OP-ED: An old debate resurfaces

Anis Alamgir [Published in Dhaka Tribune on September 7th, 2021] Is there a problem with shifting Ziaur Rahman’s grave from the parliament area? The debate of removing the grave of the late President Ziaur Rahman from the Sangsad Bhaban area has restarted, sparking arguments and counter-arguments. We should remember that about two years before the last parliamentary elections on December 30, 2018, there was a political debate about shifting the grave of the late president and founder of BNP General Ziaur Rahman from the Sangsad Bhaban area, which is situated at the heart of Dhaka. Although the debate over whether Zia’s body was laid there or not is old, just after Zia died in 1981, the then AL MP and Leader of the Opposition in Parliament Asaduzzaman Khan raised the question about his dead body. The old debate has restarted with a recent remark by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. On August 17, 2021, there were clashes between the BNP activists and police at Chandrima Udyan of Sher-e-Bangla Nagar in Dhaka. The police and the BNP blamed each other for the sudden crashes. Police said BNP activists carried out a surprise attack on police, and BNP says police attacked without provocation. It is difficult to say whether the incident, which took place while paying homage to the newly elected leaders of the metropolitan BNP at Zia’s grave, was due to a party quarrel or provocation by the police. Referring to the incident, on August 19, in a meeting marking National Mourning Day, the PM said: “Doesn’t the BNP know that there is no grave or body of Zia? They know it very well! If so, why do they stage the drama? Khaleda Zia is also aware of it.” PM Hasina said whether Khaleda Zia or Tarique Rahman could claim that they saw Zia’s body in the box (which was brought from Chittagong) as a bullet-hit body can easily be recognized. “No one saw there was a body (of Zia) in the box.” However, BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam said the initiative to remove Zia’s grave would be suicidal for the government, and the people of the country would not accept it. In a news conference on August 28, Mirza Fakhrul said that the witness who found Zia’s body in Chandrima was the late President HM Ershad. Zia’s body was carried on shoulders by the then army chief. In the current debate on Ziaur Rahman’s grave, on August 29, Liberation War Affairs Minister AKM Mozammel Haque said Zia’s grave would be removed from Chandrima Udyan. He did not stop, saying that there was nobody in Zia’s grave but added that he would apologize to the nation if there is proof (that Ziaur Rahman’s body is there).

The veteran Awami League leader said all unplanned installations, including Zia’s tomb in the Jatiya Sangsad Bhaban area, should be removed. It is not clear what action will be taken in removing the speaker and deputy speaker houses from the area. All in all, it seems that they are just talking about removing Zia’s grave. The government has not yet said where, when, and why the grave will be shifted. If the government has such a specific plan, its proper explanation needs to be made public. A grave-shifting is not religiously illegal. The late Hazrat Mufti Faizullah once said that building a house on a grave seven years after its burial is permissible. I am not an expert on this subject; Islamic scholars can analyze it and give fatwas. However, history shows that in 1938, the graves of two companions of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) near the Euphrates River were also removed. The bodies of both the companions were intact. Even the cloth with which both the companions were buried did not get dirty. If it is possible to move the graves of the companions of the Prophet (pbuh), where is the difficulty in moving the grave of General Zia? Even if Zia’s body is in the grave. It’s possible. If Zia’s grave is removed, the question may arise about where he will be buried a second time. In that case, it is necessary to take the opinion of his family. In 1960, General Ayub Khan, the president of Pakistan, saw the growing sense of isolation in the minds of the people of Bangladesh and decided to make the second capital of Pakistan in East Pakistan, which was later renamed as Sher-e-Bangla Nagar. In his book, Pakistan’s General Rao Farman Ali wrote that Ayub Khan had told him: “I built the beautiful parliament building so that Bengalis would remember me.” I do not know how many Bangalis can remember Ayub, but he gave the Bangalis one of the largest parliament buildings of the world with 200 acres of land, which is now known to many people. Bangladesh became an independent country when the construction of the parliament building was almost finished. Bangabandhu completed the unfinished work of the parliament building, and it was launched in 1982 during Ershad’s regime. In the original design, there was supposed to be a secretariat at Chandrima Udyan -- it is logical to have a secretariat next to the parliament. Zia’s grave would create an obstacle if the secretariat were to be built at Chandrima Udyan; therefore, removing the grave of Zia would be inevitable and necessary. So, the decision should come as a political resolution from the parliament through conclusive discussions, participated in by all the parliamentarians. Anis Alamgir is a journalist and columnist. Contact: anisalamgir@gmail.com.

OP-ED: The complicated ties between the Taliban and Pakistan

Anis Alamgir [Published in Dhaka Tribune on August 24th, 2021] Should Islamabad be worried? When I was, luckily, released from Taliban captivity, I first sought help to return to Pakistan safely. In the time of the Afghan-American war, when American soldiers were advancing, however, the Spin Boldak-Chaman border in Kandahar was in the control of the Taliban fighters. Not only the border, even cross-border free movement surprised me. If a local Taliban commander didn’t allow me to get in his jeep and place me beside him for bringing me to Chaman, a small bordering city of Balochistan, by crossing the border in front of the two countries’ border guards, I might not have seen Pakistan’s two-pronged role in the war of 2001. I was not only thinking about Pakistan’s dual roles -- Islamabad is Washington’s main ally in the War on Terror. They were working together to overthrow the Taliban government. President General Pervez Musharraf had repeatedly said that the Taliban had no chance of coming to Pakistan. The border was “completely sealed” -- even crows could not fly over it. Moreover, they had given their land to the Americans to oust the Taliban. On the contrary, they were giving important Taliban leaders hidden shelters in Pakistan -- how can one imagine it! However, the Pakistani government was an ally of the United States in the War on Terror, it was clear to journalists that common Pakistanis had widespread sympathy for the Taliban. That’s why I can realize Pakistan’s 20-year-old complex relationship with the Taliban. During my newscasting days, the report of my captivity by the Taliban was sent a day later to the Daily Ajker Kagoj where I used to work. After leaving Pakistan, I could reveal how I entered Pakistan’s soil, so that moment I remain silent. Many Taliban leaders took refuge in Pakistan in 2001 when the US invaded Afghanistan to destroy al-Qaeda and overthrow the Taliban regime. So, the question is, since the Taliban believe in separatism and want to create Pashtunistan with the Pakistani Taliban, what was the reason for Pakistan to give them asylum at that time? Why had they supported the Taliban for so long, even today? The main reason was India. From Hamid Karzai to Ashraf Ghani, the governments that the US established in Afghanistan by overthrowing the Taliban were the puppet governments of the United States, and the rulers were pro-India in regional politics. Earlier, Soviet-backed Afghan governments were also influenced by India. During my visit to Kabul after the war, I saw how pro-government Northern Alliance people hated Pakistanis and spread hatred against Pakistan during the Hamid Karzai government. The Afghan government depended on India for everything, including trade and commerce. Another primary reason for Pakistan’s closeness to the Taliban was to prevent Pashtun nationalism in the country. They think that if they support the Taliban government, the Pashtun movement can be suppressed. Again, the Taliban government will not support the separatist movement of the Pashtuns. The Taliban government will not do anything to hurt Pakistan, because they know that to be internationally acceptable, they first need the support of neighbouring Pakistan. Pakistan is their all-time trusted friend.

Even now, a political branch of the Taliban is called Quetta Shura. They are sheltered in Quetta, Pakistan. On July 14, 2021, the day the Taliban captured the Spin Boldak-Chaman border from Afghan government forces, the Taliban marched in victory in Quetta city. The Taliban are now talking about concessions on women’s rights, promising to form an inclusive government with all ethnicities, and have promised media freedom -- all in favour of Pakistan and the international community. They are even talking about providing security for minorities so that the international community does not call them a terrorist organization and think of them as different from the Taliban of 20 years ago. They have already received green signals from China, Russia, Turkey, and Pakistan for government recognition. But despite all this, it is unfortunate for Pakistan that the way this Taliban ideology is growing up in Pakistan is destabilizing Pakistan’s internal politics. The September 18, 2015 attacks on the Air Force Base in Peshawar, the terrorist attack on the Karachi International Airport on June 9, 2014, and the terrorist attack on a school in Peshawar on December 16, 2014 were all carried out by Pakistani Taliban terrorists. These groups will now be inspired by the Taliban’s Afghan occupation, led by the TTP or Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan. The TTP is a section of the Taliban who are much more potent in small groups in Pakistan’s tribal areas and want to avenge the attacks on them by the Pakistan Army with the help of US forces. They have been attacking various government installations at different times. The Pakistan Army weakened them a lot, but since the Taliban are fighting in the name of the “Army of Allah,” they are getting the support of the fanatics. Not only that, the rise of the Taliban will also increase the morale and recklessness of Pakistan’s Islamist parties -- such as Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan or the TLP. In his initial response to the Taliban’s occupation in Afghanistan, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan said: “Afghans have broken the shackles of slavery.” But the Taliban would pose several dangers to his government. Recently, many development projects of its ally China were attacked on Pakistani soil, and Chinese workers were murdered. If this horrible situation goes on, it would be difficult for Pakistan to keep China beside them; and Chinese could step back from the mega-project called Belt and Road Initiative on security grounds. Anis Alamgir is a journalist and columnist, with an interest in Iraq and Afghanistan. Contact: anisalamgir@gmail.com.

OP-ED: Israel is a hyper-sensitive issue

Anis Alamgir [Published in Dhaka Tribune on May 25th, 2021] Only time will tell whether the recent passport change means anything significant When people breathed a sigh of relief for the ceasefire between Palestine and Israel after the recent bloody fighting for 11 days, Bangladesh entered a new debate regarding its restricted diplomatic stand for Israel. Some are speculating that the country is going to recognize Israel as an independent country, because the country has removed the old phrase, 50 years old, from the passport mentioning: “This passport is valid for all countries of the world except Israel.” Despite the uproar in this Muslim majority country, Gilad Cohen, deputy director-general for Asia and the Pacific, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel, happily tweeted on May 22, 2021: “Great news! #Bangladesh has removed travel ban to Israel. This is a welcome step & I call on the Bangladeshi government to move forward and establish diplomatic ties with #Israel so both our peoples could benefit & prosper.”

Bangladesh responded immediately by saying it had no new policy regarding Israel, the name has been left out from the passport to make it international standard, but foreign policy and the travel bans will remain in place. Home and Foreign Ministries have explained it several times. However, in that case, it is questionable how the government can take legal action against anyone who visits Israel. Again, the way some netizens are shouting, it seems that Israel is sitting at the border with a garland of flowers to welcome Bangladeshis, where the current position of Bangladeshi passport in the international ranking is 96. But it is also true that Bangladesh is a significant country for Israel in terms of recognition. If any renowned Bangladeshi tourist visits Israel, they will be able to show it to the world. Israel has been trying hard to bring Bangladesh closer since the birth of Bangladesh. But, again, Bangladesh has been looking at Israel as a “sensitive” issue since its inception. During the Liberation War, when the Arab countries expressed solidarity with Pakistan and helped Pakistan by opposing the war, the expatriate government of Bangladesh did not hesitate to show solidarity with the Arabs on the Palestinian issue. The role of Israel in the Liberation War shouldn’t be ignored. On July 2, 1971, the Israeli parliament passed a resolution condemning the reckless destruction of the Bangalis by the Pakistani military. Even the Israeli Red Cross sent a significant amount of medicine, clothes, and food to Bangali freedom fighters and refugees. Not only that, Israel was one of the first states to recognize Bangladesh in April 1971. Most of the Arab countries did not show any sympathy for the freedom struggle of the Bangalis, but helped Pakistan. When a helpless person falls into the sea, he wants to survive even if he gets a little support. The recognition of Israel here was nothing short of staggering. It was the support of a vital state. Yet, the expatriate government of Bangladesh ignored all sympathy and did not accept it. Bangladesh refrained from any action that could harm the Muslim Ummah even during its worst calamity. This shows how sensitive Israel is in the politics of Bangladesh. 2021/12/dt-pg-1640501790753.jpg On August 13, 2020, 72 years after the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the Middle East countries, the mutual recognition of the UAE and Israel was like a “geopolitical earthquake.” It is not comparable to the late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s visit to Jerusalem or Yasser Arafat’s handshake with Itzak Rabin on the White House lawn -- yet many believe the relationship is the beginning of a change in Israel’s relationship with the Muslim world. Following in the UAE’s footsteps, Bahrain also established diplomatic relations with Israel a few months later. Israel’s relations with Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey are old. In 1949, Turkey became the first Muslim state to establish diplomatic relations with Israel. Israel also had diplomatic relations with Iran during the reign of Reza Shah Pahlavi, but Iran severed those ties after the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, led by spiritual leader Ayatollah Khomeini. However, the Palestinians see this duplicity of the Arabs as a betrayal of Jerusalem, Al-Aqsa, and the Palestinians. They think this is a stabbing in the back of the Palestinian people. Many Muslim countries have not established diplomatic relations with Israel since its establishment, expressing solidarity with the Palestinians, and have maintained travel bans. But Israel has no dispute with those countries. Israel has no border with Bangladesh. The states are separated by 5,000 kilometres. The situation in Bangladesh is similar to that of Arab interests. But sadly, the Arab states have not been able to use the same strong solidarity as any other state in the Muslim world for the last 73 years. Instead, they have gradually established diplomatic relations with Israel. The future of the Palestinians is becoming uncertain. At the forefront of the Muslim world, Saudi Arabia, the largest country in the Middle East, has maintained cordial relations with Israel for the past three years. So far, there is no official announcement from the country to build any diplomatic ties with Israel, but this Jewish state became a factor for the country because it has a strong presence in India. As far as the passport is concerned, specifying a ban on one single country is unwise. However, only time will tell how long Israel will remain a sensitive issue for Bangladesh, or whether it will remain an issue, as many have never imagined that the word “Israel” would be taken out of the passport. Anis Alamgir is a journalist and columnist, noted for collecting Iraq and Afghan war news. Contact: anisalamgir@gmail.com.

OP-ED: Amit Shah: Ignorance, dogma, and prejudice

Anis Alamgir [Published in Dhaka Tribune on April 20th, 2021] Spreading lies about Bangladesh has become Amit Shah’s signature Disrespectfully spreading false propaganda against Bangladesh has become an indecent style of some Indian politicians, especially Amit Shah -- unfortunately, he is India’s home minister and former president of the ruling Hindu fundamentalist political organization called Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). While he was talking to Calcutta’s Anandabazar newspaper, he lied again: “The poor people of Bangladesh still do not get food, so they come to India. If BJP comes to power in West Bengal, infiltration from Bangladesh will be stopped.” Bangladesh has not formally protested his statement, but in reply to Amit Shah’s latest statement, the Foreign Minister of Bangladesh AK Abdul Momen, said: “His knowledge about Bangladesh is limited. On the contrary, in some areas, Bangladesh is far ahead of India.” Amit Shah has a long history of making hateful, insulting remarks about Bangladesh. Almost every year, he speaks nastily about Bangladeshis. Earlier, at a public meeting in West Bengal on February 11, Amit Shah once again made provocative remarks on alleged infiltration from Bangladesh to India. He said that if the BJP came to power in West Bengal, “not just people, even a bird will not be able to enter the country through the border.” In 2019, Shah said, Bangladeshis would be found and expelled from West Bengal. In a meeting with the BSF in November 2020, he said that people from Bangladesh visit India to vote. The border will be sealed so that even “mosquitoes and flies” cannot enter. Among his offensive remarks, the issue of Bangladeshis being called “termites” in 2018 was also criticized in India. It is now clear that the BJP has intensified these anti-Bangladesh campaigns as the West Bengal Assembly elections have started. Their target is to defeat Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress and seize West Bengal’s power. Due to hatred and persecution towards the Muslim community, the Muslim vote in West Bengal is less likely to go to the BJP, counting for 30% of the total vote. The most active “Pakistan card” in Indian elections is obsolete in West Bengal for the geographical distance. The BJP is keen to run the “Bangladesh card” because the two parts of Bengal have a bitter history of partition and reciprocal migration, and a sad history of Hindu-Muslim communal riots. Even then, language, literature, and common culture have made a historical bond between the two parts of Bengal. Dhaka has repeatedly said that Bangladesh would accept its citizens wherever they are, if India provides a list with appropriate evidence. Amit Shah could not give it, even after becoming the home minister, because Amit Shah knows very well that there is no Bangladeshi Muslim infiltration in India, which is their headache. Why will Muslims in Bangladesh go to India to live as third-class citizens? In India, Muslims cannot rent houses in Hindu-dominated areas, do not get high-ranking government jobs, and many have to hide their faith even if they have to take lower-class private jobs. In India, Muslims are forbidden from marrying and engaging in relationships with Hindus; Muslims are murdered for eating beef. These atrocities are not unknown to the world. In such a case, who will go to an intolerant country where hatred between religions and caste differences is cogent, and laws are enacted to make 200 million Muslims stateless? Yes, there are some Hindus who have left Bangladesh at different times. Most of those who went to India in the Pakistan period are prosperous and advanced in education and culture. Those who were not well off did not go to India from East Pakistan during the partition. Just as poor Muslims did not come to East Pakistan from India, like well-off Muslims of border areas did, on the other hand, after independence, some Hindus are taking the opportunity to consider India as the pilgrimage land of the Hindu religion.

And some are going to embezzle large sums of money from here -- fugitives in various cases. Instead, Bangladesh may allege that India is helping them with money laundering, and is encouraging emigration with the Citizenship Amendment Bill or CAB’s greed, which will grant citizenship to all except Muslims. If there were anti-India politics, the political parties’ field speeches would now be attacking Indian citizens working in garments, textiles, the IT sector, and various NGOs in Bangladesh. According to media reports, most of them are sending money to India through hundi. The Refugee and Migration Movements Research Unit, in its 2019 report, showed that remittances from Indian nationals from Bangladesh amounted to $4 billion. There is no available official data on how many Indians are working legally or illegally in Bangladesh, but it is not less than half a million. On the other hand, the official statistics showed that 2.25 million tourists (one in five foreign tourists) went to India from Bangladesh in 2018. The US is in second place. Although Amit Shah did not know the role of this massive number of tourists in the Indian economy, what happened to the business of Kolkata in the absence of Bangladeshi tourists after the Covid-19 situation -- the businessmen of Kolkata understood it well. The same has happened to Indian hospitals due to the lack of Bangladeshi patients last year due to restrictions for Covid-19. Just as Bangladeshis ranked first in India as foreign tourists, Bangladeshis ranked first in India as foreigners for medical treatment and spent nearly Tk2,000 crore per year. Millions of Bangladeshis seek treatment in Delhi, Vellore, Madras, Hyderabad, Bangalore, and Kolkata. That is why India has repeatedly requested Bangladesh to resume suspended air services temporarily shut due to the corona pandemic. Amit Shah is practically illiterate, a bald-headed bull with no horns, attacking Bangladesh with his ignorance, dogma, and prejudice. Anis Alamgir is a journalist and columnist, noted for collecting Iraq and Afghan war news. Contact: anisalamgir@gmail.com

OP-ED: Why party symbols aren’t right for local elections

Anis Alamgir [Published in Dhaka Tribune on March 11th, 2021] A once-reliable administrative system is now being damaged Like the national election, the citizens of the country are now allowed to declare their local government candidacy with a party symbol. The government amended the law in 2015 to allow use of the symbol of a party for running for a seat in the union parishad, upazila parishad, municipality, and city corporation elections. All kinds of local government elections are currently being held under the party symbol. By following that, the union parishad’s election is going to be held for the second time with the party symbol from next April 11.

The basic requirement of the local government election is -- its elected representatives will be socially accepted and respected by people in their area, they must be voters of the chosen area, which is not needed for the parliamentary election. That is why, since the British period, the chairman of the union council has been given the responsibility of giving character certificates to the citizens. But now, it is observed that the political identity and characteristics of the local government representatives are clashing with their responsibilities and spirit of local government. The local union council system started in 1870 by introducing the Chowkidar Acts, the British Raj created local government here to provide various types of civic and government facilities to the people in a legal frame. In this context, the union parishad is an ancient local government system, and upazila, municipality, city corporation -- all came much later. All the grassroots development activities and civic amenities have been provided through the union parishad for ages. In recent times, many local chairmen are giving birth and death certificates, inheritance certificates, and much more. The head of the village court is the chairman of the union parishad. In reality, a politically neutral chairman is most important in the local body, because there is no guarantee that a party-nominated person will remain neutral as an arbitrator. As a result of politicizing the local government, its core mission is at risk, questionable, and the existence of the system is under threat. Whether a person is politically acceptable or not is irrelevant in local government -- only a socially accepted person can serve the people. The UP chairman must remain politically neutral, and should not be given a chance to harass his/her political opponents. Social safety programs like food for work, test relief, disaster relief, widow allowance, old age allowance, and disability allowance are being provided through the union parishad. The council is also responsible for arranging employment for the very poor. The “Manga” of North Bengal has been removed through a program like “Kajer Binimoye Khaddo” (food for work). It is the upazila parishad’s responsibility to procure paddy and rice through union parishad for the government and distribution of fertilizers and seeds to the farmers also their job. Involving the union parishad in these social activities is not for depriving citizens of different political beliefs. The majority of the chairmen of the present 4,554 union parishads are either leaders of the union or the Upazila Awami League. Being elected from the party, it is almost impossible for them to provide all civic services impartially due to their loyalty to the party and its followers. If the cadre of a political party becomes UP chairman, they will harass their rivals and opponents, and may gang up with corrupt government staff to exploit people who belong to other political parties. It was reported that in collaboration with the police station, the local government representatives themselves are involved in the drug trade and extortion in many places. They invest black money to win elections for running the underground trade. In many areas, especially in the suburbs, the chairmen’s main business is land grabbing and working as land brokers. Their only force is the political identity. They have nothing to do with helping the police to maintain law and order. Undoubtedly, it could be said this public administration system which once was reliable to the commoners, is being damaged for introducing the election system under the political banner with symbols. It could be hard for the top politicians and bureaucrats to understand the consequences of party affiliation with elected leaders at the local government level. Therefore, I would request Honourable Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to consider abolishing the party-involved election system at least in union parishad. I think she is wise enough to understand that a president or a general secretary, or a prominent leader of the political party in power becoming a union council chairman would be dangerous. They could turn union parishad offices into one of the offices of the political party, which could nurture corruption, drug dealing, terrorism, and give the party a bad name. Anis Alamgir is a journalist and columnist, noted for collecting Iraq and Afghan war news. Contact: anisalamgir@gmail.com.

OP-ED: Should Ziaur Rahman's gallantry title be revoked?

Anis Alamgir [Published in Dhaka Tribune on February 12th, 2021] Examining different sides of the argument The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) has been out of power for more than a decade. The party’s top leader, former prime minister Khaleda Zia, has been released on bail on the condition that she won’t engage in political activities, thus the government decided to suspend her sentence in a corruption charge. Another top BNP leader, Tarique Rahman, is in exile on several charges, including murder. In such a situation, a committee of the government has recommended revoking the state title “Bir Uttam” given to Ziaur Rahman for his contribution to the Liberation War. The problem has emerged as a new challenge for the BNP, plagued by lawsuits and verbal attacks. And currently, a political debate is going on about the recommended decision of revoking Zia’s title. After the War of Liberation in 1971, 68 people were awarded the title of “Bir Uttam” as the second-highest medal after “Bir Shrestha” for their heroic contribution to the war, and Ziaur Rahman’s name was at number three in this list. In the newspaper, I read that near the eve of the 50th anniversary of independence, the National Freedom Fighters Council has decided to cancel the state title of Ziaur Rahman. At the 72nd meeting of the organization on February 9, 2021, the council also recommended cancelling the state titles of Bangabandhu’s self-confessed murderers Shariful Haque Dalim, Nur Chowdhury, Rashed Chowdhury, and Mosleh Uddin. The name of Ziaur Rahman is included in the list, thus, their family members will not get any state benefits for their contribution to the Liberation War.

The reasons behind the decision against Ziaur Rahman have been cited as involvement in the plot for assassinating Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, aiding and abetting Bangabandhu’s self-confessed murderers and appointing them to important government posts, violating the constitution, and rehabilitating 71’s anti-independence politicians. At the same meeting of the council, it was decided to remove Khandaker Mushtaq Ahmed’s name from the state list, which has been included as a “memorable person” for his contribution to the Liberation War. However, these decisions haven't been implemented yet; it depends on the Ministry of Liberation War Affairs. They may decide to send the proposal to the cabinet for a final decision. Surely a committee will be formed to look into it. It seems the suggestion came suddenly, but it is not. The AL has been questioning Ziaur Rahman’s contribution to the Liberation War for a long time. It’s noticed that General Zia’s party BNP has always tried to establish Ziaur Rahman as the proclaimer of independence, especially after the assassination of Bangabandhu. However, the BNP couldn’t prove Zia as the proclaimer of independence, as the AL couldn’t prove Zia wasn’t a freedom fighter. In recent times, although, the AL has been talking about Zia’s role in the assassination of Bangabandhu, his posthumous trial, and Zia’s controversial role since the 1975 political changes through bloody coups, it was a less focused debate whether Zia was a freedom fighter or not. People somehow think that at the beginning of the war of 71, at the moment of uncertainty, Major Ziaur Rahman had called for a War of Independence on March 27, 1971, on behalf of Bangabandhu. His call inspired people from all walks of life to go ahead. However, the AL has been accusing Ziaur Rahman of bringing anti-independence forces, including Ghulam Azam, into politics. The BNP has failed to give its proper answer. The BNP’s activities are still anti-independence and in favour of the killers of 75. All the nations of the world have had to navigate the hardest paths to achieve something worthy. Our pride is the independence that we earned through great dedication, led by Bangabandhu’s heroic role. In East Pakistan, some people didn’t support Sheikh Mujib, but most did. Those anti-Sheikh Mujib people have got many chances, during the last 50 years, to organize themselves, and became ready to take revenge. Now they want to ruin all the achievements of Bangladesh. History testifies that Ziaur Rahman allowed the anti-independence forces of Bangladesh to get organized. General Ziaur Rahman formed BNP with the military officers who returned from Pakistan, and people from many political parties joined BNP too. This party’s birth story is synonymous with a military junta that seized power, later floated a political party to stay longer in power. Ziaur Rahman fought for the War of Liberation with the slogan “Joy Bangla.” When he came to the centre of power after November 1975, he gathered all the anti-AL elements for his political interests. He changed the slogan “Joy Bangla” to “Bangladesh Zindabad,” changed “Bengali nationalism” to “Bangladeshi nationalism.” Ziaur Rahman made the indemnity ordinance issued by Khandaker Mushtaq to stop the trial of Bangabandhu’s assassination through the fifth amendment of the constitution. The way Ziaur Rahman did politics with anti-Liberation forces, in the same way, the present BNP is walking on and somewhere they are taking further steps with making alliances with the anti-Liberation forces. The question arises as to whether the AL government can take away Ziaur Rahman’s title -- when the charges against him have not been tried in any court. He isn’t accused in the Bangabandhu murder case. Experts say the government can do that if it wants, there are instances of revoking the title later for various reasons in many countries. Even during the Pakistan period, some Bengalis were awarded but later their awards were taken away by the Pakistani government. And Zia wasn’t on the list of accused in the Bangabandhu murder trial, because he was dead. Dead persons aren’t tried under Bangladeshi law. In this situation, only the title can be taken away, but there is no chance to dismiss Zia’s name as a freedom fighter. The decision of revoking Ziaur Rahman’s gallantry title may take time, and it’s also a political debating topic -- whether it’s inevitable to revoke his title or not. Anis Alamgir is a journalist and columnist, noted for collecting Iraq and Afghan war news. Contact: anisalamgir@gmail.com.

OP-ED: Myanmar coup questions Rohingya repatriation

Anis Alamgir [Published in Dhaka Tribune on February 6th, 2021] What is the next step for Bangladesh to resolve the refugee crisis? A military rule is again imposed on Myanmar through an army-led coup on February 1, 2021; the toppled government is accused of election fraud, which isn’t supported by the Western media. After the coup, people of Bangladesh are seeking an answer to a new question -- will 1.1 million Rohingya be able to return to their homes from Bangladesh? Now, unfortunately, I don’t see any clear answer to the question; even before the coup, we had many reasons to doubt, and the repatriation move has not started yet. The Rohingya problem was the worst during Aung San Suu Kyi’s so-called democratic rule. The military junta has indiscriminately killed this Muslim population in Rakhine State, Myanmar, and Suu Kyi has defended the atrocity in an international court. As a symbol of democracy, the Nobel laureate Suu Kyi has shown her hidden face to the world as a racist. Therefore, the Rohingya return issue is irrelevant with Suu Kyi not being in power or in jail. In consultation with the military junta in Myanmar, Bangladesh has the experience of repatriating about 300,000 Rohingya who took refuge in Bangladesh in 1991 and 1992. Myanmar has been under military rule since 1962, with junta rule behind democracy for the past 10 years. The military has never lost control of a civilian-led government. It is true that under the Suu Kyi-led National League for Democracy (NLD) government, the possibility of a military coup had been relatively low. Still, the military has always found an excuse to reassert itself at the centre of Myanmar’s politics. In the end, they succeeded. Aung San Suu Kyi was re-elected to form the NLD government in Myanmar’s general election on November 8, 2020, but the military took full control of power on February 1, 2021 -- the first day the new parliament session was scheduled to take place. The legislature, the executive branch, and the judiciary -- the country’s three main divisions -- are in Army Chief Min Aung Hlaing’s hands. The accusation was Suu Kyi’s alleged vote-rigging in the election. Irregularities? Suu Kyi was captured by the military at midnight just hours before her second term began. 24 ministers in her cabinet were fired, and new ministers were filled with mostly senior army officers. Some are members of the army-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP). Una Mong Loon, one of the leaders of the USPD, has been appointed foreign minister. He lost the November election. Since the last parliamentary elections, the country has been in trouble when the army-backed opposition did not accept the results. Army Chief Min Aung Hlaing issued a statement criticizing the election commission for various irregularities during the election. He also blamed the NLD and said he could not accept the election result because of the government’s “unacceptable mistake.” However, international observers and the country’s election commission said it was a reasonably peaceful election. Three in 50 years Only three elections have been held during the long 50 years of military rule. Suu Kyi’s party did not run in the 2010 general election. She came to power after winning the 2015 general election. Aung San Suu Kyi, whose official title was state counsellor of Myanmar, could not start her second term after winning a landslide victory in the November election. Myanmar’s new constitution, adopted in 2008, calls for 75% of the seats to be filled by popular vote, with the remaining 25% reserved for the military. The military designed a constitution so that the NLD could never come to power in a multi-ethnic, politically diverse country. If Aung San Suu Kyi had returned to power, would she have repealed the constitution? No, that was not possible because she couldn’t garner 75% support for a change in the constitution. So, the big question now is why the army is furious with Suu Kyi. Over the past 10 years, the military has gradually relinquished power to the civilian administration, but they have not wanted Suu Kyi to return to power.

They could not digest the miserable defeat in the last election of the USPD which they supported. That’s why they called the election a fraud and used it as a tool to remove Suu Kyi. The army chief was due to retire a few months later. What will be his status then? If Myanmar is convicted in the International Criminal Court in The Hague (ICC) for the Rohingya extermination, then the first punishment will be for the army chief, when he is supposed to be a retired general -- those factors also worked. One hundred and thirty-five ethnic minority groups in Myanmar do not care about the central government. Many of these groups are well-armed, and have considerable financial strength from various illicit trades. That is why they are not willing to accept the dominance of the government in the regions. Elections on November 8 could not be held in many places controlled by them. About 1.5 million Rohingya Muslims, including those living in Rakhine State and Bangladesh, did not have the right to vote. 4% of the country’s 55 million people are Muslim and they are not in the mainstream political movement. Overall, this election was flawed. Human Rights Watch also called the election “fundamentally flawed.” After the military took control, it was announced that a new election commission will be set up and that voter lists will be scrutinized and reviewed under the rules; the army will hold a general election after a year-long state of emergency in the country. But who knows how many years the “one year” means in the term of military rule! Avoiding all forms of conflict, the Myanmar government could focus on rapid economic development and humanitarian protection. Whatever the outcome of the election, Suu Kyi’s election also provided an opportunity to focus on building peace by reducing the long-running conflict in Myanmar’s tragically divided and impoverished society. Above all, it could allow solving the Rohingya problem, so that the international pressure on the country would be reduced. But in the current situation, they will once again have to deal with the international community, including the United Nations, at the mercy of China’s veto in UNSC. No alternative but to stand by Suu Kyi Suu Kyi’s behaviour towards the Rohingya, the absolute violation of human rights, made her unpopular in international communities; but, currently, foreign governments have no alternative other than supporting her to some extent for the sake of nurturing democracy. The international community will stand by Suu Kyi in the crisis in Myanmar. The Western world did not take this coup lightly. The incident will put US President Joe Biden to his first global test -- to face Myanmar’s defender China. The promise he made to keep democracy and the restoration of human rights at the centre of US foreign policy must be fulfilled. It is not strange to say that the US-China Cold War has just started over Myanmar. It is not easy for Bangladesh to deal with this crisis, because some of its allies are technically for Myanmar, and some are against it. In that case, tackling the Rohingya issue through successful diplomacy is a big challenge for it. Bangladesh has already made it clear that it is not willing to worry about Myanmar’s internal affairs. No matter who is in the government, the diplomatic relationship will be continued like before. The main point is, they have to take back the Rohingya because there are agreements, made by the governments, to solve the Rohingya refugee crisis. In the end, I would like to say that Bangladesh has no option to step back from the international efforts to resolve the Rohingya problem, protect human rights, and end the crime against humanity. Here, Dhaka should take more diplomatic endeavours to convince China to boost its mediated trilateral talks with Myanmar and Bangladesh on the Rohingya repatriation. Anis Alamgir is a journalist and columnist, noted for collecting Iraq and Afghan war news. Contact: anisalamgir@gmail.com.

OP-ED: A robust opposition for constructive politics

Anis Alamgir [Published in Dhaka Tribune on December 26th, 2020] The BNP has failed to be a strong opposition party, leaving a void in politics In Bangladesh, the anti-government people often complain that the country lacks democracy, human rights, and freedom of speech. But no one is talking about having a strong opposition party alongside the government as part of democracy. I think the main problem in Bangladesh is not the so-called lack of democracy, but the absence of a strong pro-independence opposition party. Bangladesh lacks a strong opposition party that is inspired by the Liberation War ideology, practises democracy within its own party, and where leaders are elected through the electoral process.

It lacks an opposition party where its leaders are free from corruption and think only of the people’s welfare, not their own interests. Such an opposition can force the government to be free from corruption, enrich democracy, and help the ruling party establish the rule of law. The question may arise: What is an anti-Liberation force? An easy answer is: Those who deny Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s contribution to independence are anti-independence. Is the BNP a pro-independence party, and do they give due respect to Bangabandhu as Bangladesh’s architect? As usual, the BNP leaders will say -- yes. But history and the activities of BNP leaders say otherwise. Attempts have been made to erase the War of Liberation and Bangabandhu from Bangladesh’s history and politics after 1975. But now, Bangabandhu and the War of Independence have become 100 times more relevant in Bangladesh’s politics. It is now more difficult to do politics in this country without clarifying the position on the Liberation War. By denying this, no party will be able to come to power in the future. The BNP’s freedom fighters wanted a 10% nomination in the last parliamentary elections, but their demands were ignored. A statement on how neglected they are in the party has recently come up in the press conference of (Retd) Hafiz Uddin Ahmed, Bir Bikram. At his residence on December 19, he complained to reporters that there was a faction active in the BNP to corner the freedom fighters. The reason behind Hafiz’s press conference was to refute the allegations brought against him by the party. It has been alleged that BNP was confused by the sudden demonstration of some BNP leaders and activists in the capital on December 14 without the party’s approval, and BNP accused its two vice presidents -- Hafiz Uddin and journalist leader Shaukat Mahmood -- as instigators behind it. That is why the joint secretary-general of the central committee, Ruhul Kabir Rizvi, has given them show-cause notices. But both vice presidents considered it a breach of discipline as the joint secretary-general cannot issue a show-cause notice to the vice president as per party protocol. It is believed that BNP has violated the conditions under which the government allowed Khaleda Zia to stay at her home. For that reason, they have been given show-cause notices without following the rules and regulations. Again, some people in the party say that Tarique Rahman does not want any anti-government movement at the moment. The funny thing is that the BNP has set a precedent as a new lesson in politics -- to consider protesting against the government as a crime. Where the existence of the BNP is in danger, it is the duty of the movement-struggle party. It is ridiculous to give show-cause notices to party leaders or workers for performing that duty. The BNP’s well-wishers outside the party are sincerely thanking Major Hafiz and Shaukat Mahmood for breaking the deadlock. The general public is also praising the BNP workers for not losing their morale to protest, even after suffering hundreds of hardships in the last 12 years. A lavish fugitive life outside the country and escaping punishment for murder is called politics of the opposition? Giving party nominations in exchange for huge amounts of money before the elections and making offensive remarks on Bangabandhu and Sheikh Hasina through online appearances is not politics at all. It is not that there is no political activity in the country. Occasionally, there are some opposition political activities on a limited scale. The election is going on, but on election day, it is seen that the opposition candidates do not try to enter the polling station for fear of the government party activists in front of the centre. No opposition leader or activist is around the polling station. There is also a possibility of humiliation if any identified opposition activist is seen. For the interest of the country and the sake of democracy, like a strong government, a strong alliance of opposition parties is needed, which can facilitate constructive politics. The ruling party’s politics does not mean that some ministers get up in the morning and insult the BNP and the opposition. And being in the opposition is not just criticizing the government unnecessarily. As it is happening in politics now, encouraging words are gradually disappearing from politics. Politics has lost its quality and has now become a platform for exchanging bad words. The people are realizing this void in politics. That is why people are no longer interested in dedicating their life to politics, and are taking to the street. At this time, to sustain democracy in Bangladesh, a strong pro-Liberation War-focused opposition is needed. Anis Alamgir is a journalist and columnist, famed for live reports from Iraq and Afghan war fields. He can be reached at anisalamgir@gmail.com.

OP-ED: Bringing the books to book

Anis Alamgir [Published in Dhaka Tribune on November 27th, 2020]

The national curriculum and its textbooks do little to cater to the needs and interests of the students I am of the opinion that one of the most neglected subjects in the education system of this country is the Bangla language and its literature. When it comes to Bangla, students have less scope to enrich their knowledge and understanding and finding related content and resources is often difficult for them. I have a lot of questions about the method of teaching the Bangla language and other subjects through the language. The purpose of learning is not only to get acquainted with the works of old and modern authors; it is also necessary to understand the subject and its context. It seems that the sole aim of Bengali textbooks is to make students familiar with writers from various eras in history but there is no focus on their actual work. That is why they have compiled Bengali textbooks with the works of writers such as Rabindranath Tagore, Kazi Nazrul Islam, Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay, Bibhuti Bhushan, Manik Bandyopadhyay, Michael Madhusudan Dutt, Kamini Roy, Sukant Bhattacharya, Jasimuddin, Kaikobad, Kalidas Roy, Buddhadev Bose, Begum Sufia Kamal, and others. It seems that there is no need to check whether the text is suitable for the students and their age. But if you take a look at the books in the British curriculum on English language and literature, you will understand how much research has been done. They have determined the reading according to age of the student. They are introducing students to writers of all ages and from all eras, including William Shakespeare, Jane Austen, George Orwell, William Wordsworth, John Donne, Somerset Maugham, PB Shelley, Lord Byron, George Elliott, John Keats -- whoever was needed. In addition to texts in their original form, in some cases, the books have been simplified and shortened according to the student’s capability while also maintaining the essence of the original. The purpose is to first introduce students to the author and their work -- there is always the opportunity to study these texts as they had been written for those who decide to pursue literature in their higher education. In Bangladesh, some publishers, including Seba Prakashani, are translating the classics in the same way. But I have doubts about the scholars who have been included in the textbook compilation and editing council of the Board of Education. There is no continuity between what has been taught in the previous class, what is being taught in the current class, and what will be taught in the next class. If so, why would the same authors be taught at every level, beginning from Class I and continuing until the end? Apart from the writings of Rabindranath Tagore, how is classic Bangla literature suitable for students in every class? In the name of language education, they have turned Bangla into something to be feared amongst students -- with unnecessary, unsuitable, and unreadable books. There are media reports that the government has decided to change the curriculum from pre-primary to higher secondary. Changes are being brought in the books by reducing the number of topics and exams. Pre-primary education will consist of two years instead of one. There will be no public examination before the Class X.

Whether a student studies science, humanities, or business, it will be better to go to higher secondary, which is now in the ninth grade. Students will have to take two public examinations in Class XI and XII. The new curriculum pre-primary education will begin with four-year-olds. There will be no separate books for pre-primary children -- teachers will teach as they always have. Eight subjects have been selected for primary: Bangla, English, mathematics, science, social sciences, religious education, living well, and art and culture. There will be no separate books for “being good” and “art and culture.” These will be taught based on instructional books provided to the teachers. All the students from the Class VI to X will be taught 10 identical books. These are Bangla, English, mathematics, life and livelihood, science, social science, digital technology, religious education, living well, and art and culture. At present, 12 to 14 books are taught in secondary education. Now, everyone has to read similar books till the Class VIII. Work on the new book will be completed by next June. Then, from 2022, new books will be handed out in phases. This encapsulates the government’s desire for a new curriculum in short. The new curriculum is almost entirely an adoption of the British curriculum. Adoption is not always wrong if it is appropriate for the time. The new curriculum seems to have been made to be age-suitable, but the curriculum must also be appropriate for class before implementing it. The books available now must be thrown out and rearranged by qualified people with new ideas. In this case, keeping in mind our own social values, we can create an excellent curriculum by taking inspiration from that of the US or the UK. This will help to reduce the gap between the English and Bangla medium students in the country. However, the group divisions that now exist at the secondary level are the most obstructive for education. A student does not have the capability to judge which subject to study in higher education after Class VIII. It is not possible to acquire basic knowledge in all subjects by that time at that age. Many from my generation were victims of this wrong decision. We had to suffer while studying our favourite subjects. I don’t know how many of the textbooks that will be provided will actually be suitable and updated for the current context and fitting for the new generation. However, I am waiting to see the results once the new curriculum is implemented. I wish our Education Ministe,r Dipu Moni, and Deputy Minister for Education, Mahibul Hasan Chowdhury, all the best in this regard. Anis Alamgir is a journalist and columnist, famed for live reports from the Iraq and Afghan wars. He can be reached at anisalamgir@gmail.com.

OP-ED: Bangladesh is being held hostage

Anis Alamgir Published October 12th, 2020, Dhaka Tribune On October 5, Vikram Doraiswami, the newly appointed Indian High Commissioner to the country, arrived in Bangladesh. He told reporters at the land port in Akhaura: “Bangladesh is one of India’s closest friends, and thus we are eager to continue and enhance our bilateral relationship with this neighbouring country.” Beijing is now more interested in keeping Bangladesh as a development partner through the continuous effort of distancing Dhaka from Delhi. Recently, Sino-Indian relations with Bangladesh are looking great, but the reality is different. Close ties to Myanmar Bangladesh is depending on China and India, the two powerful countries in South Asia, to repatriate the 1.1 million Rohingya refugees from Myanmar. But these two countries have not only been non-cooperative, but have also been playing double standards with Bangladesh on the problem, and the two countries are competing with each other to be closest to Myanmar. As a result, the Rohingya are now becoming victims of the geopolitics of India and China. And no one knows how long Bangladesh will carry this burden, which had first started in 1978. The Rohingya took refuge in Bangladesh after the Myanmar military junta’s crackdowns at various periods, but the largest number entered in August-September 2017, when the Myanmar military and local Buddhist militia started the “clearance operations” from August 25, 2017. According to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), more than 723,000 Bengali-speaking Muslim ethnic minorities have fled to Bangladesh since August 2017 due to killings, rapes, and torture in the Rakhine State of Myanmar. But the prime minister of India, Narendra Modi, visited Myanmar during that tricky time when the country and its de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi were under sharp condemnation from the international community for her silent support of the military atrocity. Indian media stated that the purpose of his visit in the first week of September 2017 was to expand the strategic and economic partnership. Recently, Indian Army Chief General MM Naravane and Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla visited Myanmar to further strengthen military and economic ties. Modi did not utter the word Rohingya during his visit to Myanmar; similarly, the Indian foreign ministry said nothing about the Rohingya. India does not even want to be disliked by Myanmar by calling the Rohingya refugees. In a statement issued by the Indian foreign office on the outcome of the Indian foreign secretary’s visit to Dhaka last August, they were described as internally displaced persons. A foreign office source said that they objected to the use of the word “forcibly” in a joint statement issued on the outcome of the foreign ministers’ tele-meeting held the week before, while they “reiterated the importance of the safe, speedy, and sustainable return to Myanmar of the forcibly displaced persons from the Rakhine State of Myanmar.” Later, they agreed to use it in exchange for adding a word in favour of India on investment issues. On the other hand, China has been advising Bangladesh to resolve the Rohingya issue bilaterally with Myanmar rather than internationally, and has assured that it will play the role of a mediator, but it has done virtually nothing. On the contrary, whenever the United Nations wants to take any action against Myanmar, China has used its veto power in favour of Myanmar. Myanmar was ruled by the British for almost a century, and now it seems to be practically ruled by China. Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Myanmar last January, vowing to keep his poor neighbour close to Beijing and away from the United States and India. During Xi’s visit, the two countries signed dozens of agreements on infrastructure investment. At the top of his list was the completion of the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor, which would give China direct access to the deep waters of the Bay of Bengal. It would then be able to open a new westward gateway for Chinese trade by providing alternative routes to the disputed South China Sea and the Malacca coast. The world was a little hopeful that the Rohingya might be given justice when Aung San Suu Kyi, Myanmar’s top civilian leader, appeared before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague in December. She defended the military junta, saying it was an “internal conflict” between the Rakhine army, Rohingya “militants,” and armed separatists. She said individual soldiers would be punished if they were found guilty. In its interim ruling in January, the ICJ ordered Myanmar’s leadership to respect its legal obligation to prevent genocide and to “take as much action as possible within its power” to stop the killing or harming of the Rohingya. The court ordered Myanmar’s military not to destroy evidence of the crime and to submit a progress report on the matter. The court is expected to send its findings to the UN Security Council. The atrocities continue

Myanmar’s military junta has yet to stop the killings, according to reports from various international organizations. Satellite images show the military bulldozing the ruins of the Rohingya village of Kan Kya, which burned to the ground three years ago, erasing its name, and other destroyed village names from official maps. The Myanmar government has not reported back to court or conducted a credible investigation into the allegations. Meanwhile, the eyewitness testimony of two soldiers who took part in the Rakhine operation confirmed the worst situation for Myanmar. They detailed how the military carried out massacres, dug mass graves, destroyed villages, and raped women and girls. One of them, Zhao Naing Tun, said that his superior told him: “You kill everyone, child or adult.” The Guardian reports that a proposal was made last month by Britain calling on Myanmar to comply with the ICJ’s demands, implement an immediate ceasefire, allow humanitarian access, and include Rohingya voters in the November national elections. Eight members of the Security Council voted in favour of the resolution, but China vetoed it. Meanwhile, Myanmar went back to its old character of lies and told the 75th session of the UN General Assembly that Dhaka was supporting terrorism in Myanmar and that Bangladesh did not want to return the Rohingya. Bangladesh has categorically rejected Myanmar’s false and distorted information about the Rakhine State’s incidents and Rohingya repatriation. In a counter-statement to the UN, Bangladesh has denied allegations that Bangladesh harbours terrorists, saying it adheres to a zero-tolerance policy on terrorism, financing of terrorism, and any other form of terrorism. Bangladesh’s record in tackling all forms of terrorism while protecting human rights is lauded in all quarters. Myanmar should look at itself in the mirror. The record of inhumane treatment of ethnic minorities in Myanmar is not new. Regarding the repatriation of Rohingya, Bangladesh said that the repatriation initiatives were initiated twice in November 2018 and August 2019; but unfortunately, not a single Rohingya agreed to go back home. They have not received any assurances from Myanmar that there will be no more torture. 350 Rohingya have allegedly returned to Myanmar voluntarily. Bangladesh wants to know in the light of Myanmar’s demand -- who are those 350 people? Where are they now? Does the return of 350 of the 1.1 million people show evidence of improvement in Rakhine State? Bangladesh said in a statement that it was ready to repatriate the Rohingya and called on Myanmar to immediately ensure the safety of its citizens, and called on the international community to assist Myanmar in ensuring this. Meanwhile, the decision to move some refugees from the Cox’s Bazar camp to Bhasanchar has created new tension in the country. There is a report that a group of members of the Bangladesh navy has been accused of beating 306 Rohingya in Bhasanchar as they protested to return to the camps in Cox’s Bazar. But ISPR called the allegations by the Human Rights Watch “unrealistic.” The Rohingya were taken out of the camps in two phases last May. They were detained while entering Bangladesh by boat. International organizations and NGOs working with the Rohingya are opposed to the relocation of the Rohingya to Bhasanchar. Their argument is that in all countries of the world, refugee camps are located in border areas. There is a tendency in the minds of the refugees to return to their homeland; but given the opportunity to live in Bhasanchar, they will not want to return to their homeland. Observers alleged that NGOs and international organizations working for the refugees themselves are inciting the Rohingya to stay in Cox’s Bazar and not in Bhasanchar. Because Bhasanchar is a remote area, NGO officials do not want to go there. On the other hand, due to space constraints and environmental disasters in Cox’s Bazar, there are several social problems, so there is no alternative to sending the Rohingya to Bhasanchar. In the beginning of October, several Rohingya were killed in reported “gunfights” between rival groups in Ukhiya in Cox’s Bazar. The gunfight took place between groups of Rohingya “criminals” over “establishing supremacy in the area.” Despite the International Criminal Court’s position, the world’s most powerful countries are not taking the initiative to impose arms embargoes on Myanmar, as well as financial sanctions and seizure of wealth, freezing accounts, or blocking lucrative trade and investment agreements. They cannot exclude their political and commercial interests with Myanmar. Beijing’s political support and the veto-driven defense policy of the UN awarded Tatmadaw generals even more opportunities for carrying on their atrocities. America and Europe are not putting too much pressure on Myanmar for fear of losing profitable business deals. It seems that Bangladesh has committed a crime by sheltering the Rohingya, and the international community is trying to hold Bangladesh hostage in this situation. Anis Alamgir is a journalist and columnist, famed for live reports from Iraq and Afghan wars. He can be reached at anisalamgir@gmail.com

OP-ED: Three to tango

Anis Alamgir [Published September 3rd, 2020, Dhaka Tribune] What is Bangladesh’s role in the Indo-China tug of war? Just after the sudden visit of Indian Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla to Bangladesh on August 18-19, I went through a lot of articles published in Indian newspapers and posted on online news portals. Most of the articles tried to prove that the relationship between Dhaka and New Delhi was now slightly cracked -- a bit of mistrust had been created between both countries, and Bangladesh was leaning towards China, similar to other neighbouring countries of India. While reading some of these opinion pieces, one could presume that Chinese influence in Bangladesh’s politics and economy had increased noticeably, which, undoubtedly, is a security threat to India. That’s why Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi might have sent Shringla to Bangladesh on a special aircraft with a message of peace and friendship, and for preventing further alliance with the “Dragon.”

Diplomatic disappointment Sadly, many have mentioned that Harsh V Shringla did not get a cordial welcome in Dhaka, the office of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina kept him waiting for several hours before seeing him. Although Shringla is well-known in Dhaka as a former Indian high commissioner from 2016 to 2019, not giving him importance was not personal; it was a reflection of diplomatic disappointment from the Bangladesh government’s side. A few major newspapers, however, were a bit of an exception -- echoing the South Block, they said that relations between the two countries were normal and Shringla’s visit to Dhaka was a sign of warmer relations. This visit, they claimed, was useful in discussing specific initiatives in several key areas of mutual interest. It also reflected the priority that India accorded to Bangladesh as part of its Neighbourhood First policy. In the near future, Narendra Modi and Sheikh Hasina will jointly inaugurate the Akhaura-Agartala railway line and the Rampal power plant. The Foreign Ministry issued a press release on August 20 about Shringla’s visit and meeting with his counterpart Masud Bin Momen, where there was no hint of what had been discussed at the meeting between Shringla and the prime minister. On the other hand, after a brief hiatus, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs issued a statement on August 26, most of which revealed the issues discussed during Shringla’s meeting with the prime minister of Bangladesh. In many bilateral meetings, Bangladesh sought help to repatriate about 1.1 million Rohingya refugees who have taken refuge in Cox’s Bazar, but India has so far done little. Even this time, congratulating his counterpart on India becoming a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, Masud bin Momen conveyed Bangladesh’s greater expectation from India as a member of the UNSC to play a more meaningful role for a lasting solution to the Rohingya crisis, including their early repatriation to Myanmar. But in the statement issued by the MEA on the foreign secretary’s visit, India stated that the Rohingya refugees were “Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs),” a term which is completely different from refugees; it ultimately reflexes Myanmar’s claims that these Bangla-speaking Myanmar citizen are Bangladeshi. The MEA statement said: “The issue of safe repatriation of internally displaced persons from the Rakhine state also came up for discussion.” Note that, unlike Myanmar, they are not pronouncing the word “Rohingya.” By definition, an IDP is someone who is forced to flee their home but did not cross a border to find safety. Unlike refugees, they are on the run at home. Bangladesh does not always talk and intervene in anyone’s internal affairs -- in the time of Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar’s visit to Dhaka in August last year, Bangladesh officially announced that Kashmir was an internal issue of India. In the same way, Bangladesh can expect its neighbours to not bother about any of its internal matters. Unfortunately, when Bangladesh bought a submarine from China, then Indian leaders and media analysts asked, mockingly, who Bangladesh would fight. You don’t have to be a big country to fight. For instance, Israel, with a population of only 9 million, has survived the last seven decades by fighting 400 million Muslims in the Middle East alone. Unfounded security concerns In a tender for the construction work of the second terminal at Sylhet Airport, a Chinese company got the project while competing with an Indian company. And that’s why India is asserting that the construction of that terminal is a threat to Indian security, as the airport is next to its eastern states, known as the Seven Sisters. What is the security concern? Delhi’s concerns about the Seven Sisters’ separatist movement have long been addressed by Bangladesh. On the contrary, by closing the bases of Indian separatists on the soil of Bangladesh, arresting separatist leaders and handing them over to India, Bangladesh has put its own security in jeopardy. China is Bangladesh’s main arms supplier, investor, and trade partner. The two countries became strategic partners in 2016. Bangladesh’s defense agreements with China -- which include an ultra-modern submarine base called BNS Sheikh Hasina in Cox’s Bazar, a new naval base in Patkhauli, and the delivery of a Chinese Corvette to strengthen its naval forces -- are not new at all. Bilateral trade with 97% duty-free access for Bangladeshi products in the Chinese market has made China not only Bangladesh’s largest trading partner, but also its largest investor. China has already invested $10 billion in Bangladesh towards a string of power and infrastructure projects under the Belt and Road Initiative. Despite its mounting dependence on China, Bangladesh is careful to balance its relations with Delhi and Beijing as it needs both of them for its growth. Even in the ongoing vaccine diplomacy, liberally, Bangladesh has kept the balance by giving the opportunity to both China and India to run the trials of their vaccines for Covid-19 in Bangladesh. It is not necessary that, since China’s relations with India are not going well, India has to be worried about Bangladesh completing its mega-projects with Chinese funding. Sheikh Hasina receiving a phone call from Imran Khan should not be viewed with suspicion; it has no connection with the hostility between India and Pakistan. Lacking capacity India has to admit that it lacks capacity to cooperate in the development of a country like Bangladesh. India is claiming to give an $8 billion loan to Bangladesh, saying that it is their highest loan given to any country. The reality is that the loan is being spent on projects that are all in India’s interest, and for the need of constructing the mainland’s rail, road, and river connectivity with its eastern states via Bangladesh. India is already getting the result, the most recent being the shipment of cargo from Kolkata to Agartala via Chittagong port. The Bangladesh-Tripura water route trial is to be held in September from Daudkandi in the Comilla district to Sonamura in Tripura through River Gomati. India’s new concern has been added based on a piece of published news which said that the Bangladesh government is going to take on a project called “Teesta River Comprehensive Management and Restoration” to reduce the width and increase the depth of the river in the Rangpur region. China agreed to fund a massive project for the management of the Teesta river for nearly $1 billion. The Teesta flows into Bangladesh from north Bengal. There is no official word on when the Chinese will release the money for the project and what the overall theme of the project will be. India has been promising a Teesta water-sharing agreement since 2011. Now it is blaming West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee for not having an agreement, but she has said that Teesta water has been withdrawn and taken to Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh. How would they give water to Bangladesh even if there was an agreement? After passing the Citizenship Amendment Act, Bangladesh was labelled by many across the border as a country persecuting Hindus. Indian Home Minister Amit Shah in 2018 said that illegal immigrants in Assam were like termites who took away the jobs of locals; Shah repeated his sentiment again in West Bengal during the 2019 campaign, adding that if the BJP came to power, it would throw all infiltrators into the Bay of Bengal. Though the Indian government calls Bangladesh one of India’s friends in the region, there continue to exist members of the Hindutva party who are constantly spreading hatred against Bangladesh. Anis Alamgir is a journalist and columnist, known for live reports from the Iraq and Afghan wars. He can be reached at anisalamgir@gmail.com.

OP-ED: Building a nation

Anis Alamgir [Published August 14th, 2020, Dhaka Tribune] Why Bangabandhu was, among other things, a great administrator After the assassination of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his family in 1975, various attempts were made to spread rumours about his incompetence, saying that he was a great political leader, one who could mobilize the people for the independence of Bangladesh, but that he was an inefficient administrator and failed ruler. That campaign is still going on. Last month, on the birth anniversary of Tajuddin Ahmed, the first prime minister of Bangladesh, a similar observation was resonated. There have been brawls on social media regarding this. Even Tajuddin’s son, a former state minister, Sohel Taj, has spoken about the issue on behalf of the Taj family.

Interestingly, some people want to project Tajuddin as an efficient administrator in an attempt to prove that Bangabandhu was not an efficient ruler. There is no doubt that Tajuddin was an honest, simple, and straightforward man. In the nine months of the War of Independence, he duly fulfilled his duties on behalf of Bangabandhu. But it is also true that, in those nine months of the war, if there was not a skilled, majestic woman like Indira Gandhi by Tajuddin’s side, the expatriate government of Bangladesh would have ruined the independence by itself. The short-sighted, reckless Bangladeshi leaders around Tajuddin, who would put pressure on him, did not allow him to succeed. This can be proven by reviewing the history and analyzing the behaviour of the people around the expatriate government of Bangladesh based in Kolkata. A leader behind bars I don’t think now it’s relevant to name those people just for controversy’s sake. The nation saw their arrogance even during the rule of Bangabandhu. Bangabandhu was born on March 17, 1920. He was shot dead together with his wife, sons, and other family members on August 15, 1975. In his 55 years of life, he was in jail for about 14 years. During the 23-year-rule of Pakistan, Sheikh Mujib went to jail 18 times. For the rest of his life, Bangabandhu was in power, from January 10, 1972 to August 14, 1975, as the prime minister, and president for three years and seven months. His successes and failures as an administrator must be judged by what he had done in these 43 months and five days of power. When he returned from prison in Pakistan, he was first sworn in as prime minister and Justice Abu Saeed Chowdhury was made president. He took charge of the Ministry of Public Administration and Defense in his cabinet. A quick constitution Bangabandhu had a bitter experience with the system of governance in Pakistan. So, he was the first to start drafting the constitution. The constitution was ratified on November 4, 1972, which came into force on December 16, 1972. Within a year, the constitution was drafted and the first parliamentary elections were held on March 7, 1973 based on the new constitution. And you see, after Pakistan became independent, it took nine years to write the constitution. It also took about three years to draft the constitution of India, where a large number of eminent lawyers led by BR Ambedkar were involved. The constitution of India is called the Lawyer’s Constitution. Bangladesh was praised in the world for getting the constitution written in a very short time. It was Bangabandhu’s passion for constitutional governance that inspired him to formulate the constitution first. Another thing to mention here is that the Awami League was committed to the parliamentary system of government. That is why Bangabandhu resigned from the post of president of the first government of Bangladesh and became the prime minister. If he had been president, the parliamentary system of government would have been frustrated. Such a situation emerged after the birth of Pakistan. Though Pakistan had a parliamentary system of government, Prime Minister Liaquat Ali did not have power. As long as Muhammad Ali Jinnah lived and was the governor-general or president of Pakistan, he was the centre of power. If there was a parliamentary system of government in Bangladesh, Bangabandhu would have been at the centre of power if he had been the president. That’s why he resigned as president and became prime minister when he started his journey as head of government. The Fourth Amendment However, after the Fourth Amendment to the constitution, Bangabandhu established the presidential system and assumed the office of president. The one-party Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League (Baksal) system was introduced because the country’s law and order was on the verge of breaking down. 2021/12/dt-pg-1640501790753.jpg Communist leaders like Comrade Toaha, Comrade Abdul Haq, Comrade Matin, Comrade Alauddin left Bhasani’s National Awami Party and took initiative to carry out a communist revolution through the secret organization. The country’s economy collapsed for the misconduct of Siraj Sikder’s followers. Looting jute warehouses and setting them on fire, it was the violent method of Siraj Sikder’s Purba Banglar Sarbahara Party, an underground communist party in Bangladesh. But, at that time jute was the only valuable crop, the source of earning foreign exchange. Sirajul Alam Khan, Major Abdul Jalil, ASM Abdur Rab, Shahjahan Siraj, among others, went crazy trying to establish “scientific socialism” by ousting the Mujib government. They formed Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal (JASAD) in 1972 and got a bunch of talented youths from the AL’s student wing Chhatra League as it had become split by that time. Many young freedom fighters joined JASAD. Realizing the opportunity to destabilize the government as well as save their lives, many Pakistani collaborators’ sons also joined them. They had no other strong platform for their goal. They left JASAD soon after the assassination of Bangabandhu. Bangabandhu finally had to take the initiative to defend the country by employing the Rakkhi Bahini, an elite paramilitary force formed on February 1972 through an act. If strict measures were not taken at that time to protect the country, it would have suffered irreparable damage in the chaos. Indian troops would never have left Bangladesh if the root of pro-China politics had remained strong. At that time, the politics of beheading Naxalites was going on in the neighbouring Indian state of West Bengal. Under such circumstances, there was no reason for Indian troops to withdraw from Bangladesh. Sheikh Mujib is a “dictator” if he takes a firm stand to curb anomalies through the Rakkhi Bahini, and Sheikh Mujib is an “incompetent ruler” if he does not take firm action against lawlessness -- this was the paradoxical fate of Sheikh Mujib! There were rumours that India did not want Bangladesh to form a regular army. India wanted a paramilitary like Rakkhi Bahini. But Bangabandhu sent Indian troops out of Bangladesh and formed the Bangladesh Army with the Bengali army officers who took part in the war and who had been trapped in Pakistan during the war. He established the Bangladesh Military Academy in Comilla in 1973, intending to form a new generation army, which was later shifted to Bhatiary in Chittagong. The Bangabandhu government formed the Bangladesh Navy and the Bangladesh Air Force. Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) was established in June 1975 to ensure a safe border which has now been renamed Border Guard Bangladesh. And the Bangladesh Police, who first resisted the Pakistani aggressors in the War of Independence, had already been formed in 1840. It is difficult to understand how difficult it is to build a new nation. In 1972, Bangladesh printed its first currency by depositing Adamjee Jute Mill and Karnaphuli Paper Mills as security, and one Pakistani rupee was replaced by one Bangladeshi taka. Bangabandhu repaired all the war-torn roads and brought everything back to normal. But international and domestic conspirators killed Bangabandhu and stopped his dream of building this country into Golden Bangla. Otherwise, Bangladesh could have made far more progress. Those who enjoy saying that Bangabandhu was incompetent as an administrator are lying maliciously. The leader who fought and liberated a nation, how could he become a bad administrator? As a leading soldier of the Pakistan movement, Bangabandhu formed a new political party against the oppression of the Pakistanis and snatched independence from the Pakistanis under the leadership of that party. If that person were an incompetent administrator, how would it possible to take a political party to power and achieve independence under his leadership? I would like to advise those who campaign that Bangabandhu is not an efficient ruler to rethink the matter. The man you call incompetent is compared in international newspapers and books to George Washington, the founding president of the United States, and Eamon de Valera, the founding president of Ireland. Anis Alamgir is a journalist and columnist, famed for live reports from Iraq and Afghan wars. He can be reached at anisalamgir@gmail.com

OP-ED: Stuck in the middle with Covid-19

Anis Alamgir [Published July 7th, 2020, Dhaka tribune] In the last four months, the Covid-19 situation has hit the economic activities of Bangladesh hard. Although in the beginning, attempts were made for complete lockdown -- the government now has decided to allow shops to stay open till 7pm. But shop-keepers of daily necessities reckon that their sales were higher during the few hours of lockdown than now. There is also widespread frustration among shop-owners as sales have not been satisfactory; many are not opening shops properly. It is becoming impossible for shop-keepers to pay employee salaries and the shop rent. Some traders are firing employees -- where there were five employees earlier, two or three people are now in the job.

For the well-being of the poor, the government has taken various relief programs into consideration. With the previous program of selling rice at Tk10, the government is now providing other relief assistance which has helped many to survive. An official of the Prime Minister’s Office said that as of July 2, around 211,017 metric tons of rice, around Tk95,73,82,284 cash money, and Tk26,14,00,000 as aid for baby food has been allocated. The bulk of this has already been distributed in a manner that either one or two packages go to the homes of an estimated 100 million people. The middle class in dire straits Teachers, general shop-keepers, and private employees constitute the middle class in our society. They are the lifeblood of our economy and are now leaving the city due to the economic hardships posed by the Covid-19 pandemic. The middle-class people usually come from villages to cities -- they survive in the city by earning. They try to send their children to good schools in the city. Now they are worried about their children’s education -- since the education provided in the village-schools is in a dilapidated condition. Earlier, many village-district level school students would get a place in the merit list but now that’s not the case. The infrastructure of village schools has improved but the condition of education is dilapidated because now unqualified people are engaged in the teaching profession in rural areas. The government officials, posted at district and sub-district areas, do not send their children to study in those schools. Their families live in the city and their children go to city schools. So, the officials do not consider it necessary to monitor what is taught in village schools.The middle class people are moving to the village or sending their families there as their income source has become uncertain. Jobs are gone, careers are in doubt, but rent should be paid -- most landlords of Dhaka city are not waiving the rent. House rent is high in this city. It is more than the capitals of many countries in the world. There are no rules or policies regarding rent that are being followed. It is true, some laws have been enacted, and it has been said to protect the interests of the tenants, but all of it is just on paper. This anomaly of house rent has been going on for ages. There has never been an initiative to establish house rent rules and regulations, not yet anyway. The city corporation sleeps Dhaka City Corporation did not take responsibility or hear out tenant complaints but they kept the tenants in charge of collecting taxes from the landlords. House rent has made the middle class most unprepared. The lion’s share of one’s monthly income goes behind their house rent. The media has also been silent. On the contrary, I have read stories of landlords who have lost their tenants and fallen into the “sea of sorrow.” Even today, I have not heard anyone talk about both parties’ problems that can be solved by reducing the rent. Governments in many countries are giving cash assistance to the corona-affected people. Excluding developed countries, I can give the example of Greece -- a country with a weak economy in Europe. To address the corona situation, the country has reduced home rents and shop rents by 40%. Bus and train fares have been reduced by 20%. Electric, gas, water, municipal taxes have been reduced by 20%. VAT on food has been reduced from 13% to 6%. Oil prices have dropped by 30%. Unemployment allowance during the epidemic is running from 800 euros to 534 euros. There is a 1% interest rate loan assistance for business people. Last but not least, the media has already received 30 million euros in aid. Far from reducing our expenses, bus fares have increased, and Dhaka WASA is increasing the price of water from next September. The prices of market products have gone up, the suffering with incorrect electricity bills has increased. Added to that is the purchase of Covid-19 prevention masks, sanitizers, and medical expenses. The direct victims of all this are the middle class. In spite of that, the government should have reduced the house and shop rent by 40% from the current rate during the Covid-19 period till further orders. The government should reduce its tax for house owners, in the same way, extending the deadline without penalty if they have a bank loan against their home. Otherwise, the way the middle class is fleeing from cities, one day the middle class will stand at almost zero. If we want to keep the economy strong -- cash incentives for businessmen and industrialists and helping the poor class are just not enough. We have to think about the middle class as well. It should be remembered that the middle class is the lifeblood of the economy. About 25% of the population of this country is the middle class. They are huge in number but disorganized. They have no organization so there is no one to speak for them. The middle class keeps their small savings in banks, post offices, and the interest they get from there helps them live if it is added to their household expenses. Now the middle class’ profits have been slashed in order to reduce the interest on the loans for the rich. It seems that all the thoughts of the government are for the upper class and for the government employees. There is no one and nothing left for the middle class. The nation will suffer irreparable loss The economic stagnation due to Covid-19 has led to slowness in the pace of people’s lives. If middle-class people are not looked after, they will become obsolete. The macroeconomy says people’s ability to spend will shrink further. This will further highlight the financial weakness of various businesses and one company after another will go bankrupt. It will weaken the organizational base of the economy. Pouring mountains of money into financial incentives does not seem to be a big solution to our problems. It is not possible to give continuous incentives in such a way. So now, we will go through the horrors of corona for a much longer time. With this in mind, if the government does not restructure the financial plan, chaos will consume everything. Anis Alamgir is a journalist and columnist. He can be reached at anisalamgir@gmail.com