The New Nation - Internet Edition

Fostering women empowerment

THE Adviser for Finance the other day underlined the need for increasing involvement of women in mainstream economic activities. He said their involvement is essential for bringing dynamism to turn Bangladesh into a middle income country by the next 15 years. He underscored a number of steps needed to achieve the goal. Economic compulsions have already made women in both urban and rural areas to engage in income generating activities outside the confines of their homes. They are performing well in the readymade garment sector. Poor ones are also engaged in the construction sector. As teachers women are preferred in primary schools, but many women teachers have earned their rightful places in secondary schools, colleges and universities. Still they lag far behind men in society.

Women form a half of the population. So, empowerment of women for their greater involvement in development pursuits has become the crying need of the hour. Women must have adequate access to opportunities and resources to succeed as entrepreneurs. They must be provided with sufficient institutional credit on easy terms to help them to initiate business. Emphasis has been laid also on need-based training for women to enhance their entrepreneurial capabilities.

Education, income generating jobs and economic freedom are at the heart of women empowerment. In a situation where women are lagging much behind their male counterparts, they should be given special opportunities as a disadvantaged section of the population to develop. But women's role in economic activities should be such that they can come out as self-reliant entrepreneurs by facing the odds in the arena of economic activities. Care should also be taken so that incentives given to women entrepreneurs do not remain confined to a limited number of privileged persons. Those should be equitably distributed to develop SMEs both in urban and rural areas.

Landlessness and poverty

THE number of the landless people is noted to be rising in the country. People are forced to sell their last parcels of ancestral holdings after falling into worse poverty conditions in the wake of natural calamities. They join the ranks of the worst ones in extreme poverty. According to one reliable assessment, the number of the landless in the population was 28 per cent in 1972 ; the number has increased to 50 per cent at present. The Bhumi Adhikar Parisad claims that the number of the landless today is as high as 54 per cent.

Considering the links between landlessness and poverty it is important to slow down if not stop the process through which people become landless. One way of taking care of landless people is to distribute government-owned khas lands among landless people. There is a countywide programme for this but it suffers from pervasive corruption and neglect. A newspaper report some time ago highlighted that in some districts including Sylhet about 53 per cent of the distribution of khas lands remained pending while the 47 per cent of those who received khas lands were undeserving persons.

In the cases of both undistributed and distributed khas lands, unlawful squatters are in possession using their links to locally powerful vested interest groups. The situation in Sylhet is symbolic of khas land distribution in other areas of the country. Clearly, there is the need to take action on two fronts: giving entitlement to truly landless and very poor persons and ensuring effective possession of khas lands and the eviction of undeserving people from such lands. Furthermore, insurance to cover the assets of rural people needs to be introduced to discourage sale of lands under distressed conditions.

Lahore Resolution outlined Bangladesh's separate entity

M.T.Hussain

Is it not fantastic to hear from some section here that Bangladesh had its independence in March 1971 that owed everything for happenings and movements by people between 1952-1971? Did not the assertion mean that Bangladesh had only a background history of people's struggle of 18 years and nothing beyond prior to 1952 for independence?

Neither Bangladesh is a 'newfound land' nor all are newly settled people living here only after around 1952. Geographically, it is quite ancient a land and the people are equally old settlers, though composition of races changed and intermixed from time to time through millenniums of human habitation. Not only that it was so about the composition of the people but the country had also been independent as an entity, bigger in land size though, long before in the 15th century ruled by the Ilias Shah dynasty as a Muslim welfare state having everything of sovereignty at that point of history and human civility. Again soon after the weakening of the Mughals in Bengal, it is well known that our country had been similarly independent that the British conspired to take over from Seraj Ud Daula in 1757 A.D. through deep conspiracy based in the then Calcutta (now Kolkata). Our forefathers had to struggle hard afterwards for 190 years until 1947 to get rid of the British and their local henchmen. And in the struggle a critical and culminating point of history was reached in 1940, in this month of March on the 23-24, 68 years ago, meeting then in a special session of their own political organization, All India Muslim League held in Lahore, the then provincial capital of the united province of the British Indian Punjab. The session though was presided over by the Muslim League President Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the resolution that outlined among other things the location and separate identity of what is now known as Bangladesh along with what constitutes Pakistan territory was spearheaded by Sher E Bangla A K Fazlul Haq, the then Prime Minister of the British Indian province of Bengal (united) having capital at Calcutta (Kolkata). Had there been no Lahore Resolution of 1940 passed unanimously and implemented through further follow up united struggle, there would have been neither Pakistan in 1947 nor Bangladesh in 1971. It is as such really amazing that while in March the independence of Bangladesh is celebrated with all razzmatazz, the March 23 commemoration of the Lahore Resolution is kept under the carpet for our present generation to forget everything about it.

If one would go in a bit of background, one is certain to see clearly that the Muslim League until 1940 and even after sought nothing more than the minimum as equal rights of citizen as would any other have which the Congress party hardly intended to accede. On the contrary, the Congress went on doing almost everything against the interests of the Muslims in every way they could lay hands on. That was what the Muslim minorities experienced shockingly in all cultural and economic matters when following the 1937 election Congress ministries were formed the seven of the eleven provinces in the British Indian dominion.

The governments in those provinces, for instance, imposed their party chorus Bande Mataram as the compulsory song for school class starting in all academic institutions that the Muslim children did distaste for religious belief in monotheism. They imposed further in schools bowing down to the portrait of Gandhi hung in class rooms that as well the Muslim students did not relish for religious faith. In employment and business the Muslims were sidelined. The frustration for such grievances led to jubilation of the Muslims at the fall of those Congress ministries in December 1939 followed by observance of the DAY OF DELIVERNCE by the Muslim League on the 22 December (See, S. Wolpert, The Jinnah of Pakistan, OUP, 1988/1992, p. 176). The Lahore Resolution soon followed the Day of Deliverance in about 12 weeks that spelled clearly two Muslim States, one in the North Western and the other in Eastern locality of the then British India meaning Bengal and Assam provinces in this region.

Unfortunately, the eastern part, in particular, was later on in 1947 reduced to smaller size by the Radcliffe's evil mechanics than what was envisaged in the 1940 Lahore Resolution. The smaller and the 'moth-eaten' eastern part formed East Pakistan in 1947 what is `now called Bangladesh after 1971.

In independent Bangladesh since 1972 political rhetoric is full of partial truth. Such airing of half truths for mainly gaining narrowly selfish ends did not remain limited to ordinary vocabularies but penetrated deep into school textbook contents obviously for indoctrination through brainwashing of our younger generation to commit to memory many fictions and half-truths rather than whole truth about our authentic past and recent history just as the colonial British rulers of foreign land did hide our glory for their own selfish ends for two hundred years of their occupation of our dear land.

Whose interest is being served by presenting such tunnel vision view of our past history? Such distortion and half truths may hardly serve our own national interests but for the group who stood prior to 1947 for AKHAND BHARAT or united one India under the Indian Congress Philosophy destined perpetually to keep the minority Muslims on all India basis in subjugation, particularly, in this land where the ruling elite belonged to the Congress variety (See, MBI Munshi, The India Doctrine, Dhaka, 2006). Shying away from the Lahore Resolution, that is, tuning up with the Indian Congress view of issues certainly implies as before that the 'wrong' division of 1947 of the British India be remedied by forgetting the event, whatever historic significance that had had. How is the argument tenable?

Think for a moment, had there been no division following the Lahore Resolution what the fate of the people of Bangladesh following 1947 would have been. Anything other than the ill fate of the minorities of big India? How could then the sons and daughters of nearly illiterate peasants and subsistence farmers' of East Bengal who rose up fantastically in education, professions, businesses etc. directly owing to the partition of Bengal in 1947 have socio-economic mobility just only in a generation?

Well, the 23 March is celebrated in Pakistan as their national day to commemorate the adoption of the Lahore Resolution that made a taboo here. But there is no denying the fact that until the fateful 1971 we shared a common nationality decided in the 1946 general election through fully democratic means. How could one erase that past common history and legacy? Forgetting the past proud common legacy of our forefathers would in all likely lead to 'INDIANISATION' (See, Balraz Modhok, Indianisation, Delhi, 1970).

It is as such only befitting that the Lahore Resolution event be observed in Bangladesh with due fervor on the 23 March along with the Independence Day on the 26th March.

Ensuring access to water for all

Bobby Ramakant

How will Bangladesh and other countries in the world achieve the millennium development goal (MDG) target to reduce by half the proportion of 2.6 billion people who have no access to basic sanitation by 2015?

On this year's World Water Day (22 March 2008), to put the spotlight on sanitation the United Nations General Assembly declared the year 2008 as the International Year of Sanitation. The goal is to raise awareness and to accelerate progress towards the MDG targets to halve the number of people without access to basic sanitation by 2015.

Where is the estimated US$ 10 billion annual cost to achieve this MDG target by 2015 going to come from? From 2008-2015, we will need US$ 80 billion to achieve this target which will halve the number of 2.6 billion people who presently have no access to basic sanitation (and even if we achieve this MDG target it will still leave the other half (1.3 billion people) without access to basic sanitation in 2015!).

This amount is less than 1% of world military spending in 2005, one-third of the estimated global spending on bottled water, or about as much as Europeans spend on ice cream each year.

"Private corporations, including the bottled water companies, who have largely demonstrated ruthless capital-intensive approach with blatant disregard to environmental or ecological aspects depriving local communities from access to natural resources, should be the ones to foot this bill. Not the public sector or governments of developing countries" says Dr Sandeep Pandey, Ramon Magsaysay awardee (2002) and Convener of National Alliance of People's Movements (NAPM). Aggressive marketing targeted at those 'who-have-money-to-pay' has contributed extensively to exacerbate the gap between the rich and poor communities. This has not only jeopardized basic human rights to life and dignity of the underserved communities, but also left the 'rich' with a mountainous burden of lifestyle diseases to deal with.

Water is a public good, not a commodity to be bought and sold. Increasing corporate control of water is undoubtedly alarming.

"Corporations are contributing to, and then profiting from, the global water crisis," had said Kathryn Mulvey, Executive Director of Corporate Accountability International. She stressed further that "One of the greatest threats to people's access to water today is that corporate use of water is often prioritized over people's daily use."

The money required to achieve MDG goals by halving the number of people who don't have access to basic sanitation is ONE-THIRD of the global spending on bottled water. "If one-third of the profits from bottled water companies can help 1.3 billion people to get access to basic sanitation, not doing that and letting bottled water companies mint money is outrageous" asserts Dr Pandey.

As water becomes more precious, corporations like Coke, Pepsi, Nestlé, Suez and Veolia are increasingly trying to control and profit from it. Ironically enough, at the same time, these corporations are trying to position themselves as 'improving' people's access to water.

As natural rights, water rights are usufructuary rights (water can be used but not owned). People have a right to life and the resources that sustain it, such as water. The necessity of water to life is why, under customary laws, the right to water has been accepted as a natural, social fact.

That is why governments and corporations cannot alienate people of their water rights. On this World Water Day and beyond, not only we need to challenge the alarming corporate control of water, but also stake a claim to financial and natural resources that rightfully should be utilized to provide access to basic sanitation to all.

Light at Darfur Tunnel at last?

Dr.Abdul Ruff

On the sidelines of the OIC summit in Dakar, Senegal, the presidents of Chad and Sudan Chad's Idriss Deby and Sudan's Omar al-Bashir, have signed an accord on 13 March aimed at halting five years of hostilities between the two neigboring countries. They agreed to implement past failed peace pacts at a Dakar summit. The deal - known as the Dakar agreement - commits the two nations to implementing past accords that have failed. The accord was struck under Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade's mediation. The signing ceremony was witnessed by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade brokered the agreement at his palace in the capital.

Sudan-Chad reconciliation is considered to be a prerequisite for resolving the ongoing Darfur crisis in Sudan where a five-year conflict has left more than 200,000 dead and uprooted 2.5 million from their homes since 2003, when rebels began fighting government forces and allied militia. Sudan has repeatedly accused Chad of supporting Darfur rebels. Tensions were high in the region in recent weeks as about 10,000 sought refuge in eastern Chad following a series of deadly air and land attacks by Sudanese Government forces and allied militiamen on towns and villages in West Darfur, and Chadian rebels fought the forces of their government, the UN reported.

The deal is meant to suppress attacks by armed groups operating along their shared border, a move toward stability in Chad and the battered Darfur region of Sudan. The deal said the leaders had agreed to "inhibit all activities of armed groups and prevent the use of our respective territories for the destabilization of one or the other of our states", reported the Associated Press news agency. It calls for the establishment of a monitoring group of foreign ministers from a handful of African countries that would meet monthly to ensure there have been no violations.

The problems between Chad and Sudan include the growing unrest in the camps for internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Darfur, inter-tribal clashes and the continuing fragmentation of the region's rebel movements had combined to hurt efforts to start substantive peace talks between the government and the movements; and the splintering of the movements is hindering the formation of a single negotiating team for any serious talks. Both countries have agreed on the need for a multi-track approach to diplomatic efforts to end the crisis, including shuttle diplomacy and indirect negotiations. A rebel attempt to overthrow President Deby's government was thwarted last month.

Earlier, Deby's Chadian government accused Sudanese authorities of arming rebels who launched a failed assault last month on the Chadian capital, N'djamena. The deal commits the two nations to implementing past accords that have so far failed to help end violence in the area. It calls for foreign ministers of each country to meet monthly to be sure there are no violations. "We hope that this accord will open a new page in the relations between the two countries," al-Bashir told reporters after the signing in Senegal's capital, Dakar. If successful, it would also represent be a step toward ending violence in Sudan's Darfur region. Deby said this deal is different from the others because it puts concrete Deby said of the deal. "The guarantee is the belief in peace. The peace needs to be a peace in our hearts." Our borders were closed since the last agreement signed" in October 2007.

The United Nations Security Council has approved a 26,000-strong peacekeeping force to replace the 7,000 African Union (AU) observer mission struggling to protect civilians in Sudan's western province of Darfur. But the exact make-up and deployment date for this beefed up force is still to be determined. In the meantime, more than 2m people are living in camps after fleeing more than four years of fighting in the region and they are vulnerable without peacekeepers.

The signing of the agreement by the presidents of Chad and Sudan regarding reconciliation and the normalizing of bilateral relations has been welcomed by the international community and the recent OIC summit applauded the move. The United Nations and African Union envoys, upon wrapping up two days of consultations in Geneva with key members of the international community, said improving the relationship between Sudan and Chad is crucial to achieving a durable solution to the conflict wracking Darfur. Jan Eliasson of the UN and Salim Ahmed Salim of the AU said they had received strong support from the participants at the Geneva consultations - which included the Security Council's permanent members, its African members, the European Union and neighbors of Sudan - for renewed efforts to move the political process forward.

Sudan's government and the pro-government Arab militias are accused of war crimes against the region's black African population, although the UN has stopped short of calling it genocide. Peace talks involving the government and most of the myriad rebel groups have recently resumed, but until the new UN-AU force deploys in Darfur the prospects for an end to violence look remote. The neighbors have often accused each other of supporting rebel movements trying to overthrow their governments. Hours before they met, Chad accused Sudan of sending heavily armed columns of Chadian rebels across its border. Sudan earlier dismissed Chad's claims that it had sent Chadian rebels over the border as "complete nonsense". There has been no independent confirmation of any crossing. Chadian rebels say they already operate inside the country and EU peacekeepers there said they had detected no incursion.

The Sudan is the largest country in Africa and the Republic of Chad is a landlocked country in central Africa. Sudan has had a troubled relationship with many of its neighbors and much of the international community due to what is viewed as its aggressively Islamic stance. Since 2003, the foreign relations of Sudan have centered on the support for ending the Second Sudanese Civil War and condemnation of government support for militias in the Darfur conflict. There are many casualty estimates, most concurring on a range within the hundreds of thousands. The UN estimates that the conflict has left as many as 200,000 dead from violence and disease.

Darfur has faced many years of tension over land and grazing rights between the mostly nomadic Arabs, and farmers from the Fur, Massaleet and Zagawa communities. The war or conflict now in Darfur in western Sudan in the impoverished region early in 2003 after a rebel group began attacking government targets, saying the region was being neglected by Khartoum. Rebel groups began attacking government targets, saying their communities were being discriminated against in favor of Arabs. The rebels say the government is oppressing black Africans in favor of Arabs. Darfur, which means land of the Fur, has faced many years of tension over land and grazing rights between the mostly nomadic Arabs, and farmers from the Fur, Massaleet and Zagawa communities.

The combination of decades of drought, desertification, and overpopulation are among the causes of the Darfur conflict, because the Baggara nomads searching for water have to take their livestock further south, to land mainly occupied by non-Arab farming communities. There are estimated to be more than 13 rebel factions in Darfur. The Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (Jem), are prominent but both groups have split, some along ethnic lines. The leader of one SLA faction, Minni Minawi, who signed a peace deal in 2006 (rejected by others) after long-running talks in Nigeria, was given a large budget, but his fighters have already been accused by Amnesty International of abuses against people in areas opposed to the peace deal. The other rebel factions did not sign the deal.

Millions have fled their destroyed villages, with some 2m in camps near Darfur's main towns. But there is not enough food, water or medicine. Some 200,000 have also sought safety in neighboring Chad, but many of these are camped along a 600km stretch of the border and remain vulnerable to attacks from Sudan. The refugees are also threatened by the diplomatic fallout between Chad and Sudan as the neighbors accuse one another of supporting each other's rebel groups. Chad accused the Sudan government-backed Arab Janjaweed militia of attacking villagers in Chad. Sudan's government denies being in control of the Janjaweed and President Omar al-Bashir has called them "thieves and gangsters". After strong international pressure and the threat of sanctions, the government promised to disarm the Janjaweed. Trials have been announced in Khartoum of some members of the security forces suspected of abuses - but this is viewed as part of a campaign against UN-backed attempts to get some 50 key suspects tried at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. The US and some human rights groups say that genocide is taking place - though a UN investigation team sent to Sudan said that while war crimes had been committed, there had been no intent to commit genocide. Sudan resisted strong Western diplomatic pressure for the UN to take control of the peacekeeping mission and their attitude to the deployment and its mandate remains ambiguous at best. Accurate figures are crucial in determining whether the deaths in Darfur are genocide or not- as the Sudanese government says - the situation is being exaggerated. About 7,000 African Union troops are deployed in Darfur on a very limited mandate. African Union says it does not have the money to fund the operation for much longer. Some say even the new 26,000 force promised will not be enough to cover such a large, remote area.

Peaceful existence between Sudan and Chad is an essential prerequisite for resolving the Darfur issue amicably and the recent agreement is considered to be a milestone not only their relations, but also finding a lasting solution to Darfur region. Sudanese government must take steps to improve the conditions of Darfur region and should not depend too much on its military might to suppress the Darfur people. The three stake-holders, Sudan, Chad and Darfur people have to consult one other for future course of actions towards final settlement of Darfur crisis in their favor. Sudan and Darfur leaders must sit down and talk about power-sharing, wealth-sharing and security and, of course, the right of return - for people to come back to their own homes. And there is no alternative to negotiated settlement and they have to start talking about the recovery and development. Essentially the focus should be on a better future for the people of Darfur.