Main Page «
Front Page «
Metro «
Business «
International «
Sports «
National «
Op-Ed «
Home «
Timeout «
Letters «

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

We are happy that the parliamentary standing committee on housing and public works has made its sentiments known on the collapse of the Spectrum Sweater and Knitting factory in Savar. We are, however, sad and outraged that it needed a parliamentary committee to recommend action against the owners of the factory when there should have been a normal application of existing laws against those responsible for the tragedy. The collapse of the building and the death of scores of workers under the debris were matters of criminality. It should have been for the authorities to take swift action. But what the country was made to go through was a kind of hide-and-seek in which the owners were first reported to have gone underground. Then, quite magically, they resurfaced, surrendered before the court and were taken off to prison. Since that moment, nothing much has been heard of progress being made in the case.
   The parliamentary standing committee has now acted on the basis of a report submitted by the Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha. The report makes it absolutely clear that the owners were at fault where the construction of the nine-storied building is concerned. Despite the fact that the RAJUK authorities took notice of the irregularities and summoned the engineers responsible for the construction to their offices, the Spectrum people did not appear to cooperate. The engineers did not turn up at RAJUK. That should have been the moment when RAJUK should have gone for penalising the owners of the factory. But what has been happening since the tragedy occurred in April has been nothing short of an attempt to cover up the tale. In the moments following the tragedy, some important figures at BGMEA jumped to the conclusion that a boiler explosion had caused the disaster. Without ascertaining the truth, without verifying facts, how did these individuals arrive at such a premature conclusion? The suspicion arose at the time that it was perhaps an early attempt to sidetrack the real issues in order for different conclusions to be drawn. Then came the even more unthinkable, through the angry retort by a lawmaker related closely to the Spectrum owners to a statement by the chairman of RAJUK. The chairman’s remark that the construction of the building had been faulty aroused the ire, for little rhyme or reason, of the lawmaker, who publicly upbraided the chairman. That was an act that should have been condemned by the authorities. That it was not remains a matter of shame for all of us. But the allegations of influence being exercised about not taking action against the owners of the factory have again been made, this time by an opposition lawmaker. That only demonstrates just how sorely we are in need of legal action against the owners of the factory. At the same time, it becomes a moral issue about the authorities inquiring into any influence-peddling geared towards a perversion of the course of justice.
   We will expect quick and decisive action following the move by the parliamentary standing committee. And we will expect as well that the authorities will not look away from the recommendations of the committee in the sinister hope that everything will soon be forgotten. As long as the guilty do not go through the process of justice, we will all feel the weight of humiliation on our shoulders.

Private university woes

The recent news that some private universities were shown the ‘red card’ by the University Grants Commission (UGC) has been received with some degree of scepticism by citizens who have been watching the activities of these educational institutes (if we may call them institutions at all) for a long time. One media report says that as many as seven universities have been ordered to close down for failing to comply with the terms and conditions laid down by the UGC while giving them the permission. There are strong allegations that these institutes had started off by bluffing the authorities from day one, on the issues of the number of full time faculty, number and condition of classrooms, subjects to be taught, library facility, admission fees, monthly tuition fees, student welfare, extra curricular activities, construction of university building within a specified period of time and so on. Years rolled by and yet none of the criteria could be fulfilled by these institutes. On the other hand, they continued to charge atrocious sums for admission by releasing attractive newspaper ads and organizing marketing gimmicks, something akin to those done for cooking oil or pressure cookers. These universities opened shop in rented houses in residential areas and employed teachers from the public universities on a part time basis. In order to survive against stiff competition, these universities began to admit low calibre students, those who could pay the right kind of money every month. It is not surprising that the UGC Chairman once commented that going through some of the scripts written by some students of these universities he wondered how they had passed the HSC examination in the first place.
   There is nothing wrong in having private universities in the country if, however, they have the ability to impart quality education and ensure the overall well-being of students. While some of the universities are alarmingly falling behind, others are marching ahead with pride and prestige. It may be said that the rationale behind according permission to the private sector to set up and operate universities was to create opportunities for thousands of students to pursue higher studies at home, instead of having to go abroad with that aim. In the past, when a large number of meritorious students failed to make an entry into the renowned public universities at home, they were left with no option but to leave the country and seek admission in some institutions abroad. Therefore, we are in favour of private universities, but not of the flawed ones.

The brusque manner in which the people of France and the Netherlands have rejected the European Union constitution tells us something about the fragility of regional or global unification efforts. Simply observe the strenuous efforts leaders of Europe have put, throughout the last forty years or so, into the cause of bringing all the states of the continent together in what you could call a joint project. There was first the European Common Market, a mechanism whereby politicians in Europe thought they would promote trade and commerce around the world on a collective basis. Even that effort ran into serious problems, particularly with people like Charles de Gaulle around. The French president was forever vetoing all moves to have the United Kingdom get into the ECM. For some reason or the other, he did not trust the British. It was a feeling somewhat similar to the one Napoleon Bonaparte entertained about the country in his time. But what De Gaulle did not quite realise was that in modern times his antipathy to London was misplaced. It was only in 1973, four years after the French leader had left the political scene and died, that Britain could make some headway about entry into the Common Market. The job was done by Edward Heath, then Britain’s prime minister.
   In the years since then, the ECM has evolved into the European Union, with not just economics but politics as well to underpin its status. A common currency, the euro, is in circulation in the continent. So far twenty five members, including a big chunk from what used to be communist east Europe, form the organisation. It was thus with a good deal of fanfare that the EU went into the task of establishing a constitutional convention with former French president Valery Giscard d’Estaing as its chairperson. Months of hard work went into devising the draft of the constitution. And now it has come to this. There are all those critics who have been saying that a big reason for the way the French and the Dutch reacted to the constitution was the manner in which the general masses of Europe were left out of the deliberations leading to the formulation of the draft. No public opinion, no survey, no polls were conducted. In fact, it was a very formal, staid affair, conducted in the cloistered halls of Europe by men who thought they knew better than others about how Europe ought to be run. They have now received a severe rap on the knuckles, enough to raise questions among Europeans of all sorts about the future of a united Europe at all.
   Any question of a single Europe depends on the constitution being ratified by all twenty five member-states. That now looks impossible. So what future for Europe? It all depends on how one views conditions from here on. But the most important fact now is that the French and Dutch votes have put a hold on the activities of the EU. You only have to watch Jose Manuel Barroso to understand the humiliation the leaders of the EU nations are now going through.
   
   Chirac’s new men
   The shock of the vote on the EU constitution has left President Jacques Chirac red in the face. His efforts to persuade his countrymen to vote yes have simply failed. That is indeed a distressing situation. When a nation turns its back on its president, it is a most embarrassing spectacle. It means that the leadership of the president is in doubt or weak. It means the president does not enjoy the kind of respect he thought he did. In the end, it means that his people no more have the kind of faith or confidence in him that he once had. In such circumstances, it is usually the responsibility of the president to admit failure and resign.
   It does not look likely, though, that President Chirac will resign. He has just revamped his cabinet, appointing Dominique de Villepin the new prime minister in place of Jean-Pierre Raffarin. How the new set-up will bring about any change in the French position towards Europe remains to be seen. Maybe in the long-term future the French will go for a second referendum in the hope that the results of the latest exercise will be overturned. It all depends on how other member-states of the EU deal with the situation. If the remaining twenty three states approve the constitution, it just might dawn on the French (and the Dutch) that they cannot afford to stay away from a rapidly gelling Europe. For now, however, the reality is that the French and the Dutch have all voted to uphold the cause of the nation-state. Their history, their traditions, their cultural mores — all of these remain important to them. Besides, there is the very important matter of whether twenty five countries, each with its heritage, can really be welded into a single entity, even if that entity is meant to be a counterweight to the United States.
   The prospects for Europe are dispiriting, to say the least. What has been happening in the continent may well put a damper on regional efforts at unity elsewhere in the world. Organisations such as ASEAN, SAARC and the African Union have all by and large patterned themselves on the EU model. If the EU falters, the future for these other bodies will indeed be quite bleak.
   
   Carla del Ponte’s war criminals
   The release of video footage of Serb paramilitary shooting Muslim Bosnian youths dead at the height of the Balkans conflict ten years ago has given a new sense of urgency to efforts to nab the remaining Serb war criminals. Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, the two masterminds behind the murder of Bosnians, have remained outside the police net a decade after the war came to an end. Now that the footage has made its way home to nearly everyone in the Balkans, war crimes prosecutor Carla del Ponte has redoubled her efforts to have these two men arrested and sent to The Hague. Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica, so long opposed to sending his country’s war criminals to the Netherlands, preferring to try them in Serbia itself, may not now be in a position to maintain his attitude any longer. His government has already arrested the killers identified in the video.
   But not much can be achieved if Karadzic and Mladic remain untraced. These are two of the most dangerous men on earth. The longer they hide out in the hills or wherever, the more chances there are of the process of justice being delayed. As it is, the trial of fallen Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic has already taken an inordinately long time. No one has any idea when it will come to an end. It may yet be years before the tribunal judging him will reach a verdict.
   
   Deep Throat revealed
   At last, we know the identity of Deep Throat. He is none other than Mark Felt, the number two man at the FBI in the days of Watergate. It was he who passed on secret, sensitive information to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post when the two young reporters began inquiring into the scandal. No one knew then, save for the reporters, who Deep Throat actually was. Woodward and Bernstein went public with their statement that they would respect the privacy of the person as long as he lived. It now seems that Felt himself has decided to tell the world about his role in uncovering the Watergate scandal. He is ninety one and probably wanted to let the world in on his secret himself.
   Now that one knows who Deep Throat is, one is up against some fundamental questions. Was Felt right in revealing the details of Watergate to newsmen rather than to the courts and the police? Did he do the right thing, as a government official, to disclose secrets and so breach his contract with the government he served? Finally, was Felt being ethical through giving Woodward and Bernstein reports of what he knew?
   These are questions that will invite a variety of responses. There are people who stand ready to lionise Felt. Equally, there are individuals who have already begun vilifying the man. The biggest question of all, though, is one of what would have happened if Deep Throat had not been there at all? The answer is, simply, that Richard Nixon just might have stayed on and finished his second term in the White House. But that, again, would have been a miscarriage of justice.