Monthly Archive

Friends and family know that I just can’t stand emoticons. It used to be that I would abruptly stop IM chats with friends who would use emoticons in the middle of online discussions, and block them from my list for weeks at an end as punishment. I’ve mellowed over time though. I don’t excommunicate friends for using emoticons any more. I refrain from commenting on emoticons unless they are overused. Last month, as a birthday present, I even gave a friend permission to use upto three emoticons without fearing any recrimination .

But seeing an emoticon being used still hits me in the gut though. These things are evil. They are rapidly eroding our ability to use words, language and sounds. And worse, verily they are corrupting our youth! Our dreams and aspirations are pinned on minds that are probably enfeebled by dreaming in flourescent smileys. What hope remains for us?

This is why I was surprised -nay disappointed - nay shocked - nay dismayed - nay crushed - to see my own co-blogger Sajid use the following in the comments section for the the last post:

July 28th, 2007 at 4:28 am

Sajid:                    Indeed. :}

Et tu, Brute?

Explain to me, please, this smiley. What is the use of the flowery bracket supposed to signify? I understand or or or . They have some connection with the physical operation of the part of the face beneath the nose. But it’s physically impossible for the mouth to contort itself into a } . Go ahead - try it and see.

So what is this :} supposed to be? A smile marred by a giant fora (boil) on the lower lip?  A smile with the implicit threat in it - with one fang disclosed? Not a smile at all, but a handlebar mustache botched by an overeager unskilled barber wielding a straight edge blade? Or may be some kind of sorry attempt at deconstructing the idea of smiling?  

 Sajid, please explain yourself.  

A slow blogging week for me. I’ve been suffering from insomnia all week, and it’s been more difficult than usual for me to put down coherent thoughts on paper. But here’s to breaking the blogging ice (again!) this weekend…

I loved this Slate.com slideshow featuring the 12 “master formats” of ads (as classified by ad guru Donald Gunn). As Seth Stevenson, who regularly reviews and rates ads on Slate writes:

Gunn has always viewed his theory as a useful crutch for the desperate ad writer. When stuck for an idea—late at night, with the client expecting a presentation in the morning—the crazed creative can run through the 12 formats in hopes that one will strike a spark of inspiration. (What if I try this spot as a demo? Or wait—it might be perfect as a parody!)

To me, the 12 formats serve equally well as a weapon of defense for the consumer under assault from endless advertising

Check out the slideshow, and build up your defenses!

[Chillax: There are NO SPOILERS here.] 

It was pandemonium in Harvard Square on Friday night. At around 11:20, I was on the way back from a friend’s party celebrating the arrival of the last Harry Potter at midnight. (Yes, I have crazy, nerdy friends. I’m proud of them.) Already at 8:15, when I had headed out, there was a sizable crowd parked outside of the Harvard Bookstore on Massachusetts Ave (bookstore not on the map below) - kids in wizard robes, old men carrying broomsticks, middle-aged women sporting drawn-on thunderbolt scars, the generic hippy, the pink-haired punk, a few people who looked like they hadn’t showered in five days in anticipation of the book, you know, the usual. I passed it on the way back - the crowd had quadrupled in size, but things seemed to be pretty much in control.  This crowd had, apparently, pre-ordered the book days before. There was some kind of tea and crumpets party going on inside. A squacking loudspeaker was telling people what order they’d be let in and where in the store they’d have to go.

Now I didn’t care too much about getting the book that night. It could wait till the next morning, when I knew I’d be able to walk into any bookstore in town and pick it up without jostling with random overweight/anorexic teenagers and over-enthusiastic parents. But I thought to myself, “Hey, let’s see what’s up at the Coop. Surely it’s less crazy down there.” Little did I know…

Now the venerable Harvard Cooperative Society - or the Coop - is where we bought textbooks as students, and where generations of tourists and distraught Yalies have bought their Crimson memorabilia. Barnes and Noble took over some time in the 90’s, so the Coop is not that different from a Barnes and Noble store anywhere else, except perhaps the obnoxious placement of Harvard insignias all over the place. It’s the largest bookstore in Harvard Square, however - three floors of books and memorabilia spread out over more than half a block.  For the last 10 years, it’s gradually sucked the life out of the entire independent book store industry in the Square. (Very You’ve Got Mail!) It seemed logical to me that kids and their crazy parents would congregate around the independent bookstores that still remain in the Square rather than some tame sellout place like the Coop.

But the Coop had come out for Hogwarts rather than Harvard that evening.  As I walked across to the entrance of the Coop (Blue X in the map),  I noticed what I thought was a small crowd. ”Hmmm… may be I’ll get the new Potter tonight after all,” I thought to myself. But as I tried to walk into the door, this bouncer stops me and says, “Hey you. There’s a line.” He points to what seemed to me a small assortment of weirdos about 10 feet away, all dressed in Gryffindor colors and intently reading Book Six.

I walk across Brattle Street to Curious George, a children’s book store (Blue CG on the map). It’s 11:30 now. There’s a bunch of kids and a couple of creepy looking middle-aged men pressing their noses against the large glass windows of CG and jumping excitedly ’cause their opening boxes of the new book inside. There’s a TV camera man inside, and CG owner (I presume) is being interviewed. I realize there are bouncers here too, and a line.

I now want to see how long these lines really are. I start with the line for the Coop. “How bad can this be, really?” I start walking away from the Coop and CG. The line continues to the edge of the block. “Can I enter the line here?” This irate guy in a Dumbledore outfit points around corner. The line wraps around the corner on Church Street!

I walk down Church Street. Hundreds, no, thousands of people in line, a majority dressed up for midnight madness, many sitting sitting down, some leafing through Book Six, many reading this Harry Potter quiz sheet and character list that the Coop apparently handed out earlier, all waiting, tired but excited. I walk the block to Palmer Street, and the line still continues, all the way to edge of Brattle Street.  And the line still continued, around the corner on Brattle Street, all the way to near the doorsteps of the Coop again. And still, people were joining in!  (I’ve marked the queue in green) I asked someone on Church Street how long they’d been waiting. Since six in the evening, she said. They’d come out and handed colored bracelets at around 8:30.

The Curious George line was smaller, but it’s a smaller store. It wrapped itself around the block. I’ve marked the queue on the map in pink. They had blocked the street to the right of CG. There were shooting lights into the sky.

12:01. Screams and cheers went up through the crowd. In a minute or so, the first customers walked out of the CG, and walked triumphantly past the crowd, lifting the book in victory. People cheered and took pictures.

I walked back along the Coop line again. I wanted to see how quickly it moved. Pretty fast! Apparently they were letting in a couple of hundred customers at a time. Still, at this rate, it would take hours.

“No way I’m getting the book tonight,” I thought to myself. I hadn’t  initially cared, but even I was affected by the joy etched onto the faces of customers emerging from the bookstores.

But what was that I was seeing across the street from the Coop, right beside the subway (T) stop? A small group of people coming out of the magazine store there with black bags, laughing loudly. One lady pulled out an orange Harry Potter book and screamed with joy. I ran across the street to the Out of Town News Stand (red X on the map) and a minute later, I was in. Behind me a crowd had gathered, as they realized that here was an arbitrage opportunity worthy of  blogging about.

A minute later - and a few words of Bangla with the shopkeeper (”Bangladeshi, bhai?” “Ji, bhai. Kemon acchen.” “Bhalo. Apne?” “Bhalo.” “Bari kothae, bhai?” “Rajshahi. Harry Potter?” “Den bhai. Special bag-tao pawa jabe?” “Ei je, bhai.” “Koto?”) - I was $26.31 poorer but a Harry Potter book and free bag richer. Surely, like every other person who had bought her book here, I too gazed upon the crowd of fools being herded into the Coop with a curious mixture of contempt and pity.

I glanced to my left, at the digital clock on the Cambridge Savings building beside the T-stop. It was 12:15. I had a long night of reading ahead of me.

I am not anal-retentive. In fact, it’s the opposite. I am often at fault for not paying enough attention to detail. But when otherwise intelligent people mis-spell Gandhi as Ghandi, it drives me up the wall. Right now I am reading a collection of essays by Judge Richard  Posner (of Economic Analysis of the Law fame). Judge Posner’s incredibly prolific, and whatever one thinks of his particular take on things, his writings have the kind of breadth and depth that few other public intellectuals in America can match. This collection of essays of his from back in 2001, where he assesses many of the cutting-edge developments in legal theory, has been very good, and I’ve found it difficult to put down. But on Page 149, in an essay on history and law, Posner, even Posner, spells Gandhi as Ghandi! I’ve just had to close the book, bang it against my head, and scream in pain. The copy editor of this book, IMHO, needs to have been fired.   

It bothers me even more when people put up a Gandhi quote as one of their favorites, or list him as one of their heroes, and then proceed to get his name wrong. Seriously, people, it’s not that difficult. G-A-N-D-H-I, GANDHI, Gandhi. It almost makes one feel like tearing one’s hair out.

If I were Sheikh Hasina, this is how I would respond to Khaleda Zia’s statement:

“I am heartened by Begum Khaleda Zia’s recent statement condemning my illegal detention and arrest. I welcome her call to the present administration for protecting the rights of the citizen. I reiterate my commitment and rededicate myself to the rights, dignity and honour of every citizen of this land, regardless of caste, creed or party affiliation. 

I also welcome Begum Zia’s commitment to national consensus and stability. While I too have been hurt in the past by her various hurtful attacks against myself, my family, and the memory of Bongobondu, my personal grievances have no place in our politics. Our people should not be made to suffer for our personal feelings and failings.  Indeed, I ask the nation to forgive us if it may have seemed in the past that our own grievances rather than the needs of the people motivated us. I welcome the spirit of reconciliation embedded in Begum Zia’s statement. I look forward, with hope, towards the day when this spirit animates our work and that of our parties as we build a nation that fulfils the aspirations of those who sacrificed themselves for its liberation.”

Joy bhai - are you listening?

Instead this is probably what we’re going to hear:

*** Crickets chirping **** Silence **** Crickets chirping****

Or perhaps:

Even in her statement Khaleda Zia forgets to give the father of the nation, Bongobondhu, his due. I am hurt as his daughter. This conciliatory statement will only be welcome if it is sincere. Will BNP make up for the assault that it has made on lakhs of our workers in the last five years? Will they ask the nation for  forgiveness for destroying democracy in this country and creating the monster of military rule in 1975 when they brutally murdered my family? I and my children have never stolen from our people.  So many institutions around the world have recognized my work and dedication for the people. Now the people will unite against the military government as we defeat this new repetititon of Agartala conspiracy case”

So the olive branch is now confirmed. Daily Star reports:

“I am deeply disheartened to see that being a former prime minister, chief of a political party, daughter of a national leader, an aged woman as well as a distinguished citizen of the country, she [Hasina] faced a disgraceful and indecent situation on the court premises,” Khaleda said in a statement, signed by Maruf Kamal Khan, deputy press secretary to the former prime minister.

 I wonder how the “daughter of a national leader” comment’s going to be received…

So civil our leaders are to each other these days…

Now this does offend my sense of justice:

The jail authorities did not allow Sheikh Hasina’s family members and lawyers to meet her at the special jail yesterday to discuss the Anti-Corruption Commission’s notice for submitting her wealth statement.

I doubt they’ll give her an extra day for turning in her wealth statement for the one day she’s lost due to the decision of the jail authorities not allowing her access to her lawyers.

I haven’t seen this being picked up by anyone in the ‘Deshi blogosphere, and it’s still second-hand information as Khaleda Zia (as far as I can tell) has not made a public statement herself. But it seems that Khaleda Zia deplores the Sheikh Hasina arrest. This may have more to do with Tarique Zia in jail than Sheikh Hasina. But is this a belated attempt at thawing relations at a time of distress and need? Too little, too late, perhaps, this olive branch?

In the meantime, the ACC has asked both netris to drop off their wealth statements within 7 days (DS reporting). Yes, ask for an accurate statement precisely when it will be most difficult for them to come up with one - when they’re in jail denied bail, or even better, when they are in remand! That’s clearly fair process! The ACC’s been doing this repeatedly since January. This is hardly the way to start building a transparent legal regime that fights corruption.

To be fair though, in these specific cases, it should have been foreseeable to Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia that they’d be asked for wealth statements somewhere along the line. They’ve had nearly six months to prepare them. But that doesn’t take away from the point that the process that the ACC is following is fundamentally, fatally flawed. 

                                               Ah,fear. That old ally of those in power bent on the subjugation of those not. A word, nay an emotion increasingly relevant to the situation back home in the wake of Sheikh Hasina’s arrest and what it tells us about the time we are living in. Not her arrest itself, but rather the conditions surrounding it. There may well be valid grounds for putting together a case against her. As I believe there would be against almost anyone who has ever transacted in our corrupt system for any significant period of time. Maybe she deserves to be in jail for those. Nobody is, after all, above the law as the generals keep reminding us and being a former Prime Minister or the daughter of Bangabandhu should certainly be no guarantor of privelege in this regard. Maybe we are better off without her. And even better off with Khaleda Zia in the cell next to her. These are all more or less given. But the significance of this arrest lies more in the circumstances surrounding it. The devil, as they say, is in the detail.

The first question that springs to my mind is why now when she has started speaking up again? This case has been filed for quite a while now, from before the whole farce over allowing her or not allowing her to board a British Airways flight from Heathrow back home took place in April. If it is really the law that is being done justice through her arrest, why wait until the woman reverted to her outspoken character once more after a period of relative calm? If someone has committed a crime, justice is not waiting till she starts exhibiting criminal tendencies once more to take her to task. Rather, justice is a process that is almost always best expedited. In Hasina’s case, regardless of the merits or demerits of the case, that has clearly not happened. What purpose does the path that has been followed serve? Only one, as far as I can see, and that is not to show nobody is above the law, but that nobody is above the one at whose behest the law is enforced. Dare to do, or speak against him, and you shall be granted your long-overdue date with the law. I expected it in a sense. Hasina has never been the type able to take advantage of a situation where she is better off with her mouth shut. Unlike Jamaat, whose ‘leaders in prison’ count is exactly the number of words they have uttered against the SOE government. Nought.

And lest we forget, it happened more-or-less on the same day Abdul Jalil moved a step closer to buying his freedom by being moved to hospital, not long after ratting out his former leader in a statement bearing the stamp of coercion so large you would believe it is no less a man than Keyser Soze behind this whole palaver. All the arrests and warrants issued in the first six months, we would like to have believed they were all aimed at dismantling a polity gone bad. Now increasingly, it begins to resemble an operation aimed at dismantling opposition. It is here that I am afraid the generals are asking for more than their due.

As it is, they did not have power vested upon them by the will of the people. But for lack of better guardians, we put our faith in their vigilance. The unspoken, and unwritten mandate we granted them was to guide us towards a better democratic future. Not through inculcating a Bushesque culture of fear where those who are not with us are against us, but through meaningful reforms that embrace the participation of as wide a section of society as possible. By having recourse to a freehold over the law and its enforcement, the current administration already has an advantage over the ones which preceded it. By seeking a free run to the finish bereft of any opposition, they are asking for a significantly easier bite at the cherry than those they replaced, while also raising questions over whether we the public and they envision the same ends. They must prove they are worthy of the task by fulfilling their mission through negotiation of obstacles, not the arbitrary use of power to subdue them. That is not much different from what reigned previously.

Above all, to retain our good faith, they must refrain from the politics of fear. Because that is the point at which the freedoms fought for in ‘71 start becoming compromised. And as bad as things were for those fifteen years up until January, given the choice between a people cowering in fear and a people corrupted but standing, I know which one I would prefer to live amongst any day of the week.

Over at DP Blog, Asif Saleh has an excellent, thoughtful post that raises a number of good points. He correctly reiterates the need for due process that we’ve talked about here from the beginning of the SOE. I would recommend reading the whole thing, and glancing over the comments.

I had written on extortion cases (and particularly this extortion case) back in April. It’s heartening to see some of the thoughts that I had been trying to push back then being voiced by others. 

Asif’s exceedingly rich post has motivated me to put down some (hopefully) deeper thoughts on the Sheikh Hasina extortion case. First what may seem like a lawyer’s quibble. Probably the most powerful part of Asif’s post is this one:

This was the FIR report as quoted in Daily Star. Run your searches to see how many times Hasina’s name was mentioned in it. There seems to be just one mention where it says Selim threatened to stop the work with the help of Hasina (the then PM) if the commission was not paid.

Now it seems the entire dealing was done by Shaikh Selim where he used Hasina’s name to threaten the accuser. Was Hasina involved directly in it? The accusation seems to be purely circumstantial. Now we already have Shaikh Selim’s edited interrogation tape. He may well be saying that he shared the booty with Hasina and the entire case and the he-said vs she said can be played in the court of law but what boggles my mind is that how can this be a non-bailable case? Am I to believe that I can file a case against an adviser in the current government of extortion and mention the chief adviser’s name on the side and Mr. Fakhruddin will be taken to jail indefinitely at a non-bailable offense? Of course not.

The outrage is justifiable. But Asif seems to conflates two issues:

1. The issue of Sheikh Hasina not being granted bail (which really is a different beast than a “non-bailable offense” as Asif calls it, but even I will call that a lawyer’s quibble)

2. The fact that criminal charges can be brought against someone (let’s call them X) based on the statement of a third party (Y) against an alleged victim of extortion (V) that if V did not cooperate with Y, X would do unlawful things to them.

I don’t think Asif means to conflate the two. I think the outrage is firmly rooted in the second issue rather than the first. But it’s important to keep them separate, because the second issue really opens a Pandora’s box.

I. 

On to the first issue: The bail is usually a security deposit that the accused places with the court as a guarantee of appearance at the trial.  Now, I don’t think that Sheikh Hasina absconding from trial is an issue here. But on the other hand, it’s also reasonable to think that upon being arrested and released on bail, Sheikh Hasina would try to foment some kind of disturbance. (I’m not saying that she would. I’m only claiming that it’s reasonable.) So not allowing her to get out on bail would be a reasonable decision for the CMM court to take.

[UPDATE: But see Imran's comment below. Bail was denied under the Emergency Rules. The arbitrariness and unfettered discretion for the government in these Rules are worrisome. This doesn't change my point though. I'm less worried about the non-granting of bail than the second issue...]

There’s a sub-issue here that’s worth noting though. I do not know what the legal limitations are on the court granting or not granting bail - and on how much discretion the judge is allowed on this, and on setting the bail amount (I’d love to be educated by readers). I don’t see a US VIIIth amendment-type limitation on excessive bail (which reflects the limitation on excessive bail in the English Bill of Rights) in our constitution. This, of course, is yet another failing of a document that is so broad in its lofty statements that it becomes meaningless, especially when combined with the weakness of its system of checks and balances. A constitutional limitation on excessive bail would probably result in some kind of proportionality of the amount of and decision to grant bail to the alleged crime. Absent such a constitutional limitation, and barring any other legal limitation on the books, I doubt one can claim that the CMM judge acted unlawfully. [UPDATE: Again, refer to the Imran's comment below. The CMM acted under the Emergency Rules, and Emergency Rules themselves are problematic.] Now I do think that there should be some kind of proportionality - though I also realize that how “proportionality” should be defined is a pretty tough question. (See for example, the US Supreme court’s long struggle with defining a role for proportionality in the jurisprudence of the “Cruel and Unusual Punishment” clause)

But I do have to say that my heckles are not raised by the non-granting of bail in this case. It’s harsh. Probably not the way I would do it. Unfair, p’haps, in the way I think of things. But not entirely unreasonable. It doesn’t create outrage the same way the second issue  does. 

II. 

To the juicier second issue then: The actual charges, and being able to bring them based on the kinds of evidence that seem to be available here. It’s true that what we actually know about the FIR is second-hand - as reported in Daily Star.

But as I had written before on my extortion piece in April, this sort of case really is normal in our country. I personally know of people who’ve been on the receiving and giving ends of trumped-up charges much flimsier than this in the periods of recrimination after the last two elections. Sure, the charges were dropped in the long run, because there really was no evidence. But the point of such cases was never to actually make the charges stick and gain convictions. Rather, these cases were about harassing one’s political opponents, silencing them, settling scores, and in the process also gain advantage in the local distribution of and access to resources. 

The SOE government  really is using the truck-size loopholes that the two parties left open for them in the last fifteen years. The parties didn’t create these loopholes, for sure. But they did nothing to close them either. At best, the leadership of both parties did not give a damn about the abuse of the system by their acolytes down the chain of command, and the stresses and strains it placed upon communities, the distrust it sowed among neighbors. At worst, they wanted things just the way they were, for the malformed, malignant system was to their benefit. When we’re outraged today - let’s spare some of our outrage for the vileness those who, be it through indifference or intent, led us to our current predicament. 

III.

It’s troubling - nay, outrageous - that legal processes in our country allow these kinds of charges to be brought. Substantively, the actual charges are shoddy if all the evidence they have is the evidence noted in the FIR as reported in the Daily Star. Absent evidence that ties Sheikh Hasina to Sheikh Selim’s threat (like her directing him to make the threat, or her sharing in the loot), it seems to me that a foundational element of a crime - the act of doing something wrong, what would be called the actus reus of the crime - is not apparent here.  Sheikh Selim threatened. There’s an act there -but that’s Sheikh’s Selim’s act, not Sheikh Hasina’s. Sheikh Selim took the money. Again, that’s Sheikh Selim’s act, not Sheikh Hasina’s. To justly convict for extortion, surely there has to be a link between Sheikh Hasina and Sheikh Selim beyond “they belonged to the same family and party and government”. 

As my criminal law professor liked to point out (and I’m not going to be as eloquent as she was) - having the actus reus requirement in criminal law really is fundamental to liberty. We ignore it at our peril.

The only two ways that I can think of (though grant you, with limited legal knowledge) that Sheikh Hasina would be liabile under the evidence that currently seems to be available are the common law crime of conspiracy and some sort of analog of the US laws on racketeering. Conspiracy is conceptually problematic - for there is the danger that one will be held liable for the kind of wrong-doing that one could not have contemplated or intended (or to drown the reader in further legalese, one did not have the necessary mens rea for the act one is held liable for.) Conspiracy is also a favorite of prosecutors in the US because a lot of evidence that might otherwise not be admissible (like the hearsay evidence of Sheikh Selim threatening Ajam Chowdhury) may be. 

The use of either conspiracy or racketeering laws to make charges stick against former heads of government would be sad indeed, for implicit in them is the suggestion that our government has been run like an organized crime outfit in  the last 15 years. This may be, to some, an accurate appraisal. But it’s a sad one all the same.

I’m hearing that they’ve asked KZ to appear in the court within the week…

Wondering if the limited clashes mean that the arrest gambit has been successful? Or is this the calm before the storm?

Update:

OK - So it’s August 26 when KZ’s got to be in court, says DS. That’s a lot of time…

I’ve cried wolf on these pages before. But this time it’s seems to be for real (or alternatively, did Stratfor actually guess at the story, but pulled the trigger on it too early?). “Law enforcers” have picked up Sheikh Hasina. Charges are not known at this time.

What could this mean? Why now?

And are they going to pick up Khaleda Zia too at the same time? Or have they arrested Sheikh Hasina because she’s a bigger threat to the SOE government’s plans at the moment, and Khaleda Zia’s more or less isolated already?

UPDATE: Khaleda Zia is being called to the court as well, Syed writes in the comments, and I’m hearing this from other sources as well.

Also check out Asif bhai’s updates at dhakashohor

Those of you in America, if you’ve been following the less-serious bits of the news over the past couple of days, will be aware David Beckham has arrived. Actually, if the coverage in the British press is anything to go by, you would be aware anyway. Brand Beckham, comprising Posh and Becks, is apparently set to take America by storm. I struggle to recall , probably because there never has been, a football transfer that by the initial looks of it at-least has been so little about on-the-pitch matters.

By that, what I mean is the L.A Galaxy probably did not have any actual need for Beckham on the pitch. I’m sure it was nothing like Alexi Lalas figuring they need a right-winger for this season, and who better than the man who’s filled that position with distinction for the likes of Manchester United, Real Madrid and of-course England for so many years now. Anything but. They say it will put the MLS on the footballing map. A global superstar is always good for drawing interest, which translates into bigger audiences and greater media coverage. Beckham is actually perfect for that role, because in-spite of his limited skills, no footballer has probably had as much column inches or television airspace devoted to him in the last ten years or so. Or sold as many shirts. Or made as much money. Ronaldo is Il Finomino, mezmerizing with his skill and audacity, but Beckham is no less a phenomenon, albeit only for his ability to flood his clubs’ coffers. Already L.A Galaxy have sold a reported 250,000 shirts with his name on the back, and the man himself has not pulled one on yet. The mind boggles at the prospect of such a potent marketing gimmick(and I don’t mean to belittle him with that, he really i) at the hands of the Americans. But will this have long-term consequences as far as the beautiful game’s stature in America is concerned? I doubt it.

I say this because America luring away the top players at the fag end of their careers is nothing new really. Cruijff went. So did Best. Even Pele. And although the arrival of each was followed by a spike in the game’s popularity, it always proved to be temporary. Granted, there are certain conditions in place now that might mean Beckham is taking-off in fairer weather(a more professional league, experience of having staged no less a competition than the World Cup, American footballers playing around Europe, a national team that has recently shown signs of developing into a solid if not spectacular unit, and of-course the Soccer Moms) but I believe the Americans by dint of their…lets say disposition, will always find it hard to take to a sport where one of the possible outcomes is a draw. None of their sports endorses this concept, they find it not only alien but preposterous. But the hard-fought, honourable draw to those who know and follow football is one of the most breath-taking spectacles in the game and to compromise on this is to compromise on its charm. Not to mention that football is a much more cerebral sport than its American counterpart, and the Americans don’t generally seem to think outdoor sports and brain exertion go together(if football and American football is not enough as an example of this, look at cricket and baseball). Some games are simply not for everyone.

Nobody watching football for the first time will recognize why its called the beautiful game seeing Beckham play. He is not that type of player who will leave you astounded with the range of his footballing prowess. Even then, almost any top European footballers should be good enough to outshine the rest of the MLS, so expect Beckham to do well. He’s still got a good few years left in him, and during this time expect L.A Galaxy to be one of the most popular teams on the planet. Maybe a few more youngsters will pick up the game, although its an awfully hard ask of one man to affect a game’s popularity in such a massive country. The best bet for me will remain California’s immigrant communities. In any case, apart from the money, I’m sure Beckham has Messianic visions as well of being the saviour of football in the one country that has not yet felt its magic touch. Its hard to wish a guy earning $25 million good luck, but for that at-least, he has it from me.

I am really glad that there’s some debate going on all over the Bangladeshi Blogosphere. I’ll (hopefully) have substantive comments in a roundup of different proposals and thoughts that have been going around some time this weekend. And a longer, extensive post on Article 70.

But one thing that caught my eye, that I wanted to comment on to hopefully generate some discussion. Jyoti on DP Blog asks:

How will the constitution be amended?

The strongest argument against the presidential system (as well as repealing the Article 70 and giving president more power) is that these will require constitutional amendments. And it is fundamentally undemocratic to bind a future elected government to constitutional reforms enacted by the current unelected regime.

(Read the whole thing, btw, and the comments section.)

Now I take issue with the claim that there’s no way to have constitutional amendments outside of the legislative process. There is another way: A referendum.

Now technically the SOE government does not have the authority to come up with a referendum. Though technically the SOE government does not have the authority to stay for 18 months either. They’ve based their authority on some kind of doctrine of necessity. I’m not going to argue for basing a referendum on as weak a doctrine as necessity (It’s really necessary to being done away with it, haha. Bad joke) But power, in our constitution, is to the people. I agree with Jyoti that binding subsequent governments to any constitutional decision that the SOE government takes by itself would be unfair. Actually it would be more than unfair. It would be disastrous as precedent. But binding future governments to a fair referendum would not be disastrous, or unfair.

Remember, technically the Framers of the US constitution didn’t have the constitutional authority to come up with the kind of document that they did. But they did anyway, and the  reason why the the document had the kind of legitimacy it did was because it was ratified in the states. 

But there’s danger also in the referendum route. The referendum is the tried and tested tool of dictators everywhere to entrench power. The mould was set by Napoleon himself, who held referendums about as often as medieval European knights bathed - every few months. Getting this right will require the kind of public debate that we haven’t seen yet. 

The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss.

Army backed Bangladesh govt considering Turkish type constitution, gets ‘reformists’ backing - reports Asiantribune.com.

Further to Sajid’s recent posts on terrorism, Alan Krueger of Princeton has an economist’s take on terrorists that might be worth checking out. What Makes a Terrorist: Economics and the Roots of Terrorism, comes out later in the month. Stanford’s David Laitlin reviews it:

These three lectures on terrorism are, despite the gruesomeness of the topic, a delight to read. Who else but Krueger could juxtapose negative binomial regressions and cuts from Comedy Central in a natural way? This book provides clear state-of-the-art answers to fundamental questions about terrorism in a manner that is broadly accessible. 

Krueger (with David Card) is of course the man behind this classic New Jersey minimum wage study.

Many of you will recognize this post shares its title with that of The Animals’ classic 1964 single. They only covered it of-course, as did many other artists as well(not quite with the same aplomb though). It has its roots in American folk music, a painstaking eulogy to life gone wrong in the brothels and gambling houses of New Orleans. Heartfelt as hell.

‘there is a house in New Orleans/they call the Rising Sun
and its been the ruin of many a poor boy/and God I know I’m one’

But this post is not about the song itself. Reason I was reminded of it, since when its been playing non-stop on my stereo, is that browsing through Daily Star today, I couldn’t help being reminded of the scene towards the end of Martin Scorcese’s last truly great film in my opinion, Casino. It captures the downfall(sorry about the Spanish dub) of the whole criminal establishment around Robert De Niro, with everyone either getting busted or getting whacked, in an apocalyptic implosion where treachery becomes second skin and repentance comes all too late. All set to the song I’ve been talking about in one of the greatest uses of music in a film ever.

So here I was today, reading about Jalil’s plea, Lobby’s 8-year sentence, Hasina’s heart-rending (but bewildering) question, and it occurred to me how similar the downfall of our political establishment has been to that part of the film. Comeuppance rolled into town, and those that didn’t make it to the border capitulated, one by one. Some gracefully, some pathetically.

But all surely, with regret. Jalil, in his plea sounded to me a broken man. The swipes he took at Hasina, while surely not misplaced, would have been much more appreciated if they had come during his courtship of power, not now when it has deserted him. Granted, there might have been coercion involved, but this too, only serves to reinforce the original image. The house has come falling down like the proverbial.

And maybe someone’s singing..

‘oh Mother/tell your children
not to do/ what I have done’

Suranjit Sen Gupta wants a return to a presidential form of government. Asif bhai at Dhakashohor (who’s not in Dhaka shohor and is missing it terribly, it seems) calls it a choice between Coke and Pepsi.

Instead he seems content to transfer us from a Prime Ministerial dictatorship into a Presidential one without a hint of “checks and balances”.

Well said, Asif bhai. I was actually talking about this earlier with my brother (who’s also, coincidentally known as Asif). We’re already in a system where power resides in the hands of a strong executive without any legislative oversight. To call ours a Westminster-style democracy turned dictatorship is incorrect. The whole concept of a Westminster-style democracy is negated by Article 70. This is of course not an original observation. Article 70 has been criticized multiple times by a number of people. But I think it’s necessary to keep bringing it up. We must not forget that a democratic system is inoperable as long as Article 70 is in play. It needs to be on top of any credible reform proposal, higher than internal party democracy. Higher even than corruption, which really is a symptom of systemic gaps.

For the last 15 years we’ve lived in a presidential form of government in anything but name. Institutionally, the office of the prime minister and not the parliament decided how the country would be run. Given what the institutional framework of our country is - we could have called our system a presidential system, had the presidential elections using an electoral college system, and come out with the same sorry 15-year political farce/tragedy that we’ve lived through. Only the names would have been different. It would have been like my taking up the temporary pen name of Talwar instead of Shamshir for the period between January and June.

So may be the choice that Suranjit Sen Gupta places is not between Coke and Pepsi (I can tell a difference) but between Coke in a dark red can and Coke in a light red can. 

I do welcome Tofael Ahmed, Abdur Razzak and Suranjit Sen Gupta calling for constitutional amendments. All of the talk - both from the political leadership in the parties and the SOE government - has had a distinctly short term hue. While they may improve matters in the short-term, the real problems are more fundamental. They have to do with how we conceive of the means and goals of government.

I was too young to remember how extensive the discussions were around the 91 referendum. My sense is that the debate about what the system of government should be back then was pretty shallow. In fact, it seems that our constitutional debates have always been rather shallow. I would welcome readers to correct me if I am wrong, and educate me.

There really is no excuse for what is transpiring down in Colombo. Yesterday, Bangladesh were bowled out for 62, their lowest ever total in Test cricket. This follows closely on the heels of a first innings total of merely 89 in the first Test, which we lost of-course by a more massive margin than I care to mention.

Now don’t give me anything about going through a transition period with new captain and coach. Or about Sri Lanka being arguably the second-best side in the world today. Neither of the two precludes being at-least competitive. This team however, has been nothing short of dismal. Ever since the World Cup, where they were very, very good bar that defeat to Ireland, the Bangladesh cricket team has done nothing to overturn the indictment that has hung over them ever since I can remember: On their day, good. But when that ball is not quite hitting the sweetspot, or the batsman’s reading your change of pace, or those one-handed attempts in the outfield are coming up empty-handed, they are rather mortifying. Enough to shake your faith to the point it is only there by proxy of patriotism.

The just-concluded Dav Whatmore era, it has to be said for Bangladesh cricket, was the era of attainment. While gaining Test status is necessarily ordained by at-least as many factors off the field as there are on it, proving you are worth it is predominantly the challenge for the team itself. And under Whatmore, we achieved that. We attained our first Test victory. Which also made for our first series victory. Twice, we beat whoever was ranked number 1 in the world in one-dayers. And made it out of the first round of the World Cup. Those calls for scrapping our Test status had finally been buried in the mud somewhere in the beaches of the Carribean. Ready for a new challenge, sensing he had come as far as he could with this team, the man moved on. I don’t really believe there is much the BCB could have done about it, even less much they should have done about it, since he was clearly losing motivation as the years rolled on. Parting was at-least amicable.

We were meant, at that point to go forward from the Whatmore era. A young side with a young captain who appeared finally to be coming of age, what was most important at this point was conviction in purpose. Put a new man in charge of the young lads who could guide them through the next stretch of the treacherous terrain that is Test cricket. A man with sufficient experience and ability, especially the former given the team’s lack of it. What do the BCB do though? They let more than eight weeks go by, without making up their mind. And it is not as if the ficture list has been empty. We have already played a full series against India, and the present one against Sri Lanka is drawing to a close. Meanwhile the team of Shaun Williams and Sarwar Imran, two men who are accomplished coaches at the youth level but have nothing to show for at Test level, have been looking after the team. Very poorly. Nothing has gone right for us, and we’ve lost everything.

I’m not trying to make easy targets out of Williams and Imran(sir I should say, as I used to when coached by him). I have heard nothing to believe they are directly responsible in any way. Once, I quite subscribed to the Ian Chappell philosophy that coaches are unnecessary in cricket. But that is idealistic, and in this day and age when some of the more distinguished cricket coaches are as much sought after as their counterparts in football, I think even Chappell would admit a team sans a coach is like an airplane having lost contact with the control tower. Especially for a young team like Bangladesh, the choice of coach can sometimes act as an important signal of what direction the country’s cricket wants to take next. Assigning a high-profile coach like Whatmore had been seen as a sign of ambition I remember, and that is one quality our team did consistently show over the last four years(sometimes a bit too much, but that’s another matter).

The post-Whatmore era however, has started with hesitancy, uncertainty. I feel most poorly for Ashraful. The young man couldn’t have dreamt of a worse start to his reign as captain, and I fear it may damage his confidence beyond the short-term. But I hope the selectors will recognize he has not had all the conditions he would have hoped for met for him by the board’s failure to recognize the gravity of their decisions at this point for the future of our team. Get someone worthy of filling the shoes of a World Cup winner in there. Its not an up-and-coming coach that will do for us. We need someone who has mastered his profession, of the kind who don’t come cheap but that is the price of their knowledge and experience. We need to show we are pretty damn serious about taking that next step, which should be to show we can now consistently compete against the other Test sides. The era of attainment is over. It is time to usher in the era of consistency. And all our actions and decisions must reflect we are aiming for that. But the start does not bode well.

I’m puzzled. May be I’m being stupid. I distinctly remember the Awami League scrapping the infamous MoU with Bangladesh Khilafat Majlis back in February. Then why is it that both Abdur Razzak and Tofael Ahmad have been calling for the MoU to be scrapped in the last couple of days. What am I missing?

I don’t understand why a government headed by an economist keeps making wrong-headed economic decisions. New Age reports:

 Chief Adviser Fakhruddin Ahmed has directed the education ministry to put a stop to private tuition by teachers of public educational institutions to ensure that they concentrate wholly on their jobs and the quality of their teaching.

Now it’s true that private tuitions in the school and college level are totally out of control. The authorities correctly note the problem -

   ‘It was found that many teachers provide private tuition though they don’t even attend their classes regularly,’ said a ministry official, adding that this has become a trend since the 1980s.

I am also glad that the official noted that this is not a new problem. It’s been a problem for a while - though it has been getting worse from what I understand. But simply asking the teachers to stop teaching outside of school is hardly the solution. Has the government looked at government school salaries recently? How do they expect government teachers to make ends meet, what with rising inflation? It’s not just about money-making. And how exactly are they going to enforce this? Do they expect schools to fire teachers who teach outside of school? Sure, some teachers are going to be fired if that is asked of principals, but the one’s that are going to be fired are the ones that the school authorities don’t like, not the one’s who most egregiously violate teaching standards.

A more appropriate approach would be ask what drives the private tuition system. There’s two aspects to it. On the supply-side, of course, the under-incentivizing of teachers to teach properly in class, and the economic realities of underfunding of salaries and benefits. But even given these constraints, and the general decline of respect for teaching and teachers in our society, there are brave, dedicated teachers who try hard, really hard to give their all to their students. I am thinking as I write this about my two khalas who endure long rides on public transportation, petty insults and intrigues from politically-appointed administrators, and the absolute absence of suitable monetary reward to impart something of value to their young wards.)

On the other side is demand. The education system has largely become about regurgitation of pre-prepared answers and routines. It places little premium on comprehension and inspiration, and in doing so actually insults the intelligence of the students coming out of our school system. I have often been struck by how smart these students actually are - but the system ties them in a meaningless strait-jacket of memorizing copious essays and routines. And of course, invariably, those who can afford the teachers to supply them with the best notes to memorize and the best drills to follow to internalize routines are the one’s who get the Golden 5’s. This is why the Dhaka school students consistently do better than mofussil ones.

Fixing a problem like the private tuition problem will require more than a government decree forbidding public school teachers from teaching outside of school. It will require serious thought about the education system, its goals and its structure. This is not something that can be done in 18 months. Not that the SOE government seems like it is thinking in these terms anyway. A decree of this sort can only be fruitless and meaningless.

Which leads one to ask - why is the SOE government wasting its own time and ours by coming out with decrees of this nature? Particularly given that 18 months is a very short time, and there is much that the government has to do. If the government wants to really fix the systems that are in place then it will have to seriously think about the underlying issues that have made the systems turn out they way they have.

There’s something else that bothers me. Why target school teachers? The problem of teachers in the public education system channeling their energies away from class to private institutions exists in the public universities as well. But forbidding Dhaka University professors from teaching in North South or BRAC University or elsewhere will have an impact upon more powerful constituencies.

This sort of ban is just silly. Let the teachers teach wherever they can. If you want them to perform in class in the short term - for short term fixes are what the SOE government seems to be about -  incentivize them to do so, by both stronger oversight and better pay.

There’ve been rumours of quite a number of reunions floating around in the music press recently. Enough for some to brand this the ‘year of reunions’. While I am not much too excited about the impending get-together of the five Spices(and I think they’ll find the whole world’s reception to them in general will be rather subdued compared to the first time as well), I don’t mind it portending the news that The Verve, and that is to say their original line-up, have reunited as well, with an album due out in the autumn followed by a November tour of three U.K cities.

I found it hard to believe at first. Its been nearly a decade since the distinctly British clash of ideas(read egos) between frontman and lead guitarist that has brought about the demise of so many potentially great bands while at the same time providing the fuel for the magic they produce struck down The Verve mid-flight to their place in history. By then, these still-young men had brought out three albums to critical acclaim, although commercial success came only with the third, 1997’s sweeping classic, Urban Hymns. Many Verve(as they were originally called) fans however, and I am one of them, hold the first two records, and some of the singles brought out in their early days of experimentation with controlled psychedelia, typified by guitarist Nick McCabe building swirling walls of sound in an elaborate courtship of his pedal board, dearer to their hearts than the more string-laden ballads of Urban Hymns. This change in direction was significant, in that it signaled singer Richard Ashcroft had taken over the majority of songwriting responsibilities within the band. McCabe had already quit once, and most of the songs for Urban Hymns had been written before Ashcroft asked him back to lend the music some of his ’soul’. Make of that what you will, but as soon as he had done so and the album had come out, McCabe decided to pack up his soul and take it with him again, to a life of relative seclusion. Ashcroft has trudged along with the crowd through a solo career characterized more by defiance than brilliance, and the rhythm section of Si Jones and Peter Salisbury have hardly ever popped up on the radar long enough to be asked about anything to do with the band.

But now they are back together again, and it fills me with both apprehension and excitement. Their live shows are bound to be as powerful as ever, and a chance to catch them in London on one of those nights is not to be missed. Its wondering what the new material might sound like that has got my head in a spin. Is it really the ‘joy of the music’ that has brought them together again, or is it money? I’m sure the latter has some part in it, but if its more than the former, nobody’s going to lending the coming record any soul whatsoever. And without that aching, yet powerful, beautiful soul this comeback would serve merely to undermine the mythical stature their early work accorded them amongst fans of alternative rock. Older and cleaner, can they recapture the heady chemistry lent to their music in the early days by the vices and vibrancy of youth? I suppose we shall have to wait and see. I am excited about it nonetheless because if they can pull it off like I hope they’ll mean to(its hard for me to see McCabe saying yes to this had he not been given the creative responsibility his talents merit), it will make for the definitive rock album of the year. Owen Morris, one of the foremost producers of Britpop, once described McCabe as ‘the most gifted musician’ he’s ever worked with, and if he gets his way, we can look forward to psychedelic, space-rock finding its fullest expression since…well since, A Storm in Heaven, that dreamy debut.

Pearl Jam were in town recently. The nostalgia of 1993 was too much for me, and just had to go. Heard too many times about their live shows being an experience to savour, and can confirm it now. The set-list was very fan-oriented, with the Ten club having bought off tickets to the entire floor, and it made for some truly emotional moments. Why Go and Alive, two favourites from when me and Sajid(my earliest memory of both songs is you and me singing them in the back of your grandma’s car on a trip outside Dhaka, haha)had barely taken our first steps into boyhood were two of the highlights. The highlight was probably the searing rendition of Immortality, or the extended jam at the end of Crazy Mary. Mike McCready’s solos on the night were just wildfire. The whole band was in a cracking mood, and the audience were riding on the back of that which made it extra special. I’ve never been to a gig where the audience were so into the experience. Every song seemed to retain something or the other that made it special, and it was enough to make you think the bad had never had a dud in their now 16-year career. Being a collector of their bootlegs as well, I can assure you Pearl Jam have this ability to make any song sound great live. McCready and Stone Gossard throw thousand licks with their guitars, the rhythm section is always tight with Jeff Ament and Matt Cameron and Eddie Vedder is arguably the most brilliant front-man of his generation. If anybody’s living in a town they might be passing through, if you still want that good ol’ rock-and-roll concert feeling that most bands today have gone too electronic to provide, this is the band you want to go watch. make sure you’ve got the lyrics to their back-catalog down pat though. Otherwise you might embarass yourself in the the middle of the throbbing, dancing crowd singing along to Vedder’s every word and losing themselves in McCready’s every tune.

Went to see Roger Waters at Earl’s court as well recently. I’ll leave that though, for another day.

I went to see Die Hard IV yesterday. I must confess I enjoyed it tremendously. This has been a summer of blockbusters, but nothing on the screen has been that good, really.  I liked Ocean’s Thirteen, but it couldn’t hold a candle to the first one. And though the camera-work was excellent, there really wasn’t too much suspense and tension in the film. The dialogue and execution of the weak script was excellent, but at the end of the day, the material really was mediocre. Spiderman III annoyed me. I haven’t seen Pirates III yet, or Shrek III, and I’ve been told by people who’s judgment I trust on these things that it’s OK to wait till the videos come out.

Action flicks these days , like cell phones, are overwrought, over-produced. Case in point: Spiderman III. Two hours too long, two villains too many. (In fact Spiderman II and III are two sequels too many.) The problem is that the directors are trying too hard to set themselves apart. Every explosion, every stunt has to be larger or offer a new angle. Every special effect has to be cooler. Every fight sequence has to be better choreographed. The pinnacle of such folly was seen in the sequels to the original Matrix - they were so bad that they actually soured the original, which had been among my favorite movies at one time, for me. 

Live Free or Die Hard understands the  virtue of keeping it simple. Bad guy. Bruce Willis. Ass-kicking. Some explosions along the way and a few crazy, unbelievable stunts. One-liners. Wise-cracks. No apologies.  A winning formula.

The audience loved it! This was a movie that knew exactly what it was doing, and got the reaction it wanted. Not oohs and aahs (and it’s been a while since I’ve heard oohs and aahs in a theatre for any film  - everyone knows it’s all done on computers anyway) - but cheers and whoops. 

The fight scenes and stunts were not over-elaborate over-choreographed disorienting dance sequences, but had this rawness about them, and were refreshingly easy to follow.  This is what made every punch and every kick that Willis successfully throws at the bad guys, every explosion and every stunt that Willis successfully pulls, more satisfying. 

I don’t mean to say that the movie’s understated. Anything but. It’s actually so over-the-top that the audience was laughing while cheering Willis on. There’s a scene where Willis jumps on the back of a hovering F-15 fighter jet, for example. There’s another scene that involves a helicopter and a flying police car colliding in mid-air. But it’s all in good fun. There’s an unpretentiousness about the way that Live Free or Die Hard goes about such antics. There’s no attempt to have it all make sense within the framework of the world of the movie. The movie’s position is clear: There’s no need to make such an apologetic attempt. The movie-goer has already paid his $10 to suspend disbelief for 120 minutes. Why get in the way of his enjoyment by even trying to explain it all? I loved the honesty, and the audience last night seemed to have loved it too.