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

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

As wave after wave of simultaneous and back-to-back blasts rocked Bangladesh last month, the nation came under the international spotlight – but for wrong reasons at a wrong time.
   Major international media outlets, including BBC and CNN, broke the news within hours of the blasts. Both news organisations reported at least one death and injury of scores of people in a series of explosions in Bangladesh to their viewers throughout the world.
   And as the news of explosions flashed on the television screens all around the globe via satellite, Bangladesh was portrayed badly one more time. Its already tainted image took another beating.
   Even though the blasts were not intended to kill — the motive behind them was to scare people — as BBC reported, they did do considerable harm to the nation. The explosions re-confirmed the already existing volatile situation in the country.
   The reaction of the world was swift. Foreign Offices in many countries, including the United States and Britain, issued statements condemning the countrywide bomb blasts. A number of nations, among them Canada, issued immediate warning to their citizens traveling to Bangladesh and asked those already there to be vigilant.
   Millions of Bangladeshis at home and abroad observed the incident with shock and disbelief. Foreigners got confused at the rising violence in a rather peaceful and liberal Bangladesh. The perpetrators, indeed, unleashed a reign of terror for sometime across the country, thus reinforcing the apprehension of many about Bangladesh’s gradual entry into a new era of violence and domestic terrorism.
   First, a series of grenade blasts at an opposition rally in the capital took the life of politician Ivy Raman and many others. Then a second round of similar blasts killed another politician, SAMS Kibria, in Sylhet. And last month’s simultaneous and back-to-back blasts shook all district headquarters except one, killing at least one innocent person and injuring many more.
   Ivy Rahman dedicated her whole life to Bangladesh’s politics, participated in all democratic movements, including the liberation war, and fought for people’s rights. She also worked for an awakening of women about their place in the society. Always soft-spoken, always a perfect gentleman, diplomat-turned-politician SAMS Kibria made significant contributions to the progress of Bangladesh.
   Why did they have to die in such a brutal and barbaric manner at the hands of their assassins? What were their faults? What did the other innocent people do for which they, too, had to be killed in a commando-style operation? What happened to the families of those innocent people after their killing? Who are looking after them? Who are providing them with financial support?
   These are just a few of the many unanswered questions still haunting Bangladeshis both within and outside the country.
   In the world, the already tainted image of Bangladesh suffered another serious blow for the most recent terrorist act triggered by the August 17 bombings. Bangladesh may find its place in the Guinness Book of Records for having experienced so many blasts in so many places of the country in a single day, remarked a commentator on a television program of a major news organization.
   There is no denying the fact that the perpetrators held the whole nation hostage for at least half an hour, spreading terror through blast after blast from east to west and north to south all over the country. The bombs were real. They caused both deaths and injuries, not to speak of the damage to property everywhere. The blasts could have been deadlier through causing more deaths, injuries and damage. Ironically, the suspected Islamic militants carried out the blasts at a time when the international community — of which Bangladesh itself is a part — was prosecuting a global war on terror and religious intolerance and extremism.
   The August 17 terrorist acts must not be taken lightly. The masterminds as well as the foot soldiers, their accomplices as well as supporters – all must be identified and brought to justice. They must not be allowed to get away with what they did to the people and our country nationally as well as internationally. But they too deserve their day in court and of course a fair trial.
   Those who were behind the August 17 bombings not just caused harm to the people and our nation; they also embarrassed the ruling BNP government and put its credibility on the line. With their simultaneous attacks on the nerve centres of almost all districts of Bangladesh, they virtually stripped the government of its authority over the country for at least half an hour on August 17 when they were having a field day and the members of the law-enforcing agencies were merely looking on helplessly.
   So, by carrying out that massive act of violence and nationwide terrorism, the perpetrators also struck at the very heart of the government’s power and made it dysfunctional. Now, it is the government’s turn to show its teeth by acting swiftly and firmly, and reaching at the bottom of the incident as quickly as possible. It must clearly tell the people who did what where and when centering the August 17 blasts and prosecute them as per the law of the land. This is the only way to prove that the government is capable of handling a situation like what happened on August 17.
   Combating crimes and terrorism is the responsibility of any government regardless of its system – democratic, dictatorial or monarchical. For a democratic government, this is a must-do as it is elected by the people and answerable to them. It is, indeed, a challenge but frankly speaking that is what the government is there for – meaning facing these challenges as and when they come and living up to its expectations. If the government cannot do this job, then it logically loses its right to govern. More clearly, if the government is unable to act, it cannot stay in power – especially in a democracy.
   Failure to act in a timely manner does call into question the very legitimacy of the government to stay in power in a democratic system, because it amounts to a gross violation of the sacred trust the people have placed in it. Domestic terrorism and deadly crimes are already taking a heavy toll on the people of our country. They take place anytime and anywhere in Bangladesh – no place is off limits. The government must act forcefully — and must act now — to combat crimes and root out terrorism. It is also a fundamental constitutional obligation of a democratically elected government to protect people’s life and property.
   Look at London and see what the British government is doing there about the July 7 blasts. The British leaders are right from their standpoints because when they took the oath of office, they also made a solemn pledge to protect Britain and its people from any internal or external attacks. The post-election swearing-in in Bangladesh is not much different from that in England. Most things we still follow in our country – especially in terms of government and law — are borrowed from the British anyway. What the ruling BNP government must do now is to show it can act and let the law take its own course — independently.
   The writer is a Bangladeshi journalist now based in North America

I SUGGESTED in this column last week that it is in India’s interest to develop closer and less hostile relations with Pakistan. Does the same hold true for Pakistan? The answer is most definitely yes. In fact, I would argue that for Pakistan, given the geographic space it occupies, living in peace and harmony with India will bring many economic, political, and social rewards.
   The benefits it will derive will be even more than for India. It is in Pakistan’s interest, therefore, to persist in the efforts to quickly normalize relations with its neighbour even if India seems somewhat tardy in pursuing the same objective. In building my case for a more proactive role Pakistan’s part, I will start with the economic benefits that would result from good relations with India.
   The first dividend of peace will be in the area of trade. At this time South Asia is unique among the large regions of the developing world in the sense that there is a small amount of trade among the countries located in this geographic space.
   In fact, South Asia is the only economic region in the world where the ‘gravity model’ of trade does not seem to apply. According to that model, the amount of trade between countries is determined by the distance between them and also by their size.
   For obvious reasons neighbours should trade a great deal with one another. However, when one of the neighbours is a large country, as is the case with India with reference to South Asia, trade as a proportion of domestic product will be much smaller for that country relative to that for the smaller states. This is the case for such continental economies as the United States, Russia and Brazil. China is the only exception since its model of development is based on an aggressive pursuit of foreign markets.
   The gravity model — or some variant of it — helps to explain the pattern of trade among most countries in different regions of the world. If the model were to hold for South Asia, India would be the most important market for the countries around its periphery. Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka would trade a great deal with India. For the moment this is only true for Bhutan and Nepal.
   For these two countries, India has a dominant presence but that is more the result of their geographic situation than the working of the gravity model. Both Bhutan and Nepal are landlocked countries with the only natural access to the rest of the world available through India. They have no choice but to trade with India. That notwithstanding, India has been quite grudging in allowing even these small countries an open access to its markets.
   That the gravity model does not work for South Asia is largely the consequence of the bitterness that has prevailed between India and Pakistan ever since the two countries became independent nearly 60 years ago. (I touched upon this subject in this space last week.) There was considerable trade between the areas that were carved out of British India to form the states of India and Pakistan.
   What is now India imported food grains, raw cotton and other agricultural products from what became today’s Pakistan. Cement was the only large industry that was in place in the areas that later became Pakistan and a significant part of its product was exported to India. Some of the electric power consumed by such large urban centres as Lahore came from generating stations located in what became India. The parts of British India that are now in Pakistan purchased textiles and other semi-manufactured and manufactured products from today’s India.
   Trade between the areas that were to become India and Pakistan was conducted by both road and rail. In fact, a great deal of investment made by the British during their rule over India was meant to facilitate the movement of agricultural commodities between the food surplus provinces of Punjab and Sindh and the food-deficit areas that are now part of India. The British also invested heavily in the port at Karachi which became active in coastal shipping between northwest India and the ports of Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta.
   In 1948, the first full year after the departure of the British from South Asia, India was the source of more than one-half of Pakistan’s imports and the destination of an equal amount of Pakistan’s total exports. Had that remained the pattern, the structure of the Pakistani economy and the design of its communication infrastructure would have been very different from what they are today. But these economic and trade relations were disrupted by the rapid deterioration between the relations of the successor states.
   While the poor relations between India and Pakistan were one reason for the low level of intra-regional trade, there were other reasons why trade among the countries in the region — in fact trade in general — was not an important part of the development model pursued in this part of the world. Led by India, all South Asian nations followed the import substitution model in the belief that they must build their economies by producing at home the goods they needed.
   This approach was exactly the opposite from the one followed by the ‘miracle economies’ of East Asia. They hitched their economies to those in the developed countries, producing goods that had demand in the international market place while letting imports serve domestic markets.
   Consequently, the structure of the economies in these two parts of Asia evolved differently. While the East Asians became progressively integrated into the global economic system and into the rapidly changing global system of production, the South Asians became increasingly isolated. It was only in the 1990s, following a deep foreign exchange crisis in India and followed by those in Pakistan and Bangladesh, that the South Asians began to open their economies.
   However, because of the persistent difficulties between India and Pakistan this openness did not result in significant intra-regional trade. As noted below, not only was intra-regional trade as a proportion of regional product very low in South Asia - in 2004, intraregional trade in South Asia accounted for less than five per cent of the total - trade as such did poorly.
   One result of the inward looking policies followed by the countries in the region and continuing difficulties in India-Pakistan relations was that South Asia fell behind other developing regions in terms of regional integration. East Asia and the Pacific reflect the most integrated of the world’s developing regions. In 2002, intra-regional trade in East Asia was equal to 26.5 per cent of the regional gross domestic product.
   Eastern and Central Europe was the next most integrated region with intra-regional trade equivalent to 15.3 per cent of the combined regional product. Latin America and the Caribbean was the third most integrated region in terms of trade, with intra-regional trade equal to 6.4 per cent of the total incomes of the countries in the region. Sub-Saharan Africa’s intra-regional trade was 5.3 per cent of its combined product while that of the Middle East and North Africa was 3.5 per cent. South Asia came in last at only 0.8 per cent.
   Removing the barriers to trade will have profound consequences not only for the pattern and quantum of trade of intra-regional trade. It will also significantly affect the structure of the regional economies. Of the seven countries in the region, Pakistan will be the most deeply affected. It will see a sharp increase in international trade with India which will become the country’s most important trading partner, displacing the United States from that position. The fact that the United States currently occupies that position is a major distortion, the result of politics and not the consequence of economics. Improved relations between the two largest economies of the region will remove this distortion and South Asia will begin to function more as an economic entity than as a region torn by deep conflicts.
   The decision at the Islamabad summit of the Saarc nations in January 2004 produced the most ambitious attempt to date to integrate the economies of South Asia. The heads of government and state agreed to establish a free trade area in the region by progressively reducing tariffs and adopting some trade facilitation measures. But given the past history and persistent suspicion, the launch of the South Asia Free Trade Area was to proceed with considerable caution.
   The member countries were allowed to draw up ‘sensitive lists’ in order to cushion the impact on their economies of the free movement of goods among them. They also agreed to define the ‘rules of origin’ in a way that only the goods that were manufactured mostly within the exporting countries would be allowed duty free access into the importing states.
   Of all the countries in the region, India seems to be the most ambivalent with respect to Safta. While agreeing to launch the free trade area, it is aggressively pursuing other initiatives that will bring about greater integration of its economy with other regions of the world. It is also working on some other regional initiatives that seem designed to exclude Pakistan.
   The most important of these is a regional arrangement called the BIMSTEC which is an association of Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Thailand. The inclusion of Thailand in this initiative will serve as a bridge between South Asia excluding Pakistan and Southeast Asia. India is also actively engaged in associating itself with the Asean group that includes all the ‘miracle economies’ of East Asia.
   Another embryonic Asian regional bloc could develop by 2020 into a free trade area stretching from New Zealand to India. The 16-member East Asian community designed to foster close links among countries of Asia and the Pacific will hold its inaugural meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in December. It is believed that Pakistan is not invited to attend. The community includes the 10 countries of South East Asia plus Australia, China, India, Japan, Korea and New Zealand. Australia lobbied hard to be included in this grouping. It is doubtful whether Islamabad put much effort to have itself invited.
   It appears to me that Pakistan will need to play a much more active role in helping South Asia to better integrate its economies. The Indian inhibition in bringing this about may be the result of a number of factors including the desire on the part of some segments of the country’s political leadership and bureaucracy to continue to isolate Pakistan. There are also some serious issues concerning the evolving structure of the Indian political and administrative systems.
   The Indians now allow much greater autonomy to their states than is the case with several other South Asian states including Pakistan. Even if New Delhi wishes to work with its neighbours, that may not be the case with the political and bureaucratic leadership in bordering states. Often the capitals of Bihar, Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and Punjab may have a much more pronounced impact on the relations with Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan than the policies and practices followed by Delhi. Pakistan should lead the rest of South Asia into an economic union.
   This article has been published by arrangement with Dawn

The World Health Organisation (directing and co-coordinating authority on international health) has been sounding warning of a possible influenza pandemic sweeping across the world. This warning comes due to the established evidence of humans contacting bird flu infection. Several deaths have occurred chiefly in Vietnam and Indonesia. Bird flu epidemics have come to stay; infections are transmitted through wild migratory birds. At least 11 countries in South and South East Asia have been affected by bird flu epidemics causing huge loss of poultry.
   Fortunately Bangladesh apparently has been spared so far. But that luck may not hold permanently.
   What makes bird flu a potential pandemic is the chance of the virus (coded H5N1) to mutate and acquire human influenza components within infected human persons. That will trigger human-to-human transmission — a deadly prospect with catastrophic impact. The impact will be sudden, widespread and almost unstoppable due to modern jet travel of humans and goods far and wide.
   A pandemic yet again, based on experience of past two pandemics in the last century, will take a very heavy toll, maybe millions of lives in a short period of time. Even with best efforts, a vaccine against the particular strain will take at least 4 to 6 months to be ready for public vaccination. Much of the damage will have been done by that time.
   Millions of human lives apart, the economic damage worldwide will be enormous both in travel and trade.
   Why Bangladesh should be on alert and prepare for such an emergency? Because a flu pandemic now seems to be not a question of if but when it will occur. Like most other poorer countries, the weak and inadequate infrastructure and lack of resources make Bangladesh more vulnerable and less capable of coping with a pandemic of flu – one without ready cure or prevention.
   Even before, a pandemic occurs, there are routine protective measures that can and should be taken by the poultry industry; the government ministries concerned like health, agriculture, livestock, and food. These measures are well known, and do not cost much. By intensive vigilance, the first outbreak of bird flu and the first suspected human infection should trigger rapid response such as vaccination of birds, isolation and killing of the flock. Bird flu is one case where eternal vigilance and prompt pre-emption are mandatory if recurrent epidemics are to be checked before being established.
   Why not carry out a rapid assessment of our present situation with regard to poultry farms, workers, and food inspection, poultry import from infected countries, vaccine stocks, and food retailing? A ‘stitch in time saves nine’; that still does.
   Why not set up a monitoring cell, a cell to gather and analyse available information and technical knowledge and experience?
   Why not staff and equip a modern laboratory, even set up a collaboration in viral research with regional centres?
   These are the things that modern developing countries invest resources in; such investments give high returns, build national self-reliance. These are also investments in securing economic productivity and keeping the country on track towards frontiers of science and technology. Institution building demands consistency of investments, continuity of efforts, conservation of resources (intellectual, scientific, moral and financial).
   Many opportunities (and this is not the occasion to list them) have been missed - in education and science, in research, industry, and trade and in commerce. There is no need or excuse to continue to miss. May the writer state (even at the risk of being accused of vanity) that the human resources and potential of Bangladesh are second to none other? Yet the proof comes only from investment, nurture, and timely use of opportunities.
   Crises will inevitably come and go. But the wise and the prudent are the ones who address long-term capability as they prepare immediate response. They are the winners in a fiercely competitive world.
   A culture of dependence, of lack of self-confidence, of indolence and of ad hoc responses has crept in. That must be rejected. Poverty including poverty of nations is not simply or entirely a function of lack of finances; it is more a lack of imagination and endeavour, of will and determination, of putting the priorities right and not putting blame on others. This is no indictment though a dose of self-criticism and introspection could do a world of good.