Consensus among political parties
is a must

Md. Anwarul Kabir

The latest speech of the Chief Adviser Dr. Fakhrudding Ahmed has emphasised on drawing out a charter for national consensus through political dialogue. Although there is confusion about the outcome of the ongoing dialogue in the context of possible absence of two major political parties, discourse on the proposed charter continues.
   The question arises regarding the objectivity of such a national charter. For transforming the turmoil-ridden political arena of the country into a healthy and stable one, consensus on different issues among the political parties is a must. The people of the country want to see a qualitative change in politics in line with true democratic ethos. For this, present unhealthy political culture must be changed for the better in order that no further riot, violence and killings erupt over disagreement.
   The term 'corrupt political culture' should not point at only financial corruption; in this case ideological corruption should be considered first. Ideological corruption is the root of all sorts of corruption including financial one. Unfortunately, most of the major political parties of the country are now suffering from ideological corruption.
   The erosion of ideology in political parties has not occurred in a day. It would reveal that such ideological erosion, indeed, has begun since the installation of undemocratic authoritarian regime at the power centre after the brutal killing of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman who had banned all political parties and initiated one-party rule of BKSAL when except four government-controlled ones, all newspapers were banned. One-party rule was reversed and multy-party democracy was begun by President General Ziaur Rahman, who formed BNP while in power centre. He included politicians of different ideologies, starting from ultra-right to ultra left-segments of our political domain in this platform. Being a valiant freedom fighter himself, to fulfil his political goal - which he called reconciliation for national harmony - Zia adopted this policy. This according to his critics ran counter to the spirit of liberation. His utterance "I will make politics difficult for the politicians" was criticised by his opponents. But BNP leaders explain it like this: Politics must not be confined to drawing rooms by idlers; to serve the people politicians strive hard and go from place to place and inspire people to work hard in the arenas of agriculture, rural development and various other sectors. Zia included Bismillah in the Constitution in independent Bangladesh which some people see as the ideological corruption Though President Zia was himself financially honest, there was financial corruption among some ministers.
   After the assassination of President Ziaur Rahman, his successor President Justice Abdus Sattar was voted to power after a landslide victory; but he did not get enough time to rule as within a short time he was ousted from power through military coup led by General Ershad. The authoritarian autocrat General Ershad introduced Islam as a state religion and made our original constitution communal. Besides, the Ershad era institutionalised financial corruption at the state level.
   
   Khaleda's regime
   However, after the fall of autocrat regime of General Ershad in 1990 through long massive movements, the people of the country looked forward to having a significant change in political arena of the country. During the period of the first phase of Khaleda Zia's regime the ethos of parliamentary democracy were largely ignored. Even the major political party AL during that period failed to act as a responsible opposition party in the framework of parliamentary democracy. Initial refusal of election result, calling of frequent ineffective hartals, and frequent boycotts of the parliament alienated Awami League from the common people in that period. Besides, it also failed to uphold its secular ideological flag rightly. Awami League lost its secular character in this context -- Awami League's undeclared treaty with the fundamentalist group Jamat-i-Islam before 1996 election can be cited.
   1996-2001, in Hasina's era, selection of non-partisan neutral president, maintaining low prices of essentials, water treaty with India, peace treaty of Chittagong Hill Tracts were done but the dominance of the muscleman and financial corruption was also highly visible during her period. Although Awami League initiated the question session for the prime minister and regular meetings of different parliamentary sub-committee in decision making processes, due to non-cooperation of the major opposition party BNP the parliament could not be transformed into an effective institution.
    During this time, BNP followed the footstep of Awami League when the latter was in opposition and frequently boycotted parliamentary sessions and called for hartals creating public harassment as was the when Awami League was in the opposition from 1991 to 1996.
   Endless financial corruption and total ideological collapse have portrayed the last BNP-led coalition government as the worst one. With the span of time, however, there was a popular belief that BNP's leadership was no more in the hand of Khaleda Zia. Especially, at the advent of the 2001 election, the shifting of leadership from the older generation of BNP towards younger generation was evident. Especially, after the Election 2001, the young group of the BNP led by Tarique Zia virtually led the party in all aspects. Unfortunately, the members of this young group had no political ideology other than their own vested interest to loot public money using state influence in all ways. This young group was centred at Howa Bhaban installed a parallel government. Politicisation of public institutions like public service commission, election commission, police department, judiciary system etc, was done in this period.
   
   AL, Khelafat Majlis
   Awami League failed to fight for the people in the contemporary contexts. As for example, during that period, AL could successfully organise the people to fulfil their popular demands-tackling electricity crisis, water crisis, price hikes, and monga. On the contrary, from the beginning of the formation of the alliance government, the only agenda that had been adopted by Hasina's AL was just to topple the government by any means. Perhaps AL's major ethical corruption happened during the period of Professor Iazuddin's caretaker government when it signed a treaty with Khelafat Majlis, a fundamental group with a view to forming a grand electoral alliance against BNP-led alliance.
   On top of these, the ideological bankruptcy of both Awami League and BNP was high-lightened when both of them wanted to woo former president Ershad under the banner of their respective alliances. Besides, the use of black money and muscleman and trades in nominating candidates for the election were marked as common features for all of the major parties.
   The essence of the above account may identify some negative attributes of our political domain as stated below: (a) ideological corruption (b) rise of communal politics (c) financial corruption (d) intolerance among the political parties (e) use of muscleman and black money in the electoral process and election engineering (f) undermining parliamentary ethos and making the parliament dysfunctional (g) nurturing extremism and political hooligans (h) politicisation of public institutions (i) calling for frequent ineffective hartals.
   However, the people of the country really want to get rid of the above stated curses in our political domain because at the end of the day, politics should control all spheres of the life. For this, the political parties must reach a consensus.
   But the point is whether this present CG has any moral or legal right to initiate any national charter for consensus. Especially, as the constitutional footings of this government are now questionable; this effort of the CG in future will face a legal debate. Moreover, for chalking out such an important charter, the presence of the detained apex leaders of the major two parties is a must. But is the CG ready for it? Will it free these leaders on parole for facilitating them to attend the dialogue process for the greater interest of the country? However, the best thing is to leave this issue for the next parliament. Any command or pre-designed charter for national consensus will not be acceptable, at least, to the people of this country.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

Women's Center

Rayyan Kamal

It was sometime in January of this year. The gentlemen seeking to get inducted by the Zeta Psi fraternity at Yale were carrying out what would become their most notorious task. Shirtless and inebriated, they were chanting a less euphemistic word for "male member" as they stood outside the Women's Center. Drunk as they were, they still managed to assemble in front of the entrance to the Women's Center for a photo of them laughing and holding up a huge sign emblazoned with the phrase "We Love Yale Sluts." The fun was just beginning.
   This photo soon appeared on facebook.com and came to the attention of members of the Women's Center. They sent out e-mails to the administration demanding that the men who appeared on the photo be punished. The response, if there was one, was unsatisfactory. They also sent messages to fellow undergrads condemning this misogynistic act and threatening to sue. Even an apology letter from the president of Zeta Psi's Yale Chapter that included a request for representatives of the two groups to meet and resolve the issue amongst themselves was rejected. The Women's Center felt that the apology was insincere, as it had been made only under pressure of litigation. As for the administration, the Women's Center felt that the university's lukewarm response was telling of its stance on the issue. No, they would have to settle this in court.
   The episode gave rise to discussion regarding the issue of misogyny. Letters to the editor were written decrying the behaviour of "those frat boys." People asked how it was possible for such bigotry and prejudice to exist in an enlightened institution like Yale. Others took this opportunity to bash the "uppity, snooty" girls who were making a mountain out of a molehill. In a world where so many women are mentally, physically and sexually abused "for real," how could these spoilt little rich girls be making so much noise about a harmless, if offensive, prank?
   Then, in an op-ed piece defending the Women's Center's decision to sue, the writer started her letter by asking how people would have reacted if a group of white frat boys had taken a picture standing outside the African-American Cultural Center and holding a sign that said "We Love Yale N*ggers." Her point was that people would be outraged. Why, she asked, was discrimination on the basis of sex any less reprehensible than discrimination on the basis of race? Though this was a thought-provoking question, many focused, instead, on her decision to compare race and gender. Many African-American women, in particular, felt that it was a weak analogy, especially as the white woman who had written the column obviously had no clue what it was like to be black.
   Coming from a culture where women are far less equal to men than their American counterparts are, it was difficult for me not to shrug this off as a big joke. I, like others, wondered whether it wouldn't have been wiser of the Women's Center to ignore what those immature guys had done. After all, wouldn't all the attention simply encourage similar acts? But now I think making noise was the right decision. Yes, women on American college campuses enjoy a status that women in other countries could not even dream of. However, there still exists a gap, one that can be closed only through raising awareness and protesting even when it may not seem worth it. In fact, not bringing attention to offences, however small, might cause them to grow in magnitude and result in a widening of the gap.
   Rayyan Kamal is a sophomore at Yale University.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

Gandhism in the new century

Saad Quasem

In Hindi Swaraj, Mahatma Gandhi scathingly criticizes pivotal aspects of modern civilization. Educations, eating habits, modern medicine, the legal system, the railway system have made it to the list of condemned addictions. Gandhi argues that civilization has drifted men from basic instincts. Some of the ideologies presented by Gandhi in Hindi Swaraj, has over the course of history been proven wrong. If much of the philosophies were to be followed today, the jet set, twenty first century life style would fall far behind. This is certainly not to say that the aspirations set by the Mahatma are completely futile. Rather, there are many historical instances that endorse Gandhi's thoughts on self rule.
   Gandhi's verdicts forecasts that all civilizations have gone through different variations in their chronicles. Indian civilization itself has its flaws. Nevertheless, if India is to be freed from the tyrannies of British governance, India is to return to its roots. Civilization is in the mind; it is the path of duty via which men should attain morality and this process is rather flawless. Therefore, it is Gandhi's philosophy to denounce many aspects of western civilization in order to create ultimate self rule for the Indian people. Gandhi emphasizes that the exit of the British will not create sustainable self rule, rather he calls for people to live independently and follow their agricultural duties, without dependence on anyone.
   In the west, this attitude has not reached tremendous feats, because democracy tends to provide enough freedom for its people. However, some tendencies are really being accredited by the west. Dr. Yunus created the Grameen Bank and concocted the concept of micro credit. It aimed to eradicate poverty by dispatching minute loans to the unemployed in the villages, in order to provide capital to cultivate agricultural goods. By the year 2006, a few billion dollars were dispersed for such grassroots developmental programs. Through this initiative millions have fought the shackles of society, while remaining in their niche and doing agricultural work. In 2006, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Dr. Yunus for "sustainable peace. Yunus claims that, fighting poverty is the only way to call for long term peace. Men, women and children are malnourished and are full of diseases. Certainly those people are not at peace. Through the doctrine of micro-credit, these fateful people will be attaining peace, while keeping to agriculture and making themselves self-sufficient in the absence of aid from anyone. Had Gandhi been alive today, certainly he would see the Grameen Bank's ploy as an example of "swaraj." It relates to Gandhi's "Passive resistance is an all-sided sword, it can be used anyhow." Although, this program started in Bangladesh, today Grameen Bank functions across Europe and America. Farmers in the American South, immigrants in New York and many other communities are using micro-credit schemes. The west has widely appreciated the efforts to long lasting peace by Yunus, which is proven by the award of the Nobel Prize.
   In the 21st century, much of Gandhi's ideologies would not be in practice, however Gandhis ideologies relate to Dr. Yunus' as well. The Grameen Bank has been franchised by western countries, showing the adoption of eastern traditions. Whether it be east or west, the power of the soul truth is ubiquitous for boundaries, it blankets over humanity as a whole. In today's world these ideas of Gandhi is certainly alive and further reading by all, could cause society to be at peace.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE