Unheard Voices

Sun 29 Jul 2007

29 Responses to “Generals can not rule”

1. bdfact Says:
   July 29th, 2007 at 7:22 am

   The legal battle begins. Help to place it in relevant thread.

   High Court allows Hasina to challenge extortion case

   The High Court Sunday accepted an appeal by detained Awami League chief Sheikh Hasina to file a writ petition challenging the legality of putting an extortion case against her under emergency powers rules.

   The bench of Justice Shah Abu Nayeem Muminur Rahman and Justice Jubaer Rahman Chowdhury accepted the leave to appeal petition by Hasina’s lawyer barrister Rafiqul Huq. Barrister Huq told the court that Manzila Farruque, chief protocol officer of Hasina, needed the court’s permission to file a writ appeal with special power of attorney from the AL chief.

   On Saturday, Sahara Khatun, Awami League’s legal affairs secretary, Saturday claimed that they had enough grounds to challenge the case. After a meeting with the party’s acting president Zillur Rahman at his Gulshan home, Khatun told reporters that lawyer Toufique Newaz visited Hasina at the special jail and finalised the power of attorney and other documents from her to move the planned petition.

   Khatun argued that Hasina was arrested under regular law but an order from the home ministry, issued hours after her arrest, said the case had been taken under cover of emergency powers rules.

2. bdfact Says:
   July 29th, 2007 at 9:17 am

   See what our Generals have done to them!
   http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=H2ygCaGhE8Q

3. Asaad Says:
   July 29th, 2007 at 3:08 pm

   Word ‘Military Dictatorship’ & ‘Civilian Government’ came to existing in human history has reasons & logics. Either pretentiously or intentionally not recognizing a military dictatorship and its ill effect is a curse to a nation. In Bangladesh’s particular situation, individual or mass, who hail military dictatorship are delusional. In my opinion, with their narrow view they were ecstatic seeing ‘corrupt’ people being ‘caught’. Their focus, logic, intelligence all boiled downed in expressing their detest on individuals either due to political biasness or some other causes. Reason I am saying that these are narrow minded supporters of military dictatorship, via whom CORRUPT minded military rulers takes advantage of a national situation and rules with their gun. Tons of material were wrote, publicized on ‘corrupt’ political individuals and there where about, where little gets emphasized on SYSTEM. Purging ‘corrupt individual’ ‘solves’ national problems is a myth. A new set of corrupt people are simply waiting to be breed from a poor SYSTEM.
   Pakistan went through many military rulers and probably will go through more. Truth is, having ground for military to meddle civil power shows how problematic that nation is, and one of a major reason for nation not to progress.
   People who are against military rule is not against Army of a nation. If a military person needs to show off his/her prowess then do that against enemy of that nation. The way Hasina (or other individuals) was handled only expressed an over jealous show of power. Why should people of Bangladesh accept Military explanation of what happened in Jan 11 or last 36 years? People have choice not to believe their explanation and contrary believe that they have committed a crime against nation. Yes, these military rulers have committed a major punishable crime.
   Justice and political biasness/views/wishes must not be mixed, especially for those who are believers. Bangladeshis need to add a line in constitution which would say “If hard evidence can be presented with popular belief that any Defense personnel exerted his/her authoritarian power that was not vested for a CIVIL governing function, then that individuals must relinquish his/her authority till a CIVIL committee (comprised of non defense and non defense retiree personnel) does an open public investigation under an elected democratic government”.

4. khilji Says:
   July 29th, 2007 at 8:19 pm

   Hussain Haqqani makes a valid point about the difference in outlook between elected politicians and military personnel. It is quite relevant for Pakistan, whose military or democracy none produced exemplary results for economy, as in Bangladesh.

   But in case of Bangladesh we have had a few more years of relatively peaceful transfer of power than Pakistan and the military stayed out of politics or state power for the last 16 years. On 1/11, the behind scene coup by the military was deemed essential as the situation was spiraling out of control and we faced imminent civil war between the two factions led by the two Begums, if an election would take place as scheduled, despite objections and boycott from the main opposition.

   “Purging ‘corrupt individual’ ‘solves’ national problems is a myth. A new set of corrupt people are simply waiting to be breed from a poor SYSTEM.”

   I disagree with Asaad’s above quote. As before I will bring in the analogy of a nation with a human body. These corrupt individuals can be compared to toxic waste in the system that has made the nation sick. The Army and the new CTG acted as the immune system of the nation for its defense. Now we need a detoxification regime similar to the one used in natural and herbal medicine, where normal food is replaced with green vegetable juice and fresh raw fruits and vegetables. After a sustained period of this treatment, most toxic wastes can be taken out of the system which will result in better health of the internal organs and for the whole body.

   We cannot change the system overnight, but in order to expedite its evolution in the right direction, we have to try different methods, such as removing corrupt leaders and replacing them with leaders who have a better track record, who have not participated in corruption in the past. At the same time we need to find competent and able leaders among this group so that the system can be reformed and improved from the inside. The process of reform and improvement should be continual process even after an election takes place at the end of 2008.

   In this regard, I would propose a guardian National Security Council, as has been suggested recently, comprising of members from the following group:

   - Armed forces
   - Exporters associations such as BGMEA, BKMEA, BTMA etc.
   - Elected officials from Expat organizations from large overseas communities, such as the ones in UK, North America and the Middle East

   A constitutional role can be debated in the parliament and hopefully can be found for such a high level body that will safeguard national interest. This body will not interfere with day to day activities of the nation, instead it will suggest corrective measures and broad direction in a monthly meeting for example.

   Again I emphasize, we should not be stuck with one “god” given model, we need to keep our mind open and be creative in finding solution for our particular problem at hand, which has its own particular and unique set of constraints.

5. boishakhi Says:
   July 30th, 2007 at 2:12 am

   If you look at the history of American Presidency, there are numerous presidents who had military background:

   Notable among them:

   George Washington
   Dwight D. Eisenhower
   Andrew Jackson
   Theodore Roosevelt
   Harry S Truman

   Just because a person serves in the armed forces doesn’t automatically mean that he/she would by default a bad civilian leader.

   Ziaur Rahman for example was probably the best leader Bangladesh has had since independence. He had his flaws but overall he surely was a decent leader.

   The problem with Bangladesh and Pakistan are that both countries lack democratic institutions and the citizens are too politically involved, mainly because there is heavy unemployment and it is very easy to mobilise this segment of the population.

6. Assad Says:
   July 30th, 2007 at 2:14 am

   Khilji # 4

   “The Army and the new CTG acted as the immune system of the nation for its defense.”

   Is that what you think happening in Bangladesh/Pakistan for past many years by the army? In your analogy of human body, I would rather compare Army as HIV virus who attacks immune system thus hampering a growth continuity of a surviving healthy System. Nothing gets build in short period and by no measure Army can do that by few years being itself is a PART of ‘sick government body’. It being partially sick, DOESn’t hold remedy to supersede all authority.

7. Kgazi Says:
   July 30th, 2007 at 3:21 am

   Assad #6,
   In BD what we had was WORSE than a “civilian government” or “military dictatorship”, what we had was a Civilian NIGHTMARE.

   Absolute power was abused not just by dictators but the civilian govts of Pak and BD. As if given the authority of some Nawab in a feudal kingdom, these civilians (mainly) have totally abused their power in corruption and mastani (extortion).

   It is a ludicrous myth that just posting a non-military govt will solve ALL the governance problems of a country. No, it doesnt. Pak and BD both showed how dysfunctional civilians can be worse than “military dictatorships”.

   But what we have in BD now is not a “dictatorship” - because this (non-civilian)govt is not looting, pillaging or tormenting the public with corruption and extortion. They are in fact questioning the accountability of the previous LOOTERS, THIEVES and FRAUDS.

   That cannot be bad for a country, nor can it be dictatorship. What was bad for the country was the looting and pillaging by the past civilians, disguised in the garb of “democracy”.

   In fact this military-backed govt is giving a GOOD DEMO to the dysfunctional civilians - How a Nation Should be CONTROLLED against crime and corruption.

   They are not perfect either, in their effort to bring on anti-corruption, law&Order, but at least they are TRYING to implement ORDER to daily life.

   A civilian govt must also be equally CONTROLLED and disciplined, with anti-corruption, discipline and accountability in order to be successful in directing a nation towards a growing, civilized QUALITY OF LIFE, which the past civilian govts failed.

   Pak and BD civilians both failed to see this distinction, and until they do so, the military will be forced to kick-in to demonstrate order, discipline and accountability.

8. Samarkand Says:
   July 30th, 2007 at 3:56 am

   I think the BD junta presents an excellent example of the mentality presented in the article: “locate the enemy and liquidate the enemy”.

   I think in this case, they’ve made a list of some of the enemies, and are now busy liquidating them, e.g. Anwar Hossain Monju (5 years for 21 cans of beer), Abul Hossain Khan (similar for 7 bullets), and Barrister Aminul Haque (31+ years from being overheard on the cell phone).

   Regarding comment #7, while these comments were much more plentiful in January and February, it’s heartening to see that some of my countrymen still retain their trust in their fellow men’s good nature. I think most of us realize that the world really isn’t composed such starks shades of black and white. I ask a theoretical question, though, the military generals in command now, our esteemed Generals Moeen, Hasan Mashud, and Masududdin, didn’t they kow-tow to this supposed “corrupt” civilian leaders to get to their present elevated posts? Was their collective conscience on hold then?

9. bdfact Says:
   July 30th, 2007 at 4:29 am

   Military coup is the biggest of all corruption.

10. AsifY Says:
    July 30th, 2007 at 5:15 am

    khilji,

    “Again I emphasize, we should not be stuck with one “god” given model, we need to keep our mind open and be creative in finding solution for our particular problem at hand, which has its own particular and unique set of constraints.”

    I understand that this “god” is the (toxic) West. I also understand a lot of people simply follow Western fads simply because they are “Western”.

    My question to you is simple: why is your (a non-Western, non-toxic Bangladeshi’s) prescription so elitist?

    “- Armed forces
    - Exporters associations such as BGMEA, BKMEA, BTMA etc.
    - Elected officials from Expat organizations from large overseas communities, such as the ones in UK, North America and the Middle East”

    Are you kidding me? Do you think these are the ONLY people who contribute to the growth of Bangladesh? Do you think these are the only people who KNOW how to run things?

    Look, I’m all for “indigenous” models of growth and politics, inasmuch as I believe in this whole indigenous/Western dichotomy. I simply ask, why is your indigenous “people’s” model so people-unfriendly?

    Hasn’t that been the entire problem these past 36 years? That the “People’s Republic” has been the people’s in name only?

11. bdfact Says:
    July 30th, 2007 at 8:54 am

    A long but a comprehensive reading. Certainly carries a message from Indian Mind.

    From: http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article253.html

    Mainstream, VOL XLV, No 32

    Democracy in Peril in Bangladesh
    by Muchkund Dubey

    Sunday 29 July 2007

    The domestic politics of Bangladesh was poised in a delicate position at the beginning of the year 2007. The country was heading towards a general election which was doomed to be a farce. The first caretaker government which, according to the constitutional provision, took over the reins of the government after the expiry of the five-year term of the last elected government of Begum Khaleda Zia, was reconstituted by President Iajuddin Ahmed, following the resignation by a number of members in protest against arbitrary arrests of people in wanton violation of human rights. The reconstituted caretaker government was heavily tilted in favour of the BNP/Jamaat combine. Subsequently this caretaker government was dismissed and the President who had been handpicked for the post by Begum Khaleda Zia and whose allegiance to the BNP was widely known, took over direct control of the government. He decided to go ahead with the elections as scheduled on January 22 in spite of the prolonged agitation, of the Awami League and its allies, for the replacement of the Election Commissioner whose links with the BNP were well-known, and drastic revision in the electoral roll which was heavily rigged. This left the Awami League and its allies no alternative but to announce the boycott of the elections.

    In this context, the declaration of emergency, the suspension of the general election and the swearing-in of a new caretaker government on the January 11 came as a great relief to the nation. The head of the caretaker government, Fakhruddin Ahmed, is highly regarded as a person of integrity, probity and quiet efficiency. The campaign launched by the new government to cleanse the Bangladesh society of corruption with a view to creating conditions conducive to holding a free and fair election, evoked widespread support. Senior officials, prominent businessmen and politicians who were initially arrested on charges of corruption and fraud came from the entire range of the political spectrum of the country. This went towards confirming the impartiality and objectivity of the new government. Some of the big-ticket arrests like that of Tareq Zia, the eldest son of Begum Khaleda Zia, and the punitive action taken against some extremist religious leaders proved to be popular and gladdened the heart of the liberal forces in the country.

    When Professor Mohammad Yunus, the noted Bangladeshi economist who was last year awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, announced his intention to float a party of his own for contesting the next election, it was universally seen as a step taken under the sponsorship of the caretaker government. Some intellectuals and leaders of civil society organisations enthusiastically welcomed Yunus’s initiative and agreed to work for him. The leaders of the political parties, however, did not seem to be too concerned because they knew that in the absence of grassroots support and party infrastructure, this initiative was unlikely to go very far.

    The people were generally carried away by the euphoria of the early success in the crackdown on corrupt bureaucrats, politicians and businessmen and by a sense of nemesis against those who had held the country to ransom. There were, however, some big question marks about the new caretaker government which unfortunately did not figure prominently in the political debate in Bangladesh. The people did not take too long to discover that the emergency and the associated changes in the political set-up had been manipulated through the intervention of the Bangladesh armed forces, and that the military was exercising a major influence in the running of the government. Moreover, there was an ambivalence regarding the military’s attitude towards the forces of religious extremism. On the one hand, the higher echelons of the military establishment were seen to be capable of perceiving the long-term danger to Bangladesh polity and society posed by these forces. They are also perhaps under the pressure of major economic powers, particularly the USA and EU, to curb these forces. The chances of the military heeding their advice can be rated high because these countries provide the main market for Bangla-desh’s principal export, that is, readymade garments, extend financial and technical assistance, and, above all, determine the extent of Bangladesh’s involvement in UN peacekeeping operations, which has emerged as a major source of foreign exchange earnings by the country. On the other hand, over the last few decades there has been considerable accentuation of religious overtones in the training of the Bangladesh Army. It is also believed in some quarters that the Pakistani external intelligence agency, the ISI, through the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence of Bangladesh, exercises considerable influence on the Bangladesh Army. This has the implication of the Army adopting a softer attitude towards the religious extremist forces if not really supporting them.

    It should have been clear right from the very beginning that corruption cannot be eliminated by military measures like mass scale arrests, punishment through trials in kangaroo courts and removal from politics of the leaders of major political parties. Corruption is basically a social and political phenomenon and the only means of curbing it is the adoption of measures of social transformation and widespread popular cam-paign against it at the grassroots level. Besides, history shows that the military breeds its own brand of corruption, at times more pernicious and ubiquitous than civilian corruption.

    Finally, though in view of the deep-seated intolerance of the military dictatorship and strong and volatile urge for democracy among the Bangladeshis, the Bangladesh armed forces may have no appetite for a direct control of the government, a slide towards decisive military influence over the government may become irretrievable in the short and medium run.

    THE recent developments, particularly the arrest of Hasina on July 16 and the issue of a summons to Khaleda Zia to appear in the court on a charge of corruption, raise further questions regarding the intentions of the Bangladesh Army and of the government supported by it, and the future of democracy and liberal values in Bangladesh. There can be little doubt that these actions are a part of the move by the caretaker government to weaken, if not to decimate, the two major political parties and, in any case, remove Hasina and Khaleda Zia from the leadership positions, before the nation goes to the poll. This move should be seen together with the attempt by the government to trigger reforms in these two political parties with the same objective in view. The principal element of the reforms, being considered by both the parties, is to exclude the possibility of any leader holding the post of the chairperson of the party for more than two terms. Some of the other elements are to eliminate dynastical transfer of leadership and introduce internal democracy in the functioning of the parties.

    Seen in this light, the charges of extortion against Hasina and corruption against Khaleda Zia appear to be only a frame-up. Moreover, there was no compelling need under the law of the land to arrest Hasina and keep her in custody before the investigation of her case is completed. She is not the type of person who would become a fugitive from law. Nor is she likely to tamper with the evidence being collected against her with the full backing of the Army. The summary rejection of her bail petition was, therefore, astonishing. That the method of her arrest was unsavoury is very well expressed in the statement on the subject issued by Khaleda Zia the day after the arrest. She said: “I am deeply disheartened to see that being an ex-Prime Minister, chief of a political party, daughter of a national leader, and an aged woman as well as a distinguished citizen of the country, she faced a disgraceful and indecent situation in the court premises.” The arrest was more of a design to humiliate and harass her and tarnish the esteem in which she is held by the people, than to make an example of her for the purpose of rooting out corruption. There is no doubt that of late Hasina and Khaleda Zia have become unpopular in the country except among their loyalists, because they are seen as a symbol of dynastical rule which they are determined to perpetuate, and because of their sordid record of holding the Bangladesh economy and democracy to ransom through frequent hartals and prolonged boycotts of Parliament. The major powers exercising influence in Bangladesh would also like these leaders eased out of politics because of the same reasons.

    But it should be realised that the evils which these leaders have come to symbolise are not going to disappear simply by removing them from their positions in their political parties. For, these problems are too deep-rooted in the society and polity of Bangladesh to be amenable to solution by the quick-fix simplistic approach of removing these two leaders. The next rung of politicians in these political parties who would assume leadership after the exit of Hasina and Khaleda Zia, are dyed in the same wool as these two leaders. They may not have inherited leadership on the qualification of dynasty as Hasina and Khaleda Zia have done, but as the example of Indian politics shows, dynastical political inheritance and chronyism prevails pervasively at all the rungs of political leadership in most South Asian countries. Besides, some of the leaders spearheading internal reforms in the Awami League and BNP are not known to be free from the temptation of corruption.

    The caretaker government should realise that beyond a point, the action being taken by them against Hasina and Khaleda Zia can prove counter-productive. The arrest of Hasina has already evoked widespread sympathy for her in Bangladesh and abroad and washed some of her presumed sins. The Awami League leaders have for the time being closed their ranks and decided to suspend all reform initiatives until Hasina is released. This has also lowered not only the caretaker government’s but also Bangladesh’s image abroad and has dented the popular support for the caretaker government.

    In some of the comments on the functioning of the caretaker government, questions have been raised regarding its attitude towards religious extremist elements. In recent months, the government does not seem to have moved visibly and decisively against these elements. Some of the leaders of extremist religious groups against whom cases of murder are pending, are yet to be arrested. One of the reasons given for lesser activism with regard to dealing with these elements may be that they are relatively less corrupt than leaders belonging to the mainstream political parties. It is also possible that in the Bangladesh society, there may be greater tolerance for religious extremism than for corruption, which may come in the way of a severe crackdown against such forces. However, it should be realised that religious fanatics, though less corrupt, are more dangerous in that they are the purveyors of much of the violence that takes place in the society and because of their link with global terrorist groups. They also pose a greater threat to social cohesion, peace and progress than corrupt politicians.

    THE recent political developments in Bangladesh have raised serious questions regarding the future of democracy and liberal values in this country. Going by the schedule of the elections recently announced by the government, it is going to be two years before democracy can be expected to be restored in Bangladesh. This is too long a hiatus in the democratic process. Surely, the revision of the electoral rolls should not take as long as two years.

    Cleansing Bangladesh’s politics of corrupt elements in order to pave the way for holding free and fair elections is an open-ended goal the fulfilment of which can take years. This may be used for further extending the life of the caretaker government. Moreover, democracy of the kind that was prevalent in Bangladesh until recently cannot be rebuilt on the debris of the existing major political parties. The alternative arrangement under which the next elections are expected to be held, may very well turn out to be a mockery of democracy. A likely scenario is that the government that would come to power after the election would continue to remain military-backed and controlled, with the difference that the present set of caretakers would be replaced by a new set of “caretakers”, belonging to the sanitised Awami League or the BNP or a new political formation that may be created for this purpose. Such a government may not be averse to and may, in fact, be obliged to seek the support of the Jamaat and other religious elements to remain in power. This kind of government may continue for several years until it is brought down by popular resistance and movement, which would indeed be an uphill task entailing widespread strife and turmoil and tremendous sacrifice by the people.

    WHAT should be the attitude of India towards the developments in Bangladesh? On Hasina’s arrest, the Government of India has taken the right stand in urging that “basic human rights should be fully respected in such high profile cases and there should be no violation of the due legal process”. This stand is not very different from that taken by the United States whose representative, in his statement after the event, underscored the general principle that everyone has the right of fair trial and self-defence, and underlined that the cases against Hasina should be dealt with according to the existing laws.

    But what is at stake for India in Bangladesh is not the personal safety or the future political role of Hasina or Khaleda Zia but the fate of democracy and of the values which the Indian state stands for. Prospects in this regard do not appear to be bright. In any event, they are highly uncertain. Besides, India has little leverage to persuade the Bangladesh Government to desist from pursuing some of its misconceived notions and plans of how democracy should be restored in Bangladesh, and to hold free and fair elections earlier than scheduled.

    Nevertheless, India should convey its concern to the Bangladesh Government in no uncertain terms, but in a proper diplomatic manner whenever there is an opportunity to do so. In any event, India should not give the impression that the caretaker government has India’s support for what it is doing. One gets the impression that some sections of the policy-makers in the Government of India believe that it is possible to do business with the present government in Bangladesh and get decisions taken on issues of concern to India on which no headway had been possible with the governments headed by Hasina or Khaleda Zia. This assessment is misplaced and the sooner it is given up the better it will be for all concerned. The present government in Bangladesh is hardly in a position to muster the courage needed for taking decisions on pending Indo-Bangladesh issues, like handing over ULFA militants who have taken shelter in Bangladesh, granting India transit facilities for its goods to move to other parts of the country through the territory of Bangladesh, and entering into long term arrangement in the energy field. The military is bound to be deeply divided on these issues. Besides, the present Bangladesh Government is too embroiled in domestic political problems to be able to devote the kind of time, attention and energy that is required for resolving these problems with India.

    The author is a former Foreign Secretary of India.

12. M Haque Says:
    July 30th, 2007 at 9:44 am

    Khilji, Asif Y,

    Good postings.
    Western or indigenous, shoud it be matter if it is good for us. What we can implement effectively that is the question.

    We should always emphasise on system building, institutional capacity with required strength. that can take care of, if another band of robbers or perpatrators are awaiting to take over.

    we do have enough eastern models, Malaysia, Singapore, Korea (south), Vietnam, China.

    However to follow any model we need to have a determined leadership to take it forward.
    I fail to sight any of them or even one’s emergence.

13. Anthony Says:
    July 30th, 2007 at 10:15 am

    BDfact (11),

    Thanks for posting the Dubey article - interesting read, indeed.

    Dubey is a lot less hawkish to India’s neighbours than someone like JN Dixit (also an ex-Foreign Secretary). Also, as a non-Bengali, he doesn’t have the historical hang ups that Kolkata babus have about Bangladeshis. As an ex-bureaucrat, he probably doesn’t have much of an impact in the current policy making. But it is telling that he thinks:

    “that some sections of the policy-makers in the Government of India believe that it is possible to do business with the present government in Bangladesh and get decisions taken on issues of concern to India on which no headway had been possible with the governments headed by Hasina or Khaleda Zia.”

    I wonder why the Indian government thinks this way. What signals is our regime sending out to India that makes them have such a view?

14. khilji Says:
    July 30th, 2007 at 10:43 am

    Assad in #6:

    Pakistan and Bangladesh cases are different, as I have already mentioned, Bangladesh armed forces were not in the picture in the last 16 years.

    The constant Hartal and corruption were hampering growth, the armed forces intervened behind the scenes and helped to bring in a new and changed CTG to save the economy from disaster, so RMG and other vital sectors could function and people could use the streets of Dhaka for a change.

    Armed forces, by definition, is an entity formed to save the nation from external threats, so it is very similar to immune system - it cannot be compared to HIV virus.

    The political parties had 16 years to show their performance, all they have done is run the country to the ground with incompetence and corruption - it is the people, the garment workers, entrepreneurs, overseas remittance sent by expat workers, these are the silent anonymous heroes that saved the country and its economy and achieved the growth that the worthless political parties like to show-off any chance they get.

    The current CTG will not be able to complete all reforms in 2 years, hopefully reforms will continue after the election at the end of 2008.

    AsifY in #8:

    I like your sense of humor. I am sorry if I sound elitist, but I am just giving my opinion and definitely I could be wrong. I definitely forgot to mention people like Shaikh Shiraj, the producer of Mati O Manush, who and others like him have brought about a revolution in modernizing agriculture, by introducing many new techniques in the last few years, that helped different types farmers. This was another major contributing factor economic growth for Bangladesh.

    The sectors that contributed to Bangladesh’s economic growth are:

    - RMG and other export oriented sectors
    - Remittance from Expat Bangladeshis
    - Agricultural modernization

    The factors that impeded growth:

    - hartals
    - corrupt bureaucrats
    - incompetent, corrupt and clueless politicians
    - nationalized industries
    - population growth

    to name a few.

    These two lists above are by no means complete, I would welcome readers to present their own two lists of factors that contributed and hampered growth of Bangladesh’s economy.

    “Do you think these are the only people who KNOW how to run things?”

    Actually the elected government will be running things after the election, the proposed National Security Council will have the duty to point out any perceived error made by the elected government. This is to make sure that any potential harmful activity of elected politicians do not jeopardize national interest, as it happened in the past.

    There is no indigenous/Western dichotomy in my ideas, I promote unique solutions for unique and specific circumstances as in the case of a model of government for Bangladesh. Generalized models are not the best solutions, as each country is different.

    Why do I promote a people-unfriendly idea like the National Security Council, it is because so far the existing constitution and the specific “democratic” model of government has failed to deliver peace and prosperity for the people of Bangladesh and the people of Bangladesh deserve a change in the system that does not seem to be working.

    Why is it not working, because it is the wrong system for the wrong people. Briefly my arguments are:

    - democracy is good for a citizenry that has relatively high level of education, are relatively enlightened and do not have heavily unequal distribution of wealth

    - for a country like Bangladesh, where more than 50% of the population is illiterate, malnourished and surviving at subsistence level, bringing them out of poverty and misery as fast as possible is the most important task

    - democracy in a least developed country like Bangladesh morphs into the monster that we have seen in the last 36 years, it becomes the playing field of war-lords with armed cadres in each party that keeps the whole society hostage - this situation was somewhat relieved by extra-judicial activity of RAB in recent years, but it was creating a monster to counter a monster. At best this RAB is a temporary solution, what was needed was to identify the root cause which is the prevailing political culture. In other words, the dysfunctional democracy in its current form was increasingly inching the country towards anarchy

    - we need to find out what changes we can make in the existing system that will produce better results. An NSC is proposed so that Armed forces and other responsible and contributing segments of society has some role to safe-guard the national interest

    - perhaps our country has honest and capable leaders with vision, but they are not usually in political parties - so the non-political NSC would be one way to engage these leaders in providing the role of guardians to safeguard national interest. Please note that except for the chief of armed forces, the civilians would be elected representatives of associations and organizations such as BGMEA etc.

    In any event, this is just my own personal opinion about a proposed change to fix the broken system, I would welcome you and other readers to suggest possible changes in our form of government, if any change is needed in your opinion.

    Lastly, Bangladesh, like any other nation state, in this age of WTO and globalization, has to compete with all other nation states to sell its goods and services and find jobs for its expat human resources in the global market-place. Our leaders has to be world-class to participate in this competitive activity to secure the interest of our 150 million people. So long as the political parties cannot come up with this kind of world-class and capable leaders/managers, we will have to continue to depend on NSC type solution for our Bangladeshi version of democracy to address the deficiency of the current crop of political leaders.

15. bdfact Says:
    July 30th, 2007 at 10:47 am

    Breaking News

    Hasina gets bail, freedom far off

    The High Court Monday granted bail to Sheikh Hasina in an extortion case. But the chance for the detained former prime minister to get freedom from jail anytime soon is slim as the police Sunday showed her arrested in another extortion case.

    The High Court asked the government to take the extortion case off the reach of emergency powers rules. The court also asked the government to explain in two weeks why the inclusion of the case in the emergency powers rules would not be declared illegal.

    In instant reaction, Hasina’s chief counsel barrister Rafique-ul-Huq told reporters: “Sheikh Hasina got justice. She will get justice in future too.” The army-backed emergency government Sunday moved to scuttle the chance for Hasina to find a legal way out of prison, by showing her arrested in a case filed by businessman Noor Ali.

    Hasina’s lawyers had earlier argued the emergency powers rules cannot cover the alleged incident that had taken place before the state of emergency was imposed in January.

16. LetsTalktruth Says:
    July 30th, 2007 at 1:32 pm

    BDfact,

    isn’t it interesting:

    “Hasina’s chief counsel barrister Rafique-ul-Huq told reporters: “Sheikh Hasina got justice. She will get justice in future too.””

    So long these people had been shouting that Hasina will not get justice… Including Hasina herself. Hmm…. Now that court works in favour -they seem to believe that justice prevails.

    Wow….. God good.

    I am happy that she got bail. She should have got it earlier.

    Asad # 3:

    How about going back to pre 1/10 situation. Lets bring back BNP to power and have an election under BNP. Will you love that! Seems like some poeple accepts 1/11 only so much so that BNP can be removed from power and ground be prepared for another party to take over. However, is Military’s job is only to stop 1/11 and hand over power to the political opponent of BNP who were equally responsible for bringing shame to democracy!

    Boishakhi # 5

    If I am not pin point accurate, I shall be very close. 17 US Presidents out of 43 had military background at some time or the other. However, I am not insinuating that Military should run the govt. My belief is contrary.

    Thanks

17. Siraj Says:
    July 30th, 2007 at 2:36 pm

    When talk of jihad against corruption becomes a mode to save own behind —

    Musharraf / Benazir pact

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/30/wpak130.xml

    If the generals in BD don’t take lesson from Musharraf, they are not as smart as I thought.

    In Bangladesh, this pact is more likely to be with BNP , then AL.

18. Asaad Says:
    July 30th, 2007 at 5:11 pm

    #16 LTT:
    “
    How about going back to pre 1/10 situation. Lets bring back BNP to power and have an election under BNP. Will you love that!
    “

    I have no such mention of who would rule or not as I have no clue who would come to power if an IMPARTIAL election took place. My interest is more on impartial election and not halting process of democracy. Fixing must come within democratic process, not via extra judicial process. Extra judicial processes that are happening today will have an after affect. Regardless of my personal affiliation/biasness, I would not underestimate mass sentiment of liking, disliking of political leaders or parties. Their actions to national issues are not small and has good enough efects. Arresting, harassing them or their families in extra judicial way will invariably have after effect. There exists plenty transparent mechanism where justice does and can play fare role with preciseness, clearness and conciseness. If that justice finds them guilty, and only then these leaders will fall from public grace and will loose core sentimental support from their supporter. That is a superior way to transitioning toward fixings and progress. This gun-ho, bang-ho, hoo-haa, 100 meter sprinter type passing verdicts and extra judicial actions will breed revenge in the supporter’s mindset. Nation will tumble again if these supporters don’t join in joint venture. These supporters are not bad people and being attach to their party leaders is very much human and a freedom of choice. If objective was to untie supporter’s sentiment from their leaders then present power people miserable failed. It is the collective common sentiment, feelings, goodness, actions and having a mindset to work together, regardless of differences with mutual respect, is what brings national security. Voting is seemed to be one of those systems that people would agree to live by towards progress.

19. LetsTalkTruth Says:
    July 31st, 2007 at 12:32 am

    “My interest is more on impartial election and not halting process of democracy” - I am definite you will agree that your interest would not have been looked after had 1/11 not taken place. The force that ensured that it didn’t happen was the intervention of Military.

    “I have no such mention of who would rule or not as I have no clue who would come to power if an IMPARTIAL election took place.” - Hmm… Given the situation of unearthing the legacy of corruption - it is only natural that AL, the main opposition should have come to power.

    I also predict that given an election, there is every possibility that AL may come to power and they should. Not because they are good but because the other alternative (BNP) has failed miserably, this time - like AL did last time. This is how democracy matures as the parties learn to accept the fact that they could be punished by the supreme power, the people, if they fail to measure up.

    However, the CTG’s job should not be to simply prepare the ground for this, i.e., to remove the incumbent and hand over the rein to AL. As this CTG was forced to come to power (through the shameless act of politiians and their destructive attitude)) extra-constitutionally, they are forecd to perform things that seems unnatural, but will ensure that no more 1/11 takes place. They took steps that no political powers dared to take, or managed to succeed at. Their taking power and doing what they are doing now will only strenthen democracy in the long run, if not in the shorter version. Because, in future, political powers will rightly believe that should they fail to turn up matured, their will be some power to straighten things up with the support of people. because of this fear, they will act more responsibly, hopefully.

    For CTG, the most important thing is that they are taking bold steps against corruption and my all out support for them. Make no mistake, majority will start talking against this move as majority of our people who had chance succumbed to corruption. Otherwise, why would we become #1 Corrupt country!

    I have heard many people assert very strongly that they would rather accept corruption (even after the shameless legacy of internationally acclaimed insult) than accept military. Of course to them, present form is a direct intervention of military even though CTG is made of highly respectable people with accreditation barring a couple or three and supported by Military 100%. I am sorry I do not subscribe to that group.

    As world progressed, the definition of security keeps evolving. Corruption is one of the biggest threat to national security. Hypothetically, a corrupt Leader can sell his / her country, and practically many did. A corrupt politician who can mesmerize people is even more dangerous, be it anyone. A corrupt politician who is after money knows no bound as to the limit.

    Post # 8: “e.g. Anwar Hossain Monju (5 years for 21 cans of beer), Abul Hossain Khan (similar for 7 bullets)…”. No doubt the punishment seems above all rationality. However, did we ever hear Monju, while he was MP, saying that this law was unproportional! I am positive - never. So when judge applied that law on the very lawmaker who was supposed to moify the same law, why should we cry!

    My assertion (opinion): That every body seems to know how corrupt this guy is! Many a times this corrupts leave hardly any trace of their misdeed which is why it is difficult to prove in court. So the CTG which is hard on corruption is making use of every excuse, be it trivial but within law, to put them behind bar. It’s like, every body seems to know that Tareq Zia cussumed to corruption. Now what if none could be proven in the court! Will he become a dhoa tulshi pata! I know it is a big dilemma.

    Anyway, pardon my ranting. Should not have started this discussion in a thread related to Gen Mosharraf. I hate to compare our army with that of Pakistan. We are way ahead of them in terms of political culture. I earnestly hope, our military will not misuse the trsut to destroy democracy. If they really do, they will be cursed yet again, make no mistake. And I will be the one cursing them in unison with all.

    Diplomaticlly, I don’t care what is happening inside Pakistan (unless some thing grossly violating like a genocide is happening), so long my countries interest is taken care of. I am more willing to judge Pakistan in terms of what they do for us! How much help we get from them as a country! How much advantage we can secure with them in terms of trade! Etc etc…. The political medling they have is theirs to take care of.

    Thanks

20. bdfact Says:
    July 31st, 2007 at 3:52 am

    Indian messages are becoming loud and clear!

    From Anarchy to Authoritarianism
    Bibhu Prasad Routray
    Research Fellow, Institute for Conflict Management

    If the Army-backed Interim Government has its way, the days of glory
    for the Awami League (AL) and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party
    (BNP), which alternately ruled Bangladesh for 16 long years, appear
    effectively to be over. Under a carefully structured strategy, the
    Interim Administration is replacing the existing system of
    Parliamentary Democracy with one in which the primacy of the men in
    uniform would be second to none. And, to the extent that they appear
    to have discovered an able partner in the radical Islamist Jamaat-e-
    Islami (JeI), the latter appears set to benefit immensely from its
    association with the country’s new power centre.

    The grand strategy of the Interim Administration, functioning under
    Emergency provisions since January 11, 2007, is being articulated
    through steps purportedly undertaken against the pervasive
    corruption in the country, the implementation of extensive reforms
    in the political parties and assistance to the Election Commission
    (EC) in its tasks of preparing voters’ list as well as chalking out
    the roadmap for the parliamentary elections. It is evident that in
    the manner of accomplishing each of these objectives, the Government
    is seeking to impose a radical transformation in the country’s
    politics.

    Since the Interim Government extended its authority under Emergency
    provisions in January, more than 170 politicians and businessmen
    have been arrested and prosecuted for involvement in corruption.
    Among the arrested are the country’s foremost leaders and members of
    their families, the last in the list being the AL chief and former
    Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, on charges of extorting Bangladesh
    Taka (BDT) 29.6 million from a private company. A similar fate
    awaits her bete noire, BNP Chief Khaleda Zia, who has been charged
    with several extortion and murder cases and has been summoned to
    appear in court by August 26 on tax evasion allegations. Other
    prominent individuals who are currently under detention include
    former Minister of State Lutfozzaman Babar; Khaleda Zia’s son and
    BNP General Secretary Tarique Rahman; former BNP minister Brigadier
    General (Retired) Hannan Shah; former BNP State Minister for Civil
    Aviation, Mir Mohammad Nasiruddin; AL General Secretary Abdul Jalil;
    former BNP Minister Altaf Hossain Chowdhury; Fazlur Rahman Patal,
    former-AL parliamentarian; Sheikh Fazlul Karim Selim, former-BNP
    parliamentarian; Partex Group Chairman M.A. Hashem; and former
    Bangladesh Chamber of Commerce and Industry president, Abdul Awal
    Mintoo.

    Similarly, under the programme for carrying out reforms within the
    political parties, immense encouragement has been provided by the
    Interim Administration to potential dissident groups within leading
    parties. However, while hounding out the existing and no-doubt
    corrupt leadership, the `reform process’ has done little to avoid
    the danger of installing persons with similar antecedents at the
    helm of affairs. While the AL’s reform process, largely headed by
    the party’s presidium member, Abdur Razzak, has been halted since
    Hasina’s arrest, the changes in the BNP are being headed by people
    who have themselves been accused of heinous crimes including
    extortion and murder. For example, the party General Secretary, who
    has emerged as the frontrunner to grab the chief’s post in
    the `reformed’ BNP, presided over the Cooperatives and Local
    Government and Rural Development Ministry, one of the most corrupt
    departments during the BNP’s rule. A case has been filed against
    Bhuiyan for illegally registering 10 acres of land in the southern
    port city of Cox’s Bazaar. Another top pro-reform leader Sayeed
    Iqbal Mahmud Titu is accused of nexus with Islamist militants and
    the killing of the BNP’s student wing, Jatiyatabadi Chhatra Dal
    (JCD), leader Khokon at Zahurul Haq Hall in Dhaka University. Former
    parliamentarians including Syed Abul Hossain and Mosharraf Hossain
    Mangu have been named by the ACC as corruption suspects. Reports
    indicate that threats of prosecution have been used effectively by
    the Government against such leaders to nudge them to continue their
    activities against the existing leadership.

    Clearly, the existence of strong political parties is inimical to
    the interests of the Army. In a bid to curtail the absolute power of
    the parliamentary boards of political parties to nominate party
    candidates for parliamentary election, the EC has drafted a new
    proposal on June 17, 2007. Henceforth, two or more candidates will
    now be selected through a secret ballot by the grass-roots workers
    of the registered parties, one of whom would be selected as the
    final candidate by the party’s Central Parliamentary Board.

    The Government’s initiatives have been boosted by the rather
    ambiguous constitutional provisions regarding the unique authority
    of the `non-party caretaker government’ (Part IIA) and
    the `emergency provisions’ (Part IXA). While the gap between the
    expiry of the term of a Parliament and the constitution of another
    is prescribed to be a maximum of `ninety days’, Article 58-B vaguely
    describes the duration of the Caretaker Government as “the period
    from the date on which the Chief Adviser of such government enters
    upon office after Parliament is dissolved or stands dissolved by
    reason of expiration of its term till the date on which a new Prime
    Minister enters upon his office after the constitution of
    Parliament.” The duration of emergency ceases to operate “at the
    expiration of one hundred and twenty days” without the approval of
    an elected parliament [Article: 141-A-2(c)]. However, the same
    article indicates that the imposition can go on indefinitely and
    would cease to operate “at the expiration of thirty days from the
    date on which Parliament first meets after its re-constitution”. An
    extended absence of an elected Parliament and a process
    of `preparation’ for elections that has been prolonged to more than
    two years, were clearly not envisaged by the framers of the
    Constitution.

    The non-party Caretaker Government is empowered to “discharge its
    functions as an interim government” and “carry on the routine
    functions of such government”. The Constitution explicitly restricts
    the non-party Caretaker Government from making policy
    decisions “except in the case of necessity for the discharge of such
    functions” [Article: 58-D-1], However, under Emergency provisions,
    the powers of the Government assume wider proportions, including the
    abrogation of basic and fundamental rights of citizens [Article: 141-
    C].

    Taking advantage of the popular mood against corruption, the seven-
    Division 110,000-strong Army has virtually entrenched itself in
    every segment of the Administration. Two of the ten advisors to the
    Interim Government have an Army background: Maj. Gen. (Retd.) M. A.
    Matin, Advisor to the Ministry of Communications, Shipping, Civil
    Aviation & Tourism and Liberation War Affairs, is a former head of
    the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI) and is known
    for a strong anti-AL stance. Maj. Gen. (Dr.) A.S.M. Matiur Rahman
    (Retd), is advisor to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
    Water Resources and Religious Affairs. Two of the key institutions
    of the Interim Government are also headed by former Army officials.
    While Brigadier General (Retd.) M. Sakhawat Hossain heads the
    Election Commission (EC), the powerful Anti-Corruption Commission
    (ACC) is headed by Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Hasan Mashhud Chowdhury.

    Notwithstanding the July 15 announcement by the EC regarding the
    tentative parliamentary election in December 2008, there are several
    indications that the Interim Government may well be preparing for a
    long stint in power – or, at the very minimum, for a radical
    transformation of the equation of power in Bangladesh. In spite of
    promises by Chief Advisor Fakhruddin Ahmed and the Army Chief, Lt.
    Gen. Moeen U. Ahmed, that the Caretaker Government would not extend
    its term beyond December 2008, the Government put its seal on a
    proposal to expand its structure on July 4, 2007, appointing a
    number of new officers to assist the Advisors. The Government
    spokesperson explained the move as intended to “unburden the council
    of advisers of the huge workload”. Earlier, in May, the Army Chief
    had elevated himself to a four star rank, ensuring that that he
    would stay on as Army Chief beyond his original retirement date of
    June 2008, at least into 2009, beyond the December 2008 deadline for
    the scheduled elections.

    The Army’s apparent craving to extend its stay in power does not
    appear to spring entirely from a desire to `clean up the mess’. In
    fact, the `incorruptible’ Army stands to make significant economic
    gains from its prolonged engagement in civil administration. The
    growth of the Army’s corporate character and financial autonomy,
    which started during General H.M. Ershad’s regime (1982-90), has
    since channelled several sources of economic windfall to the Force,
    and created a regime where the Army’s supremacy is virtually
    unchallenged, and is, further, best suited for its expansion.
    Bangladesh Army officers are known to have invested heavily in
    several businesses. Thus, the Global Trust Bank Limited, a
    commercial bank established in 1999, with 20 branches and a total
    asset of BDT 14,807,905,231 (Approximately USD 216 million, as on
    December 31, 2005) was an Army-sponsored endeavour. The Sena Kalyan
    Sangstha (Army Welfare Foundation) has a stake in the Raddison Hotel
    in Dhaka, runs a flour mill, an ice cream factory, a hosiery mill, a
    fabric-manufacturing factory, a textile factory, a Compressed
    Natural Gas project, a bakery, an electricity products manufacturing
    unit, a television manufacturing plant, and has stakes in real
    estate, among other enterprises.

    Nevertheless, if the lacklustre protests against Sheikh Hasina’s
    arrest are any indication, the Government’s anti-corruption moves
    continue to enjoy rock solid popular support. In fact, such actions
    appear to have provided this country of 150 million a much-needed
    vent to years of frustration against an unrelenting succession of
    inept and corrupt regimes.

    What is worrisome, however, is the currently trajectory of the
    expansion of the arbitrary authority of an unelected Administration
    and its military backers. Worse, there is evidence of the
    consolidation of the mullah-military nexus in the country, as the
    Government soft-peddles on the radical Jamaat-e-Islami, in spite of
    the latter’s well-documented links with Islamist terrorism and
    organised crime. Such a policy is a natural corollary to the `minus-
    two plan’, which aims to throw the twin `battling begums’ into the
    dustbin of history. In view of the apparent failure of the Interim
    Government to prop up new political entities to replace the AL and
    the BNP, hobnobbing with the dangerous, though electorally marginal,
    Jamaat – the party has never has received more than 12 percent of
    popular votes – appears to have become an indispensable part of the
    strategy.

    Thus, in recent months, the Government’s steps against the
    autocratic control of party affairs have stopped with the AL and the
    BNP, even though the Jamaat is not known to be any different as far
    as its stranglehold over cadres and territories is concerned. Reform
    within the Jamaat has remained an untouched area for the Government.
    Indeed, Jamaat leaders have been treated as a special category, as
    compared to their counterparts in the BNP and the AL. At least 13 of
    the 17 Jamaat parliamentarians in the previous BNP-led coalition
    Government are alleged to have been involved in several criminal
    activities. However, till July 25, only three of them had been
    arrested. In addition, the top leaders of the party have managed to
    secure favours even from the `stringent’ judiciary. On May 8, 2007,
    the Jamaat Chief, Matiur Rahman Nizami, managed to secure bail in a
    case involving the killing of a Workers’ Party activist in capital
    Dhaka on October 28, 2006. Further, Jamaat Secretary General and
    former Social Welfare Minister, Ali Ahsan Mojaheed, was allowed to
    go to Turkey in the second week of June 2007, in spite of charges
    brought against him on June 5, 2007, in connection with the August
    21, 2004, grenade attack on an AL rally in Dhaka. Previously, on May
    3, 2007, an extortion case had been lodged against Mojaheed in a
    court in Sylhet. Interestingly, on July 25, Communications Adviser
    Maj. Gen. Matin came up with the most incredible of explanations
    regarding the soft-handed official approach towards the Jamaat: “It
    might well be that they were never involved in any corruption.”

    Apart from providing such protection, the Government is also seeking
    to hoist a bunch of Jamaat supporters in key positions in the
    administration as well as in the military ranks. The newly appointed
    Director General of the DGFI, Maj. Gen. Golam Mohammad, is known to
    be a Jamaat sympathiser and his mother is a rokon (registered
    member) of the Jamaat. The former Deputy Chief of the DGFI,
    Brigadier General Abdullahil Azmi, who has been relocated as the
    head of the National Defence College is the son of the former Ameer
    (chief) of the Jamaat, Golam Azam, a votary of Pakistan’s rule in
    pre-independent East Bengal and one of the principal collaborators
    in the genocide of 1971. Another staunch Jamaat sympathiser, Golam
    Arshad has been appointed as the Press Minister in the Bangladesh
    Embassy in Washington DC.

    The Government is also contributing directly to the extension of the
    Jamaat’s sphere of influence. On July 2, 2007, the EC took a
    decision to involve the Bangladesh Mashjid (mosque) Mission (BMM) in
    encouraging people to enrol themselves in the voters’ list.
    Established in 1973, BMM functions on an agenda of a `Mosques-based
    integrated community development’ programme. BMM was founded by
    Maulana Alauddin Al Azhari, brother in law of Golam Azam. BMM’s
    nexus with the Jamaat continues till date. It was from a BMM-
    organised function in Dhaka on December 24, 2005, that the Jamaat
    chief Nizami, had blamed India for the August 17, 2005, country-wide
    bombings.

    Similar favours appear to have been extended to the Islami Chhatra
    Shibir (ICS), the Jamaat student body. Apart from three arrests of
    ICS activists on minor charges, little attempt has been made to curb
    its radical activities. Reports in 2007 have indicated that the ICS
    continues to run a number of guest houses in the vicinity of various
    universities where it provides residential facilities to out-of-
    station students who fail to find accommodation in the universities’
    residential halls. Reports indicate that there are more than 50 such
    houses in Shahbagh, Paribagh, Kantaban, Palashi, Nilkhet and
    adjoining areas near Dhaka University. Armed ICS activists with
    links to Islamist militants are reported to have been sheltered in
    these houses. Whereas fees charged from students getting
    accommodation in these guest houses is nominal, all of them are
    required to attend tutorials and training sessions, including
    classes on militant Islam and on strategies to run clandestine
    organisational activities, in addition to courses on the radical
    Islamist ideology. Some students who attend these training
    programmes are also promised seats in the university halls, while
    some have been promised jobs by the ICS.

    It is, however, the case that the Interim Government has continued
    efforts to neutralise the Jama’atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) and
    the Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh (JMJB), which were actually
    responsible for the August 2005 serial bombings across Bangladesh,
    and the top leadership of these organisations has been executed
    after conviction and sentencing, and some others involved have been
    handed out long prison sentences, under the interim regime.

    Action against alleged left-wing extremists has also been
    relentless, and it is difficult to differentiate between the
    previous BNP-led coalition, which targeted the `outlaws’ with a
    vengeance, and the present Interim Administration. The much
    disparaged fake encounter deaths targeting left-wing extremists
    continue. On July 11, human rights organisation, Odhikar, stated in
    a report that a person fell victim to extra-judicial killing in the
    country every 38 hours, while 1.1 persons have been arrested every
    minute, on the average, by law enforcement agencies since the
    declaration of the state of Emergency on January 11. The Institute
    for Conflict Management database indicates that, in 2007 (till July
    25), 47 left-wing extremists were killed in the country, compared to
    only six Islamist militants. At the same time, no steps have been
    taken against the Harkat-ul Jehad-al Islami Bangladesh (HuJI-B),
    which continues to be the vehicle of the Pakistani Inter-Services
    Intelligence (ISI) agency’s anti-India operations, and that has
    carried out several terrorist strikes targeting Indian urban centres
    over the past over two years.

    Little attention has been paid by the foreign powers, including
    India, to the developments in Bangladesh. The image of existing
    political parties has been sufficiently tarnished both domestically
    and internationally, and there are few voices in favour of their
    restoration to power. Unfortunately, the dangerous liaisons of the
    uniform and religious radicalism have been largely missed out,
    buried under the Interim Government’s rhetoric of reform and
    reconstruction. General Pervez Musharraf’s Pakistan is an ongoing
    reminder of the catastrophic consequences of such a nexus and its
    disastrous impact on democracy. Despite this, however, it appears,
    there are still many in Bangladesh who are willing to invest their
    faith in a radical-authoritarian regime under the pretext of curing
    the evident `ills of democracy’.

    Email from South Asia Intelligence Review

21. Maf Koira Den Says:
    July 31st, 2007 at 3:58 am

    LTT (#19),

    A clean anti-corruption drive is something BD sorely needed. But there is enormous corruption inside the anti-corruption drive itself - from those who’re picked, those who’re spared (!), the charges, the process, the type of sentencing, and–this will probably come out in the open some day–the huge amount of money involved. There is much much more going on beneath the shiny surface of the drive. I know you have good connections and I feel you’re a patriot… do some investigations about this.

    Cheers.

22. bitterboy Says:
    July 31st, 2007 at 4:33 am

    What kind of government rewards good governenace? A difficult and complex question! Every action has equal and opposite action. Likewise every stuff in this world accrue benefit as well as harm to mankind. Good or bad depends on the users how they use it. Some blogger once gave an unique example of knife. This simple tool can be used in myriad of good ways but it can also be used to cut people’s throat by crimials or murderers.

    I believe, Democracy may be good, better or best in the society where people are educated, honest, tolerants and repectful to others’ or majorities views or opinions. Per contra the age-old unupdated Democracy is not good for country likes us. As majority of us lacks honesty, quality education, tolerance, respect for others’ views, the Tradiational Western Democracy didn’t work for us and will never work for us until we have our own home-grown adoptable and adaptabl version.

    Democracy is but Gimmick for underdeveloped countries. We, many brag about 60 years of Indian democracy. But surely, democracy has failed them for the last 60 years. People say now India got booming economy. It maybe again a stastiical myth or even if it’s real it has notthing do with democracy.

    Most times, Pakistan had military rule but it’s economy is not far behind Indian one. Per capita GDP for Pakistan is still today higer than India [look at IMF economic survey data]. Moreover, just couple of week back there was research report [Done by Dutch or Danish] that says that apart from African some countries, India citiznry have the worst standard of living, even behind Bangladesh.

    So what Indian 60 years democracy offered them, not too much except an atomic power and some big numbers of doctors/engineers or IT specialists working abroad. But I don’t think, by ratio or percentage wise based on it’s population size, it’s a too big differnt number.

    Now about military rule, Boishaki said, to her judgement Gen. Zia was the best ruler in Bangladesh’s 36 years history. Whatever other people think about, to me also, Zia was the best and I don’t know whether we will be bestowed with a leader like zia in the coming 50 years and if that happens I would say we would be lucky. Still my tears roll down for him when I sometimes, get some stunning stories about him.

    People love me or loathe me I don’t mind or hesitate to tell the truth bitter or lucid. What General Ayub Khan did for the development of the then east Pakistan, regrettable post-indepenedence 36 years Bangladeshi various governement couldn’t do Ayub Khan’s equivalent. That’s just couple months back Saifur Rahman said if anybody did some real developement work for Sylhet they are Ayub Khan and me. FYI, almost all the mega projects what we see even at the present time like Kamalpur railway station, Tongi airport, PG hosptital, Shangshad Bhavan [one of the best architectural building of the world], Mymenshing, Rajshahi, Sylhet, chittagong, Barisal, Rangpur Medial schools, most 1st category universities, chittagong, Rajshahi and Mymensigh Agrivarsity, most cadet colleges and so on. Nittyg-gritty is he did the all the best big things of Bangladesh but ironically he was discredited by crooked politicians as they hadn’t their corrupted supremacy over depraved people.

    It has been referred before, quite a good number of good presidents of the USA had root from military. I don’t think so military always make bad, rude or ruthless dictators.

    In the country like ours, western liberalism or liberal democracy won’t help us flourish, rather it has failed us, failing us and would fail us unless we innovate our own home-grown democracy. Everybody loves to exercise their voting rith or power butat this stage we can’t afford to wishing for that luxuary until we’re civilized enough to worth it.

    Thanks.

23. bdfact Says:
    July 31st, 2007 at 12:19 pm

    So, join the Indian security umbrella, or persih!
    Read this:
    http://saag.org/papers24/paper2314.html

24. Sazzad Says:
    July 31st, 2007 at 2:11 pm

    This is the problem with us as we always see the conspiracy in everything no matter how good decision a government take. Since it does not go in favour of corrupt elite class they try to brand all the decision was taken by the CTG is wrong. We understand that some of our relatives or loved one has been arrested or affected by the present army backed CTG’s movement against corruption and some of us suffering mentally or financially for that. Did we ever think sufferings of the poor people of BD for our dishonest relatives/friends misdeeds? Two of my cousins husband and my wife’s father was asked to give their property and cash details and all of them were hiding themselves to avoid the arrest. One of them is sacked from his current job and one was retired from his job. The other person is a crooked businessman. That’s why I now how painful it is for my wife and my cousins to see the sufferings of their father and husbands now. Eventually I know how corrupt they were and made millions by doing the rampage corruption in last ten years. FYI one of them was about to involve in politics and rest were the civil servants of BD govt and were not politically involved at all. Despite knowing their Ku-Kirti do I really need to support my father in law or my cousins husbands? Do I really need to pretend that they are innocent and CTG is trying to harass them for money? Can I really say that CTG is doing the conspiracy against my father in law as well as the country to earn huge amount of money? Rather I can assure you my father in law is trying to make deal with the CTG to give all his money back which he earns in an illegal way in returns he wants not to be arrested by the RAB. But as far as I know the offer was not accepted.

    Few weeks ago someone in this forum said that, this government should set a time line from when the corruption should be treated as crime, since corruption was a very common practise in our country…ha ha..ha.. as if corruption was always allowed before. By saying that he tried to legitimize all the past corruption done by our leaders and others. For his information corruption was never a lawful way of income source in our country hence no question of setting a time line to ban the corruption. It was ban by the law before, is ban by law now and will be ban by law in the future.

    Does it really important to us whether civil or army government should be in the throne? We have seen in the past how both our civilian and army governments run our country which led us to a top corrupt country position in this universe. Compare to the past governments we already have seen how many good decision has been taken by this CTG within a short period. If we see it as a conspiracy and just eye wash then we all should think there was a conspiracy behind taking all the good decision(merely) by the past governments as well. There was no good intension at all behind any kind of decision taken by the past govt. Can some one give an example of any bad decision has taken by this CTG which goes against country and its general public? One may say the arresting of the crooked leaders and bureaucrats without following a due process is a bad decision of this CTG. My question is ‘Does arresting of the corrupt people will have any adverse affect on the country or it’s general public regardless of following the due process?’

25. LetsTalktruth Says:
    July 31st, 2007 at 4:41 pm

    Post #: 21

    Before me, sazzad posted his personal story. I guess that will help us understand how money is playing a role. Anyway, following is my post in reply to your comment. Thanks.

    “A clean anti-corruption drive is something BD sorely needed.” Good start. The way to go after corruption has to be something different from the past practice. Because what we have seen in past didn’t seem to work. As such the present modus operandi will definitely look super or sub normal to plain eyes depending on personal viewpoint, if what we had is considered normal.

    Now as for your statement, “But there is enormous corruption inside the anti-corruption drive itself - from those who’re picked, those who’re spared (!), the charges, the process, the type of sentencing….” – I will float my opinion and not fact.

    I would be the first person to agree that many move does seem incongruent. Why! As you said, to plain simple mind it may seem as corruption when we see charges laid against Corrupt X and no charges against Y, even though we seem to know that Y is also corrupt. The way I view it is this: It is more of a strategy than corruption. If Y worked under X, and if CTG has the resource to go after one only, then it has to focus on X. As for money I would be highly speculative if there is any money involved! Like you I would have loved to see CTG going after all in equal breath. But if they do, that will bring their downfall and we will loose whatever little we gained (that some big name corrupt politicians are already behind bar).

    I am positive you will agree, because of whatever reason, majority of people (not the common people who are rather victim of corruption but the intellectual people like Dr. Gani, who choose to be corrupt for the sake of their personal gain) committed corruption some way or the other. (We did not become # 1 for nothing) How about an example from the rank of people who are supposed to set standard! TI report says that 65% teachers were found not taking class in Dhaka University. Now in an ideal world, CTG should take action against this 65% teacher.

    Now just because we hate corruption, if CTG is to take action against 65% teacher, the reality is DU will collapse. What would be alternative! To take action in such a way that will ensure that corrupt teachers are send massage while ensuring that DU maintains its reputation. Instead of going after 65%, the strategy might be to go after top 3% of the command channel who failed to supervise the rest 62%. To a plain eye, it may seem that we are giving free hand to those 62% teacher. In reality – it is a strategy to ensure success.

    As for present drive: if Govt has to go after the corrupt people in politics, plain and simple, there will be two problem: 1. Both the major party will be absolutely leaderless and as such it will destroy the very core of politics. We don’t want that. Do we! We want AL/ BNP to rule but in a clean environment and in a responsible manner. 2. If CTG picks up fight against all, there is every chance they will fail. The strength of 90 is greater than 10. More so CTG does not have time to go after all. Essentially, to me as it appears, they are going after main culprits but at the same time making sure that because of over enthusiasm they don’t fail. In doing that they are also committing mistakes. But so far, the balance is still green, not red.

    “There is much much more going on beneath the shiny surface of the drive.” I could not have agreed more. CTG has taken up fight against the all-powerful Corrupt Syndicate whom none dared to oppose. To fight against the crooked corrupt who not only misused public trust (Falu, Pintu, Hazari, Home Minister….) but has the immense power of money to back them up, and put our beloved country into shame, CTG needs to be shrewd enough and must prepare their strategy behind the scene.

    “I know you have good connections and I feel you’re a patriot… do some investigations about this”

    I wish I had connection! If I could have controlled decision making from canada, I would have ensured following at Macro Level: 1. There is no contemplation of 3rd political party. 2. Minus - 2 formula should not have been brazenly pursuit. 3. Instead the two leaders should have been made to answer why they allowed such rampant corruption! And face charges of corruption if any! 4. On a personal note, I would have made Hasina to answer why was the need to buy Frigate and Mig! (Toady we could have bought 10 first class airlines instead of 8 MIG/1 Frigate, anyway that is my view. Just think how much we would have been benefited.). The list may go on and on …but lets not distract more…

    Thanks

26. Maf Koira Den Says:
    July 31st, 2007 at 8:16 pm

    A thoughtful and logical reply (#25). I also like the ideas you have about how you would have gone after corruption, and I agree on all four of your recommendations.

    I have two issues (you need not reply):

    (1) I disagree that CTG picked the top ones to use resources efficiently. There are many anomalies within the top ones, e.g., Tarek but not Koko, Hasina-Khaleda also treated very differently, Some AL leaders who dont have notoriety for corruption (like Alamgir-he may be politically controversial but his corruption case is a complete farce) while others like Tofael actively supported by the gov’t, they’ve clamped down on some progressive politicians but publicly defended Jamaat several times, etc etc. There are two people doing the list-picking, and it’s not transparent nor rational in the way that you have portrayed. If they actually had followed your process, things would have been much better and different.

    (2) The money involved in the corruption drive: I have information from several sources, and there is an enormous amount that is being exchanged to buy/sell prosecution and threats from low to high levels. Details will probably come out at some point, and when they do, I think you will be as shocked as I was when I started to find out. For now we’ll just have to wait.

    Thanks for your reasoned reply.

27. Ahbab Aziz Says:
    August 1st, 2007 at 4:13 am

    1. It is the all-engulfing corruption that, more than anything else, led to the inevitable 1/11. And, the anti-graft drive is likely to continue in the post-CTG era as well as the rank and file of the Army – who can afford to remain honest because of their income from the UN missions - are likely to continue exert pressure on its high command to act as a watchdog against corruption. I do not subscribe to the idea that 1/11 eventuated because of the Generals like Moeen and Masud, allegedly picked by Major Saeed Eskander (retd.) for key positions. Rather, it is more likely that they brought about 1/11 due to the pressure from (a) the rank and file of the Army to avert the impending disaster, and (b) the western powers who need to install a popular and secular elected govt. in Bangladesh to thwart the rise of Islamists.

    2. Punishment for graft should be primarily anything other than internment, like confiscation of the ill-gotten property, as corruption is pervasive amongst the skilled/educated class in Bangladesh, and due to this the country will be paralysed in case of any wholesale arrest for corruption.

28. Jodi Kichu Mone Na Koren Says:
    August 1st, 2007 at 4:15 pm

    Very informative discussion…but anyone looked at the gloomy picture of economy:

    1. Many people become homeless with no income
    2. Six or Seven Jute mills closed so far without any clear plan of laid-off workers.
    3. Price of essential goods are up, up and up

    It seems MBG (military-backed govt)is trying hard to bring economic disaster.
    Link 1: http://www.thedailystar.net/2007/08/01/d7080101011.htm

29. boishakhi Says:
    August 2nd, 2007 at 2:56 am

    RE # 28

    Jodi Kichu,

    Can you please elaborate as to which policies of the MBG has brought about the points you mentioned.

    According to the Idustries advisor four jute mills have been closed, so that the remaining 18 can be salvaged.

    http://www.thedailystar.net/2007/07/23/d70723013822.htm

    She also said the workers will be paid any due wages by next month.

    If a government-run jute factory is incurring losses should the government keep operating it with public money? KZ or SH surely would in order to secure votes for their parties.

    In a free market, prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand. Prices of food items have been going up for the last couple of years.
    If you have been following the exchange rates you must have noticed that taka has been steadily losing it’s value againts major foreign currencies the last few years, so any item that is imported is costing more and more. Price of oil is going up everyday which has a knock on effect on prices of consumer items.

    MBG’s drive againts black money is also having an impact on the market. This fact has been addressed by the MBG by allowing people to whiten their money, by paying back taxes and 5% penalty. Even KZ and Saifur Rahman are taking advantage of this amnesty. But big business syndicates are taking an wait-and-see position and are not actively ivesting their black money in the market (IMO).

    Most importantly, I think government employees are now very afraid to take bribes (a significant part of the population) so they have severe cash flow problem. This segment of the population are now going through a very tough time and complaining the most.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

All comments are moderated. Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.