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

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

Dear Sirs and Madams: Since we have been getting mixed and ambivalent, hence confusing statements, from several top members of the civil-military administration of Bangladesh, including the chief adviser, law adviser and the army chief, about the nature of the present government (whether it is ‘military-backed,’ a ‘civilian,’ a quasi-military, or a purely military regime with a civilian façade), I am addressing both the civil and military authorities to draw their attention to a very important matter. This is about the deteriorating civil-military relations in Bangladesh, with special reference to the ongoing harassment and manhandling of several university teachers and students by the police and, not so surprisingly, by members of the armed forces.
   As an expatriate Bangladeshi (and a former faculty member of Dhaka University) I just cannot accept this unwarranted, wantonly uncivil and barbaric behaviour of law-enforcers and defenders of the country. You have not only flagrantly violated all norms of civility, decency and the rule of law by arresting (and torturing under unlawful custody) several university professors and students on specious grounds, misleading information and fallaciously deceptive arguments, implicating them in ‘anti-state activities,’ but you have also tarnished the image of Bangladesh, which is now (thanks to your rash acts) not that different from a country under civil/military dictatorship. By arresting university teachers for their alleged incitement of students to go against military rule you have simply followed the inglorious precedents of Ne Win, Suharto, Marcos, Saddam Hussein, the last Shah of Iran and Yahya Khan. Even the military regime of Ayub Khan was much more liberal, benign and civil in comparison to your civil-military oligarchy, especially with regard to what you have done so far to several university teachers and students (and are planning to do more in the near future).
   Without being an apologist, I can say a score of not-so-pleasant things about my former colleagues at Bangladeshi universities. Surely, they are not the epitomes of glory, virtue, honesty and scholarship. But most definitely they represent the most educated, most enlightened, most patriotic, most civilised, most conscientious and most honest sections of the population in the country. Had university (college and school) teachers and students been apathetic, conformist or even indifferent to the right causes at the right time, there would not have been any Bangladesh.
   So, what I would like this civil-military, quasi-military or whatever/whoever is running the country to take some lesson from history, from our not-so-ancient history. Please never ever forget that whoever persecuted university teachers and students (especially of Dhaka University) never ever achieved anything better for themselves or for their regimes. One may in this regard mention the names of two dictators, one Pakistani and one Bangladeshi, Yahya and Ershad, respectively.
   I would request you for the sake of Bangladesh to contemplate and mull over as to why thousands of college and university students came out on the street protesting the maltreatment of a few Dhaka University students by members of the armed forces. Even if your allegations are not totally baseless, that some Dhaka University teachers had instigated their students and colleagues at the DU and other universities to demonstrate against the covert presence of the military in running the country, you should try to figure out what has gone wrong that thousands of students can be mobilised against your government despite your doing so many good things to restore the rule of law in Bangladesh.
   I personally believe that your government has achieved so many good things in a short span of time, such as arresting some big and powerful absolutely corrupt people. I do not think any other government would have been able to demolish the illegally built Rangs Tower. But at the same time, I have difficulties in believing that your government could be that mindless to arrest, persecute and harass university teachers and students, only because they do not accept you as legitimate or desirable. I do not think these teachers and students represent the majority of their peers. Even if they do not carry the majority support, your going against them out of sheer vengeance is neither civil nor in consonance with your avowed promise to restore democracy in the country.
   I hope that good sense would prevail and the military (and police) would learn to understand and respect university teachers, students and everybody else, without undermining their patriotism, honesty and integrity. I want you to get rid of the colonial and Pakistani hangover that university teachers’ direct involvement in politics is detrimental to the best interests of the country. I believe some members of this government are aware that university teachers throughout the civilised world take active role in politics. In Singapore, some of my former colleagues at the National University simultaneously held their university jobs and worked as elected members of the parliament. There is nothing abhorrent about politics; it is not another four-letter word. A depoliticised society is not that different from a dehumanised human being.
   You should appreciate university teachers’ direct and indirect involvement in country’s politics as a positive sign of progress and development, especially because most of our politicians are not as educated as university teachers. What you should be rather doing, instead of arresting university professors for indulging in politics, is prohibiting any political role for active members of the military, police and civil bureaucracy, with immediate effect.
   Nothing could be more disastrous than considering the military and police as the only efficient and patriotic institutions by undermining intellectuals and members of the civil society as unpatriotic and uncivil. This sort of anti- and pseudo-intellectual attitude only smacks of one’s inferiority complex, arrogance and ignorance. I hope and pray this government would not suffer from this sort of debilitating, self-glorifying narcissism.
   Finally, I would request you to release all the teacher and student arrested in the recent past in the wake of a silly scuffle between some soldiers and DU students at a soccer match. Further arrests of university teachers and students and issuance of warrants of arrest would be simply disastrous for both the country and government in the long-run. Meanwhile, you should publicly apologise to the nation for arresting and harassing university teachers and students and punish those responsible for this heinous crime.
   I wish you good luck and hope decent civil-military relations will prevail in the country for a smooth transition to good governance and democracy.
   Dr Taj Hashmi is professor, College of Security Studies, Asia-Pacific Centre for Security Studies, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Bangladesh has had a good record in a number of macroeconomic indicators, but when it comes to attracting large-scale investment, its record is quite wretched. However, the county has had some success in attracting small-scale investments, mainly in the textile sector through the Export Processing Zones (EPZs). A number of EPZs have been set up all across the country. These have also been able to provide employment to a large number of people, particularly women.
   The experiment with the EPZs shows that Bangladesh is capable to handle FDI for the benefit of the nation. However, when it comes to attracting large-scale investment, the record has been very poor. So far, the largest investment has been the construction of the fertiliser factory on the banks of the river Karnaphuli,
   and that was implemented almost two decades ago. Other than that, no other company made any significant
   investment in Bangladesh’s history. Recently some large international companies have shown keen interest to invest in Bangladesh, but an apathetic attitude on the part of the government has discouraged a number of those investors. Something needs to be done to encourage large-scale investment in our country, and the only way to do so seems to be the establishment of a Special Economic Zone (SEZ).
   Large-scale investment can help in employing a large number of people, establish ancillary industries to cater to the needs of the large industries, increase economic growth and provide new technology to Bangladesh. It can help to increase the volume of exports and produce goods that were previously imported from abroad. A lot of countries obtained very good results by setting up SEZs in their territories. One such example is China. China first set up an SEZ in the city of Shenzen and that helped to bring in huge amount of foreign investment to that region. According to one estimate, the city alone has been able to attract $30 billion worth of foreign investment in two decades. That is almost half the nominal GDP of Bangladesh! Countries like India, Pakistan and the Philippines are trying to emulate the SEZs of China with some success. I believe that Bangladesh should embark on that journey too. We have seen how successful the EPZs have been to encourage small-scale investment in Bangladesh. With the expertise that Bangladesh gathered by running EPZs, I believe that Bangladesh will be successful in operating SEZs as well.
   Our government can jumpstart foreign investment by setting up an SEZ in the south-eastern part of the country, preferably in the region that is encompassed by the towns Munshiganj, Jessore, Khulna and Madaripur. This quadrilateral region can be developed to attract large-scale foreign investment to Bangladesh. Why is this region suitable for an SEZ? First of all, the south-eastern part of Bangladesh is not as developed as Dhaka or Chittagong.
   A SEZ can help to spur economic
   activity in that region. It can help to
   reduce the Dhaka-centric economic growth that we are currently witnessing. Secondly, the facilities of Mongla seaport and Jessore airport can be used to serve the SEZ. After the construction of the Padma Bridge, which is slated to begin in 2009, the region will be well-connected with Dhaka, and hence the rest of the nation. These factors make that region very suitable for an SEZ.
   Along with the construction of the Padma Bridge, the government should also draw up a master plan to develop this quadrilateral region and set up a world-class SEZ. It can buy that region and then set up industrial plots there. It can expand Jessore airport and Mongla seaport to better handle the export and import of goods. Jessore airport can be developed to have cargo facilities. Mongla can be privatised to increase dynamism in that seaport. A model town can be developed in that region to accommodate the workers. An eight-lane highway, like the new Airport Road in Dhaka, can be constructed to connect the SEZ with the capital city. A technical college and a university can be located in that region to provide skilled workforce to the industries in the SEZ. Of course, schools and colleges need to be established too to educate the children of the workers. A power plant can be set up to exclusively serve the SEZ. There should also be the facility of high-speed internet access in that region. All these facilities, including proper security, are bound to attract investment to this SEZ. Along with such facilities, Bangladesh has the added bonus of having an ample
   supply of cheap labour. If all these facilities are guaranteed to the investors, they will be more than willing to invest in the region.
   The government can organise fairs and seminars both at home and abroad to attract investment in that area. Tax breaks and other incentives can be given to both local and foreign investors. Bangladeshi missions abroad should be used to advertise the region. Large multinational corporations that specialise in manufacturing can be personally approached to encourage them to invest in Bangladesh. High-tech companies can also be encouraged to invest in that region. All these developments should make the SEZ very attractive for investment and this can help Bangladesh attract large-scale foreign investment.
   Countries around Bangladesh are well-ahead in attracting large-scale investment. Thailand is known as the ‘Detroit of the East’ because of its vibrant automobile industry. Along with other multinationals, Intel is investing heavily in Vietnam, a country that is similar to Bangladesh. We have seen that the CEO of Intel visited Bangladesh recently, but made no commitments to invest here. Why should this be the case? Why can’t we have an investment bonanza like some of our neighbours? India has a number of successful SEZs, like NOIDA, and is planning to set up more SEZs all over the county. Why can’t we do the sameo? We really need to think seriously about industrialising Bangladesh. Setting up an SEZ to spur foreign investment inflow to Bangladesh can help to enhance industrialisation in our country. If we linger the process or act reluctant to take decisions, we will continue to lag behind our neighbours. Do we really want that to happen? I ask the caretaker government to look into this matter and take appropriate steps as early as possible to create a framework for setting up an SEZ in Bangladesh and help forwarding our nation towards the right direction.
   TM Tonmoy Islam is a graduate student in Economics at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.

‘Come to the edge,’ he said. They said, ‘We are afraid.’ ‘Come to the edge,’ he said. They came. He pushed them... and they flew.
   –– Guillaume Apollinaire
   
   ‘There is no other passion whatever, wrote Montaigne, which carries our judgement away sooner from its proper seat.’ He further explains that sometimes [fear] gives ‘wings to our feet…sometimes it nails down and fetters our feet.’ Fear, like love and hate, is a universal emotion for all that is living, bringing about the instinctive need to protect, to escape, and sometimes to confront. It is our survival mechanism with the potential to destroy by rendering us helpless, and hopeless. Fear’s potential to subdue one’s own and one’s opposition has been perhaps one of the most potent discoveries in politics and in the understanding of power.
   Fear, and the psychology behind it, has always been one of the most effective means of social control. Governance by fear that takes the shape of mass hysteria, of collective apprehension of threats, known and unknown, has been the strategy of politics, of religion, of any form of authority. This rubric of fear, and the power that it accords, have been one of the concerns of political thought. After all, a certain amount of trepidation and concern breeds the critical respect for a ruler. Machiavelli would certainly agree. But fear thrives on its multifaceted nature. It not only inspires terror, diminishes aspirations and paralyses action, it can also breed a false show of respect to hide censure, loathing, rejection which may be understood to be too dangerous to be put in public view. Invoking Machiavelli then:
   ‘Nevertheless, a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated….’
   Essentially, fear is the playground of realpolitik interests, and ruling by fear ensures subordination of the meekest kind. Among various types of political fears, the ones that can be listed include: (a) consternation of inhabitants of democracies in times of crisis, for the fragility of the quos of their socials contract even as the quids become harder to pay; (b) fear of being insufficiently protected both by the agents of social order from individuals and organisations and from those very agents themselves; (c) fear of each other since fear itself breeds distrust, and distrust creates deep faultlines in communities.
   In nations at the brink of civil strife, the level of collective fear is at its highest. While creating desperation about the absence of control over an emotion that is both rational and irrational, fear also leads to social disengagement for many. For others, it creates grounds for some form of movement, an opposition which aims to not only challenge fear, but also to dissipate it in the struggle for change.
   No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear. For fear being an apprehension of pain or death, it operates in a manner that resembles actual pain…indeed terror is, in all cases whatsoever, either more openly or latently, the ruling principle of the sublime. (Edmund Burke)
   Today, as a nation, are we afraid? The response is a resounding ‘yes’.
   Our fear is laced with uncertainty about motivations and ambitions of those who we choose to believe and those we confide in, of those around us, about whom we are uncertain whether we can trust, of instability in the economic infrastructure, of the future of politics and indeed that of democratic norms we have idealised but have not yet attained.
   Our fears reflect the concerns of our own physical safety and our desperate attempts not to lose the status quo that gives us protection. We fear death, torture, being disappeared, being silenced. We fear the loss of hope. These fears accentuate our powerlessness, and in their extreme form can lead to the erosion of any form of social solidarity.
   Our fear is of engagement at the same time of disengagement over politics that we understand only in fragments and in the whispers of rumours that circulate so efficiently through the grapevines. The recent riots which summoned the wrath of the administration demonstrated the extent to which absolute control can and may be exerted to ensure compliance and ensure stability. The success of the strategies employed simultaneously worked to establish the parameters of the rule by fear, and guarantee the success of administration by uncertainty.
   Yet it is important to consider that all sides become, in the game of politics, the subjects on which fear feeds upon. Reactions to opposition movements stem from fear—fear of takeover, fear of losing ground, fear of losing power and legitimacy, and, most of all, fear of fear itself.
   The truth is, fear is a political tool and it lends itself to being manipulated and manoeuvred. It is not fear itself, but the instrumentalisation of it — its political use — that makes it effective. Harnessing the manifestations of authority in every form with the purpose of sustaining fear ensures that opposition is, if not dissipated, effectively constrained.
   And in reality, no state is innocent of such charges; history is replete with examples of the deliberate use of fear to subjugate the masses and ensure the sustenance of an existing status quo. Simultaneously, history is also replete with examples of counter currents that have worked with, and conquered, fear that served as the instrument of political subjugation. Chile’s Pinochet, Peru’s Fujimori, Pakistan’s Musharraf—all effectively played the game of fear with the trump cards in their hands. Dangerous parallels, admittedly, but the bottom line for these leaders and those before bear remarkable similarities—institutionalising the psyche of fear in stage one, only (sometimes) to be overturned in stage two when fear turns to rage and rage fuels the masses to take control through both violent and non-violent means to reclaim what was lost. The battle is for freedom from fear.
   Upon this a question arises: whether it is better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children as is said above when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. (Machiavelli)
   In politics, as in life, most fears are grounded on our own experiences or facilitated by our lack thereof. In our inability to protect and prevent the worst of which our imaginations allow, or what reality dictates, we look to fear to guide us toward silence and toward complacence. While fear itself is a healthy reaction, the manipulation of it makes it even more frightening and perpetuates an anti-democratic ethos in which we have high stakes for risks taken and little promise of any return.
   And that is the success of the culture of fear—to create an environment where the risk of loss stultifies any possibilities of gain. Its success lies in the destruction of hope, and hope is the nemesis of those who attempt to challenge fear to bring about change. While fear disempowers those in the receiving end, however, it does not promise permanent fortification to those who exercise its hold over it. To employ terror is to allow some of it to seep in into one’s own armour and the actions that follow to consolidate power only serve to institutionalise fear within one’s own ranks. This is no premonition, nor a prediction. It is, bluntly stated, the dynamics of the politics of fear in action.
   Tazreena Sajjad is a member of the Drishtipat Writer’s Collective (http: //dpwriters. wordpress.com/)

For a better educational environment

The vice-chancellor, teachers and syndicate members of the Dhaka University deserve credit for frankly and soberly delivering a message to the military-backed caretaker administration for the immediate release of the teachers and also for asking them to help develop a congenial atmosphere on the university campus.
   Gopal Sengupta
   Canada

The general public are feeling the heat of the unbridled price spiral while the authorities concerned remain as cool as the cucumber. By the way, cucumber is selling at an unbelievable price of Tk 80 per kg!
   It seems that if the traders can gather courage and tag a price on their commodity, no matter how high it is, the consumer has no option but to buy it at that price. In the present day, the anarchy in the kitchen markets has surpassed all previous record. The much vaunted coordinated monitoring carried out by the BDR, RAB and what not seems nothing but futile. I could never find these monitoring bodies in the kitchen market I go to.
   I will not be surprised if the government issues an official press release quoting from the famous movie Hirak Rajar Deshe, ‘Onahare nahi khed, beshi khele bare med’.
   Saif
   Dhaka

As for how the world should deal with Iran, I would say dialogue is the only sensible, logical and sane way to resolve the problems. Any military adventure will soon become misadventure as the Iranians are very sensitive about anyone attacking their country. Then again, who isn’t?
   Sabbir
   On e-mail
   

Next on Quick Comments

a. Govt’s authority to talk, ink policy deal with IMF challenged in HC (New Age, September 17) b. Govt urged not to sign loan deal with IMF (New Age, September 17) c. Fakhruddin assures DU team of positive attitude (New Age, September 17) d. Kader Siddiq wants Jamaat to make public apology before EC registration (New Age, September 17) e. Next corruption suspect list to include mostly politicians: Mainul (New Age, September 17)