The New Nation - Internet Edition

Fees cut to raise Internet usage

INTERNET service providers have hailed the government's 20 per cent cut in submarine cable fees as 'a good move' for the information technology sector.. At the same time, they warned that Internet penetration would remain low unless the government adopts measures to build what they called 'Internet infrastructure'. The Internet Service Providers Association, Bangladesh felt happy over the reduction in cable fees but stated that it might not help increase number of Internet users if the government does not address other bottlenecks. The government should reduce the customs duty on networking equipment to encourage firms in the Internet business and to spread Internet connectivity across the country. The number of Internet users in the country is currently about 10 lakh. The government imposed a 55 per cent duty on networking equipment, which emerged as a major obstacle to the growth of the industry.

Earlier in January, the finance ministry approved the new rate forwarded by the ministry of telecommunications as per recommendations made by the Bangladesh Telegraph and Telephone Board that operates the submarine cable. Bangladesh was connected to the information super highway in May 2006 at a cost of US $ 35.1 million. The SEA-ME-WE-4 cable has a bandwidth capacity of 1.2 terabyte per second. Though the BTTB originally subscribed to a 10 per cent Gigabyte per second bandwidth last year the board was granted another 4Gb complimentary bandwidth. This bandwidth, however, remains underutilised as the telephone board has sold only 10 per cent of the total capacity to the Internet service providers and other telecom service providers.

Following approval from the Bangladesh Telecommunications Regulatory Commission, the BTTB would charge subscribers according to the new rate - Tk 1,000 monthly for unlimited usage of internet services, down from Tk 1,400 while the monthly charges of two other corporate packages would be Tk 700 each, down from Tk 1,000 and Tk 750 respectively. The charges for installation and testing for international private lease circuit above 2 megabytes per second would be Tk 75,000 down from Tk 90,000 for bulk users which includes the Internet service providers' software firms, and mobile and private land phone operators. Charges for installation of leased Internet access above 2megabits per second will be minimum Tk 20,000 while monthly rental for the same service will be minimum Tk 32,000 and Tk 40,000 from existing Tk 55,000 and Tk 75,000 respectively as reported by the media. The annual rental for leased internet access service up to 2 megabytes per second would be a minimum Tk 96,000 and maximum Tk 1,44 lakh from the existing Tk 1.65 lakh and Tk 1.92 lakh respectively. The BTTB has stated that the new rate would cause loss of roughly 45 per cent of its current revenues from the submarine cable segment. However, the reduction is expected to cause a three-fold growth in user base and with it revenue earnings.

Little headway in party reforms

ONE of the very positive developments after the takeover by the present government, was suggestion from powerful figures within the major political parties that they would embark on a process of reforming their organisations. This was also well received by the people who were witnesses to the manner in which the political parties had conducted their affairs. Thus, when the present government itself lent its full support to inner political party reforms, the same seemed to have acquired a momentum. The issue that came up most at that time was democratisation of the parties. It was recognised that the major parties were dominated undemocratically by some people and it meant that efficient and scrupulous persons had no way to come to controlling positions in the parties. There was no scope for changing leadership through elections within the parties. Thus, there existed little scope for merit and honesty to bloom in the parties. Rather, everything in the parties seemed to be dominated by political pedigrees.

Other issues for party reforms included doing away with the system of giving nominations by the party top brass without transparency and accountability. The qualifications of the nomination seekers were hardly any consideration nor their backgrounds. No wonder, therefore, that in these circumstances whoever won elections and formed government the country continued to be affected by such despotism. Apart from these issues affecting directly the political parties, other reforms were also expected in the political spheres such as the parties agreeing to a code of conduct in their behaviour that would strengthen democracy and create sustainable political environment. But these issues of political party and associated reforms, seen as indispensable for cleaner politics and good governance of the country, are now receding in the consideration of the political parties. The enthusiasm noted earlier for inner party reforms, appear to have disappeared almost completely. Even the leading figures in the parties who earlier were seen at the forefront in suggesting party reforms, have become silent on the issue, it seems.

The Chief Adviser had put special stress while telling newsmen recently that the political parties ought to give highest priority to reforming their own houses or to at least start that process convincingly before they sit for dialogue with the government. But the parties seem to be getting ready to pile up pressures on the government for the release of their jailed leaders and for the early holding of elections. Early holding of elections without carrying out reforms in the political field, will only mean the country once again falling into politically induced uncertainties, conflicts and troubles of the sort that peaked early last year. Bangladesh needs political stability and high quality scrupulous leadership for creating a brighter future. For this to happen, there is no substitute for reform of the political parties as these are the institutions that would be creating the leaders for governing the country in the future.

Whither dialogue?

Chandra Muzaffar

What would be the purpose of an Islam- West Dialogue? It would be to enhance understanding and empathy between the two civilizations.

In the wake of the 9-11 catastrophe, there has been a plethora of conferences and seminars in different parts of the world devoted to the challenge of fostering this Islam-West Dialogue. A number of government leaders, former government leaders, diplomats, religious personalities, academics and civil society activists have been involved in these dialogues. And yet the chasm between the two civilizations has been growing wider and wider. Almost every public opinion poll conducted in the last two years or so suggests that Muslim attitudes towards the United States of America in particular have become even more negative just as American attitudes towards Islam and Muslims have become more unfavourable.

What explains this? If Dialogue has failed, it is primarily because most champions of Dialogue do not want to address the underlying cause of the widening chasm between the two civilizations. Instead, these champions, especially leaders of government in certain Western countries, have chosen to focus upon what they regard as 'the tendency of Muslims to resort to terror in pursuit of their global agenda'. It is the Muslim and sometimes his religion that are often subjected to scrutiny. It is the Muslim who is the problem. It is the Muslim who has to be examined; to be placed on the psychiatric couch to determine what is really wrong with him.

Most Western rulers do not want to admit that it is because of their wrongdoings - specifically the misdeeds of American, British, and one should add, Israeli, elites - that a fringe within the Muslim world has decided to seek remedy through wanton violence. It was because the US had stationed its soldiers in Saudi Arabia in 1991 that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden directed the killing of American airmen at the Dharan military base a few years later. He viewed the American military presence in 'the land of the two holy mosques' as an act of sacrilege. The Anglo-American invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 has given rise to the systematic, organized violence that we witnessing in that country today. Even the so-called Sunni-Shiite conflict in Iraq is a by-product of the politics of occupation. It was after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 that the Hizbullah emerged as a liberation movement committed to armed struggle. Because Palestine is an occupied land, the Israeli occupiers have become the targets of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Occupation then is a huge barrier to dialogue and understanding between Muslims and people in the West. Occupation however is part and parcel of a bigger phenomenon: the hegemonic power of the US ands its allies. Hegemony, in all its manifestations - from its military dimension to its cultural embodiment - negates any endeavour to develop empathy between the two civilizations. The vast majority of Muslims in the Middle East are acutely aware of what motivates US led hegemony especially as it impacts upon them. It is because of the US desire to control oil and to strengthen the position of Israel that the Middle East is at the top of the US's hegemonic agenda. What many do not know is that the US helmed quest for global hegemony is also driven by the determination to preserve and enhance corporate, casino, consumer (3C) capitalism.

Needless to say, US hegemony will have to end if understanding and empathy are to replace the prevailing distrust and animosity between the West, specifically the US, and the Muslim world, particularly those who live in the Middle East. Muslims, like other victims of hegemony, notably the people of Latin America, will continue to resist hegemony.

They should not however resort to violence. For violence, especially if it targets civilians, debases the struggle against hegemony. It allows the hegemon, with its control over the global media, to tarnish the public image of the resister. Besides, violence by its very nature is a repudiation of dialogue and engagement.

Of course, even if there was no hegemony and no violence as a reaction to hegemony, there would still be hurdles in the path of dialogue between Islamic and Western civilizations. Most of these hurdles are internal to both civilizations. Within the Muslim world, there are groups that are guilty of religious exclusivism which obstructs dialogue.

They provide such narrow, dogmatic interpretations to Islamic teachings in matters pertaining to non-Muslim minorities, the status of women, certain cultural and social practices and in the application of shariah (Islamic Law), that they alienate not just the non-Muslims but also a significant segment of the Muslim community. Mainstream Western society, in spite of its espousal of universal values and human rights, remains suspicious of 'The Other', especially the Muslim Other.

This prejudiced attitude towards the Muslim is to some extent the product of more than a thousand years of history milestoned by calamities such as the crusades and colonialism.

This is why it is important that both the West and the Muslim world undertake to examine themselves critically, while engaging in dialogue with the other. Introspection is vital at this juncture for it is only through a critical re-assessment of one's own attitudes and worldviews that one would be able to understand and empathize with the other. In other words, to reach out one has to reach within.

Are there groups in the West and the Muslim world who are looking at themselves critically while seeking to engage the other? There are. In both Europe and North America, there are secular and religious groups which are totally opposed to US led hegemony and are, at the same time, dialoguing with Muslims in their midst and those who are living in the Muslim heartlands of the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Similarly, there are more and more Muslims in Asia, Africa and the Middle East who are not only critical of US hegemony but are also conscious of the shortcomings in their own societies, including the way in which religion is understood and practised.

It is these groups which are capable of forging a genuine bond of empathy between the West and the Muslim world.

Controversy over non-issues only pushes us backward

M.T. Hussain

There is no end in Bangladesh in the last 36 years of claims and counter claims on some important historical issues that continued to remain as yet satisfactorily resolved much less reaching at any unanimity. The declaration or not of Independence by one or the other for the country in 1971 from Pakistan remains such a matter of acrimony. The issue took somewhat evil shape when the matter went out of common vocabulary into the children's textbooks. The school children ask teachers and parents rather awkwardly as to why changes take place from time to time in textbooks. Answers do not come to be unanimous but vary raising confusion still further. But why could not we arrive at some unanimity in rather a long period of over three decades that has gone by? And now we are told by responsible quarter in the government that one was the 'architect' and the other and 'announcer' of Independence of Bangladesh! Sheikh Mujib was the 'architect' and Major Zia was the 'announcer'.

We know that announcer of any programme or act is important but not any of real actor. On the contrary, architect is conceiver, planner and detailer of particular project. In the case of Independence of Bangladesh the role the Sheikh played though well known at popular level remains as yet in some mystery as well. The role played by Major Zia in March 1971, was nothing of any mystery but a straight forward one just like a courageous and patriotic soldier that he did on the 26th March in making the announcement of Independence of Bangladesh taking total risk of life and death that was nothing unusual though for a trained soldier in the real situation when there was no clear direction to the agitating masses on the streets much less unilaterally declaring the Independence that many wished to hear from the elected leader the Sheikh, but did not hear anything even on the 25th late hours but of his detention at midnight. I recall clearly these matters as I stayed not only in Dhaka city but also as a conscious college teacher taking interest for the country as a patriot and also felt concerned then for critical nature of politics of the country. For the same interest I attended the Sheikh's 7th March Ramna Race Course meeting to listen from the horse's mouth if he would declare Independence of the country as the rumour had been. Nothing such we heard from him except some confusing rhetoric with all high sound and fury but signifying nothing in substance that however followed parleys in Dhaka with the President Yahya Khan and Zulfi Bhutto of the Pakistan People's Party keeping people in real dark but in all certainty and deep suspense until the 25th night. What we knew further was that the leader instructed his late night close followers like Dr. Kamal and Tajuddin to continue agitation and enforce the Hartal one day after on the 27th March.

The federal army, however, surprised many of us. Myself returned to my residence at on the 25th March about 11:15 at night on myself-driven new car Fiat 600D from farm Gate FPIDF: (East Pakistan Institute of Diploma Engineers) office then located at 11 Holy Cross College Road to 421-22 Tejgaon Industrial Area, when having had my late supper fell asleep but awake at about 01 after midnight having heard heavy sound and flashes of light over flying the roof of my fourth floor residence. I then got my five kids (eldest one 10 and the youngest one year old lie down on the floor and so did we along with 3 other college going young members (one brother, one brother- in -law and a sister -in- law). The firing sound soon ended here but sounds continued to come in from other areas. I had nothing of any news except kept on guessing. There was some announcement heard in mike about imposition of curfew. The next clay I had only news from a neighbour that the army had detained the Sheikh. Rumours and confusion were abound for a few days, curfew relaxed on the 27th for three hours when 1 took a Hindu colleague on his request to the Kawran Bazar for buying some provision, particularly, for him. The next day so far as 1 could recall, 1 had to take a family to Shitlakhya Ferry Ghat on the Dhaka-Chittagong highway for the family to take a motor launch to their rural home some where up at Kapasia thana locality. A few days after, 1 tried to give a lift to my 3td brother, then a Dhaka College student and a Student League activist, out of the city to Kashempur Agricultural farm where my second brother was posted as the Assistant Director, but the army posted outside the main road off Tejgaon Airport, did not allow me to proceed ahead and returned me to my residence through Farm gate and Tejgaon No. 1 Railway Crossing at Tejgaon Industrial Ara.

These were some of my experience on the night of the 25th March and soon after the 25th March 1971 when I heard nothing of Declaration of Independence by the Sheikh except that some rumour of an announcement made in Chittagong by one Major Zia of the East Bengal Regiment. In mid April another news we got about formation of a government in exile in Calcutta with some Awami League Leaders, MNA's and M.P.s of East Pakistan. However, though the federal Army reestablished control all over East Pakistan by mid May, sporadic violence occurred here and there until November when real war started on the 3rd December.

I stayed still in the same government residence until 10th December when on serious persuasion of my immediate next brother staying at Kashempur, I took all my family members then with me in my own self-driven car to Kashempur in midst of bombing by Indian jets except the one who had already crossed over to India and the other one left for rural home. Within six days of my leaving Dhaka, I realised that the war ended through surrender of the Pakistan Eastern Command in Dhaka on the 16th December. I joined my job in the Ramna Head Quartr possible on the 27th December and soon had to go to my place of posting at Barisal where from I had been on long earned leave.

There was no effective government until the Sheikuh took over on his return to Dhaka on the 10th January 1972. But the issue of declaratin/announcement of Independence remained in confusion Zia's declaration on the 27th and amendment made on the following day though had no credence but that sparked fire for resistance of many was given no credit whatsoever by the Sheikh's government, and instead gave the whole credit to the Sheikh through a Bengal leaflet distributed widely that claimed that the Sheikh passed on instruction for declaring Independence to an Awami Leaguer in Chittagong just before he suffendered to the Pakistan Army at about mid night on the 25th March. The subject mather of the leaflet was blasted by all intelligent persons, because, he left no such intimation to any one either to Tajuddin or to Dr. Kamal Hossain even though they stayed with him until the last hours, but amazingly sent the measage to a tittle known person nearly 200 miles away from Dhaka. Even so, the baseless matter continued as documented fact in party vocabularies and in textbooks until about late 1975.

The fall of the Sheikh and taking over the administration by Zia by the end of 1975 made things changed in vocabulary and in textbooks, that is, Zia got acknowledgement for his declaration. Independence after about five years.

There were credible personal evidence and documents in the matter. The most glaring matter was that Zia as a leading sector commander of 1971 war fought gallantly in the war front whereas the Sheikh not only escaped all risks of war but enjoyed carefree life in West Pakistan while his family members (wife and two daughters) received full protection of the Federal Army of Pakistan in Dhaka.

That the Sheikh did not declare the Independence of the country from Pakistan has many proves. First, that there are many instances of his distasrte for being labeled as a 'secessionist'. Instead, he was all out to share power of federal Pakistan as the Prime Minister with President Yahya Khan, keeping relation with the General long before the fale of Ayub Khan in late March 1969 just as Sarder Mujhammad Chaudhury records, 'Rani (Yahya's lover and an Indian citizen) also revealed Yahya's collusion with Mujib even before the General had taken over. She was with Yahya one night when Mujib suddenly entred the room. Surprisd and somewhat frightened she went to another room.

Mujib who was in Islamabad for the Round Table Conference remained with Yahya for over an hour (Sarder Muhammad Chaudhury, The Ultimate Crime : Eye Witness to Power Games, P. 98, Lahore, 1999)'. That he did never wish to dismember Pakistan can also be found in Brohi's testament as briefly published in the London Fortnightly, The Impact International, dated 28th September to 8th October, 1987 issue, P. 19 that reads, 'Mujibur Rahman was being tried on the charge that he had been working for the secession of East Pakistan and according to Brohi, he had absolutely denied the accusation. Brohi also personally believed that this was true defence plea. For all his faults, it was Mr. Brohi's view that Muiibur Rahmnan did not want to break Pakistan.

Later on when India attacked East Pakistan, again according to Brohi, Mujibur Rahman offered to appear on the TV and appeal to the people of East Pakistan to defend Pakistan against Indian attack He passed on the offer to the martial law administrator Gen Yahya Khan. Apparently the offer was ignored.' Professor and historian Stanley Wolpert, in his Zulfi Bhutto of Pakistan (OUP, 1993), recorded from Mujib's tape recorded conversation with Bhutto made between 27th December 1971 to 8th January 1972 in Islamabad, 'I told you it will be confederation' (P.175 that he also signaled in his 10th January 1972 public meeting speech made as the victorious leader at the then Rana Race Course that I attentively listened to from the radio right then. Why should at all be any thing to give word much less talk about 'Confederation', if he had made Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) on the 25th March 1971) ? It is further recorded in authentic historical documents that Mujib in his post 1971 life for about three and a half years never showed any interest for the 'exile government' capital of Mujibnagar, much less made any visit there but instead rebuked Tajuddin, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh for dismembering Pakistan as had the late Professor Dr. Aftab Ahmad been the witness to the rebuke on the 10th January 1972 at the Tejgaon Airport Tarmac. One could add more to these proofs, but it is useless to elongate the list further.

Thus it should be concluded that the Sheikh had neither planned to dismember Pakistan, nor he declared independence of Bangladesh, and hence in no way he could be anything of the architect of Bangladesh. However, history itself will remove all such controversies on its own when it will set all reords upright. The position of Zia being a straight forward army officer, however, remained crystal clear as the real announcer of Independence of Bangladesh with all authenticity and fully credible fact of history beyond any shadow of doubt.