Q + A Is Bangladesh Heading Back To Political Violence?

Bangladesh on Thursday repealed a system of holding elections under a non- partisan caretaker administration that was introduced in the mid- 1990 s to try to end the violence and fraud that have often marred voting in the South Asian country. The constitutional amendment provoked unrest earlier this month, when opposition supporters clashed with security forces during a general strike called to protest against the move. It could trigger more violent protests by the opposition. Bangladesh has lagged behind the region in economic growth partly because of its history of political violence since independence in 1971 , and analysts fear more confrontational politics could derail its goal to become a middle- income country by 2021. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina took office in early 2009 and a general election is not due until late 2013. The campaign against the electoral change by the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and its Islamic allies piles pressure on a government already struggling with discontent over high prices, growing unemployment and poor utility services. Following are some questions and answers relating to the renewed unrest:     WHAT IS THE MAIN ISSUE? Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina said the non-party caretaker system had to go after the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in May.     The system, introduced in 1996 , generally worked well in keeping the peace and avoiding widespread rigging and fraud in parliamentary polls, though the losing side always complained of such abuses. Hasina's rival opposition leader Begum Khaleda Zia accuses the government of attempting to cling to power. The ruling Awami League denies the allegation. Analysts say the brewing conflict over the issue could drag the country back into turmoil after the uneasy political peace of recent years. HOW DID THE CARETAKER SYSTEM WORK? Under the system, the ruling party hands power to a non-party interim authority that must hold a parliamentary election and transfer power to the elected government within three months. Bangladesh held three elections under the caretaker system, but it suffered a setback in 2007 when months of political violence prompted the powerful army to set up an interim authority, which stayed on for two years before holding a national vote at end of 2008. The army-backed caretaker government also led a widespread crackdown on corruption, in which both Khaleda and Hasina were put in jail for alleged wrongdoing, which they denied. The two women were freed ahead of the December 2008 election in which Hasina trounced Khaleda by a huge margin, winning more than two- thirds of the seats in parliament. Analysts and diplomats say the worsening political confrontations between the two women, often dubbed as "battling begums", could plunge Bangladesh back into political turmoil, threatening the country's fledgling economy and driving away hesitant investors.     WHAT ARE THE MAIN CHALLENGES FACING THE GOVERNMENT? The government aims to achieve economic growth of 7 percent in the coming fiscal year starting in July on the back of higher exports and stable income from migrant workers. But this target may be missed if an opposition campaign to oust the government turns violent.     Hasina's government was widely applauded for its initial success in bringing down food and other commodity prices, and reducing diesel and fertiliser prices to help farmers, the mainstay of the country's agrarian economy. But soaring prices in global markets and corruption have partly driven costs higher, with inflation racing to a near three-year high. Price pressures are a major concern for the government as nearly 40 percent of the country's more than 150 million people live on less than $1.25 a day. The government has also been criticised fora recent crash in the stock market, where millions of small-time investors had put their money. In an effort to support share prices, the government has revived a tax amnesty offer that allows investors to pay 10 percent on undeclared money if they invest the rest in the stock market.     Unrest could also come from the export-oriented ready-made garment sector, where workers went on strike several times last year, demanding better benefits and wages. The authorities last year nearly doubled workers' pay, but it is still far less than what they had demanded.

Police Action Against Nat'l Committee Betrays Govts Undemocratic Attitude

THE police action against leaders and activists of the National Committee to Protect Oil, Gas, Mineral Resources, Power And Ports on Monday as they tried to bring out a procession at Mohammadpur in the capital Dhaka in support of the committee’ s half-day general strike on July 3 tends to lend credence to the public perception of the Awami League-Jatiya Party government’s growing intolerance with dissenting voices in society. According to a report published in New Age on Tuesday, the law enforcers beat up national committee leaders and activists and snatched away banners and placards from them. They also detained two members of the committee. The police action appears in sync with the antagonistic political rhetoric that key functionaries of the government, including the prime minister, have directed at the committee for protesting against the signing of a production sharing contract with the US oil giant ConocoPhillips on June 16 for hydrocarbon exploration in, and extraction from, two offshore blocks. The national committee, a citizens’ forum featuring eminent intellectuals, has provided critical views on and analysis of the economic and energy policies pursued by successive governments since its inception in the late 1990 s. Time and again, it has mobilised public opinion and organised popular protests against non-transparent agreements that the ruling quarters have entered into with international oil companies and multilateral lending agencies, apparently compromising the state’s policy sovereignty on the one hand and undermining the people’s interest on the other. Ironically, after the national committee had forced the previous elected government of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party- led alliance into shelving a plan to engage Asia Energy for open-pit mining in Phulbari through a popular movement, the current prime minister, then the leader of the opposition in parliament, went all the way to Phulbari to express her solidarity with the committee. However, since coming to power, she and her government seem to have thus far been antagonistic towards the committee and the cause it stands for. It may be pertinent to recall here that the police swooped on a peaceful procession of the committee in September 2009 leaving at least 20 , including its member secretary, an eminent economist, injured. The government’s apparent antagonism to the committee has seemingly intensified since the latter started to oppose the deal with ConocoPhillips and called a hartal in protest. Ultimately, the government’s hostility towards the committee seems to stem from its intolerance with divergent and dissenting views, which has found expression time and again in its legal and extra-legal actions to encroach upon the democratic political space of the opposition camp. The government, besides taking recourse to section 144 to foil opposition rally and procession, even obstructed the opposition from holding a decidedly peaceful and innocuous programme such as human chain. Such repressive actions, needless to say, not only are antithetic to universal democratic principles but also runs counter with the constitution of Bangladesh, which guarantees the rights to the freedom of assembly. It is thus imperative for the rights-conscious and democratically-oriented sections of society and the media to raise their voices and mobilise public opinion against the government’s undemocratic attitude and action.

Summersaults, Contradiction And Confused Populace

The bottom line is that the government is confusing ordinary people with not just what they are saying but also with what they are doing. The government seems busy trying to make everybody happy at the same time, writes Mubin S Khan   WHILE speaking to the press on June 25 , Suranjit Sen Gupta, co- chairman of the special parliamentary committee on amendment to the constitution, observed that a constitutional void was unhealthy for a country— apparently as a justification for moving the bill for constitutional amendment in parliament. A rather amusing observation because, if I remember correctly, just the other day, the leader of the opposition in parliament, Khaleda Zia stirred a storm by saying the country was running devoid of a constitution to which members of the government and the party in power reacted with all their rhetorical wrath. Politics is often dominated by rhetoric and, in our country especially, the rhetoric can over a very short time completely switch sides, without changing so much of an ‘adjective’ in its content. Take the example of the caretaker government issue. In 1996 the Awami League, led by Sheikh Hasina, and its allies Jatiya Party and Jamaat-e-Islami claimed that ‘ for a free and fair election a neutral caretaker government was necessary to save democracy, people’s voting right and national economy.’ Khaleda Zia, then the prime minister, ‘rejected the opposition guideline for caretaker government terming it undemocratic, unconstitutional and insulting to people’s verdict.’ Khaleda kept asking the opposition to sit for talks, offered to strengthen the Election Commission by reforming relevant laws, and asked the opposition, repeatedly, to come to parliament and make their observations heard. Hasina refused to go to parliament ‘until and unless the government makes an announcement of its readiness to move a bill on an acceptable caretaker government’. In the most amusing of political rhetoric, according to The Bangladesh Times in 1996 , Khaleda Zia said ‘since her government came to power there had been a number of elections including 16 by-elections.’ ‘These elections were free and fair, even the ruling party candidates were defeated in Dhaka and Chittagong city corporation elections. This highlights the fact that our government believes in free and fair election,’ she had said. Déjà vu indeed! In a world with an eroding value of idealism and fleeting public memory, it is quite understandable that politicians will resort to just about anything to retain, or regain, power. Often, it provides fodder for the round-the-clock media, and healthy amusement to a lot of people otherwise strained for entertainment in a country whose entertainment industry provides very little—in fact, rather ironically, is riddled in politics. In a conservative society where the young are raised to never question the virtues and wisdom of the elderly, I am sure, it is more amusing for the younger generation to watch middle-aged men and women, of the generation of their parents and grandparents, take centre stage and utter gibberish, discard opinions and positions like they discard dirty laundry and quibble like children in a football match gone awry. Ever since the AL-led government came to power two and half years back, political rhetoric has been at one of its finest best in terms of doing summersaults and providing contradictions. To be fair to them, the expansion of the mainstream media may also have increased the attention of such utterances and brought more of them into public domain. With the 30- odd seats in parliament, the opposition seems to find it more airy to stay on the streets, while the parties-in-power- run parliament has been a feast in the exercise of ‘democracy’, with heads of the parliamentary affairs committee and many of the potential minister-rejects more often assuming the roles of pseudo-opposition. One is almost tempted to wonder if the unfulfilled dream of BKSAL would have looked something like this. From the very beginning of this government we have enjoyed many a battle—Suranjit vs. HT Imam (the prime minister’s adviser), Suranjit vs. Shafique Ahmed (the law minister), Tofail Ahmed (a former commerce minister) vs. Abul Hossain (the communications minister), Syed Ashraful Islam (the LGRD minister and AL general secretary) vs. Abdul Jalil (former AL general secretary), the list goes on and on. There have been further battles—AL MPs Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir and Abdul Jalil’s crusade to see the Moeen Uddin-Fakhruddin government brought to book, Alamgir’s crusade against the Anti-Corruption Commission, or the entire government’s crusade against former Grameen Bank managing director Dr Yunus. In all the battles, the divisions that gaped in the beginning and merged at the end provided ample entertainment to news followers. Suranjit no longer boasts the supremacy of the legislative over the judiciary; there are no longer battles between the victims and beneficiaries of the Moeen Uddin-Fakhruddin government, Muhith no longer stands up for Yunus’s innocence while the Rapid Action Battalion, once referred to in parliament by the prime minister ‘as an institution which has tasted blood’ receives an unprecedented level of political and rhetorical support from all quarters of the government. But the lines between amusement and troubling can often get blurry. Take the instance of the amendment to the constitution. The Supreme Court has declared the fifth amendment, the seventh amendment and the thirteenth amendment to the constitution illegal. We have been informed through the media that the constitution is being reprinted at government-owned BG Press and yet, the parliamentary committee for amendment to the constitution went around discussing with various groups amendments to the constitution. The committee members in the midst of their discussions voiced their support for election-time caretaker governments in the future, and yet went completely silent when the prime minister discarded their long list of possible forms of caretaker government, taking refuge in a single portion of a Supreme Court judgement. Amidst all this, Ziaur Rahman retains his signature in the constitution through ‘ Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem’ and HM Ershad through ‘Islam as the state religion’ while the constitution apparently also retains secularism as one of its pillars. At the present moment, it is safe to say that nobody knows exactly what social contract binds together the people of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. Contradictions and summersaults have not just remained in the world of rhetoric and polemics, but have also stepped into policies of this government as well, and that is where it gets dangerous. During the much-hailed National Education Policy of 2009 , the committee first gave the impression that the government would finally remove the constitutional anomaly of various streams of education in the country but in the end settled for a more uniform curriculum, also omitting the word ‘secular’ from the policy. In the Women Development Policy 2011 , the government made a long list of proposals for the emancipation of women in the country and then conveniently refrained from guaranteeing equal inheritance to women, the issue that had made the policy imminent in the first place. The bottom line is that the government is confusing ordinary people with not just what they are saying but also with what they are doing. The government seems busy trying to make everybody happy at the same time. A look at the proposed budget for the fiscal 2011-2012 aptly illustrates this point, where there appears to be huge allocations for almost every citizen and every sector—from social safety nets to provisions for turning black money white— without hurting anyone’s sensitivity. In the end we have a humongous deficit of Tk 45 ,204 crore. Reaching the two-and-a-half year mark in tenure is an important landmark for any elected government in Bangladesh. It is often when people decide, and begin to voice their impressions of the government in power. Sitting on such an important juncture, the AL-led government should better decide whose government it exactly is, rather than try to win over everyone. It should finally try and answer questions which they have so far either left ambiguous or bombed confusion, with contradictory statements. Does the prime minister think ‘Moeen Uddin- Fakhruddin’ government was a ‘ crocodile’—if we infer from her most recent comments—or does she think, like her telecommunications minister Raziuddin Ahmed Razu, that Moeen U Ahmed is one of the finest Bangladeshi generals of the last forty years? Does she intend to ever rein in the Rapid Action Battalion as she promised in parliament or does she now believe that it has never committed extrajudicial killings like a host of her cabinet members? Will the finance minister please tell us whether we are pursuing free-market economic policies or socialist economic policies? And most importantly, will the prime minister and the government please tell us whether we live in a secular country or an Islamic one? If the government fails to answer these questions, they will not only ever win over the ones that did not vote for them but may also lose the ones who voted them to power.

India Needs To Change Attitude In Dealing With Bangladesh

ONE-way traffic in India- Bangladesh relations becomes apparent once again if we take into consideration the news that Bangladeshi citizens are not allowed to enter India through the Botuli check post in Sylhet, although Indian citizens are allowed to make the trip the other way round. According to a report published in New Age on Monday, the Indian authorities have stopped issuing visas to Bangladeshis since November 2003 at the Botuli check post in Moulvibazar, reactivated by both countries in 2001 , after a 26- year gap.    While the issue of a single check post may appear minor in the greater scheme of things, it nonetheless feeds on the growing perception, at least amongst a significant section of the population in the country, that India-Bangladesh relations are affected by a lopsided foreign policy, where Bangladesh end up giving a lot more concessions to its powerful neighbours. At a time when both governments are vocal about improving relations between the two countries, such news can feed into abovementioned perceptions. The Bangladeshi government has already initiated the process of allowing India transit to its north- eastern states, and Botuli certainly does set a bad example in this regard. It does raise the question as to why, when the Bangladesh government has extended a hand despite significant resistance from many quarters in the country, the Indian government is still inclined to keeping its doors closed. More simply put, if ‘friendly relations’ is the word that is being bandied around, why should there be double standards, albeit in one check post or many? It has been apparent since the Awami League-led alliance came to power that the government has among its priority agendas to improve ties with India. In this regard, the government has initiated transit facilities, have cracked down on Indian fugitives seeking refuge in Bangladesh and also opened doors to a number of trade and investment opportunities. However, India’s response to Bangladesh’s concerns has so far been lukewarm. Killing of unarmed Bangladeshi citizens along India-Bangladesh borders continue to take place despite repeated assurance from the top brasses of the Indian state. The Indian government is also yet to address the issue of enclaves between the two countries, the un- demarcated borders or for that matter, conclusively address the issue of water share of the river Teesta. Botuli could very well be an administrative oversight or a strategic concern of the Indian authorities, but it is nonetheless consistent with the Indian government’s attitude in dealing with the people of Bangladesh. If the governments of both countries are indeed interested in developing lasting ties between the peoples and governments of the two countries, then a change in attitude—whether it concerns large issues such as Teesta or small ones like Botuli—is in order.

National Interest : Vis - ä - Vis Gas Deal

Patriotism means love of and devotion to one’s country; and a patriot vigorously supports and defends its interests with dedication. It is universally recognised, and there are no two opinions about the truism that martyrs for the cause of the motherland like the Bangla Bhasha martyrs and the three million martyrs during the Bangladesh Liberation War were the patriots of the highest order as they had sacrificed their lives for their homeland. And nobody will ever question the patriotism of Sher-e- Bangla A K Fazlul Huq, Awami League’s founder-President Moulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani, Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman et al.    The question of ‘patriotism’ has become relevant as the Prime Minister herself bragged about possessing this virtue in reference to the deal signed on June 16 by her government with Texas-based ConocoPhillips for exploring surveys in offshore blocks 10 and 11 , in line with a model PSC-2008 formulated during the last caretaker government. “While we’ re trying to march ahead, these groups keep opposing us,” Sheikh Hasina said, in an oblique reference to the protest programmes carried out by the National Committee to Protect Oil, Gas, Mineral Resources, Power and Ports (NCPOGMRPP).    Hasina also mentioned that during her previous term, from 1996-2001 , she had turned down the proposal to sell gas. She said that in 2001 polls, her party could not come to power, as it did not want to sell gas to some foreign companies. “I used to consider national interest above everything else,” Hasina said adding, “Who is a better patriot and protector of the country’s interests?” It has to be admitted that in 2001 she did a true patriot’s job. But what about the present one?    A prominent English daily had contacted in December, 2010 foreign minister Dipu Moni, and the energy adviser Chowdhury. It had sought official responses on the disclosure of the deal. “They had avoided questions; afterwards they stopped receiving calls. They did not respond to text messages either”, the daily noted.    Surprisisngly enough, NCPOGMRPP’s specific criticisms of the terms of the contract are not answered. The unresponded questions are: why has the leasing company been awarded the right to sell off 80 per cent of the gas extracted? Why will the multinational companies will sell gas to us at very high prices? Why will gas prices double from earlier prices, $2.92 , or Tk 210 for a million cubic feet to $5-6 or Tk 420 , which will push up the prices of daily necessities and services further?    In September 2009 police assaulted and wounded varsity professor Anu Mahmud and the others who were proceeding towards Petrobangla. It was ludicrous to see the farce of seeking apology to Mahmud and other badly injured persons including female participants in the protest rally. The hidden cause of this drama could be that the government has something to hide about the details of the deal. This year the victim is eminent columnist, anthropologist and scholar Ms. Rahnuma Ahmed who was injured during the clash between police and protesters on 14 June 2011. The nation was aghast and shuddered to watch her blood-drenched head and face on most of the satellite TV channels and a small number of newspapers.    Among the masses, unquestionably, the consciousness and feeling regarding the national interest and resources run deep; and this sentiment should be respected by any government if it has the least concern for this resource-poor country and its resources. It is advisable that instead of enthusiastically gratifying international oil companies and concurring with their exploitative terms and conditions that harm the nation economically, the incumbents should weigh up this disadvantaged nation’s essential and indispensable requirement. If the government leaders fail to be farsighted then the posterity will not forgive them.    While there is life, there is hope: dum spiro spero. Every individual, in adversity, keeps on hoping against hope. The country’s non- renewable natural resources, such as gas, oil, coal and other minerals, are extremely precious; in fact priceless. So, no government, even with three- fourths majority in parliament, has the right to sell at a lower price the exhaustible resource that can never be regenerated at an enormous cost in future. We keep our fingers crossed to see the proof of patriotism.