Monthly Archive

Fascinating. $500 billion in private investments in infrastructure in India in the next 3 years.

And in China - a coal power plant goes up every two weeks.

This sort of thing creates all sorts of opportunities, all sorts of problems, and all sorts of challenges. I like what this Bangladeshi is doing about some of them.

What will the $2000 Tata car mean for traffic jams in Dhaka?

Some possibilities:

1. The traffic jams will get better - rickshaws and autorickshaws will be crowded out as more people who used to use them will now be able to afford the $2k car (or perhaps, $2k taxis)…

2. The traffic jams will get worse. Autorickshaws and rickshaws will not be driven out of the market, but their fares will drop because of pressure from $2k taxis and cars.

I think 2 is more likely. Autorickshaw drivers will likely be less badly affected as they might be able to jump across to driving the $2k car (which will cost a little bit more than the monopolistically-priced CNG autorickshaw) But rickshaw-pullers will see their already meagre earnings drop. This really is (or should be) the bigger issue, than the worry about traffic jams…

This piece in the BBC was just hilarious, though at the end of the day a sad commentary on things in Pakistan (and very reminiscent of things in Bangladesh). Best quote:

The other day, some of the top army generals finished a hard day’s work at a conference in Islamabad and decided they’d earned a bit of entertainment.

Buoyed by their own spontaneity, they had that evening’s sold-out performance of the musical Bombay Dreams cancelled for ticket-paying patrons, and enjoyed an exclusive viewing of Pakistani girls dancing to Indian music director AR Rehman’s tunes.

That’s freedom! Freedom to steal the show, in this case.

[Bonus: Responding an earlier edition of the Best Line of the week series, Fugstar   (whose blog is an interesting read) complained about the inadequacy of comparing Imam Bukhari to Thomas Aquinas. Good point, Fugstar, but it might be a little off-target. My response:

You would be right, Fugstar, if the comparison was about functions. Then Mr. Bukhari - the collector of ahadith - would not be like Mr. Aquinas. But the comparison was really more about their prominent positions in their respective canons. AmalA might be comparing apples to bananas - but at least she’s comparing fruits instead of comparing bananas to creepy crawly critters the way the NYTimes article was…

Yes, we do read your comments, and with great interest too. Keep 'em coming!]

 [OK back to work, or something like it....]

In the 1980’s, proceeds from “illegal” arms sales to the Iranians, which was later found to be ransom payment in exchange for American hostages, were channeled to a right- wing guerilla insurgency against a left leaning Nicaraguan government known as the Contras. After failed attempts at covering up the debacle, which included among other things- a Presidential address by the then President Ronald Reagan, which he later reneged, the truth revealed itself. The international scandal that ensued would leave the Reagan administration struggling to find scapegoats who could be distanced from the office of the President. The efforts convinced few, and abruptly ended many careers, although many later returned to public life. This would go on to be known as the Iran- Contra Affair, etched into history as one of America’s biggest foreign policy misjudgments. And in the end, she ended up backing human rights violations as leftist conspiracies, in the interest of bringing wide spread reform to Nicaragua. That, never happened.

Also, in the 1980’s, soon after the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, first the Carter administration and later the Reagan administration, would embark on a massive support and training campaign for the Afghan freedom fighters, or the “mujahideen”. In addition to all concerned government agencies, several think tanks, aid organizations, and other republican outfits would cough up ample resources to rally support for these “mujahideen”, to liberate the Republic of communist forces, and establish a strategic presence in the region. The largely Arab CIA trained mercenary forces who fought alongside the Taliban during this time, given their differences, would later go on to build their own ghettos and communities and find safe haven in war-torn Afghanistan. This band of brothers then came to call themselves “Al- Qaeda”. Years later, 9/11 happened. In the end, we ended up funding and training extremist elements, in the interest of bringing wide spread reform to Afghanistan. That, never happened.

To be fair, this notion of supporting dissenting elements to catalyze a change an external force desires (an loose version of “Divide & Rule”) however, has had it’s successes. The concept met with some of it’s most prominent successes during the colonial era, and found few documented defeats (although colonial powers were rarely known to admit defea, let alone document them!). In modern times too this game of russian roulette has found limited success, often at inexplicable and unpredictable costs (read: Iraqi Provisional Authority; jury’s still out on that, yes?).

In recent weeks, reports have emerged that several elements within the CA’s team, with cautious distance from the CA himself, have been using their clout to bargain with mid-level leaders and dissenting elements who have of late been side-lined in party politics, on both sides of the isle. These leaders in turn have been leveraging their new found intimacy with the SOE government to drum up support to introduce drastic leadership changes in both parties. That, was the carrot. What’s the stick? Well, them threatening to leave the party. And given the humble rise of the LDP and Prof Yunus floating political ambitions, my friend, they have options. This strategic offensive however, is almost as ill conceived and far worse executed, as the government’s minus 2 scheme. With civil society and intelligentsia riding it’s coat tails, the SOE government seems to increasingly find itself on the defensive on issues like transparency and accountability; while it still continues to exercise it’s ambiguous and sweeping emergency powers.

Today, Bangladesh and it’s citizens are in a much better shape. A corrupt system of endemic proportions, which had until now remained unchallenged and accepted as a reality of life in Bangladesh, is now being taken to task. The country finds itself basking in an air of confidence, reinitiated in the belief that corruption can actually be curtailed (notwithstanding the sensationalism of finding relief goods in ministerial homes of course). The government is engaging culprits at every level best it can, and taking the time to structure viable legal cases against them. Price of essentials, thanks to the BDR, is on the dive, and every week seems to bring news of another corrupt politician being sued by the ACC. And if that isn’t enough, the Tigers beat India and South Africa (the CA of course, had little to do with that). Indeed, I can’t quite recall the last time it felt so good to see a SOE. Much of the credit goes to the CA and his team (not all his team- no, not all). But now, Bangladesh must gradually make the transition from relatively successful crisis management , to institution building and long term sustainable progress under a democracy.

The inherent nature of politics dictates the tacit reality of constant power plays, miscommunication and infighting. Add to that the complexity of party leaders (who might I add have ruled for much of the country’s existence) put to unexplained exile, still others imprisoned, and the legitimacy of an unelected government dangerously swinging in the scales, and you see the fragile state of the Bangladeshi political landscape.

Mind you, by no stretch of the imagination, am I defending our rogue leaders. Much of my sentiments are echoed in Shamshir’s post below. None of the party high-ups have even hinted at the prospect of admitting to mistakes, but repeatedly manage to divert the discussion towards “constant reform” that they’ve been engaging in all along (apparently the rest of us missed the memo); without ever acknowledging the past. In many cases, the leadership on both sides of the isle seem more resolved in their belligerence and self- righteousness.

So on the one hand, there is probably some truth to the fact that, short- term to get the culprits off the streets, in a system of lawlessness, extra judicial steps are an unfortunate reality. But on the other, you wonder of the precedents these initiatives are setting. And we really don’t unelected governments issuing any more licenses of sweeping power, the elected governments of past have already mastered that art. And this is where the government seems to be suffering from chronic schizophrenia.

On the one hand, it seeks to create long term policy reform and institutions that long outlive it’s authors and current political leaderships, but on the other it seems to be repeatedly finding itself responding with knee jerk reactions and initiatives which only seem beneficial in the short- term. And while these short term victories are necessary in turn-around schemes (my consulting skills coming into play), it is increasingly beginning to take on an air of permanence. Frankly, I am either ignorant to the circumstances on the ground, or am expecting too much from a bad situation; either way the CA’s lack of foresight of late has astonished me.

Although, without naming names, I would like to squarely lay blame on the drooping shoulders of a rather stocky advisor, who in my opinion, has the collective intelligence of a gardening tool. With both major political parties in a state of disarray, and mass pressure for reform, the government is ideally positioned to call for widespread political reform in both parties. Instead, in its’ bid to do away with dynastic politics, the government has decided to promote other individuals in it’s efforts for political reform.

Firstly, there is a reason why these particular leaders are “mid-level” or “marginalized”. And if by giving them legitimacy in this state of emergency, we hope for long term sustainable effects, then we’re headed for sure disappointment, as Maulana Rumi said “this too shall pass”. In a nation, where we constantly find our institutions failing us, and the personality of the individuals almost always overshadowing the offices they bear, why wouldn’t we rather go for formalizing of structures that can carry on long after the leaders of today? The ruling party, and the opposition party, are constitutional institutions of the republic, serving at the pleasure of the republic. The people will eventually rally behind the party’s long-standing leadership, even if they were “misled” for a few brief moments. But let’s say hypothetically- this did work, what prevents our newly minted leaders from starting their own dynasties?

Secondly, if it is reform we seek, why wouldn’t we engage the existing leadership, which already has the legitimacy and clout to implement the initiatives in a time sensitive manner? These are daunting challenges; and bans on indoor politics, power vacuums within the parties, imprisoned party brass etc. won’t make it easier. On the other hand, this does mean that the pressure’s on, conditions propitious, and reform agendas ripe for the picking.

We must actively pursue the rank and file of both parties, decentralize power, and institute checks and balances at every level of partisan politics. For once, let’s have an election based on the issues, and distinctive policies that deal with those issues. Let’s bring the institution of AL or the institution of BNP, LDP, to the forefront.

Why would the parties oblige? Well, hopefully because they realize that if they wish their parties and legacies to live on, they will need to let other leaders carry on after them, and also because, the CA said so! We could also conveniently remind them, that the 7^th infantry battalion works for him.

And why would the CA be interested? Because a good reformer not only dismantles the system of corruption, but puts in place a reliable system of governance that evolves those reforms into institutional policies. In the absence of these long term initiatives, our country will remain a nation where government officials pathologically abuse their powers, our heightened fear of the ACC will slowly wane, government agencies and it’s officials will seep back into unbridled corruption, national progress will remain an abstract concept; and worst of all, the renewed faith of our citizens will become a distant memory.

I do have some more thoughts on my Exile II post, but since I am barely keeping my head above water with exams, I am going to have to keep it short in responding to Mash and Shaijad’s insightful comments . Again, my apologies for this being utterly disjointed, vague and perhaps vapid:

1.  I think I might have been misunderstood - and that’s my own fault. My point with #2 in the Exile II post was not to defend what the SOE government has been doing. This is why I started my post with talking about due process in #1. The rule of law is obviously preferable to me. My point, to clarify, was this: even if exile is the option that the SOE government wants to take, there is a way of doing it that would be consistent with the rule of law.  This was the plea bargain option. The plea bargain option was not a description of what the government IS doing, but an idea for what they SHOULD HAVE BEEN if they cared (or even thought) about maintaining a modicum of transparency and accountability.

2. Instead of course, we agree, the SOE authorities decided to resort to naked unbridled power. Laying aside the morality of doing so (and I do think it is wrong to do so), the problem with naked unbridled power is that if you don’t have a lot of it, you overshoot. This is the fact that BNP failed to see in its machinations in its last term. And the lesson eluded the SOE government too, as we are seeing with the minus-2 option falling apart (as it seems to right now…) The SOE government overshot - as it was bound to do some time with its ad hoc decision-making that relied less upon process and legality and more upon strength and some claim of relative moral legitimacy.

The problem with relying on strength of course is that if there’s someone stronger, and strenght is all you’re depending on - you’re in trouble. The problem with relying on relative moral legitimacy is you have to live up to it. Double-talking advisors don’t help.

3. Think about what would have happened if the SOE government had gone through due process before exiling Khaleda Zia - for example by making her sign onto a plea bargain accompanied by a clear unambiguous statement from the government explaining why they were doing what they were doing. The Saudis would definitely not be able to humiliate them/make look plain silly by asking for Khaleda Zia to come to the embassy for a visa interview.  And I’m thinking that a good segment of the population would point to the plea bargain and say, “They’re not bundling her away unfairly. She’s admitted to things, and because of the (objectively verifiable) reasons that the government is giving, it makes sense for her to be sent away. They’re being straight with us.” Instead we got double-speak, and naturally disillusionment.  

I realize that a plea bargain such as this would not be unproblematic. How did they arrive at it? What kind of back-room negotiations took place? Why not just go through the courts instead? &c.  And may be there are no set answers to these, but at least the SOE should try.

I guess my point then - and this is where I agree with Shaijad (and I guess where Mash is coming from) - transparency and accountability are of paramount importance. And a government like the SOE government - suspect as it is because of its unelectedness - can only maintain legitimacy if it tries to be as transparent and accountable as possible. And the only way to do it is to keep coming back to the public with objectively verifiable statements. None of this, “Trust us” business. We’ve seen this all before.

4. The SOE government clearly does not get it. I agree with Mash that as long as fundamental rights remain in abeyance - anything they do is suspect. What we have to tell anyone who claims to want to do good and fix things still remain, “Why should we believe you? Show us your bona fides. Show us things that we can check your intentions against. Objectively.”

5. But the same skepticism should govern our reaction to anyone else claiming the helm as well - be it Khaleda Zia, Sheikh Hasina, or Poltu bhai who lives down the goli.  Yes, nothing has changed since 1/11 - definitely not the questions we should be asking of those who would lead us.

6. Nothing that I have seen in the public statements of either Sheikh Hasina or Khaleda Zia since 1/11 suggest that they’ve really learnt anything from the experience in the last 3 months. What indication do we have that we are not to see a repeat of the last 15 years if elections were to be held 6/12/18 months from now and they were to return to power? What have we seen of soul-searching self-reflection? What have we seen of remorse and the possibility of redemption? In fact, it would be safe to say that every indication we have received from the netris suggests that things will actually be worse if they return. In their statements is the same sense of entitlement, the same assumption of infallibility. 

This does not absolve the SOE government of its failures to meet the standards of accountability and transparency. (And intelligence! Is intelligence too much to ask for? You hear some of the statements of certain advisors made in the last few days and you wonder how they ever got to where they did…) Our standards are not, must not be, lower. And yes, we have very little that demonstrates that the SOE government cares about either accountability and transparency - which are its only lifelines to legitimacy.

Our true hope lies in ideas and institutions - not parties, personalities or platitudes. This is as it always was - but our young nation has failed to recognize this at every critical juncture in its history. There’s enough blame to go around.

So the exiling of Khaleda Zia seems to be on its way. And it is likely that Sheikh Hasina will be unable to return. The minus-2 plan seems just about near to completion. This is going to have to be a quick, disjointed post - cause I have finals right now. [But Shamshir, you say, your posts are always disjointed! True, true. I hear you.]

1. I have cautioned about the need for due process - even as far back as the beginning of the SOE government, when a lot of people were unreservedly cheering their every move under the doctrine of necessity [see the Daily Star from that time]. I could harp on it again - but that would be no fun, and I would be adding nothing new to the discussion. I have to say, though, that it’s good to see more people talking about due process. Whatever the next few days/months/years hold for us, these conversations are important to have in our communities. It suffices to say that I suspect many of the people shedding tears for due process would not be so averse to the way things are happening had the results not been so adverse to their political preferences. But people can hopefully see beyond that. The bigger proplem may be elsewhere. Note that due process is an empty phrase without an understanding of what it means, and why it should mean what it does. After all, it is possible that fair-weather pundits (and adda-fiers such as myself) think that only that much process is due as we would like there to be…  Our considerations of due process require a deeper and broader analysis that I have seen. Perhaps I will get a chance to write on this more extensively this summer.

2. There’s a view that’s out there that says that because these politicians committed crimes, they have to be tried. I agree -in ideal moral circumstance they would have to be tried, and punishment received would be well-deserved in many well-documented cases. But that being said, I am not so sure that given the circumstances, exile is really such a bad option. It’s a low-cost option. On the one hand it avoids bloodshed. On the other, the uncertainties of a trial whose results could not be anything but political.  This last point probably requires some elaboration. How could they avoid politicizing the trial process? The judges have leanings. May be then, they should change the judges, you say - but how could that be achieved without laying the government open to charges of politicizing the trial by selecting their own judges? Besides, when Barrister XYZ goes up against some government prosecutor, I know who my money is going to be on… The system is totally messed up. It’s like OJ Simpson’s lawyers going up against the LA district attorney.

Prosecutors in the US face this kind of issue all the time. There’s costs to going to the system. One solution to the dilemma - and it has its critics, for very good reasons - is allowing prosecutors to cut plea bargains. If the SOE planners really cared deeply about the rule of law, and they were clever about things (and there the jury still is out on both questions, though we do have strong indications…) that’s what they’d do. They’d structure exile as a plea bargain: “You are exiled - it’s the punishment that the state and you have agreed upon for your admitted involvement in this, this and this. In return for your admission - and recognizing the constraints of our system - we’ve mutually agreed upon exile as punishment.” What you are getting out of it is two things. One, admission  of guilt - and admission of guilt that’s worth a lot more than half of the stuff that comes out of confessions in remand, which really is a euphemism for torture. And you more importantly, at least you are getting at least a semblance of transparency.  They way things stand right now, we can speculate why the SOE government is doing things the way that they are. But the SOE government was clear why it was coming in in the first place - because the system had been thrown so out of whack that an intervention was necessary and proper. But if the justification is really what it is, then it should be no problem for the SOE to say that it would have liked a trial, but a trial is impossible in the out-of-whack system (note the distinction here - the justification is not the circumstances, but the system itself which was the raison d’etre of the SOE government in the first place), and thus the most legal, most transparent way, most efficacious means available to them is a plea-bargain that involves exile. The SOE must realize that it can only maintain trust and a semblance of legitimacy when the populace feels that there’s some objective standard - rather than subjective ad hoc claims - that they can hold the SOE government accountable to.

3. I see people have pointed out that Mannan Bhuiyan and others in the BNP leadership are not making enough noise about the exile given what they owe to the party. It seems to me that they’re damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

4. It will be interesting to see what Sheikh Hasina does in the next few days. The question that she should be asking herself really is “What would my father do now?” Even Bangabandhu’s worst detractors and his assassins could never deny his personal fearlessness. I think Bangabandhu, faced with similar circumstances, would walk back to Bangladesh if necessary. But Bangabandhu could - even in the ebb of his popularity – always count on people rising up and sacrificing themselves to receive him if he did. Can Sheikh Hasina count on the same kind of support, and the same kind of moral authority?

Apparently, thinking that what you are doing is good exercise is exercise in itself, and has a positive effect on health. Exercise apparently has a placebo effect… [Hat tip: Marginal revolution]

Someone please convince me that sitting around all day and adda-fying is good exercise.

Controlling corruption: perhaps the Georgian experience in the last year has some useful lessons. I want to look at this more closely over the summer.

Also via PSD blog, something else I want to examine this summer: The world’s first catastrophe bond.  Fascinating stuff. This sort of product can be very powerful in development contexts. I was just discussing how useful an insurance product (more formally) combined with micro-credit might be last weekend at a conference.

I think about death a lot. I find it useful to put things - be it frazzled nerves, or disappointment and frustration - into perspective.

There’s a poem by the late John “Mike” Ford (1957-2006) that I’ve been thinking about a lot this last week, for some reason. It’s a beautiful little poem, written apparently in response to a blog post. (The original blog post itself was a wonderfully thoughtful piece. This is the kind of thing that makes me read blogs from all over the place.)  Here’s the poem:

Against Entropy

The worm drives helically through the wood
And does not know the dust left in the bore
Once made the table integral and good;
And suddenly the crystal hits the floor.
Electrons find their paths in subtle ways,
A massless eddy in a trail of smoke;
The names of lovers, light of other days—
Perhaps you will not miss them. That’s the joke.
The universe winds down. That’s how it’s made.
But memory is everything to lose;
Although some of the colors have to fade,
Do not believe you’ll get the chance to choose.
Regret, by definition, comes too late;
Say what you mean. Bear witness. Iterate.

—John M. Ford

These are words to live by: “Regret by definition comes to late; Say what you mean. Bear witness. Iterate.”

[Bonus: Read Mike Ford's beautiful 110 Stories written after September 11 here. Read other, wackier - but always fascinating - works of his here.]

I don’t quite know what to make of it all now. 48 hours ago, I was riding high, as I’m sure most other Banglaeshis were, on the team’s stellar performances in the Caribbean. A cracking victory against India, a job well done against Bermuda to qualify for the Super 8’s, an absolute dream performance culminating in possibly the most glorious day of our sporting history, and about thirty runs short of embarassing England. That would have more than done for me. Until that punch-drunk performance against Ireland yesterday. Its taken a bit of the shine off. If we had managed to win that one, the World Cup would have been complete, and we would have left no observer in doubt that we had definitively arrived as a force to be reckoned with. Now we’re not quite so sure.

Regardless of the outcome against the West Indies, I think where we stand in world cricket right now is this: We are at a point now where no team in the world can afford to take us easily. Whereas in the past they may have been able to get away with it, nowadays they will be punished. Given the inch, we will take the mile. That is progress.

At the same time however, we ourselves are not yet at the point where we can take any of the likes of Zimbabwe, Kenya, Ireland, etc easily. We have established that we did deserve to be the 10th Test playing nation, and we are probably better than Zimbabwe at this point, but we still have some way to go before we can claim they are not even in our league. At the moment, our place in the cricketing hierarchy is akin to an island that is smack in the middle of the ocean dividing the elite from the mediocre. We can go away from the Caribbean with a lot to take from the tournament, but we must equally seek lessons from it as well. How we balance the two will largely determine which way we drift in the future.

Khaleda Zia has been persuaded to leave the country, the news sources are reporting. Daily Star reports that the SOE government will ask Sheikh Hasina not to return at all.

Note that the SOE government is succeeding in doing what eight years of Ershad’s military rule never did. But from 82-91, Khaleda Zia held the moral high ground. She wilfully abdicated it in the last 15 years.

There is material here for a powerful tragic drama…

If you ever took an economics class you probably learnt a lot about subsidies, tariffs and quotas and drew dorky supply-demand charts to show the theoretical impact of these on consumers, producers and the economy. But few of us were ever told stories about the actual effect of subsidies, tariffs and things like that, on real people. 

Well, now may be a good time to find out.

I have been closely following the current debate in the U.S. Congress over government programs that have been assisting farmers in America for years. If you watch C-Span sometimes, then you probably have been too.

Here are some facts:

The U.S. government’s farm subsidy program (i.e. financial support to farmers in America) in effect  deny millions of people in poor countries a chance to survive in the global economy. U.S. farm policies have been around since the Depression era when farmers really did need the help. But due to sheer government negligence in upgrading policies for changing times, as well as due to the power of some fierce agricultural lobbies, these subsidies have remained to this day.

So how do they affect people in poor countries? Read the rest of this entry »

… that when pretty much everyone you’ve run into has commented on your haircut with a smile, a nod, and a “That’s a nice haircut”, before looking away from you, it must be that you’ve messed up.

This is going to be rant. I am procrastinating. Read at your own peril.

Last weekend, I got a haircut. I normally try to get a haircut every four weeks, but the last three months have just been ridiculous in terms of busy-ness. Plus the hair really does help with keeping out the cold here. But the hair was getting out of hand. I couldn’t take my mid-afternoon nap without waking up and looking like Krusty the Clown the rest of the day. And so I walked over to the barber’s down the street ba’d jum’ah on Friday. It’s an Egyptian barber, and we exchange a few words in Arabic until my rapidly degenerating stock of vocabulary gets exposed for its shallowness. He then proceeds to take out his scissors - no, I think it’s pretty clear they were shears now - and starts clacking them threateningly. I should have know something was up then, I really should have.  

Read the rest of this entry »

“The nation known around the world for corruption and e-mail scams is running its presidential election like a litigious Manhattan co-op board.”

- June Thomas, writing about the controversy-ridden Nigerian presidential elections

This makes total sense to readers familiar with New York. …

Someone’s filed a case against Sheikh Hasina - an extortion case on some power contract from 1998. At the same time, rumors are rife that Khaleda Zia will leave the country some time with her two sons. So it seems like the SOE government is putting the Nawaz Sharif/Benazir Bhutto option into motion. One hopes that thecorollary of this will not be the Musharrafization of the SOE government.

We have no way of knowing whether the case against Sheikh Hasina has any merit. Certainly, the fact that no noise was made about the extorition incident in the last five years makes it seem highly suspicious. Anyone with a passing familiarity with the Bangladeshi legal system will know that filing a case like this is easy.

Note also the significant parallelism: Both TZ and SH are hit with extortion cases. And not also that the allegations comes not from state law enforcement but private parties. It’s word vs. word - and the only thing that matters in terms of how things turn out is not the actual merit of what’s said, but who’s listening.

Awami League will complain. And BNP will complain. But as the Bard wrote, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” They both had their chance to fix the system so that those in power would not be able to perpetrate such abuse. But they didn’t fix it - for the system was the instrument they would use to extract and extort when in power. The simple calculation - that those on the receiving end of injury today may very well be on the inflicting end tomorrow - somehow kept escaping our political leadership.

Anyone who’s seen local politics in rural Bangladesh will know that this type of  case is a common way to settle disputes. The person connected to the party in power simply brings (or threatens to bring) an extortion or attempted robbery case against his enemy. It’s word v. word - and all that matters is not the merits but the fact that the party in power is listening.  It was the fact that this kind of (ab)use of the legal system - for even the most nefarious purposes - was open to whoever captured power that gave our politics its deadly edge. It was the fact that losing power could mean having the weight of the state being thrown against oneself that made politics a game of life and death for our citizens. The political parties knew this too - and they exploited such promise and such fear in creating and solidifying their networks of support.

I hear some of you protest - no, our party did not do this. Oh no! Both parties did do this in the last 15 years - and only the ignorant or the wilfully blind will claim otherwise. And the situation was only spiralling downwards in the vicious cycle of revenge and recrimination. I personally know of dozens of people in rural Bangladesh, whose simple, petty disputes over ponds or property boundaries were transformed into grand dramas of struggle and terror in this system. Oh such stories I could tell you!

Some will claim that it is only just that Sheikh Hasina and Tarique Zia will face the travails of our common citizens in the last 15 years. Some will claim that no matter what the merits are of their particular cases, they deserve to suffer what  common citizens have. No, justice is in truth, and the cause of truth is not aided by falseness. If the cases against Sheikh Hasina and Tarique Zia are false, may they fail ignominiously. May the system that allows lies to trump truth not be perpetuated for even a moment longer.

There’s this largely libertarian blog I check out once in a while - largely because it’s got one of the coolest names. Samizdat was the clandestine copying and publishing of government-surpressed literature in the old Soviet-bloc. Techniques of copying included making several copies of banned literature using carbon paper to printing in semi-professional underground printing presses. Based on my previous post on Pramoedya Ananta Toer, you already know how I feel about this kind of thing… 

But over at samizdata.net , I saw one of the pettiest, meanest exchanges I have ever seen. And it’s reconfirmed to me the fact that we lawyers (and lawyer-to-be) are horrible people. Just horrible, horrible people:

Brother: “Hey, you know that guy Mark who used to bully you at school a bit, you know, the one that went off to run a music shop?”

Me: “Er, yes, but it is a long time ago”.

Brother: “I bankrupted him this morning.”

My brother is a civil litigator.

At least the poster acknowledges that it’s “not very noble for me to share this.” But I’m sort of kind of disturbed by the fact that a part of me smiled on the civil litigator punchline.

What gives me the greatest pride as we follow the progress of the Tigers is not just that we are winning, but that we are winning playing a brand of cricket that is truly exhilarating. Young, fearless and even a bit brash, we are just what the ancient lungs of this great sport needed to revitalize it from the suffocation it faces in the hands of the traditional forces’ on-field monotony and off-field decay. If the ongoing World Cup can ever be remembered for anything above the murky waters that ran over its early stages, it is the majestic stride our Tigers have taken towards realizing their potential.

Saw the game yesterday, even though I didn’t have the time for it. It was worth it. This victory, like the India one a few weeks ago, will remain etched in my memory for a long long time. We didn’t just win - we dominated. It was just beautiful to behold…

“Just beautiful…” Is that all you have to say, Shamshir? I hear you. A victory like this and the depth of feeling it evokes really needs to be matched by some poetic prose. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time (ability?) to write anything fitting to the occassion right now. I’m hoping Shye will have something delightful to say. Or will at least provide some analysis. Nothing we write however can be  better said than Habibul Bashar’s comment after the match, describing why the players’ celebrations were more muted than after the India victory. “Winning is more familiar now.” Shabash! 

A detail-heavy report on the Cholesh Ritchil murder from Odhikar, over at Drishtipat blog.

Also lifted from the comments at DP blog -a petition to Fakhruddin Ahmed for expeditious investigation into the killing. Please do sign it.

Some years ago, the U.S. government started a hodge podge of initiatives to bring about democracy in the Muslim world. Several of these initiatives were collectively known as the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI).

MEPI’s objectives included reform of the education systems in Muslim countries in ways that would help produce democratic / progressive leaders and tolerant societies. But the programs have not been on a perfect track thus far.
 

In my opinion, the original idea of investing in progressive education systems in Muslim countries is not assailable. There are indeed schools in Muslim countries that teach the opposite of tolerance and subject kids to rote learning. 

To its credit the MEPI programs have funded such things as girls’ education, helped provide books to schools that needed them, and started some vocational training programs.  But many of the MEPI programs focus on such ethereal things as digital classrooms in relatively poor countries, or student exchange programs, while overlooking more thoughtful initiatives that could get to the heart of the issues: unfavorable economics, a.k.a. poverty, paltry government investment in schools with progressive curricula, or in schools in general.

Key problems with education systems in Muslim countries lie with the rarity of quality public education and the popularity of Saudi-funded Wahhabi madrassas in places like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia.  

It is worrying that several thousand madrassas in these countries teach rigid and extremist brands of Islam to kids between 5 and 21. While madrassas may not always graduate terrorists, many do graduate pupils who empathize with acts of terror. In political and social arenas of Muslim countries too, there is a stark divergence of views of modernists and Islamists.

The education systems in Muslim countries, as well as the problems with them, are similar. Public schools tend to offer unmotivated instructors, disorganized curricula and poor educational materials. Private schools, modeled after colonial era institutions have slightly better standards, but cater mostly to moneyed classes. In the meantime, madrassas are a cheap or free alternative–most even offer free room and board–and the strict educational leadership of zealous clerics often gives the appearance of structure and organization.

U.S. efforts, instead of relying solely on book donations, wired classrooms and exchange programs should look for smarter ways to reform education. They could focus first on building trust and collaborating with reform-minded local citizens and educators to demand far-reaching curricular reforms that promote exploratory learning.

Also needed is big money to expand the availability of public education in remote, rural areas, combined with a push to get governments to commit more resources and funding to public education. There should be greater push for accountability so that no institution is allowed to operate without licenses, and minimum standards for teaching certification must be set for instructors.
 

Overarching efforts, though, should focus on addressing poverty in ways that don’t necessarily involve sweeping changes. For example, one great way to go could be to expand school lunch programs in existing public schools, e.g. check out the McGovern-Dole program. 

For interested U.S. citizens, a campaign for McGovern Dole is in full swing and a vote is coming up soon in Congress.

I’m relishing the status teasing me so agonisingly everyday as I try and deal with London. From the Pakistanis running the chicken shop to the Armenian professor running a human rights course to the Chinese students taking pictures on the tube to the Eritrean refugees mucking about on the buses, wherever I introduce myself, I am faced with a fierce examination to resist the temptation of introducing myself as a Bangladeshi in self-imposed exile from a military dictatorship. That would be just about the coolest you can get. And with each passing day, the news from back home tells me that pleasure’s not so far away…

Jackie Chan may not have performed his own stunts… I am shattered.

Over at Drishtipat Blog, Parvez has a stomach-turning update on the Cholesh Ritchill torture killing story - the Asian Center for Human Rights report on the murder of the minority rights and Eco-Park activist [Warning: Graphic image of Cholesh Ritchill's dead body in the link. The report, also with graphic images is here ] Read the report and weep:

“Choles’s two eyes plucked, testicles removed, anus mutilated, two hand palms smashed , nails of 3 fingers of the right hand removed, left hand thump finger nail removed, two palms had holes, upper right hand had severe wound, several blood stains on the back part of the body, in both thighs middle part there had been two holes, back part of the body had several black marks, several deep marks of wounds on both lower legs, there had been black marks on feet, no nail on thump of right foot, all fingers of two hands were broken.”

The report identifies the perpetrators of the atrocity:

Mr Ritchil was tortured to death, among others, by Warrant Officer Jamal, 2nd Lt. Minhaj, and Sergeant Shahadat under the instructions of Major Toufiq Elahi of Khakraid army camp.

Thank you, Parvez (and Drishtipat, and all of the human rights organizations on the ground that have taken up this case) for keeping this issue alive…

Seeing shamshir and jajabor dropping quotes like the Indian fielders dropping catches, I thought I’d get in on the action as well…..

‘International order and international solidarity will always be the slogans of those who feel strong enough to impose them’-E.H Carr (1981)

I bought fair-trade coffee for the first time this past week. I was on my way home from uni when the call came that the house was out of coffee, and that is about as disastrous as it can get during the pre-exam period. I would save the day of-course, and in what style!

So here I was in the section they keep all this stuff at the local Tesco’s and there, looking quite pristine perched on one of the top shelves, I saw it. Fair-trade coffee. I had hardly ever seen something more beautiful in the supermarket. It looked like a Coalition of the Fascinating or something. Brazil, Colombia, Vietnam, Ethiopia they were all there. I resolved to take three, one from each continent represented, but seeing they cost around 60p more than the brand we usually get, I did have to face that impossible task of choosing which one. Vietnam would have been the coolest four years ago. Colombia might stop making cocaine. Brazil are on the brink of something big anyway, they’ll take care of themselves. It would have to be Ethiopia, they deserve some recognition. The others didn’t really appeal to me much.

A bit later, I was confronted by the quite dreadful image of my flatmate spewing out his coff eeinto the sink, complaining it tasted like ‘korolla bhaji’ which I don’t know what you call in english, but suffice it to say it is the epitome of bitterness. So when I brought my own cup to my lips, it was with a new-found apprehension. I braced myself, sipped, and waited. Okay, not the most agreeable. Hmmm, but is that a bit of potential there? Nope, scratch that, its piss. But I managed to negotiate an agreement with my body to keep it in. The worst part was obviously agreeing with the lads. So I instantly broke out into a fiery polemic on how this coffee wasn’t about taste at all, but about much more. It was about the ills of free-market economics and how it bred its unequal benefits. It was about solidarity with the underdogs in the global order. About awareness of the consequences of our shameless consumerism. Above all about justice for coffee-growers in a world tuned only to the benefit of coffee-sellers. Something worked, for I heard no more complaints. The next day however, our regular brand was back, and when I asked for a cup, I was quite pointedly turned down. ‘You swore allegiance just last night’, they said. What cheeky buggers! On the defensive, I reacted with a sort of ‘Oh yeah, of-course, I’d forgotten we had some’. Quickly followed by some pathetic excuse for not having any. Which eventually evolved into an even more pathetic one for abstaining from coffee over the last few days.

Shams, Sana, LR…if you’re reading this mates, next time you brew some of your looting, exploiting brand of coffee, do bring me a cup please. Forget all that malarkey about justice and solidarity, truth is it was all about the packaging really.

I continue to suffer from the flu, so I am going to have to postpone commenting on the Army Chief’s recent comments. In the mean time, I see that Jajabor has been trying to steal my thunder by posting his favorite quote from last week. But no, Shamshir is not one to be outdone. From Slate.com’s continuing A-Z feature Clive’s Lives, this time on Leon Trotsky:

Trotsky’s idea of permanent revolution will always be attractive to the kind of romantic who believes that he is being oppressed by global capitalism when he maxes out his credit card. But the idea was already a dead loss before Trotsky was driven into exile in 1929. He lost the struggle against Stalin not because he was less ruthless but because he was less wily.

Great - and greatly sensible - stuff…

I am ill. It’s a combination of allergies and some kind of incipient flu. So my usual crazy rambling is going to be more disjointed and nonsensical than usual. Hah! You really did not think that was possible…

Here’s an interesting summary of work done by some sociologists on the economics profession. As someone who once harbored a desire to be a professional economist, who worked at an economic consulting firm with a bunch of really smart economists, and who generally has a lot of respect (and a healthy amount of skepticism) for the way that economists think about things, I find this kind of thing fascinating. Choice quote from one of the papers mentioned:

 “…most of their knowledge is too abstract to be of much substantive use, and their standards of academic rigor may play only a minor role in legitimizing their day to day authority.”

Another one:

She sees the rise of economics, and more specifically neo-liberal economics, as a failure of the left. It ain’t the math, it’s the weakness of the opposition.

As they say, check it out!

The first quote makes me wonder though. What explains the prominent role that some economists have played in Bangladesh’s history? Rehman Sobhan and his colleagues played an important role in formulating Bangabandhu’s famous Six Point Plan. How much did their professional background as economists help to give credibility/legitimacy to the Plan? (And how/why were they not able (willing?) to do much to stem some of the truly silly economic policies that were put in place after 1971? I do need to read Nurul Islam’s An Economist’s Tale somewhere along the line…)

And now, an economist (or two, if Professor Yunus manages to get his party going) is at the forefront of our national politics. Do we view his background as an economist as something that gives him credibility? On the other hand - given that it seems that it’s the army that’s really in charge - the more pertinent question to ask is how economics is presented in the various staff training colleges that the officer’s who are in charge went to*…

*Jajabor - by now you should be able to read my cues. When I say staff training colleges, you need to bust our your military history and regale us with some interesting tales…