Keep Me Honest has reproduced a Wall Street Journal article on Bangladesh which is definitely worth a read.
While we have all heard about the to-and-fro movements of Western diplomats (in all fairness, only Beauty Apa and Anwar Chacha!), we have heard very little of the statement issued publicly by the Resident Coordinator of UNDP, Renata Lok Dessallien, the highest-ranking UN official in Bangladesh:
“In a formal statement released in Dhaka, the most senior U.N. official in Bangladesh, Renata Lok Dessallien, cautioned that the scheduled election “would not be considered credible or legitimate.” Because of this, her statement warned, there may be “implications” for the Bangladesh army’s future participation in U.N. peacekeeping should the election be allowed to take place.”
There’s quite a bit to be said about the information in this one paragraph alone.
Read more here.
June 6th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Bangladesh needs to pull her soldiers out of the worthless UN and concentrate on the country itself.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:00 am
The article is a clever exaggeration to serve some purpose or other. It starts by stating the U.S. and United Nations both offered tacit support for ‘the coup’. Whatever the political maneuvering may have been behind the scene, we all know it wasn’t an army coup.
It then goes on to state ‘the army-installed caretaker government is back-pedaling on its pledge to organize a quick, clean vote and then relinquish authority’. When did that happen ? It also states ‘scores of others…..have been tortured to death or summarily executed’ and Bangladesh ‘has turned into world’s second-largest military regime’. Wait. This is now almost verging on hysteria.
Farhad
June 6th, 2007 at 11:21 am
I asked the same question in Asif’s blog about the WSJ article…
The untrue statement in the article “that scores of others are getting killed” by the military completely discredits this article. If its referring to RAB, then this isn’t something that was started by the CTG. However, abominable the process is, this was NOT started by the CTG rather it is a continuation of the process.
The process for making the election commission independent has started as well. We may not be happy with the speed of the reform but steps are starting to go to that direction. I, myself, have raised fear about the election reforms. But in the past few weeks the decision to not make photo id mandatory, making the election commission independent, starting the prototyping of the voter list in sripur are all positive steps towards a meaningful fair election. None of these seem like backpedalling on the election process.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
“Army Takeover in Bangladesh Stalls Key Muslim Democracy”
By YAROSLAV TROFIMOV
Any body has any information or knowledge about
“YAROSLAV TROFIMOV” like who is he? what are his sources? what are this facts finding media? and the last what the hell a article like that is doing in Wall Street Journal?
It looks like to me is some one directly paid him to write this.If any body has any information about his person please provide. We would ask him, what are his experiences about Bangladesh? and how and who he is satisfying by this article?
Is it the lobbyist group of DC making the call from their corrupt ill-gotten fat wallets? or something else?
Thanks
Kawser Jamal
http://www.changeBangladesh.com
I do agree with Mr Asif on his comments #4. Good points are mentioned there.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Some info on him, that I got.
http://www.faithatwar.com/index.htm
June 6th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Which is why I dealt with only that part of the article I found credible and could back up by looking at the original UNDP RC statement. What is true is that this has been one of the least stated things in our media, even as columnists have reguarly talked about the “colonial” attitudes of the Western ambassadors. As I mention, HIGHLY uncharacteristic of the U.N.
Sorry Asif S. for misunderstanding your question on my blog. Yes, highly incredible statements by the WSJ. Farhad, none of us really know what happened behind the scenes, so I don’t know why you’re ruling out a soft coup completely.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
The WSJ has a highly suspect ideological bias - right-wing Republican conservative - and daily endorses the US empire and cut-throat capitalism in its op-ed pages. A pack of virulent right-wing hacks populate its pages, propagating their creepy agenda du jour. We should keep that in mind when assessing any op-ed piece emitting from this newspaper.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
KJ, please stick to the content of the article. Rebut the content instead of trying to villify the writer. I hope you are not trying to take it where I think you are trying to take it. We need to grow out of the habit of looking at every problem as Indian or Zionist conspiracy.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
In fact, it is civilian-backed military coup!
June 6th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Re, KJ’s comments: If money is all it took to publish articles, then why isn’t the international media flooded with pro-Tarek, pro-Babar articles? C’mon, a little bit more intelligence please, instead of unfounded knee-jerk reactions.
June 6th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
AsifY,
‘coup’ is a rather strong word. I don’t know how I can interpret ’soft coup’. The military hierarchy remained unchanged. The constitutional structure of governance remained unchanged. Only some non-elected advisors resigned after the army flexed their muscle. If that suffices for you to be a ‘coup’, so be it. It’s just that I have seen much worse in my 46 years of existence.
Farhad
June 6th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Lets accept the reality. Bangladesh is a poor nation with some mineral resources. So, big brothers will have some interest. Now, what is UN ? Its just a forum to implement agenda of “So-called World power”. So, they did what they are supposed to do. I think if bangladesh try stand on its own feet, this won’t happen.
Everyone flexing their muscles to keep bangladesh under their control. Gen Moeen and his sango-pango are just “Putul.”
Farhad: I think you need to analyze the events more closely. Army hierarchy did change. M&M (Moeen & Masud) has 100% control of the events (though, they are merely “Putul” of Anwar chacha and Beauty Apa).
June 6th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Well, a coup includes replacement of high officials. Iazuddin’s government was overthrown all of a sudden and military took control. Dr Fakhruddin has very little power to make any change. Dr Iazuddin is busy attending miladunnabis and Dr Fakhruddin is busy reciting Rabindranath’s poems and giving long speeches on tree-fair in Tangail(the speech was too long for a hot summer day to make him unconscious). Now army is in the driving seat. All these happened in a non-democratic, non-violent way which could very well be called a coup, IMO.
June 6th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Re: #12
Until our leaders learn to focus on what’s good for the country and not on their own pockets, we need apa-s and chacha-s to beat us up.
What we have now is better than what we could have had if there was an engineered election in January and the zia gang were to rule for the next 5 years.
June 6th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
#14
Not sure what option is better. So called “engineered” election or MLG. I believe MLG is a bad choice as it tries to destroy the spirit of democracy. Best option would have been to continue the democratic process and initiate reform process by using “lathi.”
June 6th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Zubaer #7: I don’t read the WSJ regularly. Once again I repeat: I didn’t deal with anything in which they may have biased the information one way or another. Go to my blog. It links to the original statement. The question I’m asking is this: since when does the U.N. have the authority to issue statements like this without our foreign ministry protesting? And since when do they do these things to affect their member states’ internal politics as this statement was clearly meant to?
Farhad #11: “Coup” is indeed a strong word in everyday parlance. I used it absolutely clinically, without emotion or normative judgements as to whether it is good or bad or “worse” than other coups or civilian rule. My intention was to call a spade “a spade”.
“Soft coup” is a pretty vague term I admit. I’d say it is defined by the mode of intervention, than by the purpose. E.g. If the military intervenes behind the scenes, does not take over power overtly and shows every sign of returning to the barracks and almost no signs of entrenching their rule. So far, this is what I’ve observed in Bangladesh since January. I don’t think there have been any such coups in South Asia to date - though Ayub, Zia and Ershad’s initial coups were like this, but soon transformed into “hard” coups with outright seizure of power - so the closest example I can give you is from Turkey, where the military has intervened over and over again in this fashion and then gone back to the barracks. Needless to say, one of the most popular armies among its own populace in the world.
On a personal, tangential note: the fact that you don’t think this is a big enough to be called a “coup” and I do, might just simply indicate a huge generational shift in sensibilities in Bangladesh. Ershad is a distant memory for me. I grew up knowing that elections were the norm and civilians should be in control. But as I said, I pass no normative judgement on matters. I was simply analysing the facts as I see them.
Hyder #12: We have no reason to assume that the U.N. was acting under the influence of others. Don’t forget, we too are a member state. We too have influential people there. To get to us, the Western powers do not need to go through the U.N. As I’ve said, if they wanted to influence our politics, they were doing a good job through their own embassies anyway.
And frankly, I think concerns about terrorism and weapons supply lines far outweigh our scant “mineral resources” in their strategic thinking.
Only bdfact #9 seems to have got what I was trying to hint at. More my fault for such long-winded and confused writing. Question is: IF this is true, who are/were these civilians?
June 6th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Farhad bhai, there are not many left who still believe it was not a coup. It wasn’t a 1975 or 1981 category coup, but for all the practical purposes it was one.
We observed that the army was initially reluctant on revamping EC and updating or rather recreating voter list, and was focused more on ridding the ground from corrupt, rich, powerful potential candidates. A great initiative and a long due process indeed! This has no precedence in 36 years’ history of the coutry, but because of the near impossibility of the mission they undertook some unusual and unconstitutional means such as: suspending civil rights under SOE, curbing media freedom, banning political activities, giving TF the power to arrest and seizure without warrant etc. And people like us shouted “Due process”, “Transparency”, “Credibility” etc.
The recent development on the election processes has some bearings on the “reminders” from the western hemisphere that the regime’s job is to arrange the election. The election process was being stalled because the regime needed time to make sure the next government that would come to power will be the party that is yet to be floated, who would ratify all the actions of the current regime. The only way the regime could save them from procession in future would be by making sure the major parties that have their big-wigs thrown in jail, can never come back to power and avenge….The current regime has a group of technocrats to run the state’s day-to-business, and not under a full-fledged military ruling, but 3M group is calling all the shots, and making all the efforts to help this new party comprised of army personnel, and former BNP-ite and AL-er who are in favor of all the actions this govt is taking.
Historically the people in uniform had all been patriotic and strongly believed that brut intervention is absolutely necessary to keep law and order, and maintain ‘nationalism’. Considering our deep rooted history of corruption in every level of people in every sectors…who knows what will work eventually? The elected governments despite their different party affiliations failed the people who elected them miserably. Meanwhile the faith based political parties, who have little respect to human rights flourished and became stronger.
I don’t think Trofimov’s assertions are too far off the mark.
I believe that by “scores of others…..have been tortured to death or summarily executed” he referred to murders such as Richill, followed by another murder of Chhatro-league member in Chittagong in the hands of Navy personnel, and then there are killings happening in the hill tracks that we often read in the reports by HRW.
Yes the article should not have brought extra judicial killing or custodial killing in the context of CTG activities. But rather should have mentioned that it has been happening for some time, and how the current govt is not really doing much to stop these killings.
June 6th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
DesiBaba, why do you think UN is worthless? What would happen to Africa without UN’s peace keeping missions? What would the BD soldiers do back home besides performing routine drills in the barracks?
KJ, I guess you know by now Trofimov is WSJ reporter who had been covering news from mid east for a few years. He has seen first hand how the zealots within Muslims of different sects are tearing their own lives apart. Not withstanding his assertion on UN backing for the BD army people or that BD is about to become a full fledged military regime, but he unfolded the last few months’ incidents in BD very logically.
MKD (#10), it is not entirely impossible to buy some foreign press with some money (BNP has done it), but this article does not really fit that profile. I don’t see it glorifying any particular quarter.
June 6th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Asif:
I agree. But look at the contemporary strategies used by the western powers. Western powers are acting in balanced approach. They cannot just go and occupy a country, even if they want to. So, UN is a perfect place to “halal” all of their dirty policy worldwide. During cold war era, such practice was easy in the name of preventing communism. Look at Middle east and you will get clear picture.
Now, they turned into south asia to counter “Islamic Terrorism”, supress Chinease dominance from world market, Bangladesh would be a perfect military base.
Just fill in blank and it will be clear.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
I have little doubt Yaroslav Trofimov was paid to write this article although I cannot prove it.
There are bits and pieces of truth in it(otherwise no one would read it), but mainly it was written to discredit the interim government and create a favorable impression of Awami League and Sk. Hasina.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:04 am
Maf koira diben # 10
Seeing all the corruptions of Jalil, Selim, Mintu, Helal and Hasina, don’t you [Maf koira diben] feel ashammed of talking about the corruption of Babar, Tarek and Babar?
Being in the oppostion Hasina’s gong were no less skilled in extortion and corruption. Didn’t you see the story, Hasina allegedly bribed Hawa Bhavan as confessed by Mintu to suppress the Firgate-29 case. Those who give bribe/interest and those who take bribe/interest are equally blameworthy.
Babar, Mamun, Tarek etc can steal some sectors of Bangladesh but Hasina-Jalil gong can sell the whole country without having the slightest sense of shame and remorse.
1/11 take-over can be better termed as covert-coup, not a soft coup. I was shocked to see how promptly the military yielded to UN pressure. The coup was pre-emptive war against the enemies of struggling democracy.
Finally, no effort has unadultered good. Good and bad are always blended with but hopefully, 1/11 change-over will at the end of the day, have the blend with higher proportion of good than bad. Amin.
Thanks.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:08 am
Bitter Boy let GOVT prove first the thing. For your Kind information while Jillur Rahman asked
Print media to publish the source of Jalil’s News they are simply unable to do it. See I may be party inclined and ask some common people togther
about Babar and Jalil. I am 100% sure only people like you ill say Jalil is as corrupt as Babar and Let me tell you one thing while any charge is coming on people like Babar , people believe it. But Charge of Jalil is atleast raising the Eye brow of the people.
This is not paritsan comments. But I don’t support at all the process of charging Babar like any thing. At lest Due process is also should be maintained.So No injustice should be done to him. Regrading his money on foreign Bank and all those stuffs should be validated properly instead of making any spicy comments.
Our Great Editor Motiur Rahman has already Publised an aricle against Khaleda Zia today.
I am sure he is going to do same thing against Hasina tomorrow.
But will he do the same thing regarding CTG on Day after tomorrow about Transparency, Extra judicial Killing etc?
CTG has already given chance to people make Blak money to white. It is another idea which is going against their policy. So Due process should be maintained every where.
June 7th, 2007 at 7:35 am
A minor point, but couldn’t resist.
Hyder (19): Western powers … cannot just go and occupy a country, even if they want to.
Huh? Iraq?
June 7th, 2007 at 9:56 am
AsifY #16
“generational shift”, maybe. But let’s not forget that the army did not usurp democracy, they simply walked into the space created by a constitutionally endorsed suspension of democracy brought about by the novel CTG experiment initiated from the post-Ershad era, that I am sure your generation witnessed and is familiar with.
In the end, ‘coup’ or not ‘coup’, it is all semantics. To what extent did we allow it is the moot question.
Farhad
June 7th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Re: Anthony #23
What I meant that the US did not declare war against Iraq. Instead, they manipulated UN to implement conspiracy. Using the same logic, UN rep in bangladesh encouraged or manipulated M&M (Moeen and Masud) to develop the current situiation.
I do not mean that our politicians are innocent. They should be tried and be punished, if all the charges against them are true.
I also do not think one wrongful act cannot correct another wrongful act. This simply brings “multiplier effect” to the society, values, etc.
June 7th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Farhad (24),
Yes, coup or no soft-coup, it’s semantics. Unlike the earlier military interventions in Bangladesh, the army (or factions in the army) did not initiate/plan the intervention. A political impasse developed, without any meddling by the army, which could only be broken by an army intervention.
There is one close parallel to the 1/11 situation in the subcontinent - Zia-ul Huq’s 1977 coup. That year, opposition parties shut down Pakistani cities after Bhutto rigged the general election. Upon taking power, Zia promised elections within 90-days, which became ‘after politics has been cleaned up (and the former PM hanged)’, which became ‘after proper reforms (in his case, Nizam-e-Mustafa) were in place. At the end, it took a mysterious plane crash to end his 11-year rule.
I don’t think the current regime is emulating the Pakistani Zia. But even if the army top brass has no ulterior motives, it will still need an exit strategy. A likely possible outcome is a Turkey-style guardian role for the top brass. Is that something we’re comfortable with?
June 7th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
And the pigeons in the trees in the lush, verdant gardens around Hawa Bhaban could be heard,
“coup coup. coup coup”
June 7th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Hyder #25,
Let’s get some things straight. During the first gulf war in ‘91, the U.S. managed to get UN endorsement. Whether this is “conspiracy” or not, I don’t know, but it’s a fact. And the endorsement was almost unanimous.
During the second gulf war, in 2003, they did NOT get endorsement. It was given a few months after the fall of the baath regime.
Yes, I’m aware of how the West (or anyone else really) uses international organizations to make their interests “halal”. Do you REALLY think they have to go to all that trouble for affecting Bangladesh’s politics? Aren’t their ambassadors doing it pretty openly?
And it is a lot of trouble as Powell’s failed mission to the UN showed, to sway the UN into certifying as “halal” everything that the US wants to do.
Farhad and Anthony,
It’s a bit more than semantics I’m afraid. It’s the very core of the problem. Treating this coup and comparing Moeen to Ershad/Musharraf/Zia-ul-Haq becomes absolutely useless if he plans to return the army to the barracks and retire himself. So far, that seems to be his intention.
“Army intervention in the suspension of democracy”? Sounds eerily like BAKSAL to me :). As I said, “generational shift” was just something personal and of tangential interest, hope you didn’t take any offence.
As Sid points out, Iajuddin did make some noises about the army taking over. Why didn’t they then? Why 1/11, after the UNRC’s statement?
We can argue for ages whether the article was written for/against some political party or some state. Linking the article was a mistake. Read the statement on the UNRC, the original one, and tell me if you find that acceptable. I mean, I hear sooooooooo much about how “colonial” these Western ambassadors are, but there really is NOTHING you can do about their behaviour. They are officials of another state, and they are looking after the interest of THEIR states. But the UN is a different story altogether, purportedly serving no one’s interest at all except Bangladesh’s development.
June 7th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
AsifY #28
Didn’t quite understand much of what you have written. A truly ‘generational shift’ now. No offence taken.
“It’s the very core of the problem. Treating this coup and comparing Moeen to Ershad/Musharraf/Zia-ul-Haq becomes absolutely useless if he plans to return the army to the barracks and retire himself.”
I didn’t know we were comparing Moeen to Ershad/Musharraf/Zia-ul-Haq.
“Army intervention in the suspension of democracy ? Sounds eerily like BAKSAL to me”.
Had no idea army was involved in the making of BAKSAL.
Democracy was not always sabotaged with guns. Ironic though it may sound, in recent times it was usurped by consensus, and the CTG phenomenon is a glaring example of that. Time and again, segments of the civilian population have been willing participants, and in fact actors, in the suspension of democracy. However, this by no means justifies army intervention.
Farhad
June 7th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Sorry Farhad bhai,
I got carried away a bit that’s all: confusion is inherent in all generations :).
I was talking about BAKSAL as a (constitutional)suspension of democracy into which the army stepped in. I was agreeing with you about civilian collaboration enabling army rule. Like you, that is something I fear is happening.
Given the soft coup situation now, I’m worried that pushing the army like some people are doing (not you) by treating it like hard-core army rule, is the wrong strategy. These are people who fear the army won’t relinquish power. My article argues they don’t have enough power in the first place to relinquish, that they really are not their own masters in the big picture (not day to day arrests). As many have emphasised on DP, the army (and more so the bureacrats) need an exit strategy that’s honourable and retaliation-free for them and the people. A hardening of the us (civilians) vs. them (military) rhetoric is really not going to help.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:07 am
I am not comparing Moeen with Zia-ul Huq. I am, however, noting that Zia started with a very similar situation - rigged/boycotted election, hartal/oborodh, political impasse that can only be broken by military intervention. So my point there is that just because the army top brass didn’t premeditate the intervention doesn’t mean dictatorship doesn’t arise.
But I also think a Zia-style dictatorship is not likely in Bangladesg. Moeen probably genuinely wants to return to the barracks. But the top brass also wants to ensure ‘indemnity’ and probably some ‘guardian role’. These would mean a Turkey-style semi-permanent army presence in the running of the state. That is something to worry about.
June 8th, 2007 at 5:10 am
To All Concerned,
If my country turns like Malaysia or Singapore (not certainly at the mercy of any, but by our own resources and capability) due to the present ongoing drive of CTG or Army even at the cost of shaking hands with my enemy, I would do that ensuring my defense.
ALO
June 8th, 2007 at 8:14 am
AsifY #29
I agree with you fully on this. I was one of the early critic of this new regime, emphasizing that a non-elected government perhaps needs checks and balances more than an elected one, which in our initial enthusiasm, we were failing to provide. Some of the concerns I raised at that time did materialize in reality, and now the pendulum has swung to the other end. I think this coup, if we may call it one, is very different from those in the past. They deserve the benefit of doubt and we should avoid turning the situation into a self fulfilling prophesy.
The international media loves to portray us as a tin pot democracy. This image sells well. We should be mindful of not letting them have their way. Democracy moves in stops and starts. And our recent track record is in fact quite good. In the recent past, whatever lapses there was in the process of democracy, we the civilians allowed it. We will continue to tweak the process until the ultimate power rests with the people.
Farhad
June 8th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Dear AsifY:
Only now did I have a chance to read your full article. I find myself agreeing with your basic premise. Now here’s a pure conjecture, however cynical, but very much plausible—
One could think that these fence-sitting bureaucratic elites, the well traveled, foreign educated, speak five languages, don’t-get-my-hands-dirty, on-the-one-hand-and-on-the-other-hand types (oops, did I just describe many among us?)–created the CTG form to have a power sharing mechanism with the political-business-inactive military elites that are allowed to run with impunity for five years following each parliamentary elections.
Politicians could never siphon off millions of taka from the state treasury without collusion with the civilian administrators. As the mid and low level bureaucrats join in, their bosses look the other way during the elected government cycles, only to get a free pass during the interim period. You may recall that top level civil servants did join the “Jonotar Moncho” which gave birth to the CTG form as we know it.
I distinctly recall that the 2000 UNDP Human Development Report gave high accolades to Bangladesh for its CTG system: http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2000/en/pdf/hdr_2000_ch3.pdf
“In Bangladesh doubts about the independence of the election commission led to an agreement among political parties that elections would always be held under a temporary interim regime. This prevents the military’s control over electoral politics, while ensuring that the results of elections are considered legitimate, an important advance in a new democracy. An independent election commission and international election monitors provide other tools for protecting the sanctity of the ballot where trust and autonomous institutions are lacking.”
Trouble started this time around when the political elites, after three cycles of the CTG form, figured out how to politicize the “temporary interim regime.” Determined to get back what it had lost, the bureaucratic elite turned towards the only remaining elite with a ready power base–the active military. Engaging its point of leverages through the UN System, the diplomatic and donor agency circles where many of their colleagues hold positions of authority and influence, it was able to draw the military into the political process under a veiled threat to cut back its role in the UN peace-keeping mission.
Having pulled it in, the CTG (with support from the bureaucratic elite, which actually includes some of our media moguls who previously served at these agencies) could very well be actually using the military to do its dirty work, using the drive against corruption as its cover, to basically dismantle what was threatening its rein and existence—the leadership structure of the two major political parties. (Please note I am not passing judgment here about whether this is good or bad thing; that is a different discussion altogether).
So who has the real power, the military elites which has the power of the gun, or the bureaucratic elite, which has the power of the purse? Take into account the notion of the “Tuesday Club” the increased dependence on aid from donor countries in the current budget, what you have is something very close to an episode of the “Yes Minister” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister) with a revised title: “Yes General”.
Purely a theory, but conceivable, don’t you think?
June 8th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Mahmud Farooque,
You have nailed it! Exactly one of two scenarios I was trying to point out. In your formation, you have effectively made it a foreign office coup, because the foreign office controls the purse strings. I just didn’t think that would make a good headline.
The sensational headline I went for outlined the other possibility: that UN bureaucrats at the very top influenced matters. Why? Pressure from the “international community” to do something about a “failing state”.
I would say the chance of either scenario is 50-50. That’s why in the conclusion, I settled for a compromise: our bureaucrats at the UN! Once again, this is only speculation, but it does tie in well with the UN RC’s statement. I’m still astounded by the fact that the UN actually DID something. It’s usually all talk.
June 9th, 2007 at 4:14 am
AsifY,
I think you need to redefine what is really ‘COUP’ particularly in this present Bangladesh’s perspective.
Enven if it is truth, 140 million people appreciate the noble effort of all concern in this regard.
By and large this state affairs have been critically invited by the corrupt political masters of Bangladesh.
Should you blame others?