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

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

Things seem to be getting better and better for some people in the country. In equal measure, everything appears to be taking an increasingly murkier shape for the nation as a whole. We noted last week, as did many others in the media, the absence of Commerce Minister Altaf Hossain Chowdhury at the meeting of the parliamentary standing committee on the ministry of commerce. He was, we were informed by a clearly irritated chairman of the committee, away on a trip to his home district of Patuakhali and so could not make it to the capital despite having had the meeting rescheduled from the morning to the afternoon. In the end, he simply went missing, which left everyone with a sour taste in the mouth. Now, when ministers adopt such laid-back attitudes to their jobs, it is only natural that the country will begin to ask all the nasty questions that they or their fans will not like. But a point comes, even in the case of a country where corruption has acquired an endemic quality, when citizens are compelled to demand accountability from individuals they have electorally elevated to high office. It is in light of such a working principle of democracy that one expects the minister to explain to the nation why he played truant with the parliamentary standing committee last week.
   But that is not the end of the story. It is now known that the Patuakhali district council, in what could be described as an ingratiating way, has managed to construct a guest house for VIPs in the compound of Altaf Hossain Chowdhury’s home in Kathal Tali village twenty kilometres out of Patuakhali. The sheer dimensions of the act, as also the edifice, give rise to fresh questions about the way the former air force officer has been doing things since he entered government when the four-party coalition took charge in October 2001. The bungalow, a two-storied building with altogether six rooms and built at a cost of tk. 67,00,000, should under the rules have been constructed at the district or upazila headquarters. That is because such buildings are the property of the government and are therefore under the jurisdiction of any political party or group of individuals forming the government of the country at any given time. It was points of this kind which were placed by newsmen before the secretary of the Patuakhali district council. It was his duty to have come forth with an adequate explanation for the guest house being built on land that is the private property of the minister. Instead, he lost his temper and refused to dwell on the issue any more. In any civilised country, this secretary would have swiftly been hauled before the law for a manifest act of wrongdoing, one in which he and a lot of others are clearly involved. That he and his kind almost always flout the law and are dismissive of morality is just a fresh sign of how impoverished our democracy happens to be despite all the pride we take in telling ourselves that we have in this country government by the consent of the governed.
   The question now is pretty simple. What happens when one day, as he must, Altaf Hossain Chowdhury is no more in power? Is the nation to expect that the bungalow built on his land will still be treated as government property? Or is there very little chance of the building at all getting back into the hands of the state? There is clear corruption here. Earlier too, there have been the many allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the minister. It is now time for the government to explain why none of the questions about the minister, his doings as well as his casual attitude to his job, have been answered. There are a fairly good number of things the government must do to have its credibility restored. One of those concerns dealing with some of the more profligate and careless of its ministers.

Do not target Iran

There is surely a great need for the West not to upset Iranian sensitivities over the nuclear question. Tehran’s decision to open the IAEA seals at its plant in Natanz may have created fears in Europe and the United States over what the Iranian leadership plans to do, given particularly the incendiary statements President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been making in recent months. But the bigger truth happens to be that the Iranians have not violated any agreement by making it clear that they wish to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. If the West refuses to accept that argument and is instead determined to make Iran pay the price for what it considers its perfidy, the world could be pushed once more into the kind of danger that the invasion and occupation of Iraq caused three years ago. The international community is still reeling from the consequences of that clearly illegal move.
   The concerns expressed by the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Britain, as well as President Bush and Chancellor Angela Merkel, over Iran’s supposed nuclear ambitions carry the possibility of Iran being referred to the UN Security Council. That would not be wise, for it would not only expose the West to new charges of attempting to destabilise yet one more country whose people happen to be Muslims but also give the developing world reason to think the West is planning a new military adventure after Iraq. And then there is the hypocrisy in the whole situation. The Europeans and Americans have fallen mysteriously silent about North Korea, perhaps in the realisation that Kim Jong-il will be a very hard nut to crack. Where it is a matter of delving into Israel’s nuclear capability, no one in the West or in the International Atomic Energy Agency has ever thought it necessary to ask Tel Aviv to reveal the details of its programme. Picking on Iran will, therefore, send out a bad message to people everywhere.
   There is a need for the West to stay away from any precipitate action against Tehran, be it in the form of sanctions or referring the country to the UNSC. And attention must remain focused on Israel, which once pummelled Iraq and could now (given its history of flouting international laws) be encouraged to strike Iran. The Iranians have said they mean to do nothing to endanger global security. Give them a chance to prove their sincerity.

Agriculture, in spite of its ancient pedigree, does not hog the headlines. It has been pushed aside by more brash and glamorous sector like IT or service sectors. There is no
   Eye-popping merger and acquisition or corporate re-engineering in this staid, old economic activity as in the cutting edge branches of the economy. If anything, agriculture is mostly seen to have problems, requiring crutches of support even in rich developed countries.
   The problems facing agriculture in the rich and developing countries, of course, differ. In the former there is usually a glut of production with decline in price. Farmers in rich countries clamour for subsidy to off-set declining price in the market. They also demand the support to face competition from developing countries that enjoy lower cost of production. In developing countries farmers being mostly poor and having inadequate access to loan from banks, depend on subsidised inputs to lower cost of production. Agriculture thus enjoys the common feature of support from the government in both rich and poor countries.
   The similarity between the rich and poor countries does not extend to the more significant area of source of livelihood of people and the economic contribution of agriculture. In rich countries the percentage of people dependent on agriculture is now minuscule, not more than five percent and in some countries even less. Agriculture, on the other hand, provides livelihood to a significant number of people, often the majority, and contributes the largest share to the gross national product. It is also the source of raw materials supply for quite a few industries and is the market for the industrial goods produced in the country. The mutual dependence between agriculture and the industrial sectors is more crucial in developing countries than in the rich ones.
   In Bangladesh, the agriculture sector was once predominant by virtue of its contribution to gross national product. Though this contribution has come down in recent years, the importance of the sector continues. Majority of the population still depends on agriculture and its share of GDP is still more than one third of the total. Thus, whether from the point of view of national income or source of livelihood, agriculture enjoys a pre-eminent place. In its role in feeding an increasing population by producing food-grains, agriculture contributes significantly to the well-being of people and also reduces import dependence. In view of this importance, agriculture once enjoyed a whole array of support from the government. From infrastructure development to subsidies on inputs, through intensive training, government gave unstinted support to agriculture for many years. It is largely because of this strategy that Bangladesh has become nearly self-sufficient in food. The donors and multilateral institutions like the World Bank also supported the active interventions of the government in agriculture and gave aid/loan and technical assistance with a sense of urgency. Beginning from the eighties their attitude and policies changed. They started putting pressure on the government to withdraw direct support like subsidies on pesticides and irrigation equipment. At their pressure the role of BADC, the agency that spearheaded the Green Revolution in Bangladesh, was drastically reduced. As a result of this policy irrigated agriculture could not realise its full potential. Since land cannot be increased in Bangladesh production can only be increased through “cropping intensity” and this is made possible by irrigations.
   In spite of pressure from the donors the government has continued with the system of giving subsidy to farmers for purchase of fertilizer. But there has been a change in the institutional set up for this. Instead of BADC importing fertilizer and selling it through its godowns with the help of dealers, the private sector has been brought in. In addition to locally produced fertilizer, the private importers supply the imported fertilizer at subsidised price fixed by the government. Later, the amount in subsidy is paid to the importers by the government. The system has not been fully satisfactory and there has been complaint of depriving the farmers of the benefit of subsidy. The monitoring committees entrusted with the responsibility of supervising the distribution of fertilizer at subsidised price at field level have not been very active and successful. There have also been allegations of collusion between them and the private sector dealers.
   This year, on the eve of the Rabi season when Boro rice is planted along with other crops, fertilizer crisis hit the farmers all over the country. This happened because of the non-corporation of private importers in releasing fertilizer from their godowns. They took this action because government had not cleared the arrear bill amounting to Tk. 100 crores. The Finance Ministry withheld the payment on the ground that farmers were not getting the benefit of subsidy and private dealers were siphoning it off. The Finance Ministry’s ire is understandable. But it took the stand at a wrong moment, on the eve of the most important agricultural season. Moreover, withholding the payment of arrear bill was not the best nor the most appropriate measure to ensure payment of subsidy to farmers. For this the monitoring committees have to be strengthened and activated. Instead of having members who serve in ex-officio capacity, there should be at least one convenor on a full-time basis with a regular office set up. The ad hoc nature of the monitoring committee has proved ineffective. The task of regular surveillance should be given to the BADC which still has skeletal staff at upazila level. Under the changed circumstances the role of BADC in respect of fertilizer has to be reinvented rather then making it redundant.
   It seems the government has yielded to the ‘blackmail’ and pressure tactics of the private importers and released a part of the subsidy fund withheld. Clearly, there has been a loss of face here which was unnecessary. It is encouraging that the government has learnt a lesson from this face-off. It has been decided to import fertilizer in government account, alongside the private sector. This will act as a buffer stock and cushion the fluctuation of supply in the market. With the help of this stock the government can also call the bluff of the private sector. Though belated it has been a welcome and appropriate step.
   The Robi season also faces a seed crisis this year, compounding the woes of farmers. Seeds supplied by BADC were found to be of low quality and many were not fit for use at all. Here, too much dependence on BADC lay at the heart of the problem. The programme of establishing a network of ‘contract farmers’ does not seem to have progressed. Since dependence on one source is risky, as has been evidenced by the seed and fertilizer crisis during the Rabi season, there has to be diversification in the distribution system. In some respects, BADC will be found to be useful for this objective, in other respect the private importer/dealer or farmer will fit the bill. There has to be a combination of parties when it comes to the distribution of imports to farmers. Besides giving choice and a competitive price, the existence of a mix of participants will avoid the risk of crisis erupting all on a sudden to the helplessness of farmers.
   Agriculture is a sensitive as will as a vulnerable sector. It can be handicapped by natural disasters, just as private-public sector failures can inflict great loss on it. If no timely intervention is made, agriculture will continue to be at bay, as has been demonstrated during the current Robi season. There should not be a repetition of this.