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

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

The American establishment, in conducting foreign relations, habitually follows a dictum enunciated by President Franklin D Roosevelt. Roosevelt is respected worldwide as a champion of the causes of decolonisation and democracy in opposition to the colonial powers of Europe. But for all his reputation as an icon of American democracy, he, as a typical American leader, enthusiastically defended the hated Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza García and famously said, ‘Somoza may be a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch.’ The American establishment preaches democracy and talks idealist but is notoriously pragmatic.
   A powerful section of the American establishment, represented by 15 senators, spoke on Bangladesh last week. They addressed a letter to the chief adviser on May 14. (The government has not acknowledged the receipt of the letter till the writing of this despatch.) The signatories include 10 Democrats (D), four Republicans (R) and one independent senator. They are: Joseph Biden (D), a presidential candidate in 1988 and 2008 and present chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Richard Lugar (R), 1996 Republican presidential candidate, ranking member of Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a former chairman of the same committee; John Kerry (D), 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee –– Near East and South and Central Asian Affairs; Norm Coleman (R), ranking member of Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee –– Near East and South and Central Asian Affairs; Hillary Clinton (D), 2008 US presidential candidate, former first lady of the United States 1992-2000; Edward Kennedy (D), 1980 presidential candidate; Barbara Boxer (D), chairwoman of Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee –– East Asian and Pacific Affairs; Chris Dodd (D), 2008 presidential candidate; Russell Feingold (D), member of Senate Foreign Relations –– Near East and South and Central Asian Affairs Subcommittee; Joe Lieberman (independent), 2004 presidential candidate, 2000 democratic vice-residential nominee; Frank Lautenberg (D), member of Senate Appropriations Committee; Charles Schumer (D), chairman of Democratic Senatorial campaign committee; John Sununu (R), member of the Senate Foreign Relations –– Near East and South and Central Asian Affairs Subcommittee; Robert Menendez (D), chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Development and Foreign Assistance Economic Affairs and International Environmental Protection; and Johnny Isakson (R), member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
   The letter contains statements which may sound quite sensational. Extracts of the letter:
   There is a need for a public roadmap outlining reforms, including correcting the voter list, to ensure that the election is free, fair, transparent and credible.
   We understand that elections, originally scheduled for January 22, 2007, have been postponed until the end of 2008 at the latest.
   We also want to express our strong concern over the ongoing state of emergency and the slow progress towards free and fair elections in Bangladesh.
   We are troubled that the indoor ban on political activity was not lifted, as planned, on May 8 ... We look forward to the resumption of safe, outdoor political action. Freedom of assembly, like freedom of the press, is essential to any democracy.
   We believe it is critically important that any anti-corruption campaign be implemented in conjunction with Bangladeshi law and international standards. Due process and respect for human rights should be fundamental components of the effort.
   We are particularly concerned about custodial deaths in the course of the anti-corruption campaign and –– it is vital that such deaths, and all custodial abuses, be prevented.
   As friends and supporters of Bangladesh, we believe that the timely improvement of political conditions is in the national interests of both of our countries.
   The letter reads like a pamphlet, passionately calling for a democracy movement in Bangladesh. This, possibly, is a superficial view meant to impress the gullible.
   True, the criticisms of the caretaker government on issues like emergency, ban on political activities and custodial deaths are scathing. Did President Bush not admonish General Pervez Musharraf in full public view? This did not mean American support to democracy movement in Pakistan; this was a pressure on the general to serve the American interest better. Musharraf was, and still remains, ‘our son of a bitch’ of Washington.
   The operative part of the letter of the American senators is that they want the caretaker government to announce within a couple of months ‘a public roadmap outlining reforms, including correcting the voter list, to ensure that the election is free, fair, transparent and credible’. Remember the public announcement of the roadmap of Middle East peace and the plight of the Palestinians since then.
   In any case, the call for ‘the need of a public roadmap’ loses its impact when the senators have essentially accepted the timeframe the caretaker government has already announced for holding elections. They said, ‘We understand that elections, originally scheduled for January 22, 2007, have been postponed until the end of 2008 at the latest.’
   Nevertheless, this letter is likely to exert some moral pressure on the government for relaxing the rigours of the emergency, particularly in respect of gradual revival of political activities, beginning with the so-called indoor politics. After all, the government will be called upon to reciprocate the wish of the powerful US senators who made a plea, ‘As friends and supporters of Bangladesh, we believe that the timely improvement of political conditions is in the national interests of both of our countries’.
   If, however, anybody takes this letter as an indication of the Democratic and the Republican parties of America getting interested or involved in Bangladesh politics, he will be utterly disappointed.
   There is hardly any example of the mainstream American political parties, the Democratic and the Republican, supporting or promoting any democracy movement or people’s movement anywhere in the world. The American style is different. In the name of spreading democracy, the American establishment, irrespective of Democratic or Republican, intervenes in countries after countries to serve its imperialist purpose of world domination, overtly, through the National Endowment for Democracy, covertly, through the CIA and directly, through the Pentagon. For example, President Jimmy Carter visited Dhaka on the eve of the 2001 elections as the chairman of the National Institute of Democracy, one of the four components of the NED.
   This letter from the US senators is, however, an unprecedented event, demonstrating a growing concern of the American establishment with the fluid situation prevailing in Bangladesh in the aftermath of the aborted January 22 elections to the ninth parliament. It is, thus, an incentive for the players in the power game to redouble their efforts to get American favours for their respective designs for reshaping politics, polity and the government in the post-caretaker period.
   But the very fact that the American senators wrote such a letter in such a language has also exposed the vulnerability of our present rulers. This may come handy in the event any movement is waged against the caretaker government which is getting increasingly authoritarian and reckless, and oppressive and callous to the interest of the common people. Also there is the likelihood that the people who consider Washington as the Mecca of democracy may be tempted to blow the political significance of the letter out of proportion.
   With the suggestion to announce ‘a public roadmap outlining reforms’, the US senators have in a subtle way tried to smoothen the rough edges of the contradiction between the rulers and the people. The rulers are openly for an Islam-pasand polity (‘…we are a new nation with a long history. We can trace our history back to 12th century where Bengal came under the Muslim rule. In 1947, this part of British India became the eastern wing of Pakistan as a Muslim majority area. After two and half decades, this part of Pakistan became an independent state after a bloody war of independence.’ — Lieutenant General Moeen U Ahmed, April 2, 2007) and exploitative neo-liberal economy whereas Bangladesh was established with the pledge to build a secular, democratic country with an exploitation-free economy. The senators are advocating for a roadmap for perpetuating the rulers in power and not a roadmap for establishing the political, economic and cultural rights of the people.
   NM Harun is contributing editor of New Age. He can be reached at: badrun123@dhaka.net

SHILPA Shetty knows how to stay in the limelight. First, it was the whole Big Brother fiasco and, not only did her ill-treatment by an English girl make her an object of sympathy but, in the end, it actually brought her out from the show with a crown and a halo. Well, the latter we did not see but it was there — imperceptible but present nonetheless.  And, then came the contracts for new films, a meeting with the queen and apologies from the British people for the racial slurs used against her during the Big Brother show. At that time, the Indian people went behind a crying Shilpa on TV and burned the effigies of her tormentor and now, a few months later, she is back in gossip again with the kiss furore involving none other than Hollywood heartthrob, Richard Gere. But, this time the case is a bit different as it seems that the ballyhoo is all about the supposed contravention of the so-called Indian moral code.
   Of course, the question maybe that why are we so concerned? India is not our country. True, but there is no denying that we share a lot of cultural similarities and if we just juxtapose some our major social habits with that of the Indians we find, not surprisingly, very little discrepancy. And, much of the zeitgeist of the two societies has been like that for ages. In fact, it would not be wrong to say that Indian channels with their programmes to a large extent influence our own productions along with our fashion senses. For example, we can look at the phenomenon of mega-serials, the talk shows and the talent hunt events. And, perhaps many sociologists would agree, with substantive findings, that our contemporary habit of turning certain days into extravagant events also has a link to the sub-continental culture. Hence, it is understandable that when the Shilpa kiss sparked a literal riot in India it also created some ripples here in Bangladesh. Though the event and the absurd cacophony that ensued have been laid to rest, the implications of it cannot be sidelined.
   In fact, the whole show reminded us to a large extent that, in the sub-continental culture, hypocrisy still reigns supreme. Now, just for a change if we put a Bangladeshi actress in Shilpa’s place how would the reaction be? Obviously, the moral brigade armed with their sermons and righteous edicts would not waste time to condemn it and, maybe, that condemnation would be taken to the level to promoting us as people who cannot be affectionate in public or who cannot indulge in acts that have for so long been termed ‘uncivil’ by our society. In truth, the issue that bothers us is not about whether a person should be kissed in public or not but about the ingrained double standards that we relish to sustain even when the real world runs on completely different rules.
   In India, the so-called crusaders of moral rectitude used the Shilpa-Gere kissing event as a platform to shower the country with vacuous and untenable notions of social values and, in Bangladesh, we see this done through our TV dramas and a lot of our talk shows and programmes. There is always the maniacal obsession to talk about ‘our culture’ when in reality the notion of a distinct culture has become a myth. Yes, we may not want to accept it, but with globalisation, we can hardly rant on with what is ours and what it not. For instance, love on the net is not our ‘preferred’ way of forming a bond and yet that is happening all around us. Then, to go into more controversial territory, pre-marital sex has not been a social phenomenon in the past but now it is perhaps a major feature in most relations. The problem is we do not carry out an honest survey to see how our society has evolved and hence, though, the global culture is here, we turn the other way, pretend we have not seen it and then, carry on as if we have managed to maintain that ‘chaste’ culture, which we have been made to think exists.
   The blame here lies a lot on parents who have injected these double standards upon us. When we were children, the matters relating to a person’s physical changes, demands and yearnings were always sliced away from our education. On one hand, most of us were taught that we should always adhere to certain rules, never talk to girls and that love was always a hush-hush thing. Similarly, this stereotyped education also taught us that sex was a bad thing. Then, look at how we were given the idea of looking at education. Again, a set of strict rules controlled us and the morale of these rules were that, to be recognised one only had to get good grades, study hard and grow up to be a doctor or an engineer. But, never did we ask why our fathers were not an engineer or a doctor and, why his line of work, whatever that may be was not the accepted path.
   Maybe, we have come to a different direction than the whole kissing affair but it is this event that opens up the ever-growing power of hypocrisy that seems to rule our lives slowly but surely, poisoning every facet of social existence. It may sound harsh and too strong to digest but to portray us as what we are not is one of our main habits. Even today, most parents feel flustered and fidgety when they find that their daughter is involved with someone and, still, most parents would prefer that their children did not get involved with anyone. But, in real life we see that globalisation has hit us with all its velocity. Net-romance, free mixing, changing partners and even living together are elements of the society we live in. However, there is a tendency to term these changes as ‘repulsive’ and this is coupled with an undying move to keep the juggernaut of false impressions going on.
   Interestingly, history of two thousand years must teach us by now that, society cannot define definitively what is bad and what is not because what is accepted today maybe summarily rejected a hundred years later. In the 16th century, buccaneering was not a crime but a heroic act, but now, we do not eulogise and award the plunderers roaming on water. Again, divorce was an anathema in our society in the 1970s but now it is very much a part of it. And, if divorcees were seen as people with problems in the past they should now be regarded as humans just like anyone else.
   To paraphrase the editorial of India Today: a friction between the old and the new will always be there. But, it is about time that we re-evaluate our social values and look at us, not in the light of a set of quixotic images, but in the light of what we are. We have call girls in Bangladesh, rave parties, people spending indiscriminately on wine and extravagance, gambling, people with same sex orientation and, we also have young people going from one relation to another, quick and easy romance, marriages of convenience, porn lovers, local porn and a lot of other things that have come to us via globalisation. Accept it, this is the life of the 21st century. So, let’s not shut all that out and deceive by saying and writing about clinging on to our culture or our own idea of Puritanism. Do that and hundred years on, the people will say, a bit puzzled, how come such a saintly past brought us to where we stand now?
   To end, we must exhort our talk show hosts to skip politics for a while and talk about the astronomical social changes that we have had in the last decades and, this should involve representatives from both the elderly and the young. The Shilpa-Gere episode showed us that despite being extremely liberal, India still has to fight the obnoxious forces. Let’s not even wait to fight them in Bangladesh. Somehow, this writer has a premonition that soon, there may be a similar incident involving moral codes. So, wouldn’t it be better to pre-empt that?

The senators’ observation

Hillary and the 14 senators may pick up the telephone, and talk to some of the Americans who live in Bangladesh, to find out if we, Bangladeshis want the emergency to be lifted.
   AA
   On e-mail
   

Why can’t we have both systems? Perhaps it would be a better management procedure if chits with day and time to come to the registration centre are distributed door to door. This will give the people a slot — when to attend and get themselves registered. The vote registrars will be saved from long queues of people and long waiting time. And thus the current matter would be resolved.
   Imtiyaz Husain
   Gulshan, Dhaka.

Much controversy is being created by various quarters regarding minimum time required to produce a complete electoral roll and voter or National ID cards. The speed of filling up a form and creating a card is substantiated by various journalists who attended demonstrations as about 10 minutes per card.
   This allows six cards an hour at maximum rate, however in practical terms (with sufficient rest and breaks to prevent mistakes) about 4 cards an hour is an optimum figure.
   With an 8 hour-a-day and 5 days-a-week this would allow 160 cards a week in one camp or
   centre to be prepared accurately if no breakdown of equipment occurs. So in 12000 camps 12000 times 160= 19.2 lakh cards can be made in a week. So to cover 10 crore voters you need at least 52 weeks or 1 year.
   Besides preparation of the cards, electoral rolls have to be prepared, printed and distributed and there are many other matters connected with polling which needs to be properly instituted.
   So all in all the estimation of 18 months by the EC is a most reasonable one.
   Engineer Shafi Ahmed
   London UK

So Prince Hary joined the army only for the exotic holidays he always seems to be on? Britain declared war on Iraq, that means that Iraq and its allies have the right to strike British interests at home or abroad. The Iraq war made all of Britain a target. The life of one royalty is being protected yet the security of the whole country has already been sacrificed. If the country was really interested in protecting the lives of its soldiers, bring them home.
   Reza
   USA
   

The Election Commission’s plan to prepare the voters’ roll by setting up registration camps, instead of door-to-door visit should be reviewed, as not only the AL and the BNP oppose it, it is not accepted by majority of the people. If such sort of plan was taken during any political government, strong repercussion would have taken place. It is a citizen’s right to be a voter. So the EC has to ensure to preserve this right, which may be affected if the EC decides against door-to-door visit.
   It would be a much better plan if along with door-to-door visit the EC sets camp on weekends, so that those who were not available during door-to-door visit can visit the camp and include themselves in the voters’ list?
   Zakaria
   On e-mail

In reaction to the letter sent by the 15 US senators, the law adviser Barrister Mainul Hosein said Bangladesh has to solve its problems on its own, rather than listen to the foreigners.
   I really appreciate his comments and we hope that there will be similarity between words and actions of the caretaker government.
   My humble question to Mainul Hosein: Why did your government send Faruque Sobhan to the USA then?
   Mainul Hosein should know that actions are louder than words. We want the caretaker government to be successful. We don’t want to hear fake statements from our advisers. It will be better for the government if Mainul Hosein concentrated on working rather than talking to media everyday.
   A citizen
   On e-mail

Next on Quick Comments

a. Plan to form new political party rolls full steam ahead (New Age, May 19) b. 4.45 lakh acres of forest land in hands of influentials (New Age, May 19) c. Top posts of Army, Navy, Air Force upgraded (New Age, May 19) d. 2 govt schools shun women teachers (New Age, May 19) e. Wolfowitz’s fall brings more bad news for Bush (New Age, May 19)