The Great Partition Of Dhaka City

The great divide of our historic Dhaka city into two parts is finally happening; the legislature has approved the ordinance for the division. Barring any miraculous court orders nullifying the legislation, for which the courts have been moved, soon there will be two cities although we do not know what they will be called. People like us who had spent their childhood and youth in good old Dhaka will not know what new name our part of the old city will bear. Will they be simply called South and North,or will they be christened with some names? 

Do we care what the names will be? All we know is that the Dhaka that we knew and grew up with, the city that the world was familiar with, will no longer be the same with any other name. I know any comments on this division are post facto, crying in the wilderness, or more proverbially crying over spilled milk. Nonetheless, I would like to cry. I would like to register my protest as an ex-citizen of Dhaka, albeit from thousands of miles away. 

We have been told that the division of Dhaka was mandated by poor services to the citizens. We have been further told that this was necessary to make city life better with improved sanitation, water supply, road conditions, transportation, and what have you. A divided Dhaka will make the average citizen's life much superior with enhanced and faster services -- the services that they do not have now. Let us pause for a second to reflect on the promises in these hypotheses. 

Dhaka City Corporation has been in existence for over three decades now, turning from a Municipality that was created hundred and fifty years ago. From a small urban centre of a few square kilometers in 1900 with about a hundred thousand people, the city is nearly 1,530 sq. km in size now, with an estimated population of about 12 million. As one of the top 11 megacities, Dhaka is probably the fastest growing in the world. It is projected that by 2025 eight of the ten megacities will be in Asia with Dhaka ranked fourth, following closely on the heels of Tokyo, Bombay and Delhi. 

How do you manage urban services for this burgeoning population without first tackling and planning to accommodate this growth? Is it by splitting the city into two halves, or by augmenting resources of the people who manage the services, and handing them the authority to do so? 

The key challenges that Dhaka faces are not posed by incorporation of the city as a single entity. The other ten megacities of the world, including those in our neighboring country (such as Kolkata and Mumbai), continue to remain a single corporation and they continue to provide urban services to their citizenry as one city corporation. However, the challenges that Dhaka faces, unlike other cities, come from other sources. These are the city's unfortunate location -- being virtually surrounded by rivers that limit expansion -- its population density, and impossible traffic. 

Bifurcation of the city will not alter the physical and manmade challenges that Dhaka faces now. Our population will continue to grow, and so will our traffic, and the divided city will have to cope with this growth and services will continue to suffer. No miracle can be expected in the delivery of services unless the purveyors of the services have the resources and authority to deliver. 

While defending the decision to split Dhaka our prime minister reportedly made comments that such divisions "to improve urban services" had taken place in other major cities of the world such as London, Melbourne, Sidney, Manila, etc. To put things in the correct perspective we should point out that London City was not divided by any legislation. London has two parts; City of London, and Greater London. The City of London is a small area (2.9 km) within Greater London, England. It is the historic core of London around which the modern London grew, and it has held city status since time immemorial. The City's boundaries have remained almost unchanged since the Middle Ages, and it is now only a tiny part of the metropolis of London, though it remains a notable part of central London. Greater London is the top-level administrative subdivision covering London. Melbourne and Sidney to my knowledge do not have divided city corporations; both cities are run by elected city corporations headed by mayors (called Lord Mayors). 

We should not be looking at these cities for comparison in any case; they are far above our league. We should look at the nearest cities that have problems comparable to our own -- such as Kolkata and Mumbai -- and see how the corporations in these cities provide services to their citizens. The problems Dhaka's citizens face are not likely to be resolved by this Great Divide. We will probably render them twice in magnitude.

BY : Ziauddin Choudhury. 

A Slice Of Dhaka, Anyone?

The decision to split Dhaka seems like one of those ‘brilliant’ ideas that come to the head in a soused or stoned state, which miraculously stick to your mind in the morning. The real consequences of this decision, of course, neither do we know, nor do the critics, nor does the government. That was never the point anyway.

WITH so many amendments being made to the laws that govern our country, I wonder if an amendment can be made to the Right to Information Act 2009, by introducing the word ‘authentic’ to it, and calling it Right to (Authentic) Information Act. I say this, because, on the day our prime minister flamboyantly defended her decision to split the Dhaka City Corporation, she mentioned, that many cities in the world, including London, Manila, Sydney and Melbourne, have more than one city corporation. Correct me if I am wrong, but my Google research tells me that the city of Manila has one corporation (to be distinguished from metro Manila which is not the capital but a region), while south Sydney city council, created in 1989, was merged with the city of Sydney in 2004 as its ‘financial viability’ was under threat. No mention anywhere of two mayors or municipalities or councils in Melbourne. London has the lord mayor of the City of London, besides the mayor of Greater London, though it is essentially a ceremonial post and the lord mayor works as an ambassador to the business and financial establishments of the City of London.

However, it is not that we wouldn’t find more than one mayor in any part of the world if we tried hard. Many of the adjoining townships or new areas of large cities often fall outside the purview of city governments and are administered through separate local councils. If indeed, the administrative functions of a certain geographical area need to be divided for enhancing performance, then you can cut out as many slices of the cake as you may wish.

Slicing up Dhaka appears to have attracted some legal complications though. The immediate-past mayor Sadeque Hossain’s lawyers argued in court that Article 1 of our constitution describes our state as ‘unitary’, while Article 5 defines Dhaka as the capital of the republic. The courts in the past observed that splitting the High Court was a breach of Article 1, while, during the verdict of the 13th amendment case, it declared caretaker governments illegal on grounds that the country cannot be administered by unelected officials, going by the constitution. Whether bifurcation and introduction of unelected administrators contradict the constitution is now up to them to decide.

There appears to be merit in the arguments of the critics of the decision as well. The city corporation essentially fixes roads, cleans garbage and drains, manages graveyards and public toilets, and kills mosquitoes. Important city functions like town planning, controlling traffic, running the public transport system, and supplying water and electricity do not fall among their functions and the case for having an autonomous city government with powers to control those, ahead of the split, sounds rather compelling. Some critics also say that the north-south division also threatens to widen disparity, as the rich areas of Gulshan and Banani in the north are bound to pay more taxes to their mayor than their poor Old Dhaka cousins in the south. Things can get worse if the north get a mayor from the ruling party and the south gets one from the opposition, or vice versa. Add to that, according to the new bill, the government has 90 days to both organise elections during the tenure of an outgoing election commission and split the infrastructure, logistics and administration of the city corporation into half, which is bound to put an avoidable strain on the public exchequer.

The legal and administrative complications are, however, all secondary. What is surprising, if not shocking, is that the whole of us 15 million Dhakaites woke up one November morning to discover that we were either northerners or southerners of Dhaka. There is no mention of it in the electoral manifesto, there has been no study to assess the relative advantages and disadvantages of splitting Dhaka, there was no demand for it from any section of the urban dwellers, in organised form or otherwise, nobody was asked for advice, not even the highest elected representatives for Dhaka. Everyone has been grappling for meaning ever since.

The Jamuna Bridge was built because the people of the north-west of the country wanted a faster route to reach Dhaka. The Padma Bridge has been conceived because the people of the south-west now want a similar route to Dhaka. The country was liberated because the ordinary people of East Pakistan wanted reprieve from the repressive regimes of West Pakistan and the bold leaders of the time articulated their wishes and organised their demand. See, the word ‘democracy’, printed on the bare back of Noor Hossain before he was shot dead, have a meaning. Democracy is a space where people vent their wishes and expectations, while political leaders articulate their demand or deliver on them.

It was during the time of kings and maharajahs that you dreamed up of building an expensive palace as an ode to your beautiful wife, of shifting capitals and of splitting capitals in two halves or four. This throwback to the era of maharajahs is what has left us perplexed. That is why, though the consequences are far less grievous, some people old enough to remember have drawn comparisons to that wintry January morning 36 years ago when they woke up to the six-hundred-pound gorilla called BKSAL.

All this, of course, is a case of sour grapes. The president has signed the bill and whether we like it or not, for law-abiding citizens, it is now a law. What prompted the government to take such a step is something everyone knows, but from a sense of propriety has so far only been described as ‘politically motivated’.

Mayor elections, especially of Dhaka and Chittagong, have somehow become potent indicators of the level of acceptability of the government in power, over the last two decades. In 1994, Md Hanif and ABM Mohiuddin Chowdhury’s victory in the Dhaka City Corporation and the Chittagong City Corporation polls paved the way for the then opposition Awami League to kick-start a successful anti-government movement, while Mohiuddin’s victory again in 2005, once again served the Awami League the same purpose. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party already has its hands on the Chittagong City Corporation by removing the mighty Mohiuddin with little-known Manjur Alam. The incumbents can ill-afford another embarrassment in Dhaka and the split at least increases their chances, drastically, of having at least one mayor from their ranks.

This ‘politically-motivated’ decision, of course, is one more offspring of the ‘winner-takes-all’ politics of our country. The culture of mutual political animosity and personal repulsion has driven the two camps in the country to device ingenious ways to keep each other out of power. If only such ingeniousness and acumen was on display when defending our rights and solving our problems. The constitution, the parliament, the judiciary, the economy, the law enforcement agencies, the religion of the majority and now the capital are simple pawns in the game of power ready to be sacrificed at the altar of parochial necessity. Who knows, five years from now, the BNP might want to split Dhaka into four and the Awami League will take to the streets to defend the four hundred years of heritage of Dhaka.

The decision to split Dhaka seems like one of those ‘brilliant’ ideas that come to the head in a soused or stoned state, which miraculously stick to your mind in the morning. The real consequences of this decision, of course, neither do we know, nor do the critics, nor does the government. That was never the point anyway. But in the game of sacrificing pawns and protecting kings, we seem to be swimming deeper and deeper into stranger shores. We split Dhaka now, in the future, we might just as well want to split the country. If wards can be divided equally, why not districts. There is geographical distribution of popularity anyway. On second thought, given the blinding necessity of both sides to keep hold of power it might not be such a bad thing either.

BY : Mubin S Khan.  

Administrators Replacing Mayors ‘Unconstitutional’

Politicians and rights activists have observed that appointment of administrators replacing an elected mayor is unconstitutional and a violation of the Supreme Court ruling.

They have also termed the provision for replacement of the elected mayor by an administrator ‘double standards’ of the Awami League-led government.

The government on Sunday appointed administrators to the two city corporations in Dhaka, formed by splitting the Dhaka City Corporation by the amendment to the Local Government (City Corporation) Act 2009.

Jatiya Sangsad passes the bill on November 29.

Section 25 of the amended act empowers the government to appoint administrator to a city corporation after its formation or after the expiry of the tenure of the elected mayor.

The politicians and rights activists, whom New Age talked to, observed that the provision was unconstitutional and a clear violation of the Supreme Court verdict that had scrapped the provision for an election-time caretaker government on the plea that unelected persons could to replace an elected government.

They also said that amendment to the 2009 act exposed the ‘double standard’ of the Awami League, which had dropped the caretaker provision on the same plea.

Bangladesh Nationalist Party acting secretary general Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir said that the amendment to the 2009 act was ‘unconstitutional’ and ‘ill motivated’.

Workers Party leader Rashed Khan Menon, also a ruling alliance lawmaker, said, ‘We strongly oppose any provision for replacing an elected body by an unelected one. It goes against the spirit of the constitution and the Supreme Court verdict.’

‘I suggested that public opinion should be solicited before the passage of the bill, but I could not place

my argument in Jatiya Sangsad, since the bill was passed before the scheduled time,’ Menon said.

Communist Party of Bangladesh general secretary Mujahidul Islam Selim said, ‘It is curious that the ruling party which is against the caretaker government, at the same time wants an unelected administrator to lead a local government body like the city corporation. One of the stands can be correct – but not both. To me they have taken such a contradictory stand just to fulfill their unethical political interest.’

Awami League leader Suranjit Sen Gupta, however, defended the new legislation.

‘In the case of formation of a new city corporation, the provision for appointing an administrator is not contradictory to article 11 of the constitution,’ he said.

When asked about appointment of an administrator after the expiry of the tenure of a mayor, Suranjit said, ‘After the end of the tenure of an elected mayor, that person also becomes “unelected” so he should voluntarily leave the office.’

Former caretaker government adviser Sultana Kamal, also a rights activist, said, ‘Awami League itself is responsible for not holding the Dhaka City Corporation election in time. So they cannot make such statements.’

She said, ‘When the government is so serious about ensuring the rule of an elected government, why their stand is exactly the opposite in the case of local governments. In fact, their political motive is to put the people of their choice in office replacing an elected body.’

Section 25 of the amended act is against the spirit of the Supreme Court verdict, the 15th amendment to the constitution, which has dropped the provisions on caretaker government, and against the political stand of the ruling party on the issue, Shahdeen Malik, a senior lawyer and constitutional expert, told New Age.

‘In fact the amended section is a breach of Article 11 of the constitution that ensures effective participation of the people through their elected representatives in government administration at all levels and also against the spirit of Articles 59 and 60 of the constitution that deal with local government,’ he said.

Historically, political leaders and bureaucrats have always tried to control the local government bodies, he said adding, ‘The amended Section 25 of the 2009 act is just a reflection of such mentality.’

Tofael Ahmed, a local government expert, also found the government’s step ‘highly contradictory’.

‘In fact, the government is taking contradictory decisions for political gains,’ he said.

Source :

Undemocratic Split Of DCC

Whatever façade may be manoeuvred to conceal the veiled intent, and no matter what lame excuses are assigned in regard to dissecting Dhaka City Corporation (DCC) into two; public perception is that the ruling Awami League (AL), headed by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, was lamentably powerless to field a single person as candidate from the AL to match the overwhelming popularity enjoyed by Mayor Sadek Hossain Khoka who had been piloting the DCC for about a decade. The AL high command conducted intelligence surveys for years, pondered and desperately brooded over the matter for the past 1048 days; but could find none from among its old guard or not-so-old leaders to confront an electoral fight with a formidable mayoral candidate like Khoka, incidentally who is a leader of the opposition BNP which party —- in the words of Prime Minister herself —- is not only rival but ‘enemy’. Therefore, it all emanated from BNP- phobia, if you like.

The High Court questioned the legality of splitting the DCC into two and asked the government to explain why the bill should not be declared illegal and unconstitutional.

Could Khoka’s predecessor, the late M. Hanif, make Dhaka city mosquito-free by releasing millions of ‘Guppi’ fish into the drains, canals and ponds that were publicised to be larva eaters? No. Khoka too could not eradicate mosquitoes; but he will be remembered for at least one commendable job as he dedicated some of the city streets after the names of the Sector Commanders of our Liberation War.

Moreover, confirmed honesty made Khoka a people’s man; he was found to be a Mr. Clean in that during the two-year military-backed caretaker government a sizeable group of military officers opened an office in Nagar Bhaban, inspected several relevant dossiers, records and invited complaints from the public to determine corruption in the DCC but found none.

It is clear that dwellers of Dhaka city, scholars and intellectuals have a strong sentiment favouring one indivisible Dhaka city and they are passionately resenting the AL government’s narrow partisan interest. So in solidarity with the Dhakaites, well ahead of tabling the quixotic bill the AL has been morally defeated when Khoka voluntarily declared that he would NOT contest the next DCC mayoral election if the city remains undivided.

This act of Khoka reminds us of the tale that determined the truth. Claiming motherhood of a baby boy when two disputing women approached King Solomon, he ordered that the baby be bisected into two and given each half to each woman. “No!” cried the first woman, weeping. Then King Solomon spoke, “Give the first woman the child; she is the mother.”

Again, the incumbents have been crying hoarse that no institution must be headed by unelected persons. Then what can be a nastier hypocrisy than the stipulated organogram where there is proviso for two unelected persons as heads of the corporations?

What is needed is empowerment of the DCC to function independent of the diktat of the local government ministry in which respect both AL and BNP have been indifferent and unconcerned. We are told that as of now the DCC cannot employ even a menial staff without the permission of the ministry.

In glory, grandeur and heritage 400-year old Dhaka city has few parallels. Formally named Jahangir Nogor and built by the Mughals, she is witness to many extraordinary historical events: the emergence of Muslim consciousness facilitated by the Nawabs, setting up of the Dhaka University in 1920, the 1947 partition, the Language Movement from 1948 to 1952, the anti-Ayub Democratic movement, the heinous genocide perpetrated by the brutal Pakistani hordes and the Victory Day of 16 December 1971. So, sadly bifurcation of the city will mean deprivation of the northern half of the rich heritage that the city possesses.

Many great cities like New York, Shanghai, Tokyo, Kolkata and so on are under one single corporation as umbrella. When some administrative change was proposed for London city, which functions under one Mayor, citizens were requested to consider them in a space of some eight years. At long last a referendum was held to decide the matter. The DCC can certainly have 12 or more zonal offices for overseeing local problems; but splitting it is most unwise, imprudent and injudicious. But deplorably, Sheikh Hasina’s democratic government does not care a fig for the people.

Collected :

Special Relationship With India Restored

HOPE, expectation, satisfaction, disappointment—such words are used to express emotions and sentiments. But life is more than emotions—and more so, diplomacy. The Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, in his onboard media interaction during his return journey to New Delhi on September 7, made an evaluation of the outcome of the just-concluded Bangladesh-India summit meeting held in Dhaka. He said: ‘[W]hat we have achieved today, things could have been better if we were able to sign the water sharing accord, but what we have achieved, a broad umbrella agreement setting out pathways of cooperation in diverse fields for accelerated development of our two countries, I think has immense potentialities.’

The ‘broad umbrella agreement’ is the Framework Agreement on Cooperation for Development between Bangladesh and India. The agreement has become operative from the same day it was signed, on September 6, 2011, by the prime ministers of the two countries, Sheikh Hasina and Manmohan Singh. The 781-word agreement lays down the general principles of the whole gamut of bilateral relations between the two countries.

The joint statement, issued at the conclusion of the summit, notes effusively: ‘Both sides welcomed the conclusion of the comprehensive “Framework Agreement on Cooperation for Development” that outlines the shared vision for durable and long-term cooperation to achieve mutual peace, prosperity and stability.’

It is tempting to compare the framework agreement with the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Peace that the two countries signed in 1972. Both the treaties comprise 12 articles but their spirit and content are different.

The treaty of friendship did deal with issues of bilateral cooperation in various fields but highlighted anti-imperialist and non-alignment agendas. Reflecting the realities of the Cold War days, the treaty was essentially a security pact. It devoted three articles on security concerns: ‘(viii) In accordance with the ties of friendship existing between the two countries, each of the contracting parties solemnly declare that it shall not enter into or participate in any military alliance directed against the other party. Each of the parties shall refrain from any aggression against the other party and shall not allow the use of its territory for committing any act that may cause military damage to or continue to threat to the security of the other contracting parties; (ix) Each of the contracting parties shall refrain from giving any assistance to any third party taking part in an armed conflict against the other party. In case if either party is attacked or threatened to attack, the contracting parties shall immediately enter into mutual consultations in order to take necessary measures to eliminate the threat and thus ensure the peace and security of their countries; (x) Each of the parties solemnly declare that it shall not undertake any commitment, secret or open, towards one or more states which may be incompatible with the present treaty.’

The framework agreement is, in contrast, a development-oriented document, focusing almost exclusively on bilateral cooperation. It, though, mentions about the desirability of cooperation at ‘sub-regional and regional levels’. On the subject of security, Article 9 says: ‘To cooperate on security issues of concern to each other while fully respecting each other’s sovereignty. Neither party shall allow the use of its territory for activities harmful to the other.’ The formulation of the article is apparently innocuous; its real import will be evident only when the modalities of security cooperation will be in place.

The treaty of friendship was for 25 years and both the countries allowed it to lapse in 1997. The framework agreement is, on the other hand, envisaged to be an agreement in perpetuity. Article 12 says: ‘Either Party may seek termination of this Agreement by giving a written notice to the other Party providing the reasons for seeking such termination. Before this Agreement is terminated, the Parties shall consider the relevant circumstances and hold consultations to address the reasons cited by the Party seeking termination in the Joint Consultative Commission. Actions taken or agreements reached pursuant to this Agreement shall not be affected by its expiry or termination.’

The treaty of friendship established special relationship of Bangladesh with India in the aftermath of the war of independence. The framework agreement now restores that special relationship between the two countries in a changed global and regional context. In the present-day world of Pax Americana, India, a regional power, is a strategic partner of America.

From the perspective of the all-comprehensive framework agreement, the failure of the September 6-7 summit meeting to sign accords on water sharing and transit seems to be a mere hiccup in the bilateral relations of the two countries which, according to the two prime ministers, have entered ‘a new phase.’