Details of House of Commons debate on Bangladesh

 

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Mr. Hugo Swire 

Photograph: Parliament TV

The following are details of a debate on Bangladesh in the UK House of Commons, May 24, 2016.

Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind):

What recent discussions he has had with his Bangladeshi counterpart on the protection of human rights in that country. [905038]

Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab):

What representations he has made to the Government of Bangladesh on violence towards lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in that country. [905044]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire):

I would like to start by expressing my condolences to the families of those who lost loved ones and homes to Cyclone Roanu over the weekend. I welcome the strong leadership shown by the Government of Bangladesh.

I raised my concerns about human rights and violence against LGBT people again this morning with the Bangladeshi high commissioner. The Minister of State, Department for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne), raised this with the Prime Minister of Bangladesh during his visit there in August 2015.

Simon Danczuk:

With extra-judicial killings, disappearances of political opponents and fraudulent elections, Bangladesh is quickly becoming a failed state. Does the Minister not think that it is time to start applying some form of sanctions to try to get Sheikh Hasina to hold a proper general election as soon as possible?

Mr Swire:

Like all those in this House, I was absolutely appalled by the senseless murders of the LGBT activists Xulhaz Mannan and Mahbub Tonoy, and we call on the Bangladeshi Government to bring those responsible for the killings to justice. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Extremist-related murders of members of minority religious groups and those whose views and lifestyles are contrary to Islam have increased in Bangladesh since February 2015, and we are discussing this regularly with the Government of that country.

Alex Cunningham:

The Minister has said that he has talked to the Bangladeshi Government, but does he really think that that Government are taking sufficient steps to tackle the issue of violence against LGBT people?

Mr Swire:

Clearly I do not. We have a certain amount of leverage in Bangladesh—we are the largest grant aid donor, giving £162 million in 2015-16—so our voice has some influence there. In the past year our human rights and democracy programme has provided safety training for bloggers, and we have also funded a project promoting the rights of LGBT groups in Bangladesh, but there is a huge amount more to do. We are not shy of pushing the Government of Bangladesh in the right direction, but sometimes it takes a little bit of time and persuasion.

Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con):

The human rights of secularists in Bangladesh are threatened. Last month, Nazimuddin Samad, a law student in Dhaka, was killed for blogging, “I have no religion.” Will my right hon. Friend raise this with his Bangladeshi counterparts and ensure that secularists’ rights are also protected in Bangladesh?

Mr Swire:

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There was not only the Daesh-claimed killing on 9 April in Dhaka of Nazimuddin Samad, but the murder on 23 April of Rezaul Karim Siddique in Rajshahi, in the east of the country. This is becoming an all too familiar occurrence in Bangladesh. There is a disagreement: Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina blames the opposition ​parties for trying to destabilise the country and the victims for insulting Islam; we think the problem goes beyond that.

Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con):

Do not the Government of Bangladesh’s inability to protect human rights and the absence of effective opposition to that Government require the UK Government, which continues to provide substantial aid to Bangladesh, to have a timetable for intervention to ensure that democracy and human rights continue in that country and do not fall under a single-party state?

Mr Swire:

I do not think my hon. Friend is suggesting that we should tie our aid, which helps some of the worst-off people in the world, with political progress, but I take on board his point. There is much more we can do in Bangladesh and we are trying, not least through the role of the new Commonwealth Secretary-General. Bangladesh is of course a member of the Commonwealth and we want the Commonwealth to take more action in that country, which at the moment is not heading in the right direction.

Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP):

Around 70 to 80 women and children are trafficked from Bangladesh abroad each day. Law enforcement is failing to prevent forced prostitution. What discussions is the Foreign Secretary having to press that legal systems prevail for women and girls in Bangladesh?

Mr Swire:

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, although of course it is not just Bangladesh that is affected. We have done a lot on human trafficking through legislation; we have also done a lot on the supply chain, where I know there are concerns. We continue to raise the matter, not just in Bangladesh but in countries around the world. It is something we want to erase. It is unfortunately all too common and we take it seriously.

Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab):

I am delighted to hear that the Minister is so concerned about the recent killings of liberal activists in Bangladesh. He mentioned the brutal murder on 25 April of Xulhaz Mannan, editor of the country’s first and only LGBT magazine, and the appalling fatal machete attack on blogger Nazimuddin Samad on 6 April. Surely the Government of Bangladesh have been far too slow to act. What additional pressure are he and the Government prepared to put on the Government of Bangladesh to ensure that these murders are dealt with properly?

Mr Swire:

The Government of Bangladesh would argue, as the high commissioner did to me this morning, that one of the victims of these crimes was a cousin of a former Foreign Minister of Bangladesh, so this is something they are taking extremely seriously. I do believe that Bangladesh has a problem, and we will continue to talk to our Bangladeshi counterparts on a range of issues, some of which are of very great concern.

Source: Hansard

Growing concerns for elderly journalist hospitalised after being held in solitary confinement

Siobhan Fenton / The Independent, UK

Shafik Rehman (center) pictured in East London last year at his book launch. Also pictured left to right: His granddaughter Prianka, daughter-in-law Bilkis Arzu, grandson Zubeen and son Shumit Photo supplied by family

An elderly British-Bangladeshi journalist has been hospitalised after being held in solitary confinement and denied medical care in prison, his family have claimed.

Shafik Rehman, 81, is a prominent journalist with dual British and Bangladeshi citizenship. He has supported pro-opposition groups in the country and was arrested on 16 April on accusations of plotting to kidnap and kill the Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s son Sajeeb Wazed.

He denies the charges, which his family have denounced as “completely farcical”.  He is the third pro-opposition editor to be detained in Bangladesh since 2013.

Speaking to The Independent, Mr Rehman’s son Shumit said his father has been rushed to hospital in Dhaka with severe chest pains and diarrhoea.

“My father is being held in solitary confinement in a maximum security cell, pending investigation. That is not how the law works at any level, certainly not at his age. No charges have been made," he said.

“For the last month, he has been made to sleep on the floor, without a fan, locked up for 23 hours a day. He has a stent in his artery and is diabetic, he needs his medicine every day. No one is providing this.”

Mr Rehman is now in a stable condition and has been moved from hospital to a Dhaka jail with medical facilities, but his family say they are increasingly concerned for his health. Shumit Rehman has called on British authorities to intervene in the case.

Amnesty International has said the conditions in which Mr Rehman is being held are a contravention of Bangladesh’s obligations under international law to detain people without “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".

Champa Patel, director of the human rights group’s South Asia division, said: “The Bangladeshi authorities must end the prolonged solitary confinement of Shafik Rehman and ensure his well-being.

"It is absolutely shocking that an 81-year-old diabetic man with a history of heart problems is being denied the medical care he needs.”

Mr Rehman is a well-known journalist in Bangladesh and has previously worked as a speechwriter for the leader of the Bangladesh opposition party as well as chairing a pro-opposition think-tank.

He is credited with introducing Valentine's Day as a holiday to Bangladesh. He has previously worked for the BBC in London and is a chartered accountant in England. He resides in the UK for about six months a year.

His son Shumit’s MP, Matthew Offord, told The Independent that he was aware of the situation and had made representations to the Foreign Office and Secretary of State on the family’s behalf.

“All appropriate action has been taken in a difficult and sensitive situation," he said.

The British High Commission in Bangladesh did not respond when approached by The Independent for comment on the case.

What’s behind the violence in Bangladesh?

By: Simon Wilson / MoneyWeek

Two disturbing developments have seen Bangladesh attract global headlines for all the wrong reasons. First, a series of religiously motivated murders of more than two dozen secular bloggers, liberals, foreigners and others since 2013 has raised fears that Bangladesh is sliding towards Islamist extremism. In the past few weeks alone, those hacked to death by machete-wielding assassination squads include a professor of English, a gay rights activist and a Sufi cleric.

Second, this month, the 73-year-old leader of Bangladesh’s largest Islamist political party was executed for crimes against humanity during the war of independence from Pakistan in 1971. Motiur Rahman Nizami, the leader of Jamaat-e-Islami, was the fourth senior member of his party to be executed since the governing party, the Awami League, set up a tribunal in 2010. Another politician, from the main opposition Bangladesh National Party (BNP – in coalition government with Jamaat until 2009), has been executed too.

How are these events related?

Both the murders and the judicial executions have stoked international fears that Bangladesh is sliding towards authoritarian one-party rule, yet has a government that is unwilling or unable to counter the threat from domestic and global jihadism. The Awami League’s decision to set up an International Crimes Commission to prosecute those responsible for atrocities during the 1971 war was popular. Yet the tribunal has become a “witch hunt to weaken opposition to the League rather than a search for justice”, says The Economist.

This, along with an upsurge in extra-judicial killings, torture and disappearances, and an assault by the security forces and judiciary on critical voices, including newspaper editors and liberal and Islamist politicians, has eroded faith in the rule of law.

What of the jihadist threat?

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina blames the “Jamaat-BNP nexus” for the killings, calling them “secret and heinous murders to destabilise the country”. But most commentators think the perpetrators are domestic jihadists with putative links to Islamic State or al-Qaeda, part of the wider emergence of jihadist groups in several Asian countries (see sidebar).

But despite her clarity of purpose in executing the “pro-Pakistan” war criminals of Jamaat, Hasina has given succour to jihadists by failing to stand up for secularism and pluralism; she has condemned the writings of atheist bloggers as akin to “porn”, and observed that “it’s not at all acceptable if anyone writes against our prophet or other religions”.

Next in the Awami attempt to paint its opponents as unBangladeshi is a new law making it illegal to question the official history, in which three million people are said to have died in the war of independence.

How many did die?

A 1976 study in the journal Population Studies put the number of deaths caused by the war at about 500,000, many due to disease and malnutrition. In 2008 an article in the British Medical Journal put the number of violent deaths at around 269,000.

However, in Bangladesh the accepted figure is three million – a number popularised after the war by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the then-leader of the Awami League, who became the independent country’s first president. He is a revered figure, and the father of the current prime minister.

Yet Rahman’s biographer, Sayyid Karim (also his first foreign secretary), viewed the number as “a gross exaggeration”. But the three million figure has, for many Bangladeshis, and in particular the Awami League, become a totemic element of the struggle for national liberation. Under a draft law called the Liberation War (Denial, Distortion, Opposition) Crimes Act, it will become a crime to make “inaccurate”, “malicious” or “trivialising” statements that “undermine any events” relating to the war.

Bangladesh-based journalist David Bergman, writing in The New York Times, has warned that the legislation is intentionally broad and ill-defined, and will almost certainly be used to prosecute anyone who deviates from Awami views.

Is that really likely?

Unfortunately, yes. BNP leader Khaleda Zia – Hasina’s long-term rival – is already being prosecuted for sedition for merely remarking that “there is a debate about how many hundreds of thousands were martyred in the liberation war”. Zia was also charged earlier this month with masterminding arson attacks during anti-government protests last year – the latest in a string of charges she claims are politically motivated.

Many in Bangladesh fear that Hasina’s rule has become so repressive – and the bitterness between her and Zia so poisonous – that she can never stand down for fear of reprisals by a future BNP government. “They both see this as almost a final battle,” says one economic analyst quoted by the FT on condition of anonymity. “My concern is that we may be moving into a ‘new normal’, in which there’s a high level of more or less suppressed violence, very little political space and eruptions
of unrest.”

Bangladesh’s Accommodation of Extremism Spells Danger for the Region

With a series of attacks and no crackdown on extremism, Bangladesh retreats from its secular, democratic beginnings

Sumit Ganguly / YaleGlobal Online

BLOOMINGTON: A specter is haunting Bangladesh – the specter of unbridled, violent religious extremism with attacks on intellectuals, journalists, bloggers and religious minorities. The Islamic State and other forms of fundamentalism are on the rise in the country of 156 million. Unfortunately, neither of the two major political parties, the professedly secular Awami League, AL, and the more religiously inclined, right-of-center Bangladesh Nationalist Party, BNP, has demonstrated any interest in containing these developments. This mostly poverty-stricken nation has, thanks to massive infusions of foreign assistance as well as the dramatic growth of non-governmental organizations, made significant dents on child mortality and maternal health. Despite these laudable achievements, its record in guaranteeing the rights of religious, ethnic and other minorities is abysmal.

Worse still, the present regime, in denial about religious extremism, finds this trend to be politically expedient.  The ostensible need for sweeping powers to curb such religious violence enables the regime to further aggrandize its political power. If extremist movements are not curbed, Bangladesh could well become an epicenter for Islamic radicalism. Given its proximity to other substantial Muslim populations in both South and Southeast Asia, the emergence of such religious extremism could have profound destabilizing consequences well beyond the reaches of the country.

Both Southeast and South Asia have had brushes with religious zealotry, and growth of bigotry and violence in Bangladesh could have major spillover effects. In the region, especially in the adjoining states of West Bengal and Assam in India, the tides of religious extremism could encourage Muslim and Hindu radicals alike. Muslim zealots may feel encouraged to press their parochial agendas. In turn, their Hindu counterparts could highlight their rise and promote their own violent programs. Unfortunately, it appears that despite professedly secular and democratic credentials, the current Bangladeshi regime of Sheikh Hasina Wajed is at least tacitly allowing such zealotry to flourish.  In considerable part, willingness to dally with these extremists stems from an attempt to marginalize the organized religious party, the Jamaat-i-Islami, which is politically tainted owing to the association of several of members with the 1971 genocide. Indeed in early May, the government sent a Jamaat leader, Motiur Rahman Nizami, to the gallows for alleged involvement in the killing of fellow Bengalis during the civil war.

The attacks on free thinkers are well-documented and number in the dozens. A few salient examples should be cited.  One of the most recent incidents involved the murder of Rezaul Karim Siddique, a teacher of English at Rajshahi University.  The Islamic State claimed responsibility for his killing on the grounds that he was an atheist.  Locals claimed that he was not killed owing to his lack of religious convictions and instead argued that he was a victim because of his support for various cultural activities, especially musical soirees, an anathema in the austere version of Islam that the Islamic State seeks to promote.

In April, a prominent gay rights activist and a member of the editorial board of the magazine Roopbaan, Xulhaz Mannan, was hacked to death at his Dhaka apartment. Once again Islamic State extremists took responsibility for his killing while local police authorities attributed the murder to local militants.

Religious minorities are also under siege. In February of this year after a series of attacks on Hindu temples, a priest, Jogeshwar Roy, was killed while organizing prayers at a local temple in Deviganj, a town a few hundred miles north of Dhaka. Once again the Islamic State claimed responsibility. The government, yet again, attributed his death to local militants. In May a 75 year-old Buddhist monk was hacked to death in his temple in Cox Bazar. Though no evidence is readily available, this incident could have been spurred because of a spate of attacks that Buddhist monks have launched against virtually stateless Rohingya Muslims in neighboring Myanmar.


Sheikh Hasina has publicly decried these tragic incidents with various qualifications. At least on one occasion, in the aftermath of the killing of two self-declared atheist professors, she stated: “If anybody thinks they have no religion, OK, it’s their personal view… But they have no right to write or speak against any religion. … When you are living in a society, you have to honor the social values, you have to honor others’ feelings.”
Her reluctance to unequivocally condemn these horrific attacks and the perpetrators is fraught with political significance. The country’s current political context helps explain such ambivalence.

Despite the trappings of democracy, the country is steadily lurching towards authoritarianism in many ways. In 2014, the Awami League won an overwhelming parliamentary majority as the principal opposition, BNP, had chosen to boycott the elections. Since then the party of Sheikh Hasina has relentlessly harassed the opposition and its supporters. This includes lodging cases of sedition against the party’s leader, Begum Khaleda Zia.

Violent clashes between followers of the two parties have become all but routine.

The opposition has, for all practical purposes, been decimated, the freedom of the press is under widespread attack, the judiciary mostly pliant with police forces largely politicized. Against this distressing political backdrop, Sheikh Hasina has attempted to consolidate her power, evincing an unwillingness for a swift crackdown on the fanatics. Some astute political observers argue that her reticence is actually part and parcel of a strategy to undermine an already anemic opposition.

A more insidious development, however, has been the administration’s attempt to muzzle Bangladesh’s normally feisty press.  The most well-known case involves Mahfuz Anam, highly regarded editor of the Dhaka-based paper, The Daily Star. Anam now faces 79 cases in various courts owing to his admission that he published a possibly erroneous allegation about corruption in Sheikh Hasina’s government.

The government has also lodged charges against Shafik Rehman, the editor of a noted Bengali monthly, because of his putative involvement in an unlikely plot to abduct and kill Sheikh Hasina’s son in the United States.

The attacks on the press, in no small measure, are possible because of a sweeping piece of legislation – the Information, Communication and Technology Act – first passed in 2006 and amended in 2013 with more draconian provisions, some so vague that the government now assumes extraordinary powers of prosecution. Indeed, the scope is such that it was used to incarcerate an electronic shop owner, Tonmoy Malick for selling a recording of a song that parodied both Sheikh Hasina and her father, Sheikh Mujibur Rehman.

The regime may well assume that the risks inherent in its tacit toleration of religious extremism, whether local or international, are manageable and useful. Sheikh Hasina may have concluded that she can coopt fundamentalists to further marginalize the already weakened BNP and its allies.

However, the experiences of other leaders, for example, Indira Gandhi and Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale in India, or various Sri Lankan politicians and the Buddhist clergy in Sri Lanka who have sought to harness religious bigots to pursue political ends suggests the contrary. Religious dogmatists, especially those that embrace violence, have their own agendas. Given free rein, they work to expand the ambit of their activities and often return to haunt those who gave them leeway in the first place.

Bangladesh was initially created as a democratic and secular state. It has gone through the vicissitudes of military rule, witnessed a shrinking of its democratic space and now sees a frontal assault on its secular ethos. If the regime continues to flirt with Islamists, it may not only ring the death knell of the country’s fragile democracy and secular traditions, but worse spread the virus of extremism into India and as far as Thailand and Malaysia.

Sumit Ganguly holds the Rabindranath Tagore Chair in Indian Cultures and Civilizations at Indiana University, Bloomington, and is a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, Philadelphia.

আওয়ামী লীগের ৮ বছরে খেলাপি ঋণ বেড়েছে ৬২ হাজার কোটি টাকা

শীর্ষ নিউজ, ঢাকা: 

দেশে ব্যাংক খাতের খেলাপি ঋণ ১ লাখ কোটি টাকা ছাড়িয়ে গেছে। বাংলাদেশ ব্যাংকের সর্বশেষ তথ্য অনুযায়ী, গত মার্চ পর্যন্ত খেলাপি হয়েছে ৫৯ হাজার ৪১১ কোটি টাকা।

শুধু জানুয়ারি থেকে মার্চ পর্যন্ত তিন মাসেই ব্যাংক খাতের খেলাপি ঋণ বেড়েছে ৮ হাজার কোটি টাকার বেশি। আর খেলাপি হওয়ার পর আদায়ের সম্ভাবনা না থাকায় এ পর্যন্ত ৪১ হাজার ২৩৭ কোটি টাকার ঋণ অবলোপন করা হয়েছে।

বাংলাদেশ ব্যাংক ও বিভিন্ন ব্যাংক থেকে পাওয়া তথ্যে দেখা গেছে, গত মার্চ পর্যন্ত ব্যাংক খাতের খেলাপি ঋণ ৫৯ হাজার ৪১১ কোটি টাকা। এ সময় পর্যন্ত ব্যাংকগুলো অবলোপন করেছে ৪১ হাজার ২৩৭ কোটি টাকা। অর্থাৎ মোট খেলাপি ঋণ দাঁড়িয়েছে ১ লাখ ৬৪৮ কোটি টাকা। সরকারি খাতের ব্যাংকগুলোর পাশাপাশি বেসরকারি খাতের ব্যাংকগুলোও খেলাপি ও অবলোপনে রয়েছে একই কাতারে।

বাংলাদেশ ব্যাংক সূত্রে প্রাপ্ত তথ্যানুযায়ী,  দেশের ৫৬টি ব্যাংকের বর্তমানে (মার্চ শেষে) বিতরণ করা ঋণের স্থিতি দাঁড়িয়েছে ৫ লাখ ৯৮ হাজার ৯০১ কোটি টাকা, যা ২০১৫ সালের ডিসেম্বরে ছিল ৫ লাখ ৮৪ হাজার ৬১৫ কোটি টাকা। জানুয়ারি থেকে মার্চ পর্যন্ত তিন মাসে বিতরণকৃত ঋণের পরিমাণ বেড়েছে মাত্র ১৪ হাজার ২৮৬ কোটি টাকা। কিন্তু এ সময়ে খেলাপি ঋণের পরিমাণ বেড়েছে ৮ হাজার ৪০ কোটি টাকা।

গত বছরের মার্চে খেলাপি ঋণের পরিমাণ ছিল ৫৪ হাজার ৬৫৭ কোটি টাকা, যা ওই সময় পর্যন্ত বিতরণ করা ঋণের ১০ দশমিক ৪৭ শতাংশ। তবে ঋণ পুনঃতফসিলের সুযোগ দেয়ায় ২০১৫ সালের ডিসেম্বরে খেলাপি ঋণের স্থিতি কমে ৫১ হাজার কোটি টাকায় নেমে আসে, যা ছিল ওই সময় পর্যন্ত বিতরণ করা ঋণের ৮ দশমিক ৭৯ শতাংশ। ২০১৪ সাল শেষে বিতরণ করা ঋণের স্থিতি ছিল ৫ লাখ ১৭ হাজার ৮৩৭ কোটি টাকা। সে সময়ে খেলাপি ঋণের পরিমাণ ছিল ৫০ হাজার ১৫৫ কোটি টাকা, যা বিতরণ করা ঋণের ৯ দশমিক ৬৯ শতাংশ।

বাংলাদেশ ব্যাংকের তথ্য অনুযায়ী, মার্চ শেষে রাষ্ট্রায়ত্ত সোনালী, রূপালী, অগ্রণী, জনতা, বেসিক ও বিডিবিএল ব্যাংকের খেলাপি ঋণের পরিমাণ দাঁড়িয়েছে ২৭ হাজার ২৮৯ কোটি টাকা, যা এ খাতের ব্যাংকগুলোর বিতরণ করা ঋণের ২৪ দশমিক ২৭ শতাংশ। খেলাপি ঋণে দ্বিতীয় অবস্থানে রয়েছে বিশেষায়িত ব্যাংকগুলো। চলতি বছরের প্রথম প্রান্তিকে রাষ্ট্রায়ত্ত কৃষি ও রাজশাহী কৃষি উন্নয়ন ব্যাংকের খেলাপি ঋণের পরিমাণ দাঁড়িয়েছে ৪ হাজার ৯৬৯ কোটি টাকা, যা এ খাতের ব্যাংকগুলোর বিতরণ করা ঋণের ২৩ দশমিক ২৪ শতাংশ।

বেসরকারি ৩৯টি ব্যাংকের খেলাপি ঋণের পরিমাণ দাঁড়িয়েছে ২৫ হাজার ৩৩১ কোটি টাকা, যা এ খাতের বিতরণ করা ঋণের ৫ দশমিক ৭৫ শতাংশ। এছাড়া বিদেশি ৯ ব্যাংকের খেলাপি ঋণের পরিমাণ ১ হাজার ৮২২ কোটি টাকা, যা এ খাতের ব্যাংকগুলোর বিতরণ করা ঋণের ৭ দশমিক ৫১ শতাংশ।

বাংলাদেশ ব্যাংকের নিজস্ব হিসাব, প্রকাশনার তথ্যের পাশাপাশি আন্তর্জাতিক মুদ্রা তহবিল, বিশ্বব্যাংকসহ বিভিন্ন দেশি-বিদেশি প্রতিষ্ঠানে খেলাপি ঋণের যে তথ্য দেওয়া হয়, তাতে শুধু নিয়মিত খেলাপি ঋণকেই খেলাপি হিসেবে দেখানো হয়। অবলোপন করা ঋণকে আড়ালেই রাখা হয় সব সময়। মন্দ মানে শ্রেণীকৃত পুরোনো খেলাপি ঋণ ব্যাংকের স্থিতিপত্র (ব্যালান্স শিট) থেকে বাদ দেওয়াকে ‘ঋণ অবলোপন’ বলা হয়। আর ঋণ দেওয়ার পর আদায় না হলে তা খেলাপি হয়ে পড়ে। যার বিপরীতে ব্যাংকগুলোকে নিরাপত্তা সঞ্চিতি রাখতে হয়।

২০০৯ সালে আওয়ামী লীগ সরকার ক্ষমতায় আসার সময় ব্যাংক খাতে খেলাপি ঋণের পরিমাণ ছিল ২২ হাজার ৪৮১ কোটি টাকা। আর ওই সময় পর্যন্ত অবলোপন করা ঋণ ছিল আরও ১৫ হাজার ৬৬৭ কোটি টাকা। সব মিলিয়ে প্রকৃত খেলাপি ছিল ৩৮ হাজার ১৪৮ কোটি টাকা। এই হিসাবে গত প্রায় ৮ বছরে প্রকৃত খেলাপি ঋণ বেড়েছে ৬২ হাজার ৫০০ কোটি টাকা। বৃদ্ধির হার প্রায় ১৬৪ শতাংশ। এর বাইরে রাজনৈতিক সিদ্ধান্তে আরও ১৫ হাজার কোটি টাকার খেলাপি ঋণ পুনর্গঠন করা হয়েছে। এই সুবিধা পেয়েছে মূলত বড় খেলাপিরা।

এ বিষয়ে বাংলাদেশ ব্যাংকের সাবেক গভর্নর সালেহউদ্দিন আহমেদ বলেন,  ঋণ দেয়ার সময় ভালো করে যাচাই ও মূল্যায়ন করেনি ব্যাংকগুলো।  হল-মার্কের মতো বড় বড় ঋণ জালিয়াতির বিষয়গুলো নিয়ে সেই অর্থে কোনো আইনি ব্যবস্থা নেয়া যায়নি। এ কারণে দেশে ঋণখেলাপিদের মধ্যে উৎসাহের সৃষ্টি হয়েছে। রাষ্ট্রায়ত্ত ব্যাংক থেকে ঋণ নিয়ে ফেরত দিতে হয় না, এমন একটি ধারণা সমাজে প্রচলিত হয়ে গেছে। সরকারি ব্যাংকগুলোর খেলাপি ঋণের প্রভাব দেশের বেসরকারি ব্যাংকগুলোর ওপর পড়েছে। যার কারণে দেশে দিন দিন খেলাপি ঋণের পরিমাণ বেড়ে যাচ্ছে। সার্বিকভাবে দেশের অর্থনৈতিক উন্নয়নে ব্যাংকগুলোর ওপর এর একটি নেতিবাচক প্রভাব পড়বে।

বাংলাদেশ ব্যাংকের সাবেক ডেপুটি গভর্নর খোন্দকার ইব্রাহিম খালেদ বলেন, বিপুল পরিমাণ এ খেলাপি ঋণ দেশের জন্য অশনিসংকেত। তবে খেলাপি ঋণ যে ১ লাখ কোটি টাকা ছাড়িয়ে গেছে, তা স্বাভাবিক। কারণ, গত কয়েক বছরে যে ঋণ দেওয়া হয়েছে, তা কখনোই আদায় হবে না। সরকারি খাতের ব্যাংকগুলোর চেয়ারম্যান-এমডিরা মিলে দুর্নীতি করেছেন। বেসরকারি ব্যাংক আগ্রাসী ব্যাংকিং করেছে। বাংলাদেশ ব্যাংকের ভূমিকাও যুগোপযোগী নয়। আরো কঠোর হতে হবে কেন্দ্রীয় ব্যাংককে।

Fleeting moments and freedom of expression

By Fazal M. Kamal

To begin with we must thank the Brits, a.k.a. the one-time colonial masters of the South Asian subcontinent and other places, for introducing rules, regulations, laws, et al meant specifically to curb the enthusiasm of the press. Hence the very first censorship law in this region was enacted, in their wisdom, way back in 1799. Yes, you read that right: back in 1799. Since then, as history is my witness, we, i.e. the government operating on behalf of the people and for their welfare, haven’t stopped promulgating new regulations and newer modes of tightening the leash on the media.

Not all that amazingly, even in 2014, that is after a lapse of three hundred years in one direction, and two years ago in another direction, this was what this scribe had observed: “Now, in addition to all these acts meant to intimidate and stifle all dissenting voices, newer ‘policies’ are being enacted to monitor the electronic media; policies that include controlling even the minutest details of discussions on the TV. Evidently all this is in line with the fears that New Age editor Nurul Kabir expressed: ‘Given the fact that the incumbents of the day have closed two television stations and two mainstream newspapers, it’s only natural that they are planning to control the media in general for their own political convenience. This is a clear violation of democratic freedom of expression of the media as well as of the people in general.’”

This writer’s observation went on to state, “Moreover, the apparent plan of the government not to provide any space to its political adversaries clearly cannot bode well for the country. A pugnacious approach, as adopted by the governing party and the administration, with the enthusiastic complicity of the state’s security apparatus, can only keep tension and uncertainty at an unnecessarily elevated level … Given the extant backdrop, it won’t be incongruous to quote Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch who said only a couple of weeks back, ‘The situation in Bangladesh is spiraling into a human rights crisis, with the possible return of suspicious killings by security forces, which we haven’t seen in recent years. The governing Awami League complained bitterly about crossfire killings while in opposition, but it doesn’t seem to be doing anything to stop them now that it’s in power. It’s time for the prime minister to make a public statement condemning killings and torture, and hold the security forces accountable.’”

It’s horrifying how appropriately predictable the situation was feared to evolve even two years back. As a consequence, not only does Bangladesh right now has a plethora of laws and acts---with more on the way still---that can ensnare any opinion or news outlet in any number of ways but additionally there’s a palpable apprehension of falling afoul of the powers that be if merely the “wrong” kind of comments are made or if any act of omission or commission is even perceived to be “unpalatable”. In these circumstances the continued incarceration of a number of senior media professionals in no way alleviates the fretfulness of those who must labor away at the only profession they know and, more importantly, the only vocation they prefer to practice.

The fact, however, is that right now efforts to throttle and/or emasculate the media and intimidate media practitioners have become a worldwide phenomenon, even a race for a crown. Apparently, governments of two countries seem to be trying their damndest to outdo each other in this sphere with, probably, Egypt, at this moment at least, beating out Turkey by a nostril. Certainly, dozens of other administrations around the world are taking full advantage of the so-called war on terror to subdue free expression in order to perpetuate their grip on state power---fleeting it may be when viewed against the canvas of history.

But then, we can only assume, the pull of power, pelf and authority is so overwhelming that rulers have more often than not opted to experience that irresistible ephemeral moment in the spacetime continuum. Realities be damned---as exemplified by administration leaders claiming after every unsolved murder, it’s only an “isolated incident.”

For now though let me conclude with the words be of theorist, economist, philosopher and revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg, “Without general elections, without freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, without the free battle of opinions, life in every public institution withers away, becomes a caricature of itself…”

This will serve us well---only if we know how to heed.

Bangladesh's History Will Haunt Its Future

Stratfor Geopolitical Diary, May 11, 2016 

 

The past is a defining presence in Bangladesh. Since December 2013, four people have been sentenced to death and executed in the country under the International Crimes Tribunal, which prosecutes crimes from Bangladesh's 1971 war for independence. On Wednesday [May 11] morning, Bangladeshi authorities executed a fifth person, Motiur Rahman Nizami. Imprisoned since 2010, Nizami was the leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), the country's largest Islamist political party. He was sentenced to death in 2014 for allegedly leading an anti-nationalist Islamist militia that was responsible for scores of deaths during the war.  

In Nizami's death, the past, present and future of Bangladesh's volatile politics converge. Presently the world's seventh most populous country, Bangladesh formed Pakistan's eastern wing following the 1947 partition of India. In contrast to the heterogeneous western wing, a single ethnolinguistic group — the Bengalis — comprised East Pakistan. Feeling oppressed by the country's more politically powerful western wing, which sought to establish Urdu as Pakistan's official language, Bengali dissent grew over the years. Economic grievances, compounded by physical and cultural distance, drove Pakistan's two halves apart, resulting in a civil war that spawned an independent Bangladesh in 1971.

More than 45 years later, the legacy of the civil war continues to haunt Bangladesh. At the forefront of unresolved problems is the issue of the death toll. While it is agreed that a large number of innocent people perished in the conflict, estimates vary widely. Some put the death toll as low as 200,000, but Sheikh Hasina — Bangladesh's current prime minister and daughter of the country's founder — insists that the figure is 3 million. To enshrine this number, Hasina oversaw the Liberation War Denial Crimes Act, which aims to criminalize any speech that undermines or questions the liberation narrative's key facts. Indeed, earlier this year, former Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia, a rival of Hasina, was charged with sedition for suggesting that the exact death toll remains contested.

When Hasina ran for election in 2008, her center-left Awami League party promised to prosecute criminals from the independence war. As part of this initiative, in 2013 Bangladesh's Supreme Court banned the Jamaat-e-Islami party, which opposed Bangladeshi secession. Ostensibly the ban aimed to quash militant extremism. It was a shrewd political move: Zia's Bangladeshi Nationalist Party is allied with the JI. In fact, Nizami served as Minister of Industry under Zia's administration, which lasted from 2001 to 2006. Consequently, in banning the party, Hasina eliminated a key opposition party and tightened her grip on power.  

Despite the JI's outlaw, however, the threat of militant extremism persists in Bangladesh today. Since September 2015, militants have carried out nine attacks, with victims including a Hindu priest and a college professor, as well as bloggers, activists and members of religious minorities. Although the Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the attacks, Hasina has vehemently denied the organization's presence in Bangladesh, blaming the JI instead. Taken together, the attacks constitute an assault on Bangladesh's vibrant strain of secularism, which champions a pluralistic and multicultural society. Ironically, the Awami League claims to support this secularism while imposing its vision with heavy-handed political tactics inspired by a sharply defined nationalism.

Now, Nizami's execution has brought the divisions in Bangladeshi society to the fore. As a jubilant crowd celebrated in Bangladesh's capital, Dhaka, outside the jail where Nizami was executed, JI protestors hurled stones at police in the northern city of Rajshahi. Moreover, JI declared Nizami a martyr, calling for a nationwide strike on Thursday [May 12] , which could lead to more violence. Adding fuel to Wednesday's unrest, it was announced that Zia faces charges of instigating violence during anti-government protests last year. Meanwhile, numerous human rights groups have criticized Hasina, arguing that Nizami's trial was unfair.

Going forward, violence will likely continue to erupt in Bangladesh. Like other South Asian countries, Bangladesh is caught between secularism and religion as the opposing systems vie to shape the country's national identity. Democratic politics is a conduit through which competing segments in society are meant to peacefully channel their desires and frustrations. By banning the JI and executing Nizami, Dhaka will only suppress — and not eliminate — JI's grievances, which will periodically burst on an already volatile political landscape, whether through protests or actual violence. As Bangladesh struggles to reconcile its competing political elements, the future of a country still reckoning with its past hangs in the balance.