E-Bangladesh

Several blog posts have been written in the recent months since the Sajek incident in CHT (Chittagong Hill Tracts) followed by two well-publicised fact finding reports. These reports also brought the Kalpana Chakma campaign in the forefront, once again, reviving her cause in the public domain. While activists are mobilising, organising, speaking for justice, the establishment decided to strike again. This week, five more activists including Alakesh Chakma and Ani Bikash Chakma have been picked up by “plain clothes” security personnel. No charges have been filed; no right to an attorney; no one even knows where they have been taken. They simply disappeared. [Update: according to one unverified report, they have been released after three days of detention in an undisclosed location].

Going through the reports gave me a strange feeling. They reminded me of similar arson attacks, similar disappearances - that have taken place before. Nothing seem to have changed. Same opposing groups, same patterns of prejudice, same abuses, same cover ups. Everything is same except the year stamps. Twelve years ago it was Kalpana Chakma’s disappearance, this year it is Alakesh and Ani. Twelve years ago, the arson attacks took place near New Lalyaghona (Kalpana’s home village); this year, it is in Sajek. Twelve years ago, in that fateful month of madness prior to the national election, 38 people disappeared from Baghaichari including Kalpana; this year the number is rising with promises for more incidents like this in the coming months. As if a video scene is being replayed by someone. Even the official versions and the contrasting human rights narratives sound like distant echoes. They remind us of the outrage, still alive in our memory; they remind us of the sense of helplessness, still raw in our soul. After the noise and roars silence creeps, and in the still air I keep hearing the whisper: “impunity perpetuates injustice, . . . impunity . . . ”

Read the rest of this entry »

Without resorting to any research jargon let me start by saying that on a number of occasions I had the opportunity to talk to ‘microcredit’ borrowers. From them, I particularly wanted to know more about microcredit and its effects on their lives. Some of the stories they told, were both enlightening and disturbing. Strangely, these stories reminded me of Shylock, the vicious money lender in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice. This post is generally about Microcredit and its uncritical acceptance.

No discussion on microcredit can proceed without reference to Dr Muhammad Yunus and his Grameen Bank. In my opinion, neither of them ever faced the necessary level of scrutiny as the nature of their activities would warrant. Rigorous scrutiny is essential given that Grameen Bank’s activities - which is largely corporate and commercial in nature - involve:

(a) operations in the poverty reduction sector which concerns crucial policy choices of public nature; and

(b) transactions with the borrowers (i.e., largely around and below the poverty line) whose bargaining powers are alarmingly inadequate compared to Grameen’s corporate strength. In the absence of an appropriate regulatory body or a strong consumer group balancing these uneven positions, the issue of appropriate scrutiny becomes even more pertinent.

Read the rest of this entry »

[The post is written in first person as an open letter to the article author.]

Dear Salahuddin,

I have recently read this Daily Star article of yours with interest. Otherwise an intriguing piece, I am somewhat at a loss on some of the points. I would only discuss three of them:

1.

You wrote about Generation-B enthusiastically but you never told us about the values they actually stand for, or the kind of principles they actually adhere to. You see, “ideologies” or their “baggages” are not necessarily bad things. Nations moved, nations shaked, nations aspired–not always with mobile phones or laptops. For examples do please look at the emerging economies of the last few decades or you may want to go a bit further back in the history. On the contrary, just because someone carries a mobile phone and a laptop does not mean that you have a world leader in the making. I am really wary of people these days who are quick to suggest–often on over-simplified premises—how shiny buildings, flashy cars, plush restaurants, shopping malls, mobile phones, laptops and micro-credits have become the greatest gifts of our time ! You see Obamas of our time were not made out of mobile phones or internet connections or micro-credits or social businesses. The promise of greatness we see in leaders like Obama (or Martin Luther King or Bangabandhu) are just manifestations of their ideologies or values or commitments. Without a great ideology you cannot have a great leader.  

So, please could you elaborate–what you think is going to be the defining ideology or value of “your” future Obamas of Generation B? At least give us a wish list. Because I think the readers like me would be more interested in the specifics rather than in some wide and vague rhetoric. And please stop bashing everything that is ideological, because I am particularly concerned to see the way you have described our fathers’ generation as an “ideological baggage” carrying generation. For the record, I am grateful that they had “some” ideologies to fight and die for, which I hardly can say about most of my own generation. I am grateful that they bothered to “carry” those ideologies–when they were young–when they took up arms to free the country–and when they sacrificed their lives. They did that happily to ensure that we do not have to. They did that so that the legacy can be passed to our generation. They did that for us, Faisal, for you and me. Let’s not forget that.  

Read the rest of this entry »

Our heartfelt congratulations to everyone involved in this mammoth initiative. A solid contribution indeed; one of the decisive early steps that would take us a long way towards justice for 1971. As said, it is a “continuing and collaborative” project. So in the end it is up to all of us to make sure that this archive excels. Let us all support this initiative with everything we have. Let us all make sure that this archive becomes the first point of credible reference for any research on 1971 genocide in Bangladesh. Let us fill every page of this site with stories of courage and sacrifice of our martyrs and freedom fighters. Let us fill the pages with evidence of war crimes and with details of the criminals who perpetrated them against our nation. This is a sacred burden for our generation we all must share with pride, dignity and resolve.

Here is the link: http://www.genocidebangladesh.org

If you are reading this post and is outraged enough by the war crimes that have been perpetrated against our people 37 years ago, if you are one of them who always felt frustrated for not being able to do anything about it–here is your chance to do something:

• Circulate the link to everyone you know;
• If you own a website or a blog, then please create a link on your site pointing to the archive;
• Find materials on 1971, on atrocities, on war crimes and send them to the archive administrators for consideration. Do not just assume that the archive administrators might have the materials already.

We do not know whether we would see the war criminals tried in our lifetime, but we surely can try to make this website one of the highest ranking ones on Bangladesh. We surely can do something to ensure that the evidences of misdeeds dangle on the face of all the Razakars and their offsprings whenever they Google the word “Bangladesh”.

‘The High Court giveth and the Appellate Division taketh away.’

This week, we observed how another decision of the High Court got over turned by the Appellate Division. We hear, a number of “rogue” benches in the High Court Division of the Supreme Court have become a constant source of embarrassment for the present Caretaker Government. In several recent high profile cases we have noted this cat and mouse game of control versus independence of the higher judiciary. This is how, critics say, the highest court of the country consistently upheld the Caretaker Government’s wishes in the end, in case after case. They quip - ‘the High Court (serving the Law) giveth and the Appellate Division (serving the Caretaker) taketh away.’ The interesting factor common to all these over turned decisions is that in each of them, “the Government always wins in the end.” Statistically, that is very odd.

A few more things happened in the last two-three weeks and it is necessary to keep a closer look at how the events unfold:

One
We have read in the newspaper that recently a number of High Court Judges received invitations for Tea at Bangabhaban, which we hear (also according to newspaper reports), was outside the standard protocol. Since this government came to power, a number of such tea parties have been hosted inviting all sorts of luminaries in Bangladesh’s political circles. These parties have already gained reputation as meetings for special advice (read: expert advice from fellow conspirators), appointments in important posts (read: the carrot approach), removal from important posts (read: the sword or khorog approach), pep talks, reprimands and rank pulling (read: the stick approach). The judges in question, however, en masse rejected the invitation (see Daily Inquilab, 5 March 2008). In the grapevines, there are whispers that the Caretaker Government is consulting two very senior lawyers in the country to explore possibilities of initiating Supreme Judicial Council proceedings (ie, procedure required to remove High Court judges) against these ‘rogue’ judges. What purpose such action(s) could possibly serve? Quite a few in fact, for example: purging the higher judiciary of the last of the independent judges whose guts have become too threatening for the government to tolerate; stripping this institution of the last vestiges of its independence and integrity; reminding who is in control; showing others the fate of the non-conformists; making the point that law does not matter, only power does. Or it may just be the case that government is trying to reform the upper judiciary, in a strictly bona fide manner. That is something time would tell.

[Update: Read latest news - Supreme Court judge Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman, who handed down verdicts in a series of high-profile cases, has been stripped of his writ powers]

Read the rest of this entry »

“The injustices in the world are so overwhelming, so enraging, that it is unacceptable, indeed immoral, not to fight for justice with every bit of one’s strength.”

[Incidental Blogger, UK] 

Today I have decided to write about the person who made the above statement. His name is Payam Akhavan, the renowned human rights lawyer representing Sheikh Hasina (former Prime Minister of Bangladesh). Last month, he was in Bangladesh on a five-day visit which attracted considerable media attention and controversy. His visit was followed by frantic PR campaigns orchestrated by the Caretaker Government and its civil society allies. Google the internet and you will find it replete with points, protests and spins involving this highly publicised visit. Incidentally, I am familiar with some of Dr Akhavan’s seminal works in the field of Genocide Prosecution and Prevention. I also had the opportunity to meet him in person. Today I would like to share some of my impressions about him and his work (including his involvement in Sheikh Hasina’s trial) which I hope would shed some helpful light on the controversies.

Because of the length of the post, I have divided it as follows:

Dr Akhavan’s track record as an internationally renowned human rights lawyer is now more than well established. Anyone with genuine interest in ‘war crime trials’ should be familiar with his works. It was sometime in the middle of last year when I bumped into one of Dr Akhavan’s human rights colleagues in a social event who informed me about his possible visit to Bangladesh. The whole thing slowly slipped my mind, until late January this year when I saw him on TV making his very first press appearance in Dhaka. It caught my attention when he made that famous “irony not lost” comment before the journalists, referring to (ab)use of Parliament compound as makeshift prisons for two former Prime Ministers of the country, both democratically elected. Almost coincidentally, a friend drew my attention to a speaker event by Payam Akhavan in Trinity College (Oxford University) co-sponsored by three other Oxford based entities, which I resolved not to miss. The talk was scheduled immediately after his return from Dhaka, on a Saturday evening (2 February 2008).

Read the rest of this entry »