BCL Finds new targets

ATTACK on, and assault of, teachers at public universities and colleges seems to have become the favourite pastime for the Bangladesh Chhatra League, the ruling Awami League’s associate body of students, in recent days. According to a report front-paged in New Age on Wednesday, activists of the Chhatra League confined the proctor and a hall provost at Rajshahi University, assaulted a hall provost at Chittagong University and locked up the academic building at the Noakhali University of Science and Technology on Tuesday. Just over a week back, on August 8, Chhatra League activists swooped on teachers at the Bangladesh Agricultural University, leaving at least 20 of them injured. Little wonder then that, according to another report also front-paged in New Age on Wednesday, teachers of some public universities and university colleges feel insecure as some BCL leaders and activists have become increasingly ‘violent’ in recent times. With the admission season just round the corner, these teachers have all the more reasons to feel vulnerable; after all, BCL leaders and activists have shown since the AL-Jatiya Party government assumed office in January 2009 that they are not used to being told ‘no’ when it comes to admission and recruitment of candidates of their choice to public educational institutions and government offices respectively.

The public universities and the University Grants Commission are ‘concerned’ about an increased number of attacks by Chhatra League leaders and activists on teachers, so was the UGC chair, AK Azad Chowdhury, quoted in the New Age report as saying. The current president of the Dhaka University Teachers’ Association and a former general secretary of the association also condemned the assault of teachers, not in one voice though. The DUTA president questioned the role of some teachers during the skirmishes at the agricultural university. On the other hand, the pro-vice-chancellor of the National University went to the extent of defending the BCL elements, saying ‘there is no reason to think that teachers are always innocent.’ So, a united front among teachers, at least in the articulation of concern over, and protest against, BCL atrocities against their colleagues across the country looks improbable.

Even if the teachers’ community protested against the attack on and assault of some of their colleagues, it was unlikely to have any effect whatsoever. When tough talks against BCL violence and vandalism by key functionaries of the government, including the prime minister herself, have thus far failed to make the BCL troublemakers behave, there is hardly any guarantee that mere protests by teachers, no matter how united they are, which they do not appear to be, would make any difference. Ultimately, it is the government, and also the ruling party, that needs to act decisively and demonstratively. Regrettably, however, neither the government nor the ruling party has thus far displayed hardly any sincerity to follow up the warnings by their top leaders with commensurate actions. There have been some expulsions from the Chhatra League on disciplinary grounds and even a couple of arrests but these actions proved neither sustained nor deterrent enough.

As we have commented in these columns again and again, unbridled atrocities by BCL troublemakers across the country ultimately undermine the credibility and authority of the government and the ruling party, which may already be in a precarious position. Hence, they need to act now, and act decisively and demonstratively.

Bangladesh’s Political Insanity?

IN RECENT days, the Economist of the UK seems to have taken more than a casual interest about the sad state of politics inside Bangladesh, which has been a nasty partisan one with an illiberal democracy for the past two decades. While such an interest may be a boon to stir a healthy debate about the health of a failing democracy, I was not happy with the partisan tone of the analyst who wrote on August 13 under the pseudonym Banyan. It is absurd to take such pieces seriously when we even don’t know who has written the piece.

The politics in Bangladesh has been abused by those in power with a winner-takes-all attitude. This trend was neither started by the ruling Awami League when in 2008 it swept to power in a landslide, nor will it probably end with its fall. The ruling party never learns how to compromise and build consensus across the aisle on the parliament floor. It carries out partisan policies and takes draconian measures, all aimed at marginalising its opposition, hoping that such would ensure its victory in the next election, only to find that they are rejected by its electorate. This is the most important lesson which the leaders of the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, often accused of entertaining dynastic ideas, have foolishly tried to be oblivious of. There is a name for such an attitude. I call it insanity!

True to Gopal Krishna Gokhale’s remark more than half a century ago that ‘What Bengal (comprising of today’s Bangladesh and the state of West Bengal in India) thinks today, India thinks tomorrow,’ the Bangladeshi people are probably the most politically conscious of all the people living in South Asia. They have never made a mistake when they went to the polls to disrobe a political party while replacing it by another. They were not wrong when they voted for the Jukto Front in 1954 and the Awami League in 1970 as part of what was once East Pakistan. Minus the military period of 1975-91, nor were they wrong in any election held ever since December 16 of 1971, when Bangladesh emerged as an independent nation. They were not wrong when in 1946 they overwhelmingly voted for Pakistan in what was then British India. There were not wrong either in December of 2008 when they voted for the coalition led by Sheikh Hasina of the Awami League.

Unfortunately, this piece of essential history, that has defined much of the Bangladeshi character, its sense of intellectual superiority and political correctness, is often forgotten by the new leaders that came to power since 1975.

If today’s leaders of major political parties had respected their electorate and learned that bitter lesson that Bangladeshi people don’t like the aspiring pharaohs, nawabs and princes, the arrogant snobs and the extremist zealots, the thugs and robbers that spoil and rob their wealth, we would have been spared of this insanity and it could have been a big plus for the failing health of democracy in Bangladesh. If they had learned that ‘the politics of Bengal is in reality the economics of Bengal’, they probably would have cared more for improving the economy rather than coming up with chauvinistic political agendas and narratives that have brought nothing good but harmed the economy of the country through mindless strikes and counter-strikes.

And probably, there has never been a better time in the last two decades to changing this paradigm than after the election of December 2008, dubbed by most outside experts as the fairest poll in the country’s four-decade history. There was that wave of national optimism that the newly sworn prime minister would use her party’s popularity to strengthen democratic institutions and pursue national reconciliation, putting an end to a vicious cycle of nasty politics between the Awami League and its major rival, the BNP. But that hope seems to be scuttled by allegations that she had used the huge mandate for partisan advantage. Her opponents say that she has been more interested in sanctifying her late father’s (Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founding president of Bangladesh) image and solidifying her party’s position than real changes that are necessary to either change Bangladesh from an illiberal democracy to a liberal democracy or improve her economy from its 7 per cent GDP growth rate to a healthier double-digit one.

There is no denying that power is abused in every illiberal democracy, let alone autocratic, anti-people regimes of our planet. It is this abuse at the top which leads to unfathomable corruption and crime spreading like a virus in every public sector. And, in this regard, Bangladesh has plenty of examples with filthy rich politicians, their beneficiaries and benefactors. She has her share of ‘untouchable’ ‘princes’, a few ‘disposable’ godfathers, and many sycophants. Thus, when the erstwhile military-controlled caretaker government came to power in 2007, putting some of these thugs behind the prison cells, people started celebrating and dreaming once again (much like the independence day celebration of 1971) that their days of sad past living under the thugs and criminals were over. It only took a few months to have the rude awakening that ‘whoever goes to Lanka becomes a Ravana.’ The caretaker government was no saint!

Bangladesh’s history is, therefore, a sad tragicomedy played by political actors who come and go through the swinging door of politics, never to learn from its bloody past that has witnessed so many assassinations. As my sagacious father would say it would require seven layers of soil to be exchanged before anything good to come out of this unfortunate land! A sad commentary, and yet, probably a correct one, for an unfortunate people!

Politics and, more correctly, the political leaders have betrayed the Bangladeshi people too long by choking their legitimate aspirations to live in a crimeless and corruption-less society. They forget about accountability for their misdeeds, which is a cornerstone of democracy. Thus, when swept out of power, they cry foul with new government inquiries and ensuing legal actions, which may put them behind the prison walls. When in power, they seem to fancy that this day of hardship would never visit them. What a selective amnesia!

No one should ever think that they are above the law. I have no sympathy for criminals and corrupt guys. The government owes its people the simple task of ensuring checks and balances by prosecuting them in a free trial. The process ought to be fair and transparent and cannot be seen partisan-like where the ruling party’s thugs dodge the long arms of the law and justice while their counterparts in the opposition are prosecuted. The opposition leaders simply cannot cry foul when their kith and kin and buddies are charged for money-laundering and other crimes.

The Economist writer Banyan’s claims about the reasons behind the troubles with Dr Yunus are too childish to be taken seriously. Sheikh Mujib was a towering figure in the politics of Bangladesh, and as shown in the 2004 poll (when the BNP was in power), conducted on the worldwide listeners of BBC’s Bengali radio service, was voted the ‘Greatest Bengali of All Time’ beating Rabindranath Tagore, another Nobel laureate, and others. It is doubtful that Dr Yunus or anyone in our time would be able to eclipse that image of Sheikh Mujib.

Banyan is seemingly against the current war crimes tribunal in Bangladesh and finds witch-hunting in the government’s efforts to try the alleged criminals. He forgets that the ruling party had a mandate to close this sad chapter of Bangladesh by trying those accused of committing one of the worst crimes of our time, which has killed some three hundred thousand Bangladeshis. (Note: while no serious effort has been taken inside Bangladesh to count the number of those killed during the war of liberation, some recent research findings do suggest that the actual figure was well below three million—the commonly accepted figure in Bangladesh.) During that sad chapter the roles of some politicians now belonging to the opposition was anything but humanly. They were monsters, torturing and killing their fellow Bangladeshis like rats and mosquitoes. One cannot but wonder what message Khaleda Zia was delivering to our people when she allowed such murderers to join her party and become ministers!

Accusations have been made in the Economist that the war crimes tribunal proceedings in Bangladesh are not fair. I am not aware of any war crimes tribunal that has not been accused of being imperfect. Even the Nuremburg Trial has not been spared of such accusations and has been called ‘politically motivated’ since it was carried out by the opponents of the Nazis. As to the shoddy trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1962 in Israel, the least said the better. And yet, in spite of such accusations, no one would dispute that each of these trials was able to do justice.

I don’t see why today the Bangladesh government would fail to carry out its national obligation by trying the alleged war criminals fairly. As I wrote last year, such trials should never be abused for witch-hunting the opposition, and I am assured that the commission’s office is not abused. The defenders would have all means to defend themselves against the charges. As to the treatment of the accused, I am also told that they are treated humanly, and much better treated than what the US and the UK governments have done with their shoddy trials of suspected terrorists in the aftermath of 9/11. Let’s face it, compared to how those suspects like KSM and others in Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan are treated, the suspected war criminals in Bangladesh are getting a five-star celebrity treatment!

What Banyan forgets is that our world needs more, and not less, of war crimes tribunals so that no one, not even Bush and Blair, Rumsfeld and Cheney, can dodge their accountability for crimes against humanity. [It is good to hear the recent courageous verdict by Judge Hamilton of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit who refused to grant former Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld and others immunity from lawsuits which ‘would amount to an extraordinary abdication of our (US) government’s checks and balances that preserve Americans’ liberty.’ The case is important because it makes clear—for the first time—that government officials can be held accountable for the intentional mistreatment of American citizens, even if that conduct happens in a war zone. (Sadly, there remains no accountability for the abuse, and torture, of foreigners by American jailers and interrogators, which Rumsfeld and President George W Bush personally sanctioned.)]

Banyan tries to make fun of the use of ‘sir’ for the current prime minister. Is Banyan aware of the fact that many successful female CEOs don’t like the term ‘madam’ for them, and insist that they be addressed ‘sir’? Banyon may like to check out with PepsiCo’s CEO—Indra Krishnamurthy Nooyi.

Banyan’s article has distorted some facts. No one has been prosecuted for criticising the amended constitution. Opposition leaders have simply been warned as they threatened to throw away the constitution and thus implicitly encourage unconstitutional means to take over power. Violence is not the way to solve anything, and surely not a constitutional problem. There is a place for such a debate. It is parliament. That is where the BNP and other opposition party members ought to debate.

As noted above, the article in the Economist does little good to steer a healthy debate about politics in Bangladesh and for curbing its nasty partisan politics.

Democracy is worthless without a viable opposition. The majority rule need not be a winner-takes-all process which marginalises opposition. The leaders in Bangladeshi politics ought to show more maturity and compromise. The two decades that they have ruled Bangladesh alternately as prime ministers should have been sufficient to move forward and grow up. A healthy, respectable dialogue between the political leaders with a firm commitment towards good governance, checks and balances, accountability and respect for the rule of law can be the starting point, if they truly care about building a viable, thriving, healthy democracy in Bangladesh. They can either embrace the lessons of history or choose to end in its dustbin. The choice is surely theirs to get out of political insanity.

Source:

New Restrictive Measures On Media Soon

The government is now working on a new stringent ‘Private Broadcasting Policy 2011’ to be announced soon in an apparent move to control any dissenting voice.

Expression of views in the media is therefore coming under increasing government scrutiny making it more difficult for the media practitioners to ensure freedom of expression complying with the government regulations. Once the new restrictive policy comes in force, it will adversely affect press freedom.

Meanwhile, as a part of this restrictive policy, two politicians and a programme moderator of Ekushey TV has already been summoned to a High Court bench last week to explain their remarks on the judges in a case relating to Islami Oikya Jote leader Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini. They have been asked to appear before the court on August 18 to explain. The politicians include BNP chairperson Khaleda Zia’s advisor Ahmed Azam Khan and a central leader of Bangladesh Samajtantrik Dal (BSD) Raziquzzaman Ratan and the moderator of the talk show Anjan Roy.

The suo-moto rule was issued by the High Court bench of justices A H M Shamsuddin Chowdhury and Gobinda Chandra Tagore on the three in this regard. Deputy attorney general A B M Altaf Hossain brought the issue before the notice of the court.

It is also happening at a time when the editor of weekly Shirshaw News is already under police custody on charges allegedly for money extortion. Earlier, the Amar Desh Editor Mahmudur Rahman was put in jail for almost one year in a contempt case. A senior reporter of the daily was sent to jail for one month despite his pleading guilty to avert the sentence.

While airing public opinion, media outlets like TV channels, radio and newspapers have to take extra care now whether their views are likely to cause any unwilling slander to the government or the judiciary.

“We are at a fix,” said a news editor of a popular channel expressing the volume of pressure in running the daily news programme.

It may be recalled that the two politicians reportedly said, “The judges wrote an essay on cow while writing on river,” Altaf Hossain told reporters later on. The talk show participants apparently made the reference as the judges brought BNP chairperson Begum Khaleda Zia in their comments in a judgement on a case relating to a charge of contempt on the constitution made by Amini.

The court has also directed the ETV authorities to submit a compact disc (CD) of the programme before it on Aug 12.

Police earlier arrested Akramul Haque, editor of the weekly ‘Shirshaw News’ on charges of three money extortion cases. The fact was that he printed some reports on irregularities of a state minister responsible for the ministry of forest and environment.

The government action initially came on Haque in the form of cancellation of 10 accreditation cards of the newsmen working for his weekly and its online version. As they were agitating for restoration of the accreditation cards, three cases were suddenly lodged against him, one by a secretariat employee, another by a businessman having false address at Kolabagan and the third one at Ashulia thana in the outskirt of the city.

The secretariat employee, affiliated to the ruling party,lodged the case at least one week after the cancellation of the accreditation card and Haque wondered how he could demand money inside the secretariat when his permission to enter into the building complex was snatched earlier.

The veracity of the Kolabagan businessman also could not be ascertained as the presence of the complaint could not be identified in the given address. The third case at Ashulia was reportedly lodged in the same day as the one lodged against him at Bangladesh secretariat address.

Haque’s family wondered how all such things could happen when the government’s anger on him directly resulted from some critical news reports published in his weekly in the recent past. Moreover the cancellation of the accreditation cards of 10 newsmen and his arrest have in fact knocked out the weekly and its online version from functioning sending about 40 newsmen out of job.

Meanwhile, the new Private Broadcasting Policy 2011, is lying with the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the ministry of Information for vetting, has formulated a comprehensive guideline on what private TV and radio stations can’t telecast in greater interest of state security.

It said they will be barred from airing programmes which could cause deterioration of relations with friendly nations. Under the new policy, once adopted, TV and radio stations will also be barred from telecasting footage that may show disrespect to the members of the armed forces, law enforcing agencies and public servants engaged in punishing criminals.

They can’t telecast programmes which may bring dishonour to father of the nation in one hand and heap praise and sympathy to ‘rogue elements’ and people having no moral character. Programmes distorting the country’s history also can’t be telecast.

Besides, “no programme on campaign on behalf of a country having conflicts with Bangladesh can be aired to result in influencing the issue. Again programme on a campaign against any friendly country can’t be telecast which may hamper the country’s relations with that country”.

Private satellite TV channels backed by the opposition parties will not be allowed to air programmes portraying India as not a friend of Bangladesh. They will not be able to release secret government documents or military documents, the disclosure of which may endanger the state’s security.

Among other things, it will also prohibit showing footage of rape, adultery, violence against women and children and scenes of violence, severe injury, blood stains, horrible pieces and other distasteful incidents. TV channels and radio stations will be asked to follow the new guidelines in addition to Censorship of Films Act 1963, the policy outlines said.

Govt lacks Moral Authority To Pursue Corruption Case Against Opposition

THE case filed by the Anti-Corruption Commission on Monday against the leader of the opposition in parliament, Khaleda Zia, on the charge of buying a piece of land for a charity named after her late husband with undisclosed money appears to be more an exercise in political arm-twisting than an effort to combat corruption establish the rule of law. According to a report front-paged in New Age on Tuesday, in the case—the first against the former prime minister since the Awami League-Jatiya Party government assumed office in January 2009—the commission has accused Khaleda Zia of criminal misconduct and abuse of power in respect of the purchase of a 42-katha land in the capital Dhaka in January 2005. If proved guilty, she may be sentenced to seven years in prison.

The case against Khaleda Zia is hardly surprising, though. The government may seek to brandish the case as a manifestation of its seriousness and sincerity towards realising its electoral pledge to establish the rule of law and to combat corruption; however, it would find it difficult to convince even its own people. After all, almost into its third year in office, the incumbents have thus far hardly set any such precedents. On the contrary, many of its actions tend to betray its disregard for the rule of law and suggest that it gives precedence to partisanship above all else. The review and withdrawal of the so-called politically motivated cases provides an obvious example, with the relevant governmental committee mostly reviewing and recommending withdrawal of cases filed against leaders and activists of the ruling alliance. Incidentally, a case filed against the prime minister on charges of irregularities in a charity named after her late father was also withdrawn. Meanwhile, most of the so-called politically motivated cases against opposition leaders and activists were kept in place.

Moreover, more and more opposition leaders and activists are implicated in more and more cases. Besides, the government has had individuals convicted of murder granted presidential clemency, apparently in consideration of their affiliation with the ruling Awami League.

In such circumstances, the corruption case filed against Khaleda Zia or, for that matter, the money laundering charges against Tarique Rahman is highly likely to be interpreted as an arm-twisting tactic employed by the government to make the opposition fall in line. Naturally, the opposition would be antagonised further and a peaceful resolution to the prevailing political standoff could become even more remote than it already is.

That is not to suggest, however, that the charges against Khaleda Zia should be dropped, to facilitate an end to the impasse. On the contrary, the opposition leader should face up to the charges brought against her in a competent court of law and secure acquittal, which would not only make her innocent in the eyes of not only the law but also the people. Meanwhile, if the government sincerely wants to prove its commitment to the rule of law and the fight against corruption, it should stop review and withdrawal of the so-called politically motivated case on the one hand and revive the cases already reviewed and withdrawn so that the leaders and activists of the ruling alliance could come out clean, in reality and in the perception of the people. Otherwise, it will have hardly any moral authority to even accuse, let alone try, Khaleda Zia of corruption.

BCL At It Again

IT APPEARS that the Bangladesh Chhatra League, an associate body of the ruling Awami League, is out there to destroy every semblance of propriety, rule of law and every social more. Judging by the audacity, ferocity and frequency of their lawless behaviour, it feels as if the student body is a blood-thirsty wild beast unleashed on the educational institutions of the country, by none other than the government itself. On Monday, the BCL unit of Bangladesh Agricultural University attacked and injured 20 teachers. According to a report published in New Age on Tuesday, the teachers were injured as a result of a series of incidents triggered by the misbehaviour of some BCL activists with the teachers. The teachers brought out a silent procession which came under BCL attack. The teachers then detained four of the attackers and handed them to the police. In retaliation, the teachers were once again attacked at the Teachers Student Centre where they received most of the injuries, some whom were later admitted to the Mymensingh Medical College. The BCL activists vandalised some buildings and set four vehicles on fire.

       

There are indeed signs, as the teachers association president is quoted in the report as saying, that if the action against the attackers is not taken immediately, the university might close down. That would mean that the number of educational institutions closed down as a result of BCL-instigated violence in the past two and a half years should now number in hundreds. Ever since the Awami League-led government came to power, hundreds of small and large campuses have witnessed dangerous levels of BCL-induced violence. BCL activists have fought opposition student bodies for control of campuses, locked in intra-party feud over tender grabbing, and attacked ordinary students, teachers, educational institution staff, government officials, law enforcement officials and ordinary people on the streets causing damage to vehicles, property, as well as death and injury.

Yet, in the intervening period since having come to power, the only step taken to reign them in, by the ruling party, seems to be the prime minister’s decision to stand down as the BCL chairperson, the seriousness of which can easily be doubted since she this year not only attended the BCL convention but, according to media reports, also reprimanded senior members of her cabinet for having failed to do so. As for law enforcement, it is true that the law enforcers arrest activists from time to time, especially when incidents get out of hand as it did in the agriculture university, but the offenders are soon either released on bail or acquitted. The fear is that even if the government takes some disciplinary action at the agriculture university, it is not likely to last long.