Bangladesh’s Political Insanity?
By
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.]
Saturday, September 3, 2011
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
================
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
To:
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.
=============================================
February 25, 2011
To:
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.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Congratulations to Congressman Hansen Hashem Clarke
We, the members of the BEC, are delighted to report that Mr. Clarke has been elected a Congressman from the state of Michigan.
For the first time in the history of the United States of America, Hansen
Hashem Clarke, a Bangladeshi descent democratic member of the Michigan
Senate, has won a congressional seat to the United States House of
Representatives.
After winning the congressional seat, held by Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick for
more than 20 years, Clarke said he would try to fulfil the dreams of the
people of United States.
Clarke was born in Detroit, Michigan to a Bangladeshi American father,
Mozaffar Ali Hashem from Sylhet, and an African American mother, Thelma
Clarke.
Clarke visited his village home a few years ago.
His father died when he was a child. Clarke attended Cass Technical High
School, and then got admitted to a prestigious east-coast prep school to
complete his high school.
Clarke studied at Cornell University, graduating with a degree in fine arts.
While at the university, he became interested in politics.
He was elected to the student seat on the Cornell University Board of
Trustees and was a member of the Quill and Dagger society. He then earned a
law degree from Georgetown Law School in 1987.
Clarke worked as chief of staff to US Representative John Conyers, as well
as in Wayne County during the administration of Edward H McNamara.
For the first time in the history of the United States of America, Hansen
Hashem Clarke, a Bangladeshi descent democratic member of the Michigan
Senate, has won a congressional seat to the United States House of
Representatives.
After winning the congressional seat, held by Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick for
more than 20 years, Clarke said he would try to fulfil the dreams of the
people of United States.
Clarke was born in Detroit, Michigan to a Bangladeshi American father,
Mozaffar Ali Hashem from Sylhet, and an African American mother, Thelma
Clarke.
Clarke visited his village home a few years ago.
His father died when he was a child. Clarke attended Cass Technical High
School, and then got admitted to a prestigious east-coast prep school to
complete his high school.
Clarke studied at Cornell University, graduating with a degree in fine arts.
While at the university, he became interested in politics.
He was elected to the student seat on the Cornell University Board of
Trustees and was a member of the Quill and Dagger society. He then earned a
law degree from Georgetown Law School in 1987.
Clarke worked as chief of staff to US Representative John Conyers, as well
as in Wayne County during the administration of Edward H McNamara.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
BEC condemns hate crimes against Bangladeshi Americans and other religious minorities
Bangladesh Expatriates Council and its sister organization NRB Council, USA are very concerned about the recent hate crimes in the USA. Last week, a Bangladeshi American taxi cab driver was brutally attacked with a knife from behind by a white American cab rider. We condemn such hate crimes and are glad to learn that the attacker who has been denied bail, will be tried on several counts.
We urge the immigrant community to be extra vigilant and not to engage in any hot debate concerning the proposed mosque in NY that could only bring the worst in many bigots and xenophobes.
We pray for the safety of all our people. Ramadan Mubarak.
Regards,
The Board of Directors, BEC
=========================
Here below is the report from a newspaper:
Hate Crime in New York - cabbie stabbed
As I feared, Islamophobia has its latest victim in a hate crime that saw a Muslim cab driver in New York city severely stabbed several times by a White American. The Republican leaders and right wing conservative talk show hosts cannot escape from being held responsible for spreading hate crime against Muslims. Such propaganda and hatemongering is sure to bring the worst from bigots and chauvinists.
Here is the report from the USA Today:
NEW YORK — A Manhattan cabbie who was stabbed Tuesday night by a Putnam County man questioned Wednesday whether the attack stemmed from the contentious debate over creating a mosque near ground zero.
Ahmed H. Sharif, 43, of Queens, was stabbed several times by Michael Enright, 21, of Southeast, N.Y., after Enright had asked Sharif if he was Muslim and the cabbie responded that he was, a police spokesman said.
When officers responded to the scene around 6:15 p.m. Tuesday, Sharif was outside the vehicle, suffering from stab wounds, after attempting to lock Enright inside the cab, a police spokesman said. Enright escaped but was captured nearby by police.
The charges against Enright include attempted murder as a hate crime.
In a statement Wednesday the from New York Taxi Workers Alliance, Sharif warned his fellow cabbies.
"Right now the public sentiment is very serious" because of the ground zero mosque debate, he said. "All drivers should be more careful."
Sharif, who was treated at Bellevue Hospital for stab wounds to his arms, throat and face, said the incident made him sad.
"I have been here more than 25 years. I have been driving a taxi more than 15 years. All my four kids were born here. I never feel this hopeless and insecure before," he said.
It was Sharif's first fare of his shift.
Enright, a 2007 graduate of Brewster High School and an aspiring filmmaker, recently returned from Afghanistan, where he filmed Marines as part of a project for the School of Visual Arts in Manhattan, where he is a student. In Afghanistan, he was embedded with a Marines Corps crew that included his fellow Brewster High graduate, Cpl. Alex Eckner.
Enright was highly intoxicated when he hailed the cab, the police spokesman said. Once inside the cab, Enright asked Sharif whether Sharif was Muslim. When Sharif responded yes, Enright stabbed him several times with some type of utility knife.
According to the statement from the Taxi Workers Alliance, Enright's conversation with Sharif started out friendly, with Enright asking the cabbie where he was from, how long he had been in America, if he was Muslim and if he was observing Ramadan.
Enright then went silent before suddenly cursing and screaming, the statement said.
He then shouted "'Assalamu Alaikum,' common among Muslims as a wish for peace, before pulling out the knife and slashing Sharif across the neck and stabbing several more times as Sharif tried to knock it out of Enright's hands, the alliance said.
Enright was charged with attempted second-degree murder as a hate crime, first-degree assault, felonies, aggravated harassment and fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon, misdemeanors. He is awaiting arraignment.
Enright also worked with Intersections International, a Manhattan-based, multifaith and multicultural effort that seeks to promote justice and peace. Messages left with the School of Visual Arts and Intersections International were not immediately returned.
We urge the immigrant community to be extra vigilant and not to engage in any hot debate concerning the proposed mosque in NY that could only bring the worst in many bigots and xenophobes.
We pray for the safety of all our people. Ramadan Mubarak.
Regards,
The Board of Directors, BEC
=========================
Here below is the report from a newspaper:
Hate Crime in New York - cabbie stabbed
As I feared, Islamophobia has its latest victim in a hate crime that saw a Muslim cab driver in New York city severely stabbed several times by a White American. The Republican leaders and right wing conservative talk show hosts cannot escape from being held responsible for spreading hate crime against Muslims. Such propaganda and hatemongering is sure to bring the worst from bigots and chauvinists.
Here is the report from the USA Today:
NEW YORK — A Manhattan cabbie who was stabbed Tuesday night by a Putnam County man questioned Wednesday whether the attack stemmed from the contentious debate over creating a mosque near ground zero.
Ahmed H. Sharif, 43, of Queens, was stabbed several times by Michael Enright, 21, of Southeast, N.Y., after Enright had asked Sharif if he was Muslim and the cabbie responded that he was, a police spokesman said.
When officers responded to the scene around 6:15 p.m. Tuesday, Sharif was outside the vehicle, suffering from stab wounds, after attempting to lock Enright inside the cab, a police spokesman said. Enright escaped but was captured nearby by police.
The charges against Enright include attempted murder as a hate crime.
In a statement Wednesday the from New York Taxi Workers Alliance, Sharif warned his fellow cabbies.
"Right now the public sentiment is very serious" because of the ground zero mosque debate, he said. "All drivers should be more careful."
Sharif, who was treated at Bellevue Hospital for stab wounds to his arms, throat and face, said the incident made him sad.
"I have been here more than 25 years. I have been driving a taxi more than 15 years. All my four kids were born here. I never feel this hopeless and insecure before," he said.
It was Sharif's first fare of his shift.
Enright, a 2007 graduate of Brewster High School and an aspiring filmmaker, recently returned from Afghanistan, where he filmed Marines as part of a project for the School of Visual Arts in Manhattan, where he is a student. In Afghanistan, he was embedded with a Marines Corps crew that included his fellow Brewster High graduate, Cpl. Alex Eckner.
Enright was highly intoxicated when he hailed the cab, the police spokesman said. Once inside the cab, Enright asked Sharif whether Sharif was Muslim. When Sharif responded yes, Enright stabbed him several times with some type of utility knife.
According to the statement from the Taxi Workers Alliance, Enright's conversation with Sharif started out friendly, with Enright asking the cabbie where he was from, how long he had been in America, if he was Muslim and if he was observing Ramadan.
Enright then went silent before suddenly cursing and screaming, the statement said.
He then shouted "'Assalamu Alaikum,' common among Muslims as a wish for peace, before pulling out the knife and slashing Sharif across the neck and stabbing several more times as Sharif tried to knock it out of Enright's hands, the alliance said.
Enright was charged with attempted second-degree murder as a hate crime, first-degree assault, felonies, aggravated harassment and fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon, misdemeanors. He is awaiting arraignment.
Enright also worked with Intersections International, a Manhattan-based, multifaith and multicultural effort that seeks to promote justice and peace. Messages left with the School of Visual Arts and Intersections International were not immediately returned.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Bangladesh Expats to Become Voters
For last few years, Bangladesh Expatriates Council and its sister organization NRB Council, USA have worked hard lobbying lawmakers in Bangladesh to allow the expatriate community that live in the USA to register as voters in Bangladesh. We are glad to report that the Bangladesh Cabinet has approved a draft okaying our long standing demand. You can read the information below from the New Age.
Expats to become voters
Cabinet okays draft law
Staff Correspondent
The cabinet on Monday approved a draft of the Electoral Rolls (Amendment) Bill, 2010 to allow non-resident Bangladeshis to register as voters, fulfilling the expatriates’ long-standing demand.
The expatriate Bangladeshis, as per the draft, would be able to exercise their right to vote in all elections in the country after its enactment.
The law, justice and parliamentary affairs ministry proposed the amendment at the weekly cabinet meeting presided over by the prime minister, Sheikh Hasina.
‘The cabinet has approved the amendment to the electoral rolls law to allow the expatriates to register as voters at the places of their origin without considering whether or not they have movable or immovable assets there,’ the prime minister’s press secretary Abul Kalam Azad told reporters after the meeting.
The present electoral rolls ordinance has no provision for enrolling non-resident Bangladeshis as voters as the ordinance says people to be registered as voters should be residents in an electoral area during registration.
The Election Commission in July sent the final draft of amendments to the law ministry proposing that the Bangladeshis having dual citizenship could be registered as voters.
‘Bangladeshis who hold dual citizenship in line with the Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary Provisions) Order 1972 will be registered as voters after the amendment is incorporated into the electoral rolls ordinance,’ election commissioner Muhammed Sohul Hussain told reporters early July after a meeting on the proposed draft.
The draft said people having wealth or dwelling in more than one constituency could register as voters for any of the constituencies as they would wish.
People who have become citizens of other countries after renouncing their Bangladeshi citizenship would not be included in the electoral roll, according to the draft.
The proposed amendment says Bangladeshis living abroad temporarily would be considered as voters of the constituency they come from.
Bangladesh missions abroad would collect voter application forms for dual citizenship holders and send them to the Election Commission after preparing a district-wise primary list, said EC officials. They said that the commission would send the application forms to the district registration officers for scrutiny.
Expats to become voters
Cabinet okays draft law
Staff Correspondent
The cabinet on Monday approved a draft of the Electoral Rolls (Amendment) Bill, 2010 to allow non-resident Bangladeshis to register as voters, fulfilling the expatriates’ long-standing demand.
The expatriate Bangladeshis, as per the draft, would be able to exercise their right to vote in all elections in the country after its enactment.
The law, justice and parliamentary affairs ministry proposed the amendment at the weekly cabinet meeting presided over by the prime minister, Sheikh Hasina.
‘The cabinet has approved the amendment to the electoral rolls law to allow the expatriates to register as voters at the places of their origin without considering whether or not they have movable or immovable assets there,’ the prime minister’s press secretary Abul Kalam Azad told reporters after the meeting.
The present electoral rolls ordinance has no provision for enrolling non-resident Bangladeshis as voters as the ordinance says people to be registered as voters should be residents in an electoral area during registration.
The Election Commission in July sent the final draft of amendments to the law ministry proposing that the Bangladeshis having dual citizenship could be registered as voters.
‘Bangladeshis who hold dual citizenship in line with the Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary Provisions) Order 1972 will be registered as voters after the amendment is incorporated into the electoral rolls ordinance,’ election commissioner Muhammed Sohul Hussain told reporters early July after a meeting on the proposed draft.
The draft said people having wealth or dwelling in more than one constituency could register as voters for any of the constituencies as they would wish.
People who have become citizens of other countries after renouncing their Bangladeshi citizenship would not be included in the electoral roll, according to the draft.
The proposed amendment says Bangladeshis living abroad temporarily would be considered as voters of the constituency they come from.
Bangladesh missions abroad would collect voter application forms for dual citizenship holders and send them to the Election Commission after preparing a district-wise primary list, said EC officials. They said that the commission would send the application forms to the district registration officers for scrutiny.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
The Challenge with Bangladesh Democracy by Prof. Mahfuz R. Chowdhury
The Challenge with Bangladesh Democracy
By
Professor Mahfuz R. Chowdhury
(The author taught Economics at CW Post Campus of Long Island University and State College at Farmingdale, New York. He has published numerous articles on issues concerning Bangladesh and developing economies, which are posted on various web sites)
The history of democracy in Bangladesh has been very tumultuous to say the least. This is primarily because the country’s politicians and military leaders only talk of supporting democracy or the democratic process when they see a chance to grab state power through elections. But after ascending to power they seem to bury democracy. The key objective of Bangladesh’s politicians and some of its military leaders has been to seize state power essentially to promote their self-interest. And once in power, either democratically or through military might, they ignore the promises they had made, embrace autocracy, practice all kinds of intimidation to suppress the opposition, and engage in systematic looting of the state’s treasure. When knocked out of power, the opposition party routinely resorts to hartals (or general strikes) and violence. It’s actually quite ironic how the leaders of Bangladesh’s two dominant parties either champion democracy or bury it depending on whether they are out of power or in power! The democratic process is seen not as a way for the people of Bangladesh to pick the policies they prefer but as a way of deciding which party would be in power.
The above would sum up the history of Bangladesh democracy, except for one important fact. The actual power within a party rests almost entirely with the party leader, whether the party is in power or in opposition. And the leader tends to stay in that position until death, at which time the leadership mantle usually passes on to the biological heir of the leader. Political power and position has become a hereditary matter for Bangladesh. At least this is what has happened in the case of the two largest political parties that are presently controlling politics, and this trend can be expected to continue unless there is of course a drastic change.
The two political parties that dominate Bangladesh’s politics today are the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Here’s how these two parties have come to assume their current positions.
Awami League came into existence in the early days of Pakistan when Bangladesh was a part of Pakistan. Later under the leadership of its dominant leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman the country went to war and won its liberation from Pakistan. Following liberation, the whole country submitted to Sheikh Mujib for his leadership on governance and future direction. People were even prepared to take his words to be the law of the land. But the way he misused such a strong mandate of the people just about sealed his fate and the fates of many other members of his family.
After assuming state power, Sheikh Mujib having initially flip-flopped on what title to take – President or Prime Minister – began to consolidate his power over the government and the country. His commitment to democracy soon withered as he abandoned democracy in favor of autocracy. He created his own personal armed force and used it to brutally suppress the opposition, he banned newspapers that criticized his rule, and more significantly he declared Bangladesh a one-party state. Thus, by virtue of his authority, he killed the very democracy that brought him to power. Well, the freedom fighters who had fought in the liberation war and the people in general couldn’t stomach such actions by Sheikh Mujib even though he was the paramount leader of the country. So, after about three and half years of his dictatorial rule, he was brutally assassinated by army personnel in his own house along with all family members who were present. He was survived by his two daughters, who were outside the country at the time. It was by all means a great tragedy.
Immediately after his assassination, the country briefly experienced serious political turmoil. In the mayhem that followed, civilian and military leaders emerged who were either deposed or murdered. In the end, General Ziaur Rahman, a prominent freedom fighter backed by the army, emerged to assume state power. His rule, however, was supposed to be a temporary one and he was expected to arrange a national election and hand over power to the newly elected government. But the election that followed was not for others, it was a “yes or no” vote on him.
Having tasted supreme power, General Zia quickly proceeded to institutionalize his rule. By successfully luring many of the disgruntled political leaders of the country to his camp he formed the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. He even gave amnesty to people who had opposed the creation of Bangladesh (including the assassinators of Sheikh Mujib) and installed them in key positions in the party and government. He felt so confident of himself that he once boasted that he would make politics difficult for the politicians. He was true to his promise! He made a real mockery of every democratic value by systematically dismantling the vital democratic institutions in the country. By openly rigging the people’s vote he created his own parliament, which he used to rubber stamp his policies. He ruled autocratically, and murdered many army mutineers including some of those who helped him to gain power. Legend has it that a person who lives by the sword dies by the sword. So General Zia too eventually had to sacrifice his life for his autocratic actions; he was assassinated by the army after about six years in power.
Following him it was General H M Ershad’s turn to grab state power. By using the experiences of his immediate predecessor and applying his personal wit, he succeeded in perpetrating his autocratic rule. He too proceeded to establish his own political party and ran sham elections. He proved to be a skillful master and was able to keep his opponents at bay for many years. He was also rumored to fake his own fatherhood to gain acceptance by the people. During his time, the democratic institutions in the country were further dismantled. In the end, after the country’s democratic forces finally regrouped and the two dominant parties joined hands and went on to mobilize a national movement, Ershad’s regime was forced to hand over power after a long nine years of dictatorial rule.
Finally, after a national election, democracy was supposedly restored in the country in 1990. In this election Bangladesh Nationalist Party captured power. But since then power has been alternating between Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Awami League, though the former has been in power longer. The many other political parties that operate in the country were relegated to a supporting position. Nevertheless, the fundamentalist Jamaat e Islami party has emerged to be the king maker. It has in the past tilted elections for both major parties by throwing its support behind them.
Prior to the 1990 election, both Awami League and Bangladesh Nationalist Party, the two emerging dominant parties, underwent serious transformations. The assassinations of their dominant leaders had put them in a clear shambles. The party elders distrusted each other and couldn’t agree on who would succeed the assassinated leaders. When there is no intra-party democracy, no leader can emerge from within the party as the popular choice of rank-and-file party members. And in that vacuum, a relative unknown such as a family member of the assassinated leader becomes the only viable alternative. So as a compromise, Awami League inducted Sheik Hasina to take her father’s position and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party followed suit by inducting Khaleda Zia to fill her husband’s position, even though both ladies were considered to be politically inept. But what followed after their induction to the leadership positions has dramatically changed the political landscape in Bangladesh.
As expected, the unscrupulous politicians in each party raced to line up behind the two ladies in order to achieve personal gains. This inevitably gave the ladies a chance to gradually consolidate their power within their respective parties. By utilizing their newly found authority, they then started to put loyalists in key party positions. Obviously, it didn’t take too long for them to assume dictatorial power within their parties, whether in power or in opposition. At the same time, their tolerance for the democratic process also waned. Few party members dared to question their authority. Those who did faced the sack almost immediately.
Here’s how the two ladies have come to exercise their authority. Prior to an election they would allocate parliament seats usually to those who had money and muscle, and when victorious in the election they would distribute ministerial posts to their loyalists. Before an election they might routinely promise to decentralize government administration or make the judiciary independent, which are indeed vital for proper functioning of a democracy. But once in power they would ignore those promises. In fact, both ladies appear to be grooming their young sons to replace them when the time comes.
When Khaleda Zia came to power, she spearheaded legislation to officially recognize her late husband as the architect of the liberation of Bangladesh (which literally infuriated her opponents), wrote the country’s history in a biased form, intimidated the opposition in parliament and harassed them outside parliament in every possible way. She effectively put her young son in charge of key governmental decisions, especially the lucrative ones. The opposition led by Sheikh Hasina, on the other hand, responded by promoting strikes, disruption and violence in the country with the ultimate aim of bringing down the government.
When Sheikh Hasina regained state power, her first order of business was to eliminate General Zia’s name from every important place in Bangladesh, such as the national airport, university and park. She quickly rewrote the history books in her way, proceeded to intimidate the opposition in the parliament and harass them outside, and even closed a newspaper that was critical of her administration. She initiated legislation to return to the 1972 constitution, to repossess the house that Khaleda Zia resides in and was bestowed on her by a rival government, and to persecute the people who had opposed Bangladesh’s liberation movement but had been pardoned. The latter may turn out to be a difficult move since Saudi Arabia, which provides employment and financial support to Bangladesh also backs those who opposed the movement. In any case, the opposition party of Khaleda Zia has duly reciprocated by calling a national strike, promoting agitation and promising massive violence with the same idea of bringing down the government. While these kinds of tit for tat fights between the two parties go on, the country and the people suffer.
The moral fibers of both parties are fundamentally same, but for personal and selfish reasons they continue to treat each other as arch enemies. They do not see eye to eye, and cannot agree on anything, not even on how to run an election. Earlier they had both agreed to an unprecedented procedure of appointing a care taker government to run elections, but later they got locked in a deadly fight over the formation and functioning of the proposed caretaker government.
Thus, the evolution of democracy or the democratic process has remained an elusive matter for Bangladesh even after 38 years of independence. At the center of all these controversies are currently the two ladies who are running the two dominant parties. They are bent on destroying each other at any cost with the sole purpose of grabbing state power. As could be imagined, the economic and human cost of their infighting has been tremendous. For example, while other developing countries like Malaysia leap forward with huge economic success, Bangladesh with its abundant resources still remains a poverty stricken country while corruption and crime continue to rise. However, neither leader cares to understand the repercussions of their actions. It seems they just don’t care.
Arguably, Bengalis as a nation are considered to be intelligent enough to produce several Nobel laureates, but when it comes to governing themselves, they have failed, and failed miserably. This was as true when the land first came under foreign domination many years ago as it is true today. It’s indeed very unfortunate. To paraphrase the great poet, philosopher and Nobel laureate of the land – Bengalis (Bangalees) don’t learn!
The quality of democracy of a country depends on the checks and balances among its executive, legislative and judicial branches. And the press plays a very unique role in keeping these branches on their toes. Bangladesh’s democracy has failed to properly develop because of the lack of independence of the legislative and judicial branches and the press. But even under such constraints there may be some hope that democracy in Bangladesh would slowly improve. One good sign is that the military seems to be unwilling or unprepared to grab power. Although the present system promotes autocracy, it’s no longer absolute. The two dominant parties are putting some kind of checks and balances on each other, and the people are becoming more conscious of their rights and obligations because of the rise of the satellite TV and the Internet.
The international community has a great obligation to help Bangladesh to strengthen its democracy. If Bangladesh, the seventh largest country in population, turns into a failed state as a result of a collapse of its democracy, it would only bolster fundamentalism. The rise of fundamentalism in Bangladesh would create a bigger mess than the world would care to handle. Also, expatriate Bangladeshis could play an important role. The expatriates by unequivocally rising above Bangladesh’s party politics and by taking a firm and united stand to promote democracy in their homeland could expedite the process.
By
Professor Mahfuz R. Chowdhury
(The author taught Economics at CW Post Campus of Long Island University and State College at Farmingdale, New York. He has published numerous articles on issues concerning Bangladesh and developing economies, which are posted on various web sites)
The history of democracy in Bangladesh has been very tumultuous to say the least. This is primarily because the country’s politicians and military leaders only talk of supporting democracy or the democratic process when they see a chance to grab state power through elections. But after ascending to power they seem to bury democracy. The key objective of Bangladesh’s politicians and some of its military leaders has been to seize state power essentially to promote their self-interest. And once in power, either democratically or through military might, they ignore the promises they had made, embrace autocracy, practice all kinds of intimidation to suppress the opposition, and engage in systematic looting of the state’s treasure. When knocked out of power, the opposition party routinely resorts to hartals (or general strikes) and violence. It’s actually quite ironic how the leaders of Bangladesh’s two dominant parties either champion democracy or bury it depending on whether they are out of power or in power! The democratic process is seen not as a way for the people of Bangladesh to pick the policies they prefer but as a way of deciding which party would be in power.
The above would sum up the history of Bangladesh democracy, except for one important fact. The actual power within a party rests almost entirely with the party leader, whether the party is in power or in opposition. And the leader tends to stay in that position until death, at which time the leadership mantle usually passes on to the biological heir of the leader. Political power and position has become a hereditary matter for Bangladesh. At least this is what has happened in the case of the two largest political parties that are presently controlling politics, and this trend can be expected to continue unless there is of course a drastic change.
The two political parties that dominate Bangladesh’s politics today are the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Here’s how these two parties have come to assume their current positions.
Awami League came into existence in the early days of Pakistan when Bangladesh was a part of Pakistan. Later under the leadership of its dominant leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman the country went to war and won its liberation from Pakistan. Following liberation, the whole country submitted to Sheikh Mujib for his leadership on governance and future direction. People were even prepared to take his words to be the law of the land. But the way he misused such a strong mandate of the people just about sealed his fate and the fates of many other members of his family.
After assuming state power, Sheikh Mujib having initially flip-flopped on what title to take – President or Prime Minister – began to consolidate his power over the government and the country. His commitment to democracy soon withered as he abandoned democracy in favor of autocracy. He created his own personal armed force and used it to brutally suppress the opposition, he banned newspapers that criticized his rule, and more significantly he declared Bangladesh a one-party state. Thus, by virtue of his authority, he killed the very democracy that brought him to power. Well, the freedom fighters who had fought in the liberation war and the people in general couldn’t stomach such actions by Sheikh Mujib even though he was the paramount leader of the country. So, after about three and half years of his dictatorial rule, he was brutally assassinated by army personnel in his own house along with all family members who were present. He was survived by his two daughters, who were outside the country at the time. It was by all means a great tragedy.
Immediately after his assassination, the country briefly experienced serious political turmoil. In the mayhem that followed, civilian and military leaders emerged who were either deposed or murdered. In the end, General Ziaur Rahman, a prominent freedom fighter backed by the army, emerged to assume state power. His rule, however, was supposed to be a temporary one and he was expected to arrange a national election and hand over power to the newly elected government. But the election that followed was not for others, it was a “yes or no” vote on him.
Having tasted supreme power, General Zia quickly proceeded to institutionalize his rule. By successfully luring many of the disgruntled political leaders of the country to his camp he formed the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. He even gave amnesty to people who had opposed the creation of Bangladesh (including the assassinators of Sheikh Mujib) and installed them in key positions in the party and government. He felt so confident of himself that he once boasted that he would make politics difficult for the politicians. He was true to his promise! He made a real mockery of every democratic value by systematically dismantling the vital democratic institutions in the country. By openly rigging the people’s vote he created his own parliament, which he used to rubber stamp his policies. He ruled autocratically, and murdered many army mutineers including some of those who helped him to gain power. Legend has it that a person who lives by the sword dies by the sword. So General Zia too eventually had to sacrifice his life for his autocratic actions; he was assassinated by the army after about six years in power.
Following him it was General H M Ershad’s turn to grab state power. By using the experiences of his immediate predecessor and applying his personal wit, he succeeded in perpetrating his autocratic rule. He too proceeded to establish his own political party and ran sham elections. He proved to be a skillful master and was able to keep his opponents at bay for many years. He was also rumored to fake his own fatherhood to gain acceptance by the people. During his time, the democratic institutions in the country were further dismantled. In the end, after the country’s democratic forces finally regrouped and the two dominant parties joined hands and went on to mobilize a national movement, Ershad’s regime was forced to hand over power after a long nine years of dictatorial rule.
Finally, after a national election, democracy was supposedly restored in the country in 1990. In this election Bangladesh Nationalist Party captured power. But since then power has been alternating between Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Awami League, though the former has been in power longer. The many other political parties that operate in the country were relegated to a supporting position. Nevertheless, the fundamentalist Jamaat e Islami party has emerged to be the king maker. It has in the past tilted elections for both major parties by throwing its support behind them.
Prior to the 1990 election, both Awami League and Bangladesh Nationalist Party, the two emerging dominant parties, underwent serious transformations. The assassinations of their dominant leaders had put them in a clear shambles. The party elders distrusted each other and couldn’t agree on who would succeed the assassinated leaders. When there is no intra-party democracy, no leader can emerge from within the party as the popular choice of rank-and-file party members. And in that vacuum, a relative unknown such as a family member of the assassinated leader becomes the only viable alternative. So as a compromise, Awami League inducted Sheik Hasina to take her father’s position and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party followed suit by inducting Khaleda Zia to fill her husband’s position, even though both ladies were considered to be politically inept. But what followed after their induction to the leadership positions has dramatically changed the political landscape in Bangladesh.
As expected, the unscrupulous politicians in each party raced to line up behind the two ladies in order to achieve personal gains. This inevitably gave the ladies a chance to gradually consolidate their power within their respective parties. By utilizing their newly found authority, they then started to put loyalists in key party positions. Obviously, it didn’t take too long for them to assume dictatorial power within their parties, whether in power or in opposition. At the same time, their tolerance for the democratic process also waned. Few party members dared to question their authority. Those who did faced the sack almost immediately.
Here’s how the two ladies have come to exercise their authority. Prior to an election they would allocate parliament seats usually to those who had money and muscle, and when victorious in the election they would distribute ministerial posts to their loyalists. Before an election they might routinely promise to decentralize government administration or make the judiciary independent, which are indeed vital for proper functioning of a democracy. But once in power they would ignore those promises. In fact, both ladies appear to be grooming their young sons to replace them when the time comes.
When Khaleda Zia came to power, she spearheaded legislation to officially recognize her late husband as the architect of the liberation of Bangladesh (which literally infuriated her opponents), wrote the country’s history in a biased form, intimidated the opposition in parliament and harassed them outside parliament in every possible way. She effectively put her young son in charge of key governmental decisions, especially the lucrative ones. The opposition led by Sheikh Hasina, on the other hand, responded by promoting strikes, disruption and violence in the country with the ultimate aim of bringing down the government.
When Sheikh Hasina regained state power, her first order of business was to eliminate General Zia’s name from every important place in Bangladesh, such as the national airport, university and park. She quickly rewrote the history books in her way, proceeded to intimidate the opposition in the parliament and harass them outside, and even closed a newspaper that was critical of her administration. She initiated legislation to return to the 1972 constitution, to repossess the house that Khaleda Zia resides in and was bestowed on her by a rival government, and to persecute the people who had opposed Bangladesh’s liberation movement but had been pardoned. The latter may turn out to be a difficult move since Saudi Arabia, which provides employment and financial support to Bangladesh also backs those who opposed the movement. In any case, the opposition party of Khaleda Zia has duly reciprocated by calling a national strike, promoting agitation and promising massive violence with the same idea of bringing down the government. While these kinds of tit for tat fights between the two parties go on, the country and the people suffer.
The moral fibers of both parties are fundamentally same, but for personal and selfish reasons they continue to treat each other as arch enemies. They do not see eye to eye, and cannot agree on anything, not even on how to run an election. Earlier they had both agreed to an unprecedented procedure of appointing a care taker government to run elections, but later they got locked in a deadly fight over the formation and functioning of the proposed caretaker government.
Thus, the evolution of democracy or the democratic process has remained an elusive matter for Bangladesh even after 38 years of independence. At the center of all these controversies are currently the two ladies who are running the two dominant parties. They are bent on destroying each other at any cost with the sole purpose of grabbing state power. As could be imagined, the economic and human cost of their infighting has been tremendous. For example, while other developing countries like Malaysia leap forward with huge economic success, Bangladesh with its abundant resources still remains a poverty stricken country while corruption and crime continue to rise. However, neither leader cares to understand the repercussions of their actions. It seems they just don’t care.
Arguably, Bengalis as a nation are considered to be intelligent enough to produce several Nobel laureates, but when it comes to governing themselves, they have failed, and failed miserably. This was as true when the land first came under foreign domination many years ago as it is true today. It’s indeed very unfortunate. To paraphrase the great poet, philosopher and Nobel laureate of the land – Bengalis (Bangalees) don’t learn!
The quality of democracy of a country depends on the checks and balances among its executive, legislative and judicial branches. And the press plays a very unique role in keeping these branches on their toes. Bangladesh’s democracy has failed to properly develop because of the lack of independence of the legislative and judicial branches and the press. But even under such constraints there may be some hope that democracy in Bangladesh would slowly improve. One good sign is that the military seems to be unwilling or unprepared to grab power. Although the present system promotes autocracy, it’s no longer absolute. The two dominant parties are putting some kind of checks and balances on each other, and the people are becoming more conscious of their rights and obligations because of the rise of the satellite TV and the Internet.
The international community has a great obligation to help Bangladesh to strengthen its democracy. If Bangladesh, the seventh largest country in population, turns into a failed state as a result of a collapse of its democracy, it would only bolster fundamentalism. The rise of fundamentalism in Bangladesh would create a bigger mess than the world would care to handle. Also, expatriate Bangladeshis could play an important role. The expatriates by unequivocally rising above Bangladesh’s party politics and by taking a firm and united stand to promote democracy in their homeland could expedite the process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)