Untold Facts

Tainted awkwardly and dishonored by itself

1. The verdict of the 19th November by the special bench of the Supreme Court in Bangladesh appeal hearing in the 15th August 1975 Dhaka mutiny case has left little doubt in all sensible minds about the interference of the executive with full political and personal motive of vengeance, and made the independence of judiciary a mockery in the judgment.
2. Poor judges here are not like ones of the democratic and economically advanced countries of the West but of one of the poorest countries of the world as Bangladesh stands in position, and so were fully vulnerable to executive master’s for subsistence, perks, promotions, safety and security, and also delivery of justice under ‘fear and intimidation’ by being under the condition of siege by the state law enforcing machinery and the rowdy government party followers.
3. The differences were seen clearly in the five stages of the due process of law- three during 1996-2001, one in August 2007 and the fifth one on the 19th November 2009.
4. The first set of three verdicts toed clearly the line of the top executive of the particular political party in government, the 2007 one looks neutral as the government was not of any political party label and the 2009 one of the same political party label as of the 1996-2001.
5. The honorable judges on the 19th November rejected the appeal granted on five valid legal points made by a three member bench in August 2007 during the non-political party caretaker government that amazingly, not even any single point, or any part of any single issue as many were there legally in favor of the accused as, for example, the BENEFIT OF DOUBT not taken into any consideration whatsoever
6. In fact, the whole matter had interference of the executive may well be seen in:
(i) The incident of President Sheikh Mujib’s toppling off was clearly done in the successful mutiny of the Bangladesh Army; unfortunately, he was killed in the encounter between two sides, army men on one side and his residence guards that opposed the army in combat not for very long but in minutes, at his own Dhanmondi residence, Dhaka.
(ii) The mutiny followed immediately after formation of the successive government led by as President Khondoker Moustaque Ahmad, another leader of the same party, Awami League but committed to multi-party democracy and Islamic values that the 85% people professed as their dear faiths and day to day practices, with full allegiance of the organs of the government including the three wings of the Defense forces
(iii) The common people tired of the Sheikh’s rule of oppression of untold kinds spontaneously supported not only the mutineers but also the government of Moustaque that enjoyed not only allegiance and support by all government organs to the new government but also followed by international recognitions by the Peoples’ China, Saudi Arabia etc .for the first time in three and half years since independence and also Britain, USA etc. that provided all legitimization of the change and the coup d ‘etat of the 15th August 1975. Had there been no toppling of the malevolent dictator Mujib on the day, Bangladesh would have to continue very painfully with unenlightened dynastic rule, and would certainly have no multi-party democracy until possibly still more violent fall or natural exit- when only God knows.
(iv) As successful coup d ‘etat is by itself not only enjoys indemnity for any bloodletting but also becomes source of subsequent laws until other constitutional provisions made, the mutineers had that indemnity, even so, somewhat additionally, an Indemnity Act was enacted by the post coup government on the 26th September 1975 that afterwards was covered in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution of 1979 that is still in force in 2009.
(v) It was as such obvious that the coup makers enjoyed full citizenship freedom, some took up professions as they wished and some like Col Farook took on to politics so much so that he in the banner of his Freedom Party contested the Presidential election in 1987 that placed him in the third position, Ershad the seating President won and the Octogenarian Hafez zi Huzoor second in vote polled. Then on in the parliamentary elections his party stayed in contest and had elected member in the Parliament, like Bazlul Huda, another hero of the 15th August 1975 but unfortunately, now convict in the case of vengeance.
(vi) In the 1996 June parliament election, Sheikh’s daughter Hasina by then rehabilitated in the politics by way of abolition of the lone party of her father BAKSAL and revival of the Awami League in multi-party system, won the poll in as the single majority, then made unholy alliance with other smaller parties and thus secured majority in forming the government, herself became the Prime Minister of the Awami League Government in late June 1996.
(vii) Immediately after she swooped on the 1975 August mutineers who stayed in the country, arrested them put to remand and inhuman torture labeling them as ordinary killer in criminal murder of her father. For doing this she took to many illegal and immoral means. One, she appointed General Mustafizur Rahman, her uncle (FUFA), took him off from retirement and reappointed as the Army Chief and then had a ‘no objection’ certificate from him to try the army men mutineers in civilian court. Two, she engineered annulment of the Indemnity Act of 26th September 1975 through simple majority vote in the Parliament that remained illegal as the Indemnity formed part of the 5th Amendment of the Constitution that exists there still today and needed two third majorities that she did not have. Three, the lone judge she appointed having had given promises of perks, etc. in the special court himself admitted in his verdict in 1998 that he had not sufficient time to look into each and every aspect closely relevant to the suit. Four, the witnesses making identification of the accused after about 23-24 years in 1997-1998 and then in the darkness of the early morning remained not only incredible but also in serious doubt as to the acceptability as valid witnesses.
(viii) With the above serious flaws, not all listed for sure with full accuracy as myself is not a practicing lawyer in criminal procedure code, and illegality, the lawyers of the accused intimidated all throughout, got a verdict done on the 8th November 1998 wherein the case was taken as a simple murder case, and nothing of the real victorious mutiny that had factually been. The hand picked judge sentenced fifteen to death and acquitted five others.
(ix) As the conviction case lawfully went for confirmation to the High Court, there had been serious intimidation of the 2 Justice Bench members not only understandably by the top executive for obvious reasons of reprisal of her father’s blood but also by the party followers in the open streets of the capital city. One such orchestration procession was led by the Home Minister Nasim that could get possibly the ‘Split Verdict’, one Justice confirming death to ten and other confirming death for all 15 in December 2000.
(x) As the split verdict was no confirmation of the death sentence, the case was lawfully referred to the third lone judge, who made a rather quick disposal on the 30th April as the Hasina Government was coming to end of the five year term in about two months, adding two more to the list making 12 to die, who latter in 2002 clearly commented about the miscarriage of justice in a report published in the Dhaka daily The Independent on the 26th March, albeit, during another political government in power.
(xi) The four detained then in the prison filed appeal petitions immediately afterwards, but that appeal stayed pending for about six years until it was granted admission in August 2007. In the meantime the interim caretaker government brought back from USA one convict until then stayed out of the country, who then applied for appeal in the case. The August appeal admission had five legal points that the appeal hearing had gone for 29 days, 5th October to 12 November, 2009 but amazingly failed even to sort out the subtle point of difference between the intent or plan for the mutiny and intent to killing the President that the case involved life and death question of the accused! The Bench rejected the appeal summarily leaving everything on the April 2001 lone judge bench verdict who himself had the clear indication of miscarriage of justice as noted above (x).
(xii) A former Chief Justice of the Bangladesh Supreme Court in an interview with the BBC Bengali Radio Service aired on the 26th March 2001 also clearly stated that the 15th August 1975 case was not a simple killing but politics was with that. How could then the case have been tried exclusively as an ordinary murder case leaving aside the critical question of the successful mutiny involved in the matter? Was then the verdict not clear miscarriage of justice?
(xiii) Yet another retired Supreme Court Justice in an open discussion meeting on the 15th August 2008 held at the national Press Club VIP Lounge stated clearly verbatim in Bengali, ‘JARA FAROOKER FANSI DABI KORE TAR AGAE TADER SAFIULLAHR FANSI CHAITE HOBE’ (Those who ask for Farook’s hanging to death had to demand far ahead the hanging of the then Army Chief Safiullah) was published as news item on the 16th August 2008 in many Dhaka dailies like Naya Diganta, Amardesh etc. Was this comment anything short of continuing miscarriage of justice done in the case? Possibly, he referred the issue to the question of failure of Command Responsibility as is provided in The Hague Convention of 1907 and in examples of trials in the last century of one Japanese General Tomoyiki Yamashita hanged to death as there was no provision then for commutation of death sentence anywhere but Captain Earnest Medina was acquitted as innocent.
(xiv) The point just above has obviously brought in another issue that the whole trial process was interfered with and directed by powerful quarter to net some smaller fries as escape goats and left the big fishes out of the net for purely political consideration of vengeance. The point further brings in the well known issue in Bangladesh of deep hatred of the party chief, in particular, for anything of the Bangladesh Army for she mistakenly perceived the national institution and so after their blood. The BDR massacre of the 25-26 February 2009 that had been most cruel and ferocious killings of the 57 army senior officers, Captain to Major General, in a go of over two days and darkness of two nights in full knowledge of Hasina and operational involvement of her Home Minster Sahara Khatun and close associates like Tapash, M.P. Nanak, M.P., Azam, M.P., Torab Ali etc in the brutal killings and massacre while the Army Chief as the subordinate to the P.M. kept mute spectator in the capital city itself can hardly be digested by all old and informed men like us as nothing but an orchestration for the hatred she keeps burning on in her sadist mind and ego. The miscarriage of justice engineered in the case under reference can just only be an extension of the hatred she had for nearly 34 years.
7. The Amnesty International, as opposed to any death sentence like, at least, 94 more humanly developed countries already abandoned the death sentence worldwide and also like many human rights organizations including the UN after 18th December 2008, has promptly, on the 20th November (09), made the request to the President of Bangladesh and also to the Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, to restrain from executing the verdict and at least to commute the death sentences of the 12 convicts. Another request was also made by the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales in their letter of the 24th November (09) to commute their death sentences. The Islamic jurisprudence, as well, has provided for either ‘forgiveness’ by the victim’s family members or payment of ‘compensation money’ by the accused to the victim’s family as alternative to death sentence.
8. Other media of international level like The Economist in the 27th November (09) issue has labeled the trial as ‘POLITICAL TRIAL’ of Hasina. The Holiday of Dhaka, a courageous English weekly, on the 27th November (09) issue has made a ‘post-mortem’ of the verdict making reference to the question of Command Responsibility as per the Hague Convention of 1907 and the cases mentioned above (xiii) that must have drawn attention of all sensible souls in the miscarriage of justice in the case.
9. However, the ball is still in the court of the judiciary and of the executive as the Review of the verdict is still to be made shortly. Or else, the Bangladesh Judiciary might be tainted badly for the 19th November (09) verdict upholding the death sentence in this case.

Author: H B Khair

The Role in Essence of Jinnah and the Muslim League in the 1947 Partition of the British India

In hospital
On the 13th December I was admitted to the BIRDEM Hospital for urgent attention to my deteriorating diabetes level. This was the fourth time of my getting admitted there and second time this year since 10th June when I had a heart attack. I am so fortunate that I get VIP attention and the best treatment available there for being even more fortunate father of an eye specialist employed there now for about 12 years.

2 Recent books
This time I had two books for my pleasure reading, one Jaswant Singh’s famous and recent book Jinnah-India-Partition-Independemce and the other one, Will Secular India Survive, a collection of 14 scholarly articles by high profile academics, edited by Professor Mushirul Hassan of the Jamia Millia Islamia, India, one time Rahimia Madrassa of Shah Waliullah established in the mid eighteenth century and now in the post 1947 Independent India secularized University, somewhat like the pre-1947 Calcutta Islamia College turned into Maolana Azad College immediately after the 1947 Great Divide.
Somehow the two books with me in the hospital cabin drew some attention of the attending physicians, one in particular, a young lady doctor in specific charge of the cabin, I understood.

Young Physician
On a brief occasion just before my discharge on the 23rd December, she asked me first about my profession. I told her about my spending the life as a teacher now nearly 52 years and fully retired from actual class room teaching in a private university three years and a half ago mainly for my failing health. Possibly, her next question was about Jinnah’s division of India and establishment of Pakistan based on religion.

Responses
I responded in my own way. India was not divided in 1947 solely for religious reason, much less by Jinnah for Islam. What Jinnah had uncompromisingly stood was for securing basic rights and dignity of all including the minority Muslims on all India basis to live as free citizens once the British would leave as foreign rulers, and the majority representing the Caste Hindu Congress would not continue to suppress, oppress and exploit the minority Muslims in perpetuity. Jinnah almost until the last critical time of 1946 tried to keep India united and have independence from the British rule as one bigger India. But the Congress leaders like Patel and Nehru, in particular, by their shear arrogance against the genuine grievances of the minorities forced upon the partition as transitory measure with hidden agenda sooner than later to foil the new State of Pakistan, and reintegrate once again into the mother India or AKHAND BHARAT (See, Nehru’s letter, for example, of 23 May 1947 addressed to Tipperah’s/ Comillah’s Congress leader Ashrafuddin Chowdhury, Jaswnt’s Jinnah…, p.508).

Propaganda
The issue of Partition based on religious divide is rather a mischievous propaganda against Jinnah as he had all along been a broad minded person and according to famous Congress leader of the early twentieth century, Gokhale, the Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity. Jinnah had no religious bigotry. What he strived on for alleviating the appalling conditions of the minority Muslims all through from his early political career in the Congress Party and did not join the Muslim League, for example, he along with the Congress leader Gokhale he piloted the Muslim Wakf Bill in the Imperial Council to pass as the Muslim Wakaf Act in 1913. On joining the Muslim League he continued the pursuance for the Muslims, being then about 33% or one third of the all Indian population, for protection and safeguard of basic citizenship rights once the British would have left. For in the foreseeable democratic set up in post British India the majority would continually trample upon the minority Muslims who had continued to suffer all the disadvantages during the British rule from 1757 to 1947 along with the lower caste Hindus and other disadvantaged native people in millions. The Congress leaders cared little for the minority Muslims in the future set up. Even in the Muslim majority provinces like Bengal, Punjab, Sind and the Frontier, the autonomy set up proposed by the Cabinet Mission Plan in 1946 with right to opt out in ten years if they would so choose to do was torpedoed by the Congress, particularly by the party President Nehru through his 10th July 1946 press statement. Had he not had torpedoed the Plan in the way that even many other Congress leaders termed as shear folly, India would remain undivided one with safeguard of full autonomy as per the Cabinet Mission Plan for the Muslim majority provinces.
It was only after the torpedoing of the Cabinet Mission Plan by Nehru that the Muslims, Muslim League and Jinnah had no option but to stand more firmly solid for the division of India and for one independent Pakistan comprising the Muslim majority provinces in the western and in eastern India.

Bengal Legislators (1946)
So far as the partition of Bengal was concerned, it was not only the Muslim majority Legislators of 1946 election results but also the absolute majority (106+21=127) of both Muslim (106-35) and Hindu Legislators (58-21) of Bengal combined voted against the partition, but the Viceroy Mountbatten in queer logic forced upon the partition having had obviously the same motive as Nehru had and examples given above (M. Hassan, ed., The Partition Omnibus: ‘Divide and Quit’, p.237).

Partition Reconfirmed
The 1947 partition of Bengal was not negated but once again reconfirmed in 1971 following the victory in the war when despite enthusiasm from certain quarter like Awami League M.P. (1970) from Barisal, Chiitta Ranjan Sutar, in particular, failed to impress for further action upon the then Indian Prime Minster Indira Gandhi to integrate Bangladesh into the Indian fold that she fortunately declined to do right then saying, AVI MUMKEEN NEHI. For the time being the Indian P.M. Indira remained content with partial attainment well known in her verbatim, HAZAR SALO KA BADLA LE LIA. I did not tell the young doctor all these facts in elaboration made here as she was busy with other priorities but even so asked me few other questions.

Unity in Diversity
One such was that she wished to impress upon me that the Muslims had regional differences in many aspects of lives and so were different the Muslims of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Apparently there is little to disagree about, I said. But my point to her on this issue was that in matters of spirituality based on undiluted monotheism and belief in equality of human being, Islam binds all Muslims in the same cord that is hardly comparable with any other existing formal religions. Not only this. The apparent regional and geographical differences in general override all other religious people in matters of value system developed and sustained in spiritual origin that the holy Quran upholds in all purity that no other religion can claim for certain. Thus the Muslims alone as a religious group all over the world, despite apparent differences, have still been maintaining the foundation of life system with the highest level of value aspirations in private and personal lives on which the social superstructure and all other decorations are sustained. The superficial difference manifested though appreciable, the foundational unity is unique and indivisible, unity in apparent diversity.

Facts to Ponder
I gave her some recent facts, not century old ones, as I could right then recall from memory as to how the Muslims in India after 1947 have continually been in deprivation in all matters- in jobs, employment, housing, education, landholding etc. ( See also, M Hassan, Will Secular India Survive, NSSO, 1999-2000 facts and figures quoted in pp.245-6) and even more than the scheduled castes, Dalits, Harijans, tribals etc as they have reservations in those social and economic opportunities that the Muslims do not have since after 1947. Even the reservations in public bodies that existed during the British rule since early twentieth century beginning from the Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909 were done away with in post 1947 independent India. How Bangladeshi Muslims would fare in social opportunities in undivided Bengal with the capital obviously in Kolkata, then in that case Dhaka remaining possibly even now, at best, a small divisional town and in one united India? Minus the Partition of 1947, how would the Bengal Muslims and many others disadvantaged people fare in the all India context and if the Muslims would have misfortune anything other than the overwhelming Muslims of the Indian held Jammu and Kashmir?

Gaps
I knew that she is a young doctor specialized in Diebetes, even junior to our third son working there, and I know that such technical specialists of the post Bangladesh generation including my sons and daughter, all technical professionals, are not only quite ignorant about the past British period pitiable history of the Muslims in India and in Bengal in comparison with the high caste elite Hindus in contrast with the position of the pre eighteenth century Muslim period rule but also had little scope to know about the clear and unbiased history of the nation. As she had time constraint, she was to give time to other patients thus stopping the debate, I asked her to read through carefully those two books I had with me, written by contemporary Indian academics for understanding Jinnah’s struggle for Pakistan in some depth and also think in depth about the two words, theocratic and theocentric, for Muslims should ideally aspire for theocentric society of individual piety and not for theocratic state so far as Muslim state foundation and superstructures are concerned in the present world context.

Jinnah and Muslim League
It is true that the platform of the Muslim League provided Jinnah with at least three achievements, according to American historian and author, Stanley Wolpert- ‘alter the course of history’, ‘modify the map of the world’, ‘creating a nation state’ from nothing or ‘scratch’. It was Jinnah’s leadership that raised the Muslim League, though established on the 30th December in 1906 in Dhaka, to heights of achievement after running through a long period of bewilderment for clear goal that in 1940s Jinnah’s leadership provided rightly in fulfilling aspirations for Pakistan for the then deprived British Indian Muslims.

Author:
Dr. M.T. Hussain
Dhaka
27 December 2009

(This is a birthday presentation to our only daughter who turns fifty today and a consultant physician herself and now a constant nurse for me since I fell ill from heart attack on the 10th June 2009 and then on bed ridden).

1975: The Crime and Verdict in Retrospection

Since fact is stranger than fiction and eye-witness accounts at times are more unbelievable than Ripley’s “Believe It or Not”, any narrative of what this writer experienced first hand as a young university lecturer in Dhaka during the tumultuous, uncertain and bloody days of 1975 is bound to evoke controversy, doubts and even anger, among sections of the Bangladeshis at home and abroad. Then again, nothing could be more immoral than not telling the truth for the sake of it.

This is an attempt to appraise the following: a) the killing of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, one of the founding fathers of Bangladesh by his own troops in 1975 and the belated trial and the final verdict of the Supreme Court on 19th November 2009; b) some ardent Awami League followers and supporters’ argument that some “misguided soldiers” who killed Mujib had nothing to do with a mutiny; c) some Awami Leaguers’ contention that people at large and Mujib’s followers could not publicly condemn let alone resist the killers as they were overpowered by a military takeover; and d) if the Verdict is going to usher in the rule of law in the country paving the way for good governance and protection of human rights.

As by 1969 I had been somehow convinced about the veracity of the “Two Economy Theory” sold by our teachers and leaders, to me, the emergence of Bangladesh signalled the advent of the “promised land”, free from corruption, bad governance and exploitation; or at least this is what we believed for quite sometime up to early 1972. While 1971 was very traumatic and uncertain for almost everyone who lived in what was then East Pakistan, a land under an occupation army; a nation besieged by the state of Pakistan; most of us who survived 1971, paradoxically turned crestfallen not long after the Liberation.

For many including this writer, the declaration of the one-party government by Mujib “the democrat” was the last straw. Most University teachers felt their employers’ asking them to join the ruling party (BKSAL) was frightful and humiliating. By mid-1975 from military generals to top bureaucrats had joined the BKSAL, while all other political partiers had been proscribed. The situation was not that different from what prevailed in the Soviet Union. Clenched-fisted BKSAL workers’ orchestrated shouting in public places in 1975—“One-Leader, One-Country; Bangabandhu-Bangladesh” (Ek Neta, Ek Desh; Bangabandhu-Bangladesh)—sounded quite ominous for many non-Awami Leaguers, which may be likened with how fascist workers used to intimidate their opponents in Europe in the 1930s-1940s.

In spite of this, what took our breath away was the brutal killing of Mujib and most of his family members – including his ten-year-old son and pregnant daughter-in-law – by a handful of Bangladeshi soldiers in August 1975. What was even more startling – and sickening to the extreme – was the way all his cabinet ministers barring a few and most of his close associates and party-men either joined hands with Mushtaq, the new President, and / or publicly rejoicing defended the killing as “necessary” and “unavoidable”. Newspaper editorials glorifying the killers demonized Mujib and his rule in justification of the killing and the new regime under Mushtaq. Among others, Mujib’s close associate, Abdul Malek Ukil, the speaker of the parliament, within weeks after the killing publicly stated at Heathrow Airport: “The country has been relieved of the Pharaoh”. While the military-backed Mushtaq regime glorified the killers as “brave sons of the liberation war”, the successive governments kept most of them employed at Bangladeshi missions overseas until the election of Sheikh Hasina, Mujib’s daughter, as the new Prime Minister in 1996.

Signalling the death-knell for the killers of 1975, the new government brought murder charges against the killers cancelling their immunities granted by the Mushtaq regime, and upheld by Gen Zia. Finally, after 34 years of the killing, on 19th November 2009, the Supreme Court in its judgment sentenced the killers to death for their dreadful crime. Meanwhile, people across the board are congratulating the judiciary and the government for upholding justice for the sake of ushering in the badly needed rule of law in Bangladesh. So far so good. Nevertheless, the question that bugs me a lot is that if this belated judgment is really going to bring about the elusive rule of law in this land of misrule, infested with crime, corruption and impunity.

Without having any reservations whatsoever about the fairness of the judgment, despite some loopholes in the method of trying military officers at a civilian court (as pointed out by some attorneys and legal experts), I am skeptical if the trial process could be ever initiated had Mujib’s daughter not been the Prime Minister. I am equally skeptical about the possibility of trying all those state and non-state actors who have been killing their adversaries with impunity since the 1970s. They include members of the law-enforcers who have been killing suspects and innocent people in the name of “encounters” (crossfire); and influential godfathers who have been killing and expropriating people, often their political and business rivals, with impunity. As it is almost impossible to find out a BNP-supporter who would favour the posthumous trial of President Ziaur Rahman for his alleged extra-judicial killing of thousands of people; so is it almost out of the question to get an Awami-supporter in favour of trying those who killed Siraj Sikdar in the most gruesome manner. Similarly JP supporters would go up against any suggestion to try the killers of those killed during General Ershad’s military rule; and nothing is more unpalatable to the Jamaat-i-Islami than the brewing demand for the trial of its leaders and supporters for committing “War Crimes”, including murder, in 1971.

Now we hear from many Awami leaders/followers that the 1975 takeover in the wake of the brutal killings was not a mutiny but a “sporadic criminal act” by a handful of “misguided soldiers”. One wonders as to why people and thousands of soldiers, BDR, Rakkhi Bahini and police did not come out on the street to punish those “handful of misguided soldiers”! These are quite enigmatic facts a) as to why General Osmani, the Commander of the Liberation War, went to Dhaka Radio Station in the morning of 15th August 1975 and was seen together with some of the killers; and b) as to why the army and air force chiefs paid allegiance to the “handful misguided soldiers” publicly through the media. Had the 15th August episode been simply a crime not a mutiny (or revolution), as to why all but four top Awami League leaders took oath of allegiance to Mushtaq as his cabinet members? As mentioned above, some Awami Leaguers assert that people at large were too afraid to condemn, let alone resist, the killers as they had been overpowered by a military takeover. Only one of the above versions may be acceptable to us.

Hardly anybody is telling the truth that not Mujib alone but the entire nation collectively created Bangladesh; so it is not fair to blame him for whatever went wrong in the country till his tragic death. Bangladeshis should learn from the Americans who believe their country was liberated by their “founding fathers”, not by Washington alone. They share the credit and blames together. Sycophants (”Chatar Dal” to paraphrase Mujib) who had convinced Mujib that Bangladesh would become Sonar Bangla (Golden Bengal) through “socialism” or state-capitalism (a gold mine for corrupt politicians and bureaucrats) or through friendship with India, USSR and Cuba, not by bridging support from the rest of the world, must have been collectively guilty for the misery of Bangladesh.

Conversely, soon after his killing, Mujib’s sycophants condoned and even celebrated the carnage to appease Mushtaq, the new patron at the Bangabhaban. With a view to currying favour with Sheikh Hasina, making fools of themselves, they are now singing an altogether different song. Most analysts believe that Mujib’s alienation from the urban middle classes and intellectuals finally led to his tragic end. In sum, one may welcome the verdict as a major positive step towards justice; a bold departure from the path of condoning extra-judicial killing is nevertheless an auspicious beginning. Bangladesh has reasons to be happy about the verdict. However, nothing could be more hackneyed than assuming that without addressing the issue of extra-judicial killings in the past and the ongoing Draconian “cross-firing”, the verdict alone is going to bring peace and progress in Bangladesh.

Author: Taj Hashmi
Source: Bdnews24.com

Corruption, democracy and Bangladesh

Bangladesh has had a troubled political history since gaining independence in 1971 and is also beleaguered by poverty and natural environmental disasters. In particular, corruption is blighting its prospects for economic growth, undermining the rule of law and damaging the legitimacy of the political process.

Corruption the word itself is very familiar to us. Especially during the care taker government, it has got a special meaning. Of course we still remember the unfortunate fame we have got as a nation last few years being first in corruption. But the good news is that our country is one of those countries which have been able to radically improve her corruption situation. This year she improved her ranking to 139 out of 180 countries, which is definitely a good achievement.

However, is this enough? Can we say there is very little corruption in our country? It is sad but true that we will see corruption at every level in our national, political and private life. And the most shocking thing is, corruption is becoming acceptable to most of the people. People are taking it like a normal matter. The attitude they have got towards corruption is very unfortunate for our nation both economically and morally.

In broad terms, corruption is the misuse of public office for private gain. It encompasses abuses by government officials such as embezzlement and nepotism, as well as abuses linking public and private actors such as bribery, extortion, influence peddling, and fraud. Corruption arises in both political and bureaucratic offices and can be petty or grand, organized or unorganized.

Recently I was talking to some of my friends, who are waiting for their upcoming interview for 28th BCS. All of them are graduates from Dhaka University. Surprisingly they were not talking about the possible question they might face in the interview board. The topic they were talking about was how they can get a link among the PSC members and how much they are willing to pay for the job. Later on I found out that this is very common thing here. It’s shocking but true. I was staggered to think these are the people, who are going to run the country by becoming judges, police officers, teachers and all. Is this corruption? Don’t know about other country but in Bangladesh I think it is not. Or at least the people of our country don’t think so. Otherwise, they will not willingly be part of it. Or the system, that has made the people to be part of it.

I find this very hard to believe that how the people making wrong things right. No one is questioning about this. They are taking the entire wrong act as it is. I understand the system has made us like this but why are we taking part in it. It always takes ‘two to make a tangle’. So off course if we don’t support this system which is based on wrongful act then this so called corrupted system will never work out. But who will make this universal truth realize to our people.

Corruption has become a part of culture and society, not just government, and measuring the extent to which ordinary citizens are willing to justify corrupt acts is a complementary effort to measuring perceptions of government corruption. It has been documented that corruption is negatively related to economic development and to the existence of democratic institutions.

Now the question is whether both systemic and cultural modes of corruption are involved in such relationships. It is also feasible that corruption can play an important role in political competition and definitely it has a very negative effect on our national development.

There are significant cross-national and cross-regional variations in corruption permissiveness, and attitudes toward corruption are indeed strongly and negatively related to democratic attitudes. Corruption permissiveness’ is, in particular, strongly and negatively correlated with support for democracy and with interpersonal trust, both of them being important components of a democratic political culture.

Many observers regard corruption as a growing threat to our democracy, while others take a more optimistic view, seeing the increase of corruption revelations as a sign that there is a crackdown on corrupt politicians and entrepreneurs.

It is commonly observed that after adopting competitive elections and market liberalisation (”democratisation”) our country has experienced a rise in corruption. On a more complete conception of democracy, however, such correlations should not be surprising.

Incomplete democratisation often puts into place incentives for corruption, while lacking those elements of democracy might enable those harmed by corruption to fight back.

If corruption involves harms caused by exclusion, a key means for fighting corruption should involve empowering those harmed to protect themselves by democratic means: with information, arguments, organisation, and votes.

However the question might arise, what comes First: Democracy or corruption? Although the definitions of democracy vary in scope they generally include three basic concepts: competition, equality and rule of law. Corruption undermines each of these concepts. Unfair advantage through corruption undermines competition. Corruption is used to make some people more equal than others. Unchecked corruption in society undermines the rule of law.

Why don’t we understand that corruption poses a serious development challenge? In the political realm, it can seriously undermine democracy and good governance. Corruption in elections and in legislative bodies reduces accountability and representation in policymaking; corruption in the judiciary suspends the rule of law; and corruption in public administration results in the unequal provision of services. More generally, corruption weakens government institutions by disregarding official procedures, siphoning off the resources needed for development, and selecting or promoting officials without regard to performance. At the same time, corruption undermines the legitimacy of government and such democratic values as trust and tolerance. And this we can feel every moment.

Corruption also undermines economic development. In the private sector, corruption increases the cost of business through the price of bribes themselves, the management cost of negotiating with officials, and the risk of breached agreements or detection.

Although some claim corruption reduces costs by cutting red tape, an emerging consensus holds that the availability of bribes induces officials to contrive new rules and delays. Corruption can also shield companies with connections from fair competition, thus allowing inefficient firms to survive. But none of us are taking any responsibility about this corruption. On top of that we are indirectly helping corruption by taking part in it.

Corruption also generates economic distortions in the public sector by pulling public investment away from education and into projects where bribes and kickbacks are more plentiful. Corruption also lowers compliance with construction, environmental, or other regulations; reduces the quality of government services; and increases budgetary pressures on government.

But we the people of Bangladesh do not understand the bad effect of corruption. We are not taking any responsibility towards it. Instead what we are doing is accepting it and helping towards it by taking part in it. One thing we can do very well is to pass the responsibility on others. It is very common to say that the system is corrupted, the government is corrupted and the officials are corrupted. Bur we will never agree that we are the one who are helping this system, government or the officials to be corrupted by accepting their wrongful act. As long as we will not take the responsibility on us then corruption will never end from our society, from our country. As soon as we all will start questioning about the system and stop acting according to the system, the system will break down. And corruption will run from our life. It is high time for us to identify the right and the wrong and say a ‘BIG NO’ to all sorts of corruption.

Author: Barrister Arafat Hosen Khan
Source: The New Nation