Country A declares independence, fights a costly and bloody war, gains victory over Country B, and becomes an independent nation-state. The victory is against stupendous military odds, and would not have been possible without the decisive and invaluable assistance of Country C. Country A overwhelmingly elects its wartime leader as the country’s first head of government. However, soon after A becomes independent, A’s government desires to plot a middle course between its former master, B, and its great ally during the war, C. This change of foreign policy leads to massive domestic turmoil. The government is thrown in crisis, and the cabinet becomes inexorably factionalized. Soon, the cabinet’s most illustrious member, who was irreplacable during the war and without whom independence would not have been possible, resigns from the cabinet.

So far, a story familiar to most of us, I assume. But the story after this point diverges depending on the name of the characters. If the names are United States, Great Britain, France, Washington, and Jefferson, it goes one way. If, on the other hand, the names are Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Mujib, and Tajuddin, then it goes quite another.

For, you see, George Washington retired from what could have been his for the taking, and served as the President of the United States only for two terms, while most of his countrymen expected him to occupy that post for life. Instead, he quietly retired to his country home, and concentrated on trying to make his Mount Vernon estates profitable again. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman tried to make permanent by law what should have been his through goodwill and love of his people, and established one-party rule in Bangladesh, in effect turning the country into a dictatorship, and trying to promulgate “Mujibbad.”

If what came before could be similar, how could the two stories end so differently?

In 1758, twenty-three years before his victory at Yorktown finally broke the back of the British Army, Washington had been an officer in that same British Army, fighting against the French in the Seven Years War. In 1947, twenty-three years before the sound of ninety-thousand rifles being thrown to the ground signalled the breakup of Pakistan, Mujib had been a foot-soldier in the fight for Pakistan. Informed that the flag of Pakistan had not been raised in Faridpur even after forty days after the formation of Pakistan, due to resistance by the sizable Hindu population in that town,  H. S. Suhrawardi sent his favorite lathial to Faridpur to see what was going on. The man he sent was Mujib. The flag of Pakistan was raised in Faridpur two days later.   

Upon Washington’s death, the British Navy lowered their flags at half mast, the American Army wore black armbands for six months, and Napoleon ordered ten days of mourning throughout France. After Mujib, along with most of his family, was assassinated by “a group of junior and misguided army officers,” his body lay unwashed and uncared for until flown to his home village, in an army helicopter, for burial. Most of his cabinet colleagues joined the government formed by those who had killed him.

During his lifetime, Washington had become a model of Republican virtue and moderation. He walked amongst intellectual dinosaurs such as Thomas Jefferson and dazzling men of action such as Alexander Hamilton, but never tried to project his own personality or belittle the other colossals around him in any way. Thirty-three years after Mujib’s death, we still only are able to endlessly discuss his contribution to our country and bemoan that he has not been given his due honors, almost reducing him to a party figure in the process, from the larger-than-life-figure-who-belonged-to-all-of-us that he should have been.

Jefferson said of Washington, “The moderation and virtue of a single character probably prevented this Revolution from being closed, as most other have been, by a subversion of that liberty it was intended to establish.”

Would he not have said the exact opposite of Mujib?

Lately, a lot of people have aired their views about the current state of emergency in Bangladesh, and the advisability of holding elections during it.

Here’s Khairuzzaman Liton, mayor-elect of Rajshahi: “AL should participate in the local government polls on the basis of discussion with the government on relaxing the state of emergency.”

Two hours later, Mr. Liton again” “”I did not say so. I spoke for withdrawal of the state of emergency.”

Former military dictator H. M. Ershad: “To get honest and efficient people elected to parliament and keep corrupt people in jail, hold upazila and parliament elections under emergency.”

And lastly, Monsieur Charley Causeret, French Ambassador to Bangladesh: “Where was the state of emergency? I did not find any state of emergency while visiting the Pourashabha polls in Fulbaria, Mymensignh.”

I would be delighted to show M. Causeret the state of emergency in Bangladesh. I’d be delighted to show it to him by raiding his residence at about two in the morning, ransacking his home, taking him to a police station in chains, bringing him to a court where his bail petition would have been refused, in a jail van crowded with twice the number of people it is supposed to carry, and then keeping him in an overcrowded jail cell at Dhaka Central. For about a year. Just like the approximately four hundred thousand people the military government has locked up in the jails under emergency powers so far.

Perhaps, then M. Causeret would be able to locate the state of emergency in Bangladesh.

The constitution of Bangladesh, in article 122, declares a person shall be entitled to vote when he or she:

• is a citizen of Bangladesh
• is not less than eighteen years of age
• does not stand to be declared of a competent court to be of unsound mind
• is or is deemed by law to be a resident of a constituency

In other words, as long as you are eighteen or more, not declared insane by a court, and live in Bangladesh, you should be eligible to vote. The fourth bullet-point is really more of a technicality, if you live in Bangladesh, you definitely live in somewhere in Bangladesh, and your place of residence determines the constituency in which you cast your vote.

Then why is our Election Commission telling us that we can not vote if we do not register for its voting process by today?

Let us be clear on this. As long as we fulfill the criterions described above, voting is our right. And it can not be taken away from us. The Election Commission is acting as if voting is a privilege, for which you have to show up, and register, and have your picture taken, and then, if the commission deems that everything is in accord, it will allow us to cast our votes.

But voting is our right. If the Election Commission wants to makes long lists of names, and put pictures to the names, then it can do so for its own convenience, but this body has no right to deny any Bangladeshi man or woman a right to vote simply because it was not convenient for them. We are not supposed to go to them to be able to vote. They are supposed to ensure that we can vote, by coming to us. And if they happen to miss us, they should still give us every possible opportunity to vote. In a perfect world, we should be able to even show up on voting day with our passport or birth certificate to show our citizenship, and a registered mail to show our place of residence, and be able to vote even if our name is not on the electoral rolls. In the current situation, the EC should give us as long as it can to get our names on the list.

We should not allow our march to democracy to be derailed by disingenuous ploy like this. That they have made being a voter a percondition for being a candidate just makes this rule all the more ridiculous. It is time that the Election Commission came to their senses and stopped their efforts to disenfranchise us.

Awami League has swet the local government elections held on August 4th, winning all but one of the Mayor posts up for grabs. In my personal opinion, this is one of the best results that was possible under the circumstances. In a previous post, I spoke about Sheikh Hasina’s possible perception of weakness when contesting general elections. These results should put her mind at rest.

These election results, with the benefit of hindsight, can be explained away both in terms of electoral logistics or the intangible national mood. If pursuing the former terms of reference, consider that BNP, as a political party, has been the hardest hit by this military government’s repression. In the weeks before the election, we got reports of a BNP local-level leader being assassinated by RAB. Intimidation tactics like these certainly had their effect on BNP’s local level leaders. Moreover, thousands of BNP’s local leaders are out of their localities now so as to avoid the military government’s clutches. They could not mobilize to help their party for the elections.

Also, consider the candidates who ran and claimed to represent BNP. In Rajshahi, AL’s candidate, Khairuzzaman Liton, has been their senior politician for almost the last one decade, regularly tussling with Mizanur Rahman Minu for control of the city, and regularly losing. In this election, he was not opposed by Minu, or by Kabir Hossain, three-times MP and ex-state minister for land, or by Rizvi Ahmed, currently BNP’s acting Office Secretary, or by Azizur Rahman, the district president. He was opposed by a political neophyte who was contesting in this level for the first time. And this neophyte’s margin with Liton was just a bit less than ten thousand votes. Claims of Rajshahi swinging towards AL after three decades do not bear up to the numbers.

Similarly, even not counting the incumbent mayors in these cities, BNP leaders like Moazzem Hossain Alal in Barisal and Ilias Ali in Sylhet also stayed out of the fray. AL sent in their heavy-weight candidates against second-tier BNP leaders, and thus won as expected.

Of course, we could also explain away the results by noting that the people of Bangladesh rarely vote incumbents back to power, and after five years of BNP administration, this is just a delayed expression of the people’s will to see AL back in state power.

The reason that this is good for us is because this should give Sheikh Hasina and the AL leadership that through fair general elections, AL can return to power. In fact, if the public mood in the city centers has swung in favor of AL to this extent, probably it is more beneficial for the party to have elections as soon as possible. Even if BNP won only mayoral post, the past one month was a valuable exercise in restoring the party’s organization. This momentum will only continue as time goes by. Moreover, a lot of the people in the current dispensation, who are determined not to see Khaleda Zia ever become the head of our government again, are probably recalculating their stances, and figuring out what will happen to them if and when Sheikh Hasina returns to power.

This election also makes clear that there is absolutely no possibility of there being a renegade BNP, loyal to Moeen U. Ahmed, in the general elections. BNP formally announced that they would not participate in these elections. This would have been the perfect time for any rebel BNP outfit to test their strength. The fact that they did not do so only shows their absolute lack of support in the grassroots level.

Awami League has already asserted their new-found confidence. Zillur Rahman has reiterated that the party wants national elections next, and not during Emergency Powers. Chatra League also launched agitations in the DU campus, confined the Vice-Chancellor of Dhaka Univeristy to his office, and managed to get their General Secretary released from jail after being incarcerated without any charges for more than eighteen months. More events will unfold once AL supremo, now recovering in the shady neighborhoods of Mclean, Virginia, makes her decision about how to proceed.

The stars are looking good for Awami League. Red-carpet treatment in foreign capitals, meetings with high-ranking bureaucrats, rival party-chiefs flying to London and begging Hasina to be accepted in her electoral coalition, candidates scrambling to get an AL ticket in local and city corporation elections: the tide seems to be strong for the boat.

Her rivals have accused Sheikh Hasina of once again aligning with a military dictator, as she did in 1986 by participating in elections under Lt. Gen. H. M. Ershad, by preparing to validate all of Gen. Moeen U. Ahmed’s unconstitutional moves, if she is elected to power. But, I fear, the election that may be foremost on her mind is not the one of 1986, but 1991.

Then, as now, Bangladesh was heading to democracy after a military dictatorship. Then, as now, Awami League was strongly, very strongly, backed to win the elections comfortably. Senior AL leaders had already made informal plans to divide up the cabinet portfolios amongst themselves. The night of the election, as the count was coming in, the Defence Secretary and the Home Secretary were in Hasina’s drawing-room in Dhanmondi, briefing her about the plans for the next day: they, along with everybody else, had assumed that the victory would be a complete cakewalk.

Yet, I believe we all remember what happened. The people of Bangladesh chose, not Hasina, but another leader whom they had perceived to have held herself to a higher standard in the fight against autocracy and tyranny, a leader who had fought uncompromisingly against Ershad’s murderous regime for nine long, unrelenting years, a leader who won every parliamentary seat she contested in, unlike Hasina. The people of Bangladesh chose Khaleda Zia, she became, after Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the second leader of the house to become head of government and Prime Minister of Bangladesh.

Sheikh Hasina did not recover well from this setback. She immediately vowed to not let the new Zia administration have a single day of peace or cooperation, a promise she did her best to keep. That election, and the first Zia administration, set the tone for our sixteen years of parliamentary democracy, until we again arrived at this current military rule.

So, Hasina remembers what happened sixteen years ago. And she will do everything possible in her power to ensure it does not happen again. The question before us is to consider the choices she may make to ensure her party’s return to power.

Awami League’s best recent electoral performance, when it won and formed the government, was in 1996, when it contested the elections alone. By contrast, in the election of 1990, AL had a coalition with a host of left-leaning parties, who failed to bring about any real advantage to AL, but forced the party to give up a clutch of seats to the smaller members. And for the cancelled elections of 2007, AL teamed up with every Communist party in Bangladesh, Ershad’s Jatiyo Party, Dr. B. Chowdhury’s BDB and Col. Oli Ahmed’s LDP (then united under the BDB label), and still withdrew from the elections, feeling they could not win against the BNP-led Four-Party Aliance.

Does Sheikh Hasina believe that Awami League can not win an election without some assistance, either external or internal? In other words, does she herself as the leader of Bangladesh’s permanent opposition party? Because, as the leader of a party that has consistently gotten more than 40 % of the votes in the parliamentary elections held in the last sixteen years, Hasina should back herself and her party to be able to win elections, with or without any help. If she does not, she could make potentially politically fatal miscalculations that could again throw our political system out of balance in the future.

Rice Prices Chart:

The military government is trying their best to keep Bangladesh’s political forces divided and fighting within themselves, so that it does not have the entire political spectrum as its opponent. These efforts started when many senior leaders within BNP and AL seriously started considering joint movement against the current government. To ward off a movement that would have been disastrous for the current government, they released Sheikh Hasina and allowed her to leave the country. Moreover, before she left, four advisors of the current government went to Sheikh Hasina’s residence and and had a meeting there with her. Reportedly, she also spoke to Chief Advisor Fakhruddin Ahmed over the phone.

Although the contents of that meeting are not widely known, they are going to prove crucial as to how the government’s last six months pass. Sheikh Hasina, long this military government’s most outspoken and strident critic, has maintained a studious silence over the military government. This silence, added with the fact that the top Bangladeshi diplomats in England and the United States went to receive her when she landed in these countries, have added to these speculations.

As Jyoti Rahman has pointed out, that Bangladesh’s politics is currently a three-player game, makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to resolve without putting one side out of business. It looks like the current government has picked the AL combine to blunt as much of the BNP-led alliance’s protests, before RAB and DGFI take care of the rest.

Personally speaking, I don’t think combining with JP will help AL that much. Any combine looks to attract Jatiyo Party for mainly two regions of the country: Greater Rangpur, including Rangpur, Kurigram, and Thakurgaon, and some seats in Sylhet. With JP’s vote share shrinking in greater Rangpur every election, there is one party that has been edging them out, and that is AL. This year, I doubt JP would win ten seats in total if they contested elections by themselves.

The military government’s original plan was to led the 14-party led alliance led by AL contest by themselves, while JP would lead a Nationalist-lite combine, trying to divert away as many votes and seats away from BNP as possible. However, this would mean that AL would be the governing party, and the JP-led combine, at best, the main opposition party in the parliament. And Ershad does not have time for this. He is already 78; the man who came to state power in Bangladesh twenty-six years ago through a military coup, badly wants another taste of state power for the last years of his life, and he believes that another military coup has given him the perfect opportunity to achieve his goal.

Awami League would probably be better off not aligning with JP. For one thing, this alignment would immediately mean that the heavy artillery they would aim at the BNP in the coming elections about being aligned with Jamaat would automatically be that much less effective. Also, for the January 22nd elections, AL roped in JP, and Bikolpo Dhara, and LDP, and they were still not confident enough that the gains in votes would be enough to offset the seats they had to give up. That these parties will be helpful to the AL in the coming elections is even less helpful.

Sheikh Hasina is trying to survey, from London and Virginia, the extent of damage that AL has suffered in the last two years, and how much loyalty she still retains amongst the AL top leadership. Her old loyalists, like Obaidul Quader and Dr. Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir, were among the first people imprisoned by the military government, so as to weaken her grip on the party as much as possible. It remains to be seen what decision she take regarding Ershad, and how much freedom she will have to take such a decision.

For mice, what better example than Fazle Hossain Badsha? This bitter leftist relic is to Rajshahi what Dr. Kamal Hossein is to the national scene, a politician who never wins elections, but is always around, ready to offer his services to the highest bidder whenever needed. Thrashed by Mizanur Rahman Minu in previous elections, Badsha thought this would be his big chance to finally win one, with Minu imprisoned by the military government, and the Awami League led Fourteen-Party Alliance nominating him to be their candidate. However, Badsha’s dreams were soon shattered when the local AL leaders refused to back him. Faced by the reality of impending defeat without the support of AL leaders, Badsha decided to throw in the towel, although no doubt he will be back in time for national parliamentary elections.

But let us now turn to men, men with enough spine to stand up to our military government and let them know that our principles, and our nation, are not for sale. First, our High Court bench of Justice ABM Khairul Huq and Justice Abu Tarique delivered a stinging rebuke to our military government and all of their proponents who advocate the “maximalist” view of their function, pointing out that:

The president and the caretaker government do not represent the people… The shorter the tenure of such an undemocratic government, the better it is for all.

All powers in the republic belong to the people. In Bangladesh, elected parliament runs the state. The prime minister and the cabinet are accountable to the parliament for their functions. It means the elected government is accountable to the people.

This judgment came as result of a case challenging the legality of the ordinance titled Muslim Marriage and Divorce Ordinance 2008. It ruled that the current government should limit their activities to those concerning the coming elections. It is a welcome affirmation for those of us who hold the constitution of Bangladesh should not be subverted for personal ambition.

A different High Court album, comprising of Justice M Iman Ali and S.M. Emdadul Hoque, have asked the government why even though the voter lists have not been completed, local government elections have already been announced. It has also asked the government to defend on the constitutionality of a provision that would allow the government to disqualify candidates even after they had been elected.

Together, these High Court actions throw light on the maneuvering of the current government to engineer the upcoming election. Worse it yet to come, as the extent of the military government’s plight and lack of popular support become more and more apparent.

The Battle of Gaugamela is one of the most decisive and important battles in the history of the world. Alexander, the upstart king of a little piece of rock in Southern Europe, beat Darius III, the Emperor of Persia and then the richest man in the world. Those who have seen the movie version will no doubt remember the battle sequence, where Colin Farrel’s Alexander drives his cavalry to break through the Royal Bodyguard and try to kill Darius.

Going into battle, Alexander was heavily outnumbered. He feared that if the battle developed into a full-day slog, Darius’ superior numbers may have grinded his smaller army into defeat. Thus, he came up with his strategy: stage a diversion and go after the king himself. If Darius could be killed or captured, the Persian army would disintegrate automatically, and Alexander would have won.

Since that time, this general strategy has been used, over and over, generally with the same great success, most commonly in colonial wars. We saw it in Palashi, where the death of Mir Madan heralded the victory of British East India Company. And we see it in Bangladesh today.

Our armed forces and the police together maybe make up four hundred thousand people. But just using these four hundred thousand, the rest of us one hundred and fifty million are kept in docile servitude, and beaten, humiliated and imprisoned if they dare to speak up. Once the two leaders are gone, the military government expects, like Alexander, to have a famous and implausible victory. 

Robert Clive later confessed if the farmers standing by the battlefield had rushed in and joined the Nawab’s Army, the outcome would have been very different. However, they did not do so, probably figuring that this battle would just be another one between two opposing forces that would have little effect on the lives of the common people. Alas, Palashi introduced the taxation system that would turn Bengal from one of the richest provinces in the world to one of its most impoverished.

For those who are aware, the parallels between then and now are painfully clear. As for the rest, we can only plead again and again, please do not allow a small group of unelected men to squander away our entire country. We have come too far to deserve such a horrific betrayal.

“In Wellington, where the Field Marshal’s last rites were performed, the official ceremony was grossly inadequate. Sam was after all India’s First Soldier, the epitome of generalship, who gave India’s its first unambiguous military victory in 1,000 years. The President, the supreme commander of the armed forces, was missing. So were the prime minister and defence minister. Worse, the chairman chiefs of staff committee was also absent. Nor was the air force chief present. Queen Elizabeth of England sends roses to all her field marshals on their birthdays and also attends their funerals. Here, flags were not even lowered and the affront of an explanation for this ignominy was that the field marshal is not in the warrant of precedence. This is a lie. The babus of this country had ranked Sam on a par with the cabinet secretary. …

The high point in Sam’s career was the unblemished victory in East Pakistan. There was no looking back after luck and Maj Gen J.F.R. (Jakes) Jacob’s brilliant psy-war converted what would have been a UN-supervised ceasefire into complete capitulation and surrender.”

The complete story here.

What the acronyms FOBANA means to you may be an excellent indication for Bangladeshis and Bangladeshi-Americans as to where they stand in life. Some may imagine it to be the latest teen sensation emerging from Close Up One. Those a little more in the know are aware that it stands for Federation Of Bangladeshi Associations of North America: it is the gala Bangladeshi celebration held once a year when Bangladeshis from all over North America converge in one place, usually some hotel in New York City, to joyously celebrate our culture and heritage. Needless to say, this involves a lot of award-giving, speech-making, and cultural events.

The organizers of FOBANA pay for some dignitaries from Bangladesh to fly here and grace us with their presence. For example, this year’s FOBANA was inaugarated by S. M. Faiz, the Vice-chancellor of Dhaka University. Amongst others who were present was Nurul Kabir, Editor of the New Age. In his speech, he gave an appraisal of our country’s current condition and the steps necessary to find our way back to elections and democracy. He was harsh on all the actors involved, but he was scathing in his criticism of the top figures of the current civilian and military administration for their shortsightedness and inaptitude.

Later on, he was asked by a group of reporters from the Bangla newspapers in North America about whether he was scared about being arrested and tortured by the military government. He revealed that he had been mentally prepared for such for almost two years now. He also said that he had been visited by military officers at his house before leaving for FOBANA, to warn him to not criticize the government abroad. Their sermon delivered, while leaving, one of the officers commented on the broad verandah at the front of his house and the excellent view it commanded of the neighbourhood. Mr. Kabir replied, “I will be standing here and watching you guys run for it in your lungis when the time comes.”