October 23, 2007

A Humble Request to the Caretaker Government

If you are going to establish "taskforces" whose composition, mandate and rules we are not aware of, at least have the decency not to change names every few months.

So far we have had:

"national task force against corruption"

"the anti-corruption taskforce" (personal favourite: plain, precise and to the point)

"joint task forces" when arresting the journalist Tasneem Khalil

and the latest and most laughter-inducing till date "the army-led Task Force against Egregious Crimes and Corruption".

The Navy has probably been left to deal with unegregious theft ....

6 comments:

Mash said...

I've seen the hilsa on the lower right of the picture. He is a known corrupt.

Alert the Navy!

asif said...

No no! In that case, it becomes a "big fish" (rui-kaathla) and it once again falls to the army-led Taskforce against Egregious Crimes and Corruption (the ALTECC) to save the day!

mykins said...

Just because Hasina was arrested, now we see Mr Majfuz Anam is very much angry and sad. Now he is talking about democracy and blah blah. Where was Mr Democracy when our leaders crippled the economy for 2 years back in 1993-94? Where was Mr. Democracy when he did not use his mighty pan to sympathize those who died in fire in the bus by our political miscreants? Where was his pen during all the people died from the nonsense created by both parties last 36 years? Did democracy never died during the last 36 years? I can give one million instances where our media was irresponsible and never did their part in last 36 years. I am pretty sure Mr. Democracy and his media partners were enjoying some kind of benefits from the political process at that time. Since you have not done your part for so long, I think it is time to shut up your mouth.



You said you welcomed the emergency. I am pretty sure you never welcomed the emergency and you never understood why an emergency should have been in first place. You did that because you did not want to go to jail, period. I think this is about time to cleanup the mess in our media and I will welcome current Government to start that process with Mr. Mahfuz Anam.



Bangladesh never had true democracy and never had any true political parties. What we have is a placeholder for some miscreants who use this to go to the power. Thing needs to remember is Democracy comes with responsibility and those parties were never responsible. So when people say the current government is breaking the political institution, I tell them ‘hah’, there were never any political institutions whatsoever. Hopefully we are going to create one in the future. Hopefully Mr. Anam will understand the stake here and behave responsibly to enjoy the democracy in the future.

DhakaShohor said...

Mr. Mykins,

Thank you for your views.

I don't know why you chose this particular post on this particular blog to write what is at times a very personal attack on Mahfuz Anam. I'm in no way affiliated with the DS/PA family nor am I in any position to relay your complaints to Mr. Anam himself. I'd suggest getting in touch with him sometime for that.

Having said all that, let me confess that I am (or used to be) a very big fan of Mr. Anam. Growing up he represented the best of journalism at times, though his soft spot for the Awami League is very apparent at times.

But there are some allegations you make that might just become the newest fashions in thought among pro-CTG advocates. I will address some of them:

1) You seem to be making some very contradictory statements. By your account, Mr. Anam should "shut up" because he hasn't spoken up during the last 36 years. You also say that he initially welcomed the emergency because of fear of being jailed. Overlooking the facts that:

a) Mr. Anam was not a powerful voice until the late-80s/early 90s

b) he HAS spoken up during the last 15 years

I have to ask you how do you are so sure that previous governments over the last 15 years also didn't threaten to arrest him and that is why he remained silent? I would highly appreciate an answer to this most vital question.

My second question is this: I hear a lot of Awami League-ers and BNP-ites talk unfavourably of the role that Mahfuz Anam played on 1/11. If he really was an AL-stooge, why do even the AL-ers criticise him? I wish I could give you some choice quotes from my favourite pro-AL blog, but unfortunately it's disappeared now. Isn't a better explanation that Mr. Anam believes in criticising EVERYONE, and thus every politico (yourself included) hates him?

Yet another question involves the obsession that CTG supporters have with "36 years". That phrase occurs 3 times during your entire comment. You do realise that the two parties were not in power for 36 years, right? In between, we had a military ruler for 9 years, who also came on to clean up corruption. If militarism, press censorship and intimidation/torture of dissidents were successful tools to establish democracy and the rule of law, then I have to ask you why HME's government could not do just that despite their 9 years of uniterrupted power? 36 years of corruption cannot be placed SOLELY at the feet of the party's. I'd love to hear you on this as well.

Thanks for reading till the end of this very long comment. Hope to hear from you soon.

Mash said...

Asif, one correction. I believe the military takeover in Bangladesh happened in 1975 and lasted until 1991. That would make it 16 years of military rule (15 and some change really, but I dont count in months:)).

DhakaShohor said...

Thanks for the correction Mash. I deliberately avoided including the bloody majors/colonels' regimes and the Ziaur Rahman regime. I didn't include the first because it can be argued that Bangladesh went a little crazy between August 15th and November 7th 1975. I didnt include the latter because it could be argued (weakly) that he was the founder of BNP (1977) and so was "one of the two parties" in power.

In case mykins ever comes back to my blog and responds to my queries, I didn't want to get bogged down in these arguments. But yes, your corrections are duly noted. Despite my open admiration for Zia, I have not lost sight of the fact that he was a man who came to power thanks to a series of military coups (non-controversial way of putting it, I hope). Zia's legacy in doing so is best left for another day, another blog post.