05/03/2014: MONTRI: ?A New Curse Word

The very long and aristocratic appellation of Suja-ul-Mulk Hasim-ud-Daula Mir Mohammad Ja'afar Ali Khan Bahadur Mahabat Jung, through the passage of time, has reduced to a rather short “Mir Ja'afor” with a even shorter connotation – “the traitor”. He was a man of power, a general, who could have clipped the wings of British East India Company in 1957; if he did, the history of India, if not better, could have been different.

Yes, history has its funny way of taking revenge on its bad actors! Vidkun Abraham Lauritz Jonsson Quisling of Norway did not fare better, for he too abetted a foreign invader – Nazi Germany to be precise. At the fag end of Pakistani regime of General Muhammad Yahya Khan, a significant number of Bangalee joined different para-military outfits to help perpetuate the continuation of status quo; notwithstanding their rationale; they were on the wrong side of history and history took its revenge - “Razakar” is now synonymous with traitor or Mir Ja'afor or Quisling … Like Mir Ja'afor, this again can claim its origin in Bengal!

Undertone of words evolves with time; at time sophomoric banality gives way to unpropitious connotations. Razakar and Mir Ja'afor are words that lost innocence and morphed into a curse words very rapidly; however, it also possible that certain words, because of long association with nefarious people, can acquire nefarious connotations and eventually become curse words.

In his article “montri” meaning minister, Professor Jafor Iqbal alluded to the fact, that word “Montri” is now in danger of such sad metamorphosis. He wrote,

“The word Montri does not remind of anything honorable. I can't tell of an exact reason, but it must be the way, our history has unfolded over time. While growing up, I saw the Pakistani ministers roaming around clad in some unnatural garb (achkan). I can't think high of those “achkan-wearing' guys; of course excepting the occasion when a groom weras the same … After 1971, we noticed a new set of ministers with a new kind of ritualitic raiment – the Mijib Coat.

After liberation, we dreamt of a dream only to be undone by the hideous governing ny Awami League. By then, ours was a “shaheed poribar (family of a martyr)”. My mother and I paid visit to a number of ministers to realize our rightful rights; and in the process, they lost my respect … However, things worsened during Ershad regime, when ministerial portfolio were distributed to a coterie of kowtwowing imbeciles; even some thugs, I carefully evoided during by university days, were ministers. Akin to the words “potni and upo-potni (wife and concubine)” we began to internalize new terms – montri an upo-montri (minister and deputy minister!”

The word “minister”, any way, does not boast a very flattering pedigree. It has evolved from its Latin root meaning “servant”. In the utopian (at least in BD perspective) sense of democracy, ministers serve at the will of the Prime Minister, who in turn serves at the will of THE PEOPLE – the real master. And hence, ministers are nothing more than a bunch of servants, picked by the Prime Minister to help her discharge the service properly.

However, in my God forsaken home, ministers abound in dozens, and many of them seem to have no veritable function other than, like a troupe of minstrels, dancing around and singing one or two pangyric for their dear leader; and that's not all, we even had had minister with no portfolio for days and months. In addition, we had ministers, who remained a minister even after resignation and being AWOL for years …

Ministers are no minstrels who shall dance and sing and exalt the Prime Minister; they are given a portfolio of people's business that needs careful attention. They also have the solemn duty to provide thoughtful advice to the Prime Minister; in Bengali the very word “montri” means a person who provides “montrona (advice)” - are they doing it? Probably not …

It is said the during the regime last BNP-JI regime, some of the ministerial portfolios were sold for a price. I am not sure what transpired during the last 5+ years of Awami League, but the way Padma Bridge was held hostage by one single rich man, hearsay abounds. Aside from that, the number of cabinet positions seems too much for a country like ours; compare with that of the US, where there is only fifteen cabinet posts and five cabinet level administrators; or with that of the biggest democracy in the world where it has only twenty eight cabinet positions including the Prime Minister. Yet, the most important cabinet positions including defense, home and foreign affairs remains in the very busy hands of the Prime Minister. And, very often, we see the full ministers are incapable of making any decision on their own. No wonder, plethoric number is no panacea for anemic performance!

Performance aside, a large number of ministers, as per published and electronic news media are involved in careless uttering, illicit amassing of wealth, and wanton waste of public funds. It seems unreal that such thing can happen in a country like ours that can boast of international repute like BRAC and Grameen!

If my daily read of the newspapers is right, I bet, some day, the following fearful pronunciation of Dr. Jafor Iqbal can prove to be prophetic,

“I believe, if the ministers, do not change their way, some day, the word “montri” shall be used as a curse word, just the way “razakar” is being used for the lowly betrayers.”

   

05/03/2014: NARAYANGANJ-7: Unveiling of the 'Veil of Ignorance' & Collapse of 'Social Contract'

Thomas Hobbs (1851–1679) was not an misanthrope, but he harbored a deep cynicism as to the construct of human nature; and posited that, man, if left in the 'state of nature' (i,e., prior the formation law abiding society), “... the life of man (would be), solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” So, he constructed his Leviathan arguing that society to be successful and cohesive, there must be a social contract where a all-powerful but just ruler and/or government shall establish a commonwealth protect the populace from each other by enforcing laws of the land. Hobbs imagined the commonwealth as a giant human body (named Leviathan after the name of a Biblical sea monster) made out of its citizens and the head being the omnipotent sovereign; the absence of which shall culminate into anarchy – a war of every man against other man.

John Locke (1932-1704), in addition to be a giant of empiricist philosophy who famously considered mind a tabula rasa, also was an extremely influential political philosopher. Unlike Hobbs, Locke had faith in innate goodness and rationality of human nature, that, however, shows a selfish tendency especially in the matters of wealth and property. He also argued for the same call for a social contract, where government shall uphold the law, protect citizens; and in return civil obedience shall supervene. Unlike Hobbs, Locke also felt that religion does not cause strife; it is the intolerance that is the root cause of social unrest. Locke sanctified three natural rights: firstly, right to life; secondly, right to liberty or freedom of action (so long it does not imperil any one's right to life); and thirdly, right to property (so long it does not infringe on any one's life to life or liberty).

Locke's improved version of social contract inspired French Revolution and US constitution, and as of now forms the basis democracy all over the world – ours included! And this brings forth the most important facet of this social contract; and that is execution of law by the government – 'JUSTICE'.

In his seminal work on politics and philosophy– Theory of Justice, John Rawls (1921-2002) looked at the social contract from different tangent. He argued that principles of justice are those principles that any fair minded, logical person person shall agree upon when viewed from an impartial perspective. “Principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance” - Rawls argued; and this he termed the original position. Gareth Southwell explains the position as following:

“ … the only way to ensure the fairness of the social contract would be if it is formulated behind a veil of ignorance. In other words, principles of justice and fairness should be arrived at in complete ignorance of the type of individuals they might apply to. For instance, if I am the strongest or smartest, or possess certain advantages in terms of property or wealth, then (assuming I am a selfish person as assumed by Locke) I would want those principles to benefit me. However, from behind a 'veil of ignorance', I do not know I am strongest or smartest, so to protect myself – since I do not know what advantages others possess – I would favor principles which fostered equality. Furthermore, since there is every chance in this unseen society that I may suffer at the hands of fate, then I would also want to safeguard poverty or similar disadvantage.” This is very much like maximin strategy that plays out in game theory, whereby one chooses a principle that 'maximize the minimum'; for example, when freak of fate happens, one will be afforded with the best possible alternative.

Rawls' Theory of Justice of Rawls decouples morality from justice, critiques can rightly argue; however, it has become central to the modern notion of justice and equality. And as long as the 'veil of ignorance' is intact, it provides enforceable principles that can keep the society wholesome and happy.

II.

'' ... government is best which governs not all'' – yes, Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) was consummate individualist to the point of being an anarchist. MK Gandhi and Martin Luther King, both were proponents of civil disobedience, however, their method was non-violence absolute pacifism; its root goes back to millennia, as underlined Plato's assertion that it's better to suffer wrong than to do wrong, for the wrongdoers are both ignorant and sick.

John Rawls was in agreement with Thoreau, Gandhi and King that civil disobedience is acceptable when the head of Hobbs' Leviathan deviates from its obligations of social contract, and unveils the 'veil of ignorance', thus setting forth events leading to its own dissolution. He however, proposed that civil disobedience, to be acceptable must meet certain criteria.

Firstly, act of disobedience must be public; the purpose of act is to highlight the injustice. There is no scope of secret act or sabotage. Laws must be respected, and imprisonment, if comes, should be accepted. Secondly, disobedience has to be conscientious with a political aim and seek remedy of the injustice; thus ruling out the possibility of using the tool for enhancing personal gain. Thirdly, it must be non-violent that distinguishes civil disobedience from criminality. Protesting Rowlatt Act of 1919, Gandhi called for a nationwide hartal, but when the protest gave rise to sporadic violence in Punjab, he immediately suspended hartal, for violence has no place in civil disobedience! And fourthly, it must appeal to the social sense of justice.

In essence civil disobedience is the last resort of defying legal authority of the sovereign when all legal avenues are exhausted and Leviathan's head is out of sink with its original obligation.

III.

For many years, relentlessly Bangladesh is tiptoeing towards an unfortunate undoing of rule of law. There were despots both unelected and elected type. The current regime of Sheikh Hasina Wajed continues to hold on to power following sham election thus undermining its moral legitimacy. The recent stint of governmental abuse of power during the Upo-Zila elections and government's unwillingness to hold election in the capital city where oversight of the process could be rigorous, are signs of a morally bankrupt regime. Its inability and/or unwillingness to reign on the rouge elements including law enforcement outfits and its own rancorous affiliates just add to its difficult moral standing.

A cacophony of bad news emanating from Bangladesh points towards a societal entropy where the rich and the powerful are increasingly confident of their standing without the fear that there may be a day reckoning! This is especially true in the port city of Narayanganj. Although mystery of Twaki murder is no mystery in people's mind, the government continues to dither. Even after unearthing significant evidence implicating a certain family (if the newsfeed is correct), politically allied with the the ruling party, process of justice conspicuously stymied with no clear reason whatsoever. A publicly understood rough element was selected to be the powerful MP despite miserable performance in the mayoral election of Narayanganj just a year ago. Then came the abduction of AB Siddique - an incidence that was about to unleash a tsunami of civil unrest. AB Siddique's initial description of the abductors as a group of stout men with short hair is curious! Even more curious is his release after the appeal from the high seat. On the hilt of that, came the sad abduction of seven people in broad daylight; their eventual murder and recovery of their mutilated body. Junior home minister was privy to such possibility. Family filed complaint mentioning of a suspect. And yet, the police took six days to search the house of the suspect.

Narayanganj, hence, seems to be slithering to the hole, where, government is unwilling to abide by its end of social contract by letting some of its allied people defy the rule of law. These people, by virtue of their wealth and connection, has broken through the 'veil of ignorance'!

IV.

Just today, an eminent jurist Shahdin Malik and a group of civil society members were not allowed to demonstrate peacefully in front of Sangsod Vabon – the supposed sanctuary for law and order and for people's power. This is a telltale sign that the nation demands a Gandhi or a Martin Luther!

05/03/2014: An Open Letter to the Prime Minister

Dear Ms. Prime Minister,

Your ascendancy to power was on the wings of democracy. I want to believe you when you talk high of democratic ideals and principles. I do not condone the calls (from different quarters) for your resignation. I despise the calls to topple your government. Your failure shall be a failure not of yours only. Your failure shall be a failure for the nation as a whole. I want you to succeed. I want you to serve your people until your term ends. But I want you to serve well. Government is nothing but an institutional tool to serve. As the head of the government, you must listen to voices of the people who graciously have given you the opportunity. In democracy, will of people's will eventually prevails, for they are the REAL MASTERS!

As you know, once-almighty Hawa Bhavan is in disarray; its chief patron, having a waylaid sore back, supposedly recuperating on the distant Albinos Land and it’s all powerful point-man Babar is on perpetual remand. But those, who wields the same double edged sword of power, for the sake of their own tomorrows, don’t you think, should slow down and think a little before sliding on onto their wayward galumph?

And here, Dear Prime Minister, I must say something about a few issues that makes crouch in angst as the nation lumber towards an uncertain trimester.

15th Amendment:
Constitution is neither a gospel nor an mathematical axion. It is a document, albeit a very important document, that broadly dictates the governing principles, the people, are willing to be subjected. In democratic nations,

“It is a practice of our justice to condemn some as a warning to others. To condemn them because they have done wrong would be stupidity, as Plato says; for what is done cannot be undone. But they are condemned so that they may not do the same wrong again, or so that others may avoid the example of their wrongdoing.” (Montaigne)

Thus one may justify that the ‘extra-judicial killing’ in ‘crossfire’ serves the same end-point of condemnation plus warning as Montaigne maintained. But this simplification misses the very important point of "practice of our justice". Built-in checks and balances are intrinsic to the justice system. Arguments are made pro and cons. The accused has his/her time to present his/her own stories in presence of fellow citizens (juries or assessors). A judgment is rendered and the common people know the ins and outs.


Yes, justice system at its crux, at times to the chagrin of many, is an elaborate process lest we condemn our innocent. Yet when I talk to my friends at home, the paradox is confounding. They also despise the idea of killing by crossfire but still are happy with the proximate outcome. Criminals, after long, are really afraid! Such ambivalence of my friends at home sprouts directly from a feeling of helplessness, that nothing can be done and that the lesser pain is better than the greater!

But the government, that you run, with its enormous machineries of power is no helpless fawn like a commoner. It just is callus and moribund. Or it just doesn’t care about the inherent rights of its citizens. Hence, to do one ‘small good’, it embarks on one ‘terrible bad’.


Once upon a time, during the reign of your predecessor, it was ‘Operation Clean Heart’ that eventually morphed into the then-infamous ‘Operation Heart Attack’. Those pathetic operators were not sufficiently abreast of the physiology of heart attack otherwise they also could have divined the new meaning of now-infamous but much more palatable ‘Operation Crossfire’. Ah! What a morbid inflection of a rather mundane word ‘CROSSFIRE’!


Yes, extreme situation, indeed, needs extreme measure. Situation arising from stupidity and apathy, however, often ends up with stupendously stupid measure! Crime and violence is not a quantity and/or entity in itself. It rather is a form of a more sinister societal ill that can aptly be described in a single sad word "LAWLESSNESS". Unlawful extra-judicial measure, not only adds further to the abysmal entropy but also acts as a catalyst for its accelerated perpetuation, especially when it is sanctioned by a legitimate government — the prime function of which, as John Locke would have argued, is to preserve and protect the rights of its citizens.


Living in my safe sanctuary in North America, I am not subject to the abject lawlessness as experienced by my friends living in Dhaka. I, thus, am in no position to utter a single word opposing their position of staying mum.


But, as a person who cares for dignity and sanctity of human life I do have harsh opinion as to the often-stated subliminal policy of your elected (not necessarily democratic) government.


And lastly I would like to say a few words about the mal-treatment of the most famous living Bangladeshi – an icon of integrity, magnanimity and of true grit. You know, I am talking about Professor Yunus! Believe me - he has done more for the image of Bangladesh than anyone else I know. Please, for the sake of your Father’s beloved Bangladesh, reign on your minions and let Prof Yunus do what he does better…


Dear Ms. Prime Minister,

I do not want to cram your head with stories from history. You must have seen and heard a lot. Here are a few thoughts from a very ancient epic where a king despite being indisputably brave and incontestably strong was described as aloof and out of touch with his people’s welfare and thus deserving of the ultimate punishment:

His vanity swelled him so vile and rank
That he could hear no voices but his own. He deserved
To suffer and die … (Beowulf)


And remember, fugacious glory, like the bashful cherry, is never for ever!