The New Nation - Internet Edition

Integrated pest management

AT a recent discussion in the capital city, experts including scientists and farmers

stressed on concerted efforts to avert the threat of massive pest attacks on crop fields and warned against mindless use of harmful pesticides on agricultural lands. The insecticide-based management system had 'failed to control many pests' which were becoming 'resistant' to almost all chemical pesticides as a result of their indiscriminate spray on the crop fields. The farmers, particularly, made an urgent appeal that the required measures should be taken immediately so that safe and low-cost pest management is available.

Scientists have trained farmers to apply pheromone traps and allow beneficial insects on the crops to control pests. But these inputs are available neither in the market nor in government stocks. Some participants at the discussion mentioned that damage to production was 40 to 50 per cent even after spraying cocktail insecticides. But after using pheromones and beneficial insects the rate of damage came down to 5 per cent and the cost of using organic pesticides also fell by about 25 per cent. One BARI scientist stressed the need for fresh methods of integrated pest management and warned of an outbreak of pests, which have become resistant to the commonly used pesticides.

Meanwhile, Bangladesh Agriculture Research Institute provided synthetic sex pheromones and beneficial insects to a section of farmers in vegetable growing hubs like Jessore, Bogra, Pabna, Narsingdi and Comilla to experiment with and decide if these could replace harmful pesticides to reduce the risk of harm to public health and cut production costs. Mindless use of inorganic pesticides, abundance of spurious pesticides in the market and extermination of beneficial insects were causing an increase in the population of harmful pests. Some discussants lamented that the government remained 'indifferent' to the aggressive marketing of inorganic pesticides by multinational companies and demanded a proactive role.

Growing medicinal plants

BANGLADESH Business Promotion Council (BPC) organised a seminar on Thursday to inspire businesses to grow medicinal plants to meet the local demand and also save foreign currency by making their imports unnecessary. The growing of medicinal plants and herbs is a lucrative business. Bangladesh at present spends about Taka 500 million for the import of herbs or herbal extracts to make medicines. But the entire amount can be saved if medicinal plants and herbs are locally produced.

There are also immense prospects of exporting medicinal plants, herbs and herbal extracts provided the growing of the medicinal plants and herbs is properly developed. One study found that there is a very good opportunity for growing medicinal plants and herbs in the fallow lands of the tea estates, on hill sides at Chittagong and Sylhet. Even farmers can profitably do such planting in small strips of lands in their homesteads. This can be a source of employment and income and also of earning substantial foreign currency. At present, the annual average size of the export market for raw herbs is some $ 62 billion. The market size is projected to expand phenomenally by 2050. Thus, there are incentives for businesses to take up the growing of medicinal plants and herbs.

It is significant that only about 20 per cent of over 140 million people are in the habit of taking synthetic medicines. A major part of the population opt for herbal treatment of which the Unani and Ayurvedic systems are the favourites. Cost is a factor why so many people are habituated to these alternative medicines. Their popularity also stems from the effectiveness of treatment and relative safety. Herbal medicines are known to create the least or no side effects on patients. The government may extend support for the development of these traditional systems of medical care.

The case for Kosovo's independence

Geeta Pasi

US Charge d'Affaires

The United States applauds the major step Europe recently took toward the goal of a continent whole, free and at peace. Recognition of Kosovo's independence frees both the people who live there and their neighbours to move beyond the conflicts of the 1990s and pursue a wider vision of integration with an undivided Euro-Atlantic community. It marks the final stage of Yugoslavia's slow-motion breakup.

Peace and prosperity in Europe has been a fundamental goal of President Bush's foreign policy and of Presidents who preceded him for almost a century. From our entry into the Great War and President Wilson's 14 points, through World War II and the Marshall Plan, to support for NATO and EU enlargement after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the United States has shown its commitment to Europe's security and well-being.

Beginning in 1989, ethnic Albanians, who constitute over 90 percent of Kosovo's population, suffered brutal repression and ethnic cleansing at the hands of the regime of Slobodan Milosevic. After NATO's intervention brought a halt to the violence in 1999, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 ended Belgrade's rule over Kosovo and established a temporary UN administration. For nine years, the people of Kosovo waited patiently for clarity about their future.

Nine years is long enough. Europe and the U.S. supported negotiations to find a mutually acceptable solution to the problem of Kosovo's status. Despite two years of talks led first by the UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari and then by a troika made up of the EU, Russia, and the United States, the two sides remained irreconcilable on the basic question of whether Kosovo should be independent. Acknowledging this deadlock, Special Envoy Ahtisaari developed a comprehensive proposal for Kosovo's status, including a recommendation that Kosovo become independent subject to a period of international supervision.

The United States, Europe and a majority of UN Security Council members supported this plan. We all agreed that independence is the only viable outcome for Kosovo. Due to the legacy of conflict and mutual mistrust, there is no way in which the people of Serbia and Kosovo could remain in a functional, democratic state. The broken pieces of Yugoslavia simply cannot be put back together again.

Instead of letting the situation deteriorate into crisis, Europe and the United States decided to act. We could not let the status quo continue -- more years of limbo would have turned Kosovo into an incubator for frustrations and instability, with woeful consequences for all of Europe. We could not let Kosovo's uncertain future cloud Kosovo's economic prospects, further depriving Kosovo of badly needed loans from the IMF and World Bank.

Kosovo is now independent. Our task is to help the leadership and the people of Kosovo develop this new state into a self-sustaining, multi-ethnic country that is no longer a ward of the international community.

We were deeply impressed that in their declaration of independence, Kosovo's leaders committed themselves to achieve the highest standards of democracy, including freedom and tolerance for citizens of all ethnic backgrounds. As President Bush has remarked, "these are principles that honour human dignity; they are values America looks for in a friend."

These aspirations of Kosovars should resonate deeply among Bangladeshis, who nearly four decades ago also sought independence from an artificially created state based on ethnic, linguistic and cultural factors. We therefore urge Bangladesh to join us in embracing an independent Kosovo so its people can enjoy the fruits of nationhood as fully as you do.

No country in Europe will benefit more from Kosovo's independence than Serbia itself. Further anxiety over the outcome would have continued Serbia's obsession with Kosovo and encouraged false hopes, distracting Serbia's leaders from addressing the concerns of their citizens and Serbia's own European future. Serbia's own people deserve better, and are actually demanding it.

Much has been heard of the strong nationalist impulse and the romantic attachment that Serbs feel for Kosovo. In fact, polls show that more than 70% of Serbians want integration with the EU and cite unemployment as a greater concern than Kosovo's fate. Serbia needs to take up its rightful place in Europe, the Transatlantic Community, and the world.

Europe and the United States stand ready to welcome it. The great prosperity and stability that has come to the other nations that have joined the Euro-Atlantic community is the promise that now beckons the great nations of southeast Europe. The tragedy of Yugoslavia's demise is now history. Together we can move beyond the legacy of war toward a brighter future for all.

PPP should not disunite Pakistan further

Syed Moazzem Hussain

Pakistan is passing a very crucial time. They cannot afford any further break. Pakistan's existence became questionable after the arrival of US forces in Afghanistan. Pakistanis and their well-wishers want a strong Pakistan. A strong Pakistan is needed not only for the existence of Muslims in the Sub-Continent but also for Iran and the Arabs.

Because of power and chair, Muslims are weaker everywhere. They remain busy for fighting among themselves. It is said in 1971 Pakistan was broken because of the Chair. Z.A. Bhutto was too ambitious for the Chair and that was the major cause of the break down and finally he put himself in the gallows. Saddam Hussein met the same fate like Bhutto as he helped to bring US forces on Iraqi soil, this is also for the chair. Molla Omar and Laden no more barking, hiding in the caves like rats. Egypt immediately learnt the lesson after the loss in Sinai war in 1967 with a tiny Israel. Now enjoying a good relation.

We used to overhear from our seniors in late 50's while we were student of class IX or X that India will break since they are fighting to suppress the liberation war in their Punjab, in Kashmir, in greater Assam and in many other parts in India. They are now more stronger and united whereas Pakistan was split in 1971. Lord Mountbatten, Last Viceroy of India said "Hindus are superior" in his book "Mount batten and the Partition of India" written by Larry Collins & Dominique Lapierre. I read this book in 1981. Statement found not incorrect when I saw Gen. Hossain Mohd. Ershad declared martial law in Bangladesh in 1982 and ousted able President Justice Sattar from the Chair.

After the defeat at Plassey in 1757 all the Muslim rulers in India lost their Kingdom one after another since their central government in Delhi was very weak. The British soldiers conquered the whole of India in less than one hundred years from 1757.

In 1857, Muslim soldiers revolted against the British Raj which ended in failure since the Hindus fully supported and co-operated with the British Raj. By cooperating with the British Raj Hindus got the Zamindaris, government service, business and educational facilities.

Muslims' condition became miserable and pitiable. By seeing this Lord Warren Hastings the then Governor of Bengal has written in his book in 1853 "The Mussalmans" that one hundred years ago a Muslim was not available to take the Zakat. Now after one hundred years, you will not find a Muslim who has capacity to give "Zakat". In the 19th century British government made Bombay Presidency, Madras Presidency and Bengal Presidency. Bengal Presidency consists of Bengal, Assam, Bihar and Orissa. Bengal Presidency was much much bigger in size and population than Bombay and Madras. In 1873 British government was very concerned because of the famine in Orissa. They realised it was difficult for them to rule the entire Bengal Presidency from Calcutta. Thereafter, they decided to split Bengal into East Bengal and Assam in one part and West Bengal, Bihar and Orissa in other part. Governor General Lord Curzon implemented the division of Bengal from October 1905. The whole Hindu community not only of Bengal but all over India vehemently opposed it. They held more than 5000 public meetings and demonstration in Bengal.

They boycotted the British goods. Hindu organisation "Anusilon" and "Jugantor" started terrorist activities. Khudiram tried to kill the Calcutta-based British governor. He was caught, tried and later hanged. Lord Curzon divided Bengal with the help of Nawab Sir Salimullah in 1905 and Dhaka became the capital of East Bengal. Rabindra Nath Tagore not only opposed the division of Bengal but also opposed the establishment of Dhaka University.

Nawab Sir Salimullah was a far-sighted person. Muslim leaders were scattered all over India. He wanted to unite them under one umbrella and with that aim he established Muslim League in 1906 at Dhaka. Nawab Sir Salimullah wanted Muslim League will represent the Muslim matters before the British Raj. Aga Khan was made the President of Muslim League in 1910 and he himself along with the Hindu leaders also opposed the division of Bengal. There after during India visit, George the 5th declared to cancel the division of Bengal Act and reunited the Bengal Presidency in 1911. At this act Nawab Sir Salimullah was greatly shocked and fallen sick. Thereafter, he died in 1914 at the age of 44 years only.

Surprisingly the Hindu leaders and the Congress in 1947 made their demand for the division of Bengal and merger of West Bengal with India. 80% population of Haridaspur district of Punjab was Muslim, still then it was merged with India only to grab Kashmir under their long plan. At the time of partition of India, Muslim leadership in Bengal was very weak. As a result, East Pakistan lost majority Muslim areas like Murshidabad and Cooch Bihar district of Bengal and Kachar and Karimgonj of Assam. Indian leaders like Tilok told to Sir Valentine, a reporter of the Times of London, that Muslims conquered and ruled Spain for several centuries. Finally, Spanish people has driven them out of Spain, similarly the Hindus want to drive out the Muslims from India.

Today, in India 18% population are Muslims but they are not enjoying even 1% Indian government job and they are not in big business. Now they know very well that they cannot drive the Muslims out of India, therefore, they want to use them as their servant. They also know they cannot do that as long as a strong Pakistan exists. They succeeded to break Pakistan in 1971. In various ways and means they are now trying to break it further. They are playing this game very well with the help of USA. As a result Pakistan is in turmoil. I am very happy to read that PPP and PML want to form a national government Please do that and it should continue till the dust is settled. There should be continued peace and stability within the country and within the government.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad had a secret meeting with Quid-e-Azam-Mohammed Ali .

Jinnah in May 1947 in Delhi. After the usual exchange of Islamic greetings, Maulana Azad asked Quid-e-Azam, "Why are you dividing the Muslims of India into three parts?" Quid-e-Azam replied, "No. I am dividing them into two, not three." Then Maulana responded, "East Pakistan will not remain with you for more than 25 years- there will be fight of cultures." After this remark of Maulana Azad, Quid-e-Azam looked deep into his eyes and remarked, "Maulana, I am giving the Muslims a fortress to regain their past glory and history. If they don't realise this, then may God help them." At this reply, the Maulana almost sprang up and embraced Quid-e-Azam and for the first and last time he addressed Jinnah as Quid-e-Azam.

The Maulana exclaimed, "If that is how you feel, then in the name of Allah I am also with you (Agar Yehi Appaki Niyat Hai to Bismillah, Mai Bhi Aapka Saath Hun)". (This ref page 28, "Select Writings and Speeches" of Syed Badrudduja compiled and edited by Mohammed Ali Syed, Bar at Law.) Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was the right hand person of Quid-e-Azam. Congress did not like the two friends move together; therefore they made Maulana President of All India Congress. After the partition of India in 1947 Maulana perhaps got back his realisation, it is said he told to many Muslim leaders go, go back to Pakistan and strangthen them. Thereafter Shaheed and Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Haq returned to East Pakistan.

My strong belief and hope, Pakistanis will not allow the same history to be repeated in the future.

(Syed Moazzem Husain is a free lance columnist)

Keeping Biman alive

Khurshid Alam Khan

The newly constituted Biman Board of Directors has already set a record in having sat for a marathon meeting - the first formal one since its formation on 24 February 2008 - from the early evening till the midnight on 3 March 2008, but it still failed to deliver any result and called for another meeting to be held on Sunday 11 March 2008. The convening of another meeting in quick succession is only indicative of the importance of the issues that the Board must resolve in a prudent and responsible way so as to ensure Biman not only retains its recent recovery from a free-fall but also climbs out steadily and confidently to its optimum cruising altitude.

The issue of enormous importance that is confronting the Board is the one of procurement of aircraft to meet Biman's need of the day and of the hour and not of the year 2013 or 2017 when, according to the Fleet Planning Committee, the brand-new Boeing777s and Boeing787 Dreamliners are to be delivered by the manufacturer. Surely, the Board must first cater to Biman's immediate needs before indulging in the luxury of investing in the distant future.

Reportedly, Biman alone cannot bear, even in the most optimistic projection, the full cost of the four B777s and four B787 Dreamliners, and the Government of Bangladesh, as the 100% shareholder of the Biman Bangladesh Airlines Limited, will have to inject Tk1700 crore as equity in order to make the project viable.

If it were Biman's resources alone, and none from the Government exchequer, then perhaps the Board would have the independence and authority to reach a decision at its very first meeting and would not remain in animated suspension as it does now.

Because of the envisaged investment expenditure of the Government in the project being many times more than Tk25 crore, the issue will necessarily be referred to the Executive Committee of the National Economic Council (ECNEC).

It would be refreshing to remind ourselves of how time-consuming and exasperating it had been for Biman to go through all the ECNEC and PPR exercises in the first half of the nineties in the run-up to the induction of the two Airbus A310s in 1996. Then again it was because the procedures were rigorously followed that the allegations of corruption involving the purchase of the Airbuses would subsequently not stand in the court of law when cases were filed against the protagonists of the Airbus deal.

Whenever Biman opted to buy - as it did at various stages of its history - brand-new aircraft, for example the DC10 in 1989, the ATPs in 1990, or the A310s in 1996, Biman invariably ran into financial difficulties primarily because of a highly adverse debt-equity ratio that once reached the staggering value of 83:17 bringing Biman precipitously close to bankruptcy. This time again, unless the Government provides enough financial support in terms of equity, the history will only repeat itself. The political Governments never lived up to their commitment to Biman in terms of providing equity injection resulting each time in disputes between Biman and the Government following the purchase of every new aircraft.

Biman really does not need to go through all the rigour of strait jacket exercises, for it really does not need to commit today to a colossal amount of expenses in its current financial condition. Rather, Biman would do well to cut its proverbial coat according to its cloth.

With the arrival of the Superjumbo Airbus A380, many airlines will face over-capacity which they will trim by selling off their other long haul aircraft. The Singapore Airlines is already flying its two Superjumbo Airbus A380s on SIN-SYD sector, the Emirates is scheduled to operate its new A380s non-stop from Dubai to New York on 1st October 2008, London Heathrow on 1st December 2008, and Sydney-Auckland on 1st February 2009. From the media reports we know Airbus expects to deliver 13 A380s in 2008 and 25 in 2009 and 44 per year from 2010 onward. One can reasonably expect, by 2013, when Boeing offers to deliver its first B777 to Biman, there will be a glut of aircraft of various types including B777s in the aviation world. Can Biman then not buy at a bargain price from the secondary market the B777s that it is desperate today to place orders for?

The Fleet Planning Committee of Biman never ceases to amaze the observers with its overtures. Already mired in a controversy as to its composition, the Fleet Planning Committee now fronts an erstwhile Biman Board member to make the presentation of its fleet planning before the current Biman Board. The capacity in which the erstwhile Board member has access to the Board meeting and the capacity in which he makes a presentation before the Board are not just academic questions, but also are vital legal ones that beg explanations from those who are at the helm of affairs of Biman.

If Biman would properly keep all its aircraft airworthy and flyable all the time, there would be no reason why it cannot maintain the flight frequency and schedule in its present route structure without any disruption. Irrespective of old or new, the three used DC10s that Biman bought in 1983-84 for a total of US$63m and the one brand-new DC10 that it bought in 1989 for US$69m - the workhorses of the national flag carrier - continue till today to render absolutely the same services. Pertinently, what matters is how you maintain your aircraft, not how new or how old your aircraft is.

We have never had any dearth of people looking after the interest of the Boeing or the Airbus or the international financial institutions. This time around we expect the new Board members of Biman Bangladesh Airlines Limited will be passionate about the very survival of Biman and not let themselves be guiled by the mirage of the rosy picture of Biman's future as depicted by the seller's feasibility study.

(Khurshid Alam Khan is the President, Flight Engineers & Navigators Association (FENA), Bangladesh.)