About Bangladesh's tenth national election.

1. Bangladesh Politico
12.40 pm: Six reported dead
Daily Star is reporting six deaths in different incidents around the country, from the earlly hours
of teh morning, all of them opposition activists - most supposedly shot dead in the process of
trying to foil the elections.
In Dhaka, a few people are reported injured when a crude bomb was thrown at a polling station
at Dania in Dhaka.
12.35 pm: The „Most absurd moment‟ in the pre-election period
This is an easy one. It has to be THE telephone conversation. Of course we have to thank the
Bangladesh government authorities or intelligence agencies for illegally recording the one and
only telephone conversation between Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia and then making it
available to a TV station.
Not only of course was the converation between the two women surreal – arguing for minutes on
end about the read phone, but it revealed to everyone how much Bangladesh needed new
leadership. So not just the most surreal moment, perhaps also the most educational! And just in
case you missed it, here is an extract of the ‗Red Phone‘ sketch, brought to us courtesy of the two
ladies.
Hasina: I called you around noon, but unfortunately you didn‘t pick up. I want to invite you.
Khaleda: This is not correct. You have to listen to what I have to say. You say you called in the
afternoon, but I received no call. The hotline has been inactive for years now.
Hasina: But I called to the red phone personally.
Khaleda: The red phone has been dead for a long a time. You run the government, and you don‘t
even know the Opposition Leader‘s phone is dead.
Hasina: Red phone is never out of order.
Khaleda Zia: Send your people over right now, and let them check.
Hasina: You know that red phone always works.
Khaleda: It always works, but mine is not working at all. I checked it just recently. If you don‘t
tell the truth, it will not work.
Hasina: There‘s nothing I can do if you lie. I know I have called several times.
Khaleda: Can a dead person come alive? How can a dead phone come to life all of a sudden?
Hasina: Ok, so for some reason you weren‘t able to receive the phone.
Khaleda: No, that is not true. I have been sitting here. It is a small space. I cannot miss a phone
call. There is no reason not to answer if a phone call comes.
Hasina: The phone was either dead or kept dead…
Khaleda: It was dead. Several complaints were made. There is no one I can talk with through the
red phone. Thus, who will I talk with?
Hasina: I will look into why your phone was dead tomorrow.
Khaleda: It is good that you will see to it. …….
Hasina: Your phone is all right.
Khaleda: My phone is not okay.

2. Hasina: I called up 10-12 times. The phone rang.
Khaleda: Do you think we were all deaf? That the phone rang and we did not hear? You might
hear it.
Hasina: How will I hear? One of my ear is damaged.
Khaleda: It is you who have said that my phone had rang, but we are saying that it didn‘t.
Hasina: Phone…… Phone, I made the call myself.
Khaleda: It does not matter if you say you have called. You are saying that a dead phone has
rung.
Hasina: The phone rang.
Khaleda: How will it ring? A dead phone does not ring. This is a display of your mentality, and it
shows if you are telling the truth or not.
Hasina: I am telling the truth.
Khaleda: I checked the phone yesterday [Saturday]. We told your people that the phone was
dead, but no one came. Nobody thinks of us as human, nobody feels it important to fix our
telephone.
Hasina: Why are you blaming the telephone and telling a lie?
Khaleda: [snaps] Why will I tell lies? A dead telephone is dead.
Hasina: …21602, I remember.
Khaleda: You might have the number memorised, or written down somewhere nearby, but the
fact is that the telephone is dead. Nobody will believe anything else otherwise.
Hasina: A cameraman once came…This is nothing. The telephone exchange can be contacted to
know what had really happened…
Khaleda: Who of Gulshan Exchange said that the phone was ringing? Actions should be taken
against that person.
Hasina: The red telephone of yours belongs to a separate exchange.
Khaleda: That is true…Why is it being said that the phone was okay…Did the person you spoke
to tell you as such? I was sitting here waiting for the phone call. We talked over the phone many
times, during anti-Ershad campaigns that we waged together. Why will we not talk? We talked
so many times, went to your home, why not talk now? Come let us sit together for talks for the
sake of the country.
12.30 pm: Dhaka 7 - continuding indications of low turnout
Another polling station in Azimpur, Old Dhaka, in same constituency also suggested that by 11
am - three hours since polling station opened, that there was likely to be a low turnout. At the
station, there are 2,996 female voters registered, but only 60 had voted. And there were 3,702
male voters registered and only 156 had voted.
10.30 pm: Dhaka 7 - indications of low turnout
This is one of the most competitive elections in country, but all indications are that even here
there will be a low turnout. I have visited two polling centers. One was practically empty when
you would expect to see hoards of people and queues, the other just a little busier.
In the first centre at Bodrunassa college in Bakshi bazaar there were 2541 voters registered, but
by 10 am only about 38 people had voted, 11 of them women. The polls opened at 8 am

3. In the other at an Alia Madrasa just 2 minutes away by rickshaw, 235 people had voted out of
over 5000 people registered
9.40 am: Empty Dhaka streets
Don‘t think I have ever seen Dhaka so empty as today. BNP strikes have never been able to
empty the city streets quite so much.
8.45 am: Interesting constituency elections
There remain some constituencies where there is a real election taking place, mostly due to
dissident Awami League candidates taking on the official one. One such is Dhaka 7 which
covers Lalbagh, Chawkbazar, Kotwali and Bangshal and where Mostafa Jalal Mohiuddin, the
official AL candidate is taking on Haji Selim who is campaigning as an independent candidate,
who is also a joint secretary of the Dhaka Metropolitan unit of Awami League. In the 1996
national elections, Haji Selim left BNP and won Dhaka 7 constituency with an Awami League‘s
nomination. In 2008, however, Selim did not get the party ticket. It seems from this article that
Haji Selim is getting some BNP support. In recent days some of Mohiuddin‘s supporters have
come under attack
Only 7 of Dhaka‘s 15 constituencies have an election today
I shall be off there shortly to see what is going on
8.20 am: The „boldest intervention‟
And number 4 on my list of the ‗big-est, most-est, best-est‘ of Bangladesh pre-election politics is
the ‗boldest intervention (See 1. ‗most responsible for mess that we are in‘, and 2. ‗most
responsible for absence of election observers‘, and 3 'biggest strategic error‘.)
There have no doubt many heroic interventions that have taken place involving people saving
lives during the violence that has ensued over the months, that I am unaware. Also, the editor of
the newspaper where I work, Nurul Kabir is certainly known for his boldness on TV chat shows.
And my choice is perhaps has a serious English language bias, ut the one person I think who
deserves to be mentioned as making the boldest intervention over many months and who has
been a clarion call for many is the editor of theDaily Star, Mahfuz Anam
One many not always agree with his or the papers views (though whatever you say of them they
are honestly held) but in relation to his criticism of the government and in particular the way it
has handled the election issue, there is no one who has written more persuasively, more boldly
than he has done. There is in many ways in Bangladesh a thriving media, nonetheless it takes
some guts to take on the prime minister directly which he has done through his writing – naming
her directly, attacking her for her faulty decision making. There are many who think after 5
January, in the new repressive Bangladesh that many people fear, he or his paper may well pay
the price for it. I certainly hope not. His many interventions, under his own name, and often
starting on the front page of his paper, deserve to be recognised.
8.00 am: The „biggest strategic error‟ in the run up to today
Continuing my thoughts of the ‗big-est, most-est, best-est‘ of Bangladesh pre-election politics,
here is my view on number 3 on the list, the ‗biggest strategic error‘. (See 1. most responsible for
mess that we are in, and 2. most responsible for absence of election observers)

4. There are many strategic mistakes to choose from of course: the decision by the Khaleda Zia to
snub Hasina‘s invitation to have tea with her in the infamous phone conversation; or the decision
by the government to send law enforcement officials to ‗arrest‘ General Ershad in full glare of
the cameras when all he had done was to say he did not want to take part in the elections; or the
failure of the opposition leaders to take any proper steps to ensure that its protests would not
result in bombings of the public; or the government‘s decision to put Khaleda Zia under house
arrest; or indeed the failure of the BNP to dissociate itself from the Jamaat-e-Islami. All of these
– and many more – have done serious damage to the AL and the BNP respectively.
However, my choice – which is I know is contentious - is none of these. It was BNP‘s decision
to decide not to take part in the elections.
Now this is not to say that the BNP did not have very good reason to think that it should not take
part in the elections under a political government. As I have said behind all of the problems we
are in now, is that one decision by the prime minister to remove the caretaker government
provisions without public and political consensus. It was perfectly reasonable for the BNP to be
astounded at how the caretaker provisions were removed from the constitution, and to be highly
suspicious of the government‘s motives. However, whilst it would have been a risk, a big one I
appreciate, nonetheless for the BNP both then, and even more so in hindsight, it would have been
a risk worth taking. And their failure to take that decision in August/September of this year has
meant dozens of deaths, a country in crisis, the Awami League in power and the BNP at a loss.
This is why. In polls in July and September 2013, the BNP were running high in the polls, and
the party knew it. It had the country behind it in its demand for a caretaker government, it had
taken a decision not to proceed with hartals – which was popular. The political violence that
existed in the country was then not the fault of the BNP.
Yes, had it agreed to have taken part in the polls, the government would be in charge of the
administration, the police, and there was reasons for it to be concerned about the independence
of the election commission. But had the BNP properly and genuinely negotiated at an early
stage, the AL would have given it something, at the very least seats in an all party government.
Not ideal, but from that position, it could have had some significant influence on what took place
during the election period – even if Sheikh Hasina remained prime minister. Also, had the BNP
decided to take part of the elections, there would have been great pressure on the Election
Commission (pressure which simply does not exist now) to have acted much more
independently. I am sure there would have been civil adminstration transfers etc - perhaps not as
many as the BNP would like, but enough. Moreover there would also have been significant
international monitoring, particular the parallel vote tabulation - the biggest one in the world was
being planned - which would have ensured, at least, no manipulation of election results once the
votes are counted at each polling centre.
No doubt if the government and local lawmakers wanted, and there would have been some
manipulation in the voting, but with BNP‘s lead as it was then, it would have been unlikely to
have been large enough to make a difference and/or it would have been easily identifiable - and
the international community would have ‗called it‘.
Now however, the people of Bangladesh have seen BNP at its worst – with some of the worst
violence in the country‘s political history being blamed on their supporters. And the party‘s lead
looks like it may well be waning – or indeed to have already waned. Where is the BNP now?
Out of power, weakened, far less popular than it was five months ago. It should have taken that
risk - and participated in the elections. My guess it would have won. Now, even if it had those
free and fair elections which it has been demanding for so long - it may well not win!

5. 2.30 am: Election day papers
The key news is the number of polling stations that have been set on fire, with New Age stating
that over 100 stations in different schools have been burnt down throughout the whole country.
There are also reports of an assistant presiding officer from Thakurgaon-1 constituency being
beaten to death.
The Daily Star has a story on the attempts by the Awami League to get a good turnout.
The paper has also an interesting comparison between 2013 and 1996 when there was a similiar
one-sided election. It notes that in 1996 when the Awami League was in BNP‘s position:
The AL enforced a 48-hour countrywide hartal before election day. Their activists snatched away
ballot papers and ballot boxes in many districts including Barisal, Tangail, Netrakona, Pabna and
Nilphamari. They also set polling stations on fire in some districts.
The violent protests on polling day had left at least 10 people killed. Voting in more than 2,800
polling stations in 59 districts had to be suspended due to the opposition‘s protests.
It also says that the one consistent party in all this has been the Jamaat-e-Islami which was with
the AL in 1996 demanding the caretaker government and with the BNP in 2013.
The Daily Star also has a good piece on how one sided elections provide opportunities for
rigging turnout
It was only a matter of time of course before the pro-government ‗civil society‘ members to raise
their voices, and a couple of reports have been published about a meeting. One states:
Information Commissioner Sadeka Halim said civil society organisations were run by money
from the development partners. ―But which citizens they represent? And whose voices are they
raising?‖
Slating the development partners, she said, ―Had they ever been a friend of Bangladesh? They
were opposed to the birth of Bangladesh in 1971. Now they‘ve come forward to save the war
criminals. They‘ve even phoned the prime minister.‖
Prof Salimullah Khan of Stamford University complained that the ―so called‖ civil society was
engaged in a conspiracy as they never praised the government for its achievements.
―They even criticise the achievements of the government,‖ he mentioned, adding that without
doing much homework the country will not be able to counter the conspiracy of the foreigners
and the civil society.
Historian Mejbah Kamal said a section of intellectuals are talking in a way nowadays that they
want to implement the ―minus-two formula,‖ and they also are saying that the two leaders are
useless.
―They are virtually trying to say that the battle is actually between the two ladies. But I clearly
think that it is not a battle between the two ladies. Rather, it‘s a battle between two ideologies,‖
he added.
And last but not least, is the excoriating editorial in New Age titled ‗History will hold Awami
League responsible‘. It starts:
Bangladesh witnesses the most farcical elections ever held under an elected government today. It
is farcical not only because the entire opposition political camps have boycotted the polls in the

6. apprehension of the elections being rigged by the incumbents but also because 153 seats of the
300-member national parliament have already been captured by the candidates of the ruling
coalition without a single vote being cast because of a subjugated Election Commission
declaring them elected unopposed, depriving 52 per cent of the voters of their right to franchise.
The government now goes ahead with the elections to the rest 147 seats, in most of which, again,
the opposing candidates belong to the ruling coalition. Which polls, if not these, would be called
farcical, managed in the name of democratic elections? But the government of the Awami
League went ahead with the political farce despite repeated requests from all social and political
quarters — not to mention the sustained opposition demand for free and fair participatory
elections under a credible, non-party government capable of creating a level playing field for the
contesting political camps. Instead of accommodating the opposition demand, the incumbents
have chosen to detain its leader, Khaleda Zia, in her house and have arrested hundreds of her
party leaders and activists.
1 hour ago
How to Become a Traveling Locavore
The locavore movement, defined as trying to eat only food grown or harvested within a 100-mile
radius of your home, started in San Francisco in 2005 as a challenge for people in the Bay Area.
The movement grew quickly and in November of last year, Oxford University Press named
―locavore‖ its word of the year.
I‘ve been a proponent of eating and shopping locally ever since I began to understand the impact
my food, clothes, and everything else I buy has on the environment when it has to travel
thousands of miles to get to me. I try to buy my produce at farmer‘s markets, do most of my
clothes shopping at thrift stores, and dine out at local
restaurants.
But it isn‘t always easy. While I wholeheartedly support
the concept of being a locavore, I need variety. Try as I
might, I‘m just not happy eating the same kind of locallygrown apple every day or even wearing my favorite
sweater from Goodwill each week.
Luckily for me, I love to travel. And I can be a locavore
by eating foods produced within 100 miles of wherever I
am – be it Buenos Aires or Bangkok. As a traveling
locavore, you get to visit amazing places, experience
exotic cultures, and dine on delectable local food – all
while supporting the local economy and making earthfriendly eating choices. When you‘re at home (wherever home may be), you have a limited

7. number of different local foods. But when you travel around the world, you‘ll discover delicious
(and sometimes not-so-delicious) local foods you didn‘t even know existed.
Becoming a locavore is easy. According to the original Locavores, here‘s how you should
prioritize your food buying to have the lowest environmental impact:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
locally produced
organic
family farm
local business
terroir (which means ―purchase foods famous for the region they are grown in and
support the agriculture that produces your favorite non-local foods such as Brie cheese
from Brie‖)
6. always buy from a farmer‘s market before supermarket
To become a traveling locavore you prioritize your food in the same way, but have the added
benefit of experimenting with produce, meat, and dairy products native to the region you‘re
visiting. In the coming weeks, we‘ll explore what it means to be a traveling locavore in a number
of destinations – from Placencia, Belize to Dingle, Ireland.
5 hours ago
Bangladesh election day, 5 January 2014
9.40 am: Empty Dhaka streets
Don‘t think I have ever seen Dhaka so empty as today. BNP strikes have never been able to
empty the city streets quite so much.
8.45 am: Interesting constituency elections
There remain some constituencies where there is a real election taking place, mostly due to
dissident Awami League candidates taking on the official one. One such is Dhaka 7 which
covers Lalbagh, Chawkbazar, Kotwali and Bangshal and where Mostafa Jalal Mohiuddin, the
official AL candidate is taking on Haji Selim who is campaigning as an independent candidate,
who is also a joint secretary of the Dhaka Metropolitan unit of Awami League. In the 1996
national elections, Haji Selim left BNP and won Dhaka 7 constituency with an Awami League‘s
nomination. In 2008, however, Selim did not get the party ticket. It seems from this article that
Haji Selim is getting some BNP support. In recent days some of Mohiuddin‘s supporters have
come under attack
Only 7 of Dhaka‘s 15 constituencies have an election today

8. I shall be off there shortly to see what is going on
8.20 am: The „boldest intervention‟
And number 4 on my list of the ‗big-est, most-est, best-est‘ of Bangladesh pre-election politics is
the ‗boldest intervention (See 1. ‗most responsible for mess that we are in‘, and 2. ‗most
responsible for absence of election observers‘, and 3 'biggest strategic error‘.)
There have no doubt many heroic interventions that have taken place involving people saving
lives during the violence that has ensued over the months, that I am unaware. Also, the editor of
the newspaper where I work, Nurul Kabir is certainly known for his boldness on TV chat shows.
And my choice is perhaps has a serious English language bias, ut the one person I think who
deserves to be mentioned as making the boldest intervention over many months and who has
been a clarion call for many is the editor of theDaily Star, Mahfuz Anam
One many not always agree with his or the papers views (though whatever you say of them they
are honestly held) but in relation to his criticism of the government and in particular the way it
has handled the election issue, there is no one who has written more persuasively, more boldly
than he has done. There is in many ways in Bangladesh a thriving media, nonetheless it takes
some guts to take on the prime minister directly which he has done through his writing – naming
her directly, attacking her for her faulty decision making. There are many who think after 5
January, in the new repressive Bangladesh that many people fear, he or his paper may well pay
the price for it. I certainly hope not. His many interventions, under his own name, and often
starting on the front page of his paper, deserve to be recognised.
8.00 am: The „biggest strategic error‟ in the run up to today
Continuing my thoughts of the ‗big-est, most-est, best-est‘ of Bangladesh pre-election politics,
here is my view on number 3 on the list, the ‗biggest strategic error‘. (See 1. most responsible for
mess that we are in, and 2. most responsible for absence of election observers)
There are many strategic mistakes to choose from of course: the decision by the Khaleda Zia to
snub Hasina‘s invitation to have tea with her in the infamous phone conversation; or the decision
by the government to send law enforcement officials to ‗arrest‘ General Ershad in full glare of
the cameras when all he had done was to say he did not want to take part in the elections; or the
failure of the opposition leaders to take any proper steps to ensure that its protests would not
result in bombings of the public; or the government‘s decision to put Khaleda Zia under house
arrest; or indeed the failure of the BNP to dissociate itself from the Jamaat-e-Islami. All of these
– and many more – have done serious damage to the AL and the BNP respectively.
However, my choice – which is I know is contentious - is none of these. It was BNP‘s decision
to decide not to take part in the elections.
Now this is not to say that the BNP did not have very good reason to think that it should not take
part in the elections under a political government. As I have said behind all of the problems we
are in now, is that one decision by the prime minister to remove the caretaker government
provisions without public and political consensus. It was perfectly reasonable for the BNP to be
astounded at how the caretaker provisions were removed from the constitution, and to be highly
suspicious of the government‘s motives. However, whilst it would have been a risk, a big one I
appreciate, nonetheless for the BNP both then, and even more so in hindsight, it would have been

9. a risk worth taking. And their failure to take that decision in August/September of this year has
meant dozens of deaths, a country in crisis, the Awami League in power and the BNP at a loss.
This is why. In polls in July and September 2013, the BNP were running high in the polls, and
the party knew it. It had the country behind it in its demand for a caretaker government, it had
taken a decision not to proceed with hartals – which was popular. The political violence that
existed in the country was then not the fault of the BNP.
Yes, had it agreed to have taken part in the polls, the government would be in charge of the
administration, the police, and there was reasons for it to be concerned about the independence
of the election commission. But had the BNP properly and genuinely negotiated at an early
stage, the AL would have given it something, at the very least seats in an all party government.
Not ideal, but from that position, it could have had some significant influence on what took place
during the election period – even if Sheikh Hasina remained prime minister. Also, had the BNP
decided to take part of the elections, there would have been great pressure on the Election
Commission (pressure which simply does not exist now) to have acted much more
independently. I am sure there would have been civil adminstration transfers etc - perhaps not as
many as the BNP would like, but enough. Moreover there would also have been significant
international monitoring, particular the parallel vote tabulation - the biggest one in the world was
being planned - which would have ensured, at least, no manipulation of election results once the
votes are counted at each polling centre.
No doubt if the government and local lawmakers wanted, and there would have been some
manipulation in the voting, but with BNP‘s lead as it was then, it would have been unlikely to
have been large enough to make a difference and/or it would have been easily identifiable - and
the international community would have ‗called it‘.
Now however, the people of Bangladesh have seen BNP at its worst – with some of the worst
violence in the country‘s political history being blamed on their supporters. And the party‘s lead
looks like it may well be waning – or indeed to have already waned. Where is the BNP now?
Out of power, weakened, far less popular than it was five months ago. It should have taken that
risk - and participated in the elections. My guess it would have won. Now, even if it had those
free and fair elections which it has been demanding for so long - it may well not win!
2.30 am: Election day papers
The key news is the number of polling stations that have been set on fire, with New Age stating
that over 100 stations in different schools have been burnt down throughout the whole country.
There are also reports of an assistant presiding officer from Thakurgaon-1 constituency being
beaten to death.
The Daily Star has a story on the attempts by the Awami League to get a good turnout.
The paper has also an interesting comparison between 2013 and 1996 when there was a similiar
one-sided election. It notes that in 1996 when the Awami League was in BNP‘s position:
The AL enforced a 48-hour countrywide hartal before election day. Their activists snatched away
ballot papers and ballot boxes in many districts including Barisal, Tangail, Netrakona, Pabna and
Nilphamari. They also set polling stations on fire in some districts.

10. The violent protests on polling day had left at least 10 people killed. Voting in more than 2,800
polling stations in 59 districts had to be suspended due to the opposition‘s protests.
It also says that the one consistent party in all this has been the Jamaat-e-Islami which was with
the AL in 1996 demanding the caretaker government and with the BNP in 2013.
The Daily Star also has a good piece on how one sided elections provide opportunities for
rigging turnout
It was only a matter of time of course before the pro-government ‗civil society‘ members to raise
their voices, and a couple of reports have been published about a meeting. One states:
Information Commissioner Sadeka Halim said civil society organisations were run by money
from the development partners. ―But which citizens they represent? And whose voices are they
raising?‖
Slating the development partners, she said, ―Had they ever been a friend of Bangladesh? They
were opposed to the birth of Bangladesh in 1971. Now they‘ve come forward to save the war
criminals. They‘ve even phoned the prime minister.‖
Prof Salimullah Khan of Stamford University complained that the ―so called‖ civil society was
engaged in a conspiracy as they never praised the government for its achievements.
―They even criticise the achievements of the government,‖ he mentioned, adding that without
doing much homework the country will not be able to counter the conspiracy of the foreigners
and the civil society.
Historian Mejbah Kamal said a section of intellectuals are talking in a way nowadays that they
want to implement the ―minus-two formula,‖ and they also are saying that the two leaders are
useless.
―They are virtually trying to say that the battle is actually between the two ladies. But I clearly
think that it is not a battle between the two ladies. Rather, it‘s a battle between two ideologies,‖
he added.
And last but not least, is the excoriating editorial in New Age titled ‗History will hold Awami
League responsible‘. It starts:
Bangladesh witnesses the most farcical elections ever held under an elected government today. It
is farcical not only because the entire opposition political camps have boycotted the polls in the
apprehension of the elections being rigged by the incumbents but also because 153 seats of the
300-member national parliament have already been captured by the candidates of the ruling
coalition without a single vote being cast because of a subjugated Election Commission
declaring them elected unopposed, depriving 52 per cent of the voters of their right to franchise.
The government now goes ahead with the elections to the rest 147 seats, in most of which, again,
the opposing candidates belong to the ruling coalition. Which polls, if not these, would be called
farcical, managed in the name of democratic elections? But the government of the Awami
League went ahead with the political farce despite repeated requests from all social and political
quarters — not to mention the sustained opposition demand for free and fair participatory
elections under a credible, non-party government capable of creating a level playing field for the
contesting political camps. Instead of accommodating the opposition demand, the incumbents
have chosen to detain its leader, Khaleda Zia, in her house and have arrested hundreds of her
party leaders and activists.
5 hours ago

11. ঝড়
তখন
-
২৯
ঝড় যখন
কত?
?এ
এমন
?
?
‖
‖
:
সব
,
,
।
এক
৫
এ঱
এমন
ব঱঱
সময়মত
‘
যখন
ঝড়
নয়
ঝড়
?

12. আ
র
।
, একজন
কর঱।
এক
ত঱ব কর঱
ব঱঱
ঐ
঩ড়঱
঩র
হ঱
এ
,
,
?
।
৫
এ সবই
হ঱
঩রই
এক
।
হ঱
হ঱
,
হ঱
দ঱
উ঩র
,
তখন
,
এত
!
এত
এই
হ঱
।
বড় হ঱
঩ড়঱
আ
র঑
এসব
এখন
যখন

13. ।
টই
,
বড়
, ধন
এই
হ঱
,
,
,
আ
জ
এখন
঩থ
,
।
আ
র
কম
লত
এ এক
,
,
,
এই
,
আ
র
,
?
,
,
,
এ
এ
এই
কত
মর঱?
?
।
হ঱
গঠন
গণ
আ এক
র
এক
গঠন
আ
জ
আ
জ
,
,
এ঑

14. আ
জ
MARCH
?
আ
র
।
দ঱
এর
আ
র
আ
উট
আ
র
,
হয়।
এখন
আ
র
এখন
১৯৭৭
এক
হয় ১৯৭১ এ
আ
জ঑
এ
঩র
এক

15. ?
, কই
঩র
এ সক঱
?
?
এই উ঩
।
আ এক
র
দ঱
, এখন
এ
,
এর
আ
জ
?
এতই
এক
?আ
র঑
মত একজন
এখন঑
?
এখন঑
একজন
হ঱
এখন
হয়,
?আ
জ঑
সর঱ সহজ
,
মত
,
?
?
,

16. জনগণ
(
নয়)
,
,
এই
কখনই
এখন
এ
,
,
।
:
?
:
?
,
এই
?
সব
:
:
,
এত কদর। এমন
,
এক
।
অথচ
:
এই
,
ব঩ন
মদদ
?
, এত বড়
?
৪৭
?
?
?
?
:
একমত
তখন
অতএব ২৯
?

17. হয়
এসব
?
ঐ
,
,
এই
।
22 hours ago
Countdown to Bangladesh upcoming „elections‟, 3
SATURDAY 4 JANUARY 2014
2.30 pm: What to think about voter turn-out
In a previous entry, a few days ago I argued that after the EU and the USA had made its decision
not to send election monitors, the importance of voter turnout will be limited. Well, maybe I
need to formulate that observation - looking at today‘s media, and with the opposition now
desperate to minimise the turnout and the government to increase it.
The kernel of what I stated earlier though remains true. Had election monitors attended the
election, one of the key issues that they would have considered in determining the election‘s
credibility would have been the turnout. Now, however, the lack of credibility of the election is
not in doubt - so the significance of voter turnout has certainly reduced. Nonetheless, turnout
does continue to have some significance, at least in terms of post election narrative. In 1996,
another of these one sided elections, the turnout was 26 percent for the whole country. The BNP
would like it to be less than that, the AL would like it to be more.
However, the issue of turnout seems to me now to be a pretty irrelevant factor - though for rather
different reasons than the ones you might expect me to say.
Our view of turnout now needs to take into account opposition violence and intimidation. This
will not be an election in which many voters can choose whether or not to vote; many voters will
not vote simply because their polling station has been burnt down or for fear of violence and
intimidation. I have not heard any opposition leader decry this violence in the last 24 hours.
In Dhaka Tribune‘s poll yesterday, there was a suggestion that as many as 40 percent of people

18. would be willing to vote even in this election - half of the percentage that voted in the 2008
elections. Assuming that their is a correct figure, many of this ‗40 percent‘ will not vote simply
because of opposition violence.
The BNP has done the government a huge favor. Without violence, there would anyway have
been a low turnout in the election in the 147 constituencies where an election is actually taking
place. However, now the AL can argue that any low turnout is simply to do with violence on the
part of the opposition - and in part they will be absolutely right. And what exactly will be the
opposition‘s response to that?
1.10 pm: Indian media begin to question its government position on Bangladesh
This must be difficult times for Indian government foreign policy officials trying to carve out a
coherent Bangladesh foreign policy. Its support for the Awami League government strategy in
holding the current elections looks like it is coming unstuck - and the Indian media is starting to
reflect this.
The Hindustan times states ‗An election marred by a boycott undoes much of what has been
gained as far as Bangladesh‘s political maturity is concerned and is no gain for India‘s long-term
strategic interests.‘
And the Hindu states Post-election, Bangladesh appears headed for more volatility, and New
Delhi‘s relations with a government that comes to power through a problematic process will only
get more complicated.
See New Age‘s good summary of recent articles in the Indian media
12.50 pm: A call for aggressive US diplomacy
The Bangladesh government should really be concerned about the perception of the country in
the foreign media. It is almost wholly very negative - particularly in the most influential of
media. Hot on the heals of Bangladesh being designated by Foreign Policy magazine as amongst
its top ‗conflicts to watch‘ in 2014 (joining Syria, Iraq, Libya and Sudan) it has just published an
excruciating critical analysis by two people linked to the Foundation for the Defence of
Democracies - which ends with a call for aggressive US diplomacy
Its title says it all: ‗Return of the Basket Case' with a subtitle 'On the eve of a fundamentally
flawed election, Bangladesh teeters on the edge of the precipice.' Its worth reading in full, but it's
summary is here:
This is a slow-motion train wreck that everyone can see coming. The democratic process is about
to take a major hit in one of the world‘s largest Muslim-majority countries, where poverty
remains endemic and radical Islamists lurk in the wings to exploit any opportunities that may
arise. A fuse has been lit — and if it‘s allowed to go off it will almost certainly result in an
explosion of ever-worsening protests, violence, and instability.
It goes onto call for agressive US diplomacy:

19. Time is running dangerously short. But aggressive diplomacy, led by Washington, still stands a
chance of avoiding the worst-case outcome and helping Bangladesh‘s citizens salvage the
legitimacy of a democratic process that they‘ve struggled hard to achieve. Though success is by
no means guaranteed, the alternative to trying appears grim, indeed. If ever there was a time to
exhaust the capacity for preventive diplomacy, this is it. With so much of the rest of the Islamic
world descending into turmoil, now is not the time to stand on the sidelines as one of the world‘s
largest Muslim countries slips inexorably into chaos. Its a call is likely to fall on deaf ears - not because the US government officials necessarily
disagree with much of the analysis set out in the article, but Bangladesh is an example of the
limits of diplomacy. There is simply not that much that the US government can do that will result
in the Bangladesh government changing its course. Observers in Bangladesh will in fact have
noticed in the last six months super active diplomacy on the part not just of the US, but also the
European Union, with seemingly negligible impact. Bangladesh is now strong enough particularly with the Indian government‘s support - to stand up to the worlds super-powers and
super-blocs. For good or for bad.
12.15 pm: The elections and war crimes trials
One of the government‘s principal justifications for seeking support for its maintenance in power
is the war crimes tribunals. And this argument has its cheer leaders. Of course there is prime
minister‘s son himself, who stated recently ‗Had Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina stepped down as
BNP demanded, Quader Molla would not have been hanged.‘ The opposition, Sajeeb says, is not
concerned about ensuring a free and fair elections but only ‗about saving the war criminals.‘
Then the Daily Star, and other papers have well, have in recent days published a whole series of
articles, praising the tribunal. Professor Rafiqul Islam, a professor of law at Macquarie
University in Sydney, Australia has argued that those convicted by the tribunal was
‗overwhelming‘. Convener of the Canadian Committee for Human Rights and Democracy in
Bangladesh has stated in an article in the same newspaper that the tribunal ‗uphold all possible
rights of the accused‘. And the founder and executive director of the South Asia Democratic
Forum, in another article in the Daily Star has argued that the tribunal, ‗compares favourably
with other tribunals being conducted around the world‘.
And on Friday, a new poll was published suggesting that around three quarters of the adult
population of Bangladesh were ‗satisfied‘ with the tribunal - which if true suggests a big turn
around from polls of only a few months ago which gave an impression that people were
concerned about the proceedings.
So many of the people who write about the tribunal in Bangladesh know almost nothing about it
- or if they do seriously misrepresent the nature of proceedings. They write about a set of
proceedings which they might imagine, or indeed hope, is taking place. They are ideological
pieces, rather than opinion based on fact. For all the good intentions and high principle of
holding trials relating to 1971 (which I support), Bangladesh should not be proud of the judicial
processes that resulted in Molla‘s execution.
For a dose of reality, here is an analysis I have just written on the appellate division judgment the judgement was published a month ago - that resulted ten days later in his hanging. I end the
article by stating:

20. So, we have a situation where Molla was put to death on the basis of a witness who claimed in
court that the accused was present, but who had in the last 42 years, as far as we know, never
made such an earlier claim, and who had also previously given two statements both of which did
not mention that Molla was present at the crime scene and one of which stated that she was not
even present at the time of the incident – and the appellate division not allowing these statements
to be taken into account by a court.
And then we have a tribunal which precluded Molla from calling witnesses to present his
defence and an appellate division apparently accepting this restriction, along with the reasons
given for the restriction which cuts across the basic principle of defence lawyering.
Supporters of the tribunal point to the legal rights given to the accused including that of having a
lawyer to defend themselves, with all the rights of cross examination of prosecution witnesses.
However, these rights mean nothing in practice if the accused is not allowed to bring witnesses
to the court defend himself, he has no right to cross examine a witness on previous statements
which go to the heart of a witnesses‘s credibility, and, of course, if the court has no right to take
previous contradictory statements of witnesses into account in its assessment of the evidence.
I encourage people to read this article. And there will be more analysis coming in future weeks
of the appellate division‘s decision
——————
FRIDAY, 3 JANUARY 2014
11.25 pm: BNP's weakness, AL's opportunity
Booming editorials are certainly satisfying to read and write, but the future of Bangladesh is not
going to turn on them. The government may have lost the sympathy of the
country‘s intelligentsia, but the prime minster knows that this means very little. The law
enforcement agencies are behind her, and seem willing to do just about anything, or when
necessary, nothing, in the interests of the Awami League. And the party‘s control of the civil
service - the lack of which was so crucial to the fall of BNP in 1996 - remains intact; and the
army appear unmoved.
Moreover, everything that was said about the inherent weakness of the opposition party has
turned out to be true. The BNP doesn‘t have the capacity to organise a popular movement against
the government, able and willing to face the violence of the law enforcement agencies.
In the last months, the party has depended on brute force, and often sporadic violence aimed
directly on members of the public, to bring the country to a halt. The failed 29 December BNP
‗rally for democracy‘ was due to a number of factors - including no doubt the hundreds of arrests
of party activists, and the government‘s blockade of Dhaka. However the failure of a single
protestor to rally outside the party offices in Dhaka was the message that the government wanted
people to see. The BNP was not going to be the vehicle for the downfall of the government. They
were losers.
And with that message clear to all, in subsequent days in Dhaka at least, the BNP‘s ability to
maintain some sort of ‗seige‘ of the city, limiting the traffic movement, fell apart when traffic
returned back to normal, the first time in weeks.

21. This does not mean that there are not very many, and perhaps even a clear majority of people
who would support the BNP if there were free and fair election - though if the recent opinion poll
in the Dhaka tribune is to be believed, the party would no longer be the overwhelming favorites.
But what it does mean is that in a fight against an increasingly autocratic government, the BNP‘s
supporters will do little more for the party than put a cross on a ballot paper when that time
comes. They will certainly not be manning the barricades.
This is all good news for the government. If, after the 5 January ‗elections‘, the government can
bring the country back to normal, easing business concerns, it is difficult to see how the
government can be forced from whatever path it may wish to tread. The government says now
that it accepts a need for another election, but it is difficult to see how the government will
actually hold another poll, and - in any case - on what basis a compromise can be made between
the two parties.
The only other part of the jigsaw is the international community. It is perfectly clear that this
government is willing to face international moral pressure down; whether there is a different kind
of pressure that the outside world can, and is willing to, exert on it remains to be seen. Perhaps
the biggest lever available is in the hands of the European Union, with the possibility of removal
of the GSP privileges for the RMG sector - however whether there will be sufficient unanimity
amongst the EU countries to allow this to happen when the immediate harm will be on workers,
is far from clear
Right now, the situation in Bangladesh at present looks like it will be the new normal for quite
some time to come. A government with limited legitimacy, exerting more of its power through
force, with a significant restriction on civil liberties in particular towards the opposition
parties and a pretty passive population unwilling to take it on. And, of course, all justified as part
of its reassertion of 1971 liberation war values.
8.15 pm: Today‟s key articles
There is some great English language articles in today‘s papers. I have to give today‘s prize to a
tongue and cheek oped in the New Age involving a letter written to a Budding Autocrat, a
wonderful must read.
AS OUR country is burning and we seem to be gradually heading towards a one-sided election, I
write this letter to you to draw your kind attention. Don‘t listen to all those liberal democratic
elements (both national and foreign) exasperated at the possibility of an election without the
main opposition. As history suggests, we, the people of Bangladesh, prefer to be ruled with an
iron fist. The notion of democracy is merely an impediment to harnessing our creative core and
overall development. Your idea of democracy is what suits us best because the suspension of the
common man‘s right can eventually lead to him being a true patriot and a believer in
nationalism.
Your strategy to introduce the 15th amendment and then going on to make the best use of it was
a touch of pure genius. It shows that you have the acumen and conviction to lead us with
efficiency and utter disregard to what we think. This is what we crave as citizens and long for.
The main opposition does not deserve to be on the streets simply because it might accidentally
lead to continuation of democracy and provide the people with a viable choice, which is the last
thing we need at this juncture of our political growth. Hence, I vehemently support your strategy

22. to marginalise the opposition grassroots and lock up their leaders before they actually get to
know what really hit them. They deserve to be locked up even if they are seen in public and
harassed till the point they realise politics is meant for a single party in this country, that very
party, which is the sole agent of the spirit of 1971, while the rest are all non-believers. Your
party is our only ray of hope.
And here is my favorite para - as it conceals an interesting truth about how in Bangladesh
violence by islamists seems to be treated differently from violence by ‗secular‘ forces
While Jamaat and Shibir are unleashing a series of terror attacks on general citizens, it must be
made clear that the people of this country prefer to be terrorised by the Chhatra League rather
than some misguided Islamists who have lost their right to be in politics. ….
It then ends with
I would like to end my letter by saying how much we expect from you our exalted leader. We
expect you to continue ignoring us, excluding us and finally rule us with absolute power. Feel
free to exert force on us when required and lastly free us from this curse of voting. In short, rule
us and free us as the country only belongs to you.
Daily Star‘s editor again does not dissapoint with his oped on Khaleda Zia‘s confinement which starts with a great opening para:
OF the three principal political figures in the country—Sheikh Hasina, Khaleda Zia and H.M.
Ershad — one is fully involved in election campaigning while the two others are in forced and
— in the absence of any lawful reason given by the government — illegal confinement. This is
happening with elections just two days away.
He then criticizes Khaleda Zia in stark terms about her failure to articulate a proper vision of
Bangladesh … but then goes on:
However, having said all the above, as a journalist, I must admit that she is one of the two
principal political leaders of the country, head of the second biggest political party of
Bangladesh, has huge public following, is a former prime minister and, since the 9th Parliament
has not yet been dissolved, is at present is the ―Leader of the Opposition‖ with the rank and
status of a minister.
So why is she confined? Why hundreds of police are guarding her house? Why several trucks
filled with sand — trucks that have appeared mysteriously and are being replaced in regular
intervals and the drivers being fed — have been put up to obstruct her movement? Why some
BNP leaders who have gone to see her were either arrested or picked up, detained in police
custody and later released? Why was she prevented from attending a family function? Why is
she denied free access to her party leaders? Why can‘t anybody go and meet her without fearing
arrest, interrogation or intimidation.
The more despicable thing is that while the government has detained her it does not have the
moral courage to admit it. Ministers, in Goebellian style, are repeating the claim that she is free
to go anywhere she wants hoping that their repetition we will somehow make us forget what we
repeatedly see on the local TV. One minister even said she can go out for peaceful reasons but
‗we cannot be allow her to go out to create chaos‖. How does the minister know what
purpose Khaleda Zia is going out for? And who has given him, or his government, the right to
keep a citizen confined? Under the law the government can arrest her but in that case she must be
allowed all her rights including the benefit of a lawyer and of bail. Only a government bent upon
abusing the law can confine a free citizen without giving any reason, and then denying that she is
even confined.

23. So far a total of 4 standing committee members, 2 vice chairmen, 2 advisors to the party chief, 2
joint secretaries-general, 3 members of parliament and 22 executive committee members of the
BNP have been put behind bars. Many of them have been taken on remand, some charged with
murder, some with arson and others with all sorts of other crimes.
Take the case of H.M. Ershad and his Jatiya Party. Again I have no reason to be upholding his
cause but for the underlying issues involved much of which deals with the legality of
government actions. His party was part of the government for the last five years. As long as he
was agreeable to participating in the elections everything proceeded smoothly. There were also
talks of seat sharing, with JP demanding a 100 and the ruling AL agreeing first to 70 and settling
at 60. Later when Sheikh Hasina formed her so-called all party poll time government she gave 6
ministerial and one advisor‘s post to Ershad. Such was the closeness of the relationship.
However the moment he declared his intention not to participate, and withstood pressure
including from a number of his own party leaders to reverse his decision, he was forcibly taken
to the Combined Military Hospital by intelligence officials and prevented from running his party.
While keeping him confined at the CMH, the ruling party applied all sorts of dirty tricks to create
dissenting within his party which ultimately resulted in faction of JP contesting the elections.
Again one needs to turn to Dhaka Tribune‘s editor for a concise take on Bangladesh‘s political
parties, appropriately called, Pick your Poison
The sad truth is that the actions of the AL and the BNP, not just this past month, but for as long
as I have been following politics, betray a deep contempt for the voting public. The parties
consistently insult the intelligence of the people and take them for fools, because, at the only
level the parties understand and respect, that of power, that is what we are.
Thus, the AL tells us that if we don‘t vote for them, the terrorists win. It doesn‘t matter how
poorly we rate their performance, if we want the war crimes trials to continue, we must vote for
them. To do otherwise is to give the enemies of liberation free rein to run riot and wreak
vengeance on us all.
The BNP tells us that if we don‘t vote for them, the fascists win. It doesn‘t matter how poorly
they performed last time in office or their crimes in opposition, we have no choice but to vote for
them. To do otherwise would be to end up in a one-party state where no kind of independent
thinking or dissent or deviation from party orthodoxy will be tolerated.
Both parties figure that we have nowhere else to go. They don‘t need to offer much in the way of
performance or policy other than the claim that the other side is worse, and so they don‘t even
try. It is this knowledge that the voters have nowhere else to turn that underpins the arrogance
and contempt of the parties toward the public and public opinion
Then then is today‘s Banyan blog in the Economist, with its sly take on Bangladesh which
provides a good factual summary of the situation and relevant analysis. Again a key passage
focusing on the helper skelter of the Bangladesh parties:
A few months back the BNP had the moral high ground. Sheikh Hasina‘s Awami League (AL)
had overreached in claiming for itself the privilege of overseeing the polls. In 2011 the AL had
junked a constitutional mechanism that was intended to rescue the country‘s frail democracy
from its viciously confrontational two-party politics: an unelected caretaker administration to
oversee elections. The caretaker-arrangement had been in place since 1996, after the BNP won
300 of 300 seats, in an election that the AL boycotted. Circumventing the caretaker system for

24. the 2014 vote looks plainly self-serving on the part of the AL. A recent opinion poll shows
nearly four out of five Bangladeshis think it a bad idea.
But now the BNP is in disarray and has no better option than to wait out Sheikh Hasina and the
AL, hoping that they bring about their own downfall. In the past few months the BNP stepped up
its series of crippling strikes, making one-day work weeks the norm. Its thugs, along with
hooligans from the Jamaat-e-Islami, the country‘s biggest Islamic party, started killing civilians.
This helped the nominally secular AL government make the argument that only it can save
Bangladesh. A new manifesto, read out by the prime minister to an assembly of party loyalists
and diplomats from Russia, Sri Lanka and Singapore on December 28th, charges that the BNP
turned the country into a ―valley of death‖ when it ruled in coalition with the Jamaat between
2001 and 2006. It suggests that since then the BNP has ―taken up the role of the Jamaat‖—the
party that opposed Bangladesh‘s independence in 1971, and whose current leadership looks to be
headed for the gallows by the time a trial for war crimes is concluded. Reverberations from that
trial are mainly to blame for the 500 Bangladeshis who were killed in political violence in 2013,
the worst annual toll since independence.
6.40 pm: Bangladesh foreign minister seeks to meet EU leaders just three days after
election
New Age has an exclusive in today‘s paper about the foreign minister‘s proposed tour of Europe
- including a proposed meeting at the European Union headquarters in Brussels on the 8th
January, just three days after the election, and then subsequent meetings in London and Berlin.
No-one is entirely clear what will be the response of the EU, the United States and other
countries to the election of the new Awami League government - how tough they will be in
words and actions (probably not very tough; Bangladesh is no Burma - though it would though
be surprising if the EU agreed to meetings with the foreign minister.)And of course whether or
not the action has any affect at all (again, probably not that much). To work out what will happen
in Bangladesh, one must look within the country, and not outside it.
5.45 pm:
What to make of Dhaka Tribune‟s opinion poll
The Dhaka Tribune has today published the results of an opinion poll that it undertook in the
third week of December 2013 - so pretty recently. It was a mobile phone poll - never done before
as far I know in Bangladesh. To read my thoughts about the methodology risks in such a poll in
Bangladesh, go to the bottom of this particular post. However, let me first summarise the key
results from the DT poll and see how they compare with other recent polls:
Party support
The DT poll found support practically the same for both main parties at around 36 percent each.
This compares with the July 2013 poll by Nielsen/Democracy International which found BNP
on 43 percent and AL on 32 percent, and the Prothom Alo poll which found the BNP support on
50 percent and AL on 37 percent, and the poll done for the Awami League which found the BNP
on 38 percent and the AL on 35 percent (I am not looking at the Daily Star survey as this was
not a conventional opinion poll). This is set out in the table

25. DI/Nielsen
(July 2013)
Prothom Alo
(Sept 2013)
Awami League
(Oct 2013)
Dhaka Tribune
(Dec 2013)
AL
32%
37%
35%
36%
BNP
43%
50%
38%
36%
It is interesting to note that AL‘s vote has remained pretty consistent throughout all of these
polls, ranging from 33 to 37 percent.
It is the BNP‘s vote that has moved around a lot from 36 percent to 50 percent.
There are two competing thoughts about how recent political events may have affected political
support for the two parties. First is the idea that BNP‘s support has declined due to its
responsibility for the political violence and the blockade; on the other side there are those that
argue that most people blame the government for the political crisis, and of course for the
‗mockery‘ of the 5 January elections.
Anecdotally, from talking to people in Dhaka, it appeared to me that it was AL‘s rather than
BNP‘s support that has weakened - which is not what this poll suggests. So I am rather surprised.
However the DT poll did find that when people were asked which party would win in their area,
BNP did much better with BNP on 44 percent to AL on 38 percent. Sometimes questions like
this can be more accurate ways of testing a voters opinion - so that there are voters who would
not want to say directly that they support the BNP, but project it when asked a more indirect
question.
Is election without BNP acceptable?
The DT poll found that 19 percent thought that it was acceptable whilst 77 percent thought that it
was not acceptable. Though there is no analysis done on how this divides between party
preference, it is likely that the 77 percent contains a proportion of AL voters.
Whilst this figure is high, it is lower than the figures in the September 2013 Prothom Alo poll,
where when people were asked if the election would be acceptable without the participation of
the BNP, 90% replied negatively.

26. Elections under an interim government
When asked whether the current government was ‗sufficient for holding a free, fair election‘ [nb
- it is not entirely clear from DT‘s coverage what the exact question was asked], 47 percent
thought that it was sufficient and 37 percent that it was not. No question was asked about the
preference between an election under a caretaker and a political government, because DT said ‗it
is widely accepted that there is clear majority for the caretaker form of government.‘
If we take views on the election commission as a barometer of how people view the fairness of
an election under a political government, these results are not that dissimilar to those found in the
other polls.
In the Prothom Alo poll nearly half the country thought that the current election commission had
the ability to hold a fair election. 48% responded affirmatively whilst 51% negatively. And this
finding was not dissimilar to the Nielsen/DI July 2013 poll which showed that 52 per cent had
faith in the capacity of the Election Commission in ‗holding free and fair elections under the
current government.‘ Only 32 per cent felt that the Election Commission was ‗not capable,‘
However, the DT results are not that consistent with poll done for the Awami League which
found that only 22 per cent of those questioned agreed with the statement that that ‗in every city
corporation election, BNP-supported candidates have won – this proves that under the Awami
League government free and fair election is possible‘, and where 71 per cent agreed with the
proposition that a ‗neutral election is not possible until or unless it will happen under a caretaker
government‘.
Willingness to vote in election without BNP.
The DT poll showed that 41 percent of people said that they would vote in the elections even if
the BNP did not participate, with 53 percent saying that they would not vote. 6 percent refused to
say.
The last election in Bangladesh had over 80 percent turnout, so 40 percent turnout does not seem
very much - a little over the percentage of support that the AL had in the poll. However, in the
1996 election, the official turnout was around 25 percent (many believe that the real figure was
much lower), so if this percentage of voters did vote that would be quite a high figure.
The DT mentions that the poll was done at a time when it was not clear that so many seats would
be unopposed - which may well have affected people‘s decisions about whether to take part in
the elections.
Right/wrong direction
When asked whether the country was heading in a right or wrong direction, 71 percent said that
it was not, and 23 percent said that it was.
This is the highest figure that any of the polls in recent months have come up with - and is an
obvious reflection on the crisis ridden situation of the country. It is amazing that 23 percent
thought that Bangladesh was going in the right direction!

27. In the September Prothom Alo poll, 60% of people thought that the country was going in the
wrong direction and in the July 2013 Nielsen/DI polls 58% of people thought that country was
going in the wrong direction, with 37% saying it was going in the right direction.
6. Satisfaction with the ICT trials
A large proportion of people, 74 percent though were satisfied with the war crimes tribunals with 36 percent highly satisfied and 38 percent satisfied. Only 16 percent were dissatisfied.
These are an interesting set of results which contradict other polls that were done.
In the Prothom Alo September 2013, polls whilst 80% of respondents agreed that those who had
committed war crimes should be tried and punished, only 40% agreed that the process was
‗appropriate‘, with 59% thinking that it was not.
As I said at the time one problem with this particular result is the question - you could believe
that a trial was not appropriate because it was too fair or it was not fair enough! So the question
does not tell you very much about how people really viewed the process.
The Prothom Alo results did however reflect those in the Nielsen/DI poll which found that 86 per
cent of these voters who knew about the trials stating that they personally wanted the trials to
proceed with 63 per cent (of those that knew about the trials) thinking that the trials were unfair
or very unfair. However the question of fairness or not can also be read in different ways.
DT‘s question - ‗are you satisfied with the trials‘ - is in fact a better one than the other two, and
perhaps reflects a greater level of support for the tribunals in their current form (and indeed in
the execution which had just happened) than previously thought going by the previous polls.
Bar on Jamaat participation in the election
53 percent of people thought that the Jamaat should be allowed take part in the elections with
only 33 percent disagreeing.
This reflects the views shown in other polls, when respondents were asked, if the political party,
Jamaat-e-Islami should be banned. In the Prothom Ali poll, 70% responded negatively, with 29%
in favor of such a ban. In the DI/Nielsen April 2013 poll, 65% were found to be against the ban
and 25% in favour.
Issue of methodology
The poll was undertaken through interviews on mobile phones - presumably to save
money. 2012 data shows that two thirds of the country have access to a mobile phone, though
DT claims that it is 73 percent.
The accuracy of a poll depends to a great extent on the randomness of the people whom one
questions; in order for a poll to be able to accurately reflect the views of the whole population of
a country, everyone needs to have an equal chance to be questioned. In this poll, one third/one
quarter of the country had no chance to be questioned - and so there will inevitably be questions

28. (all other things being equal) about how accurately this polls reflects the population of the
country. DT refers to this issue and states:
'Mobile phones are used by people of all socio economic conditions and there is no evidence that
the voting patterns of mobile users (73% of adults) is statistically different from that of mobile
non-users (27 percent of adults) so the exclusion of none-users of mobiles should not lead to any
bias in using randomly generated mobile numbers to represent the voting age population.'
However the problem with this is that whilst the views of non-mobile phone users in Bangladesh
may well be the same as mobile phone users, it is not clear that this is the case as no research has
been done.
This is quite a similar argument to the one in Western countries. Phone polling has happened in
Western countries for some time, but this initially only involved calls to landlines. As mobile
phone usage increased, there came a realisation that 33 percent of people in the US did not have
access to a land line, but only to a mobile phone - and so were not being polled. Increasingly
polling companies now include calls to mobile phones.
Nate Silver wrote about this and showed that polls that only called land-lines had three percent
less support for Obama than polls that called both land lines and mobile phones.
There is of course no knowing what is the situation in Bangladesh, whether the population of
non-mobile phone users are similiar or different to those that do use them - they could be the
same, more pro-BNP or more pro-AL
However, there is certainly a risk that, because of this, the DT poll could be off-cue.
(One other unusual aspect of the way that DT published the poll is that it did not (as far as I can
see, but do correct me if I am wrong!) state the name of the company that undertook the poll. I
don‘t think they were hiding it, and when asked I was told straightaway it was IRC which I
assume is this company. I don‘t know anything about the ownership of this company, if anyone
does, please do tell me.)
————————2.50 pm: The „Biggest, the Most-est, Best-est of Bangladesh‟s pre-election politics‟,
continues
So onto the next one in the list: 2. Who is most responsible for ensuring international observers
did not monitor the elections? (To see the first one)
Khaleda Zia no doubt thinks that she should win this particular prize. One of the BNP‘s biggest
political objectives over the last few months was to persuade the United States and the European
Union that, as it was not participating in the election, they should not send observers to monitor
the election - as the simple process of willingness to ‗observe‘ an election gives it credibility.
And that was the decision that the EU, US and Commonwealth took. So does she not deserve the
award?

29. No it doesn‘t. For all the political pressure the BNP has exerted over the last few months, it was
not its lack of participation that did it for the observers, but the fact that shortly after 13
December, the election commission announced there were 154 seats that were uncontested, that
around half of the population was effectively being dis-enfranchised. Prior to that, a number of
countries were reluctant to boycott the observation, taking a legalistic point of view that the
election was taking place according to law and the constitution, and they should not be held
hostage to the BNP‘s lack of participation. However, the huge number of uncontested seats was
the game changer.
So who was the person most responsible for that. Please stand up General Ershad, leader of the
Jatiya party, and once the country‘s military dictator.
Lets just recap, In late November, Ershad agreed to take part in the elections and to become a
member of the government‘s so called ‗all party government‘ and in return they received five
cabinet seats, and no doubt other benefits.
Getting Ershad‘s involvement was a coup for the Awami League - it meant that it could say that
two out of four largest political parties in Bangladesh were taking part in the election, and it also
meant that the election looked very different from the very discredited February 1996 election in
which the BNP was alone contesting the election with just some small parties as opposition.
However on 3 December 2013, Ershad announced that he would no longer take part in the
election (or in the government) and asked his candidates to remove their nominations from the
ballot. At that time, the Jatiya Party like the Awami League had candidates for nearly all 300
constituencies and so had the Jatiya party remained, there would have been the appearance of a
contested election. However, between 3 and 13 December, most of the Jatiya party candidates
did remove their nominations (though some did have difficulties in doing so), leaving a situation
where there were many uncontested seats.
The Awami League did then, it appears, create more uncontested seats (seeking perhaps to have
an effective ‗elected‘ majority before polling day started and also creating uncontested seats as
prizes for the Jatiya party candidates who had not removed their nomination), but none of this
situation would have happened had Ershad not announced his non-participation in the elections.
Who quite knows why Ershad changed his mind? Bobby Hajaj, his spokesperson argues that
Ershad had always said that he would not contest unless there was an agreement between the
parties, and so when this was clearly not going to happen, he made his final decision. Others
however argue, without any substantive evidence, that he simply must have been given a greater
financial incentive to leave the Awami League than he had earlier been given to take part!
However, whatever maybe the truth of that, the reason why people are now talking about this
election as ‗farcical‘ or as ‗joke‘ is down to Ershad. And of course he has paid a price - being
taken by law enforcement agents to a military hospital for his own good.
1.30 pm: The Biggest, the Most-est, and the Best-est of Bangladesh‟s pre-election politics

30. My new year blog-free break is over, and now we are two days before the 5 January elections.
Much to say and much to catch up on. I thought I shall begin today with the start of my list of the
most-est, biggest and the best-est of this period in Bangladesh politics, from my rather Dhakacentric viewpoint. No doubt if I lived in Gopalganj or Satkhira, things would look rather
different.
So to begin: 1. Who is the person most responsible for Bangladesh’s current political mess?
There are many people who were bit players in this but obviously, it is a toss up between the
prime minister Sheikh Hasina, with her decision to remove the election time caretaker
government provisions from the constitution and the opposition leader Khaleda Zia‘s with her
decision to boycott elections under a (non-caretaker) political government.
There is lot of negative things that can be said about Khaleda‘s decision-making over the last
months (and don‘t worry, we will come to some of that later in the list), but Hasina takes this
particular accolade.
Her decision to remove the election time caretaker government provisions from the constitution
must surely be one of the most reckless and thoughtless in the country‘s recent history.
To appreciate how reckless we need to first remind ourselves how hard she and others fought to
get the caretaker government in the first place. For over a year, between 1994 to 1996, Hasina
led a long and at times violent campaign, assisted by the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Jatiya Party, to
get the BNP to introduce the caretaker government provisions. It succeeded and in March 1996,
parliament changed the constitution introducing the election time caretaker government
provisions. Since then her party had come to power twice through it (June 1996, and 2008),
whilst the BNP had come to power once (2001).
We then need to remind ourselves how it was so thoughtlessly removed by Sheikh Hasina
without any buy-in of any kind from the public, civil society, or any political actor within
Bangladesh
It is very instructive to read Badiul Majumdar‘s note on the proceedings of a 15 member special
parliamentary committee set up by the prime minister which met over 11 months, and held 27
sessions and consulted experts, political parties (including the ruling party), journalists and the
civil society representatives.
―According to the prepared proceedings, the Committee, in its 14th meeting held on March 29,
2011, after extensive discussions, ―unanimously decided to keep the existing CTG system
intact.‖ However, the Committee decided to identify the limitations of the system and discuss
those in its future meetings.
The statements of some of the Committee members in the same meeting are worth quoting. For
example, Mr. Tofail Ahmed, a senior Awami League leader, stated: ―My personal view is that
we should not touch any major aspect of the CTG. We should not create another issue … We
should not unsettle a settled matter.‖ He opposed the idea of imposing a term limit on the CTG
and warned that with such a limit the present ruling party may have to fight for the CTG again.

31. He also opposed the idea of disassociating the judiciary from the CTG.
Mr. Amir Hossain Amu stated: ―A lot of complications would arise if we want to change the
CTG and we would get entangled into difficulties. It is better that the CTG is kept as it is.‖
Mr. Abdul Matin Khashru stated: ―We agreed in our first meeting that we would not go into
anything that would entangle us into controversies. We would not touch anything controversial.
This proposal was given by the Hon‘ble Member Mr. Tofail Ahmed five meetings ago from
today. We all agreed with him. I want to humbly say that we should keep the system of CTG as it
is. It would not be appropriate for us to touch it. This would only add to complications. We will
give the opposition the opportunity to protest and wound us.‖
Dr. Shirin Sharmin Chowdhury stated: ―I also agree that there is no need to make any change in
the CTG at this time. If there is question of putting a time limit, we can perhaps make decision
about it.‖
The other members of the Committee present at that meeting, including Syeda Sajeda
Chowdhury, Mr. Suranjit Sengupta, Mr. Rashed Khan Menon, Mr. Hasanul Haq Inu, Barrister
Anisul Islam Mahmud, Advocate Rahmat Ali and Advocate Fazle Rabbi Mia, also concurred
with their colleagues, making the decision to keep the CTG system unanimous.
On April 27, 2011, a group of Awami League leaders, led by Prime Minister Hasina, appeared
before the special Committee. The PM observed that the people do not want unelected and
undemocratic government anymore, yet we had such governments in the past because of the
loopholes in the Constitution. She asked the Committee to impose ‗a time frame by amending
Article 58 so that similar opportunities do not exist‘ in the future. Note that the PM
recommended the amendment of the CTG, not its abolition. The finance minister also stated that
we would keep the CTG.
On May 10, 2011, the Appellate Division of the Bangladesh Supreme Court declared the CTG
unconstitutional. The 4-3 split decision also observed that the Parliament could, for the safety of
the state and the people, keep the CTG for two more terms. It further recommended the abolition
of the Parliament 42 days before the election.
After the pronouncement of short order by the Apex Court, the Committee decided in its 24th
meeting, held on May 16, 2011, to reopen the issue of CTG after ‗receiving the final judgment of
the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.‘ Absent the final judgment, the Committee,
however, prepared its revised recommendations on May 29, 2011, in which it decided to keep the
CTG with two rather minor changes. The first change called for imposing a time limit of 90 days
for the CTG. The second change imposed restrictions on signing foreign treaties by the CTG and
the ratification of any treaty, if signed, by the next Parliament.
The Committee met with the PM on May 30, 2011, the day after it prepared its
recommendations. The rest is part of history. The Committee, in its final report prepared in June,
recommended the abolition of the CTG.‖

32. It is clear that the removal of the caretaker government was the decision of one person, Sheikh
Hasina, without any initial support of any member of the committee, without any popular
mandate.
One can certainly argue that the caretaker government system has not been wholly successful in
the past; in 2006 of course there were arguments about who was to be the chief caretaker advisor,
and in the end the system collapsed bringing in a two year army controlled government. Changes
certainly needed to be made to it to ensure a better and smoother system of choosing a chief
caretaker advisor – but the principle behind the caretaker government system was widely
accepted, and continues to be very widely accepted, by the wider population and all other
political parties.
Bangladesh has already paid a heavy price for this removal, and is likely to continue to pay an
even higher one in months to come.
TUESDAY, 31 DECEMBER 2013
11.31 am: Shamsher Mubin Chowdhury released in early hours of the morning
According to reports, the BNP leader who was arrested just after a meeting with Khaleda Zia and
the British High Commissioner, was released at about 1 am
00.45 am: Daily Star: “Are we in a democracy?”
I must say, I was very pleased to read this piece. Syed Badrul Ahsan, I find, often appears to
bend over backwards to accommodate Awami League, but here he is willing to say it is as it is.
The original article is here
The sight of a woman lawyer, with loyalties to the BNP, being pounced upon by stick-wielding
youths, clearly with allegiances to the Awami League, on the premises of the Supreme Court on
Sunday is more than an unedifying sight. It shames us before the world outside our frontiers. If
the sanctity of the highest tier of the nation‘s judiciary can be trampled upon, nothing remains
sacrosanct any more in our collective national life.
The spectacle of pro-BNP lawyers and journalists screaming obscenities against the prime
minister and hurling brickbats at the police, both on the Supreme Court and the Jatiya Press Club
premises, embarrasses us to no end.
Equally embarrassing is the scene of the lawyers being forced to stay behind the gates of the SC
compound by the police, who felt not at all disturbed at spraying coloured, hot water on them.
The police would not let the lawyers step out of the SC compound and yet thought it was all right
to open the gates for stick-wielding young men to rush in and beat up the lawyers.
That woman on the ground promises to be a defining picture of this country for a very long time.
In this free republic, it is not proper that citizens be forced to alight from buses and trains on their
way to the capital and be told that they cannot go further. Yet that was the outrage committed on
Sunday. Citizens have been ill-treated at checkpoints, the BNP has been prevented from
emerging on the streets.
In contrast, activists of the ruling Awami League had a free reign. They made sure the capital
stayed in their grip, stayed confined to the state of siege they had brought to pass. A number of

33. opposition figures are in prison on charges of causing disturbances on the streets. Not a single
ruling party man was carted off to jail for causing similar disturbances on the streets on Sunday.
The definition of a criminal offence thus depends on which side of the fence you belong
…………… A pity.
In a sovereign country, the opposition does not choose street agitation over parliamentary
deliberations. Politicians who aspire to go to power through democratic means do not decree a
blockade of the country and bring life to a screeching halt. Citizens have died in arson; vehicles
have been burned to cinders — in the interest of democracy. How does one explain such
criminality?
In a democracy, you may not agree with your opponent. But you certainly do not circumscribe
his or her movements. On Sunday and on Monday, the leader of the opposition was stopped from
moving out of her residence by hundreds of law enforcers and security personnel.
And yet the general secretary of the ruling party would have the nation know that Khaleda Zia on
her own did not wish to leave home for her projected rally. Fine, but why then were all those
policemen and Rab personnel gathered at the gate of her residence?
And why were those men of the ruling party carrying lathis, or sticks, as they marched through
the city? The Dhaka Metropolitan Police commissioner has a simple explanation: those were not
sticks the men were carrying, but flags. And why were those trucks brimming with sand
stationed before the opposition leader‘s home? No comment.
None of this is enlightening. All of this pushes us deeper into a hole we the people did not dig.
In this cold winter, warmth in the heart and soul has gone missing.
00.40 am: New Age: “Despotism, duplicity may not ultimately save day for AL”
I thought New Age wrote an excellent editorial on the day of the rally that was not to be which is
set out below. The original piece is here
THE measures—legal and extralegal—that the government of prime minister Sheikh Hasina has
taken so far, to foil the Bangladesh National Party-led opposition alliance‘s ‗march for
democracy‘ to Dhaka, scheduled for today, may be similar in style or substance to the ones taken
to counter a similar opposition programme on March 12, 2012, but certainly not in intensity or
ferocity. According to media reports, Dhaka stands virtually delinked from the rest of the country
with the incumbents having forced suspension of road and waterways transports between the
capital and outlying districts since Friday. Train services have not been spared, either. The police
are reported to have intercepted three trains and sent them back; they also arrested more than 100
opposition activists from these trains. Meanwhile, the raids by the joint forces comprising the
police, the Rapid Action Battalion and the Border Guard Bangladesh have continued in the
capital and elsewhere in the capital; more than 1,000 people have been arrested so far. Moreover,
there was at least one instance where the law enforcers ransacked the house of an opposition
leader in his absence and detained his wife and daughter. Besides, the Dhaka Metropolitan Police
denied the opposition alliance permission to hold a rally in front of the BNP central office at
Naya Paltan where the march is scheduled to end. Then, of course, the incumbents have
substantially restricted the movement of the leader of the opposition and BNP chairperson.
Such actions reflect not only the anti-democratic, if not autocratic, mindset of the incumbents but
also their double standards. It is worth noting that key functionaries have often taunted the

34. opposition for its supposed failure to build up a strong political movement. Yet, whenever the
opposition sought to organise any political programme, including even innocuous human chains,
the incumbents have employed law enforcers and ruling party musclemen to foil it. It is also
worth noting that when the opposition called and observed a series of countrywide blockades of
road, rail and waterways recently, the incumbents have cried hoarse about its indifference and
insensitivity to the inconveniences caused to the ordinary people. Now, as the opposition has
opted for what it promises will be a peaceful march, the incumbents have employed whatever
tools they have to foil it and, in the process, enforcing their own blockade of road, rail and
waterways and causing immense suffering to people at large.
Such duplicity or double standards seem to have come to define the ruling party attitude and
action in recent years. It is pertinent to recall that the Awami League forced insertion of the
provision for an election-time non-party caretaker government in the constitution through
prolonged and violent street agitations, on the plea of securing the people‘s right to vote. Then, it
used a similar plea to scrap the provision through the 15th amendment to the constitution. That
securing the people‘s right to vote has hardly been its agenda, and that perpetuating control over
state power is its ultimate goal, seems to have been proved beyond doubt by the essentially
farcical election it appears so adamant to hold on January 5, 2014, that too with more than half of
candidates having already won their seats uncontested.
The incumbents need to realise that such despotic and duplicitous actions may prolong their hold
on state power for some time but not for long — that is the lesson from history they seem
unwilling to take. They need to also realise that their intransigence has pushed the country to the
brink of prolonged political uncertainty and social disorder and that if they do not mend their
ways the situation could only turn worse. Hence, they need to change their course, engage
positively with the opposition and peacefully resolve the ongoing impasse.
MONDAY, 30 DECEMBER 2013
8.40 pm: What Shamsher Mubin told Daily Telegraph just few hours before he was
detained
This is the article Bangladesh‘s former prime-minister Khaleda Zia under house arrest
This is what he said in full:
Khaleda Zia is most certainly interned in her hosue. They don‘t allow people to come into or out
of the house. She is interned.
Fact is that though not officially calling it house arrest but for all practical purposes she is under
house arrest
Many senior BNP leaders have been detained since mid November and then whole lot of people
facing trumped up charges, from the Secretary General down including lots of members of the
standing committee. They are in a safe place but would be arrested if they came out.
At the grass roots level, in districts over 1000 leaders and supporters have been arrested.

35. As soon as we see government behaving in a civilized manner where people can travel, then the
‗march for democracy‘ can take place
Anyone who goes near the BNP office right now gets arrested
Different AL groups with poles and sticks are going round the city
The court scenario yesterday was shameful as the police allowed armed thugs to go into the
supreme court and create mayhem. They were all carrying rods and sticks and bamboos sticks.
All the BNP there just had mobile phones on them.
This is the degree of government repression and persecution
You saw how the government at the highest levels, including the prime minister, came down so
crudely on the civil society exercise. It was shameful. In 1/11 (in 2007), she was AL leader who
was first to support the military imposed government and was present at the swearing in
ceremony
I think the government is doing everything it can to push elections down the people‘s throat and
ignoring the very severe negative consequences for the country in terms of legitimacy and
acceptability inside and outside the country.
Everyone is extremely concerned with the Government‘s effort to go ahead with one sided
election
‗I have never before seen such a blanket and abusive use of law enforcement in the history of our
country.
7.55pm BREAKING NEWS: Shamsher Mubin Chowdhury detained after meeting British
High Commissioner
Shahidah Yasmin, the wife of Shamseher Mubin Chowdhury, senior vice-chairman of the
opposition party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, just told me that he had been detained after
his meeting with Khaleda Zia and the British High Commissioner which took place at Zia‘s
house. His wife told me:
'Just after the British High Commisioner left Khaleda Zia's house, three of the BNP leaders came
out and Shamsher got into his car and this was chased and then the car stopped and he was taken.
Only he has been detained. He just called me from the car on his phone and said that the
detective branch had taken him. I have informed the British High Commission, the US embassy,
and the Indian High Commission, I just received the call 15 to 20 minutes ago'
22 hours ago

36. Bangladesh opposition policy on election day has done the
government a great favor. See why:
SATURDAY 4 JANUARY 2014
2.30 pm: What to think about voter turn-out
In a previous entry, a few days ago I argued that after the EU and the USA had made its decision
not to send election monitors, the importance of voter turnout will be limited. Well, maybe I
need to formulate that observation - looking at today‘s media, and with the opposition now
desperate to minimise the turnout and the government to increase it.
The kernel of what I stated earlier though remains true. Had election monitors attended the
election, one of the key issues that they would have considered in determining the election‘s
credibility would have been the turnout. Now, however, the lack of credibility of the election is
not in doubt - so the significance of voter turnout has certainly reduced. Nonetheless, turnout
does continue to have some significance, at least in terms of post election narrative. In 1996,
another of these one sided elections, the turnout was 26 percent for the whole country. The BNP
would like it to be less than that, the AL would like it to be more.
However, the issue of turnout seems to me now to be a pretty irrelevant factor - though for rather
different reasons than the ones you might expect me to say.
Our view of turnout now needs to take into account opposition violence and intimidation. This
will not be an election in which many voters can choose whether or not to vote; many voters will
not vote simply because their polling station has been burnt down or for fear of violence and
intimidation. I have not heard any opposition leader decry this violence in the last 24 hours.
In Dhaka Tribune‘s poll yesterday, there was a suggestion that as many as 40 percent of people
would be willing to vote even in this election - half of the percentage that voted in the 2008
elections. Assuming that their is a correct figure, many of this ‗40 percent‘ will not vote simply
because of opposition violence.
The BNP has done the government a huge favor. Without violence, there would anyway have
been a low turnout in the election in the 147 constituencies where an election is actually taking
place. However, now the AL can argue that any low turnout is simply to do with violence on the
part of the opposition - and in part they will be absolutely right. And what exactly will be the
opposition‘s response to that?
1.10 pm: Indian media begin to question its government position on Bangladesh
This must be difficult times for Indian government foreign policy officials trying to carve out a
coherent Bangladesh foreign policy. Its support for the Awami League government strategy in

37. holding the current elections looks like it is coming unstuck - and the Indian media is starting to
reflect this.
The Hindustan times states ‗An election marred by a boycott undoes much of what has been
gained as far as Bangladesh‘s political maturity is concerned and is no gain for India‘s long-term
strategic interests.‘
And the Hindu states Post-election, Bangladesh appears headed for more volatility, and New
Delhi‘s relations with a government that comes to power through a problematic process will only
get more complicated.
See New Age‘s good summary of recent articles in the Indian media
12.50 pm: A call for aggressive US diplomacy
The Bangladesh government should really be concerned about the perception of the country in
the foreign media. It is almost wholly very negative - particularly in the most influential of
media. Hot on the heals of Bangladesh being designated by Foreign Policy magazine as amongst
its top ‗conflicts to watch‘ in 2014 (joining Syria, Iraq, Libya and Sudan) it has just published an
excruciating critical analysis by two people linked to the Foundation for the Defence of
Democracies - which ends with a call for aggressive US diplomacy
Its title says it all: ‗Return of the Basket Case' with a subtitle 'On the eve of a fundamentally
flawed election, Bangladesh teeters on the edge of the precipice.' Its worth reading in full, but it's
summary is here:
This is a slow-motion train wreck that everyone can see coming. The democratic process is about
to take a major hit in one of the world‘s largest Muslim-majority countries, where poverty
remains endemic and radical Islamists lurk in the wings to exploit any opportunities that may
arise. A fuse has been lit — and if it‘s allowed to go off it will almost certainly result in an
explosion of ever-worsening protests, violence, and instability.
It goes onto call for agressive US diplomacy:
Time is running dangerously short. But aggressive diplomacy, led by Washington, still stands a
chance of avoiding the worst-case outcome and helping Bangladesh‘s citizens salvage the
legitimacy of a democratic process that they‘ve struggled hard to achieve. Though success is by
no means guaranteed, the alternative to trying appears grim, indeed. If ever there was a time to
exhaust the capacity for preventive diplomacy, this is it. With so much of the rest of the Islamic
world descending into turmoil, now is not the time to stand on the sidelines as one of the world‘s
largest Muslim countries slips inexorably into chaos. Its a call is likely to fall on deaf ears - not because the US government officials necessarily
disagree with much of the analysis set out in the article, but Bangladesh is an example of the
limits of diplomacy. There is simply not that much that the US government can do that will result
in the Bangladesh government changing its course. Observers in Bangladesh will in fact have
noticed in the last six months super active diplomacy on the part not just of the US, but also the
European Union, with seemingly negligible impact. Bangladesh is now strong enough particularly with the Indian government‘s support - to stand up to the worlds super-powers and

38. super-blocs. For good or for bad.
12.15 pm: The elections and war crimes trials
One of the government‘s principal justifications for seeking support for its maintenance in power
is the war crimes tribunals. And this argument has its cheer leaders. Of course there is prime
minister‘s son himself, who stated recently ‗Had Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina stepped down as
BNP demanded, Quader Molla would not have been hanged.‘ The opposition, Sajeeb says, is not
concerned about ensuring a free and fair elections but only ‗about saving the war criminals.‘
Then the Daily Star, and other papers have well, have in recent days published a whole series of
articles, praising the tribunal. Professor Rafiqul Islam, a professor of law at Macquarie
University in Sydney, Australia has argued that those convicted by the tribunal was
‗overwhelming‘. Convener of the Canadian Committee for Human Rights and Democracy in
Bangladesh has stated in an article in the same newspaper that the tribunal ‗uphold all possible
rights of the accused‘. And the founder and executive director of the South Asia Democratic
Forum, in another article in the Daily Star has argued that the tribunal, ‗compares favourably
with other tribunals being conducted around the world‘.
And on Friday, a new poll was published suggesting that around three quarters of the adult
population of Bangladesh were ‗satisfied‘ with the tribunal - which if true suggests a big turn
around from polls of only a few months ago which gave an impression that people were
concerned about the proceedings.
So many of the people who write about the tribunal in Bangladesh know almost nothing about it
- or if they do seriously misrepresent the nature of proceedings. They write about a set of
proceedings which they might imagine, or indeed hope, is taking place. They are ideological
pieces, rather than opinion based on fact. For all the good intentions and high principle of
holding trials relating to 1971 (which I support), Bangladesh should not be proud of the judicial
processes that resulted in Molla‘s execution.
For a dose of reality, here is an analysis I have just written on the appellate division judgment the judgement was published a month ago - that resulted ten days later in his hanging. I end the
article by stating:
So, we have a situation where Molla was put to death on the basis of a witness who claimed in
court that the accused was present, but who had in the last 42 years, as far as we know, never
made such an earlier claim, and who had also previously given two statements both of which did
not mention that Molla was present at the crime scene and one of which stated that she was not
even present at the time of the incident – and the appellate division not allowing these statements
to be taken into account by a court.
And then we have a tribunal which precluded Molla from calling witnesses to present his
defence and an appellate division apparently accepting this restriction, along with the reasons
given for the restriction which cuts across the basic principle of defence lawyering.
Supporters of the tribunal point to the legal rights given to the accused including that of having a
lawyer to defend themselves, with all the rights of cross examination of prosecution witnesses.
However, these rights mean nothing in practice if the accused is not allowed to bring witnesses
to the court defend himself, he has no right to cross examine a witness on previous statements