Editorial
Bazlur Rahman dies in harness
In a country where the life expectancy is about 63 years, the death of the Sangbad editor Bazlur Rahman at 68 cannot be termed premature. But it was not a ripe old age, and he was active and full of life. He died in harness, as they say.
Bazlur Rahman belonged to that genre of journalists in our country who joined journalism not so much as a profession but to do politics by other means – the media being an effective means of raising the level of people’s political awareness and spreading ideological ideas. He dreamt of changing society and establishing socialism. He joined leftist politics in his student days and later became an important leader of the Communist Party of Bangladesh. He resigned from the party in 1981 due to differences of opinion, and after that did not join any other party. His political career impacted on his journalistic pursuit and media-related activities.
Bazlur Rahman began his journalistic career with the Ittefaq, one of the oldest dailies of the country. He joined the daily Sangbad in 1961 and stayed with it till his death. Side by side with mainstream journalism, he was for some time editor of the Ekota, the CPB’s party organ. He used to write a column in the Sangbad under the pen-name Darshak (observer). His column was lucid, often an insightful analysis of the political situation. But from the mid-1980s, when Bazlur Rahman left active politics and apparently lost interest in and respect for the political establishment, he discontinued the column.
Despite his apathy towards the political establishment and inertia as a journalist-commentator of politics, Bazlur Rahman never became a cynic or political opportunist. It seems he decided to simply fade away as a leftist and leftist journalist, with occasional intervention in progressive social, cultural and political causes as a concerned citizen. True, the world of leftist politics and ideologies is beset with controversies, and the criticism of CPB-brand worldview abounds. But what is remarkable about Bazlur Rahman is that he was true to his socialist convictions till his death. He can be blamed for failing to play a proactive role in his professional journalistic field and also in his chosen political field in the later part of his life, but he cannot be accused of doing any deliberate harm to his profession or abandoning his ideological convictions.
Bazlur Rahman was a familiar figure in Dhaka’s social milieu for about five decades. One might hate his politics, oppose his views and criticise the Sangbad, the paper he worked for, but all doors were open to him. He was a superb conversationalist. Never losing his composure, he could carry on a discussion on any controversial issue with any person in an even voice. His interlocutors might have lost their temper but Bazlur Rahman, with his erudition, witticism and sarcasm, used to be cool and convincing.
Bazlur Rahman’s admirers – and there are many – will most regret one thing. He was privy to many crucial decisions which have moulded our political, economic, social and cultural life. And he never said ‘no’ to the suggestion that he should write a book or books detailing the parts of history he knew. This promise Bazlur Rahman did not keep, or maybe could not keep. He has now carried with him to the grave the rich treasure of his experience and observation.
Women entrepreneurs should get
bank loans at subsidised rates
A demand was raised for providing bank loans to businesswomen at subsidised interest rates at a seminar on ‘strengthening capacity of women entrepreneurs’, organised by the Women’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry, as reported in yesterday’s New Age. The demand which received support from economists and others present at the seminar can be regarded as a timely one that needs to be considered in all seriousness.
Proposals are floated and empowerment of women is frequently talked about but implementations that can give concrete shape to the concept of empowerment of the marginalised sections and remove socio-economic imbalance must now be expedited. A positive discrimination in favour of the underprivileged is a constitutional obligation of the government. As the economist Atiar Rahman calling for subsidising the interest rate for women in the next budget said, since we are giving subsidy to many sectors why should such vulnerable groups as women and farmers not be entitled to budgetary financial support. A proposal was also made for appointing at least one female entrepreneur each on the boards of public limited banks to look after the interest of women entrepreneurs.
Although the finance and planning adviser has expressed support for the proposals, his statement is hedged with qualifications and conditions like ‘if feasible’, ‘may consider’ ‘will try’, etc. A more positive affirmation with precise timeframe is expected. Women entrepreneurs said they were facing ‘huge barriers’, both mental and procedural, in obtaining loans from commercial banks. The women’s chamber representatives complained that although there are now thousands of women entrepreneurs setting up small and medium enterprises and creating employment opportunities, they hardly gain any access to loans, despite assurances by the central bank. The central bank’s refinancing scheme is not benefiting women entrepreneurs. The women entrepreneurs’ complaint is corroborated by the available figures showing that only 0.06 per cent of the sum provided under refinancing scheme has been disbursed to women entrepreneurs whereas the provision was 10 per cent.
There are two kinds of hindrance holding back low-interest credit opportunities for women – procedural and mental. Because of procedural bottlenecks it takes three to six months for the banks to receive payment from the central bank’s refinancing scheme. The procedure has to be simplified. Another problem is the mindset of senior bankers of private banks. Although more women are seen nowadays at the teller level in any bank, the policy and management level is still male dominated. The private banks are to be made more gender-sensitive.
Difficulties in the way of speedy implementation may be there. How soon these can be overcome will depend on the government’s priority and commitment.
Fidel Castro steps aside: a new
era of Cuban Revolution?
Cuban Revolution was not conceived or confined to mere armed insurgency; it was inspired by socialist ideas of emancipation of the dispossessed against oppression and bondage, ideas of social justice and human development with opportunities for all; of equitable distribution of goods and services. Above all, it was driven by ideas of human fraternity and solidarity worldwide. Ideas are more important than weapons of war. Ideas are probably stronger too, writes Dr Zakir Husain
FIDEL Castro, ‘commandant’ of Cuban Revolution for close to fifty years, stepped aside last week. Debilitated physically, he is now 81 years of age, he did not fully recover from the intestinal surgery done in 2006. He realised he could no longer carry the heavy burden of his office, and chose to step aside. He did not resign nor abandon.
No one, not Raul Castro, commands the authority Fidel did as the theorist, strategist, commander-in-chief, and diplomat for the Cuban Revolution combined into one. Castro’s Cuba stood defiant as the only leftist regime that steadfastly refused to relinquish national sovereignty to the greatest power on earth. Cuba remains a reference point; Cuban Revolution inspires millions of disinherited men and women of the earth who struggle to free themselves of the grip of neoliberal economics and globalisation.
Revolution was not imposed from outside. Cuban people were freed from the authoritarian Batista regime and its powerful supporters; freed from racism, class apartheid, and extreme poverty. Cuba under Castro achieved outstanding progress in human development with social justice and equity comparable (even better) to that in countries that are more affluent. Globally, Cuba, though a small country besieged by powerful adversaries, played a significant diplomatic role to bolster leftist movements in Latin America and in faraway African continent. In Angola, Cuban troops fought South African incursions and helped end the apartheid regime.
Under Castro’s leadership, the Cuban people withstood draconian trade embargo for over forty years imposed by hostile United States administrations much against the entire world opinion in the United Nations. In 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed, Cuba plunged into great difficulties but bounced back much to the surprise of its adversaries. Today, Cuba is independent of both American and Soviet influence. Cuba breathed new political life into the ‘Left of the Left’ movement across South and Central America, if not the rest of the world.
Fidel Castro could not pursue normal economic development and bring economic prosperity to the Cubans. Nevertheless, he guarded Cuban sovereignty with exceptional strength and resilience, made extraordinary advances in literacy, education, health and social development with equity few other countries under similar conditions have achieved. That is why Cuba today has advanced human development index well beyond and above its economic growth index. Cuba justly boasts of its doctors, engineers, teachers, nurses and technicians within Cuba and in Latin America. These things matter more than mere growth under neoliberal economic regime that enriches few and impoverishes many.
Cuban Revolution was not conceived or confined to mere armed insurgency; it was inspired by socialist ideas of emancipation of the dispossessed against oppression and bondage, ideas of social justice and human development with opportunities for all; of equitable distribution of goods and services. Above all, it was driven by ideas of human fraternity and solidarity worldwide. Ideas are more important than weapons of war. Ideas are probably stronger too.
Fidel Castro is an icon. Fidel is among the very few who could become a part of history and a legend as well during his own lifetime. Fidel belongs to the genre of heroic ‘insurgents’ of history like Ho Chi Minh, Che Guevara, Patrice Lubumba, Mehdi Ben Barka, and contemporary Nelson Mandela. Fidel had dealings with leaders and luminaries like Jawaharlal Nehru, Joseph Broz Tito, and Gamal Abdel Nasser during their lifetime.
He also had the ‘privilege’ of having to see off ten successive US presidents and their consistently hostile stance towards Cuba and Castro. That is a saga unique for its malignancy. Since 1960, the US has been waging war upon Cuba seeking to remove Fidel Castro, subvert Cuban regime by propaganda, trade embargo, and even direct funding to train and arm a ‘fifth column’ of Cuban émigré groups in Florida. More than six hundred assassination attempts have been made upon Fidel’s life. Twice America troops invaded Cuba. President Kennedy had almost gone to a nuclear conflict with the USSR over Cuba hosting Russian missiles. These are extraordinary crimes.
The powerful propaganda war funded by the US and fuelled by a hostile world media dominated by the West has demonised Fidel as a leader and trivialised or ignored the achievements by Cuban people against staggering odds. Attempts on his life and embargos on Cuban economy and trade continue.
Cuban exiles in the US continue to get money and materials from the US government through front organisations like the National Endowment for Democracy; indeed, some democracy by political subversion and mafia type killings. This is a game by a great power to destabilise a small country – a country that more than once extended invitation to diplomatic dialogue, a country that never infiltrated terror gangs nor spread hateful propaganda to malign the American people. Yet, American president and the Congress unite on one thing: to continue hostility towards a small neighbour. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton remain reticent and unable to make a break with old path trodden for five futile decades.
Only a few suggest resumption of trade and diplomatic dialogue for they feel that it is about time the US became ready to talk not just with allies but also with ‘enemies’.
The Cuban Revolution survived against the most formidable assaults and obstacles. So has Fidel. Fidel Castro is a man of tremendous energy and stamina. A tall, well-built and robust Castro, a firebrand revolutionary is also a gentle soft spoken, almost a shy person, and a gentleman to the core. His working hours extend beyond eighteen hours a day; his thirst for news, information and search for evidence is inexhaustible. He never wore medals or ribbons on his impeccable olive fatigue; no monument of him adorns any square of Havana, no street is named after him or any of his comrades.
Fidel and his successor will most likely stay the course of revolution and stay the dialectic pathway of that revolution. Cuba is a small country of 100,000 square-kilometres and 11 million people. Cuba is no match with America in military arsenal. Yet, Cuba has conducted a strong foreign policy in Latin America and the word beyond. Cuba did not export revolution or terrorism outside to subvert any other country. On the contrary, Cuba exported doctors, nurses, engineers and teachers to help humanitarian service to needy countries even all the way to remote African continent.
The West has maligned Fidel Castro as the great ‘Dictator’ in the eyes of many in Europe and Asia, thanks to the relentless and repugnant media propaganda. Yet, Cuba had been under strangulating siege for decades, Cuba became a fortress under siege; a fortress under siege could not tolerate a single traitor within. A country besieged could treat internal dissidence as treason and deal harshly. Cuba under strangulating siege and embargo from all sides could and did treat dissidents or mercenaries
the same way.
Having been the helmsman of the Cuban Revolution for so long, Castro will indeed remain an inspiration to the Cuban people and the party as long as he lives. Will this spell the end of an era in Cuba and the world beyond? It is too early to speculate with certainty. Will there be some change? Probably yes; and probably relatively younger and somewhat more flexible leadership will fill the emerging void. That might be a good thing not because Fidel failed but because the world changed much in the past thirty years. It is time to rethink the strategy of the revolution and attune it to the changed world situation.
If it is going to be a new era, it is the resurgence of Latin America. Hugo Chavez with Evo Morales, Daniel Ortega, are defying the vestige of Monroe doctrine, challenging American hegemony and bringing an end to the imperial games of coup and regime change in the Latin American backyard of the North American empire. A leftist wave is sweeping Latin America; a new alliance is asserting its presence. Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez with Bolivia’s Evo Morales is leading the charge of a resurgent Latin America. It is noteworthy that in Chile, Ecuador, Brazil, and Nicaragua leftist leaders have come to power through democratic elections. The era of military coups and countercoups backed by the United States to topple popular regimes is ending.
However, those who speculate an imminent collapse of Cuban regime could be sorely disappointed. Those who are tempted to draw a parallel between Cuba and the former Soviet republic of East Europe are being wishful. Some are predicting a new era. They could be missing the target. Rather than in Cuba, a new era is indeed dawning across the Latin America as the American empire loses its former grip, turned its eyes to the Middle East, and stretched itself fighting its war on terror.
Thus, a new era is indeed dawning. That era is not one of demise to Cuban Revolution. With a vast majority of Cubans committed to the revolution and the dignity and determination it brought them the people of Cuba will defend their sovereignty in the coming years; Cuba will also remain a beacon of social solidarity for the oppressed and dispossessed.
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
