Friday, November 4, 2011

Our position on Ethnic Minorities or the Tribal People

Like many countries of our world, especially in South and South-east Asia, Bangladesh has her share of ethnic minorities. There are some 14 ethnic minorities that live in Bangladesh. They are known as Chakma, Marma (Mogh), Larma, Jummas, Tippra, Murong, Panko, Kyong, Mro, Tangchangya, Bomang, Lushai, Kuki, Khumi etc.

In recent years some foreign NGOs and their local agents have been involved in anti-Bangladesh campaigns that are aimed at undermining the sovereignty of the country. Since 1975, the Indian government has been playing a very dubious role by aiding some of the secessionist movements inside Bangladesh, a process which never stopped even in good times with more friendlier governments. Regretably, their anti-Bangladesh campaigns are also aided by paid local agents inside Bangladesh.

As reported in a prominent daily of Dhaka on March 20, 2010, Subir Bnowmick, BBC representative of Kolkata, India, wrote in his book titled ‘Troubled Periphery Crisis of Indian North East’ that India is interested to separate the CHT (Chittagong Hill Tracts) from Bangladesh. It is worthmentioning here that CHT borders both India and Burma and is home to many ethnic minorities. Captain Sachin Karmaker, International Secretary of Minority Congress Party, wrote a letter to the Director, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of America on July 27, 2007 to help them to establishing a separate homeland for ethnic minorities in the CHT, as reported on August 25, 2009.

None of these is a good news for Bangladesh and its 150 million people who enjoy equal status irrespective of their ethnic, religious and tribal origins. There are even protected quotas for these ethnic minorities to ensure that even when they don't qualify on competive tests, jobs or positions, a segment of these ethnic minorities are represented.

As Dr. Habib Siddiqui and other renowned researchers have long shown through their meticulous research works on minority issues of the region, the settlement of the tribal people of the CHT was rather a recent development, dating back only a couple of centuries ago. Marmas or Arakanese Moghs, e.g., came to the CHT in 1784 when Arakan was conquered by Burman king Bodaw Paya. At that time, two thirds of the Arakanese population (approx. 200,000), both Rohingya Muslims/Hindus and Rakhine Maghs (Buddhists) of Arakan fled to Chittagong and its hilly districts. While a section of these peoples (mostly Rakhines) would later return to Arakan after the British East India Company had conquered the territory in 1826 after the first Anglo-Burma War (1824-26), a vast majority continued to live inside Chittagong Division of British Bengal. Chakmas were a nomadic people that moved to and from between the porous borders. There is no record of their presence before the late 17th century when one of their chieftains (Shermonta Khan), being defeated by an Arakanese king, fled Arakan and took refuge in the CHT. Bomang tribe also settled in the CHT during the seventeenth century. Murong, Mro, Kyong, Panko and Kukhi came here about 200 to 300 years ago.

Similar is the case of settlements of some tribal people such as Khasia and Monipuri who live in Sylhet, Garo living in Mymensingh, Santals, Orang and Mundas living in northern districts of Rajshahi, Dinajpur, Bogra and Rangpur. They are not aboriginals. They came here about 100 to 200 years ago during the British regime to work at tea gardens and cultivation. Santals came from Choto Nagpur of India for ‘indigo’ cultivation during the British era.

Lest one be misunderstood, the aboriginals are the groups of human race “who have been residing in a place from time immemorial… they are the true sons of the soil…" (Morgan, An introduction to Anthropology, 1972). As recently reiterated by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina the tribal people of the CHT are not indigenous people, nor are the other minority ethnic groups now living inside Bangladesh. They are not aborigines or Adibashis under any pretext. Unlike Burma, Bangladesh's consitituion guarantees equal rights to all its people - indigenous or not. As citizens of the country, a Chakma or a Marma has as much rights as any Bangali (Bengali). So, all the fuss about adibashi and adhibashi is disingenuous and is aimed at creating a rift between all those that call Bangladesh their home.

As noted in a recent posting in the Weekly Holiday by A.M.K. Chowdhury, all the tribal people living in the CHT came from Tibbet, Arakan and Myanmar. They cannot be reconised as indigenous people. They are ethnic minorities by any definition.

The Board of Directors of BEC fully endorses Bangladesh Government's position on the ethnic minorities of Bangladesh. They are ‘tribal,’ 'ethnic minorities' and not ‘indigenous’ people.

The BEC strongly condemns the divisive policy of the Indian government and their paid agents, and foreign and local NGOs who are trying to undermine the sovereignty of Bangladesh. The BEC calls upon the expatriate, non-resident Bangladeshis to be vigilant about any conspiracy against Bangladesh by anti-Bangladeshi elements.

Saturday, September 3, 2011

Bangladesh’s Political Insanity? by Dr. Habib Siddiqui

Bangladesh’s Political Insanity?
Dr. Habib Siddiqui
[The article was posted in the New Age, Dhaka, Bangladesh on August 16, 2011)

In recent days, the Economist of the U.K. 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 last 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 too 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 marginalizing 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 Awami League and Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), 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 Mrs Hasina Wazed 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 steal 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 my 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 (Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman -- who was the founder of the country) 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 percent 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 into 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 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 swing 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 corner stone 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. Dr. Yunus, in spite of all the great things he has been doing globally, is, however, not above criticism. He has been accused of making some mistakes as to how he ran the Grameen Bank. His poverty-alleviation micro-finance program has had many detractors, including economists like Professor Anu Muhammad, who had tried to paint him as a viper that has been “sucking blood from the poor borrowers.” In spite of his quite visible Mandela-like humility, he has been accused of having a big ego that has come to conflict with others vying for the same media spotlight. But to claim that the current troubles of Dr. Yunus owe solely to popularity contest with Sk. Hasina and her slain father is simply too ludicrous!

Sk. Mujib was a towering figure in the politics of Bangladesh, and as shown in the 2004 poll (when 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 the Bangabandhu.

Banyan is seemingly against the current War Tribunal in Bangladesh and finds witch-hunting in 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 3 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 3 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 of the accused in the trial personally led a torture cell in his father's residence. I personally know of a few victims, who were students then that were tortured by him mercilessly. He himself killed an elderly Bangladeshi in an execution style murder in 1971.

One would have thought that there was no place for such killers in Bangladeshi politics, especially in a party that was formed by a freedom fighter. Sadly, his criminal prowess, instead of making him a pariah, a persona non grata, simply endeared him to the BNP leadership. He was made a ranking member of the party and bestowed a state ministerial rank. And, this, in spite of his vulgar and trashy talks, some lobbed against his own boss! On a personal note, he abused his power to grab our properties in Khulshi, Chittagong. Land-grabbing and murder of innocent human beings are no small matter. One cannot but wonder what message Mrs 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 Tribunal proceedings in Bangladesh are not fair. I am not aware of any war 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 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 USA and the UK governments had 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 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 Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others immunity from lawsuits which “would amount to an extraordinary abdication of our (U.S.) 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 Mr. 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 CEO's don't like the term 'madam' for them, and insist that they be addressed as 'sir'? Banyon may like to check out with Pepsi Co.'s CEO - Indra Krishnamurthy Nooyi.

Banyan's article has distorted some facts. No one has been prosecuted for criticizing 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 the 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 marginalizes 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.

[Dr. Siddiqui’s latest book – Devotional Stories – is now available from A.S. Noordeen, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.]

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

The Matter of War Crimes Tribunal and SQC

This Tuesday we came across an Op/Ed column in the much circulated English newspaper New Age, which discussed SQC's trial in the War Crimes Tribunal that is currently taking place in Dhaka. A letter summarizing our position was promptly sent to the paper. Here below you can read this. - BEC Board of Directors (April 27, 2011)


The editor,
New Age,
Dhaka, Bangladesh

Dear Editor,
Ref: What to do about SQC?

In his Op/Ed column “What to do about SQC?”, David Bergman raises issues about the treatment of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury (SQC) in the prison and how he was brought into the International Crimes Tribunal on April 19. SQC faces serious charges of war crimes for his all too well-documented roles during the War of Liberation in March-December of 1971. He was personally responsible for murder and torture of many Bangladeshis. His Goods Hill residence was a torture house in which he himself inflicted unbearable pains to many freedom-loving college students. If it had not been for the post-Mujib military backed regimes that came to power, he would have been tried and found guilty for his heinous crimes decades ago.

There are many former criminals and torturers who later modify their evil ways by renouncing violence and setting a better record as truly repentant humans; but to expect such a change of heart with SQC was like asking for miracles. Thanks to the nasty hate-filled partisan politics in Bangladesh, he even became the Adviser to the Prime Minister on Parliament Affairs during the BNP rule, which bestowed him a state ministerial rank. And this, in spite of widely held beliefs that he had murdered a student leader who had belonged to a rival wing of the same party! Only in Bangladesh can one expect to see such political circus. Over the years, as he renewed his old ties, further solidifying his political comeback, he was able to behave like a Mafia Don with a ready supply of criminal cadre that would do his dirty jobs, which stopped at nothing – from land-grabbing to money-laundering to harassment and killings.

In April of 2005, using a notorious fraud and Rajakar by the name of Jaker Hosain Chowdhury as his front-man, while he was Prime Minister Khaleda Zia’s adviser, SQC abused his official power to grab the real estate properties of Mr. and Mrs. Nazrul Islam Siddiqui in Khulshi, Chittagong. His son Fayyaz called Mr. Salman Ispahani of the Ispahani Holdings, a neighbor to the Siddiqui family for the past fifty years, to trespass into the latter’s properties, located in front of the Women’s College. When denied such an illegal access, Fayyaz and hundreds of his armed goons, with tacit support from a bribed O.C., broke into the properties of the Siddiqui family. Within hours his goons evicted 16 tenant families – many college professors – that had lived for decades in some of the one-story bungalows within the Siddiqui estate. Over the next six weeks, Fayyaz and the criminal cadre that he controlled terrorized the Siddiqui family and their remaining tenants, living in the six-story house “Aranika Bhavan.’ In early May, Fayyaz’s goons, demolished ten homes and cut down hundreds of costly trees, once planted by Mr. Siddiqui.

The criminal land-grabbing activities of SQC and his front-man Jaker were widely covered in all major newspapers in Dhaka and Chittagong in April – June, 2005. While in late June of that year the properties were restored to its rightful owners – the Siddiqui family – the latter continue to be threatened by SQC’s criminal land-grabbing syndicate. As the price of real estate in land-starved metropolis skyrockets, free on bail, SQC’s front-man and some members of the syndicate have not given up on their haram desire to possess the lot by any means possible. By the way, that was not the only incident when SQC and his son were involved in such land-grabbing projects, targeting vulnerable section of the population. The crime syndicate has also eyed huge real estate holdings of the nearby Ispahani Properties.

As we see it, SQC is a criminal psychopath with no bite of conscience, which he never had and will probably not have in the future. So, now after all these years, it seems destiny has eventually caught up with him. And something that should have happened some 39 years ago, trying people accused of war crimes is taking place now in Dhaka. It is a welcome event to most Bangladeshis who are tired of being victimized and abused by the powerful criminal Dons who behave as if there is no akhirah (the Day of Judgment) or accountability for their crimes.

We, the members of the Bangladesh Expatriates Council and NRB community of the USA, are therefore hopeful that justice would be served, and the matter of shame to the memory of Bangladesh’s valiant freedom fighters and martyrs would eventually be erased.

Knowing that SQC is a habitual liar and a sociopath who is a master of deceit, we are not all that surprised with his theatrics in front of the media to draw sympathy for his imprisonment. He will try everything possible to save his skin. We take pity at SQC’s condition. And we are hopeful that Bangladesh is mindful of upholding the due standard of an International Crimes Tribunal, which is trying SQC on charges of war crimes. As a matter of fact, based on the internal evidences we have been able to collect we believe that SQC is treated much fairly compared to most accused people around the globe, including those held by presidents Bush and Obama, on similar charges.

The New Age would do a much needed nobler job in publishing the sad saga of the victims of SQC than trying to draw sympathy for one of the most horrendous criminals of Bangladesh. To show pity to a venomous snake is to harm the peasant.

April 26, 2011

Friday, February 25, 2011

Letter to the Guardian, UK on alleged torture of a Bangladeshi MP

In recent days, the Guardian newspaper of UK and some internet sites have been carrying out stories of alleged torture of Mr. Salauddin Quader Chowdhury at the hands of the RAB. While I am against any form of abuse and torture against anyone, I feel that some hard facts need to be disclosed about Mr. Chowdhury's crimes. Here below is a letter sent by the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Bangladesh Expatriates Council to the Guardian.

February 25, 2011

The Editor,
The Guardian
London, UK

Subject: Letter to Editor: Alleged torture of a Bangladeshi MP

Dear Editor,

Your coverage on Bangladeshi MP 'tortured' by British-trained paramilitary unit - has drawn our attention. While torture in any form is unacceptable and should never be tried by any government it is a sad reality of our time that all governments - illiberal and liberal democracies alike, including the British government, are guilty of this crime. In the aftermath of 9/11, tens of British Muslims were tortured by the police interrogators during their detention in the UK prisons, mostly young Muslims on mere suspicion of being 'terrorists'. Suffice it to say that during George W. Bush's era, esp. in the days following 9/11 hundreds of Muslim residents of the USA were rounded up and tortured during their police detention. Many were even sent to countries like Egypt and Jordan for ‘extraordinary rendition.’ And who is not aware of the war crimes of the Anglo-American occupation forces after the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq! Even the journalists covering the war there were shot at and killed.

Sadly, Bangladesh is not immune from such charges of torture against some political prisoners. Of particular curiosity is the case involving Salauddin Quader Chowdhury (MP-BNP from Chittagong). From the internal evidences we have been able to collect from the Human Rights Commission in Bangladesh and other agencies, there seems to be much doubt as to the veracity of the claim of torture against Mr. Chowdhury. Mr. Chowdhury is a sociopath and has a history of lying, bragging and deception, let alone with a criminal past which saw his own hands used for torture and murder of Bangladeshi people during and after 1971 Liberation War. We are told that in its arrest of Mr. Chowdhury, the government of Bangladesh is simply fulfilling an electoral pledge made to its citizens to try people suspected of committing war crimes during the Liberation War. As noted above, Mr. Chowdhury is one such character.

It is disgrace to the memory of lakhs of martyrs in Bangladesh to see a war criminal-suspect like Mr. Chowdhury ever elected as an MP. But politics is always full of surprises and his political rehabilitation, although unfortunate, should not surprise us all. Like many of his victims, my family would have loved to see him reformed and repentant, but it seems expecting such from a sociopath and a crime boss is like asking for miracles. His political rehabilitation has only emboldened his criminal mindset giving him the aura of being untouchable by law and justice.

Of particular and personal tragedy is the crime he and his son Fayyaz committed against my family during April-June of 2005. As Prime Minister’s adviser on parliamentary affairs, Mr. Chowdhury abused his political standing to victimize my family in Chittagong, Bangladesh. Armed with hundred of goons, his son Fayyaz Chowdhury, a British citizen of dual nationality, broke into my parental properties in Khulshi, Chittagong on April 8, 2005. They illegally evicted 16 tenant families from our compound. The matter of his crime was widely reported in all Bengali newspapers in Dhaka and Chittagong. All our pleas to him met deaf ears. Even my face-to-face meeting with him in the last week of April in the Prime Minister's Office did not stop him from lying and further harming us. Within days, his goons demolished 9 houses built nearly 50 years ago by my father. Months later, only after direct involvement of the Metropolitan Police, which hitherto had avoided confronting Mr. Chowdhury, his son and goons – afraid of losing jobs, were we able to retake possession of our properties. But the damage was already done. Even to this day, his criminal syndicate is active and continues to harass my family members in Khulshi, Bangladesh. It is worth noting that we were not the only ones that fell prey to his land-grabbing crimes; there are too many of those victims in Rangoonia, Chittagong. Afraid of being further victimized by his crime syndicate, they are still afraid to talk.

Had Mr. Chowdhury been remorseful and made a sincere effort to right the wrongs committed by him, his son and his crime syndicate, his victims could have felt some sadness for his alleged plight at the hands of the RAB today. But who would feel compassion for a murderer, land-grabber, Mafia boss whose crimes have erased their sense of security and happiness? As such, no one really takes his allegations against RAB seriously. As a matter of fact, his imprisonment, no matter how late, can only bring some relief and solace to so many of his victims, and there are plenty, who see the Hands of Provision in his imprisonment. While the door of repentance and reparation is never closed, the sooner the better! It is high time for his family to right the wrongs perpetrated by him and his son.

The Guardian could better serve the interest of its readers by interviewing the victims of Mr. Salauddin Q. Chowdhury's crimes than shedding tears for a remorseless criminal.