Tue 24 Apr 2007
While the laid off workers in Khulna Jute mill are getting beaten black and blue for demanding their unpaid salaries, industry (the ministry responsible) adviser and business tycoon Geeti Ara Choudhury , says she is only concerned about her own human rights at this point — not others.
From bdnews24:
Industry adviser Geeteara Safiya Choudhury Tuesday said she cares little about the rights of people other than hers, for now. “I’m not thinking about human rights at this time, but my own,” she said. She made the remarks while commenting on a joint statement of 14 eminent citizens on the recent confusions over the caretaker government’s handling of the two former prime ministers.
While the context of what she said may be different, the timing could not have been worse as people in Khalishpur are suffering.
Joint forces’ chief in Khulna district Lt Col Esrat tried in vain to calm the angry workers who told him that their families were going hungry in the absence of payment for the last five months. They pleaded for payment and opening of the mills.
About 22,000 workers of four jute mills launched a spontaneous movement demanding settlement of their arrears and due wages which have been pending for at least five months, in case of regular staff, and 17 weeks for daily labourers. At least 100 more have been injured during clashes since April 17 when the movement began. But on Saturday the clashes were particularly violent, when the police was rumoured to have shot live rounds besides some 50 rounds of rubber bullets and 100 rounds of teargas shells. The police also injured about 20 school students when they charged batons on their procession.
The race for the most irresponsible and outrageous statement among the advisers is on. The industry adviser has just reduced a huge gap between her and the M&M duo
April 24th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Look, before you judge her, get the facts.
She has been waiting for her fourth Lexus jeep for well over 2 weeks now and it simply has not been delivered, and as a result she has to do all her journeying in an ancient, 3 year old LandCruiser. Furthermore, she has the added distraction of making sure her next shopping trip to New York has been booked by her entourage of personal staff. Which means looking after silly Jute workers and their trivial problems (such as not being paid in 4 months) will have to wait according to priority.
See, if you know the facts, it doesn’t seem so bad, does it?
April 24th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
This sort of statement is completely unacceptable. If she was an elected Member of Parliament in any civilised nation, she would have been forced to resign.
Who has given her the right to discard human rights while presiding over an office of the Republic? She is definitely not fit enough to be an Adviser. And we all know we did not elect her to be in that position. She should realise that she cannot sit in a position of power and undermine the Rule of Law.
April 24th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Memories of Marie Antoinette and the ‘let them eat cake’ bombshell. We all know what that led to. This is how the CTG’s credibility cookie crumbles…
Hollywood screenplay writers are paid big money for developing farcical storylines like this. In Bangladesh, we get it for free!
April 24th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
My, my. What do we have here? Advisor, Honourable not only has engaged herself in a competition with M&M, as noted, she is in fact challenging the intellect of one minister with Khaleda regime who believed “criminals” can not have human rights. She takes that argument one step or a hundred further. And yeah, to some extent, she is correct in implying that under the current regime only people of her “class” [tycoons and socialites from Gulshan, Baridhara and members of Dhaka club] can think about enjoying rights. And rest of the 145 million are disposable waste. I used to have a “Biggest jerk of the month” poll at my blog. Now seriously thinking about restarting that module. What say?
April 24th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
I do hope we get the full context of the talk. While what she said is very deplorable, we should not over do on the criticism without hearing the full context of what she said which will be clear once the newspaper is out. Statements out of context can often seem harsher than they are. But the fact remains the statement as itself is very irresponsible and perhaps another glaring example of the disconnect between our current policy makers and the people in the grassroots. Or should I say it shows the disconnect of our Sushil Samaj.
April 24th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
This is surprising and shocking! I agree, we need to get the full context first.
April 24th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
What is this business of “Sushil Samaj”? I am so sick of hearing that term.
Are the rest of us “Oshlil”?
April 24th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Surprising. I had always honored her for her success as a woman entrepreneur in a society like ours.
So ”Je jai lankai, shei hoy rabon’ ?
April 24th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Wow! But like someone above mentioned, let’s wait till we hear it in context before we judge her. Often, over-reactions simply defeat the purpose of outrage in the first place.
Also, as much as I deplore what’s been going on, let’s try and keep focussed. Let’s NOT attack individuals for who they are but for what they’ve done. Trust me, that’s the only way to bring a difference into our politics. No reason why we can’t practise that at DP.
April 24th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
See the shan-e-nazul of Geeti Ara’s comments:
http://www.thedailysangbad.com/index.php?news_id=32619&nature=1&cat_id=1&date=2007-04-25
April 24th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Like the bnp-jamat govt Geeti Ara also thinks that international pressure can’t do anything about the human rights issue in Bangladesh! How arrogant and short sighted!
Any way, we did not expect this kind of comments from someone who is from such a good background. I think Geeti Ara should apologise for her comments.
[admin: comment edited for personal attack unrelated to the entry]
April 24th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
I was half-expecting a “lost in translation” sort of gaffe from the advisor. Turns out, she did say exactly what’s translated. Have they all gone crazy?
April 24th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
This does not surprise me. If she has been misquoted she should disavow the remarks. But remember she is part of a government that has thrown 150K people in jail, suspended fundamental rights, and thrown away due process. So, the quote from her seems to be in keeping with the position of the current military government. In fact, it would have been newsworthy if she had said that she cares about human rights. That would be a position in contradiction to the one held by the government.
I am still not clear why anyone expects this government to behave differently. This is an extra-constitutional government. This is not a caretaker government, at least not according to the constitution. The constitution is very clear about what a CTG should and should not do - these guys have left the constitution in the trash.
If you want human rights, refer to the Bangladesh constitution - the rights are spelled out rather clearly. Then ask yourself why this government felt the need to suspend those rights. If someone can explain to me how suspending human rights allows one to have a free and fair election - allegedly the goal of this government - I would be grateful.
April 24th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Well Mash, just to illuminate you on why people expected this government to behave differently, it’s because they did what a lot of constitutional governments could not do: get powerful people behind bars, in some cases with highly legitimate and legal reasons.
Fundamental rights in Bangladesh are not enforced even when the constitution is “officially” in force. So, is it any wonder that people might not even be AWARE of fundamental rights assured to them in the constitution? And is it any wonder that they do not feel their absence (yet)?
I’m highly interested in the 150k figure. I’ve seen it being quoted a few times in the last few days. Could you point out the source?
April 24th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Thats more than 5 000 workers per jute mill. Was there the traditional over employment practice going on in those mills?
Thankyou BDnew24 for quoting her very out of context I wasnt even there but i couldnt have done a more brutal job if i tried! Great service, whats the goal… ‘Public’s right to be confused in?’ ‘Bangladeshi’s right to be emotional?’.
Guys, please improve your game. Trial by media droplets of information damages peoples judgement and rationality.
April 24th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Geeteara Chodhury is also quoted by Prothom Alo as saying: “The news/publicity concerning the two leaders in the world media … amounts to interference in our domestic matters” http://www.prothom-alo.org/mcat.news.details.php?nid=MzYzMjU=&mid=MQ==
I really don’t know much about this person. But increasingly I have to ask, how did she end up being an advisor? As for “Foreign interference”: like I mentioned in my blog yesterday, if you give other governments a chance to interfere they will take it without a second thought. That’s what states do!
April 25th, 2007 at 2:42 am
Without knowing the full details we should not comments. But I think Advisers should have Code pf Conduct. Those questions were
never raised if M&M duo had havits to display power
April 25th, 2007 at 3:52 am
Folks, don’t make absolute judgement about a person from mere a single statement. You must consider the context. Apparrently her statement seems very offensive and audacious. We who are judging her maybe confused with her sentiments and semantic.
Definition of human rights is nothing universal. What some society considers very inhuman, to others maybe very bunnel, very trivial. So, if we really want to see everytghing in western mirror or standard, it might not be ever possible to curb corruption and dismantle the evil-empires webbed by the crooked corrupt politicians. The government’s step to cleaning corruption and political mess was a good poisitive step. But by now, they made some gross mistakes. Due to these mistakes, if they are pressured outside world this interim government may not survive to the point of success. So, if this government fails, we don’t know where the nation will navigate to. So, at this stage I believe, all the advisers, I believe, feel very nervous and vulnerable. And they are reflecting their own future along with the future of the whole country that is passionately looking at their success.
So, to express her disgust to the outside unwanted pressures she made this blunderous remark. Perhaps by saying, ” I’m looking my right, not human rights” she wanted to mean the human rights what she means to mean by her own human and country context, and reluctant to take the pill of human rights as prescribed international community who always have the procclivity to meddle in out affairs.
I’m not defending her. Just this’s my understanding about her sentiment and semantic at this very acutely failing-like ailment of the PIG[paramilitary Interim Government].
Thanks.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:26 am
bitteryboy,
You raise an oft-mentioned point among third-world governments that “human rights” are by no means universal. You even hint that it’s all a “pill” - yet another sign of “western” values being portrayed as “global”.
Usually here’s where the argument breaks down. Take Iran for instance. The country’s government has repeatedly argued that it’s “culturally exceptional” and so does not need to abide by the universal declaration of human rights. Yet, even by its own standards, it has failed to defend its citizens rights on a number of occasions. Here’s a link that might help: http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/13515.html If you have access to databases, try looking up some journal articles.
So how is this relevant for Bangladesh? Well, instead of saying that the concept of “fundamental rights” is something imported from the west, why do we not agree on our own rights and see if we can live up to them? Now some might say that our constitution is the fruit of such an effort. If so, did Geeteara Chowdhury defend them? If our fundamental rights are more cultural/social than legal, did she defend them? If we have none, isn’t it about time we got some?
And yes, one random comment really does not reflect anything. And yes, these state-owned enterprises are more often patronage systems than efficient industries. But the sentiment expressed is appalling, even if out of context. If hollywood knows that “with great power comes great responsibility”, why not Dhaka?
April 25th, 2007 at 8:16 am
And don’t forget the fact that in addition to being the third relative of CA in the cabinet, she also runs the ad giant called adcom which is contracted to be the publicity wing of Tata in Bangladesh.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Wait a second. Is that really true that adcom is the publicity wing of Tata? Isn’t there an obvious conflict of interest there on her being the industry advisor who decides on the deal and her being a direct benefeciary if the TATA deal goes through.
We have moved off topic, but this is also an important matter for discussion.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:25 am
AsifY asked (no 17)”I really don’t know much about this person. But increasingly I have to ask, how did she end up being an advisor?”
I wrote in my previous post exactly ‘how’ she was chosen as an adviser, but my comments were edited because dp felt that ‘it contained personal attacks’(see no 12 above).
I wonder if admin will edit comments if someone speaks about NEPOTISM of Khaleda Zia and Hasina!
What will happen if Khaleda or Hasina becomes the prime minister and choses her own brother-in-law as her foreign minister, and another cousin as the industry minister, and another cousin as the boss of anti-corruption commission, and another cousin as the ambassador to represent in Boro-chacha’s country (and dismisses the jobs of other politically appointed ambassadors chose by the previous govt?) Then will we be allowed to call these actions nepotism? Or talking about ‘personal relationships’ will be considered as ‘personal attacks’?
(Interestingly enough, only a few days back, a blogger called two former prime ministers ‘booa’, and dp did not think it was ‘personal attack’.)
I respect the rules of dp and will try to avoid any such ‘attacks’ during this CTG’s period.
But I hope that at least this comment of mine (see,it has no attacks) would be posted without being edited. Otherwise, my ‘unheard voice’ will remain unheard now, but will be heard when there is democracy and free press in Bangladesh.
[admin: the personal attack was not the accusation of nepotism but rather the choice of adjectives used. Readers are requested to stay in topic. If accusations against her competence is being made, then please furnish reasons for it ]
April 25th, 2007 at 11:46 am
AsifY, here are just two references to the 150,000 figure:
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9027087
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21548504-2703,00.html
In response to my comment you said people were expecting this govt to be different because:
The key to your quote above is the phrase “in some cases”. The problem with political purges by autocratic and dictatorial regimes (such as this one) is that people are picked up at the whim of the government. It is a human rights violation of the first order to engage in purges of this type. A constitutional/accountable government cannot simply “pick up” anyone it chooses to arrest on a whim. The fact that this government has engaged in this kind of behavior is exactly what’s wrong with it, and is exactly how one would have expected it to behave.
Regarding fundamental rights, you said:
Right are never “enforced” by a government; they are reserved for the people. That is a very important distinction. A government is bound not to violate a citizens rights by its actions - that is the hallmark of limited government. The Bangladesh constitution, a document that Bangladeshis should take the time to read and take pride in (at least the articles on rights if nothing else), sets out a number of fundamental rights guaranteed to the people.
It is the duty of “civil society” to defend those rights, to make the cultural shift necessary to demand those rights, and to hold the government accountable for violating those rights. If it is true that “people” are not aware of their rights (a highly debatable point), then the people are to blame, not the government.
I suspect the lack of awareness may have something to do with the flipside of rights - that is responsibilities. The defense of fundamental rights also means having the responsibility not to violate your fellow citizen’s rights as well. I don’t see any inclination by “civil society” to obey the laws in Bangladesh - instead “everyone” conveniently blames the government. Corruption by the government survives on a willing partner in the people. When it is reported that only 25% of the eligible taxpayers in Bangladesh pay taxes, its very difficult to blame the government alone for corruption. Responsibilities such as paying taxes, obeying the law, not infringing on the rights of fellow citizens are all part of the compact between the people and their government in a society. Though it may be convenient to bash an elected, and therefore an accountable government, for “not enforcing” people’s rights, it is largely due to the people ignoring their own responsibilities as citizens and themselves engaging in, and enabling, corruption. One need only to look at the massive bank defaulters in Bangladesh (who also happen to be the leaders of “civil society”) - most are currently roaming free, yet they have stolen more money then most, if not all, government officials.
So this “anti-corruption” drive, the favorite excuse of all military dictatorships, does not even begin to address corruption in Bangladesh. Its motivation has been from the start to clear the political decks for a new set of unaccountable leaders to steal from the people’s coffers - that new set of leaders will likely be the generals. I see no reason to expect otherwise or to support such a power grab.
With an elected and accountable government in place, the people have an opportunity and a right to hold those elected to account at the ballot box and through the normal functioning of government - that opportunity should be availed of by the people. When the military comes to town, you can forget recourse to any such right. 1975 to 1991 should hold some lessons in this regard to those who lived through that time. Pre-1971 should also hold some hard lessons as well. Nothing new or different is occurring now from this “government”.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
AsifY said:
I could not agree more.
This notion that “human rights” are something imported from the West is disturbing. That leads to a lot of “ends justify the means” thinking. Bitterboy said:
I think the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is meant to be, well, “universal”. I am curious to know which one of the rights enumarated in that document you take exception to. Those rights have also been adopted into the Bangladesh constitution. I recall that we fought for most, if not all of those rights, in 1971. Am I wrong?
I also fail to see how ignoring those rights to clean up “corruption” will lead to a corruption free society. Would that not lead to further corruption? Corruption at its very core is a violation of human rights - we seem to forget that when we raise our voices in support of this “anti-corruption” drive.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Why do we always think that just because someone is a successfull business person, that they would necessarily be equally good at Good Governance? This is the blindspot that has landed our country in this quagmire in the first place. We don’t put a bus driver in charge of flying our planes, even if they’re a financially successfull bus driver. So why do we appoint business people to run large government departments - even in advisory roles?
Bangladesh has some of the world’s most capable and experienced social policy wonks contracted out to various UN agencies around the world. Why can’t we bring their skills to sort out this mess, rather than recruit more duffers from amongst the Good and Great of the Bubble?
April 25th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
So, here goes the full story, WITH context:
April 25th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Mash said:
It is a human rights violation of the first order to engage in purges of this type. A constitutional/accountable government cannot simply “pick up” anyone it chooses to arrest on a whim. The fact that this government has engaged in this kind of behavior is exactly what’s wrong with it, and is exactly how one would have expected it to behave.
Mash, old bean
I don’t know the Bangladeshi Constitution in detail, but if it’s human rights violations we’re speaking of, what provision is in place by the Constitution to impeach, dislodge or simply deal with an elected government, if that government is guilty of committing massive Human Rights purges on it’s people?
In this case I am referring to BNP/Jamaat’s coalition’s (under Khaleda Zia) crimes against Humanity, of which there is a catalogue of crimes. Such as:
Operation Clean Heart
Hindus
Ahmadiyya
Now, given the climate of fear that the previous government thrived in, the deplorable law and order situation was created by the individuals who were elected into office and by individuals in their employ. So what you had in effect various private militia of this or that government minister indulging in wholesale gangsterism and extortion against civiliam populace. This involved How do you deal with that situation, as per the Constitution? These make up the large numbers of people who are held in remand and make up the 150,000 figure, I imagine and their erstwhile ex-minister patrons.
And when you say:
One need only to look at the massive bank defaulters in Bangladesh (who also happen to be the leaders of “civil society”) - most are currently roaming free, yet they have stolen more money then most, if not all, government officials.
What measures did the previous government take in 5+ years of office in dealing with these defaulters given that a culture of corruption was encouraged at the top levels of society and regarded as normative and “best-practice”? We hear that the youngest billionaire in Asia was Tareq Zia, that’s more than any defaulter has aquired, I would wager.
So what does the Constitution say about dealing with corruption and human rights crimes at the topmost office in the land?
April 25th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Sid, in large part, this government is a continuation of the Zia government. I am no fan of the BNP government. It had swung the country toward Islamists and is responsible for gross violations of human rights. The rise of RAB and its extra-judicial detentions and killings continue to this day. However, the “fix” to the ills of the BNP regime is not to put an even more autocratic regime in place and say, go ahead, make my day while I close my eyes.
Resisting the military regime has nothing to do with supporting BNP or Awami League. It has to do with defending what rights people do and expanding those rights to include those rights people should have.
But the BNP govt, like the AL govt, was susceptible to being voted out of office. For those who claim this situation is different then 1996, I don’t buy it. Then it tried to hold on to power by fraudulent elections, it failed. It was likely to fail here to. The brinkmenship it practiced this time opened the doors to the mess Bangladesh is in now.
As for the bank defaulters, I want to point out something very obvious that seems to elude a lot of people who like to blame the govt for the ills. Those bank defaulters are “civil society”.
Where was “civil society” when Tareque Zia was allegedly taking 10% of everything? Where was “civil society” when RAB was killing people in “crossfire”? My guess is they were fat and happy minting their millions (billions) while the country was going to the dogs. Sorry, that’s not my guess, that is a fairly well documented reality.
Well, the first recourse of the people in a democracy is to vote the bums out. No such provision exists when the bums are a military dictatorship. At least the people of Bangladesh get to voice their opinion at the ballot box. I will not support any turn of events that denies the people this voice. And, why would any people readily hand over their rights to the government?!?
Once the govt is in power, it is up to everyone to stem the tide of “corruption”. I am sorry, but “civil society” was complicit in the Zia/BNP regime. Now to turn around and scream “fire” is a little too convenient. They are just kissing up to the new bosses.
You want to clean up corruption, then clean up “civil society”. Replacing the political leaders at the expense of denying the rest of the people their human rights is called collective punishment. It is what most Bangladeshis accuse the Israelis of doing to the Palestinians - it might be instructive to now turn the mirror onto ourselves.
This notion that somehow “corruption” justifies a military regime may be a good sound bite, but it does not hold up well to scrutiny. I can think of a ton of other draconian measures one could take to “clean” up “corruption” - all would lead to more corruption. If “civil society” wants to give the military regime latitude to fix the problems of Bangladesh, then “civil society” is complicit in the crimes of this regime.
Incidentally, can anyone explain to me what this term “reform” means. We keep saying this government will “reform” the system. What is the end state?
And finally, I hope that my comments above do not lead to a AL/BNP food fight. My focus is, and has been, on preventing the slide into a military dictatorship in Bangladesh. I am not prepared to engage in an AL vs BNP debate because that does a disservice to the issue at hand.
April 25th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I am not prepared to engage in an AL vs BNP debate because that does a disservice to the issue at hand.
No one can be more relieved to hear that than me, I can assure you.
But, with respect, you’ve referenced the constitution at length in a previous post on this thread but haven’t answered my question:
What does the Bangladeshi Constitution offer as recourse to remove/impeach a government (democratically elected) if it kicks off a massive campaign of killing/torturng/displacing/victimisation of it’s own people?
Because if a governemnt that runs up a catalogue of human rights abuses and starts to attack sections of its population with impunity it ceases to be be treated with the the kid gloves. Do you agree?
Which means they get as good as they give by some body. But what body does the Constitution defer to?
April 25th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
It would remain a mistery to me : what were the criteria in selecting the advisors ? Since only 10 advisors were to run the entire government (each holding multiple portfolios), it was only reasonable to expect that the bests of the bests would become such responsible advisors. I don’t want to undermine her, but I was very very surprised to see her as an advisor. (though, I have seen her many times as an adfirm owner trying to get some business from my organization). I am not surprised with her comment. I just feel sorry for this poor country. I would not be surprised if her son Nazim Farhan Chowdhury (a regular blogger here) becomes an advisor in the future CTGs, but not her, for God’s sake. Sorry, I don’t mean to attack anyone personally.
April 25th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
The term civil society is very messy. It is part of the NGO and UN development speak.
Why not use nobility. At least that has some essential meaning.
Tasneem,
Thats not context, thats an engineered information droplet. Let me try. They might have been better to put [as Industry Adviser] into the quote after ‘my own’.
Doesn’t her role in promoting the Industry in the country permit her to make decisions for the country (direct voting legitimacy aside). She had inherited these problems which we the people put on her plate, she didnt cause them.
We chased out indutrialists after Juddho and these mills became real drains. I think we could do with fewer drains, I’m not pro privitisation. I just see how rubbish the state is at directly running these sort of concerns
The statement of not caring what other govts say is quite endearing to me. Maybe they are taking ownership of the problems and she is understanding human dignity from her own traditions.
Disciplining union strikers isnt her remit either. Perhaps people need to ask her decent questions about her approach.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Why not use nobility. At least that has some essential meaning.
eh?!
Can I have some of what you’re smoking?
What is noble about witholding payment from 22,000 workers, and then ordering riot police to shoot live ammunition in their direction when they demand their wages?
I can think of many choice words to describe Geeti Ara Choudhury, but noble isn’t one of them.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Sid, I’ll take the last part first. You said:
I think if the above scenerio occurs, than it is safe to say that the government has gone way beyond its constitutional powers (like, for example, the current government). Yes, all bets are off. But which people, under these circumstances, would willingly subject themselves to an even more unaccountable regime? Before jumping out of the window when there is a fire in the building, it might be wiser to check if the stairs are clear.
Now, back to the constitution. Bangladesh is a parliamentary democracy. You don’t “impeach” a member of parliament or prime minister and the ministers. You impeach the president and there are provisions in the constitution to impeach the president - usual stuff like going nuts, committing crimes, etc. will get you impeached.
As for the PM and ministers, the constitution provides grounds for removal. First, to be a PM and minister (9 out of 10 ministers, to be exact), you must be a member of parliament and must command the majority of votes in the parliament to form your government. That is the first check against abuse. Votes of no confidence are a common parliamentary tactic in such instances.
Second, there are provisions in the constitution to remove a member of parliament (articles 66 & 67). The most relavent one here is criminal conviction. There are also others. The recourse is the election commission and courts of law.
Finally, there are the courts of law which are supposed to offer protections, such as habeas corpus, against government abuse.
Now, all of the above is theoretical. To what extent the above has worked for a Bangladeshi in the past decade and a half probably depends on where you sit in society. All of the above in the constitution is running up against a culture of corruption in Bangladesh that much predates democratic rule. As more money has poured into Bangladesh, the worse the corruption has gotten.
The bottom line is this. The constitution belongs to the people. It is a document worth fighting for. You cannot fight for it by shredding it to pieces. You cannot fight for it by ignoring some basic responsibilities of citizenship like paying taxes.
I am not surprised that politicians are corrupt when the rest of “civil society” is also of the same mold. The solution then is not further corruption. The solution is a strong defense of the rule of law by demanding and then establishing the rule of law, not by ignoring it.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Fugstar, I do try, but I find it very difficult to make sense of your statements.. you really should substantiate your arguments more. As I said before, its not very helpful for the rest of us mere mortals to understand your highly obscure Confuciusian proclamations..
April 25th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
ABC:
Thank you for your vote of confidence in #30.
:f:
April 25th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
I think if the above scenerio occurs, than it is safe to say that the government has gone way beyond its constitutional powers (like, for example, the current government). Yes, all bets are off. But which people, under these circumstances, would willingly subject themselves to an even more unaccountable regime? Before jumping out of the window when there is a fire in the building, it might be wiser to check if the stairs are clear.
If all “bets are off” if the Government commits the heinous crimes of attacking Hindus, Ahmadiyya and other minorities, then how can you suggest that the next regime is worse, simply because it is unaccountable? Or at least, is likely to be, given the nature of military governments…
So in your book a government’s lack of accountability is more evil than a government which attacks, displaces, kills, it’s minorities?
Let me remind you, comrade, the first case is hypothetical, or at least only potential in the case of the military backed CTG, whilst the second is very much a reality. Overt killing campaigns by the previous democratically elected government are now well recorded by many human rights groups.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Sid, I would be a fool to assume that the next military regime would be any better than the previous military regimes. So, it is hypothetical in the sense that the last time I touched a hot oven I got burned, so this time, I am just as likely to get burned. But, I guess, just to be sure, I could touch it again to make the obvious result a reality. I’d rather spare myself the pain and learn from experience - a trait, I might add, that separates us from animals.
Also, as a citizen, I’d rather be in a position where I can change a government I don’t like than be in a position of having a government imposed upon me.
As for human rights, the kind of summary killings and kangaroo courts that took place in the wake of 1975 are very well documented. I think perhaps distance in time may be clouding people’s memories.
Again, I ask you, where was the outcry from “civil society” when minorities were under attack from BNP/Jamaat government? To put the canard of this government somehow being kinder on minorities up front defies logic. General Moeen’s quant little “no elective democracy/democracy based on Islam” formulation sounds exactly like Colonel Farook from his 1976 interview [Check my site for the full interview if you like]. Let me remind you that it was the military government of Zia in 1978 that allowed Jamaat to reestablish itself in Bangladesh. Its been downhill since.
If anyone is in any doubt as to the common cause of the military and the Islamists, there is ample history in South Asia to remove all doubt from your thinking.
I fail to see how the cure for all of Bangladesh’s ills is an even worse form of “government”. Democracy needs tending and it needs an equal partnership from the citizenry. It may be easier to give someone else the keys to the country, and not worry about it, but that has always led to disaster.
Comrade
April 25th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Dhanmondhi sid.
I was suggesting nobility as a better substitute for civil society, not as a description of the ‘villain’ of this caricature. Has anybody wondered why the Sushil Samaj term is so succesfully lampooned in wider society? Could it be that the society doesnt see itself in such terms?
The amount of empirical information available about the situation is small and the wild and emotional analysis on display here is huge. I think this is a case of webcompensating. At the end of the day, personal attacks upon a relative innocent doesn’t help the workers find other income sources or Industry in Bangladesh.
I notice the Advisor has an English lit degree from Dhaka Uni back in the day and respects her teachers. This would suggest that she isn’t without calibre and a sense of respect.
Annu,
Substantiating is difficult here as i often fall foul of the editors. I pontificate on my blog occasionally. Lets go for Nobility.
Some people might use the term bhodrolok for the nobility, my information is that the foreign advisor interprets the CTG as a sign of ‘Return of the Bhodrolok’. Nuff said.
It is not a very fashionable term though I would use it for a man such as Tony Benn or a lady like Arundhati Roy, a musician like Gill Scott Heron, my teachers and the Late Suhrawardi.
They refer to those sections of the community who hold influence, have grace, are self funded, have filled stomachs, are learned and have an autonomy of action and thought so that those who do not hold these gifts can expect good actions from them.
Imagine All-India politics in the times of our Grandfathers, when it was less about earning money and social mobility (as they had their own funds). When truth and wisdom mattered, not allegiance and editorial policy.
The nobility are not noisy but some are still there in Bangladesh, despite much effort to destroy them. This group of people doesn’t get involved with politics so much these days in Desh. Because it is undignified and in Bangladesh slanders and half truths work marvels.
Im against our people latching onto badly loaded ideas of civil society or social capital or corruption or Next 11s or diaspora or communalism or Development or Climate Change as slavishly as we are. Thats headless chicken activism.
clearer?
April 25th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Wow. There’s a lot to read and I have an exam tomorrow so I’m just going to respond to whatever’s been written back to me.
Sid, while “enforcing” vs. “winning” rights has serious connotations in terms of top-down and bottom-up movements, my use of the term “enforce” was simple and drained of these connotations because I couldn’t find any other word. To rephrase: fundamental rights are not “felt”/”exercised” by the people at the best of times. As to who defends and wins them, you’ve obviously read Chomsky: “Rights are not granted from above. They are won from below”. I was referring more to the situation under democratic governments than HOW rights are increased or maintained. And I completely agree with your point about responsibilities.
Mash, thanks for the vote of support! You’d be amazed at some of the things that the Iranian govt. has done. We only hear about it when westerners are the victims. But the cleric-led govt. regularly violates its own “Islamic” constitution.
Lastly, there seems to be a LOT of anger directed at civil society members in blogs today. I have to ask: who exactly are these business leaders who are also civil society members? Mohammad Ali of the interest-free fame? Salman Rahman of AL fame? Really? Or does Debopriyo and Yunus secretly own half the industries in BD?
Let us not forget: WE - everyone participating in this group venture as admins, commentetators and the occasional skimmer - are civil society, regardless of class. If the media wants to focus on the most outspoken, urban and richest amongst us, that’s their problem.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Fugstar,
While there is an amount of truth to the accusation of “headless” chicken activism, it must be noted that it is OUR fault that when somebody with a university degree organises like-minded people, we call it “civil society” and when a farmer does it, we call it “village politics”!
Nobility as a cure for civil society? Sounds like “bombing for peace” to me.
And just to clarify, our people latched onto the idea of communalism because of the “old nobility”, such as Jinnah, Patel, Suhrawardy and even the Calcutta literary elite to some extent. Of course if you’re referring to why “civil society” argues against “communalism”, I think the bloody history of the ‘47 partition is why. Not some “imported” concern.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
I think the problem with this government is that we are ransom to the goodwill and good sense of a handful of people (maybe twenty). There really isn’t too much leverage that can be used to change their minds. Now, if everything they did was right and correct, then that would not be a problem. As has become obvious, that is not the case.
April 25th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
AsifW
There is more to the growth of the bengal muslim intelligensia, the partitions and unpartitions and the moves made before and after the 1857 uprising than the three figures you mention. There are a few more dimensions to it than the communalism cop out i feel, besides its our social history if we dont figure out why the Madanis (Composite Nationalism) and the Suhrawardhis(Two Nation Theory) held such different viewpoints of the future of India, let alone the Bangali Bangladeshi, our societies will continue to drift apart to the detriment of both.
I see suhrawardhi differently sticking around calcutta after partition to protect people should vindicate him of nastiness i would have thought. This cost him dearly in terms of political position at the time.
I dont think ’self confessed civil society’ can sustain an argument that makes any rational sense to be honest. It could be argued that the political schisms since them have caused similar harm. Large scale killing frenzies are always easy to generalise too simply.
Haque,
there is always a small group in control. I think nurturing a culture where it is the those with good qualities reach the top is a slow but certain way to make sure that they are competant and less vulnerable to foolishness and corruption. its a societal generational thing. not a media, human rightist political thing.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Whoops! I clicked on the “more” button expecting to read about the Khalishpur jute workers’ situation, but I ended up on the democracy-at-all-costs vs. democracy-can-be-the-cost page again. My mistake.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:54 am
Fugstar,
I don’t think our present civil society maps onto the “bengal muslim intelligensia”. Neither was I talking about the latter. I was telling you exactly WHY concerns about communalism isn’t an “imported” Western notion as you seemed to imply, but a home-grown one.
What you are referring to is called the “internal brain drain”. Here’s how it works: our doctors instead of specialising in areas that matter for our people - say polio or pediatrics - all become heart surgeons. Our roads are built not for our people, but for export. Our economists are worried about inflation and general programs of “poverty” reduction, and not - with one certain exception - imaginative solutions. etc. etc.
Similarly, you are accusing people worried about communalism to be concerned with it simply because western human rights groups have made such a big deal out of it. That’s how I read it. If that’s what you meant, it’s simply not true.
As for Suhrawardi, I was trying to link it up with your nobility comment. Here was an old elite and he played the communal card when it suited him. I did not BLAME him for the violence, simply stated the fact that he supported partition. Staying behind in Calcutta makes little difference.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:41 am
Question of accontability!
Many bloggers talked about of accountibility. To most views, only the elected government has accountibility. This is like democracy or capitalism or free marketeers-salemanship talk or jargon.
Only electoral system can guarantee accountability is a biased or bogus assertion. We had seen in the past and also witness in the present times, so many of elected governments in all around the world failed to pay any heed to those democratic-gospel word “Accountibility”. and turned themselves to autocratic rulers. The current political crisis is the glaring example of non-accountibity. If the government had been committed for accountibility then they wouldn’t have resorted to racketeering public money. If the opppositon had thought that they have to be accountable to the electorates then didn’t have boycotted the parliament for full-5-year term and behaved so recklessly in the past 5 years. If they had iota of shame and sense of accountibility they wouldn’t have try to take credit for the SOE. As if, the oppositon had the election manifesto or pledge to the electorates for SOE and they were truthful to their pledge of SOE.
Despite democracy and elccted representatives, no body care for accountibility especially in the underdeveloped world. No system is non-accountability-safe unless citiznry or electorates are honest, moral and resposible. If people doesn’t have the sense of accountiblity, if the voters can be bought with silly price like pan-beeri-cigar, banglamaud, phensidyl or hundred taka bills or get intimidated to collect their votes we can’t send accountable representatives to cater class services.
If electoral democracy is an accountable system of governance how could we see our elected first leader BBSMR had turned to a dictator and the democratic system morphed to one party Baksal?
Did we observe any accountable behavior from our elective representatives of both ailes, posistion or opposition? Advocates of democracy advise us to be more patients and give more time to mature our tender-pre-menarche democracy. But did the protagonists of liberal democracy have the accurte time-counts on their watch how many years old are we as an independent state? Some give us the account of 15 years of democracy. We are now 36 years old. And we started with democracy from the very birth-year but if it had faltered time and again, it didn’t work for us. And I believe it won’t work for us for foreseeble future.
To me traditional domocracy is nothing but DALADALI/partisanship oligarchy. To me multiparty democracy is the system of PitaPiti/Maaramaaree. A succesful democrat in the west is a skilled fundraiser and corpoarte friend. A successful democrat in country like is monstrous demon and extortionist. Democratic fight is just power struggle like dog-fight between the parties and never provide any incentive for healthy competition of service delivery.
No system is fail-proof and sure-success module. This liberal parliamentary system has inherent faults. If the winning party wins by landslide victory mustering two-third majority they can do whatever they like to, they don’t care whatever minority opposition wants to say. They even don’t hesitate to change the basic premise of constitution. Such majority make them absolutely powerful and corrupt.
On the otherhand when one party wins by marginal majority, that empowers the opposition to launch anti-government movement, Jalo-Porao, Haratal, Aborhod, gerao and boycotting parliament and perennial instability until the government succumbs. To avoid these problem many government outsmarts opposition and maintain their power bribing them. They
share the perks and privileges with oppositon. Then both positioin and opposition politicians together get plunged into throat-deep corruption and loot public money.
We need to get rid of dictatorial system as well as defective corruption-prone age-old traditional democracy. We must be innovative to find some home-brand democracy what I love to call as Super-SAS/SAC[Super State Administrative System or Craft].
Thanks.
April 26th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
im looking less to map civil society onto something. than to point to another group which has another definition. Its important to have plenty of folks who are scholarly and plenty who know the martial crafts. The first(govt), second(biz) third(ngo) sector breakdown isnt enough.
I think NGOwallahs, technocrats(that the prefessionals im afraid), fence sitters, captive minds and political front groups are adequate descriptions of sushil samaj. not necesarily bad titles.
People worry about communalism because they cant separate it out into categories of foolishness. For similar reasons as to why we cant develop our own traditions of virtue and dignity yet sing theoretical praise on the US constitution and political model(which was the product of an awful lot of local exertion).
Brain drain has something to to with it, not everything.
April 26th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
So,
nobody has direct information on the mills issue. I guess there arent too many web cafes in khulna.
April 27th, 2007 at 10:23 am
You’re right, Fugstar, there aren’t many….but there are enough.
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:55 am
[...] Geeteara Choudhury, who famously said back in April of this year that "I’m not thinking about human rights at this time, but [...]