Multiculturalism, tolerance and Islam
The concept and practice of multiculturalism is always a debatable subject. There are several burning issues erupting in our world which create controversial questions of cultural clashes while the origins of dissonance are not always religious or cultural; but political and economic. Unfortunately, as a result, one culture tries to dominate over other to wipe out so called “hostile” identities with cultural bullying or money power and in most cases political power is used as a tool to subordinate or demonise the other. Preservation of ethnic purity is often criticised as an anti-thesis of multiculturalism and harmony, even though the real meaning of multiculturalism encompasses tolerance and respect to other civilisations and culture. This process has indeed created a sense of insecurity among people world over, especially those who live in other countries as immigrants. When we look at the problems related to cultural conflicts dispassionately, the emergent reality is that more than any identity or adjustment issue with other religion, it is the changing nature of economics and struggle for economic power that leads to community conflicts or religious conflicts or even war among nations. At a closer look, all religions essentially teach the lessons of tolerance and resilience rather than hostility and subordination.
Religion has become the most contentious issue since the end of cold war. Among the religions under attack for cultural and political reasons, Islam stands first. There is a deliberate attempt to project Islam as a monolithic religion, which disregards diversity and pluralism. There is a misconception even among scholars that the anti-Islam sentiments were by-products of 9/11 and Talibanization. But in reality it is not true. The speed and pace of economic growth in some Islamic countries and their huge natural resources base have played a vital role in defining and redefining global attitude towards Islam - both political and cultural dimensions.
Western media has successfully projected the image of Islam in accordance with their immediate political and economic concerns. There was hardly any attempt on their part to study and explore the spirit and content of Islam as a religion practised by millions of people across the world. Instead there is a tendency to equate militancy and extremism with the very fabric of Islam. Even, the British Commission on Muslims, views that a deep dislike of Islam is not a new phenomenon in our society. What is new is the way it is articulated by those sections of society who claim the mantle of secularism, liberalism and tolerance. They are at the forefront of the fight against racism and against Islam and Muslims at the same time. They preach equality for all, yet turn a blind eye to the fact that Western society sometimes offers unequal opportunities for Muslim.
There is also another common misconception that terrorism originated in west Asia and its global religious affiliation is Islam. But it is absolutely wrong. Terrorism has roots in Europe. The history of genocide, brutal victimisation, etcetera dates back to pre-cold war Europe. Even though there is no denying fact that there are militant organisations functioning under the banner of Islam like Al-Qaeda, majority of the Muslims negates extremism in any form and content. When we analyse the growth and development of Al-Qaeda or any such terrorist movement, USA’s imperialistic involvement is evident. Once up on a time Osama was Washington’s ally. There are several other cases as well. There is no doubt that Talibanization or any type of fundamentalism needs to be checked. However, it is not politically correct to brand or demonise all the countries or movements which attack hegemony of Western culture and declaring the political weapon of “war on terror” on them
As a religion and culture, Islam provides sufficient space for reform though there are certain basic features which cannot be altered as it essentially constitute the “Islamic identity.” However, in social realm, this “identity” does not negate or disrespect any other religion of culture. To each to his own (Lakum deen na kum waliudeen). Islamic way of life neither comes in conflict with other cultures nor does it closes the social spaces for discourse and interaction with other culture. Hence it is painful to view Islam being contextualized and positioned as an entity opposite to and intolerant of the so-called democratic and liberal ideals and values for which the west stands for. This is often articulated through an onslaught on Muslims as a hegemonic community, where the religion of Islam is employed as a battering ram: a religion that is conceived and determined to be either uniquely evil or uniquely backward.
Islam is often equated with Taliban and headscarf is being seen as an embodiment of subordination of women. Even in the 90s, Netherlands and some other European countries discussed the issue of headscarf to project it as a conflict between Islam and modern liberal ideas of citizenship and public sphere. The terrorist attacks in the United States and Britain made such false claims more popular. In 2005, during the debate on terrorism prevention, some right wing members strongly argued that burkhas are women unfriendly and creates security threat in public places. Instead of recognising and subsequently creating moral and cultural space for other religious beliefs, attempts were made to reject the religious sentiments and identity consciousness of Muslim women and to homogenise the entire community into the dominant culture and identity. When the Taliban came into power in Afghanistan and wrong interpretation of Islam was given especially on the role of women, there was wide spread criticism across the world. But there was no such cry when negation of identity was initiated in Western Europe. Both are different sides of same coin - One projects itself as fundamental Islam and the other put the veil of democracy and liberalism to cover the face of hegemony and homogenisation. Both are equally disastrous as far as religion as a redeeming force is concerned. I think that wearing head scarf or turban in public places - to express ones identity explicitly - is more honest than preaching the sentiments of liberal democratic values on one hand and practising the politics of imperialism and cultural hegemony on the other.
More and more, one hears about homogenisation taking place ostensibly to deal with the threats faced by globalisation. What is happening is actually cultural bullying to wipe out identities to enable a sinister kind of mass public who will react similarly and predictably in an acceptable response level - acceptable to the powers that be. The reasons why people feel threatened is that their own indigenous base within the diversities of the world are getting threatened by large scale out - migration of their own kind and large scale in - migration of distinct foreigners who are making the land home to the extent of even changing the heritage landscape. International travellers often face insult and humiliation in airports whether it is Sharukh Khan or APJ Abdul Kalam. This is more acute in the case of people who wear dresses expressing his or her religious identity. Stereotyping and demonising of Muslims as extremists puts people into predetermined moulds. This is actually the result of poor knowledge about the other religion and culture. There is also the element of small-time prejudice getting the upper hand in such situations where travel staff goes by perceptible signs from clothing and speech accents to come to dubious conclusions. Such hubs are known for their harassment of international travellers who become soft targets for the first contact point in a foreign country. Nevertheless there are several Muslims peacefully living in USA and Europe without causing any disruption in society or culture even though majority of them continue practising Islam as their way of life. Irrespective of the nature of the current debates and arguments surrounding multiculturalism, neither Islam nor Muslims are incompatible with either liberalism or multiculturalism. The events of 9/11, 7/7 and 21/7 were not therefore evidence that multiculturalism is no more nor even that certain communities and religions needed to be vilified. The reality is indeed quite the opposite.
The key factor to protect multiculturalism in the contemporary world is to realize and accept the essential uniqueness of each religion and culture whether it is backward or modern as per the stereotype criteria. As far as Islam is concerned, movement for reform - if there is a felt need - should emerge within that culture and religion. It should not be a ”prescription sheet” given by others who condemn the culture or those who believe that contemporary Islam - as a religion, practice and politics - is essentially a threat to multiculturalism. The definition, content and discourse on Islam should not be something determined by either Al-Qaeda or USA. There are number of terrorist outfits which are not Islamic at all. There are several wars, which the USA and other countries fought in which Islamic countries were not a party. Hence, any effort to brand Islam as a “threat” and creator of “clash of civilisations” will only lead to wrong assumptions and further polarisations in society. Mutual respect and resilience should be the bottom line when the geographical barriers dividing countries are getting blurred and redrawn. The key to harmony in a multicultural world is to understand that every culture is inherently plural and porous. Culture and religion evolves over centuries and the content will be refined in tune with the time. What we can do is to celebrate diversity as a positive corollary of peaceful co-existence. The branding and exclusion of a particular religion will not support the future of multiculturalism. Rather, liberal democracy and multiculturalism should be practised through the recognition and respect towards other religious beliefs with a strong conviction that their specific cultural identity will not hamper the scope for the collective consciousness of the mainstream society.
Published in Weekly Holiday 16th October, 2009.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Remembering Khurrum Khan Panni
TO write or comment on the life of a political personality is a tough task. The achievements, the tribulations, the struggles, the endurance¦ and long years of success and survival can hardly be presented in a small piece of writing. It will certainly be an injustice if the mission and philosophy of the person is not conveyed in words. This is especially important when we have to write about a person with whom we share a very fond relationship. I was in such a dilemma when I thought about late Khurram Khan Panni. He was a great freedom fighter, a successful diplomat, an efficient administrator, a charming socialite and, above all, a very humble and honest person. But, in my heart, he occupies a special space -- beyond his social and political face, he was an extremely loving and inspiring father to me. Even now, I am proud to hear when people introduce me as son of Khurram Khan Panni.
He was greatly admired by people from all walks of life and enjoyed enormous prestige during his life time.
For some years I had thought of writing a book about his life and also about my great grandfather, late Wajid Ali Khan Panni (Chand Mia). But I gave up the idea as I am not sure whether I can interpret their ideas and political role very objectively. Hence I decided to confine my efforts in a small write-up.
Khurram Khan Panni, my beloved father, was born on 16th November, 1921, at a time when freedom struggle was entering into a different phase. He was the eldest son of Masud Ali Khan Panni and eldest grandson of Wajid Ali Khan Panni, famous social reformer and zamindar of Karatia. The aristocratic family background and the towering personality of his grandfather had influenced the personal traits and political views of KKP throughout his life. His childhood in Karatia was most urbane and yet, tranquil and peaceful as it was away from the hectic city life of a big city. However, at home, the family then was actively involved in Muslim League politics and freedom struggle. So, any political turbulence in Delhi or Calcutta had its resonance in Karatia Zamindar House as well. Hence, from a very young age, KKP got interested in politics and felt deeply disturbed about the British policy towards Indian struggle for independence. His father was very keen to provide the best education to his son. He was sent to St. Paul's School, Darjeeling , and later St. Xavier's School and Presidency College in Kolkata. But his primary interest was in politics and to join freedom struggle. During his Presidency College days, he was quite popular and enjoyed good companions. Some of his close friends later played prominent role in the history of our subcontinent. To name some, Mr. Siddhartha Shankar Ray, former Chief Minister of Bengal, Mr. Ashok Sen, a famous lawyer and Mr. Abu Sayyed Chowdhury, former President of the People's Republic of Bangladesh
KKP entered into politics at a very young age. His upbringing had profound influence on his political perspective and he became active supporter of freedom struggle. Like all other young aristocratic intellectuals who were attracted by western liberalism, he was too critical about the exploitation and oppression of British rulers. He started his political career as Private Secretary to his maternal grandfather, Sir Abdul Halim Ghaznavi, who was a minister in the Bengal Government along with Sir Zafrullah. But later he joined Muslim League and shifted to the path of political activism. He had participated in Quit India Movement and was elected to the Bengal Assembly in 1942 but was unseated due to under age.
This was an interesting story.According to his matriculation certificate, his year of birth was 1920. I think, he was a bit too young to give his matriculation, so the year of birth was shown as 1920. However, later a telegram was produced as evidence against his age, which was sent by his father to his father-in-law: "Son born, both mother and child well". And in the telegram, the date was November 1921. As a result, he was unseated. Later, when the by -election came, as the seat had to be vacated, he was eligible to contest and won from the seat.
After partition, he continued his political career. However, soon after independence and partition, Muslim League became unpopular in East Pakistan. He could not succeed in Tangail constituency as the majority of former ML leaders joined hands with the opposition (United Front) and defeated the Muslim League and the party was almost wiped out. KKP stayed quiet. Later, when Ayub Khan, who took over power in Pakistan in a bloodless coup in 1958, held election in 1962, KKP was elected unopposed as an independent candidate and became member of the East Pakistan Provincial Assembly. He later joined the ruling party and became the Chief Whip of the ruling party in the assembly. In 1963, KKP started another turn in his career as a diplomat which he had enjoyed completely. In 1963, he was appointed Pakistan Commissioner to the East African countries -- Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika and Zanzibar. Later in the same year these countries became independent from the British colonial rule and he was upgraded to High Commissioner accredited to most of the east African Countries like Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania (Tanganyika and Zanzibar united), Zambia and Ethiopia. I got an opportunity to be with KKP during his diplomatic career in Africa. He had an amazing level of integrity and dedication towards the causes he stood for. I learned the basics of managing international diplomacy during this period and this exposure did indeed help me enormously to deal with the problems of Bangladeshis in Malaysia while I was serving as High Commissioner there.
In 1966, KKP was appointed as Pakistan Ambassador to Argentina where he opened the Pakistan mission. In 1969, he was appointed Pakistan Ambassador to Philippines. However, he was unhappy during these days as, I can recall, he faced a dilemma in continuing as Ambassador when his heart and soul stood for the cause of East Pakistan and Bengali identity and right to self-determination. In early 1970, he visited East Pakistan and propagated for the Awami League when he visited Tangail and Karatia. He strongly believed in AL's ability to bring the rightful choice to the suffering and exploited people of the then East Pakistan. In 1971, when the freedom movement started, he opted out of the post of Ambassador of Pakistan and openly declared his loyalty to Mujib and AL and the freedom struggle for an independent Bangladesh. Karamatullah K. Ghori, who was the Number Two in Pakistan Mission in Philippines, later wrote about this incident. KKP called a press conference at his embassy residence. A reporter asked him at the press conference: "What is your Number Two doing? Is he also walking out on Pakistan?" "No", said KKP, "But years from now when he looks back at this period he might regret he didn't make the right choice." These were prophetic words, Karamatullah Ghori confessed later in his column. In June 1971, KKP was appointed as the Roving Ambassador of the Mujibnagar Government, the government-in-exile of Bangladesh. He travelled all over the South East Asian countries and Australia, seeking support for the freedom movement. Interestingly, most of the countries did extend support. Malaysia was a bit hesitant to openly support. In 1965, during Indo-Pakistan war, Malaysian representative in UN (who was of Indian origin) had declared that Pakistan was the aggressor. As a result, Pakistan had broken diplomatic ties with Malaysia which was restored later. Hence Malaysia was a bit careful but after liberation, Malaysia was the first Muslim country to recognise Independent Bangladesh, followed by Indonesia. KKP was sent to Jakarta as the first Ambassador of independent Bangladesh.
It was a tough time for Bangladesh as the majority of the Muslim countries and China did not recognise Bangladesh as an independent nation. They supported Pakistan. Vigorous lobbying was launched to convince this bloc of countries to accept independent Bangladesh. Indonesia, being the largest Muslim country, played an important role in convincing other countries to recognise Bangladesh.KKP used his diplomatic skill to lobby for Bangladesh and to get for the country its due place in the international community. Bangabandhu was keen to get membership of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference [OIC] as well. Pakistan gave as its condition to recognise Bangladesh the release of the prisoners of war without trial. In this "exchange offer" Indonesia played a vital role as a mediator and KKP, as the Ambassador, was the mediator on behalf of Bangabandhu.
KKP was always of the opinion that Bangabandhu has played the most vital role in the emancipation of the Bengali people and in getting the independence. Bangladesh owes its independent existence to Bangabandhu and his movement. KKP was proud of the new sovereign country. He was a great admirer and supporter of Bangabandhu and advised me to join and support Awami League.
KKP discontinued active politics and diplomatic career after his Inbdonesian assignment was over. In 1975 he went to the USA where two of his younger sons and daughter were settled. He settled in Seattle.
He was very ill during the last 3/4 years of his life. He could not walk, and was almost bed-ridden. When mother passed away in 1995, I used to go to the USA often and stay for months to look after and nurse him and to cook for him. He was so pleased and I think our bond as father and son became strong during the last period of his life. Since I studied in a boarding school and he was very busy with his political engagements we hardly got time to share ideas when I was young.
So I felt grateful to the Almighty for giving me an opportunity to look after him when he was weak and frail. He used to share his experience as a politician and diplomat and cherish the nostalgic memories of Karatia, Calcutta and Dhaka and, of course, of Bangabandhu. He asked me to join Awami League as he felt this is what he owes to Bangbandhu. When he visited Bangladesh in 1980, he was shocked that there were no pictures of Bangbandhu any where and no one talked about this great man and then he commented sadly, "Is our nation is so ungrateful?"
He died on 25th January, 1997. I am happy that I could keep my promise to him. As a person KKP was warm, friendly and lovable. It was well known that he was a person whom no one could greet first. He was polite and gentle to everyone, irrespective of class, politics and nationality. His manners were impeccable, a true aristocrat with great manners, yet humble and honest. He was always vivacious and dynamic. When he was a young man he was a great horse rider and played polo with the princes in India. His hobby was flying and had a PPL (Private Pilot's License]. He also sang well. No man could be a better host than him. He was charming with good breeding, elegance combined with simplicity and sincerity. He was always attentive to his guests and admired arts and music. He encouraged us to learn music and musical instruments. He enjoyed interesting conversation and his own contribution during long hours of chatting was lively in a calm voice. He appeared well dressed and grace was natural to him. As a father he was the embodiment of affection and discipline. While looking back, I feel so proud to be the son of KKP. I can't claim that I have inherited many of his best qualities as a human being and a great leader. But, I am sure he had profound influence on my personality, political views and attitude to the common man and his myriad problems.
And, above all, I feel that I have inherited the most important part of my father's legacy -- Love for our own Bangladesh. Whatever his success or failure, his misjudgments and misgivings, he stood for shaping and nurturing Sonar Bangla as envisaged and dreamt by Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. I am so proud to inherit the spirit of his will and desire to watch Bangladesh achieving the zenith of its glory.
October 31 2009 finacial express ,Dhaka
TO write or comment on the life of a political personality is a tough task. The achievements, the tribulations, the struggles, the endurance¦ and long years of success and survival can hardly be presented in a small piece of writing. It will certainly be an injustice if the mission and philosophy of the person is not conveyed in words. This is especially important when we have to write about a person with whom we share a very fond relationship. I was in such a dilemma when I thought about late Khurram Khan Panni. He was a great freedom fighter, a successful diplomat, an efficient administrator, a charming socialite and, above all, a very humble and honest person. But, in my heart, he occupies a special space -- beyond his social and political face, he was an extremely loving and inspiring father to me. Even now, I am proud to hear when people introduce me as son of Khurram Khan Panni.
He was greatly admired by people from all walks of life and enjoyed enormous prestige during his life time.
For some years I had thought of writing a book about his life and also about my great grandfather, late Wajid Ali Khan Panni (Chand Mia). But I gave up the idea as I am not sure whether I can interpret their ideas and political role very objectively. Hence I decided to confine my efforts in a small write-up.
Khurram Khan Panni, my beloved father, was born on 16th November, 1921, at a time when freedom struggle was entering into a different phase. He was the eldest son of Masud Ali Khan Panni and eldest grandson of Wajid Ali Khan Panni, famous social reformer and zamindar of Karatia. The aristocratic family background and the towering personality of his grandfather had influenced the personal traits and political views of KKP throughout his life. His childhood in Karatia was most urbane and yet, tranquil and peaceful as it was away from the hectic city life of a big city. However, at home, the family then was actively involved in Muslim League politics and freedom struggle. So, any political turbulence in Delhi or Calcutta had its resonance in Karatia Zamindar House as well. Hence, from a very young age, KKP got interested in politics and felt deeply disturbed about the British policy towards Indian struggle for independence. His father was very keen to provide the best education to his son. He was sent to St. Paul's School, Darjeeling , and later St. Xavier's School and Presidency College in Kolkata. But his primary interest was in politics and to join freedom struggle. During his Presidency College days, he was quite popular and enjoyed good companions. Some of his close friends later played prominent role in the history of our subcontinent. To name some, Mr. Siddhartha Shankar Ray, former Chief Minister of Bengal, Mr. Ashok Sen, a famous lawyer and Mr. Abu Sayyed Chowdhury, former President of the People's Republic of Bangladesh
KKP entered into politics at a very young age. His upbringing had profound influence on his political perspective and he became active supporter of freedom struggle. Like all other young aristocratic intellectuals who were attracted by western liberalism, he was too critical about the exploitation and oppression of British rulers. He started his political career as Private Secretary to his maternal grandfather, Sir Abdul Halim Ghaznavi, who was a minister in the Bengal Government along with Sir Zafrullah. But later he joined Muslim League and shifted to the path of political activism. He had participated in Quit India Movement and was elected to the Bengal Assembly in 1942 but was unseated due to under age.
This was an interesting story.According to his matriculation certificate, his year of birth was 1920. I think, he was a bit too young to give his matriculation, so the year of birth was shown as 1920. However, later a telegram was produced as evidence against his age, which was sent by his father to his father-in-law: "Son born, both mother and child well". And in the telegram, the date was November 1921. As a result, he was unseated. Later, when the by -election came, as the seat had to be vacated, he was eligible to contest and won from the seat.
After partition, he continued his political career. However, soon after independence and partition, Muslim League became unpopular in East Pakistan. He could not succeed in Tangail constituency as the majority of former ML leaders joined hands with the opposition (United Front) and defeated the Muslim League and the party was almost wiped out. KKP stayed quiet. Later, when Ayub Khan, who took over power in Pakistan in a bloodless coup in 1958, held election in 1962, KKP was elected unopposed as an independent candidate and became member of the East Pakistan Provincial Assembly. He later joined the ruling party and became the Chief Whip of the ruling party in the assembly. In 1963, KKP started another turn in his career as a diplomat which he had enjoyed completely. In 1963, he was appointed Pakistan Commissioner to the East African countries -- Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika and Zanzibar. Later in the same year these countries became independent from the British colonial rule and he was upgraded to High Commissioner accredited to most of the east African Countries like Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania (Tanganyika and Zanzibar united), Zambia and Ethiopia. I got an opportunity to be with KKP during his diplomatic career in Africa. He had an amazing level of integrity and dedication towards the causes he stood for. I learned the basics of managing international diplomacy during this period and this exposure did indeed help me enormously to deal with the problems of Bangladeshis in Malaysia while I was serving as High Commissioner there.
In 1966, KKP was appointed as Pakistan Ambassador to Argentina where he opened the Pakistan mission. In 1969, he was appointed Pakistan Ambassador to Philippines. However, he was unhappy during these days as, I can recall, he faced a dilemma in continuing as Ambassador when his heart and soul stood for the cause of East Pakistan and Bengali identity and right to self-determination. In early 1970, he visited East Pakistan and propagated for the Awami League when he visited Tangail and Karatia. He strongly believed in AL's ability to bring the rightful choice to the suffering and exploited people of the then East Pakistan. In 1971, when the freedom movement started, he opted out of the post of Ambassador of Pakistan and openly declared his loyalty to Mujib and AL and the freedom struggle for an independent Bangladesh. Karamatullah K. Ghori, who was the Number Two in Pakistan Mission in Philippines, later wrote about this incident. KKP called a press conference at his embassy residence. A reporter asked him at the press conference: "What is your Number Two doing? Is he also walking out on Pakistan?" "No", said KKP, "But years from now when he looks back at this period he might regret he didn't make the right choice." These were prophetic words, Karamatullah Ghori confessed later in his column. In June 1971, KKP was appointed as the Roving Ambassador of the Mujibnagar Government, the government-in-exile of Bangladesh. He travelled all over the South East Asian countries and Australia, seeking support for the freedom movement. Interestingly, most of the countries did extend support. Malaysia was a bit hesitant to openly support. In 1965, during Indo-Pakistan war, Malaysian representative in UN (who was of Indian origin) had declared that Pakistan was the aggressor. As a result, Pakistan had broken diplomatic ties with Malaysia which was restored later. Hence Malaysia was a bit careful but after liberation, Malaysia was the first Muslim country to recognise Independent Bangladesh, followed by Indonesia. KKP was sent to Jakarta as the first Ambassador of independent Bangladesh.
It was a tough time for Bangladesh as the majority of the Muslim countries and China did not recognise Bangladesh as an independent nation. They supported Pakistan. Vigorous lobbying was launched to convince this bloc of countries to accept independent Bangladesh. Indonesia, being the largest Muslim country, played an important role in convincing other countries to recognise Bangladesh.KKP used his diplomatic skill to lobby for Bangladesh and to get for the country its due place in the international community. Bangabandhu was keen to get membership of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference [OIC] as well. Pakistan gave as its condition to recognise Bangladesh the release of the prisoners of war without trial. In this "exchange offer" Indonesia played a vital role as a mediator and KKP, as the Ambassador, was the mediator on behalf of Bangabandhu.
KKP was always of the opinion that Bangabandhu has played the most vital role in the emancipation of the Bengali people and in getting the independence. Bangladesh owes its independent existence to Bangabandhu and his movement. KKP was proud of the new sovereign country. He was a great admirer and supporter of Bangabandhu and advised me to join and support Awami League.
KKP discontinued active politics and diplomatic career after his Inbdonesian assignment was over. In 1975 he went to the USA where two of his younger sons and daughter were settled. He settled in Seattle.
He was very ill during the last 3/4 years of his life. He could not walk, and was almost bed-ridden. When mother passed away in 1995, I used to go to the USA often and stay for months to look after and nurse him and to cook for him. He was so pleased and I think our bond as father and son became strong during the last period of his life. Since I studied in a boarding school and he was very busy with his political engagements we hardly got time to share ideas when I was young.
So I felt grateful to the Almighty for giving me an opportunity to look after him when he was weak and frail. He used to share his experience as a politician and diplomat and cherish the nostalgic memories of Karatia, Calcutta and Dhaka and, of course, of Bangabandhu. He asked me to join Awami League as he felt this is what he owes to Bangbandhu. When he visited Bangladesh in 1980, he was shocked that there were no pictures of Bangbandhu any where and no one talked about this great man and then he commented sadly, "Is our nation is so ungrateful?"
He died on 25th January, 1997. I am happy that I could keep my promise to him. As a person KKP was warm, friendly and lovable. It was well known that he was a person whom no one could greet first. He was polite and gentle to everyone, irrespective of class, politics and nationality. His manners were impeccable, a true aristocrat with great manners, yet humble and honest. He was always vivacious and dynamic. When he was a young man he was a great horse rider and played polo with the princes in India. His hobby was flying and had a PPL (Private Pilot's License]. He also sang well. No man could be a better host than him. He was charming with good breeding, elegance combined with simplicity and sincerity. He was always attentive to his guests and admired arts and music. He encouraged us to learn music and musical instruments. He enjoyed interesting conversation and his own contribution during long hours of chatting was lively in a calm voice. He appeared well dressed and grace was natural to him. As a father he was the embodiment of affection and discipline. While looking back, I feel so proud to be the son of KKP. I can't claim that I have inherited many of his best qualities as a human being and a great leader. But, I am sure he had profound influence on my personality, political views and attitude to the common man and his myriad problems.
And, above all, I feel that I have inherited the most important part of my father's legacy -- Love for our own Bangladesh. Whatever his success or failure, his misjudgments and misgivings, he stood for shaping and nurturing Sonar Bangla as envisaged and dreamt by Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. I am so proud to inherit the spirit of his will and desire to watch Bangladesh achieving the zenith of its glory.
October 31 2009 finacial express ,Dhaka
Views on Jinnah Debate
Wajid Ali Khan Panni
Muhammad Ali Jinnah has the image of demon in Indian political folklore. There are thousands of demons in Indian Mythology and the partition of the country in 1947 had added one more into the list. There are three national heroes as well-Gandhi, Nehru and Patel. Hence any attack or criticisms on these Pan- Indian heroes were treated as highly objectionable and to some extent insult to the whole country. Even though India always hails the rhetoric of resilience and tolerance, certain great idols were always remain untouched and above criticism. Unfortunately, Jaswant Singh has taken the path to unveil certain facts which will ultimately lead to de-glorifying great idols and personalities in contemporary Indian history. This is evident from the mass reaction to the book, though majority of Indians cannot read the book which is written in English.
I have not seen the book. But from newspaper reports and the large number of comments spreading through internet since the expulsion of Jaswant Singh from BJP, I could gather certain information about the book. I think the most objectionable part which forced BJP to expel the senior leader and Narendra Modi to ban the book in his state, is his perspective on partition and the role of the great idols and Jinnah in shaping the destiny of our subcontinent. Jaswant used historical facts to substantiate the role of Nehru and Gandhi in rejecting the Cabinet Mission Plan which envisaged a loose federation inclusive of the two contenting nations. That could have avoided the bloodshed and partition of the country. He further blames Nehru and Patel for the partition as against the popular perception of an ambitious Jinnah and communal Muslim League.
Those who protest against Jaswant’s views have their right to dissent. But, they should also respect his freedom of expression. This is especially important in a country which preaches democracy in spirit and practice. Jaswant is not the first writer who raised this issue. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, another pioneering hero of the freedom struggle also wrote about his painful experience with Nehru and Patel during the period of Cabinet Mission discussion. His book ‘India Wins Freedom’ reveals the whole episode of betrayal and lack of consensus among Congress leaders. Even Maulana was sidelined by Nehru and Patel through out the discussion. So I don’t understand why there is witch hunting for Jaswant alone? There is a long list of historians including mainstream intellectuals in India who share similar views about partition and birth of Pakistan. However there are quite a number of historians who expressed their view that it was an ‘avoidable’ historical mistake; not a necessity of circumstances.
The arguments- against this idea of united India with a loose federal structure- put forth by Nehru and Patel pointed to the subsequent balkanization of India. Needless to say, it sounds an equally valid point. Hence, this argument became the most predominant view on partition in post-independent India. But in closer analysis, this argument contradicts with India’s centuries old tradition of ‘unity in diversity’ and the rhetoric of tolerance and freedom to dissent. Why should the country with a history of more than five thousand years, afraid of powerful provinces? Why do the nation which survived various external conquests and invasions care about the threat within the boundaries? We are taught that Indian freedom movement was a pan-Indian upsurge which cut across religious linguistic and cultural boundaries in its struggle towards freedom. If so, they should be able to sustain the unity even after independence as there are common issues to be addressed. Hence, the ‘fear of Balkanization’ forces us to think that the Congress and its leaders were not absolutely sure about the success of unity rhetoric if provinces were given more power than the center. Moreover, the leaders were afraid of the popularity of certain powerful provincial leaders who had mass appeal, though not western educated and sophisticated.
However, amidst the criticisms one should admit the fact that Indian democracy survived at least in form and content when other post-colonial nation states failed to do so. The delivery of democracy, its substantive elements, the actual role of masses in power sharing etc are debatable issues. But, India, unlike other South Asian countries, was able to sustain procedural democracy without flowing into authoritarianism, though there was a brief and failed attempt of Mrs. Gandhi in 70’s.
According to popular view, the credit goes to the great leaders and their amazing skill and statesmanship. There is no doubt about their skill and leadership capability. But, I think, there is another equally important but almost forgotten reason behind this success-It is India’s unique constitution which is still novel in several aspects. There are too many checks and balances in the constitution which prevent any single power center or pillar to become omnipotent. Unlike other Asian neighbors, role of Army and Army Chief in official hierarchy is considerably low. Apart from that there is an excellent system of distribution of powers between center and state envisaged in the constitution. Above all, Indian Constitution always highlights independence and impartiality of judiciary which indeed made the system survive on several crisis situations. This stability and success of parliamentary democracy in India have immensely contributed to the economic success of the country as well. Regime changes have not affected the basic structure of the political system and the institutions like the judicial systems remained untouched. I think Bangladesh should learn from this experience. Amidst turmoil, internal crisis and political differences etc, we should not compromise on certain fundamental principles enshrined in constitution.
For this constitution, Indians should thank a forgotten and often sidelined real ‘hero’ who played vital role in drafting the constitution-Dr. B.R.Ambedkar. A downtrodden by birth, he knew the internal contradictions of Indian society and its evidently undemocratic feudal structure. Hence, he fought in the Constituent assembly for fundamental rights, directive principles and other humanitarian clauses to make an egalitarian system based on the ideals of justice, democracy and liberty. His analysis was so forceful that nobody in the constituent assembly was able to counter his arguments. I strongly feel that Indians are still reluctant to respect Ambedkar at par with other national heroes. It may be partly because of the reason that he collaborated with British. But his attitudes towards Congress and freedom movement changed only after he realized that the large majority of India’s untouchables will not have a place in free India unless and until there voice were heard separately. So he initiated the movements of the so called Harijans. Now Ambedkar is popularly regarded as the undisputed leader of untouchables; not as the leader of the whole country. A book titled ‘Worshiping False Gods’ was written by Arun Shourie, another senior BJP leader, years ago which condemns Ambedkar and his role. But the book was not banned even in Ambedkar’s home state Maharashtra. Though BJP and RSS always speak for Hindu unity and Hindu interests, why did they welcome Arun Shouri’s book? Ambedkar was also a national leader with equal statesmanship. Above all he was not even a Muslim like Jinnah. If Patel was responsible for the unification of independent India, Ambedkar drafted the constitution. Why the party and intellectuals follow paradoxical approaches?
While going back to Partition, I think, there are three reasons- the exclusivist attitude and shortsightedness of Congress, Jinnah’s ambition and British policy of divide and rule. All these three reasons are held equally responsible for the partition of the country. Putting the Blame only on one factor essentially means distortion of history. Demonizing one or worshiping the other will only lead to further cleavages and conflicts. Nevertheless, although, so many lives had to be given, there emerged three sovereign countries, India Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Wajid Ali Khan Panni
Muhammad Ali Jinnah has the image of demon in Indian political folklore. There are thousands of demons in Indian Mythology and the partition of the country in 1947 had added one more into the list. There are three national heroes as well-Gandhi, Nehru and Patel. Hence any attack or criticisms on these Pan- Indian heroes were treated as highly objectionable and to some extent insult to the whole country. Even though India always hails the rhetoric of resilience and tolerance, certain great idols were always remain untouched and above criticism. Unfortunately, Jaswant Singh has taken the path to unveil certain facts which will ultimately lead to de-glorifying great idols and personalities in contemporary Indian history. This is evident from the mass reaction to the book, though majority of Indians cannot read the book which is written in English.
I have not seen the book. But from newspaper reports and the large number of comments spreading through internet since the expulsion of Jaswant Singh from BJP, I could gather certain information about the book. I think the most objectionable part which forced BJP to expel the senior leader and Narendra Modi to ban the book in his state, is his perspective on partition and the role of the great idols and Jinnah in shaping the destiny of our subcontinent. Jaswant used historical facts to substantiate the role of Nehru and Gandhi in rejecting the Cabinet Mission Plan which envisaged a loose federation inclusive of the two contenting nations. That could have avoided the bloodshed and partition of the country. He further blames Nehru and Patel for the partition as against the popular perception of an ambitious Jinnah and communal Muslim League.
Those who protest against Jaswant’s views have their right to dissent. But, they should also respect his freedom of expression. This is especially important in a country which preaches democracy in spirit and practice. Jaswant is not the first writer who raised this issue. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, another pioneering hero of the freedom struggle also wrote about his painful experience with Nehru and Patel during the period of Cabinet Mission discussion. His book ‘India Wins Freedom’ reveals the whole episode of betrayal and lack of consensus among Congress leaders. Even Maulana was sidelined by Nehru and Patel through out the discussion. So I don’t understand why there is witch hunting for Jaswant alone? There is a long list of historians including mainstream intellectuals in India who share similar views about partition and birth of Pakistan. However there are quite a number of historians who expressed their view that it was an ‘avoidable’ historical mistake; not a necessity of circumstances.
The arguments- against this idea of united India with a loose federal structure- put forth by Nehru and Patel pointed to the subsequent balkanization of India. Needless to say, it sounds an equally valid point. Hence, this argument became the most predominant view on partition in post-independent India. But in closer analysis, this argument contradicts with India’s centuries old tradition of ‘unity in diversity’ and the rhetoric of tolerance and freedom to dissent. Why should the country with a history of more than five thousand years, afraid of powerful provinces? Why do the nation which survived various external conquests and invasions care about the threat within the boundaries? We are taught that Indian freedom movement was a pan-Indian upsurge which cut across religious linguistic and cultural boundaries in its struggle towards freedom. If so, they should be able to sustain the unity even after independence as there are common issues to be addressed. Hence, the ‘fear of Balkanization’ forces us to think that the Congress and its leaders were not absolutely sure about the success of unity rhetoric if provinces were given more power than the center. Moreover, the leaders were afraid of the popularity of certain powerful provincial leaders who had mass appeal, though not western educated and sophisticated.
However, amidst the criticisms one should admit the fact that Indian democracy survived at least in form and content when other post-colonial nation states failed to do so. The delivery of democracy, its substantive elements, the actual role of masses in power sharing etc are debatable issues. But, India, unlike other South Asian countries, was able to sustain procedural democracy without flowing into authoritarianism, though there was a brief and failed attempt of Mrs. Gandhi in 70’s.
According to popular view, the credit goes to the great leaders and their amazing skill and statesmanship. There is no doubt about their skill and leadership capability. But, I think, there is another equally important but almost forgotten reason behind this success-It is India’s unique constitution which is still novel in several aspects. There are too many checks and balances in the constitution which prevent any single power center or pillar to become omnipotent. Unlike other Asian neighbors, role of Army and Army Chief in official hierarchy is considerably low. Apart from that there is an excellent system of distribution of powers between center and state envisaged in the constitution. Above all, Indian Constitution always highlights independence and impartiality of judiciary which indeed made the system survive on several crisis situations. This stability and success of parliamentary democracy in India have immensely contributed to the economic success of the country as well. Regime changes have not affected the basic structure of the political system and the institutions like the judicial systems remained untouched. I think Bangladesh should learn from this experience. Amidst turmoil, internal crisis and political differences etc, we should not compromise on certain fundamental principles enshrined in constitution.
For this constitution, Indians should thank a forgotten and often sidelined real ‘hero’ who played vital role in drafting the constitution-Dr. B.R.Ambedkar. A downtrodden by birth, he knew the internal contradictions of Indian society and its evidently undemocratic feudal structure. Hence, he fought in the Constituent assembly for fundamental rights, directive principles and other humanitarian clauses to make an egalitarian system based on the ideals of justice, democracy and liberty. His analysis was so forceful that nobody in the constituent assembly was able to counter his arguments. I strongly feel that Indians are still reluctant to respect Ambedkar at par with other national heroes. It may be partly because of the reason that he collaborated with British. But his attitudes towards Congress and freedom movement changed only after he realized that the large majority of India’s untouchables will not have a place in free India unless and until there voice were heard separately. So he initiated the movements of the so called Harijans. Now Ambedkar is popularly regarded as the undisputed leader of untouchables; not as the leader of the whole country. A book titled ‘Worshiping False Gods’ was written by Arun Shourie, another senior BJP leader, years ago which condemns Ambedkar and his role. But the book was not banned even in Ambedkar’s home state Maharashtra. Though BJP and RSS always speak for Hindu unity and Hindu interests, why did they welcome Arun Shouri’s book? Ambedkar was also a national leader with equal statesmanship. Above all he was not even a Muslim like Jinnah. If Patel was responsible for the unification of independent India, Ambedkar drafted the constitution. Why the party and intellectuals follow paradoxical approaches?
While going back to Partition, I think, there are three reasons- the exclusivist attitude and shortsightedness of Congress, Jinnah’s ambition and British policy of divide and rule. All these three reasons are held equally responsible for the partition of the country. Putting the Blame only on one factor essentially means distortion of history. Demonizing one or worshiping the other will only lead to further cleavages and conflicts. Nevertheless, although, so many lives had to be given, there emerged three sovereign countries, India Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
some thoughts for a beter nation
Speech delivered at IUB on 18/11/2009
GOOD GOVERNANCE AND POLITICIZATION OF BUREAUCRACY: NEED FOR A NEW APPROACH
Good governance is the most important factor in eradicating poverty and promoting development.” Kofi Annan [former Secretary General, UN]
Governance is a concept comprising complex mechanisms, processes, institutions and relationships through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their rights and mediate their differences. In most of the developing world, the debate about governance is taking place within the context of rapid urbanization combined with political and economic changes. The challenges of development is not only to improve the quality of life but also to achieve higher standards of health, nutrition, a cleaner environment, more equality of opportunity, greater individual freedom and a richer cultural life.
Many of the multilateral organizations including the United Nations and the World Bank have stressed the elements of good governance and their relation to development. In the Millennium Declaration, the world’s leaders stated that the development goals could only be achieved through good or democratic governance. They, furthermore pledged to spare no effort to promote democracy and strengthen the rule of law.
Democracy cannot function effectively in the absence of good governance. And both are complimentary to each other. However, representative democracy alone cannot guarantee good governance. It requires an efficient and non partisan administrative machinery to carry out the massive challenges of governance to achieve the objectives of transparency, accountability and participation. Surveying the experience of developing countries in the years since the end of colonialism, it is evident that administration has a pivotal role to play in socio-economic development. When we analyze the successful democracies and economic powers in the world we can see that all those countries have an efficient system of public administration run by career bureaucrats.
Singapore is an example. Although Singapore inherited the same British model of governance as other Commonwealth states, its governing system has become widely known for efficiency and competence, especially in terms of its role in generating an “economic miracle.” Between 1988 and 1997, its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased more than 2.5 times; between 1993 and 1997, it continued to rank very high in terms of its business-friendly environment; and by 1994, its per capita GDP ($20,000) surpassed that of Australia, Canada and the UK.Since independence, the government depended on the civil service to build a state and create the conditions which would maintain it in power. Notable feature of the government bureaucracy in Singapore has been the lack of corruption
Even though critics often repudiate the repressive and anti-human policies of Singapore Government and administration, one cannot deny the fact that Singapore has one of the most efficient and meritocratic administrative system based on service delivery and transparency.
In the case of the political systems which have experience the collapse of democracy and emergence of authoritarianism, one of the common denominator, always, was politicized and dysfunctional administration. We have several examples including our own country.
Unfortunately Bangladesh also had to witness a history of chaos, instability and economic backwardness like many other newly emerged nation states in Asia and Africa. Lack of a professional cadre of administrators without any commitment to democratic values and ethics, has seriously eroded the prospects of our country’s development-both economic and political. Hence, reform in civil service and good governance are urgent need for a more stable and prosperous Bangladesh. Unfortunately, there is hardly any meaningful effort towards this goal.
When we became independent in 1971, we inherited an exploited and war torn economy, under-developed infrastructure and several other social constraints. Naturally, the hopes and aspirations of the people looked forward for a stable and egalitarian welfare state based on the principles of equality, justice and efficiency. However, after independence our leaders were too busy in solving the urgent political expediencies related to power sharing, completely neglecting the need for laying the strong foundation of an apolitical and professional civil service based on merit. In contrast, Indian leaders gave priority to the administrative system and decided to follow the British Civil Service system which the country inherited as a colonial legacy. Inspite of India’s massive size and diversities, administrative structure is uniform with a certain degree of efficiency and accountability. Though there is change in governments, no attempt was made to change the pattern of recruitment or making bureaucracy subservient to political patronage. This efficient administrative system has helped the country to secure economic growth and development. On the contrary, lack of stable and effective administrative structure coupled with political unrest has seriously affected our country’s prospects. Even though large amount of public expenditure was incurred on development, the efforts were often ended up in mismanagement, corruption and authoritarianism.
When Banga Bandhu was not given the power to form the Government after the 1970 election victory in Pakistan, he announced a non cooperative movement and asked the Govt. officers, civil and military administration to lay down their work till the power was handed over in a democratic manner. Majority of the East Pakistani officers supported this movement. When Freedom movement began, this support from administration and military became widespread and bureaucrats and army officers joined hands with civilians to attain freedom. This was justifiable as the circumstances needed the support of entire people irrespective of civilians and bureaucrats. But after independence the new country should have checked politicization of army and bureaucracy as these would have lead to authoritarianism and corruption.
In India, leaders were able to curb the undue influence of Army and bureaucracy in politics. The Army, Navy and Air-force come under Defense Ministry and there are cabinet committees to oversee the functioning or Army. In short, there exist several checks and balances to avoid any of the defense forces to become powerful enough to overthrow civilian structure.
But our leaders failed to check the influence of army in politics and we had to face the drastic consequences.
Ever since independence, there was a deliberate attempt to politicize bureaucracy in Bangladesh by all political parties. Soon after independence, it was freedom fighters who received undue promotion and patronage through the side tracking of the others who did not get an opportunity as they were stuck in Pakistan and were later repatriated. Competence and efficiency was never taken into consideration and political affiliation and loyalty were the parameters for selection and promotion. Our political parties deliberately ignored the fact that a new born democracy need efficient and accountable administration rather than a group of servants .With every change of Government, all the good and lucrative postings were given to those who have been victimized for alleged inefficiency or incompetency by the previous government. Their plea was that the government considered them supporter of the party in opposition. As a result of this ongoing drama, we have now pro-Awami League, pro-BNP and pro-other party bureaucrats. We can hardly find out a pro-Bangladeshi bureaucrats sincerely committed to the aspirations of the people over and above his own party preferences and commitments to leaders in power. In this process development goals were often neglected and most of the time this career civil servants were busy in doing favors to political masters and their party members. This has led to widespread corruption and patronage politics.
Apart from that we have seen civil servants agitating on the streets for their demands in some case, demanding change of Government, which often disrupted the functioning of formal democracy in our country. The army taking over the reign of power through coups and counter coups. There were several mutinies in Air force, Navy, Ansar and civil service too and the latest was the mutiny in the BDR which has led to death of many officers and innocent people. On all these occasion we can see that our administration miserably failed to control the forces or civil servants. More over we couldn’t take necessary steps to avoid its future recurrence. Political parties always used Army and civil servants for their own selfish motives and vice versa. This unholy nexus or deal between politics/Army/ bureaucracy is the worst curse or our country.
However In spite of such bad governance, Bangladesh has survived as the people and the local Union Parishad have been the backbone of whatever progress we have made. For example during the 60s, our population was about 70 million and we were deficit in food by about 30%, now we have 160 million population with ten percent less cultivable land, due to urbanization and industrialization. Yet we are producing sufficient in fact a slight surplus sometimes. All we need to import some for buffer stock in case of natural calamity. If bureaucracy was not utilized ruthless for political purpose and corruption, Bangladesh could have gone far ahead in development and poverty alleviation.
Hence, the efforts towards good governance should start from reform in our civil service. We need a competent and efficient cadre of civil servants to address the challenges and opportunities of globalization and free market economy. For this purpose, recruitment of civil servants should be independent impartial and based on pure merit rather than political background. In India, the All India Service cadres are selected through a rigorous process of examinations and interview. There is no political interference in selection and training. Though we have a Public Service Commission (BPSC) established under the Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and works under the provisions of the Articles 137 to 141 of the Constitution of Bangladesh and certain other rules and regulations made by the Government; it remains highly politicized, divided and corrupted. There is no credibility for the test and interview and the examination process often lead to mal practices.
When we analyze our history, it is clear that bureaucrats played a vital role in supporting and sustaining autocratic regimes in our country as they enjoy enormous power under authoritarian system. Even our democratic leaders and parties tend to promote only ‘desirable officers’ who can refine the policies and programs as per the dictates of the party. Sadly, the hopes and aspirations of our civil society and our much needed developmental concerns have been sidelined and forgotten. But at least the ‘argumentative and agitating’ Bangladeshi society should realize the consequences of this politicization and should demand for an impartial, non-political and people centric administration which can perceive each Bangladeshi as a legitimate citizen and not as Pro- Awami League or pro-BNP citizen. For this we need a movement towards good governance and efficient administration.
When bureaucracy is independent and committed towards the goals of development administration with less or no interference from political masters, the machinery can function effectively. There will be consistency of polices as well. The reform must start from recruitment process itself. Motivated and highly educated young civil servants recruited on the basis of merit and promoted only on performance appraisal will indeed make substantial changes in our governance. This will certainly facilitate socio economic development and create free market in our country. Development cannot thrive where people cannot participate in governance, human rights are not respected, information does not flow, and civil society and the judiciary are weak.
Another important area of concern is to provide the best possible training and benefit packages to civil servants to make them perform better and reduce the scope for bad decision making and corruption. There must be effective rules and restraints to check public authority and corruption. Independence of judiciary and establishment of independent commission to check corruption are also important. Moreover decision making needs to be brought closer to the people so that they have more confidence in the state. All government programs will work better, if there is democracy and all stakeholders are consulted.
Low administrative ethics and corruption are no doubt a worldwide phenomenon. But its effects are most disastrous in developing countries like Bangladesh. The country’s policy makers must realize that its social and economic costs are virtually devastating.
Apart from that we should focus on another corner stone of real democracy- strengthening of local government institutions as these institutions can ensure better public service delivery and transparency. Though Bangladesh has a long history of local governments, the structure and content of local governments and its service delivery are far from satisfactory. Moreover, successive governments were not keen to strengthen local bodies to make administration more accountable and representative. Bureaucratic control over local government is visible in each decision making process which makes the rural representatives mere puppets of government or bureaucracy. The lowest operating elected level (the Union Parishad, or UP) has limited resources, little revenue raising authority, and is dominated by the District and Upazilla administration. They have, therefore, almost no influence on how the government uses its resources in their areas.
It is not exaggerating if one says that local bodies in Bangladesh often act like organizations of ruling party in power. There should be independent local government commission to control and monitor the local government
To overcome these defects, political will from the policymakers and role of civil society is required. Moreover the agenda of decentralization should go along with the efforts towards good governance. Decentralization is meaningful only when it is implemented along with other economic and political reform. In the absence of a responsive government and undivided community spirit, decentralization may lead to corruption, emergence of local elites and disparity.
Lord Acton once said that power corrupts and absolutes power corrupts absolutely. This is applicable in our country as well. So what we need urgently is to check any form of authoritarianism and misuse of power whether it is from political parties or civil servants or Army. When a new government was elected last year with thumbing majority we all expected that our country will herald a new era. But it is not happening as the problem lies in our structure and unless we sincerely address the deficiencies in our political system and initiate an institution building efforts, we can’t meet the demands of our next generation. They will inherit the same legacy full of frustrations, mutiny and bad governance.
Democratically elected government is not a magic lamp to solve the problems of instability and violence. The government must tolerate the opposition and make a consensus with them on all important issues. There should be freedom of press and expression and political control over national security forces. Moreover, there should be a disciplined law and order machinery to control and check any anarchic politics which often threatens the very survival of the political system. Thus the new strategies should deviate from the conventional methods and should focus on reshaping the entire socio-political structure of the country.
GOOD GOVERNANCE AND POLITICIZATION OF BUREAUCRACY: NEED FOR A NEW APPROACH
Good governance is the most important factor in eradicating poverty and promoting development.” Kofi Annan [former Secretary General, UN]
Governance is a concept comprising complex mechanisms, processes, institutions and relationships through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their rights and mediate their differences. In most of the developing world, the debate about governance is taking place within the context of rapid urbanization combined with political and economic changes. The challenges of development is not only to improve the quality of life but also to achieve higher standards of health, nutrition, a cleaner environment, more equality of opportunity, greater individual freedom and a richer cultural life.
Many of the multilateral organizations including the United Nations and the World Bank have stressed the elements of good governance and their relation to development. In the Millennium Declaration, the world’s leaders stated that the development goals could only be achieved through good or democratic governance. They, furthermore pledged to spare no effort to promote democracy and strengthen the rule of law.
Democracy cannot function effectively in the absence of good governance. And both are complimentary to each other. However, representative democracy alone cannot guarantee good governance. It requires an efficient and non partisan administrative machinery to carry out the massive challenges of governance to achieve the objectives of transparency, accountability and participation. Surveying the experience of developing countries in the years since the end of colonialism, it is evident that administration has a pivotal role to play in socio-economic development. When we analyze the successful democracies and economic powers in the world we can see that all those countries have an efficient system of public administration run by career bureaucrats.
Singapore is an example. Although Singapore inherited the same British model of governance as other Commonwealth states, its governing system has become widely known for efficiency and competence, especially in terms of its role in generating an “economic miracle.” Between 1988 and 1997, its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased more than 2.5 times; between 1993 and 1997, it continued to rank very high in terms of its business-friendly environment; and by 1994, its per capita GDP ($20,000) surpassed that of Australia, Canada and the UK.Since independence, the government depended on the civil service to build a state and create the conditions which would maintain it in power. Notable feature of the government bureaucracy in Singapore has been the lack of corruption
Even though critics often repudiate the repressive and anti-human policies of Singapore Government and administration, one cannot deny the fact that Singapore has one of the most efficient and meritocratic administrative system based on service delivery and transparency.
In the case of the political systems which have experience the collapse of democracy and emergence of authoritarianism, one of the common denominator, always, was politicized and dysfunctional administration. We have several examples including our own country.
Unfortunately Bangladesh also had to witness a history of chaos, instability and economic backwardness like many other newly emerged nation states in Asia and Africa. Lack of a professional cadre of administrators without any commitment to democratic values and ethics, has seriously eroded the prospects of our country’s development-both economic and political. Hence, reform in civil service and good governance are urgent need for a more stable and prosperous Bangladesh. Unfortunately, there is hardly any meaningful effort towards this goal.
When we became independent in 1971, we inherited an exploited and war torn economy, under-developed infrastructure and several other social constraints. Naturally, the hopes and aspirations of the people looked forward for a stable and egalitarian welfare state based on the principles of equality, justice and efficiency. However, after independence our leaders were too busy in solving the urgent political expediencies related to power sharing, completely neglecting the need for laying the strong foundation of an apolitical and professional civil service based on merit. In contrast, Indian leaders gave priority to the administrative system and decided to follow the British Civil Service system which the country inherited as a colonial legacy. Inspite of India’s massive size and diversities, administrative structure is uniform with a certain degree of efficiency and accountability. Though there is change in governments, no attempt was made to change the pattern of recruitment or making bureaucracy subservient to political patronage. This efficient administrative system has helped the country to secure economic growth and development. On the contrary, lack of stable and effective administrative structure coupled with political unrest has seriously affected our country’s prospects. Even though large amount of public expenditure was incurred on development, the efforts were often ended up in mismanagement, corruption and authoritarianism.
When Banga Bandhu was not given the power to form the Government after the 1970 election victory in Pakistan, he announced a non cooperative movement and asked the Govt. officers, civil and military administration to lay down their work till the power was handed over in a democratic manner. Majority of the East Pakistani officers supported this movement. When Freedom movement began, this support from administration and military became widespread and bureaucrats and army officers joined hands with civilians to attain freedom. This was justifiable as the circumstances needed the support of entire people irrespective of civilians and bureaucrats. But after independence the new country should have checked politicization of army and bureaucracy as these would have lead to authoritarianism and corruption.
In India, leaders were able to curb the undue influence of Army and bureaucracy in politics. The Army, Navy and Air-force come under Defense Ministry and there are cabinet committees to oversee the functioning or Army. In short, there exist several checks and balances to avoid any of the defense forces to become powerful enough to overthrow civilian structure.
But our leaders failed to check the influence of army in politics and we had to face the drastic consequences.
Ever since independence, there was a deliberate attempt to politicize bureaucracy in Bangladesh by all political parties. Soon after independence, it was freedom fighters who received undue promotion and patronage through the side tracking of the others who did not get an opportunity as they were stuck in Pakistan and were later repatriated. Competence and efficiency was never taken into consideration and political affiliation and loyalty were the parameters for selection and promotion. Our political parties deliberately ignored the fact that a new born democracy need efficient and accountable administration rather than a group of servants .With every change of Government, all the good and lucrative postings were given to those who have been victimized for alleged inefficiency or incompetency by the previous government. Their plea was that the government considered them supporter of the party in opposition. As a result of this ongoing drama, we have now pro-Awami League, pro-BNP and pro-other party bureaucrats. We can hardly find out a pro-Bangladeshi bureaucrats sincerely committed to the aspirations of the people over and above his own party preferences and commitments to leaders in power. In this process development goals were often neglected and most of the time this career civil servants were busy in doing favors to political masters and their party members. This has led to widespread corruption and patronage politics.
Apart from that we have seen civil servants agitating on the streets for their demands in some case, demanding change of Government, which often disrupted the functioning of formal democracy in our country. The army taking over the reign of power through coups and counter coups. There were several mutinies in Air force, Navy, Ansar and civil service too and the latest was the mutiny in the BDR which has led to death of many officers and innocent people. On all these occasion we can see that our administration miserably failed to control the forces or civil servants. More over we couldn’t take necessary steps to avoid its future recurrence. Political parties always used Army and civil servants for their own selfish motives and vice versa. This unholy nexus or deal between politics/Army/ bureaucracy is the worst curse or our country.
However In spite of such bad governance, Bangladesh has survived as the people and the local Union Parishad have been the backbone of whatever progress we have made. For example during the 60s, our population was about 70 million and we were deficit in food by about 30%, now we have 160 million population with ten percent less cultivable land, due to urbanization and industrialization. Yet we are producing sufficient in fact a slight surplus sometimes. All we need to import some for buffer stock in case of natural calamity. If bureaucracy was not utilized ruthless for political purpose and corruption, Bangladesh could have gone far ahead in development and poverty alleviation.
Hence, the efforts towards good governance should start from reform in our civil service. We need a competent and efficient cadre of civil servants to address the challenges and opportunities of globalization and free market economy. For this purpose, recruitment of civil servants should be independent impartial and based on pure merit rather than political background. In India, the All India Service cadres are selected through a rigorous process of examinations and interview. There is no political interference in selection and training. Though we have a Public Service Commission (BPSC) established under the Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and works under the provisions of the Articles 137 to 141 of the Constitution of Bangladesh and certain other rules and regulations made by the Government; it remains highly politicized, divided and corrupted. There is no credibility for the test and interview and the examination process often lead to mal practices.
When we analyze our history, it is clear that bureaucrats played a vital role in supporting and sustaining autocratic regimes in our country as they enjoy enormous power under authoritarian system. Even our democratic leaders and parties tend to promote only ‘desirable officers’ who can refine the policies and programs as per the dictates of the party. Sadly, the hopes and aspirations of our civil society and our much needed developmental concerns have been sidelined and forgotten. But at least the ‘argumentative and agitating’ Bangladeshi society should realize the consequences of this politicization and should demand for an impartial, non-political and people centric administration which can perceive each Bangladeshi as a legitimate citizen and not as Pro- Awami League or pro-BNP citizen. For this we need a movement towards good governance and efficient administration.
When bureaucracy is independent and committed towards the goals of development administration with less or no interference from political masters, the machinery can function effectively. There will be consistency of polices as well. The reform must start from recruitment process itself. Motivated and highly educated young civil servants recruited on the basis of merit and promoted only on performance appraisal will indeed make substantial changes in our governance. This will certainly facilitate socio economic development and create free market in our country. Development cannot thrive where people cannot participate in governance, human rights are not respected, information does not flow, and civil society and the judiciary are weak.
Another important area of concern is to provide the best possible training and benefit packages to civil servants to make them perform better and reduce the scope for bad decision making and corruption. There must be effective rules and restraints to check public authority and corruption. Independence of judiciary and establishment of independent commission to check corruption are also important. Moreover decision making needs to be brought closer to the people so that they have more confidence in the state. All government programs will work better, if there is democracy and all stakeholders are consulted.
Low administrative ethics and corruption are no doubt a worldwide phenomenon. But its effects are most disastrous in developing countries like Bangladesh. The country’s policy makers must realize that its social and economic costs are virtually devastating.
Apart from that we should focus on another corner stone of real democracy- strengthening of local government institutions as these institutions can ensure better public service delivery and transparency. Though Bangladesh has a long history of local governments, the structure and content of local governments and its service delivery are far from satisfactory. Moreover, successive governments were not keen to strengthen local bodies to make administration more accountable and representative. Bureaucratic control over local government is visible in each decision making process which makes the rural representatives mere puppets of government or bureaucracy. The lowest operating elected level (the Union Parishad, or UP) has limited resources, little revenue raising authority, and is dominated by the District and Upazilla administration. They have, therefore, almost no influence on how the government uses its resources in their areas.
It is not exaggerating if one says that local bodies in Bangladesh often act like organizations of ruling party in power. There should be independent local government commission to control and monitor the local government
To overcome these defects, political will from the policymakers and role of civil society is required. Moreover the agenda of decentralization should go along with the efforts towards good governance. Decentralization is meaningful only when it is implemented along with other economic and political reform. In the absence of a responsive government and undivided community spirit, decentralization may lead to corruption, emergence of local elites and disparity.
Lord Acton once said that power corrupts and absolutes power corrupts absolutely. This is applicable in our country as well. So what we need urgently is to check any form of authoritarianism and misuse of power whether it is from political parties or civil servants or Army. When a new government was elected last year with thumbing majority we all expected that our country will herald a new era. But it is not happening as the problem lies in our structure and unless we sincerely address the deficiencies in our political system and initiate an institution building efforts, we can’t meet the demands of our next generation. They will inherit the same legacy full of frustrations, mutiny and bad governance.
Democratically elected government is not a magic lamp to solve the problems of instability and violence. The government must tolerate the opposition and make a consensus with them on all important issues. There should be freedom of press and expression and political control over national security forces. Moreover, there should be a disciplined law and order machinery to control and check any anarchic politics which often threatens the very survival of the political system. Thus the new strategies should deviate from the conventional methods and should focus on reshaping the entire socio-political structure of the country.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Happy New Year
I will try to share my thoughts with the nation meantime let us hope for a peaceful and successful future
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)