Main Page «
Front Page «
Metro «
Business «
International «
Sports «
National «
Editorial «
Home «
Timeout «
Letters «

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

Water sells, always. But once there was a saying like this: if you don’t sell your product now chances are you will sell it later at the price of water, meaning the price of a thing for which there is no demand. How the usage got currency and, and when I do not know. Maybe it was because the supply of water was so abundant at that time that no one had to pay any price for drinking water. That was long ago. But even at that time the dwellers of towns had to pay water bills for drinking water supplied by the municipality.
   Today, many of our canals and rivers have dried up. Our cropping pattern has changed. Our peasants need water to irrigate croplands. That water they do not get in the nearby canals and rivers. Naturally, they use shallow or deep tube-well water supplied by their own cooperative society.
   But the demand for drinking water in the cities and towns has taken a new dimension in recent years. The city dwellers found it very necessary to drink boiled water as the running water was found not safe for health. And while it was not a problem to get boiled water at home, it really was at workplaces and in restaurants. The problem provided an opportunity for the growth of the mineral water industry. The mineral water, germ-free and pure otherwise, became available in plastic bottles of different sizes depending upon the quantity of water contained in the bottle. The minimum size is for 500ml water and is priced at Taka 10.
   The initial demand for mineral water was not that high or enthusiastic. Now it is available almost everywhere – at restaurants of all kinds, in fast food shops and even in village markets and shops. In the villages the demand for mineral water probably comes as a way of avoiding taking arsenic found in water from tube-wells.
   But there is an odd difference between the price of plain mineral water as substitute for drinking water and that of cold drinks like Coca-Cola, RC Cola and other such drinks. It is understandable if the price of one 250ml cola is Tk10 and that of 500ml mineral water is also Tk 10.But here ends the acceptability of the price of mineral water and that of a cola. Mineral water is drinking water taken to quench thirst and one cannot be denied any amount of mineral water so long as it is taken to quench thirst, particularly at a party-like occasion where it is supplied by the arrangers of the party and where the guests are not required to pay for any food and drink served by the arrangers. But at a party occasion like this a guest cannot ask for an additional cola.
   The price differentiation between mineral water and a cola is due to many reasons. A cola quenches thirst but not the way water does. A cola is a kind of soft drink as different from hard drink. A cola can be given to a child even. In fact, it is the children, teenagers and young people who go crazy for a drink like cola. On the other hand, the demand for water comes from the thirst felt by all – how much is the demand depending on how much thirst a person has generated by his physical activities and how much by weather conditions. But whatever may have caused his thirst and to what degree, he must have enough water to quench his thirst. He cannot be denied this even on occasions where mineral water takes the place of running water, which is much cheaper than mineral water.
   Pricing a cola is easier than pricing a brand of mineral water. Taking a cola is more fun than meeting a need. On the other hand, pricing a bottle of mineral water is difficult. Taking mineral water in place of running water at some places is an absolute necessity; no matter how much the price is. If taking a cola is fun, one bottle of 250ml cola can be shared even by 10 persons, each paying only Tk 1. On the other hand, even a bottle of 500ml mineral water may not be enough for a hungry and thirsty man taking his food at a restaurant. And if he has to order two bottles of mineral water (each bottle for Tk 10) at lunch time it will cost him an amount of money which he can reasonably expect to be enough for the whole lunch.
   In all fairness, mineral water at restaurants should cost minimal – not much more than what running water would cost. The restaurant owners should not find it difficult to offer mineral at that price as they can buy gallons of mineral water and serve it in normal glass. But if some guests prefer bottled mineral water to mineral water served in normal glass that should be his choice and privilege, but the restaurant owners should make it sure that mineral water served in normal glass is as pure as bottled mineral water. Plastic bottled mineral water should be for wayfarers and travelers.
   A few days ago, I was looking for a rickshaw to go to a newspaper office. A hot spell was going on throughout the country. In Dhaka the hot spell seemed a little too much.
   It was afternoon. All vehicles running on the streets were occupied. I was not finding any rickshaw to hire. I walked for a few minutes. And when I found one, I found the rickshaw-puller biting minced green mangoes mixed with spices, salt and pepper. It watered my mouth. I felt like buying some minced green mangoes for myself.
   The rickshaw-puller agreed to my offer, but asked me to wait a minute so he could finish his bites. He was sweating profusely. I could see dry salt on his shoulder that came out of his body with his sweat. And then, when he finished taking his spicy, hot and salted mango stuff, he took an extra amount of spicy salt to replenish the lost amount of salt. But he needed water to quench his thirst.
   I sat on his rickshaw and the rickshaw-puller began to pull the vehicle. But soon he had to stop his rickshaw due to a traffic jam on the road. Some boys were running from one car to another, one rickshaw to another, to sell cold mineral water in plastic bottles.
   ‘If you are thirsty, why don’t you buy a bottle of mineral water and drink it?’ I asked the rickshaw-puller.
   ‘It’s a different dunyia (world), sir. If I have to buy mineral water to drink, I need to spend at least Tk 40 to buy four bottles of mineral water to quench my thirst because one bottle is not just enough for me. Can I - a poor rickshaw-puller - afford to spend so much for water?’
   The rickshaw-puller confirmed my thesis. Water does not sell at the price of water.

There are lessons to be learnt from the double whammy delivered by French and Dutch voters in turning down the proposed constitution for the European Union. It is a crisis for the great European endeavour, which seemed to be going in only one direction: forward. But the crisis is not terminal; rather, it is a signal for a reassessment of the direction and goals for a stunningly successful enterprise that has perhaps raced too fast.
   That the setback to the European Union came at the hands of the French and the Dutch, two founder members, is dramatic. And the French, together with Germans, have been the accepted engines of the European adventure. What probably tilted the scales against the constitution was a complex combination of circumstances and grouses that ranged from economic stalemate to immigration worries, fears of losing the precious European social model and of the impending admission of Turkey, a majority Muslim country of some 75 million which could become the largest member, if ultimately admitted.
   The admission of 10 new members, mostly from the former Communist world, in one fell swoop a year ago was, in a sense, too great an alteration to a cosy European enterprise. What was perhaps more irritating from the ‘old Europe’s’ perspective was the pro-American inclinations of ‘new Europe’ revealed by the European rift in the Iraq war and Britain, the proverbial European sceptic, taking charge of them as it were. Continental European suspicions of Britain’s role across the English channel only added fuel to the fire, leading popular opinion in old Europe to believe the proposed constitution was a ruse for planting the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism tantamount to the raw heartless variety practised by the United States and, up to a point, Britain.
   European politicians and media have been making a song and dance about the elite not having listened to their people. It is true that the political class could have done a better job of explaining the intricacies of the constitution, a dense document, But it is always the minority, in the ruling establishment or in opposition movements, that impels a radical new path. In any case, in both France and the Netherlands, the constitution was a mere excuse for the electorates to express their frustrations and fears.
   The important questions to ask now are: Where does Europe go from here and how soon can the enterprise be brought back on track’ The European Union is already a running enterprise and there are treaties and rules in force that will continue to govern its functioning. At the basic level, the constitution was an effort to streamline the working of the larger group and giving the grouping a higher profile by appointing a heavyweight president for a fixed term instead of the present system of rotating presidency and a common foreign minister. It was also proposed to enlarge majority voting. These reforms must now wait, unless the 25 members decide to implement some of the proposed changes piecemeal.
   Two consequences of the Dutch and French rejections will perhaps be a delay in admitting two members in the queue and new doubts over Turkey’s place in Europe. In an era in which even the traditionally tolerant Dutch society has been excited by ‘the flood’ of immigrants and Muslim migrants’ mores of those living among them, Europe does not see Turkey as a fellow member.
   The long trek of Turkey’s membership is only to start in early October and even the most optimistic souls do not expect membership in less than a decade.
   Besides, the present crisis illustrates the need for defining the contours of the European enterprise. The Balkan states and Ukraine are aspirants and though they fall into the definition of being European, Turks do not.
   The framers of the constitution rejected the view of many Europeans and the Catholic Church that the Union was a Christian grouping, but there is growing opposition among large sections of Europeans to the inclusion of a large Muslim state. It is true that the prospects of admission encouraged many formerly Communist countries to reform their societies and rules. But the jumbo expansion of the Union at one go has had much to do with the American strategy of bringing the former satellite nations into the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the EU in order to isolate Russia. But for American instigation in taking Nato eastward to Moscow’s detriment, the European Union would not have been in such haste to expand so rapidly.
   Clearly, the centre of gravity in the EU has changed since the admission of 10 new members, with France’s voice not as dominant as it was. Germany’s position is more pivotal now although Berlin still needs the respectability of the Union to exercise its authority. In the old battle between deepening and broadening of the grouping ­ those who want closer integration such as France and Germany ­ and others led by Britain in favour of a looser arrangement, the latter have won for the present. But this could lead to the former going in for a core group leading a two-speed Europe. The United States remains an uninvited presence in the EU deliberations. Judging by the American smirks reflected in the media, there is a measure of satisfaction in Washington that the European enterprise is in trouble. There is even some regret that this crisis in the EU did not happen before the powerful opposition of the French and Germans to the Iraq war. In the short term, the major continental powers’ desire for a multipolar world has suffered a setback, with the British and the new Europeans gaining ground in pursuing a policy of subservience to American goals. But this is a hiccup and does not foreshadow European surrender to American might.
   Ironically, Britain will assume the six-month rotating presidency of the European Union on July 1 and will bear the responsibility of guiding the grouping through its severest crisis. Tony Blair will have to balance his predilection for promoting US interests with the continental heavyweights’ desire for a strong European entity punching its weight in the world. One can expect a high wire act, but it remains to be seen whether it will benefit Europe.

It has been a difficult week for me. I had to cut ties with a Bangladeshi foreign student who I had watched and helped make his way to Australia. He had worked hard. Some would say too hard. The family’s entire land holdings were sold off. A loan was taken out at a backbreaking interest rate. He entered a course that he had little interest in, but saw it as a point of entry to the West.
   Furthermore, without warning, he returned to Bangladesh to marry a girl he knew very little about. Of course, this is not entirely strange in Bangladesh, but the reason for his marriage was solely to accept a dowry that he could use to pay off some of his incurred debts, a blatant case of exploitation.
   Since returning to Australia, he has been incessantly calling both me and my family demanding to be lent thousands of dollars. We have helped him considerably before, despite his not being a relation.
   “You will destroy my future life if you do not give me this money”, said his e-mails.
   The university was no longer willing to accept late payments and has decided to let him return to Bangladesh if he cannot meet his payments. Tragic? I’m not so sure.
   Let me tell you another story about another young man from my parents’ Jessore district. A chubby boy with a limited academic record, his entire life changed one morning when he discovered he was a winner in a green card lottery. He had suddenly won citizenship in the United States without any qualifications or money.
   He stayed and worked in New York doing night shifts at a pizza store, coming by considerable wealth by Bangladeshi standards. After only two years and with the prospect of a life in America, he returned to Bangladesh to his home district.
   He’s crazy, you might think. I thought so too.
   But within the space of a year, he has built a large business which is growing at a remarkable rate. His friends are astounded by his new found enterprise and the creativity of his ideas. This was a man who was coming last in his college class before he left for America.
   These two stories are isolated cases. But they still illustrate to some degree the myth of migration and the idea that all will be solved by a life outside Bangladesh.
   There is no doubt the opportunities in the West are considerable. But the world’s centre of gravity is fast moving. Pundits are already predicting this will be an “Asian century” on the backs of China and India.
   Whilst Bangladesh is typically not in the same bracket of development, there are still countless opportunities. Whenever I return to Bangladesh, I often think of the sheer need in the place.
   Of course, I have some awareness of the difficulties operating in a country which is a world leader in corruption.
   But I am struck by the number of people who return to Bangladesh from lives in the West, or elsewhere, and then eke out creative, fruitful existences living in Bangladesh. There are still aspects of the West they will still miss, but the prospect of making significant contributions to their homeland wins out.
   The most prominent example is probably the founder of BRAC, Fazle Hasan Abed. A graduate of Oxford, he returned to Bangladesh to subsequently found what is now one of the great NGOs in the world. He was also last year’s recipient of the Gates Global Health award.
   We cannot all be such great achievers, but Bangladesh is not without opportunity.
   The knowledge gained from spending even a short time in the West, especially through employment, can be the inspiration for hundreds of ideas when returning to Bangladesh.
   In fact, I am a strong believer in scholarships with a condition of returning to Bangladesh prior to having the opportunity to work in the West. This is already the condition of some of the world’s great scholarships, such as Rhodes and Fulbright.
   I do feel sorry for my friend who had single mindedly worked to come to Australia, often at the expense of family and friends. He may still be able to stay, but if he cannot it will not be the end of the world. He will see Bangladesh with new eyes, both its problems but also its opportunities in a fast changing world. I hope he can grab them.