What a Difference

“The glorious role that the armed forces played in the reconstitution of the caretaker government saved the country from a one-sided Jan 22 election, full of clashes and confrontations. We thank them for this. Now the nation expects arrests of those who plundered people’s wealth in corruption, and recovery of the lost wealth.”

Abdul Jalil, Awami League General Secretary, January 14, 2007

“Everyone suffers when democracy is under attack. We (political parties) may have different points of view. But everyone will have to be united when the issue is democracy.Whoever they are, they will be identified, they will be brought to justice and they will be handed the maximum punishment.”

Syed Ashraful Islam, Awami League General Secretary, January 19, 2012

 

New Tribunals for Bangladesh’s ICT: Some Suggestions

The Government of Bangladesh has suggested that it is going to form at least another bench to expedite the trial of the men accused of committing crimes against humanity. There are certain things that the government can do to avoid much of the controversy that is dogging the current tribunal.

1. Have at least two judges with district court experience: In the current tribunal, Justice Fazle Kabir was a district court judge before being elevated to the High Court. Zaheer Ahmed is also a retired district court judge. District courts are the trial courts of Bangladesh’s legal system, and the judges who rise up through that system have a far greater experience regarding the minutiae of handling a trial, like evidentiary and exculpatory issues. The transcripts of the direct and cross-examination of prosecution witnesses in the trial of Delwar Hossain Saydee has made this abundantly clear. Justices Zaheer and Kabir have been extremely active in deciding whether to sustain or overrule the objections by the prosecution and the defense teams, while the chairman, Justice Nizamul Huq has mostly been a silent spectator. The new tribunal should also have at least two judges with experience at the district court level, and unlike this the current tribunal, one of these two should be made the chairman of the tribunal.
2. Have at least two judges with at least five years of appellate experience: Justice Fazle Kabir was appointed by the BNP government in 2003. So, he had seven years of experience in the High Court under his belt before being appointed to the war-crimes trial. Justice Nizamul Huq, on the other hand, was appointed in 2001, not confirmed in 2003 (along with Shamshuddin Chowdhury Manik, what a wise decision that was), and then again reappointed in 2009. This means that he had only heard appellate cases for 3 years (2001-2003, 2009-2010) before being appointed to the Tribunal, and even that with a six-year gap in between. For the new tribunal, the government would do well to appoint judges with at least five years of uninterrupted appellate experience.
3. Avoid controversial judges: At first glance, this may seem to be an extremely subjective measure, but the government would be wise to do all it can to appoint people who are as uncontroversial as possible. Justice Fazle Kabir is controversial because he was the other judge with then-Justice Khairul Huq when he handed down his Fifth Amendment verdict and started our court on its festival of constitution-shredding. However, that is a matter of completely different magnitude from Justice Nizamul Huq, who took part in a mock-prosecution of these same men as a private citizen, and whose presence has irreversibly tainted the whole proceedings. For the new tribunals, Awami League should avoid individuals with direct participation with the 1992 mock trials, as well as those judges who were reappointed in 2009, and some of whom have been elevated to the Appellate Division.

If Awami League really wants to finish all the trial proceedings within the 2012 calendar year, then it has no choice but to constitute new tribunals. However, the absence of interlocutory appeals makes this process quite challenging, since different tribunals could potentially rule differently on the same issues, and the prosecution would be able to take advantage of forum-shopping. While the road ahead is certainly challenging for the government, if it chooses the members of the new tribunal with some foresight (which was very much missing was constituting the current tribunal), it may make its mission slightly easier.

 

(____) minds think alike

ব্লগ এখন অনেকটা পর্নোগ্রাফিতে পরিণত হয়েছে: Syed Ashraful Islam

“On the Internet 50 percent is porn material. Why should we refer to the Internet?”: Vladimir Putin

 

Abductions, Conspiracies, and Bombs in the Morning

Prothom Alo and Daily Star have an unparallelled ability in Bangladesh to focus, day after day, on a single issue, and force some action on that issue. In the recent past, they did it about Limon, the unfortunate victim of RAB crossfire. They did it about the untimely deaths of Mishuq Munir and Tareque Masud. And lately, they had started focusing on the issue of individuals being abducted and being murdered, allegedly by law-enforcement officials in disguise.

Thus, Daily Star has run the following news-reports:

December 14: Rights violation still rampant

December 15: Seven bodies seen floating in the bay

December 16: Secret killing sponsored by the state: Fakhrul claims BNP its main victim, BNP leader killed after abduction

December 17: Disappearances and secret killings: Creating panic among common people, 5 abducted, missing for 10 days

Prothom Alo has run these:

December 14: ১৭টি সংগঠনের মোর্চার সংবাদ সম্মেলন:
‘গুপ্তহত্যা ও গণপিটুনিতে হত্যা নতুন উদ্বেগ সৃষ্টি করছে’, ধলেশ্বরীতে আরও তিন লাশ: গুপ্তহত্যা

December 15: গুপ্তহত্যা: আরও পাঁচজন নিখোঁজ, রাষ্ট্রের সর্বোচ্চ পর্যায়ের হস্তক্ষেপ আশা করছি
সুলতানা কামাল , মুন্সিগঞ্জে নিখোঁজ মানুষের সন্ধানে আরও স্বজন: স্ত্রীরা এসে স্বামীদের লাশ শনাক্ত করলেন

December 16: পাবনায় যুবকের লাশ উদ্ধার
, নিখোঁজ ও গুম: এএফএডির উদ্বেগ
, মুন্সিগঞ্জ পুলিশের ধারণা: বুড়িগঙ্গা দিয়ে আট লাশ এসেছে, গলায় গামছা পেঁচানো বিএনপি নেতার লাশ

December 17: ডিবির পরিচয়ে অপহরণ
ভাঙ্গার পাঁচ যুবক ১০ দিন নিখোঁজ, ‘দলের কাউকে ধরতে হলে পুলিশকে পোশাক পরে আসতে হবে’, বাংলাদেশে নিখোঁজ ও গুমের ঘটনায় উদ্বেগ

December 18: গুপ্তহত্যার তদন্ত করবে মানবাধিকার কমিশন

December 19:
গুম ও গুপ্তহত্যার রহস্যভেদে গণতদন্ত কমিশন হোক

The response from the government about these claims, as it is about most criticism levelled their way by the opposition, was that BNP was behind all these murders and disappearances to foil the International Crimes Tribunal. Yesterday, BNP held a grand rally to honor freedom-fighters and decisively refute the charges that BNP was out to save war-criminals and foil their trials. However, this development became the second-most important story of the day after the bursts of violence that broke out all over Dhaka on the early morning of the same day.

The government claims, and both Daily Star and Prothom Alocarried this version, that BNP carried out these attacks. Daily Star went even further, and dragged out the two biggest scapegoats of recent years, Hawa Bhaban and Jamaat, as the groups allegedly behind this violence.

What is more likely, that BNP would sabotage the organizational meeting it had been concentrating on all month, or that Awami League was desparate to deny Khaleda Zia a stage surrounded by decorated war veterans? Daily Star claims that BNP Acting Secretary-General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir was in the dark about all these acts of violence. Meanwhile, Prothom Alo details show district-level leaders from all around Bangladesh were mobilizing to come to Dhaka. So this criminal master-plot was known to district-level BNP leaders all around Bangladesh, but somehow, BNP’s Acting Secretary-General did not know about it? Ridiculous.

Just like the government is running out of money to carry out its everyday duties, it is also running out of legitimate ways to stifle the entirely legitimate dissent that is bubbling up due to its numerous ill-conceived steps. One hopes that it will soon see sense, and shun the path of violence.

 

The Daily Star: Practicing What We Preach Since 1991

 

Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal: David Bergman and Contempt of Court

In a few days, the International Crimes Tribunal will hold a hearing to decide whether an article written by David Bergman is in contempt of court. The editor and publisher of  his employer, New Age, have also been made co-respondents to this order. It would be instructive to take a look at how Bergman has arrived at this situation, and why the Tribunal is devoting its precious time in deciding such ancilliary matter.

Bergman’s reporting, ever since this Tribunal was set up has been invaluable, for two reasons. He has provided a somewhat unbiased voice, reporting the details of the legal proceedings without the ideological goggles that hobble so many of our other reporters. Moreover, he has had at least some interaction with foreign judiciaries, and has been able to effectively compare and contrast the Tribunal against its international counterparts.

We should note, at the outset, that Bergman is British, which means that he has had some experience operating under draconian press laws. This has generally stood him in good stead. A lesser individual, perhaps an American, would have been reduced to hysterics and babbling incoherently about freedom of speech by now.

Last April, Bergman wrote a largely positive piece about the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal picked out two phrases used in the article, and took issue. One was “the tribunal showed itself to have lost its backbone” and the other was “return to being the rubberstamp?” What followed, in the Tribunal’s next proceeding, is best described in Bergman’s own words:

Judge AKM Zahir Ahmed then spoke. He said that an article had come to his attention, ‘International Criminal Tribunal: Growing Independence or a Return to be being a rubber stamp’ which was in part ‘contemptuous’. He said,’Journalists are allowed to express their views’ but cant be in contempt of court.

He then referred to various expressions that were used,’Who is he to say what does or does not have a backbone?’

…

Justice ATM Fazle Kabir then spoke, and asked whether ‘David Bergman was present in court.’ I put my hand up and he then asked me to stand up. He then said, ‘We have gone through this report. Your manner of reporting is very nice, no doubt … We know that you are of foreign origin and so we are warning you about your language.’

He then said that there were two words that were ‘very much contemptuous.’ He then referred to the use of the word, ‘Rubber stamp’. ‘We are very sorry about this but you can not use this words about our court. If you use these words in future then we will take action. According to the rules of this court in Bangladesh these words are absolutely contemptuous. In recognition of the fact that you are a foreigner, we will not take action against you.’

Yikes. Called out in open court. Not a fun experience.

However, it’s hard to see why hoping a court does not become a rubber stamp for the prosecution should be contempuous; here’s the same term being used regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, one of the US Government’s most sensitive organs, a justice of the United States Supreme Court, and by Julian Assange regarding the British Court ruling that allows his extradition to Sweden. Does that mean that the courts of United States and United Kingdom are less deserving of our respect? Or that they have a greater tolerance for criticism?

What about the Tribunal’s objection to being relegated with the fruit fly and spiders? If that is contempuous, what should we make of thisclaim by Steve Forbes, publisher of Forbes Magazine and a Republican presidential candidate in 1996, that “the United States Supreme Court has the backbone of an eclair?” Should the United States Supreme Court take lessons from the Tribunal in comport and dignity? Or am I guilty of comparing eclairs and chomchoms here?

Well, following this little showdown, Bergman managed to stay out of trouble for almost six months. Until, that is, the Tribunal got down to its actual business and took cognizance of the charges against (a fancy way of saying indicted) Delwar Hossain Saydee. Bergman again wrote a rather milquetoast article: reviewing the proceedings so far, and mapping out the road ahead.

Again, the Tribunal confused Bergman’s expression of some people’s fears about the Tribunal as Bergman’s own opinion, and whipped out its contempt of court order. Looking back, it’s only surprising that the Tribunal restrained itself for so long. Ever since then-Justice Khairul Huq used contempt of court to accomplish what Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina could not, this particular mean of stifling dissent is extremely popular with Bangladesh’s higher judiciary. In short, the feeling is “all the cool benches are doing it, why shouldn’t we?”

The contempt order was passed down on October 3. Bergman and New Age management submitted its replies on October 27, arguing that its report in contempt of court. The Tribunal will hear oral arguments and pass its order some time in the coming week.

In all likelihood, Bergman will get away with only a verbal warning, and maybe a token monetary fine. As noted, the Tribunal is entering a crucial phase here, and it will be unwise to distract attention from its legal work by handing down an unnecessarily harsh measure, especially on such a well-regarded individual. In the off-chance that the Tribunal does impose a more punitive penalty, it will be making its own functioning decidedly more complicated, and add to the miasma of controversies that is already swirling around it.

 

Bangladesh’s Judicial System: A Snapshot

The case is regarding Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir’s election to Parliament in the last parliamentary election. He is being represented by Barrister Rokonuddin Mahmud. Under a law enacted during the last military-caretaker government, a convicted person could not contest in the election, which Barrister Mahmud is trying to evade. This following exchange takes place between him and the judges hearing the case:

Court: What if we declared the entire military-caretaker government illegal?

Mahmud: (with some concern) That would make the last general election illegal as well.

Court: So what? It would give a nice jolt like the Fifth Amendment verdict.

Mahmud: We don’t want that, and we won’t be making that argument.

The Fifth Amendment verdict, along with the ones handed down by Chief Justice Khairul Huq, including the one cancelling the caretaker system (which has still not been written), did give Bangladesh quite a jolt. Who are the members of the bench wanting to make things even more exciting for our countrymen? The senior member is Justice Shamshuddin Chowdhury Manik, last seen throwing a tantrum in a Biman airplane and threatening to convene a court right there and then unless he was upgraded to Business Class despite having only a Economy Class ticket. The junior member is Justice Jahangir Hossain, who is a nephew of Zillur Rahman, the President of Bangladesh, and earlier used that piece of serendipity to grab the plum posting of Dhaka District Judge, superseding about two hundred judges with more experience. The normally supportive Mizanur Rahman Khan wrote a scathing article in Prothom Alo about Hossain’s shenanigans, which was titled: “The Judicial System is Collapsing.” Not that any of it mattered, Jahangir Hossain was duly elevated to the High Court, probably as Manik’s perfect foil.

Let us turn to another court appearance a few days before that. Three individuals who were accused in the sensational Lokman Hossain murder case, including the brother of the Rajiuddin Ahmed Raju, the current Telecommunications Minister, appear in front of another High Court bench, composed of Justices Syed Mohammed Dastagir Hossain and Gobindra Chandra Thakur. This following dialogue ensues, with Advocate Anisul Huq representing the defendants:

Court: It is an exception to see such a popular mayor being assassinated like this. Will our country run out of good men soon?

Huq: We wouldn’t have come to you, but the situation is bad. Please give us bail for thirty days.

…

Court: We have tried, but we cannot grant you bail. Our conscience will not allow it.

Where to begin here? First off, do Bangladesh’s judges remember their roles, or do they think that they are the heroes in some Bollywood movie? For the crime of murder, it does not matter if the victim is an elected official, or a popular leader, or an unknown person no one has heard of and no one mourns. The standard is the same, if that standard is met, then the defendants automatically get bail, otherwise not. And where does the judge’s conscience come into all this? In many areas of law, there is a considerable role for ambiguity and discretion. But obtaining a bail is not one of them. There is a straight-forward standard, and a person either deserves bail or does not. And none deserves to see play-acting in our highest courts.

A country can probably have stability if its generals don’t know how to make war, its scientists cannot innovate, or its bankers spend their days in profligate behavior. It cannot have stability if its jurists don’t understand law. Bangladesh’s immediate past Chief Justice Khairul Huq quoted salus republicae est suprema lex – the safety of the state is the highest law – in handing down two of his most controversial decisions, even though nothing could be further from the truth. The safety of the state may be ensured if political opponents are arrested and tortured, or if political dissidents are kidnapped and killed,  but the law can never countenance such. Bangladesh may get the leaders we deserve, but its people deserve better judges than these.

 

Ziaur Rahman: The man who gave us our identity

When President Ziaur Rahman was killed, he was only 45. But within this short life span he contributed enormously to Bangladesh. His catalytic role in initiating the mass revolt among Bengali members of the armed-forces after the brutal military crackdown of 25th March 1971, and his contribution as a military leader of Bangladesh’s war of independence distinguishes him as one of our top national heroes. Zia’s post independence role in building modern Bangladesh brick-by-brick by revamping all sectors starting from mutiny-ridden ‘broken-chain-of-command’ military, to her global image, to initiation of open-market-economy, are enough to immortalize him.
Yet, Ziaur Rahman’s lasting legacy will be his contribution to give the people of Bangladesh an identity — ‘Bangladeshi’ — that is inclusive of all the races, ethnic groups and religions. This identity emanates from Zia’s political philosophy of Bangladeshi nationalism, which was embraced very enthusiastically by an overwhelming majority of Bangladeshis. The political philosophy of ‘Bangladeshi Nationalism’ was expressed as his forward looking, conciliatory, inclusive and tolerant modus-operandi of nation building.
In an orientation session for the newly-elected BNP members of the 2nd Parliament, Zia explained Bangladeshi nationalism the following way,

“Now the question is, what is nationalism? If we study history of the world, we will see rise of different sorts of nationalism at different times and places. In this regard, first comes ‘racial’ or ethnic identity based nationalism. Arab or German nationalisms are prime examples of this kind of nationalism. German nationalism is based on Arian race. Hitler might not have talked about German nationalism if after World War I; parts of Germany were not occupied and shared by states like Britain, France and Poland. This act prompted Hitler to promote race based German nationalism. And we all know of Arab nationalism. … The late president of Egypt, Mr. Jamal Abdul Nasser was able to give a significant shape to Arab nationalism. Arab nationalism still exists and stands tall proudly with all other races in the world.
Next comes language-based nationalism. The slogan of Bengali nationalism is built on this philosophy. And for this reason, Awami League still dreams of establishing Bengali nationalism.
And then Muslim League, IDL and the Jamaatis talk about religion based nationalism. At the beginning of this century, Jamal Uddin Afghani preached Pan Islamic nationalism; the spirit of religion-based nationalism originates from that pan-Islamism. To be frank, since inception of Pakistan, Bangladesh was exploited and ruled in the name of this religion-based nationalism. But the ‘politics of exploitation‘ in the name of Islamic Nationalism could not keep Pakistan intact. Independent-sovereign Bangladesh was born.
Politics can be based on regional identity also, thus creating a new regional nationalism. In this regard we can mention the name of EEC (European Economic Commission). EEC has her own parliament i.e. the European Parliament. Many EEC countries are not even connected via land, yet they were able to bring forth new spirit and new idea of cooperation among themselves. They are collectively trying to give themselves a distinct identity as Europeans. Broadly one can assume that they are moving towards a new nationalistic identity.
War can be the base of nationalism too. But that is not a ‘compulsory’ or essential pre-requisite of nationalism.
Bangladeshi nationalism is based on all of the above components of nationalism…. We have ethnic heritage, a rich language and religious tradition. We all live in a single important geographic location. We have the dream of building a new economic order. And the blood-drenched spirit of our war of independence motivates us all. Presence of so many nationalistic elements is unprecedented in one nation’s identity.
When people say that Bangladeshi nationalism is not embracing religion, they are wrong. Religious identity and fidelity to faith is a great and historic trait of Bangladeshi nation. It has been mentioned in the Holy Quran that ” La Iqra Fidweene“, ‘religion should not be forcefully imposed’. Hence Bangladeshi nationalism is neither religion based nor religion averse. This nationalism ensures each and everyone’s faith and religious rights. And Bangladeshi nationalism is also not a purely language based nationalism. …
The philosophy of Bangladeshi Nationalism has ‘absorption power‘ and ‘elbow room.” [Translated into English from original Bangla speech by the author.]

Zia responded to the call of Bangbandhu to take up arms and lead the fight for Bangalee nationalism. But in an independent Bangladesh, he understood the need for an inclusive nationalistic identity for people of erstwhile East Bengal / East Pakistan who are predominantly religious Muslims Bangalees but very tolerant and accommodating to the rights of non-Muslims and or non-Bangalee ethnic groups.

Even today, over 30 years after his death, changes in Bangladesh constitutional framework initiated by Zia has been the basis of governance in Bangladesh. Zia re-introduced multi party democracy and press freedom back to Bangladesh. Thanks to some activist judges and an overwhelming parliamentary majority of currently ruling Awami League, a big push is being made to remove Ziaur Rahman initiated changes in the constitution of Bangladesh. Despite all the vicious attacks on late President Ziaur Rahman from the highest levels of the government, Zia introduced constitutional changes enjoy enormous public support and it is very likely that practically most of his changes will remain in the constitution. This is the ultimate success of Ziaur Rahman’s political philosophy, Bangladeshi nationalism.

 

Narayanganj Election: Some More Analysis

Three broad trends significant in this election:

Media Activism: A large section of Bangladeshi media played an extremely enthusiastic part in boosting Selina Hayat Ivy, trashing Shamim Osman, and completely ignoring BNP candidiate Taimur Alam Khandqar. We heard over and over, that Ivy was a successful mayor in her last stint. What were the indications of her success? By how much did corporation tax revenues increase? How many schools and colleges did she build? How many bridges and culverts were constructed during her tenure? We don’t know, because the media didn’t tell us. Instead, they repeated non-stop that Ivy was a “clean” candidate. What that clean means, or will mean in the future, no one knows.

Similarly, Shamim Osman probably got the most intensive media lynching in Bangladeshi media history after Tarique Rahman in 2005 – 2008. Conspicuously absent from the litany of accusations against him was the fact that he committed the most blatant act of political terrorism in Bangladesh’s last 20 years. In 1998, when BNP arranged a road march to Chittagong to protest the peace treaty, it was Shamim Osman who led the attack on Khaldea Zia’s motorcade, and forced her to change her route to Chittagong. It was an event that shocked the nation and dominated media coverage at that time. Yet, this time around, this very significant event was almost absent from the media coverage.

In the same vein, all  the media said about Tamur was that he is a former chairman of BTRC and the past Caretaker Government filed 5 corruption cases against him. What were his successes or failures as BTRC chairman? What is the status of those corruption cases? Are they more or less serious than the ones filed against our current Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, and so on? We don’t know, because the media didn’t bother to tell us.

Army Deployment and BNP: Sheikh Hasina chose an extremely insidious way to remove army protection from the elections. The media coverage of this election was extensive and hysterial for the last few days before the election. Thus, the Election Commission’s request for army was granted. Only, when the time came for the army to deploy, they never showed up.

When BNP then decided to boycott the election, it made things very simple for Ivy. The vote in this election was always going to divided into pro and anti Shamim Osman. With Taimur not participating, the anti-Shamim vote would, instead of being split up, go to just one candidate, Ivy. Even though everyone is going on about how exemplary this election was, there were plenty of indications of irregularity during election day, including Ivy complaining that half of her polling agents did not show up because of threats, and Shamim Osman openly assaulting a Chatra League leader. However, what changed was that while these measures may have been enough to tilt the balance in a three-way race where the anti-Shamim vote would be fragmented, it proved inconsequential in a two-way race.

Decentralization of power: Just two days after Ivy’s election, Lokman Hossain, the mayor of Narsingdi, was assassinated. Lokman Hossain was twice-elected the best mayor in Bangladesh. His assassination, from where it was committed to the modus operandi of the killers, all bear the trademarks of a political hit. A three-day hartal has already been called against the killing. Remarkably, Telecommunications Minister Rajiuddin Ahmed Raju is already mentioned as being involved in this matter.

Bangladesh is slowly undergoing a painful decentralization where young and ambitious mayors are building their own power base and challenging the more senior leaders in their parties. They are using their positions as mayor and chairman to build patronage networks, increase name recognition, and show the people of their area that they can deliver services and infrastructure projects. The ossification of student politics since the ’90s has temporarily stopped the inflow of student leaders into politics, and created a vacuum which is being exploited by businessmen and retired governemnt officials. However, in the end, it is this generation of local government leaders who will make the transition to, and ultimately run, national politics.

 

The Narayanganj Losers, the Zombie and the smart-ass advisor of the PM

May be there soon will be a winner in Narayanganj City Corporation election. But question mounts, will she or he really be a winner eventually or will they represent a victory of their backers?

May be NCC citizens are getting an elected rep, they may be the only winner. But without any clout, control, power, money– in Bangladesh context under current system, a mayor is a talpatar shepai — simply a symbolic city father.

But then rest of it is also a lose lose lose lose game.

If Shamim Osman finally pulls through a victory, fair election or not, the demand for CTG will gain momentum. Sheikh Hasina and her ruling part that backed Shamim Osman will lose by winning.

If Osman loses to Ivy, both Awami League and opposition BNP loses big time. Anti CTG rhetoric will gain traction. Tainted civil society ( We all know who they are- new faces Syed Abul Maqsud, Mizanur Rahman Khan, Rubayat Ferdous with Anams and Motiur Rahmans in the background) will again stat jumping with double vigor. Civil society thinks Ivy is their candidate. Selina Hayat Ivy is civil society’s dream candidate. A hardcore Awami League leader, close to Sheikh Hasina currently at odds with another Awami League candidate not in good terms with the civil society leaders. But by no means civil society’s customized candidates are any good for a long-term healthy grassroots based democracy.

If Taimur wins, BNP also loses. Hasina will say, see we lost election to BNP and we can hold fair elections.

This Taimur Alam Khondokar is a pathetic case. If BNP wants to come back, exactly this sort of candidates BNP must shun. This man is running such a lackluster campaign that even Amar Desh is mentioning him in 3rd sequence after Shamim/ Ivy. He cannot talk, cannot make a point. cannot organize get out the vote, cannot gain on anti Awami League incumbency of Shamim, and capitalize on anti Narayanganj incumbency of Ivy. Only thing he is saying very ineffectively is “EVM mani na”, “EC is bad”. Are vhai he is not running against EC. He is running against Ivy and Shamim. And he must have made this a campaign of a referendum to Awami Leagues misrule.
This man is a failure in all way. He was BRTA chairman. That was shame of a record. I don’t know why BNP can’t find a good new fresh face, young blood. There are so many business leader from N Ganj, so many sports stars. Every time I see him walking along Narayanganj roads, he reminds me of the Zombies at the TV series “the Walking Dead”.

BNP must know that if they keep on relying on these Zombies, whatever misrule Awami League exerts on Bangladesh, they have no chance of winning back Bangladesh.

In CCC election an ex Awami Leagues, soft spoken clean image candidate helped BNP regain CCC mayoral seat.

In that context BNP needed Selina Hayat Ivy as their candidate. An honest, smart and bold young woman. In several debates I watched in TV, she was only one who talked some sense and was found to understand what it means to be a city corporation Mayor.

The latest news from Narayanganj tells us that Government decided to ignore Election Commissions request to deploy Armed forces for election eve / day violence prevention.

What will happen in Narayanganj on the election day — no one except the God and Sheikh Hasina can tell. But this blogger can assume that the election day events will be based on which advisor Sheikh Hasina listened to.

It could be a repeat of Bhola, which will be impeccably hidden under the carpet by a submissive friendly media ( In Bhola style). Shamim Osman will just rob the election by forcefully bagging 99% of rural Narayanganj vote.

Or if Mrs. Hasina this time listens to a different advisor, it could be an “apparent” fair election with Sheikh Hasina niece Ivy winning against Shamim Osman. That means civil society is managed for the time being and for next national election, a good example has just been created — ” FOR HOLDING A FREE AND FAIR ELECTION, NEITHER WE NEED A CARE TAKER GOVERNMENT NOR MILITARY DEPLOYMENT”.

 

Speaking of Idiots…

Echo chamber: Situation where one purveyor of information will make a claim, which many like-minded people then repeat, overhear, and repeat again (often in an exaggerated or otherwise distorted form) until most people assume that some extreme variation of the story is true.

Mahfuz Anam sometimes treats us to Commentaries, in addition to the editorials he pens every day. On October 21, his Commentary was called: Obviously, our leaders think we are idiots. It reprimanded Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina for claiming that the Padma Bridge funding had been suspended due to the fault of the past BNP government, and Khaleda Zia for saying that:

Jamaat Ameer Motiur Rahman Nizami, Moulana Sayedee, and Jamaat Secretary General Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed did not work against our Liberation War in 1971, and that they all had been arrested under false charges.

The problem is, Khaleda Zia never said anything like that. Anam’s own Daily Star reports that what Khaleda Zia actually said was:

At the rally, she questioned the standard of the International Crimes Tribunal. She demanded immediate stop to the trial and release of opposition leaders facing charges of crimes against humanity during the Liberation War.

“We’ve no objection to the trial, but it must be transparent and of international standards. If necessary, foreign lawyers should be allowed to defend the accused, but that is not being done,” she said at Altafunnesa ground, home district of party’s founder late president Ziaur Rahman.

Khaleda alleged that the tribunal has been formed with people from Ghatok Dalal Nirmul Committee which, according to her, cannot conduct a fair trial.

and the next day:

[Zia] also demanded release of all opposition leaders including those arrested for crimes against humanity. She said Awami League is the real anti-liberation force and that is why actions should be taken against them.

Mentioning the names of arrested Jamaat leaders including Motiur Rahman Nizami and Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujaheed, she said the government arrested them in false cases. “They [govt] branded Jamaat leaders as anti-liberation force but the real anti-liberation force was Awami League.”

The difference here is extremely obvious. Khaleda Zia is complaining about the process under which the leaders of Jamaat (and Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury) are being tried. Concerns about charges, defense counsel, and composition of the tribunal are all related to the process and working of the Tribunal. She is emphatically not passing judgment on the actual guilt of these people. In fact, she is explicitly saying: “We have no objection to the trial.”

As anyone who has followed David Bergman’s reports from Dhaka knows, questions about the Tribunal’s transparency and judicial standards are widespread, both in our country and outside. However, Anam has misrepresented Khaleda Zia’s comments as something completely different.

And then, the echo chamber jumped into effect. Awami League leaders have only been too happy to follow Anam’s leads and fantasize about locking Zia up. Syed Bardul Ahsan, in his incomparable style, has chimed in. As has Sohrab Hasan.

During BNP’s time, Daily Star played the lead in formenting anger and frustration against the government by publishing any and every story about inflation, price syndicate, corruption, terrorism, and so on. Visibly alarmed by the overwhelming response to Khaleda Zia’s road-marches, it has decided to do the opposite during this regime, and try to tar the ruling party and opposition equally every chance it gets, no matter the gravity of the mistakes committed by each side. And if Anam has to lie in order to make his point, well, when senior media figures lie, it suddenly becomes “spinning.”

But the stench is the same.

Five years ago, Anam wrote another of his Commentaries addressed to the current prime minister. Perhaps he should revisit it. It was titled “A little respect for truth would help.”

 

A Fresh Look at the Long, Dark Plot: Mufti Hannan, Torture, and Daily Star

About ten months into the current Awami League government’s tenure, Daily Star produced this sensational investigative report. In blaring headlines, it pinned the blame for the August 21 assassination attempt on Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on Tarique Rahman (referred to as Hawa Bhaban bigwig in report), and some other BNP leaders. The assassination attempt was billed as a joint venture between BNP and an Islamic fundamentalist organization.

The timing of this report was extremely significant. Two years ago, it was quite common to hear predictions about BNP breaking apart or an end to the Zia-brand of politics. Rovian dreams of Awami League’s permanent majority was quite du jour. BNP was scheduled to have its annual party council at the end of 2009. A feasible connection between Tarique Rahman and a murder charge would not only put BNP’s leadership transition into question, it would have given the government a huge bargaining chip against the largest opposition party.

Julfikar Ali Manik claimed that a “highly privileged document” from “a top accused of the grenade carnage” was the source of this information. This document finally went public on April 7 2011, when Mufti Hannan was brought in front of a magistrate to give a confessional statement that mirrored exactly what the 2009 Daily Star report had claimed. Important to note, Hannan had already confessed to his own involvement in this crime back in 2007. This additional information was only to pave the way for Tarique Rahman and other BNP leaders to be also indicted for the same crime.

Fast forward to September 27, less than a week ago. Having involved everyone the government wanted to involve, the case starts. Mufti Hanna submits a document stating that his supposed confessions were extracted by torture. How does Daily Star cover the story?

It buries the retraction deep into the story. Which is funny, because the news that the government allegedly extracted a confession from a prisoner in its custody, only so that it can frame opposition politicians, ought to be big news. Amar Desh has reproduced the entire petition, including description of the torture. Eyebrows have been raised for less.

The next day, BNP, quiet understandably, held a press conference claiming vindication and pressing for the name of its leaders to be dropped from the charge-sheet. Again, in the headline, Daily Star made no reference to the alleged retraction. A casual reader glancing at the headline, as I did, would have probably thought it referred to some garden-variety claim made in some rally somewhere, and missed this entire back story.

In an incredible counterattack, to make sure the retraction of the confession was downplayed, Daily Star printed a competing news article claiming that Hannan’s legal petition had no standing. The next day, it got eminent jurist State Minister for Law Quamrul Islam to say the same thing.

Let us look at the legal claims that a confession given under Section 164 cannot be retracted. Section 164 (3) of Bangladesh’s Criminal Procedure Code states:

(3) A Magistrate shall, before recording any such confession, explain
to the person making it that he is not bound to make confession and that if he does
so it may be used as evidence against him and no magistrate shall record any such
confession unless, upon questioning the person making it, he has reason to believe
that it was made voluntarily; and, when he records any confession, he shall make a
memorandum at the foot of such record to the following effect :-
“I have explained to (name) that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he
does so any confession he may this confession was voluntarily made. I was taken in
my presence and hearing, an was read over to the person making it and admitted by
him to be correct, and it contains a full and true account of the statement made by
him.
(Signed) A. B.,
Magistrate.”

This makes abundantly clear that voluntariness is at the heart of any confession obtained through Section 164. The fact that confessions extracted through torture are illegal are no surprise; the courts of Bangladesh have been very exact in this regard. Our Supreme Court has explicitly held, in State Vs. Abul Hashem, 3 MLR (HCD) 30, that a magistrate cannot record a confession that is extracted through torture. And then, just to make sure, the magistrate has to affix his own signature at the end, verifying that the statement was not produced through torture.

What factors should a court look at to see whether there were any indication of torture or general police coercion? One very important factor is whether the confession is extracted after being in police custody, or whether there is any possibility that the witness may be taken back to remand right after his interaction with the magistrate. In State Vs. Farid Karim, 8 BLT(AD) 87, the fact that the accused was in police custody for unexplained two days before the police produced him for making confessional statement, was one of the important factors in the confessional statement being found involuntary.

Has Mufti Hanna been taken in custody, also called remand, often? According to a very desultory Google search, he has been remanded for 7 days on September 6, 2009, 5 days on September 12, 2009, 3 days on September 23, 2009, for 7 days on December 3, 2009, for 3 days on July 18, 2010, 2 days on August 22, 2010, and 5 days on December 27, 2010 . After making the statement, he was remanded for 1 day on April 26, 2011. That makes for 32 days of remand, and potential police torture, before and  1 day after making this confession statement. During the remand hearing held on August 22, 2010, Hannan tallied the number of days for which he had been in remand at 369 days over the past five years, and begged the magistrate not to grant any more remand. Remand, though, was granted.

Hanna was in police remand for half of September 2009. Presumably, it was this during this period that the document which became Julfikar Manik’s investigative piece was produced.

Even if this confession was made through torture, should we care if such confession statements cannot be retracted? Yes. There exists a plethora of judicial opinion, specifically State Vs. Lalu Miah and another, 39 DLR(AD) 11, which holds that any allegation of torture which forced the confessional statement, is to be treated the same as a petition for the withdrawal of the statement. Now that Hannan has claimed torture in police custody, the judge must decide whether his earlier confessional statement is credible. So the claim that there is no legal basis for withdrawing his confessional statement is without merit.

So why is this about the Daily Star’s coverage of this whole issue, rather than the much serious issue of torture of a prisoner in government custody, in a conspiracy to subvert the opposition political forces. There are two main reasons. The first is that we hear about these human rights violations through newspapers, and especially the Daily Star. If not for the Daily Star, Limon would be rotting in a jail cell or dead by now. So, when the newspaper itself decided to obfuscate the story and shift the focus to legal technicalities like getting permission from jail authorities instead of the much bigger and more serious allegation of torture in government custody, it renders hollow its supposed commitment to human rights and reinforces the suspicion that the news printed in Daily Star is slanted to serve a particular agenda.

Secondly, torture does not occur in a vacuum. No torture can flourish in a society unless it decides, as a whole, that certain individuals or classes of individuals are exempt from the protection of law. It very much seems like Daily Star has made such a finding for Mufti Hannan, which makes the paper, in general, and the relevant individuals, in particular, accomplices to torture. And the insidious thing is that the class of people who can be tortured tends to grow and metastasize at unbelievable speed. You may think that it only includes people with beards, and then suddenly, it also includes young university students out at night. 

This saga is by no means over. While there is an aspect to it that has a purely partisan aspect, this incident also serves as a reflection of the values that we hold as a society. And those values are fraying fast.

 

A Snapshot of Diplomacy, Hasina Style

Anandabazar, September 22, 2011:

Wall Street Journal, September 22, 2011:

 

Bangladesh’s Fifteenth Amendment and the Criminalization of Free Speech

It is always sad when a government with an overwhelming majority like the present Awami League government loses its way. Unfortunately, a host of recent developments all point to that direction. One theme that all these events have in common is that they represent attacks on free speech and political expression, something that should be sacrosanct in all democratic societies.

The most glaring demonstration of this trend has been evinced by the behavior of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who, in her speech in the last session of Parliament, accused the members of parliament of her own parties of “arming her enemies”, by criticizing some members of her cabinet, specifically Communications Minister Syed Abul Hossain. Emboldened by this, Awami League General Secretary and LGRD Minister Syed Ashraful Islam accused the media of “creating the ground for Hasina’s death.” Of course, once the two most important leaders of the ruling party expressed their disdain of dissent in media so openly, other Awami League leaders wasted no time in springing into action. Supporters of Shipping Minister Shahjahan Khan, who has faced a lot of flak for suggesting the unqualified drivers be given long-distance driving permits, have seized bundles of newspapers, and set them to fire. A peaceful human chain organized by BNP to protest the crumbling state of infrastructure was attacked and broken up by Awami League activists. To cap it all, Hasina herself, in a cabinet meeting, instructed intelligence agencies to investigate the organizers of a peaceful rally held in the Shahid Minar on Eid Day.

Unfortunately, the government has made our judicial system an indispensable tool in its all-out war against free speech. Some of the developments are petty: like a sedition case being filed against a cleric for criticizing the government during the weekly sermon. Others are more serious, like Sheershanews editor Ekramul Haq being put in police remand (code for torture) multiple times for writing about corruption charges against certain members of the cabinet, specifically State Minister for Environment Hasan Mahmud. The use of the judiciary to achieve partisan ends only promises to heat up further after the High Court convenes on October 9th after its vacation. BNP acting Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir and Standing Committee member Moudud Ahmed have already been summoned to answer charges of contempt of court. If that goes well, the field is already being prepared to embroil Khaleda Zia in the same contempt charges.

Unfortunately, these tendencies were in full display during the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of Bangladesh, which added Article 7A stating that both to “subvert the confidence, belief or reliance of the citizens to this Constitution or any of its article” or to take any action that ”abets or instigates… approves, condones, supports or ratifies” this subversion is sedition, and is to be punishable by death. Just to put this matter into perspective, given that this blogpost is fairly critical of Article 7A of the Constitution, I have just committed sedition. If a reader reads this post and approves, she has also committed sedition. Moreover, if someone then forwards this link (I know, highly unlikely) to a friend by email, that’s sedition too.

We are all going to drown in a sea of sedition.

When finalizing this Amendment, Hasina said in the House that she had acted thus to ensure ““empowerment of people, and their democratic and voting rights.” Perhaps, she had in mind, the provision that said that several parts of the Constitution, including one which titled her father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as Father of the Nation, could not be altered or amended in the future. Although, it seems like depriving future generations of the power to change the document that will affect their lives in such important ways is the express opposite of empowerment.

However, Hasina is not in good company. In the United States, home of the world’s most famous constitution, there has only been, in the country’s entire two hundred years plus history, only a single proposed amendment that sought to place any topic beyond any further debate or amendment, and it was the infamous Corwin Amendment. In this proposed amendment, in a last-ditch effort to avoid the Civil War, it was proposed that subject of slavery would not be open to any future amendments, effectively meaning that no future government could outlaw slavery. As we know, the Civil War was fought, and an alternative amendment, now known as the Thirteenth Amendment, was incorporated to outlaw slavery.

Hasina and her party love to glorify the role of Awami League in the 1971 War of Liberation. Unfortunately, it has been overwhelmingly documented by Dr. Badiul Alam Majumbad of SUJON (not a big fan of BNP), that the inspiration for this Fifteenth Amendment comes directly from the Pakistani Constitution. Around the world, there are have been two prominent laws passed in the last year that punish people for saying something. One was passed in Saudi Arabia, and it mandates jail sentences for anyone who criticizes the King of Saudi Arabia. The other was in Israel, which criminalized “calling for the boycott of Israel.”

This is not good company for Bangladesh to keep. As the current government finds itself increasingly unpopular, the risk remains that it will use these new laws to further crack down on dissent and opposing political parties. Which will be a sad ending for a government that held out so much promise.

 

About India — Wish the cultural elites of Bangladesh could think this way…

“…Why do I need a visa for Bangladesh? Why does Habibur Rahman Khan, the Bangladeshi co-producer of my films, need a visa for India? It’s absurd. And it’s political. I don’t need a visa for Nepal which has a different language and culture. But Bengalis living across the border need visas. Wah!…”

Eminent Bangalee film maker from India, Mr Goutam Ghosh, expresses his take on Indo-Bangla relationship. Wish his Bnagladeshi counterparts among Bangalee progressive society could think as eloquently and as clearly as Goutam Ghosh does. But unfortunately Bangalee progressives thought process remains confined in a very small box. This box-thinking makes our cultural elites blindly defend every action ( right or wrong) of India and blame a so called ‘anti India mindset of Bangladeshis’ for all bad bloods starting from building Tipaimukh dam to killing of Felanis to India’s noncompliance to signed treaties to creation of unfair trade/ tarriff barriers against Bangladesh to banning of Bangladeshi TV channels in India and so on.

The full interview of of Goutam Ghosh follows belows…

 

This is a murder committed by Judges Shamsuddin Chowdhury Manik and Gobindo Thakur

Former Deputy Attorney General M U Ahmed died today under police custody in a city hospital. On August 11, 2011, at the order of high court judges Shamsuddin Chowdhury Manik and Gobinda Thakur, he was arrested and tortured by police until he suffered from a massive myocardial Infarction.

It is evident that everybody living in side Bangladesh is afraid of calling a spade a spade. An environment of fear, extreme fear has been created by these two thuggish judges in Bangladesh. Last in their list of atrocities in the murder of ex Deputy Attorney General Advocate M U Ahmed. This is plain simple muder commited at the beheast of two blindly partisan judges by a brutal murderous police force of Awami League government.

 

It is Prime Minister Hasina, Dude – Part II

How is it that Syed Abul Hossain has not resigned, asks the widow of late Mishuk Munier. I think we know the answer.

Source: Daily Star.

PM stymies Abul’s critics
Takes a swipe at media
February 8, 2011

The prime minister yesterday saved the communications minister from censure of ruling alliance lawmakers over the minister’s letter to the premier against Tofail Ahmed for his recent criticism of the ministry’s performance.

During yesterday’s parliamentary session, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina suddenly took the floor and spoke on the issue in an apparent effort to rein in the attack. While doing so, she also criticised a section of newspapers for, what she claimed, publishing “fake” reports to “malign” dignitaries.

She said she had never seen MPs criticising the press for such reporting. “You should also look for the remedy to this practice,” she said.

Deputy Speaker Col (retd) Shawkat Ali, who was presiding over the sitting, contributed to the premier’s effort by preventing lawmakers from speaking on the content of the letter which annoyed many MPs.

Rashed Khan Menon, chief of Workers Party, a component of AL-led ruling alliance, raised the letter issue and launched a blistering criticism against Communications Minister Syed Abul Hossain accusing him of breaching MPs’ constitutional privileges and immunities by sending the complaint to the premier.

The communications ministry had sent the letter to the premier in response to AL lawmaker Tofail Ahmed’s speech in the House last Thursday on the sorry state of roads across the country and delay in some major projects. Lawmakers appreciated Tofail’s speech on that day by thumping desks.

The communications minister later sent the letter to the prime minister highlighting the activities of the ministry and also criticised Tofail for his remarks.

Citing the content of the letter, Menon said it maligned Tofail saying that he (Tofail) made the remarks on the performance of the ministry out of rage and jealously.

…

Sheikh Hasina, also the leader of the House, then took floor and made a brief statement defending the communications minister.

She said the minister, not the secretary, had sent her the letter. In there the minister gave a synopsis of the ministry’s activities.

“Now the question is how the letter had reached the press before it reached me?” she asked.

After the premier, Tofail Ahmed, Suranjit Sengupta, Abdul Matin Khasru, Hasanul Haq Inu, Mayenuddin Khan Badal, Fazle Rabbi Mia, Abdul Mannan took floor and tried to speak on the issue raised by Menon.

But the deputy speaker did not allow them to do so saying, “The matter has been disposed of after the premier’s speech and I also gave a ruling on it. Please don’t speak further on it.”

 

Bangla Balderdash

Suddenly ‘Bangali’ and ‘Bangla’ have become high demand hot objects.

Some people and some leaders of the Bangalis living on west part of the Bangali inhabited land, which is currently known as Indian state of west Bengal, do not want the west qualification before the name Bengal. This article describes the phenomenon objectively while this article clearly protrays the childlish shenanigan related to the name change campaign. Athough one main reason for the name change is West Bengal citizens wishes to see their state name mentioned early in the alphabetical list of Indian states instead of being at the fag end because of the unholy ‘W’ at the top of the state’s name — there was no lack of patrons behind this move. Starting from newly elected CM Mamata Banerjee to ‘Times of India’ newspaper empire; there has been great enthusiasm regarding this campaign.

However, with rising tide of Indian nationalistic fervour and ever increasing clout of Hindi in West Bengal, the Banglis belonging to east side of Bangali inhabited land, now called Bangla Desh, a sovereign state, may legitimately ask what kind of Bangla would flourish in the Indian state of Bangla. Will that be the Bangla narrated in Amar Shonar Bangla or like this one “Ami vi Bangali achhe”.

On the other hand in the east side of Bangla land, Bangladesh, Bangali is again the hot item. A recent constitutional amendment mandates everyone in the nation to be identified as Bangalis. Although it may not be the problem with nations majority ethnic group, the Bangalis, the indigenous people living in diferent corners of the country find the 15th amendment constitution stripping them of their ethnic identity.

In this video clip, Mr Shantu larma, an ethnic Chakma and a leader of Chittagong Hill Tract indigenous people, asks prime Minister how she would feel if someone forces her to be identified as an ethnic Chakma.

However, by this newly enacted amendment, one cannot even criticize this sort of constitutional provision. Thanks to this 15th amendment, PM hasina, with the help of partisan thuggish high court Judges Manik and Gabinda Thakur et el, can hand down capital punishment anyone objecting to any clause in the constitution.

A more interesting phenomenon regarding the Bangali nationalism debate is sudden change of heart of our left leaning progressive intellectuals about ‘Bangladeshi’ nationalism. These folks has always found it a religious ritual to come down hard upon late President Ziaur Rahman for replacing “bangali” nationalism of heavenly 72
constitution wth “Bangladeshi” nationalism. But now these folks are all for inclusion of ethic groups in our constitutional identity, which is only possible with Bangladeshi nationalism.

 

Cracking the Indo-Bangladeshi Riddle

Updated: Meanwhile, over at The Economist, the party continues.

The poisonous politics of Bangladesh: Reversion to type

Banyan: In the name of the father

Favorite sub-heading: The Sheikh of things to come. Wish I had thought of that myself.

The storm created by the article in the Economist and some of its allegations have, by now, reverberated through Bangladesh’s blogosphere. A question that keeps arising is the motivation behind this article. A close scrutiny of the Economist article makes clear that this article marks a clear break in continuity from previous Economist articles, as well as the general editorial line that the Economist has adopted towards the successive anti-BNP governments that have in power in Bangladesh since 2007. This article has cast doubts on the general fairness of the 2008 election (“bags of Indian cash and advice”) and the entirely positive predictions made about granting transit to India (”Indian security corridor”). It has hinted that Hasina’s shenanigans are not going entirely unnoticed in the outside world (“Sheikh Hasina, who is becoming increasingly autocratic”). It has emphatically burst Hasina’s favorite claim about, in general, being more honest than the previous government (“Corruption flourishes at levels astonishing even by South Asian standards”), as well as her boasts that her dynasty is better than the Zia dynasty (“Mrs Zia’s family dynasty, also corrupt”). And certainly most gratingly for Hasina, the article comes right out and points out that her obsession with her father is starting to border on the abnormal (“Hasina is building a personality cult around her murdered father”).

What could lead to such a dramatic u-turn? Not just some well-placed leads or a momentary whim. This article is the forerunner of large things to come.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is visiting Bangladesh next month. The questions has been asked: why does he need to come to Bangladesh all of a sudden? Part of the answer may be that we are in one of those rare moments when an Indian Prime Minister needs his Bangladeshi counterpart’s help, and not the other way round.

2010 was a magical year for India, and for Singh. India set a record of sorts by hosting the heads of state of all five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, BJP continued its in-fighting and slide to irrelevance, and there were no clear challenges on the horizon. 2011 has seen a dramatic reversal of events. The 2G spectrum has seen the former telecom minister sent to jail. He has, in turn, implicated both Singh and Home Minister Chidambaram in the conspiracy. This scandal, its inept handling by the PMO, and the subsequent demands that the PMO be kept out of the ambit of the Lokpal bill, has irreversibly stained Singh’s image as a clean politician. The Supreme Court has finally instructed the police to inquire into vote-buying allegations regarding the no-confidence motion brought after the nuclear deal with the US. All of these present potent challenges to the government.

Singh has also been weakened by a coterie of senior ministers who have been leading the charge to bring Rahul Gandhi to the forefront. While the young Gandhi has been an abject failure in his mission of reviving his party in the Hindu heartland of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Bihar, the full scope of the perils facing his party and his leadership will only be apparent when (not if) Congress loses the next election. However, Congress is now a reflexively dynastic party, and Singh has proved to be ineffective in keeping his council of ministers under control and prevent factionalism by those using Rahul’s name.

In this circumstance, Singh’s upcoming trip to Bangladesh represents the equivalent of the Indian cricket team making a tour of Holland. The Bangladeshi government will be fawning and servile, all demands will be met, photo opportunities will abound, and Singh can bask in the glow of taming a country where one in four individualis an ISI stooge.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that this article in the Economist is an effort by the anti-Singh faction in the UPA government to pre-emptively tarnish any of the gains that may accrue to him from the Bangladesh visit and further solidify his status as lame-duck prime minister. If we hypothetically assume for a second that bags of cash did change hands prior to the 2008 election, the receiver, Sheikh Hasina, would probably not divulge too many details. But the person giving the cash could. Coincidentally, in the absence of Sonia Gandhi for her mystery surgery, the four-person team which is in charge has not included Pranab Mukherjee, the senior-most Congress minister in the cabinet. It has included A. K. Anthony, the second-most senior Congress minister.

India has never handled dynastic transitions particularly well. The upcoming one promises to have enough drama to rival Mughal-e-Azam. But unlike past instances, Bengal will hopefully be spared direct involvement this time around. However, collateral damage, as evinced by the Economist article, may be unavoidable.

 

Our Ambassador

Strategically Oman is one of the most important countries for Bangladesh’s. After Saudi Arabia, second highest number of Bangladeshi migrant workers live in Oman. Above is a speech of Mr Nurul Alam Chowdhury, Bangladesh’s ambassador to Oman. A political appointee, this local Fatik Chhari upazilla Awami League leader had no foreign policy experience and he was given the appointment as ambassador to the vital embassy without any orientation or training. Several months ago, Oman government requested Bangladesh to take this ambassador back. On several occasions in different programs of Oman Royals and other government programs this ambassador showed total lack of mannerism.