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 . . . ”
The aim of this post, however, is not to highlight the similarities or differences between past and present times; it is not going to be a ‘then and now’ post. There will, understandably, be better times for walks in the memory lane. Today, I would rather try look at the proverbial “big picture.”

First, let me look at some of the common narratives. With a political dilemma as complex and multifaceted as the CHT, one cannot help being astonished by the surprising simple mindedness of the existing narratives. In them, the nuances are often ignored, gray areas remain unacknowledged. And with some exceptions — these narratives are almost always grounded in deep rooted prejudices, biases and insecurities - all our own. One narrative center on portrayals of Bengali settlers (Bangalees) as violent, communal and inherently criminal; the contrasting narrative portray the Paharis (the Chakma, Marma, Mog, Tripura, Bom and other minority communities in CHT) as exotic, peace-loving, violence averse people. One narrative depicts the CHT cause as a conspiracy against Bangladesh with strings pulled by a powerful neighbouring country; the other narrative adopts a rigid normative position, focusing strictly on the human rights aspects of the conflict with the Paharis portrayed as perpetual victims. One narrative needs a demonised Military establishment (stationed in the region which is constantly scheming) to justify the abuse stories; the other narrative forged by the majority Bangalees needs to show the Paharis as opportunistic, half-civilised and untrustworthy. Both narratives need heroes and villains, ironically on both sides. Undermining, dehumanising, and trivialising the other side’s version is the underlying theme of all these narratives, million miles away from any meaningful solution to the mess that is CHT. With narratives, the problem is - they are more than just words; they generate support, create converts, influence actors, and even raise armies. Slowly but surely, narratives can and have divided nations - as history is our witness in this region called the sub-Continent. These narratives are, for lack of a better expression, as divisive and polarising as the eerie experience of walking through the villages of Baghaichari and Sajek. Those who have walked those roads in these suspect times would know what I am talking about.

Ideally, this piece could have been addressed to two classes of people. One, the unapologetically offensive ones, the irredeemably racist and habitually communal ones - who have been vocal and active against the CHT-cause from the word go. The second group would comprise of the “confused ones” whose naive observations often include statements such as:

I would not say it is futile but tonight I have neither the patience nor the inclination to preach to the first group; perhaps, some other time. I address today’s post only to the second category of people comprising of Bangalee individuals who had always been in two minds on this divisive “not so simple” issue.

Their first and second questions involve matters of “nationality” debates and historical records. A huge amount of writings on them are already available so i better not go in that direction. I do not have anything to add to that. The third question is a matter of investigated and recorded facts. In the last two decades, dozens of independent human rights fact finding missions have been carried out in the region. The reports have been published, quoted in both national and international media as well as archived in the repositories. Anyone with genuine interest in human rights issues related to CHT can avail them to make up their own minds.

To be honest, similar scepticisms are not so uncommon among the modern day Pakistanis who find it hard to believe the atrocities perpetrated by their patriotic army during the 1971 Liberation War. So, my response to the CHT sceptics would be: “please believe me when I say the atrocities are real, they are not made up.” There was a time when I used to be one of those sceptics myself, one of those confused ones, in those naive years of my youth. But after that I had the opportunity to be closely associated with a number of human rights fact finding missions in CHT. I had the opportunity to talk to the people on the ground and walk those eerie walks. In the process, many many years ago, something fundamentally changed in my quintessential Bangalee soul. I learned to separate the truths from the lies. I learned that things are really much much worse on the ground than what is reported and fed in the mainstream media.


A sustainable, democratic and peaceful solution to the CHT problem must be found before it is too late.


CHT is a genocide waiting to happen

Few months ago, I had the opportunity to attend a talk by someone whose area of academic expertise was genocide prevention. Discussing Rwanda’s Hutu-Tutsi scenario, he argued: “genocides just don’t happen out of the blue; slowly but steadily they reach their catastrophic peak.” I remember him saying that the early signs of genocide can easily be detected and be prevented with minimal intervention from the civil society. And these signs do not always come in the forms of axes and machettis, gang rapes and pogrom. Often they are subtle, sometimes too understated to be noticed. The signs can be anything between a hate speech here, a communal gathering there, a threat here, a murder there etc. Reading the recent Sajek reports, I had an ominous feeling. I could not help feeling that CHT might as well be a genocide waiting to happen. Let me quote some parts from the Sajek report:

A Karbari from one village said “If they see 2/3 of us talking to each other, they inform the Army Camp.” Another Pahari inhabitant of Gongaram Mukh, unwilling to state his name, said “We were told to put up our houses about 2/3 km away from the road. The Settlers’ houses would be next to the road. Ali and his cronies said that they would slaughter us like sacrificial cows if we said anything about it.”
. . .
A Chakma inhabitant of Gongaram Mukh said that Ali and some others had come to his shop on 19th April and threatened him that if he remained there till after dusk, then they would burn him and the shop down and kill his whole family. In fear, he sent his wife and children to another house that very evening. On the next night, 20th April, his house was burnt down.
. . .
The main reason for this tension was that the Bangalees had been erecting houses near or adjacent to the Pahari houses. The same sight could be seen all along the four kilometers of the main road between Baghaihat and Gongaram. Next to the Pahari house or across it is a house of a Bangalee settler, in which no-one appears to stay or to sleep at night. After talking to the Settler there, we learned that these huts had been put up over the last two months or so. From the beginning the Paharis could not accept Bangalee settlements on their traditional lands. There had already been several conflicts and confrontations over this issue. But the hut construction did not end in the face of these protests and the tension increased. [see here, at p.2]

Any day from now, the CHT situation may blow out of proportion and turn into a situation close to an ethnic cleansing. The worse thing is - that may happen with the help of our own army and our own government which would probably make it even more dangerous. Do we really want that to happen in our names? Do we really want to wait, take chances, and see if that happens? I do not. If that makes me any less patriotic than the next person, then let it be. I repeat, early signs of genocide are there. It is quite possible that I am wrong and reading too much into the situation. But what if I am not?


PsyOps: Climate of mistrust and suspicion

In the Mess Hall of the Baghaichari Zone Army Headquarter, there used to be a graffiti-type wall writing which was part of the Hall’s decoration. (This information is few years old so I am not sure if the wall writing is still there). There is a reason I am mentioning this. The content of the writing in question was indicative of the climate of mistrust that had always prevailed in Rangamati for more than two decades. I believe the readers would also agree with me if they read the following summary of the wall writing which was something along this line:

“Be careful when you meet a Pahari. They will smile at you and pretend to be your friend. But remember, in the back of their minds they are plotting against you, always. Do not trust them. Bangalees and Paharis can never be friends.”

A chill runs down my spine everytime I recall those sinister lines. Later, an army Major (presumably working in the Intelligence) explained to me that this is all part of their “Psy-Ops” (psychological operations) strategies - which basically involve actively spreading divisions and mistrusts among the inhabitants and occasionally supporting one side (eg, the Bangalees) against the other (the Paharis). According to him, the army machine cannot function in the absence of this climate of fear and mistrust. I am no military strategist so I would not understand what war games those Officers and Jawans were playing at. Also, I do not know why that particular Intelligence Officer felt inclined to share this extraordinary state secret with me. Frankly, I do not care. As far as I am concerned, there was a writing on the wall, and surely it meant something to them and that worried me most; and it still does.

I met one USAID high official who was recently transferred to Dhaka. From him, I found out that they too receive similar briefings when they join “outposts” in the third world countries. In no uncertain terms, this particular USAID officer was actually advised by his department to treat the “natives” with “suspicion and caution.” The similarities are uncanny.


Racial behaviour and condescending attitudes

Sometimes I do have problem coming to terms with the state of our own civility. I do not think anyone would deny that as a society we still haven’t reached that tolerant or civilised stage when disparaging the Paharis or belittling the CHT cause generally may be considered as politically incorrect. Many Bangalee people I know, even some of the most educated and refined ones, are quite comfortable making off-the-cuff remarks or offensive jokes or suggestions about the Paharis — without even being aware (let alone ashamed) of the racist connotations of their statements. Worse, rarely have I seen anyone protesting against such bad behaviour in a Bangalee gathering. At least in this respect, I dare say, there seem to exist a general socio-cultural acceptance of bad behaviour among our fellow Bangalees. Sometimes I do wonder - is there really any difference between the mindset of the person who is comfortable making such offensive remarks and the person who is actually setting fire to Pahari houses or raping their women? That is something to think about.

Racially superior attitudes, both loud and muted, prevail among most of our fellow Bangalees towards the Paharis. Their degree of severity may vary but they do exist, ranging from rabid racism to faint hints of racially condescending behaviour. I am sad to note that even among some of the ‘most refined and the most sensitised’ I have detected these subtle notes, albeit unintentional. I have no doubt that they too struggle hard inwardly in their minds to battle these prejudices and stereotypes; but these attitudes exist. On several occasions, I have seen refined “Dada-Didis from the big cities” visiting CHT on special events (eg, Biju festival) - treating the locals with conscious and practiced political correctness. I guess their efforts should be praised. But in them, I could not help but detect the subtle notes of complacency or notes of inequality. In my eyes, often those encounters failed to appear as interactions between equals based on respect. Some are even worse - where these dada-didis tend to treat the locals as something “exotic.” In the long run, these attitudes of perceived allies do not help. I sincerely hope I am mistaken.

The Paharis do not need charity, they do not need anyone’s “favour” or “good will.” They do not need anyone’s pity or generosity. Their’s is a just cause, not a missionary one. They are proud, upright, dignified, and generous people. As a society/community they probably represent the most progressive and civilised of Bangladeshis one would ever encounter. Where in Bangladesh women can work and move freely and safely at any hour of the day or night without being attacked except in CHT? Where else in Bangladesh one can find a community without domestic violence or dowry deaths except in CHT? Where in Bangladesh women are truly empowered with equal (and sometimes more) say in family and community matters?

I believe, the mainland Bangladeshis have a thing or two to learn from the Paharis.


Islamist Mujahid training camps

It is not news any more that there used to be several Mujahid camps even in the heart of Chittagong City. I know of at least one Kaomi Madrassah in the hills (within the city area) where Mujahids were trained to be sent to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban. I have seen the camp myself. That was before all the illegal hill cutting activities started. Now, it may surprise some but both the training camp and the Madrassah were within half a mile radius of Chittagong police barrack. It is rather implausible that the law enforcement authorities did not know about their existence. Strangely, there never has been any intervention from the law.

Because of massive hill-cutting (thanks to successive Mayors of Chittagong with the connivance of illegal property developers), long gone are those magnificent hills, and long lost are those Mujahid outfits. I will leave the environmental story for another post. The point is, the training camps moved. One theory is they moved to the deeper regions of CHT as I have been told by several people including one eye witness. As far as this theory is concerned it is still “hearsay” to me, and therefore, is something that needs to be verified with more concrete evidence. However, as a matter of logic, it is not implausible since the hill tracts would be a much better place to hide clandestine training camps. If that really is the case, I would be curious to know if the military administration in CHT have any role in the matter.


Problems of a military solution

Sovereignty-insecured anti-India attitude is one of the reasons why our military strategists think the CHT solution needs to be a military one. Their solution is to populate the land with as many mainland Bangalees as possible so that the Paharis become minority in their own land. All these to counter possible retaliatory and unfavourable referendums if the occasion ever arises. In the process, what the militaristic solution is actually achieving is that it is categorically alienating the Paharis in the CHT. Our military strategists are forgetting that the Paharis are also cititzens of this country, with full rights. Citizens, who must not be viewed and treated with “suspicion and caution.” Treat someone as a stranger and stranger they would become one day. As a policy this is unwise. This is also unrealistic and unsustainable because military solutions cost a lot. Our government needs to find a solution, preferably a political one, that would not involve stationing large battalions on the remote hills, or funding clandestine counter insurgency initiatives. This is not how we treat the people of Sylhet or of Dinajpur or of Barisal. So, how it is justifiable to treat the Paharis of CHT this way?


Political Leadership: Indigestion of Nationalist doctrine

The armed forces could call the shots in CHT because political leadership failed everyone in this respect towards a political solution of the problem. Also, most of the mainstream political parties and the successive political governments have adopted the policy of appeasement, never wanting to antagonise the military establishment. In the process all our leaders failed the Paharis, dating back to 1972. On one hand, BNP as one of the major political parties was itself born inside the military cantonment which in the later years tag-teamed with the most communal of the political forces such as Jamati Islami. On the other hand, to the Awami League (which claims to be a secular non-communal party), the Paharis have been nothing more than vote banks. However, AL seem to be the only party to have taken “some” steps in the right direction, eg, in the form of a Peace Treaty, although there can be a lot of criticisms about the form, content or implementation of that Treaty. Above all, post-independence Bangladesh’s history has been a continuing saga of flirtation with “nationalist” doctrines and their resulting indigestions in our body politic, and CHT seemed to have borne the brunt of it.


Conclusion

It is not that I am trying to side with a community merely for the sake of it being disadvantaged. Sustainable political solution in CHT is a must not only because justice demands it, strategic wisdom and lasting peace demands that too. The problem need to be solved, politically, once and for all. It is the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do. Today, the majority of the Bangalee population is opposing “a” CHT solution in favour of the Paharis (anecdotal and from experience, for want of researched data). But if we give currency to their versions of politico-military wisdom merely because they happen to be the majority, then there will be a time when looking back–we would regret not doing enough or not speaking up. Consider the regret many Pakistanis feel until today whose silence made continued discrimination of East Pakistan possible and eventually resulted in its separation. Can we not learn from history? We have to realise that communal and racially motivated Bangalees are part of the problem, not the solution. Therefore, if we keep paying too much heed to their twisted narratives, we will deviate from our course. Perhaps it is time we think of new narratives to approach the CHT issue with a whole new set of vocabularies. Frankly, at this moment, I have no idea what that narrative would be like but surely we need to think of something before it is too late. Because, after 37 years of creation of Bangladesh, it is now clear that the existing narratives are not helpful, for either side. Things are getting worse in CHT and the problem is not going to go away anytime soon.

You decide.

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.

Regrettably, just because Dr Yunus happens to be our one and only Nobel laureate - there seemed to exist an unwritten policy in the Bangladesh media to remain uncritical of Yunus and his organisation no matter what. This is something that can only be compared to a Tagorian (Rabindrik) ‘pledge of perpetual forgiveness’ in a je tare dekhibare pay osheem khomay kind of way. Hopefully, that time has now passed. In my opinion, with his newly gained social capital (thanks to the Nobel Committee in Sweden), Yunus’s capacity to harm the country and its poor has probably increased manifold. Now-a-days, almost every week there are revealing items in the news on micro-credit which even the Yunus-friendly media cannot ignore any longer. These are the stories of suffering farmers, of the bankrupt, of the people who committed suicide under Grameen Bank’s pressures.

A number of studies have been conducted to critically examine the impacts of microcredit. Evidences are there for everyone to see. The problem is, in our desperate need for a ‘poster boy’ we have chosen to look away. Well-researched but largely overlooked criticisms exist, such as this one:

The public transcripts represent microcredit not only as an innovative approach that empowers the poor - and poor women in particular - but also as an alternative to neoliberal policy prescriptions. It is often thought of as a ‘local’, bottom-up approach that results in self-sufficiency, rather than dependency. Thus, microcredit has been, and continues to be, a panacea for poverty reduction.

The ‘hidden transcripts’ of microcredit and poverty reduction
However, against the public transcripts of its ‘virtuous’ outcomes are rich ‘hidden transcripts’ regarding the poverty impact of microcredit. These hidden transcripts comprise the less publicly known facts about the adverse poverty impacts that also result as a consequence of implementation of microcredit programmes. The hidden transcripts substantially challenge the salience of microcredit as an effective approach to poverty reduction globally. For many of its targeted recipients, microcredit is, in practice, reinforcing poverty and survival insecurities rather than ameliorating these conditions or resulting in self-reliance through self-employment as the public transcripts maintain.

Heloise Weber, ‘Global Governance and Poverty Reduction: The Case of Micro Credit’ in Rorden Wilkinson, Steve Hughes (eds), Global Governance: Critical Perspectives (Routledge, London 2002), pp.133-51 at 135.

But as said, in the middle of all these Macbethan “sound and fury” associated with Microcredit etc, sane voices like the one above are failing to make their mark in the mainstream. It is as if we have found a new narcotic-induced dream, no matter how flawed, and we do not want to see it shattered. It seems like - we would rather believe in a sweet lie than face a bitter truth.

For some years now, Microcredit has been slowly gaining ground in the development debates as a possible poverty reduction tool. And then came this whole ‘hoopla’ with the Nobel Prize. With that a new band of opportunists mushroomed in all corners of the civil society — desperate to get some piece of action, to cash in while there is still time — by teaming up with Yunus (or his affiliates) in various dubious social-business schemes. In the midst of all these uproars, one may even feel that Microcredit and Social-Business have become a new religion with demigods and prophets in every part of the global civil society.

I do understand the reason behind capitalist West’s huge enthusiasm in Yunus. Because, the conventional banking system was a system which could only exploit the rich. Traditionally, banks were the institutions from which one could only ‘borrow umbrellas on sunny days on condition that they must be returned when it rains.’ So the conventional banks’ exploitative dragnet only caught the rich of the society, never the poor. Yunus, incidentally, showed the capitalist banking system a way - that even the have-nots can be exploited through a banking system. He showed them – money can be made even from the destitute, using their entrepreneurship, exploiting their dreams – while at the same time making sure that their real condition never improves, at least not above the limit Grameen executives set for them. No wonder that the West became too anxious to award him the Nobel prize, perhaps to add an aura of nobility to this new brand of exploitation, deceptive but pretty effective. We know that Grameen’s interest rates are higher than all other commercial banks.

What a formula ! Make billions (exploiting the poor) and at the same time have plenty of cheer leaders in the global civil society cheering you on as one of the good guys. Wow ! disturbingly diabolical but quite impressive nevertheless!

It is just my opinion — sometimes I cannot help but think that “Microcredit” and “Social Business” are two of the greatest frauds of our time.

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.  

Please do not get me wrong. I do not underestimate the role communication technologies can play in development discourses. But we must not lose sight that these technologies can only assist and catalyse changes. At most they could be the tools/gadgets in the hands of the movers. I sincerely doubt they can achieve anything more than that. At the end of the day, it is what goes on inside our minds and hearts (our values, ideologies and principles etc) that define us, which hopefully one day would be embodied in the figure of a great leader.    

2.  

These days I often come across articles such as this where authors try to apply “business models” to address and explain larger issues of politics and statehood, often using theories and terminologies from the fields of marketing or management studies.This is fundamentally flawed and I find this tendency problematic. Business and politics (or statesmanship) are two different worlds and their premises and mandates are totally different. Where one is profit driven, the other is public interest driven; where one is all about money, the other is about people (by, for and of the people), egalitarian goals, sovereignty and twenty other different things. [Do I really need to go on to explain this?] Yes, one may argue that in Bangladesh, the distinctions are now blurred–with businessmen holding political offices and politicians becoming profit-seeking businessmen. One may further argue that the boundaries between these two worlds are now collapsing. One may even argue that the nexus between power and money is not uncommon even in the most advanced of the democracies. I guess my point is, that does not make it right. If that happens, then universities all over the world would have placed their departments of politics, economics, international relations and all other social science departments under the umbrella of one big Commerce Faculty, as part of a BBA or MBA programme perhaps. If that happens, then Bangladesh would be run by the CEOs or Chairmans of the Group of Companies. Hey, why not bring the CEO’s of multinationals (eg, IBM, Coca Cola, Microsoft) in and lease the country out in their business-efficient hands?  

Sorry for the crude analogy, but I hope things will not come to that.  

3.  

If I were you I would refrain from using terms such as “shining India” or “rising China” as something positive. These are just buzz words, and their premises are not as clean as the leaders (including their business leaders) of these two countries are trying to make their people believe. For God’s sake, are we not following the news on China, Tibet, Darfur, Nandigram etc? There can in fact be a whole new debate on this “shining-rising” countries which can be the subject of a separate thread. Perhaps another day . . .

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”.

]]> http://www.e-bangladesh.org/2008/03/26/bangladesh-genocide-archive-2/feed/ http://www.e-bangladesh.org/2008/03/17/of-generals-and-judges/ http://www.e-bangladesh.org/2008/03/17/of-generals-and-judges/#comments Mon, 17 Mar 2008 01:17:59 +0000 Incidental Blogger http://www.e-bangladesh.org/2008/03/17/of-generals-and-judges/

‘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]

Two
Prothom Alo (on 12^{th March)} reported that President Iajuddin Ahmed may order the Supreme Judicial Council to investigate two High Court judges. Of course, in order to do that he will first need to form the Council under Art 96(3) of the Constitution. We still do not know who these judges are. The report quoting “responsbile sources inside the government” states that such initiatives will form part of the government’s “cleansing operation of the judiciary” (i.e., bichar bibhager shuddhi obhijan). Prothom Alo’s “sources” have disclosed that a number of High Court judges have already been asked to step down voluntarily, hence the invitation for tea. This is a matter of great concern. I believe, no one in the right mind would claim that our upper judiciary is ‘clean,’ or that there is no need for overhaul or reform. Considering all the controversial appointments in the benches over the last few years (which even include a High Court judge with forged LL.B. certificate), any responsible citizen would welcome reform in the judiciary expecting some form of “cleansing” initiatives. But the questions of the day are—does an unelected quasi-Military Caretaker Government has the authority or legitimacy to initiate such reforms? How bona fide are these initiatives? Why should we not see these as Musharraf-type encroachments in our highest juicial institution masqueraded as “cleansing moves”?

Would anyone in the government address these concerns and assure us please?

Three
Recently, the Chief Adviser announced in one of his media appearances that a new law on Contempt of Court is underway which is aimed at preventing criticisms of judges’ decisions including matters that are sub-judice. It is too early to comment but we can safely guess what this new law is going to be about. Rumour says, severe punishments are going to be introduced for criticising operations or decisions of the courts. Both long-term imprisonment and huge amount of fine are on the table as proposals.

We do not know whether or not this law would succeed in effectively curbing criticisms of the government or its justice system. But it will definitely equip the government with one more draconian instrument to restrict free speech, open discussions and critical debates. With a law like this in the hands of our police or DGFI, who knows what evils would befall us. Also in future, such laws will come handy to threaten and silence, with full legal sanction, critics like Dr Payam Akhavan or William Sloan. This would be heavy handedness at its legal crudest.

[Read the Editorial (6 March) and Barrister Amir-ul Islam' article (8 March) on this in Prothom Alo; also read this news article exemplifying how such rules of sub-judice and Contempt of Court were open to abuse by pro-Musharraf administration in Pakistan less than a year ago].

Few Cautionary Tales

We already know what happened with the Supreme Court judges in Pakistan. The story unfolding in Bangladesh feels like a déjà vu. Here are some links on Pakistan’s not too remote past. Let us read them carefully, learn from them and turn our watchful eyes on our own Supreme Court:

1. Read Prof Ali Khan’s (Washburn University School of Law) piece on removal of Pakistani Chief Justice and on General Musharraf’s role in it. The piece also reports how Mr Pirzada’s (a legendary legal figure in Pakistan) intellect was behind it all as Musharraf’s advisor.

2. Read Prof Ali Khan’s second piece on lawyers’-judges’ mutiny in Pakistan against the military establishment.

3. Read Pakistan Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Choudhry’s open statement in self-defence rebutting the libels circulated by Musharraf and his regime.

4. Read two articles (here and here) by Dr Ayesha Siddiqa showing how Bangladesh is not that different from Pakistan and arguing why Bangladesh should learn from Pakistan’s mistakes.

5. On 3rd March, an FIR has been filed against General Musharraf jointly by High Court Bar President (Rawalpindi), District Bar Presdient (Islamabad) and District Bar Presdient (Rawalpindi). The allegations are - wrongful confinement, criminal trespass, criminal intimidation etc - punishable under Pakistan Penal Code 1860 - committed against the Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry and eight other Hon’ble Judges and their families. Apart from Musharraf, the FIR also implicates the Minister of Interior, Interior Secretary, Chief Commissioner of Islamad, Inspector General of Islamabad Police, SSP Islamabad, District Commissioner of Islamabad and others. Read the full text of the FIR here. Aitzaz Ahsan, President of Pakistan’s Supreme Court Bar Association, told the reporters that he too will file a criminal case against Musharraf soon. Read the news item here. This is indeed an interesting development and worth learning from. Who knows, in couple of months or years we too may reach the point when we will need FIR samples like this or legal advice on how to file cases against position abusing Army Chiefs and top administrative officials. I am saving a copy of the file on my computer.

Let’s keep an eye.

[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).

The venue in Trinity College was packed with graduate students, undergrads, research fellows, Professors, and members of various Oxford based action groups. I saw a few Bangladeshi faces in their midst. To my surprise, Dr Akhavan looked much younger than I expected (considering his achievements)—a feeling I later found was also shared by the moderator of the event. He spoke for an hour - on Rwanda, Uganda, Darfur, Sarajevo, Auschwitz, Nuremberg, Yugoslavia, Bosnia; on Huntingdon and so called clash of civilisations. He spoke on how early signs of genocide are easily detectable and how well thought out interventions could prevent potential tragedies. He spoke on strategies of genocide trials and the role civil societies could play across the world. He spoke of the prevailing double standards, the roles of multilateral institutions and their overpaid bureaucrats. Then he spoke about Bangladesh, 1971 liberation war, genocide and its denials, and petty definitional debates in the academia. Still fresh in his memory, he informed the audience about Bangladesh’s tradition of student movement, on how the ever-defiant young ones always stood up to mighty state machinery - ignoring torture, detention and persecution.

When he finished, the ovation from the audience was sincere and animated. Great speakers are not uncommon in this university but some of the academics I talked to afterwards admitted that it is not every day they have speakers with such pedantic depth, oratory skills and wide experience in human rights lawyering. Quoting one of them: “he seemed like one of those (now near-extinct) human rights lawyers possessing the right mix of passion and strategic cunning.” My cursory impression: “a good combination of head and heart.”

Moving on, I introduced myself to Payam and found him to be quite excited about his recent visit in Dhaka. He recounted his experience with great awe and respect — particularly the indomitable courage of Bangladeshi people – referring to ongoing student-teacher movement in Dhaka University and the lawyers’ roles in the lower courts. I was particularly impressed to note that he somehow managed to capture the very essence of our people that makes them so special, sensing the very qualities (eg, emotion, courage, the unpredictable resoluteness, the simplicity, the decency) that come to our people so naturally. In my experience, few foreigners get that right, and that too from such a brief visit. The following quote probably explains why and how:

“As an Iranian Baha’i living in Canada, my fate was that of the perpetual minority, the subject of constant discrimination. While these were painful experiences in childhood, they awakened a passion for understanding and justice, for which I am very grateful. While ease and comfort or success and social status can often lead to complacence, suffering and struggle can push us to excel.” (quoted from one of his interviews).

Or the following:

“I learned that human rights is about our inherent dignity, our shared humanity, and that fighting for the dignity of others is as much about recognizing our own dignity. We cannot be fully human until we see other people’s struggles as our own.”

In all, it was an inspiring encounter.

Three Embarrassing Facts:

Since that meeting, I came across some disturbing information which I would like to share with the readers:

ONE

Although Dr Akhavan received overwhelming support from lawyers and human rights activists generally, there were attempts from parts of Bangladesh civil society trying to convince Dr Akhavan that his client “Sheikh Hasina was indeed very corrupt.” Perhaps they meant to suggest that her case is not appropriate for human rights intervention. The manner in which they used their standing (as prominent civil society leaders) – to mislead a fellow human rights defender – is very unsettling. I knew standards have fallen among sections of Bangladesh civil society over the last year but I never figured the extent of its decay until now. It is not the issue whether Sheikh Hasina was corrupt or not. The questions that need to be asked are: Does she have the right to fair trial? Does she have the right to due process? Does she deserve equal protection of law? Does she have the right to legal representation of her choice? The answer is ‘yes to all’. As a citizen of Bangladesh, these are her fundamental rights. The persons who tried to convince Dr Akhavan otherwise, should have known better. [Read here ]

TWO

This never came before the media. During Dr Akhavan’s stay in Dhaka, security officials (euphemism for DGFI) paid him visits pressuring him to quit representing Sheikh Hasina. They threatened him with “dire consequences” if he fails to comply with their “instructions.” This is reprehensible; whoever advised the government to do that did a great disservice to the country. To be honest, I found it incredible that there are DGFI officers stupid enough to actually think that they can threaten and intimidate a high profile human rights advocate such as Dr Akhavan. Knowing what our security forces are capable of (eg, Cholesh Richil, Tasneem Khalil, Anwar Hossain) - I have no reason to doubt this information’s authenticity. I am glad that Dr Akhavan is not the kind of person to be deterred by such threats. I remember him reflecting:

“in our line of work, having enemies like this (eg, government) is reassuring as it constantly reminds us whether or not we are in the right track; for me, it meant that I must be doing something right !” (referring to a situation in Uganda).

William Sloan, the other renowned Human Rights Lawyer in Sheikh Hasina’s legal team, also received similar treatment in the hands of DGFI. As UNB reports:

“the government didn’t allow international human rights lawyer William Sloan to hold press conference in Dhaka on February 22 as he came to Bangladesh on tourist visa . . . As a tourist, it was only logical for him to see different paintings according to the country’s existing law. ‘But, without doing that, Sloan, also president of the American Association of Jurists, the Canadian chapter, attended dinner with lawyers, gave interviews to private media and also sat in meetings with politicians as well as university teachers though he was asked not to engage in such activities,’ it said. The government clarification said, being a foreign tourist, no one could deliver e speech about a country’s political and sub-judice matters.”

What the above press report does not mention is that Sloan was detained in his hotel room at Sonargaon Pan Pacific with armed guards outside, preventing him from attending the scheduled press conference. The above government statement exemplifies application of law at its craziest which deserves a thorough rebuttal. I may do that in future if I feel necessary. Or maybe, I should not even bother to dignify such utter nonsense with a response since the matter is apparently more about power (and its abuse) than text of law and its due application. Read here the IADL (International Association of Democratic Lawyers) press statement in New York.

THREE

The Caretaker Government issued instructions to all its embassies abroad to prevent Dr Akhavan getting Bangladeshi visa in the first place. Incredible, is it not? However, he somehow managed to obtain a ‘tourist visa’ through a contact. The decision of the government was ill-conceived to begin with. It is also very embarrassing for all of us. (NOTE: The same story repeated when William Sloan, also had to settle for a tourist visa).

Rebuttal of the Spins:

A considerable amount of half-truths, lies and spins have been circulated by the representatives of this Caretaker Government. Most of them do not deserve notice, let alone rebuttal. But, for the sake of record, perhaps rebuttal of some is essential. So I would use one newspaper’s (Prothom Alo) spins as an example.

Prothm-Alo writes: “(Payam’s) depiction of Sheikh Hasina’s case as ‘baseless’ – is essentially racist. It is a reflection of Payam’s blatant white supremacist attitude (nogno shetangwo ashfalon) towards third world societies.” (translated from Bengali)

First of all, I am particularly disappointed with Prothom Alo’s editorial desk for running such a sub-standard piece, both in terms of language and content. Supposedly, some nameless “Special Correspondent” penned the piece but I am really astonished to note the use of language which is poor in standard and taste. I have many reservations about the roles of Prothom Alo and its editor and none of them ever involved poor writing. This led me to assume that perhaps the piece was written elsewhere and Prothom Alo was ‘asked’ to run it. I invite the readers to compare the Prothom Alo piece with the regular fodder published in Amader Shomoy or Dainik Sangram. If you do, I am sure you would also agree with me that the Prothom Alo piece echoes the writing style of those newspapers. It reads as something written from DGFI’s desk, by some half-educated official with a massive inferiority complex. I am sorry to use these strong words but if you listen to the interrogators in the torture/confession CDs (released as a result of “accidental” leaks) of Awami League leaders Sheikh Selim or Abdul Jalil, I believe you would also realise the elements of truth in my suggestion. [Read here and here]

Secondly, accusing Dr Akhavan as ‘white supremacist’ is probably the most ridiculous comment I have heard recently. To begin with, Dr Akhavan is an Iranian Baha’i whose family migrated to Canada as dissidents. No stretch of imagination allows describing him as a ‘white Westerner.’ Also, anyone with elementary knowledge of recent world events knows that some of the Western countries were responsible (read Noam Chomsky’s interview here, particularly the part on Shah) for the sufferings and persecutions of Payam’s people in Iran. Therefore, I would consider Dr Akhavan the most unlikely person to play trumpet for the Western governments. No need to take my word; read here and here for details. This however, brings us to an interesting point. If we really have to point fingers at people who are doing the Western governments’ biddings, perhaps we do not need to look further. Given that the current military backed Caretaker Government had special blessings from powerful Western Governments from day one, I would think that its supporters (eg, in the civil society) should be the first to be labelled as the ‘yes men’ and their Western instructors as the ‘arrogant Supremacists.’ Many times in the past, their arrogant prejudices have influenced resolutions along the following line:

that ‘democracy’ is something exclusive to their own (superior) citizens, and not for (inferior) citizens of the third world; because, ‘they’ are not good / fit enough for its ‘Western brand.’ (see Jyoti and Rumi’s comments here)

Post 1-11 Bangladesh would be a good example of the above analogy. We observed, how these Western instructors ended up sponsoring missions to launch ‘new brand’ of democracy – customised for third world societies such as ours – with Four Star Generals as political philosophers, and with civil society representatives joining ranks of the army of mindless zombies. If this is not “Western arrogance,” what is? If this is not servility to the West, what is? In this light, I would advise Prothom-Alo/DGFI to be very careful before accusing others. [Note: this is not the view I fully subscribe to but it can be shown as an example how Prothom-Alo/DGFI’s own ill-conceived accusations can be thrown back at them].

Thirdly, is it not significant that no such piece was ever published in any of the English dailies? Was the government trying to regain its ‘face’ by using spins while at the same time did not want the English speaking world to find out about its treatment of Dr Akhavan? I leave the readers to make up their own minds on this.

A couple of other objectionable points were also there in the Prothom-Alo piece but I would stop here. For the record, they are problematic on so many levels that perhaps we should leave them for a different post.

Some concluding observations

a.

Dr Akhavan commented: “it is a military coup masquerading as an anti-corruption campaign,” referring to the so-called initiatives of the Caretaker government. After thirteen months of them in power, can you really pretend to believe it is otherwise?

b.

My message to the part of the civil society that is strengthening the hands of the military controlled administration would be: it is still not too late; not everything is lost. “There is a way to be good again”. Be ‘good,’ and people of Bangladesh may forgive you one day. Remember the mess Pakistani civil society created by lending support to Musharraf’s regime eight years ago. Bangladesh’s case is more similar to Pakistan than you may think (read here and here). We beg you, please do not repeat their mistakes.

c.

The saddest bit is that at a time like this two foreign lawyers are more vocal compared to many of our own home-grown veteran human rights defenders. And we did not treat them well in Bangladesh. Sigh!

Sorry, Payam! Sorry, William!

-

Incidental Blogger [http://wordsandbites.blogspot.com/] prefers to stay anonymous and continue using his pen name to share his random impressions. Though he lives in United Kingdom, in his mind he still lives and roams in the streets of Bangladesh.

[Read posts by Incidental Blogger]