The New Nation - Internet Edition

Micro-credit and Monga

ACCORDING to economists, the non-government organisations (NGOs) that run micro-credit business have miserably failed to help the ultra-poor come out of the poverty trap and get self-employed with dignity. Thus scourge like 'Monga', meaning seasonal joblessness, continues in the country's northernmost districts. Leading economists at a seminar also criticised the government's manpower training bureau and manpower recruiting agencies for failing to create job opportunities for the poor people of the region. The NGOs that run business with micro-credit have failed to give the ultra-poor the dignity, which may prompt them to eradicate their acute hardship or poverty.

Micro-credit lenders have not taken into consideration the people's ability or inability to work. One economist was of the view that micro-credit did not solve the problems of the poorest of the poor who suffer from malnutrition and loose entrepreneurial ability ultimately. Others said, Monga is 'nothing but a poverty syndrome' and seasonal distress because income opportunities have not been created ahead alternatively. Suggestions like 'savings scheme facilities' and 'employment guarantee scheme' for the Monga-affected people of the region have been offered as possible ways to address the pressing issue instead of nurturing it as a means of doing business. High rate of interest is often charged by a section of the NGOs for the small amount of loans provided to the poorest people.

Micro-credit is not a panacea for Monga. A Dhaka University academician also blamed the NGOs and the government's apex micro finance window for allowing 'poverty to continue offering loans of meagre amounts'. 'The philosophy of the government and the NGOs is the same - Just to keep people alive for using them in micro-credit business', the university teacher was quoted as saying. Agricultural diversification, small and medium industries and revitalisation of cottage industries are considered vital and more appropriate for the Monga-prone northern region.

Concern for diplomatic norms

THE diplomatic profession is governed by clearly defined and 'universally accepted' practices and norms. There cannot be any deviation from or violation of the same. Thus, the diplomat of even a superpower in a host country is obligated to carefully and prudently observe these rules even in a tiny host country. And that tiny country, in like fashion, is as much entitled to special privileges for its diplomats in a big and mighty country. It is the uniform acceptance and meticulous observation of these principles which has helped the maintenance of the worldwide diplomatic ties.

Indeed, what the diplomats ought to do and must not do, are all the part of international protocols that have been crafted over centuries and remain fully in force. Thus, it should not come as a surprise that our Foreign Ministry recently issued a note with the express aim of drawing the attention of diplomats of certain embassies who were construed as acting beyond the bounds of diplomatic norms. They may have done so to make a contribution towards constructive developments in Bangladesh. But that would be essentially their view. The government of Bangladesh has reasons of its own to be concerned by their conduct.

Diplomats have been meeting Bangladeshi politicians and in some cases only amplifying the demands of the politicians. The government has valid reasons not to readily accept these demands and act accordingly from its own judgement of what is best suited for the country. International law accepts fully the rights of countries to exercise their sovereignty in the management of their internal affairs. Diplomats are only obliged to respect this sovereign exercise of powers in harmony with international law and diplomatic norms. They must not be seen as violating these norms by dictating policies to national governments.

No more political Sidr after Polls-'08

Md. Monirul Islam

While a blameworthy one is beat by public and even by the law enforcement body, some people show their sympathy for that defaulter although he is notorious criminal. It is an emotional expression of human mind. But this emotional approach, in most case, is transferred into real apparatus where people take part on behalf of criminals saving him who performed misdeeds a lot before.

According to me, it happens for three reasons personality cult, ideological bondage, people of like minded or the member of same clans or associates. Application of these three kinds is prevalent at all levels of life. How political life is equipped with that of three kinds would be the core magnetism of this write-up.

In developing countries, political leaders of various parties did wrong is clear to even each and every pest of country. That's why; Bangladesh achieved its rank no.1 for five times as the most corrupted country in the world. Presently, bigwigs' imprisoned in custody highly proves that. Amongst the three big parties, the head of the two big parties are compelled to select their residence in jail except the head of the Jameet-e- Islami Bangladesh.

In this case, if a person or group or even party make agitation to escape their leaders from jail, it will be the nothing nuisance. Which kind of apparatus- Personality cult, Ideological bondage, People of like minded or the member of same clans or associates is applicable in this process? If it is personality cult, that never bestows collective welfare or well-being but personal advancement. We observe that leaders in various ages did for their private interest but not for common good. So, political leaders became the giant figure in acquiring wealth, name and fame etc.

If it is ideological bondage, that's more complex except divine guidance. Man-made different tenets historically has proved their inability in commanding the particular affair rather created massacre in an attempt of seeking interests by particular people of tenet. Based on secularist ideology, they made some isms like capitalism, socialism, communism, laissez-faire economy, globalization etc. These isms never bestowed the welfare of the mankind but exploited the human beings severely.

If we concentrate ourselves toward the golden age of the history of Prophet Muhammad (sm.), he adopted egalitarian approaches in all spheres of allocating system. What's the right of hostages and how they would be treated? Capitalization of wealth was allowed by prophet; but to earn legally and the poor have the right in this wealth; that is called Zakat. It's the process might be considered the paramount means of equalizing or valuing all levels people. So, this ideological (Islamic) standard might be taken into account in ruling the country as the last resort for Bangladesh.

If the criminal becomes like minded people or the member of same clan, they privilege mere the own people who are his associates. It's the pattern which divides the nation not only from different groups but also diverse religions. Here the people from other communities (religions) are deprived of their legal rights and they would be tortured by inward-looking ruling class. Then, for instance, there will be further appeared one party system like before in the country. So, we have to go back toward the system where minorities aren't treated as minority but brother as the part of Ummah.

General people of Bangladesh should think generally who would be considered to lead the country for the well-being of the modest Bangladeshi nation. They (people) are modest because they were again and again cheated by the political leaders of Bangladesh. Political leaders do beyond seeking the interest of common people.

Anyway, the political history of developing states is as same as their electoral behavior. In Thailand, Thaksin Shinawatra was exiled by the Military junta's cruel approach. The generals who staged the coup claimed to be saving Thai democracy from Mr Thaksin's abuses. Their dictatorship has been a pretty mild one and they are keeping their promise to hold the election by the end of 2007. But they presumably hoped the former leader would be forgotten by now. But it has not been occured in Thai politics.

It was forcasted by the various analysists, although Thailand's quirky opinion polls must be treated with caution, most predict that the PPP will win comfortably more seats than its nearest rival, the Democrats, although not a majority.. The widespread assumption is that the Democrats will nevertheless form a ramshackle coalition.. The problem is that Abhisit Vejjajiva, the Democrats' leader, though young and handsome, may not command enough respect to lead a fractious government.

Until the coup, Thailand seemed to be escaping its historic cycle of alternating military dictatorships and weak civilian rule. By the late 1990s it had become a beacon of multi-party democracy in Asia. Whether that beacon will shine again is unclear. If a Democrat-led coalition takes office, the PPP seems likely to make its life difficult and short-lived.

If the PPP leads the next government, a peace pact with the generals is possible but the military men are bound to be nervous. The PPP promises to rescind a political ban that a tribunal created by the junta imposed on Mr Thaksin and 110 allies. If he returns, he would be able to scrap the amnesty that the coupmakers granted themselves-and put them in the dock. Although Thaksin -suppoted party has formed Government, he has not reached its own country, Thailand.

We (Bangladeshi) may learn, from the victorious history of Thaksin, a thing that Thaksin who were ousted or exiled by the military junta, he or his espoused party has been settled on the throne as an incumbaency. Bangladeshi army backed government who also has imprisioned two leaders of the AL and BNP, two dominant party of Bangladesh and their associates in custody. They will also be escaped or returned to their previous position likewise Thaksin of Tahailand. In Thailand, Some brought military men on board, hoping for army backing. Their wish has become paler. That will also happen if army take shelter for any force to take him into power.

The greater possibilty of Khaleda Zia led four party alliance will come into power again through the election of 2008 if it is held because it has several positive sides viz- firstly, in the era of Khaleda Zia led four party alliance (2001-06), price hike of daily necessary goods increased; it's right. But the government of 1/11 has not reduced the price hike, but has played role to increase it into it's appex. Secondly, although they (BNP) are now different fragmentations, it is merely in upper level, but not amongst general masses; all are the well-wisher of Khaleda Zia for being the wife of Shahid president Ziaur Rahman.

Thirdly, BNP has a great allinace with Jameet-e-Islami Bangladesh who has been crystalized as one of the corruption free party in Bangladesh. Their 55 lakh supporters is the plus point for BNP. Fourthly, Khaleda has greater popularity within the female class of Bangladesh; Sheikh Hasina doesn't belong to.

But AL, in this regard, are in downbeat site because of Govt. support on behalf AL at the last phase of state scenario. We all know that those who were supported by the government of 1/11, they can't come into privileged position. Such as Dr. Muhammad Yunus in spite of being novel Laureate who espoused by govt. in framing a separate party, has been turned down by the people of Bangladesh. And same case happened for Ferdous Ahmed Koreshi in his attempt of forming political party.

AL workers including party chief, are arrogant in nature in both cases-'delivering speech and action', that was located by the world people on October 28, 2007 for their naked dance on dead body that was done by them. They are India-friendly but have the enmity with those of pious Muslims. Their brutal move was shown when police waunded thousands of Musallis in Baitul Mukkaram Masjid, the national Mosque of Bangladesh in their period from 1996 to 2001.

Besides, the founding father of AL introduced BAKSAL, one party system and also administered Rakkhi Bahini, special force of government; this event is stancely memorized in the heart of the people of country. Since a long time, people gave chance AL to rule the country in the previous era (1996-2001); they didn't present themselves as the psyche of people, but approached against people. So, the absolute utterness of propagandists in an attempt to reach AL in power won't be successed surely. It's also right that people will vibrate themselves on behalf two leaders-Khaleda Zia or Sheikh Hasina to show their sympathy on them although these two leaders have written their name in the schedule of criminal for their engagement in corruptions directly or indirectly. But a large part of people will espouse Jameet-e-Islmi Bangladesh for their non-involvement in corruptions. So, the same case like pakistan will happen that means, no party will attain the absolute majority in the election of 2008. In this context, four party alliance will lie in the convenient position if the alliance is continued between BNP and Jamaat.

Whatsoever being the result of election, every party should move peacefully avoiding all sorts of condemning of each other. We may learn from recenly held Malaysian election. Former coalition leader turned opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim could not contain his excitement at the turn of events. "This is a defining moment, unprecedented in our nation's history. Today a new chapter has opened," he told reporters at a packed news conference at his house.

"The people have expressed in no uncertain terms that they want accountability, transparency and the rule of law." Anwar was prevented from running for office by a five-year ban from official politics that expires on April 15. That ban was part of the sentence handed down to him after an acrimonious political split with Mahathir in 1998. So, we won't also go toward subversion but construction like Anwar Ibrahim after announcing upcoming elction result. We don't want to see another political sidr or election sidr in Bangladeshi affair. It seems to me that my write-up will assist the people of Bangladesh in selecting candidates and in behaving with each other (ruler and ruled, oppositions). All of us should stand on our right platform beyond discarding snooty mentality for peaceful Bangladesh. Of course, veterans won't symphonize their voice against it.

India wants a bigger role in UN

M.M. Hussain

Security Council is an executive body of the United Nations. A very large population, a big muscle power and a huge size country is not the only criteria for becoming a permanent member of the Security Council. A nation has to hold many other qualifications those are vital. Such as no violation of human rights, no communal riots within the country, not to kill their own people, no discrimination among the citizens to ensure food, education and free medical care for all the citizens, to maintain good relation with the neighbours, should not be a member of LLDC or LDC areas, should have the capacity to help the underdeveloped nations by giving economic aid, etc.

Nowadays by watching media, we observe India wants to be a permanent member of Security Council. United Nations charter requires many more requirements other than above qualification. However, we like to analyse some of the pictures of India since the partition of this sub-continent in August 1947.

India has violated two-nation theories. Sub-continent was partitioned in 1947 based on two-nation theory agreed by Indian Congress, Pakistan Muslim League and the British Government. It is said Muslim majority areas will be a part of Pakistan and Hindu majority areas will be a part of India. Whereas, India holds Muslim majority area like Gurudaspur district of Punjab, Murshidabad and Cooch Bihar of West Bengal, Kachar and Karimgonj of Assam.

By force, India is holding Kashmir. They themselves went to U.N.O and agreed to honour plebiscite in Kashmir. Accordingly, Security Council resolution was passed and thereafter India is not honouring her own commitment since over last 60 years. In Kashmir, over 80% population are Muslims. Indian army killed hundreds of thousands Kashmiri Muslims, raped thousands of Muslim women and girls, looted their properties.Oover half a million Indian soldiers are stationed in Kashmir to do the job of Muslim killing and plundering their properties, since the partition of this sub-continent.

By muscle power, India is holding Kashmir and by dishonouring U.N.O Charter and Security Council resolution, this sub-continent is remaining poor and tense since its partition in 1947. As a result, over 250 million people in India are living below the subsistence level. It very much affects the position of other countries in the sub-continent.

There are a large number of ideal and model countries those who qualify much more than India for permanent membership of Security Council. Say, for example, Japan, Germany, Sweden and Brazil, etc.

In 1947, Hyderabad became a member of the United Nations. India conquered Hyderabad in 1948, the day the founder of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah died and conquered Junagarh, Manbadar, Later on by force India also conquered Goa and Sikkim. Indian soldiers are stationed on Bhutan soil.

Indian publicity says India is a secular nation, whereas, India is the largest communal country. Thousands of bloody riots took place in India; killed millions of Muslims and Christians, looted their properties and raped their girls and women. Indian minorities are a second-class citizen. United Nations' record will speak that 90% of total global communal riots held only in India.

India ravaged the Sikh's golden temple in Amritsar and killed thousands of Sikh Similarly, they have uprooted the centuries old Babri Mosque in Ayodhya and killed thousands of Muslims and built there Ram Mandir. They also burnt many churches, raped thousands of Nuns and young Christian women and girls. Sikhs are fighting for their liberation, Indian army has killed hundred of thousands Sikhs.

Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram are fighting for their independence from India since 1947. India is suppressing them by killings, raping their girls and women and by plundering. A foreigner is not allowed to visit in all the eastern part provinces since the partition of sub-continent in 1947.

To suppress the Naxalite movement Indian army and their paratroops have killed hundreds of thousands Indians in West Bengal and in the other parts of India.

Until today, schedule caste, Harijan Hindus and the Muslims are the 90% Indians. They are not getting even 10% of their shares against the upper class of Brahmins.

Seven countries like Pakistan, China, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Srilanka have direct border with India. India is not in good relationship with anyone of them. India has serious strained relation with Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Srilanka.

They fought three wars with Pakistan over Kashmir and one war with China. About 40,000 square kilometre Chinese land is forcefully being held by India.

India unitarily built barrages on their 51 rivers flowing over Bangladesh and stopped the movement of international river water during dry season.

To destabilise Srilanka India sent there their southern Tamil terrorists and a proxy war is going on.

USA, UK, Russia, France and China are the permanent members of Security Council. In addition, six more countries are temporary members of Security Council. We consider this position is fit and proper to run the United Nations Security Council business. India is a lowest developed country. They need help and aid to develop their own people.

USA wants India to be a counter-nation against China. If USA chose India and presses other big nations to appoint India as a permanent member of Security Council, then it will be a negative act for such prestigious membership. It will be a vote to allow India to suppress their own minority and schedule caste people and to continue their fights with their weak neighbours.

It matters more how one comes across in public

Ameen Izzadeen

I HAVE never seen a Sri Lankan politician sneezing or blowing his nose in public. Whenever they appear in public, they are surrounded by scores, if not hundreds of media photographers and cameramen. But none has so far brought a photograph of a politician blowing his nose so that editors could carry it on page one.

During a journalism training programme in Britain years ago, our trainer told us a story of how a British photojournalist working for a leading newspaper got a lucky shot of a politician doing something unusual. The story was told to us to emphasise the need to discard run-of-the mill photographs showing politicians or VIPS cutting ribbons, adorning the head table at a conference or laying a foundation stone for a building. "Look for the unusual," was the point our trainer was trying to drive home.

So the story goes that this British photojournalist went to cover the Conservative Party convention in the 1980s, looking for an unusual photograph. And he brought one - a picture of a politician - a backbencher - picking his nose. The editors had a tough time in deciding whether to use it or not, because the picture was in bad taste, though it was unusual. They finally decided to use the picture and the publication of it drew both bouquets and brickbats.

A youtube search will bring out scores of funny video clips of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and former Italian Prime Minister Silvia Berlusconi doing the unusual in public.

But the unavailability of pictures showing Sri Lankan politicians in similar actions shows that either there are no good photojournalists here or our politicians are image conscious. I think it is more a case of the latter.

Our politicians will do things the common folks do to make sure that they are identified with the poor. Accompanied by an army of photographers, they go to the village, donning a vest and sarong to join the paddy sowing festival of the farmer. At lunch time, they sit on the floor of the poor farmer's hut and eat rice served on banana leaf by village women.

But they won't sneeze, blow their noses or lick their fingers. Simply, they don't appear to catch a cold or suffer from flu, even though every Sri Lankan is like to go through a bout of flu two to five times a year. If our politicians sneeze or show their illness in public, they feel their image as a superman will suffer.

They are keen to show they are one hundred per cent fit to lead the country as they know that the image of a superhero has vote-buying power.

During the 2005 presidential election, Mahinda Rajapaksa got on to the stage by running up the steps. The people saw him as physically more powerful than his closest rival, Ranil Wickremesinghe, and believed that he could deal a killer blow to Velupillai Prabhakaran, leader of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) whose violent campaign aimed at creating a separate state for minority Tamils has pushed Sri Lanka several decades behind in development.

Barack Obama's brisk walk at campaign-stops is also an image-building exercise to send a message to the voters that he is physically fitter than Hillary Clinton and the fittest of the lot, if you bring in John McCain also into the picture.

Last week, Prabhakaran appeared in public in what is seen as an image-boosting and message-delivering exercise. His appearance ended months of speculation that he was wounded in an air raid and that one of his legs was amputated.

Tamil MPs who visited the rebel-controlled territory on Saturday March 8 to attend the funeral of parliamentarian K Sivanesan say Prabhakaran walked normal and appeared relaxed and confident. The LTTE also released pictures of Prabhakaran's latest appearance to convey a political message to Rajapaksa and the Tamil people that Prabhakaran was very much in command.

But Rajapaksa who scored a great victory at the 2005 presidential election by portraying an image of a strong patriotic leader is fast losing his international image, which is as important for a leader of a developing country as the image he or she builds up for local consumption.

It looks like that Rajapaksa does not have good advisors or he does not take the advice from good advisors. When Sri Lanka's former President Ranasinghe Premadasa died his popularity was at its lowest ebb. One analyst pointed that the president paid a big price for keeping 'yes men' as his advisors. There was hardly any advisor to put him on the right track when he resorted to dictatorial governance. Premadasa fought two insurrections - one by Tamil youths in the north east and the other in the south by largely Sinhala Marxists - and he justified his iron-fist rule as a necessary evil to fight the war on terror. But internationally, the country's image suffered.

Rajapaksa is also probably doing a similar mistake. His advisors appear to go along with him rather than telling him about the need to respect human rights and practise good governance even though the government is on a drive to crush terrorism.

The New York-based Human Rights Watch dealt a big blow to Rajapaksa's international image when it described him in a report as a human-rights champion turned human rights abuser.

The ultimate insult to Rajapaksa came when the George W Bush administration, a regime which shows scant respect to human rights and individual liberty, released a damning report last week, accusing the Sri Lankan government of gross human rights violations.

Bush can be the emperor without clothes but still he will command the respect wherever he goes because he is the president of the United States, the sole superpower. Rajapaksa can do a Bush but can he expect that he be treated like the US president?

(Ameen Izzadeen is a Sri Lankan journalist based in Colombo)