Defeat, disgrace and dictatorship seemed inevitable companions of Pakistan Army despite its possession of a few nuclear crackers. The 24 hour-long recent, but not unexpected, Mumbai-style hostage taking suicidal attack by the Islamist militants inside Pakistan’s political and military Headquarters (GHQ) at Rawalpindi once again exposed the myth of Pakistan Army, the capability of Pakistani Talibans and grave concerns over Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals. Shock, fear and panic grip the whole country. No one, no place in Pakistan is safe from the militants now. In fact in the last 2/3 years on several occasions the militants attacked the GHQ, all big cantonments, Air force and Navy Headquarters (HQ) and bases, commando, paramilitary and police HQs and barracks and killed/injured a number of generals and ministers including Benazir Bhutto and President General Pervez Musharraf. Pakistan Army is the architect as well as the victim of the Islamist militants.
   About three decades ago, Pakistan, USA and oil-rich Wahhabi Arab states had taken the Afghanistan ‘jihad project’ as a cost-effective way to fight against the communist Soviet Russian invaders. The jihadies (‘mujahidins’) were recruited from all Afghan ethnic groups and youths from Muslim countries including Bangladesh. After Soviet pull-out and US disappearance, strategic and ideology planners of Pakistan Army created a number of militant organisations for different purposes: Taliban was originally created from Afghan Pashtuns (Pathans) refugee students in Pakistan madrassahs for strategic purpose of controlling Afghanistan and central Asia; several Kashmiri militant groups were created mainly for the territorial-strategic purpose against India; violent militant gangs in Pakistan’s Punjab (and Baluchistan) province were raised mainly to terrorise other sects (non-sunni), non-Muslims and Shiite Iran; Some gangs in Sindh and Baluchistan provinces were created to tackle the nationalist and democratic forces. Talibans were portrayed as Islamic Robin Hood (heroic defenders of Islam and the only hope for the poor) in national media. As Plato said, ‘What is honoured in a country is cultivated there’ – a recent survey showed that about 60 per cent Pakistani still see Afghan Talibans as heroes. All these plans and propaganda worked nicely until the 9/11 (2001) when Pakistan Army ‘reluctantly’ sided with the US against the Taliban government in Afghanistan.
   Introduction of modern education to Pashtun tribes by the British brought relative stability in that region and produced Pashtuns like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Gaffar Khan, actor Dilip Kumar (Yusuf Khan) and Imran Khan. Indoctrination of Wahhabi ideology in the same sufi-mystic Pashtun society in the last three decades by the Pakistani military planners increased intra-tribal blood shed, brought international warfare and produced mafias like Mullah Omar and Baitullah Mehsud. Common Pashtuns – both in Pakistan and Afghanistan side - are terrorised and suffer ultimately (over 3 millions became refugee during the recent Pakistan military operation in Swat area).
   During ‘mullah-military’ friendship years, the Pakistan Army, civil society and the militant groups had transformed completely. Islamabad is probably the only capital in the world without a cinema hall for last 7/8 years (a major demand of the militants). Also, the Army falls into its own propaganda trap – an alarming percentage of officer cadres came under radical influences. Each militant group – fuelled by the money from Gulf States and opium – has their own independent global and nuclear agenda.
   After 2001, due to the US presence in Afghanistan, militant recruitment and training centres (‘jihad factories’) were shifted from the Pakistan-Afghanistan Pashtun belt border too deep inside southern Punjab. Al-Qaeda linked militant outfits get safe shelter and recruited angry Punjabi youths in the poverty stricken, feudal and illiterate southern part of Punjab. A new breed of Taliban militant (Pakistani Taliban) has emerged.
   Despite about 6000-7000 troop deaths in last few years, there are strong evidences that elements inside the Pakistan Army are helping certain militant groups and Pakistan’s so-called ‘war on terror’ appears to be an unwilling and due to tremendous pressure from the USA. While the (Punjabi-dominated) Pakistan Army is very active against selective Pashtun militant tribes, is reluctant to take action on any Punjabi or Kashmiri militants. What’s more, militant groups in Kashmir, Baluchistan and Sindh are active as before. Recent reports about the jihad-sympathiser Pakistani (‘dirty-bomb’ expert) nuclear scientists, safe sanctuary of Mullah Omar (Afghan Taliban) and Osama bin Laden’s (Al Queda) top council (sura) around Quetta city and a possible military coup are highly alarming.
   Pakistan’s cultural suicide is complete. Most observers believe that now it is almost impossible to turn the clock back in highly fragile Pakistan. British war time Prime Minister Winston Churchill once observed ‘America does the right thing after exhausting every other options’. While there is strong debate whether 2009 Nobel peace prize winner US president Barack Obama can resolve the Arab-Israeli Middle East conflict, he and other world powers should immediately bring the Pakistan’s nuclear stock piles and infrastructures under safe UN control and save the world before they are handed over to the militants.
   M Emad
   Oxford, UK

The political culture in Bangladesh is yet to take a shape. The present situation is not desirable for the people who gave their votes either to the ruling party Awami League or the major opposition political BNP to get relief from their growing social and economic miseries.
   We are a unique democratic country in the world, where the political culture means revulsion, vengeance, accusation, bribery and nepotism where, democracy means rules of muscles and counting of numbers of voters and not weighing of values.
   After winning the last general elections with brute majority, the Awami League found it safe to rule the country without democratic norms. It is now safe for the party to be in power without an effective opposition. The winning party forgot its pledges that it has made with the people to bring relief in their lives. They also forgot that they had publicly said to appoint a deputy speaker of the parliament from the opposition.
   But why only blame the ruling party? Did not the major opposition party BNP make similar pledges to bring relief for the people after wining the election? If, it lost the election, there was another way to fulfil their commitment. It is not the responsibility of only the ruling party to work for betterment of people and development of the country. Similar responsibility lies on the shoulder of opposition party. Everywhere in the democratic world, the statecraft is managed by both the position and the opposition. If the ruling party has failed in dealing with the state affairs, it is the duty of the opposition to expose their failures in the national parliament and not outside the parliament. Outside parliament the elected member cannot bring a motion, cannot introduce a bill, cannot make a walkout, cannot participate in the question-answer session, and even cannot oppose an anti state or anti people bill for which the opposition is responsible in a democratic society. But if they are not in parliament it means they are not competent enough to perform their important role as opposition and unable to face the challenges of national issues and so the opposition escapes playing the role they have been given by the people. Instead, the opposition has given a clean chit to the ruling party to do freely whatever they want to do.
   There are many vital issues which have made the people divided and confused. Among them, current foreign policy of the present government, security of people and the country, national economy, and foreign interference are significantly important. The BNP leaders have made a practice to hold press briefing almost everyday to criticize the government and its leaders, because on the other side their opponents are determined not to allow them to play their due roles inside parliament.
   The BNP leaders should forget their petty grievance over seat allocation, arrest of their leaders and cadres, and undesirable behaviour of the leaders of the ruling party. If they join the session of parliament the speaker may not allow them to speak, they may not be permitted to introduce any bill and even they may not protest the moves taken by the government against some of their leaders. Or may be the treasury bench would make offensive remarks at them. In that situation they will have every right to stage a walkout and go to the people through the media, which they are now doing regularly. They will then be fully equipped to place their cases in the court of people through media. Then they will have some valid points to bring public opinion in their favour. Many people believe that if both the position and opposition jointly discuss the national issues in the parliament the gap between them may be bridged and at the same time the national issues may have a chance to be addressed properly. Otherwise, how will the BNP justify its constant absence in the Parliament to the people who have voted the party to represent them in the assembly?
   Ahmed Ilias
   Mohammadpur, Dhaka

With my humble experience of working in agricultural research for 33 years, I could not but agree with the experts that this project might do more harm than doing anything good to our agricultural development. Before going into elaborate comments, I’d like to mention some of the achievements in this sector in Bangladesh.
   Production of food crops namely cereals had almost tripled in some cases since liberation. New varieties of rice, wheat, potato, sugarcane, mango and other fruits and vegetables along with appropriate cultivation practices pushed rice production from 9 million tons in 1971 to 25 million in the 90’s. This was further enhanced with the development of varieties resistant to adverse climatic and topographical conditions like salanity, drought and flood. This smooth development was possible because there was no lending agencies with conditions tied with any such loan and research and extension workers could work well hand in hand without any interference or meddling by any such body like the World Bank.
   Past experience with the WB in case of BADC and jute sector is not very pleasing. Exports of jute and jute products dwindled, jute mills closed and many of the activities of BADC was stopped leading irregularity of input distribution. Two main components in the proposed WB project involve extension support and development of supply chain. It appears that WB wants to make up for the harm it had done by castrating BADC.
   The other point I would like to make is that agricultural research are conducted by many organisations like BARI, BRRI, SRTI, BINA and also relevant departments of universities like BAU, DU. RU etc. Sometimes, the same work is repeated or even duplicated in different institutions and thus scarce resources and manpower are wasted. So, for coordination of all these research activities, the existence of an umbrella organisation like BARC is vital for effective conduct of research. Finally, considering all aspects, it will not be wise to get a loan from WB for such a project only to support local consultants, if any.
   Dr SA Miah
   Former Research Coordinator, BRRI, Gazipur, Canada

‘It is a practice of our justice to condemn some as a warning to others. To condemn them because they have done wrong would be stupidity, as Plato says; for what is done cannot be undone. But they are condemned so that they may not do the same wrong again, or so that others may avoid the example of their wrongdoing.’ (Montaigne).
   Thus one may justify that the ‘extra-judicial killing’ in ‘crossfire’ serves the same end-point of condemnation plus warning as Montaigne maintained. But this simplification misses the very important point of ‘practice of our justice’. Built-in checks and balances are intrinsic to the justice system. Arguments are made pro and cons. The accused has his/her time to present his/her own stories in presence of fellow citizens (juries or assessors). A judgment is rendered and the common people know the ins and outs.
   Yes, justice system at its crux, at times to the chagrin of many, is an elaborate process lest we condemn our innocent.
   Yet when I talk to my friends at home, the paradox is confounding. They also despise the idea of killing by crossfire but still are happy with the proximate outcome. Criminals, after long, are really afraid! Such ambivalence of my friends at home sprouts directly from a feeling of helplessness that nothing can be done and that the lesser pain is better than the greater!
   But the government with its enormous machineries of power is no helpless fawn like a commoner. It just is callus and moribund. Or it just doesn’t care about the inherent rights of its citizens. Hence, to do one ‘small good’, it embarks on one ‘terrible bad’.
   Once upon a time, it was ‘Operation Clean Heart’ that eventually morphed into the then-infamous ‘Operation Heart Attack’. Those pathetic operators were not sufficiently abreast of the physiology of heart attack otherwise they also could have divined the new meaning of now-infamous but much more palatable ‘Operation Crossfire’. What a morbid inflection of a rather mundane word ‘CROSSFIRE’!
   Extreme situation, indeed, needs extreme measure. Situation arising from stupidity and apathy, however, often ends up with stupendously stupid measure! Crime and violence is not a quantity and/or entity in itself. It rather is a form of a more sinister societal illness ‘that can aptly be described in a single sad word ‘lawlessness’. Unlawful extra-judicial measure, not only adds further to the abysmal entropy but also acts as a catalyst for its accelerated perpetuation, especially when it is sanctioned by a legitimate government — the prime function of which, as John Locke would have argued, is to preserve and protect the rights of its citizens.
   Living in my safe sanctuary in North America, I am not subject to the abject lawlessness ‘as experienced by my friends living in Dhaka’. I, thus, am in no position to utter a single word opposing their position of staying mum. But as a person who cares for dignity and sanctity of human life ‘I do have harsh opinion as to the stated policy of an elected government.
   Moammad Zaman
   Cary, North Carolina

For years Bangladesh Railway had been perceived as the cheapest transport service provider in the country. It had contributed enormously to the economy as one of the biggest employers in the public sector. For years it suffered from lack of investment, which ultimately led it into becoming one of the biggest losing ventures of the government. Perhaps calling it a ‘venture’ would be wrong as for long the railway had been taken as a ‘service provider’ rather than a commercial venture. And as a ‘service provider’ our railway is far from providing any decent service to the commuters. It is rather a provider of ‘jobs’ and one of the biggest ‘absorbers’ of public money.
   The policymakers must ask themselves if we ought to keep it as it is or do ‘something’ about it, and that ‘something’ cannot only be making the railway a ‘corporation’ but ‘privatising’ parts of its operations.
   It was often raised by different government, after agreeing with the donor agencies, that plans were underway to make the railway a ‘corporation’. We haven’t seen any significant change being made so far. On the other hand, we have the unionist politicians who are ready to mobilise thousands of people against any attempt to make the Railway a corporation.
   As for me, I simply cannot understand the logic behind keeping this massively loss making sector in government hand. In my view not only the losing concerns, even the profit making ventures of the public sector must be privatised. Those who oppose it, either doing so on pure political grounds, or they lack the very basic understanding of free market economy. They must know that in capitalism government is there to play a ‘referee’ part, not to engage in the ‘game’ itself, they are there to regulate the economy in the right direction not to operate it. When the government starts taking part, it destroys the natural balance of the market place, creates unfair advantages for the inefficiently run public sector. I wonder when would they ever realise it and if the policymakers cannot realise it, our transition into the market economy will never materialise.
   A citizen
   Via e-mail