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

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

As a young Bangladeshi-American, I have often found it a great task, over the past years, to stay fully cognisant of all the frenetic, complicated movements in the Bangladeshi political scene. However, the nation’s current military-controlled government and its assumption of unchecked power in the name of ‘emergency’ look remarkably familiar and startlingly clear to me as a former history student: the manipulations of illegitimate governments with unconstitutional power have been played out for centuries on many a continent and island, from Haiti to Zimbabwe, here in the US (as some claim) to Peru. I would hope Bangladesh’s citizenry will rail against and demand exemption from this tired game, if the lessons of the past and the nation’s subjection to many bloody military coups are studied closely.
   I would note, first, that I write as an individual with great belief in Bangladesh and its immense potential and power as a nation. My experience of the nation of my origins often ranges from detachment from some cultural mores, as would be expected, to an extreme pride in Bengali literature and art, which are the most amenable mediums through which I try to understand the ethos of the nation’s people, my parents and their experiences. I’ve tried to transcribe their experiences to memory, to writing, deeply aware, of course, that there is much left to learn. So, I must speak here not just as an American bound in understanding by limits of circumstance and space, but instead as a global citizen who can only look forward to learning and promoting the beauty of Bangladesh to everyone I meet.
   Bangladesh boasts a legacy of the some of the brilliant minds this world has ever seen: poets, thinkers, writers, doctors, economists, renowned for their perspicacity and depth, and their compassion. As I learned in a course with Dr Sugata Bose almost six years ago, the Bhasha Andolon (language movement) was a great true flowering of Bengali pride and first nationalism, when the vernacular of the people was a direct manifestation of identity. In language, in ownership of speech, was ownership of self, and freedom. Merely reading about the Bhasha Andolon in a history text, I felt a deep (perhaps premature) pride in the Bengali language and people. I think it is a testament to the power of the Bengali language that someone with only a cursory knowledge of its nuances can still want to lay claim to it.
   In direct, inimical contrast to the ideals of that first movement are today’s headlines about the political crisis in Bangladesh (The adolescence of an ancient land, published by the Institute for Security and Development Policy, being a prime example), about horrifying, thuggish abuse of critics of the current government.
   Working in the human rights field in the US, I’ve become acutely sensitive to the popularity of certain phrases, and their currency in editorials, blogs, radio talk shows and political speeches: ‘human rights viability’ and ‘democratic ideals’ being the two bandied about, and usually in tandem. The actual ideas behind human rights and democratic ideals aren’t newly in fashion; rather, both liberal and conservative pundits demand these ideas be put vaguely ‘into motion’ in countries where abuses are reported. Human Rights Watch will print another fat report on abuse of refugees in Ethiopia; students march for justice in Bhutan in front of the White House lawn. I simply want to convey how far these ideas have permeated American collective discourse, to the point of almost losing meaning.
   Of course, without those Human Rights Watch reports, I’d never have read about the case of Tasneem Khalil’s torture. I would not have read about the many extrajudicial killings and ill-fated journalists and citizens languishing in jail, without the relative advantages of Khalil, who was able to find asylum. Yet, even the Human Rights Watch report on Tasneem Khalil had its share of mealy-mouthed verbiage, as it noted ‘the government’s failure to address [the torture] seriously is a black mark on its record,’ as though the government could care less that it has a black mark on its record, like an errant school boy or girl who skipped class or insulted a teacher. There is no ethical rationale behind a government with a proven and ongoing history of extrajudicial abuse. This illegitimate government functions because it has no fear, because the world does not instil fear into it, because when the world hears of a National Human Rights Commission being established, a commission that is akin to a carnival mask, the world only wants (or tries) to see this mask. Ultimately, the current Bangladeshi government wards off international critics, allowing those in power to continue with impunity. As New Age reported on September 3 in ‘A toothless human rights commission’, human rights violations are ‘too serious an offence to be left for arbitration or alternative dispute resolution. Any act of human rights violation should be tried in a court of law and the perpetrator punished; there should be no two ways about it.’ The editorial goes on to state the harsh truth: political interest of Bangladesh in human rights is ‘correlated with funding from foreign lending agencies; [the past governments] have only done so much as can ensure uninterrupted flow of external development assistance,’ and the current is no exception.
   One can’t stress enough that a country with a government that does not truly value universal human rights is effectively doomed. Even more difficult to reform is a government that pays lip service to human rights, but, in fact, has no intent of defending them. It is hard to say which state is more appalling; I’d say the latter, if only because a two-faced approach to such a fundamental, universally accepted credo irreparably damages a country’s reputation and credibility. The interim government continues to damage the citizens’ faith in its ability to protect and serve (as a true democratic government is wont) because it simply does not believe all citizens should be equally protected and served.
   So, understandably, one questions the use of the word ‘democracy’ in the same breath as ‘modern-day Bangladesh’. I read about this purported democracy in Bangladesh quite often, along with reports of ‘monitors’ assigned to journalists, and arbitrary arrests, the abdication of due process, the manipulation and manufacturing of news stories in certain outlets. I can only imagine what the reality is. These are not new issues in Bangladesh, but what is particularly unusual, to me, is the coupling of the word democracy atop these abuses. Other governments in other nations who have effected such abuses have called themselves military governments, have owned up to their lack of scruples. Few have the gall to continue to call themselves democracies. This duplicity requires a certain suspension of disbelief, a deep and unshakable cynicism that can make me almost sputter angrily in disbelief.
   In brief, the word ‘democracy’ can be manipulated and moulded into a matter of convenience. It has become, in Bangladesh, an empty word stamped on the country’s ‘international file’, a smile on a mad clown’s face. ‘Human Rights’ can be said to be examined, probed, and discussed to their fullest extent, in order to keep the world’s tired ears, now merely attuned to these proper catch phrases, dulled. The word ‘democracy,’ in the sense of majority rule, doesn’t provide a foolproof guarantee that human rights will be respected. Surely, democratic process requires a government to be publicly justified at every step save in the interests of national security: transparency. The processes of the government must be open to public scrutiny if a democracy is to function. But in addition to instilling a true democratic process, a country committed to human rights makes itself truly accountable to other world democracies. In turn, those ‘other’ democracies in the UN must examine whether all its members are just talking sweet words.
   When faced with these semantic quibbles and ambiguities about meaning, it might be useful to consider the work of thinker Peter Singer, namely his premise that a common, universal law is not just useful, but essential in the global community we live in. Most brilliantly, he discusses the nature of national sovereignty, and its reach. He notes, critically, that ‘the limits of the state’s ability and willingness to protect its people are also the limits of its sovereignty’. When a state does not protect its citizens, he argues, other countries may intervene in the name of international human rights. A true global ethic should never stop at national boundaries, because ‘national sovereignty has no intrinsic moral weight’ when that nation has abused human rights. I believe, in Bangladesh, only a real, pervasive fear of international retribution would keep the government from committing crimes against humanity in the name of power and profit. Whether through physical intervention or economic sanctions, or the cessation of foreign aid, the international community should examine its support of the interim government that is destroying the integrity of the nation and is endangering the life and health of its people.
   When human rights workers urge the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights at the UN to intervene in the current situation in Bangladesh, we all know what this means; this call is another invocation of ‘waiting for the UN.’ The Human Rights ‘experts’ cannot stop military abuses; they are just journalists and researchers and officials, perhaps with a conscience, but no critical power. The reasons for this are various: the International Criminal Court faces great hostility from the US, which is often criticised for having one set of rules for its citizenry and another set of rules for the rest of the world. If the US allowed the UN to be the last resort protector it was always meant to be, and would provide the court with means to enact its mission, the world will be knit together better ethically.
   Since these solutions are not effected overnight, I wonder if shame is the final possible deterrent, when fear of economic retribution and cultural implosion don’t seem to sway politicians. I wonder if the Bangladeshi interim government can recognise its actions do and will have global ramifications, both economic and political. I wonder if it can recognise, beyond its shortsighted bickering and reckless endangerment of the country’s founding principles, that it is potentially opening the country to extremists. I wonder if it sees that when it makes a mockery against its own bans against torture, the whole constitution, and by extension, Bangladesh, becomes a mockery on the world stage.
   I must applaud and cheer on New Age from an ocean away for its bravery, its commitment to open distribution of information. In its September 3rd editorial, again, the New Age editors made some frank and open remarks on the irony of promulgating a government-backed human rights commission. New Age seems to resist self-censorship, and this deserves commendation in a difficult environment. Moreover, this newspaper’s commitment makes a resounding point: a journalist cannot actually, single-handedly, ‘tarn[ish] the image of the country,’ a charged leveled against a well-known journalist some time ago. It is the government that tarnishes its own image. The media simply holds up a mirror to the face of modern Bangladesh. When the organs of legal and military power are orchestrated in the favour of violence against citizens, critics, opponents, that process, that system, certainly has a name, and it is not democracy.
   Our capacity to reason is a universal quotient, a sublime and universal value. Moral reasoning transcends national sovereignty. If Bangladesh is to try to regain respect in the world, it must make a visceral commitment, not a show of dedication, to global ethics. The need to address corruption does not require suspension of the very system a government is seeking to defend. It must bring to trial members of the military and intelligence corps who have created an atmosphere of fear through torture, extrajudicial killings and the harassment of journalists and citizens. No elections will bring justice to those arrested without reason, to those abused. Ending illegal arrests and torture should not await an election.
   Speaking truly, speaking one’s own words well and with pride, words as testament: these were some of the tenets at the heart of the Language Movement. This alignment of words with truth, with freedom, must be reexamined. Let words regain their meaning. Let ‘human right’ mean what it should, let ‘democracy’ be manifested as in its meaning. Even as one of Bangladesh’s many displaced descendants, I do pray and hope for the nation’s triumph, that this government will come to its senses. If not, its members will be forgotten soon enough.
   Nora Khan is a 2005 Harvard University graduate living in Washington, D.C. with a passion for advocacy, nuclear non-proliferation and global human rights.

Pakistan’s seven-year association with the United States’ ‘war on terror’ has moved to a new and dangerous level: the US has given it a contract to build 1,000 Humvees for use by troops in Afghanistan against the Taliban-led insurgency.
   The fact that Pakistan is now providing the hardware for the ‘war on terror’ is a highly sensitive issue, given the already inflammatory situation that exists in the country over Islamabad siding with Washington in this fight against terrorism.
   Asia Times Online has learned that Pakistan’s Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) has been given the order for an undisclosed sum for the Humvees –– high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles. HIT, located 35 kilometres to the west of the capital Islamabad, is the leading engineering and manufacturing centre for the armed forces in Pakistan, with a workforce of over 6,000.
   Work on the Humvees has already begun, although the task is being undertaken in secret. HIT has the capabilities to build main battle tanks, armoured recovery vehicles, armoured personnel carriers and other military equipment. Humvees are currently produced by AM General, an American heavy vehicle manufacturer based in South Bend, Indiana.
   According to contacts at the plant who spoke to ATol, the Humvees are just the first of many orders to come for the manufacture of armaments for use in Afghanistan.
   ATol contacted the Ministry of Defence Production, under which HIT operates, and was directed by a Major Raza Hasan to the director general of Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), Major General Athar Abbas, as the minister was not available. Abbas said he had no knowledge of the matter of the Humvees and would call back after speaking with HIT. At time of publication, he had not done so.
   
   A widening war
   The winter season has begun, but the heat of fighting is not getting any cooler in the South Asian war theatre, indeed, it is becoming cauldron-hot.
   The Taliban have shown unprecedented resilience and the scope of the battlefield has broadened from the border provinces with Pakistan to the main urban centres of Afghanistan. Whether it is newly formed American bases in Nuristan and Khost provinces, or the British base in Lashkar Gah, they have either been overrun or placed under constant siege by the Taliban.
   Now, the strategic backyard of the ‘war on terror’, Pakistan, is feeling the heat. Just as Kabul is under siege by the Taliban and communication links leading to Kabul have been disrupted by the Taliban, Islamabad is under siege by the Taliban and militants in the tribal areas on the border with Afghanistan.
   Increasingly frequent raids by US special forces into Pakistan from Afghanistan and the use of Predator drones to target militants have angered many in Pakistan, and even caused dissent within the ranks of the armed forces.
   That Pakistan is now producing hardware that could conceivably be used inside Pakistan against its people will rankle even more.
   Further, as reported by ATol, the US is establishing a large base inside Pakistan at Tarbella, 20 km from Islamabad, officially said to be used to train Pakistani troops and to take part in operations in the tribal areas.
   However, it is suspected the base will be used for US operations inside Pakistan and Afghanistan. American trainers are working out an arrangement for joint ventures with a selective group of Pakistani Frontier Corps.
   The US already plans a military surge in Afghanistan with an additional brigade (4,000 to 5,000 troops) in January and possibly two or three more brigades later in the year. These will be reinforcements, not replacements. This will further ‘Americanise’ the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation mission in Afghanistan. Already, 26,000 of the 63,000 total international forces in the country are American. At the same time, the Afghan National Army is being expanded to 122,000 personnel and a rudimentary air force is being created.
   It is against this backdrop that the US has turned to Pakistan for the manufacture of armaments to supply these new demands both within Pakistan and in Afghanistan.
   Asia Times Online/HK, October 18, 2008. Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online’s Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at: saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com

Dear future elected representatives,
   Let me draw your attention to a few of the concerns that we, the ordinary citizens of Bangladesh, have that we hope you will address when you are elected to represent us and govern us. Unfortunately, past experiences have made us sceptical, but we still think that you are the only option available to us to salvage us from becoming a failing state. Hence, this letter.
   Our only demand is that you build the institutions that are necessary for this state to function effectively. The list includes the police, the judiciary, educational institutions, local government and parliament.
   During the recent drive to eliminate corruption from the country, the police, as you are most aware, put many of you in jail along with your cronies. It initially created an impression that most of the corrupt people are behind bars. But soon we realised that corruption did not stop, rather we discovered that some seemingly clean people are also corrupt. In the courts, the judges were given the impression that the police are bringing flocks of corrupt people before them and naturally, they felt the necessity of putting them behind bars. But they were surprised when they saw the charge sheets and realised that they would have to abuse their authority if they refused the bail petitions presented before them. I think it will not be fair to blame anybody for this mismanagement. Corruption is institutionalised in a much stronger way than the Anti-Corruption Commission. Most people believe that corruption will continue with full force, no matter which party or non-party entity goes to power. You may well ask why. The answer is: our police force is inadequately trained and lacks the resources to properly investigate corruption, not to mention that there is systemic corruption in the police as well.
   During your tenure, my dear political leaders, in fifteen years of the so-called democratic era, you failed to set the right priorities. While you allocated a large amount of money for keeping high the morale of our defence forces, you allocated a very insignificant amount of money and resources to the police force which is expected to confront a large number of criminals. The present interim government also followed your path. In 2007, this government allocated over Taka 70 billion to the defence ministry, while allocating a little over Taka 45 billion to the home ministry. I trust that you would agree that maintaining law and order in a country of 150 million people is as important as ensuring defence of the country, particularly at a time when we do not face a significant external threat. Our police force does not need a frigate or fighter jet, but it definitely needs better equipment and training. May I request you to provide some support to the police force to build their capacity? The plan of capacity building must include appointment of a public prosecutor in each police station, who will guide them to distinguish between a piece of evidence and a piece of rubbish. You may well ask where we will get the money to allocate resources to the police. I suggest you review our budget. Or you may tax us more taking into account our limitations.
   The second institution that needs your support is the judiciary. You may be aware that each of our judges has over 5500 pending cases to handle. If they are efficient enough to complete one case per day and if their holidays are counted, then we can expect that they will be able to dispense with their pending cases within 30 years. During these 30 years how many new cases will pile up? Increasing the number of trial courts and seats of High Court Division of the Supreme Court for at least 10 years at district levels may not be a problem under the current legal and constitutional structure. The budget allocated in 2007-8 for the Supreme Court Taka 277 million and the law ministry Taka 2.9 billion is very small compared to the magnitude of the workload. You may have noticed that a large number of pending cases are against the government and the likely outcome is that in most cases the government will lose. This is happening because government officials are doing things arbitrarily without paying any heed to public or private grievances. Whenever a person issues a legal notice to a government office and/or official, the immediate action of the concerned official is generally to forward the notice to a government pleader. Unfortunately, the government pleaders take this as an instruction to contest the claim in the court of law, irrespective of whether the private claim is genuine or not. Then, the everlasting series of time petitions start, and the series may last for decades. In such a situation you have to devise a way to settle the dispute outside the court in a timely manner and prevent the government from getting involved in unnecessary litigation.
   Third, we need to strengthen the efficacy of our educational institutions. Recently, I went to see my science teacher after 37 years in the secondary school where I studied. I discovered my teacher sitting alone in the science lab. To my surprise, I found that the lab does not have any scientific instruments or chemicals. A blackboard and a chalk are the only instruments to teach science. Then, I happened to meet one of my Physics teachers from the college where I studied. He told me that most of the instruments in the Physics lab do not work. You may know that this is the situation in most schools and colleges. In a recent article written by Dr Zafar Iqbal, published in the Bengali daily Prothom Alo, it was indicated that the quality of our education is deteriorating day by day. The education sector requires significant investment by the government at all levels, and I believe that the sciences should receive as much priority as the non-science disciplines are getting nowadays. We should not just produce graduates in business administration and management, but in the sciences as well where there is a lot of potential.
   The fourth issue is that of local government. If you had given the institution of local government an opportunity to evolve as an entity, we may have seen the southern districts of the country already taking initiatives to build dikes around the coastal region to face the rise of sea level. We may have seen five bridges on the river Karnaphuli to allow Chittagong city to expand and ten bridges on the river Buriganga to allow Dhaka city to expand. Who knows, we might have already seen a circular flyover around the periphery of Dhaka (like the FDR in Manhattan) to ease the traffic. This time, we urge you to let the local government emerge. If you cannot provide them financial support, try to formulate a policy which would help them generate their own resources.
   The institution of parliament must also be strengthened. You know better than me that the parliament is a place where parliamentarians hate to go. The impression we get from the media is that the presence of spectators and journalists always outnumber the parliamentarians. We understand your grievances. Because of article 70 of the constitution, you do not dare to speak out against anything you deem wrong. Also, in this modern era of market economy, the technicality of policy making is so difficult that you probably need some additional experts to help in drafting legislation. Most of the countries have two houses of legislature. Can we consider this option? If not, can we think of forming a statutory body where elected representatives of professionals and workers will discuss issues and share their ideas with you for your consideration?
   We wish you all the best.
   Sincerely,
   An ordinary citizen
   Mohammad Mohi-us Sunnah is a lawyer by profession