Editorial
Political violence goes on unabated
It is presumed that political rivalry would be settled through ideological debates in a constructive manner. In a matured political culture differing opinions are not met with intolerance and are respected. In fact, the right to free speech and the right of one’s opinions are among the basic tenets of democracy. According to a study of a human rights organisation Odhikar, 374 people died in political violence in 2006. It is not the first time that such a report has been launched or reported on. However, what has been of concern is that none of the political parties pay any heed to such reports. They continue with their same rigid stance regarding opposing political camps or views. Instead of furthering their political agenda through debates and discussions, the political parties espouse a method of brute force and intimidation to quell dissension or opposition. The report also states that some 20,000 people were also injured in political violence and more than 28,000 people were victims of mass arrest in 2006. This is another aspect of the same tendency, where the ruling party typically resorts to exploiting their authority over the law-enforcement agencies and have them engage in random arrests to thwart opposition rallies and programmes. Needless to say, a large number of the people arrested during such times prove to be innocent and are often hassled by the police and subsequently the court. The past year saw a number of such instances and the trend continued despite a court order prohibiting such measures.
It is almost certain that in the absence of a matured political culture opposing political parties would resort to violence and brutality. Such a trend is all the more alarming since the political camps involved are part of a democratic process and claim to be instruments in furthering the democratic polity in Bangladesh. We note with concern that the culture of violence continues to be in currency and remains a tool to consolidate their respective position in different localities as well as across the country. We urge the politicians to refrain from engendering such crude methods as physical violence and take up more sophisticated means of strengthening their position through constructive debates and discussions and let substance and ideology be the deciding factor, instead of muscle and brawn.
Hunting down migratory birds
Bangladesh is about to turn into a bird-forsaken land. The number of migratory birds choosing this country as the destination after a long, trans-Himalayan flight in search of warmth and sunlight has been thinning over the past few years. Flights of these ‘guests birds’, off distant cold climates, lacing the winter sky in upturned V or upturned Y formation and wading the wetlands and shoals has been a significant element of this country’s seasonal variation. It was an integral part of its environment, wildlife and scenic beauty. That this started changing had been warned by environmentalists and ornithologists. What we are witnessing now is symptomatic of a massive environmental degradation.
As the ecological balance is upset, the land is becoming inhospitable even for the migratory birds. The growing population accompanied by destruction of wetlands and waterscapes repel the avian visitors. The known temporary habitats of winter birds are now sites of the proliferating brick kilns. Both man and ecology have conspired to deter the entry of migratory birds. While the environment is becoming hostile to birds, men are also becoming aggressive bird killers. Birds are shot down for eating, for sale and for sheer fun. Captured migratory birds offered for sale by mobile vendors is a common feature of the market places of the city. In theory hunting, capture and sale of these birds are all illegal activities but that is immaterial in the absence of law enforcement. A shooter shooting birds on the fringe of population centres is not easy to apprehend when atrocious crimes are committed before public gaze. The sale of captured birds is done openly in crowded markets yet no one intervenes except that bird watchers and bird lovers protest from time to time. However, we think laws should better be respected and obeyed instead of needing enforcement by enforcers in every case. It seems something is wrong with the prevailing culture which has no respect for laws and no love of wild life. Birds continue to be killed and a justification is also given for the killing by pointing to the fact that the migratory birds destroy crops. It is forgotten that while destroying crops the birds also destroy pests obviating the need for application of imported pesticide.
A New Age report filed from Moulvibazar mentions that even government officials and political activists whose duty it is to discourage bird killing have themselves become participants in this heartless excursion. Birds are killed using gun and poison bait and trap is used for capturing. Some of the 150 bird-species arriving are already on the endangered list. Bird sanctuaries should be built up. A motivational campaign should be launched to popularise bird watching and bird loving. Let the camera and binoculars replace the hunter’s gun ad trapper’s snare.
Crafty silence of AL, BNP over
Saddam’s execution
That the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the Awami League have so far kept silent about the execution of Saddam Hussein is neither shocking nor surprising. None of them wants to irk the United States with any criticism of the trial and execution of the former Iraqi leader, writes Mir Ashfaquzzaman as he chronicles how the two major political parties have persistently pandered to the whims and wishes of Washington
THE global reaction to the execution of former Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein was as diverse as it had been when the United States-led forces began the invasion of Iraq, codenamed Operation Iraqi Freedom, on March 20, 2003. Washington hailed the execution as ‘an important milestone on Iraq’s course to becoming a democracy that can govern, sustain and defend itself’. European leaders deplored the use of death penalty ‘as a matter of principle’ but nonetheless supported the sentence. The Arab world was split between anger and approval, with Iran and Kuwait welcoming the execution on the one hand, and Libya declaring three days of national mourning and the ruling Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas branding the execution as ‘a political assassination’ on the other. Saudi Arabia and Egypt were more concerned with the timing of the execution than the execution itself, voicing ‘surprise and dismay’ that the hanging was carried out on the day of the Muslim festival of sacrifice, Eid-ul-Azha. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference urged for calm and the Arab League expressed hope that the execution would not ‘contribute to further deterioration in the security situation’ in Iraq. Bitter South Asian rivals India and Pakistan harped on the note of sadness and disappointment while Malaysia, a staunch critic of the US, warned of escalation of violence in the already blood-drenched country.
It took the caretaker government of Bangladesh quite a few days to come up with a reaction to the execution. The delayed response was only too predictable, as was the wording of the statement. It was mixture of regret that the execution ‘did happen on a day holy to the entire Islamic world [Eid-ul-Azha]’ and of concern over ‘the unfortunate violence and political instability in any part of the Islamic world, especially in Iraq’. The government hoped that ‘efforts would be made by all concerned to promote peace, reconciliation and justice’. In conclusion, it said the efforts must also be made so as to allow ‘the people of the brotherly country of Iraq to emerge from the present crisis with a renewed commitment to and stake in building up of a strong, democratic and stable Iraq’. The statement, one must say, has been carefully crafted so as to keep the US administration in good humour and, at the same, not to fuel simmering resentment among the people, who are scornful generally about the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent high civilian casualty figures and particularly about the timing of the execution of Saddam. The left-leaning political parties, which have been persistent in their opposition to the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, had meanwhile been at the forefront of protests against the execution. They termed the trial and execution of the former Iraqi leader ‘flawed and farcical’, denounced the Iraqi government of Nuri al-Maliki as a ‘puppet of the US administration’ and demanded trial of Bush for crimes against humanity and blatant violation of human rights. Also, some Islamist parties and organisations demonstrated against the execution and there were prayers for Saddam after the Eid-ul-Azha congregation of about 50,000 people at the national mosque in Dhaka.
In the midst of such mixed responses, both at home and abroad, the two major political parties – the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the Bangladesh Awami League – have preferred not to volunteer any reaction to the execution. Neither of the two has thus far issued any statement. When forced by journalists at a news briefing on Friday, the BNP leadership said the government had already expressed regret about the timing of the execution and claimed that it had been too preoccupied with electioneering to come up with a statement in this regard. There is little reason to believe that the response would have been any different had the AL leadership been asked to comment on the execution. Apparently, both the Awami League and the BNP take the entire issue of the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent overthrow, trial and execution of Saddam to be a double-edged sword. They can neither afford to take a blatantly pro-US stance on the issue of Iraq nor risk irking the US administration with a statement on the execution that may even remotely be construed by the White House as an expression of dissent against the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in particular and the war on terror in general.
That both the Awami League and the BNP would not dare disappoint the US administration is neither shocking nor surprising. Their servile attitude towards the US has found clear expression on more than one occasion. Both parties seem to have accepted it as a fact that without the blessings of the White House it is not possible to retain or renew control of state power. Each of them has consistently jostled to be in the good books of the US administration and tried to antagonise it against the other. In the latest series of political dispute between the two parties after the BNP-led government served out its tenure, leaders of both parties repeatedly rushed to the US ambassador in Bangladesh with their grievances. They have done the same in previous instances. While they hardly ever pass a chance to weave political rhetoric about independence and sovereignty of the country and against any attempt by outsiders to interfere in the country’s internal affairs, they have unabashedly sought US intervention in disputes between them.
Their eagerness to toe the US line became clearer than ever whenever the US and its allies went to war against one country or the other on the most dubious of pretexts. Ironically though, it was one caretaker government or the other that had to carry out the dirty work for them. In 1991, when George Bush Sr. pieced together a multinational force to ‘liberate’ Kuwait from the occupation of Iraq, the first caretaker government under Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed was at the helm. On the question of whether Bangladesh should send troops on Operation Desert Storm against Iraq, Justice Shahabuddin sought advice from both the Awami League and the BNP. That they had no objection to it was evident in the eventual decision of the government to send over the troops. Similarly, in October 2001, when the US and its allies launched the infamous war on terror with a bombing campaign against Afghanistan, the caretaker government of Justice Latifur Rahman was in place. Both the Awami League and the BNP then expressed their full support to the war and the government eventually agreed to ‘respond positively to the request made by the US for over-flights through Bangladesh airspace, refuelling facilities and use of seaports and airfields in the country’. Subsequently, the elected government of the BNP-led government backtracked on the decision in the face of public outcry in general and discontent among its Islamist alliance partners in particular. And now, five years or so later, another caretaker government is in place and is pursuing a pro-US policy set in motion by the BNP and the Awami League.
Their crafty silence over the trial and execution of Saddam Hussein has once again proved that neither the Awami League nor the BNP has any particular predilection for sovereignty, be it of Bangladesh or any other independent country, and that they will go to any length and stoop to any level to pander to the whims and wishes of the US administration as long as it ensures their clutch on state power. Just as democracy is, sovereignty is just another word in their repertoires of political rhetoric. In such circumstances, the anti-imperialist and progressive forces in Bangladesh, who have staunchly opposed hegemonic world order, be it presided over by the US or any other country, must regroup and apply sustained pressure on the two major political parties. Otherwise, the BNP and the Awami League would continue to undermine the country’s sovereignty in their brazen bid to regain or renew control of state power.
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
