Unheard Voices

Fri 14 Mar 2008

74 Responses to “Lost: John Pilger’s eye-glasses”

1. tacit Says:
   March 15th, 2008 at 3:09 am

   Parsing the above article, there are two sentences about Moudud Ahmed’s current situation: “Surely he deserves due process and proper court verdict” and “Of course, let the man give his due rights and process.” Another example of intrepid defense of our human rights, indeed. I’m sure Irene Khan is proud.

   It just seems to me that there are two distinct issues here: Moudud Ahmed’s past political career and his current situation. While I fully respect everyone’s right to vent their anger or frustration on him or any of the current jailed politicians, I would have thought it would be more in tune with Drishtipat’s stated aims to focus more on his imprisonment under the emergency laws.

   So, let John Pilger compare Moudud Ahmed to Tom Paine. It is more helpful to our current situation than a cerebral analysis of Ahmed’s past political failings.

2. Asif S. Says:
   March 15th, 2008 at 3:37 am

   Granted fully that one Moudud Ahmed has the same right as one average citizen.
   But, it is still disconcerting to see the previous perpetrators of human rights abuse, thanks to their foreign friends, are getting disprportional highlights in the foreign media as victims than the little people with no foreign connection.

3. KGazi Says:
   March 15th, 2008 at 7:42 am

   I agree with Asif S. Why is John Pilger suddenly so concerned about ‘due process’ over Moudud?

   Did Pilger or Moudud ever question the lack of due process in the BD system over thousands of average folks in Jail, many of whom were more innocent than Moudud!?

   After all, as ex-Law Minister(?) is Moudud’s failure as a Law Minister to bring about due process in the system during his time, backfiring against himself? Or doesn’t he deserve to get his own punishment?

4. zafar Says:
   March 15th, 2008 at 10:31 am

   well, well, well, if it isn’t our favourite caped crusader on behalf of human rights, tacit, wondering plaintively why drishtipat is not more concerned for the rights of moudud ahmed!

   interesting that he never had much to say when it was the bnp-jamaat government, ably led by their law minister (wonder who that was?) who were the ones violating human rights.

   the current human rights situation in bangladesh is appalling. but, notwithstanding the recent state department report, it is no worse than under the last government. indeed, in some instances, e.g. extra-judicial killings, there has been improvement (if you can call fewer extra-judicial executions improvement).

   now, to the case of mr. moudud:

   first, i agree that the current cases lodged against him are absurd. my outrage, however, is tempered by the fact that there are dozens of more legitimate cases that could and should be brought against him, many of them for violation of human rights by governments he was an integral part of (either as prime minister, vice-president, or law minister).

   finally, as a VIP prisoner, he has been granted “division,” and while the conditions of incarceration in dhaka central jail are appalling for common prisoners (something he did nothing to rectify when he himself was in government and using the appalling conditions punitively against opponents of his party), the conditions are perfectly fine for those fortunate enough to have received “division.”

   contrary to pilger’s assertions, he is not being kept in a black hole, he is allowed visitors, food from home, and access to legal counsel, as well as paper and ink (he is, in fact, writing another book, doubtless as filled with lies as the earlier ones he has penned).

   does he deserve due process. absolutely. the same due process he DIRECTLY denied tens of thousands while he was law minister on the last government, many of whom remain behind bars.

   i see no reason why anyone should be more concerned with his well-being than with the well-being of thousands who were similarly incarcerated during the bnp-jamaat government’s tenure, and are still in prison, and who have not received VIP treatment, or indeed the tens of thousands of non-VIP prisoners who have been thrown behind bars with little in the way of due process by the current government.

   yes, it is important to demand due process and human rights for moudud.

   but it is much more important to demand that he be brought to account for the human rights and due process violations he himself is directly responsible for.

   dristhipat has it just about right.

5. Jyoti Says:
   March 15th, 2008 at 11:43 am

   Tacit, Pilger’s comparison of Moudud with Tom Paine is no more helpful to our current plight than the regime’s ‘trial’ of Moudud for ‘liquor’ charge is helpful for political and administrative reforms.

   Drishtipat is not equivocal about due process and transparent trial, whether we’re talking about Moudud or an Abdul Karim of Keraniganj. But when Pilger says that Moudud is like Tom Paine or Anwar Ibrahim, two things happen.

   Firstly, anyone calling for due process and transparent trial or put on the backfoot because the regime’s supporters say ‘look, foreign intervention, corrupt folks like Moudud are using their personal connection to save their neck, and you want to stand up for these folks?’

   And secondly, this charge bites because, let’s face it, Moudud symbolises everything that has been wrong with our politics, not just since 1/11, but since Liberation.

   Those of us writing for due process and transparent trials in Bangladesh, those of us who care about rights, would have welcomed Pilger’s support. But because he has chosen Moudud, it makes us hard to accept it. Instead of writing 3 sentences about rights, we have to devote 1 noting Moudud’s track record and 1 deflecting arguments about why Moudud also has rights. How is this helpful?

6. fugstar Says:
   March 15th, 2008 at 3:10 pm

   The awami and nationalist political classes all have their allies abroad, in the west, who get them perks and exposure, this is just one of the fewer examples on the nationalist side, for goldfish man.

   He only did it to register during the dr F visit and out of duty to a friend. Why should TK have more exposure than a multiply elected person like MA?

   ‘the politics of picking case studies’ ey? abdul karim from kerani ganj never gets a look in, unless his story scores political points.

7. Asif S. Says:
   March 15th, 2008 at 5:46 pm

   Fugstar,

   How can you compare the press coverage between a tortured journalist who has proven anti-establishment record and write ups for the marginalized community and human rights abuse victims versus a politician who has directly or indirectly aided human rights abuse. Even then there would not be any hue and cry if John just wrote about his old friend whose fundamental rights have been hampered. But in order to make his case, John has tried to show that he is the Tom Payne of Bangladesh which was just a bit too much too swallow. Do you think Moudud Ahmed is the Anwar Ibrahim of Bangladesh?

8. Sid Says:
   March 15th, 2008 at 5:59 pm

   It’s unbelievably tragic. John Pilger is the renowned investigative journalist, documentary film maker and writer. He has the impeccable credentials as being a champion of the oppressed and is seen by many as a hero of the Left, supported by Chomsky, Pinter and other sacred cows of the Left.

   Pilger’s piece is not arguing for the right to due process of the hundreds of illegaly remanded political prisoners of Dhaka’s ruling military government. He is specifically writing for the freeing of Moudud Ahmed and makes no mention of those who in their thousands who have been arrested without rights.

   So how does such an outstanding journalist end up writing a puff piece for one of the symbols of Bangladeshi corruption and political opportunism? The oily, self-serving, amoral Moudud Ahmed no less. Surely a symbol of the endemic sickness at the heart of Bangladesh’s aristocratic elite.

   The fact that the defender of Moudud is not some New Labour afficianado but John Pilger is both remarkable and tragic.

9. Udayan Says:
   March 15th, 2008 at 6:13 pm

   #6. Fugstar, those to the left, and indeed the right, of the Awami and Nationalists also have their friends abroad. That’s why virtually no-one from those to the right of the nationalists have been imprisoned despite their parity with many of the political prisoners in jail now when it comes to documentable (and non-documentable) “crimes”. And that’s why Ershad recently reveived a Mercedes.

   What I find alarming is if this the level of knowledge about Bangladesh from someone like Pilger, who has the reputation for breaking through the spin and getting to the heart of hidden agendas and unkown nuances, what can we expect the general international journalist community, let alone the public at large. Any wonder we are struggling to get the world to become more aware of genocide in 1971, war crimes etc?

10. Shahed I. Says:
    March 15th, 2008 at 6:24 pm

    MA a ‘hero’.!!..ei dino dekhte holo..

    Reading the whole article by J Pilger, it is quite clear that he based his article solely on his acquaintance with MA and experience in 1971. Surely he did not follow the Bangladeshi politics since 1971 and his knowledge of Bangladeshi politics is limited to the discussions he had with ‘MA’ in the subsequent years. This is a biased article, not expected of a person of his stature and standing.

11. tacit Says:
    March 15th, 2008 at 6:30 pm

    You know, this situation is like a patient being brought into the ER of a hospital. Instead of operating on him, the surgeons and nurses are talking about what a bad doctor he was and debating whether they should operate on him or not.

    I think this is another case when we have to decide about the universalty of human rights. Are there actions, which if committed, make you ineligible for the basic standards of human rights? That make you deserving to rot in jail for years?

    For all that John Pilger is being ridiculed, leaving aside his personal opinions, are there any factual errors or lies in his article? I too, would have preferred an article concerning all three lakh political prisoners being held by this government, but I will take this one article about Moudud Ahmed rather than no article at all.

    An aside to Mr. Sobhan, congratulations for journalistic consistency. Your stand fits in perfectly with the campaign by Daily Star and Prothom Alo to get as many of the current prisoners back to their jail cells from the hospital. Yes, Moudud Ahmed has division, and so did Tareq Rahman and Abdul Jalil and Sheikh Hasina (a subjail for her), and I believe we all know how they are doing right now.

12. Asif S. Says:
    March 15th, 2008 at 6:51 pm

    Tacit,

    If you find this piece technically correct ignoring the unpardonable ommissions in it, then I find Moeen’s and the government’s statement techically correct too when they say that they are not trying to break apart BNP. They both sound like government pressnotes which are typically correct in factual terms without giving out the real picture.

    No one here is disputing that he deserves fundemental human rights. People are disputing Pilger’s incomplete and uninformed portrayal of Moudud’s political career.

13. Udayan Says:
    March 15th, 2008 at 7:15 pm

    Tacit and others - who in Drishtipat or elsewhere is saying Moudud Ahmed deserves to be in jail for ridiculous trumped up charges? Or that the atrocities of the current regimes against political prisoners should be applied in selective degrees according to our personal preferences on the individuals concerned?

    No one seems to be denying the need for a UNIVERSAL application of human rights - they are complaining about the huge scope for misinterpretation in Pilger’s article and lamenting that the example chosen will undermine the very argument that we all supposedly in agreement on.

14. Asif S. Says:
    March 15th, 2008 at 7:24 pm

    Tacit, before you ask whether we said anything about Moudud’s due process before.

    Here is the piece from last year.

    http://www.drishtipat.org/blog/2007/04/16/war-on-corruption/

15. Mostaque A Ali Says:
    March 15th, 2008 at 7:42 pm

    Well John as always you write well, and you have good intentions, BUT I think even though the case of Moudud Ahmed is very sad—–no due process for an ex law minister—–the irony!, you have to understand the background of the country, and the over all situation/HISTORY. This is not a justification of his poor treatment, and at a personal level I do not know him, or his life history, but an attempt and explaining the deeper wider issues which finds him in such a sorry state.

    First Bangladesh is a British managed puppet state—–and most of the leading political actors from the BNP, Awami League head to London for their political approval or policy ideas, or to invest their loot taken from the poor people of Bangladesh.

    A good deal of the state structure is also trained by the British, most notably the army, where each year the best cadets from the army are sent to train at Sandhurst. So the military elite is British orientated.

    Also lets not tut tut righteously, and say quietly to ourselves that this is another case of a Third World banana republic being brutal to its own—and shrug. As with the above point we should ask who controls the local Third World actors who does these things? To what extent is the brutality in South America, Africa and Asia the manifestation of local actors or the hand of Western corporations and government agencies?

    As to Britain, what it has done in the UK, most notably in Northern Ireland and in other instances, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan is far worse than what the military regime in Bangladesh is doing, or has ever done. The Bangladesh military is disciplined, and the country does better under military rule.

    I myself tried to practice as a Barrister in Bangladesh in 2002, in the Chambers of Tawfik Nawaz? Well known and clean Barrister. I experienced many many difficulties, as a result of which I had to leave the country eventually—-the BNP was in power then, and the British were as active as ever.

    The people of Bangladesh must eventually find their ‘freedom’ from the clutches of the British neo-imperialists, and the genocides exacted by that imperial power upon the poor wretched people of that country and region.

    You have done great work for Bangladesh and her people, and I honor you for that. But permit me to educate you a little about the wider issues, which finds the country in such a state.

    These are random factors which have effected adversely the attitude of the British state towards the people of Bangladesh. It is not meant to be a criticism of the British people, or even 99.999% of the population, but rather a criticism of the bureaucrats and elite around London who formulate policy which have adversely affected the fortunes of that country:

    * The ‘Black hole of Calcutta’ 1757 incident falsely used by the British to justify their conquest of India—–’The dreaded Bengaali’ ‘The evil conniving slippery Bengali……’ ‘The Bengaali Babbu know it all’ mainly directed as Hindu Bengalis.
    * The history of British rule in Bengal started off badly and only got worse. Bengal was the ‘Pearl of India’ in the eighteenth century, and only after 50 years of British rule, after they had plundered it, it became the poorest state in India. In 1769 in order to grow cash crops like Indigo and jute, farmers were banned from growing rice, and as a result 10 million people died—-Warren Hastings was taken to trial for this but was cleared. Misrule continued in the nineteenth century and into the twentieth century. In 1943 just when it seemed the Japanese were about to Invade India from the East, the British surrounded the state of Bengal, passed laws prohibiting rice imports from surrounding states, sent agents to buy up the rice in Bengal and ringed the state with police and paramilitaries to forcefully starve and kill 3-6 million people, and thus keep ‘control’ of the state——on the assumption that there ‘might’ be rebellion. You understand the callousness and paranoia of the Raj.
    * The British are color averse, speaking as one who has grown up in the UK. Most Bengalees are brown to dark brown people of Indo-Burmese stock—80%, 20% Indo-Aryan. Racism defined British rule in Bengal, and still does. It is no coincidence that the British empire entirely involved subjugating and exploiting people of color.
    * Britian is an Islamophobic country traditionally—Crusades etc. It becomes more Islamophobic with the Jews of London and their control of the media, and the creation of Israel.
    * Bengal was the first major Indian state to experience British rule. With it came Western ideas and knowledge. Put together this with Brahmanical education in high caste Hindus, and what you had was a major advancement of high caste Hindus taking advantage of Western education, and fusing it with Indian knowledge, from the eighteenth into the nineteenth century. Thus naturally these new breed of educated Bengalis become conscious of themselves and they spear headed the intellectual drive for independence. The political class for India’s independence was dominated by Hindu Bengalis, and it irritated the British no end———just another evidence of the ‘dreaded Bengaali’. The Bengaali Hindu political class defeated early British efforts to divide the state of Bengal along religious lines–1905—–1912. After the British created the Muslim League in Dhaka, East Bengal in 1905. The British in a huff in 1913, took the capitol of the Raj from Calcutta to Delhi, as far away as possible from the ‘dreaded Bengaali’.
    * 1857 Indian Liberation war. Of the three armies of the Raj, which controlled India, it was the 139,000 strong Bengal Presidency army which rebelled and fought the British. There after Bengalis and especially Brahmins were banned from being recruited into the Raj army. The Liberation war created further animosity, as there were wide scale fighting and extreme brutality by both sides against armed forces and civilians alike—–Severe British brutality against locals and harsh police tactics, similar to those of the Ulster constabulary continued right up to independence in the states of Bihar and BENGAL—two of the most impoverished states of India, and areas of continued rebellion even now by Naxals–it has become part of the culture, inherited from the British.
    * From 1919–1947, there was renewed armed struggles by armed groups of Bengali fighters against the British. In that time two British governors of Bengal were assassinated, along with many civil servants and police.
    * The great Indian political leader from Bengal Subhas Bhose who advocated Indian independence through armed struggle, with foreign assistance appeared on the Burmese border in 1944, with an army of 40,000. They were defeated by the allies, but the psychological effect on the British and Indians alike was tremendous, and one of the key factors the British judged it was time to leave India.
    * The British as part of their divide and rule policy created many frictions in Indian society. One of these was the creation of prejudice and friction between states in India. They deliberately propagated the image that Bengalis as sly and not be trusted. Things associated with poor character. This had adverse affects after independence when the Punjabi dominated government of Pakistan took over, where the majority of the people of the new nation of Pakistan were ‘Dreaded Bengaaalis’ 56%. And so this artificially created state by the British just couldn’t gel, and whilst Bengalis couldn’t become leader of overall Pakistan, they couldn’t even become leaders of their own part of the country—–continuation of colonialism. When the Punjabis finally left East Pakistan in 1971, they left with a vengeance, not something one would characterize with true fellow countrymen and fellow Muslims. The British had educated the Raj army well. See the performance and behavior of the Pakistan army in Baluchistan and FATA.
    * …………there are other stufff…but its a bit out there……..

    Because of these factors, the country has experienced many problems since 1947:

    * The very first governor of East Pakistan was a British Civil servant, because the political leadership of the country was marginalized, or not allowed entry from India, whilst the British consolidated their new artificially created country—Pakistan.
    * Then West Pakistanis ran East Pakistan like a colony, with all its heads being non-Bengalis, right up to 1971. This is stuff you are well familiar with, so I won’t go over this too much except to say that during British rule of the sub-continent, they encouraged differences between the various states. So the ‘marshal race’ Punjabis who were recruited into the Raj army were indoctrinated into hating/looking down on Bengalis.
    * Then there was the 1971 war, and all the devastation that came with that.
    * The 1971 December 13th massacre of the 270 Dhaka intellectuals of professors, journalists and artists seems on the surface like a ISI covert op. using Islamic fundamentalists nutjobs, but when you look at the issue in greater depth (Channel 4 did an excellent documentary on this event in 1997, and I encourage you to watch it) it looks like the orders came from the ISI masters in London. Most of the Islamic fundamentalists who did the dirty deed, including their leader went on to live in London, and ran a Mosque in the East End, until the channel 4 program exposed them. The leader of the group, Moinuddin Khan was invited to 10 Downing street and shook hands with the PM, John Major. I hope John you do a thorough investigative report of the links between the British state, with Islamic fundamentalists going back to the last century, and how local intelligence agencies use such people, in Third World societies. It ties in with Australia, especially under Howard.
    * From 1972-75 Bangladesh went through a very difficult period of destabilization, and an eventual coup, backed by the USA overtly, and the UK covertly. John I don’t know how much you are into elite ‘conspiracies’, but if you are into the NWO thing, and that the Rothschilds of London are the main operators, and people like Brzezinski and Kissinger their tools, then you will understand the picture of why Shiekh Mujib ur Rahman was invited to the UK in 1975, and then upon his return when all the pieces for the coup were set, the army massacred his entire family including a child of a few years. That just about sums them up doesn’t it? Without being too narrow, if you really are into explaining the problems of Third World societies then all you have to do is look at the ‘The City’ and the Rothschild’s, whilst developing a strong conscience saying that ‘I’m not anti-Semitic’—-merely objective, looking at cause and effect.
    * Then General Zia ul Rahman.1975–81……………some stability and development. He himself was not corrupt but he did out of insecurity allow corrupt men into his cabinet—-setting a bad example for future democratic governments. He armed and politicized the students unions—very very dangerous. He allowed British military trainers into the country after an absence of 30 years in 1977—-unforgivable, on the advice of the Callaghan Labor government! He focused development of the nation on a Western model not suitable for Bangladesh from the 1950’s, when instead he should have invested heavily into infrastructure; education; export and industry—-in addition focus on institution building of the bureaucratic center—strong anti-corrupt efficient state institutions—-the secret of Singapore’s success, and not democracy. He squandered the huge amounts of help the Carter administration gave him—maybe we should not expect too much from a military man with minimal education. Relations deteriorated with India during his tenure. He was invited to the UK on a state visit, whilst in the UK the pieces for the coup was fixed by the UK, and he was killed upon his return in 1981 by the UK. Indira Gandhi partly got the blame!
    * General Ershad 1982-90. Not corrupt, built up the countries infrastructure, and some development took place. He was a womanizer, but not a major problem all things considered. Lost power in 1990, after a popular uprising.
    * Since then we have had the two women, in democracy constantly bickering about the past, with no real development.

    Obviously Bangladeshis can’t go through history blaming their national problems on the British significant as it has been, sooner or later they have to take matters into their own hands. With a population of 150 million, rising to 300 million by 2050, sooner the better.

    Regards,

    Mostaque A Ali

16. tacit Says:
    March 15th, 2008 at 8:30 pm

    Asif Bhai, I appreciate your efforts to preempt my questions. Very thoughtful of you.

    I went to the link you provided. Kudos for making the effort to linking to Naeem Mohaiemen’s article and reprinting Shameran Abed’s editorial piece. Must have taken a lot of time and energy.

17. KGazi Says:
    March 15th, 2008 at 9:19 pm

    “the need for UNIVERSAL application of human rights” as present in Bangladesh, should apply the same way to all prisoners in Bangladeshi jails, why different for Moudud?

    Is it because ministers are TOO used-to royal pampering and delicate nursing, or is it because of their high profile names, that they should get a DIFFERENT class of human rights than what is prevalent in the same jail?

    If Moudud gets preferential human rights, then it will explain why he couldnt care less for other prisoners, when he was a Law Minister, and had the power to fix jail treatment in BD.

18. Udayan Says:
    March 15th, 2008 at 10:43 pm

    I don’t think there’s anything contradicting a universalist position on HR while pointing out the irony of the situation current individuals are facing, especially if there are exanples where they previously INTERFERED WITH THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF OTHERS, either directly or indirectly. If nothing else it may serve as a warning to those currently committing the violations that they may be in the same boat themselves (but of course, it won’t).

    So, for example, if the former home minister or his colleagues at the time who said “Allahr mal allah pherot niyeche” die under circumstances similar to the case he was referring to, I wouldn’t gloat but would definitely stop to remember that these were people who once had the power to perhaps improve a situation they fell victim to.

    Now that Sheikh Hasina and her entourage are surely relying on ties to foreign countries for her/their freedom, I can’t help but remember her statement which I heard myself to Bangladeshi Hindus in New York who were petitioning for repeal of the Enemy Property Act, “apander niye ekdom para jay na, apnara ek pa rakhen bharote, ek pa bangladeshe”. I remember the expression on the faces of her lackies at the time - just as arrogant and smug as she was. That doesn’t mean I condone the lapses of due process in the handling of their current situation by the authorities.

    And so forth. The list goes on and on. This doesn’t have to be a partisan dialogue. And everyone who suffers a human rights violation doesn’t automatically become a hero.

19. Rumi Says:
    March 16th, 2008 at 3:47 am

    This article has historical inaccuracy also.

    To be frank, if Mr. Moudud Ahmed was not in jail today, he would have been advising General Moeen and Mr Abdul Mannan buiyan. He is the first top tier BNP leader who publicly deserted BNP after 1/11 by refusing to represent any of its leaders in the court and failing to meet her despite multiple direct phone calls from Khaleda Zia.
    It is sad that off all, Moudud will get this much needed western media backing.

    Anyway, whatever Mr Pilger writes, Mr Moudud’s fate is sealed as the job he excels in is alreday taken. Dr Kamal Hossain and Mr Shahdin Maliks are doing what Mr Moudud has done all along.

    On a different note, it is true there is a serious lack of western press coverage of the appalling situation in Bnagladesh. An article on Moudud is definitely better than no article.

    Too bad that Barrister Amirul Islam or Rokonudiin Mahmuds are not in jail. If they were, a Pilger article on them would not have caused this much anger.

20. Jyoti Says:
    March 16th, 2008 at 6:38 am

    Rumi bhai, an article on Moudud is better than no article. But an article on Moudud that says that ‘Moudud is Bangladesh’s Tom Paine and Anwar Ibrahim’ is perhaps worse than no article.

    An article with that kind of flawed comparison is easily used as an example of ‘foreigners without a clue’ at the best and ‘anti-Bangladesh propaganda/conspiracy’ at the worst. And then, when organisations like Drishtipat says that ‘there are human rights violations’, they’re labelled similarly. There are many examples of this from our recent past.

    Since the late 1990s, violent jihadi groups started to operate in Bangladesh. But Bangladesh wasn’t about to become another Afghanistan, which was what some reports in the foreign press suggested. As a result, those who wanted to deny the presence of jihadi outfits found it easy to dismiss legitimate concerns about such groups.

    Another example happened in last March-April, when Mohiuddin (convicted killer of the Sheikh family) used embellished claims made during the BNP era about the flawed nature of our legal system avoid deportation from the US.

    Pilger means well. But others are not so innocent in their will or action. Isn’t wildly out of touch and/or false reports from their Dhaka-missions partly responsible for the Bangladesh policies of major donors that have created this 1/11 mess?

    When I think about all this, I wish Mr Pilger had said nothing rather than write this piece.

21. Jyoti Says:
    March 16th, 2008 at 9:49 am

    I was reading the comments in that old post about Moudud. In the intervening year, not really much has changed as far as the anti-corruption efforts go. The regime is still mouthing the same rhetoric: politicians were corrupt, and we’ll fix it. The regime’s supporters - fortunately not that many still left in the blogosphere - are still parroting the official line: ban these corrupt people. And other than changing the heads of a few institutions (and even the new heads are not above controversy), nothing at all has been done about fixing the myriad archaic rules and loopholes that make corruption inevitable.

    Kudos to those perceptive folks who in the first week of February 2007, when the first set of politicians were arrested, noted the real intention behind the arrest: not anti-corruption, but an entry strategy for the coupmakers.

22. KGazi Says:
    March 16th, 2008 at 3:50 pm

    Jyoti,
    Corruption cannot go down to 0% overnight - but the ball has begun to roll and THAT is the greatest achievement of 1/11.

    Corrupt cartels and syndicates have been affected by anti-corruption, which has jacked up prices. What Govt needs to do is subsidize markets and distribution now, to smooth out prices.

    As long as GOVTs remain thieving, so will there be an “entry strategy for coupmakers”.

    But Fear of “entry strategy for coupmakers” is not a valid reason to allow rampantly corrupt lawmakers, like MOUDUD, to stay in power. They must always be removed.

23. fugstar Says:
    March 16th, 2008 at 4:02 pm

    i dont see either of them as positive integer values and im convinced more and more that journalists, in general are the scum of the earth.

    but you wouldnt really complain if Hasina was lamented over in the same way in the papers. theres nothing worng with that of course.

24. tacit Says:
    March 16th, 2008 at 10:30 pm

    “Corrupt cartels and syndicates have been affected by anti-corruption, which has jacked up prices.”

    So the negative effect on cartels and syndicates is the reason why prices have gone up?

    “What Govt needs to do is subsidize markets and distribution now, to smooth out prices.”

    Shouldn’t the prices come down by themselves now that the cartels and syndicates have been “affected?”

25. Siraj Says:
    March 16th, 2008 at 10:44 pm

    Fugstar (23),

    you are changing the topic, dude. ALso what do you really stand for ? Now that you are defending Moudud, only a few months ago, in a comment posted previously you wrote this about Moudud.

    http://www.drishtipat.org/blog/2007/04/16/war-on-corruption/#comment-133341

    
    By allegely having such items in his house, he was breaking the laws and norms of the country. We have those laws because in our cultures and values systems alco guzzling is not considered a virtue. This despite the hypocricy of whatever *elite middle classes* poster here might identify with. These were laws which he was meant to uphold and protect as a law minister. He should have known better.. unless it was planted and/or he has another explanation.

    The vast majority of the people of bangladesh associate alcohol consumption with bad character. In Malaysia, Mahathir pulled a sodomy case against the growing threat of Anwar Ibrahim and put him away for many many years. So maybe this is a power play based on a well known technique.

    or maybe its completely without reason to be conspiratorial.
    

26. udayan Says:
    March 16th, 2008 at 11:18 pm

    #23

    So what do you propose doing about the “scum of the earth”

    Does that apply equally to the journalists representing your ideological constituency as well?

27. fugstar Says:
    March 17th, 2008 at 12:48 am

    25# dude, careful in seeing a defence of where there is none. i;m amused more than anything. a little CTRL+Fing can be a dangerous thing. And about the alcohol its about the deed, not the dude in anycase.

    26# personally ignore them and seek deeper truth without them.

    last time i checked, i had an ideological ghetto population of 1!

28. Jyoti Says:
    March 17th, 2008 at 2:15 am

    KGazi (22),

    I’ve debated coup and corruption with you many times, and there is no point rehashing those.

    A quick note on inflation. Inflation is primarily a macroeconomic issue. There are global reasons for rising food prices (see here: http://www.thedailystar.net/forum/2008/february/food.htm) in the past year or so. In Bangladesh, food price inflation started much earlier, and I think the reason for this was taka’s depreciation against the Indian rupee (see here: http://www.thedailystar.net/forum/2007/november/agflation.htm).

    One can make a reasonable argument that the previous government’s loose fiscal policy was at least partly responsible for the depreciation of taka. One can make an argument that the agriculture sector was neglected in the past. But the ‘cartel/corrupt businessmen are responsible for the price hike’ argument was never robust theoretically, and the past year suggests that it was just not a large enough factor in practice.

    The so-called cartel-busting, and more importantly the ‘illegal establishment demolition drives’ against local bazaars, on the other hand hurt the economy dearly.

    I don’t wish to change the discussion from Pilger’s piece and Moudud to economics. But it is very important that we understand that ‘locking up corrupt businessmen’ is not the solution to inflation.

29. Kaiser Kabir Says:
    March 17th, 2008 at 4:39 am

    Let us please have a discussion on what steps are being taken to make the EC and ACC tamper-proof from the likes of Moudud in the future. For example, what’s to prevent the next government from planting another Aziz in the EC and Sultan in ACC?

    We can of course go on addafying about who is the true champion of democracy — be it the politicians, generals, or shushils. The fact however remains that unless the EC and ACC are shielded from ulterior motives democracy is likely to remain as elusive as ever.

30. KGazi Says:
    March 17th, 2008 at 6:32 am

    Jyoti (28),

    I dont intend to debate with you either, but its also very important you understand what I am talking about.

    No, locking up corrupt businessmen is not the solution to inflation, nobody is saying it is, but it’s the REASON why there is a price spike. Fear is causing corrupt businessmen, importers and distributers to cut down their supply activity in fear of being arrested, thus causing a shortage of supply.

    Releasing Moudud and corrupt businessmen from prison may be some people’s answer to reduce inflation, and solving all the problems in BD.

    But Bangladesh should never go back to that kind of thinking ever again. The answer should be to imprison as many Moududs and corrupt lawmakers as possible, so that the system is never dependant on corruption again.

31. reza Says:
    March 17th, 2008 at 1:18 pm

    Jyoti and KGazi
    What are the reasons of incresing the prices almost everyday?

32. Asif S. Says:
    March 17th, 2008 at 2:12 pm

    Reza,

    You can start with this piece on inflation.

    http://dpwriters.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/on-agflation/

33. boshonto Says:
    March 17th, 2008 at 4:39 pm

    (27) No Fugstar, I think it’s pretty clear which ideological camp you represent. By Bangladeshi standards you are pretty clear and consistent.

    Your comment about journalists being “scum of the earth” is also consistent with that ideology.

34. fugstar Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 1:13 am

    whatever you like.

    Yasmin Alibhaibrown lays the polite charge of leftie McCarthyism at Pilger’s doorstep.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibrown-this-unhealthy-strain-of-leftwing-mccarthyism-796804.html

35. Sid Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 10:41 am

    It’s only natural that an ultra-conservative British Islamists (or dislocated utopianists as I like to call them) such as fugstar will find fault with Pilger. These people only rally to his support when he’s one of the few men standing up for Iraq. Not because they do so because of some principled solidarity with a anti-Imperialist, but because to them Iraq is another “muslim issue”.

    Alibhai-Brown’s article is a spot on indicator of the kind of holier-than-thou leftwing Apostle that Pilger has become. A state of mind fugstar and his merry Hizbi brotherhood feel very comfortable with.

    What I don’t understand is how his critique of Pilger leads to a support of a Player like Moudud. I’m yet to find any Islamist links Moudud has ever demonstrated but would be glad to know of any. Knowing Moudud, if the Jamaati ever came to power, you can be sure he’d be wearing a al-khallah and fingering his tazbi while loudly punctuating his speeches with ‘Insallahs’ and ‘Alhamdulillahs’.

36. fugstar Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 3:23 pm

    i’ll be there too…cheering on the tazbi design inspired brand new parliament building and road infrastructure whilst slashing my own tendons and swilling alco ruhafsa with a miswaq stick in my mouth(s).

    Moudud Ahmed has islamic institutional heritage that predates ‘islamism’. For some reason its stuck in my head that his father or grand father was headmaster at a prestigious madrassa in calcutta back in the day. Im not sure if that makes him an enemy of DP values. In fact perhaps it makes him the least dislocated of the embarrasingly confused moderns out there.

    By the way, im not all that interested in the person, just the strange, envious and immature response that the white defence of him has brought out amongst those who wear the decoration of human rights.

    In my mind im thinking… ‘Does he look more like a frog or some kind of fish?’. just like in the other case where i was thinking ‘Does he look like a weasel or a fox?’

37. NiRBashito Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 5:54 pm

    Thank you, Sid! And in my mind I’m thinking… does he just talk like an ass, or is he really THAT asinine?

38. Sid Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 6:54 pm

    Yeah, I knew it was some of displaced faux-religiosity that got you salivating.
    Maybe you should mobilise your Hizbi boys to go marching up and down Shahbag to free Moudud.

39. So Says:
    March 19th, 2008 at 12:04 am

    Envious? Huh? That the majority of DP members who post here may not share your views, Fugstar, does not mean that DP values are one-size fits all. Most of us are probably “embarrassingly confused” to varying degrees. Moreover, there are different kinds of confused, and going by your comments, I’d say you’re several kinds.

40. tacit Says:
    March 19th, 2008 at 12:26 am

    I feel that I should add here, for the record, that during 2001-2006, Barrister Moudud Ahmed was the the most persistent advocate for the separation of judiciary from the executive in the cabinet. He was, unfortunately, thwarted by persistent ambushes by Saifur Rahman and M. K Anwar.

41. Jyoti Says:
    March 19th, 2008 at 4:37 am

    Also for the record, Moudud and Mannan Bhuiyan consistently argued for upazilla parishad elections and stronger local government. Elected upazillas would have meant devolution of power and more representative government. They would have meant an end to the winner-takes-all system. You know who opposed it? Nazmul Huda and Saifur Rahman.

    —

    Reza,

    The single most important reason why prices are rising now on a daily basis is because inflationary expectations have set in. People expect prices to rise, so they bring forward their purchase, and since everyone wants to buy earlier, prices rise.

42. Sid Says:
    March 19th, 2008 at 12:44 pm

    Nirbashito, I think for the protaganist in question, it is *both* ass-like and asinine. The irony is, if it were not for people like Pilger and his trendy left-wing crowd, Islamists like fugoostar would never have been able to operate in Britain in the 90s.

43. Boshonto Says:
    March 19th, 2008 at 4:30 pm

    Bottom line, Fugstar, is that in your “journalists are scum” and “I’m a prophet - no one has views as unique as mine” world view (what you perhaps really mean is no-one understands what I say as I have an inability to put together arguments coherently) DP will let you speak. If your dream team take over in Bangladesh, UK or anywhere else, they won’t let DP speak, or for that matter, you, once you cross them or are no longer useful.

    And in case anyone needs reminding, one of DP’s first campaigns was against Awami League leader-backed torture of journalist Tipu Sultan. Where is the blind Hasina/AL following that you seem to assume DP has. Have you been following the dialogue between Asif S and Rumi over the past few months???

44. NiRBashito Says:
    March 19th, 2008 at 5:29 pm

    Tacit, could you please direct us towards a source(s) that might support your claims? Thanks!

45. fugstar Says:
    March 19th, 2008 at 11:51 pm

    I’ve observed the behaviour of journalists and press institutions at close hand in Bangladesh. It is very troubling. I can see why people would find their writing doubtful and ignore everything they say, even the information which might be right.

    Snapping disgustingly during a mans janaza.

    Scaring the hell out of junior government employees with their infomatic parisitism, wasting their time and obstructing their working days.

    Winding up students on the campuses.

    Taking citizens time to ask them questions then refusing to continue when it doesnt suit them.

    Hanging out together exchanging gossip and malice at press clubs.

    Being bribed easily by antinational forces.

    Lying (generally, though this the editors will have to ultimately answer for).

    Infantalising and tittilating the public with meaningless noise.

    Proclaiming a status for themselves above that which is deserved.

    Generally having no concept of another human beings dignity or privacy.

    So yes i have a problem with the press as angelic witnesses of the truth dedicated to the public’s right to know. I look forward to a better culture of communication emerging and drowning out this money driven shouting match with its quality. dont you?

46. Jyoti Says:
    March 20th, 2008 at 3:21 am

    Some thoughts on the Fugstar vs So/Boshonto/Sid on ‘journalists are scum’.

    Let’s abstract from these things about Fug: his non-secular politics and religous faith; and his often confusing articulation of his thoughts. Instead, let’s focus on his gripes with journalists.

    At the heart of these gripes is this question: who holds the media to account?

    Look through his gripes, and the common theme is this: media has a lot of power to damage, and there is no accountability. When it comes to today’s Bangladeshi media, he is not alone in making this accusation - fellow blogger Rumi Ahmed has written strongly about the role played by the mainstream media in bringing about the coup last year.

    And this criticism of the media is not limited to Bangladesh. This theme - that media has a lot of power to do damage, but no accountability - comes up again and again in American pop culture. You see it in Tom Wolfe’s novels, and in Clint Eastwood’s 1970s cop thrillers. And you see it in the role Murdoch press played in selling the Iraq War.

    The story here goes like this: there is an honest cop trying to get the crooks, and the weasel journo is trying make the cop look like the bad guy to gain fame.

    But this is not the whole story of course. There is a rich tradition of journalists exposing the rich and the mighty. It was a journalist, Ed Murrow, who stopped McCarthyist excesses. Pilger’s own work in the 1970s were groundbreaking. Woodward and Bernstein brought down Nixon. The cop is often the crook, and the journo is the hero.

    Does the media have power to damage? Yes. Is it accountable? Not always. How can we hold it more accountable?

    One option is to believe that the government will do it. If you believe it, then you essentially think that a government of the right sort of people - bhodrolokes, honourable men, deeny intellectuals - will do the right thing. If you believe it, then good luck to you.

    I think no government - any government, anywhere - will hold the media to account without abusing the power to do so. I don’t trust any government to not resort to censorship.

    So Fug, some journos may be ’scums’ or otherwise very bad people, but I’d rather that they are around than the government thought police telling me what to believe.

    Everyone else, Fug’s views are not as ‘odd’ as they seem - there are many who think that way.

    And Fug again, please try to express your thoughts more cogently - I often have no idea what you mean, and I know I’m not the only one. It’s hard to have a conversation if we’re not speaking the same language.

47. tacit Says:
    March 20th, 2008 at 5:46 am

    No, I’m afraid I don’t.

    Moudud Ahmed joined BNP in 1996 with high hopes of becoming a mover-and-shaker. But he was essentially thwarted when he lost in the by-election (from a seat that Begum Zia had handily won in the general election). Although given an important ministry in 2001, he effectively found himself sidelined during all important subsequent decision-making.

    It is my opinion (not backed up by any citable proof, unfortunately) that this quite novel feeling of estrangement from the source of power is what led him to effectively lobby for judicial reform, as a way of leaving his mark.

48. So Says:
    March 20th, 2008 at 12:27 pm

    Dear Jyoti Bhai,
    Just to clarify, I didn’t take issue with Fugstar’s journalists are “scum” comment in particular. As you pointed out, some are and some aren’t. One could apply the same logic to lawyers, politicians and a host of other people. There are good ones and bad ones, but the bad ones tend to give the good ones a bad name. I generally refrain from engaging with Fugstar, as I find him offensive in many ways (self-righteous and overly-judgemental being two of them), but I thought I would respond this time as I noticed that his preferred way of dealing with “scum” was to ignore them while professing that he would seek deeper truth without them. It reminded me of a woman I met recently who refused to have men feature during an International Women’s Day event (like women generally live in a vacuum or something). If we all just went about ignoring what we found distasteful, Fugstar would have few people left on this blog with whom to debate his views. And yet he refers to DP as a one-unit, one-brained entity. It is his, “I already know what all of you are like and you are all wrong” manner of communication that makes it hard for me to accept what he has to say a lot of the time. Well, that and the fact that he tends to talk convoluted rings around himself.

49. Alibhai Says:
    March 20th, 2008 at 12:41 pm

    Fugstar: What color of red wine will you pour in to your nostrils if you flush down all the journalists down the drain that passes through Plato’s piano school. Lip an answer my friend that will fly like a spider and crawl into my ears.

50. zafar Says:
    March 20th, 2008 at 2:56 pm

    tacit:

    “I feel that I should add here, for the record, that during 2001-2006, Barrister Moudud Ahmed was the the most persistent advocate for the separation of judiciary from the executive in the cabinet. He was, unfortunately, thwarted by persistent ambushes by Saifur Rahman and M. K Anwar.”

    unpacked, your point is two-fold:

    1) that moudud genuinely wished for judicial reform (different from merely stating so in public, which anyone can do but which proves nothing except, perhaps, the gullibility of anyone who believes this. what, for instance, is the evidence that this was a genuine wish of his?)

    2) he was thwarted in this genuine desire by SR and MKA.

    what is your source for these rather astonishing claims? cabinet meeting minutes? private conversations with the concerned parties? or are you just making it up?

    i guess it is like how you “know” what has happened to tareq rahman in custody. i would love to know the source of your information, if, indeed, there is one outside of your fevered imagination.

51. NiRBashito Says:
    March 20th, 2008 at 4:13 pm

    Tacit: Thank you for the frank admission about your pure speculations, in addition to the background info. In light of the latter, I could speculate, in my turn, that Moudud Ahmed’s “persistent advocacy” was a mere ploy for getting back at his internal antagonists.

    Knowing Moudud’s history of always sticking with the “Ruling” Party, not to mention the irony of his being a Law Minister who was previously jailed for corruption (for his role as the military dictator Ershad’s henchman), I think my speculation might be just as good; in fact, mine is a lot more plausible, if your insight into BNP’s internal politics is correct.

    This is the same unscrupulous Law Minister who had also publicly proclaimed that RAB’s extra-judicial murders did not lead to any Human Rights violations (look it up in the Daily Star, where I read it).

52. tacit Says:
    March 20th, 2008 at 4:37 pm

    Re #50, aha, I was wondering how long it would be before Tareq Rahman was thrown in the mix. As always, the consistency is duly noted. You’re right, I don’t know what happened to Rahman in custody. However, given that he was arrested with his spinal cord intact, and then was admitted to the hospital by the prison authorities with his spinal cord broken and danages to his kneecaps, I would speculate something did happen.

    http://dailynayadiganta.com/2008/02/01/fullnews.asp?News_ID=64644&sec=1

    Of course, I’m always interested in hearing differing view-points. Do you hold that nothing has happened to him?

    Re #51, of course, I have no insight into Barrister Ahmed’s motive. In that regard, your guess is as good as mine.

53. NiRBashito Says:
    March 20th, 2008 at 5:20 pm

    In fact, other than the almost routine bi-monthly statements like “We’ll need another 60 days to complete the separation of the judiciary,” I am not aware of any “persistent advocacy” by Moudud Ahmed in this regard.

    Were Barrister Ahmed a little bit less sure of the outcome of his govt’s machinations (including appointment of incompetent and dishonest judges), were he to foresee his own predicament today, perhaps he would really sincerely work towards that noble objective — a completely independent Judiciary would have been of greatest help to himself at this moment! Instead, he gave his “lagal” advise to his prime-minister about how to undermine and thwart the Non-Party Caretaker Govt system originally designed to carry out a free and fair election. How sweet it must be to be paid back in one’s own coins…

54. Asif S. Says:
    March 20th, 2008 at 5:28 pm

    The tale of two Moududs from 2006
    http://www.thedailystar.net/2006/11/05/d61105020324.htm

    Now let us turn our eyes to the Moudud in BNP. This particular Moudud is a uniquely charismatic personality who has graced the darbar of almost all the rulers in the history of Bangladesh. Many call him the Chanakya of Bangladesh. He is very much alive and kicking, and he is kicking lots of people in the most uncomfortable body zones, metaphorically speaking. He has proved to be a clever, extremely intelligent, and fast-thinking politician, and you need his kind to win political battles. The days of talking rubbish to hoodwink the people are over.

    Let’s try to digest this fact with a grain of salt. Politics is a billion dollar game and the only goal in this game is getting to power. There is nothing half-way or half-hearted or half-done about it. One has to play this game with ruthless precision and dogged determination. Barrister Moudud knows how to play this game and make his team win. He believes in winning. He loves to win. He knows that no one will serve the goal on a silver plate. Therefore, right from the beginning he took the defender’s position in BNP like a seasoned player.

    While in the game, Moudud used his gray cells instead of his tongue to attain his objectives. For the last five years his gray cells worked overtime and faster than the collective tongues of the opposition. He knew what he would have to do to get the chosen person as the chief adviser in the caretaker government and he kept at it until he achieved the goal. He even knew what he would do in case their chosen person was rejected by the opposition. The result: Prof Iajuddin Ahmed holding two posts.

    Then again, he knew what kind of machination would be needed to keep the Election Commission singing their song. For the entire five-year period he knew what to do to keep the files on the separation of judiciary traveling between his ministry and parliament. No matter how loud the opposition and civil society screamed, shouted, cried, or pleaded, he kept his legendary cool and smiled sweetly(!) before the electronic cameras when confronted with the question.

    The media, for five long years, kept on hearing from him how many committees, sub-committees, and sub-sub-committees he had formed to expedite the issue. Then, finally at the fag end of the tenure of the alliance government, he looked devastated, almost on the verge of tears, when he told the media that he had completed the task, but only because of lack of time(!) he could not place it in parliament!

    There is no alliance government around at the moment, but Moudud is very much around to rob the opposition of its sleep. He is seen taking part in television talk shows with a saintly(!) smile fixed on his lips and a copy of the constitution in his hand.

    The latest Moududi mangling came in the form of a news item in this daily on Saturday. The headlines screamed: “Moudud’s sudden move stays graft body work.” Inside it is reported that, amid growing demands for investigation into corruption of ministers and officials of the immediate past government, former law minister Moudud Ahmed on Wednesday moved against a High Court order and got the functions of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) stayed until January 21.

    So, you see, even outside of power Moudud Ahmed continues to do little, little things for his party. It’s amazing stuff really, whether you like it or not. There is a consensus of thought that all the existing and future political parties should have someone like Mr Moudud on the team to keep the opposition pulling their hair out. He is ekai eksho, by Jove!

55. Udayan Says:
    March 20th, 2008 at 5:48 pm

    #52 Tacit, don’t bother with references from newspapers. Don’t forget, journalists are all scum

56. tacit Says:
    March 20th, 2008 at 9:57 pm

    They’re scum and I’m a caped crusader with fevered imagination.

57. Shahed I. Says:
    March 21st, 2008 at 3:49 am

    Moudud is the one who dwadled with the separation of judiciary from executive. I was following his interviews during the last days with the hope that BNP really meant to separate the judiciary. It was a political stunt and a charade lead by Moudud. I would call him ‘names’ here but that just isn’t polite…

58. rumi Says:
    March 21st, 2008 at 7:09 am

    Bangladesh Cited for Human Rights Violations
    by Philip Reeves

    All Things Considered, March 20, 2008 · Several hundred businessmen and politicians, including the former prime minister, have been detained since the president of Bangladesh declared a state of emergency 14 months ago.

59. KGazi Says:
    March 22nd, 2008 at 6:09 am

    Rumi #58 - the radio report on that link incorrectly says “Moudud was Prime Minister and Vice President…”.

    What else was incorrect?

60. Rumi Says:
    March 22nd, 2008 at 8:26 am

    Mr Gazi

    Why do you say incorrectly? He was indeed “… Prime Minister and Vice President…” under Ershad.

61. zafar Says:
    March 22nd, 2008 at 4:17 pm

    tacit: glad that you admit that you were just making shit up with respect to your defence of moudud. refreshingly candid, at least, if nothing else. and consistent!

    re tareq rahman: the truth is i don’t know. but nor do you. but then you were the one who, talking rubbish as per usual, said “we all know” what happened to him. i was merely pointing out that “we all” actually do NOT know.

    i hope very much that he has not been tortured, and i think the chances of him avoiding torture are fair (not necessarily good, but nor is it a foregone conclusion, either).

    as for citing the naya diganta as your source for authoritative information … hoo boy, you really are clutching at straws, aren’t you? this from someone who constantly rails against the journalistic ethics of daily star and prothom alo. glad to see such consistency from the tireless proponent of consistency! chuh!

    one last point: if his spinal cord was broken, i am pretty sure he couldn’t walk upright like he was doing in the last picture i saw of him, not so very long ago. like i said, let us hope that naya diganta is wrong about this. given their track record, we have every reason to be so hopeful.

62. KGazi Says:
    March 22nd, 2008 at 5:07 pm

    Rumi thats right, thanks, under Ershad he was.

63. tacit Says:
    March 22nd, 2008 at 9:30 pm

    Re # 61, so if I can’t cite anything, I’m making it up, and if I can cite something, I’m clutching at straws.

    So this government, which has been denying people hospital treatment at every chance it gets, has just allowed TR to stay in the hospital out of the goodness of their heart, right? And BSMMU just happened to get this particular MRI report wrong.

    For future reference, I’d be glad for a source of references which would be considered authentic, since Naya Diganta obviously does not make the cut.

    I’m very glad you think Tareq Rahman has a fair chance of not being tortured by our military government in the future. If Mr. Zafar Sobhan, Assistant Editor of the Daily Star says that someone is fairly likely not to be tortured after that individual’s spinal cord has been broken, then that means a lot to us.

    Please continue to enlighten us about which people you consider “likely,” “unlikely,” “highly likely,” and “moderately unlikely” to be tortured by this government in the near future. You are, of course, free to make up your own labels, and color-coded charts are always welcome.

64. zafar Says:
    March 23rd, 2008 at 8:47 am

    tacit: do you honestly think tareq rahman’s spine has been broken? i mean, really? honestly? broken?

    and do you honestly NOT understand why naya diganta is hardly an unimpeachable source?

    i mean, this is silly: if someone used a DS report as evidence for a claim, your olympian scorn would be a sight to behold. but, as ever, one standard for tacit, another for us mere mortals! i guess, in your expert estimation, some newspapers (that, too, naya diganta!) are more equal than others! if it is in the naya diganta, then it must be true!

    as for the dull-witted sarcasm re likelihood of torture; yes, this is speculation on my part, but when one doesn’t know the facts, one must speculate, unless one is mr. tacit, who would rather write in terms of what “we all know,” when, actually, neither he nor “we” (or was that the royal usage?) know anything of the sort.

    and,remember, this post is primarily supposed to be about moudud, so don’t try to deflect the issue.

    you STILL have not come up with any source for your claims about moudud and the separation of the judiciary, and, funnily, enough, your unsourced assertion of utterly implausible facts, fits rather nicely in with your own, rather glaring political biases and prejudices! who could have seen that coming? what are the odds!

65. zafar Says:
    March 23rd, 2008 at 9:03 am

    p.s. likelihood of torture is in inverse relation to the arrestee’s popularity and ability and inclination to exact retribution if and when he is ever released.

    since no lesser an authority than one mr. tacit has written that he confidently expects to see tareq rahman released to a hero’s welcome, ergo he is unlikely to be tortured.

    people like, say, tasneem, who have no recourse and no ability to seek vengeance, are the ones who are tortured, the more high profile, powerful and villainous the person (e.g. the crown prince), the less likely he is to be tortured. this is just common sense.

    you can make all the snide, snarky comments, you want, tacit, but this is a pretty unobjectionable point.

    feel free to make your own colour-coded chart to illustrate this rather basic point if it helps you to understand!

66. tacit Says:
    March 23rd, 2008 at 7:24 pm

    Mr. Sobhan, your arguments are becoming just plain silly now. My feelings about Daily Star’s editorial stance and reporting angle are well-known. But I frequently do cite the Daily Star in my website. If DS would publish a report tomorrow saying unequivocally that Tareq Rahman has not been tortured at all since his arrest on March 08, 2007, then I would certainly not dismiss it out of hand.

    That’s an interesting theory you have there in comment 65, for myself, I just think it’s sad where we have to spend time formulating the probability of people getting tortured while in jail. Do I detect a trace of sadness on your part that Rahman won’t be getting his due desserts? I remember this little gem:

    “Perhaps I am speaking too soon and he can conjure up a resurrection from his jail cell, but this seems unlikely. The authorities know how fateful a step it is putting him in jail. He hasn’t been incarcerated only to be sprung on a technicality to wreak vengeance on those who put him there.”

    Translation: Go to it, boys; he’s all yours now. What went awry, Mr. Sobhan? Were you speaking too soon?

    I suppose I have a number of further questions for you. Do you think that the “high profile, powerful and villainous” people currently in government custody should be tortured?

    Also, by your own accounts, this is a government that tortures people who have no ability to protest. Given that, what should be our recourse?

67. zafar Says:
    March 24th, 2008 at 11:47 am

    tacit:

    1. “do i detect a trace of sadness?” only in your imagination, but, then again, since you are such an expert on people’s psychological motivations (viz moudud), perhaps i should bow to your wisdom and insight.

    2. “translation: go to it, boys; he’s all yours now.” i think your translation is a little off. torture didn’t even enter my mind when i wrote that. projecting much?

    3. “what went awry?” actually, unlike you, i am not so sure your hero will be released any time soon. but i still think that the possibility that he will be, provides him with some protection against abuse.

    4. do i think they should be tortured? no.

    5. yes, this is a govt that tortures people. is that in dispute?

    what should be our recourse? i wish i knew, for people like my close friend tasneem and all the others like him. look, i drove tasneem home after he had been released by dgfi and saw the marks on his body and what had been done to him first-hand. i think that most people who witness anything like that wouldn’t wish torture even on their worst enemies.

    i suppose that the sooner elections are held the better, but i am not sure that this will resolve the torture issue.

    please note, that the last govt tortured just as much as this one does, so having a democratically elected govt is not in and of itself enough to guard against this happening.

    there’s something that has happened to our country, that torture has become so institutionalized, that we need to address. the prevalence of torture is a real sign of sickness and we need to root it out.

    what i would like to see is a commitment by politicians, the police, and army/intelligence officers alike that there will be no torture in bangladesh and to see action taken against torturers. the message should be: zero tolerance. bangladesh must be a torture-free country. maybe we can’t solve all our problems, but surely we can get together to agree on this one, basic issue?

    but, given the political reality of the country, i think that this will be a long time coming.

68. tacit Says:
    March 25th, 2008 at 12:14 am

    We can all certainly agree that there should be no torture in Bangladesh, now or any time ever in the future. It does seem slightly disengenuous to put politicians first, the police second, and then army/intelligence people last. I would have completely reversed the order.

    I’m glad you feel so strongly about ending torture. To delve further into your outrage, I went to the Daily Star page located at http://thedailystar.net/ and googled “torture” in the link provided near the bottom-left of the page, but was slightly surprised at the result. The first two pages primarily contained links to 2004 and 2005. Where were the editorials expressing outrage at the current state of affairs? The editorials condemning the torture of helpless people by this government, including, as you added, your own colleague, Tasneem Khalil? Where were the dulcet tones of His Editorness Mahfuz Anam?

    Well, maybe that’s just because the situation in Bangladesh is so grim currently. As long as it eases up, the floodgates of protest against torture will open. But just to check my theory, I headed to New Age at http://newagebd.com/ to make the same google search. And, the second link was to an editorial condemning torture under the current government.

    I look forward to a strongly-worded piece condemning torture from you, no matter done to whom, by whom, for whatever reason, in the coming weeks.

69. zafar Says:
    March 25th, 2008 at 9:01 am

    1. do you really want me to comment on the daily star’s editorial policy? i’ll pass. though if this is something that upsets you, i would urge you (and others) to write a letter to the editor about it. in any case, i suspect that you know the answer to your own question.

    2. please feel free to switch to the new age if you find it a better paper. of course, neither new age nor you had much to say about torture under the last government. i guess it come down to who’s ox is being gored, eh?

    3. http://www.thedailystar.net/2007/05/04/d70504020330.htm

    perhaps not as tough as you would like, but, then again, neither have i ever read anything by you condemning torture under the last government.

70. Jyoti Says:
    March 26th, 2008 at 9:24 am

    So (48), of course you are right in that there is no single voice here. After all, we’ve seen strong arguments between the murubbis like Asif and Rumi bhai, and KGazi and I have differed on things, and why, I remember you and AsifY having a cross-Atlantic lungi duel or something.:)

    The cool thing is, we still talk to each other. If nothing else, this is a contribution UV is making.

    Tacit/Zafar, the unfortunate fact is, torture is not yet condemned by the majority of Bangladeshis. Tasneem got hit, well he must have done something wrong, or at least he was lucky, beshi kisu to hoi nai - I suspect this is what too many people think. And this is why this regime, and the last government, and the one before got away with torture. And unless we challenge that mindset, the next government and the one after will do the same.

71. Fugstar Says:
    March 26th, 2008 at 11:31 am

    48

    i don’t think i’m saying anywhere that there is ‘one unit’ here, but if it suits you to springboard some kind of statement-of-the-obvious through me and flex your unholier-than-thou muscles, don’t let me stop you.

    one limitation of taking on an orientalism soaked western style of activism regarding mistreatment, is that base conditions are very different in the day to day bangladeshi reality. violence inflicted on tk is not all that exceptional. Many people at the time overtly wiberal types, secular ‘rightists’ et al, sadly but not maliciously, figured that he was ‘asking for it’.

    in order to protect journalists or politicians folks end up raising their status unduly above the rest of the people. more than say a common thief caught stealing from a bazar a driver caught running someone over on the road… a resident of pseudoposh area kicking seven shades of poo out of a menial worker, a policeman taking out their issues on a rickshawallah.

72. Sid Says:
    March 26th, 2008 at 5:22 pm

    Why is it that the anti-torture moralists getting on their high horses today are also the uncritical partisan BNP/AL supporters of yesterday?

    Happy Independence Day to Moudud and Pilger.

73. tacit Says:
    March 26th, 2008 at 5:29 pm

    You have not read anything from me condemning torture under the last government, that’s your answer for why torture isn’t more freely denounced in Daily Star?

    Here you go, I freely and unequivocally denounce all torture committed under the past government. Are there any other issues in which my denounciation (or lack of thereof) is stopping the Daily Star from taking meaningful action? Global warming, Darfur crisis, any other issues?

    And certainly, do describe the Daily Star’s editorial policy on the denunciation of torture.

74. Sid Says:
    March 27th, 2008 at 6:33 pm

    I think #73 is known as “having the last word but losing the argument”.

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.