To the Awami League, proving that it can hold free and fair elections is worth more political capital than winning the mayoral race of a newly formed city corporation. Therefore, having the Awami League’s base split between two candidates makes it easier for the opposition’s candidate (Taimur Alam Khondoker) to win. If the opposition wins, the election is perceived as free and fair by the masses. This will also make people more optimistic about the possibility of a free and fair parliamentary elections without a caretaker government in the future. BNP understood this very well and played the campaign game until the very end, withdrawing their candidate at the last moment and citing the government’s refusal to deploy the army to ensure safety of their campaign workers and candidate. In reality, the police and RAB can easily guarantee their safety. BNP did not want to risk winning the Narayangonj mayoral election, which would give the Awami League the enormous fair election bragging rights that would come with an Awami League loss. The Awami League was aware that this could happen and had therefore pitted two candidates from their party, one evil (Osman) and one good (Ivy) and even went as far as backing the evil candidate, despite him being a bit of a long shot. In the end, Dr. Selina Hayat Ivy won the election by a landslide and her opponent from her own party claimed that the election was unfair before he conceded and thanked the Prime Minister for holding free and fair elections. It was a brilliant strategy, unethical and misleading, but brilliant none the less, in a very Karl Rove kind of way.

Political theatrics is great for entertainment, but is bad for democracy and further corrodes the very little faith we have left in our politicians. We all know that neither BNP nor the Awami League (nor their respective coalition buddies, for that matter) will ever hold free and fair elections in a country where the ruling party has never been re-elected in a fair election. The politicians are too corrupt and have too much money, power and influence to lose to leave it to the will of the people (let’s not forget the prison time they face after each completed term).

Wazed with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Source: AP

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was in New York recently to address the 66th session of the UN General Assembly. During her stay, she sat down for an interview with the WP. One of the topics discussed during the course of the interview was the impact of microcredit in Bangladesh. In December of last year, the Prime Minister very famously accused microfinanciers in Bangladesh of “sucking blood from the poor.” When the Post asked her to elaborate she stated, “We found that it [microcredit] was not helping people and it was not reducing the poverty level. Rather, they were nursing poverty.” When asked to explain how precisely microcredit was doing so, she answered with the following rhetorical question: “Tell me one thing. If I give you $20,000 can you pay 40 percent interest every week?”

It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister did not provide more details on the current state of microfinance in Bangladesh and its exact role in increasing poverty. It is obvious that she believes microfinanciers are charging exorbitant rates that are pushing the poor further into poverty. But the reader can’t help but wonder how accurately this 40% rate characterizes actual microcredit rates. Is this a purely hypothetical rate that the Premier cited to convey the spirit of the injustice rather than the actual cost? Is this the average rate charged? Is she accusing Grameen Bank of charging this rate? Given Hasina’s recent criticisms about that particular institution and actions against its founder, this last query does not seem so far-fetched.

Before looking into how closely (if at all) the 40% rate reflects current microlending in Bangladesh, it is worth looking into how these interest rates are calculated. Microcredit institutions charge a ‘flat-rate interest’ -interest is calculated on the total amount of the loan, and then the principal and interest are divided into equal installments to be paid by the borrower over a fixed number of payments. The simplicity of this method is appealing; the borrower only needs to remember how much to pay, which is the same amount throughout, without any complicated calculations to worry about. However, one problem with this method is that since the interest is calculated on the total loan amount, instead of only on the unpaid portion of the loan, it understates the true interest cost that the borrower faces. The ‘declining balance’ method of calculating interest yields a much higher rate, and as a rule of thumb the declining balance interest rate is generally twice that of the flat rate.

This confusion over rates, and its potential misuse by microcredit lenders, is no doubt one of the factors contributing to the Prime Minister’s negative opinion. The Microcredit Regulatory Authority (MRA) of Bangladesh has a document on its website clarifying this issue, and cited this problem as a reason for the imposition last year of a 27% ceiling (on a declining balance basis) on interest rates for microcredit loans.  When it announced the cap on interest rates, the MRA claimed microcredit interest rates varied from 20% to 51%, but did not mention what percentage of borrowers were affected by the higher end of the spectrum. A report published in November 2010 (based on data submitted by microcredit institutions for the year ended June 2009) provided more information. Although the report itself does not contain details on interest rates, it cites results from a previous survey of microlenders. Of all the institutions surveyed, 75% of them charged a rate that was between 28% and 30%, with most institutions charging 29%.

Grameen Bank has been under a lot of negative attention for most of this year because of the allegations made against it in the Norwegian documentary and the Bangladeshi government’s investigations into Dr. Yunus’ actions. Grameen has therefore taken pains to provide as much information as possible about its lending practices to counter any possible misinformation. According to its website (Item 14), Grameen charges an 11 flat interest rate, a figure that has been independently corroborated.

Providing a figure without context, as the Prime Minister and government bodies have done, does little to support the government’s claim that microfinanciers are part of the poverty trap. It serves instead to obfuscate the reality of the situation and cast aspersions on what, elsewhere, have been valid concerns.

GDP, the gross domestic product, is a measure of a country’s economic growth and as such is a bet of how politics and economics will shape up in any given year; any instability in the projected numbers, as is at issue here, over the course of the coming year will affect the government’s policy priorities.  Little wonder then that the Finance Minister flared up at the first sign that the government’s story of its economic health may not be entirely a neatly wrapped narrative, all tied up and elegantly bowed.

Claiming the think tank’s downgraded projection on the economy’s likely growth to 6.3%, was” rubbish, totally rubbish”, Mr. Muhith defended the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics projection of 6.7%.  He questioned the motivations of the think tanks analytically determined downward GDP forecast, supposing that there lay political motivations behind the move. This seems inscrutably unlikely since the Center for Policy Dialogue is a well-respected organization that fields enquiries from major international organizations and, indeed, holds joint sessions with government officials and civil-society leaders.  These are the same leaders who serve as combatants and compatriots from time to time and so known to all the game goes,.  The Center can have no interest in fundamentally disrupting that exchange by drawing the ire of the government on a matter of such import. Surely, then, politics played no part in this projected downgrade.

But more importantly the Center’s downgraded projection was based not on political machinations; rather it based the downgrade on the pragmatic concern that over the course of the following year demand might increase in such a way that it might outstrip supply.  In order to reach the government’s projected growth numbers infrastructure investment and manufacturing growth needs to sharply increase in a way that seems infeasible over so short a time.  Global market concerns, now increasingly disappointing, will put downward pressure on economic growth.  Again these are projections based on assumptions.  However even a casual reader of business news will be familiar with the gloomy global economic outlook in most countries. (This, well apart from any political necessity that growth numbers look high enough to give governments on the left or the right the cover they need to pursue their political objectives.)

Even though the government has done a stellar job of keeping the ship of state afloat, there is no doubt there are many things that could go wrong.  Certainly any such assumption that nothing can ever go wrong, never on any one government’s watch should raise growth projection.  Pragmatism of the sort displayed by the Center for Policy Dialogue tends to take the wind out of the sails of that mighty ship of state.

Quite apart from the defending or denouncing numbers that are projections based on assumptions, pragmatic or otherwise, Mr. Muhiths rather’s vitriolic defense seemed outrightly politically motivated, indeed politically reactionary.  For, he will table the National Budget for fiscal year 2011-2012 on June 9th. Any change apart from the government sponsored projected growth numbers will impact the spending priorities that constitute the budget as a whole.  Any change to the way the growth numbers might shape up so close to the budget reveal can be nothing but a source of deep consternation.

Mr. Muhith’s outburst leaves little doubt that the manner in which sharp language cascaded down his tongue like boulders down a water fall was due in part to the strong likelihood that the BNP will marshal demagogic arguments against any slip of the government’s promise of growth.  Every policy proposal will have to be more sharply contested if the growth numbers budge downward.  This seems patently obvious. What seems less obvious are the reasons why Mr. Muhith chose to make his outburst the news– a rather untoward move– when in fact the news story is the feasibility of the ways in which the left Awami League government will run the country.

Any proposition that the government might not be able to govern as promised should be-should have been- met with rational argument not scathing derision.

http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=186434

New regulatory framework at the Securities and Exchange Commission

http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=186523

Stocks continue to decline

http://www.theindependentbd.com/business/stockmarket/50811-stocks-continue-to-decline.html

Bangladesh fund floats

http://www.independent-bangladesh.com/2011050512260/business/bangladesh-fund-floats.html

Apparel export to US rises fast

http://biz.bdnews24.com/details.php?id=196274&cid=4

Innovative business ideas and inclusive marketing will cut poverty faster

http://www.thefinancialexpress-bd.com/more.php?news_id=136297&date=2011-05-20

Let it not fall on deaf ears: to knock out poverty or improbably, extreme poverty in South Asia, Bangladesh, India and the surrounding countries need to pitch in. Consider that countries in South Asia not only share common borders, but also common histories and cultures. The whole effort needs to be a bargain.  But figuring out that bargain between competing demands of development and moral growth was precisely the gift that the great Rabindranath Tagore offered to the world. As he embodied, indeed his works embody still, the choices and compromises that every man living and dying under colonial rule had to entertain, so his exemplary socially conscious life offers a model for how to split the difference between values and actions in welfare and social well-being. In Tagore’s work, everybody had to pitch in. In politics today, everyone has to pitch in or less the game.

The prime minister spoke to an interested audience on the occasion of Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore’s 150th birthday celebration. It was a fitting call since Tagore actively sought to build up the capabilities of the people who were his neighbors, country-wide.  To support a unified cooperative move to eradicate poverty in the land(s) of his birth can only redeem his art and his service from the ossified hinterlands of ‘cultural’ memory.

Poverty eradication, like cultural and social development-the kind of thing that Tagore literally embodied down to this toes–requires multifaceted, multilevered mechanism. The Prime Minister might well be on that path, given the news that she has promised to start up a Rabindranath University at Shelaidaha in Kushtia. The political consequences for border cooperation based on this move could considerable.  She is also developing plans to put up a Bangladesh Bhaban to celebrate Tagore’s deep love for the parts of Bengal which are now part of Bangladesh.

After all, during Tagore’s lifetime Bengal was the joint responsibility of different people living under different social and economic circumstances, Hindu Muslim, rich and poor, professor and illiterate.  Now that development and poverty alleviation- and, maybe even, eradication- has become the policy program of the day, why should not the leader of Bangladesh seek out joint, responsible action for that set of tasks?

“Security forces committed extrajudicial killings and were responsible for custodial deaths, torture, and arbitrary arrest and detention. The failure to investigate fully extrajudicial killings by security forces, including several deaths in custody of alleged criminals detained by the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), remained a matter of serious concern. Some members of the security forces acted with impunity. Prison conditions at times were life-threatening, lengthy pretrial detention continued to be a problem, and authorities infringed on citizens’ privacy rights. An increasingly politicized judiciary exacerbated problems in an already overwhelmed judicial system and constrained access to justice for members of opposition parties. The government limited freedom of speech and of the press, self-censorship continued, and security forces harassed journalists. The government curbed freedom of assembly, and politically motivated violence remained a problem. Official corruption and related impunity continued. Discrimination against women, and violence against women and children remained serious problems, as did discrimination against persons with disabilities and against persons based on their sexual orientation. Trafficking in persons remained a serious problem. Violence against religious and ethnic minorities still occurred, although many government and civil society leaders stated that these acts often had political or economic motivations and could not be attributed only to religious belief or affiliation. Limits on worker rights and child labor remained problems.”

This is a litany of charges and accusations.  To be sure, it mainly points to the current Awami League government’s human rights violations.  But that is not the only government or only party to which the State Department is pointing.

This list enumerates the results of crime, corruption and decades-long misappropriation of power, by both leading parties, that needs correcting- perhaps over a generation and more. Bangladesh is a young country; its people are talented and hungry to choose their own course over their own surplus. But they need help from successive governments willing to work with them and their needs.  But so far this is something of a distant dream, continually deferred.

The charges above show that, as of this writing, no government has borne the burden of its people well.  This, because no list as lengthy as the one you read above could possibly have been created based on the results of one party’s malfeasance over one term in office.  This is a cultural problem more than a political one; as such the solution to that problem requires a multi-facted, multi-dimensional solution, one that is not forthcoming.

Nevertheless, the ruling party in power, the Awami League can be held to charge against at least the political source of corruption and the rather brutal moves that it has enforced against its political enemies-in the main, the leaders of the BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami.

As I’ve written before, under the auspices of the International War Crimes Tribunal, the AL government used the Rapid Action Battalion, (RAB) to detain and torture BNP leader S Q Chowdhury in his own home before hauling him off to jail. That move and his subsequent lengthy detention without third party medical treatment has lit up the international media’s focus on Bangladesh. American diplomats have called upon the government to resist pushing political vengeance on a political, historical issue.  And yet shining a spotlight on this human rights issue seems to not have made a difference on the way the government is approaching this man’s incarceration.

Sociological traps that ensnare corrupt behavior can stand the test of time.  But overtly political moves can be remedied at the stroke of a pen.  The U.S government’s condemnation should force someone somewhere in Dhaka to move a pen, lay down thin lines of thin and end Mr. Chowdhury’s torturous detention.

For, finally, the AL government must show- and it must do so soon- that it is a government worthy of its great, just and suffering people.

The 1973 Act which established the Tribunal, which is only now coming to the fore, nearly 40 years out, allows capital punishment. The European Union has already stood against the imposition of capital punishment in the proceedings, while protesting extrajudicial killings that are a matter of day to day news in Bangladesh.  However, the case of one individual embroiled in these proceedings has become something just short of a lightning rod for international enquiry and condemnation.

Late last year in December, top BNP leader S. Q. Chowdhury was arrested in his home, beaten by members of the paramilitary outfit, Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) and was then hauled off to jail.  His family immediately sent out the word that Mr. Chowdhury had been subjected to torture at home, and that he was later denied medical assistance when his health began to fail.  In time–it seems a good ,long time–international media outlets like the Guardian published news of his arrest and detainment by the RAB.

Now, as the Tribunal goes about its contested business, S Q Chowdhury’s family claim that he has been continually denied medical services since his arrest and detainment.  The family claim that Mr. Chowdhury has been denied medical care for two months, during which time the family members claim he suffered a stroke and experienced partial paralytic affects of the stroke.

Recently two neurologists went to look into his condition in jail.  A family member who wishes to remain anonymous to avoid further political retribution claimed  that Mr. Chowdhury “still needs a wheelchair to come see us and can only walk short distances unassisted. He refused to let the doctors see him because it was clear to him that they had just come for show and were not interested in his health and well being.”  There seems little doubt that the claims of denial of medical attention that the family of Mr. Chowdhury have made require independent third party attention.  Unfortunately, so far the government seems unwilling to allow a spotlight to shine on this particular individual’s case.

The next date for his hearing at the International War Crime Tribunal is on April 19th and it remains to be seen what will happen then. The family claim that the case proceedings on that day will likely entail an interrogation whereby the prosecution will interrogate Mr. Chowdhury without the assistance of a lawyer, because the 1973 Act under which the Tribunal is being held does not provide for such basic rights.

This event, if it turned out in the way projected, would surely fly right in the face of international legal norms.

Indeed, sources who wish to remain anonymous insist that U.S. Ambassador-at-large for War Crimes Stephen Rapp has submitted a report on the Tribunal’s proceedings to the government of Bangladesh (GoB). But per usual, it’s a secret affair. However some media outlets have noted that he has made several recommendations on how to bring the Tribunal to international standards.

The government has so far been resistant to attend to international normative standards that one might think would prevail in Bangladesh.  The Tribunal did nod toward international invocations of sane and standard international jurisprudence by granting bail to one individual sought for war crimes, BNP law maker Abdul Alim.  However, it seems quite apparent that S.Q. Chowdhury is a bigger name, richer in family history and wider connections.  He remains something of an exemplar, the kind of man who seldom falls victim to politics per usual, so it’s an open question whether his family will be provided the same relief as Mr. Alim’s family are no doubt enjoying.

Dr. Yunus was supposed to visit his good friend U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her offices in Washington D.C but had to miss the appointment due to his rather infelicitous legal problems, which surely stem from his rich popularity within a large portion of the electorate who have worked with him to smooth out their day to day hard lives.  Robert Blake, a U.S. State Department official made a visit to Dhaka to press the AL government’s prosecution on the matter.

Moreover Dr. Yunus enjoys support at the New York Times; Nicholas Kristof is a fan and has written about Dr. Yunus troubles in his column.  He has had a write-up recently in the Wall Street Journal.  Leaders in the NGO community have stood up for him in op-eds.  Indeed, nowadays Bangladesh’s foreign policy seems to turn on whether the government will work with or against the formerly leading light of Bangladesh’s domestic development policy, Grameen Bank and its founder.  Yet, for all the diplomatic declarations and international media glare, Dr. Yunus fate turns on the Sheikh Hasina led government’s next moves.

Now, to assert greater force, Nicolas Sarkozy,’s government has urged the AL government to accord Dr. Yunus a fair trial, diplomatic talk for his having taken a side against the government’s allegation that he broke the law when he stayed on in Grameen’s leadership well past the legally limited age.  Nevertheless the language isn’t quite overtly strong enough to avoid a thorough legal and judicial proceeding already well under way.

A government sponsored review committee will deliver its results to the AL government on April 10th.  There will be a separate Supreme Court hearing on the case next week.  Ahead of these proceedings, Dr. Yunus signaled that he will leave his managing directorship at Grameen Bank; his only worry is to leave Grameen’s future in steady and reliable hands. To that effect he has signaled that he’d like to stay on as chairman of the bank until new leaders take over the long-term leadership of the bank-the vision thing, as it were.

It’s quite important to note that that there is a public welfare component to  Dr. Yunus’ argument that he should stay on as chairman until he hands over power to a credible successor.  His argument is roughly that were that not the case, the bank’s 8 million borrowers and owners would default on their loans causing a run on deposits.  Even though this arguments sounds rather self-serving, he may be correct for indeed, with each passing day, Grameen’s future becomes less certain.  Dr. Yunus and the AL government must reach a compromise as soon as possible to avoid jeopardizing the loans and assets of the millions of poor borrowers, mostly women, who have helped make Grameen Bank what it is. Women, who in the process have won for themselves a measure of communal respect and dignity.

A view of the world in one’s skin, comfortable against all odds–that kind of standing is immeasurable.  Grameen for over thirty years has delivered people out of their own miseries and self-doubt.  And for that Bangladesh and Bangladeshis will remain indebted to this rather slight man who gave poor women back their dignity.

The policy issue at question is a move to incorporate equal rights for women in nearly every sector of the economy and wider society.  The cabinet approved the move in early March–a campaign promise fulfilled, real results delivered.  According to The Daily Star the Chamber of Commerce released a statement which denounced the call for strikes and announced that “calling hartal on the issue is illogical as there’s nothing fishy in it, and the government’s explanation has been accepted by all.”

This is the business community standing up for pragmatic policy moves and against intolerance suited up in political camouflage.  This is a welcome turn, a sure sign of growing political economic maturity that seems to complement the Awami League’s skilled ability to invite international interest and investment into Bangladeshi soil.   Not surprisingly the BNP has yet to announce whether it supports the IOJ’s call for strikes. Nevertheless a BNP spokesperson wondered out loud whether, indeed, some elements of the women’s development policy might not stand against the Koran.

This is opportunism at its best and most insincere

Let P/E be your Guide: One of the most tried and tested ways of knowing when you have a bubble is by tracking the price-earnings ratio (P/E) of investments. If prices are not reflective of earnings you most likely have bubble on your hands. Price of any investment should always reflect its expected earnings. In each past bubble I have experienced, prices had been driven up by over enthusiastic markets and had little to do with expected or actual earnings. During the housing bubble in the US the price of properties were significantly higher than the price reflective of the potential rental income from those properties. This holds true in Dhaka today, which makes me think that there is a housing bubble lurking in the shadows in Dhaka. The rapid urbanization and the hoards of developers who are perpetually tearing down houses and building condos are feeding the beast.

Experts and insider: Given that the market forces are driven by expectations and human behavior, it is good practice to keep an eye out for experts crying “wolf” or in this case “bubble”. There are always insiders and experts commenting on the market’s growth rate being unsustainable in the long run well ahead of the mainstream’s acceptance of the existence of a bubble (thereby bursting it). The ideas of these experts and insiders are slowly adopted by more and more investors, who then take action i.e. sell their investments. Geoffrey A. Moore in his book Crossing the Chasm talks about the technology adoption lifecycle for high tech products e.g. the i-Phone a few years ago, the VCR in the early eighties.

Source: http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/NORVH/chapter2.html

Crossing the Chasm is closely related to the technology adoption lifecycle with its five segments: Innovators, Early Adopters, Early Majority, Late Majority and Laggards. According to Moore, the most difficult step is making the transition between Early Adopters and Early Majority. I happen to believe that the technology adoption lifecycle holds true for the “marketing” of the belief in a bubble. The experts and insiders are like the Innovators and Early Adopters, they are very close to the action and they recognize a bubble early. As more and more investors listen to the experts and insiders they form an Early Majority and take action. Then the Late Majority followed by the Laggards, notice the market trend and dump their investments to cut their losses. Demand gets the rug pulled out from under it and there is an excess of investment products (stocks, properties etc.) causing the price to drop very rapidly.

This revealing bit of information was found in documents obtained by The Hindu from the much discussed Wikileaks diplomatic cables.  The most interesting cable of all reports a conversation between U.S officials in the Embassy in New Delhi and Taranjit Sandhu, the Director of the Ministry of External Affairs, showed that India’s refusal to attend the SAARC Summit says “much about India’s Big Brother attitude towards Bangladesh.”

Anger and bereavement over loss of prestige aside there was never any fear that relations between India and Bangladesh would be severed.  The cross-border economic relationship between the two countries was and remains far too rich and fruitful for either party to stay cross at the other for too long. Yet there it was-a diplomatic row.

Indeed, “GoI [Government of India] remains unapologetic about the last minute cancellation and the resulting unhappiness in Dhaka…With no apparent sense of urgency to make things right with Dhaka, the MEA explained that the GoI’s decision was intended to send a message to BDG [Bangladesh government].”

Moreover Mr. Sandhu claimed that “in light of increasing intolerance in Bangladesh and ‘sustained anti-India sentiment’ there, India needed to bring pressure to bear on Dhaka.” One would do well to realize that in 2005 the BNP was the party in power in Bangladesh.

All this tension stems from India long-standing fear that successive governments in Bangladesh have and continue to let Islamist organizations free to go about their business, which typically involves chastising India and calling out against India’s supposed interventions into Bangladesh’s affairs.  There is good reason to suppose that that fear escalated under the BNP’s last tenure in power when it was aligned in a coalition with the Islamist Jamaat-e-Islami.

Six years past the fracas and the news of this row is clear proof that India has long been worried about the Islamization of Bangladesh-even claiming that the ISI-Pakistan;’s intelligence agency has a strong presence in Bangladesh. Certainly these cables show that the increasingly closer relationship between the tow governments can fall victim to events, though the rift might not be too wide.  The two neigboring countries need each more than the leaders of the two countries will ever admit to.

Jurist Dr. Kamal Hossain argued that the the institution of caretaker governments should remain in place while parties revolve in and out of power.  The electoral process under the two major parties has been shown to be too politicized.

The Daily Star newspaper provides a bit of context behind Dr. Hossain’s argument:

Dr Kamal said this while making submissions as amicus curiae (friend of court) during a hearing on an appeal against the High Court verdict that had declared valid the 13th amendment to the constitution allowing elections under the caretaker government.

A seven-member bench of the Appellate Division headed by Chief Justice ABM Khairul Haque yesterday held the hearing for the third day.

Following a controversial election on February 15, 1996, demand for the caretaker government was pressed and the system was introduced through the 13th amendment.

Dr Kamal said the court has to evaluate the circumstances under which the caretaker government system was introduced in the country.

The argument is essentially that neither of the two parties, the Awami League and the BNP, can be relied upon to play the democratic electoral game fair and square.  Both parties can be successfully relied up on to change the rules of the game in their own favor.  Some of that is wildly on display during the Awami League’s current turn at high office, even if a sizable portion of the public approves of the AL’s political and policy moves in office.

Here’s the video that aired, with special correspondent Steve Sapienza:

Please visit the PBS Newshour webpage dedicated to this rather excellent piece for more information.

It’s not just that Mrs. Clinton offered her support as a friend; rather through official channels, she spoke for the independence of Grameen Bank, independent from the machinations of the Awami League government.

Indeed to a question regarding why the Secretary of State placed such a call, Mr. Crowley answered:

“I mean he’s a Nobel Prize winner, Medal of Freedom winner, Congressional Gold Medal winner. His public service is widely recognised and respected, and civil society organisations such as the bank play an important role in Bangladesh’s development and democracy. So it is both to show support for his ongoing efforts and the efforts of the Grameen Bank and also to express our concern about developments in Bangladesh.”

This is the strongest endorsement yet for Dr. Yunus, the strongest diplomatic indictment for the AL government’s moves against him. Now, this news couldn’t have come at a better moment.  The High Court of Bangladesh upheld Bangladesh’s Bank decision to remove him from his role of managing director of Grameen. According to the rules set by Bangladesh Bank, in its role as overseer, no one above 60 years of age can lead Grameen. That rule was only brought to bear against him in 1999, and was then seemingly dropped.

Now after a hullaballoo that sprang from a Norwegian documentary, the AL government has made strong moves to remove him from the public’s gaze–a public, women, most of whom are fair customers of the bank he has led for some thirty-odd years. After Bangladesh Banks move to retire Dr. Yunus, he appealed the decision. The decision was then upheld by the High Court.

Hillary Clinton’s endorsement now puts pressure on Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to back off, to let Grameen Bank exist outside of her dominating glare.  After all the bank is principally owned by its poor borrowers.  She wouldn’t want to upset in one swift decision those millions of angry women, while irritating in that same moment, the U.S. Secretary of State and former U.S. presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton.

Let’s start with the former issue.  The quote in question was delivered by Mizanur Rahman, the esteemed chair of the National Human Rights Commission on the Times piece, published over the weekend, on the Bangladesh war crimes tribunal.  (In case you didn’t know- 40 years after the fact, Bangladesh is coming around to prosecute individuals allegedly to have been war criminals during the events of teh 1971 Liberation War.)  And the quote:

“A decade after Nelson Mandela’s death, let’s get together and discuss whether South Africans are happy with the justice they got,” said Mizanur Rahman, who lost two uncles in the war and is now chairman of the Bangladesh Human Rights Commission. “Until and unless you put to rest this long history of impunity it will go on. It pinches your heart every moment of your existence.”

It is not so much that Mr. Rahman is wrong to think that a truth and reconciliation process might not work in Bangladesh.  It’s rather that as the chair of the Bangladesh Human Rights Commissions-being the man who is responsible for the concern and conduct of human rights practices in Bangladesh- he does not know that one of the greatest campaigners for the call and implementation of human rights in the last century and this one, is alive and well.

Again, is it worse, instead that the Times ran that quote?  Sloppy journalism? Perhaps there was no one else who could have delivered a quote on this issue–not likely, that! Still, it’s not impossible to think that the error stands behind the low value that Bangladesh’s political, economic and social narrative, has in the international press.  This even though Bangladesh is at the forefront of the fight for democracy and Islam; the political and social consequences of global warming; industrial policy in a tightening, squeezed world.

Either way, surely there’s plenty of room to think  both wrongs, or incorrectitudes, stand as incommensurable value; the badness of both phenomena are mutually complementary though sequentially and, non-comparably so.