Mukti

The not-so-curious tragedy of AKM Wahiduzzaman

Posted in Freedom of speech, Rights by jrahman on October 23, 2014

AKM Wahiduzzaman is a geographer.  He used to teach the subject at Bangladesh’s National University.  A keen sportsman, he represented Bangladesh in basketball in the 1980s.  And a vocal BNP supporter in various online platforms, he has been in jail twice in last three years.  For the past year, he has been in hiding. He may well be going back to jail soon.  Seeing his ordeals, his father has become seriously ill.

Make no mistake, his ordeal is because of his politics.

He is a very good Bangla commentator, with verve and wit.  He writes galagali free polished Bangla, not indulging in ad hominem attacks — itself an extreme rarity in Bangladeshi cyberspace.  Just as rare is his steadfast and frank support of BNP.  Unlike so many, he does not hide behind so-called non-partisanship.

Because of his politics, he comes under attack from the Awami Leaguers (and their ultra-nationalist ‘useful idiots’) as well as Islamists.  There is nothing curious about that.  And that’s not particularly tragic either — your opponents will try to hurt you, that’s how it works.

It is, however, tragic when those who claim to be neither Awami collaborators nor Islamists — the so-called non-partisans — don’t stand by Mr Wahiduzzaman.  If there is one genuine case in Bangladesh where free speech is under threat, he ought to be the one.  It is a tragedy that this is not the case.

But it’s not at all surprising.  No, not to me.  I am not surprised that our so-called progressives don’t speak out for him.  You see, to our progressive intellectuals and activists, Wahiduzzaman is BNP.

Sanaullah Babu was hacked to death four years ago.  He was BNP. There was no human right violation for him.  Similarly, no rights for Ilias Ali or others who have been abducted.  They are BNP.  So why should it surprise me that no one cares about Wahiduzzaman?

It doesn’t.  And this post isn’t about demanding justice for him.  Because he won’t get it.

Over the fold is an example of Mr Wahiduzzaman’s writing.

ভাষা মতিন বিষয়ে আওয়ামী লীগ আর পলিটিকাল ইসলামিস্টরা আড়াইটা বিষয়ে একমত:

১/ ভাষা মতিন সেকুলার ছিলেন। (চীনপন্থী কমিউনিস্ট হিসেবে উনি অবশ্যই সেক্যুলার ছিলেন)

২/ চিকিৎসা বিজ্ঞানের শিক্ষার্থীদের জন্য মরনোত্তর দেহ দান ইসলাম সম্মত নয়। (এরাই আবার মানুষের মৃতদেহ ব্যবচ্ছেদকারী প্রথম মুসলিম চিকিৎসক ইবনে সিনাকে নিয়ে গর্ব করে! আমার প্রশ্ন হচ্ছে, দেহটা যদি ঐ কাটাকুটির জন্য দান করা ইসলাম সম্মত না হয়, তাহলে শব ব্যবচ্ছেদ করে চিকিৎসাবিজ্ঞান শিক্ষা ইসলাম সম্মত হয় কী করে?)

২.৫/ ভাষা মতিন ভাষা আন্দোলনের নেতৃত্ব দেন নাই। এই পয়েন্টে উনারা অর্ধেক একমত। আওয়ামী লীগের মতে ভাষা আন্দোলনের নেতৃত্ব দিয়েছেন শেখ মুজিব জেলের টয়লেট থেকে চিঠি নিক্ষেপ করে দিক নির্দেশনা দিয়ে আর পলিটিকাল ইসলামিস্টদের দাবী ভাষা আন্দোলনের নেতৃত্ব দিয়েছেন গোলাম আযম ডাকসু জিএস হিসেবে একটি মানপত্র পাঠ করে (আমার জানা মতে গোলাম আযম নিজেও কোনদিন নিজেকে ভাষা আন্দোলনের নেতা দাবী করেন নাই)।

[এদের জ্ঞান দাও প্রভূ, এদের আলো দাও]
On Bhasha Matin, Awami League and political Islamists agree on two-and-a-half points:

1. Bhasha Matin was secular.  (As a pro-China communist, of course he was secular)

2. It is un-Islamic to donate one’s body to medical students.  (And yet, they feel proud of Muslim physician Ibne Sina!  I ask them, if it is un-Islamic to donate the body, then how is medical education that uses corpses Islamic?)

….

2.5.  Bhasha Matin did not lead the Language Movement.  On this point, they only half-agree.  According to the Awami League, the Language Movement was led by Sheikh Mujib, through his letters from the prison toilets, while the Islamists claim that the Language Movement was led by Gholam Azam because as DUCSU GS he read a memo (as far as I know, Golam Azam himself never claimed to be the leader of the Language Movement).

 

Advertisements
Tagged with:

28 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Web Admin said, on October 23, 2014 at 12:04 pm

    nice one jyoti vai. Mubashar.

  2. mirza shamaruh faham said, on October 25, 2014 at 6:59 am

    Good read.

  3. BDAF said, on October 28, 2014 at 2:24 am

    This definitely needed saying.

    Incidentally:

    It is un-Islamic to donate one’s body to medical students. (And yet, they feel proud of Muslim physician Ibne Sina! I ask them, if it is un-Islamic to donate the body, then how is medical education that uses corpses Islamic?)

    It is exactly this kind of woolly thinking that infuriates me in those types of debates. We really need to inject some logic into Islamic debates in Bangladeshi society [and quite frankly, communities abroad too].

    Although I suppose Avicenna after all did belong to one of those blessed Middle Easterner tribes [Arab/Persian], whose very birthright makes them beyond reproach for “some” types [when will that subcontinental mentality die out? It’s getting to be really embarrassing❗]. Got to be higher up on the [disguised] racial pecking order, donchaknow❓

  4. kgazi said, on November 14, 2014 at 2:28 am

    Would it be Un-Hinduistic for a Hindu person to be buried in a grave ? Of course it would, Hinduism prescribes cremation of the dead body, not burial.
    Having said that, I will now be labeled as anti-hindu, anti-secular, biased, discriminatory etc etc. The crime here is that if one speaks about Hinduism, even what is totally factual and polite (like hindu teachings) – then its a blasphemy !! Yet its considered fashionable to humiliate, desecrate and polarize Islamic protocols. To me, this is what is trending towards national current “secularism”.

    • BDAF said, on November 21, 2014 at 2:46 am

      If Islam is up for “scrutiny” of the thinking kind, then surely Hinduism [or any other religion, e.g. Buddhism] should be up for the same too. That’s not even in doubt.

      Probably just be prepared to keep enforcing the debate in a logical, consistent manner so the “other side” are the ones who eventually end up looking nuts.

    • 🔲 Juru Bangla Nobu 🔲 said, on November 22, 2014 at 8:14 am

      @ kgazi

      A lot of that is the fault of [and outgrowth to the philosophy of] our religious right themselves though, where it has become impossible to be both patriotic as a Bangladeshi and proud of being a Muslim. They constantly put the two notions at loggerheads to each other, and it becomes irritating.

      To give an example [and contrast]:

      ▬ A Pakistani calls Bangladeshis “black fish-eaters”. Other Pakistanis may laugh and agree, or they may take offence and chastise. But no fellow Pakistani calls this one an “anti-Muslim” [or “ProIndia”] based on his statement. The very notion would be silly — the statement-maker is a Muslim himself, and it makes no sense. This despite the fact that Bangladeshis are Muslims too.

      ▬ A Bangladeshi calls Pakistanis “bent-nosed hairy retards”. Some Bangladeshis laugh, some chastise. However we now have a situation where a rather large section of Bangladeshis begin to question the statement-makers Islamic-ness, whether they truly believe in Islam, because after all Pakistanis are Muslim and you can’t think such things about fellow Muslims. This despite the fact that the statement-maker in question may very well be overtly Muslim and proud of it.

      It strikes one as double-standards. If you can be a proud Pakistani and your Islamic-ness goes unquestioned, why the change of tune when it comes to Bangladeshis? Your answer to such a question will surely illuminate the nature of the problem much better. Namely, do you find being Bangladeshi and a proud Muslim rather incompatible? Don’t be quick to answer this question, for you must genuinely probe it. While I agree the secular left has somewhat lost it’s head, the religious right has a tendency of being dishonest about where they stand with regards to this [very fundamental] issue.

      For those of us who are proud to be both Bangladeshi and Muslim, it becomes extremely frustrating to experience this double-standard day-to-day.

      🔹 In case you were wondering what the relevance is to your post, it’s that one group ends up getting to monopolize patriot-fervour. They can then set-up a dichotomy whereby if you are a proud true green-and-red, you will not be religious or overtly Muslim in any way. In fact, it will be quite fashionable to bash Islam. 🔹

  5. BoroLokh Mujib said, on November 23, 2014 at 12:00 pm

    Good post.

    But I can hazard a guess why ultranationalist “useful idiots” tend to be favored over ultra-religious “useful idiots”, or at least why there is a skew. I’ve argued with both.

    Ultranationalist idiots are much more pliable to the interests of the nation. So they act like rakhals when it comes to producing an [ill-thought] argument. But provided you can convince them that your argument is in the national interest, they will give it a go. I have had many an argument with these types of fools, and their underlying motivation is a loyalty to the nation, however misguided the approach. So we can come to some understanding.

    But the problem with the ultra-religious, is that they simply do not share this loyalty. It may even be the case that they will be the first to traitor the nation, if it meets their own goals. In fact in general, they don’t display much of any loyalty to Bangladesh. It’s a problem with taking religious goals to their logical extension. Why care about Bangladesh, when we are talking about the world? So this position puts them at a natural disadvantage.

    I’m not sure how to overcome this problem for the ultra-religious, or whether an adequate solution can be found. Can you philosophically marry true patriotism with the logical extension of religious beliefs [where “humanity” in general is at stake]?

    In any case, I find it easier to convince the foolish patriot than the foolish religious zealot. What experiences have the rest of you had?

  6. kgazi said, on November 26, 2014 at 2:37 am

    I find it hard to believe that our religious right themselves make it difficult to be “both patriotic as a Bangladeshi and …a Muslim”. For a start, I know very few Deshis who are muslim but not patriotic. I have never heard of, or seen a Bangladeshi who is non-patriotic – whether hindu or muslim. Just as there are many muslims who are staunt Awami, there are also many hindus who are core BNP. So to me, this whole concept of “religious right” is a figment of political imagination, created by the propaganda-wallas in order to sustain a national divide of “us and them” within the nation.

    No doubt there must be a few muslims who are militant/terrorist both hindu and muslim, who are walking the streets. They will always be there, and they exist in EVERY nation. But they are so few and far-between, that they are hardly worth mentioning.

    Therefore, I personally believe that PARTY POLITICS (not the ‘religious right’) is polarizing the nation with slogans like “juddho oporadhi, anti-liberation forces, rajakar, secular, etc ” to gain an upper hand in profiting from the nation.

    • Pilton Miah said, on December 6, 2014 at 5:53 am

      Agreed with this line:

      ⇒ Therefore, I personally believe that PARTY POLITICS (not the ‘religious right’) is polarizing the nation with slogans like “juddho oporadhi, anti-liberation forces, rajakar, secular, etc ” to gain an upper hand in profiting from the nation. ∎

      But then that is always the case in Bangladesh, isn’t it? Too much focus on issues that have no real importance to the country, like what the <0.5% (of the population) religious "fundamentalists" are up to, and who is a "patriot" or not (as if that question needs answering in Bangladesh, of all places). Too little focus on core issues of real importance, like what we are going to do to address the future skills shortage we will experience (on current trends), and better investment in infrastructure (not just Padma bridge).

      I often think we end up discussing too many emotive issues, and not necessary ones. This is why the country is mired in so much failure, poverty and corruption. Bangladesh needs an increase in competence, not further lectures on how to be a patriot.

      • kgazi said, on December 10, 2014 at 2:49 am

        I have a strange feeling that neighboring countries have a hand in diverting our people and govt’s attention from real issues into USELESS issues. When talking about river-sharing India starts talking about land enclaves.

        It may not be accidental that the nation talks ONLY about “fundamentalists” & “patriots”, there maybe International foreign policies involved !! Talk about conspiracy theories, there has been a lot of that lately !!
        – Shorojontro !!!

      • Liton Chele said, on December 15, 2014 at 12:20 am

        ≪diverting our people and govt’s attention from real issues into USELESS issues. When talking about river-sharing India starts talking about land enclaves.≫

        The settlement of land enclaves [hopefully resulting in a permanent settlement of the complex border and a net exchange of land under our authority to us] isn’t even close to a “useless” issue. Useless issues are like celebrating ’71 with state visits that result in nothing tangible. It’s not like we suddenly forgot about water-sharing. Solution of one problem does not mean forgetting that another pressing concern exists.

        But we were not getting very far on the rivers issues. We finally can make some headway on this. So why not? As I said, it’s not a “useless issue” at all.

        I think you have your priorities mixed up here. You are not dealing with the situation rationally.

      • kgazi said, on December 15, 2014 at 12:31 am

        If I ask for a Chicken, my priority is a Chicken.
        If you are happy with getting an Egg when you ask for a chicken then its you whot’s getting the priority mixed-up.

        And India is good at that. When the issue is major, they will offer you a minor,
        just to keep you in Nirvana. “Yaaaay, I got an enclave. Meanwhile the whole nation is destroyed with desertification, river pollution, forest pollution. Who cares, we got the enclave from India after 65 years of diplomacy”.
        What an achievement !

      • Liton Chele said, on December 15, 2014 at 12:59 am

        ≪If I ask for a Chicken, my priority is a Chicken.
        If you are happy with getting an Egg when you ask for a chicken then its you whot’s getting the priority mixed-up.≫

        This would be true if the only issue were chicken. But if chicken *&* egg are both on the table, and you are making no headway in obtaining the chicken, why not take the egg while you wait? Seems you are content to take home *nothing* and complain about it.

        All countries have their *own* interests at heart. You act like it is a priority for *them* as it is for *us*. It is certainly not, and I’m afraid you have much more to learn about the world if your thinking is otherwise. You must understand the interests of both yourself AND your partner/opponent.

        ≪And India is good at that. When the issue is major, they will offer you a minor,
        just to keep you in Nirvana. “Yaaaay, I got an enclave. Meanwhile the whole nation is destroyed with desertification, river pollution, forest pollution. Who cares, we got the enclave from India after 65 years of diplomacy”.≫

        This is a silly view of the situation. To call it a “useless issue” is simply false. Now that you have once again changed your position on this [from “useless” to “minor”], I think you must also concede that the river issue has NOT abated due to this. It is on a list of our priorities. As a side note, you should really read up on the issue to understand it’s economic/geographic significance, since you seem to be totally misinformed on it.

        So perhaps you can enlighten me, what should we do differently in this situation [diplomatically, militarily, economically, etc.]?

        That’s right. No [realistic] answers. But somehow taking a positive action that benefitted us [if implemented correctly] served as an excuse to criticize a totally separate issue that has had no resolution for the past 25 years!

        I see logic is not your strong point.

      • kgazi said, on December 15, 2014 at 2:53 am

        Your personal attack in every response reflects our current “politician’s” habit.
        So this is where I stop wasting my time.

      • Liton Chele said, on December 15, 2014 at 2:10 pm

        ≪Of course my opinion will seem “incoherent”, it does not jive with mainstream propaganda.≫

        Your opinion seems incoherent because it’s incoherent. No blaming “mainstream propaganda” for this one.

        ≪But to declare ALL patriots as feristas is ridiculous≫

        Straw-man. You seem apt at constructing them. Closer to the chattering classes than you think.

    • Liton Chele said, on December 14, 2014 at 6:06 am

      ≪So to me, this whole concept of “religious right” is a figment of political imagination, created by the propaganda-wallas in order to sustain a national divide of “us and them” within the nation.≫

      No, it’s not a figment of the imagination; that’s exaggeration. It’s true that just as nationalist crazies can be “useful idiots” for certain parties, the religious right can become a target for the unscrupulous to focus their motives on. But their status as a target doesn’t come from nowhere. I’ve hung around these religious types long enough to know that. Either you are blindly ignoring the obvious, you are simply making excuses for them, or you are very naive and have not entered that particular domain.

      This is not talking about the large majority of Bangladeshis who practice their religion [Islam]. But there is definitely a minority element there that are “troublesome” and rather unwholesome, and this is disproportionate to their numbers. Between them and the nationalist crazies, I’m more inclined to side with the nationalist crazies. They typically have the country’s best interests at heart. At least we [roughly] know which side we are fighting on. The religious crazies have other interests besides nationalism, and since it is nationalism we are talking about, that tends to create a bit of a problem.

      ≪No doubt there must be a few muslims who are militant/terrorist both hindu and muslim, who are walking the streets.≫

      I agree it’s not about Islam, though. If we were Hindu-majority, no doubt we would have the same sorts of problems that India is experiencing with far-right Hindu groups & RSS. Religious crazies are religious crazies, after all.

      • kgazi said, on December 14, 2014 at 11:42 am

        And by the same token, not all so-called ‘nationalist crazies’ have the country’s best either either.
        As I said earlier, some have their personal pocket-filling interest above national interest, and some will even work in the interest of non-muslim nations in the guise of “nationalism”, just because anything Islamic has been propagandized as “anti-national” by themselves !!

        Yet, these fraudulent, anti-islamic, corrupt nationalists are never the target of propaganda – even when they act OPENLY against the best interest of the nation. The world of politics only focuses on the “religious right”, but gives freedom of crime to the Mir Jaforian Left.

      • Liton Chele said, on December 14, 2014 at 10:27 pm

        ≪some have their personal pocket-filling interest above national interest≫

        However this is a very different type of interest to those of the [extreme wings of the] religious right [which you deny even exist]. We are all ultimately self-interested perps. But the tools required to bargain with this particular kind of corruption is far more well-understood and negotiated by “true patriots” than that of religious crazies. There is at least a fair rationale behind this type of “corruption”.

        In a market economy, everyone wants to be the rich guy. If we have a room full of “true patriots”, that includes many of them too. But this self-interested action is common to all man in a free society [perhaps, to varying degrees]. It is something we are calculating all the time.

        The point is, the corrupt nationalist crazies are looking to fill their pockets, but it is not at the expense of the country, explicitly. Why not? For it is the country itself that provides the source of wealth for them. Why butcher your own cash cow? Yes, the rich may flee to America or Switzerland. But their position is far from secure there. If anything, you wish to entrench both your position in society and fatten up your cash cow. In Bangladesh, being a resource-poor country, that comes through extraction of rent [from the population]. The richer the society, the more rent you can extract. So at least indirectly, there is a good reason that a corrupt nationalist has for ensuring his society has greater wealth [provided they can stay there to collect].

        This may also be the case for some religious crazies. As I have noted before, in a free society, we all have our own interests. That includes some wannabe-rich religious extremists. But they very often have other interests that do not lend themselves to negotiation in the same way as the above corrupt nationalist. If a corrupt nationalist spots an opportunity to line their pockets at the expense of the nation, you can dissuade him through compensation and negotiation — again, why would he wish to purposefully bury his golden egg? But when the religious crazies spot the same opportunity to further their agenda at the expense of the nation, what are you to do? What tools do you use to negotiate with?

        This is the fundamental problem with religious crazies the world over [as I wrote before, the religion does not matter]. It’s much more difficult to game-theory them into submission, because the chips you usually bring to the bargaining table don’t have any value to them. Hence why even moderate Islamic voices who tend to support Islamic issues [broadly defined] and see the country as fundamentally Muslim [in theory, if not in practice] have such difficulty embracing them.

        ≪and some will even work in the interest of non-muslim nations in the guise of “nationalism”≫

        This strikes me as confusion between two different things. Are they working in the interests of “non-Muslim nations” or primarily themselves? Perhaps you think the former, in which case I strongly disagree. I think they are clearly working in their own interests, and if they happen to coincide with the interests of another nation, then so be it. Hasina purports friendship with India, but clearly is willing to make back-door deals with China and expand military ties. She will strengthen her position in power through extra-judicial/political means [as we have seen], but I find the notion that she is “anti-national” and specifically working against Bangladesh’s interests to be utterly preposterous [though the end result may be less than ideal for BD].

        Her supporters are also not above lining their own pockets. But almost none of them would do what you are suggesting i.e. desh-becha, if only because it conflicts with their own self-interest [what other nation will offer them a guaranteed paycheck?]. This when viewed as a long-term game. So in the long-run, we at least have some form of bargaining terms with these people.

        That is certainly not the case with the religious right-wing crazies, who are openly talking about the illegitimacy of the nation, and things I’m sure most readers would be familiar with. We [by which I mean concerned citizens, even those who are mildly religiously inclined as I described above] have nothing to bargain with these people over, which is why any incident involving them frequently turns violent [of course this is doubly bad when we involve RABs on Hasina’s payroll and other such goondas].

        As I said, I’m no stranger to this particular domain. I have some sympathy for what they are going through now. But I think you have to understand that in order to gain widespread appeal, they are going to have to change quite a bit of their operating characteristics and how they frame the discussion in Bangladesh. As it stands, like another poster wrote, it is very difficult to wave the flag and be a proud Bangladeshi around these people.

      • kgazi said, on December 14, 2014 at 10:49 pm

        You are mis-representing my comment, I said BOTH ‘religious right’ & ‘nationalist crazies’ exist, but only the religious right get all the blame, while the ‘nationalist crazies’ get the credit. Yet they exist in equal numbers.

        If you think nationalist crazies are not doing desh-becha then you TOO must be naïve. If these nationalist feristas are **only** lining their pockets, and giving a damn to what India is planning behind their backs, then the nation deserves these politicians.

      • Liton Chele said, on December 14, 2014 at 11:49 pm

        You wrote:

        ≪So to me, this whole concept of “religious right” is a figment of political imagination, created by the propaganda-wallas in order to sustain a national divide of “us and them” within the nation.≫

        Am I to take it that your position on such a matter has been amended, or that you retract this earlier statement?

        ≪If you think nationalist crazies are not doing desh-becha then you TOO must be naïve. If these nationalist feristas are **only** lining their pockets, and giving a damn to what India is planning behind their backs, then the nation deserves these politicians.≫

        What I stated was that they are not explicitly setting out with such an agenda. They are lining their own pockets. This is not something peculiar to Bangladesh, it exists all around the world including the country you seem to have made your bogeyman, India. Politicians and their back-scratchers are self-interested too.

        But the difference is, this is rather common behaviour that in our situation can have it’s advantages, as there is an interest in achieving higher rates of growth to create a richer society to skim wealth from. That doesn’t mean that we don’t fight against such behaviour. But doing so requires better institutions, and that takes time. I don’t understand what alternative you are providing.

        However, I DO think it is an improvement over extreme factions of religious groups, because if we do not meet their specific aims I’m not sure how we can change/alter/negotiate them. As I stated in my above post, what do we have to bargain with?

        Brother, every group accuses the other of “desh-becha”. Why would I listen to one group over another? I would measure what each group is trying to achieve in order to assess the best direction for the country to move in. I see it as more realistic.

        What you are in effect doing is accusatory in nature. “Oh we have corruption”. Great, but so does every country and so did we during virtually every government. Yes, the sums may be higher. But that’s only because the country is richer. If we are so worried about corruption, why not talk about strengthening the institutions? Why should we even start talking about “anti-Islam” this, and that? It shows bias.

        To sum up, I feel that the corruption of those “nationalists”, while requiring attention and measures to mitigate against them, are manageable. I don’t feel the same way about the extreme factions of the “religious right”. The former is a problem in every country [on a large scale]. The latter is a problem in a select few countries [on a large scale], and those countries are mired in strife and instability, because it is a far more potent vehicle for economic/societal breakdown.

        So even if I agree with you that “they exist in equal numbers”, I cannot agree that they are mirror images of one another.

      • kgazi said, on December 15, 2014 at 12:25 am

        Its a fact whether you agree or not.

      • Liton Chele said, on December 15, 2014 at 1:02 am

        ≪Its a fact whether you agree or not.≫

        Unfortunately, this “fact” is just your opinion. Which seems less coherent and logical as our discussion moves on.

      • kgazi said, on December 15, 2014 at 2:44 am

        Of course my opinion will seem “incoherent”, it does not jive with mainstream propaganda.
        But to declare ALL patriots as feristas is ridiculous, of course this matches “patriotic” opinion !!

    • Liton Chele said, on December 15, 2014 at 2:05 pm

      I think you would make better use of your time by coming up with more coherent arguments. That way you wouldn’t have to continuously back-track on what you previously wrote.

  7. fugstar said, on November 27, 2014 at 9:34 pm

    Very strange discourse sampling Jyoti.

    well…. erm curated

    Apollo Bhai is a legend, Allahuma preserve him and his family.

    Id be as interested as any in the bioethical discussions at the Ibn Sina, My reasoned guess it that hospital complex has had very fraught couple of years and that its ethical performance would rate quite highly.

  8. BDAF said, on December 4, 2014 at 11:10 am

    Just as rare is his steadfast and frank support of BNP. Unlike so many, he does not hide behind so-called non-partisanship.

    Actually, just to clear something up Jyoti bhai, I was wondering the precise meaning of this statement. I knew I was bothered by it the first time I read it, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on it.

    Are you talking about those who are actually partisan but deny it? Or are you somewhat disdainful of those who choose non-partisanship in general [with respect to Bangladesh]?

  9. kgazi said, on December 5, 2014 at 2:51 am

    Meanwhile, while this massive drive against the invisible “Islamic terrorism” is sweeping the nation, nobody seems to care about the glaringly visible & WORSENING situation of Corruption in Bangladesh during last 7 years (per latest Transparency Intl report 2014).
    Bangali blogs are silent in approval !!?
    Commerce Minister thinks its Transparency Intl’ who is the real culprit. Read link:

    http://www.thefinancialexpress-bd.com/2014/12/04/69359

  10. kgazi said, on December 7, 2014 at 10:25 pm

    And in the same newspaper on the same day, the ACC which is supposed to reduce corruption says the “TI report is unacceptable” !! It appears that any report that is “international” about BD is unacceptable to ACC. In BD today we have our own perception of corruption – and that is – we know corruption, we are Bangalis, don’t tell us how to rob the people, we do it with style. Just make sure we remain shadhin Bangla, and give us the freedom of stealing.

    http://www.thefinancialexpress-bd.com/2014/12/04/69256


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: