The New Nation - Internet Edition

THE government has taken a substantive decision on the distribution of subsidy to be paid on supply of diesel. A sum of seven hundred and fifty crore Taka has been sanctioned for the 2007-08 fiscal year. The amount may cover around twenty-three percent of the cost of irrigation. The subsidy may be paid for irrigating around forty lakh hectares of land that require twelve lakh tonnes according to a newspaper report. Over the years, the use of diesel for irrigation increased as a large number of farmers started using diesel for operating irrigation pumps. The availability of diesel and the price thereof, however, have turned unaffordable for marginal farmers and share-croppers in rural areas. Officials of the Ministry of Agriculture and the district and upazila administration did the spadework for the current decision taken by the government.

The government has decided to give subsidy on diesel to farmers, after duly noting that diesel is used for running eighty-five percent of irrigation pumps. The rest of the pumps are operated with electricity supplied by the concerned agencies. The distribution of subsidy is to be ensured by officials of the agricultural extension department, which has offices down to the Upazila level. These officials periodically visit farm areas and meet the farmers including share-croppers. They thus have an interface with farmers, who look for support for farm inputs including seeds, fertitiser and irrigation water. The practice of distribution of seeds, fertiliser and diesel cards has turned complicated. Many farmers fail to collect cards on time and ultimately, fail to collect farm inputs needed, mainly for Boro cultivation during the dry season. Many farmers remain outside lists of farmers prepared for the purpose and such farmers fail to obtain official support. That being so, the decision of the government to enlist farmers with the help of members of union parishads and the upazila councils may turn effective.

For achieving the objective of augmenting production in the farm sector, the system of distribution of subsidised farm inputs has to be made effective. Members of union parishads and upazila council and officials of the agricultural extension department and other officials of relevant departments at the upazila and the district levels have to be involved in the process of distribution of subsidy and other farm inputs. The end of optimising the use of subisdy has to be kept uppermost in the process of distribution. Farmers have to obtain all subsidised inputs on time. Only then the purpose of subsidising agricultural inputs will be achieved and this, in its turn, would help increase farm yield to an optimum level in this year of scarcity.

NOTWITHSTANDING that half of the population of Bangladesh are women and that for three successive terms a female figure headed the government of this country, the conditions of women in general leave a lot to be desired. Women of the upper classes are considered liberated and enjoy their rights fully. But the same cannot be said about the status or conditions of women in the lower strata of the society or in the rural areas and they are the majority in the female population. They are not only discriminated and denied rights and opportunities in many cases in a still predominantly male-dominated society, they are also repressed severely and abominably through crimes such as acid throwing and the social practices of dowry giving. Few crimes are perhaps, so dreadful as the acid throwing on females witnessed frequently throughout Bangladesh. In almost all cases, the victims of acid throwing suffer serious burns on their faces and bodies.

Reports appear regularly in newspapers about the torture of brides in the houses of their husbands or in-laws for the failure of the brides' parents to pay dowries in pledged proportions after marriage. Wives are divorced, beaten and sometimes tortured to death on such grounds. It is not that laws do not exist to deter the acid throwers. But the problem is the enforcement of the laws. The cases of acid throwing call for scrutiny from the highest level. A special cell should be mobilised to monitor all cases of acid throwing and to take up the cases individually and demand from police stations progress in relation to each case and to ask for explanation if progress is not seen.

As for the scourge of dowry, the same cannot be discouraged through the application of law only. The best way to tackle it is to raise social awareness against dowry. It needs to be taken up strongly by all social and philanthrophic organisations, civic forums and other bodies including the government's own ministry of social welfare. Campaigns must be launched and maintained to change hearts and minds to bring about successful realisation on all sides that dowry is an evil practice. Strong anti-dowry movements waged on community basis can succeed like no other in intensifying public opinion against dowry. The mass media should also see the merit of playing their part regularly in helping to sustain anti-dowry campaigns. The lawmakers and all others should be persuaded by organisations devoted to welfare of females to bring about changes in laws that would increasingly open up more socio-economic opportunities for women and end discriminatory actions and behaviour against them in all spheres of life.

M.T.Hussain

Self-contradiction possibly, at times, is part of human personality. A media leader of Dhaka known to have deep passion for free press has lately seriously condemned at the top of his voice mixed with deep passion the army men who toppled Sheikh Mujib from the State power of Bangladesh in August 1975. Although love, hate and pity of one person for another are one's personal matters, in modern democratic politics, passion for any political leader should fit in norms and higher values compatible with pluralism and free democratic culture. One must thus ask the passionate free media person, how would he reconcile his deep passion for free press with non-toppling of the person absolutely responsible for gagging the free press in Bangladesh in 1975?

May I begin this item by recalling one incident of my life? In early 1966, I had my posting at Rangpur town. One of my colleagues took me to the public meeting there in Rangpur Collectorate Maidan to be addressed by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. I accompanied the friend to the meeting and listened to Sheikh Mujib's fiery speech on the freshly launched 6-point autonomy formula of the Awami League for East Pakistan. In the end while returning from the meeting, when the colleague asked me about my reaction on the speech Mujib made that evening, I reacted like this, "Dictator Ayub Ke Shariye Dictator Mujibke Desher Khamataya Bashate Hobe"- 'Let dictator Ayub go off to make room for the next dictator Mujib'. My colleague did not make any response to my remark. Please know for sure that I was not in anyway any member of any political party but a humble government college teacher at that time having had then little over eight years of teaching career.

Anyway huge water since then had flowed down the rivers of the country when in about six years Mujib took on to rule over us not merely with the 6-point autonomy but Bangladesh as an independent country. Every conscious men and women of the period may well recall that he rose to the pinnacle of power having not only had raised expectations of the common people that unfortunately caused sufferings including sacrificing huge blood by the people in 1971 for their dream to have 'milk and honey' but also certain to have all basic freedoms and liberties in a democratic free society. Free press for freedom of expression was the only of many such basic freedoms.

In about three and a half years, the people had had many misfortunes including a three months long famine in late 1974 that took away lives of thousands, government figure was 27,000 deaths and unofficial figure was much higher in lakhs. The famine was, according to many authorities including the Nobel Laureate economist Amartya Sen was artificially man made, meaning impliedly that the party in power through their market mismanagement of food distribution made the havoc of famine. Because, it was well known that the black marketers mostly belonging to the party cadres in evil collusion with the dishonest businessmen both of inside and of outside did the havoc and hardship for the vulnerable people who did not have required money to buy food at higher prices from the market not having there anything of 'Food availability collapse' (Amartya Sen, Poverty and Famines, OUP, 1999, Delhi, p.163). There was no fall in production of main cereals inside the country in 1974; in fact, the production increased over 1973 by 13% (Ibid, p. 137). The disruption of import of food cereal for only two months, September and October, in 1974, that ended in November should not have had any effect on the price level for continuing famine, had there been no evil forces controlling the market against the vulnerable groups. The other figure tells us very clearly that in 1974 availability of food grains was the highest compared to both 1973 and 1975 (Ibid, p.138), and as such there was no reason for any famine in 1974. One would rather have had thought that there could be famine either in 1972 or even 1973 when disruptions were many and everywhere following the 1971 war. If Amartya Sen's facts and figures are to be believed, there was no reason for any famine in the hardest hit of Rangpur district where production of food cereal was much higher (17.1%) than 1973 (Ibid, p. 139), provided other evil market forces would not have been active there who unfortunately happened to be almost all of the marauders of the party in power.

The famine followed Emergency rule promulgated on the 25th December, and just four weeks after, on the 25th January 1975 promulgation of still tougher measures in banning all but one political party rule. That kept only the leader's own party, albeit, giving that a revised name Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League or abbreviated as BKSAL. The turning thus of the plural multi-party state into a lone BKSAL one made the leader more an absolute autocrat and a dictator that democracy loving people of the country never ever thought of his going so rash against multi-party open democracy. The next logic followed almost automatically for the dictatorship to proscribe all dailies etc except four on the 16th June 1975 only to publicity of the government and nothing against. Out of the four two were kept under government ownership and the other two offered to one of his nephew Sheikh Fazlul Haq Moni who had been until then a student leader turned young politician. The oldest of the Bengali dailies like the Azad that in fact almost all on its own fought the British colonial rulers and their local henchmen for independence in 1947 was given death knell. Curiously the other Bengali daily Ittefaq that through its fiery writings of Manik Mia brought Mujib to the limelight during late Pakistan period, as well, was closed down for good. Thousands of journalists lost their jobs almost overnight and turned unemployed.

The gagging of the press was not in anyway an end in itself but forces of private and extra-constitutional means were sizing anything of dissent up. In addition to the extra-constitutional armed Rakhi Bahini, there were in operation private hoodlum forces led by his eldest son Sheikh Kamal, nephew Moni and Dhaka city's S.P.Mabub. The opposition JSD alone lost almost 11,000 of their cadres. Other underground patriotic parties lost thousands in their bid to oppose the government even from underground.

The extra-judicial killing of the Purbo Bangla Sarbahara Party leader Seraj Sikder, a brilliant Engineer, through deceit and then the leader's boastful declaration in the floor of the parliament of his killing on the 2nd January 1975 is another instance of how the Sheikh ran mad for absolute power.

Modern concept of constitutionalism provides for well written down provision for transfer of power through peaceful means. The Sheikh did not care for any such provision; possibly because, he had only 13 minutes time on the 25th January 1975 to rashly impose the one party dictatorship without giving any scope to any parliament member to open mouth! Thus the State was turned arbitrarily into a one party state. The life long 'democrat' Mujib unfortunately went against all his previous promises made to the people for democracy, freedom of expression and what not. He turned the country into a lone party police state without having any clear consent of the people leaving no scope for any peaceful mode for transfer or transition of power.

Such political impasse was not all. The country had little independence and sovereignty in India's all out embrace of hegemony (willing, unwilling, imposed, such as the clauses 8,9,10 of the 25 years treaty with India). The economy faced total threat of annihilation from the vulnerable international 1,700 miles or so geographical border with India. Productivity fell due mainly to adverse competition not only through normal official business channel but also for massive black marketing of Indian goods and finished products involving the party men and stalwarts.

The deployment of army at one time to check offensives of India, particularly, through black marketing against the economy hardly allowed to continue for about a week for almost all offenders happened to be of the party men, that the leader ordered to stop army operation against those marauders.

Whatever may have been the size of our army, despite being neglected as Mujib had all his aversion for the armed forces, they were not unintelligent ones; neither they lacked in patriotism that they had proved worthy during the 1971 war. It was thus quite fitting that some of them in a deep patriotic zeal toppled Mujib on the 15th August 1975 from the state power. They proved further their patriotism by not taking power by themselves that they could do as is very normal for successful coup makers but in their wisdom and benevolence vested everything on the politicians of the same party. They wished to restore multi-party democracy along with all basic freedoms including the free press. Soon after the coup, one may recall that newspapers banned by the Sheikh were being released; Ittefaq was the first to get clearance for publication once again. It is interesting to recall that the market price of basic essentials fell sharply soon after the 15th August successful army coup. That was quite reasonable, because, Indian hand in Bangladesh economy faced some resistance by way of reduction of Indian hegemony.

Killing of innocent person is always a bad thing. If the unfortunate killing of Mujib on the 15th August could have been averted that would have been praiseworthy as some coups happen to be bloodless. But the facts of history are that many coups happened to be unfortunately bloody. So far is known Mujib was given the offer simply to abdicate, but he did not only refuse to do so but also from inside his home, the coup makers faced armed resistance; and when one got killed from among them, the coup makers ran wild and without any order from any body started to shoot at the home. Thus Mujib and some other of his family members got killed in the encounter.

The 15th August coup happened not only to be victorious one but also was spontaneously supported by the people and followed by allegiance to the post-coup government by all state organs that provided full legitimacy to the government. Such legitimacy provided automatic indemnity to the coup makers, no matter whether there was any act for indemnity or not in the matter. That is why for 21 years there was no case against the 15th August coup makers. What happened then in late 1996 was a different matter not lawfully done against the operators as for any victorious coup known in history world over in the past and even in recent times except here for purely political reprisal.

Even so, the killing was a bad thing. But should not one ask oneself if short of the incident though there was no hope for restoration of pluralism and multi-party democracy, much less freedom of press in Bangladesh? One must wonder if the Sheikh had been alive today, he would certainly have been another Fidel Castro of Cuba now at 82 years and even over a year being in the deathbed has still been arrogantly unwilling to relinquish his power to any other capable citizen but only to his younger brother though on temporary basis. May be, whether our Sheikh would relinquish his power likewise to Sheikh Nasser, his younger brother, if he would have been alive or to Sheikh Moni or Sheikh Kamal or Sheikh Jamal or to Shekh Hasina or Sheikh Rehana! The point, however, looks unresolved if the freedom of press the media person in question so passionate about would at all be restored under the BKSALite absolute dictatorship in Bangladesh by this year ending 2007!

Sunita Narain

US President George Bush played host to a party of the top polluters of the world called to discuss climate change. He exhorted his guests that the world needed to act and called for a "new approach" to reduce emissions. But if you think that he has changed his mind about the science which has established the reality and urgency of climate change, think again. Or if you think he has changed his position that his country will not take on commitments to cut emissions because the American lifestyle is not open to negotiation, think yet again and again. The Bush meeting was strategic: first, it was an attempt (and a successful one) to club the rich countries, who have been old and big polluters, with the emerging countries-China and India.

The meeting was to remove the difference between the two categories-those who need to make deep cuts in their emissions and those who need the space to grow. If the Indians (and the Chinese) were looking for a place at this high table of polluters, they certainly got their wish. There is nothing new about Bush's position on climate change. In fact, I would go so far as to say that there is nothing different about his position from that of the previous Democratic government led by Bill Clinton and Al Gore. This is nothing more than recent history repeating itself. It is predictable and it is dangerous for the climate and for our common future. What Bush did should not surprise us. The US has been steadfast: it will take action (whatever that means) only when it includes all big polluters, including China and India. I remember clearly the events in Kyoto in 1997, when the emissions treaty was being finalised to set legally binding targets on industrialized countries. That week all the stops were pulled out.

The phones buzzed between the White House and the prime minister's office. The US made it clear that it wanted "meaningful participation" from India and China. Its intransigence meant that all other governments (those of the European Union to Japan) had to work hard to play matchmaker to get the Chinese and Indians to bend so the US could sign up to the treaty. But what the Indian government did by accepting the Bush party invite now should surprise us. I do accept that its position also remained steadfast at the recent meeting. It did inform its host that the world needed to act on the basis of historical contributions to the stock of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. And that India's per capita emissions are negligible compared to those of the flatulent US or the developed European countries.

But believe me when I say this is nothing other than posturing: rhetoric without any substance. The fact is that we have agreed tacitly to join the membership of the polluters-only club. In this way we have blurred (if not altogether removed) the distinction-followed in all global agreements-between countries which need to take action first and those who need the ecological space to grow. But this is just one part of a much bigger problem. We have also asserted our right to development without insisting that the US should take on deep and obligatory emission targets, for all our sake. We have agreed to this ultimate marriage of convenience-not to ask the us to commit so that we can get off the hook. We will all take on "aspirational" targets, Bush said at the meeting. Let us understand this.

This is the ultimate and deadly bribe to seduce India and China: we will not allow the Europeans and others to push us into legally binding targets. This way is better: voluntary commitments and no targets. Just think. This is a way in which we will all go to hell together. The fact is that the world needs to act. It needs to act decisively and urgently. We can already see the repercussions of a mere 0.7°c increase in global temperatures in terms of melting glaciers and extreme weather and rain events. Just think what it will be like when the world sees, on average, an increase of 1.5°c, which is now inevitable because of the stock of emissions already in the atmosphere, or 2°c, which is the best we can get if we are responsible.

The Bush way is disastrous. It must not be acceptable. But we are hypocrites. We laid the foundation stone for this Bush conclave when we agreed to join the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which was launched by the US administration just under two years ago.

This partnership had just one aim: to break the multilateral processes built around legally binding commitments by proving that voluntary action agreed by the major polluting nations would be effective. Many meetings down the line, the partnership has led to nothing concrete on the ground. But then who cares? But we have to care. Climate is too serious a business to be made a joke out of, as is done by the US president and his administration.

We need to explain to the rich world why it needs to act decisively and cut its emissions and how it needs to change its lifestyle. We need to show how we can participate meaningfully in a strategy to avoid future emissions. We also need to say how this can be done through providing emission rights for all; effective technology transfer and hard funds to pay for transition into low-carbon growth options. We must make it clear that we are not unwilling and reluctant partners in this climate endgame. We are players and we are serious. Bush's party is not ours to enjoy.

(The writer is the editor of the Down to Earth magazine published from New Delhi)