although such examinations do not always lead to the discovery of truth, they often lead to a better understanding of who we are and what makes [or should make] us tick!
Best wishes.